This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Incorporating community objectives in improved wetland management: the use of the analytic hierarchy process
School of Business, La Trobe University, Albury/Wodonga Campus, Wodonga, Vic. 3690, Australia Received 7 May 2003; revised 3 November 2003; accepted 9 December 2003
Abstract Wetlands in Australia provide considerable ecological, economic, environmental and social beneﬁts. However, the use of wetlands has been indiscriminate and signiﬁcant damage to many Australian wetlands has occurred. During the last 150 years one third of the wetlands in Victoria have been lost. A conspicuous problem in wetland management is the paucity of involvement by stakeholders. This paper uses the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to incorporate stakeholder objectives in the ‘Wonga Wetlands’ on the Murray River. The study shows that the AHP can explicitly incorporate stakeholder preferences and multiple objectives to evaluate management options. The AHP also provides several approaches for policy makers to arrive at policy decisions. q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Wonga wetlands; Analytic hierarchy process; Stakeholder; Community; Management
1. Introduction Wetlands provide important ecological, economic, and social beneﬁts such as improved water quality, ﬂood control, reduced nutrient pollution and habitat for a diversity of plants and animals and recreational opportunities and economic beneﬁts to rural communities. However, many wetlands in Australia have been destroyed or degraded due to unsustainable use patterns. Not a single wetland in the Murray region is in its natural condition (Lugg, 1993). During the last 150 years, one-third of the wetlands in Victoria were lost and in the Murray River, over 35% of seasonally inundated wetlands are now degraded (Pressey, 1986; Bennett, 2000). The major constraints to proper management of wetlands are (a) excessive focus on technological approaches that alter the environment (b) lack of knowledge of different stakeholders (e.g. farmers, conservationists, recreationists, etc.) and their values and attitudes (c) conﬂicting multiple objectives of stakeholders and (d) difﬁculties in quantifying economic, environmental and recreational values. All these problems reﬂect the non-involvement of stakeholders in decision-making. An inclusive process that reﬂects
* Tel.: þ 260583837; fax: þ 260583833. E-mail address: email@example.com (G. Herath). 0301-4797/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2003.12.011
community interests and provides them with a key role in inﬂuencing planning and management decisions will have a greater chance of success. Community involvement would provide policy alternatives that are more acceptable to the community. If stakeholders are adequately represented in decision-making allowing them to cooperate in an honest and open exchange of views, it is possible to reach agreed positions and minimise conﬂicts, provide in-built controls and incentives for conservation and sustainable use, help reduce negative environmental effects and increase the sustainability of wetlands (Wright, 1997). Participation enhances the legitimacy of the process and conveys to the public the complexities of policy making and the limits of government capacity to respond to public needs and demands. Yet, community participation in wetland management in Australia has been limited to discussions with community leaders or comments on plans prepared elsewhere and stakeholders have little role in identifying issues, developing alternative management options and prioritising choices. Hence, wetland management in Australia is in a state of ﬂux. The existing institutions are becoming strained and less able to perform their historical function of mediating competing demands of wetland services. Today, stakeholders such as recreational users, anglers, logging interests, environmentalists all compete among themselves
The AHP has been widely applied for preference analysis in complex. They found MCDA to be useful in resolving tradeoffs between economic and environmental goals. The main difﬁculty in implementing participatory approaches is the lack of tested methods. which could facilitate stakeholder negotiations and allow greater analytical rigour. MCDA is a rational decision-making framework. costly mistakes and restoration measures may be avoided in the future. MCDA improves communication and understanding among multiple decision makers and facilitate ways of reaching policy compromises.1. The most widely used multi-criteria methods include the AHP. 1993). telephone surveys. The use of prompt cards for pairwise comparisons is an innovative feature of this study. No single group such as irrigators. Proctor’s (2000) study revealed that the two extreme forest use options—the ‘conservation option’ and the ‘timber industry option’ are preferred over the middle ground options. It is a general theory of ratio scale measurement based on mathematical and psychological foundations (Kangas. The analytic hierarchy process The AHP. Proctor (2000) applied AHP to regional forest planning in Australia. 2000). anglers. It can be applied to a variety of environmental problems characterised by multiple goals. resolve conﬂicts and identify areas of importance. public comment opportunities have been used but have been criticised as inadequate. 2. community workshops. multidimensional. An approach that can provide explicit information about community objectives. MAUT also assumes that decision alternatives follow a known probability distribution.264 G. public meetings.. It allows the decision makers to rank objectives. Munda. By investing up front in understanding the wetland systems. Wetland management is evolving into a multi objective management approach. indigenous users control the agenda and the management agencies. their tradeoffs and attitudes means that the conﬂicts can be better understood (Turner et al. (2001) found mixed empirical evidence about whether MAUT improved the internal consistency of preference surveys. The AHP is . Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) MCDA refers to a suite of techniques in which multiple values reﬂecting different objectives are quantiﬁed and used to provide a decision outcome. Technical issues will not dominate decision-making but will provide inputs to a more democratic process of negotiations among various stakeholders. The key to successful wetland management is gaining a thorough understanding of the people and ecological processes unique to wetland systems and using this understanding in the design and implementation of appropriate management strategies. incommensurable and uncertain effects of decisions explicitly (Carbone et al. Omann. MCDA can simplify and structure the wetland management problem. † Identify stakeholder objectives in wetland use. which explicitly incorporates multiple objectives of decisions makers. ranging from Grade 1 to Grade 4. Russell et al. MCDA is a promising framework for evaluation since they have the potential to take into account conﬂicting. 2. Herath / Journal of Environmental Management 70 (2004) 263–273 for the stressed wetland systems. 2000). The MAUT has shortcomings.. Deng et al. Multi-criteria Value Functions (MCVF). Multi-attribute Utility Theory (MAUT). The diffusion of power among a multitude of stakeholders means that agencies have increasingly less power to resolve conﬂicts by imposing a solution. (2002) used the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to evaluate tourism attributes in Victorian Parks in Australia. 1992). 2000. The speciﬁc objectives of this paper are to: † Identify different stakeholder groups in the Wonga wetlands in the Murray River. Several participatory methods including questionnaire surveys. 2000). The emphasis on MCDA alters wetland management from one that is dependent on hardware to one that depends on information. Assim and Hill (1997) applied MCDA techniques to evaluate alternative water management plans in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and Districts. The realisation that traditional technocratic approaches may be incurring unnecessary costs and may not be optimising the beneﬁts of wetland management has opened the door for the application of new concepts. which reﬂects objectives broader than just economic objectives (Gregory. multi-attribute problems (Varis. developed by Saaty (1980) is a mathematical method for analysing complex decisions. They ranked 36 selected state and national parks in Victoria into four levels. MCDA is concerned with solving problems where there is a set of proposed options and several conﬂicting objectives. 2000. The study focused on the Southern New South Wales forest region. A number of applications of MCDA have been reported in Australia. facilitate explicit incorporation of multiple values and preferences of stakeholders in decision-making (RAC. Most of these exercises have been information gathering exercises rather than explicit involvement in decision-making. New techniques of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) have been found to be particularly useful for improved wetland management. outranking theory and goal programming. Qureshi and Harrison (2000) used AHP to evaluate four riparian vegetation options for the Johnston River Catchment in North Queensland with ﬁve stakeholder groups. 1989). † evaluate the relative importance of these objectives among stakeholders using the AHP and † incorporate these public values into wetland management options to develop better management strategies. The important advantage of MCDA is that it can account for multiple criteria of assessment rather than a single criterion such as dollar values.
the eigenvector is scaled to add up to 1 to obtain the weights. and the pairwise comparison is repeated for each level of the hierarchy. the closer the value of computed gmax to n: A consistency index CI. When applying AHP. (1)). CR ¼ 100ðCI=ACIÞ ð 3Þ where ACI is the average consistency index of the randomly generated comparisons. Pairwise comparison data can be analysed using either regression methods or the eigenvalue technique.G. AHP can deal with qualitative attributes as well as quantitative attributes. Within each hierarchy there are three types of comparisons: Table 1 Measurement scale of AHP Intensity of relative importance 1 3 5 7 9 2.. where bi is the importance or desirability of decision element i: In the AHP approach. Selected stakeholders are asked to carry out the pairwise comparisons of the identiﬁed criteria and sub-criteria. Each cell reveals the relative importance of an attribute compared to another. In the eigenvalue technique. AHP is an easier technique compared to MAUT and the responses are less demanding. The AHP is based upon the construction of a series of ‘pairwise comparison matrices’. As a rule of thumb. which measures the inconsistencies of pairwise comparisons is given in Eq.. Criteria are then deﬁned by which each option should be considered in meeting the objectives. Each criterion can have sub-criteria. 1980). a consistency ratio (CR) can be calculated. The overall weights for each alternative are computed from the priority vectors of individual comparison matrices. Deﬁnition Equal importance Weak importance of one over the other Essential or strong importance Demonstrated importance Absolute importance Intermediate values between two adjacent judgements (a) major categories are compared with each other. What it does is to aggregate the separate performance indicators into an integrated performance indicator (Bouma et al. In this approach. it is a question of which of the two attributes is more important and how much more important. The AHP facilitates a rigorous deﬁnition of priorities and preferences of decision makers and is useful in analysing decisions involving many stakeholders and multiple objectives (Saaty. a hierarchical decision schema is constructed by decomposing the decision problem into its decision elements. 6 and 8 Source: Saaty (1977). This provides a ranking or weighting of each of the criteria that describes the importance of each criterion to the overall objective. The methodology has been extended to enable the use of AHP in group decision-making where the single decision maker is actually a group of people. The right eigenvector of the largest eigenvalue of matrix A constitutes the estimation of relative importance of attributes (Eq. a CR value of 10% or less is considered as acceptable. the overall goal is to achieve sustainable management. (b) criteria within these categories are compared to each other with respect to the categories. recreation. If two criteria are of equal importance. while 9 indicates the absolute importance of one criterion over the other. Many options can be constructed each containing different levels of criteria that contributes to the overall objective. In the case of wetlands. (2).g. Numerical techniques are used to derive quantitative values from verbal comparisons (Kurttila et al. which compares criteria to one another. (3). 1 0 1 b1 =b2 · · · b1 =bn C B B b =b 1 · · · b2 = bn C C B 2 1 C B C B ð 1Þ A ¼ ðaij Þ ¼ B · · ··· · C C B C B B · · ··· · C A @ bn =b1 bn =b2 · · · 1 Based on properties of reciprocal matrices. and (c) alternatives are compared to each other with respect to each criterion. The decision maker has the option of expressing his or her intensity of preference on a nine-point scale (Table 1). of a reciprocal matrix A is always greater than or equal to n (number of rows or columns). CI ¼ ðgmax 2 nÞ=ðn 2 1Þ ð 2Þ A consistency ratio (CR).) which may be further subdivided into a number of subcriteria. 4. a value of 1 is given in the comparison. given in Eq. In making the comparisons. In AHP data are obtained from the decision makers through pairwise comparisons among the elements at one level of the hierarchy with respect to an element in the next higher level. 2000). economic activities etc. If the pairwise comparisons do not include any inconsistencies. the parameters can be estimated. the reciprocal matrices of pairwise comparisons are constructed. gmax ¼ n: The more consistent the comparisons are. . Herath / Journal of Environmental Management 70 (2004) 263–273 265 not grounded on any speciﬁc theoretical basis such as neoParetian welfare theory. The AHP offers a methodology to compare the public’s relative values for conservation. recreation and business attributes of wetlands. The quantitative weights for criteria are based on the decision maker’s qualitative comparison of all pairs of criteria. the objectives of stakeholders are identiﬁed (e. measures the coherence of the pairwise comparisons. biodiversity conservation. Saaty (1977) has shown that the largest eigenvalue. Using these pair wise comparisons. Weights to these sub-attributes are assessed using pairwise comparisons. The method is interactive where a stakeholder or a group of stakeholders indicate their preferences to the analyst. 2000). gmax .
3. 2000). the weights and preferences of different stakeholder groups should be determined. Many vertebrate species breed in the ephemeral areas. In group decision-making. Identifying stakeholders Stakeholders share a common interest or stake in the wetland. It has 108 ha including 80 ha of lagoons and diverse range of ﬂora and fauna and limited recreational opportunities. 3. Negotiation Forums (Eastman et al. In the case of unequal weights. a set of numerical values can be calculated to represent the relative degree of importance among the decision attributes. make the elicitation exercise difﬁcult (Harrison and Qureshi. Peterson et al. Focus Groups (Keeney et al. administrators and others. In winter. but in summer the wetland dries out which is important for waterbird breeding. Also a set of numerical values can be computed to represent the relative importance of several individual judgments. which are the attributes that stakeholders genuinely care about. Grimble and Chan (1995) suggest that stakeholders be initially identiﬁed through reputation. 3. Objective hierarchies can be constructed using this classiﬁcation.1. where a greater recognition is given to qualitative aspects of the decision problem. Two scenarios can be developed (a) equal weights for all stakeholders or (b) unequal weights for stakeholders. During winter the Wonga wetland ﬁlls.4. 1990. The Wonga wetlands The Wonga wetlands on the Murray River in Australia is a relatively small wetland but signiﬁcant for its speciﬁc features. 1998). but rather an iterative approach. Aczel and Saaty (1983) proved that the geometric mean is consistent with conditions for synthesis of judgments.3. They also question the relevance of probability sampling in multicriteria analysis. 1998). the weights can be obtained from stakeholder groups themselves (self-assessed weights) or they can be determined by the government authority in charge of wetland management or assumed values used in combination with sensitivity analysis. where discussions with pre-identiﬁed stakeholders reveal other. the wetlands act as a reservoir to ensure that no . The process of selection of stakeholders has to be open and transparent (Buchy and Hoverman. nearly 110 bird species were sighted in the wetlands. Often they are represented as discrete choices for easy evaluation. a composite judgment of their weights is the geometric mean. from both the natural catchment but primarily from the wastewater treatment plant in Albury (which is a unique feature of the Wonga wetland). planners. recreation. These are brieﬂy discussed in the sections below. There exist relatively few applications of AHP to environmental or natural resource problems. Application of AHP The practical application of AHP involves (a) structuring the decision problem (b) identifying management options (c) identifying criteria (d) identifying the stakeholders and (e) developing the weighting schemes and ranking management options. AHP is not a statistically based procedure and theoretically a sample size of one is enough to implement the AHP. 3. focus groups or demographic analysis. If we have m individuals. social and cultural values. Herath / Journal of Environmental Management 70 (2004) 263–273 Duke (2002) used AHP to examine public preferences for the environmental and agricultural attributes of farmland. Using geometric means. McDaniels and Roessler. Harrison and Quershi (2000) suggest that the selection process should not be ‘one-shot’ approach. Structuring the decision problem Identifying the stakeholders and structuring stakeholder objectives in wetland management require careful empirical investigation. previously unknown stakeholders. 1992). and Citizen’s Juries (Crosby. 4.2. 2000).. environmental conservation. (1994) used ﬁve respondents. Weighting schemes Once the decision schema and stakeholder groups are chosen. and means objectives.. The River Red Gum is a signiﬁcant feature of the Wonga wetlands. representing the major tradeoffs involved in any empirical application of the model. They can be identiﬁed from the policy documents or constructed to represent the stakeholder values (Keeney. In year 2000. Mawapanga and Debertin (1996) used 18 participants. Application of AHP to Wonga wetlands 4. The criteria need to be reduced to a few key criteria. Identifying a set of criteria or attributes is critical to evaluate preferences and alternative management plans. 1998).1. A very large number of stakeholder groups however. 1992).. Participatory tools such as In-depth Groups (De Marchi et al. The main criteria could be aesthetic.266 G. Many studies used small number of experts or professionals. which are ways to accomplish the fundamental objectives (Keeney. This paper uses a large sample of stakeholders to investigate the preferences for wetland attributes and rank alternative management options. Focus must be both on fundamental objectives. economic. Identifying management options and criteria Management options are the available alternative actions that achieve some or all of the objectives of the decision problem. 1996) can be effectively employed to elicit the most important criteria for a particular wetland. 3. Stakeholders include policy makers.
This statement reﬂects that the wetland management problem is a classic multi-attribute problem that can beneﬁt from MCDA. reception centre. The attributes chosen for the conservation attribute was the percent of bird species. The model contains four levels: the most general objective of wetland management and planning is considered as maximising overall utility at level 1. The proposed investments will cost several million dollars. Level 4 consists of alternative wetland management options. When there are a large number of indicators.G. Thus a linear relationship is assumed among Table 2 An objective hierarchy for the Wonga Wetlands Aim Sustainable management of wetlands Goals Economic goals Criteria Investment (returns from advertising and promotional effects) Ecosystem conservation protection of fauna and ﬂora species Water quality Visits educational values Conservation goals Recreational goals . The aim of these investments is to increase tourism ﬂows and enhance nature-based experiences. which are different combinations of the three decision attributes. The existing option is where no investments have been made as yet and 100% of the conservation value of the wetland is preserved and 2000 recreation visitor days are available. Plans are underway for some nature-based investments in the Wonga wetlands such as nature trails around the lagoon boardwalks. Visits to the wetlands are presently restricted for educational institutions and registered interest groups such as bird observers. Formulating the decision problem Many wetland management options can be developed which are different combinations of the criteria. pairwise comparisons may become tedious to the respondent and hence only the three most important attributes are considered. Herath / Journal of Environmental Management 70 (2004) 263–273 267 water is discharged into the Murray River. The focus groups revealed conservation. The existing option can be used as the base case to assess the other alternative options. 4. bird hides. business promotion etc. walking etc. Some subjectivity is involved here and this was due to the non-availability of any information on the trade offs involved among the three attributes. photography/bushwalking groups (Wonga Wetlands. consultation with ofﬁcials in the Albury City council and the focus group interviews. However. Table 2 presents a useful objective hierarchy for the Wonga wetlands developed by examining relevant documents. The decision problem was cast as one involving the choice of the best wetland management plan for Wonga wetlands that optimally satisﬁes the stakeholders. The attributes can be further subdivided into more detailed decision attributes. which contribute to the attainment of the objectives of stakeholders.’ (Wonga Wetlands. For example the environmental attribute can be reﬂected in terms of the number of species of birds or the presence of the River Red Gum trees. 1. Level 2 consists of stakeholder groups. one for each attribute was used for the options in order to keep the respondent’s task manageable. A decision model for the problem is given in Fig. The investment objective reﬂects the desire of some to obtain any commercial potential that may be there in the redesigned wetland in terms of advertisements. For example. They are also expected to generate an ecologically sustainable wetland. Each of these objectives can be reﬂected in several sub-attributes as shown in Table 2. The conservation objective reﬂects the desire to protect the wetland ecology. Only three management options were constructed for evaluation although theoretically many options can be developed. economic (any commercial advantages arising from advertising due to contributions made towards the investments referred to above) and recreational beneﬁts by actually using the wetlands for visiting. whilst minimising disturbance to the ﬂora and fauna and any other adverse effects of these investments. Focus group interviews were conducted to obtain preliminary information on (a) different types of stakeholders (b) major attributes of importance to stakeholders (c) wetland management options and (d) criteria to assess these alternative options. Funds are being sought from the business community in Albury/Wodonga for these investments. and an interpretive centre. The second option involved reducing the conservation objective and adding the business and recreation objectives as well. 2001). the dilemma the planners are facing can be easily understood from the following: ‘A critical issue is to consider how to make this facility available to all those in the community who want to share the experience of a reconstituted riverine wetland. and recreational user group (would like to maximise the recreational beneﬁts from the wetland) and small business groups (would like to beneﬁt by providing investment funds to the City Council) are considered the most relevant for this analysis. These groups have availed themselves of this opportunity to experience a unique ecological laboratory in the area. The recreation objective would capture the experiential dimension and learning arising from the visits to the wetland. These were constructed taking into account the status quo as the base case (Option 1). 2001).2. the decision attribute wetland conservation could be decomposed into the extent of old River Red Gum reserved and/or the number of bird species protected. Three main stakeholder groups namely the conservation group (main objective is conservation of the wetland). aboriginal campsites. Hence only three indicators. to be the three major objectives of stakeholders. ﬁeld naturalists. Level 3 gives the attributes of the decision problem.
An arbitrary 100% increment in investment was made in option 2 and this was assumed yo cause a 25% decline in the conservation value but will increase the number of visits to 5000. the pairwise comparison of option 1 (OPT 1) and option 2 (OPT 2) with Table 3 Wonga Wetlands management options Indicators Conservation value Business investment ($ million) Recreation visitor days Extent of river red gum (percent area) No. recreation is measured using recreation visitor days and investment is measured in terms of dollars but the indicator was the percent investment (one million dollars investment is considered 100% investment). A decision model to evaluate wetland use options. While the direction of change in the attribute levels is logical. Any business investment is considered to lead to a decline in the bird population and increase in visitor numbers and many respondents concurred with this observation. Table 3 summarises the wetland management options hypothesised for the Wonga wetlands. Herath / Journal of Environmental Management 70 (2004) 263–273 Fig. Survey procedure Two hundred and sixty residents of Albury/Wodonga selected on a stratiﬁed random basis (stratiﬁed according to Alternative management strategies can be based on simulation and optimising models (Kangas et al.5 3500 90% 99% . 1.1 A million dollar investment is considered 100% investment. of bird species Option 1 100% Nil 2000 100% 110 Option 2 75% $1. These can however be reﬁned as and when more information is available. the extents are not since not much information is available to use a more objective approach. This is because business investment will produce other attractions as well and also will remove any limitations currently imposed on visitor numbers.3.0 5000 75% 82% Option 3 90% 0. For example. 4. 1 particular interest) were interviewed to reveal their collective preferences for the Wonga wetlands using a pre-tested questionnaire. Then the attribute levels of the three hypothetical options were compared pair wise with respect to one attribute at a time. Changes were made to the base plan to obtain the other two options. The number of bird species reﬂected conservation value. The pairwise questions were presented as follows: Preserving bird species is 123456789 ð4Þ more important than business investment Business investment is 123456789 more important than preserving bird species The respondent is asked to choose the attribute that should be given more importance (or priority) and then to circle the appropriate strength of preference (either on the ﬁrst or the second line) after referring to either the verbal or numerical preference scale.268 G. the three attributes. 2000) and they should take technical feasibility and national reserve criteria into account.
the weights. The AHP ranks the options based upon the pair wise comparisons. Table 4 shows that overall for the business group. A given attribute can also be compared across the different stakeholder groups. 4.4060 0.2604 0.6333 Visits 0.2421 0. 0. Many of the respondents knew the Wonga wetlands and were aware of wetland functions. The survey also revealed that the investment plan of the city council was known by around 40% and the rest were unaware of the proposal.2690 0. By using the eigenvalue technique in the AHP (Section 2). 2000). Most preferred wetland options by groups. Most respondents found it easy to grasp the objectives of the survey because it is a small wetland and almost everyone knew about it and it’s various features.1. The results The information on attributes and options were used to examine the preferences and goals among the population. Some of the questionnaires were removed from the analysis because of interviewer perceptions that they were not satisfactory or that they are incomplete. After explaining the procedure the respondents were asked to make pair wise comparisons and rank the intensity of their preferences. respectively. The recreation group had a total of 36 respondents. Some of these difﬁculties are normal and often arise because some goods have public goods characteristics. For example. Herath / Journal of Environmental Management 70 (2004) 263–273 269 respect to conservation is as follows: OPT 1 is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 more important than OPT 2 or Table 4 Weights of decision objectives by Stakeholder Groups Weights OPT 2 is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 more important than OPT 1 ð 5Þ The above procedure is repeated for the other two attributes. respectively. These values are not presented in the paper due to space considerations.2544 0.4. A total of 221 usable questionnaires were analysed. is often used when making pairwise comparisons (Proctor. Table 5 Local priorities and ranking for wetland alternatives by Stakeholder Groups Alternative/group Business group Recreation group Priority 0. The selection was made using the telephone directory for Albury/Wodonga.4847 compared to 0.4847 0. An impact table or effects table. 4. respectively.3600 Rank 3 1 2 Fig. in this study development of a comprehensive impact table was not feasible mainly due to lack of data on critical inter-relationships.2088 Investment 0. For the conservation group.3880 0. the environmental conservation attribute has weights of 0.3110 0. The analysis revealed what sort of management options would be acceptable to the majority and is sustainable and how policy decisions could be modiﬁed to better suit the particular wetland region.2520 0. The values for a particular group are then Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Business group Recreation group Conservation group Conservation 0. 2.2130 0. the weight of the investment attribute is 0.3520 0.6333 for the business.3820 Rank 1 3 2 Priority 0. The local priorities and ranking of the three management options in Table 5 show that for the business group.4200 Rank 2 3 1 Conservation group Priority 0. option 1 and option 3 are ranked ﬁrst and second. option 2 and option 3 are ranked ﬁrst and second. recreation tourism and conservation groups. the business group came second with 65 respondents. which details the consequences associated with the chosen level of decision attributes. Some respondents had difﬁculties in trading-off these attributes and qualities. Each respondent was asked to classify himself into an appropriate group and this was used as the basis to allocate a given respondent into a particular group.1578 summed and averaged over the sample to obtain the weights given in Table 4.2604.2544 for the visits attribute indicating that investment is almost twice as important as the recreation objective. However. The recreation group ranked option 3 and option 1 as the ﬁrst and the second. . Pairwise comparisons Since the problem has been structured as a hierarchy. Table 5 provides the group analysis (where combined pair wise comparison of the groups is used) commonly referred to as the local priorities.3520 and 0. The conservation-oriented group was the largest with a total of 120 respondents.G. respectively. the relations between elements in succeeding levels are obtained by making pairwise comparisons The Expert Choice Computer Model was used to analyse the pairwise comparison.4. describing the importance of each attribute for a given stakeholder can be computed.4040 0.
30:0. This is particularly so because of the small sized nature of the wetland.3 2. Eight percent of the recreation group preferred option 2 to option 1 and 3. When all groups are considered together.6:0. Fig. It is Table 6 Ranking of wetland management options by group Ranking Conservation group 4 26 2 8 4 6 50 Business group 1 2 2 16 4 1 26 Recreation group 2 3 2 8 1 2 18 Total sample 5 32 5 35 12 6 94 interesting to note that conservation of the wetlands was considered an overriding priority.88:0.3 1.2.1 3.4.2. These global priorities can be calculated on the basis of these weighting schema for the stakeholder Table 7 Global ranking of wetland options using different weighting schemes Weighting scheme (i) Equal weighting (B:C:T) (0. When the total sample is considered 35% preferred option 2 over option 1 and 3. The present study should provide a useful starting point for comparing the options for wetlands in a meaningful. as shown in the fourth part of Fig.1.086) . close to 30% preferred option 1. 42% preferred option 2 and 19% preferred option 3. It shows that 26% of the conservation group preferred option 1 to option 2 and 3. In this case policy makers can use their own relative weights for the three stakeholder groups.3.1.086:0. 18% preferred option 2. These results have important policy implications.40:0. 3. 3 and Table 6. 4. the most preferred choice is option 2 where the maximum investment is made.53:0. 2. 9% preferred option 2. 828:0.2 Total (iv) (0.1 3. The ranking of the options for the total sample is shown in Fig. 3% preferred option 1 and 4% preferred option 3. In the business group. 2 gives the results of the individual analysis where the individual pairwise comparisons are analysed and the results are then used to examine the distribution of the rankings.6) (v) (0. The research indicates that the stakeholders should be closely involved as partners in decision-making and incorporating their preferences enhance the City Council’s capacity to formulate better plans. For the business group. Herath / Journal of Environmental Management 70 (2004) 263–273 Fig. the predominant choice is option 1 where no investment is made and 100% of the conservation value of the wetland is maintained. Policy makers can strike a better balance between competing stakeholder interests thereby minimising conﬂicts.23:0.270 G. Fig.3. Ranking of wetland options by group.2 2. Policy makers should give careful consideration to the conservation effort by further evaluating the extent of the conservation values that must be preserved. These results show that the preferences for the options differ for the three groups. systematic and stakeholder-focused way. Here the policy makers can impose their own preferences in obtaining the ﬁnal option. 2. The ranking of wetland management options by the three groups is given in Fig. Policy options The above scenarios do not provide the policy maker the ﬁnal policy option AHP can be used to resolve such difﬁculties. 10% preferred option 2 and 12% preferred option 3.2.30) (iii) (0. 37% preferred option 1.33:0. 2% option 1 and 1% option 3.33) Option Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Rank 836 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 2 (ii) (0.23) 1. 2 shows that for the conservation group.33:0. For the business group. 16% preferred option 2 to option 3 and 1. For the conservation groups. In the recreation group. This may be because alternative venues for recreation are easily available. The business attribute was fairly important but the recreation attribute was the least important.
LPMSik is local priority option i with respect to objective k: Table 7 gives policy outcomes for a range of different weights for the stakeholder groups that policy makers can assign which are called the global priorities. . alternatives 1. When the weight for the conservation group is changed there is no change in the ranking until the weight is increased to 0. Hence if the conservation group is very important for the policy makers and that they like to assign a weight of 0.4 and there is no change in the ranking due to this change. third and ﬁrst. then option 2 should be implemented. LPSGj is local priority of stakeholder group j. This occurs when the weight for the business group is raised to 0. groups. 2 and 3.82 or more. We initiate the analysis assuming that a policy maker considers all three stakeholder groups to be equally important and hence assign equal weights of 0.G. The global rankings show that with equal weights.33 for each group. At this point option 2 becomes the number one option. Thus a policy maker should adopt option 3 as the option that should be implemented. the global priority of a wetland management option can be given as: " #) ( 5 3 X X GPi ¼ LPSGj LPOkj ðLPMSik Þ ð 6Þ j¼1 k ¼1 where GPi is global priority of option i. LPOkj is local priority of objective k from the point of view of stakeholder group j. respectively. With respect to Fig. Following Kangas (1994). are ranked second.82. The weights are then changed by increasing the weights for the business group to 0. 5. This is repeated for the conservation group. Herath / Journal of Environmental Management 70 (2004) 263–273 271 Fig. the importance of objectives from the point of view of the stakeholder groups and the relative priorities of decision alternatives with respect to the objectives.88. Performance sensitivity of options (business group). Hence if the policy maker believes that the business group is very important and that they would assign a weight of 0.88 or more. Gradient sensitivity for conservation objective (business group). then option 1 becomes the best option and should be implemented. The weight for the business group is then changed until a change in the ranking occurs. 4.
3. King. Aull-Hyde. Concluding remarks Quantifying stakeholder preferences in wetland management is a complex task.L. 15–25.. Rota. Forest Ecology and Management 59. providing credible answers to the questions posed.22 to say to 0. H.. N. P. 2000. Fig. S.2. 11–19. for the conservation and the recreation objective the best choice is option 3 and it means that option 3 is the most preferred only if we take one attribute say recreation or conservation.. 20–29.J. Ecological Economics 42. J. The AHP permits explicit participation by stakeholders. Choice of stakeholder groups and members in multi-criteria decision models. Evaluating natural attractions for tourism.. 131–145. Herath / Journal of Environmental Management 70 (2004) 263–273 the recreation group no increase of the weight from an initial equal weight scenario causes any change in the ranking. M.. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 27. For the business group. Forest Policy and Economics 1.. Kangas.3. Qureshi. Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgments. It also depends on the ability of respondents . The recreation group predominantly prefers option 3 where some investment is also made. 1992. T. Eppel. Stakeholder analysis for natural resource management in developing countries: some practical guidelines for making management more participatory and effective.. AHP can accommodate policy maker preferences as shown in this study especially where they have particular weights for the different stakeholder groups. Kluwer Academic. Understanding public participation: a review.E. 1997.K. and option 3 becomes the second choice for the business group. J. Kurttila.. This study shows that the conservation group will predominantly prefer option 1 where no investment is made and the wetland is maintained in its pristine condition. Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process. Paper Presented to the Third International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics.R. J. Pesonen. Van Ek. Paper Presented to the Third International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics. 1998. 151 –173. 1011–1030. However. Land Economics 76. Management Science 36.. R.. Dordrecht. Toledana. J.. Harvard University Press. De Marchi. Hoverman. Chicago. For example. Eastman. Harrison. The ULYSSES Voyage: Report EUR 17760EN. Guimaraes Pereira.. Saaty..V. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision Analysis. 1983. 4 shows the response of the options with respect to each objective as well as overall objective for the business group. 5 shows that when conservation has a weight of 0. many empirical studies on AHP are needed before we generalise its wider adoption. Nijkamp. Hydrotherapy. The result shows that a minor change of the weight from 0. May 3 –6. Forest Policy and Economics 1.3 causes a change in the options selected showing a higher degree of sensitivity. Brouwer. Ecos 102. Kangas.. Annals of Tourism Research 29.. and that they are prepared to assign a high weight above 0. The success of the method depends on the way the decision problem is structured and how the pair wise comparisons are carried out.). Assim. 2000. Duke. 2002. Scandinavian Journal of forest Research 9. J. 113–124. Multi-criteria analysis—a tool for wetland management decision making.S. 4. 2000. Vienna. 1996. R.. 2000. 2000. P. M. 41–52. The sensitivity analysis can be repeated for the other stakeholder groups as well although they are not all reported here. Grimble. F..L. B. Chan. 2000. 93–102.. Austria. M. 1995. Eliciting public values for complex policy decisions... C. Keeney. M. Vienna.. Incorporating risk attitudes into comparison of reforestation alternatives. Deng. 1994... Gregory. 2000.. Broadbeach.. Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis—a hybrid method and its applications to a forest certiﬁcation case. 1993. B. option 3 is the best choice and option 2 becomes the second choice.. R.. Multicriteria Analysis for Land-Use Management. Buchy. De Toro. Kangas. C.. A. The business group predominantly prefers option 2 where maximum investment can be made. A multi-attribute preference model for evaluating the reforestation chain alternatives of a forest stand. 1998. J. The use of integrated assessment methods in Dutch water management: a comparison of cost-beneﬁt and multi-criteria analysis. A. R. (Eds.. 4 gives each objective’s priority (based on the decision-maker’s paired comparisons).. 297 –304.. then option 3 is the best choice. The ULYSSES Project at the Joint Research Centre. In: Beinat. then the policy maker should implement option 1 and no investment on the wetland should be considered. If the weight changes to about 0. S. Natural Resources Forum 19.. M. J. Paper Presented to the 41st Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society. Multi-criteria and multiobjective decision making for land allocation using GIS. if the weight for the conservation attribute is 0. It was shown that if the policy makers weigh heavily the concerns of the conservation group.M.. E. Bauer.6. which is important in dealing with situations where several stakeholder groups are present.. This paper uses AHP in evaluating the planning options for the Wonga Wetlands in the Murray. 422 –438.272 G.82. M. Gough. Keeney. Midwest Political Science Association.. B. Sensitivity analysis of options Fig. the best option is option 2 if we take only the investment objective. Crosby. 5. R. option 2 is the best choice. The results show how the different weights given to conservation attribute can change the options chosen and hence the sensitivity. 1990. 271 –288. S. MCDA methods comparison: environmental policy evaluation applied to a case study in Italy. S. R. Queensland.. Deliberation on democratic theory and practice. Jiang. 2002. Gold Coast.. J. Ispra: European Commission. Funtowicz.. D. Bennett. Stagl. Cambridge. Valuing environmental policy options: a case study comparison of multiattribute and contingent valuation survey methods. Austria. References Aczel. May 3– 6. T. R. Carbone. Creating an authentic voice of the people.. De Montis.. The implication of high sensitivity is that the weights have to be more carefully assessed because even small errors can cause major errors in the results. R.4. Hill. E. Winterfeldt.. However. Kajanus.. Natural Resources Forum 24. The y-axis in Fig. Bouma.. F. Overall the best choice is option 2.
283– 294. 1986. R... Wright.. M.R. Sydney. V. C. 1980.L.. McGraw-Hill. Policy research brief. Carter. (Eds. How can multi-criteria decision analysis contribute to environmental policy making? A case study on macro-sustainability in Germany. Department of Natural Resources and Management. Australia. Choosing between alternative farming systems: an application of the analytic hierarchy process. Harrison. C.. 2001.. 87– 108. 6. M. 2. Ecological Economics 36. 273 Qureshi.L. Turner.. 2001.... McDaniels. 1996.G. Saaty. Unpublished Report. O. D. 101– 113.R. May 3–6... Journal of Environmental Management 62. The analysis of preferences in complex environmental judgements—a focus on the analytic hierarchy process. Austria. Maltby. Jeroen. Ecological Economics 35.. Herath / Journal of Environmental Management 70 (2004) 263–273 Lugg. Schmoldt.. Habitat Australia 25.).. Cambridge Research for the Environment. 2001... Peterson. Review of Agricultural Economics 18. Albury. J. . G. 1989. Silsbee. New York.L. Conceptualising and responding to complexity. Van Ierland.L. D.M. Mawapanga. Guidelines for Local Councils in the Murray Region of NSW. 1997. 13–21.G. Liquid gold: Australia’s wetland wealth. D.. Environmental Valuation in Europe. 205– 218. Saaty. T. Experimenting with multiattribute utility survey methods in a multi-dimensional valuation problem. 1992. Dale. I. D. T. A. P. R. A decision support process to compare riparian revegetation options in Scheu Creekcatchment in north Queensland. 1994. Ecological Economics 27. 2000. no. Jensen.. E. 2000. Munda. Proctor. Environmental Management 18. S.. Debertin. 7–23. Multicriteria analysis as an assessment tool. 1998. Varis.l.. K. 1993.E.C.. J. T. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Gregory. Multiattribute elicitation of wilderness preservation beneﬁts: a constructive approach.J. Resource Assessment Commission. Soderquist. A. Vienna......L. Albury City Council. M. W. A case study of resource management planning with multiple objectives and projects. Canberra. Journal of Environmental Management 28.N. C. M. van Stratten. Barendregt. Lee.. 1977. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Kane.. Ecological –economic analysis of wetlands: scientiﬁc integration for management and policy. T... C. Pressey. Research Report no. Wetlands of the River Murray below Lake Hume. In: Spash. Omann. Paper Presented to the Third International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics.. 234–281. Roessler. E. Cambridge. 729–742. C. Wonga Wetlands. Laying down the ladder: a typology of public participation in Australian natural resource management. Wetland Management. 2000. 385–401. Russell. 299 –312.J. Australian Journal of Environmental Management 9. 2000.L..
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.