Guidelines for applying multi-criteria analysis to the assessment of criteria and indicators

This guide from the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) has been written for those in the field who need clear and easy to follow instructions on the use of MCA.

Excerpt

The information is structured so that the reader is first introduced to the general concepts involved before delving into the more specific applications of Multi Criteria Analysis. The manual reviews the conceptual framework of C&I and introduces the theoretical basis of MCA, and methods such as ranking, rating and pairwise comparisons in the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). It provides an example of how MCA can be applied to C&I in a Forest Certification context both from a 'top-down' perspective as well as in a more 'bottom-up' content.

Contents

  • 1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
  • 1.1 Target Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
  • 1.2 Structure of Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
  • 1.3 The Purpose of this Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
  • 2. The Concepts Involved: C&I and MCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
  • 2.1 Review of Conceptual Framework for Criteria and Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
  • 2.1.1 Understanding Principles, Criteria and Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
  • 2.1.2 The C&I Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
  • 2.2 Introduction to Multi-Criteria Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
  • 2.2.1 Ranking and Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
  • 2.2.2 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Pairwise Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
  • 2.3 Why use MCA in C&I Assessment? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
  • 3. Applying MCA to C&I Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
  • 3.1 Introduction to Top-down and Bottom-up Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
  • 3.2 Organisational Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
  • 3.2.1 The Expert Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
  • 3.2.2 Guidelines for Collecting the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
  • 3.2.2.1 Voting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
  • 3.2.2.2 Data Collection and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
  • 3.2.3 Choosing the Appropriate Analysis Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
  • 3.3 Procedural Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
  • 3.3.1 Selection of C&I Set: The First Step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
  • 3.3.1.1 Ranking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
  • 3.3.1.2 Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
  • 3.3.1.3 Calculating Relative Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
  • 3.3.2 Scoring: The Second Step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
  • 3.3.3 Assessment of the Forest Management Unit: The Third Step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
  • 4. More Specific Application of AHP: Pairwise Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
  • 4.1 The Pairwise Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
  • 4.1.1 Collecting the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
  • 4.1.2 Calculating Relative Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
  • 4.2 Calculating the (In)consistency Index (C.I.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
  • 4.3 Improving the Consistency of Judgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
  • 5. The Bottom-up Approach and Forest Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
  • 5.1 Case Study: Central Kalimantan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
  • 6. Literature and Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Sources

Mendoza, G. A., & Macoun, P. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), (1999). Guidelines for applying multi-criteria analysis to the assessment of criteria and indicators. Retrieved from website: http://www.cifor.org/acm/methods/toolbox9.html

'Guidelines for applying multi-criteria analysis to the assessment of criteria and indicators' is referenced in: