Outranking methods as tools in strategic natural resources planning
Two outranking methods, ELECTRE III and PROMETHEE II, commonly used as decision-aid in various environmental problems, and their applications to decision support for natural resources management are presented. These methods represent âthe European schoolâ of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM)...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Finnish Society of Forest Science
2001-01-01
|
| Series: | Silva Fennica |
| Online Access: | https://www.silvafennica.fi/article/597 |
| _version_ | 1811314863726657536 |
|---|---|
| author | Kangas, Annika Kangas, Jyrki Pykäläinen, Jouni |
| author_facet | Kangas, Annika Kangas, Jyrki Pykäläinen, Jouni |
| author_sort | Kangas, Annika |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Two outranking methods, ELECTRE III and PROMETHEE II, commonly used as decision-aid in various environmental problems, and their applications to decision support for natural resources management are presented. These methods represent âthe European schoolâ of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM), as opposed to âthe American schoolâ, represented by, for instance, the AHP method. On the basis of a case study, outranking methods are compared to so far more usually applied techniques based on the ideas of multi attribute utility theory (MAUT). The outranking methods have been recommended for situations where there is a finite number of discrete alternatives to be chosen among. The number of decision criteria and decision makers may be large. An important advantage of outranking methods, when compared to decision support techniques most often applied in todayâs natural resources management, is the ability to deal with ordinal and more or less descriptive information on the alternative plans to be evaluated. Furthermore, the uncertainty concerning the values of the criterion variables can be taken into account using fuzzy relations, determined by indifference and preference thresholds. The difficult interpretation of the results, on the other hand, is the main drawback of the outranking methods. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T11:19:59Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-7fab9eac19c0425c9748635003811587 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2242-4075 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T11:19:59Z |
| publishDate | 2001-01-01 |
| publisher | Finnish Society of Forest Science |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Silva Fennica |
| spelling | doaj.art-7fab9eac19c0425c97486350038115872022-12-22T02:48:51ZengFinnish Society of Forest ScienceSilva Fennica2242-40752001-01-0135210.14214/sf.597Outranking methods as tools in strategic natural resources planningKangas, AnnikaKangas, JyrkiPykäläinen, JouniTwo outranking methods, ELECTRE III and PROMETHEE II, commonly used as decision-aid in various environmental problems, and their applications to decision support for natural resources management are presented. These methods represent âthe European schoolâ of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM), as opposed to âthe American schoolâ, represented by, for instance, the AHP method. On the basis of a case study, outranking methods are compared to so far more usually applied techniques based on the ideas of multi attribute utility theory (MAUT). The outranking methods have been recommended for situations where there is a finite number of discrete alternatives to be chosen among. The number of decision criteria and decision makers may be large. An important advantage of outranking methods, when compared to decision support techniques most often applied in todayâs natural resources management, is the ability to deal with ordinal and more or less descriptive information on the alternative plans to be evaluated. Furthermore, the uncertainty concerning the values of the criterion variables can be taken into account using fuzzy relations, determined by indifference and preference thresholds. The difficult interpretation of the results, on the other hand, is the main drawback of the outranking methods.https://www.silvafennica.fi/article/597 |
| spellingShingle | Kangas, Annika Kangas, Jyrki Pykäläinen, Jouni Outranking methods as tools in strategic natural resources planning Silva Fennica |
| title | Outranking methods as tools in strategic natural resources planning |
| title_full | Outranking methods as tools in strategic natural resources planning |
| title_fullStr | Outranking methods as tools in strategic natural resources planning |
| title_full_unstemmed | Outranking methods as tools in strategic natural resources planning |
| title_short | Outranking methods as tools in strategic natural resources planning |
| title_sort | outranking methods as tools in strategic natural resources planning |
| url | https://www.silvafennica.fi/article/597 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kangasannika outrankingmethodsastoolsinstrategicnaturalresourcesplanning AT kangasjyrki outrankingmethodsastoolsinstrategicnaturalresourcesplanning AT pykalainenjouni outrankingmethodsastoolsinstrategicnaturalresourcesplanning |