Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis pp 1235–1267Cite as

Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis and Sustainable Development

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: International Series in Operations Research & Management Science ((ISOR,volume 233))

Abstract

Sustainable development is a multidimensional concept, including socio-economic, ecological, technical and ethical perspectives. In making sustainability policies operational, basic questions to be answered are sustainability of what and whom? As a consequence, sustainability issues are characterised by a high degree of conflict. The main objective of this chapter is to show that multiple-criteria decision analysis is an adequate approach for dealing with sustainability conflicts at both micro and macro levels of analysis. To achieve this objective, lessons, learned from both theoretical arguments and empirical experience, are reviewed. Guidelines of “good practice” are suggested too.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   349.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   449.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   449.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Emphasis added to the original.

  2. 2.

    Here I refer to the idea of orchestration of sciences as a combination of multi/inter-disciplinarity. Multi-disciplinarity: each expert takes her/his part. Inter-disciplinarity: methodological choices are discussed across the disciplines.

  3. 3.

    Composite indicators are indeed synthetic indexes, thus the two terms can be considered synonymous; here I use the term composite indicator since is the standard one in OECD/EC terminology [88].

  4. 4.

    One should note that this inconsistency is present in the majority of the environmental impact assessment studies too. In fact it is a common practice to aggregate environmental impact indicators by means of a linear rule and to attach weights to them according to the relative importance idea. Moreover, the use of a linear aggregation procedure implies that among the different ecosystem aspects there are not phenomena of synergy or conflict. This appears to be quite an unrealistic assumption for environmental impact assessment studies [39]. For example, “laboratory experiments made clear that the combined impact of the acidifying substances SO 2 , NO X , NH 3 and O 3 on plant growth is substantially more severe that the (linear) addition of the impacts of each of these substances alone would be.” [31].

  5. 5.

    Often this search for clear properties characterizing an algorithm is indicated as the axiomatic approach. However, one should note that properties or assumptions are NOT axioms. As perfectly synthesized by Saari [[110], p. 110] “Many, if not most, results in this area are merely properties that happen to uniquely identify a particular procedure. But unless these properties can be used to construct, or be identified with all properties of the procedure (such as in the development of utility functions in the individual choice literature), they are not building blocks and they most surely are not axioms: they are properties that just happen to identify but not characterize, a procedure. As an example, the two properties (1) Finnish-American heritage (2) a particular DNA structure, uniquely identify me, but they most surely do not characterize me”.

  6. 6.

    Arrow and Raynaud [[6], pp. 77–78] arrive at the conclusion that a Condorcet aggregation algorithm has always to be preferred in a multi-criterion framework. On the complete opposite side one can find Saari [108–110]. His main criticism against Condorcet based approaches are based on two arguments: (1) if one wants to preserve relationships among pairs (e.g., to impose a side constraint to protect some relationship-balanced gender for candidates in a public concourse) then it is impossible to use pair-wise voting rules, a Borda count should be used necessarily. However, it is important to note that, although desirable in some cases, to preserve a relationship among pairs implies the loss of neutrality; this is not desirable on general grounds. (2) The individual rationality property (i.e. transitivity) has necessarily to be weakened if one wishes to adopt a Condorcet based voting rule. The underlying assumption of this definition is the identification of human rationality with consistency, and this can be criticized from many points of view. Simon [118] notes that humans have at their disposal neither the facts nor the consistent structure of values nor the reasoning power needed to apply the principles of utility theory. In microeconomics, where the assumption that an economic agent is always a utility maximize is a fundamental one, it is generally admitted that this behavioural assumption has a predictive meaning and not a descriptive one (see Friedman [37] for the most forceful defence of this non-descriptive meaning of the axioms of ordinal utility theory). As firstly noted by Luce [68], a down-to-earth preference modelling should imply the use of indifference and preference thresholds; this implies exactly the loss of the transitivity property of at least the indifference relation. A corroboration of this criticism in the framework of social choice can be found in Kelsey (1986), where it is stated that because of social choice problems, an individual with multiple objectives may find it impossible to construct a transitive ordering. Recent analyses of the concept of rational agent can also be found in Bykvist [19] and Sugden [124].

  7. 7.

    Anyway a Condorcet consistent rule always presents smaller probabilities of the occurrence of a rank reversal in comparison with any Borda consistent rule. This is again a strong argument in favour of a Condorcet’s approach in this framework.

  8. 8.

    In our case, this axiom is needed since the intensity of preference of individual indicators is not considered to be useful preference information given that compensability has to be avoided and weights have to be symmetrical importance coefficients. Moreover, thanks to this axiom, a normalisation step is not needed. This reduces the sources of uncertainty and imprecise assessment.

  9. 9.

    In social choice terms then the anonymity property (i.e. equal treatment of all individual indicators) is broken. Indeed, given that full decisiveness yields to dictatorship, Arrow’s impossibility theorem forces us to make a trade-off between decisiveness (an alternative has to be chosen or a ranking has to be made) and anonymity. In our case the loss of anonymity in favour of decisiveness is even a positive property. In general, it is essential that no individual indicator weight is more than 50 % of the total weight; otherwise the aggregation procedure would become lexicographic in nature, and the indicator would become a dictator in Arrow’s term.

  10. 10.

    One should note that indeed cost-benefit analysis can be easily criticised both from the distributive and environmental points of view (see e.g., [77, 120]). However I prefer not to deal with this issue here.

  11. 11.

    On the issue of legitimacy see also Roy and Damart [107].

  12. 12.

    By dimension, here I mean the highest hierarchical level of analysis which indicates the scope of objectives and criteria.

  13. 13.

    On this point I disagree with Kleijnen [66], who claims that “modellers should try to develop robust models”, in the sense that models should not be very sensitive to modellers’ assumptions. Some ethical positions might be very different and thus lead to different rankings of the policy options. What is essential in a social framework is then transparency on these assumptions.

References

  1. Abbott, E.A.: Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions. Little, Brown & Co., Boston (1935)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Akgün, A.A., van Leeuwen, E., Nijkamp, P.: A multi-actor multi-criteria scenario analysis of regional sustainable resource policy. Ecol. Econ. 78, 19–28 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Allen, T.F.H., Tainter, J.A., Hoekstra, T.W.: Supply-Side Sustainability. Columbia University Press, New York (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Antunes, P., Karadzic, V., Santos, R., Beça, P., Osann, A.: Participatory multi-criteria analysis of irrigation management alternatives: the case of the Caia irrigation district, Portugal. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 9(2), 334–349 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Arrow, K.J.: Social Choice and Individual Values, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York (1963)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Arrow, K.J., Raynaud, H.: Social Choice and Multicriterion Decision Making. M.I.T Press, Cambridge (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Banville, C., Landry, M., Martel, J.M., Boulaire, C.: A stakeholder approach to MCDA. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 15, 15–32 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Barbier, E.B.: The concept of sustainable economic development. Environ. Conserv. 14(2), 101–110 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Barbier, E.B., Markandya, A.: The conditions for achieving environmentally sustainable growth. Eur. Econ. Rev. 34, 659–669 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Barbiroli, G.: Direct and indirect indicators of sustainable development. In: Proceedings International Conference on Environmental Pollution, Barcelona, pp. 489–496 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Beinat, E.: Value Functions for Environmental Management. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1997)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Beinat, E., Nijkamp, P. (eds.): Multicriteria Evaluation in Land-Use Management: Methodologies and Case Studies. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bell, M.L., Hobbs, B., Elliott, E.M., Ellis, H., Robinson, Z.: An evaluation of multi-criteria methods in integrated assessment of climate policy. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 10(5), 229–256 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Black, D.: The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1958)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bouyssou, D.: Building criteria: a prerequisite for MCDA. In: Bana e Costa, C.A. (ed.) Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid, pp. 58–80. Springer, Berlin (1990)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Bouyssou, D., Marchant, T., Perny, P., Pirlot, M., Tsoukiàs, A., Vincke, P.: Evaluation and Decision Models: A Critical Perspective. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Bresso, M.: Per un’ economia ecologica. La Nuova Italia Scientifica, Rome (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Buchanan, J.M., Musgrave, R.A.: Public Finance and Public Choice. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bykvist, K.: Can unstable preferences provide a stable standard of well-being? Econ. Philos. 26, 1–26 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cerreta, M., Concilio, G., Monno, V. (eds.): Making Strategies in Spatial Planning. Springer, Dordrecht (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cerreta, M., De Toro, P.: Integrated spatial assessment for a creative decision-making process: a combined methodological approach to strategic environmental assessment. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 13(1–2), 17–30 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cheng, F., Geertman, S., Kuffer, M., Zhan, Q.: An integrative methodology to improve Brownfield redevelopment planning in Chinese cities: a case study of Futian, Shenzhen. Comput. Environ. Urban. Syst. 35(5), 388–398 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chichilnisky, G.: An axiomatic approach to sustainable development. Soc. Choice Welf. 13(2), 219–248 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Corral-Quintana, S., De Marchi, B., Funtowicz, S., Gallopín, G., Guimarães-Pereira, Â., Maltoni, B.: The Visions Project at the JRC. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and Safety of the Citizens, EUR 19926 EN (2001). http://alba.jrc.it/visions

