Multi Criteria Decision Analysis Case Studies in Engineering and The Environment 2Nd Edition Igor Linkov Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF

Multi-criteria decision analysis : case
studies in engineering and the

environment 2nd Edition Igor Linkov
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/multi-criteria-decision-analysis-case-studies-in-engine
ering-and-the-environment-2nd-edition-igor-linkov/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Multi criteria Decision Making Methods with Bipolar

Fuzzy Sets Muhammad Akram Shumaiza José Carlos
Rodríguez Alcantud
https://ebookmeta.com/product/multi-criteria-decision-making-
methods-with-bipolar-fuzzy-sets-muhammad-akram-shumaiza-jose-
carlos-rodriguez-alcantud/
Many Criteria Optimization and Decision Analysis State

of the Art Present Challenges and Future Perspectives
Dimo Brockhoff (Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/many-criteria-optimization-and-
decision-analysis-state-of-the-art-present-challenges-and-future-
perspectives-dimo-brockhoff-editor/
Modelling Turbulence in Engineering and the Environment

2nd Edition Kemal Hanjali■
https://ebookmeta.com/product/modelling-turbulence-in-
engineering-and-the-environment-2nd-edition-kemal-hanjalic/
Machine Learning for Decision Sciences with Case

Studies in Python 1st Edition S. Sumathi
https://ebookmeta.com/product/machine-learning-for-decision-
sciences-with-case-studies-in-python-1st-edition-s-sumathi/
Data Science and Multiple Criteria Decision Making
Approaches in Finance: Applications and Methods Gökhan
Silahtaro■lu
https://ebookmeta.com/product/data-science-and-multiple-criteria-
decision-making-approaches-in-finance-applications-and-methods-
gokhan-silahtaroglu/
Formal Analysis by Abstract Interpretation Case Studies

in Modern Protocols Benjamin Aziz
https://ebookmeta.com/product/formal-analysis-by-abstract-
interpretation-case-studies-in-modern-protocols-benjamin-aziz/
Case Studies in Infectious Disease 2nd Edition Peter

Lydyard
https://ebookmeta.com/product/case-studies-in-infectious-
disease-2nd-edition-peter-lydyard/
Philosophy on Fieldwork Case Studies in Anthropological

Analysis 1st Edition Nils Bubandt (Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/philosophy-on-fieldwork-case-
studies-in-anthropological-analysis-1st-edition-nils-bubandt-
editor/
Case Studies in Advanced Engineering Design Proceedings

of the 1st International Symposium 1st Edition C.
Spitas
https://ebookmeta.com/product/case-studies-in-advanced-
engineering-design-proceedings-of-the-1st-international-
symposium-1st-edition-c-spitas/
Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis
Environmental Assessment and
Management
Series Editor:
Dr. Glenn W. Suter II
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH, USA
PUBLISHED TITLES
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
Case Studies in Engineering and the Environment, Second Edition
Igor Linkov, Emily Moberg, Benjamin D. Trump, Boris Yatsalo, and
Jeffrey M. Keisler
Ecological Causal Assessment
Susan B. Norton, Susan M. Cormier, and Glenn W. Suter II
For more about this series, please visit https://www.crcpress.com/

E n v i r o n m e n t a l -A s s e s s m e n t - a n d - M a n a g e m e n t/ b o o k- s e r i e s/
CRCENVASSANDMAN
Analysis
Case Studies in Engineering and the
Environment
Second Edition
Igor Linkov, Emily Moberg,

Benjamin D. Trump, Boris Yatsalo, and
Jeffrey M. Keisler
Second edition published 2021
by CRC Press
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300, Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742
and by CRC Press
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
© 2021 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

First edition published by CRC Press 2011
CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher
cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors
and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publica-
tion and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any
copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future
reprint.
Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, trans-
mitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter
invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval
system, without written permission from the publishers.
For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, access www.copyright.com or
contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-
8400. For works that are not available on CCC please contact mpkbookspermissions@tandf.co.uk
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used
only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging‑in‑Publication Data

Names: Linkov, Igor, author.
Title: Multi-criteria decision analysis : environmental applications and
case studies / Igor Linkov, Emily Moberg, Benjamin Trump, Boris Yatsalo,
and Jeffrey M. Keisler.
Description: Second edition. | Boca Raton : CRC Press, 2020. |
Series: Environmental assessment and management | Includes bibliographical
references and index. | Summary: “Decision Analysis has become more
widely recognized as an important process for translating science into
management action. With climate change as a driving force in creating
environmental problems, there is a great need for understanding decision
making framework through a case-study based approach. This thoroughly
updated second edition provides seven additional new case studies
focused on sustainability. The breadth of the applications using MCDA
methodologies combined with corresponding decision models implemented
using DECERNS software package, this book is a great resource for
professionals and students in learning and applying similar frameworks
to other environmental projects”— Provided by publisher.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020016005 (print) | LCCN 2020016006 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780367345334 (hardback) | ISBN 9780429326448 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Environmental sciences—Decision making. | Multiple
criteria decision making.
Classification: LCC GE105 .L56 2020 (print) | LCC GE105 (ebook) |
DDC 363.7001/156—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020016005
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020016006
ISBN: 978-0-367-34533-4 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-429-32644-8 (ebk)
Typeset in Palatino
by codeMantra
Emily Moberg would like to dedicate this edition of the book to her
late grandparents Sally Moore—an out-of-the-box problem solver
and engineer—and Daryl Moberg—a consummate storyteller.
The support of her partner David and family were invaluable.
Igor Linkov would like to dedicate this edition to his late
advisors professors William R. Schell and Richard Wilson
for inspiring him to solve complex challenges.

Contents
Foreword ............................................................................................................. xvii

Preface ................................................................................................................... xxi
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................. xxv
Authors .............................................................................................................. xxvii
Part I Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis:

Methods and Applications
...................................................
Background....................................................................................................... 3
MCDA Methods ............................................................................................... 4
MAUT ................................................................................................................ 5
AHP ................................................................................................................... 6
Outranking ....................................................................................................... 8
Uncertainty in Models .................................................................................. 10
Using MCDA with This Book ...................................................................... 10
Concluding Remarks ..................................................................................... 12
References ....................................................................................................... 12
Literature Review and Paper Classification ............................................... 15

Growth of MCDA in Environmental Field................................................. 19
MCDA Awareness in Government Agencies ............................................ 20
Trends in MCDA Methodologies Usage ..................................................... 23
Trends in Application Areas ........................................................................ 25
MCDA Usage by Geographic Region.......................................................... 27
MCDA Usage by Government Agency ....................................................... 28
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 28
References ....................................................................................................... 29
Part II MCDA Methods in Depth:

Sediment Management
Background: Sediment Dredging ................................................................ 33

Sediment Dynamics.................................................................................. 33
vii
viii Contents
Dredging .........................................................................................................34
Impacts of Dredging...................................................................................... 36
Environmental and Ecological Effects ........................................................ 37
Socioeconomic Impacts ................................................................................. 38
Dangers of Contaminated Sediments ......................................................... 38
Alternatives Selection.................................................................................... 41
Criteria Selection ............................................................................................ 41
Criteria Identification ....................................................................................44
Formulation of Alternatives ......................................................................... 45
References ....................................................................................................... 46
4. Weighting and Scoring ................................................................................ 49

Weighting for New York Harbor ................................................................. 49
Direct Weighting ............................................................................................ 49
Rank-Based Weighting .................................................................................. 50
Pairwise Comparison (AHP)........................................................................ 52
Swing-Weighting............................................................................................ 53
Evaluation of Alternative Performance ......................................................54
Weighting for Cocheco Project..................................................................... 55
Rating............................................................................................................... 56
Pairwise Comparison (AHP)........................................................................ 56
Swing-Weighting............................................................................................ 57
Evaluation of Alternative Performance ...................................................... 58
Biases in Weighting and Scoring ................................................................. 59
References ....................................................................................................... 60
5. Model Application: MAUT......................................................................... 61

New York–New Jersey Harbor ..................................................................... 61
Information Synthesis ................................................................................... 62
Planning .......................................................................................................... 67
Questions for Further Thought.................................................................... 67
Cocheco River ................................................................................................. 68
Planning .......................................................................................................... 71
Questions to Consider ................................................................................... 74
References ....................................................................................................... 74
NY–NJ Harbor Case ...................................................................................... 75

Questions to Consider ...................................................................................80
Cocheco River Case ....................................................................................... 81
Questions to Consider ...................................................................................84
References .......................................................................................................84
New York–New Jersey Harbor .....................................................................85

Contents ix

Cocheco River ................................................................................................. 89
Reference ......................................................................................................... 94
Value of Information (VoI) ............................................................................ 95

Portfolio Decisions ....................................................................................... 102
Optimization ................................................................................................ 108
MCDA Example ........................................................................................... 108
Geographic Information Systems .............................................................. 110
References ..................................................................................................... 113
Part III MCDA Application in Depth: Nanomaterials
Background................................................................................................... 117
Importance ............................................................................................... 117
Uncertainty and Risk .................................................................................. 118
Moving Forward .......................................................................................... 120
References ..................................................................................................... 121
MCDA Methodology ................................................................................... 123

Problem Identification ............................................................................ 123
Goal ...................................................................................................... 123
Choosing the Appropriate Methodology ....................................... 123
Problem Structuring/Formulation of Criteria and Alternatives .......... 124
Criteria Selection ..................................................................................... 124
Alternatives Selection ............................................................................. 124
Model Assessment/Building: Weights and Scores ................................. 126
Weighting ................................................................................................. 127
Scores ........................................................................................................ 127
Model Application and Analysis ............................................................... 129
Planning ........................................................................................................ 129
Questions to Consider ................................................................................. 130
References ..................................................................................................... 130
Problem Identification ................................................................................. 133

Alternatives .............................................................................................. 133
Criteria ...................................................................................................... 134
x Contents

Weights ..................................................................................................... 135
Scores ........................................................................................................ 136
Planning and Extensions ............................................................................ 139
References ..................................................................................................... 140

Alternatives .............................................................................................. 142
Criteria ...................................................................................................... 142
Weights ..................................................................................................... 143
Scores ........................................................................................................ 144
Planning/Extensions................................................................................... 147
References ..................................................................................................... 149

Problem Structuring/Formulation of Criteria and Alternatives ..... 152
Formulation of Alternatives.............................................................. 152
Criteria Selection ................................................................................ 153
Model Assessment/Building: Weights and Scores ............................ 153
Criteria Weighting.............................................................................. 153
Scores ................................................................................................... 154
Model Application and Analysis .......................................................... 157
Planning/Extensions .............................................................................. 161
References ..................................................................................................... 161
MCDA and Uncertainty .............................................................................. 163

VoI Methodology and Application Example ........................................... 164
References ..................................................................................................... 167

Goal ................................................................................................................ 170
Contents xi
Choosing the Appropriate Model ............................................................. 171

Model Application ....................................................................................... 173
Model Analysis ............................................................................................ 177
References ..................................................................................................... 182
Part IV MCDA Application Case Studies
16. Setting Dredging Windows for Sensitive Fish Species...................... 187

Background................................................................................................... 187
Importance ............................................................................................... 187
Uncertainty/Risk ..................................................................................... 188
Moving Forward ..................................................................................... 189
Alternative Selection .......................................................................... 192
Weights ................................................................................................ 193
Scores ................................................................................................... 194
References ..................................................................................................... 198
17. Management of Harmful Algal Blooms ................................................ 201

Background................................................................................................... 201
Importance ............................................................................................... 201
Uncertainty and Risk.............................................................................. 203
Moving Forward ..................................................................................... 205
MCDA ............................................................................................................ 205
Alternatives ......................................................................................... 205
Criteria ................................................................................................. 206
Alternative Scoring ................................................................................. 208
References ..................................................................................................... 212
xii Contents
Contents xiii
Source Data ......................................................................................... 249

Alternatives ......................................................................................... 249
Criteria ................................................................................................. 250
Models.................................................................................................. 251
Implementation of SDSS and Models for Criteria Assessments ...... 252
Results of Implementing Each Alternative Utilized ..................... 252
Weight Coefficients ............................................................................254
Scores ...................................................................................................254
Uncertainty Analysis .............................................................................. 257
The Analyst Suggested the Following Approach to
Implementation of ProMAA ............................................................. 257
Conclusion and Decision-Making ........................................................ 260
References ..................................................................................................... 262
21. Cruise Ship Tourism, Venice, and MCDA ............................................ 265

Background................................................................................................... 265
Importance ............................................................................................... 265
Moving Forward ..................................................................................... 268
Goal ...................................................................................................... 268
Choosing the Appropriate Model .................................................... 269
Weights ................................................................................................ 275
Scores ................................................................................................... 276
Questions to Consider .................................................................................284
References ..................................................................................................... 286
22. Sustainable Roofing Technology............................................................. 291

Background................................................................................................... 291
Importance ............................................................................................... 291
Moving Forward ..................................................................................... 294
Goal ........................................................................................................... 294
Choosing the Appropriate Model ......................................................... 294
xiv Contents

Weights ................................................................................................ 296
Scores ................................................................................................... 297
Planning/Extensions ..............................................................................300
References ..................................................................................................... 303
23. Housing Development Site Selection ..................................................... 307

Background................................................................................................... 307
Importance ............................................................................................... 307
Uncertainty and Risk..............................................................................308
Moving Forward ..................................................................................... 309
Goal ........................................................................................................... 310
Choosing the Appropriate Model ......................................................... 310
Criteria Selection ..................................................................................... 312
Alternative Selection............................................................................... 317
Weights ..................................................................................................... 320
Scores ........................................................................................................ 321
References ..................................................................................................... 325
24. Power Supply Alternatives and MCDA ................................................. 327

Background................................................................................................... 327
Importance ............................................................................................... 327
Moving Forward ..................................................................................... 328
Goal ...................................................................................................... 329
Model Assessment/Building: Weights and Scores ............................334
Weights ................................................................................................334
Scores ................................................................................................... 335
Contents xv

Planning/Extensions ..............................................................................342
Questions to Consider .................................................................................344
References .....................................................................................................345
25. Decision Analysis of Material Selection for Automotive

Industry Sustainability ............................................................................. 349
Background................................................................................................... 349
Importance ............................................................................................... 349
Moving Forward ..................................................................................... 351
Goal ...................................................................................................... 351
Weights ................................................................................................ 355
Scores ................................................................................................... 356
References ..................................................................................................... 362
Appendix ............................................................................................................. 365

Index ..................................................................................................................... 377
Foreword
During nearly eight years at the US Department of the Interior, first as an

Assistant Secretary and later as the Deputy Secretary and Chief Operating
Officer, I worked with 70,000 employees whose responsibilities spanned
the entire United States and its affiliated island territories. The Department
manages more than 500 million acres or nearly 20% of the United States.
Its multi-faceted mission of conservation, resource management, recreation,
and Indian affairs lies at the intersection of people, land, water, and wildlife.
That intersection often presents extraordinary complexities and uncertain-
ties. People hold deep passions about these public lands. As they seek to
influence resource management decisions, the values and priorities of these
people vary. Policy and management decisions are, therefore, extremely
challenging and sometimes spark confusion, controversy, and conflict.
Within this context, political choices and administrative judgments will
necessarily shape the policy landscape and management actions. But good
decision-making cannot occur without significant scientific and technical
information. Nor can good decision-making emerge without decision frame-
works that help the policy maker or manager better understand the impli-
cations of different choices and better assess stakeholder preferences and
priorities. Tools of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) can help policy
makers and managers link science, values, and decision options in ways that
are transparent and rigorous. While my own experiences played out in the
context of public land management, these same tools are relevant for policy
making in public health, energy, infrastructure development, transporta-
tion, emergency management, technology investing—indeed, most fields of
public policy and management.
Consider just a few of the issues the Department of the Interior must
routinely address. The Department engages in large landscape conserva-
tion and restoration of places like the Everglades in Florida. It partners with
other agencies and private sector participants to improve water quality, pro-
tect species, ensure reliable water supplies, mitigate invasive species, and
provide flood protection in California’s Bay Delta. It joins with dozens of
other federal, state, and local agencies; industries; and private landowners
to restore the Chesapeake Bay where urban communities, farmers, the fish-
ing community, and outdoor recreation enthusiasts all live, work, and play.
It manages water flows of the mighty Colorado River, which supplies water
to seven states for multiple purposes and provides hydropower as well as
significant recreational opportunities. All these places support tremendous
biodiversity—and those flora and fauna face threats.
xvii
xviii Foreword
Policy and management decisions associated with these ecosystems and

the human communities reliant upon them require understanding current
and likely changes underway, whether from climate change, demographic
shifts, and altering land uses. Good decision-making requires understand-
ing cause–effect relationships: for example, how will different water flows
affect plant and animal life in the Everglades and how will they alter flooding
patterns? Good decision-making requires sifting through the nearly infinite
suite of preferences, wants, and needs people identify to better understand
which of them really count as priorities: for example, after a major oil spill, in
general, people want all resources to be protected—but which ones do they
perceive as critically important deserving the most immediate attention?
Good decision-making requires having some capacity to evaluate results and
adjust actions to improve those results, if necessary: for example, if actions
to reduce salinity in groundwater in the Bay Delta prove inadequate, how
might one shift to alternative management practices?
I draw these examples from my experiences at the US Department of
the Interior. But the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission—indeed, the full complement of federal, state, and local
agencies—all, to varying degrees, operate in contexts with biophysical com-
plexities and many stakeholders with varying priorities and values. They
operate in contexts of uncertainties and endless change. Behind many (most)
agency decisions lie fundamental choices about which values and which
priorities will receive attention and resources. While scientific, technical,
and analytical information can inform decision makers as they make these
choices, such choices are essentially normative ones. But the rigor of MCDA
can help decision makers more clearly frame the “problem set”; identify
stakeholder values; undertake a more disciplined and transparent analysis
of options and their likely outcomes; and make course corrections, if needed.
Policy makers and agency managers must make endless decisions—some
dramatic in scope and some narrowly bounded in scale. Often, the time
available to make decisions is time-limited, sometimes by strict legally deter-
mined timelines. On the other hand, other decisions are made over long
periods of time, sometimes unfolding in phases aligned with annual budget
cycles. Whatever the context, there is often room for some sort of structured
decision-making. MCDA can be complex, involving information gathering,
collaborative stakeholder dialogs, and sophisticated analysis of quantitative
and other information. But MCDA can also be streamlined to circumstance,
available resources, and time constraints. In other words, there is no one-
size-fits-all methodology. What is important is the deliberate, structured,
and transparent framework.
This book describes methods and applications of MCDA. But it goes beyond
models and theory to provide case studies and discussions of MCDA applied
in specific—and varying—circumstances. This book provides tools. It also
Foreword xix
inspires creative thought by offering examples that can be a springboard for

policy makers and other decision makers to think about its relevance and
utility in the many circumstances they face.
Lynn Scarlett,
Chief External Affairs Officer, The Nature Conservancy, and
former Deputy Secretary, US Department of the Interior
Preface
As humanity continues into the 21st century, we are faced with an increas-
ingly complex set of environmental stressors and a burgeoning population
affected by these factors. Fortunately, we are in the process of developing more
technical and innovative ways of combating these problems. Environmental
issues have become complex to the point of engendering specialties within
the field, with many projects requiring experts from different fields within
the general category of environmental science. Beyond this, many envi-
ronmental projects and problems span much broader disciplines, bringing
together experts in finances, urban space allocation, and other interdisciplin-
ary efforts. With myriad decision alternatives and criteria which span many
disciplines, decision-making is a complex process. Structured approaches
for decision-making have been proposed, rigorously examined, and utilized,
yet despite the inherent applicability of such methodology, such approaches
are rarely seen within environmental management. Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis (MCDA) is one such method that can not only aggregate the varie-
gated views of conflicting stakeholders but also weigh criteria with different
units, scales, and meanings against each other effectively.
The impetus to explore this topic with an educational book of case studies
came about as we saw opportunities to implement MCDA methodologies
in order to solve problems within the environmental realm passed up time
and again. Upon receiving feedback that a lack of knowledge and experience
in navigating the many options within MCDA could be a major roadblock,
we sought to aggregate much of the literature and work that had been done
in environmental remediation and planning with MCDA into a common
place. Since the goal was inherently to teach an applied science, we chose
a case study-based approach which focuses on common or general types
of environmental issues so that students are exposed to problems they will
likely face and current practitioners will be exposed to problems they can
find immediately applicable.
As such, we have structured this book in four parts. The first is a general
introduction to MCDA methods and application and subsequently delves fur-
ther into its specific applicability to environmental science. By the end of this
section, the reader is given an overview of the types of MCDA available and
has a conceptual framework of how it is applied. The second part of the book
takes a more in-depth look at one well-analyzed case—that of sediment man-
agement. Chapters in this section explore different steps of MCDA processes
(such as Problem Formulation, MCDA Model Development, Criteria weight-
ing, and Alternative Scoring). This problem is then explored using various
MCDA methods, including Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), outrank-
ing, and multi-attribute utility theory. The reader can thus see clearly how
xxi
xxii Preface
the methodologies differ and gain a better understanding of the mechanistic

operation of the analysis, while maintaining an application-based frame-
work. In Part III, we illustrate the application of MCDA to a series of case
studies in the field of nanotechnology. The emerging nature of nanotech-
nology, as well as high levels of material variability and uncertainty in our
knowledge of environmental risks associated with nanomaterials, requires
integration of technical information and expert judgment, an area where
MCDA clearly shines in comparison to other analytical techniques. The case
studies discussed in this part range from simple integration of environmen-
tal, economic, and social factors to a case study which prioritizes nanoma-
terials and subsequently classifies them into different risk groups. In Part
IV, we cover a series of four case studies illustrating MCDA application in
various realms, ranging from oyster restoration to oil spill response. Thus,
we hope to demonstrate the broad applicability of such analyses and show
which methodology is most applicable for each type of case.
This book not only illustrates the application of additional MCDA methods
through a series of case studies but also provides corresponding decision
models implemented using DECERNS software package (www.decerns.
com). DECERNS is a unique decision support platform that allows for the
examination of the same case using multiple MCDA tools, including Multi-
Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT), outranking, and AHP. It also allows for
uncertainty analysis through fuzzy numbers and probability distributions
associated with model weights and scores. By the end of this book, readers
should have not only a strong theoretical understanding of these method-
ologies and clear examples of how such methodologies are applied but also
hands-on experience in developing models and applying different decision
techniques. Thus, this book can be an ideal supplement to a textbook in deci-
sion analysis, especially for the student audiences interested in environmen-
tal science and sustainable development.
Our first edition has been used in classrooms around the world and has
been cited in many academic articles; in the intervening decade since we
started writing the first edition, many more applications of these techniques
and novel extensions have been proposed and utilized. We wanted to share
these advances with readers as well. For the new edition, we have added an
additional chapter on advanced methods as well as many new case stud-
ies that capture more potential uses. Readers will be exposed to life cycle
assessments and geographical information systems combined with MCDA
methods. We believe these new chapters show the full range of potential for
MCDA techniques.
We hope that this book will appeal not only to students but also to pro-
fessionals and academics interested in environmental management and
sciences. As we progress into the future, structured methodologies such as
MCDA will become increasingly important as we take on larger, more com-
plicated environmental issues that are centered publicly on an international
scale. Students and environmental professionals mastering these methods
Preface xxiii
will prepare themselves for a future which will undoubtedly demand such
rigorous decision-making processes, while professionals and academics can
take the lead in transforming environmental management by using these
rigorous methodologies to confront the complex, multidisciplinary problems
that characterize their fields. We hope that this book proves useful both in
the classroom and in the field, as we are sure it will!
Igor Linkov, Emily Moberg, Benjamin D. Trump,

Boris Yatsalo, and Jeffrey M. Keisler
Acknowledgments
No scientific work succeeds in a vacuum. We are grateful for the dozens

of colleagues and friends who have helped advance our understanding of
the decision sciences and have furthered our reach in this field. This book
draws heavily from many research projects funded by the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), US Department of Energy, NOAA, and other agencies.
Dr. Todd Bridges of USACE was not only an inspirational lead in many of
these projects but also the first to introduce these ideas into USACE practice.
Many scientists and engineers contributed to these projects. This book would
not be possible without their help. We are especially grateful to Drs. G. Kiker,
T. Seager, J. Lambert, J. Figueira, B. Suedel, A. Marcomini, Z. Collier, and
J. Palma-Oliveira as well as M. Kurth, M. Bates, and J. Cegan.
DECERNS software is a crucial educational tool that made this book
possible. It would not have happened without excellent support from the
DECERNS team led by Drs. Sullivan and Yatsalo and Mr. Didenko.
Ca Foscari University, Venice kindly allowed Dr. Linkov to use the first
edition of this book to teach an MCDA courses in 2013–2016. As a result,
several papers were developed by students and are included in this book as
case studies. This teaching experience allowed us to improve this edition of
this book. Our special gratitude to Professor Antonio Marcomini who made
this happen.
Several individuals made considerable efforts to assist in the production of
this work. We are thankful for the editorial assistance of Miriam Pollock and
George Siharulidze, who reviewed each chapter with a careful eye. We are
additionally grateful for George Siharulidze’s illustrative talents with sev-
eral book figures, as well as its cover.
A special thanks is due to Kaitlin Volk, who serves as this book’s Internal
Production Editor. Kaitlin’s assistance in quality control for all chapters was
a considerable duty, and we are thankful for her attention to detail.
Additional gratitude is due to the US Army Engineer Research and
Development Center (Beth Fleming, Ilker Adiguzel, and Elizabeth Ferguson),
which has supported several of the authors in their methodological and
applied research in this field. Finally, we would like to thank our families for
allowing us to sacrifice days and weeks to make this book possible.
xxv
Authors
Dr. Igor Linkov is the Risk and Decision Science Focus Area Lead with the
US Army Engineer Research and Development Center and Adjunct Professor
with Carnegie Mellon University. Dr. Linkov has managed multiple risk and
resilience assessments and management projects utilizing MCDA in many
application domains, including critical infrastructure, environment, trans-
portation, energy, homeland security and defense, advanced materials and
biotechnology, supply chain, and cybersecurity. He has published widely on
environmental policy, environmental modeling, and risk analysis, includ-
ing 25 books and more than 400 peer-reviewed papers and book chapters
in top journals. He is Elected Fellow with the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) and Society for Risk Analysis.
Emily Moberg, PhD, is a theoretical ecologist with degrees in environmen-

tal engineering and biological oceanography from MIT and Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution. She earned her PhD from MIT. She has worked
on systems ranging from phytoplankton to fisheries and agriculture. She
specializes in using optimization methods to better understand linkages
between human behavior and natural resources.
Benjamin D. Trump, PhD, is a Governance Scholar with specific interests

in emerging technologies and complex systems. His work is global and
comparative, including an ORISE Fellowship for the US Army Corps of
Engineers in the United States, a Postdoctoral Research Fellowship at the
University of Lisbon (Portugal), and a Research Internship for the Institute
of Occupational Medicine (Singapore). In 2016, Dr. Trump earned his PhD
from the University of Michigan in Health Services Organization and Policy.
Boris Yatsalo, PhD, is Professor and Head of the Information Systems

Department at the Institute of Intelligent Cybernetic Systems of the IATE
National Research Nuclear University MEPHI, Obninsk-Moscow. He earned
his PhD from Moscow State University. He has been managing several inter-
national projects on developing models and computer systems for optimiza-
tion of protective measures on radioactively contaminated lands. His thesis
in 2004 was devoted to the creation and application of GIS-based Decision
Support Systems within remediation of contaminated territories. He has
published more than 90 papers in Russian and international journals, book
chapters, and conferences. His interests include Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis (MCDA), specifically Fuzzy MCDA and Fuzzy Intelligent Systems.
xxvii
xxviii Authors
Jeffrey M. Keisler, PhD, is Professor of Management Science and

Information Systems at the University of Massachusetts Boston. He is an
expert in Decision Sciences, in which he earned a PhD at Harvard, and has
30 years of experience in industry, government, consulting, and academic
settings. He has published nearly 70 journal articles and two books on
methodological and applied topics. He served as President of the INFORMS
Decision Analysis Society and President of the Specialty Group on Decision
Analysis and Risk within the Society for Risk Analysis. Dr. Keisler was
awarded the Decision Analysis Society’s Publication Award for his co-edited
book Portfolio Decision Analysis and was named a Fulbright Distinguished
Chair.
Part I
Analysis: Methods
and Applications
1
Introduction to Multi-Criteria Methods
Background
Think about the most recent time you encountered an “environmental issue”
in the news. In the first edition of this book, we highlighted natural gas drill-
ing controversies, the aftermath of the Tohoku tsunami in Japan, and the
battle over the US Environmental Protection Agency’s potential regulation of
carbon emissions as examples of the issues you might have seen. In the inter-
vening years, the environmental issues have not stopped; climate change
(in)action, pesticide regulation, air quality issues from burning crops, algal
blooms, and taxes on plastic bag or straw usage have all been major news
stories across the world. These stories are often longer than a single article;
coverage of events can last months. The articles will quote politicians, scien-
tists, health care professionals, business leaders, and affected citizens.
The multiple voices and viewpoints showcased in these articles highlight
one of the hallmarks of environmental decisions—they often involve com-
plex science, many stakeholders, and potential solutions which need to be
judged against many different criteria in order to be fully compared.
Unfortunately, our basic human tendency is to simplify such complicated
decisions and situations until they are more manageable, which results in the
loss of information about the problem, loss of information about other view-
points, and loss of information about uncertainty; in essence, we struggle to
incorporate all the available information to make a fully informed choice.
The result can be controversies and issues that rage on for months and years
without satisfactory resolution.
Unaided, we are quite bad at making complex decisions (McDaniels et al.
1999), and environmental decisions often fall into this complex category. In
environmental problems, the expected inputs include modeling or moni-
toring data, risk analysis, cost or cost–benefit analysis, and stakeholders’
preferences; integrating this information is a major challenge (Linkov and
Ramadan 2004). This integration process can be opaque and seen as unfair,
especially when stakeholder preferences are not dealt with in a manner that
is perceived as objective.
3
4 Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
MCDA Methods
One type of method that has been used increasingly in many fields, includ-
ing environmental decision-making, is Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
(MCDA). The method allows for preferences and performance about dif-
ferent management alternatives to be assessed in a clear, formal way that
is both mathematically rigorous and transparent to stakeholders. The basic
outline for an MCDA which will be followed in this book is:
1. Problem Identification: The problem is defined in terms of rel-

evant stakeholders and overall structure but is not yet described
quantitatively.
2. Problem Structuring: The problem is fleshed out by defining alterna-
tives and criteria. Alternatives—the potential management options—are
defined. The alternatives are what a decision maker is deciding among.
Criteria—the set of properties (such as cost or environmental impact)
that describe alternative performance—are also established. The crite-
ria are essentially what the decision maker values; performance against
these criteria is what is used to decide among alternatives.
3. Model Assessment/Building: The alternatives and criteria are given
numeric values. The alternatives are scored against the criteria (e.g.
Plan A may cost $2,000, so its score for cost may be “$2,000” or “high”
depending on our setup). Decision makers (or stakeholders) also weight
criteria according to the value or importance they put on that criterion.
This gives us the information how well does each alternative perform on
each criterion and how much do we care about performance on each criterion.
4. Model Application: The inputs—the criteria weights and alterna-
tive scoring—are combined in an MCDA model and output which
alternative is best according to the data given. Each model works in
a slightly different way (as will be explained later in this chapter) but
essentially combines the preference and scoring information for each
alternative. The output can range from an ordered list of alternatives
to a set of probabilities that an alternative will be well accepted or not.
5. Planning and Extension: Once the model has been run, the output
can be used to make decisions or inform further planning.
As we alluded to in the Model Application step, there are many types of

