Multi‐criteria decision analysis for nature conservation: A review of 20 years of applications

Abstract

Abstract1. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a method to support decision-making, by exploring the balance between the pros and cons of different alternatives to accomplish a specific goal. It assists in framing decision problems, illustrating the performance of alternatives across criteria, exploring trade-offs, formulating a decision and testing its robustness. This paper provides a structured review of empirical applications of MCDA to nature conservation published in the scientific literature over the last 20 years. The paper aims at taking stock of past experiences, and comparing them with best practices and common pitfalls identified in the literature, to provide recommendations for better MCDA application to conservation.2. The review follows the structure of a generalized MCDA process consisting of three key stages: (1) decision context and problem structuring, (2) analysis and (3) decision.3. The search identified 86 papers that describe MCDA applications to a range of topics, including conservation prioritization and planning; protected areas management and zoning; forest management and restoration; and mapping of biodiversity, naturalness and wilder. The results show that, concerning problem structuring, a small percentage of the reviewed MCDA engaged stakeholders other than the authors in identifying alternatives and formulating criteria (15% and 35% respectively).Concerning the analysis, criteria assessment was adequately justified by the authors (47%), at times also by involving other stakeholders (22%). Weighting was performed in almost all applications, whereas criteria aggregation was mostly based on the weighted linear combination (63%). Sensitivity analysis was largely overlooked (57%). Concerning decision, 45% of the articles provided only an overall ranking or suitability of alternatives, while 22% included additional rankings according to specific criterion, and 8% further analyses and clustering of stakeholders' preferences.4. The paper concludes by suggesting key elements of successful MCDA applications, including clear construction of the decision context; collaborative identification of alternatives and criteria that reflect the values at stake; adequate justification and communication of the methods for criteria assessment and weighting; reasoned choice of the criteria aggregation method, and comprehensive sensitivity analysis. K E Y W O R D Sbiodiversity conservation, criteria assessment, decision-making, multi-criteria decision analysis, stakeholders, weighting

Mapping and assessing ecosystem services to support urban planning: A case study on brownfield regeneration in Trento, Italy

“…In the analysed case, potential trade-offs could be related to competing uses of the existing brownfields (Kain et al 2016) or other non-ES criteria, for example, the costs of intervention (Koschke et al 2012), which were not considered in the study. However, multicriteria analysis provides a platform where multiple information about costs and benefits for planning scenarios can be easily integrated (Saarikoski et al 2016) and where different planning objectives can be balanced with the conservation and enhancement of green infrastructure (Adem Esmail and Geneletti 2018).…”

“…While most urban ES studies have focused on a single ES , the integration of multiple value dimensions and related indicators, especially across different ES categories, is still a challenge (Jacobs et al 2016). In this context, multi-criteria analysis was demonstrated as a useful tool for planners (Adem Esmail andGeneletti 2018, Saarikoski et al 2016). However, a fundamental issue, which also affects the quality and usability of multi-criteria analysis results, is that the single indicators are perceived as meaningful and informative for decision-makers.…”

“…On the one hand, multi-criteria analysis allows multiple sources of information and value dimensions to be combined, disregarding the indicators that are used to express them, which makes it suitable to address ES-related issues (Saarikoski et al 2016). On the other hand, it offers a structured way to explore different stakeholder perspectives and related objectives, balancing diverse and sometimes competing interests in a rational and transparent way (Adem Esmail and Geneletti 2018). While the presented application was mainly a scientifically-driven exercise, the proposed methodology demonstrated the potential for making ES assessments usable and relevant to real-life urban planning decisions.…”

Qualitative methods for ecologists and conservation scientists

“…In this context, this special feature of Methods in Ecology and Evolution provides a series of clear guidelines to qualitative methods commonly used in conservation or natural resource management research to elicit, process and use knowledge from stakeholders or experts. For four methods—interviews (Young et al., ), focus groups (Nyumba, Wilson, Derrick, & Mukherjee, ), nominal group technique (Hugé & Mukherjee, ) and multi‐criteria decision analysis (MCDA) (Esmail & Geneletti, )—guidelines are drawn from reviews of relevant literature with the articles giving overview of how the methods have been used in conservation research over the past two decades. A fifth paper (Mukherjee et al., ) critically analyses and compares six qualitative methods, also including the Delphi process (Mukherjee et al., ) and Q‐methodology Zabala and Pascual () for their use in conservation decision making.…”

“…Worryingly, a common strong message from the articles on interviews (Young et al., ), focus groups (Nyumba et al., ) and MCDA (Esmail & Geneletti, ) is that these methods are often poorly justified and inadequately reported in the conservation literature. For example pilot interviews represent an important stage in designing interviews, and should be requested by ethics committees.…”