IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jenpmg/v43y2000i4p505-518.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Evaluation of Multiple Objective Decision Support Weighting Techniques in Natural Resource Management

Author

Listed:
  • Stefan Hajkowicz
  • Geoff McDonald
  • Phil Smith

Abstract

Multiple objective decision support (MODS) is a structured framework for evaluating decision alternatives against multiple, and often conflicting, criteria. Its ability to handle complex trade-offs in a variety of quantitative and qualitative units gives it much potential in the field of natural resource management (NRM). A key component of MODS is the process used to obtain information from decision makers on the relative importance of evaluative criteria. Ranking algorithms then use this information to determine the relative value of each decision alternative. This paper explores how practising community based NRM decision makers respond to five generic methods for weighting the criteria. It presents a study in which 55 decision makers throughout five regions in Queensland, Australia, applied MODS to evaluate environmental projects seeking funding under the Australian Natural Heritage Trust. Weighting methods applied include fixed point scoring, rating, ordinal ranking, a graphical method and paired comparisons. Decision makers evaluated each weighting method in terms of ease of use and of how much it helped clarify the decision problem. Results show that decision makers felt uncomfortable applying fixed point scoring and generally preferred to express their preferences through ordinal ranking. This has implications for the types of ranking algorithms that can be applied to evaluate the decision alternatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefan Hajkowicz & Geoff McDonald & Phil Smith, 2000. "An Evaluation of Multiple Objective Decision Support Weighting Techniques in Natural Resource Management," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(4), pages 505-518.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:43:y:2000:i:4:p:505-518
    DOI: 10.1080/713676575
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713676575
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/713676575?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Hajkowicz, Stefan & Higgins, Andrew, 2008. "A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 255-265, January.
    2. Madjid Tavana & Mehdi Soltanifar & Francisco J. Santos-Arteaga, 2023. "Analytical hierarchy process: revolution and evolution," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 879-907, July.
    3. Crossman, Neville D. & Bryan, Brett A., 2009. "Identifying cost-effective hotspots for restoring natural capital and enhancing landscape multifunctionality," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 654-668, January.
    4. Snežana Tadić & Mladen Krstić & Violeta Roso & Nikolina Brnjac, 2020. "Dry Port Terminal Location Selection by Applying the Hybrid Grey MCDM Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-22, August.
    5. Sarook Sarky & Jim Wright & Mary Edwards, 2017. "Evaluating consistency of stakeholder input into participatory GIS-based multiple criteria evaluation: a case study of ecotourism development in Kurdistan," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(9), pages 1529-1553, September.
    6. Tröster, Rasmus & Hiete, Michael, 2019. "Do voluntary sustainability certification schemes in the sector of mineral resources meet stakeholder demands? A multi-criteria decision analysis," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Snežana Tadić & Mladen Krstić & Svetlana Dabić-Miletić & Mladen Božić, 2023. "Smart Material Handling Solutions for City Logistics Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-26, April.
    8. Calabrese, Armando & Costa, Roberta & Levialdi, Nathan & Menichini, Tamara, 2019. "Integrating sustainability into strategic decision-making: A fuzzy AHP method for the selection of relevant sustainability issues," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 155-168.
    9. Hajkowicz, Stefan, 2006. "Multi-attributed environmental index construction," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 122-139, April.
    10. Nillesen, Eleonora & Wesseler, Justus & Cook, Averil, 2003. "Correcting for multiple destination trips in recreational use values using a mean-value approach; An application to Bellenden Ker National Park, Australia," Mansholt Working Papers 46733, Wageningen University, Mansholt Graduate School of Social Sciences.
    11. Timo Kuosmanen & Eleonora Nillesen & Justus Wesseler, 2004. "Does ignoring multidestination trips in the travel cost method cause a systematic bias?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(4), pages 629-651, December.
    12. Liu, Shuang & Proctor, Wendy & Cook, David, 2010. "Using an integrated fuzzy set and deliberative multi-criteria evaluation approach to facilitate decision-making in invasive species management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2374-2382, October.
    13. Nigussie, Yalemzewd & van der Werf, Edwin & Zhu, Xueqin & Simane, Belay & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2018. "Evaluation of Climate Change Adaptation Alternatives for Smallholder Farmers in the Upper Blue-Nile Basin," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 142-150.
    14. Kezia Amanda Kurniadi & Kwangyeol Ryu, 2021. "Development of Multi-Disciplinary Green-BOM to Maintain Sustainability in Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-19, August.
    15. Sugimura, Ken & Howard, Theodore E., 2008. "Incorporating social factors to improve the Japanese forest zoning process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 161-173, January.
    16. Hajkowicz, Stefan, 2007. "Allocating scarce financial resources across regions for environmental management in Queensland, Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 208-216, March.
    17. 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.
    18. Hajkowicz, Stefan, 2002. "An Evaluation of Options for Managing Dairying in the Lower Murray Reclaimed Irrigation Areas in South Australia Using Multiple Criteria Analysis," 2002 Conference (46th), February 13-15, 2002, Canberra, Australia 125098, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    19. McBride, Marissa F. & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Burger, Jutta & Fang, Yi-Chin & Lulow, Megan & Olson, David & O’Connell, Mike & Possingham, Hugh P., 2010. "Mathematical problem definition for ecological restoration planning," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(19), pages 2243-2250.
    20. 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.
    21. Favretto, N. & Stringer, L.C. & Dougill, A.J. & Dallimer, M. & Perkins, J.S. & Reed, M.S. & Atlhopheng, J.R. & Mulale, K., 2016. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to identify dryland ecosystem service trade-offs under different rangeland land uses," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 142-151.
    22. 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.
    23. Stefan A. Hajkowicz, 2012. "For the Greater Good? A Test for Strategic Bias in Group Environmental Decisions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 331-344, May.
    24. R. Bhalla & Neil Pelkey & K. Devi Prasad, 2011. "Application of GIS for Evaluation and Design of Watershed Guidelines," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(1), pages 113-140, January.

    More about this item

    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:taf:jenpmg:v:43:y:2000:i:4:p:505-518. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CJEP20 .

    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.