Skip to main content
Log in

Evaluating natural areas using multiple criteria: Theory and practice

  • Profile
  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Evaluating natural areas involves making measurements for a series of criteria and deciding which areas are most significant based on these measurements. We review the basic theory of measurement and its application to assessing criteria in 20 different conservation evaluation studies. Different types of models exist to assess the overall significance of natural areas based on multiple criteria. A brief description is presented of these “multicriteria evaluation models” and the underlying theory. The assumptions of these models are outlined as are the types of information that are appropriate to each. We then examine how a final overall ranking is derived in the 20 studies. None explicitly stated the model used and few noted the assumptions involved. Based on theory and current practice, a number of principles are presented to guide the development of evaluation methods. We conclude that evaluation methods should not be allowed to cloud important issues or conceal value judgements. Furthermore, the assumptions of any evaluation method should be clearly stated and rationalized in terms of the data and areas being compared.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature cited

  • Bakus, G., W. Stillwell, S. Latter, and M. Wallerstein. 1982. Decision-making with applications for environmental management.Environmental Management 6:493–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastedo, J. D., J. G. Nelson, and J. B. Theberge. 1984. An ecological approach to resource survey and planning for environmentally significant areas: the ABC method.Environmental Management 8:125–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckel, D. K. B. (ed.). 1975. IBP ecological sites in subarctic Canada: areas recommended as ecological sites in Region 10, Yukon and Northwest Territories boreal forest to treeline. University of Lethbridge Production Services, Lethbridge, 163 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clapham, A. 1981. The IBP survey of conservation sites: an experimental study. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dony, J. G., and Denholm, I. 1985. Some quantitative methods of assessing the conservation value of ecologically similar sites.Journal of Applied Ecology 22:229–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagles, P. F. J. 1980. Criteria for the designation of environmentally sensitive areas. Pages 68–79in S. W. Barrett and J. L. Riley (eds.), Protection of natural areas in Ontario. Working Paper no. 3, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University.

  • Eichhorn, W. 1978. What is an economic index? An attempt of an answer. Pages 3–40in W. Eichhorn, R. Henn, O. Opitz, and R. W. Shephard (eds.), Theory and applications of economic indices. Physica, Wurzburg, Austria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Efstathiou, J. 1984. Practical multi-attribute decision-making and fuzzy set theory. Pages 307–322in H. J. Zimmerman, L. A. Zadeh, and B. R. Gaines (eds.), Fuzzy sets and decision analysis. North-Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Environment Canada and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1984. An evaluation system for wetlands of Ontario south of the precambrian shield. Ottawa.

  • Farquhar, P. H. 1977. A survey of multiattribute utility theory and applications. Pages 59–89in M. K. Starr and M. Zeleny (eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Making. North-Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenge, T. 1982. Towards comprehensive conservation of environmentally significant areas in the Northwest Territories, Canada.Environmental Conservation 9:305–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenge, T. 1985. Conservation of Polar Bear Pass, Bathurst Island, and the emerging comprehensive conservation policy for northern Canada.Environmental Conservation 12:231–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis, G. 1982. Nomination of Canadian biosphere reserves. Canada/Man and Biosphere Program Report no. 15, Ottawa.

  • Fuller, R. J. 1980. A method for assessing the ornithological interest of sites for conservation.Biological Conservation 17:229–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehlbach, F. R. 1975. Investigation, evaluation and priority ranking of natural areas.Biological Conservation 8:79–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselli, E., J. Campbell, and S. Zedeck. 1981. Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, F. B. 1975. The evaluation of ecological resources in the countryside for conservation purposes.Biological Conservation 8:89–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, F. B. 1983. Evaluating nature. Pages 233–246in A. Warren and F. B. Goldsmith (eds.), Conservation in perspective. Wiley, Chichester, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, G., and M. Hersen (eds.). 1984. Handbook of psychological assessment. Pergamon, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gotmark, F., M. Ahlund, and M. Eriksson. 1986. Are indices reliable for assessing conservation value of natural areas? An avian case study.Biological Conservation 38:55–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollick, M. 1981. The role of quantitative decision-making methods in environmental impact assessment.Journal of Environmental Management 12:65–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C. S. (ed.). 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley, New York, 377 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, C., and K. Yoon. 1981. Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications a state-of-the-art survey. Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, R., and P. Nijkamp. 1985. A multiple criteria evaluation typology of environmental management problems. Pages 495–514in Y. Haines and V. Chankong (eds.), Decision making with multiple objectives. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L., and H. Raiffa. 1976. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klopatek, J. M., J. T. Kitchings, R. J. Olson, K. D. Kumar, and L. K. Mann. 1981. A hierarchical system for evaluating regional ecological resources.Biological Conservation 20:271–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linstone, H., and M. Turoff (eds.). 1975. The delphi method, techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Man and Biosphere Program. 1974. Task force on: criteria and guidelines for the choice and establishment of biosphere reserves. Man and Biosphere Program Report no. 22, Paris.

  • Man and Biosphere Program. 1976. Guidelines for the selection of biosphere reserves in Canada. Canada/MAB Report 6, Ottawa.

  • Margules, C. R. 1984. Conservation evaluation in practice. II. Enclosed grasslands in the Yorkshire Dales, Great Britain.Biological Conservation 18:153–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margules, C., and M. B. Usher. 1981. Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: a review.Biological Conservation 21:79–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margules, C. R., and Usher, M. B. 1984. Conservation evaluation in practice. I. Sites of different habitats in Northeast Yorkshire, Great Britain.Biological Conservation 18:153–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, R. O., and E. B. Swanson. 1981. Measurement for management decision. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 550 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinnon, J. 1982. National conservation plan for Indonesia. National Parks Development Project of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Bogor. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

  • Nelson, J. G., and S. Jessen. 1984. Planning and management of environmentally significant areas in the Northwest Territories: issues and alternatives. Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, Ottawa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, J. G., P. G. R. Smith, and J. B. Theberge. 1985. Environmentally significant areas in the Northwest Territories: their role, identification, designation and implementation.Environments 17:91–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nettleship, D. N., and P. A. Smith. 1975. Ecological sites in northern Canada. Canadian Committee for the International Biological Programme, Conservation Terrestrial—Panel 9, Ottawa.

  • Nicholson, E. M. 1968. Handbook to the conservation section of the International Biological Program. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nijkamp, P. 1980. Environmental policy analysis. Operational methods and models. Wiley, New York, 283 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, C. 1986. Methods of selecting lake shorelines as nature reserves.Biological Conservation 35:269–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Bannion, K. 1980. Use of value functions in environmental decisions.Environmental Management 4:3–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ott, W. 1978. Environment indices: theory and practice. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oviatt, C., S. Nixon, and J. Garber. 1977. Variation and evaluation of coastal salt marshes.Environmental Management 1:201–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parks Canada. 1979. Parks Canada policy. Department of the Environment. Ottawa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parks Canada. 1981. Terms of reference for a regional analysis of natural region 5, the Rocky Mountains. Ottawa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, E. B. 1975. Development of selection criteria for ecological reserves. Pages 85–90in R. Franson (ed.), The legal aspects of ecological reserves creation and management in Canada. IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper no. 9, Morges, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabe, F. W., and N. L. Savage. 1979. A methodology for the selection of aquatic natural areas.Biological Conservation 15:291–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radford, A. E., D. K. S. Otte, L. J. Otte, J. R. Massey, and P. D. Whitson. 1981. Natural heritage: classification, inventory and information. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 485 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, D. (ed.). 1977. A nature conservation review, vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, D. 1986. Selection of important areas for wildlife conservation in Great Britain: the Nature Conservancy Council's approach. Pages 135–159in M. Usher (ed.), Wildlife conservation evaluation. Chapman and Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray, G. C. 1975. Survey of critical marine habitats and requirements for their conservation. Pages 15–59in Working Paper no. 1 of and International Conference on Marine Parks and Reserves. Tokyo, 12–14 May 1975. IUCN Publication New Series no. 37. Morges, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roome, N. J. 1984. Evaluation in nature conservation decision-making.Environmental Conservation 11:247–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudis, V., and A. Ek. 1981. Optimization of forest island spatial patterns: methodology for analysis of landscape pattern. Pages 241–256in R. L. Burgess and D. Sharpe (eds.), Forest island dynamics in man-dominated landscapes. Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sargent, F. C., and J. H. Brande. 1976. Classifying and evaluating unique natural areas for planning purposes.Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 31:113–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. G. R., and J. B. Theberge. 1986a. A review of criteria used to evaluate natural areas.Environmental Management 10:715–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. G. R., and J. B. Theberge. 1986b. Evaluating biotic diversity in environmentally significant areas in the Northwest Territories of Canada.Biological Conservation 36:1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. G. R., J. G. Nelson, and J. B. Theberge. 1986. Environmentally significant areas, conservation and land use management in the Northwest Territories. Heritage Resources Centre, University of Waterloo, Technical Paper 1, Waterloo, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobral, M., K. Hipel, and G. Farquhar. 1981. A multi-criteria model for solid waste management.Journal of Environmental Management 12:97–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starr, M. K., and M. Zeleny. 1977. Multiple criteria decision making. North-Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, R. G. D., and J. H. Torrie. 1980. Principles and procedures of statistics: a biometrical approach. McGraw-Hill, New York, 633 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tans, W. 1974. Priority ranking of biotic natural areas.Michigan Botanist 13:31–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Task Force on Northern Conservation. 1984. The report of the task force on northern conservation. Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Ottawa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theberge, J. B., J. G. Nelson, and T. Fenge (eds.). 1980. Environmentally significant areas of the Yukon Territory. Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, Ottawa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tubbs, C. R., and Blackwood, J. W. 1971. Ecological evaluation of land for planning purposes.Biological Conservation 3:169–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Usher, M. B. 1980. An assessment of conservation values within a large site of special scientific interest in North Yorkshire.Field Studies 5:323–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Usher, M. B. 1985. Implications of species-area relationships for wildlife conservation.Journal of Environmental Management 21:181–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Usher, M. (ed.). 1986. Wildlife conservation evaluation. Chapman and Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Ploeg, S. W. F. 1986. Wildlife conservation evaluation in the Netherlands: a controversial issue in a small country. Pages 161–180in M. Usher (ed.), Wildlife conservation evaluation. Chapman and Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Ploeg, S. W. F., and L. Vlijm. 1978. Ecological evaluation, nature conservation and land use planning with particular reference to methods used in the Netherlands.Biological Conservation 14:197–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Patter, M., and S. Hilts. 1985. Important wetlands in Ontario south of the precambrian shield. Federation of Naturalists, Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voogd, H. 1981. Qualitative multicriteria evaluation for development planning.Canadian Journal of Regional Science 4:73–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voogd, H. 1983. Multicriteria evaluation for urban and regional planning. Pion, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wathern, P., S. Young, I. Brown, and D. Roberts. 1986. Ecological evaluation techniques.Landscape Planning 12:403–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, D. F. 1977. A site evaluation scheme for use in the assessment of potential nature reserves.Biological Conservation 11:293–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny, M. 1981. Multiple criteria decision making. McGraw-Hill, New York, 563 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, H. J., L. A. Zadeh, and B. R. Gaines. 1984. Fuzzy sets and decision analysis. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 522 pp.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smith, P.G.R., Theberge, J.B. Evaluating natural areas using multiple criteria: Theory and practice. Environmental Management 11, 447–460 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01867653

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01867653

Keywords

Navigation