1. Mika Marttunen Mikko Dufva Finnish Environment Institute Jyri Mustajoki Tampere University of Technology Timo P. Karjalainen Thule Institute, University of Oulu MCDM conference Jyväskylä, June 14 th, 2011 Experiences from the interactive use of MCDA in environmental planning projects 1

2. ●Decision analysis interview (DAI) approach ●What do integration and interaction mean in MCDA projects? ●What has been the performance of our MCDA projects in respect of integration and interaction? ●What are the benefits of high level integration and interaction? ●Concluding remarks Content

3. ●Refers to an MCDA process which is based on personal interviews with a multi-criteria model ●Developed in the beginning of 1990’s ○Close co-operation with SYKE and Systems Analysis Laboratory ●REAL NEED: Water course regulation development projects ○Conflicting interests and opinions ○Alternatives with economic, social and ecological impacts ○Stakeholders’ participation in the planning process ●CHALLENGE: Linking science into practical applications ○Primary goal in designing processes which are meaningful and effective in joint solution finding Development of the DAI approach 25.10.2015 3

4. FRAMING, ASSESSMENT AND PRELIMINARY EVALUATION Impact matrix Preliminary significance of the impacts Value tree STAKEHOLDERS’ OBJECTIVES AND ALTERNATIVES Identifying and structuring objectives and developing alternatives ALTERNATIVES’ IMPACTS Defining attributes, scales and performance scores STAKEHOLDERS’ VIEWS Studying workbook material and answering the questionnaire INTERACTIVE USE OF MCDA SOFTWARE SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Different perspectives and value profiles Issues of agreement and disagreement Attributes’ weights, arguments and consistency-checking Analysis of the results Modifications to the value tree and to the performance scores Discussion of the responses to the questionnaire Decision analysis interview approach

5. ProjectYearScopeToolPersonal DAIs Oulujärvi1992Water course regulationHIPRE3Yes, 35 Kokemäenjoki I1993Flood risk managementHIPRE3+Yes, 24 Päijänne1998Water course regulationHIPRE3+Yes, 20 Pirkanmaa2002Water course regulationCustomized modelYes, 35 Koitere2005Water course regulationCustomized model Value-focused thinking Yes, 18 Plavinas2006Hydro powerWeb-HIPRENo, expert group Mäntsälä2006Lake restorationEXCELNo, expert group Ylä-Lappi2008Forest managementWeb-HIPREYes, 15 Mustionjoki2010River rehabilitationWeb-HIPRE Value-focused thinking Yes,12 Iijoki2011River rehabilitationWeb-HIPRE Value-focused thinking Yes, 25 Keski-Suomi2011Peat productionEXCELNo, expert group CatermassOngoingAgricultureWeb-HIPREOpen Kokemäenjoki IIOngoingFlood risk managementOpen RovaniemiOngoingFlood risk managementWeb-HIPREOpen PielinenOngoingWater course regulationWeb-HIPREOpen 5 Major MCDA projects

6. ProjectSystematic and transparent evaluation of alternatives Identifi- cation of information gaps and uncertainties Under- standing stakeholders’ preferences Learning of partici- pants Joint solution finding Oulujärvi xxx Kokemäenjoki I xxx Päijänne xxxx Pirkanmaa xxxx Koitere xxxx Plavinas x Mäntsälä x Ylä-Lappi xxxx Mustionjoki xxxxx Iijoki xxxxx Keski-Suomi x Primary objectives of the projects 6

7. ●Integration ○How MCDA is linked to the planning process and how it supports various phases of the process. ●Criteria/questions ○When was MCDA introduced into the process? ○How MCDA affected the design and realization of the planning process? How well were the phases of MCDA and the planning process integrated? ○How MCDA’s results were used in decision making? What was steering group’s role in MCDA? Integration –definition and criteria 7

8. ●Interaction ○How key stakeholders are involved in the various phases of the process and how the weight elicitation and analysis of the results are carried out. ●Criteria/questions ○Who were involved? Did participants cover a wide spectrum of views? ○Did participants have an opportunity to give their input to all phases of MCDA? ○How interactive was the modelling phase? Interaction –definition and criteria 8

9. Evaluation of the projects Interaction of MCDA Low Very high Integration of MCDA Oulujärvi (1992) Ylä-Lappi (2008) Koitere (2005) Päijänne (1998) Pirkanmaa (2002) Kokemäenjoki (1993) Low Very high Iijoki (2010) Mäntsälä (2007) Keski-Suomi (2011) Mustionjoki (2010) Plavinas (2006)

