This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
(A CASE STUDY OF URBAN AND ENVIRONMENT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT)
MANOJ KUMAR SIGDEL
M.Sc. URBAN PLANNING 2062 BATCH
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE
URBAN PLANNING PROGRAMME
PULCHOWK CAMPUS, LALITPUR.
This is to certify that this entitled “UTILITY OF MULTI CRITERIA ANALYSIS IN LARGE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURAL PROJECT: A CASE STUDY OF URBAN and ENVIRONMENT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT” submitted by Manoj Kumar Sigdel has been examined and it has been declared successful for the fulfillment of the academic requirement towards the completion of the Master of Science Course in Urban Planning.
…………………………… Dr. Sagar Prasai. (Thesis Supervisor) Date:
I declare that this dissertation has not been previously accepted in substance for any degree and is not being concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree. I state that this dissertation is the result of my own independent work/investigation, except where otherwise stated. I hereby give consent for my dissertation, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and understand that any reference to or quotation from my thesis will receive an acknowledgement.
…………………………… Manoj Kumar Sigdel February, 2008
constructive discussions and providing necessary software and reference documents. Prof. His encouragement and continuous support through out this period is life time memorable. program coordinator of MSc urban planning for their regular suggestions and comments. for their continuous support during this period. Foremost. Dr. project related documents and data which were very useful in thesis preparation. Shashi Bhattarai. Also the generosity goes to all the respondents for providing valuable information’s that are very useful in the building the research to this stage. Shiva Hari Sharma. Jib Raj Pokharel and Asst. Manoj Kumar Sigdel iii . Thanking You. My profound gratitude goes to Mr. Dr. Sagar Prasai. for sharing profound knowledge. I express my sincere gratitude to Dr. The way they have guided and the inputs they have during the thesis preparation are the most valuable achievements.) Ltd. I owe a special debt of thanks to all the friends especially to Mr. Prof. I express my gratitude to Dr.ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work of thesis is a result and encouragement of many people to whom I express my sincere acknowledgement. and critical suggestions moreover. I am very grateful to Integrated Consultants Nepal (P. for their support in providing references. and necessary arrangements. for his suggestion. support. Grija Prashad Gorkhali. my thesis advisor for professional guidance and continuous encouragement in every stage of work delivering in depth knowledge. Project Director of Urban and Environmental Project & Mr. The credit for any good about this thesis is attributed to his guidance. Mr. Dhiraj Pokhrel and Rabindra Shrestha for their suggestions. Sudarshan Raj Tiwari. I am highly indebted to Prof. Sanjay Upreti. Mahendra Subbha.
the WT and AHP methods was applied on different criteria used in selection process of UEIP towns. Urban. led to a reduction in the utility of multi criteria analysis. Key words: Decision.ABSTRACT This thesis attempts to analyze the utility of MCA in large urban infrastructural investment as it is not effectively applied for such projects in Nepal. During the process of research. which focuses on qualitative data and subjective judgment. It attempts to analyze the ranking of towns by the change of weights in criteria and sub-criteria in sensitivity analysis. Finally this research draws the conclusion that multi criteria analysis is an appropriate decision support tool for rational judgments in decision making but the wide spectrum of criteria should be selected to avoid distortions in the decision process.Criteria Analysis. Analytical Hierarchy Process. The paper. tries to point out the repercussions of decision making process at different level which directly undermined the projected goals of such projects in the past. In the process of defending this thesis. AHP. Also the research found that the actual decision making process rested on the decision makers’ hierarchy. which directly affected the entire implementation of projects. Infrastructure Development. Multi . Moreover. the research also calls in for the application of AHP in MCA since the results obtained through this method quite tally with the one drawn by WT method. iv . is more suitable for a country like Nepal where there is a substantial dearth of quantitative data. in its attempt to show that multi-criteria analysis might be a reliable tool in the context of Nepalese planning processes. this research showed that intervention from several external criteria.
ABBREVIATIONS/ ACRONYMS ADB AHP BC CBO CBS CoTL DDC DoP DTLR DUDBC DWSS EP GoN H HMG/N IC INGO KUDP KVMP LSGA LwK M MAUT MAVT MCA MCDA MCDM MIT MLD MoF MOPE MPPW MuAN NGO Asian Development Bank Analytic Hierarchy Process Before Christ Community Based Organization Centre Bureau of Statistics Commitment of Town Leaders District Development Committee Degree of Participation Department for Transport. Local Government and the Region Department of Urban Development and Building Construction Department of Water Supply and Sewerage Economic Potential Government of Nepal High His Majesty’s Government of Nepal Institutional Capacity International Non Governmental Organization Kathmandu Urban Development Project Kathmandu Valley Mapping Project Local Self Governance Act Linkage with Kathmandu Moderate Multi Attribute Utility Theory Multi Attribute Value Theory Multi Criteria Analysis Multi Criteria Decision Analysis Multi Criteria Decision Making Massacheutte Institute of Technology Ministry of Local Development Ministry of Finance Ministry of Population and Environment Ministry of Physical Planning and Works Municipal Association of Nepal Non Governmental Organization v .
NM NPC NWSC Ok OPP PA PCO PIU PPP PPPUE PtoK S SC SEU TDC TDF TOR UDLE UEIP UEVP UGR VDC VH VS W WofP WT PSC Not Much National Planning Commission Nepal Water Supply Corporation Okay Opportunities to Physical Planning Project Advisor Project Coordination Office Project Implementation Unit Public-Private Partnership Public Private Partnership for Urban Environment Proximity to Kathmandu Strong Steering Committee Subjectively Expected Utility Town Development Committees Town Development Fund Terms of Reference Urban Development through Local Effort Urban and Environmental Improvement Project Urban and environmental Infrastructural View Point Urban Growth Rate Village Development Committee Very High Very Strong Weak Willingness of People Weighted Table Project Steering Committee vi .
....... 4 Research Methodology .............................................. 8 3............................ 31 Selection of UEIP Towns ......1 3.............................................. Planning and Legislation ........................................................................................1 3......................................................................................................5 3............................................................................2 3....iii ABSTRACT..6..........................................................................................................................................................................1 3..................................................Table of Contents CERTIFICATE ......................................................................... 21 Uncertainities in Decision Making............. 2 Scope and Limitations of the Study..................................................................................1 Analysis ..................................................1 3..................ii ACKNOWLEDGMENT.. 30 4........................................................................................................... 14 Subjectively Expected Utility (SEU) ................... 3..................................................................... 4 Research Questions ...................2 1.................................................................................................................................. 24 Overall Goals and Objectives .........................................................3 3......................................1 1......2....................4...6......................4 2...................................2 History of Decision Making .................................................................................................................... 23 Multi Criteria analysis .. General Background.......................6 3.............................2..........................4 3.................................................... 1 Problem Statement............. v 1......... 33 4...................... 12 Normative Theory of Planning...................................................................................................... 13 Synoptic and Incremental Planning Theory .......... 13 Theory of Decision Making................................ 14 Differentiation and Consolidation (Diff Con Theory) .............. 15 Decision Making Problematics.............. Inroduction...........1 3........................................................................................................................ 5 Literature Review .................................................................................................................2 3........................ 24 Brief History of Multi Criteria Analysis .........3...................................................................3........2 3....... 1 1..........1 5..............................3 1............................................... Brief Introduction of UEIP ........................................................................................................... 21 The Classification Problem ..............................2 3.................................................................................................................. 8 Decision Theory ...................... 24 Basic Concept. 22 Role of Government........ 33 vii ................................................................4.....i DECLARATION ................................iv ABBREVIATIONS/ ACRONYMS..... 5....................
.................................... 49 Weighted Table ...............................1 5...............................3 5.......................................................................................................................................................1 7.......................................................... 40 Decision Assessment:.................................... 58 Findings ....2 5.........................1.................2 5........2.......................2..................................................................................................1 5..........................1 6......................... 36 Analytical Hierarchy Process ..............................1................. 34 Preparation of Survey Tools........1....................................................................................................... 49 Analytical Hierarchy Process ... 7.................4 6........................................ 39 Comparision on ranking of Towns .................................................................. 57 Recommendation for further research .................. 39 Sensitivity Analysis.....................................................3 5...............................................................2 Frame Work Assessment............................1......................................................................................................................................5...2 5.............2 7......... 50 Recommendation........ 44 Utility of Multi Criteria Analysis ..... 35 Result.................................................................2........................................... 36 Weighted Table .........i Annexure viii .. 6..................................................1 6............... 49 Conclusion and Recommendation .............................................................................................. 56 BiblioGraphy ..................
.…….37 Table 7: Multi Criteria Analysis by AHP Method……………………………....……………5 Figure 2: Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) for UEIP towns……………….38 Table 8: Criteria and sub-criteria distribution for sensitivity analysis………………..51 Table 15: Ranking of UEIP towns through sensitivity analysis 2 based on AHP method……………………………………………………………………………….……….……………....28 Table 3: Selected Towns for UEIP …………………………………………………..50 Table 14: Ranking of UEIP towns through sensitivity analysis 1 based on AHP method………………………………………………………………………………..……….……....40 Table 9: Score obtained by towns under three conditions……………………………41 Table 10: Sensitivity Analysis type 1through AHP method…………………………42 Table 11: Sensitivity Analysis type 2through AHP method………………….List of Tables Table 1: Overview of Diff Con Theory………………………………………………16 Table 2: Uses of AHP at different sectors of planning……………….……….31 ix .…….49 Table 13: Ranking of UEIP towns based on AHP method……..…….43 Table no 12: Ranking of UEIP towns based on WT method………….35 Table 6: Multi Criteria Analysis by Simple Weighted Mean Method……………….……………41 List of Maps Map 1: Strategic Location UEIP Project…………………………………….34 Table 5: Details of Criteria and Weight Distribution under Normal Condition……..29 List of Charts Chart 1: Details of Criteria and Weight Distribution under Normal condition………36 Chart 2: Comparison of UEIP towns in three different cases………….33 Table 4: Criteria for selection of UEIP Towns……………………………………….………….52 Table 16: Comparision of rank obtained from different methods……………………53 List of Figures Figure 1: Framework Development of the Research Work…………….
defined “urban” as settlements having 5. Urban areas are undergoing considerable growth in employment. industrial establishments. land for non-agricultural use increased by 45. the environment. the government. INRODUCTION 1. population growth. At the same time.000 and more. As the country now develops towards a more urban economy. covering 9. In 1991. In that year. there were 16 towns with a population of 5. 2002). In 1961.1. The rapid rate of urbanization during the past two decades has created unprecedented pressure on Kathmandu and a number of cities in the Terai. Urbanization is now changing the face of the Nepal dramatically. which is likely to have pervasive impact on the quality of urban life and.000 or more population. covering 6. but agricultural land has been changing rapidly due to unchecked urbanization in the areas near its cities. sewerage.000 and more.2 per cent of the total population. This figure increased to 23. the number increased to 58 urban areas with a population of 10.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND Nepal is predominantly an agricultural country.9 per cent in 2001 (Ministry of Population and Environment (MOPE). offices. This situation has led to the degradation of urban environment causing serious health problem and thereby deteriorating the quality of 1 . drainage. with urban facilities such as markets.4 per cent of the total population in 1981. Rapid population growth from various reasons have resulted in serious deficiencies of basic urban services such as water supply.700 hectares and then to 119. of course. rapid urbanization and industrialization brought in its wake a new dimension to the inadequate infrastructure and services in Nepal. solid waste management. which rose to 13.200 hectares to 95. Apart from the obvious health issues. 2003). urban road system etc. infrastructure and basic services. Local governments are thus faced with new and far more complex urban challenges. etc.160 hectares from 1961-62 to 1991-92 and then to 2001-02 respectively (Centre Bureau of Statistics (CBS). the economic growth and sustainable development of its existing and newly emerging urban settlements is becoming increasingly important in enhancing the economic well being of the nation. for the first time. school.
the urban life. Hetauda. the Ninth plan (1997-2002) brought up some policies on urban development and environmental amelioration and to support decentralization and strengthen local governance through local development. In past decades. 1999 to launch the "Urban and Environmental Improvement Project (UEIP) Technical Assistance.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT The background is sufficient to show that it is exigent for the government of Nepal to take strong and immediate steps for the management of haphazard growth and the burgeoning population pressure within Kathmandu. policies and large projects. Serious deficiencies of infrastructure and services like sewage management are the commonest issues in the urban area of Nepal causing environmental problems in terms of public health and sanitation. Bidur. several efforts were made to improve the urban sector of Nepal especially in Kathmandu but the present haphazard urban environment by itself is a testimony to the failure of such endeavors. facilitating towards sustainable urban development through infrastructural development of 9 municipalities (Banepa. There has been a growing concern over the uncontrolled growth of major cities including Kathmandu and the simultaneous inadequacy in the provisions of physical and social infrastructure affecting the entire urban milieu. To address the above problems and in a bid to devolve power to local government. the Ministry of Physical Planning and Works (MPPW) (the then Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) signed a Memorandum of Understanding on November 5. Ratnanagar. In order to meet the goals as envisaged in the ninth plan and to overcome urban infrastructure deficits. was launched in 2000 for improving the urban environment. Urban 2 . Kamalamai. Panauti. in a strategic move. Its objective was to improve urban environment and prevent the inevitable new problems looming over the Kathmandu valley. This requires systematic planning intervention. Dhulikhel. Apart from meeting the current deficits. 1. the future infrastructure and services requirement for the growing urban population provides the major policy challenges for both the national and local governments. and towns of Dhading Besi) located in vicinity of the Kathmandu valley. Bharatpur. The project.
institutional. planners are confronted with the necessity of taking into account the impacts typically analyzed by other disciplines. Though it is felt and several plans and policies are brought up for infrastructural development.sector problems are of diversified in nature. (Urban and Environmental Improvement Project (UEIP). this has to be handled by local permanent staff. Though the project ensured the timely implementation of project during that period but in long run. Notable examples of failure precipitated by the inability of a coherent addressing of the aforementioned criteria include the projects “Kathmandu Urban Development Project (KUDP)” and Kathmandu Valley Mapping Project (KVMP). Trend of carrying a decision process within short period of time without studying infrastructural projects from different criteria and unawareness of the possible outcomes and risk lies behind its implementation causes the failure of project. financial…etc) for driving towards sustainability. as a natural corollary. The influence of different forces like (political. From the past experience it should be realized that analysis of several criteria should be meticulously done while deciding the implementation of large donor funded projects. which were funded by World Bank and European Union respectively. In the case of these projects. local government and line agencies). Thus. political. donors. but this effort are done individually by the institutions creating doubts over long term sustainability of such endeavors. Functional failure of one criterion. technical. the donor agencies executed the project through “Project Implementation Unit (PIU) where only technical assistance was provided by expertise with relatively minimum input of municipality. central government. At this point the project was failed because of lack of technical expertise and low sense of obligation about that project putting a big question mark over the sustainability of large donor funded projects. Another major factor that influence the haphazard urban development is mainly through uncoordinated decisions between the concerned institutions and of course individuals (like donor agencies. leaves serious repercussions on the entire urban environment. This means it has to incorporate different criteria (like social. Meanwhile there is lagging of coordination among the institutions working in 3 . personal interest…etc) derails the project due to the contradictory impulses of prioritization and implementation. 2001).
The study will suggest the appropriate method/ software for the multi criteria analysis for decision making in urban infrastructure investment project. To suggest ways of integrating multi criteria. In this situation. The depth of the study will be limited through low information regarding the topics and availability of data. The study and outcome thus obtained will be from an individual effort hence resource management and mobilization may limit rigorous study. the necessity of Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) is felt for decision making purposes solely to draw the concern of different actors within an umbrella. Conflict of perspectives among the varied actors is an unvarnished truism.3 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY • This study will analyze the utility of multi criteria analysis and present decision making process in urban infrastructure investment project. A typical case of MCA application will be demonstrated on Urban Environment Improvement Project utilizing best available resources and time of research. multi actor decision making process in urban infrastructure investment. and to come up with single objectives and goals.infrastructural development sector.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS • How rational or pragmatic is the use of Multi Criteria Analysis in large infrastructure investment project? • What does an integrated model of multi criteria/ multi actor’s decision process contain in the context of Nepal? 4 . Objectives of the Research Main Objectives • To analyze utility of multi criteria analysis in large urban infrastructure investment. • 1. Secondary Objectives • To analyze the process of decision making at different levels for urban infrastructural development. • • • • 1.
2. Desk Study This was the preliminary state where all the available data. documents. maps and reports related to project (UEIP) were studied and its main objective was to extract and compile as much possible information before hand so as to streamline the future course of action. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The study has followed a descriptive method and interpretive type and the structure of the study mainly depends following factors: 1.2. Framework development Figure 1: Framework Development of the Research Work 5 .
formulation of hierarchy model was first prepared and the ranking of towns were done through weighted mean table method and by multi criteria software. literatures. Only key informant interviews were conducted thus only the qualitative data were collected and data were extracted from secondary sources. urban infrastructure and literature regarding multi sectoral project with application of MCA are thoroughly studied. • At the final phase. relevant organizations and steering committee to determine what factors and which actor plays the key role in decision making process during selection of nine UEIP towns. the criteria adopted were taken same as it was considered by the professionals for town’s selection. • MCA Software For the analysis. books and other available sources of information concern with decision theory. Data presentation and Analysis • Subjective criteria setting was conducted for multi criteria analysis. to avoid the deviation of results. expert choice based on theory of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). • At the preliminary stage. The weighted table method is the simplest form of MCA and easy to understand. Here the alternatives were scored for each comparison criteria and the summation were 6 . 5. data were collected through concerned institutions and also experts involved during selection of UEIP towns were requested to fill up the matrixes of selection criteria against short listed towns for multi criteria analysis (MCA) of UEIP towns.3. • Institutions visits and discussion were done accordingly. the sets of questionnaire were prepared discussing with thesis coordinator then key informant surveys were done with the experts involved in selection of UEIP towns. Literature Review Various journals. 4. Data Collection Data were collected through primary survey and secondary sources as well.
7. The purpose was to find out the involvement of multi actor/ hierarchical decision making process in the UEIP towns. The sensitivity analysis was also done through this method changing the weight of criteria and sub criteria. The importance or weight to the factors can either be directly applied or could be generated by making pair-wise judgment between the various factors.matrix based. Draft final research • Draft report on the research incorporating all the study data analysis and result were prepared and submitted for comments. The criteria were weighted because as they were not equally valued by individuals. 7 . 6. Final research report preparation • Based upon the comments received modifications on the draft research is made to final thesis. Objective of evaluation lies at the top and the options or alternatives to be evaluated are placed at the lowest level of the hierarchy. • The result thus obtained from MCA was reviewed on the basis of respondent survey. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) based multiple criteria analysis starts from building tree like structure with criteria at higher level and sub criteria were at the lower level.
4th Century BC Plato asserts that all perceivable things are derived from eternal archetypes and are better discovered through the soul than through senses. events. research and thinking that contributed to the subject and any dates are approximate. demonstrating how difficult problems can be solved with both strokes. 399 BC In early jury-trial decisions. hundreds of generations of Chinese rely on the poetic wisdom and divinations instructions. rich and diverse The following timeline represents only a small sample of the people. LITERATURE REVIEW 3. Prophets and seers of kinds peer into the future. in the early form of democratic self-government. dreams and the like. reciprocity. and filial piety. 5th Century BC Male citizens in Athens. smoke. make decisions by voting. ritual. human decisions guided by interpretations of entrails. Aristotle takes an empirical view of knowledge that values information gained through the senses and deductive reasoning.3. A sypnotic version of the history of decision making as put forward by Buchanan and Cornell (2006) can be handy in this regard: Prehistory For millennia. 333 BC Alexander the Great slices through the Gordian knot with his sword. 6th Century BC Principle of “non willful action”: letting events take their natural course Confucius says decisions should be informed by benevolence. 500 Athenian citizens agree to send Socrates to his death.1 HISTORY OF DECISION MAKING The history of decision making is long. 8 . The Greeks consult the Oracle of Delphi.
and a potent metaphor in decision making is born. of being wrong can be paramount. 1654 Prompted by a gamblers’ question about the “problem of points”. and develops a structure for understanding the occurrence of random events. rather than the likelihood. 1907 Introduces the net present value as a decision making tool. a rule of thumb for scientists and others trying to analyze data: the best theory is the simplest one that accounts for all evidence. Blaise Pascal and Pierre de Fermat develop the concept of calculating probabilities for chance events. described earlier by Abraham de Moivre. paving the way for the development of agenda. proposing that expected cash flow be discounted at the rate that reflects an investment’s risk. 9 . 17th Century Stable keeper Thomas Hobson presents his customers with an eponymous “choice”: the horse nearest the door or none. circulates throughout the Arab empire.49 BC Julius Caesar makes the irreversible decision to cross the Rubicon. 1738 Daniel Bernoulli lays the foundation of risk science by examining random events from the standpoint of how much an individual desires or fears each possible outcome. stimulating the growth of mathematics. 9th Century The Hindu-Arabic number including the zero. 14th Century An English friar proposes what became known as “Occam’s razor”. 1660 Pascal’s wager on the existence of God shows that for a decision maker the consequences. 11th Century Omar Khayyam uses the Hindu-Arabic number system to create a language of calculation. 19th Century Carl Friedrich Gauss studies the bell curve.
1950s Research at the Carnegie Institute of Technology and MIT led to the development of early computer-based decision support tools. bureaucratic illogic that thwarts good decision making. useful for decision when time is short and circumstances complex. and uncertainty.1921 Frank Knight distinguishes between risk. in which an outcome’s probability can be known (and consequently insured against). opportunities and threats) model of analysis. Kenneth Andrews and others develop the SWOT (strengths. in which an outcome’s probability is unknowable. 1951 Kenneth Arrow introduced the Impossibility Theorem which holds that there can be no set of rules for social decision making that fulfils all the requirements of society. 1960s Edmund Learned. 10 . Roland Christensen. 1944 John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern in Game Theory describe a mathematical basis for economic decision making like most theorists before them. C. 1961 Joseph Heller’s term “catch-22” becomes popular shorthand for circular. weaknesses. they take the view that decision makers are rational and consistent. 1938 Chester Barnard separates personal from organizational decision making to explain why some employees act in the firm’s interest rather than their own. 1952 Harry Markowitz demonstrates mathematically how to choose diversified stock portfolios so that the returns are consistent. 1947 Herbert Simon argues that because of the costs of acquiring information. executives make decisions with only “bounded rationality” – they make do with good enough decisions Rejects the notion that decision makers behave with perfect rationality.
1979 Amos Tversky and Daniel Kaheman publish their Prospect Theory that demonstrates that the rational model of economics fail to describe how people arrive at decisions when facing the uncertainties of real life.Yetton model which explains how different leadership styles can be harnessed to solve different types of problems. Little develops the underlying theory and advances the capability of decision-support systems 1972 Irving Janis coins the term “groupthink” for flawed decision making that values consensus over the best result Michael Cohen. he is considered as the founder of the European school of MCDA. Roger Wolcott Sperry begins publishing research on the functional specialization of the brain’s two hemispheres. beginning a revolution in risk management Henry Mintzberg describes several kinds of decision makers and positions decision making within the context of managerial work. 1973 Victor Vroom and Philip Yetton develop the Vroom. one of the pioneers in this field. MCDA attracted the interest of European operations researchers. James March and Johan Olsen publish “A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice” which advices organizations to search for their information trash bins for solutions thrown out earlier for lack of a problem 1973 Fischer Black.C. Myron Scholes and Robert Merton show how to accurately value stock options. 1970 John D. 1968 By the end of the 1960s. Roy (1968).1965 Corporations use IBM’s System/360 computers in stat implementing management information systems. introduced the outranking relation approach. 11 .
A combination of economic. Decision making is an every day human function. 3. or what to do in the future (strategy and planning)” (Crainer 1999).2 DECISION THEORY Decision implies the end of deliberation and the beginning of action.” (William cited in Buchanan & Connell 2006). 1996 Web users start making buying decisions based on the buying decisions of people like themselves. Theories of planning are broadly speaking theories of how decisions concerning the community or the society at large are prepared or should be prepared. their health. research and development. Business and financial institutions are faced daily with decisions about investment. and their education and careers. 1992 Max Bazerman and Margaret Neale connect behavioural decision research to negotiations in Negotiating Rationally. Decisions are also essential at a societal level. “Decisions usually concern people (human resources). 12 . social and technological developments has produced a situation where people have to make important decisions about their relationships and family life. 2005 In Blink Malcolm Gladwell explores the notion that our instantaneous decisions are sometimes better than those based on lengthy rational analysis. and deployment of resources in a complex and uncertain environment (Ranyard and Crozier 1997). It is perhaps the social and economic significance of decisions that has resulted in the considerable influence upon psychological approaches to the study of decision making of concepts from other disciplines. money (budgeting).1980s Saaty (1980) first proposed the AHP method (Analytic Hierarchy Process) for addressing complex decision making problem involving multiple criteria. buying and selling (marketing). The method is particularly well suited for problems where the evaluation criteria can be organized in a hierarchical way into sub-criteria. how to do things (operations).
In greek teleos means purpose hence it is also called as consequentiality ethics.2. the consequences of all the alternatives. That means this theory has concerned only with the goals of action or the goodness created from planners decision. able to compute with perfect accuracy. 3.2 Teleological Normative Theory On the contrary to deontological theory. The theory of ethics is not concerned with the consequences of action but with the rightness of the act itself. thus in consequences intermittent feed back are required.e. the data base for acquiring perfect information exists at the outset. In synoptic planning.3. thus it require little need for external communication during the planning process also little learning with bearing on decisions already made.2 Synoptic and Incremental Planning Theory Synoptic planning is normative which tells method for tackling the problems rationally. “Normative literature suggest a wide diversity of approaches to the questions of what principles should be central and how reasoning about and justification of ethical choices should takes place” (Howe n.1. and fully rational.1. 13 .2. Normative theory enables planners in appropriate way of thinking the ethical issues and dealing with them. assuming an ideal decision maker who is fully informed. 3..2. The normative ethical theory can be classified into two groups based on the relation between right action and intrinsic actions. It means that it has no concern with the out comes of the result. teleological ethics is concerned with the goodness of result.1 Normative Theory of Planning Most of decision theory is normative or prescriptive. because it is concerned with identifying the best decision to take. i. 3.).d. Synoptic planning is thought to have perfect knowledge of possibilities.1 Deontological Normative Theory: The word deontological was first derived from Greek word “ought” and is concerned with moral rules or the right of process.2. Though teleological theories focus on the consequences but they can vary in other ways concerning whose consequences count what motivates ethical behaviour and what criteria are made for moral judgments. Synoptic and incremental planning are opposites when it comes to the assumptions concerning information and communication.
that should exist if it were right. also learning and feed back loop are essential. The ambition of synoptic planners to be instrumentally rational encourages the application of technology. which encompasses the basic assumption that rationality is relative to the information processing capacities of the decision maker. understanding and agreement. could be applied without sophisticated powers of discrimination and evaluation.3.3 THEORY OF DECISION MAKING 3. which would simply cause a mess without suitable techniques for handling the data. This principle. 3. for example. Based on this. The synoptic approach to planning is weak on participation but strong on technical issues. Simon (1957) argued that people can productively adapt to their environment by identifying actions that are merely suitable for their goals (Ranyard & Crozier 1997). Edwards and Tversky 1967 summarized the early research as follows: these studies generally show consistent.1 Subjectively Expected Utility (SEU) SEU theory is a model of rational behaviour. “Perfect information means lot of information. certain invariance’s. Nevertheless. analytical techniques ensure that the knowledge is systematized and put to use efficiently. he developed his novel concept of bounded rationality. the value of utility maximization as a normative choice principle was criticized. he further argued. the SEU model is clearly wrong in detail. Its elegance and authoritative status provide an incentive for decision makers to apply it to their own situation. do not exist (Ranyard & Crozier 1997). rational performance. One approach to 14 .Incremental planning has incomplete initial data base and required external communication during the process to improve information. This assumes that decisions should be reached by summing over the set of alternatives where the utility of each alternative weighted by the subjective probability of its occurrence. originating in economics and mathematics. Due to the perfect information the synoptic planners hold the ambition of embarking on the grand optimization right form the start”(Sager 1994). He proposed the alternative normative principle of satisfying: take the first course of action that is satisfactory on all important aspects. SEU as a model describes how people actually make decisions did not receive unambiguous support from empirical studies. orderly. powers that humans do not possess.
for instance. or envy. 3. The following table presents an overview of the theory. until it is judged sufficiently superior in attractiveness to be chosen. Table 1: Overview of Diff Con Theory Phase Stage Process • Recognition decision problem of • Identification of Alternatives Goal Decision • Perceptual cognitive identification and • • Involve elicitation Goal adaptation Holistic differentiation • • • Differentiation • Screening Editing Selection of reference and for preliminary alternative • Process and structural differentiation • • Problem restructuring • 15 . but also considers post-decision consolidation processes. An option that is not well enough differentiated from its competitors may result in. or negative feelings such as uncertainty. a reversal of preference.2 Differentiation and Consolidation (Diff Con Theory) In this theory the decision making process is modeled as one in which a choice option is gradually differentiated from other alternatives. The theory not only focuses on this pre-choice differentiation path. regret. but to pick the option that will remain the best option in the post decision future.3. The basic assumption revovles around the concept that the decision maker’s intended goal is not only to choose the best option.reducing discrepancies between behavior and the SEU theory has been to develop fresh theories that provide a better account of some of these findings.
(Beach 1990). attributes and goals.3. Differentiation criteria may stem from. At low levels of any type of involvement. and attempt to eliminate options that do not qualify for further consideration.2.1 Holistic differentiation A quick holistic process may select a initial choice of alternatives as it comprises of a quick classification. or explicit demands or restrictions in the decision context. which provides a differentiated representation of the decision problem at relatively low cognitive costs. and thus beyond the decision makers awareness. intuitive use of schemas. which occurs automatically. comparison with an exemplar or prototype. decision makers are liable to engage in holistic differentiation. Once the decision problem is defined.Phase Stage Process • Differentiation Post decision consolidation Implementation of decision Post implementation Out come Post outcome consolidation • • • Decision consolidation • Process and structural differentiation Problem restructuring • • • • (Ranyard & Crozier 1997) According to Differentiation and Consolidation Theory. 3. for instance. endowing alternative for preliminary choice that is further put under a scanner or an option that serves as a reference in the process that ensues. various types of differentiation processes may take place. lead to a set of options that deserve further deliberation . Low involvement information processing 16 . experience with similar decisions. Holistic differentiation may thus be enough for making a decision. a decision process starts with identifying decision alternatives. Table above presents phases in Differentiation and Consolidation Theory Decision makers start with screening the available options. naturally.
further differentiation may be accomplished by processing information about the alternatives. and a (preliminary) choice. Activated values may provide cues that allow for quick categorization processes. or habit-based responses.3. It can be argued that holistic differentiation is not restricted to low involvement contexts.2. A large variety of decision rules have been described in the decision making literature. Such processing results in quick categorizations of choice options. defensible decision is the optimal strategy. Various processing strategies may be used. Application of decision rules creates information about the degree of superiority of one alternative over another.typically comprises the use of readily available category-based judgments simple heuristics. all alternatives that do not meet a given criterion level on an attribute are eliminated from the choice set. Such information may be drawn from memory. by evoking schemas. On the other hand. or acquired extrinsically. Some rules result in elimination of alternatives early in the selection process. 3. When the decision maker expects to face an audience with unknown standpoints. when the decision maker knows how he or she will be evaluated.3 Conjunctive and disjunctive rule of differentiation According to the conjunctive rule. which characterize holistic differentiation. the use of holistic differentiation can also be taken into account . In high value-relevant involvement decisions.2 Process Differentiation The second type of differentiation is process differentiation. Some rules require criteria to 17 . this criterion can be used in a holistic differentiation process. In this phase one alternative is gradually differentiated so as to become the chosen one.3. The occurrence of holistic differentiation under conditions of high impression and relevant involvement depends on the type of evaluation context that is expected. Given that a decision maker has a set of options.2. 3. In that case holistic differentiation is less likely. leading to the categorization of alternatives. which is referred to as decision rule differentiation. taking a moderate. or leads to an immediate choice (Ranyard & Crozier 1997).
and may thus be used as a tool in accomplishing sufficient differentiation. In the disjunctive rule an alternative is chosen that exceeds a certain criterion level of attractiveness on an attribute. pros and cons of alternatives are weighted by the importance of the attributes. acceptance criteria (e. when involvement in a decision is relatively low. in order not to drop potentially valuable alternatives. which are used to maintain or reject alternatives. In high value-relevant involvement decisions.2. or criteria of acceptance in the disjunctive rule. constructive and adaptive fashion (Payne et al. As long as this mapping is not clear. There are other aspects of process differentiation that might be influenced by involvement. values may determine the strictness of the cutoff criteria. for example criteria of rejection in the conjunctive rule. Generally. 3. 1992).g. which are often utilized in a bottom-up. and the option is chosen that has the most favourable weighted score. These rules are non compensatory. and may yet result in a satisfactory decision. This information may be available in memory. effort is expended on mapping the decision maker’s values and goals on the problem. in a conjunctive rule) may be relaxed. 18 .4 Weighted Additive Rule In weighted additive rule. value-relevant involvement in particular may affect the search for information. which is known as criterion differentiation. In general. given that accuracy motives are not strongly present (ibid). Such criteria may be varied during the process of applying a rule. such as the conjunctive rule. rules that allow decision makers to make trade-offs between attribute values (compensatory strategies) are cognitively more effortful than rules that do not allow compensation. or may have to be acquired. requiring little mental gymnastics.. there is a greater probability of simple decision rules. Process differentiation comprises consideration of information about choice options. Decision strategies typically comprise combinations of rules.be set by the decision makers. As soon as a satisfactory mapping is accomplished.3. In either case.
or information is ambiguous. facts restructuring.3. Attractiveness restructuring comprises revision of attractiveness of attribute values of options. (2) attribute importance. Structural differentiation mechanisms. are related to decision rule and criterion differentiation. a decision maker may ascribe different degrees of importance to attributes so as to support a preliminary choice and is denoted as importance restructuring. After a choice is made. and in particular attractiveness and attribute importance restructuring. i. restructuring of (1) attractiveness. Once a decision is made. the interpretation of decision rules in Differentiation and Consolidation theory not only acknowledges the rules power to select one alternative as superior.2. Diff Con Theory postulates that differentiation mechanisms continue to operate. reinterpreted. changes in the representation of the decision problem also take place. differentiation of the chosen option and its competitors is further increased.3. the goal of structural differentiation is to achieve sufficient differentiation such that one alternative can be chosen. (3) the interpretations of facts and (4) the decision problem. This may especially occur to the extent that facts are uncertain.. 19 .e.5 Structural Rule of Differentiation In contrast to most decision-theoretic approaches. For instance.e. Facts may be differently interpreted. Decision rules and criterion differentiation are processes that ultimately differentiate one option sufficiently from its competitors. Like the latter processes. or misinterpreted during the decision process. Structural differentiations are of four types.. in unstructured decision contexts one may look for new alternatives in addition to evaluating present options (Ranyard and Crozier 1997). the conjunctive rule provides information about how far from the pass-fail criterion alternatives are. it views decision rules as tools to establish the degree of superiority of one alternative over others. the decision problem as such may be changed into problem restructuring. Finally. For instance. so as to minimize the occurrence of regret or cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1957). which is referred to as consolidation of the decision. This is known as structural differentiation. Structural differentiation refers to changes in ones representation of the choice problem. i. Also. In conjunction with the application of decision rules.
when the decision maker is unable to solve the problem satisfactorily according to the course of action followed so far. attribute importance. which is likely in high value-relevant involvement decisions. It may also lead to a completely new representation.Consolidation comprises many of the differentiation principles that were described for the pre-decision phase. process and structural differentiation processes. one that produces a new choice candidate. which may concern attractiveness of aspects. For instance. Structural differentiation refers to changes in representations of decision problems. This situation may be expected at very high levels of outcome-relevant involvement decisions. The same holds for attribute importance restructuring. The involvement-related goal structures may determine which attributes are used in a process of restructuring. The involvement type-related goals (adhering to a value. or modifying old ones. This kind of fundamental restructuring may bolster a preliminary choice. and thus for attractiveness restructuring. once a decision has been made. 20 . for instance by finding new attributes. Facts restructuring is likely at very high levels of involvement. or the problem as such. Involvement type will be related to aspect attractiveness restructuring. respectively) provide the frame of reference for attractiveness judgments. facts. Thus. Strong valuedriven motives to support an alternative may be backed up by a biased interpretation of reality. attractiveness restructuring may take place by increasing the attractiveness difference between the chosen and non-chosen alternative on one or more attributes. Because the representations of decision alternatives are contingent on the decision maker’s goals. in particular in high value-relevant involvement decisions. Some decision problems bring about problem restructuring resulting in alternative ways of representing the decision problem. the decision maker may also engage in holistic. In that case a relatively objective and creative fresh look at the problem is needed. accuracy. and eliciting an appropriate impression. for instance in changing relative importance of an attribute that makes a preliminary chosen alternative more attractive. representations are likely to be modeled according to goals that are elicited by the three involvement types. creating new alternatives.
4 DECISION MAKING PROBLEMATICS Decision science is a very broad and rapidly evolving research field at theoretical and practical levels. this is a general description. machine learning.). The most common ones are the following three: • Discrimination • Classification • Sorting The first two terms are commonly used by statisticians as well as by scientists of the artificial intelligence field (neural networks.. 3. Discrete problems involving the examination of a discrete set of alternatives on which each alternative is described along some attributes.3. the type of solutions that should be investigated. created a new context for addressing real-world problems through integrated.1 The Classification Problem As already mentioned classification refers to the assignment of a finite set of alternatives into predefined groups. there is notable difference to the kinds of problems that they describe. Although all three terms refer to the assignment of a set of alternatives into predefined groups. as well as the methodological approaches that can be used to address them. etc. The post-war technological advances in combination with the establishment of operations research as a sound approach to decision making problems. the range of problems that can be addressed efficiently has also been extended. 21 .4. There are several more specific terms often used to refer to this form of decision making problem. At the same time. A rather straight forward approach is to define the two following categories of decision making problems. The term sorting has been established by MCDA researchers. Within the decision making context these attributes have the form of evaluation criteria. Providing a full categorization of the decision making problems on the basis of the above issues is a difficult task depending upon the scope of the categorization. The nature of these problems is widely diversified in terms of their complexity. flexible and realistic methodological approaches.
the possibilities of actual finding of uncertainty factors affecting the projects are also minimal.2 Uncertainities in Decision Making “Planning is enmeshed with complexity and uncertainty and risk. where the probabilities are not established (Tversky and Fox 1995 cited in Samset 1998). In the absence of relevant research to guide uncertainty of development project.” (Christensen 1999). the financial/ economic. In this case the alternatives belonging into different groups have different characteristics. but neither can we guarantee that they will not. as currently defined. and to which professional fields they were associated. 22 . institutional. like losses. “Not much research has so far been done on uncertainty and risk in planning of development projects which could help to guide studies in this field and assert validity of findings” (Samset 1998).. The terms discrimination and classification refer to problems where the groups are defined in a nominal way. It begins with the dilemmas inherent in planning and depicts the complex intergovernmental system as the medium of planning. In fact.In particular. Planning is a type of public decision making and is the process of devising set of actions towards better future for some public purpose. But the general uncertainty factors characterized in different ways: to what extent they were contextual or operational. to what extent they could have been predicted or not. we often hope to go a step further and estimate the probabilities of the adverse outcome.e. Inspired by risk analysts and formal decision making models. from the methodological point of view the above three terms describe two different kinds of problems. or deaths cannot be ruled out. 3. political. Uncertainty. accidents. where the probabilities associated with the possible outcomes are assumed to be known and uncertain prospects. environmental. is situations where negative or adverse outcomes. some decision theorists distinguish between risky prospects. We don’t know that they will happen. without being possible to establish any kind of preference relation between them (i. socio – cultural or technological fields. health injuries. But how can we know the future so that a good decision could be made? Thus the dilemmas in planning public projects still exist. the groups provide a description of the alternatives without any further information).4.
The framing effect is one such bias. 23 .municipalities. PLANNING AND LEGISLATION Local Self Governance Act. local people/communities.. deviations of actual behavior from normative models. 2. 3. government agencies.. In framing experiments. etc. NGOs.5 ROLE OF GOVERNMENT.Risky decision making is full of so-called biases. 5. All key development actors. line agencies. as stated earlier. NGOs and INGOs / donors at local level in the process of plan formulation mainly to remove duplication of effort. Decentralized municipal planning process should based on the bottom up approach starting from community level and basically ending at municipal council level. user groups etc. the municipality members are to be accountable to the municipal council . the local communities. etc. the description of formally identical problems is varied. The arrangements made are listed as. DDC. Typically. Provision has been made to utilize the expert views/ideas through an advisory committee consisting of local intellectuals. 3. are to be deeply involved in the planning process. 1999 LSGA 2055 (1999) provides the administrative structure for the devolution of responsibility and empowerment of local community through enhanced local government democracy. and accountability.and the actions undertaken and decisions made by the municipality members (including mayors and deputy mayors) can be closely scrutinized in its meetings. valued objects are used and are presented so as to highlight either their gains or losses. 1. that is. experts. Arrangement has also been made for maintaining close coordination between and among municipalities. Town Development Committees (TDCs) have to formulate their plans in consultation with municipalities. One of the most influential biases in decision making is the preference reversal phenomenon. 4. 6. are to be involved in the municipal planning process. user groups. which refers to the finding that preferences are not invariant with regard to either the procedures that are used to elicit them or to alternative problem descriptions. thus highlighting different aspects of them. NGOs.the highest policy making municipal body .
MCDA attracted the interest of European operations researchers too. Except for the MCDA approach. (Pareto 1896 cited in Doumpous 2002) first set the basis for addressing decision-problems in the presence of multiple criteria.6. These were all studies from US operations researchers. one of the pioneers in this field. the research made in other fields on considering the special features of the sorting problems is still quite limited.6 MULTI CRITERIA ANALYSIS MCDA is an advanced field of operations research providing several advantages from the research and practical points of view. During the 1940s and the 1950s Von Neumann and Mor genstern (1947) introduced the utility theory.6. it provides excess of methodological approaches for addressing a variety of decision making situations. this process has been based on empirical approaches rather than on sound quantitative analysis techniques. he is considered as the founder of the European school of MCDA.1 Brief History of Multi Criteria Analysis Even from the early years of mankind. 3.2 Basic Concept Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) has been developed to introduce multiple interdisciplinary aspects to the planning process in this complex decision environment that are characterized by any mixture of monetary and non-monetary objectives. During the next two decades (1970. given that the concept of preference lies in the core of every real-world decision. One of the most important results of Pareto research was the introduction of the efficiency concept.3. 3. (Doumpous 2002). The major characteristic shared by all MCDA classification approaches is their focus on the modeling and addressing of sorting problems. introduced the outranking relation approach. By the end of the 1960s. “Multicriteria analysis is a tool for decision aid and a mathematical tool to compare different 24 . decision making has been a multidimensional process. This form of classification problems is of major interest within a decision making context. (Roy 1968 cited in Doumpous 2002). Many of these approaches are well-suited to the nature of the classification problem. Traditionally. 1990) MCDA evolved both at the theoretical and practical levels. one of the major methodological streams of modern MCDA and decision science in general. At the research level. This characteristic of MCDA can be considered as a significant advantage within a decision making context.
via cardinal characteristics.” (Roy 1985 cited in Department of Transport. a structured description of the possible alternative solutions. Therefore decision makers would remain more in control of the decision environment reducing uncertainty and risk in complex projects. Its technique is to a single most preferred option. Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) 2001). on which the theoretic approach of MCA is based. to rank options and to shortlist a limited number of options for subsequent detailed appraisal. The logic of decision making. and others differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable alternatives. The oldest field in MCA is so called Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) and it involves in searching for an alternative that is the most attractive over all the criteria. or simply to distinguish acceptable from unacceptable possibilities ( DTLR 2001). MCA has a different philosophical perspective because in real life. but MCA could be useful for several criteria at the same time. a decision is seldom made on the basis of one criterion.alternatives or scenarios against several often conflicting criteria in order to guide the decision-maker(s) to a rational judgment. lies in the comparison of the alternative solution’s performance in relation with a consistent set of decision criteria. some provide an incomplete ranking. There are many ways in which risk can be handled in MCA so MCA approach would be broadly applicable across the range of government and concerned institutions to make policy recommendation for the sustainable infrastructural development. some identify a single optimal alternative. The final result consists in the visualization of the one optimal solution or a ranking of possible alternative solutions in relation to their fulfillment of the pre-set goals. and the comparison of these alternatives. 25 . Different methods require diverse types of value information and follow various optimization algorithms. There are number of MCDA methods. • Multiattribute Utility Theory (MAUT). The evaluation is based on the specification of particular goals. MCDA methodology synthesizes the matrix information and ranks the alternatives by different means. The important component in any decision making is risk and uncertainty. Some techniques rank options.
6. AHP thus relies on the supposition that humans are more capable of making relative judgments than absolute judgments. ( Doumpous 2002). and AHP moves systematically through all pair-wise comparisons of criteria and alternatives. and the results are compiled in matrix form. The method is particularly well suited for problems where the evaluation criteria can be organized in a hierarchical way into sub-criteria.2. and that the decision maker is consistent in his or her judgments. The goal of decision makers in this process is to maximize utility or value. ever. the rationality assumption in AHP 26 . Saaty (1980) first proposed the AHP method (Analytic Hierarchy Process) for addressing complex decision making problem involving multiple criteria. But it is typically used when quantitative information is known of each of the alternative. for example).• • Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Weighted Table Method (WT) MAUT relies on the assumptions that the decision maker is rational (preferring more utility to less utility.1 Analytical Hierarchy Process Similar to MAUT. Because poor scores on criteria can be compensated for by high scores on other criteria. AHP is a compensatory optimization approach. However. The decision maker uses a numerical scale to compare the choices. The goal of AHP is to select the alternative that results in the greatest value of the objective function. MAUT is part of a group of MCDA techniques known as “compensatory” methods. that the decision maker has perfect knowledge. among operations researchers and decision scientists. 3. At the same time. AHP uses pair-wise comparisons of decision criteria to elicit decision makers’ values. rather than utility and weighting functions. During the last two decades the method has become very popular. AHP aggregates various facets of the decision problem using a single optimization function known as the objective function. Like MAUT. Consequently. it has been heavily criticized for some major theoretical shortcomings involving its operation. All individual criteria are paired against all others. mainly in USA. This evaluation method is suitable for complex decision with multiple criteria and many alternatives.
is more relaxed than in MAUT and methodological weaknesses of these methods have been subject to multiple reviews. AHP models a decision making problem through a process involving four stages:
• Stage 1: Hierarchical structuring of the problem. • Stage 2: Data input. • Stage 3: Estimation of the relative weights of the evaluation criteria. • Stage 4: Combination of the relative weights to perform an overall evaluation of
the alternatives (aggregation of criteria). In the first stage the decision maker defines a hierarchical structure representing the problem at hand. The top level of the hierarchy considers the general objective of the problem. The second level includes all the evaluation criteria. Each criterion is analyzed in the subsequent levels into sub-criteria. Finally, the last level of the hierarchy involves the objects to be evaluated. Within the context of a classification problem the elements of the final level of the hierarchy represent the choices (groups) available to the decision maker regarding the classification of the alternatives. Once the hierarchy of the problem is defined, in the second stage of the method the decision maker performs pair wise comparisons of all elements at each level of the hierarchy. Each of these comparisons is performed on the basis of the elements of the proceeding level of the hierarchy. In the second level, all elements (evaluation criteria) are compared in a pair wise way on the basis of the objective of the problem (first level of the hierarchy). Then, the sub-criteria of the third level are compared each time from a different point of view considering each criterion of the second level of the hierarchy. For instance, the sub-criteria and are initially compared on the basis of the criterion then on the basis of criterion etc. The same process is continued until all elements of the hierarchy are compared. The objective of all these comparisons is to assess the relative significance of all elements of the hierarchy in making the final decision according to the initial objective. For a classification problem the global evaluation for the elements in the last level of the hierarchy are used to decide upon the classification of an alternative. Since the
elements of the last level correspond to the pre specified groups, an alternative is assigned to the group for which the evaluation of the corresponding element is higher. The application of AHP in different sectors of planning and their corresponding dates were listed as:
Table 2: Uses of AHP at different sectors of planning S R.
OTHER TOOL/S USED
Arbel A, Orger Y E Benjamin C O, Ehie I C,
– Linear goal
Omurtag Y Chen S J, Lin L,
programming – Mixed integer
Crary M et al. Ehie I C et al.
programming – Linear goal
Ehie I C Benjamin C O Kim J Ko S K, Fontane D G,
programming – Linear programming,
Margeta J Korpela J, Lehmusvaara A,
9 10 11 12 13 14
2001 1999 1999 1999 1998 2003
Tuominen M Lee M et al Lee C W, Kwak N K Momoh J A, Zhu J Radasch D K, Kwak N K Su J C Y et al Weistroffer H R, Wooldridge
Engineering Industry Social Engineering Engineering Engineering
constraint method – Goal programming – Goal programming –
15 16 17 18
1999 1991 2003 1997
B E, Singh R Wu J A, Wu N L Yang T, Kuo C Zulch G et al.
Government Personal Industry Engineering
– – –
Source: Vaidhya, O.S., 2004
Figure 2: Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) for UEIP towns
126.96.36.199 Weighted Table
Multi – criteria Weighted table or weighted summation is a form of MCA and is often referred to as “additive weighting.” Weighted summation is matrix-based and is considered as the simplest MCA technique to understand and traditional. Alternatives are scored for each comparison criteria and then an importance weight is applied to each criterion. Criteria are weighted because they are not equally valued by individuals; what is important to one person is not always to another. Therefore, a range of weights for criteria could also be produced based upon different interest group concerns (Buselich, 2002 cited in WAN 2005).
3. and 7. 2. Hetauda. especially as they relate to the recently passed Local Self-Governance Act (LSGA). and 4. Dhulikhel. Bidur and Kamalamai) and the town of Dhadingbesi (Nilkantha Village Development Committee. 5. 1999. 6. Equitable improvements in basic social services to enhance human development. The provision of environmental infrastructure improvements to secondary urban centers. Protection and improvement of the environment to sustain gains. Strengthening local municipal institutional capabilities. Panauti. Ratnanagar. The project includes nine towns comprising eight Municipalities (Banepa. It is intended to facilitate sustainable urban development in selected towns by giving priorities in: 1. broad-based economic growth. Bharatpur. 30 .4. VDC) and nearby areas. Decentralization of authority. For this a memorandum of understanding was signed in between the Ministry of Physical Planning and Works (MPPW) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) on November 5. Generation of productive employment opportunities and increased incomes resulting from faster. BRIEF INTRODUCTION OF UEIP The conception of UEIP was initiated to address the critical urban environmental issues of towns in Nepal. resulting in reduction of population growth. Poverty alleviation.
and 31 . • to aim for greater devolution of responsibility and ownership by urban municipalities. and levels of service within these municipalities. and subsequent legislation listed as: • reducing levels of poverty as defined by the number of persons living at or below the official poverty line. valley Bhimeshwor Dhulikhel Panauti Kamalam Banepa Hetau Birgunj Excluded Towns Selected Towns Janakpur 4. and community involvement and participation in the planning. implementation and maintenance of urban infrastructure.Map 1: Strategic Location UEIP Project Pokhara Dhading Besi Butwa Bharatp Ratnanag Central Bidhur Ktm. the local self governance act.1 OVERALL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The project is designed to achieve the goals which were committed by HMGs (Now Nepal Government) in ninth plan (1997-2002). • to take action to redress gender imbalances within selected municipalities. • to improve the environmental situation and awareness levels within the municipalities. • to improve levels of urban infrastructure and facilities. 1999.
congestion and ribbon development. • Promote improved urban planning and land development practices in the UEIP Towns and. • Make the UEIP Towns better places for people to live and work in. The Project should therefore contribute to reducing the trend of migration to the Kathmandu Valley. • Promote private sector participation in the UEIP Towns by providing institutional and financial support for the development of public-private partnerships for municipal services and other revenue generating enterprises. revenue mobilization and provision of municipal services. campaigns which are integrated with the actual infrastructure improvements. 32 .• to mitigate the increasing trend of migration to the city of Kathmandu by stimulating growth in secondary towns having linkage to Kathmandu. which benefit all sectors of the community including the urban poor. restrain urban sprawl. promote public open spaces. and preserve cultural heritage. • Alleviate urban poverty through specific targeted interventions. through local NGOs and CBOs. Specifically. sanitation assistance and microcredit enterprise programmes. through land pooling or guided land development solutions. skills training and health education programmes. • Improve community health and environmental awareness by providing. combined with capacity building of local NGOs and CBOs to enable them to assist with implementation of the programmes. to educate the general public on the proper use of project facilities. participatory town planning. the health aspects of proper sanitation and waste disposal and the need to impose user fees. the Project's main objectives are to: • Support the Government's policies on decentralization through specific institutional strengthening and capacity building components targeted at central and town levels. • Improve the environmental conditions and access to municipal services in the UEIP Towns by means of environmental infrastructure improvements. Special programmes will be targeted at primary schools. • Provide support to the UEIP Towns in improving municipal and financial management. such as promoting improved representation of disadvantaged groups at ward and municipal levels.
Prithivinarayan (Ghorkha). The selected towns were listed as: Table 3: Selected Towns for UEIP S. Towns on the "outer" circle included Pokhara. Hetauda and Kamalamai (Sindhulimadi).NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Bharatpur Hetauda NAME OF TOWNS REMARKS Ratnanagar (Tadi) Kamalamai (Sindhuli Madi) Dhulikhel Banepa Panauti Bidhur *Dhading Besi * Dhading Besi is not a municipality Source : UEIP 2000 33 . Dhadingbesi. Initially. During that period. Madhyapur (Thimi).5.1 SELECTION OF UEIP TOWNS The counterpart professionals selected the project towns accordingly as the strategy to develop small towns outside Kathmandu valley to help reduce migration within the valley (UEIP. Birganj and Janakpur for reconnaissance survey. Dhulikhel. Kirtipur and Madhyapur and the towns Vyas and Prithivi Narayan were excluded from the professional on the ground of low strategic significance (UEIP. Out of these 18 selected towns ADB advised the counterpart professionals to exclude the valley towns. 2001). Panauti. 2000). Banepa. ANALYSIS 5. Ratnanagar (Tadi). Butwal. Bidur. Bharatpur.Charikot). Byas (Damauli). the professionals sought guidance from Director General of DUDBC regarding the inclusion of more strategic towns on the east – west corridor and border access routes. the counter part professionals were suggested to select towns as towns on the "inner" circle (former names in parentheses) included Kirtipur. Bhimeshwor (Dolkha .
with weighted table (WT) and the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method. Degree of Participation (10) 4. Opportunities of Physical Planning (10) 3. Table 4: Criteria for selection of UEIP Towns. The distribution system used for institutional system were taken as Very Strong (VS). Social (30) GOAL 9. Economic Potential (10) 6. The frameworks consist of three criteria and ten sub-criteria for selection of alternatives. The MCA and generation of score were done basically by two methods. and the project was intended to support the decentralization policy through urban improvement. Institutional / technical (30) 1. Urban Growth Rate (10) B. high (H). Proximity to Kathmandu (10) 8.Note: the recent decision was made for the exclusion of the Dhading Besi from the project list for not being a municipality. Urban Environment View Point (10) 10.1 Frame Work Assessment Since the objective of the project was to grant loan on nine towns. Willingness of People (10) 34 .1. the framework assessment was based on the developing the criteria for the best selection of towns. Further on the score were distributed in four situations very high (VH). Commitment of Town leaders (10) C. Moderate (M) and Weak (W) because for institutional capacity the weakest one is given highest priority. Economical (40) 5. 5. Strong (S). The criteria adopted for analysis were considered from UEIP. looking at the composite indicator value on alternatives whether the ranking under consideration according to MCA or not. Linkage with Kathmandu (10) ALTERNATIVES 7. A. okay (Ok) and not much (NM) except for institutional capacity. Thus the fund allocated for this project is transferred to the up – Grading of Bishnumati link road. Institutional Capacity (10) 2. The generated information in isolation was integrated with the scoring system making comparatively easier to judge. Inception Report 2000 because the selction of UEIP towns were based on these criteria as reported by counterpart professionals.
H: (0.25-0.75-1. Ok: (0. Ok: (0.0). H: (0. a matrix chart was developed against short listed towns and the criteria built therein.75). Table 5: Details of Criteria and Weight Distribution under Normal Condition GOAL CRITERIA SUB CRITERIA SCORE DISTRIBUTION FACTOR Institutional Capacity Institutional / Technical VS: (0.50-0. W (0. H: (0.1-0.1-0. NM: (0.25) 10 10 10 10 40 VH: (0.75-1. Ok: (0.50). M: (0.50). NM: (0.75).50). H: (0. NM: (0.25) VH: (0.1-0. NM: (0. The counterpart professionals were requested to fill up the matrix (See annexure for the sample of the matrix).75-1.75).25-0.25) Commitment of Town leaders Social Degree of Participation VH: (0.50).2 Preparation of Survey Tools Based on the criteria identified.25-0.0). H: (0.75-1. H: (0.75).5-0.25) Willingness of People VH: (0.25) 10 30 10 10 35 . Ok: (0.0).5-0.25) Economic Potential Economical VH: (0.25).1-0. A value added analysis also conducted using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) framework and utilizing AHP processing software. H: (0. NM: (0.75).5-0.1.5-0.0). NM: (0.25) 10 10 SUB SCORE 10 30 SCORE Proximity to Kathmandu VH: (0.1-0.25-0.0). S: (0.1-0. NM: (0.75-1.5-0. The spreadsheet template was basically weighted table (WT) ranking of towns based on the score.75-1.25) Linkage with Kathmandu VH: (0.50). H: (0.50).5-0. Also these professional were requested to mark the relative importance of the criteria to each other.75). NM: (0.0) Opportunities of Physical Planning Urban and Envn.25-0.25-0.75-1.75-1. Ok: (0.5.75).1-0.0).25-0.75). NM: (0.25) VH: (0.0). Ok: (0. Infrastructure View Point Urban Growth Rate Selection of UEIP Towns VH: (0. Ok: (0.25-0.75).1-0. Ok: (0.25-0.1-0.0). H: (0.5-0.75).50).1-0.75-1.50).75-1.50).0).5-0. Ok: (0.25-0. Analysis of the information was conducted using spreadsheet template in MS excel.5-0.50).
96%.criteria were given equal value and sensitivity analysis was done where the value of criteria and sub criteria were also changed to find out the possible alternatives even for the worst conditions. The following chart shows the ranking of towns based on criteria where the weightage given for them was highest to 40% . The analysis was done on normal situation where priorities for each sub.criteria. 30% and 30% with reference to economical. 5. Kamalamai(Sindhulimadi).2 RESULT The result was based on the outcome of analysis of score generated by subjective assessment of the criteria and sub. The towns that were not selected for UEIP project were Janakpur. Chart 1: Details of Criteria and Weight Distribution under Normal Condition CRIT ERIA CONT RIBUT ION FOR RANKING OF T OWNS Ins titutional/ Technical 90 80 70 Econom ical Social SCORED VALUE 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 a Dh uli kh el Pa na Bh uti im es hw or * B Dh idu ad r ing Be si Bh ara tpu Ra r t na na ga r He t au d Ka a ma l am ai Po kh ara Bu tw al Bir ga nj Ja na kp ur Ba ne p UEIP TOW NS FOR SELECTION 36 .5. Bidur. institutional/ technical and social respectively. The chart also reflects the weight assigned to each criteria.1 Weighted Table Based on the analysis from WT method the highest ranking town was Bharatpur scoring 85. Dhading Besi (Dhading Besi is not municipality) and Bhimeshwor (Dolkha). Write table of no weighted table). The scored values on each sub-criteria that effect on the exclusion of these towns were shown in table.2.98 % and the lowest ranking town was Bhimeshwor scoring 50.
37 .Table 6: Multi Criteria Analysis by Simple Weighted Mean Method.
Table 7: Multi Criteria Analysis by AHP Method 38 .
2. In the second case the both the weight of criteria and sub criteria were changed and the analysis was performed. The SA was done for two cases only. The insights of a project that could be obtained from sensitivity analysis among could generate meaningful knowledge for future implementation of project and management for projects.2 5. The sensitivity analysis has more value on selection of alternatives which are in cut – off range of projects.5. The following chart shows the distribution scores to each criteria and sub criteria for the sensitivity analysis of type 1 and type 2 respectively.2.3 Analytical Hierarchy Process Sensitivity Analysis The sensitivity analyses were done to find out the changes in rankings of UEIP towns with the change in the importance of sub criteria and criteria. but the change in weighing score of criteria and sub criteria enabled the expert to visualize the sensitivity or the importance indicator that affects on the ranking of alternatives. at first the criteria were placed same as in normal case where as the weight of sub criteria were changed as listed in the table. In first case of sensitivity analysis. The sensitivity analyzes was done through the AHP method only. The sensitivity analysis or what if situation analysis in AHP may vary on the requirement to observe the criticality on the selection of towns with respect to specific criteria and sub – criteria. And then the analysis was performed. the rankings were done based on equal weight to each criterion. 39 . In the initial analysis.
ANALYSIS 2 SUB SCORE 25 SCORE 5. Willingness of People 15 7. From the sensitivity analysis it was observed that the excluded towns were same as in the normal case except for sensitivity analysis type two but the ranking were different. Proximity to Kathmandu 8. Opportunities of A.5 10 15 15 5 5 15 5 40 7. Degree of Participation 10. Urban Growth Rate 5.5 2. Linkage with Kathmandu 7. The following table and chart shows the ranking of towns at different cases 40 . Social leaders 9.3 COMPARISION ON RANKING OF TOWNS The following table and chart shows the comparison on ranking alternatives based on the normal weight distribution and the two cases on sensitivity analysis.5 15 10 10 50 5 30 7.5 40 20 SCORE SEN.5 7. Economical 6. Economic Potential B.Table 8: Criteria and sub-criteria distribution for sensitivity analysis. ANALYSIS 1 GOAL CRITERIA SUB CRITERIA SUB SCORE 1. Commitment of Town C. It is already mentioned that the SA works on the alternative or ranking of towns that lies on the cutoff range of the projects.5 30 5 2. Also in the second case of SA the Banepa and Panauti were excluded where as the Bidhur and Kamalamai were included. SEN. Urban and Env. Institutional Capacity 2. Institutional / Technical Physical Planning 3. Infrastructure View Point Selection of UEIP Towns 4.
7 0.837 0.575 SENSITIVITY 1 SENSITIVITY 2 0.7 0.719 0.7 0.837 0.875 0.6 0.731 0.613 0.756 0.7 Sensitivity 1 Sensitivity 2 Score 0.806 0.731 0.2 0.3 0.794 0.731 0.8 0.925 0.725 0.675 0.738 0.688 0. NO NAME OF UEIP TOWNS Bharatpur Ratnanagar Butwal Birganj Hetauda Pokhara Dhulikhel Panauti Banepa Bidhur Dhading Besi Kamalamai Janakpur Bhimeshwor NORMAL 0.913 0.756 0.5 0.675 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.587 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Note: highlighted numeric value indicate the excluded towns through ranking.775 0.6 0. Chart 2: Comparison of UEIP towns in three different cases Normal 1 0.713 0.75 0.625 0.Table 9: Score obtained by towns under three conditions S.775 0.712 0.75 0.8 0.581 0.7 0.8 0.875 0.6 0.825 0.1 0 tpur Bidh ur Bu tw al j Jana kpur a ti Dhu li khel Heta uda ra Pokh a ondit ion ing B esi sh wo r Birga n mai Bane p Pana u Rat n anag Bhar a Kam ala ar Best C Bhim e Name of UEIP towns Dhad 41 .8 0.762 0.
Table 10: Sensitivity Analysis type 1through AHP method 42 .
Table 11: Sensitivity Analysis type 2through AHP method 43 .
5. (MPPW). The SC provided logistics and human resources for the project team. respondent survey was carried out based on the experts (donor agencies. and relevant organization) response. this committee did not enjoy right to take decisions about the town selection but suggestions were given to the project team for necessary action. Qualitative surveys were done with regard to extract the multi-actor decision hierarchy. ad-hoc members (guest representatives from concerned NGOs of project owns) and observers (ADB/Consultant staff). a Member Secretary (Project Director). Steering committee objective was to make the policy. 44 . steering committee. • The joint secretary of Ministry of Finance (MoF) • The President of Municipal Association of Nepal (MuAN) • The Joint Secretary of National Planning Commission (NPC) • The Director General of the Department of Urban Development and Building Construction (DUDBC) (Member Secretary). Birganj and Pokhara should be enlisted even from the sensitivity analysis of the project.4 DECISION ASSESSMENT: From the above analysis it was observed that three towns Butwal. The assessment was to glean information from the experts about the intervention on the decision process during the selection of UEIP towns. The members of the steering committee included a chairperson (the Secretary of MPPW). counter part professionals. To determine the fact of not inclusion of these towns. Role of Steering Committee The Steering Committee (SC) comprises senior staff (of at least gazetted class I rank) of government agencies and other representatives of: • The joint secretary of the Ministry of Local Development (MLD) • The joint secretary of the Ministry of Physical Planning and Works. coordinate and guide the counterpart professional during selection of UEIP towns. But in reality these towns were not included for implementation. It also did regular follow-ups about the objectives of TOR and financial constraints as well. However.
Thus the project team did consult with the institutional. • To increase the participation of local people in local government. Policy for Selection (Strategies) Based on the LSGA. and users group. Were received insight for fundamental ideological reference on which each and every aspect were to be based. That directly meant that towns would interconnect the very high remote areas to very high urban areas thus filling the gaps of difference of skills. Roles of Nations Five Year Plan. the main strategies were to develop small municipalities through urban and infrastructural environment. 1999. administrative and community. 2000. It was assumed that the developed municipalities would retain the migration from high remote areas directly to very high urban area. social. and • Resolve any disputes/conflicts between project stakeholders at the central level. and Local Self Governance act. • provide strategic guidance to the project. 45 . 1999 The policy formulations were formulated to give full support to the aims and ideals of the government as detailed in ninth plan and LSGA 1999. • To enhance peoples participation in resource mobilization • To institutionalize local autonomous government by enabling them to be more accountable to the people. environmental. The specific functions were to: • ensure effective coordination among the involved institutions. The objectives of ninth plan were. capacity building and to increase the independence of the municipalities. From the counterpart professionals. The list and the key dates of the meeting and minutes were documented in the inception report. economy etc between sending city and receiving city.The objectives of the PSC were to provide policy coordination and overall guidance and make necessary decisions for the effective implementation of the project. The ninth plan envisages a decentralization policy through the empowerment of local bodies. • monitor the output and give directives as necessary.
Participation of Relevant Organization Several meeting with the relevant organization were conducted and their goals and objectives were determined. Rural Urban Partnership Program (RUPP) The objective were to support the municipalities and VDCs in developing links with their hinterlands and thereby promoting opportunities for economic activities.Though the project teams did consult with the users groups. the effort was not so fruitful because of 46 . Also the suggestions were incorporated in selection of UEIP towns. Several nationwide closures and demonstrations affected the scheduled time frame. Project professional met with the chief Technical Advisor/ on October 3. 2000 and discussion were held to support the program and commitments were appreciated for supporting the project particularly in terms of management and control at municipal level through mobilization of community participation via municipal authorities. From the survey it was found that though these relevant organizations were invited for necessary suggestions. these groups were dominated by peoples having vested interest and the real beneficiaries and minors were suppressed as related by one of the high. especially targeting the poor and disadvantaged sections of the communities. 2000 of UDLE. This duration of visit was about a day to each town. 2000 and they reviewed the progress review mission workshop on Nov 9. The meetings conducted with relevant organization were: Urban Development through local efforts (UDLE) Project personnel met with UDLE Program Coordinator on Sept 29. in most of the cases.ranking government official. Meetings were focused on the mobilization of UEIP resources on objective of UEIP project particularly in institutional strengthening aspects on more focused areas. Also due to the dearth of serious involvement of the professionals led them to make a quick survey of the parameter. micro enterprise and public private partnerships. The towns were reduced from eighteen to fourteen numbers from one round visits and consequently the number reduced to nine after second round visit. Time Allocation The time given was enough for the study of different parameters of towns even the selection of project was not completed in time because of the prevailing political situations.
Availability of Data (Incomplete initial data base) Database system in Nepal is very weak so it wields negative repercussions in the implementation of any new project that required rigorous analysis of the past data base. Further on. whatever be the result of analysis. Hence the subjective analysis was necessary in most of the criteria where the rationality of subjective judgments depended on individual capacity. the prevailing political context furthered the migration trends towards urban centres rapidly.• The Lack of obligation (low involvement) towards the project as it was going to be implemented by other organizations. During that period no updated data of population were found and the population census was a decade old. The counterpart professional shared that a whopping 43 per cent error was observed on data projection of Hetauda. Rationality of Criteria Selection and Weightage Assigned Criteria selections were done through communication between the experts based on the goals and objectives of the project and by not researching external circumstances that would affect the validity of criteria. Several high distortions were obtained which had to be resolved on table discussions. And the counterpart professional agreed that the assigned criteria should have different weightage. The line organizations did only suggest for the 47 . the weak database system became a problem for quantifying the data. It was observed that the weightage assigned for each criterion were equal and regarding this issue. the exact prediction of the population became quite a hurdle for the counterpart professionals. • Also they assumed. the respondent said that the assigned weightage were given equal value for the simplicity in multi criteria analysis. The same thing happened in the case of selection of UEIP towns as the project was decided to implement at 1999. Under such circumstances. Moreover. Freedom of Work It was said that the freedom was given to the professionals still there was some interventions during the selection of towns. it would be overruled by vested interest so only general participation was made. Also there was problem in the consistency of other data obtained from different sources and hence there was a big problem in the prediction of future trend for number of years following the past trends.
Regarding the exclusion of Butwal and Birgunj. ADB and Steering committee had great role during project selection though these organizations had right to suggest only but some vested interest were observed during project selection. The counterpart professional appreciated the analysis and accepted that the Birgunj. 48 . Butwal and Pokhara should be included but in Pokhara PEIP.necessary study and the selection procedure. these towns were doing good and had no necessary of ADB grant. This was further discussed and the counter part professional argued that these towns were strategically suitable to attain the project objectives and also argued for the inclusion of these towns to set up model town for other municipalities and for this the steering committee suggested the counterpart professionals for the exclusion of towns not belonging to central region. funded by ADB. was already in function.
6.1.41 62. Simple geometric mean was used instead to prevent the distortion of data.26 75.98 83. FINDINGS 6. The implementation of projects like KVMP and KUDP were mostly done without multi criteria analysis.1 Weighted Table The WT method is the traditional and simplest form of multi criteria analysis.1 UTILITY OF MULTI CRITERIA ANALYSIS In Nepal. This method.49 SCORE 49 . location selection for large urban infrastructure projects is often done without performing multi criteria analysis. hence it is difficult for performing sensitivity analysis and is both time and effort consuming.78 64. It can be done through simple programs like MS-excel. does not offer flexibility in modification of weight and criteria and sub criteria. Failure of several large projects as mentioned above forced the planners for the assessment of MCA in large projects. The result is listed in the following table: Table no 12: Ranking of UEIP towns based on WT method RANKING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Bharatpur Ratnanagar (Tadi) Butwal Pokhara Hetauda Birganj Dhulikhel Banepa Panauti Janakpur Kamalamai Bidhur UEIP TOWNS 85. the process of town selection through MCA is reviewed from weighted table method and the AHP method.23 76. Since the study analyzes the utility of MCA in large infrastructural project.98 76.11 73.44 69.70 61.91 61.6. however. Thus in case of UEIP multi criteria analysis was done.98 74.
5 82.5 87.41 and towns Janakpur.5 62. Bidur and Bhimeshwor ranked in the last position. and the results were compiled in matrix form.15 50.5 70 67.2 Analytical Hierarchy Process Multi criteria analysis was again done by using AHP software.5 80 80 80 77.96 SCORE The result shows that Bharatpur ranked in the first position scoring 85. The goal of AHP is to select the alternative that results in the greatest value of the objective function.RANKING 13 14 Dhading Besi Bhimeshwor UEIP TOWNS 59. Table 13: Ranking of UEIP towns based on AHP method RANKING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Bharatpur Ratnanagar (Tadi) Butwal Pokhara Hetauda Birganj Dhulikhel Panauti Banepa Bidhur Dhading Besi Kamalamai Janakpur UEIP TOWNS 92. Once the hierarchy of the problem is defined. AHP relies on the supposition that humans are more capable of making relative judgments than absolute judgments. All individual criteria were paired against all others.98 where the Panauti ranked the ninth position scoring 64. AHP uses pair-wise comparisons of decision criteria to elicit decision makers’ values. 6. Kamalamai.5 60 SCORE 50 .5 75 72. Dhading Besi. This list produces a different result than the locations selected by UEIP.1. in the second stage of the method the decision maker performs pair wise comparisons of all elements at each level of the hierarchy.
Here the result showed that Bharatpur was ranked first and Banepa the ninth. Since the result of MCA did not match with towns selected for implementation of UEIP towns. sensitivity analysis were performed in two cases. The performed sensitivity analysis excluded towns from ranking were Kamalamai.2 75. hence to find out which criteria were given high importance in selection of towns.50. In both methods the excluded towns from ranking were Dhading besi. Bhimeshwor and Janakpur. Bidhur and Bhimeshwor. UGR and CofTL. Sensitivity analyzes were most effective case analysis of towns which were on the cut-off line. For the first case the weight of criteria were kept equal and weightage were made different in sub criteria where the high preferences were given to IC.5 and Banepa was listed in rank nine scoring 72. The changes in ranking of Panauti to eight and Banepa to nine and also the changes in scores were due to the pair wise comparison capacity of AHP such that the judgments were made to each criterion on basis of relative importance. Janakpur.5 76. Table 14: Ranking of UEIP towns through sensitivity analysis 1 based on AHP method RANKING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Bharatpur Ratnanagar (Tadi) Butwal Dhulikhel Hetauda Birganj Panauti Pokhara Banepa UEIP TOWNS 91.5 SCORE Using AHP at first the analysis were carried out using same weightage in criteria used in WT method and the result showed that Bharatpur was listed in rank one scoring 92.1 SCORE 51 . Dhading besi. the numeric weightage of score were given in table and the analysis were done through AHP.6 75.5 83. Kamalamai.RANKING 14 Bhimeshwor UEIP TOWNS 57.6 73.7 80 77. Bidhur.3 87.
the preferences were given to IC. where high preference were given to Economic criteria and in sub criteria.e.2 70 68.3 71.8 73.8 61. UGR. This analysis shows different result at bottom i. In this case also.4 75 73.6 79.1 71.1 SCORE In the second case the weightage of criteria and sub criteria were both changed and analysis.7 SCORE 52 . it excluded the towns Banepa and Panauti from the short list and the new town included were Bidhur and Kamalamai. Table 15: Ranking of UEIP towns through sensitivity analysis 2 based on AHP method RANKING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Bharatpur Birganj Ratnanagar (Tadi) Pokhara Butwal Bidhur Hetauda Kamalamai Dhulikhel Dhading Besi Banepa Panauti Janakpur Bhimeshwor UEIP TOWNS 83.5 60 58.9 71. the Bharatpur secured the first position.3 58.7 80. Proximity. CofTL.RANKING 10 11 12 13 14 Kamalamai Bidhur Dhading Besi Bhimeshwor Janakpur UEIP TOWNS 70 70 67.1 73.
It was observed that there were biases in the selection of UEIP towns. Dhading Besi was excluded because of not being a municipality. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Bharatpur Ratnanagar Hetauda Dhulikhel Banepa Panauti Dhading Besi Kamalamai Bidhur Janakpur Bhimeshwor Butwal Pokhara Birganj WT METHOD Bharatpur Ratnanagar Butwal Pokhara Hetauda Birganj Dhulikhel Banepa Panauti Janakpur Kamalamai Bidhur Dhading Besi Bhimeshwor UEIP TOWNS NOR. AHP Bharatpur Ratnanagar Butwal Pokhara Hetauda Birganj Dhulikhel Panauti Banepa Bidhur Dhading Besi Kamalamai Janakpur Bhimeshwor SENS1 AHP Bharatpur Ratnanagar Butwal Dhulikhel Hetauda Birganj Panauti Pokhara Banepa Kamalamai Bidhur Dhading Besi Bhimeshwor Janakpur SENS 2 AHP Bharatpur Birganj Ratnanagar Pokhara Butwal Bidhur Hetauda Kamalamai Dhulikhel Dhading Besi Banepa Panauti Janakpur Bhimeshwor * UEIP selected towns are not ordered in ranked position From the result interpreted from the MCA tools it is clear that some discrepancies were there while selecting of UEIP towns. Interviews were taken with the key actor’s decision makers involved in decision making process to find out why this distortion occurred and the analysis of qualitative data from interviews shows that: 53 . which is an overt negligence to be reckoned with. Pokhara and Butwal should be included but it was not happened in implementation.The four aspects of analysis showed that Birgunj. The recent exclusion of the town Dhading Besi also showed the result was intervened reducing the utility of MCA. Table 16: Comparision of rank obtained from different methods. RANK *UEIP SEL.
3. particularly when it comes from decision makers higher up in actually trumps the MCA.1. For instance I came to learn in sense of my research that secretariat of DUDBC wanted to implement this project round the outer circle of KTM valley and result has been in spite of been all criteria and analysis used the final list of urban areas includes only urban areas in the inner rings. 54 . For instance many of participants in decision making process felt there is not any need of MCA because no matter how rigorous the criteria making process and the selection of towns. very often. • Similar case was happened in the case of Birganj. Result of Technical analysis can be summarily dismissed by those in decision making hierarchy for instance. it was excluded because border towns should not be included for the UEIP implementation because they felt that Birganj would not function well for retaining the urban migration towards Kathmandu. the analysis would be overruled by some vested interest. During the process of research. it came to be known that professional involved from ADB in this project wanted to exclude Butwal because their argument was not to include the towns which were doing well where the counter part professionals wanted to follow the result of analysis. 4. No matter what criteria are used some pre determined criteria. This resulted in conflict of interests between donor agencies and counter part professionals which was swiftly dismissed from a government high rank official saying that only the central region towns must be included for UEIP projects. A better doing city even should be improved so as to set examples for other cities was the argument of counter part professionals. • Pokhara was excluded on advice of donor agency as there was already a project run by ADB. • Both the method of MCA shows Butwal should have been included for UEIP implementation which never happened in reality. 2. Entirely new criteria that were not included in MCA often got introduced in decision making process for instance the criteria did not aware with possible intervention from the interest of donor agencies and multi actor decision makers hierarchy. There is deficiency of rational decision making culture in Nepalese planning context.
The pros and cons were not discerned properly and an undue emphasis was laid on rationality and external communication.5. etc hence these should have the qualitative data that causes distortion while judgments were to be carried out from individuals. Likewise. This view is outlined in “Incremental planning theory” which points out that weak database system lead the planning process to take the route of external communication. quantifying weightage as well as assigning quantitative measurements for the various criteria is always very subjective. The exclusions of Dhading Besi town during the middle phase of the project period illustrate this. The dominance of rational attitude to tackle the problem seemed to have cast blight over the entire project in the long-run. “Holistic Differentiation Theory” holds that low involvement categorizes the quick decision process which the experts and decision makers rely on at the time of criteria selection being insouciance of the possible consequences. For instance it is difficult to quantify the measurement of Opportunities to Physical Planning. In this case for instance the decision makers themselves felt that their professional input as well as time remained insufficient to meet the rigorous analysis through MCA which could be one of the reasons why distortion occurs in the selection process. Subjectively Utility Theory argues that the rational decision making process is related to the information processing capacities of decision makers which is found quite applicable in this context because the variation in subjective scoring between the individuals and the intervention in the result of analysis support the argument. Also there are deficiencies in database system in our context maximum possibilities of distortion in analysis were obtained. the decision-making procedure for the implementation of large urban infrastructural projects is tangled in the web of rationality and practicality. 6. the decision makers deliberately downplayed the significance of this and other relevant criteria by focusing them on external communication. In the Nepalese context. Economic Potential. Since there was a considerable dearth of initial database. MCA is a very time consuming process and required rigorous process and input. Similarly. For instance in case of Hetauda 43 % of the error was found in data projection. Because there is insufficient data. 55 .
i.e. For instance. to analyze the process of decision making at different levels for urban infrastructural development and to suggest ways of integrating multi-criteria. The research also showed that the utility of MCA reduced in Butwal.7. It enhances the perspectives of decision makers through integration of various t criteria and presenting the options in numerical or graphical interface. . No new criteria were introduced during analysis so as to identify the reality of their analysis in selection and involvement of multi actor decision makers in short listing the UEIP towns for implementation. available time. The utility of the MCA also depends on the information processing capacities of the decision makers and in the context of Nepal the key role in actual decision making stay with hierarchy in decision makers. Birgunj and Pokhara). Hence a pragmatic combination of these elements influences the rest of the process. have also been fulfilled. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The main objective of the research work was to test the utility of MCA in the large urban infrastructural investment project . lack of availability of data. lack of continuous input from technical professionals distorts the results of MCA. Finally the MCA software is only a tool for decision support. multi-actor decision making process in urban infrastructure investment.Likewise. it is not an automated alternative for decision making. MCA tools were used employing the WT and AHP method for analyzing the rationality of town’s selection for UEIP implementation. Birgunj and Pokhara because of the intervention from individuals in the decision-making hierarchy. tlow involvement of relevant organizations. and a correct measurement of these criteria. 56 . Research also found that decision making processes get influenced by actions and limitations external to the MCA framework.. For the purpose of research. Both the method showed the partial biases (occurred in three towns Butwal. Also the rationality of decision making process relies on two essential elements: a correct identification of the relevant criteria. the two secondary objectives. In this study the same criteria used by the experts in the analysis were applied for the selection of towns.
2. This happened because of the pair-wise comparison capacity of AHP based on this research the AHP software would be recommended to use as MCA software for decision making in selection of large urban infrastructural project. have significant usage in decision support. in general. tendency is curbed. rigorous study is necessary and the criteria adopted for analysis should be communicated with the concerned stakeholders properly. 6. Hence to avoid the possible distortion in the analysis high level of technical input is required. Large infrastructural projects may have many conflicting problem. 3.. Hence a wide spectrum of criteria must be included in analysis in anticipation of emergent perspectives in the decision making hierarchy. Decision making depends on information processing capacities of the decision makers. Thus in selection of those criteria.7. Rationality is a key approach to decision making however rational processes often get undermined by individual decision makers in the planning hierarchy. The ranking of the towns were similar but the score obtained are different to WT method. Until this 57 .1 RECOMMENDATION 1. 4. the utility of MCA will remain limited. the utility is reduced very often by the external criteria. and the planning in large projects is of complex in nature especially in countries like Nepal where data availability is limited. 5. Role of relevant organizations/ interest groups should be increased by making decision process transparent through better communication about the methodology of selection criteria and t alternatives solutions. In such cases decision making is mostly dominated by subjective judgments rather than rational processes. Though MCA tools. From the analysis the result tabulated from AHP method matched with simple WT method and the information generated from the different professional.
Further research could be conducted on the appropriateness of the criteria used for the ranking of UEIP towns. 58 . Then the complete hierarchy of decision making process from the conceptual level to selection and finally the implementation would be transparent. Also new criteria could be included with in the research. • Further research could be done on the decision making process at the level of implementation of the project in UEIP towns. • The comparison of AHP method could be done with other decision making software in large infrastructural investment projects.7. Further research could be conducted to find out the possibility of evaluation in two aspects of value related factors and numerical factors.2 RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER RESEARCH • This research is limited only on the criteria adopted by the counterpart professionals and hence the result is entirely focused on the selection criteria of the UEIP towns. • This research did not include perception of real beneficiaries groups hence the further research could done through the involvement of real beneficiaries group in decision making process to find out the need of acute intervention. This will also outline rationality of criteria selection in forehand.
Local Government and the Regions. A manual on multi criteria analysis.com/lib/nepal [accessed 10 December 2007]. 1990.. L. The Theory of decision making. Centre Bureau of Statistics. s. Secaucus. 2002.. Expert Choice. Nippon Jogesuido sekki Co. Psychological Bulletin.. Nippon Jogesuido sekki Co. al..ebrary. London. Edwards. i . L.com/lib/nepal [accessed 10 December 2007]. et. USA: AMACOM. NJ. Nepal.. W.ebrary. Decision support software: users manual. vol. Nos 1/2.. Saranac Lake. USA. al. S. 2006. and Connell.n. Vol. S. Cities and Complexity. Pittsburgh. Expert Choice. Available at: http://site. s. Nepal: inception report.n. et. 6.gov.. 2006.BIBLIOGRAPHY Beach. National population census 2002. M. Available at: http://www.com/ [ accessed 5 September 2007] Buchanan. 1986. Appropriate scale of hydropower development for Nepal: a multicriteria decision making approach. Department of Urban Development and Building Construction (DUDBC). Available at http:// inderscience. Decision-support systems for sustainable urban planning. Department of Transport. 2001. Inc. 2001.. S. DUDBC.. 1999. 2002. Environmental Technology and Management.. Urban Environmental Improvement Project. Festinger. Bhattarai.. Pittsburgh USA. 2000.. Summary sheet. K.uk/. The psychology of decision making: People in organizations.O. A. Asian Institute of Technology. Greatest Management Decisions Ever Made. Christensen. Bohner. Theory of cognitive dissonance. A brief history of decision making. Doumpos. Multi decision aid classification methods. 1957. NY. Sage Publications. MSc. Available at: http://www.Making Intergovernmental Decision.. Crainer. Nepal: interim report..R. Harvard Business Review. Inc. Decision support software: tutorial.colostate. Int.. Urban Environmental Improvement Project.edu/dept/speech [accessed 10 December 2007].dtlr. L. 1999. J. 1986.. 51 (1954). Available at: http://site. USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1997. C.
Emerald.His Majesty’s Government of Nepal. P. Background to Qualitative Decision Theory. The adaptive decision maker. p. Communicative Planning Theory. T. 1992.n.ebrary. setting. D. Hershey.382-390. Water Aid Nepal. 1997..l. Department of Philosophy and the History of Technology. Bettman.. Université Paris Dauphine.ebrary. and Crozier. Samset. London. T.emeraldinsight.. 2005. R.. E.. Decision Theory: A Brief Introduction. Nepal. X.. MOPE. K.L.M. [ 12 December 2007]. s. Saaty. Available at http://www. Royal Institute of Technology. D. Available at: http://site. Malano. Ranyard. J. Avebury: Ashgate Publishing limited. and Thompson...D.com/0969-9988. Methodologies use in group decision making: strategic alignment process and decision support system. MSc Thesis. & Johnson. Available at: http://site. ?.. M. Final report: long term sustainability monitoring. resource Allocation.J. Facts and Figures. T. O.W. T. Moeffaert. H. Normative Ethics in Planning.?. R. Nepal: Integrated consultants Nepal (P. Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Payne. Project Management in a High Uncertainty Situation.. R.. and Richmond. Sven. Ninth plan. R. Application of the analytic hierarchy process to prioritise irrigation asset renewals: the case of the La Hhe irrigation scheme.htm. Nepal. Decision Map for Spatial Decision Making in Urban Planning. Local Self Government Act 1999. H.. priority. 1999. Royal Institute of Technology (KTH). The analytic hierarchy process: planning. 2003. Nepal Population and Environment. Jon.com/lib/nepal [accessed 12 December 2007]. Vietnam. 2007.. Sager. Tran. Salem. 1997. C.A. 1998. Multi Criteria Decision Aid in sustainable urban water management. Howe.) Ltd. E. s..com/lib/nepal [accessed 12 December 2007]. s. ii .. USA: University of Pittsburgh. Stockholm.l. theory and case studies. USA: IRM Press. UK: Routledge. H. Dissertation. 2003. G. 2003. 2005. Decision making: cognitive model and explanation: cognitive process models and explanations of decision making. Shimizu. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management [Online] 10 (6). National Planning Commission. Nepal: His Majesty’s Government.V. 1994. Ph. T.
Princeton University Press. O. and Kumar. Available at http://libweb.. Von Neumann. Harvard System of Referencing. 1947. O. iii . & Morgenstern.University Library. S. Vaidya. Princeton. 2007. European journal of operational research.anglia. Angilia Ruskin University. Theory of Games and Economics Behaviour. (accepted for publication April 2004)..S..uk [ accessed 4 September 2007]. J. (in press) Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications.ac.
Criteria Municipalities Oppertunities Degree of Willingness Urban Urban Economic Commitme Linkage Proximity Institutional Capacity Environment of Physical Participation of people to Ktm with nt of Growth Potential Planning View Point Towns Kathmandu (km) Rate leader 1 Banepa 2 Dhulikhel 3 Panauti 4 Bhimeshwor 5 *Bidur 6 Dhading Besi 7 Bharatpur 8 Ratnanagar 9 Hetauda 10 Kamalamai 11 Pokhara 12 Butwal 13 Birganj 14 Janakpur Note: * Bidur till to date is VDC Value Judgements: Very High High Okay Not Much ii .
How did the roles of nations five year plan. What were the roles of ADB during the selection of UEIP towns? 4. and other line agencies) who had been contributing since a long time for the urban infrastructural development? 6. Was the criteria developed were enough for selection or it should had incorporated others criteria for judgments. What were the roles of steering committee during the selection of UEIP towns? 5. What were the strategies developed from the professional for the selection of UEIP towns? 3.Institute of Engineering Dept. Lalitpur Tribhuwan University Selection of UEIP Towns: 1. and 9. 1999 and other related legislation influence the project selection? 7. Was the time allocation for the selection of UEIP towns enough to study all possible parameters? If not how much would required performing detail task? 8. local self governance act. What were the instructions received from higher authority for selection of UEIP towns? 2. UDLE. What was the degree of validity of data thus collected on these criteria for selection of towns? iii . of Architecture and Urban Planning Pulchowk. Did the project team consult with the different organizations (Like MUAN.
of Planning Freedom Column I Extreme Very Strong Moderate Equal Moderate Strong Very Extreme Column II Strong Strong Strong Strong Urban Economic Growth Potential Rate Urban Linkage Growth with Rate Kathmandu Urban Proximity Growth to Rate Kathmandu Economic Linkage Potential with Kathmandu Economic Proximity iv . to Degree Phy. why? If importance of each Criteria/ Sub criteria should no be equal. How many times the counterpart professional visit the UEIP towns and how long the duration was? 11. to Capacity Phy.10. It was found that multi criteria analysis was done for the selection of UEIP towns from short listed towns. Planning Institutional Degree Capacity of Freedom Opp. then what would be the appropriate weightage. where the importance for each criterion was given equal weightage. Column I Extreme Very Strong Moderate Equal Moderate Strong Very Extreme Column II Strong Strong Strong Strong Institutional/ Economical Technical Institutional/ Social Technical Economical Social Column I Extreme Very Strong Moderate Equal Moderate Strong Very Extreme Column Strong Strong Strong Strong II Institutional Opp. please check the following box.
political leaders. filled up from experts. When multi criteria analysis was carried out based on equal importance of criteria/ sub-criteria. etc) who vested their interest during period of town selection? 13. 5 towns and 2 towns were excluded from donor agencies and experts. of town View point leader Commit.Column I Extreme Very Strong Moderate Equal Moderate Strong Very Extreme Column II Strong Strong Strong Strong Potential to Kathmandu Linkage Proximity with to Kathmandu Kathmandu Column Extreme Very Strong Moderate Equal Moderate Strong Very Extreme Column II I Strong Strong Strong Strong Commit. Urban envn. why these towns didn’t performed for multi criteria analysis? 14. Willingness of town of leader Participation Urban Willingness envn. on what basis these towns were excluded. Did the project team felt any pressure from external forces (Donor agencies. central government. of View Participation point 12. What were the challenges did the consultant team encountered during the selection of UEIP towns? v . Pokhara Butwal & Birganj should be included but in real it was not happened why? 15.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.