Evaluating collaborative planning methods supporting programme-based planning in natural resource management

Vacik, Harald; Kurttila, Mikko; Hujala, Teppo; Khadka, Chiranjeewee; Haara, Arto; Pykäläinen, Jouni; Honkakoski, Päivi; Wolfslehner, Bernhard; Tikkanen, Jukka

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.05.029

Cited by 60 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ananda and Herath (2009), Huang et al (2011) and Kiker et al (2005) have reviewed the use of MCDM in natural resource management taking into account contaminated sites, the latter two provide broad reviews while the former focuses on forest management. Moreover, the revisions of Diaz-Balteiro and Romero (2008), Mendoza and Martins (2006), Proctor and Qureshi (2005), Vacik et al (2014) and Estévez and Gelcich (2015) consider participation. There has only been a minireview on the use of MCDM in protected areas, but it does not take into account participation (Moffett and Sarkar, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical review of multi-criteria decision making in protected areas

Castro-Pardo

Urios

2016

EARN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:Multi-criteria analysis in collaborative decision making can provide a useful tool to improve the governance in protected areas with strong conflicts between stakeholders. This paper offers an in-depth review about MCDM methods in protected areas. The analysis considers the topics Land Use, Management, Species, and Zoning and it is based in two dimensions: Methods and Participation. Topics and MCDM methods and Topics and Participation were significantly related and contrasted using a Chisquared test, respectively. We have identified two groups by topics: Zoning and Species use continuous non participative methods and Land Use and Management use discrete methods with increasing participation. KEYWORDS:Collaborative Decision-Making, Multi-criteria analysis, protected areas. Una revisión crítica de la toma de decisiones multi-criterio en áreas protegidas RESUMEN:El análisis multi-criterio para toma de decisiones colaborativa ofrece una herramienta útil para mejorar la gobernanza en áreas protegidas, con fuertes conflictos de intereses entre agentes. Este artículo ofrece una revisión en profundidad sobre métodos MCDM en áreas protegidas. El análisis considera los temas Uso de la tierra, Gestión, Especies y Zonificación, y se basa en dos dimensiones: Mé-todos y Participación. Los Temas y las Técnicas MCDM y los Temas y la Participación están significativamente correlacionados respectivamente según un test Chi-cuadrado. Hemos identificado dos grupos: Especies y Zonificación usan métodos continuos no participativos y Uso de la tierra y Gestión, utilizan métodos discretos donde la participación es creciente. PALABRAS CLAVE:Análisis multi-criterio, áreas protegidas, toma de decisiones colaborativa.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical review of multi-criteria decision making in protected areas

Castro-Pardo

Urios

2016

EARN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Involving stakeholders in order to elicit the weights and look for consensus on indifference and preference thresholds would be more transparent and understandable than a more elaborate method, such as GDSS. Vacik et al (2014) provided an in-depth analysis of 43 collaborative methods to apply in the three phases of the Programme-based Planning Natural Resources (PBPNR). These phases are problem identification, problem modelling and problem solving.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These indicators can be presented visually as graphs, which are simple for every decision maker, stakeholder and citizen to understand. These advantages have been proposed as relevant criteria for the effective identification, modelling and solving of problems and for when selecting methods for natural resource management (Vacik et al, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, Fontana et al (2013) has also used the AHP and PROMETHEE to compare land use alternatives considering ESS as criteria. To date, PROMETHEE has been more used in applied papers on sustainable decision in transport and logistic (Turcksin et al, 2011;Macharis et al, 2012), environmental management (for example, in ranking and selecting environmental projects), environmental impact assessment, ranking waste management alternatives and air quality/emissions problems (see the surveys by Behzadian et al (2010) and Huang et al (2011)) than in studies related to natural resource management (Ananda and Herath, 2009;Vacik et al, 2014). …”

Section: This Chapter Proposes a Methodology Which Integrates Multiplmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, MCDM have benefited from a greater acceptance among stakeholders and their applications in forestry issues, and ESS evaluation case studies are more widespread Vacik et al, 2014).…”

Section: Multiple Criteria Decision Making and Bayesianmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations