Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

The Decision Analysis Interview Approach in the Collaborative Management of a Large Regulated Water Course

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There are always conflicting goals in the management of large water courses. However, by involving stakeholders actively in the planning and decision-making processes, it is possible to work together toward commonly acceptable solutions. In this article, we describe how we applied interactive multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in a collaborative process which aimed at an ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable water course regulation policy. The stakeholders’ opinions about the alternative regulation schemes and the relative importance of their impacts were elicited with the HIPRE software. Altogether, 20 personal interactive decision analysis interviews (DAIs) were carried out with the stakeholders. Our experience suggests that the DAIs can considerably improve the quality and efficiency of the collaborative planning process. By improving communication and understanding of the decision situation in the steering group, the approach helped to develop a consensus solution in a case having strong conflicts of interest. In order to gain the full benefits of the MCDA approach, interactive preference elicitation is vital. It is also essential to integrate the approach tightly into the planning and decision-making process. The project’s home pages are available to the public at http://www.paijanne.hut.fi/.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from $39.99 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  • Ananda J, Herath G (2003) Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach. Ecological Economics 45:75–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bana e Costa C, da Silva PA, Correia FN (2004) Multicriteria evaluation of flood control measures: the case of Ribeira da Livramento. Water Resources Management 18:263–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banville C, Landry M, Martel J-M, Boulaire C (1998) A stakeholder approach to MCDA. Systems Research 15:15–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beierle TC, Cayford J (2002) Democracy in practice. Public participation in environmental decisions. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

  • Bojórquez-Tapia LA, Sánchez-Colon S, Martinez AF (2005) Building consensus in environmental impact assessment through multicriteria modeling and sensitivity analysis. Environmental Management 36(3):469–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown CA (1984) The Central Arizona water control study: a case for multiobjective planning and public involvement. Water Resources Bulletin 20(3):331–337

    Google Scholar 

  • Chess C, Purcell K (1999) Public participation and the environment: do we know what works? Environmental Science and Technology 16:2685–2692

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Connick S, Innes JE (2003) Outcomes of collaborative water policy making: applying complexity thinking to evaluation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46(2):177–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corner JL, Buchanan JT (1997) Capturing decision maker preference: experimental comparison of decision analysis and MCDM techniques. European Journal of Operational Research 98(1):85–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Depoe SP, Delicath JW, Elsenbeer M-FA (eds) (2004) Communication and public participation in environmental decision making. State University of New York Press, Albany

    Google Scholar 

  • d’Estrée TP (2003) Achievement of relationship change. In: O’Leary R, Bingham LB (eds) The promises and performance of environmental conflict resolution. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, pp 111–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards W (1977) How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decisionmaking. IEEE Transactions on Systems. Man and Cybernetics 7:326–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamper CD, Turcanu C (2007) On the governmental use of multicriteria analysis. Ecological Economics 62:298–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajkowicz S, Collins K (2007) A review of multiple criteria analysis for water resources planning and management. Water Resources Management 21:1553–1566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP, Alaja S (2008) The threat of biases in environmental decision analysis. Ecological Economics (in press)

  • Hämäläinen RP, Lauri H (1992) HIPRE 3+ user’s guide. Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP, Mäntysaari J (2001) A dynamic interval goal programming approach to the regulation of a lake-river system. Journal of Multicriteria Decision Analysis 19(2):75–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP, Saarinen E (eds) (2004) Systems intelligence—discovering a hidden competence in human action and organizational life. Systems Analysis Laboratory Research Reports, A88, October

  • Hämäläinen RP, Saarinen E (2006) Systems intelligence: a key competence for organizational life. Reflections, the SoL Journal on Knowledge, Learning, and Change 7(4):17–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP, Kettunen E, Ehtamo H, Marttunen M (2001) Evaluating a framework for multi-stakeholder decision support in water resources management. Group Decision and Negotiation 10:331–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herath G, Prato T (2006) Role of multi-criteria decision making in natural resource management. In: Herath G, Prato H (eds) Using multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management. University of Missouri—Columbia, Columbia, pp 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs BF, Horn GT (1997) Building public confidence in energy planning: a multimethod MCDM approach to demand-side planning at BC gas. Energy Policy 25(3):357–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs BF, Meier PM (1994) Multicriteria methods for resource planning: an experimental comparison. Power Systems, IEEE Transactions 9(4):1811–1817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hostmann M, Borsuk M, Reichert P, Truffer B (2005a) Stakeholder values in decision support for river rehabilitation. Archiv für Hydrobiologie Supplement 155:491–505

