1. MCDA; Regime Analysis and Flag Model

2. Overview of the presentation zIntroduction zEvaluation zRegime Analysis and Flag Model zApplication of the methods zMaastricht Aachen Airpot: a short description zDefinition of criteria and impacts zRegime Analysis; obtaining of rank order of alternatives zFlag Model: acceptability of alternatives zConclusions

3. History of evaluation zThe standard evaluation framework from an economic perspective is Cost-Benefit Analysis. zUnfortunately, many intrinsic shortcomings and practical limitations are related to CBA (accuracy of information, distributional equity, compensatory payments, discount rate, lifetime of the project). zResulting in the development of alternative evaluation methods, such as multicriteria analysis. zAim. Closer orientation towards actual decision-making processes (cyclical nature of process, interactivity, conflicts between stakeholders, inclusion of unpriced effects, equity concerns, etc.)

4. Evaluation process 1. Problem definition 2. Definition of alternatives 3. Definition of criteria and weights 4. Impact assessment 5. Analysis of scores and alternatives 6. Conclusions

5. Maastricht Aachen Airport

6. Maastricht Aachen Airport: 4 scenarios Scenario 1: Business as Usual zA further decrease of aircargo handling at MAA. zStabilisation of passengers traffic (350.000 p.y). Scenario 2: MAA as a Passengers Airport zConstruction of a new runway. zOutplacement of the Dutch National Aviation School. Scenario 3: MAA as an “Euregio” Airport zConstruction of a new large runway to accommodate larger aircrafts. zOpen night regime (24 hours). Scenario 4: Tradeable Permits zMAA is a buyer on the market of CO 2 permits. zNo expansion without acquisition of additional permits

7. Steps in the Flag Model 1 2 3 4

8. Impacts of the scenarios

9. Criteria and benchmark values

10. Flag Model Benchmark CTV min CTV max BACD Section A Green, No reason for specific concern Section B Yellow, Be alert Section C Red, Reverse trends Section D Black, Bad development CTV = Critical Treshold Value

11. Frequencies of flag counts

14. Evaluation 1. Problem definition 2. Definition of alternatives 3. Definition of criteria and weights 4. Impact assessment 5. Analysis of scores and alternatives 6. Conclusions

15. Regime analysis zRegime analysis is a discrete multicriteria method. zThe basic idea is to rank a set of alternatives by means of their pairwise comparisons in relation to a set of criteria. zRegime analysis makes use of an impact matrix and a set of weights. zThe method can cope with qualitative, quantitative and mixed data.

16. Regime analysis 2 zConcordance set; all criteria for which alternative A performs better than, or is equal to, alternative B. zDiscordance set; all criteria for which alternative A performs worse than, or is equal to, alternative B. zConcordance index; summation of the weights that are related to the criteria in the concordance set (C ab ). zDisconcordance index; summation of the weights that are related to the criteria in the concordance set (DC ba ). zNet concordance index = concordance index - disconcordance index zIf sign of CI is positive. Alternative A is preferred above B.

17. Regime analysis; ranking alternatives

18. 1. Passenger Airport 2. MAA serving the “Euregio” 3. Business as Usual 4. Tradeable Permits

19. Conclusions zStructuring the evaluation process ensures the compatibility between the assessment method(s) used and the problem. zThe methods are capable of dealing with the multiple dimensions of projects (e.g. social, cultural, ecological, technological, institutional, etc.). zThe methods give due attention to interest conflicts among stakeholders involved. (Different weight schemes in Regime). zThe methods can take into account qualitative as well as quantitative effects of projects. zFlag model gives a clear visualization of the effects. zFlag model can play an important role in the interactive design of alternatives and criteria.