Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis.  Permission is given for 
a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and 
private study only.  The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without 
the permission of the Author. 
 



 

 

A Rapid Evaluation Method to Improve 
Project Decision-Making Associated with 

Natural Resources  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A dissertation presented in partial fulfilment of the 
requirements for the degree of 

 
Doctor of Philosophy 

 
in 
 

Natural Resource Management 
 
  

Massey University, New Zealand 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

Camila Rocío del Rosario Reyes Santolalla 
 

2013 



 

 

 

 



 

i 

ABSTRACT 
 

Today Multiple Criteria Analyses (MCAs) are widely used for project appraisals. 

In order to include the short and long term consequences that a project can have, 

most MCA models are built on a project specific basis. In addition, there is a 

proliferation of projects being put forward for consideration, thus the work of 

decision makers has become extremely time and resource consuming. The aim of 

this research is to develop and test an integrated method for project appraisal 

which can be used by decision makers to evaluate a diverse range of project 

proposals in a timely and resource efficient manner.   

This led to the creation of a generic method that could be applied to all projects in 

the first instance. The research employed a modified Leopold matrix to create a 

checklist to be used as an initial tool to select key attributes for inclusion in the 

decision making analysis. This standardized approach allows decision makers to 

work with available data in the first instance to avoid excessive time and resource 

expenditure. MCA forms the basis of this rapid evaluation method (REM), as it can 

accommodate the integration of heterogeneous criteria that are measured by 

differing metrics. The explicit expression of preferences for certain decision 

attributes, a key element in the MCA process, is utilized here and a modified 

Delphi approach, using independent experts is employed to determine attribute 

weightings. From these, utility scores are calculated, sensitivity analyses 

conducted and recommendations made regarding the proposed project. At this 

point an ‘accept’ or ‘reject’ decision might be made or, alternatively there is a 

recommendation that a full independent MCA be executed. Taking this approach 

means that a unique and independent MCA will only be required for some 

projects. Therefore, this method accelerates the project decision-making process 

and reduces the overall resources needed for the appraisals.  

Three diverse case studies are used to test and refine the REM. One is an energy 

project situated in New Zealand, another, a proposal for a privately owned abattoir 

in Chile and the third is a decision between two proposals relevant to the salmon 

farming industry in Chile. From this research it is clear that the application of the 



 

ii 

REM can aggregate complex data into a pragmatic multi-criteria framework, 

improving the ability of agencies to estimate the trade-off between environmental, 

economic, and social impacts of a development project. The REM provides a 

benchmark for managers to determine whether a project should be accepted, 

rejected or requires more detailed analysis. This method has the potential to 

significantly reduce the time and cost involved in project evaluation.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Keywords: Multiple criteria analysis, analytical hierarchy process, project 

evaluation, integrated analysis, rapid evaluation method. 



 

iii 

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY 
 

Student name: Camila Rocío del Rosario Reyes Santolalla 

Student I.D.: 07266340 

I declare that: 

• This is an original thesis and is entirely my own work. 

• Where I have made use of ideas of others writers, I have acknowledged the 

source. 

• Where I have used any diagrams or visuals I have acknowledged the 

source in every instance. 

• This thesis will not be submitted as assessed work in any other academic 

course. 

 

 

 

Student´s signature: …………………………………………………………………..….. 

Date: ……………………………………………………………………………...………… 

 

 

                                                       



 

iv 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For my family  



 

v 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
 

I am indebted to a number of people for their help with this thesis. I am most 

grateful for the guidance of my supervisors, Associate Professor John Holland and 

Dr Sue Cassells for their advice and encouragement during the period of my 

study. You have been a tremendous influence in my development as a researcher 

and I am endlessly grateful for your patience and generosity. This thesis would not 

have been possible without your invaluable input and attention to detail, and I 

thank you for your dedication.  

Special thanks to my fellow colleagues in the postgraduate programme at Massey 

University, particularly to Jerry Teng, Katrina O´Connor, Fleur Hirst, Naomi 

McBride, María Fernanda Loureiro, Bruna Silva, Carol Thum, Licy Beux, Eduardo 

De Bortoli and Roberto Mascarenhas. Thank you for all your encouragement and 

friendship.  

During the course of my study I travelled to Malaysia to participate in the 

International Symposium on Society and Resource Management (ISSRM), and to 

Chile to conduct two out of the three case studies. During those trips I was able to 

meet and discuss my activities with a large number of people associated in various 

ways with Natural Resources Management and project development evaluation. 

Also, for all three case studies, conducted within New Zealand and Chile, many 

experts were consulted, and they provided advice, information and ideas which 

were invaluable in undertaking this research. I am very grateful to all of them for 

the willingness with which they spared time to talk to me and the information they 

provided.  

Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Iris Santolalla and Rodrigo Reyes, for 

their continued support throughout this endeavour; and most importantly, to my 

partner Nicolás Bitsch, for your understanding, encouragement and sacrifice 

throughout this PhD journey. ‘Thank you’ doesn´t seem enough. 



 

vi 

This research was funded by the Centre for Investigation of Patagonian 

Ecosystems (CIEP), and the National Commission of Scientific Research and 

Technology (CONICYT) from the Chilean Government. 

 

 



 

vii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................... I 
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY .................................................................................................... III 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................... V 
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ VII 
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................... XI 
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... XIV 
LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................. XVII 
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED ................................................................................................ XIX 

1 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1 

1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT ......................................................................................................... 1 
1.2 AIM AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................... 2 
1.3 LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 3 
1.4 IMPORTANCE OF THE RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 3 
1.5 CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE ........................................................................................... 4 
1.6 THESIS OUTLINE .................................................................................................................. 4 

2 CHAPTER TWO - LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 7 

2.1 THE NATURE OF NRM DECISION-MAKING ............................................................................. 8 
2.1.1 Multiple stakeholders .................................................................................................. 10 
2.1.2 Multidisciplinary management .................................................................................... 11 
2.1.3 Measurement uncertainty ........................................................................................... 12 

2.2 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ........................................................ 13 
2.2.1 Market failure and government intervention ............................................................... 14 
2.2.2 Sustainability .............................................................................................................. 15 

2.3 ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS IN NRM ......................................................................................... 19 
2.3.1 Project evaluation and the decision-making process ................................................. 22 
2.3.2 Failure to fulfil sustainable development objectives ................................................... 24 

2.4 DECISION-MAKING TECHNIQUES FOR PROJECT APPRAISAL ................................................... 26 
2.4.1 Cost-benefit Analysis .................................................................................................. 27 
2.4.2 Environmental Impact Assessment ............................................................................ 29 
2.4.3 Social Impact Assessment ......................................................................................... 39 
2.4.4 The single nature of current project appraisal techniques ......................................... 42 

2.5 INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................. 43 
2.5.1 The rationale for integrated assessment in project evaluation ................................... 45 
2.5.2 Multiple Criteria Analysis ............................................................................................ 47 
2.5.3 A rapid integrated method to support project evaluation ............................................ 51 



 

viii 

2.6 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 56 

3 CHAPTER THREE - DECISION FRAMEWORK AND METHOD DEVELOPMENT ........... 59 

3.1 MULTIPLE CRITERIA ANALYSIS SOFTWARE ........................................................................... 60 
3.1.1 Software selection ....................................................................................................... 60 
3.1.2 Software  package ...................................................................................................... 63 
3.1.3 The decision process in LDW ..................................................................................... 65 
3.1.4 Structure the problem ................................................................................................. 66 

3.2 METHOD DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................... 67 
3.2.1 Formal objeCtives of the  method ............................................................................... 69 
3.2.2 Decision alternatives ................................................................................................... 69 
3.2.3 Attribute selection ....................................................................................................... 71 
3.2.4 Determining the value of attributes ............................................................................. 91 
3.2.5 Determining weights for objectives/attributes ............................................................. 94 
3.2.6 Ranking alternatives ................................................................................................. 103 
3.2.7 Sensitivity analyses ................................................................................................... 104 
3.2.8 Make a decision or recommendation ........................................................................ 105 

3.3 CASE STUDY SELECTION .................................................................................................. 106 
3.3.1 Purpose of the case studies...................................................................................... 106 
3.3.2 Data and information sought to inform case studies ................................................ 107 
3.3.3 Criteria development for case study selection .......................................................... 107 
3.3.4 Case study approach ................................................................................................ 108 

3.4 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 109 

4 CHAPTER FOUR - CASE STUDY 1: WIND FARM ........................................................... 111 

4.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 111 
4.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 112 
4.3 IDENTIFYING THE KEY ATTRIBUTES AND THEIR MEASURES................................................... 116 

4.3.1 Measures of economic development ........................................................................ 121 
4.3.2 Measures of environmental protection ...................................................................... 125 
4.3.3 Measures of social acceptability ................................................................................ 132 

4.4 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................ 143 
4.5 DETERMINING THE WEIGHTS FOR EACH ATTRIBUTE ............................................................ 143 

4.5.1 Round one of the interactive process ....................................................................... 144 
4.5.2 Round Two of the interactive process ...................................................................... 148 
4.5.3 Round Three of the interactive process .................................................................... 152 
4.5.4 Quantifying the evolution of agreement among the experts ..................................... 154 

4.6 RANKING THE ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................ 158 
4.7 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES .................................................................................................... 161 
4.8 MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION ....................................................................................... 163 



 

ix 

5 CHAPTER FIVE - CASE STUDY 2: ABATTOIR ............................................................... 165 

5.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 165 
5.2 BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT ....................................................................................... 166 
5.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................... 168 
5.4 IDENTIFYING THE KEY ATTRIBUTES AND THEIR MEASURES .................................................. 168 

5.4.1 Measures of Economic Development ....................................................................... 173 
5.4.2 Measures of Environmental Protection .................................................................... 177 
5.4.3 Measures of Social Acceptability .............................................................................. 183 

5.5 DETERMINING THE WEIGHTS FOR EACH ATTRIBUTE ............................................................ 188 
5.5.1 Round One of the interactive process ...................................................................... 188 
5.5.2 Round Two of the interactive process ...................................................................... 192 
5.5.3 Round Three of the interactive process ................................................................... 195 
5.5.4 Quantifying the evolution of agreement among the experts ..................................... 197 

5.6 RANKING THE ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................... 201 
5.7 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES .................................................................................................... 204 
5.8 MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION ....................................................................................... 207 

6 CHAPTER SIX - CASE STUDY 3: SALMON FARMING .................................................. 209 

6.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 209 
6.2 BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT ....................................................................................... 211 
6.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................... 214 
6.4 IDENTIFYING THE KEY ATTRIBUTES AND THEIR MEASURES .................................................. 215 

6.4.1 Measures of Economic Development ....................................................................... 218 
6.4.2 Measures of Environmental Protection .................................................................... 225 
6.4.3 Measures of Social Acceptability .............................................................................. 230 

6.5 DETERMINING THE WEIGHTS FOR EACH ATTRIBUTE ............................................................ 234 
6.5.1 Round One of the interactive process ...................................................................... 235 
6.5.2 Round Two of the interactive process ...................................................................... 238 
6.5.3 Round Three of the interactive process ................................................................... 240 
6.5.4 Quantifying the evolution of agreement among the experts ..................................... 242 

6.6 RANKING THE ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................... 246 
6.7 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES .................................................................................................... 248 
6.8 MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION ....................................................................................... 252 

7 CHAPTER SEVEN – DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................................ 253 

7.1 WHAT MAKES THIS FRAMEWORK A REM ........................................................................... 253 
7.2 WHAT MAKES THE METHOD NOVEL ................................................................................... 256 
7.3 THE USE OF CASE STUDIES TO TEST AND REFINE THE METHOD ........................................... 257 
7.4 WHAT MAKES THE MODEL USEFUL .................................................................................... 259 
7.5 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 260 



