Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Managing Forest Ecosystems ((MAFE,volume 3))

Abstract

Multi-objective decision making often requires the comparison of qualitatively different entities. For example, a forest owner has to assess the aesthetic and recreation values of the forest in addition to the income from selling wood. Pairwise comparisons can be used to elicit relative preferences concerning such entities. Eigenvalue techniques introduced by Saaty (1977) are one way to analyse pairwise comparisons data. A weak point of the original methodology has been that it does not allow a statistical analysis of uncertainties in judgements. The eigenvalue technique also requires that all entities have been compared with each other. In many applications, this is impracticable because of the large number of pairs. The number of judges can also be large, and there can be missing observations. Moreover, it is frequently of interest to analyse how different attributes of the entities, or different attributes of the judges, influence the relative preference. In this paper, we first review our previous work with an alternative methodology based on regression analysis. Then, we show how explanatory variables can be incorporated. The construction of the design matrix is detailed and the interpretation of the results is discussed.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Alho, IM. and Kangas, J. 1997. Analysing uncertainties in experts’ opinions of forest plan performance. Forest Science 43: 521–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alho, J.M., Kangas, J. and Kolehmainen, O. 1996. Uncertainty in the expert predictions of the ecological consequences of forest plans. Applied Statistics 45: 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basak, I. 1989. Estimation of the multi-criteria worths of the alternatives in a hierarchical structure of comparisons. Communications in Statistics, Theory and Methods 18: 3719–3738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basak, I. 1990. Testing for the rank ordering of the priorities of the alternatives in Saaty’s ratio-scale method. European Journal of Operations Research 48: 148–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basak, I. 1991. Inference in pairwise comparison experiments based on ratio scales. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 35: 80–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Box, G.E.P. and Tiao G. C. 1973. Bayesian Inference in Statistical Analysis. Wiley, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budescu, D.V., Zwick, R. and Rapoport A. 1986. A comparison of the eigenvalue method and the geometric mean procedure for ratio scaling. Applied Psychological Measurement 10: 69–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carriere, J. and Finster, M. 1992. Statistical theory for the ratio model of paired comparisons. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 36: 450–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, G. and Williams, C. 1985. A note on the analysis of subjective judgement matrices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 29: 387–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, P. 1984. A statistical approach to Saaty’s scaling method for priorities. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 28: 467–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dittrich, R., Hatzinger, R. and Katzenbeisser W. 1998. Modelling the effect of subject-specific covariates in paired comparison studies with an application to university rankings. Applied Statistics 47: 511–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genest, C. and Rivest, L.-P. 1994. A statistical look at Saaty’s method of estimating pairwise preferences expressed on a ratio scale. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 38: 477–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kangas, J., Alho, J., Kolehmainen, O. and Mononen, O. 1998. Analysing consistency of experts’ judgements — case of assessing forest biodiversity. Forest Science 44: 610–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kangas, J., Karsikko, J., Laasonen, L. and Pukkala, T. 1993. A method for estimating habitat suitability on the basis of expertise. Silva Fennica 27: 259–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leskinen, P. and Kangas, J. 1998. Analysing uncertainties of interval judgement data in multiple criteria evaluation of forest plans. Silva Fennica 32: 363–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linstone, H.A. and TUROFF M. (eds.) 1975. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lootsma, F.A. 1993. Scale sensitivity in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 2: 87–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcfadden, D. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. Pages 105–142 in Zarembka, P. (ed.) Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mcfadden, D. 1981. Econometric models of probabilistic choice. Pages 198–272 in Manski, C.F. and McFadden, D. (eds.) Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pukelsheim, F. 1993. Optimal Design of Experiments. Wiley, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T.L. 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15: 234–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T.L. and Vargas, F. 1984. Comparison of Eigenvalue, logarithmic least squares and least squares methods in estimating ratios. Mathematical Modelling 5: 309–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salo, A.A. and Hämäläinen, R.P. 1997. On the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6: 309–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tahvanainen L., Tyrväinen L., Ihalainen M., Vuorela N. and Kolehmainen O. 2001. Forest management and public perceptions — visual versus verbal information. Landscape and Urban Planning 53: 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfram, S. 1996. Mathematica Book 3rd ed. Addison-Wesley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahedi, F. 1986. A simulation study of estimation methods in the analytic hierarchy process. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 20: 347–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, S.-S. and Genest, C. 1996. Etude d’un test de confirmation des priorités dans le cadre du procédé d’analyse hiérarchique. Revue de Statistique Appliquée 44: 81–103.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Alho, J.M., Kolehmainen, O., Leskinen, P. (2001). Regression Methods for Pairwise Comparison Data. In: Schmoldt, D.L., Kangas, J., Mendoza, G.A., Pesonen, M. (eds) The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resource and Environmental Decision Making. Managing Forest Ecosystems, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9799-9_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9799-9_15

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5735-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9799-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics