Stakeholder preference elicitation and modelling in multi-criteria decision analysis - A case study on urban water supply

被引:67
|
作者
Kodikara, P. N. [1 ]
Perera, B. J. C. [1 ]
Kularathna, M. D. U. P. [2 ]
机构
[1] Victoria Univ, Melbourne, Vic 8001, Australia
[2] Melbourne Water, Melbourne, Vic 3001, Australia
基金
澳大利亚研究理事会;
关键词
Multiple criteria analysis; Stakeholder preference elicitation; Urban water supply systems; RESERVOIR SYSTEM; MULTIOBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION; MANAGEMENT; ALLOCATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejor.2010.02.016
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
Integration of multiple objectives to evaluate the alternative operating rules for urban water supply reservoir systems can be effectively accomplished by multi-criteria decision aid techniques, where preference elicitation and modelling plays an important role. This paper describes a preference elicitation and modelling procedure involving the multi-criteria outranking method PROMETHEE in evaluating these alternative operating rules. The Melbourne water supply system was considered as the case study. Eight performance measures (PMs) were identified under four main objectives to evaluate the system performance under alternative operating rules. Three major hypothetical stakeholder groups namely, resource managers, water users, and environmental interest groups were considered in decision-making. An interviewer-assisted questionnaire survey was used to derive the preference functions and weights of the PMs. The evaluation of alternative operating rules is not covered in this paper, rather an approach to elicit and model stakeholder preferences in decision-making is described. Crown Copyright (C) 2010 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:209 / 220
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Stakeholder Preference Modelling In Multi-Objective Operation Of Urban Water Supply Systems - A Case Study On Melbourne Water Supply System
    Kodikara, P. N.
    Perera, B. J. C.
    Kularathna, M. D. U. P.
    MODSIM 2005: INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON MODELLING AND SIMULATION: ADVANCES AND APPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT AND DECISION MAKING: ADVANCES AND APPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT AND DECISION MAKING, 2005, : 1539 - 1545
  • [2] Stakeholder involvement in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
    Thokala, Praveen
    Madhavan, Guruprasad
    COST EFFECTIVENESS AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION, 2018, 16
  • [3] Stakeholder involvement in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
    Praveen Thokala
    Guruprasad Madhavan
    Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 16
  • [4] Constructive preference elicitation for multi-criteria decision analysis using an estimate-then-select
    Liang, Qian
    Zhang, Zhen
    Su, Yingsheng
    INFORMATION FUSION, 2025, 118
  • [5] On preference elicitation processes which mitigate the accumulation of biases in multi-criteria decision analysis
    Lahtinen, Tuomas J.
    Hamalainen, Raimo P.
    Jenytin, Cosmo
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2020, 282 (01) : 201 - 210
  • [6] Multi-criteria decision analysis in urban water asset management
    Carrico, Nelson
    Covas, Didia
    Almeida, Maria do Ceu
    URBAN WATER JOURNAL, 2021, 18 (07) : 558 - 569
  • [7] Treating uncertain criteria and stakeholder preference information in environmental multi-criteria decision problems
    Lahdelma, R.
    Salminen, P.
    ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY IN HARBORS AND COASTAL AREAS: MANAGEMENT USING COMPARATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT AND MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS, 2007, : 233 - +
  • [8] Multi-criteria decision making methods for rural water supply: a case study from Bangladesh
    Sikder, Abu Hena Mustafa Kamal
    Salehin, Mashfiqus
    WATER POLICY, 2015, 17 (06) : 1209 - 1223
  • [9] Multi-criteria spatial decision analysis for forecasting urban water requirements: a case study of Dehradun city, India
    Rao, KHVD
    LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING, 2005, 71 (2-4) : 163 - 174
  • [10] Experiences of stakeholder participation in multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) processes for water infrastructure
    Lueck, Andrea
    Nyga, Ilka
    URBAN WATER JOURNAL, 2018, 15 (06) : 508 - 517