MCDA; Regime Analysis and Flag Model

Overview of the presentation

Introduction Evaluation Regime Analysis and Flag Model Application of the methods Maastricht Aachen Airpot: a short description Definition of criteria and impacts Regime Analysis; obtaining of rank order of

alternatives Flag Model: acceptability of alternatives Conclusions

History of evaluation

The standard evaluation framework from an economic perspective is Cost-Benefit Analysis.

Unfortunately, many intrinsic shortcomings and practical limitations are related to CBA (accuracy of information , distributional equity, compensatory payments, discount rate, lifetime of the project).

Resulting in the development of alternative evaluation methods, such as multicriteria analysis.

Aim. Closer orientation towards actual decision-making processes (cyclical nature of process, interactivity, conflicts between stakeholders, inclusion of unpriced effects, equity concerns, etc.)

Evaluation process

1. Problem definition

2. Definition of alternatives

3. Definition of criteria and weights

4. Impact assessment

5. Analysis of scores and alternatives

6. Conclusions

Maastricht Aachen Airport

Maastricht Aachen Airport: 4 scenarios

Scenario 1: Business as Usual

A further decrease of aircargo handling at MAA.

Stabilisation of passengers traffic (350.000 p.y).

Scenario 2: MAA as a Passengers Airport

Construction of a new runway .

Outplacement of the Dutch National Aviation School.

Scenario 3: MAA as an “Euregio” Airport

Construction of a new large runway to accommodate larger aircrafts.

Open night regime (24 hours).

Scenario 4: Tradeable Permits

MAA is a buyer on the market of CO2 permits.

No expansion without acquisition of additional permits

Steps in the Flag Model

Identification of measurable quality of life indicators

Construction of impact matrix

Specification of benchmark values for quality of life

Evaluation by means of Flag Model

1

2

3

4

Impacts of the scenarios

Criterion A B C DEconomic Benefits for the Region (+) 4 8 9 6

Employment in Sector Transport and Logistics (+) 4 5 8 6Employment in Sector Finance and Business to Business (+) 5 9 7 6Employment in Sector Tourism and recreation (+) 6 5 1 3Development and Supply of Industrial Sites (+) 5 3 1 6Infrastructure (+) 5 8 9 6Business Traffic (+) 6 9 8 6

Eco

nom

ic

Supply of Skilled Jobs (+) 4 7 9 6Nuisance (+) 5 8 5 3Safety (+) 5 7 2 3Health (+) 5 6 5 3Recreational Traffic (+) 6 9 9 7Total Income (+) 4 6 7 6

Soci

al

Residential Areas (+) 5 5 2 5Natural Conservation Areas (+) 5 4 1 3Disturbance of Fauna’s Habitat (+) 5 8 1 3Air Quality (+) 4 6 1 4Water Quality (+) 4 5 2 4Soil Quality (+) 4 3 2 4

Env

iron

men

t

Biodiversity (+) 4 5 2 4

Criteria and benchmark valuesMain Criteria Sub-criteria Type Scale CTV

min

CTV CTVmax

Economic Economic Benefits for the Region Benefit Qualitative 3 5 7Employment in Sector Transport andLogistics

Benefit Qualitative 3 5 7

Employment in Sector Finance andBusiness to Business

Benefit Qualitative 3 5 7

Employment in Sector Tourism andrecreation

Benefit Qualitative 3 5 7

Development and Supply of IndustrialSites

Benefit Qualitative 3 5 7

Infrastructure Benefit Qualitative 3 5 7Business Traffic Benefit Qualitative 3 5 7Supply of Skilled Jobs Benefit Qualitative 3 5 7

Social Nuisance Benefit Qualitative 3 5 7Safety Benefit Qualitative 3 5 7Health Benefit Qualitative 3 5 7Recreational Traffic Benefit Qualitative 3 5 7Total Income Benefit Qualitative 3 5 7Residential Areas Benefit Qualitative 3 5 7

Environmental Natural Conservation Areas Benefit Qualitative 3 5 7Disturbance of Fauna’s Habitat Benefit Qualitative 3 5 7Air Quality Benefit Qualitative 3 5 7Water Quality Benefit Qualitative 3 5 7Soil Quality Benefit Qualitative 3 5 7Biodiversity Benefit Qualitative 3 5 7

Flag Model

BenchmarkCTV min CTV max

BA C D

Section A Green, No reason for specific concernSection B Yellow, Be alertSection C Red, Reverse trendsSection D Black, Bad development CTV = Critical Treshold Value

Frequencies of flag counts

0

1

2

3

4

5

Econ

omic

Soci

al

Envi

ronm

enta

l

MAA Passenger

Black

Red

Yellow

Green

0

1

2

3

4

5

Econ

omic

Soc

ial

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Business As Usual

Black

Red

Yellow

Green

Frequencies of flag counts

01

2345

6

Econ

omic

Soc

ial

Envi

ronm

enta

l

MAA Euregio

Black

Red

Yellow

Green

0

1

2

3

4

5

Econ

omic

Soc

ial

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Tradable Permits

Black

Red

Yellow

Green

Frequencies of flag counts

Table 5. Frequencies of flags.Business asUsual

MAAPassenger

MAAEuregio

TradablePermits

B R Y G B R Y G B R Y G B R Y G

Economic 0 3 5 0 0 1 2 5 2 0 0 6 0 3 5 0Social 0 1 5 0 0 0 3 3 2 0 2 2 0 1 5 0Environ-mental

0 4 2 0 0 2 3 1 6 0 0 0 0 4 2 0

Evaluation

1. Problem definition

2. Definition of alternatives

3. Definition of criteria and weights

4. Impact assessment

5. Analysis of scores and alternatives

6. Conclusions

Regime analysis

Regime analysis is a discrete multicriteria method. The basic idea is to rank a set of alternatives by means

of their pairwise comparisons in relation to a set of criteria.

Regime analysis makes use of an impact matrix and a set of weights.

The method can cope with qualitative, quantitative and mixed data.

Regime analysis 2

Concordance set; all criteria for which alternative A performs better than, or is equal to, alternative B.

Discordance set; all criteria for which alternative A performs worse than, or is equal to, alternative B.

Concordance index; summation of the weights that are related to the criteria in the concordance set (Cab).

Disconcordance index; summation of the weights that are related to the criteria in the concordance set (DCba).

Net concordance index = concordance index - disconcordance index

If sign of CI is positive. Alternative A is preferred above B.

Regime analysis; ranking alternatives

Table 4. Rank order of alternatives (weights of criteria are equal).Criteria Intermediate results Final

resultsEconomic A B C D

0 0.82 0.83 0.34

Social A B C D A B C D0.42 1 0.48 0.1 0.34 0.94 0.61 0.11

Environment A B C D0.69 0.97 0 0.33

Regime analysis; ranking alternatives

1. Passenger Airport

2. MAA serving the “Euregio”

3. Business as Usual

4. Tradeable Permits

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

Businessas Usual

MAAPassenger

MAAEuregio

TradeablePermits

Economic

Social

Environment

Final

Conclusions

Structuring the evaluation process ensures the compatibility between the assessment method(s) used and the problem.

The methods are capable of dealing with the multiple dimensions of projects (e.g. social, cultural, ecological, technological, institutional, etc.).

The methods give due attention to interest conflicts among stakeholders involved. (Different weight schemes in Regime).

The methods can take into account qualitative as well as quantitative effects of projects.

Flag model gives a clear visualization of the effects.

Flag model can play an important role in the interactive design of alternatives and criteria.