Suchergebnisse

ABSTRACTThe location problems of the so‐called undesirable facilities such as waste incinerators or landfills presents two main characteristics: (i) social opposition and (ii) a huge number of social, economic and environmental data that have to be taken into account. In this sense, the decision problem can be seen as an intrinsically complex problem because it involves different interconnected elements and must achieve objectives that are often in conflict.The work proposes the use of the theory of the dominance‐based rough set approach (DRSA). The DRSA is a development of the rough sets philosophy which concerns the possibility of extending this theory to multiple criteria decision analysis by providing the model with preference‐ordered aspects of the problem.This article presents an argument for the use of DRSA in decisions‐aiding processes concerning urban and territorial projects. Mention has to be made to the fact that there are very few applications of DRSA to real case studies, and in particular, there is no application concerning the localization of undesirable facilities. Given the very delicate nature of the problem, where the contrasts are not only theoretical but also concrete, it is essential to 'test' the various methods of decision support before using them in real contexts. In this article, we argue that a simulation phase should reclaim responsibility for reliability and validity by implementing verification and self‐correcting strategies during the development of the application itself.In particular, the paper presents an application to a real‐world problem, concerning the choice of the location for a waste incinerator in the Province of Turin (Italy). In the application, different sites are analysed and compared through the use of the DRSA on the basis of different attributes, such as presence of population, hydrogeological risk, landscape value, interferences on transport infrastructures. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

ABSTRACTWe present main characteristics of ELECTRE (ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité ‐ ELimination and Choice Expressing the REality) family methods, designed for multiple criteria decision aiding. These methods use as a preference model an outranking relation on the set of actions—it is constructed in result of concordance and nondiscordance tests involving a specific input preference information. After a brief description of the constructivist conception in which the ELECTRE methods are inserted, we present the main features of these methods. We discuss such characteristic features as the possibility of taking into account positive and negative reasons in the modelling of preferences, without requiring commensurable performance scales; the use of discriminating thresholds for taking into account the imperfect knowledge of data; the absence of systematic compensation between 'gains' and 'losses'. The main weaknesses are also presented. Then, some aspects related to new developments are outlined. These are related to some new methodological developments, new procedures, axiomatic analysis, software tools and several other aspects. This paper is an updated version of a chapter published by the authors under the title 'Electre Methods: Main Features and Recent Developments' in C. Zopounidis and P. Pardalos (Editors): Handbook of Multicriteria Analysis, Springer, Berlin 2010, pp. 51–89. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This report will analyse the interaction between regional Cohesion Policy (CP) and rural, development and agricultural policies (RP) of the EU. The analysis will explore if and eventually to what extent (i) a synergy arises between the two different (set of) policies in terms of both (ii) the effects and (iii) the determinants of the allocation of funds and subsequent actual expenditure in the 2007-2013 programming period.