central modules of the ahp decision making

complex connections between issues, especially natural phenomena are linked in cause or consequence.extended temporal and spatial scales of impacts in natural systems.Dovers ( 2005) identifies several characteristics of such problems, for example: In other words, decision making regarding the environment is concerned with solving “sustainability problems” (Harding et al., 2009). EDM is located in the normative context of sustainable development and aims to trade off the three dimensions of sustainability (Ecological, Social, and Economical). Furthermore, EDM typically uses knowledge from several disciplines incorporating natural, physical, and social sciences as well as medicine, politics, and ethics. Environmental decisions are multifaceted and often involve several stakeholders with different objectives that cannot be satisfied simultaneously. Basically, EDM has to cope with a tremendous complexity arising from human–environment interaction. Here, a broad understanding including all dimensions (biophysical, social, economic, and political) that define our surroundings is used (Harding et al., 2009). The understanding of the term environment may vary (Scholz & Binder, 2011). EDM is seen in quite general terms, that is, “environmental decisions are those choices or judgements that have a significant impact on the environment” (Harding, Hendriks, & Faruqi, 2009, p. Environmental decision making (EDM) supports this transformation in guiding the selection between different choices. Considering a transformation to a sustainable development is therefore inevitable. The arising global environmental change is going to lead to undesired and irreversible consequences for large parts of the world (Rockstrom et al., 2009). From a descriptive point of view, considering the practice of decision makers, the impacts of the considered uncertainties stay within reasonable limits, meaning that the maximal numerical impact stays on the hundredths decimal place. From a theoretical normative point of view, the effects of considering uncertainty issues in the AHP methodology cannot satisfy the ideal of a rational decision analysis. For decision analysts in EDM, this result implies that additional resources may be necessary to commonly negotiate with decision makers that uncertainties should be addressed. Similar shares of rank reversal over different USs within a single variant of the case raise the question to which uncertainty should be given prior attention in decision-making practice. With respect to a single US and the specific case characteristics, in about 50% of the simulated runs a rank reversal occurs. The results show that the absolute maximal impact caused by a US is approximately 0.03. The consideration of uncertainty may lead to a rank reversal in comparison with that analysis neglecting uncertainty (best alternative given by the AHP). It evaluates the impact of uncertainty within three variants of a hypothetical decision-making case by calculating an “overall uncertainty” measure. To calculate the numerical impact of especially designed uncertainty scenarios (USs) on the final ranking given by the AHP, a simulation experiment is conducted using R. Further, an explicit understanding of uncertainty (designation, categorization, and quantification) with respect to the methodological properties of the AHP is developed and used to analyse a hypothetical group decision problem located in the context of environmental decision making (EDM). An overview of uncertainty issues associated with the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is provided.

Central modules of the ahp decision making