B08 111 081015 Diapo Joerin En

transcript

Information and territoriale decision support

Florent JoerinChaire de recherche du Canada en aide à la décision

territorialeUniversité Laval, Québec, Canada

16 octobre 2008

Introduction Territorial Information Territoriale decision support Decision process

Tools example Socioscope : a diagnosis support tool Choosing bus stop equipment

Some Thoughts on the role of information in the territorial decision support process

Conclusion

Territorial information

Dependence on geographic location Altitude and population density

• likely to change based on its location. Person’s weight, engine’s power

• Do not depend on the place of observation Topological relationships or spatial autocorrelation

Values are generally close if spatially close

Interpretation framework

observation locations

similarity relationships

Suitability for new shops

Joerin Bozovic 2007

Territorial decision support

Every decision is at least slighty territorial Decision is social Social is also essentially spatial.

Territorial decision, a decision with a « meaningful » effect on territory

Field of territorial decision support Fuzzy boundaries

Decision support

Rational myth Reality can be summed up with mathematics. Decision can be strictly rational.

Nowadays, a more open approach More attention on stakeholders, on problem

formulation and organisational context A place taking account of different rationalities

• Scientific but also aesthetic, social, ethical

Decision process

EvaluationEvaluationActionAction

ObservationObservation

TerritorialTerritorial

systemsystemDiagnosis

Intelligence

Design

Review

Choice

Action

ChoiceChoice

Decision process: information transformation

systemsystem

Information

Indicator

Alternatives

CriterionChoiceChoice

Decision process: different tools

systemsystem

Indicators systems

ProjectManagementsoftware

Multicriteriaanalysis ChoiceChoice

Examples

1) Socioscope : a diagnosis support tool

2) Choosing bus stop equipment

Socioscope

Conférence régionale des élus de Montréal semi-public institution

120 members

• 2/3 local politicians

• 1/3 social and economic lobbyist

www.socioscope.qc.ca

Socioscope

Complete economic indicators

Improve social development understanding

Poverty, health, education...

Supporting consensual decision-making

www.socioscope.qc.ca

Contextualised indicators

Improve accessibility to health services Improve accessibility to health services

Healthy life expectancy

Interconnected indicators

Grocery and food stores densityGrocery and food stores density

Healthy life expectancy

Grocery and food density

Des indicateurs contextualisés Life course

Juliette and her son : a single parent family

Des indicateurs contextualisés Systemic diagram causal relationships

Systemic diagram causal relationships

Design process

Comittee(author)

Priorities and Causal relationships

First list : 50 indicators Paul Bernard, Université de Montréal

FocusGroups

Socioscope

Systemic diagram

Choosing bus stop equipment

Minimalise cost Equipment Maintenance

Maximise service quality

Bus shelter, garbage can, posted schedules, seats

Bus shelter, garbage can, posted schedules

Seats, posted schedules

Posted schedules

More than 4500 bus stop

Criteria

Criterion Evaluator

Traffic # passengers at stop

Connection # of possible connecting routes

Potential # of possible connecting routes

Intermodality Connection with others transport services

Peak performance Stability of use (passengers/hours)

Frequency # of buses by day

Urban context Industrial, residential, dow-town, etc.

Range of bus route connection

Passengers at stop

Decision-makers preferences

Criterion Indifferencethreshold

Preferencethreshold Weights %

Traffic1 23

Connection8 12

Potential3551 6190

Intermodality 6 15

Peak performance2,2 26,3

Frequency10 20

Urban context0 1

Mutlicriteria analysis (Electre TRI)

Results

52,3 % bus shelter at « high quality » stops

But, 272 bus shelter at « weak quality » stops

Global stop quality

# stops

# bus shelter

% shelter/ stop

Very high 179 170 95

High 453 374 82,6

Doubtful 849 224 26,4

Weak 1 919 223 11,6

Very weak 993 49 4,9

Total 4393 1040 23,7

Building decision

Why decision-makers are asking for support ? To improve decision efficiency

• Is it really the best choice ? To be able to decide

• How can I decide ? Is there a good choice ?

And if the decision is territorial ? To… be able to decide !

• Too complex

• Too many conflicts : NIMBY, LULU, and so on

Building understanding

How to decide ?Interaction

Territorial system

Mental model

Decision system

Virtual model

directInteraction

virtualInteraction

Decision

Mental

Experiences

SocioscopeDecision support processMulticriteria analysis

Stakeholders

Territory

Decision

Information

ConcernsMotivations

Expert

Information

Preferences

Building preferences

Stakeholders

Deciding without information

Why decision-makers are asking for support ? To improve decision efficency To be able to decide

LÉVIS City CID : coordination body Decision about residential project 8 executives

• Urban planning, environment, Safety, Police, etc.

Just to Be able to decide !

Main information

During discussions… Cadastral map

Only documents open on the table Poor information but sufficient Complemented by personal knowledge

Participative design process

Plan for a future residential project

Vacant land belonging to the Université Laval

~ 1000 habitation units

Sixty participants : University employees,

students, neighbouring residents, businesspeople,

City of Québec…

Four steps

Information and discussion : several meetings

Diagnostics and prospects : 1 day workshop

Strategy and choice : 1 day workshop

Design : 2 days charrette

Cartographic indicators (on line)

Learn about the decision context Neighbourhood, district, city

Cartographics indicators (on line)

Dwelling affordability

% of householdsspending more than30% in the renting cost

Cartographics indicators (printed)Dwelling affordability

Outcomes

Low use of indicators Only few consultations on the website Few consultations during workshops

Possible reasons ? Cartographic composition, media (Internet, printed

maps), themes of indicators

All the focus on the consensus buildings Few concerns about the decision efficiency

Two types of situation

PPGIS Goals

Build a consensus Apply a decision

support tools

Urban design Goals

Build a consensus Mean

Decision support tools

Actors Actors

ActorsActors

Actors Actors

ActorsActors

Conclusion

Territorial decision support Still need theoretical and conceptual research

Fuzzy boundaries

Somes distinctives features Spatial relationships: Interpretation framework

Support to build the decision : complexity and conflicts

Constructivist approach : result is the process

A paradoxical question Do decision-makers really need (additionnal) information ?

What about Territorial Intelligence ?

Much in common Global and systemic approach, participatory

processes, and so on

Territorial Intelligence

Territorial decision support

Decision process Action

Multicriteriaanalysis

B08 111 081015 Diapo Joerin En

Technology