MCDA models. This book will explore three basic categories of models: Multi-
Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT), Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), and
outranking. Understanding the mechanics of how each method combines
the preferences and scoring is very important before applying them; Belton
and Stewart (2002) is an excellent resource for theoretical and comparative
discussions of the models. A briefer description of the models is given below.
Introduction to Multi-Criteria Methods 5
MAUT
Multi-Attribute Utility Theory or Multi-Attribute Value Theory (MAUT
and MAVT respectively; they are often used interchangeably) resolves the
disparate units (cost, environmental impact, etc.) of our criteria into a util-
ity or value so comparison among alternatives’ scores can occur. We also
elicit information about how important each criterion is relative to the
others. With these two pieces of information, we can now combine the
preferences (weights of criteria) with the scores (which have been trans-
formed into a single type of unit, the value or utility) to make a coherent
decision.
Methodologically, the critical step is eliciting or defining the value func-
tions. From the decision maker, we elicit a “utility (or value) function” for
each criterion; this describes how much utility she derives from different
values of the criterion. A simple linear value function could have 0 util-
ity at the lowest potential value and 1 at the highest potential value; other
potential shapes could include exponential, logistic, and step functions.
The shape of the function is important. If I am running in hot weather
and need a drink, the utility of water may be very high; once I have a few
glasses, I may derive no additional utility from more water (this describes a
saturating function). Figure 1.1 shows a few possible shapes for these value
functions.
In Chapter 5, we explore in more detail how we can elicit these value
functions.
Once we have a value function for each criterion, we can transform the
performance of the alternatives (which are measured typically in the units
of the criteria) into this value/utility unit and choose the alternative with the
greatest overall value. Because we have already done the hard work of get-
ting our units to match, choosing the best alternative is a matter of choosing
that with the highest overall value much in the way we would add the cost of
individual items into a total cost.
More formally, if Vi ( ai ) is the performance of alternative a on criterion i,
n
the overall value for alternative a is V ( a ) = ∑ wi Vi ( ai ), where wi is the weight
i=1
assigned to a criterion i. The weights thus do as their name suggest and
weigh how much the performance on a criterion counts towards the total
by how much we value it relative to other criteria. The best alternative
(of alternatives a, b, c … etc.) is then whichever total value (e.g. V (b)) is
largest.
Utility functions are very powerful, but they also assume a rational deci-
sion maker who prefers more value to less and who is willing to make the
trade-offs implied via their value functions (Linkov et al. 2004). As we will
explore in later chapters, this is not always the best assumption!
FIGURE 1.1
Potential value function shapes. Top left: a linear function. This implies that an increase in
the value of the criterion of size x always produces the same increase in utility, no matter the
starting value of the criterion. Note that different low/high values can change the steepness
of the line. Top right: saturating utility function. Unlike in the linear case, we get much larger
gains in utility from initial changes and much less as we approach the highest potential values.
Bottom left: an exponential curve. Here, we do not get much utility until the criterion is almost
to its maximum value, at which point it changes rapidly. Bottom right: a step-wise function.
In this case, the criterion values are binned—we only get more utility once we cross into the
next bin.
AHP
The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a method developed by Thomas
Saaty in the 1980s. AHP is immediately distinctive because instead of
using direct weights or value functions, it uses pairwise comparisons;
each criterion is compared directly to another criterion and the decision

maker makes a relative judgment between them (i.e. Criterion A is much
more important than Criterion B). This gives us the AHP equivalent of
weights. The same philosophy applies to scoring alternatives—Plan A is
slightly better than Plan B with respect to cost. (Note: the verbal distinction
“much more,” “slightly” etc., are converted to numerical scores 1–9 which
have set meanings within AHP. Chapter 7 details how to use this scale).
We store this comparison data in a matrix, where each cell represents the
comparison of the alternative in the column to that in the row. This type
of pairwise comparison is done for all criteria. In sum, AHP systematically
compares criteria and alternatives. We, or our software, then use linear
algebra to tease a decision out of the many matrices these comparisons
create (we look for the principle eigenvector of a matrix which contains the
pairwise comparisons (Saaty 1980)).
The assumption that our decision maker is rational is more relaxed in
AHP than it was in MAUT (Linkov et al. 2004). One example of how this
can occur is if the comparisons are not consistent (e.g. A is twice as impor-
tant as B, B is equally important as C, and C is twice as important as A).
The AHP method accepts consistency indexes (which capture how often/
how much such inconsistency occurs) below 0.1 as permissible (Saaty 1980)
(Figure 1.2).
FIGURE 1.2
Analytic hierarchy process data schematic. The left-hand figure shows how the “weighting”
occurs—the importance of criteria relative to each other is assessed. The right-hand side of the
figure shows how for each criterion, the alternatives are assessed against each other for per-
formance on that criterion. The bolded cells in the bottom left show how Alternative 2 might
perform better than Alternative 1 on one criterion but worse than it on another.
Outranking
Outranking attempts to order the alternatives by finding the ones which out-
perform or dominate. The idea is that within the algorithm, pairwise com-
parison occurs, but this is the basis for how ordering occurs, rather than
how data are entered (as in AHP). The following explanation of how one of
the most prominent outranking method, Preference Ranking Organization
Method for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE), works has been adapted
from Yatsalo et al. (2007) and Brans and Vincke (1985):
First, we should introduce the ideas of preference and indifference.
Alternative a would be preferable to Alternative b if z(a) > z(b), where z is the
criterion by which they are being compared. Indifference is when z(a) = z(b);
that is, the performance of these alternatives is equal to the decision maker
(Brans and Vincke 1985).
Each criterion, i, has a weight (wi) for that criterion; the sum of the weights
over all criteria is equal to one.
We then calculate a preference for the alternatives a’s and b’s performance
against this criterion. This preference is expressed
f i zi ( a ) − zi ( b ) if zi ( a ) ≥ zi ( b )
Pi ( a, b ) =
0 otherwise
Here, fi is a preference function that ranges between 0 and 1; we will talk

more about what these preference functions are shortly. zi ( a ) expresses alter-
native a evaluated against criterion i. In other words, the preference gives us
a numeric representation of how much one cares about the degree to which
alternative a outperformed b (or vice versa) on a given criterion (such as cost).
If the performance of a is less than that of b, then we assign a preference of 0.
The preference index, P, is simply the sum of the overall criteria.
P ( a, b ) = ∑ w P ( a, b )
i i
where wi is the weight that characterized the relative importance of criterion

i, as aforementioned.
The preference function fi that linked performances against criterion i can
have multiple forms. Brans and Vincke (1985) listed six types, displayed in
Table 1.1.
Where the thresholds for indifference and for preference are set (i.e. prefer-
ence may need to be a certain increment larger, not simply larger) is often via
expert judgment.
At this point, the underlying logic of the PROMETHEE method becomes
clear. The core idea of outranking is that a is preferred to b for a given criterion
TABLE 1.1
Preference Function Types
Name Functional Form: f i = Description
Usual 1 if zi ( a ) ≥ zi ( b ) The decision maker strictly prefers a if
its performance exceeds that of b at all
0 otherwise
Quasi 1 if zi ( a ) ≥ zi ( b ) + l The decision maker strictly prefers a if
its performance exceeds that of b by a
0 otherwise margin l; otherwise she is indifferent
Linear 1 if zi ( a ) ≥ zi ( b ) + l The decision maker strictly prefers a if
preference its performance exceeds that of b by a
zi ( a ) − zi ( b ) margin l; otherwise their preference
otherwise
l grows larger as the difference in
performance grows
Level 1 if zi ( a ) ≥ zi ( b ) + l + m The decision maker strictly prefers a if
its performance exceeds that of b by a
0 if zi ( a ) + l ≤ zi ( b ) margin l + m. The decision maker
is indifferent until a exceed b by
1/2 otherwise margin l. In that middle space, there
is weak preference
Linear with The decision maker strictly prefers a if
indifference 1 if zi ( a ) ≥ zi ( b ) + l + m its performance exceeds that of b by a
margin l + m. The decision maker is
0 if zi ( a ) + l ≥ zi ( b ) indifferent until a exceeds b by margin
l. In that middle space, there is a
z i ( a ) − zi ( b ) − l linearly increasing preference
otherwise
m
Gaussian ( zi ( a)− zi (b ))2 The decision maker begins to prefer a
−
1− e 2σ 2 if zi ( a ) ≥ zi ( b ) as soon as its performance exceeds
b’s, but the preference grows
0 otherwise according to a Gaussian (an S curve)
only if it outperforms b on that criterion. For many criteria, these outrank-

ings can be combined using weights, indicating how important the criteria
are relative to each other.
We then use these components to calculate outranking flows. The posi-
tive and negative flows for a are, respectively: Q + ( a ) = ∑ b P ( a, b ) and
Q − ( a ) = Σ b P ( b , a ). Note that for the positive flow, we are adding up the pref-
erence for a to b and for the negative flow for b to a. Note that when we
have more than two options, the Σ b P ( b , a ) tells us to sum over all non-a
alternatives.
PROMETHEE then applies the following rules:
a outranks b if Q + ( a ) ≥ Q + ( b ) and Q − ( a ) ≤ Q − ( b );
a is indifferent to b if Q + ( a ) = Q + ( b ) and Q − ( a ) = Q − ( b );
a and b are incomparable if Q + ( a ) > Q + ( b ) and Q − ( b ) < Q − ( a ) OR

Q + ( b ) > Q + ( a ) and Q − ( a ) < Q − ( b ).
Together, all these rules allow us to compare the performance of two alterna-
tives first within a criterion (the preference function), then across criteria (the
preference index), then across alternatives (the positive and negative flows,
then the rules to compare them).
Outranking does not optimize, but rather makes comparisons, making it a
flexible, useful model (Linkov et al. 2004). Its usage will be further explored
in Chapter 6.
Uncertainty in Models
These models use discrete values as weights or scores, but it is easy to imag-
ine cases where these values are not strictly known. One way to deal with
this uncertainty is to use Stochastic Multi-Criteria Analyses, which explore
the weight space and find out how the system behaves under different sets of
weights (Lahdelma and Salminen 2001). These methods either use complex
math to evaluate multidimensional integrals or use numerical methods like
Monte Carlo simulations (which essentially try out combinations of different
possible values and see how the overall distribution of outcomes behaves)
(Tervonen and Lahdelma 2007).
This book uses a method for probabilistic multi-criteria acceptability anal-
ysis ProMAA (Yatsalo et al. 2010), which allows specification of both criteria
values and weight coefficients as probability distributions and probabilistic
methods are used for treatment of uncertainties and assessment of probabil-
ity distributions in an integrated scale (e.g. in a utility scale) for the alterna-
tives under consideration. We will further explore the effect of uncertainty
throughout this book. As we will see later, being able to use distributions
and incorporate uncertainty is very useful! Of course, there are many other
books and papers focused on model, parameter, and scenario uncertainties
as they relate to making policy decisions (e.g., Morgan and Henrion 1990;
Linkov and Burmistrov 2004).
Using MCDA with This Book

The MCDA methods described employ powerful mathematical tools that
perform calculations not easily done by hand. Understanding how an algo-
rithm functions is very important but is not the overall focus for this book.
This book uses case studies to explore how MCDA methods are used
in practice. These case studies have been implemented in the software
DECERNS (Decision Evaluation in Complex Risk Network Systems), which
can accompany this text. DECERNS offers a simple user interface which
allows users to implement models easily and with the same method of data
entry and analysis. Figure 1.3 shows the architecture for the DECERNS
program.
DECERNS implements many different MCDA approaches, including those
discussed earlier in this chapter. They are listed fully below:
• Basic MCDA methods:

MAVT
AHP
TOPSIS
PROMETHEE
FIGURE 1.3
DECERNS architecture. The gray shading indicates the Graphic User Interface which is how
you access the MCDA models and exploit their functionality. The Application Programming
Interface combines the Geographic Information System (GIS) subsystem, the Decision Support
Tools, and the models. The Decision Support Tools are also highlighted as this is the subsystem
we are using in this book.
• Advanced MCDA
MAUT
ProMAA
Fuzzy-MAVT
Fuzzy-PROMETHEE
Within DECERNS, the effects of using different models (AHP vs. MAUT,
etc.) can be explored with ease by implementing the model with multiple
methods. MAVT, AHP, TOPSIS, and PROMETHEE have an option to conduct
sensitivity analyses to changes in weights (Yatsalo et al. 2010). MAUT and
ProMAA compute functions of random values instead of using Monte Carlo
methods to deal with uncertainty; the “fuzzy methods” are also computed
as functions of fuzzy variables.
The case studies that are illustrated in this book can be loaded into DECERNS
so that further exploration can be conducted or alterations can be made.
For more information about how to operate DECERNS, the reader should
read through the Software Appendix.
Concluding Remarks
MCDA methods are a powerful set of tools that combine information about a
decision maker’s preferences and about the performance of different alterna-
tives to reach a decision and are an important component of environmental
modeling toolbox (Keisler and Linkov 2014). The rest of this book explores
how these factors are measured and used in practice.
References
Belton, V. and T. J. Stewart (2002). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated
Approach. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Brans, J. P. and P. Vincke (1985). “A Preference Ranking Organisation Method.”
Management Science 31(6): 647–656.
Keisler, J. and Linkov, I. (2014). “Models, Decisions and Environment.” Environment,
Systems, Decision 4: 369–372.
Lahdelma, R. and P. Salminen (2001). “SMAA-2: Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability
Analysis for Group Decision Making.” Operations Research 49(3): 444–454.
Linkov, I. and Burmistrov, D. (2003). “Model Uncertainty and Choices Made by
Modelers: Lessons Learned from the International Atomic Energy Agency
Model Intercomparisons.” Risk Analysis, 23: 1335–1346.
Linkov, I. and A. B. Ramadan, Eds. (2004). Comparative Risk Assessment and

Environmental Decision Making. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Linkov, I., A. Varghese, S. Jamil, T. P. Seager, G. Kiker, and T. Bridges (2004). “Multi-
Criteria Decision Analysis: A Framework For Structuring Remedial Decisions
At Contaminated Sites.” In: Linkov, I., and A. B. Ramadan (eds.) Comparative
Risk Assessment and Environmental Decision Making (pp. 15–54). Dordrecht,
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
McDaniels, T., R. Gregory, and D. Fields (1999). “Democratizing Risk Management:
Successful Public Involvement in Local Water Management Decisions.” Risk
Analysis 19(3): 497–510.
Morgan, G.M. and Henrion, M. (1990). Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty
in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource
Allocation. New York, NY, McGraw-Hill.
Tervonen, T. and R. Lahdelma (2007). “Implementing Stochastic Multicriteria
Acceptability Analysis.” European Journal of Operational Research 178(2): 500–513.
Yatsalo, B., V. Didenko, A. Tkachuk, S. Gritsyuk, O. Mirzeabasov, V. Slipenkaya, A.
Babutski, I. Pichugina, T. Sullivan, and I. Linkov (2010). “Multi-Criteria Spatial
Decision Support System DECERNS: Application to Land Use Planning.”
International Journal of Information Systems and Social Change 1(1): 11–30.
Yatsalo, B., S. Gritsyuk, A. Tkachuk, and O. Mirzeabasov (2010). “Multicriteria
Acceptability Analysis: ProMAA Approach.” In: Conference: The 25th Mini-
EURO Conference Uncertainty and Robustness in Planning and Decision Making,
URPDM 2010, University of Coimbra, Portugal, ISBN 978-989-95055-3-7.
Yatsalo, B. I., G. A. Kiker, J. Kim, T. S. Bridges, T. P. Seager, K. Gardner, F. K. Satterstrom
and I. Linkov (2007). “Application of Multicriteria Decision Analysis Tools to
Two Contaminated Sediment Case Studies.” Integrated Environmental Assessment
and Management 3(2): 223–233.
2
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
in Environmental Sciences:
Applications and Trends1
Effective decision-making in the environmental sciences must address and

balance a broad range of considerations, incorporating scientific data, ethical
and political considerations, and stakeholder interests. A methodology that is
capable of synthesizing these heterogeneous considerations is Multi-Criteria
Decision Analysis (MCDA). We must first ask a few questions: Is MCDA
usage becoming established within environmental decision-making?
Are there particular methods or types of problems which predominate?
To answer these questions, we examined several literature reviews. In all
of them, Web of Science (WOS) was queried for a variety of search terms,
including “MCDA,” “multi criteria decision making,” and specific MCDA
methods such as “AHP” or “analytic hierarchy process.” Papers were
then classified by the method used. We will focus on Analytic Hierarchy
Process (AHP), Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT)/Multi-Attribute
Value Theory (MAVT), and Preference Ranking Organization Method for
Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE) as they are used predominantly in
this book. While individual methods diverge in how they integrate diverse
information and expert judgment, they share the objective of facilitating a
transparent and systematic process for considering the merits or detriment
of potential decisions and preference for different types of outcomes.
Literature Review and Paper Classification

Huang et al. conducted a literature review for articles published between
1990 and 2009 on WOS and in the journals Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis and Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management; the initial
search included queries using a combination of MCDA keywords (Table 2.1)
and resulted in 22,159 papers. The results were refined by environmental
subject areas provided within WOS, which included Environmental Science,
Environmental Studies, Environmental Engineering, as well as subject areas
1 This chapter is based on Huang et al. (2011), on Cegan, et al. (2017), and on Kurth et al. (2017).
15
TABLE 2.1
Summary of Search Terms
MCDA Keywords Environmental Phrases Subject Area
MCDA Contamin* or remediat* Environmental sciences
MCDM or multi-criteria Ecosystem Environmental studies
decision-making
AHP Land Engineering, environmental
Outranking Nano* Social sciences,
mathematical methods
MAUT Site select* Management science
MAVT Sustainab* Operations research and
management sciences
ELECTRE Waste
ANP Water or coastal
Swing weight* Natural resource*
Expected utility Risk and environ*
TOPSIS Aquatic or terrestrial
SMAA or stochastic multi- Energy
criteria acceptability analysis
PROMETHEE Emission or atmosph*
Note: Search terms are indicated here by subject areas.
* Indicates a wildcard, so all words including the letters prior to it were queried.
corresponding to decision analysis in general, including Social Science and

Mathematical Models, Management Science, and Operation Research and
Management Sciences; environmental phrases were also searched (Table 2.1).
Availability of papers through Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
and Harvard was further used to select papers. Results for papers published
in 1990–2000 and in 2000–2009 returned a total of 242 and 765 papers, respec-
tively. Papers published in 1990–2000 were used for historical trend analy-
sis only and were not further classified. Abstracts for papers published in
2000–2009 were screened manually to avoid irrelevant papers with similar
phrasings. Of the 461 selected papers, only 412 papers were made available
through Google Scholar and the MIT and Harvard University library sys-
tem. The full-text papers were reviewed, and an additional 100 papers were
eliminated based on the application criteria. The final paper count yielded a
total of 312 papers. These papers are listed in the “Details” tab of the spread-
sheet “MCDA Literature Review Data Supplement” which can be accessed
electronically with this book. Running through the data independently can
be a useful exercise in exploring how these trends occurred; other trends can
also be investigated.
The 312 articles were first classified by the MCDA method used and
application area (Table 2.2). In terms of methods, the papers were catego-
rized based on the MCDA keywords used in the search query. The papers
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Topf der Watwa (Urundi). — Speere der Wassui. — Holzfigur des
verstorbenen Häuptlings, Ukerewe. — Paradebeil der Wasinja. — Schild aus
Ambatschholz, Ukerewe. — Köcher der Wassui.
Die Regierungsform der Wasinja ist überall monarchisch. Früher

bestand ein grosses Königreich, jetzt ist das Land in kleine
Fürstenthümer getheilt, von welchen Ost-Ussui das bedeutendste
ist. Dann folgen West-Ussui (Uyogoma), Ukerewe und Rwoma's
Land in Usinja. Alle anderen Herrscher in Usinja, sowie Kaka in
West-Ukerewe, sind nicht viel mehr als Dorfschulzen. Die Häuptlinge
geniessen sehr grosse Macht und verfügen nahezu unumschränkt
über Leben und Tod. Sie halten eine Art Leibwache, welche zugleich
Polizeidienste versieht und bei Verbrechen die Schuldigen verhaftet.
Auf Diebstahl steht Todesstrafe, auch wird das Vermögen des
Schuldigen eingezogen und seine Verwandten werden der Sklaverei
überliefert. Ausser solchen Sklaven, die jedoch meist ins Ausland
verkauft werden, giebt es in Usinja auch fremde, durch Karawanen
importirte.
Watwa-Dorf, Urundi.
Der gewöhnliche Gruss eines Höheren besteht bei allen Wasinja,
von Ukerewe bis Ussui, im Niederknien und Händeklatschen. Der
Gegrüsste erwidert darauf nicht.
Die Wasinja sind zwar weniger unternehmungslustig als die
Wanyamwesi, durch ihre Intelligenz und ihre Geschicklichkeit, die
sich besonders in Schmiedearbeiten äussert, aber doch sicher
berufen eine Rolle zu spielen.
Während die Wasinja schon von verschiedenen Reisenden, von
Speke bis auf die neueste Zeit besucht und besonders von
Stuhlmann vorzüglich beschrieben wurden, gelangen wir westlich
von ihnen zu einem Bantustamm, von dem kaum mehr als der Name
bekannt war: den Wa r u n d i. Mit den ihnen nahe verwandten Waha
und Wanyaruanda bewohnen sie ein weites Gebiet, von Ussui bis
zum Russisi, von Unyamwesi bis zum Tanganyika und reichen
nördlich bis nahe an den Albert Edward-See. Ueberall stehen sie als
»Wahutu« (Unterworfene) dem Adel der Watussi gegenüber.
Die Warundi sind zweifellos sehr alte Ansiedler der von ihnen
bewohnten Gebiete; irgend welche Tradition über Einwanderung
besteht, soviel ich erfahren konnte, nicht. Dennoch sind die Warundi
wahrscheinlich keine Urbevölkerung, sondern eine solche haben wir
in den Wa tw a zu sehen, welche überall im Lande verstreut leben.
Der Name Watwa (oder Batwa) ist bekanntlich ein weit verbreiteter
und wird hauptsächlich den Pygmäenvölkern in den südlichen
Kongowäldern beigelegt. In den schwach bewohnten Urwäldern
konnten die Watwa sich begreiflicherweise reiner erhalten als in dem
offenen Urundi, inmitten einer dichten Ackerbaubevölkerung. Der
Blutmischung waren hier die Wege geebnet und thatsächlich finden
wir, dass die Watwa Urundi's durchschnittlich nicht kleiner sind als
die umwohnenden Warundi.
Sie leben in kleinen Niederlassungen mit sehr schlechten
Grashütten, benutzen im Gegensatz zu den Warundi, die stets auch
Speere führen, ausschliesslich Bogen und Pfeile und lebten
ursprünglich von der Jagd. Mit der Zunahme der Bevölkerung nahm
jedoch das Erträgniss derselben ab, doch wandten sich die Watwa
keineswegs dem Ackerbau, sondern der Töpferei zu. Mit einem
Stück Kalebasse als einzigem Geräth und einem Schnurende zum
Anbringen der Ornamente fertigen sie ungemein geschmackvolle
Töpfe und Krüge an, welche sie an die Ackerbauer verkaufen.
Sie werden sehr verachtet und gelten als Pariastamm. Kein
Mrundi würde aus demselben Gefäss wie ein Mtwa trinken, auch
sollen Heirathen nicht vorkommen. Dennoch ist, wie gesagt, die
Blutmischung unverkennbar und zwar nicht nur bei den Watwa,
sondern auch bei den Warundi. Denn unter den vielfach
hochgewachsenen Warundi trifft man, besonders im Norden,
auffallend häufig Leute von etwa 1,35 m Höhe mit kurzem Hals,
röthlichen Lippen und gedrungener Gestalt, auch erwachsene,
auffallend lichtfarbige Weiber mit dem Kinde auf dem Rücken bei
einer Höhe von 1,20 m.
Offenbar hat man es hier mit Fällen von Atavie zu thun, bei
welchen der Typus einer Watwa-Urbevölkerung zu Tage tritt, welche
in den Warundi aufgegangen ist. Die heutigen Watwa dagegen
stellen nur einen von der herrschenden Rasse durch die
Lebensweise unterschiedenen Pariastamm dar. Der Uebergang
zwischen ihnen und den Kongo-Watwa bilden die Watwa der Berge
westlich vom Tanganyika, die ebenfalls von Jagd und Töpferei leben,
nach den Märkten der Eingeborenen kommen, jedoch bereits als
Zwerge bekannt sind. Alle Watwa sollen eine eigene Sprache
besitzen, doch konnte ich trotz vieler Bemühung nur Kirundi-Wörter
von ihnen erhalten. Sie scheinen sehr stumpfsinnig, »tu wayovu«
(Wir sind Elephantenjäger) ist das einzige, was sie auf alle Fragen
antworten. Auch ihre Geräthschaften, mit Ausnahme jener für
Töpferei, haben nichts charakteristisches und gleichen jenen der
Warundi.
Wenn also auch in gewissen Distrikten eine Aufnahme von
Watwa-Elementen bei den Warundi wahrscheinlich ist, so haben sie
sich im Allgemeinen doch sehr rein und besonders von hamitischen
(Watussi) Mischungen ziemlich frei erhalten.
Die Wa r u n d i sind ein kräftiger, mittelgrosser Stamm;
hochgewachsene und herkulisch gebaute Leute sind nicht selten.
Die Gesichtszüge sind rein negerhaft, die Hautfarbe dunkelbraun,
bei der geringen Reinlichkeit oft fast schwarz erscheinend. Die
Busen junger Weiber sind wohlgeformt und nicht zitzenförmig.
Haartrachten der Warundi.
Die Sp r a ch e der Warundi ist ein reines Bantu-Idiom, welches

von Kisinja (Kinyoro) wesentlich abweicht, mit Kiha aber nahezu
identisch ist. Der Dialekt von Ruanda nähert sich etwas mehr dem
Kisinja. Sonst finden sich keine eingreifenden dialektischen
Verschiedenheiten in ganz Urundi und einige meiner Leute aus Ujiji
konnten sich überall verständlich machen.
Im Gegensatz zu den meisten Negerstämmen werden die Ohren
in Urundi niemals durchbohrt und auch die Zähne in keiner Weise
verstümmelt. Beschneidung ist nicht üblich. Die Kopfhaare werden
kurz getragen oder abrasirt, wobei man oft einzelne Stellen in Form
von Spiralstreifen, Kreisen oder Haarkämmen stehen lässt. Die
Weiber rasiren die Haarränder meist rund ab. In manchen Gegenden
pflegt man sich mit weisser Farbe (aus Mergel oder Hyänenmist) am
kahlrasirten Schädel und im Gesicht Flecken und Streifen zu malen.
Als Kleidung dient hauptsächlich Rindenzeug, das in rother und
grauer Farbe vorkommt. Die rothen Stoffe sind oft mit grauen und
schwarzen Flecken und Streifen gemustert. Männer tragen einen
dreieckigen Ueberwurf, dessen langer Zipfel bis zu den Knien
herabhängt und stets die Schamtheile bedeckt, sowie manchmal
auch einen Lendenschurz. Ledige Weiber tragen einen
Lendenschurz aus grauem Rindenzeug, Verheirathete auch noch ein
Tuch, welches den Busen verhüllt und oft zugleich den Sprössling
festhält.
Zeug-Ornamente der Warundi.
In manchen Gegenden tritt an Stelle des Rindenzeugs — doch

stets nur vereinzelt — Leder; besonders lieben es junge Leute, beim
Tanz schneeweiss bemalte Lederschürzen zu tragen. In Ruanda
haben viele Weiber Lederkleidung. Europäisches Zeug trifft man in
Urundi — ausser am Tanganyika — nirgends, in Ruanda nur ganz
vereinzelt. Ein beliebter Halsschmuck der Warundi ist das dreieckige
Segment einer Seeschnecke, welches an einer Schnur getragen
wird. Da Küstenerzeugnisse — ausser etwas Messing und sehr
wenigen Glasperlen — sonst gänzlich fehlen, so ist das häufige
Vorhandensein einer Seeschnecke auffallend. Doch wird dieser
Schmuck auch in Unyamwesi häufig getragen und wurde wohl in
früheren Zeiten — als ein friedlicher Verkehr mit Urundi noch
möglich war — massenhaft importirt und hat bei seiner Solidität bis
heute ausgehalten. Doch sieht man schon häufig Nachahmungen
aus Knochen und Flusspferdhauern. Ausser diesen wird auch ein
trichterförmiger Eisenschmuck um den Hals getragen, sowie
hübsche, mit Messing ornamentirte Holzcylinder.
An den Knöcheln tragen Weiber und vornehme Männer mit
Eisendraht umsponnene Darmseiten, Madodi. Ein eigenthümlicher
Schmuck ist der dicke hölzerne Armring (Abb. pag. 77), den alle
Warundi-Krieger am linken Unterarm tragen und der häufig mit
originellen Eisen-, Messing- und Kupferornamenten beschlagen ist.
Er dient theils als Waffe beim Faustkampf, theils zum Auflegen des
Pfeiles beim Zielen und zum Abhalten der rückschnellenden
Bogensehne. Doch findet er sich als reiner Schmuck auch in
Gegenden, die keine Bogen und Pfeile benutzen, wie Uyogoma.
Die Wo h n u n g e n der Warundi sind reine Grashütten ohne
Mittelpfahl, oft breiter als hoch, dann mit seitlichen Stützen. Von der
reinen Halbkugelform weichen nur die Hütten im Kagera-Quellgebiet
ab, die cylindrischen Bambus-Unterbau besitzen. In Nord-Urundi und
Uyogoma ist das Innere durch zwei halbkreisförmige Lehmwände (a
a) getheilt, die nicht bis zum Dach reichen und mit den convexen
Seiten gegen den Eingang stehen. Sonst werden die Kammern stets
durch Papyrus- oder Bambuswände abgetrennt. In einer derselben
steht das bequeme, mit Gras und Bananen-Matten bedeckte Bett.
Neben der Wohnhütte stehen Vorrathskörbe, die ähnlich wie die von
Usinja und Unyamwesi aussehen.
Alle Hütten sind in kleinen Komplexen zwischen dichten
Bananenhainen vertheilt und mit buschiger Euphorbien- oder mit
Distel ausgefüllter Bambus-Hecke umgeben. Aus den Bananen
erheben sich einzelne glänzendblättrige Ficus-Bäume, die zur
Herstellung des Rindenzeugs dienen und das ganze Dorf erscheint
wie eine dunkelgrüne Insel in dem Meer lichtgrüner Grashalden.
Die Jagd spielt in dem dicht
bewohnten Urundi keine Rolle,
Fischfang betreiben die
Tanganyika-Stämme mit Eifer,
während im Kagera und Akanyaru,
soviel ich erfahren konnte, nicht
gefischt wird. Die Kanus der
Tanganyika-Warundi sind primitive
Einbäume mit Ruder, deren Blätter
mit Baststricken befestigt sind. Am
Akanyaru giebt es schone
Halsschmuck der Warundi. Einbäume mit langen,
schaufelförmig ausgehöhlten
Rudern, die wohl zugleich zum Ausschöpfen des
Kanus dienen.
Die Rindviehzucht liegt hauptsächlich in den
Händen der Watussi, doch haben auch Warundi
Wohngrundriss. vereinzelt Rinder der Sanga-Varietät. Schafe
werden viele gehalten, sie sind glatthaarig mit
kleinem Fettschwanz, nur in Nord-Urundi sah ich auch wollhaarige
Schafe. Ziegen trifft man nur vereinzelt. Schlanke Hunde sind häufig
und werden oft an der Leine geführt. Bienenzucht ist überall beliebt,
die Körbe werden cylindrisch aus Gras geflochten und haben zwei
Holzdeckel mit Fluglöchern. Hühner werden selten, in West-Ussui
garnicht gehalten.
Die Ha u p t n a h r u n g der Warundi liefert die Banane, welche in
den Dorf-Komplexen angebaut wird. Die halbreifen Früchte werden
meist abgenommen und vergraben, wodurch sie rascher reif werden.
Eine grosse Rolle spielen auch Hülsenfrüchte, Bohnen und Erbsen,
letztere von besonders guter Qualität. Sie werden in langen
Bastkörben in den Hütten aufbewahrt. Sorghum der rothen Varietät
dient hauptsächlich zur Bereitung von Pombe, der in grossen
Mengen genossen wird. Zum Stampfen dienen Holzmörser.
Vereinzelt trifft man auch Eleusine, süsse Kartoffeln, Mais und
Maniok; überall Tabak, der in Ruanda geraucht, in Urundi
hauptsächlich geschnupft wird. Aus Honig und Bananen wird
ebenfalls ein geistiges Getränk bereitet, das ziemlich
wohlschmeckend ist. Zum Rauchen dienen lange Pfeifen mit
Thonköpfen, die Schnupfer pflegen sich die Nase mit einem
halbgespaltenen Stück Holz zusammen zu klemmen, um den
Genuss zu verlängern.
Am Tanganyika trifft man
sehr viele Oelpalmen, die dort
ein richtiges Kulturgewächs
bilden. Ueberall pflanzt man
ferner die Ficus-Art, welche das
Rindenzeug, in manchen
Gegenden auch Brennholz
liefert, vielfach auch Bambus
und Disteln zum Herstellen von
Zäunen. Im Allgemeinen sind
die Warundi keine besonders
eifrigen Ackerbauer, sie
pflanzen nur so viel, als sie
zum Leben unbedingt nöthig
haben und weite Striche ihres
fruchtbaren Landes bleiben
unbebaut.
Von G e r ä t h sch a f t e n der
Topf, Ruanda. — Sichel, Urundi. —
Warundi fanden schon einige Hackenklinge, Urundi.
Erwähnung. Dem Ackerbau
dienen eiserne Spaten und eigenthümliche, sichelförmige
Haumesser, die sich ähnlich in Ukerewe und dem nördlichen
Zwischenseengebiet finden und die auch zum Lichten der
Papyrussümpfe gebraucht werden. Korbwaaren werden mit
Geschick gefertigt. Zur Töpferei haben die Warundi wenig Geschick,
wo die Watwa fehlen, sind die Töpfe stets plump und leicht
zerbrechlich. Ein eigenthümlicher Regenschirm ist im Süden des
Landes gebräuchlich, er besteht aus einem Halbcylinder aus
Blättergeflecht, den der Träger über den Kopf stülpt. Zur Anfertigung
des Rindenzeuges dient ein Beinhammer, mit welchem das
betreffende Rindenstück einfach breitgeschlagen wird. Der Baum
kann vollständig geschält werden und erholt sich, umwickelt mit
altem Rindenzeug oder Bananenblättern, rasch wieder.
Hammer zum Fertigen von Rindenzeug, Urundi. — Speerspitze der Warundi.
— Pfeilspitze, Warundi. — Schwert der Warundi vom Tanganyika. —
Schild, Ruanda. — Schwert, Ruanda. — Pfeilbehälter der Warundi.
Die Wa ff e n der Warundi sind Speer und Bogen, wobei schwer

zu sagen ist, welche Waffe als Hauptwaffe gelten kann. In manchen
Gegenden trifft man nur Speere, in anderen nur Bogen, meist aber
beide Waffen gemeinsam. Die Speere haben lange, schlechte
Schafte und locker sitzende, charakteristisch geformte Spitzen.
Letztere werden meist abgenommen und in Bananenblätter
gewickelt unter dem Rindenzeug getragen. Die Bogen sind nicht
besonders kräftig, die Pfeile meist ohne Widerhaken und fast
niemals vergiftet. Köcher sind nicht bekannt, die Pfeile werden in
den Hütten in länglichen, ornamentirten Behältern aufbewahrt, im
Felde aber stets in der Hand getragen. Kurze Schwerter dienen
hauptsächlich als Paradewaffen und werden besonders am
Tanganyika schön ausgeführt. Schilde sind gegenwärtig nicht mehr
gebräuchlich, doch traf ich in Nord-Urundi alte, sehr originelle Holz-
und Korbschilde, die jetzt nur mehr bei Tänzen dienen.
Einen Verkehr mit der Aussenwelt kennen die Warundi nicht,
weder kommen jemals Karawanen in's Land, noch verlassen die
Bergwarundi ihre Heimath. Sie gehen niemals nach Ussui oder
Ruanda, ebenso nicht zum Tanganyika, sondern verkehren
höchstens mit Uha, woher sie Salz und Messing beziehen. Die
Tanganyika-Warundi allerdings haben durch jahrelangen Verkehr mit
Arabern und Swahíli ihre Sitten vielfach modificirt, reisen öfter nach
Ujiji und ziehen sogar mit an die Küste.
In so grossartiger Weise ich auch das Volksleben in Urundi
kennen lernte, so wenig bot sich mir bei dem herrschenden
Begeisterungstaumel Gelegenheit, näheres über das in n e r e
L e b e n der Warundi zu erfahren. Diesbezügliche Erkundigungen
konnte ich nur am Tanganyika einziehen, so dass die nachfolgenden
Bemerkungen sich hauptsächlich auf die Bewohner des Seeufers
beziehen, bei der grossen Einheitlichkeit des Stammes aber wohl in
den Hauptsachen für alle Warundi gelten.
Nach der Geburt eines Kindes bleibt die Mutter sieben Tage in
der Hütte. Sobald dem Kinde Haare wachsen, wird ein Familienfest
abgehalten, wobei Pombe getrunken und ein Schaf geschlachtet
wird, dessen Blut man mit dem festen Abfall des Pombe (Maische) in
eine Grube giesst. Diese wird wieder ausgefüllt, mit Gras bestreut
und ein Topf mit Doppelöffnung darauf gestellt. Dabei werden die
Geister der Vorfahren beschworen das Kind zu schützen. Hierauf
wird das Kind rasirt, die Haare werden mit Pombeabfall angemacht
und in einer Schachtel aufbewahrt. Diese gilt als ein Talisman und
bleibt stets am Geburtsort des Kindes. Gelegentlich dieses Festes
erhält das Kind drei Namen vom Vater, Mutter und der Grossmutter
(mütterlicherseits) die es lebenslang behält. Ein Kind, welchem die
oberen Schneidezähne zuerst wachsen, gilt als unglückbringend und
wird in den Busch geworfen. Am Tage des Reifwerdens eines
Mädchens, wird dieses von der Grossmutter im Hause umhergeführt
und muss alle Gegenstände berühren.
Der Vater wählt dem Sohne eine
Gattin und bezahlt den Brautpreis,
der meist in zwei Ochsen oder dem
Aequivalent besteht. Das junge
Ehepaar bleibt sieben Tage in der
Hütte, während welcher ein Fest
gefeiert wird. Vielweiberei ist
gebräuchlich.
Die Warundi sind ein körperlich Topf der Warundi.
gesundes Volk, Kranke und Krüppel
sieht man nur wenige. In gewissen Gegenden sind Augenleiden sehr
häufig und man trifft verhältnissmässig viele Blinde und Einäugige. In
das Gebiet der Krankheiten gehört auch die besonders am
Tanganyika häufige Geophagie (Erdesserei). Töpferthon geniessen
dort viele Leute mit Vorliebe, manche Kinder verschlingen jedoch mit
Gier alle Arten Erde und magern zu Skeletten ab, während der
Bauch unförmlich anschwillt. Die Pocken grassiren öfter im Lande
und richten besonders am Tanganyika Verheerungen an. Der
Sandfloh ist fast schon über ganz Urundi verbreitet und wird vielfach
zur unerträglichen Landplage.
Zaubergeräth, Klapper der Zauberdoktoren in Warundi.
Die Behandlung der Kranken obliegt dem Zauberdoktor, einem

Mann oder alten Weib. Derselbe trägt einen Kopfputz von Federn,
bemalt sich im Gesicht mit Mergel, führt einen Bastsack mit
Amuletten mit sich und rasselt mit einer Klapper während er mit
heiserer Stimme singt. Ist Jemand von einem Geist besessen, so
finden Tänze statt, ein Schaf wird geschlachtet und der Kranke im
Fluss gebadet.
Die Warundi glauben nicht an natürlichen Tod, sondern nur an
solchen durch Zauberei, darum schneiden die Angehörigen allen
Todten den Bauch auf und suchen darin den Zauber. Dann gehen
sie mit einem Geschenk zum Zauberdoktor, das sie jedoch vor
seinen Augen verbergen. Als Probe seiner Geschicklichkeit muss er
die Grösse des Geschenkes errathen. Dann wird ein Topf mit
Wasser und Zaubermedizin aufgestellt, den alle Dorfinsassen haben
müssen. Wer dies nicht kann, ist der Zauberer, der den
Verstorbenen getödtet, er wird gebunden und getödtet (in den
Tanganyika geworfen), worauf die Angehörigen des Verstorbenen
sein Vermögen einziehen.
Der Todte wird auf der rechten Seite liegend ins Grab gelegt.
Stirbt ein Hausvater, so wird er in der Hütte begraben und diese
hierauf verlassen, andere begräbt man vor der Hütte.
Die ganzen religiösen Anschauungen der Warundi lassen sich
auf den Ah n e n ku l tu s zurückführen. Selbst der Mwesi-(Mond)-
Glaube ist nichts anderes als dieser, indem die Herrscher des
Landes ihre Abkunft vom Mond herleiteten.
Als Schutz gegen böse Geister, die in Flüssen und Bäumen
wohnen, wird Zauber-Pombe an die Hütten gespritzt. Hat man Grund
zu glauben, dass der Geist eines Verstorbenen unzufrieden sei, so
wird ein junger Anverwandter desselben auf den Boden gelegt und
ihm mit einer Hacke auf den Kopf geklopft. Er äussert dann die
Wünsche des Verstorbenen.
Den Verkehr mit den Geistern vermittelt der Zauberdoktor, dieser
macht auch Regen und wahrsagt aus Hühnerdärmen. Einzig zu
diesem Zwecke werden überhaupt Hühner gehalten und niemals
gegessen. Auch Ziegen isst man nicht; die Warundi-Männer
geniessen nur Schaf- und Rindfleisch, die Weiber nur das letztere.
Die Re g ie r u n g sfo r m der Warundi war wohl stets eine
monarchische und zwar wurden sie jedenfalls sehr lange
Zeitepochen hindurch von dem Geschlecht der Mwesi (Monde)
beherrscht. Wie weit deren Reich sich ursprünglich ausdehnte wäre
schwer zu ermitteln, doch überschritt es jedenfalls die Grenzen des
heutigen Urundi. In den Nachbarländern nennt man Urundi heute
noch stets »charocha Mwesi« (Land Mwesi's) und glaubt noch
vielfach an die Existenz dieses Herrschers. Nach Aussage der
Meisten waren die Mwesi lichtfarbige Watussi und der letzte Mwesi
hiess Makisavo (Bleichgesicht), ein Name der auch mir beigelegt
wurde. Diese Ansicht von der lichten Farbe des Mwesi ist allgemein
verbreitet, doch giebt es Leute die behaupten, dass er kein Mtussi,
sondern ein Mrundi, also ein nationaler Herrscher gewesen sei.
Die Residenz des Mwesi lag zweifellos unweit der Kagera-Nil-
Quelle, wo sie auch Burton erkundete. Man kann dies schon daraus
schliessen, dass die heute noch bekannten Mwesi-Gräber sich am
Ganso-Kulu, einem Berg an der Kagera-Quelle, befinden. Die Träger
der Königleiche ruhten in einem dunklen Hain, Wuruhukiro, und
beerdigten hierauf die Leiche am Ganso-Kulu. Die waldigen Missosi
ya Mwesi, die Berge Mwesi's oder Mondberge, gelten als Sitz der
Geister verstorbener Mwesi.[22]
Wann der letzte Mwesi gelebt hat und warum das Geschlecht
ausstarb konnte ich niemals bestimmt erfahren, doch muss es schon
an 100 Jahre her sein, dass er — angeblich in einem Kriege im
Ausland — verschollen ist. Alle Warundi haben übrigens den festen
Glauben, dass der Mwesi heute noch lebt und erwarten ihn als eine
Art Erlöser. Es war daher sehr natürlich, dass ich, ein von Norden
kommender, lichtfarbiger Mensch, ihnen als die Verkörperung dieser
mythischen Person erscheinen musste. Zu welch' tollem Fanatismus
die Warundi durch diesen Glauben hingerissen wurden versuchte ich
in der Reiseschilderung darzustellen.
Der Glaube an meine Sendung nahm erst ab, als ich die Missosi
ya Mwesi und die Begräbnissstätten der früheren Könige ohne
Schaden besucht. Denn nach der Tradition darf ein lebender Mwesi
diese Gegenden nicht betreten: geschieht dies doch so muss er
sterben. Da mir jedoch nichts geschah, so wurde die allgemeine
Begeisterung stark abgekühlt. Als ich später vom Tanganyika her,
also vom Westen wieder in Urundi eindrang, hielt mich Niemand
mehr für den Mwesi, der von Norden kommen muss, doch wurde mir
berichtet, dass der Mwesi kurz vorher Nord-Urundi im Triumph
durchzogen und alle seine Feinde niedergeworfen habe, ohne dass
man ahnte, dass ich mit diesem »Mwesi« identisch war. Der
Widerstand der Watussi im Norden lag keineswegs in einem Zweifel
an meiner Sendung, sondern nur in der Abneigung dieses
Raubadels, ein für sie angenehmes Interregnum, durch das
Auftauchen eines Mwesi beendet zu sehen.
Zur Regierungszeit der Mwesi lebten wohl die Watussi, ähnlich
wie jetzt in Ruanda, als deren Statthalter im Lande verstreut, jetzt ist
dasselbe in zahllose kleine Gemeinden zerrissen, die von
Häuptlingen verschiedener Abkunft regiert werden. Ihre Würde ist
auf den Sohn, event. auf die Tochter erblich; stirbt eine Familie aus,
so wird ein neuer Häuptling gewählt. Die Autorität des Häuptlings ist
nicht bedeutend, er übt zusammen mit den Aeltesten Gerichtsbarkeit
aus. Diebe werden geköpft, doch ist Lösegeld üblich, von welchem
die Hälfte der Bestohlene, die andere Hälfte der Häuptling bekommt.
Mörder werden stets geköpft. Entfliehen sie zu einer
Nachbargemeinde, so werden sie unter keinen Umständen
ausgeliefert und es finden ihretwegen Kämpfe statt. Männliche
Kriegsgefangene werden dabei getödtet, weibliche und Kinder
jedoch zurückgegeben. Der siegreiche Häuptling betrachtet das
besiegte Land als unterworfen. —
Sklaverei ist in ganz Urundi unbekannt, doch wurden von den
Ujiji-Arabern schon mehrfach Razzias nach Süd-Urundi
unternommen und Sklaven ausgeführt, deren man auch an der
Küste einzelne findet. Nach Mittel- und Nord-Urundi haben sie sich
jedoch niemals gewagt.
Eine grosse Rolle spielen in Urundi die Volksbelustigungen und
T ä n z e von welchen in der Reiseschilderung[23] ausführlich die
Rede war. Das Tanzen ist in Urundi eine förmliche Kunst, welche von
Jugend an geübt und mit Meisterschaft betrieben wird. Die Trommel
ist unbekannt, doch wird ein Kuhhorn geblasen und ein
Saiteninstrument gespielt.
Als gewöhnlicher Gruss dient Niederknien und Händeklatschen,
sowie Ueberreichen von Laub. Als Friedenszeichen pflegt man
Feldfrüchte oder mit Laub umwundene Spaten darzureichen. Auch
Geschenkvieh wird mit Laub bekränzt.
TAFEL XXIII

Multi Criteria Decision Analysis Case Studies in Engineering and The Environment 2Nd Edition Igor Linkov Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Multi Criteria Decision Analysis Case Studies in Engineering and The Environment 2Nd Edition Igor Linkov Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multi Criteria Decision Analysis Case Studies in Engineering and The Environment 2Nd Edition Igor Linkov Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multi-criteria decision analysis : case

studies in engineering and the

Multi criteria Decision Making Methods with Bipolar

Many Criteria Optimization and Decision Analysis State

Modelling Turbulence in Engineering and the Environment

Machine Learning for Decision Sciences with Case

Formal Analysis by Abstract Interpretation Case Studies

Case Studies in Infectious Disease 2nd Edition Peter

Philosophy on Fieldwork Case Studies in Anthropological

Case Studies in Advanced Engineering Design Proceedings

For more about this series, please visit https://www.crcpress.com/

Igor Linkov, Emily Moberg,

© 2021 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Library of Congress Cataloging‑in‑Publication Data

ISBN: 978-0-367-34533-4 (hbk)

late grandparents Sally Moore—an out-of-the-box problem solver

and engineer—and Daryl Moberg—a consummate storyteller.

The support of her partner David and family were invaluable.

Igor Linkov would like to dedicate this edition to his late

advisors professors William R. Schell and Richard Wilson

for inspiring him to solve complex challenges.

Foreword ............................................................................................................. xvii

Part I Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis:

Literature Review and Paper Classification ............................................... 15

Part II MCDA Methods in Depth:

Background: Sediment Dredging ................................................................ 33

4. Weighting and Scoring ................................................................................ 49

5. Model Application: MAUT......................................................................... 61

NY–NJ Harbor Case ...................................................................................... 75

New York–New Jersey Harbor .....................................................................85

Questions to Consider ................................................................................... 87

Value of Information (VoI) ............................................................................ 95

Part III MCDA Application in Depth: Nanomaterials

MCDA Methodology ................................................................................... 123

Problem Identification ................................................................................. 133

Model Assessment/Building: Weights and Scores ................................. 135

Problem Identification ................................................................................. 141

MCDA Methodology ................................................................................... 151

MCDA and Uncertainty .............................................................................. 163

Problem Identification ................................................................................. 169

Choosing the Appropriate Model ............................................................. 171

Part IV MCDA Application Case Studies

16. Setting Dredging Windows for Sensitive Fish Species...................... 187

17. Management of Harmful Algal Blooms ................................................ 201

Source Data ......................................................................................... 249

21. Cruise Ship Tourism, Venice, and MCDA ............................................ 265

22. Sustainable Roofing Technology............................................................. 291

Problem Structuring/Formulation of Criteria and Alternatives ..... 294

23. Housing Development Site Selection ..................................................... 307

24. Power Supply Alternatives and MCDA ................................................. 327

Model Application and Analysis .......................................................... 335

25. Decision Analysis of Material Selection for Automotive

Appendix ............................................................................................................. 365

During nearly eight years at the US Department of the Interior, first as an

Policy and management decisions associated with these ecosystems and

inspires creative thought by offering examples that can be a springboard for

the methodologies differ and gain a better understanding of the mechanistic