Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T23:18:28.669Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Assessing Urban Sustainability through Participatory Multi-Criteria Approaches (PMCAs): An Updated Comparative Analysis

from Part II - Integrative Approaches for Sustainability Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2020

By
Albert Merino-Saum
Edited by
Claudia R. Binder ,
Romano Wyss  and
Emanuele Massaro
Claudia R. Binder
Affiliation:
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Romano Wyss
Affiliation:
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Emanuele Massaro
Affiliation:
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Get access

Summary

This chapter presents a comparative analysis of four Participatory Multi-Criteria Approaches (PMCAs) usually applied in sustainability assessments (SMCE, MCM, 3-SPM, and INTEGRAAL). Such approaches are presented in detail and subsequently compared to each other according to three elementary yet crucial questions: who assesses?; what is assessed?; and how is it assessed? The results outline potential synergies and theoretical incompatibilities between the four approaches. The analysis also supports future PMCA applications when choosing one particular approach according to: key meta-principles (i.e., epistemological stance, methodological emphasis); logistical constraints (e.g., time, budget); local idiosyncrasies (e.g., pertinent geographical scales, power asymmetries); and organisational factors.

Keywords

Sustainability Solution Spaceurban sustainabilityindicatorsustainability assessmentparticipatoryexperttrade-offssystemicnormative
Type
Chapter
Information
Sustainability Assessment of Urban Systems , pp. 209 - 238
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alberti, M., & Susskind, L. (1996). Managing urban sustainability: An introduction to the Special Issue. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16, 213–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banville, C., Landry, M., Martel, J. M., & Boulaire, C. (1998). A stakeholder approach to MCDA. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 15, 15–32.3.0.CO;2-B>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J., Vaughan, N. E., & Lenton, T. M. (2013). Opening up geoengineering appraisal: Multi-criteria mapping of options for tackling climate change. Global Environmental Change, 23, 926–937.Google Scholar
Bromley, D. W. (2007). Environmental regulations and the problem of sustainability: Moving beyond “market failure.” Ecological Economics, 63, 676–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromley, D. W., & Paavola, J. (2002). Economics, Ethics, and Environmental Policy. In Bromley, D. W. & Paavola, J, (eds.), Economics, Ethics, and Environmental Policy: Contested Choices. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulkeley, H., & Betsill, M. (2005). Rethinking sustainable cities: Multilevel governance and the “urban” politics of climate change. Environmental Politics, 14(1), 42–63.Google Scholar
Chamaret, A. (2007). Une démarche top‐down / bottom‐up pour l”évaluation en termes multicritères et multiacteurs des projets miniers dans l”optique du développement durable. Application sur les mines d”Uranium d”Arlit (Niger). PhD Dissertation. University of Versailles Saint‐Quentin-en‐ Yvelines, Guyancourt.Google Scholar
Cole, J., Sharvelle, S., Grigg, N., Pivo, G., & Haukaas, J. (2018). Collaborative, risk-informed, triple bottom line, multi-criteria decision analysis planning framework for integrated urban water management. Water, 10(12), 1722.Google Scholar
De Marchi, B., Funtowicz, S. O., Lo Cascio, S., & Munda, G. (2000). Combining participative and institutional approaches with multicriteria evaluation: An empirical study for water issues in Troina, Sicily. Ecological Economics, 34, 267–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Montis, A., De Toro, P., Droste-Franke, B., Omann, I., & Stagl, S. (2000). Criteria for quality assessment of MCDA methods. Paper presented at the 3rd Conference of the ESEE, May 3–6, Vienna.Google Scholar
De Montis, A., & Lai, S. (2008). Multi-criteria evaluation and planning support choosing among alternative scenarios for an urban natural park in Sardinia, Italy. In Vreeker, R, Deakin, M, & Curwell, S (eds.), Sustainable Urban Development, Volume 3: The Toolkit for Assessment, London: Routledge, pp. 62–82.Google Scholar
Da Cunha, C. (2010). Quelle prise en compte de la diversité dans les enjeux de performances de l’activité agricole en Ile de France? : expérimentation d’une démarche d’évaluation participative multicritère. PhD Dissertation. University of Versailles Saint‐Quentin-en‐ Yvelines, Guyancourt.Google Scholar
Dodgson, J., Spackman, M., Pearman, A., & Phillips, L. (2009). Multi-criteria analysis: A manual. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Domenèch, L., March, H., & Saurí, D. (2011). Degrowth initiatives in the urban water sector? A social multi-criteria evaluation of non-conventional water alternatives in Metropolitan Barcelona. Journal of Cleaner Production, 38, 44–55.Google Scholar
Finco, A., & Nijkamp, P. (2001). Pathways to urban sustainability. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 3, 289–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, J. (Ed.). (1997). Valuing Nature? Economics, Ethics and Environment, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Gamboa, G. (2006). Social multi-criteria evaluation of different development scenarios of the Aysén region, Chile. Ecological Economics, 59, 157–170.Google Scholar
Fritz, L., & Meinherz, F. (2020). The politics of participatory sustainability assessments: an analysis of power. In Binder, C. R., Massaro, E, & Wyss, R (eds.), Sustainability Assessment in Urban Systems. Cambridge University Press, pp. 87–122.Google Scholar
Gamboa, G., & Munda, G. (2007). The problem of windfarm location: A social multi-criteria evaluation framework. Energy Policy, 35, 1564–1583.Google Scholar
Garmendia, E., Gamboa, G., Franco, J., Garmendia, J. M., Liria, P., & Olazabal, M. (2010). Social multi-criteria evaluation as a decision support tool for integrated coastal zone management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 53(7), 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, J. -F., Rodríguez-Labajos, B., Yánez, I., et al. (2012). Guide to Multicriteria Evaluation for Environmental Justice Organisations. EJOLT Report No. 8, 45 p.Google Scholar
Giampietro, M. (2002). Complexity and Scales: The Challenge for Integrated Assessment. Integrated Assessment, 3(2–3), 247–265.Google Scholar
Godard, O. (2004). La pensée économique face à la question de l”environnement. Cahiers du Laboratoire d”Econométrie de l”Ecole Polytechnique, Cahier n° 2004–013, Ecole Polytechnique, Palaiseau.Google Scholar
Gregory, R., Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (1993). Valuing Environmental Resources: A Constructive Approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, 177–197.Google Scholar
Guitouni, A., & Martel, J. M. (1998). Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method. European Journal of Operational Research. 109, 501–521.Google Scholar
Halla, P., Wyss, R., & Binder, C. R. (2020). Conceptualising Urban Systems for Sustainability Assessment: Four Powerful Metaphors. In Binder, C. R., Massaro, E, & Wyss, R (eds.), Sustainability Assessment in Urban Systems. Cambridge University Press, pp. 241–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, S. F. (2010). Multicriteria mapping of stakeholder preferences in regulating nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 12, 1959–1970.Google Scholar
Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attributes Decision Making Methods and Applications. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, M. ([1991] 1997). La Economía Verde. Medio Ambiente, Desarrollo Sostenible y la Política del Futuro. Barcelona: Icaria.Google Scholar
Janssen, R., & Munda, G. (1999). Multi-criteria methods for quantitative, qualitative and fuzzy evaluation problem. In van den Bergh, J (ed.), Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 837–852.Google Scholar
Lahdelma, R., Salminen, P., & Hokkanen, J. (2000). Using multicriteria methods in environmental planning and management. Environmental Management, 26(6), 595–605.Google Scholar
Landert, J., Schader, C., Moschitz, H., & Stolze, M. (2017). A holistic sustainability assessment method for urban food system governance. Sustainability, 9, 490.Google Scholar
Liu, S., Proctor, W., & Cook, D. (2010). Using an integrated fuzzy set and deliberative multi-criteria evaluation approach to facilitate decision-making in invasive species management. Ecological Economics, 69(12), 2374–2382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockwood, M. (1999). Humans valuing nature: synthesising insights from philosophy, psychology and economics, Environmental Values, 8, 381–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupo, T., & Cusumano, M. (2018). Towards more equity concerning quality of Urban Waste Management services in the context of cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 171, 1324–1341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martel, J. M., & Rousseau, A. (1993). Cadre de référence d’une démarche multicritère de gestion intégrée des ressources en milieu forestier. Rapport préparé pour le Gouvernement du Québec, Ministère du loisir, de la chasse et de la pêche, Ministère des Forêts et Ministère de l’Environnement, document technique 93/11, 49 pages.Google Scholar
Martí, N. (2005). La multidimensionalidad de los sistemas locales de alimentación en los Andes peruanos: los chalayplasa del Valle de Lares (Cusco). PhD Dissertation. Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Martínez-Alier, J., Munda, G., & O’Neill, J. (1998). Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological Economics. Ecological Economics, 26, 277–286.Google Scholar
Martínez-Alier, J., & Roca, J. ([2000] 2001). Economía Ecológica y Política Ambiental, México D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica.Google Scholar
Maxim, L. (2008). Mobilisation d’un outil multimédia d’aide à la délibération pour l’analyse socio‐économique des changements de la biodiversité. Réflexions autour de trois études de cas, à l’échelle régionale (Île‐de‐France), nationale (France) et continentale (Europe). PhD Dissertation. University of Versailles Saint‐Quentin-en‐ Yvelines, Guyancourt.Google Scholar
Merino-Saum, A. (2015). Vivre avec le feu en région méditerranéenne. Une approche participative multicritère et multi-scénarios appliquée au cas du massif des Maures (Var, France). PhD Dissertation. University of Versailles Saint‐Quentin-en‐ Yvelines, Guyancourt.Google Scholar
McDowall, W., & Eames, M. (2006). Towards a sustainable hydrogen economy: A multi-criteria mapping of the UKSHEC hydrogen futures. London: Policy Studies Institute.Google Scholar
Millstone, E., & Lobstein, T. (2007). The PorGrow project: Overall cross-national results, comparisons and implications. Obesity Reviews, 8, 29–36.Google Scholar
Munda, G. (2003). Multicriteria assessment. In Internet Encyclopedia of Ecological Economics. International Society for Ecological Economics.Google Scholar
Munda, G. (2004a). Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences. European Journal of Operational Research, 158, 662–677.Google Scholar
Munda, G. (2004b). Multi-criteria evaluation. In Proops, J & Safonov, P (eds.), Modelling in Ecological Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 130–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munda, G. (2006). Social multi-criteria evaluation for urban sustainability policies. Land Use Policy, 23, 86–94.Google Scholar
Munda, G. (2008). Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable Economy. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Munda, G. (2009). A conflict analysis approach for illuminating distributional issues in sustainability policy. European Journal of Operational Research, 194, 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munda, G., & Nardo, M. (2003). Mathematical modelling of composite indicators for ranking countries, Proceedings of the First OECD/JRC Workshop on Composite Indicators of Country Performance, JRC, Ispra.Google Scholar
Munda, G., Nijkamp, P., & Rietveld, P. (1995). Qualitative multicriteria methods for fuzzy evaluation problems: An illustration of economic-ecological evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research, 82, 79–97.Google Scholar
Munda, G., & Russi, D. (2008). Social multicriteria evaluation of conflict over rural electrification and solar energy in Spain. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26, 712–727.Google Scholar
Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P., Voogd, H. (1991). Multicriteria Analysis for Physical Planning.Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
O’Connor, M. (1997). Environmental valuation: From the point of view of sustainability. In Dragun, A. K. & Jakobsson, M. J. (eds.), Sustainability and Global Environmental Policy: New Perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp.149–178.Google Scholar
O’Connor, M. (2000). Pathways for environmental evaluation: A walk in the (Hanging) Gardens of Babylon. Ecological Economics, 34, 175–193.Google Scholar
O’Connor, M. (2006). Deliberative Sustainability Assessment: Multiple Scales, Multiple Stakeholders, Multidisciplinarity and Multiple Bottom Lines. Rapport de Recherche du C3ED, University of Versailles St-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Guyancourt.Google Scholar
O’Connor, M. (2007). Deliberative Sustainability Assessment with the on line KerDST Deliberation Support Tool. Cahiers du C3ED, n°07–03, University of Versailles St-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Guyancourt.Google Scholar
O’Connor, M., Faucheux, S., Froger, G., Funtowicz, S., & Munda, G. (1996). Emergent complexity and procedural rationality: Post-normal science for sustainability. In Constanza, R, Segura, O, & Martínez-Alier, J (eds.), Getting down to Earth, Island Press, Washington DC: International Society of Ecological Economics, pp. 223–247.Google Scholar
O’Connor, M., van den Hove, S. O’Neill, J., & Hue, C. (2001). Le Modèle Politique de la Démocratie Délibérative, Documentation interne du C3ED.Google Scholar
O’Connor, M., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2007). A methodology for CSR reporting: Assuring a representative diversity of indicators across stakeholders, scales, sites and performance issues. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(13), 1399–1415.Google Scholar
O’Connor, M., Small, B., & Wedderburn, M. E. (2010). Sustainable Agriculture in Aotearoa: Social Learning through Piecewise Deliberation. REEDS Working Papers series 2010–10, Université de Versailles St-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Rambouillet.Google Scholar
Omann, I. (2004). Multi-criteria decision aid as an approach for sustainable development analysis and implementation. PhD Dissertation, University of Graz.Google Scholar
O’Neill, J. (1993). Ecology, Policy and Politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
O’Neill, J. (1997). Value pluralism, incommensurability and institutions. In Foster, J (ed.), Valuing Nature? Economics, Ethics and Environment. London: Routledge, pp. 75–88.Google Scholar
Paneque Salgado, P., Quintana, S. C., Guimaraes Pereira, A., Del Moral, Ituarte, L., & Pedregal Mateos, B. (2009). Participative multi-criteria analysis for the evaluation of water governance alternatives: A case in the Costa del Sol (Málaga). Ecological Economics, 68, 990–1005.Google Scholar
Proctor, W. (2009). Environmental Decision Making: An application of Multi-criteria Analysis to a Case Study of Australia’s Forests. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
Proctor, W., & Dreschler, M. (2006). Deliberative multicriteria evaluation. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 24, 169–190.Google Scholar
Quintana, S. C. (2001). Una Metodología integrada de exploración y compensión de los procesos de elaboración de políticas públicas. PhD Dissertation. University of La Laguna.Google Scholar
Rauschmayer, F., & Wittmer, H. (2006). Evaluating deliberative and analytical methods for the resolution of environmental conflicts. Land Use Policy, 23, 108–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravetz, J. (2000). Integrated assessment for sustainability appraisal in cities and regions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20, 31–64.Google Scholar
Reichel, V., Chamaret, A., & O’Connor, M. (2010). Les Avenirs de la Boucle de Moisson : un projet de réflexion participative pour un développement territorial soutenable. Rapport de Recherche REEDS n° 2010‐06, University of Versailles St-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Rambouillet.Google Scholar
Remvikos, Y., Mahamat, A., & Reichel, V. (2010). L’interface science/décision au travers d’une évaluation multicritères et multi-acteurs du plan régional pour la qualité de l’air en Ile-de-France, Cahiers du Centre REEDS n° 2010–12, University of Versailles St-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Rambouillet.Google Scholar
Renn, O. (1986). Decision analytic tools for resolving uncertainty in the energy debate. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 93(2–3), 167–180.Google Scholar
Renn, O. (2003). Social assessment of waste energy utilization scenarios. Energy, 28, 1345–1357.Google Scholar
Renn, O. (2006). Participatory processes for designing environmental policies. Land Use Policy, 23, 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renn, O., & Webler, T. (1992). Anticipating Conflicts: Public Participation in Managing the Solid Waste Crisis. GAIA, 2, 84–94.Google Scholar
Renn, O., Webler, T., Horst, R., Dienel, P., & Johnson, B. (1993). Public participation in decision-making: A three-step procedure. Policy Science, 26, 189–214.Google Scholar
Renn, O., Webler, T., & Kastenholz, , H. (1996). Procedural and substantive fairness in landfill siting: A Swiss Case Study. RISK: Health, Safety & Environment, 7(2), 145–168.Google Scholar
Roy, B., & Bouyssou, D. (1993). Aide multicritère à la décision: méthodes et cas. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
Roy, B., & Vincke, P. (1981). Multicriteria analysis: Survey and new directions. European Journal of Operational Research, 8, 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royuela, J. B., Eames, M., & Buckingham, S. (2016). “Participative foresight scenario mapping”: Adapting an MCM method to appraise foresight scenarios for the long-term sustainable development of a small island. International Journal of Multicriteria Decision Making, 6(2), 118–137.Google Scholar
Sagoff, M. (1998). Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: A look beyond contingent pricing. Ecological Economics, 24, 213–230.Google Scholar
Schkade, D. A., & Payne, J. W. (1994). How people respond to contingent valuation questions: A verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 88–109.Google Scholar
Schneider, E., Oppermann, B., Renn, O. (1998). Implementing structured participation for regional level waste management planning. Risk: Health, Safety and Environment, 9, 379–395.Google Scholar
Scolobig, A., Castán Broto, V., & Zabala, A. (2008). Integrating multiple perspectives in social multicriteria evaluation of flood-mitigation alternatives: The case of Malborghetto-Valbruna. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26, 1143–1161.Google Scholar
Spash, C. (2008). Contingent valuation design and data treatment: If you can’t shoot the messenger, change the message. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26, 34–53.Google Scholar
Stagl, S. (2003). Multicriteria Evaluation and Public Participation: In Search for Theoretical Foundations. Paper presented at the ESEE Conference (European Society for Ecological Economics), Tenerife, Spain, 12–15 February.Google Scholar
Stagl, S. (2006). Multicriteria evaluation and public participation: the case of UK energy policy. Land Use Policy, 23, 53–62.Google Scholar
Stagl, S. (2007). Emerging Methods for Sustainability Valuation and Appraisal. Rapid Research and Evidence Reviews, The Sustainable Development Research Network.Google Scholar
Stirling, A. (1997). Multi-criteria mapping: Mitigating the problems of environmental valuation? In Foster, J (ed.), Valuing Nature? Economics, Ethics and Environment. London: Routledge, pp. 186–210.Google Scholar
Stirling, A. (2005). Multi-Criteria Mapping: A Detailed Interview Protocol. Unpublished technical report.Google Scholar
Stirling, A., & Mayer, S. (1999). Rethinking Risk: A Pilot Multi-criteria Mapping of a Genetically Modified Crop in Agricultural Systems in the UK. University of Sussex, Science Policy Research Unit.Google Scholar
Stirling, A., & Mayer, S. (2000). A precautionary approach to technology appraisal? A multi-criteria mapping of genetic modification in UK agriculture. SCHWERPUNKTHEMA, 3(9), 39–51.Google Scholar
Vatn, A. (2005a). Institutions and the Environment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Vatn, A. (2005b). Rationality, institutions and environmental policy. Ecological Economics, 55, 203–217.Google Scholar
Vatn, A., & Bromley, D. W. (1994). Choices without prices without apologies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 129–148.Google Scholar
Walter, M., Latorre Tomás, S., Munda, G., & Larrea, C. (2016). A social multi-criteria evaluation approach to assess extractive and non-extractive scenarios in Ecuador: Intag case study. Land Use Policy, 57, 444–458.Google Scholar
Whitehead, M. (2003). (Re)Analysing the sustainable city: Nature, urbanisation and the regulation of socio-environmental relations in the UK. Urban Studies, 40(7), 1183–1206.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×