Legitimacy and quality of multi-criteria environmental policy analysis: A meta analysis of five MCE studies in Norway

This paper argues for multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) as a tool in environmental policy analysis. From an ethical point of view, neither rule-based methods, nor benefit–cost analyses (BCA) are sufficient. Multi-criteria decision analysts need, however, to be concerned about the legitimacy and quality of their applications. Neuro-physiological evidence indicates that a necessary, but not sufficient, criterion for quality is that the decision-makers experience emotions in the valuation process. With emotions, and in contrast to popular belief, its valuation part is liable to be out of proportion with the range of values held by reasonable selections of the society. This paper proposes criteria for evaluation of legitimacy and quality, reviews five applications in Norway of MCDA for environmental policy, but finds that there is no clear relationship between the legitimacy and quality of the studies and their significance for decision-makers.