Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Building Consensus in Environmental Impact Assessment Through Multicriteria Modeling and Sensitivity Analysis

  • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) increasingly is being applied in environmental impact assessment (EIA). In this article, two MCDA techniques, stochastic analytic hierarchy process and compromise programming, are combined to ascertain the environmental impacts of and to rank two alternative sites for Mexico City’s new airport. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the probability of changes in rank ordering given uncertainty in the hierarchy structure, decision criteria weights, and decision criteria performances. Results demonstrate that sensitivity analysis is fundamental for attaining consensus among members of interdisciplinary teams and for settling debates in controversial projects. It was concluded that sensitivity analysis is critical for achieving a transparent and technically defensible MCDA implementation in controversial EIA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Anderson R. M., Hobbs B. F., Koonce J. F., Locci A. B., 2001. Using decision analysis to choose phosphorus targets for Lake Erie Environmental Management 27:235–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbel A., 1989. Approximate articulation of preference and priority derivation European Journal Operational Research 43:317–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakus G., Stillwell W., Latter S. M., Wallerstein M. C., 1982. Decision making: with applications for environmental management Environmental Management 6:493–504

    Google Scholar 

  • Bana e Costa C. A., 2001. The use of multi-criteria decision analysis to support the search for less conflicting policy options in a multi-actor context: case study Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 10:111–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banuelas R., Antony J., 2004. Modified analytic hierarchy process to incorporate uncertainty and managerial aspects International Journal of Production Resources 42:3851–3872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beattie R. B., 1995. Everything you already know about EIA (but don’t often admit) Environmental Impact Assessment Review 15:109–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Beinat E., 2001. Multi-criteria analysis for environmental management Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 10: 51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettinger P., Boston K., 2001. A conceptual model for describing decision-making situations in integrated natural resource planning and modeling projects Environmental Management 28:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Bojórquez-Tapia L. A., 1989. Methodology for the prediction of ecological impacts under the real conditions in México Environmental Management 13:545–551

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowfoot J. E., Wondolleck J. M., (eds). 1990. Environmental disputes: community involvement in conflict resolution. Island Press, Washington, DC, 278 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn E. D., 2003. Decision making with uncertain judgments: a stochastic formulation of the analytic hierarchy process Decision Sciences 34:443–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollick M., 1980. Environmental impact assessment as a planning tool Journal of Environmental Management 12:79–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollick M., 1981. The role of quantitative decision-making methods in environmental impact assessment Journal of Environmental Management 12:65–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling C. S., (ed.). 1978. Adaptive environmental impart assessment and management. Wiley, New York, NY, 377 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull R. B., Richert D. R., Seekamp E., Robertson D., Buhyoff G. J., 2003. Understanding of environmental quality: ambiguities and values held by environmental professionals Environmental Management 3:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen R., 2001. On the use of multi-criteria analysis in environmental assessment in The Netherlands Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 10:101–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney R. L., Raiffa H., 1976. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Kontic B., 2000. Why are some experts more credible than others? Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20:427–434

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahdelma R., Salminen P., Hokkanen J., 2000. Using multicriteria methods in environmental planning and management Environmental Management 26:595–605

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahdelma R., Miettinen K., Salminen P., 2003. Ordinal criteria in stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA) European Journal of Operational Research 147:117–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavelle J. P., Wilson J. R., Gold H. J., Canada J. R., 1997. A method for the incorporation of parametric uncertainty in the weighted evaluation multi-attribute decision analysis model Computers and Industrial Engineering 32:769–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence D. P., 1993. Quantitative versus qualitative evaluation Environmental Impact Assessment Review 13:3–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence D. P., 2000. Planning theories and environmental impact assessment Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20:607–625

    Google Scholar 

  • Leknes E., 2001. The roles of EIA in the decision-making process Environmental Impact Assessment Review 21:309–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Lootsma F. A., 1999. Multi-criteria decision analysis via ratio and difference judgment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Munda, G. 2003. Multicriteria assessment. Internet Encyclopaedia of Ecological Economics. Available at: http://www.ecoeco.org/publica/encyc.htm. Accessed: May 21, 2003

  • Ortolano L., 1997. Environmental regulation and impact assessment. Wiley, New York, NY, 604 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulson D., Zahir S., 1995. Consequences of uncertainty in the analytic hierarchy process: a simulation approach European Journal of Operational Research 87:45–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pöyhönen M., Hämäläinen H., 1998. Notes on the weighting biases in value trees Journal of Behavorial Decision Making 11:139–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramanathan R., 2001. A note on the use of the analytical hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment Journal of Environmental Management 63:27–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rauschmayer F., 2001. Reflections on ethics and MCA in environmental decisions Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 10:65–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe M. D., Pierce B. L., 1982. Sensitivity of the weighting summation decision method to correct application Socio-Economic Planning Science 16:173–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty T. L., 1980. The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty T. L., Vargas L. G., 1987. Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process European Journal of Operational Research 32:107–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stam A., Duarte Silva A. P., 1997. Stochastic judgments in the AHP: the measurement of rank reversal probabilities Decision Sciences 28:655–688

    Google Scholar 

  • Stumpf S. A., Freeman R. D., 1979. Designing groups for judgmental decisions. Academy of Management. 589–600

    Google Scholar 

  • Szidarovszky F., Gershom M. E., Duckstein L., 1986. Techniques for multiobjective decision making in systems management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 506 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Tecle A., Shrestha B. P., Duckstein L., 1998. A multiobjective decision support system for multiresource forest management Group Decision and Negotiation 7:23–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tran L. T., Knight C. G., O’Neill R. V., Smith E. R., Ritters K. H., Wickman J., 2002. Fuzzy decision analysis for integrated environmental vulnerability assessment of the Mid-Atlantic region Environmental Management 29:845–859

    Google Scholar 

  • Triantaphyllou E., 2000. Multi-criteria decision making methods: a comparative study. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Honert R. C., 1998. Stochastic group preferente modelling in the multiplicative AHP: a model of group consensus European Journal of Operational Research 110: 99–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenstøp F., Seip K., 2001. Legitimacy and quality of multi-criteria environmental policy analysis: a metaanalysis of five MCE studies in Norway Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 10:53–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wondolleck J., 1985. The importance of process in resolving environmental disputes Environmental Impact Assessment Review 5:341–356

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny M., 1974. A concept of compromise solutions and the method of the displaced ideal Computers and Operations Research 1:479–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank G. Ceballos for his suggestions and comments, H. Eakin for her insights, and the observations of two anonymous reviewers. We also acknowledge I. Rosas, head of PUMA, for her contributions to the development of this case study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Natural ResourcesBiological Sciences East, RM. 207, University of Arizona , Tuscon, Arizona, 85721, USA

    Luis A. Bojórquez-Tapia

  2. Departmentó de Botanica, Escuela Nacional de Ciencias Biológicas, Instituto Politécnico NacionalCarpio y Plan de Ayala SFN, 11340, Mexico, DF

    Salvadur Sánchez-Colon & Arturo Florez

Authors
  1. Luis A. Bojórquez-Tapia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Salvadur Sánchez-Colon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arturo Florez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luis A. Bojórquez-Tapia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bojórquez-Tapia, L.A., Sánchez-Colon, S. & Florez, A. Building Consensus in Environmental Impact Assessment Through Multicriteria Modeling and Sensitivity Analysis. Environmental Management 36, 469–481 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0127-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0127-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation