Environmental Management

, 18:707

Developing inventory and monitoring programs based on multiple objectives

  • Daniel L. Schmoldt
  • David L. Peterson
  • David G. Silsbee
Profile

DOI: 10.1007/BF02394635

Cite this article as:
Schmoldt, D.L., Peterson, D.L. & Silsbee, D.G. Environmental Management (1994) 18: 707. doi:10.1007/BF02394635

Abstract

Resource inventory and monitoring (I&M) programs in national parks combine multiple objectives in order to create a plan of action over a finite time horizon. Because all program activities are constrained by time and money, it is critical to plan I&M activities that make the best use of available agency resources. However, multiple objectives complicate a relatively straightforward allocation process. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) offers a structure for multiobjective decision making so that decision-makers’ preferences can be formally incorporated in seeking potential solutions. Within the AHP, inventory and monitoring program objectives and decision criteria are organized into a hierarchy. Pairwise comparisons among decision elements at any level of the hierarchy provide a ratio scale ranking of those elements. The resulting priority values for all projects are used as each project’s contribution to the value of an overall I&M program. These priorities, along with budget and personnel constraints, are formulated as a zero/one integer programming problem that can be solved to select those projects that produce the best program. An extensive example illustrates how this approach is being applied to I&M projects in national parks in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States. The proposed planning process provides an analytical framework for multicriteria decisionmaking that is rational, consistent, explicit, and defensible.

Key words

Analytic hierarchy process Capital budgeting Integer programming Multiple objective planning National parks Resource allocation 

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel L. Schmoldt
    • 1
  • David L. Peterson
    • 2
  • David G. Silsbee
    • 2
  1. 1.USDA Forest Service Southeastern Forest Experiment StationBrooks Forest Products Center Virginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.National Biological Survey Cooperative Park Studies UnitUniversity of Washington, AR-10SeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations