GIS-Based Multicriteria Evaluation and Fuzzy Sets to Identify Priority Sites for Marine Protection

Abstract

There is an increasing momentum within the marine conservation community to develop representative networks of marine protected areas (MPAs) covering up to 30% of global marine habitats. However, marine conservation initiatives are perceived as uncoordinated at most levels of planning and decision-making. These initiatives also face the challenge of being in conflict with ongoing drives for sustained or increased resource extraction. Hence, there is an urgent need to develop large scale theoretical frameworks that explicitly address conflicting objectives that are embedded in the design and development of a global MPA network. Further, the frameworks must be able to guide the implementation of smaller scale initiatives within this global context. This research examines the applicability of an integrated spatial decision support framework based on geographic information systems (GIS), multicriteria evaluation (MCE) and fuzzy sets to objectively identify priority locations for future marine protection. MCE is a well-established optimisation method used extensively in land use resource allocation and decision support, and which has to date been underutilised in marine planning despite its potential to guide such efforts. The framework presented here was implemented in the Pacific Canadian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) using two conflicting objectives - biodiversity conservation and fisheries profit-maximisation. The results indicate that the GIS-based MCE framework supports the objective identification of priority locations for future marine protection. This is achieved by integrating multi-source spatial data, facilitating the simultaneous combination of multiple objectives, explicitly including stakeholder preferences in the decisions, and providing visualisation capabilities to better understand how global MPA networks might be developed under conditions of uncertainty and complexity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Abbreviations

EEZ:

Exclusive Economic Zone

GIS:

Geographic Information System

MCE:

Multicriteria Evaluation

MPA:

Marine Protected Area

References

  1. Agardy T (1994) Advances in marine conservation: the role of marine protected areas. Trends Ecol Evol 9:267–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Agardy T, Bridgewater P, Crosby MP, Day J, Dayton PK, Kenchington R, Laffoley D, McConney P, Murray PA, Parks JE, Peau L (2003) Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas. Aquat Conserv: Mar Freshwater Ecosyst 13:353–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ardron J, Lash J, Haggarty D (2002) Modelling a network of marine protected areas for the central coast of British Columbia. Version 3.1. Living Oceans Society, Sointula, pp 124

  4. Ball I (2004) MARXAN– reserve system selection tool. The Ecology Centre, University of Queensland. http://www.ecology.uq.edu.au/marxan.htm last accessed 11th Feb 2004

  5. Balram S, Dragicevic S, Meredith T (2003) Achieving effectiveness in stakeholder participation using the GIS-based Collaborative Spatial Delphi methodology. J Environ Assess Policy Manage 5:365–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boersma PD, Parrish JK (1999) Limiting abuse: marine protected areas, a limited solution. Ecol Econ 31:287–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bohnsack JA (1996) Maintenance and recovery of reef fishery productivity. In: Polunin NVC, Roberts CM (eds) Reef fisheries. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 283–313

    Google Scholar 

  8. Botsford LW, Hastings A, Gaines SD (2001) Dependence of sustainability on the configuration of marine reserves and larval dispersal distance. Ecol Lett 4:144–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. British Columbia (1993) A protected areas strategy for British Columbia. Government of British Columbia, Victoria

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brown K, Adger WN, Tompkins E, Bacon P, Shim D, Young K (2001) Trade-off analysis for marine protected area management. Ecol Econ 37:417–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Burrough PA, McDonnell RA (1998) Principles of geographic information systems. Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, pp 333

    Google Scholar 

  12. Carver S (1991) Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical information systems. Int J␣Geogr Informat Sci 5:321–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ceballos-Silva A, Lopez-Blanco J (2003) Delineation of suitable areas for crops using a multi-criteria evaluation approach and land use/cover mapping: a case study in Central Mexico. Agricult Syst 77:117–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen K, Blong R, Jacobson C (2003) Towards an integrated approach to natural hazards risk assessment using GIS: with reference to bushfires. Environ Manage 31:546–560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Christensen V, Guenette S, Heymans JJ, Walters C, Watson R, Zeller D, Pauly D (2003) Hundred-year decline of North Atlantic predatory fisheries. Fish Fisheries 4:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chung SS, Poon CS (1996) Evaluating management alternatives by the multiple criteria approach. Resour Conserv Recycling 17:189–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. CITES (2004) Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora. CITES. http://www.cites.org/index.html last accessed 19th May 2004

  18. DFO (2004) DFO’s statistical services. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/communic/statistics/main_e.htm last accessed 30th May 2004

  19. Eastman JR, Kyem PAK, Toledano J (1993) A procedure for multi-objective decision making in GIS under conditions of conflicting objectives. In: Harts J, et al. (eds) Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Geographical Information Systems, 29 March–1 April 1993, Genoa, Italy, pp 438–447

  20. Eastman JR, Jin WG, Kyem PAK, Toledano J (1995) Raster procedures for multicriteria/multiobjective decisions. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 61:539–547

    Google Scholar 

  21. Eastman JR (2003) IDIRISI Kilimanjaro guide to GIS and image processing. Clark Labs, Clark University, Worcester, MA, pp 305

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gaston KJ (1996) Species richness: measure and measurement. In: Gaston KJ (eds) Biodiversity a biology of numbers and difference. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK, pp 77–113

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hastings A, Botsford LW (2003) Comparing designs of marine reserves for fisheries and for biodiversity. Ecol Appl 13:S65–S70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Huth A, Drechsler M, Kohler P (2004) Multicriteria evaluation of simulated logging scenarios in a tropical rain forest. J Environ Manage 71:321–333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. IUCN (1988) Resolution 17.38 of the 17th General Assembly of the IUCN. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK

  26. IUCN (2003a) Recommendations of the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress. World Conservation Union, pp 85

  27. IUCN (2003b) 2003 IUCN red list of threatened species. IUCN Species Survival Commission. http://www.redlist.org/ last accessed 19th May 2004

  28. Jamieson GS, Levings CO (2001) Marine protected areas in Canada—implications for both conservation and fisheries management. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:138–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jankowski P, Richard L (1994) Integration of GIS-Based suitability analysis and multicriteria evaluation in a spatial decision-support system for route selection. Environ Planning B-Planning & Design 21:323–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Janssen R, Rietveld P (1990) Multicriteria analysis and geographic information systems: and application to agricultural land use in the Netherlands. In: Scholten HJ, Stillwell JCH (eds) Geographical information systems for urban and regional planning. Kluwer Academic Publishing, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  31. Janssen R (2001) On the use of multi-criteria analysis in environmental impact assessment in the Netherlands. J Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 10:101–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jiang H, Eastman JR (2000) Application of fuzzy measures in multi-criteria evaluation in GIS. Int J Geogr Inform Sci 14:173–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jones PJS (2002) Marine protected area strategies: issues, divergences and the search for middle ground. Rev Fish Biol Fish 11:197–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with muliple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kelleher G, Bleakey C, Wells S (1995) Introduction. In: Kelleher G, et al. (eds) A global representative system of marine protected areas. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, The World Bank, The World Conservation Union, Washington, DC

  36. Killpack D, Waltenberger B, Fowler C (2001) The channel islands—spatial support and analysis tool. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Biennial Coastal GeoTools Conference, Charleston, SC

  37. Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD Jr, Vecchi MP (1983) Optimisation by simulated annealing. Science 220:671–680

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lewis A, Fernandes L, Lowe D, Slegers S, Nuller L, Day J 2003. Re-zoning the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to better protect biodiversity. In: Proceedings of the Coastal GIS Workshop, July 7–8 2003, Wollongong, Australia

  39. Lubchenco J, Palumbi SR, Gaines SD, Andelman SJ (2003) Plugging a hole in the ocean: the emerging science of marine reserves. Ecol Appl 13:S3–S7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Malczewski J (1999) GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp 392

  41. McDonnell MD, Possingham HP, Ball IR, Cousins EA (2002) Mathematical methods for spatially cohesive reserve design. Environ Model Assess 7:107–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Meir E, Andelman S, Possingham H (2004) Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world? Ecol Lett 7:615–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Myers RA, Worm B (2003) Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 423(6937):280–283

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Pitz GF, McKillip J (1984) Decision analysis for program evaluators. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California

    Google Scholar 

  45. Possingham H, Ball I, Andelman S (2000) Mathematical methods for identifying representative reserve networks. In: Ferson S, Burgman M (eds) Quantitative methods for conservation biology. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 291–305

    Google Scholar 

  46. Pressey RL, Humphries CJ, Margules CR, Vane-Wright RI, Williams PH (1993) Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends Ecol Evol 8:124–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Pressey RL, Possingham HP, Margules CR (1996) Optimality in reserve selection algorithms: when does it matter and how much? Biol Conserv 76:259–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Pressey RL, Possingham HP, Day JR (1997) Effectiveness of alternative heuristic algorithms for identifying indicative minimum requirements for conservation reserves. Biol Conserv 80:207–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Roberts CM, McClean CJ, Veron JEN, Hawkins JP, Allen GR, McAllister DE, Mittermeier CG, Schueler FW, Spalding M, Wells F, Vynne C, Werner TB (2002) Marine biodiversity hotspots and conservation priorities for tropical reefs. Science 295(5558):1280–1284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Roberts CM, Branch G, Bustamante RH, Castilla JC, Dugan J, Halpern BS, Lafferty KD, Leslie H, Lubchenco J, McArdle D, Ruckelshaus M, Warner RR (2003) Application of ecological criteria in selecting marine reserves and developing reserve networks. Ecol Appl 13:S215–S228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Roff JC (2005) Conservation of marine biodiversity: too much diversity, too little cooperation. Aquat Conserv: Mar Freshwater Ecosyst 15:1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Rumsey C, Ardron J, Ciruna K, Curtis T, Doyle F, Ferdana Z, Hamilton T, Heinmeyer K, Iachetti P, Jeo R, Kaiser G, Narver D, Noss R, Sizemore D, Tautz A, Tingey R, Vance-Borland K (2004) An ecosystem analysis for Haida Gwaii, Central Coast and North Coast British Columbia. Coast Information Team, Victoria, pp 203

    Google Scholar 

  53. Russ GR, Zeller D (2003) From Mare Liberum to Mare Reservarum. Mar Policy 27:75–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Soulé ME, Terborgh J (1999) Conserving nature at regional and continental scales– scientific program for North America. Bioscience 49(10):809–817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Store R, Kangas J (2001) Integrating spatial multi-criteria evaluation and expert knowledge for GIS-based habitat suitability modelling. Landscape Urban Planning 55:79–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Sumaila UR, Walters C (2005) Intergenerational discounting: a new intuitive approach. Ecol Econ 52:135–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. UNCLOS (2004). Chronological list of ratifications/accessions/successions to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. UNCLOS. http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_agreements.htm last accessed 30th August 2004

  58. United Nations (2002) Draft plan of implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. United Nations, Johannesburg. Report Number: A/CONF.199/L.1

  59. Villa F, Tunesi L, Agardy T (2002) Zoning marine protected areas through spatial multiple-criteria analysis: the case of the Asinara Island National Marine Reserve of Italy. Conserv Biol 16:515–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Ward T, Vanderklift MA, Nicholls AO, Kenchington R (1999) Selecting marine reserves using habitats and species assemblages as surrogates for biological diversity. Ecol Appl 9:691–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Ward T, Heinemann D, Evans N (2001) The role of marine reserves as fisheries management tools. A review of concepts, evidence and international experience. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, Australia, pp 192

    Google Scholar 

  62. Watson R, Pauly D (2001) Systematic distortions in world fisheries catch trends. Nature 414:534–536

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Watson R, Kitchingman A, Gelchu A, Pauly D (2004) Mapping global fisheries: sharpening our focus. Fish Fisheries 5:168–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Watson R, Alder J, Kitchingman A, Pauly D (2005) Catching some needed attention. Mar Policy 29:281–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Whittaker RH (1972) Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon 21(2/3):213–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Worm B, Lotze HK, Myers RA (2003) Predator diversity hotspots in the blue ocean. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:9884–9888

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Zacharias MA, Howes DE (1998) An analysis of marine protected areas in British Columbia, Canada, using a marine ecological classification. Nat Areas J 18:4–13

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is part of a global marine protected area research project that is supported by: the Sea Around Us Project, University of British Columbia (UBC), an activity initiated and funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts; World Wildlife Fund (WWF); and the United Nations Environment Program—World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC). Suzana Dragicevic was partially supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada under the Discovery Grant Program. The authors would like to thank Daniel Pauly for his comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of the paper, and to Jackie Alder, Shivanand Balram, Chris Bone, and Brian Klinkenberg, for suggestions on the analysis.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Louisa J. Wood.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wood, L.J., Dragicevic, S. GIS-Based Multicriteria Evaluation and Fuzzy Sets to Identify Priority Sites for Marine Protection. Biodivers Conserv 16, 2539–2558 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-006-9035-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Fuzzy sets
  • GIS
  • Marine protected areas
  • Multicriteria evaluation
  • Multiple objectives
  • Protected area siting
  • Spatial analysis
  • Spatial decision support