  25. D’Avignon, G., Vincke, P.: An outranking method under uncertainty. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 36, 311–321 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Daly, H.E., Cobb, J.J.: For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, the Environment and a Sustainable Future. Beacon, Boston (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Dasgupta, P., Heal, D.: Economic Theory and Exhaustible Resources. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  28. de Condorcet, N.: Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la probabilité des voix. De l’Imprimerie Royale, Paris (1785)

    Google Scholar 

  29. De Marchi, B., Funtowicz, S.O., Lo Cascio, S., Munda, G.: Combining participative and institutional approaches with multi-criteria evaluation. An empirical study for water issue in Troina, Sicily. Ecol. Econ. 34(2), 267–282 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. De Marchi, B., Ravetz, J.: Participatory approaches to environmental policy. Concerted Action EVE, Policy Research Brief, No. 10 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Dietz, F.J., van der Straaten, J.: Rethinking environmental economics: missing links between economic theory and environmental policy. J. Econ. Issues XXVI(1), 27–51 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ehrlich, P., Raven, P.: Butterflies and plants: a study in co-evolution. Evolution 18, 586–608 (1964)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Espelta, J.M., Retana, J., Habrouk, A.: An economic and ecological multi-criteria evaluation of reforestation methods to recover burned Pinus Negra forests in NE Spain. For. Ecol. Manage. 180, 185–198 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Faucheux, S., O’Connor, M. (eds.): Valuation for Sustainable Development: Methods and Policy Indicators. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Floridi, M., Pagni, S., Falorni, S., Luzzati, T.: An exercise in composite indicators construction: assessing the sustainability of Italian regions. Ecol. Econ. 70(8), 1440–1447 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Folke, C.: Socio-economic dependence on the life-supporting environment. In: Folke, C., Kaberger, T. (eds.) Linking the Natural Environment and the Economy: Essays from the Eco-Eco Group, pp. 77–94. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1991)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Friedman, M.: On the methodology of positive economics. In: Essays in Positive Economics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1953)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Funtowicz, S., Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G., Ravetz, J.: Information tools for environmental policy under conditions of complexity. European Environmental Agency, Experts’ Corner, Environmental Issues Series, No. 9 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Funtowicz, S.O., Munda, G., Paruccini, M.: The aggregation of environmental data using multicriteria methods. Environmetrics 1(4), 353–368 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R.: A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. In: Costanza, R. (ed.) Ecological Economics, pp. 137–152. Columbia University Press, New York/Columbia (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R.: The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science. Ecol. Econ. 10, 197–207 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Gamboa, G.: Social multi-criteria evaluation of different development scenarios of the Aysén region, Chile. Ecol. Econ. 59(1), 157–170 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Gamboa, G., Munda, G.: The problem of wind-park location: a social multi-criteria evaluation framework. Energy Policy 35(3), 1564–1583 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Garmendia, E., Gamboa, G., Franco, J., Garmendia, J.M., Liria, P., Olazabal, M.: Social multi-criteria evaluation as a decision support tool for integrated coastal zone management. Ocean Coast. Manag. 53(7), 385–403 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Garmendia, E., Stagl, S.: Public participation for sustainability and social learning: concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe. Ecol. Econ. 69(8), 1712–1722 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Geach, P.: Good and evil. In: Foot, P. (ed.) Theories of Ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Giampietro, M., Mayumi, K.: Multiple-scale integrated assessment of societal metabolism: introducing the approach. Popul. Environ. 22(2), 109–154 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Giampietro, M., Mayumi, K., Munda, G.: Integrated assessment and energy analysis: quality assurance in multi-criteria analyses of sustainability. Energy 31(1), 59–86 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Gowdy, J.M.: Coevolutionary Economics: The Economy, Society, and the Environment. Kluwer, Boston (1994)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  50. Gowdy, J.M., O’Hara, S.: Economic Theory for Environmentalists. Saint Lucie Press, New York (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Grafakos, S., Flamos, A., Oikonomou, V., Zevgolis, D.: Multi-criteria analysis weighting methodology to incorporate stakeholders’ preferences in energy and climate policy interactions. Int. J. Energy Sect. Manage. 4(3), 434–461 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Guimarães-Pereira, A., Corral-Quintana, S.A., Funtowicz, S.: GOUVERNe: new trends in decision support for groundwater governance issues. Environ. Model. Software 20, 111–118 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Guimarães-Pereira, A., Rinaudo, J.D., Jeffrey, P., Blasuqes, J., Corral-Quintana, S.A., Courtois, N., Funtowicz, S., Petit, V.: ICT tools to support public participation in water resources governance and planning experiences from the design and testing of a multi-media platform. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. 5(3), 395–419 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Guitouni, A., Martel, J.M.: Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 109, 501–521 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Hayashi, K.: Multicriteria analysis for agriculture resource management: a critical survey and future perspectives. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 122, 486–500 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Hinloopen, E., Nijkamp, P.: Qualitative multiple criteria choice analysis, the dominant regime method. Qual. Quant. 24, 37–56 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Horwarth, R., Norgaard, R.B.: Intergenerational resource rights, efficiency and social optimality. Land Econ. 66, 1–11 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Horwarth, R., Norgaard, R.B.: Environmental valuation under sustainable development. Am. Econ. Rev. Pap. Proc. 80, 473–477 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  59. Janssen, R.: Multiobjective Decision Support for Environmental Management. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1992)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  60. Janssen, R., Munda, G.: Multi-criteria methods for quantitative, qualitative and fuzzy evaluation problems. In: van den Bergh, J. (ed.) Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics, pp. 837–852. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kasemir, B., Gardner, M., Jäger, J., Jaeger, C. (eds.): Public Participation in Sustainability Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  62. Keeney, R., Raiffa, H.: Decision with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs. Wiley, New York (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  63. Kemeny, J.: Mathematics without numbers. Daedalus 88, 571–591 (1959)

