IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v93y2013icp128-136.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing land-use alternatives: Using the ecosystem services concept to define a multi-criteria decision analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Fontana, Veronika
  • Radtke, Anna
  • Bossi Fedrigotti, Valérie
  • Tappeiner, Ulrike
  • Tasser, Erich
  • Zerbe, Stefan
  • Buchholz, Thomas

Abstract

In landscape planning, land-use types need to be compared including the ecosystem services they provide. With multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), ecological economics offers a useful tool for environmental questions but mostly case-specific criteria are applied. This, however, makes it difficult to compare findings. Therefore, we present a systematic framework that includes the ecosystem services as criteria into MCDA. The ecological quantification of the provided ecosystem services is combined with the assigned importance of the single ecosystem services. In a case study from the central Alps, we compared three land-use alternatives resulting from land-use change caused by socio-economic pressures: traditional larch (Larix decidua) meadow, spruce forest (abandonment) and intensive meadow (intensification).

Suggested Citation

  • Fontana, Veronika & Radtke, Anna & Bossi Fedrigotti, Valérie & Tappeiner, Ulrike & Tasser, Erich & Zerbe, Stefan & Buchholz, Thomas, 2013. "Comparing land-use alternatives: Using the ecosystem services concept to define a multi-criteria decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 128-136.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:93:y:2013:i:c:p:128-136
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.05.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800913001651
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.05.007?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Buchholz, Thomas S. & Volk, Timothy A. & Luzadis, Valerie A., 2007. "A participatory systems approach to modeling social, economic, and ecological components of bioenergy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 6084-6094, December.
    3. 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.
    4. JosÉ Figueira & Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrogott, 2005. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-0-387-23081-8, July-Dece.
    5. Mendoza-González, G. & Martínez, M.L. & Lithgow, D. & Pérez-Maqueo, O. & Simonin, P., 2012. "Land use change and its effects on the value of ecosystem services along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 23-32.
    6. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: the Prométhée method," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9307, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    7. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    8. Grošelj, Petra & Zadnik Stirn, Lidija, 2012. "Acceptable consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(2), pages 417-420.
    9. Brans, J. P. & Vincke, Ph. & Mareschal, B., 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: The method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 228-238, February.
    10. Escobar, M. T. & Aguaron, J. & Moreno-Jimenez, J. M., 2004. "A note on AHP group consistency for the row geometric mean priorization procedure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(2), pages 318-322, March.
    11. Dale, Virginia H. & Polasky, Stephen, 2007. "Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 286-296, December.
    12. R. Valentini & G. Matteucci & A. J. Dolman & E.-D. Schulze & C. Rebmann & E. J. Moors & A. Granier & P. Gross & N. O. Jensen & K. Pilegaard & A. Lindroth & A. Grelle & C. Bernhofer & T. Grünwald & M. , 2000. "Respiration as the main determinant of carbon balance in European forests," Nature, Nature, vol. 404(6780), pages 861-865, April.
    13. Macharis, Cathy & Springael, Johan & De Brucker, Klaas & Verbeke, Alain, 2004. "PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis.: Strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(2), pages 307-317, March.
    14. Sen, Amartya, 1995. "Rationality and Social Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 1-24, March.
    15. Bormann, Helge & Breuer, Lutz & Gräff, Thomas & Huisman, Johan A., 2007. "Analysing the effects of soil properties changes associated with land use changes on the simulated water balance: A comparison of three hydrological catchment models for scenario analysis," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 209(1), pages 29-40.
    16. Buchholz, Thomas & Rametsteiner, Ewald & Volk, Timothy A. & Luzadis, Valerie A., 2009. "Multi Criteria Analysis for bioenergy systems assessments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 484-495, February.
    17. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, Kris & de Groot, Rudolf S. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2006. "Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 209-228, May.
    18. Giuseppe Munda, 2008. "Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable Economy," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-540-73703-2, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Szántó, Richárd, 2012. "Több szempontú részvételi döntések a fenntarthatósági értékelésekben. A legnépszerűbb módszerek összehasonlítása [Participatory multi-criteria decision analysis. A comparison of methodologies]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(12), pages 1336-1355.
    2. Marttunen, Mika & Belton, Valerie & Lienert, Judit, 2018. "Are objectives hierarchy related biases observed in practice? A meta-analysis of environmental and energy applications of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(1), pages 178-194.
    3. Chatzinikolaou, Parthena & Raggi, Meri & Viaggi, Davide, 2015. "The evaluation of Ecosystem Services production: an application in the Province of Ferrara," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 4(3), pages 1-25, December.
    4. Mohammad Rahman & Lena Jaumann & Nils Lerche & Fabian Renatus & Ann Buchs & Rudolf Gade & Jutta Geldermann & Martin Sauter, 2015. "Selection of the Best Inland Waterway Structure: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis Approach," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(8), pages 2733-2749, June.
    5. De Brucker, Klaas & Macharis, Cathy & Verbeke, Alain, 2013. "Multi-criteria analysis and the resolution of sustainable development dilemmas: A stakeholder management approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 224(1), pages 122-131.
    6. Giuseppe Munda, 2012. "Intensity of preference and related uncertainty in non-compensatory aggregation rules," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(4), pages 649-669, October.
    7. Etxano, Iker & Villalba-Eguiluz, Unai, 2021. "Twenty-five years of social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE) in the search for sustainability: Analysis of case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    8. Iker Etxano & Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Oihana Garcia, 2018. "Conflicting Values in Rural Planning: A Multifunctionality Approach through Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-29, May.
    9. Ateekh Ur Rehman & Syed Hammad Mian & Usama Umer & Yusuf Siraj Usmani, 2019. "Strategic Outcome Using Fuzzy-AHP-Based Decision Approach for Sustainable Manufacturing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-22, October.
    10. Fontana, Veronika & Ebner, Manuel & Schirpke, Uta & Ohndorf, Markus & Pritsch, Hanna & Tappeiner, Ulrike & Kurmayer, Rainer, 2023. "An integrative approach to evaluate ecosystem services of mountain lakes using multi-criteria decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    11. Kubińska, Elżbieta & Adamczyk-Kowalczuk, Magdalena & Andrzejewski, Mariusz & Rozakis, Stelios, 2022. "Incorporating the status quo effect into the decision making process: The case of municipal companies merger," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    12. Andreopoulou, Zacharoula & Koliouska, Christiana & Galariotis, Emilios & Zopounidis, Constantin, 2018. "Renewable energy sources: Using PROMETHEE II for ranking websites to support market opportunities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 31-37.
    13. Tsuen-Ho Hsu & Ling-Zhong Lin, 2014. "Using Fuzzy Preference Method for Group Package Tour Based on the Risk Perception," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 299-323, March.
    14. Behzadian, Majid & Kazemzadeh, R.B. & Albadvi, A. & Aghdasi, M., 2010. "PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 198-215, January.
    15. Majid Roodposhti & Saeed Rahimi & Mansour Beglou, 2014. "PROMETHEE II and fuzzy AHP: an enhanced GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping," 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. 73(1), pages 77-95, August.
    16. Lars Carlsen & Rainer Bruggemann, 2020. "Environmental perception in 33 European countries: an analysis based on partial order," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 1873-1896, March.
    17. Amelia Bilbao-Terol & Mariano Jiménez & Mar Arenas-Parra, 2016. "A group decision making model based on goal programming with fuzzy hierarchy: an application to regional forest planning," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 137-162, October.
    18. 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.
    19. Schwartz, Michael & Göthner, Maximilian, 2009. "A Novel Approach to Incubator Evaluations: The PROMETHEE Outranking Procedures," IWH Discussion Papers 1/2009, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    20. Denys Yemshanov & Frank H. Koch & Yakov Ben‐Haim & Marla Downing & Frank Sapio & Marty Siltanen, 2013. "A New Multicriteria Risk Mapping Approach Based on a Multiattribute Frontier Concept," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1694-1709, September.

    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:eee:ecolec:v:93:y:2013:i:c:p:128-136. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.