1. MCDA can be realized in many ways 4.1.2016 A. Decision makers and experts use MCDA on their own, no stakeholders involved B. Stakeholders opinions are included in MCDA e.g. by using questionnaire C. Stakeholders are actively involved in all phases of MCDA Stakeholders’ involvement A B C Stakeholders’ learning, communication, and approval LowHigh Low High Mika Marttunen SYKE, Finnish Environment Institute Timo Karjalainen University of Oulu Raimo P. Hämäläinen Aalto University, Systems Analysis Laboratory GDN 2012 | An International Meeting on Group Decision and Negotiation Recife, Brazil, 20 - 24 May, 2012 Engaging stakeholders in environmental planning projects by using MCDA approach in Finland

2. State-of-the-art in MCDA  MCDA applications in environmental planning are diverse and rapidly increasing. Water resources, fisheries and forestry management, energy and climate policies, traffic, spatial/GIS etc…  MCDA is used to activate and involve stakeholder.  How to design and implement MCDA processes which are understandable, meaningful and effective from participants’ points of views? 4.1.2016

3. Charateristics of good participation processes (e.g. Beierle 2002, French et al. 2005) Involves stakeholders early Fair and open Incorporates public values and knowledge into decision making Enhances learning Builds trust between participants Cost-effective

4. Stages of Stakeholder Involvement – the MCDA ladder Role of stakeholders? How to gather preference information ? 4.1.2016 Taneli Duunari-Työntekijäinen, SYKE 4 Experts are using MCDA on their own, stakeholders are not involved. Postal questionnaires are used to collect preference information. Increase in stakeholders’s role and interaction Decision conferences or workshops are used to collect preference information from stakeholders. Personal and interactive computer aided interviews Personal interviews and group discussions (DAI approach)

5.  Interactive computer supported MCDA process based on personal interviews (Marttunen and Hämäläinen 1995).  Helps participants to develop a well-informed opinion about the alternatives.  Easy to describe differences in stakeholders’ opinions.  Useful to identify groups having similar perspectives  Our experience: 10 real environmental projects.  Altogether 250 people personally interviewed, 10-30 people in a project.  Softaware used:  Web-HIPRE, Excel spreadsheets and a customized MCDA tool. The Decision Analysis Interview (DAI) approach 4.1.2016 5

6. FRAMING, ASSESSMENT AND PRELIMINARY EVALUATION Impact matrix Preliminary estimates for the importances 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

7. 4.1.2016 Name of the proejct Evaluation of the alternatives Identification of information gaps and uncertainties Describing stakeholders’ preferences Partici- pants’ learning Joint solution finding W ATER COURSE REGULATION / HYDRO POWER Oulujärvi xx Päijänne xxxx Pirkanmaa xxxx Koitere xxxx Plavinas x F LOOD RISK MANAGEMENT Kokemäenjoki xxx Rovaniemi xxxx R ESTORATION PROJECTS Mustionjoki xxxxx Iijoki xxxxx Primary aims in some of SYKE’s MCDA projects

8. The levels of integration and interaction in MCDA projects Interaction level of MCDA process Low Very high Integration level of MCDA into the decision process Low Very high Key stakeholders are actively involved in the different phases of the analysis, and the weight elicitation and analysis of the results are done interactively with computer supported tool. Experts dominate. Stakeholders are not actively involved into the process.

9. The levels of integration and interaction in MCDA projects Interaction level of MCDA process Low Very high Integration level of MCDA into the decision process Low Very high MCDA is tightly linked into the planning process. MCDA provides a roadmap and evaluation framework for the project. MCDA is a separate exercise which do not have impact on decision making.

10. Integration of MCDA and interaction levels in the projects Interaction level of the MCDA process Low Very high Integration level of MCDA into the decision process 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) Rovaniemi (2012) Pielinen (2011)

11. Mustionjoki River restoration project  Enhancement of endangered pearl mussel and salmon stock  A heavily modified and regulated river 4.1.2016

12. Multiple stakeholder events related to MCDA 4.1.2016 MEETING 1: MCDA approach Stakeholders’ objectives MEETING 2: Value tree Alternatives MEETING 3 Impact assessment PUBLIC MEETING 1 Comments on criteria and alternatives MEETING 4 Questionnaire for the interviews MCDA INTERVIEWS 14 persons MEETING 5 Preliminary results MEETING 6 Recommendations Final report PUBLIC MEETING 2 Comments on the results and recommendations

13. The benefits of DAI approach in group decision making = improved collaborative planning 13 Shifts mental models into co- operative mode Improves understanding Enhances trust Improves fairness and transparency Sustains interest of participants on the process

14. 4.1.2016 Taneli Duunari- Työntekijäinen, SYKE 14  Building a commonly accepted evaluation framework has positive systemic impacts. Participants’ objectives form the basis for the whole evaluation  Supports shifting discussion towards ”opening up” mode. What are the alternatives? What kind of impacts have they ? What kind of uncertanties relate to them?  DAI aims at individual and social learning. Understanding the real magnitude of impacts How do people consider the alternatives and their impacts ? What are the issues of agreement and disagreement? Shifts participant’s mental model into co-operative mode Shifts mental models into co- operative mode Improves understanding Improved fairness and transparency Enhances trust Enhances trust Sustains interest of participants on the process

15. 4.1.2016 Taneli Duunari- Työntekijäinen, SYKE 15  Supports the synthesis of information.  Helps people carefully consider the alternatives’ impacts as well as their own preferences.  Interactiveness enables immediate feedback (”learning by analysing”).  Easy to see differences in people’s perspectives.. Improves understanding Shifts mental models into co- operative mode Improves understanding Improves fairness and transparency Enhances trust Sustains interest of participants on the process

16. 4.1.2016 Taneli Duunari- Työntekijäinen, SYKE 16  Stakeholders are actively involved in the problem framing and structuring phases.  Stakeholder knowledge invited and efficiently utilized.  Evaluation of alternatives is systematic and open.  Participants can revise expert evaluations of impacts.  Every participant has a ” voice” which is documented. Improves fairness and transparency Shifts mental models into co- operative mode Improves understanding Improves fairness and transparency Enhances trust Sustains interest of participants on the process

17. 4.1.2016 Taneli Duunari- Työntekijäinen, SYKE 17  During the process people learn to better understand other people’s objectives.  Trust towards the project and authorities responsible for it improves.  Several meetings => people get familiar to each other => feeling of togetherness may develop.  Risk that MCDA will be considered as a black box method decreases. Enhances trust Shifts mental models to co- operative mode Improves understanding Improves fairness and transparency Enhances trust Sustains interest of participants on the process

18. 4.1.2016 Taneli Duunari- Työntekijäinen, SYKE 18  Brings structure, systemacy and rigourness to process.  New approach for most participants => people are eager to participate.  People have possibility to analyse their opinions and get their opinions documented.  Strong support and positive feedback from the participants. Sustains interest of participants on the process Shifts mental models into co- operative mode Improves understanding Improves fairness and transparency Enhances trust Sustains interest of participants on the process

19. 4.1.2016 MULTI-STAKEHOLDER DECISION SITUATION DAI APPROACH PARTICIPATION AND LEARNING Opportunities for joint-gains improves Willingness to compromise increases Commitment to the outcome MCDA in group decision making

20. Findings from the DAI approach  DAI focuses on learning and understanding better different perspectives. No need to find agreement on the weights of the criteria  The choice of the stakeholders is crucial.  Participants’ opinions should cover a wide range opinions  The process is relatively laborious. Common problem structuring and impact assessment  Flexibility needed from the MCDA team. Process is iterative and evolutionary  Weight elicitation process is cognitively demanding. Interactive approach helps and diminishes mistakes 4.1.2016

21. Conclusions  High quality decisions are based on good understanding what is important (values) and what are the impacts of the alternatives (facts).  The quality of the outcome and the acceptability of the planning process depends on how fair and open people consider it.  MCDA has a great potential in improving the quality of group decision making processes. Integrated and interactive approach! 4.1.2016

22. THANK YOU!