Multicriteria techniques

From Coastal Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Multicriteria techniques are methods that facilitate and rationalize decision-making processes in which alternative options are evaluated against different criteria.

Decision making in coastal zones often involves not only monetary costs and benefits, but also social, ethical and environmental considerations that are difficult to express in monetary terms. Economic evaluation methods such as cost-benefit analysis may therefore need to be complemented by methods that can incorporate criteria expressed in different units or as qualitative ratings. Such methods are generally referred to as multicriteria techniques.


Terminology

The terms Multicriteria Analysis (MCA) and Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) refer to a group of formal approaches for comparing alternative options according to multiple decision criteria. Criteria can cover economic, social and ecological aspects and can be quantitative or qualitative. Unlike cost-benefit analysis, MCA does not require all impacts to be expressed in monetary units and can simultaneously consider criteria expressed in different units. It thereby allows potential economic, social and ecological impacts of alternative policies, measures or interventions to be considered within a common decision framework.

Application

Basic weighted MCA method
In a basic weighted MCA, alternative options are evaluated against a set of criteria, which can be expressed in different units. A criterion value can, for example, be a monetary value or a rating derived from an assessment study. In a first step, the scores for each criterion are normalized, for example by assigning the best-scoring alternative a value of 1 and proportionately lower values to the other alternatives. In a second step, each criterion is assigned a weight by which its normalized scores are multiplied. The weighted scores are then summed to obtain an overall score for each alternative. A crucial step is determining the criterion weights, which can be based, for example, on expert judgment and/or stakeholder consultation. This method assumes that a low score on one criterion can be fully compensated by a high score on another criterion.

For the application of MCA approaches to decision making, Belton and Stewart[1] distinguish three phases: problem structuring, model building and use of the model for informing and challenging thinking.

  • Problem structuring defines the decision problem, identifies the stakeholders to be involved and determines the objectives, alternatives and relevant decision criteria. Deliberative techniques can be used to involve relevant stakeholders.
  • Model building specifies how alternatives are evaluated against the criteria and how the relative importance of the criteria or preferences of different stakeholders are represented.
  • Model application uses the model to evaluate the alternatives. The results can directly support a decision or challenge existing assumptions, providing feedback for revising the problem definition, alternatives, criteria or preferences.

Criteria should meet the following requirements:[2]

  • They cover all major aspects relevant to the objectives and other potential impacts of the alternative options.
  • They are meaningful and understandable to all participants in the decision-making process.
  • They are non-redundant, to avoid double counting.
  • They can be evaluated for each alternative so that ratings can be determined.
For a small number of qualitative criteria, a simple graphical MCA may be sufficient.

Depending on the MCA method applied, alternatives can be evaluated by numerical scores, achievement levels, preference relations or outranking relations[3].

MCA can add value to:

  • the decision process, by improving understanding of the problem, criteria, preferences and available alternatives; and
  • the decision outcome, by making explicit the value judgements and trade-offs between conflicting objectives.

MCA is useful for classifying, prioritizing or selecting alternatives, for example different coastal protection options, particularly when no alternative performs best on all criteria. Stakeholder participation can make differences in the perceived importance of criteria explicit and show how these differences influence the outcome, thereby supporting discussion of trade-offs between conflicting objectives.


Related articles

Multifunctionality and Valuation in coastal zones: concepts, approaches, tools and case studies
Multifunctionality and Valuation in coastal zones: introduction
Multiple-criteria decision analysis


References

  1. ↑ Belton, V. and Stewart, T.J. 2002. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
  2. ↑ Dean, M. 2022. A Practical Guide to Multi-Criteria Analysis. Technical report Bartlett School of Planning, University College London
  3. ↑ Wątróbski, J., Jankowski, J., Ziemba, P., Karczmarczyk, A. and Zioło, M. 2019. Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection. Omega 86: 107–124


Further reading

  • Saaty, T.L. 1990. Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Vol. 1, AHP Series, RWS Publications, 502 pp.
  • von Winterfeldt, D. and Edwards, W. 1986. Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge University Press.


The main author of this article is Margaretha Breil
Please note that others may also have edited the contents of this article.
Citation: Margaretha Breil (2026): Multicriteria techniques. Available from http://www.coastalwiki.org/wiki/Multicriteria_techniques [accessed on 17-10-2026]
Retrieved from "https://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Multicriteria_techniques&oldid=82615"