Research Article

Multicriteria approval and SMAA-O in natural resources decision analysis with both ordinal and cardinal criteria

  1. Jyrki Kangas1,†,*,
  2. Annika Kangas2,‡

Article first published online: 6 APR 2004

DOI: 10.1002/mcda.344

Issue

Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis

Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Special Issue: 16th International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making

Volume 12, Issue 1, pages 3–15, January/February 2003

Additional Information

How to Cite

Kangas, J. and Kangas, A. (2003), Multicriteria approval and SMAA-O in natural resources decision analysis with both ordinal and cardinal criteria. J. Multi-Crit. Decis. Anal., 12: 3–15. doi: 10.1002/mcda.344

Author Information

  1. 1

    UPM-Kymmene Forest, P.O. Box 32, FIN-36701 Valkeakoski, Finland

  2. 2

    University of Helsinki, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Forest Resource Management, P.O. Box 27, FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland

  1. †

    Professor, Head of Forestry

  2. ‡

    Professor

*UPM-Kymmene Forest, P.O. Box 32, FIN-36701 Valkeakoski, Finland

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 6 APR 2004
  2. Article first published online: 6 APR 2004
  3. Manuscript Accepted: 23 DEC 2003
  4. Manuscript Received: 30 APR 2002

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

Get PDF (166K)

Keywords:

  • forest planning;
  • hybrid approaches;
  • multicriteria decision support;
  • natural resource management;
  • ordinal preferences;
  • voting theory

Abstract

Multicriteria approval (MA) and stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis with ordinal criteria (SMAA-O) methods have been specially developed for making use of low-quality information in multicriteria decision support. In this study, MA and SMAA-O are applied to forestry decision support with both ordinal and cardinal criteria. On grounds of experiences gained, conclusions are given on the practical applicability of the methods.

MA favoured an alternative that obtained mediocre rankings in SMAA-O analysis. On the other hand, the probability of this alternative having the worst ranks was negligible. Therefore, MA suits for managing situations with severely conflicting criteria or preferences. An additional benefit of MA is that it is intuitively easy to understand. SMAA-O, in turn, favoured several distinctive alternatives each promoting some but usually not the same criterion or a group of criteria. SMAA-O provides many-sided analyses on the choice problem, but it is more complicated and harder to understand. Its characteristics are best utilized in analyses involving uncertainty and both cardinal and ordinal data. In cases of very-low-quality information involved, as is typical in participatory processes, for instance, MA may be a good approach.

In the case planning problem, different forest plan alternatives proved to be ‘the best ones’ according to MA and SMAA-O analyses, and the final choice was neither of them. However, after comprehensive interpretation of the results given by both methods the final choice was clear. Both methods gave valuable results and insights in the case problem, and they were complementary to each other. A conclusion is that applying them both together in the case planning process would have been recommendable. MA can serve as a tool to approach the problem in the first stage and to learn the very nature of the decision problem. After MA analyses, a sound basis is gained in the sense of both behavioural and technical aspects for more detailed and in-depth analyses by SMAA-O. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Get PDF (166K)