    Google Scholar 

  64. Kleijnen, J.P.C.: Ethical issues in modelling: some reflections. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 130, 223–230 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Laffont, J.J.: Incentives and Political Economy. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  66. Luce, R.D.: Semiorders and a theory of utility discrimination. Econometrica 24, 178–191 (1956)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Martel, J.M., Zaras, K.: Stochastic dominance in multicriteria analysis under risk. Theor. Decis. 35(1), 31–49 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G., O’Neill, J.: Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics. Ecol. Econ. 26, 277–286 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Martinez-Alier, J., O’Connor, M.: Ecological and economic distribution conflicts. In: Costanza, R., Segura, O., Martinez-Alier, J. (eds.) Getting Down to Earth: Practical Applications of Ecological Economics. Island Press/ISEE, Washington, DC (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  70. Maystre, L., Pictet, J., Simos, J.: Méthodes multicritères ELECTRE – description, conseils pratiques et cas d’application à la gestion environnementale. Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, Lausanne (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  71. Monterroso, I., Binimelis, R., Rodríguez-Labajos, B.: New methods for the analysis of invasion processes: multi-criteria evaluation of the invasion of Hydrilla verticillata in Guatemala. J. Environ. Manag. 92(3), 494–507 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Moreno-Jiménez, J.M., Aguaron, J., Escobar, T., Turon, A.: Multicriteria procedural rationality on SISDEMA. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 119(2), 388–403 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Moulin, H.: Axioms of Co-operative Decision Making, Econometric Society Monographs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  74. Munda, G.: Multiple-criteria decision aid: some epistemological considerations. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 2, 41–55 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Munda, G.: Cost-benefit analysis in integrated environmental assessment: some methodological issues. Ecol. Econ. 19(2), 157–168 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Munda, G.: Environmental economics, ecological economics and the concept of sustainable development. Environ. Values 6(2), 213–233 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Munda, G.: Social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE): methodological foundations and operational consequences. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 158(3), 662–677 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Munda, G.: “Measuring sustainability”: a multi-criterion framework. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 7(1), 117–134 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Munda, G.: Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable Economy. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  80. Munda, G.: Multicriteria Evaluation in a Fuzzy Environment. Theory and Applications in Ecological Economics. Physica-Verlag, Contributions to Economics Series, Heidelberg (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  81. Munda, G., Nardo, M.: Non-compensatory/non-linear composite indicators for ranking countries: a defensible setting. Appl. Econ. 41, 1513–1523 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Munda, G., Russi, D.: Social multi-criteria evaluation of conflict over rural electrification and solar energy in Spain. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 26, 712–727 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Munda, G., Saisana, M.: Methodological considerations on regional sustainability assessment based on multicriteria and sensitivity analysis. Reg. Stud. 45(2), 261–276 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Musgrave, A.: Unreal assumptions in economic theory: the F-twist untwisted. Kyklos 34, 377–387 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Musu, I., Siniscalco, D.: National Accounts and the Environment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1996)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  86. Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A., Giovannini, E.: OECD/JRC handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. OECD Statistics Working Paper, Paris, publication code: 302008251E1 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  87. Neurath, O.: Empiricism and Sociology. Reidel, Dordrecht (1973)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  88. Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P., Voogd, H.: Multicriteria Evaluation in Physical Planning. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  89. Nordström, E.