Biases in multicriteria decision analysis: The case of environmental planning in Southern Nevada

Abstract

Multicriteria decision analysis is a decision support aid touted for its ability to help participants overcome bias and make holistic assessments. However, few offer empirical tests of this thesis. This research examines the use of multicriteria decision analysis to implement the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act. The Act called upon federal, regional, and local agencies to develop a connected system of parks, trails, and natural areas throughout Nevada. The partners used multicriteria decision analysis to make decisions about which parks, trails, and natural areas projects to fund. We assess the extent of political and cognitive biases among the participants when using the multicriteria decision analysis process. We find no strong evidence of strategic behavior, a finding that highlights many of the celebratory claims made about multicriteria decision analysis. However, we also note a preference for projects adjacent to high-income areas as well as the presence of cognitive biases in the assignment of scores to projects.

Definition and measurement of the circular economy’s regional impact

“…We should note, however, that the landscape of regional governance in environmental settings is heterogeneous (Andrews and Boyne 2008;Gibbs and Jonas 2001;Romero, Jim enez, and Villoria 2012) and is linked to the spatial planning debate (Schaffrin, Sewerin, and Seubert 2014;Schafer and Gallemore 2016) on the availability and management of resources because of industry (Chen et al 2010;Danson and Lloyd 2012;Hughes and Pincetl 2014;Brinkley 2014). This dependence requires decentralised territorial solutions that are based on new strategies and integrated policies and that have been developed in cooperation with different economic sectors (Hovik et al 2015; van Straalen, Janssen-Jansen, and van den Brink 2014).…”

Digital co-construction of relational values: understanding the role of social media for sustainability

“…These collective processes of valuation, mostly aiming to assess CES distribution and distributional justice across society and space, can also respond to claims of recognition and procedural justice in that they embrace diverse stakeholders and their preferences in a participatory way (Schlosberg 2007). Nevertheless, participatory and deliberative approaches to CES valuation are highly sensitive to the proper representation and empowerment of different social groups and have limited spatial and temporal scope, which may result in imperfect simulations of the process through which values are negotiated within communities (Schafer and Gallemore 2015;Maraja et al 2016).…”

Improving occupational health and safety risk evaluation through decision analysis

“…Although in the decision conferences the participants were invited to think about risk impacts either as losses (e.g., the impact on the worker and organization) and as gains (e.g., the global attractiveness of avoiding a risk impact), the use of protocols in terms of gain may lead to biases. Accordingly, it is relevant to explore the extent to which distinct protocols may translate into biases, as well as to analyze which insights from the multicriteria literature in the area (including the recent articles from Montibeller and von Winterfeldt, ; Schafer and Gallemore, ) may be used to minimize potential biases. Fifth, given that in the construction of risk categories (determining different levels of acceptability toward OHS risk events) our DMs challenged the use of isocurves based on fixed levels of cumulative adjusted value—which are often used in decision analysis literature—there is space for exploring the cases in which the use of cumulative adjusted value is appropriate and whether deviations to its use are related with the definition of risk categories or are explained by other evaluation context and structure factors.…”