Stakeholder ranking of watershed goals with the vector analytic hierarchy process: Effects of participant grouping scenarios

Arnette, Andrew N.; Zobel, Christopher W.; Bosch, Darrell J.; Pease, James W.; Metcalfe, Todd

doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2009.10.009

Cited by 28 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Homogeneity of groups was judged based on the similarity of preferences expressed in survey responses. Similarity of preferences was calculated by comparing the vector of preferences expressed by the individual with the unit vector of preferences for other individuals in the group being compared (Arnette et al, 2010;Zahir, 1999). The top five ranked goals reflected emphasis on protecting environmental quality (goals 1, 3, and 4), protecting existing economic activities in the watershed (goal 2), and obtaining nutrient reductions in a cost effective manner (goal 5).…”

Section: Elicitation and Ranking Of Watershed Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Participants' responses were aggregated into six homogeneous groups with each group given equal weight as this method gave the most coherent results (Arnette et al, 2010). Homogeneity of groups was judged based on the similarity of preferences expressed in survey responses.…”

Section: Elicitation and Ranking Of Watershed Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stakeholders were convened at a workshop in March 2008 to formulate and rank objectives for the North Fork (Arnette et al, 2010). The research team randomly assigned stakeholders into groups of three or four individuals to discuss and formulate objectives for the watershed.…”

Section: Elicitation and Ranking Of Watershed Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ten final objectives were then ranked using the Vector Analytic Hierarchy Process (VAHP) (Arnette et al, 2010;Zahir, 1999;Saaty, 1990). VAHP and the closely related AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) are formal ranking methods for obtaining stakeholders' priorities over multiple objectives.…”

Section: Elicitation and Ranking Of Watershed Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The VAHP ranking was done using written questionnaires to elicit users' pairwise comparison of goals (Arnette et al, 2010). Goal comparisons were presented in the same order to all respondents.…”

Section: Elicitation and Ranking Of Watershed Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Community DECISIONS: Stakeholder focused watershed planning

Bosch

Pease

Wolfe

et al. 2012

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Elicitation and Ranking Of Watershed Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Elicitation and Ranking Of Watershed Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Elicitation and Ranking Of Watershed Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Elicitation and Ranking Of Watershed Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Elicitation and Ranking Of Watershed Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Community DECISIONS: Stakeholder focused watershed planning

Bosch

Pease

Wolfe

et al. 2012

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Determining the relative importance of factors affecting the success of innovations in forest technology using AHP

Blagojević

Athanassiadis

Spinelli

et al. 2019

Multi Criteria Decision Anal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of factors affect the success, or otherwise, of any technological innovation. In this paper, we consider factors that affect the success of innovations in the context of forest machinery manufacturing (FMM). We report the results of a study that seeks to determine the relative importance of 19 different factors affecting the success of innovations in the FMM sector. The first stage of the study makes use of the analytic hierarchy process to determine the relative importance (weights) of these factors, based on the responses of 15 decision makers (DMs) employed by different FMM companies. The study then considers three different ways of weighting the responses of DMs, based on different assumptions about how the responses of outliers—those DMs whose views differ significantly from the majority—should be handled. The first method assumes that the responses of all DMs are of equal value. The second assumes that the influence of outliers' responses should be reduced and makes use of a Euclidean distance metric to determine the weight that should be ascribed to each DM's responses. The third assumes that the influence of outliers' responses should be increased and makes use of hierarchical clustering techniques. Although the weight assignment methods were based on very different assumptions about how to treat the views of outliers, they produced similar rankings of factors. Results showed that for FMM companies, customer satisfaction, proportion of total sales by new products, influence on the overall profit of the company, and growth of demand for the company products were the most important factors for measuring the success of innovations.

show abstract

Sustainable Cities and Military Installations

Linkov¹

2014

NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Stakeholder ranking of watershed goals with the vector analytic hierarchy process: Effects of participant grouping scenarios

Cited by 28 publications

References 25 publications

Community DECISIONS: Stakeholder focused watershed planning

Community DECISIONS: Stakeholder focused watershed planning

Determining the relative importance of factors affecting the success of innovations in forest technology using AHP

Sustainable Cities and Military Installations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About