Managing uncertainty in multiple-criteria decision making related to sustainability assessment
- 693 Downloads
In real life, decisions are usually made by comparing different options with respect to several, often conflicting criteria. This requires subjective judgements on the importance of different criteria by DMs and increases uncertainty in decision making. This article demonstrates how uncertainty can be handled in multi-criteria decision situations using Compromise Programming, one of the Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) techniques. Uncertainty is characterised using a probabilistic approach and propagated using a Monte Carlo simulation technique. The methodological approach is illustrated on a case study which compares the sustainability of two options for electricity generation: coal versus biomass. Different models have been used to quantify their sustainability performance for a number of economic, environmental and social criteria. Three cases are considered with respect to uncertainty: (1) no uncertainty, (2) uncertainty in data/models and (3) uncertainty in models and decision-makers’ preferences. The results shows how characterising and propagating uncertainty can help increase the effectiveness of multi-criteria decision making processes and lead to more informed decision.
KeywordsUncertainty analysis Multi-criteria decision analysis Monte Carlo simulation Compromise programming Sustainability assessment
This study has been carried out as part of the project “Pollutants in Urban Environment (PUrE)” (grant no. EP/C532651/2), funded by the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, which is gratefully acknowledged. We are also grateful to the PUrE researchers who have contributed to this study in various ways. The contribution of the PUrE stakeholders is also acknowledged.
- Belton V, Stewart TJ (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publisher, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
- Gal T, Stewart TJ, Hanne T (eds) (1999) Multicriteria Decision Making: Advances in MCDM Models, Algorithms, Theory, and Applications, KluwerGoogle Scholar
- Hwang CL, Yoon KS (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- Janssen R (1996) Multiobjective decision support for environmental management. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Pettit C, Azapagic A, Jefferis S (2005) A framework for sustainable management of urban pollution. Eng Sustain 158(ES3):163–169Google Scholar
- Pettit C, Azapagic A, Chalabi Z, Kapelan K, Dorini G (2007) PUrE Risk Workshop Summary Report. Half-day Workshop on: Risk and Uncertainty in Decision Making (held Monday 9th July 2007, Manchester). Joint Report prepared by The University of Manchester, Exeter University and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. September 2007Google Scholar
- Roy B (1968) Classement et choix en presence de points devue multiples (la methode ELECTRE). Revue d’Informatique et de recherché opérationelle 6(8):57–75Google Scholar
- Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- UKCIP (2003) Climate adaption: risk, uncertainty and decision making. UKCIP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Wille R (1982) Restructuring lattice theory: an approach based on hierarchies of concepts. In: Rival I (ed) Ordered set. Reidel, Dordrecht–Boston, pp 445–470Google Scholar
- Zeleny M (1973) Compromise programming. In: Cochrane J, Zeleny M (eds) Multiple criteria decision making. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, pp 373–391Google Scholar