-M., Eriksson, L.O., Öhman, K.: Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis in participatory forest planning: experience from a case study in northern Sweden. Forest Policy Econ. 12(8), 562–574 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Norgaard, R.B.: Development Betrayed. Routledge, London (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  91. O’Neill, J.: Ecology, Policy and Politics. Routledge, London (1993)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  92. OECD: Composite Indicators of Country Performance: A Critical Assessment. DST/IND(2003)5, Paris (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  93. Özkaynak, B.: Globalisation and local resistance: alternative city developmental scenarios on capital's global frontier-the case of Yalova, Turkey. Prog. Plan. 70(2), 45–97 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Passet, R.: L’économique et le vivant. Payot, Paris (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  95. Pearce, D.W., Atkinson, G.D.: Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: an indicator of “weak” sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 8, 103–108 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Pearce, D., Hamilton, G., Atkinson, G.D.: Measuring sustainable development: progress on indicators. Environ. Dev. Econ. 1, 85–101 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Podinovskii, V.V.: Criteria importance theory. Math. Soc. Sci. 27, 237–252 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Rietveld, P.: Using ordinal information in decision making under uncertainty. Syst. Anal. Model. Simul. 6, 659–672 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  99. Ringius, L., Asbjørn, T., Holtsmark, B.: Can multi-criteria rules fairly distribute climate burdens? OECD results from three burden sharing rules. Energy Policy 26(10), 777–793 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Roberts, F.S.: Measurement Theory with Applications to Decision Making, Utility and the Social Sciences. Addison-Wesley, London (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  101. Roca, E., Gamboa, G., Tàbara, J.D.: Assessing the multidimensionality of coastal erosion risks: public participation and multicriteria analysis in a Mediterranean coastal system. Risk Anal. 28(2), 399–412 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Romero, C., Rehman, T.: Multiple Criteria Analysis for Agricultural Decisions. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  103. Roy, B.: Méthodologie multicritere d’aide à la decision. Economica, Paris (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  104. Roy, B.: Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Analysis. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1996)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  105. Roy, B., Damart, S.: L’analyse Coûts-Avantages, outil de concertation et de légitimation? Metropolis 108/109, 7–16 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  106. Saari, D.G.: A dictionary for voting paradoxes. J. Econ. Theory 48, 443–475 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Saari, D.G.: Which is better: the Condorcet or Borda winner? Soc. Choice Welf. 26, 107–129 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Saisana, M., Tarantola, S.: State-of-the-art report on current methodologies and practices for composite indicator development. EUR 20408 EN Report, European Commission, JRC, Ispra (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  109. Saisana, M., Tarantola, S., Saltelli, A.: Uncertainty and sensitivity techniques as tools for the analysis and validation of composite indicators. J. R. Stat. Soc. A 168, 307–323 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Salminen, P., Hokkanen, J., Lahdelma, R.: Comparing multicriteria methods in the context of environmental problems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 104, 485–496 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Saltelli, A.: Composite indicators between analysis and advocacy. Soc. Indic. Res. 81, 65–77 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Andres, T., Campolongo, F., Cariboni, J., Gatelli, D., Saisana, M., Tarantola, S.: Global Sensitivity Analysis. The Primer. Wiley, England (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  113. Schmidt-Bleek, F.: Wieviel umwelt braucht der mensch? MIPS Das Mass für ökologisches wirtschaften. Birkh User, Berlin (1994)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  114. Scolobig, A., Broto, V.C., Zabala, A.: Integrating multiple perspectives in social multicriteria evaluation of flood-mitigation alternatives: the case of Malborghetto-Valbruna. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 26(6), 1143–1161 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Simon, H.A.: Reason in Human Affairs. Stanford University Press, Stanford (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  116. Soma, K., Vatn, A.: Local democracy implications for coastal zone management-a case study in southern Norway. Land Use Policy 26(3), 755–762 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Spash, C., Hanley, N.: Preferences, information, and biodiversity preservation. Ecol. Econ. 12, 191–208 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Stewart, T.J., Joubert, A.: Conflicts between conservation goals and land use for exotic forest plantations in South Africa. In: Beinat, E., Nijkamp, P. (eds.) Multicriteria Evaluation in Land-Use Management: Methodologies and Case Studies, pp. 17–31. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1998)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  119. Stiglitz, J.E.: New perspectives on public finance: recent achievements and future challenges. J. Public Econ. 86, 341–360 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Straton, A.T., Jackson, S., Marinoni, O., Proctor, W., Woodward, E.: Exploring and evaluating scenarios for a river Catchment in Northern Australia using scenario development, multi-criteria analysis and a deliberative process as a tool for water planning. Water Resour. Manag. 25(1), 141–164 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Sugden, R.: Opportunity as mutual advantage. Econ. Philos. 26, 47–68 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Todhunter, I.: A History of Mathematical Theory of Probability. Chelsea, New York (1949)

    Google Scholar 

  123. Trutnevyte, E., Stauffacher, M., Scholz, R.: Linking stakeholder visions with resource allocation scenarios and multi-criteria assessment. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 219(3), 762–772 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Turner, R.K., Pearce, D.W., Bateman, I.: Environmental Economics: An Elementary Introduction. Harvester Wheatsheaf, London (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  125. Ülengin, B., Ülengin, F., Güvenç, Ü.: A multidimensional approach to urban quality of life: the case of Istanbul. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 130, 361–374 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Vincke, P.: Multicriteria Decision Aid. Wiley, New York (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  127. Vincke, P.: Recent progresses in multicriteria decision-aid. Rivista di Matematica per le scienze Economiche e Sociali 2, 21–32 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  128. Vitousek, P., Ehrlich, P., Ehrlich, A., Matson, P.: Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis. Bioscience 34(6), 368–373 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Voogd, H.: Multicriteria Evaluation for Urban and Regional Planning. Pion, London (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  130. Wackernagel, M., Rees, W.E.: Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island/Philadelphia (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  131. Young, H.P.: Condorcet’s theory of voting. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 82(4), 1231–1244 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Young, H.P., Levenglick, A.: A consistent extension of Condorcet’s election principle. J. SIAM Appl. Math. 35, 285–300 (1978)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Yusuf, J.A., El Serafy, S., Lutz, E.: Environmental Accounting for Sustainable Development. A UNEP World Bank Symposium, Washington, DC (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  134. Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8, 338–353 (1965)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Zendehdel, K., Rademaker, M., De Baets, B., Van Huylenbroeck, G.: Environmental decision making with conflicting social groups: a case study of the Lar rangeland in Iran. J. Arid Environ. 74(3), 394–402 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This chapter builds on previous work carried out for the JRC’s Centre for Research on Education and Lifelong Learning (CRELL), in the framework of the project KNOW (Human Capital for Prosperity and Sustainable Growth in Europe). The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Unit DDG.01 - Econometrics and Applied Statistics, TP 361 - Via E. Fermi 2749-I-21027, Ispra, (Va), Italy

    Giuseppe Munda

Authors
  1. Giuseppe Munda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giuseppe Munda .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and Business; Portsmouth Business School, Operations & Systems Management, University of Catania; University of Portsmouth, Catania; Portsmouth, Italy

    Salvatore Greco

  2. Department of Management Science, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom

    Matthias Ehrgott

  3. Universidade de Lisboa, CEG-IST, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisboa, Portugal

    José Rui Figueira

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Munda, G. (2016). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis and Sustainable Development. In: Greco, S., Ehrgott, M., Figueira, J. (eds) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 233. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3094-4_27

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation