Using virtual environments and agent models in multi-criteria decision-making

Land Use Policy

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 87-94

  Bishop, Ian D ^a   Stock, Christian ^a   Williams, Kathryn J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Agent based models; Choice experiments; Integrated systems; Multi criteria decision making; Scenario building; Virtual environments

Indexed keywords

DECISION ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS; VIRTUAL REALITY; VISUALIZATION;

EID: 51049111446     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.01.010     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Bengston D.N. Changing forest values and ecosystem management. Society and Natural Resources 7 (1994) 515-533
2. Bergin J., and Price C. The travel cost method and landscape quality. Landscape Research 19 (1994) 21-23
3. Bishop I.D., Hull R.B., and Stock C. Supporting personal world-views in an envisioning system. Environmental Modelling and Software 20 (2005) 1459-1468
4. Bishop I.D., Ford R., Loiterton D., and Williams K. Studying the acceptability of forest management practices using visual simulation of forest regrowth. In: Bishop I.D., and Lange E. (Eds). Visualisation for Landscape and Environmental Planning: technology and applications (2005), Taylor & Francis, London 112-119
5. Brunson M.W. "Socially acceptable" forestry: what does it imply for ecosystem management?. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 8 (1993) 116-119
6. Carver S.J. Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical information systems. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 5 (1991) 321-339
7. Chermak J.M., and Krause K. Individual response, information, and intergenerational common pool problems. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43 (2002) 47-70
8. Chiou H.-K., Tzeng G.-H., and Cheng D.-C. Evaluating sustainable fishing development strategies using fuzzy MCDM approach. Omega 33 (2005) 223-234
9. Daniel T.C., and Vining J. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In: Altman I., and Wohlwill J.F. (Eds). Behavior and the Natural Envionment (1983), Plenum, New York 39-84
10. Davies, A., Laing, R., 2002. Designing choice experiments using focus groups: results from an Aberdeen case study. Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line] 3 (3). http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm.
11. Dyer J. MAUT-multiattribute utility theory. In: Figueira J., Greco S., and Ehrgott M. (Eds). State of the Art in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (2004), Kluwer, Dordrecht 265-295
12. Ford R.M., Williams K.J.H., Bishop I.D., and Webb T. Social Acceptability of Forest Management Systems: Project Overview (2005), University of Melbourne, Parkville
13. Gregory R.S. Incorporating value trade-offs into community-based environmental risk decisions. Environmental Values 11 (2002) 461-488
14. Grêt-Regamey, A., Bebi, P., Bishop, I.D., Schmid, W. Linking GIS-based models to value ecosystem services in an Alpine region. Journal of Environmental Management, in press.
15. Hanley N., Wright R.E., and Adamowicz V. Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environmental and Resource Economics 11 (1998) 413-428
16. Hopkins L.D. Methods of generating land suitability maps: a comparative evaluation. American Institute of Planners 43 (1977) 386-400
17. Jankowski P., and Richard L. Integration of GIS-based suitability analysis and multicriteria evaluation in a spatial decision support system for route selection. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 21 (1994) 323-340
18. In: Kagel J., and Roth A.E. (Eds). Handbook of Experimental Economics (1995), Princeton, NJ
19. Keeney R.L., and Raiffa H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs (1993), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
20. Kwartler M. Visualisation in support of public participation. In: Bishop I.D., and Lange E. (Eds). Visualisation for Landscape and Environmental Planning: Technology and Applications (2005), Taylor & Francis, London 251-260
21. Laing R., Davies A., and Scott S. Combining visualisation with choice experimentation in the built environment. In: Bishop I.D., and Lange E. (Eds). Visualisation for Landscape and Environmental Planning: Technology and Applications (2005), Taylor & Francis, London 212-291
22. Logical Decisions, 2007. Logical Decisions for Windows. Version 6.0 (http://www.logicaldecisions.com/).
23. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., and Swait J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application (2000), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
24. Lu C.H., and van Ittersum M.K. A trade-off analysis of policy objectives for Ansai, the Loess Plateau of China. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 102 (2004) 235-246
25. Marseguerra M., Zio E., and Podofillini L. Model parameters estimation and sensitivity by genetic algorithms. Annals of Nuclear Energy 30 (2003) 1437-1456
26. McHarg I.L. Design with Nature (1969), Doubleday, New York
27. Moffett A., Garson J., and Sarkar S. MultCSync: a software package for incorporating multiple criteria in conservation planning. Environmental Modelling & Software 20 (2005) 1315-1322
28. Paterson R.W., and Boyle K.J. Out of sight, out of mind? Using GIS to incorporate visibility in hedonic property value models. Land Economics 78 (2002) 417-425
29. Polhill, J.G., Gotts, N.M., Law, A.N.R., 2002. Modeling land-use change using agents in the FEARLUS project. In: Parker, D.C., Berger, T., Manson, S.M. (Eds.), Agent-Based Models of Land-Use and Land-Cover Change Report and Review of an International Workshop. LUCC International Project Office, Irvine, California, pp. 35-40.
30. Pumpa M.R., Wyeld T.G., and Adkins B.A. Performing traditional knowledge using a game engine: communicating and sharing Australian aboriginal knowledge practices. Proceedings Sixth International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT'06). Kerkrade, The Netherlands (2006) 1-5
31. Robertson D., and Hull R.B. Which nature? A case study of Whitetop mountain. Landscape Journal 20 (2001) 1-10
32. Saaty T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation (1980), McGraw-Hill, New York
33. Sakawa M. Fuzzy sets and Interactive Multiobjective Optimization (1993), Plenum Press, New York
34. Samuelson P. A note on the pure theory of consumers' behaviour. Economica 5 (1938) 61-71
35. Schwartz S.H. Universals in the content and structure of values-theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25 (1992) 1-65
36. Steel B.S., List P., and Schindler B. Conflicting values about federal forests: a comparison of national and Oregon publics. Society and Natural Resources 7 (1994) 137-153
37. Stock C., and Bishop I.D. Helping rural communities envision their future. In: Bishop I.D., and Lange E. (Eds). Visualisation for Landscape and Environmental Planning: Technology and Applications (2005), Taylor & Francis, London 145-151
38. Stock C., Bishop I.D., O'Connor A., Chen T.C., Pettit C.J., and Aurambout J.-P. SIEVE: collaborative decision-making in an immersive online environment. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 35 (2008) 133-144
39. Xiang W.-N. Weighting-by-choosing: a weight elicitation method for map overlays. Landscape and Urban Planning 56 (2001) 61-73
40. Xiang W.-N., and Clarke K.C. The use of scenarios in land-use planning. Environment and Planning B 30 (2003) 885-909
41. Zube E.H., Sell J.L., and Taylor J.G. Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landscape Planning 9 (1982) 1-33