A case study of resources management planning with multiple objectives and projects
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Each National Park Service unit in the United States produces a resources management plan (RMP) every four years or less. The plans commit budgets and personnel to specific projects for four years, but they are prepared with little quantitative and analytical rigor and without formal decision-making tools. We have previously described a multiple objective planning process for inventory and monitoring programs (Schmoldt and others 1994). To test the applicability of that process for the more general needs of resources management planning, we conducted an exercise on the Olympic National Park (NP) in Washington State, USA. Eight projects were selected as typical of those considered in RMPs and five members of the Olympic NP staff used the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to prioritize the eight projects with respect to their implicit management objectives. By altering management priorities for the park, three scenarios were generated. All three contained some similarities in rankings for the eight projects, as well as some differences. Mathematical allocations of money and people differed among these scenarios and differed substantially from what the actual 1990 Olympic NP RMP contains. Combining subjective priority measures with budget dollars and personnel time into an objective function creates a subjective economic metric for comparing different RMP’s. By applying this planning procedure, actual expenditures of budget and personnel in Olympic NP can agree more closely with the staff’s management objectives for the park.
- Forman, E. H. 1987. Relative vs absolute worth.Mathematical Modeling 9(3–5):195–202. CrossRef
- Fox, D. G., J. C. Bernabo, and B. Hood. 1987. Guidelines for measuring the physical, chemical, and biological condition of wilderness ecosystems. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-146. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.
- Garton, E. O. 1984. Cost-efficient baseline inventories of research natural areas. Pages 40–45in J. L. Johnson, J. F. Franklin and R. G. Krebill (coord.), Research natural areas: Baseline monitoring and management symposium proceedings. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.
- Hinds, W. T. 1984. Towards monitoring of long-term trends in terrestrial ecosystems.Environmental Conservation 11:11–18. CrossRef
- Hirst, S. M. 1983. Ecological and institutional bases for long-term monitoring of fish and wildlife populations. Pages 175–178in J. F. Bell, and T. Atterbury (eds.), Renewable resource inventories for monitoring changes and trends conference proceedings. College of Foresty, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
- Johnson, W. C., and S. P. Bratton. 1978. Biological monitoring in UNESCO biosphere reserves with special reference to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.Biological Conservation 13:105–115. CrossRef
- Jones, B. K. 1986. The inventory and monitoring process. Pages 1–9in A. Y. Cooperrider, R. J. Boyd, and H. R. Stewart (eds.), Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.
- Olympic National Park. 1990. Olympic National Park resource management plan. Olympic National Park, Port Angeles, Washington.
- Saaty, T. L. 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York, 287 pp.
- Schmoldt, D. L., D. L. Peterson, and D. G. Silsbee. 1994. Developing inventory and monitoring programs based on multiple objectives.Environmental Management 18(5):707–727.
- Silsbee, D. G., and D. L. Peterson. 1991. Designing and implementing comprehensive long-term inventory and monitoring programs for National Park System lands. Natural Resources Report NRR-91/04. National Park Service, Denver, Colorado.
- Silsbee, D. G., and D. L. Peterson. 1993. Planning for implementation of resource monitoring programs.Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 26:177–185. CrossRef
- A case study of resources management planning with multiple objectives and projects
Volume 18, Issue 5 , pp 729-742
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Analytic hierarchy process
- resource allocation
- linear programming
- Olympic National Park
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. National Biological Survey, Cooperative Park Studies Unit College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, AR-10, 98195, Seattle, Washington, USA
- 2. USDA Forest Service Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Brooks Forest Products Center Virginia Tech, 24061-0503, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA