Multiattribute utility analysis for policy selection and financing for the preservation of the forest

European Journal of Operational Research

Volumn 200, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 833-843

  Hayashida, Tomohiro ^a   Nishizaki, Ichiro ^a   Ueda, Yoshifumi ^a  

^a HIROSHIMA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Financing for environmental problems; Group decision; Multiattribute utility analysis; Policy selection; Preservation of forest

Indexed keywords

FINANCING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS; GROUP DECISION; MULTIATTRIBUTE UTILITY ANALYSIS; POLICY SELECTION; PRESERVATION OF FOREST;

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION;

DECISION MAKING;

EID: 69749127502     PISSN: 03772217     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.035     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Arrow K.J. Social Choice and Individual Values. second ed. (1963), Wiley, New York
2. Bana e Costa C.A. A methodology for sensitivity analysis in three-criteria problems: A case study in municipal management. European Journal of Operational Research 33 (1988) 159-173
3. Bana e Costa C.A., and Vansnick J.C. Applications of the MACBETH approach in the framework of an additive aggregation model. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6 (1997) 107-114
4. Baucells, M., Sarin, R.K., 2002. Group decisions with multiple criteria. Anderson Graduate School of Management Decisions, Operations, and Technology Management, University of California, Los Angeles, eScholarship Repository, bauc001.
5. Baucells M., and Shapley L.S. Multiperson Utility (2006), Social Science Electronic Publishing
6. Brans J.P., Vincke Ph., and Mareschal B. How to select and how to rank projects: The Promethee method. European Journal of Operational Research 24 (1986) 228-238
7. Dyer J.S. MAUT-Multiattribute utility theory. In: Figueira J., Greco S., and Ehrgott M. (Eds). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis:State of the Art Surveys (2005), Springer, New York 265-296
8. Dyer J.S., and Sarin R.K. Group preference aggregation rules based on strength of preference. Management Science 25 (1979) 822-832
9. Fishburn P.C. Preferences, summation, and social welfare functions. Management Science 16 (1969) 179-186
10. Gómez-Limón J.A., and Berbel J. Multicriteria analysis of derived water demand functions: A Spanish case study. Agricultural Systems 63 (2000) 49-72
11. Goto Y., Kominami Y., Miyama T., Tamai K., and Kanazawa Y. Aboveground biomass and net primary production of a broad-leaved secondary forest in the southern part of Kyoto prefecture, central Japan. Bulletin of Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute 2 (2003) 115-147 (in Japanese)
12. Harsanyi J.C. Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparison of utility. Journal of Political Economy 63 (1955) 309-321
13. Jiménez A., Ríos-Insua S., and Mateos A. A decision support system for multiattribute utility evaluation based on imprecise assignment. Decision Support Systems 36 (2003) 65-79
14. Keeney R.L., and Kirkwood C. Group decision making using cardinal social welfare functions. Management Science 22 (1975) 430-437
15. Keeney R.L., and Raiffa H. Decision with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs (1976), Wiley, New York
16. Keeney R.L., and von Winterfeldt D. Managing nuclear waste from power plants. Risk Analysis 14 (1994) 107-130
17. Krantz D.H., Luce R.D., Suppes P., and Tversky A. Foundations of measurement. Additive and Polynomial Representation vol. 1 (1971), Academic Press, New York
18. Limayem M., and DeSanctis G. Providing decisional guidance for multicriteria decision making in groups. Information Systems Research 11 (2000) 386-401
19. Nishizaki I., and Seo F. Interactive support for fuzzy trade-off evaluation in group decision making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 68 (1994) 309-325
20. Prato T. Multiple attribute decision analysis for ecosystem management. Ecological Economics 30 (1999) 207-222
21. Prato T., and Herath G. Multiple-criteria decision analysis for integrated catchment management. Ecological Economics 63 (2007) 627-632
22. Riesgo L., and Gómez-Limón J.A. Multi-criteria policy scenario analysis for public regulation of irrigated agriculture. Agricultural Systems 91 (2006) 1-28
23. Roy B. The outranking approach and the foundation of ELECTRE methods. Theory and Decision 31 (1991) 49-73
24. Saaty T.L. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15 (1977) 234-281
25. Saaty T.L. Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process (1996), RWS Publications, Pittsburgh
26. Sakawa M., and Seo F. Integrated methodology for computer-aided decision analysis. In: Trappl R., de Hanika F., and Tomlinson R. (Eds). Progress in Cybernetics and Systems Research (1982), Hemisphere Publishing, New York 333-341
27. Seo, F., Nishizaki, I., 1997. On development of interactive decision analysis support systems. Presented at the IIASA Workshop on Advances in Methodology and Software for Decision Support Systems, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, IIASA as Electronic version. .
28. Seo F., Nishizaki I., and Park S.-H. Multiattribute utility analysis using object-oriented programming MAP and its application. Study of Business Administration and Informatics vol. 7 (1999), Setsunan University pp. 27-57
29. Seo F., Nishizaki I., and Hamamoto H. Development of interactive software for multiobjective decision analysis: MIDASS. In: Trappl R. (Ed). Cybernetics and Systems (2004), Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies 475-480
30. Seo, F., Nishizaki, I., Hamamoto, H., 2007. Development of interactive support systems for multiobjective decision analysis under uncertainty: MIDASS. Kyoto Institute of Economic Research, Discussion paper, No. 637, Kyoto University.
31. Sicherman, A., 1975. An Interactive Computer Program for Assessing and Using Multiattribute Utility Functions. Technical Report, 111, Operations Research Center, MIT.
32. Von Nitzsch R., and Weber M. Utility function assessment on a micro-computer: An interactive procedure. Annals of Operations Research 16 (1988) 149-160