approximation and visualization of interactive decision maps short course of lectures n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Approximation and Visualization of Interactive Decision Maps Short course of lectures PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Approximation and Visualization of Interactive Decision Maps Short course of lectures

Approximation and Visualization of Interactive Decision Maps Short course of lectures

159 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Approximation and Visualization of Interactive Decision Maps Short course of lectures

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Approximation and Visualization of Interactive Decision MapsShort course of lectures Alexander V. Lotov Dorodnicyn Computing Center of Russian Academy of Sciences and Lomonosov Moscow State University

  2. Lecture 9. Application of Pareto frontier visualization in Web and in e-democracy Plan of the lecture 1) Standard Instruments of E-Democracy 2) Democratic paradigm of environmental decision making 3) Few words concerning RGM/IDM technique 4) Several applications of the RGM/IDM technique on Web ParticipatoryDecision Support for Integrated River Basin Planning e-DEMOCRACIA-CM (Madrid community) 5) Modified Pareto frontier visualization: interactive MCO procedures in Web

  3. E-Governance and E-Democracy E-Governance E-Government E-Democracy E-Participation E-Voting E-Administration

  4. Standard Instruments of E-Democracy Political Process (iii) Decision (ii) Formation of opinion (i) Information acquisition E-Voting E-Mail Chat Web-sites 0 Infor- Uni- Bi- Trans- mation directional actional Technical Complexity

  5. The technocratic and the democratic paradigms of environmental decision making

  6. The technocratic paradigm of environmental decision making • The technocratic paradigm is a usual concept of environmental decision making: experts develop a water management project, and professional decision makers approve, conditionally approve with minor changes or reject the project.

  7. Democratic paradigm of environmental decision making • “… the power to make decisions must be placed as far as possible in the hands of the persons who are the most directly influenced by the decision concerned, and not in the hands of individual decision makers and their experts. The ‘expert-oriented’ paradigm is seen increasingly as counterproductive in this respect” (M.Abbott et al., 1999).

  8. Example of a failure of the technocratic paradigm in the USSR An illustration of the failure of the technocratic paradigm is can provided by the story of the large-scale water management project based on partial diversion of the flow of Northern Russian rivers into the Volga River basin. In 1981 the USSR communist party has made a decision to approve the project and start its implementation. However, mass protests of environmentalists, researchers, writers and practically all educated people have resulted first in suspension of the project and then in its final stop in 1986.

  9. Informing non-experts Non-experts usually have minimal knowledge on the ways, how to solve environmental problems. Nevertheless, they want and often are involved into political actions related to such problems. It is clear that the gap between knowledge and actions of non-experts can be misused by irresponsible politicians and is dangerous. Internet can help non-experts understand the environmental problems and base their problem-related legal and political actions on such knowledge.

  10. The democratic paradigm requires special tools for elaboration of information in a form accessible for all people

  11. Internet tools that support the democratic paradigm: possible requirements • simplicity • transparent form • objectivity of the tools

  12. Objectivity of the tools “Information must be supplied under the same form for all stakeholders and must be considered by all of them as objective.” (Cunge and Erlich, 1999).

  13. CommentA small list of possible alternatives developed by experts results in an asymmetric relation between experts and non-experts: experts can develop alternatives and non-experts cannot. This asymmetric situation is not equitable, the objectivity principle may be violated. Experts may use it to thrust their preferences on non-experts, and non-experts understand it.

  14. Once again, decision screening versus final decision making in environmental problems

  15. We try to make the situation symmetric, i.e. to help non-experts to develop the decision alternatives by themselves on the basis of graphic exploration of the whole variety of feasible decision alternatives. An independent search for preferable decision alternatives can make the situation symmetric and objective. The process of independent decision screening can be considered as the learning process.

  16. Multi-criteria graphic techniques for decision screening The main principles of the methodology are: • Application of a simplified integrated model of a environmental system; • Application of a multi-criteria decision support tool based on visualization of Pareto frontier

  17. Two main tasks to be solved in the framework of e-participation in public decision problems • informing lay stakeholders on public decision problems (especially on possible strategies for solving the problems); and • supporting the decision making (aggregating stakeholders’ preferences or even negotiations).

  18. INFORMING the lay stakeholders Web tools based on the IDM technique can help lay stakeholders better understand the feasibility frontiers and express preferences by selecting one or several strategies that best fit their concerns. It important that it can be done independently of mass media that can help thrusting the strategies selected by an expert on lay stakeholders. The lay stakeholders can base their problem-related legal and political actions (including e-participation) on such knowledge.

  19. Supporting the decision making Web applications of the RGM/IDM technique are aimed, first of all, at supporting the first, pre-negotiation phase and arbitration. However, they can be used for supporting negotiations.

  20. Few words on the RGM/IDM technique A database of alternatives in the form of a decision matrix is considered, i.e., table of N decision alternatives (rows) given by a finite number of attributes (columns), a part of which is used as the selection criteria. One or several preferable alternatives must be selected.

  21. Main features of the problem The criteria, which used for selecting a small number of alternatives, are assumed to be real values. Thus, an alternative is associated with a criterion point. The method is based on visualization of the Pareto frontier of the “cloud” of criterion points. The decision maker has to identify the goal on the Pareto frontier of the “cloud”. Such information of the DM’s preferences helps to select a small number of «good» alternatives. This study can be considered as a special form of data mining.

  22. Example: real estate on sale

  23. A simple graphic description of the method

  24. For illustrative purposes, let m=2 (criterion points are displayed in the plane). Non-dominated points are given by crosses.

  25. Enveloping the criterion points

  26. Approximating the Edgeworth-Pareto hull of the convex hull (the so-called CEPH)

  27. Pareto frontier is analyzed by user and a preferred combination of criterion values (reasonable goal) is identified

  28. The alternatives that are close to the goal are selected

  29. General case (m from 3 to 8) Visualization of the Pareto frontier is based on approximation of the CEPH and application of the Interactive Decision Mapstechniquefor the interactive analysisof the frontiers of the slices.

  30. Several applications (discussed yesterday) • Selecting a location for rural health practice in Idaho • Application to local water quality planning in Russia (“Revival of the Volga River” program) • Mexico: APLICACIÓN DE LA MINERÍA DE DATOS EN LA LOCALIZACIÓN ÓPTIMA DE INSTALACIONES PETROLERAS • Mexico: Aplicación de la Minería de Datos para la exploración óptima de reservas petroleras • Exploration of pollution abatement cost in the Electricity Sector – Israeli case study

  31. Application of RGM/IDM in Web.Reasonable Goals for DataBases(RGDB)

  32. Concept of the Web RGDB application server

  33. Data input

  34. Example of the RGDB display

  35. Selected alternatives

  36. Web RGDBcan be found at Or

  37. EU Water Framework Directive

  38. Participatory Decision Support for Integrated River Basin Planning(Funding: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research) The Web RGDB was used as a part of DSS developed by Jörg Dietrich and Andreas H. Schumann, Ruhr University Bochum, Institute for Hydrology, Water Management and Environmental Engineering

  39. DSS was calibrated for the Werra River Basin Ems Elbe Weser Werra Rhein

  40. Dynamically Calculated Decision Matrix

  41. For the Participatory Decision Support System, a special form of the Web RGDB was developed. It can support negotiations. It applies selecting several goals and related small groups of alternatives.

  42. Presentation of RGM/IDM Results

  43. Architecture of the Web-based DSS

  44. The plan of Werra basin management for the next five years was developed. Unfortunately, ordinary people (lay stakeholders) were excluded from the decision process.Next German project started now is related to strategies of water management at the sea shore of Shandong province of China (Yellow River delta).

  45. Another Project: E-DEMOCRACIA-CM (Madrid community)

  46. A framework for participatory group decision support using Pareto frontier visualization, goal identification and arbitrationR. Efremov, D. Rios Insua, A. Lotov

  47. Application of the research is related to participatory budget planningGeneral public must be allowed to have a word and aid in deciding and approving how public budgets, mainly in municipalities, are spent.

  48. The study is devoted to developing user-friendly, yet rigorous, Web-based group decision support methods. The developed methods are based on interactive Pareto frontier visualization combined with expression of preferences in terms of goals and using goal-based arbitration.