Download all Technical Policy Briefing Notes in a single ... - Mediation

DecisionSupport 6Strengths and WeaknessesA key part of the MEDIATION project has been toidentify the strengths and weaknesses ofdifferent approaches.The main strength of multi-criteria analysis is thatit allows consideration of both quantitative andqualitative data, and can thus compare monetaryand non-monetary units directly. This allows theconsideration of a much broader set of criteriathan other approaches, as well as elements thatmay be difficult to quantify. It thus allowsapplication in non-market sectors, and can bebroaden out to consider wider attributes (e.g.acceptability, equity) of adaptation options.The approach also encourages consultation andengagement with stakeholders. This can help inidentifying options, bringing in expert knowledgeto the scoring process, and understandingstakeholder (and policy-makers) preferences inrelation to weighting.Case StudiesThe MEDIATION study has reviewed existingliterature examples that have applied Multi-Criteria Analysis to adaptation.The review has found several relevantapplications. This includes application at thenational level, for early programmatic analysis ofadaptation as part of national strategydevelopment (see case study box below).It also includes the application of MCA tocomplement economic appraisal of adaptation atthe project level (e.g. EA, 2009), to allow theanalysis of a broader set of criteria, particularlyenvironmental and social aspects.The potential weaknesses relate to the fact thatthe scoring and weighting exercise can besubjective, depending on the stakeholders orexperts involved. This translates through to theconsideration of uncertainty, which is often veryqualitative in nature.A summary of the strengths and weaknesses ispresented below.Key strengths• Can combine quantitative and qualitative data,using monetary and non-monetary units, andcan therefore consider a much wider set ofcriteria, even where quantification ischallenging or limited.• The method is relatively simple andtransparent, and can be done at relatively lowcost and within a limited time.• Expert judgement can be used very efficiently.• It involves stakeholders and can be based onlocal knowledge.Potential weaknesses• Results need further interpretation andelaboration in more detailed studies.• Different experts may have different opinionsand will provide different scores, i.e. there is adegree of subjectivity involved.• Stakeholders may have lack of knowledge andcan miss important options.• It may be difficult to give consistent scores tothe alternatives.• Analysis of uncertainty often highly qualitative.4