1. Decision and Negotiation Support in Multi-Stakeholder Development of Lake Regulation Policy
Raimo P. Hämäläinen
Systems Analysis Laboratory
Helsinki University of Technology
These slides are part of the tutorial:
Tung X. Bui, Stony Ishikawa, Raimo P. Hämäläinen and Melvin Shakun
“Environmental Negotiation with Information Technology”
32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

2. The Framework 1. Structuring the problem
2. Identifying Pareto-optimal alternatives
3. Seeking group consensus
4. Seeking public acceptance
Objective to provide support for the whole decision process

3. Information Technology
Dynamic policy alternatives:
ISMO - Interactive analysis of
dynamic water
regulation Strategies by
Multicriteria Optimization
Problem Structuring -
comparison of policy alternatives:
HIPRE 3+
Web-HIPRE

4. Pareto-optimal policies:
Joint-Gains - Generating efficient
alternatives (in testing with simplefied goals)
Group-consensus:
HIPRE Grouplink (Interval AHP model)
WINPRE - Workbench for Interval Preference
Programming (Interval AHP, SMART/SWING)
Opinion Online - Web-based survey and voting
Public - acceptance:

5. Development of Water Level Management Policy in Lake Päijänne
Annual regulation policy defined by 5-6 water level goals
Stakeholders with conflicting objectives
Power producers, fishermen, farmers, regreational users
First phase of true testing
Role playing experiments

6. LAKE PÄIJÄNNE RIVER KYMIJOKI LAKES RUOTSALAINEN AND KONNIVESI LAKE
PYHÄJÄRVI
RIVER
KYMIJOKI 10 20 30 40 50 km

7. Need for Modeling and Decision Support
Dynamic system
No intuitive solutions - impacts are functions of decision variables
Interactive analysis of impacts
Multiple criteria
Many stakeholder groups

8. Dynamic Regulation Policies

9. Utopia solution Realistic solution Water level Water level Outflow

10. Web-HIPRE Values related to the regulation policy
Decision analysis interviews of stakeholders
Open public prioritizations

11. Structuring the Problem
Iterative value tree analysis
Hierarchical structuring and prioritization
Decision criteria
Learning the ranges by initial prioritizations with temporary alternatives
Stakeholder grouping

12. Web-HIPRE - Java-Applet for Value Tree
and AHP Analysis
Starting Window

13. The First Interactive MCDA Software in the Internet
Web-HIPRE = HIerarchical PREference analysis in the World Wide Web
Successor of the the decision support software HIPRE 3+
Unlimited global access
Opens up a new dimension in decision support

14. Global Platform for Individual and Group Decision Support
Computer Supported Collaborative Decision Making - Physical distance is no longer a barrier
Individual models can be processed at the same or at different times
Group results easy to collect
Model links can contain additional WWW-links, graphics, sound or video
This can increase the quality of decision support dramatically

15. Web-HIPRE as a Java-applet
Platform independent - works in different computer environments
No installations on local machines - just a Java-enabled browser needed (e.g. Netscape 3.01, Internet Explorer 3.0 or newer)
Updated version always available
On-line help also implemented by WWW-links

16. Value Tree Analysis by Web-HIPRE

17. Web-HIPRE Weights
Environmentalist

18. Weighting Methods Spported by
Web-HIPRE
Direct weighting, SMART, SWING
SMARTER - rank based
Pairwise Comparisons (AHP)
Value Functions
Any combinations of these

19. Method of Improving Directions Joint Gains software
Interactive method for the identification of efficient alternatives (Ehtamo, Kettunen and Hämäläinen (1998))
Decision makers reply to simple questions:
“Which one of these alternatives do you prefer most?” or
“Which one of these two alternatives do you prefer, A or B?”

20. Negotiation Support System
Joint Gains -
Negotiation Support System
Joint Gains
DM interface
Subject 5:
“power
company”
Joint Gains Mediator
Joint Gains
DM interface
Subject 4:
“farmer”
Local area network
questions
replies
Joint Gains
DM interface
Joint Gains
DM interface
Joint Gains
DM interface
Subject 1:
“environmentalist”
Subject 3:
“fisherman”
Subject 2:
“summer resident”

21. Mediation Processes for 2 and 3 DM Groups
initial and intermediate points
stopping point
Roles:
Fisherman &
Farmer
Farmer, Power company
& Summer resident
Summer resident &
Environmentalist

22. Seeking Group Consensus
Select and evaluate a representative set of efficient alternatives by interval value tree analysis
Objective to reach consensus
Tool for consensus seeking
HIPRE 3+ Group Link
WINPRE - Workbench for Interactive Preference Programming

23. HIPRE Group Link Individual AHP prioritizations (HIPRE)
Combination of prioritizations (Group Link)
Interval preference model (WINPRE)
View from interval preference model for three DMs:
Recreation
Landscape
DM1
DM2
DM3
Landscape
Biodiversity
DM2
DM3
DM1
DM2
DM1
DM3

24. WINPRE - Workbench for Interactive Preference Programming (AHP mode)
Group priorities embedded in the interval statements

25. Dominance and Value Intervals
The combined interval preferences models

26. Stakeholder Participation and Public Acceptance http://www. hut
Project home pages
Web-HIPRE
Representatives’ prioritizations available for public
in the web interactively
OPINION Online
- Open web-based voting and survey generator
- Voting for alternatives: best and/or acceptable
- On-line analysis of results

30. References
WWW-sites
The Päijänne regulation policy project:
Web-HIPRE - Java-applet for Value Tree and AHP Analysis, Computer software, Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology (
WINPRE - Workbench for Interactive Preference Programming v. 1.0, Computer software, Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology. Downloadable at Units/Systems.Analysis/Downloadables/.
References
Ehtamo, H., R. P. Hämäläinen, P. Heiskanen, J. Teich, M. Verkama, and S. Zionts (1999), “Generating Pareto Solutions in Two-Party Negotiations by Adjusting Artificial Constraints,” Management Science, Vol. 45, No. 12, pp
Ehtamo, H., E. Kettunen, and R. P. Hämäläinen (2001), “Searching for Joint Gains in Multi-Party Negotiations,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 130, No. 1, pp
Ehtamo, H., M. Verkama, and R. P. Hämäläinen (1998), “How to Select Fair Improving Directions in a Negotiation Model over Continuous Issues,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics - Part C: Applications and Reviews, Vol. 28, No. 4, November 1998.
Hämäläinen, R. P. (1988), “Computer Assisted Energy Policy Analysis in the Parliament of Finland,” Interfaces, 18(4),
Hämäläinen, R. P., A. A. Salo, and K. Pöysti (1991), “Observations about Consensus Seeking in a Multiple Criteria Environment,” Proceedings of the 25th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press, 4,
Hämäläinen, R. P. and H. Lauri (1993), HIPRE 3+ Decision Support Software vs. 3.13, User’s Guide, Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology.
Hämäläinen, R. P. and E. Kettunen (1994), “On-Line Group Decision Support by HIPRE 3+ Group Link,” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, July 11-13, 1994, George Washington University, Washington D.C.,

31. Hämäläinen, R. P., and O. Leikola (1995), “Spontaneous Decision Conferencing in Parliamentary Negotiations,”
Proceedings of the 28th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society
Press, 4,
R.P. Hämäläinen, M. Lindstedt and K. Sinkko (2000), “Multi-attribute risk analysis in nuclear emergency management,” Risk Analysis,
Vol. 20 no. 4, pp
R.P. Hämäläinen, E. Kettunen, M. Marttunen and H. Ehtamo(2000), “Towards decision and negotiation support in
multi-stakeholder development of lake regulation policy,” Group Decision and Negotiation. (to appear)
(an extended version at:
Hämäläinen, R. P. and J. Mäntysaari (1998), “Interactive Spreadsheet Modelling of Regulation Strategies for a
Lake-River System,” Proceedings of the 17th IASTED International Conference on Modelling, Identification and
Control, February 18-20, 1998, IASTED - Acta Press, Anaheim, Grindelwald, Switzerland,
Hämäläinen, R. P. and M. Pöyhönen (1996), “On-Line Group Decision Support by Preference Programming in Traffic
Planning,” Group Decision and Negotiation, 5,
Marttunen, M. and R. P. Hämäläinen (1995), “Decision Analysis Interviews in Environmental Impact Assessment,”
European Journal of Operational Research, 87,
Pöyhönen, M., H. C. Vrolijk, and R. P. Hämäläinen (2001), “Behavioral and Procedural Consequences of Structural
Variation in Value Trees,” European Journal of Operational Research. (to appear)
Downloadable at Publications/.
Salo, A. A. and R. P. Hämäläinen (1992), “Preference Assessment by Imprecise Ratio Statements,” Operations
Research, 40,
Salo, A. A. and R. P. Hämäläinen (1995), “Preference Programming through Approximative Ratio Comparisons,”
European Journal of Operational Research, 82,
Salo A. (1995), “Interactive decision aiding for group decision support,” European Journal of Operational Research,
84,