Journal
JOURNAL OF WATER AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Volume 9, Issue 3, Pages 570-583Publisher
IWA PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.2166/wcc.2018.157
Keywords
AHP; approval voting; borda count; climate change scenario; evaluation criteria; group decision-making
Categories
Funding
- Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of Serbia [174003]
- COST Action - Validating and Integrating Downscaling Methods for Climate Change Research (VALUE) [ES1102]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
While evaluating climate impacts within different climate change scenarios, analysts and stakeholders may have different goals and therefore it is usually difficult to define a common decision-making framework applicable for various practical uses. In this paper, we combine two different group decision-making methodologies to prioritise criteria for assessing output information from regional climate models. The first is based on use of a multi-criteria analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to determine weights of criteria as cardinal information about their importance. The second methodology uses two voting methods, namely Borda count and Approval voting, to generate ordinal information (ranks) for criteria. A set of five criteria is assessed by 16 PhD students from the field of climatology, and generated decisions about their importance in the validation of regional climate models' quality are summarised, compared, and critically discussed. The paper is closed with recommendations for further research.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available