IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/earnsa/251970.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • de Castro, Mónica
  • Urios, Vicente

Abstract

[EN]Multi-criteria analysis in collaborative decision making can provide a useful tool to im-prove 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 Chi-squared 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. [ES]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 con-sidera 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 significa-tivamente 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.

Suggested Citation

  • de Castro, Mónica & Urios, Vicente, 2017. "A critical review of multi-criteria decision making in protected areas," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 16(02), January.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:earnsa:251970
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.251970
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/251970/files/6404-24570-1-PB.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.251970?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2009. "A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2535-2548, August.
    2. Strager, Michael P. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2006. "Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: Weights and measures in spatial MCA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 79-92, June.
    3. Elinor Ostrom, 2000. "Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 137-158, Summer.
    4. Kijazi, Martin Herbert & Kant, Shashi, 2011. "Social acceptability of alternative forest regimes in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania, using stakeholder attitudes as metrics of uncertainty," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 242-257, April.
    5. Nordström, Eva-Maria & Eriksson, Ljusk Ola & Öhman, Karin, 2010. "Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis in participatory forest planning: Experience from a case study in northern Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(8), pages 562-574, October.
    6. Hiltunen, Veikko & Kurttila, Mikko & Leskinen, Pekka & Pasanen, Karri & Pykäläinen, Jouni, 2009. "Mesta: An internet-based decision-support application for participatory strategic-level natural resources planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, January.
    7. Duke, Joshua M. & Aull-Hyde, Rhonda, 2002. "Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 131-145, August.
    8. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2008. "Multi-attribute preference modelling and regional land-use planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 325-335, April.
    9. Giuseppe Munda, 2003. "Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation (SMCE)," UHE Working papers 2003_04, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Departament d'Economia i Història Econòmica, Unitat d'Història Econòmica.
    10. Prato, Tony, 1999. "Multiple attribute decision analysis for ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 207-222, August.
    11. Kazana, Vassiliki & Fawcett, Roy H. & Mutch, William E. S., 2003. "A decision support modelling framework for multiple use forest management: The Queen Elizabeth Forest case study in Scotland," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 148(1), pages 102-115, July.
    12. Bertomeu, M. & Romero, C., 2001. "Managing forest biodiversity: a zero-one goal programming approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 197-213, June.
    13. Arabatzis, Garyfallos & Grigoroudis, Evangelos, 2010. "Visitors' satisfaction, perceptions and gap analysis: The case of Dadia-Lefkimi-Souflion National Park," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 163-172, March.
    14. Ananda, Jayanath & Proctor, Wendy, 2013. "Collaborative approaches to water management and planning: An institutional perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 97-106.
    15. Estévez, Rodrigo A. & Gelcich, Stefan, 2015. "Participative multi-criteria decision analysis in marine management and conservation: Research progress and the challenge of integrating value judgments and uncertainty," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1-7.
    16. Strager, Michael P. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2006. "Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: Weights and measures in spatial MCA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 627-639, June.
    17. Lu, Shiau-Yun & Shen, Cheng-Han & Chiau, Wen-Yan, 2014. "Zoning strategies for marine protected areas in Taiwan: Case study of Gueishan Island in Yilan County, Taiwan," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 21-29.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pilar Laguna-Sánchez & Jesús Palomo & Concepción de la Fuente-Cabrero & Mónica de Castro-Pardo, 2020. "A Multiple Criteria Decision Making Approach to Designing Teaching Plans in Higher Education Institutions," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Mónica de Castro-Pardo & Fernando Pérez-Rodríguez & José María Martín-Martín & João C. Azevedo, 2019. "Planning for Democracy in Protected Rural Areas: Application of a Voting Method in a Spanish-Portuguese Reserve," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-17, October.
    3. de Castro-Pardo, Mónica & Pérez-Rodríguez, Fernando & Martín-Martín, José María & Azevedo, João C., 2019. "Modelling stakeholders’ preferences to pinpoint conflicts in the planning of transboundary protected areas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    4. Mónica de Castro-Pardo & Pascual Fernández Martínez & Amelia Pérez Zabaleta & João C. Azevedo, 2021. "Dealing with Water Conflicts: A Comprehensive Review of MCDM Approaches to Manage Freshwater Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-32, April.
    5. Mónica de Castro-Pardo & João C. Azevedo, 2021. "A Goal Programming Model to Guide Decision-Making Processes towards Conservation Consensuses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-25, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Berthomé, Guy-El-Karim & Thomas, Alban, 2017. "A Context-based Procedure for Assessing Participatory Schemes in Environmental Planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 113-123.
    2. Eneko Garmendia & Gonzalo Gamboa, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: a case study on sustainable natural resource management," Working Papers 2012-06, BC3.
    3. Volker Meyer & Sebastian Scheuer & Dagmar Haase, 2009. "A multicriteria approach for flood risk mapping exemplified at the Mulde river, Germany," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 48(1), pages 17-39, January.
    4. Maria Cerreta & Pasquale De Toro, 2012. "Strategic Environmental Assessment of Port Plans in Italy: Experiences, Approaches, Tools," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(11), pages 1-34, November.
    5. Miller, Harvey J. & Witlox, Frank & Tribby, Calvin P., 2013. "Developing context-sensitive livability indicators for transportation planning: a measurement framework," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 51-64.
    6. Sadler, Richard C. & Hippensteel, Christopher & Nelson, Victoria & Greene-Moton, Ella & Furr-Holden, C. Debra, 2019. "Community-engaged development of a GIS-based healthfulness index to shape health equity solutions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 227(C), pages 63-75.
    7. Lundström, Johanna & Öhman, Karin & Rönnqvist, Mikael & Gustafsson, Lena, 2014. "How reserve selection is affected by preferences in Swedish boreal forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 40-50.
    8. Garmendia, Eneko & Gamboa, Gonzalo, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: A case study on sustainable natural resource management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 110-120.
    9. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2009. "A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2535-2548, August.
    10. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2008. "Multi-attribute preference modelling and regional land-use planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 325-335, April.
    11. Parnphumeesup, Piya & Kerr, Sandy A., 2011. "Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3591-3601, June.
    12. Nekhay, Olexandr & Arriaza Balmón, Manuel & Zhadko, Konstantin, 2014. "How to deal with competing types of nature and agriculture in the same area: A case study on Spanish olive groves," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182959, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. repec:rri:wpaper:200906 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Blackstock, K.L. & Kelly, G.J. & Horsey, B.L., 2007. "Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 726-742, February.
    15. Farid El Wahidi & Julien Radoux & Quentin Ponette & Pierre Defourny, 2015. "Entity-Based Landscape Modelling to Assess the Impacts of Different Incentives Mechanisms on Argan Forest Dynamics," Land, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-27, November.
    16. Vatn, Arild, 2009. "An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2207-2215, June.
    17. Sironen, Susanna & Primmer, Eeva & Leskinen, Pekka & Similä, Jukka & Punttila, Pekka, 2020. "Context sensitive policy instruments: A multi-criteria decision analysis for safeguarding forest habitats in Southwestern Finland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    18. Grošelj, Petra & Hodges, Donald G. & Zadnik Stirn, Lidija, 2016. "Participatory and multi-criteria analysis for forest (ecosystem) management: A case study of Pohorje, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 80-86.
    19. Richards, Daniel R. & Warren, Philip H. & Moggridge, Helen L. & Maltby, Lorraine, 2015. "Spatial variation in the impact of dragonflies and debris on recreational ecosystem services in a floodplain wetland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 113-121.
    20. Brianne Suldovsky & Daniel Taylor-Rodríguez, 2021. "Epistemic engagement: examining personal epistemology and engagement preferences with climate change in Oregon," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 1-18, June.
    21. Strager, Michael P. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2006. "Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: Weights and measures in spatial MCA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 627-639, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:earnsa:251970. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.