Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quantifying and Exploring Strategic Regional Priorities for Managing Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services Given Multiple Stakeholder Perspectives

  • Published:
Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A ubiquitous problem for community-based regional environmental agencies is to set strategic management priorities among a myriad of issues and multiple stakeholder perspectives. Here, we quantify the strategic management priorities for natural capital and ecosystem services using multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in a case study of the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board (the Board) region. A natural capital and ecosystem services framework was tailored to present decision-makers with a range of potential issues for strategic consideration as goal hierarchies in MCDA. Priorities were elicited from the Board and its four regionally based consultative groups using the Analytical Hierarchy Process and swing weights. Centered log ratio transformed weights were analyzed using multiple pairwise ANOVA comparisons (Dunnett’s T3) and hierarchical cluster analysis. Substantial variation in priorities occurred between decision-makers. Nonetheless, analysis of priorities for assets and services robustly demonstrated that water was the highest priority, followed by land, then biota, with atmosphere the lowest priority. Decision-makers also considered that environmental management should not impact negatively on built or social capital. Few significant differences in priorities were found between decision-maker groups. However, clusters of manager types were found which represent distinct alternative management strategies, notably the prioritization of either intermediate or final ecosystem services. The results have implications for regional environmental decision-making and suggest that embracing variation in perspectives may be a better way forward for multistakeholder MCDA. The study operationalizes natural capital and ecosystem services by providing strategic priorities for targeting management and policy within the context of community-based, regional environmental management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aitchison J. 1982. The statistical analysis of compositional data (with discussion). J R Stat Soc Ser B (Stat Methodol) 44:139–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aitchison J. 1986. The statistical analysis of compositional data, monographs on statistics and applied probability. London, UK: Chapman & Hall Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aitchison J, Egozcue JJ. 2005. Compositional data analysis: where are we and where should we be heading? Math Geol 37:833–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ananda J, Herath G. 2008. Multi-attribute preference modeling and regional land-use planning. Ecol Econ 65:325–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ananda J, Herath G. 2003. The use of Analytic Hierarchy Process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning. Forest Policy Econ 5:13–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow KJ. 1950. A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. J Polit Econ 58:328–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balasubramaniam A, Voulvoulis N. 2005. The appropriateness of multicriteria analysis in environmental decision-making problems. Environ Technol 26:951–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Balasubramaniam A, Boyle AR, Voulvoulis N. 2007. Improving petroleum contaminated land remediation decision-making through the MCA weighting process. Chemosphere 66:791–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd J, Banzhaf S. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ 63:616–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broderick K. 2005. Communities in catchments: implications for natural resource management. Geogr Res 43:286–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryan BA, Crossman ND. 2008. Systematic regional planning for multiple objective natural resource management. J Environ Manage 88:1175–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buccianti A, Mateu-Figueras G, Pawlowsky-Glahn V, Eds. 2006. Compositional data analysis in the geosciences: from theory to practice. UK: Geological Society London, Special Publication 264.

  • Cast AS, Hatton MacDonald D, Grandgirard A, Kalivas T, Strathearn S, Sanderson M, Bryan BA, Frahm D. 2008. South Australian Murray Darling Basin environmental values report. Water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship Report, CSIRO.

  • Costanza C, d’Arge R, De Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cowling RM, Egoh B, Knight AT, O’Farrell PJ, Reyers B, Rouget M, Roux DJ, Welz A, Wilhelm-Rechman A. 2008. An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:9483–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crossman ND, Bryan BA. 2009. Identifying cost-effective hotspots for restoring natural capital and enhancing landscape multifunctionality. Ecol Econ 68:654–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily GC. 1997. What are ecosystem services? In: Daily GC, Ed. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, Ricketts TH, Salzman J, Shallenberger R. 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7:21–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daunis-i-Estadella J, Barceló-Vidal C, Buccianti A. 2006. Exploratory compositional data analysis. In: Buccianti A, Mateu-Figueras G. Pawlowsky-Glahn, V. Eds. Compositional Data Analysis in the Geosciences: From Theory to Practice. London: Geological Society, Special Publication 264. p 161–74.

  • de Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ. 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drew LJ, Grunsky EC, Schuenemeyer JH. 2008. Investigation of the structure of geological process through multivariate statistical analysis—the creation of a coal. J Math Geosci 40:789–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunnett CW. 1980. Pairwise comparisons in the unequal variance case. J Am Stat Assoc 75:796–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emtage N, Herbohn J, Harrison S. 2007. Landholder profiling and typologies for natural resource management policy and program support: potential and constraints. Environ Manage 40:481–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Farber S, Costanza R, Childers RL, Erickson J, Gross K, Grove M, Hopkinson CS, Kahn J, Pincetl S, Troy A, Warren P, Wilson M. 2006. Linking ecology and economics for ecosystem management. Bioscience 56:121–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrelly M, Conacher A. 2007. Integrated, regional, natural resource and environmental planning and the Natural Heritage Trust Phase 2: a case study of the Northern Agricultural Catchments Council, Western Australia. Aust Geogr 38:309–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher B, Turner K, Zylstra M, Brouwer R, de Groot R, Farber S, Ferraro P, Green R, Hadley D, Harlow J, Jefferiss P, Kirkby C, Morling P, Mowatt S, Naidoo R, Paavola J, Strassburg B, Yu D, Balmford A. 2008. Ecosystem services and economic theory: Integration for policy-relevant research. Ecol Appl 18:2050–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P. 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68:643–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fürstenau C, Badeck FW, Lasch P, Lexer MJ, Lindner M, Mohr P, Suckow F. 2007. Multiple-use forest management in consideration of climate change and the interests of stakeholder groups. Eur J Forest Res 126:225–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamboa G. 2006. Social multi-criteria evaluation of different development scenarios of the Aysen region, Chile. Ecol Econ 59:157–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajkowicz S. 2006. Multi-attributed environmental index construction. Ecol Econ 57:122–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajkowicz S. 2007. Allocating scarce financial resources across regions for environmental management in Queensland, Australia. Ecol Econ 61:208–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajkowicz SA. 2008. Supporting multi-stakeholder environmental decisions. J Environ Manage 88:607–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hajkowicz S, Higgins AJ. 2008. A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management. Eur J Oper Res 184:255–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajkowicz S, McDonald G. 2006. The Assets, Threats and Solvability (ATS) model for setting environmental priorities. J Environ Policy Plan 8:87–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermans C, Erickson J, Noordewier T, Sheldon A, Kline M. 2007. Collaborative environmental planning in river management: an application of multicriteria decision analysis in the White River Watershed in Vermont. J Environ Manage 84:534–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kroeger T, Casey F. 2007. An assessment of market-based approaches to providing ecosystem services on agricultural lands. Ecol Econ 64:321–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai P, Sorice MG, Nepal SK, Cheng C. 2009. Integrating social marketing into sustainable resource management at Padre Island National Seashore: an attitude-based segmentation approach. Environ Manage 43:985–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lai VS, Wong BK, Cheung WM. 2002. Group decision making in a multiple criteria environment: a case using the AHP in software selection. Eur J Oper Res 137:134–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald DV, Hanley N, Moffat N. 1999. Applying the concept of natural capital criticality to regional resource management. Ecol Econ 29:73–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MEA. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Millennium ecosystem assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendoza GA, Martins H. 2006. Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: a critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. For Ecol Manag 230:1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron DR, Chan KMA, Daily GC, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Lonsdorf E, Naidoo R, Ricketts TH, Shaw MR. 2009. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7:4–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavlikakis GE, Tsihrintzis VA. 2003. A quantitative method for accounting human opinion, preferences and perceptions in ecosystem management. J Environ Manage 68:193–205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pawlowsky-Glahn V, Egozcue JJ. 2006. Compositional data and their analysis: an introduction. In: Buccianti A, Mateu-Figueras G, Pawlowsky-Glahn V. Eds. Compositional data analysis in the geosciences: from theory to practice. London: Geological Society, Special Publication 264. p 1–11.

  • Pawlowsky-Glahn V, Egozcue JJ, Tolosano-Delgado R. 2007. Lecture notes on compositional analysis. http://ima.udg.edu/Recerca/EIO/inici_eng.html.

  • Peterson A, McAlpine CA, Ward D, Rayner S. 2007. New regionalism and nature conservation: lessons from South East Queensland, Australia. Landsc Urban Plan 82:132–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prato T. 1999. Multiple attribute decision analysis for ecosystem management. Ecol Econ 30:207–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prato T, Herath G. 2007. Multiple criteria decision analysis for integrated catchment management. Ecol Econ 63:627–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond CM, Bryan BA, Hatton MacDonald D, Cast A, Strathearn S, Grandgirard A, Kalivas T. 2009. Mapping community values and risks towards natural capital and ecosystem services for environmental management. Ecol Econ 68:1301–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan HM, Colyvan M, Markovchick-Nicholls L. 2006. A formal model for consensus and negotiation in environmental management. J Environ Manage 80:167–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rezaei-Moghaddam K, Karami E. 2008. A multiple criteria evaluation of sustainable agricultural development models using AHP. Environ Develop Sustain 10:407–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robins L, Dovers S. 2007. NRM regions in Australia: the ‘Haves’ and the ‘Have Nots’. Geogr Res 45:273–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL. 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15:231–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty T. 1980. The analytical hierarchy process. USA: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty T. 1994. Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytical hierarchy process. USA: RWS Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • SAMDB NRM Board. 2003. Integrated natural resource management plan for the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin. Adelaide, Australia: South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board.

  • SAMDB NRM Board. 2009. SAMDB website. http://www.samdbnrm.sa.gov.au. Accessed 11/05/09.

  • Schmoldt DL, Peterson DL. 2000. Analytical group decision making in natural resources: methodology and application. Forest Sci 46:62–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sell J, Koellner T, Weber O, Pedroni L, Scholz RW. 2006. Decision criteria of European and Latin American market actors for tropical forestry projects providing environmental services. Ecol Econ 58:17–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith G. 2007. Logical decision for Windows: users manual. Fairfax, VA: Logical Decisions.

  • Somanathan E, Prabhakar R, Mehta BS, Singh B. 2009. Decentralization for cost-effective conservation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:4143–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Turner RK, Daily GC. 2008. The ecosystem services framework and natural capital conservation. Environ Resour Econ 39:25–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W. 1986. Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace KJ. 2007. Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biol Conserv 139:235–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward JH Jr. 1963. Hierarchical grouping to optimise an objective function. J Am Stat Assoc 58:236–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xenarios S, Tziritis I. 2007. Improving pluralism in multi criteria decision aid approach through focus group technique and content analysis. Ecol Econ 62:692–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang W, Bryan BA, Hatton MacDonald D, Ward JR, Wells G, Crossman ND, Connor JD. 2010. A conservation industry for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Econ 69:680–9.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resource Management Board and CSIRO’s Sustainable Regional Development theme and Water for a Healthy Country Flagship for funding the research. We are also grateful to the decision-makers and community of the SAMDB who participated in the research. The authors are indebted to Juan José Egozcue, Vera Pawlowsky-Glahn, Julian Taylor, and Ari Verbyla for their patient and kind help and detailed advice on compositional analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Waite Rd., Urrbrae, South Australia, 5064, Australia

    Brett A. Bryan & John R. Ward

  2. Cemagref, 1 quai Koch, BP 61039, 67070, Strasbourg Cedex, France

    Agnès Grandgirard

Authors
  1. Brett A. Bryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Agnès Grandgirard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John R. Ward
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brett A. Bryan.

Additional information

Author Contributions

BB conceived of the study, BB and AG designed the study and performed the research, BB and JW analysed the data, and BB wrote the paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bryan, B.A., Grandgirard, A. & Ward, J.R. Quantifying and Exploring Strategic Regional Priorities for Managing Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services Given Multiple Stakeholder Perspectives. Ecosystems 13, 539–555 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-010-9339-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-010-9339-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation