The Framework as a Structuring Tool: Case Studies - Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment - page 153

An assessment of the significance of the impact of each alternative
solution, in terms of reversibility and duration in time, was also devel-
oped by creating a nine-point measurement scale. This impact analysis
formed the basis of the application of three different multi-criteria anal-
ysis methods (MCA), in order to devise a single preference index for
each alternative system of disposing of urban waste (see Chapter 5).
The reason why Lombardi & Zorzi (1993) used three different MCA
methods (when one is generally considered sufficient for this problem)
was to avoid the well-known problem of 'method uncertainty' (Voogd,
1983), which states that the results of an MCA application are fettered
by the mathematical structure on which the method is based. Therefore,
a comparison of the results obtained by different methods may be of
advantage for the decision.
The application of the MCA methods devised a final ranking of alter-
native options which placed a mixed waste treatment system (mixed
recovery and incineration) at the top, as best, and traditional systems
(controlled burial and incineration) at the bottom.
This result is dependent upon both the subjective selection of the
evaluation criteria used and their weighting vector (this has been iden-
tified as an additional 'uncertainty' of this method (Voogd, 1983)). The
criteria and their weights were agreed on by experts within a consulta-
tive process that did not consider the views of non-experts and in fact
only technical factors were considered in the analysis.
The MCA methods used in this application were the following:
Concordance-Discordance Analysis - Electre II (Roy, 1985), Analytical
Hierarchy Process (Saaty, 1980) and Regime Method (Hinloopen et al .,
1983). A short illustration of the multi-criteria analysis is given in
Chapter 5.
An application of the multi-modal framework shows a number of
problems in terms of threats to sustainable development, particularly
with regard to the aspects not included in the above analysis. In par-
ticular, it shows the lack of commitment due to the absence of commu-
nity non-expert participation in the evaluation (see Table 7.2).
Although some major environmental-technological and social-
economical impacts have been taken into consideration in the assessment,
the lack of elements related to users' perceptions and to social or ethi-
cal factors may have influenced the output, leading to a strictly 'expert-
orientated' decision. For instance, the concern for non-renewable
resources such as landscape, air quality, water quality and soil quality,
and the attention paid to both public hygiene and hazardous materials
(safety) are important in relation to the health of people and the value
systems prevalent within a community. The chosen decision-making
process did not consider these aspects.
In the literature, MCA methods are often considered useful tools for
consultation with experts and the general public. However, practical
examples of experience in this field are not easily accessible or available.