by
Felix Rauschmayer
UFZ Centre for Environmental Research
Leipzig-Halle, Germany
In this section, I will carry on the topic of T.J. Stewart who wrote in the 2000`s fall edition of the Newsletter. He took up the question of how MCDA practice should respond to behavioural research findings. An answer definitely needs a normative point of view. Without a clear idea about what the nature of decision aid is (or should be), we can not identify any shortcomings of different MCDA streams. What is the point of reference toward which we can define biases (as Stewart calls the shortcomings)? Talking of biases implies that there is a true reference which we ? as analysts ? should attain. But, at the same time, it is clear that this true reference (i.e. the preferences of the decision maker (dm)) does not exist as such. His preferences may be, and actually are, influenced by all sorts of decision frames: the weather on the decision day, the mood of the dm, the organisational setting, the intellectual (and emotional) capacity of the dm, the decision aid model with all its variables (thresholds, preference functions, etc.), the mood, etc. of the analyst, and many things more. Consequently, we arrive at a complex interrelationship between all these variables without any indication at all of which combination yields the "true" preferences, i.e. our reference point. But it is this point which enables us to define biases, to compare different MCDA (and other) models. Talking of biases implies an underlying idea of optimisation of decision aid which has no place here.
Instead, we should look for a satisficing decision aid. Whom do we (the analysts) want to satisfy? Or, rather, should satisfy (in order to make the normative aspects clearer)? What are we responsible for? And whom are we responsible to?
As you may suppose, there is a huge debate about these questions of responsibility in Ethics, and it is far beyond my scope to give an answer to them. But in each decision case, the analyst has to have an ethical point of view, and this point of view must be clear to her ? otherwise, she may not define the goodness of the decision aid. I will make the topic clearer in using the first part of the heading: "Nature in MCDA". Whenever decisions have impacts on nature, the range of concerned beings gets very large. Especially decisions in land planning, conservation issues, traffic and energy systems, agriculture, fishery and forestry have large impacts on nature. Currently living as well as future human generations are concerned by theses decisions as well as other currently living and future animals, plants, and ecosystems. In aiding the dm to take decisions, the analyst is not only responsible to the dm, but ? at least ? to present human beings. Her responsibility is not as large as the responsibility of the dm himself, but well existent, as she inevitably influences the decision. In my view, and there are good arguments for it, the analyst also has to assume responsibility to future humans as well as to other living beings (to decreasing extents). She is not responsible for the decision itself but for (the part of) the decision process on which she is acting.
How can this responsibility be reflected in the analystís attitude and action? First, there are limits of co-operation: The analyst is not obliged to accept all types of preferences of the dm, her responsibility to others might outweigh her responsibility to the dm. In extreme cases, she might drop the case, or falsify the decision process. Second, and more importantly, the analyst should influence the preferences of the dm openly, if the latter neglects his responsibility to others. This open influence is not only legitimate, but might be a necessary part of the decision process, and could be made explicit by the proposal of integration of specific stakeholders, of specific criteria, or of forms of evaluation which consider, for example, the interests of future generations. In supporting the "process of learning and discovery" (as Stewart says), the analyst directs it in some way, and she should do it openly in such a way that she can bear the responsibility of the decision process.
This, then, highlights the value of behavioural decision research to the practice of MCDA. The analyst needs the preference model (constructed with the help of results of behavioural decision research) in order to be able to bear the responsibility for the decision process. It is part of her responsibility to the dmís and to other interests that she models the ex ante preferences as best as she can, that she influences them openly, and that she uses the possibly changed preferences to help the dm to come to a resolution (if he wants to do so).
This also highlights the value of (positive and normative) ethical research to the practice of MCDA. Without such a background, the analyst may not assume her responsibility for the decision process.
Letís come back again to "Nature in MCDA": There are two domains: 1) Responsibilities to future generations (and for other living beings) are not well reflected in democratic decisions, and to a still smaller extent in markets. But, they are widely acknowledged by the public (at least responsibilities to future human generations and to some vertebrates). It is the duty of the analyst to take up her responsibility. 2) The preferences of a concrete dm who weighs up the pros and the cons of some actions in nature conservation, play a far less important role than his preferences in some business decision. Mostly, it is the role of a dm in topics of nature conservation to represent public and private interests of existent and non-existent, human and non-human interests (compare, for example, the preamble of the Convention on Biological Diversity). It is the role of the analyst to remind him of these preferences, and to propose appropriate decision models: Future generations and/or sentient animals (for example) might be treated as decision actors (with the problem of how to represent the preferences of non-existent decision actors). Or they might be represented as criteria (with the problem of how to put weights (or importance) on them).
As you noticed, I have come back to the "Nature of MCDA". Both topics are heavily interrelated, and it is not possible (in my view) to extend the field of application of MCDA to questions involving nature preservation or nature destruction without changing the understanding of MCDA itself.
P.S.: By the way, the heading of my small contribution is also the title of the 55th meeting of the working group which will take place from 14th to 16th of march 2002 in Leipzig and to which all of you are very welcome.
The author's answer tends clearly in the direction of
the Humanity, both present and future, and then of the Nature : "[...]
her responsibility to [them] might outweigh her responsibility to the [decision
maker]". This choice, that the author labels as ethical, generates direct
practical difficulties, namely the ways to exercise this responsibility.
To summarise the author's options, this can be achieved by "the integration
of specific stakeholders, of specific criteria, or forms of evaluation
which consider, for example, the interests of future generations". Her
attitude and action to do that? "In extreme cases, she might drop the case,
or falsify the decision process. [...] more importantly, the analyst should
influence the preferences of the [decision maker] openly, if the latter
neglects his responsibility to others" (our emphasis).
As an individual and a professional, I do share most
of the author's concern for the future and proposals. But there is a limit
beyond which I cannot follow him. Namely, his proposal to falsify the decision
process. I am convinced that the analyst influences the decision process
anyway, both consciously and unconsciously, and I can live with that. But
falsifying the decision process is something different, something about
legitimacy. The analyst can have a strong feeling of responsibility to
someone or somewhat, but has she the legitimacy to act in their name?
This question is difficult for unborn beings. In my opinion,
the only way to pretend to this legitimacy is to do it in the open and
to accept to be challenged by other people pretending the same. The usual
place for this is politics. I am very respectful for those - NGOs, political
parties, pressure groups - who try to be the heralds of those who cannot
defend themselves, because they are too poor, too far, too young or not
even born yet. (The same holds for those defending the animals and the
nature.) The mistakes and sometimes abuses made while trying to represent
them should not prevent people to continue in that direction.
Coming back to the analyst, whatever she tries to do
in order to influence the decision process, she must do it openly. She
can propose everything - new goals, stakeholders, alternatives, constraints,
criteria, etc. - and remains free to adapt her behaviour according to the
fate of her proposals. I share the author's view that sometimes, the only
honourable action is to withdraw from the decision process, as mentioned
explicitly in (Pictet, 1996 : 143 ss.).
The analyst's position - not to mention the facilitator's
- is a precarious one. Her participation to the process depends on her
acceptance by all the actors. If she looses their trust, the game is over.
The risk is not only the loss of professional prestige ; it deals also
with the opportunity for the analyst to influence significantly or not
the process in the direction she believes to be the right one.
Assessing this risk is everyone's duty. For myself, I
am convinced to be more effective by influencing openly the processes I
am involved in. In a recent case, I have been asked to participate for
this very reason. Up to now, I never had to withdraw - even though I had
once to threaten to do so - and hope I never will have to.
References
Pictet J., 1996, DÈpasser l'Èvaluation
environnementale, Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, Lausanne.