4.7.3 Results and Role Played by the MCDA
ELECTRE III with interactions between criteria leads to rank strategy 2 (forest) as
the most sustainable solution for the requalification of the area, followed by strategy
3 (wetland). The results of the evaluation model have been verified by means of
specific sensitivity and robustness analysis which demonstrated that this ranking is
valid for whatever the considered sets of weights and interaction coefficients.
Apart from the coherence of the obtained results, the research seems to have a
particular interest in the context of the methods for sustainability assessment. In fact,
when dealing with sustainability assessment in an integrated way, a critical issue is
how to combine the different dimensions in the evaluation framework. In this
context, of particular importance is the degree of compensability between the
different dimensions/aspects of the problem as it has been noticed that neither an
economic reductionism nor an ecological one is possible (Munda 2005). Since in
general, economic sustainability has an ecological cost and ecological sustainability
has an economic cost, an integrative evaluation framework like the one here
presented is needed for tackling sustainability issues properly.
5 Lessons Learned for Sustainability Assessment
In the context of territorial transformations, where the decisional arena is characterized by a plurality of stakeholders with different values and objectives, Multiple
Criteria Decision Analysis is a valuable tool for the integrated assessment of
alternative scenarios, being able to consider simultaneously both technical elements,
which are based on empirical data and observations, and non-technical elements,
which are based on social visions, preferences and feelings (see for examples the
case studies presented in Sects. 6.4.3 and 6.4.5).
One of the main advantages of the approach is related to the possibility of
including in the evaluation model the opinion of relevant actors and stakeholders
by means of different participatory techniques such as interviews, questionnaires,
focus groups or workshops. For example, in the case study of Sect. 6.4.1, a specific
collaborative workshop has been organized for discussing with the stakeholders the
structuring of the decision problem and the importance of the different aspects; the
application presented in Sect. 6.4.7 is grounded on the creation of a multidisciplinary
experts’ panel for the definition of the parameters to be used in the model. Under this
perspective, the evaluation is not seen as “one-shot activity”, rather as a social
learning process where DMs and stakeholders learn about the problems under
examination, while they are solving them. In this sense, MCDA allows the creation
of a common knowledge among DMs, local communities and final users, thus
ensuring the increase in the social capital.
Another strength of MCDA approach is related to the possibility for the DMs to
represent in a clear way their preferences, providing strong arguments for the
6 Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis to Assess Urban and Territorial. . .
113
ELECTRE III with interactions between criteria leads to rank strategy 2 (forest) as
the most sustainable solution for the requalification of the area, followed by strategy
3 (wetland). The results of the evaluation model have been verified by means of
specific sensitivity and robustness analysis which demonstrated that this ranking is
valid for whatever the considered sets of weights and interaction coefficients.
Apart from the coherence of the obtained results, the research seems to have a
particular interest in the context of the methods for sustainability assessment. In fact,
when dealing with sustainability assessment in an integrated way, a critical issue is
how to combine the different dimensions in the evaluation framework. In this
context, of particular importance is the degree of compensability between the
different dimensions/aspects of the problem as it has been noticed that neither an
economic reductionism nor an ecological one is possible (Munda 2005). Since in
general, economic sustainability has an ecological cost and ecological sustainability
has an economic cost, an integrative evaluation framework like the one here
presented is needed for tackling sustainability issues properly.
5 Lessons Learned for Sustainability Assessment
In the context of territorial transformations, where the decisional arena is characterized by a plurality of stakeholders with different values and objectives, Multiple
Criteria Decision Analysis is a valuable tool for the integrated assessment of
alternative scenarios, being able to consider simultaneously both technical elements,
which are based on empirical data and observations, and non-technical elements,
which are based on social visions, preferences and feelings (see for examples the
case studies presented in Sects. 6.4.3 and 6.4.5).
One of the main advantages of the approach is related to the possibility of
including in the evaluation model the opinion of relevant actors and stakeholders
by means of different participatory techniques such as interviews, questionnaires,
focus groups or workshops. For example, in the case study of Sect. 6.4.1, a specific
collaborative workshop has been organized for discussing with the stakeholders the
structuring of the decision problem and the importance of the different aspects; the
application presented in Sect. 6.4.7 is grounded on the creation of a multidisciplinary
experts’ panel for the definition of the parameters to be used in the model. Under this
perspective, the evaluation is not seen as “one-shot activity”, rather as a social
learning process where DMs and stakeholders learn about the problems under
examination, while they are solving them. In this sense, MCDA allows the creation
of a common knowledge among DMs, local communities and final users, thus
ensuring the increase in the social capital.
Another strength of MCDA approach is related to the possibility for the DMs to
represent in a clear way their preferences, providing strong arguments for the
6 Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis to Assess Urban and Territorial. . .
113