Cargando…

Four Common Simplifications of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis do not hold for River Rehabilitation

River rehabilitation aims at alleviating negative effects of human impacts such as loss of biodiversity and reduction of ecosystem services. Such interventions entail difficult trade-offs between different ecological and often socio-economic objectives. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is a v...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Langhans, Simone D., Lienert, Judit
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4783037/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26954353
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150695
_version_ 1782420057840680960
author Langhans, Simone D.
Lienert, Judit
author_facet Langhans, Simone D.
Lienert, Judit
author_sort Langhans, Simone D.
collection PubMed
description River rehabilitation aims at alleviating negative effects of human impacts such as loss of biodiversity and reduction of ecosystem services. Such interventions entail difficult trade-offs between different ecological and often socio-economic objectives. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is a very suitable approach that helps assessing the current ecological state and prioritizing river rehabilitation measures in a standardized way, based on stakeholder or expert preferences. Applications of MCDA in river rehabilitation projects are often simplified, i.e. using a limited number of objectives and indicators, assuming linear value functions, aggregating individual indicator assessments additively, and/or assuming risk neutrality of experts. Here, we demonstrate an implementation of MCDA expert preference assessments to river rehabilitation and provide ample material for other applications. To test whether the above simplifications reflect common expert opinion, we carried out very detailed interviews with five river ecologists and a hydraulic engineer. We defined essential objectives and measurable quality indicators (attributes), elicited the experts´ preferences for objectives on a standardized scale (value functions) and their risk attitude, and identified suitable aggregation methods. The experts recommended an extensive objectives hierarchy including between 54 and 93 essential objectives and between 37 to 61 essential attributes. For 81% of these, they defined non-linear value functions and in 76% recommended multiplicative aggregation. The experts were risk averse or risk prone (but never risk neutral), depending on the current ecological state of the river, and the experts´ personal importance of objectives. We conclude that the four commonly applied simplifications clearly do not reflect the opinion of river rehabilitation experts. The optimal level of model complexity, however, remains highly case-study specific depending on data and resource availability, the context, and the complexity of the decision problem.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4783037
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47830372016-03-23 Four Common Simplifications of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis do not hold for River Rehabilitation Langhans, Simone D. Lienert, Judit PLoS One Research Article River rehabilitation aims at alleviating negative effects of human impacts such as loss of biodiversity and reduction of ecosystem services. Such interventions entail difficult trade-offs between different ecological and often socio-economic objectives. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is a very suitable approach that helps assessing the current ecological state and prioritizing river rehabilitation measures in a standardized way, based on stakeholder or expert preferences. Applications of MCDA in river rehabilitation projects are often simplified, i.e. using a limited number of objectives and indicators, assuming linear value functions, aggregating individual indicator assessments additively, and/or assuming risk neutrality of experts. Here, we demonstrate an implementation of MCDA expert preference assessments to river rehabilitation and provide ample material for other applications. To test whether the above simplifications reflect common expert opinion, we carried out very detailed interviews with five river ecologists and a hydraulic engineer. We defined essential objectives and measurable quality indicators (attributes), elicited the experts´ preferences for objectives on a standardized scale (value functions) and their risk attitude, and identified suitable aggregation methods. The experts recommended an extensive objectives hierarchy including between 54 and 93 essential objectives and between 37 to 61 essential attributes. For 81% of these, they defined non-linear value functions and in 76% recommended multiplicative aggregation. The experts were risk averse or risk prone (but never risk neutral), depending on the current ecological state of the river, and the experts´ personal importance of objectives. We conclude that the four commonly applied simplifications clearly do not reflect the opinion of river rehabilitation experts. The optimal level of model complexity, however, remains highly case-study specific depending on data and resource availability, the context, and the complexity of the decision problem. Public Library of Science 2016-03-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4783037/ /pubmed/26954353 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150695 Text en © 2016 Langhans, Lienert http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Langhans, Simone D.
Lienert, Judit
Four Common Simplifications of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis do not hold for River Rehabilitation
title Four Common Simplifications of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis do not hold for River Rehabilitation
title_full Four Common Simplifications of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis do not hold for River Rehabilitation
title_fullStr Four Common Simplifications of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis do not hold for River Rehabilitation
title_full_unstemmed Four Common Simplifications of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis do not hold for River Rehabilitation
title_short Four Common Simplifications of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis do not hold for River Rehabilitation
title_sort four common simplifications of multi-criteria decision analysis do not hold for river rehabilitation
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4783037/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26954353
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150695
work_keys_str_mv AT langhanssimoned fourcommonsimplificationsofmulticriteriadecisionanalysisdonotholdforriverrehabilitation
AT lienertjudit fourcommonsimplificationsofmulticriteriadecisionanalysisdonotholdforriverrehabilitation