Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences

By Giuseppe Munda. 2004

766 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Citations in the corpus

Social multi-criteria evaluation for urban sustainability policies (2006, background): “Remembering that the presence of multiple-identities in complex systems can be explained in terms of epistemological plurality and in terms of ontological characteristics of the observed system, I argue that it is possible to further distinguish the concepts of social incommensurability and technica”
Structuring problems for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in practice: A literature review of method combinations (2017, methodology): “…(Marttunen and Hämäläinen, 1995, 2008), Stakeholder Multi-Criteria Decision Aid (Banville et al., 1998), Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation (SMCE, Munda, 2004a), Deliberative Multi-Criteria Evaluation (Proctor and Drechsler, 2006) and MultiActor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA, Macharis et al.,…”
Environmental decision making with conflicting social groups: A case study of the Lar rangeland in Iran (2010, methodology): “This feature makes these methods attractive in natural resources decision making when the manager aims to choose a sustainable plan (De Leeneer and Pastijn, 2002; Forman and Peniwati, 1998; Goumas and Lygerou, 2000; Kangas et al., 2001; Munda, 2004; Proctor and Drechsler, 2003; Pykäläinen et al., 19”
Noncompensatory/nonlinear composite indicators for ranking countries: a defensible setting (2009, background): “Indeed, the overall quality of a composite indicator depends crucially on the way this mathematical model is embedded in the social, political and technical structuring process (Munda, 2004 ).”
Precisely incorrect? Monetising the value of ecosystem services § (2010, background): “…beyond mere utilitarian aspects, consensual, multi-criteria, multi-stakeholder valuation processes as developed e.g. by Munda and collaborators (Munda et al., 1994; Munda, 2004) and advocated by Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993, 1994) have been suggested as more appropriate (Kumar and Kumar, 2008).”
The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes (2010, background): “…decision making tools reducing ecosystem-service values to a single measuring rod – e.g., extended cost-benefit analysis, tend to be critically appraised and predilection is shown to deliberative andmulti-criteria based decision processes (Martínez-Alier, 1987, 2002; Munda, 2004; Spash, 2008b).”
An Extension of the Electre I Method for Group Decision-Making Under a Fuzzy Environment (2011, methodology): “In this context, the Electre methods with participatory approaches have not fully emerged in the MCDA literature as many outranking methods and applications assume a single DM for simplicity [92].”
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis: Comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services (2016, unknown): “This is why Munda (2004) uses the term Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation (SMCE) to distinguish his approach from participatory MCDA processes with stakeholders.”
THE MEANING OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY: EVIDENCE FROM A CONJOINT CHOICE SURVEY (2008, methodology): “The process of sustainability assessment encourages us to look for a compromising solution, which may bring balance among its different dimensions (Munda, 2004), and assignment of the level of relative importance to individual goals could aid this process.”
Impacts of payments for environmental services on local development in northern Costa Rica : A fuzzy multi-criteria analysis (2008, methodology): “The impacts on local development can be broken down into a set of principles (e.g. economic, social, human, institutional, cultural) that may in turn be broken down into criteria and indicators (Munda, 2004; Phillis and Andriantiatsaholiniaina, 2001).”