Advertisement

Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 331–353 | Cite as

Evaluating a Framework for Multi-Stakeholder Decision Support in Water Resources Management

  • Raimo Hämäläinen
  • Eero Kettunen
  • Mika Marttunen
  • Harri Ehtamo
Article

Abstract

In this paper we describe a framework for multicriteria modeling and support of multi-stakeholder decision processes. We report on its testing in the development of a new water level management policy for a regulated lake-river system in Finland. In the framework the stakeholders are involved in the decision process from the problem structuring stage to the group consensus seeking stage followed by a stage of seeking public acceptance for the policy. The framework aims at creating an evolutionary learning process. In this paper we also focus on the use of a new interactive method for finding and identifying Pareto-optimal alternatives. Role playing experiments with students are used to test the practical applicability of a negotiation support procedure called the method of improving directions. We also describe the preference programming approach for the aggregation of the stakeholder opinions in the final evaluation of alternatives and consensus seeking.

group decision support multicriteria decision modeling negotiation support water resources management 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agrell, P. J., B. J. Lence, and A. Stam. (1998). “An Interactive Multicriteria Decision Model for Multipurpose Reservoir Management: the Shellmouth Reservoir, ” Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 7, 61–86.Google Scholar
  2. Bui, T. X., and M. F. Shakun. (1996). “Negotiation Processes, Evolutionary Systems Design, and NEGOTIATOR, ” Group Decision and Negotiation 5, 339–353.Google Scholar
  3. Davey, A., and D. Olson. (1998). “Multiple Criteria Decision Making Models in Group Decision Support, ” Group Decision and Negotiation 7, 55–75.Google Scholar
  4. DeSanctis, G., and R. B. Gallupe. (1987). “A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems, ” Management Science 3, 589–609.Google Scholar
  5. Ehtamo, H., R. P. Hämäläinen, P. Heiskanen, J. Teich, M. Verkama, and S. Zionts. (1999). “Generating Pareto Solutions in Two-Party Negotiations by Adjusting Artificial Constraints, ” Management Science 45(12), 1697–1709.Google Scholar
  6. Ehtamo, H., E. Kettunen, and R. P. Hämäläinen. (2000). “Searching for Joint Gains in Multi-Party Negotiations, ” European Journal of Operational Research (in press).Google Scholar
  7. Ehtamo, H., M. Verkama, and R. P. Hämäläinen. (1999). “How to Select Fair Improving Directions in a Negotiation Model over Continuous Issues, ” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part C: Applications and Reviews 29, 26–33.Google Scholar
  8. French, S., L. Simpson, E. Atherton, V. Belton, R. Dawes, W. Edwards, R. P. Hämäläinen, O. Larichev, F. Lootsma, A. Pearman, and C. Vlek. (1998). “Problem Formulation for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Report of a Workshop, ” Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 7, 242–262.Google Scholar
  9. Fukuyama, K., D. M. Kilgour, and K. W. Hipel. (1994). “Systematic Policy Development to Ensure Compliance to Environmental Regulations, ” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 24(9), 1289–1305.Google Scholar
  10. Haimes, Y. Y., W. A. Hall, and H. T. Freedman. (1975). Multi-Objective Optimization in Water Resources Systems. Elsevier Scientific Publishing, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Heiskanen, P., H. Ehtamo, and R. P. Hämäläinen. (1998). “Constraint Proposal Method for Computing Pareto Solutions in n-Party Negotiations, ” European Journal of Operational Research (in press).Google Scholar
  12. Hipel, K. W., D. M. Kilgour, L. Fang, and X. Peng. (1997). “The Decision Support System GMCR in Environmental Conflict Management, ” Applied Mathematics and Computation 83, 117–152.Google Scholar
  13. Hämäläinen, R. P. (1988). “Computer Assisted Energy Policy Analysis in the Parliament of Finland, ” Interfaces 18(4), 12–23.Google Scholar
  14. Hämäläinen, R. P. (1998). Interactive Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis in Water Resources Planning, Home pages of the Lake Päijänne project, http://www.paijanne.hut.fi/.Google Scholar
  15. Hämäläinen, R. P., and J. Helenius. (1998). WINPRE – Workbench for Interactive Preference Programming v. 1.0, Computer software, Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology. (Downloadable at http://www.decisionarium.hut.fi/).Google Scholar
  16. Hämäläinen, R. P., and R. Kalenius. (1998). Opinions-Online – Platform for Global Participation, Voting, Surveys, and Group Decisions, Computer software, Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology. (www.opinions-online.com)Google Scholar
  17. Hämäläinen, R. P., and E. Kettunen. (1994). “On-Line Group Decision Support by HIPRE 3+ Group Link, ” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, July 11–13, 1994, George Washington University, Washington D.C., 547–557. (Downloadable at http://www.sal.hut.fi/ Publications/pdffiles/ pham94.pdf).Google Scholar
  18. Hämäläinen, R. P., and H. Lauri. (1998). HIPRE 3+ Decision Support Software v. 3.15b, Computer Software, Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology. (Distributed by EIA Ltd., Tekniikantie 17b, 02150 Espoo, Finland, Fax: 358-9-7001 8682, Tel: 358-9-7001 8680).Google Scholar
  19. Hämäläinen, R. P., and O. Leikola. (1995). “Spontaneous Decision Conferencing in Parliamentary Negotiations, ” Proceedings of the 28th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press 4, 290–299.Google Scholar
  20. Hämäläinen, R. P., and O. Leikola. (1996). “Spontaneous Decision Conferencing with Top-Level Politicians, ” OR Insight 9(1), 24–28.Google Scholar
  21. Hämäläinen, R. P., M. Lindstedt, and K. Sinkko. (2000). “Multi-Attribute Risk Analysis in Nuclear Emergency Management, ” Risk Analysis 20(4), 455–468.Google Scholar
  22. Hämäläinen, R. P., and J. Mustajoki. (1998). Web-HIPRE – Java-applet for Value Tree and AHP Analysis, Computer software, Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology. (www.hipre.hut.fi).Google Scholar
  23. Hämäläinen, R. P., and J. Mäntysaari. (1998). “Interactive Spreadsheet Modelling of Regulation Strategies for a Lake-River System, ” Proceedings of the 17th IASTED International Conference on Modelling, Identification and Control, February 18–20, 1998, IASTED-Acta Press, Anaheim, Grindelwald, Switzerland, 181–184. (Downloadable at http://www.sal.hut.fi/Publications/pdf-files/pham98.pdf).Google Scholar
  24. Hämäläinen, R. P., and J. Mäntysaari. (2000). “A Dynamic Interval Goal Programming Approach to the Regulation of a Lake-River System, ” Journal of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (in press).Google Scholar
  25. Hämäläinen, R. P., and M. Pöyhönen. (1996). “On-Line Group Decision Support by Preference Programming in Traffic Planning, ” Group Decision and Negotiation 5, 485–500. Hämäläinen, R. P., A. A. Salo, and K. Pöysti. (1991). “Observations about Consensus Seeking in a Multiple Criteria Environment, ” Proceedings of the 25th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press 4, 190–198.Google Scholar
  26. Keeney, R. L. (1992). Value-Focused Thinking, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  27. Kersten, G. E., and S. J. Noronha. (1998). “Rational Agents, Contract Curves, and Inefficient Compromises, ” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans 28(3), 326–338.Google Scholar
  28. Kersten, G. E., and S. J. Noronha. (1999). “Supporting International Negotiation with a WWW-Based System, ” Decision Support Systems 25, 135–154.Google Scholar
  29. Kettunen, E., R. P. Hämäläinen, and E. Ehtamo. (1999). Joint Gains – Negotiation Support in the Internet, Computer Software, Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology (www.jointgains.hut.fi).Google Scholar
  30. Marttunen, M., and R. P. Hämäläinen. (1995). “Decision Analysis Interviews in Environmental Impact Assessment, ” European Journal of Operational Research 87, 551–563.Google Scholar
  31. Marttunen, M., E. A. Järvinen, J. Saukkonen, and R. P. Hämäläinen. (1999). “Regulation of Lake Päijänne – a Learning Process Preceding Decision-Making, ” Finnish Journal of Water Economy 6, 29–37 (in Finnish).Google Scholar
  32. Mustajoki, J., and R. P. Hämäläinen. (2000). “Web-HIPRE – A Java Applet for AHP and Value Tree Analysis, ” INFOR Journal 8(3).Google Scholar
  33. Pöyhönen, M., and R. P. Hämäläinen. (1998). “Notes on the Weighting Biases in Value Trees, ” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 11, 139–150.Google Scholar
  34. Pöyhönen, M., and R. P. Hämäläinen. (2000a). “On the Convergence of Multiattribute Weighting Methods, ” European Journal of Operational Research (in press).Google Scholar
  35. Pöyhönen, M., and R. P. Hämäläinen. (2000b). “There is Hope in Attribute Weighting, ” INFOR Journal 38(3).Google Scholar
  36. Pöyhönen, M., H. C. Vrolijk, and R. P. Hämäläinen. (1997). “Behavioral and Procedural Consequences of Structural Variation in Value Trees, ” European Journal of Operational Research (in press).Google Scholar
  37. Raiffa, H. (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation, Belknap/Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  38. Rajabi, S., K. W. Hipel, and D. M. Kilgour. (1997). “Multiple Criteria Water Supply Planning, ” Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, October 12–15, 1997, Orlando, Florida, USA, 4, 3484–3489.Google Scholar
  39. Ridgley, M. A., D. C. Penn, and L. Tran. (1997). “Multicriterion Decision Support for a Conflict over Stream Diversion and Land-Water Reallocation in Hawaii, ” Applied Mathematics and Computation 83, 153–172.Google Scholar
  40. Salo, A. A. and R. P. Hämäläinen. (1992). “Preference Assessment by Imprecise Ratio Statements, ” Operations Research 40, 1053–1061.Google Scholar
  41. Salo, A. A., and R. P. Hämäläinen. (1995). “Preference Programming through Approximative Ratio Comparisons, ” European Journal of Operational Research 82, 458–475.Google Scholar
  42. Salo A. (1995). “Interactive decision aiding for group decision support, ” European Journal of Operational Research 84, 134–149.Google Scholar
  43. Shakun, M. E. (1996). “Modeling and Supporting Task-Oriented Group Processes: Purposeful Complex Adaptive Systems and Evolutionary Systems Design, ” Group Decision and Negotiation 5, 305–317.Google Scholar
  44. Tecle, A., B. P. Shrestha, and L. Duckstein. (1998). “A Multiobjective Decision Support System for Multiresource Forest Management, ” Group Decision and Negotiation 7, 23–40.Google Scholar
  45. Teich, J. E., H. Wallenius, and J. Wallenius. (1994). “Advances in Negotiation Science, ” Yöneylem Arastirmasi Dergisi/Transactions on Operational Research 6, 55–94.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raimo Hämäläinen
    • 1
  • Eero Kettunen
    • 2
  • Mika Marttunen
    • 3
  • Harri Ehtamo
    • 4
  1. 1.Systems Analysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of TechnologyFinland
  2. 2.Systems Analysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of TechnologyFinland
  3. 3.Finnish Environment InstituteHelsinkiFinland
  4. 4.Systems Analysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of TechnologyFinland

Personalised recommendations