Abstract
This paper proposes a two-stage group decision making approach to urban landscape management and planning supported by the analytic hierarchy process. The proposed approach combines an application of the consensus convergence model and the weighted geometric mean method. The application of the proposed approach is shown on a real urban landscape planning problem with a park-forest in Belgrade, Serbia. Decision makers were policy makers, i.e., representatives of several key national and municipal institutions, and experts coming from different scientific fields. As a result, the most suitable management plan from the set of plans is recognized. It includes both native vegetation renewal in degraded areas of park-forest and continued maintenance of its dominant tourism function. Decision makers included in this research consider the approach to be transparent and useful for addressing landscape management tasks. The central idea of this paper can be understood in a broader sense and easily applied to other decision making problems in various scientific fields.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Altuzarra A, Moreno-Jimenez JM, Salvador MA (2007) Bayesian priorization procedure for AHP-group decision making. Eur J Oper Res 182(1):367–382. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2006.07.025
Ananda J, Herath G (2003) The use of analytic hierarchy process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning. For Policy Econ 5(1):13–26. doi:10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00043-6
Bacic ILZ, Bregt AK, Rossiter DG (2006) A participatory approach for integrating risk assessment into rural decision-making: a case study in Santa Catarina, Brazil. Agric Syst 87(2):229–244. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2005.01.008
Crawford G, Williams C (1985) A note on the analysis of subjective judgement matrices. J Math Psychol 29:387–405. doi:10.1016/0022-2496(85)90002-1
Faizi M, Behzadfar M, Razzaghi Asl S (2011) A conceptual framework for interacting landscape architects and urban designers: professionals’ perspectives. Int J Environ Res 5(2):271–276
Feng MM (2007) The esthetic evaluation of urban plants landscape based on the model of AHP-fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. J Hangzhou Teach Coll Nat Sci Ed 5:56–61. doi:CNKI:SUN:HSFZ.0.2007-05-013
Forman E, Peniwati K (1998) Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 108(1):165–169. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00244-0
González-Pachón J, Romero C (2007) Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties. Ann Oper Res 154(1):123–132. doi:10.1007/s10479-007-0182-4
Griffith TL, Fuller MA, Northcraft GB (1998) Facilitator influence in group support systems: some intended and unintended effects. Inf Syst Res 9(1):20–36. doi:10.1287/isre.9.1.20
Grimble R, Wellard K (1997) Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agric Syst 55(2):173–193. doi:10.1016/S0308-521X(97)00006-1
Gül A, Gezer A, Kane B (2006) Multi-criteria analysis for locating new urban forests: an example from Isparta, Turkey. Urban For Urban Green 5(2):57–71. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2006.05.003
Harrison SR, Qureshi ME (2000) Choice of stakeholder groups and members in multicriteria decision models. Nat Resour Forum 24(1):11–19. doi:10.1111/j.1477-8947.2000.tb00925.x
Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 57(2):209–228. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.005
Hensley DL (2004) Professional landscape management. Stipes Publishing L.L.C., Champaign, p 1
Jansson M, Lindgren T (2012) A review of the concept ‘management’ in relation to urban landscapes and green spaces: toward a holistic understanding. Urban For Urban Green 11:139–145. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2012.01.004
Kangas J, Store R, Kangas A (2005) Socioecological landscape planning approach and multicriteria acceptability analysis in multiple-purpose forest management. For Policy Econ 7(4):603–614. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2003.12.001
Kim K, Sato S (2000) Evaluation of urban landscape problem using analytic hierarchy process method. In: Fruchter R, Feniosky PM, Roddis WMK (eds) Computing in civil and building engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers, Stanford, pp 442–448. doi:10.1061/40513(279)58
Kontic B, Bohanec M, Urbancic T (2006) An experiment in participative environmental decision making. Environmentalist 26(1):5–15. doi:10.1007/s10669-006-5353-3
Lakicevic M, Srdjevic B (2011) Application of analytic hierarchy process in landscape management: case study area Kosutnjak park-forest. Bull Serbian Geogr Soc 91(1):51–64. doi:10.2298/GSGD1101051L
Lehrer K, Wagner C (1981) Rational consensus in science and society. Reidel, Dordrecht
Li KL (2005) Using analytic hierarchy process in urban road landscape evaluation. Eng J Wuhan Univ 38(1):143–147. doi:cnki:ISSN:1006-155X.0.2005-01-00V
Marchamalo M, Romero C (2007) Participatory decision-making in land use planning: an application in Costa Rica. Ecol Econ 63(4):740–748. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.006
Moreno-Jimenénez JM, Aguarón J, Escobar MT (2008) The core of consistency in AHP-group decision making. Group Decis Negot 17(3):249–265. doi:10.1007/s10726-007-9072-z
Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141(10):2417–2431. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014
Regan HM, Colyvan M, Markovchick-Nicholls L (2006) A formal model for consensus and negotiation in environmental management. J Environ Manag 80(2):167–176. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.09.004
Saaty TL (1980) The analytical hierarchy process. McGraw Hill, New York
Saaty TL (1990) Eigenvector and logarithmic least squares. Eur J Oper Res 48:156–160. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(90)90073-K
Srdjevic B (2005) Combining different prioritization methods in the analytic hierarchy process synthesis. Comput Oper Res 32:1897–1919. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2003.12.005
Srdjevic B, Srdjevic Z (2011) Bi-criteria evolution strategy in estimating weights from the AHP ratio-scale matrices. Appl Math Comput 218:1254–1266. doi:10.1016/j.amc.2011.06.006
Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge grants received from the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Serbia under contract No. 174003: Theory and application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in multi-criteria decision making under conditions of risk and uncertainty (individual and group context).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Srdjevic, Z., Lakicevic, M. & Srdjevic, B. Approach of Decision Making Based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Urban Landscape Management. Environmental Management 51, 777–785 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9990-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9990-7