 

x 

8 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 263 

9 APPENDIX A – CASE STUDY ONE ................................................................................. 299 

10 APPENDIX B – CASE STUDY TWO ................................................................................. 314 

11 APPENDIX C – CASE STUDY THREE ............................................................................. 327 

 

 

 

  



 

xi 

LIST OF TABLES 
 

Table 2.1 Levels of Institutionalization of Environmental Principles ............................................. 20 

Table 2.2 Examples of Activities and Action Associated with Various Phases of Project 

Development ................................................................................................................. 34 

Table 2.3 Project Activities and Environmental Elements in the Leopold Matrix ......................... 38 

Table 2.4 Spectrum of Approaches for Integrating Economic, Social and Environmental 

(ESE) Considerations ................................................................................................... 45 

 

Table 3.1 A comparative analysis of MCA software capability for this study .......................... 62 

Table 3.2 A MCA comparison between Criterion Decision Plus and Logical Decision for 

Window ......................................................................................................................... 63 

Table 3.3 Characteristics of Logical Decisions® for WindowsTM Software ................................ 64 

Table 3.4 Summary of general attributes for project appraisal ..................................................... 72 

Table 3.5 Economic, environmental and social selection attributes ............................................. 86 

Table 3.6 Attribute scores associated with each attribute level for those attributes evaluated 

qualitatively ................................................................................................................... 93 

Table 3.7 The Scale of Relative Importance ................................................................................ 96 

Table 3.8 Comparison of three expert opinion methods............................................................... 98 

Table 3.9 Coefficient of variation and degree of consensus .................................................... 101 

Table 3.10 Interpretation of Kendall´s W ...................................................................................... 103 

 

Table 4.1 Sub-division areas of the Turitea Reserve ................................................................. 114 

Table 4.2 Full list of effects for the Turitea Wind Farm proposal ................................................ 118 

Table 4.3 Relative significance and expected effects of Wind Farm on local vegetation ........... 131 

Table 4.4 Weights of economic development attributes from Round One ................................. 145 

Table 4.5 Weights of environmental protection attributes from Round One............................... 145 

Table 4.6 Weights for the social acceptability attributes from Round One ................................. 146 

Table 4.7 Inverse matrix for the weightings of the economic development attributes from 

Round One.................................................................................................................. 147 

Table 4.8 Inverse matrix for the weightings of the environmental protection attributes from 

Round One.................................................................................................................. 147 

Table 4.9 Inverse matrix for the weightings of the social acceptability attributes from Round 

One ............................................................................................................................. 148 

Table 4.10 Weightings for the economic development attributes from Round Two ..................... 149 

Table 4.11 Weightings for the environmental protection attributes from Round Two .................. 149 

Table 4.12 Weightings for the social acceptability attributes from Round Two ............................ 150 



 

xii 

Table 4.13 Inverse matrix for the weightings of the economic development attributes from 

Round Two ................................................................................................................. 151 

Table 4.14 Inverse matrix for the weightings of the environmental protection attributes from 

Round Two ................................................................................................................. 151 

Table 4.15 Inverse matrix for the weightings of the social acceptability attributes from Round 

Two ............................................................................................................................. 152 

Table 4.16 Weightings for the economic development attributes from Round Three .................. 153 

Table 4.17 Weightings for the environmental protection attributes from Round Three ............... 153 

Table 4.18 Weightings for the social acceptability attributes from Round Three ......................... 154 

Table 4.19 Coefficients of Kendall for economic, environmental and social attribute weightings 

for the three rounds .................................................................................................... 157 

Table 4.20 Final attributes weightings .......................................................................................... 158 

Table 4.21 Turitea attributes net benefits under the different alternatives ................................... 159 

 
Table 5.1      Full list of effects for the Cisne Austral Lamb Export Abattoir ................................... 170 
Table 5.2 Weightings for the economic development attributes from Round One .................... 189 
Table 5.3 Weightings for the environmental protection attributes from Round One .................. 190 
Table 5.4 Weightings for the social acceptability attributes from Round One ........................... 190 
Table 5.5 Inverse matrix for the weightings of the economic development attributes from 

Round One ................................................................................................................. 191 
Table 5.6 Inverse matrix for the weightings of the environmental protection attributes from 

Round One ................................................................................................................. 191 
Table 5.7 Inverse matrix for the weightings of the social acceptability attributes from Round 

One ............................................................................................................................. 192 
Table 5.8 Weightings for the economic development attributes from Round Two .................... 193 
Table 5.9 Weightings for the environmental protection attributes from Round Two .................. 193 
Table 5.10 Weightings for the social acceptability attributes from Round Two ........................... 194 
Table 5.11 Inverse matrix for the weightings of the economic development attributes from 

Round Two ................................................................................................................. 194 
Table 5.12 Inverse matrix for the weightings of the environmental protection attributes from 

Round Two ................................................................................................................. 195 
Table 5.13 Inverse matrix for the weightings of the social acceptability attributes from Round 

Two ............................................................................................................................. 195 
Table 5.14 Weightings for the economic development attributes from Round Three .................. 196 
Table 5.15 Weightings for the environmental protection attributes from Round Three ............... 196 
Table 5.16 Weightings for the social acceptability attributes from Round Three ......................... 197 
Table 5.17 Coefficients of Kendall for economic, environmental and social attribute weightings 

for the three rounds .................................................................................................... 200 
Table 5.18 Final attributes weightings .......................................................................................... 201 
Table 5.19 Abattoir net benefits associated with attribute scenarios ........................................... 203 



 

xiii 

 
Table 6.1 Full list of effects for the selection of a net-cage system for use in the salmon 

farming industry .......................................................................................................... 217 
Table 6.2 Cost of alternatives net-cage systems ........................................................................ 224 
Table 6.3 Weightings for the economic development attributes from Round One ..................... 235 
Table 6.4 Weightings for the environmental protection attributes from Round One .................. 236 
Table 6.5 Weightings for the social acceptability attributes from Round One ............................ 236 
Table 6.6 Inverse matrix for the weightings of the economic development attributes from 

Round One.................................................................................................................. 237 
Table 6.7 Inverse matrix for the weightings of the environmental protection attributes from 

Round One.................................................................................................................. 237 
Table 6.8 Inverse matrix for the weightings of the social acceptability attributes from Round 

One ............................................................................................................................. 237 
Table 6.9 Weightings for the economic development attributes from Round Two ..................... 238 
Table 6.10 Weightings for the environmental protection attributes from Round Two .................. 239 
Table 6.11 Weightings for the social acceptability attributes from Round Two ............................ 239 
Table 6.12 Inverse matrix for the weightings of the economic development attributes from 

Round Two.................................................................................................................. 240 
Table 6.13 Inverse matrix for the weightings of the environmental protection attributes from 

Round Two.................................................................................................................. 240 
Table 6.14 Inverse matrix for the weightings of the social acceptability attributes from Round 

Two ............................................................................................................................. 240 
Table 6.15 Weightings for the economic development attributes from Round Three .................. 241 
Table 6.16 Weightings for the environmental protection attributes from Round Three ................ 241 
Table 6.17 Weightings for the social acceptability attributes from Round Three ......................... 242 
Table 6.18 Coefficients of Kendall for economic, environmental and social attribute weightings 

for the three rounds .................................................................................................... 245 
Table 6.19 Final attributes weightings .......................................................................................... 246 
Table 6.20 Net benefits associated with each attribute under the different alternatives for the 

selection of one of two net-cage systems to be utilised by the salmon farming 

industry in southern Chile ........................................................................................... 247 
 

 

  



 

xiv 

LIST OF FIGURES 
 

Figure 2.1    The tripartite nature of sustainability ............................................................................ 17 

Figure 2.2 Hierarchy of institutions ................................................................................................ 22 

 
Figure 3.1    Flow chart of decisional process .................................................................................. 68 

Figure 3.2 Hierarchical structure of the model .............................................................................. 91 

Figure 3.3 Pairwise Comparison using the Analytical Hierarchy Process for Weight 

Assessment .................................................................................................................. 95 

 
Figure 4.1 General location of the Turitea Wind Farm proposal ................................................. 113 

Figure 4.2 Key attributes of Turitea Wind Farm project evaluation ............................................. 120 

Figure 4.3 Coefficients of variation for the weightings of the economic development attributes 

for each round ............................................................................................................ 155 

Figure 4.4 Coefficient of variation for the weightings of the environmental protection attributes 

for each round ............................................................................................................ 155 

Figure 4.5 Coefficients of variation for the weightings of the social acceptability attributes for 

each round ................................................................................................................. 156 

Figure 4.6 Ranking of alternatives for the Turitea Wind Farm project evaluation ....................... 159 

Figure 4.7 Results of the impact of changing the relative weightings of each goal (economic, 

environmental and social) under the two alternatives for the Turitea Reserve .......... 162 

 
Figure 5.1 General location of the Cisne Austral Abattoir proposal ............................................ 168 

Figure 5.2 Key attributes of the Cisne Austral Lamb Export Abattoir project evaluation ............ 172 

Figure 5.3 Coefficients of variation for the weightings of the economic development attributes 

for each round ............................................................................................................ 198 

Figure 5.4 Coefficients of variation for the weightings of the environmental protection 

attributes for each round ............................................................................................ 198 

Figure 5.5 Coefficients of variation for the weightings of the social acceptability attributes for 

each round ................................................................................................................. 199 

Figure 5.6 Ranking of alternatives scenarios for the Cisne Austral Abattoir project ................... 202 

Figure 5.7 Results of the impact of changing the relative weightings of each goal (economic, 

environmental and social) under the three scenarios ................................................ 206 

 
Figure 6.1 The location for both the proposed projects ............................................................... 213 

Figure 6.2 Key attributes for evaluation when selecting a net-cage system to be utilized by the 

salmon farming industry in Chile ................................................................................ 218 



 

xv 

Figure 6.3 Coefficients of variation for the weightings of the economic development attributes 

for each round ............................................................................................................. 243 

Figure 6.4 Coefficients of variation for the weightings of the environmental protection 

attributes for each round ............................................................................................. 243 

Figure 6.5 Coefficients of variation for the weightings of the social acceptability attributes for 

each round .................................................................................................................. 244 

Figure 6.6 Ranking of alternatives for the selection of one of two net-cage systems to be 

utilised by the salmon farming industry in southern Chile .......................................... 248 

Figure 6.7 Results of the impact of changing the relative weightings of each goal (economic, 

environmental and social) for the final utility score of each alternative. ..................... 250 

 
 

  



 

xvi 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

xvii 

LIST OF ACRONYMS 
 

AHP : Analytic Hierarchy Process 

CBA : Cost-Benefit Analysis 

CDP  : Criterion Decision Plus 

CV : Coefficient of Variation 

DSS : Decision Support Systems 

EIA : Environmental Impact Assessment 

EIAS  : Environmental Impact Assessment System 

EPS : Environmental Priority Strategies 

ESE : Economic, Social and Environmental 

LDW : Logical Decisions for WindowsTM 

LM : Leopold Matrix 

MAUT : Multi-Attribute Utility Theory 

MCA : Multiple Criteria Analysis 

MUF  : Multi-measure Utility Function 

NRM : Natural Resource Management 

REM : Rapid Evaluation Method 

SIA : Social Impact Assessment 

SMART  : Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique 

SMARTER:  : Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique Exploiting Ranks 

SUF:  : Single-measure Utility Function 

UNCED : United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 

UNEP 
 

: United Nations Environment Programme 

WCED:  : World Commission for Environment and Development 



 

xviii 

 

 
  



 

xix 

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED 
 

The following terms have precise meanings in this thesis and are drawn from 

Logical Decision for Window (LDW) (Logical Decision, 2010, p 12-1 to 12-10), the 

MCA software employed to run REM. 

Alternative - Alternatives are the choices which will be ranked by the analysis. 

There is no limit on how many alternatives can be defined in Logical Decision 

software. Alternatives consist of a name and a level for each measure. Levels may 

be point estimates (single numbers), text labels or probabilistic. 

Analytic Hierarchy Process - A process for computing the relative importance of 

a set of alternatives or goal members. The decision maker is asked to provide the 

ratios of the performances (or importance) of all the possible pairs of objects in the 

set. A method, based on linear algebra, is used to compute the relative utilities or 

weights for the objects in the set. 

Attribute - Attributes are the criteria which quantify the achievement of the 

objectives. They describe the consequences of the alternatives and make value 

trade-offs. Attributes are expressed in measures and these may be qualitative or 

quantitative. The decision analysis literature uses many aliases for attributes, 

including ‘criteria’, ‘measures’, ‘scales’, ‘components’ and ‘indicators’ (Keeney & 

Gregory, 2005).  

Goal - A set of measures (and possibly other sub-goals) treated as a unit for 

ranking purposes. The goals form a hierarchy ranging from most to least general. 

Each analysis is required to have at least one goal, called ‘overall’. If no other sub-

goals have been defined, all of the measures are members of the overall goal. A 

measure or sub-goal can be a member of only one goal.  

Level - An alternative's level on a measure is the number on the measure's scale 

(having the proper units) that indicates how the alternative performs on that 

measure. Levels can also be probabilistic, so that the level is defined by a 



 

xx 

probability distribution instead of a single number. Levels can be text labels, where 

each alternative is assigned one of a limited number of text descriptors. Levels can 

also be defined as the weighted sum of a group of measure categories. Levels 

should not have a value or preference content. Levels are just data. Preference 

information is added when the levels are converted to utility. 

Measure - Evaluation measures are the variables that are used to rank the 

alternatives.  A measure consists of a name, a three letter abbreviation, units and 

most and least preferred levels. Logical Decision software puts no restrictions on 

the most and least preferred levels. The most preferred level can be greater or 

less than the least preferred level. There is also no requirement that the ranges on 

different measures be comparable. The ranges are made comparable when levels 

on the measures are converted to utility. 

Weight - Weights are a casual term for the scaling constants (small ks) associated 

with the members of a goal in the Multi-measure Utility Function (MUF) of a goal. 

Weights provide an indication of the relative importance of the measures given the 

ranges found for a set of alternatives. The weights in a MUF are determined by the 

trade-offs that define the MUF. The trade-offs define a unique set of weights that 

will allow all of the equally preferred alternatives in the trade-offs to get the same 

overall utility. 

Trade-off - A trade-off is a pair of equally preferred hypothetical alternatives that 

differ on only two measures: Alternative B has a more preferred level on measure 

1 and a less preferred level on measure 2, while alternative A has a less preferred 

level on measure 1 and a more preferred level for measure 2. The levels of the 

measures are set so that a change in measure 1 just compensates for a 

corresponding change in measure 2. Equally preferred alternatives should have 

equal overall utilities, and since alternatives A and B differ only in measures 1 and 

2, these compensating changes can be used to compute the relative weights for 

measures 1 and 2. 

Utility - Utility is a standardized measure of the relative desirability of a given level 

or set of levels for an alternative. Utilities are the output of a Multi-measure Utility 



 

xxi 

Function (MUF) or Single-measure Utility Function (SUF). They are used to 

convert the levels of measures, which are based on scales with potentially 

different units, into a comparable scale with a range defined to go from 0.0 to 1.0. 

Utility functions generally assign a utility of 0.0 to the least preferred level for a 

measure, and assign 1.0 to the most preferable level for a measure. Alternatives 

with utilities closer to 1.0 are preferred.