10. Mustionjoki-project: Comparing different mitigation measures to enhance freshwater mussel and salmon populations ●MCDA provided a framework and a roadmap for the project. ●Stakeholder steering group (8 persons) actively participated from the beginning of the project ○10 meetings and two workshops ●Value-focused thinking was used in the structuring phase. ●12 face-to-face interviews were carried out with Web- HIPRE. ●Project lasted 8 months. 10

11. ●The levels of integration and interaction have a crucial impact on the quality and effectiveness of the MCDA process and its outcomes. ○Acceptability of the process and outcome improves ●The pros of integrated and interactive process: The benefits of integration and interaction 11 Improved consistency Enhanced learning Improved trust toward the results Improved fairness and transparency Sustained interest of participants on the process

12. 25.10.2015 Taneli Duunari-Työntekijäinen, SYKE 12 ●People have difficulties in assigning consistent and unbiased weights. ○Splitting bias and range effect ○Cognitively demanding task to give weights to the uppermost level criteria ●Close interaction between the analyst and the participant in the weight elicitation is necessary. ●The analyst can detect possible misunderstandings, inconsistencies, and biases in participants' answers. ●More carefully answers in the presence of the facilitator than independently. Improved consistency Enhanced learning Improved trust toward the results Improved fairness and transparency Sustained interest of participants on the process

13. Enhanced learning 25.10.2015 Taneli Duunari-Työntekijäinen, SYKE 13 ●Value-based and structured approach creates favourable conditions for learning ○Mutual trust and understanding ”Use of MCDA softened my rigid opinions” ●DAIs inspire learning and understanding in a different manner than traditional meetings and workshops. ○“Learning by analysing” approach ○Immediate feedback ○Iterative approach Opportunity to modify the weights Improved consistency Enhanced learning Improved trust toward the results Improved fairness and transparency Sustained interest of participants on the process

14. Improved trust towards the results 25.10.2015 Taneli Duunari-Työntekijäinen, SYKE 14 ●Due to the interactive use…. ○People see how their answers are used as input values for the analysis and also how they affect the outcome. ○It is possible to ensure that the participants have a sufficient understanding of the MCDA model. ○The risk that people are feeling being manipulated by a "black-box" methodology reduces. => Stakeholders’ trust toward the model, results and the whole planning process increases. Improved consistency Enhanced learning Improved trust toward the results Improved fairness and transparency Sustained interest of participants on the process

15. Improved fairness and transparency 25.10.2015 Taneli Duunari-Työntekijäinen, SYKE 15 ●The personal decision analysis interview is a good way to provide each participant an opportunity to express her opinions and to get one's opinion equally documented. ●DAIs may have positive impacts on the perception of the fairness of the planning processes. ●DAIs signal that the problem owner had a genuine aspiration to identify and balance different interests and objectives. Improved consistency Enhanced learning Improved trust toward the results Improved fairness and transparency Sustained interest of participants on the process

16. 25.10.2015 Taneli Duunari-Työntekijäinen, SYKE 16 ●In the projects lasting several years it is a big challenge to keep participants active and committed. ●The integrated and interactive use of the MCDA helps in realizing meaningful and effective stakeholder processes. Improved consistency Enhanced learning Improved trust toward the results Improved fairness and transparency Sustained interest of participants on the process

17. ●MCDA has a very good image in water resources planning ○”Soft” participatory approach and successful projects ●Strong support in ministries and SYKE’s management ○Implementation of EU Floods Directive and Water Framework Directive ○New arenas: Improving EIA and SEA by adopting good practices and tools of MCDA (EU Life+ application) ●Gap between MCDA’s potential and its current use ○Great need for integrated and participatory approaches in environmental planning and management ○Lack of MCDA experts ●Integrating MCDA into the planning process is not an easy goal but worth of striving ○Easiest when the analyst acts also as the project manager. Concluding remarks 25.10.2015 Taneli Duunari-Työntekijäinen, SYKE 17

18. THANK YOU! 25.10.2015 Taneli Duunari-Työntekijäinen, SYKE 18 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! Marttunen, M. and Hämäläinen, R.P. 2008. Decision analysis interviews in supporting collaborative management of a large regulated water course. Environmental Management 42 (6): 1026-1042. Hämäläinen, R.P, Mustajoki, J. and Marttunen, M. 2010. Web -based Decision Support: Creating a culture of applying multi-criteria decision analysis and web supported participation in environmental decision making. In Rios Insua, D. and French, S. (eds): e-Democracy. A Group Decision and Negotiation Perspective. 2010. XII, 364 p. Raimo