Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 133–139 | Cite as

Managing uncertainty in multiple-criteria decision making related to sustainability assessment

  • Gianluca DoriniEmail author
  • Zoran Kapelan
  • Adisa Azapagic
Original Paper


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.


Uncertainty 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.


  1. Barron H, Schmidt P (1988) Sensitivity analysis of additive multi-attribute value models. Oper Res 36(1):122–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belton V, Stewart TJ (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publisher, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  3. Brans JP, Vincke PH (1985) A preference ranking organisation method: the PROMETHEE method for multiple criteria decision making. Manage Sci 31(6):647–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Critchfield GC, Willard KE (1986) Probabilistic analysis of decision trees using Monte Carlo simulation. Med Decis Making 6(1):85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Felli JC, Hazen GB (1998) Sensitivity analysis and the expected value of perfect information. Med Decis Making 18(1):95–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gal T, Stewart TJ, Hanne T (eds) (1999) Multicriteria Decision Making: Advances in MCDM Models, Algorithms, Theory, and Applications, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  7. Halfon E, Reggiani MG (1986) On ranking chemicals for environmental hazard. Environ Sci Technol 20:1173–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hwang CL, Yoon KS (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  9. Hyde KM, Maier HR, Colby CB (2004) Reliability-based approach to multicriteria decision analysis for water resources. J Water Resour Plan Manage 130(6):429–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Janssen R (1996) Multiobjective decision support for environmental management. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  11. Mousseau V, Figueira J, Dias L, Gomes da Silva C, Climaco J (2003) Resolving inconsistencies among constraints on the parameters of an MCDA model. Eur J Oper Res 147(1):72–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pettit C, Azapagic A, Jefferis S (2005) A framework for sustainable management of urban pollution. Eng Sustain 158(ES3):163–169Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Ringuest JL (1997) Lp-metric sensitivity analysis for single and multi-attribute decision analysis. Eur J Oper Res 98:563–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Triantaphyllou E, Sanchez A (1997) A sensitivity analysis approach for some deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods. Decis Sci 28(1):151–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. UKCIP (2003) Climate adaption: risk, uncertainty and decision making. UKCIP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gianluca Dorini
    • 1
    Email author
  • Zoran Kapelan
    • 2
  • Adisa Azapagic
    • 3
  1. 1.DTU Environment - Department of Environmental Engineering MiljoevejKongens LyngbyDenmark
  2. 2.Centre for Water Systems, School of Engineering, Computing and MathematicsUniversity of ExeterExeterUK
  3. 3.School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical ScienceThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations