GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
Filter
  • Wiley  (2)
  • 1
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Wiley ; 2018
    In:  Methods in Ecology and Evolution Vol. 9, No. 1 ( 2018-01), p. 42-53
    In: Methods in Ecology and Evolution, Wiley, Vol. 9, No. 1 ( 2018-01), p. 42-53
    Abstract: Multi‐criteria decision analysis ( MCDA ) is a method to support decision‐making, by exploring the balance between the pros and cons of different alternatives to accomplish a specific goal. It assists in framing decision problems, illustrating the performance of alternatives across criteria, exploring trade‐offs, formulating a decision and testing its robustness. This paper provides a structured review of empirical applications of MCDA to nature conservation published in the scientific literature over the last 20 years. The paper aims at taking stock of past experiences, and comparing them with best practices and common pitfalls identified in the literature, to provide recommendations for better MCDA application to conservation. The review follows the structure of a generalized MCDA process consisting of three key stages: (1) decision context and problem structuring, (2) analysis and (3) decision. The search identified 86 papers that describe MCDA applications to a range of topics, including conservation prioritization and planning; protected areas management and zoning; forest management and restoration; and mapping of biodiversity, naturalness and wilder. The results show that, concerning problem structuring, a small percentage of the reviewed MCDA engaged stakeholders other than the authors in identifying alternatives and formulating criteria (15% and 35% respectively). Concerning the analysis, criteria assessment was adequately justified by the authors (47%), at times also by involving other stakeholders (22%). Weighting was performed in almost all applications, whereas criteria aggregation was mostly based on the weighted linear combination (63%). Sensitivity analysis was largely overlooked (57%). Concerning decision, 45% of the articles provided only an overall ranking or suitability of alternatives, while 22% included additional rankings according to specific criterion, and 8% further analyses and clustering of stakeholders’ preferences. The paper concludes by suggesting key elements of successful MCDA applications, including clear construction of the decision context; collaborative identification of alternatives and criteria that reflect the values at stake; adequate justification and communication of the methods for criteria assessment and weighting; reasoned choice of the criteria aggregation method, and comprehensive sensitivity analysis.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2041-210X , 2041-210X
    URL: Issue
    Language: English
    Publisher: Wiley
    Publication Date: 2018
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2528492-7
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: Methods in Ecology and Evolution, Wiley, Vol. 9, No. 1 ( 2018-01), p. 54-63
    Abstract: Decision‐making is a complex process that typically includes a series of stages: identifying the issue, considering possible options, making judgements and then making a decision by combining information and values. The current status quo relies heavily on the informational aspect of decision‐making with little or no emphasis on the value positions that affect decisions. There is increasing realization of the importance of adopting rigorous methods for each stage such that the information, views and judgements of stakeholders and experts are used in a systematic and repeatable manner. Though there are several methodological textbooks which discuss a plethora of social science techniques, it is hard to judge the suitability of any given technique for a given decision problem. In decision‐making, the three critical aspects are “what” decision is to be made, “who” makes the decisions and “how” the decisions are made. The methods covered in this paper focus on “how” decisions can be made. We compare six techniques: Focus Group Discussion (FGD), Interviews, Q methodology, Multi‐criteria Decision Analysis ( MCDA ), Nominal Group Technique and the Delphi technique specifically in the context of biodiversity conservation. All of these techniques (with the exception of MCDA ) help in understanding human values and the underlying perspectives which shape decisions. Based on structured reviews of 423 papers covering all six methods, we compare the conceptual and logistical characteristics of the methods, and map their suitability for the different stages of the decision‐making process. While interviews and FGD are well‐known, techniques such the Nominal Group technique and Q methodology are relatively under‐used. In situations where conflict is high, we recommend using the Q methodology and Delphi technique to elicit judgements. Where conflict is low, and a consensus is needed urgently, the Nominal Group technique may be more suitable. We present a nuanced synthesis of methods aimed at users. The comparison of the different techniques might be useful for project managers, academics or practitioners in the planning phases of their projects and help in making better informed methodological choices.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2041-210X , 2041-210X
    URL: Issue
    Language: English
    Publisher: Wiley
    Publication Date: 2018
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2528492-7
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...