Avoiding academic and decorative planning in GHG emissions abatement studies with MCDA: The peruvian case. (English) Zbl 1045.90037

Summary: Climate change issues have been considered some of the most complex and messy situations which the decision sciences face. In the last decade many countries have carried out studies related to climate change mitigation. The relevance of the outcomes of such studies depends on how well technical analysis, the priorities of the decision makers and technical/political feasibility are integrated.
This paper focuses on a framework suggested by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) to study the costs and impacts of national policies for abating greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions. It illustrates how the quest for the inclusion of MCDA assessment in national greenhouse abatement costing studies can, without departing from the established analysis framework, be a pretext to provide a process which enhances stakeholder participation, validation, and ownership of the planning process. Such a process was used in a national study in Peru.


90B50 Management decision making, including multiple objectives
Full Text: DOI


[1] Al-Shemmeri, T.; Al-Kloub, B.; Pearman, A., Model choice in multicriteria decision aid, European Journal of Operational Research, 97, 550-560 (1997) · Zbl 0922.90094
[2] Becker, H. S., Scenarios-a tool of growing importance to policy analysts in government and industry, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 23, 95-120 (1983)
[3] Belton, V., A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and a simple multiattribute value function, European Journal of Operational Research, 7-21 (1986)
[4] Borges, P. C.; Sørensen, L.; Villavicencio, A.; Vidal, R. V.V., Strategic approaches to climate change at country level-focusing on greenhouse gas abatement, Investigação Operacional, 18, 183-205 (1998)
[5] Brans, J. P.; Mareschal, B., The promcalc & gaia decision support system for multicriteria decision aid, Decision Support Systems, 12, 297-310 (1994)
[7] Godet, M., Integration of scenarios and strategic management using relevant, consistent and likely scenarios, Futures, 730-739 (1990)
[10] Halsnæs, K.; Mackenzie, G. A.; Swisher, A.; Villavicencio, J. N., Comparable assessment of national GHG abatement costs, Energy Policy, 22, 11, 925-934 (1994)
[11] Hobbs, B. F.; Chankong, V.; Hamadeh, W.; Stakhiv, E., Does choice of multicriteria method matter? An experiment in water resources planning, Water Resourses Research, 28, 7, 1767-1779 (1992)
[12] Hobbs, B. F.; Meier, P. M., Multicriteria methods for resource planning: An experimental comparison, Transactions on Power Systems, 9, 4, 1811-1817 (1994)
[13] Hobbs, B. F.; Horn, G. T.F., Building public confidence in energy planning: A multimethod MCDM approach to demand-side planning at BC gas, Energy Policy, 25, 3, 357-375 (1997)
[14] IPCC, Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change, (Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1996), Cambridge University Press: Cambridge University Press Cambridge)
[15] IPCC, Climate Change 2001-Mitigation, (Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (2001), Cambridge University Press: Cambridge University Press Cambridge)
[17] Keyser, W. D.; Peeters, P., A note on the use of promethee multicriteria methods, European Journal of Operational Research, 89, 457-461 (1996) · Zbl 0916.90163
[19] Mercer, D., Scenarios made easy, Long Range Planning, 28, 4, 81-86 (1995)
[20] Mintzberg, H., The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning (1994), Prentice Hall: Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ
[21] Rosenhead, J., What’s the problem? An introduction to problem structuring methods, Interfaces, 26, 6, 117-131 (1996)
[22] Roy, B., Decision-aid and decision-making, European Journal of Operational Research, 45, 2-3, 324-331 (1990)
[23] Saaty, T. L., Decision Making for Leaders (1992), RWS Publications: RWS Publications Pittsburgh, PA
[24] Saaty, T. L., How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process, Interfaces, 24, 6, 19-43 (1994)
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.