Indicator Analyses: What Is Important—and for What?

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

Simple elements of partial order theory appear helpful for a causal analysis in the context of ranking. The Hasse diagrams may seem as a confusing system of lines and a high number of incomparabilities. Thus, they indicate that metric information may be lost, but, on the other side partial order tools offer a wide variety of additional information about the interplay between the objects of interest and indicators. In this chapter a series of tools are presented to reveal such information.

As an illustrative example the so-called Failed State Index (FSI) is used. FSI is a composite indicator based on 12 individual indicators by simply summarizing the single values. The FSI comprises 177 states, which are the objects of our study.

A selection of appropriate partial order tools are applied to reveal specific information about the interplay between the states and the 12 indicators, such as A: sensitivity analysis, where the indicators are ordered relatively to their impact on the structure of the partially ordered set, B: a “vertical,” i.e., chain analysis that is directed towards the comparabilities within a Hasse diagram, and C: a “horizontal,” i.e., antichain analysis focusing on incomparabilities, including also the use of tripartite graphs as well as a derivation of an ordinary graph.

Partial order does not necessarily constitute as a Multicriteria Method solving all inherent problems. However, this chapter discloses that a detailed analysis by partial order tools prior to a possible derivation of a ranking index apparently is highly attractive.

Keywords

Partial Order Composite Indicator Single Indicator Weak Order Hasse Diagram 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Al-Sharrah G (2010) Ranking using the copeland score: a comparison with the Hasse diagram. J Chem Inf Model 50:785–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annoni P, Brüggemann R (2008) The dualistic approach of FCA: a further insight into Ontario Lake sediments. Chemosphere 70:2025–2031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Annoni P, Brüggemann R, Saltelli A (2011) Partial order investigation of multiple indicator systems using variance-based sensitivity analysis. Environ Model Softw 26:950–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker PH (2006) Conflict Assessment System Tool (CAST). An analytical model for early warning and risk assessment of weak and failing states. Fund for Peace, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Bick A, Brüggemann R, Oron G (2011) Assessment of the intake and the pretreatment design in existing seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) plants by Hasse diagram technique. Clean 39:933–940Google Scholar
  6. Brüggemann R (2011) Special Issue: Partially ordered sets (editorial). Stat Appl Spl Iss:3–6Google Scholar
  7. Brüggemann R, Carlsen L (2006) Partial order in environmental sciences and chemistry. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brüggemann R, Carlsen L (2011) An improved estimation of averaged ranks of partially orders. Match Commun Math Comput Chem 65:383–414MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Brüggemann R, Carlsen L (2012) Multicriteria decision analyses. Viewing MCDA in terms of both process and aggregation methods: some thoughts, motivated by the paper of Huang, Keisler and Linkov. Sci Total Environ 425:293–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brüggemann R, Patil GP (2010) Multicriteria prioritization and partial order in environmental sciences. Environ Ecol Stat 17:383–410MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brüggemann R, Patil GP (2011) Ranking and prioritization for multi-indicator systems - introduction to partial order applications. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brüggemann R, Voigt K (2008) Basic principles of Hasse diagram technique in chemistry. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 11:756–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brüggemann R, Voigt K (2011) A new tool to analyze partially ordered sets. application: ranking of polychlorinated biphenyls and alkanes/alkenes in river Main, Germany. Match Commun Math Comput Chem 66:231–251MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Brüggemann R, Voigt K (2012) Antichains in partial order, example: pollution in a German region by lead, cadmium, zinc and sulfur in the herb layer. Match Commun Math Comput Chem 67:731–744MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Brüggemann R, Halfon E, Welzl G, Voigt K, Steinberg C (2001) Applying the concept of partially ordered sets on the ranking of near-shore sediments by a battery of tests. J Chem Inf Comp Sci 41:918–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brüggemann R, Sørensen PB, Lerche D, Carlsen L (2004) Estimation of averaged ranks by a local partial order model. J Chem Inf Comp Sci 44:618–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brüggemann R, Restrepo G, Voigt K, Annoni P (2013) Weighting intervals and ranking, exemplified by leaching potential of pesticides. Match Commun Math Comput Chem 69(2):413–432Google Scholar
  18. Bubley R, Dyer M (1999) Faster random generation of linear extensions. Discrete Math 201:81–88MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Carlsen L, Brüggemann R (2012) The ‘failed state index’ offers more than just a simple ranking. Soc Indic Res. doi: 10.1007/s11205-012-9999-6 Google Scholar
  20. Carlsen L, Brüggemann R (2013) An elaborate analysis of the ‘failed states index’ by partial order methodology JoSS -J.Soc.Struct. 14:(in press)Google Scholar
  21. De Loof K, De Meyer H, De Baets B (2006) Exploiting the lattice of ideals representation of a poset. Fundam Inform 71:309–321MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Duchowicz PR, Castro EA, Fernandez FM (2008) Application of a novel ranking approach in QSPR- QSAR. J Math Chem 43:620–636MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. FFP (2006) Methodology behind the index, http://ffp.statesindex.org/methodology. Accessed Aug 2013
  24. FFP (2011a) The fund for peace. http://www.fundforpeace.org/global/. Accessed May 2012
  25. FFP (2011b) Conflict assessment indicators. The fund for peace state analysis indicators and their measures. The Fund for Peace Publication CR-10-97-CA (11-05C). http://www.fundforpeace.org/global/library/cr-10-97-ca-conflictassessmentindicators-1105c.pdf. Accessed May 2012
  26. Fishburn PC (1970) Utility theory for decision making. Wiley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Freier KP, Brüggemann R, Scheffran J, Finckh M, Schneider UA (2011) Assessing the predictability of future livelihood strategies of pastoralists in semi-arid Morocco under climate change. Technol Forecast Soc Change 79:371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. FSI (2011) Failed states index. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/failedstates. Accessed May 2012
  29. Kardaetz S, Strube T, Brüggemann R, Nützmann G (2008) Ecological scenarios analyzed and evaluated by a shallow lake model. J Environ Manag 88:120–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Munda G (2008) Social multi-criteria evaluation for a sustainable economy. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Newlin J, Patil GP (2010) Application of partial order to stream channel assessment at bridge infrastructure for mitigation management. Environ Ecol Stat 17:437–454MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Restrepo G, Weckert M, Brüggemann R, Gerstmann S, Frank H (2008) Ranking of refrigerants. Environ Sci Technol 42:2925–2930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schneeweiss C (1991) Planung 1 - Systemanalytische und entscheidungstheoretische Grundlagen. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  34. Talente (2007) DART – Decision Analysis by Ranking Techniques (ver. 2.05), http://www.talete.mi.it/products/dart_description.htm. Accessed May 2012
  35. Transparency (2011) Corruption perception index 2011. Transparency International, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  36. Tsakovski S, Simeonov V (2011) Hasse diagram technique as exploratory tool in sediment pollution assessment. J Chemometrics. doi: 10.1002/cem.1381:1-8 Google Scholar
  37. Voigt K, Brüggemann R (2008) Ranking of pharmaceuticals detected in the environment: aggregation and weighting procedures. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 11:770–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wienand O (2006) lcell. http://bio.math.berkeley.edu/ranktests/lcell/. Accessed May 2012Google Scholar
  39. Yager RR (1988) On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 18:183–190MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Yager RR (1993) Families of OWA operators. Fuzzy Sets Syst 59:125–148MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Awareness CenterRoskildeDenmark
  2. 2.Center of Physical Chemical Methods of Research and Analysis, al-Farabi KazakhNational UniversityAlmatyKazakhstan
  3. 3.Department of EcohydrologyLeibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland FisheriesBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations