Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis for Integrated Catchment Management

Implementation of Integrated Catchment Management (ICM) is hampered by the lack of a conceptual framework for explaining how landowners select farming systems for their properties. Benefit-cost analysis (a procedure that estimates the costs and benefits of alternative actions or policies) has limitations in this regard, which might be overcome by using multiplecriteria decision analysis (MCDA). MCDA evaluates and ranks alternatives based on a landowner’s preferences (weights) for multiple criteria and the values of those criteria. A MCDA approach to ICM is superior to benefit-cost analysis which focuses only on the monetary benefits and costs, because it: 1) recognizes that human activities within a catchment are motivated by multiple and often competing criteria and/or constraints; 2) does not require monetary valuation of criteria; 3) allows trade-offs between criteria to be measured and evaluated; 4) explicitly considers how the spatial configuration of farming systems in a catchment influences the values of criteria; 5) is comprehensive, knowledge-based, and stakeholder oriented which greatly increases the likelihood of resolving catchment problems; and 6) allows consideration of the fairness and sustainability of land and water resource management decisions. A MCDA based on an additive, multiple-criteria utility function containing five economic and environmental criteria was used to score and rank five farming systems. The rankings were based on the average criteria weights for a sample of 20 farmers in a US catchment. The most profitable farming system was the lowest-ranked farming system. Three possible reasons for this result are 2 evaluated. First, the MCDA method might cause respondents to express socially acceptable attitudes towards environmental criteria even when they are not important from a personal viewpoint. Second, the MCDA method could inflate the ranks of less profitable farming systems for the simple reason that it allows the respondent to assign non-zero weights to non-economic criteria. Third, the MCDA might provide a better framework for evaluating a landowner’s selection of farming systems than the profit maximization model.

[1]  Ray W. Cooksey,et al.  Judgment analysis : theory, methods, and applications , 1996 .

[2]  Robert Costanza,et al.  49 Chapter 4 VALUING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES WITH EFFICIENCY , FAIRNESS , AND SUSTAINABILITY AS GOALS , 1999 .

[3]  J. Cameron.  Applying socio-ecological economics: A case study of contingent valuation and integrated catchment management , 1997 .

[4]  Jerry F. Franklin,et al.  Creating a forestry for the 21st century : the science of ecosystem management , 1997 .

[5]  Gerald J. Bakus,et al.  Decision making: With applications for environmental management , 1982 .

[6]  Paul G. R. Smith,et al.  Evaluating natural areas using multiple criteria: Theory and practice , 1987 .

[7]  Shunxiang Wu,et al.  Multiple-Objective Decision Making for Agroecosystem Management , 1996, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.

[8]  Marek Makowski,et al.  Multiple criteria land use analysis , 1997 .

[9]  Tony Prato,et al.  SELECTION AND SUSTAINABILITY OF LAND AND WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 1 , 1999 .

[10]  S. El‐Swaify,et al.  Multiple objective decision making for land, water, and environmental management : proceedings of the First International Conference on Multiple Objective Decision Support Systems (MODSS) for Land, Water and Environmental Management: Concepts, Approaches, and Applications , 1998 .

[11]  Aregai Tecle,et al.  Conflict analysis in multi-resource forest management with multiple decision-makers. , 1995 .

[12]  M. Sagoff,et al.  The Economy of the Earth: The Allocation and Distribution of Resources , 2007 .

[13]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Integrating biodiversity into forest management planning and decision-making , 1993 .

[14]  Patrick Meire,et al.  Multicriteria techniques in ecological evaluation: an example using the Analytical Hierarchy Process , 1989 .

[15]  Marek Makowski,et al.  Methodology and a Modular Tool for Multiple Criteria Analysis of LP Models , 1994 .

[16]  F. Gehlbach,et al.  Investigation, evaluation, and priority ranking of natural areas , 1975 .

[17]  Paul V. Preckel,et al.  Multiattribute Assessment of Alternative Cropping Systems , 1995 .

[18]  F. O. Sargent,et al.  Classifying and evaluating unique natural areas for planning purposes. , 1976 .

[19]  Pekka Korhonen,et al.  Interactive, multiobjective programming for forest resources management , 1994 .

[20]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  An approach to public participation in strategic forest management planning , 1994 .

[21]  Ferenc Szidarovszky,et al.  Multi-attribute decision making: dominance with respect to an importance order of the attributes , 1993 .

[22]  John B. Theberge,et al.  A review of criteria for evaluating natural areas , 1986 .

[23]  Feng Xu,et al.  A Farm-Level Case Study of Sustainable Agricultural Production , 1995 .

[24]  Tony Prato,et al.  Selecting farming systems using a new multiple criteria decision model: the balancing and ranking method , 2002 .

[25]  R. W. Saaty,et al.  The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used , 1987 .

[26]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[27]  B. McKee,et al.  Time-based correlation of biogenic, lithogenic and authigenic sediment components with anthropogenic inputs in the Gulf of Mexico NECOP study area , 1994 .

[28]  G. Daily.  Nature's services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. , 1998 .

[29]  Marek Makowski,et al.  Multiple Criteria Analysis for Regional Water Quality Management: the Nitra River Case , 1995 .

[30]  Y. Haimes,et al.  Multiobjectives in water resource systems analysis: The Surrogate Worth Trade Off Method , 1974 .