Multiple-criteria decision analysis for integrated catchment management

Prato, Tony and Herath, Gamini 2007, Multiple-criteria decision analysis for integrated catchment management, Ecological economics, vol. 63, no. 2-3, pp. 627-632.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title Multiple-criteria decision analysis for integrated catchment management
Author(s) Prato, Tony
Herath, Gamini
Journal name Ecological economics
Volume number 63
Issue number 2-3
Start page 627
End page 632
Publisher Elsevier B.V.
Place of publication Amsterdam, Netherlands
Publication date 2007
ISSN 0921-8009
1873-6106
Keyword(s) integrated catchment management
ranking farming systems
benefit–cost analysis
multiple-criteria analysis
Summary 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 multiple-criteria 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 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.
Language eng
Field of Research 140205 Environment and Resource Economics
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
Copyright notice ©2007, Elsevier B.V.
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30007772

Document type: Journal Article
Collection: School of Accounting, Economics and Finance
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 29 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 33 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 470 Abstract Views, 4 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Mon, 29 Sep 2008, 08:55:56 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.