Multi-attribute value theory as a framework for conflict resolution in river rehabilitation

Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Volumn 13, Issue 2-3, 2005, Pages 91-102

  Hostmann, Markus ^a   Bernauer, Thomas ^b   Mosler, Hans Joachim ^a   Reichert, Peter ^a   Truffer, Bernhard ^a  

^a SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF AQUATIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Switzerland)

^b ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Conflict resolution; Multi attribute value theory (MAVT); Negotiation; River rehabilitation; Stakeholder involvement

Indexed keywords

EID: 33947503274     PISSN: 10579214     EISSN: 10991360     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/mcda.375     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Ananda, J., Herath, G., 2003. Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach. Ecological Economics 45: 75-90.
2. Arvai, JL., Gregory, R., McDaniels, TL., 2001. Testing a structured decision approach: value-focused thinking for deliberative risk communication. Risk Analysis 21: 1065-1076.
3. Bana e Costa, CA., 2001. The use of multi-criteria decision analysis to support the search for less conflicting policy options in a multi-actor context: case study. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 10: 111-125.
4. Banville, C., Landry, M., Martel, JM., Christèle, B., 1998. A stakeholder approach to MCDA. Systems Research 15: 15-32.
5. Bell, ML., Hobbs, BF., Elliott, EM., Ellis, H., Robinson, Z., 2001. An evaluation of multi-criteria methods in integrated assessment of climate policy. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 10: 229-256.
6. Belton, V., Pictet, J., 1997. A framework for group decision using a MCDA model: sharing, aggregating or comparing individual information? Revue des systèmes de décision 6(3): 283-303.
7. Belton, V., Stewart, TJ., 2002. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis-An Integrated Approach. Kluwer Academic Press: Boston.
8. Bogetoft, P., Pruzan, P., 1991. Planning with Multiple Criteria: Investigation, Communication, Choice. Elsevier Science Publishers: Amsterdam.
9. Brown, CA., 1984. The central Arizona water control study: a case for multiobjective planning and public involvement. Water Resources Bulletin 20: 331-337.
10. BUWAL (Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape). 1997. Umwelt in der Schweiz. BUWAL: Bern.
11. Grimble, R., Wellard, K., 1997. Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agricultural Systems 55(2): 173-193.
12. Hämäläinen, RP., Kettunen, E., Marttunen, M., Ehtamo, H., 2001. Evaluating a framework for multi-stakeholder decision support in water resources management. Group Decision and Negotiation 10(4): 331-353.
13. Hobbs, BF., Chankong, V., Hamadeh, W., Stakhiv, EZ., 1992. Does choice of multicriteria method matter? An experiment in water resources planning. Water Resources Research 28(7): 1767-1779.
14. Hobbs, BF., Horn, GTF., 1997. Building public confidence in energy planning: a multimethod MCDM approach to demand-side planning at BC gas. Energy Policy 25(3): 357-375.
15. Hostmann, M., 2005. Decision Support for River Rehabilitation. Dissertation ETH No. 16136. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland.
16. Hostmann, M., Borsuk, M., Reichert, P., Truffer, B., 2005. Stakeholder values in decision support for river rehabilitation. Archiv für Hydrobiologie, Supplement 155(1-4): 491-505.
17. Keeney, RL., 1992. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
18. Keeney, RL., 1996. Value-focused thinking: identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives. European Journal of Operational Research 92: 537-549.
19. Marttunen, M., Hämäläinen, RP., 1995. Decision analysis interviews in environmental impact assessment. European Journal of Operational Research 87: 551-563.
20. Marttunen, M., Suomalainen, M., 2005. Participatory and multiobjective development of water course regulation-creation of regulation alternatives from stakeholders’ preferences. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 13: 29-49.
21. McDaniels, TL., Gregory, RS., Fields, D., 1999. Democratizing risk management: successful public involvement in local water management decisions. Risk Analysis 19(3): 497-510.
22. Mitchell, RK., Agle, BR., Wood, DJ., 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review 22(4): 853-886.
23. Raiffa, H., 1982. The Art and Science of Negotiation. The Belnap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
24. Ridgley, MA., Rijsberman, FR., 1992. Multicriteria evaluation in a policy analysis of a Rhine estuary. Water Resources Bulletin 28(6): 1095-1110.
25. von Winterfeldt, D., Edwards, W., 1986. Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.