    Google Scholar 

  • Hostmann M, Bernauer T, Mosler HJ, Reichert P, Truffer B (2005b) Multi-attribute value theory as a framework for conflict resolution in river rehabilitation. Journal of Multi-criteria Decision Analysis 13:91–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL (2002) Common mistakes in making value trade-offs. Operations Research 50(6):935–945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL, McDaniels TL (1999) Identifying and structuring values to guide integrated resource planning at BC gas. Operations Research 47(5):651–662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives. Preferences and value trade-offs. Wiley & Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiker GA, Bridges TS, Varghase A, Seager TP, Linkov I (2005) Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 1(2):95–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Kiker G, Seager TP, Bridges T, Gardner KH, Rogers SH, Belluck DA, Meyer A (2006) Multicriteria decision analysis: a comprehensive decision approach for management of contaminated sediments. Risk Analysis 26:61–78

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marttunen M, Hämäläinen RP (1995) Decision analysis interviews in environmental impact assessment. European Journal of Operational Research 87(3):551–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marttunen M, Suomalainen M (2005) Participatory and multiobjective development of water course regulation—creation regulation alternatives from stakeholders values. Journal of Multicriteria Decision Making 13:29–49

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniels TL, Trousdale W (1999) Value-focused thinking in a difficult context: planning tourism for Guimaras, Philippines. Interfaces 29(4):58–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniels TL, Gregory RS, Fields D (1999) Democratizing risk management: successful public involvement in local water management decisions. Risk Analysis 19(3):497–510

    Google Scholar 

  • Munda G (2004) Social multi-criteria evaluation: methodological foundations and operational consequences. European Journal of Operational Research 158:662–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustajoki J, Hämäläinen RP (2000) Web-HIPRE: global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis. INFOR 38(3):208–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Mustajoki J, Hämäläinen RP, Marttunen M (2004) Participatory multicriteria decision support with Web-HIPRE: a case of lake regulation policy. Environmental Modeling & Software 19:537–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary R, Bingham LB (eds) (2003) The promises and performance of environmental conflict resolution. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Pöyhönen M, Hämäläinen RP (1998) Notes on the weighting biases in value trees. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 11:139–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pöyhönen M, Hämäläinen RP (2000) There is hope in attribute weighting. INFOR 38:272–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Prato T (2003) Multiple-attribute evaluation of ecosystem management for the Missouri River system. Ecological Economics 45:297–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qureshi ME, Harrison SR (2001) A decision support process to compare riparian revegetation options in Scheu Creek catchment in North Queensland. Journal of Environmental Management 62:101–112

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Renn OT, Webler T, Wiedemann P (eds) (1995) Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Kluwer Academic, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgley M, Rijsberman F (1992) Multicriteria evaluation in a policy analysis of a Rhine estuary. Water Resources Bulletin 28(6):1095–1110

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgley M, Penn DC, Tran L (1997) Multicriterion decision support for a conflict over stream diversion and land–water reallocation in Hawaii. Applied Mathematics and Computation 83:153–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero C, Rehman T (1987) Natural resources management and the use of multiple criteria decision-making techniques: a review. European Review of Agricultural Economics 4(1):61–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinkko K, Hämäläinen RP, Hänninen R (2004) Experiences in methods to involve key players in planning protective actions in the case of a nuclear accident. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 109:127–132

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling A (2006) Analysis, participation and power: justification and closure in participatory multi-criteria analysis. Land Use Policy 23:95–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Susskind LES, McKearnan J, Thomas-Larmer J (eds) (1999) The consensus building handbook: a comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • von Winterfeld D (2001) Decisions with multiple stakeholders and conflicting objectives. In: Weber E, Baron UJ, Loomes G (eds) Conflict and trade-offs in decision making. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 259–299

    Google Scholar 

  • von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W (1986) Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber M, Borcherding K (1993) Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making. European Journal of Operational Research 67:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber M, Eisenführ F, von Winterfeldt D (1988) The effects of splitting attributes on weights in multi-attribute utility measurement. Management Science 34:431–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL (2000) Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Academy of Finland (PRIMEREG, 52793), Maa-ja vesitekniikan tuki ry, and Finnish Environment Institute. We thank Dr. Markus Hostmann and two anonymous referees for their valuable comments on the manuscript. The comments of Mr. Kai Kaatra were most helpful. Naturally, the authors take full responsibility for the final text.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Water Resources Management Division, Finnish Environment Institute, PB 250, Helsinki, 00251, Finland

    Mika Marttunen

  2. Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology, P.O. Box 1100, Helsinki, 02015 HUT, Finland

    Raimo P. Hämäläinen

Authors
  1. Mika Marttunen
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raimo P. Hämäläinen
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mika Marttunen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marttunen, M., Hämäläinen, R.P. The Decision Analysis Interview Approach in the Collaborative Management of a Large Regulated Water Course. Environmental Management 42, 1026–1042 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9200-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9200-9

Keywords