Engaging and Conflict-Resolution preference elicitation in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Localized Mitigation Actions in Disaster Risk Management

Yeganegi, R. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4109-0690, Komendantova, N. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2568-6179, & Danielson, M. (2025). Engaging and Conflict-Resolution preference elicitation in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Localized Mitigation Actions in Disaster Risk Management. DOI:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-18473. In: EGU General Assembly 2025, 27 April-02 May 2025, Vienna.

Preview

Text Yeganegi et al. (Poster) EGU25-18473.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

Achieving long-term effectiveness in natural disaster risk management needs a multifaceted approach. This approach should integrate the disaster’s impact with the region's social, economic, and physical characteristics. A variety of models have been developed to measure the disaster’s impact and propose risk reduction solutions. However, finding the optimal local solution is challenging. To enhance the sustainability of these solutions, it is crucial to consider the local pressing issues, which may be social, economic, cultural, or physical in nature. These issues manifest in the decision criteria when determining the most appropriate risk mitigation or management strategies. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods are instrumental in evaluating suitable solutions by integrating the outputs of risk assessment models with local priorities, which are represented as rankings of the decision criteria. Since the local experts and community representatives have the most practical information regarding regional issues, their input is essential in ranking the decision criteria. Various preference elicitation methods can be employed to capture experts’ perceptions on important issues.

When it comes to disaster risk mitigation and management, the elicitation of stakeholders’ collective perception on important issues is challenging. Different experts with different backgrounds, concerns, and visions for the future can have different perceptions on important issues that should be addressed by the disaster risk mitigation solution. This difference of opinion can lead to conflict of priorities. Since the disaster risk mitigation and management solutions are usually led to policy making or implementation of those solutions, the existing conflicts can have a negative impact on the effectiveness of these solutions. As such, it is vital to address these conflicts and elicit the collective priorities of local stakeholders.

In this research, a Simos-based silent negotiation process is developed for eliciting the stakeholders’ collective priorities for natural disaster risk mitigation and management. The developed process is designed to engage the representatives of local communities and other experts and decision-makers and systematically direct them to compromise on less important issues. The designed process benefits from different methods to increase robustness. By directing participants to compromise on their less important issues, this process provides the collective local priorities in mitigating disaster risk. Furthermore, it can gauge the level of conflicts among the stakeholders at the end of the silent negotiation. Additionally, it creates equal opportunity for all the participants to raise concerns and argue their point of view. This creates the opportunity to address issues and concerns from different communities.

The process is developed and implemented in the Horizon Europe project MEDiate (Multi-hazard and risk-informed system for Enhanced local and regional Disaster risk management). The MEDiate project is dedicated to creating a decision-support system (DSS) for disaster risk management that considers the complexities of multiple interacting natural hazards and fits the final disaster risk management solution to the characteristics, priorities, and concerns of the local communities and decision-makers. The MEDiate framework is implemented on four different testbeds (Oslo (Norway), Nice (France), Essex (UK), and Múlaþing (Iceland)), each of which has a different multi-hazard pair and different socio-economic characteristics.

Actions (login required)

View Item