Advertisement

Environment, Development and Sustainability

, Volume 14, Issue 6, pp 1027–1045 | Cite as

Simulation and multicriteria analysis in sustainable coastal planning: the case of aquaculture in Thermaikos Gulf, Greece

  • Dionysis LatinopoulosEmail author
  • Zoi Konstantinou
  • Yannis Krestenitis
Article

Abstract

Mussel aquaculture in Thermaikos Gulf is facing a great challenge to tackle both institutional and production planning aspects. Local stakeholders are concerned about the future design of an efficient and equitable legal planning framework for the aquaculture, as well as about the improvement of production planning in order to optimize the total economic outcome of mussel activity in the area. The present paper focuses on the assessment of alternative production planning decisions, under the assumption that an efficient and socially acceptable institutional framework is already established. To this end, a case-specific decision-making tool is designed aiming to combine simulation modelling and multicriteria analysis. The main interactions between the environmental and cultivation conditions and the socio-economic parameters of the local aquaculture are specified according to a previous modelling effort concerning the long-line mussel farms of the study area. These interactions are then incorporated into a multicriteria model, which is formulated to handle the decision-making problem of selecting the best alternative planning decisions. This is actually a problem of evaluating and choosing the most promising policy options in terms of local society preferences. An integrated approach is followed, by means of an analytic hierarchy process, aiming at analysing the preferences of local community by determining the weights for a specific set of (sustainability) criteria. The relative importance of these criteria is determined through a questionnaire survey among the local stakeholders. The results from this application show that future planning policies should focus on production techniques, which are likely to enhance the quality of mussel production and, at the same time, to minimize the economic risk associated with the local occurrence of Harmful Algal Bloom events.

Keywords

Mussel production planning Bio-economic simulation model Analytic hierarchy process Farming policy alternatives Stakeholder participation 

References

  1. Brugnach, M., Pahl-Wostl, C., Lindenschmidt, K. E., Janssen J. A. E. B., Filatova, T., Mouton, A., Holtz, G., van der Keur, P., & Gaber, N. (2008). Complexity and uncertainty: Rethinking the modelling activity. In A. J. Jakeman, A. A. Voinov, A. E. Rizzoli, & S. H. Chen (Eds.), Environmental modelling, software and decision support: State of the art and new perspectives (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier B.V. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1574-101X(08)00604-2.
  2. Chen, C. J., & Huang, C. C. (2004). A multiple criteria evaluation of high-tech industries for the science-based industrial park in Taiwan. Information & Management, 41(7), 839–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Choice, Expert. (2000). Expert choice software tutorial. Pittsburgh: Expert Choice, Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Crout, N., Kokkonen, T., Jakeman, A.J., Norton J.P., Newham, L.T.H., Anderson, R., Assaf, H., Croke, B.F.W., Gaber, N., Gibbons, J., Holzworth, D., Mysiak, J., Reichl, J., Seppelt, R., Wagener, T., & Whitfield, R. (2008). Good modelling practice. In A. J. Jakeman, A. A. Voinov, A. E. Rizzoli, & S. H. Chen (Eds.), Environmental modelling, software and decision support: State of the art and new perspectives (pp. 15–31). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier B.V. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1574-101X(08)00604-2.
  5. De Steiguer, J. E., Duberstein, J., & Lopes, V. (2003). The analytic hierarchy process as a means for integrated watershed management. In K. G. Renard, et al. (Eds.), Proc. first interagency conf. res. in the watersheds, Benson, Arizona, October 27–30 (pp. 736–740). USDA-ARS, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
  6. Dennison, W. C. (2008). Environmental problem solving in coastal ecosystems: A paradigm shift to sustainability. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 77(2), 185–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DiNardo, G., Levy, D., & Golden, B. L. (1989). Using decision analysis to manage Maryland’s River Herring Fishery: An application of the AHP. Journal of Environmental Management, 29, 193–213.Google Scholar
  8. Forman, E., & Selly, M. A. (2001). Decision by objectives: How to convince others that you are right. River Edge, New Jersey: World Scientific Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Framian, B. V. (2009). Definition of data collection needs for aquaculture: Part 1. Review of the EU aquaculture sector and results of costs and earnings survey. FISH/2006/15-Lot 6. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/data_collection/index_en.htm. Accessed August 22, 2011.
  10. GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection) (2001). Planning and management for sustainable coastal aquaculture development. GESAMP Reports and Studies, 68.Google Scholar
  11. Halide, H., Stigebrandt, A., Rehbein, M., & McKinnon, A. D. (2009). Developing a decision support system for sustainable cage aquaculture. Environmental Modelling and Software, 24(6), 694–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hall, C., McVittie, A., & Moran, D. (2004). What does the public want from agriculture and the countryside? A review of evidence and methods. Journal of Rural Studies, 20, 211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hens, L., & Begossi, A. (2008). Diversity and management: From extractive to farming systems. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10, 559–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hopkins, T. S., Bailly, D., & Støttrup, J. G. (2011). The systems approach framework adapted to coastal zones. Ecology and Society, 16(4), 25.Google Scholar
  15. Karageorgis, A. P., Skourtos, M. S., Kapsimalis, V., Kontogianni, A. D., Skoulikidis, N. Th., Pagou, K., et al. (2005). An integrated approach to watershed management within the DPSIR framework: Axios River catchment and Thermaikos Gulf. Regional Environmental Change, 5(2–3), 138–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Konstantinou, Z. I., Krestenitis, Y. N., Latinopoulos, D., Pagou, K., Galinou-Mitsoudi, S., & Savvidis, Y. (2012). Aspects of mussel-farming activity in Chalastra, Thermaikos Gulf, Greece: An effort to untie a Management Gordian Knot. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Latinopoulos, D. (2009). Multicriteria decision-making for efficient water and land resources allocation in irrigated agriculture. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 11(2), 329–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mardle, S., Pascoe, S., & Herrero, I. (2004). Management objective importance in fisheries: An evaluation using the analytic hierarchy process. Environmental Management, 33(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mau-Crimmins, T., De Steiguer, J. E., & Dennis, D. (2005). AHP as a means for improving public participation: A pre-post experiment with university students. Forest Policy and Economics, 7, 501–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mendoza, G. A., & Sprouse, W. (1989). Forest planning and decision making under fuzzy environments: An overview and analysis. Forest Science, 35, 481–502.Google Scholar
  21. Mingyao, Z. (1994). Group analytic hierarchy process (GAHP)—fuzzy method for evaluation of irrigation district management. Irrigation and Drainage Systems, 8, 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mocenni, C., Casini, M., Paoletti, S., Giordani, G., Viaroli, P., & Zaldivar, J. M. (2009). A decision support system for the management of the Sacca di Goro (Italy). In A. Marcomini, G. W. Suter, & A. Critto (Eds.), Decision support systems for risk based management of contaminated sites. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. NCMR - National Center for Marine Research (2001). Management study of the mussel production zones of the Thessaloniki and Thermaikos gulfs. Final Technical report (in Greek). National Center of Marine Research on behalf of the Prefecture of Thessaloniki. Scientific coordinator Ch. Anagnostou.Google Scholar
  24. Peterson, D., Silsbee, D., & Schmoldt, D. (1994). A case study of resources management planning with multiple objectives and projects. Environmental Management, 18, 729–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rauscher, H. M., Lloyd, F. T., Loftis, D. L., & Twery, M. J. (2000). A practical decision-analysis process for forest ecosystem management. Computer and Electronics in Agriculture, 27, 195–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rezaei-Moghaddam, K., & Karami, E. (2008). A multiple criteria evaluation of sustainable agricultural development models using AHP. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10, 407–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill International.Google Scholar
  28. Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saaty, T. L. (2000). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process (Vol. 6). Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Salam, M. A., Khatun, N. A., & Ali, M. M. (2005). Carp farming potential in Barhatta Upazilla, Bangladesh: A GIS methodological perspective. Aquaculture, 245, 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schmoldt, D. L., Kangas, J., Mendoza, G. A., & Pesonen, M. (2001). The analytic hierarchy process in natural resource and environmental decision making. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  32. Schmoldt, D. L., & Peterson, D. L. (2001). Strategic and tactical planning for managing National Park resources. In: D. Schmoldt, J. Kangas, G. Mendoza, & M. Pesonen (Eds.), The analytic hierarchy process in natural resource and environmental decision making (pp. 67–79). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Schmoldt, D. L., Peterson, D. L., & Smith, R. L. (1995). The analytic hierarchy process and participatory decision-making. In J. M. Power, M. Strome, & T. C. Daniels (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international symposium on advanced technology in natural resources management (pp. 129–143). American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda, MD.Google Scholar
  34. Tett, P., Mette, A., Sandberg, A., & Bailly, D. (2011). The systems approach. In P. Tett, A. Sandberg, & A. Mette (Eds.), Sustaining coastal zone systems. Edinburgh, Scotland: Dunedin Academic Press.Google Scholar
  35. Vargas, R. (2010). Using the analytic hierarchy process to select and prioritize projects in a portfolio. In PMI global congress 2010—North America, Washington. http://www.ricardo-vargas.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/articles/ricardo_vargas_ahp_project_selection_en.pdf. Accessed August 15, 2011.
  36. Voinov, A., & Bousquet, F. (2010). Modelling with stakeholders. Environmental Modelling & Software, 25, 1268–1281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Whitmarsh, D., & Wattage, P. (2006). Public attitudes toward the environmental impact of salmon aquaculture in Scotland. European Environment, 16, 108–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wind, Y., & Saaty, T. L. (1980). Marketing applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 26(7), 641–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dionysis Latinopoulos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Zoi Konstantinou
    • 2
  • Yannis Krestenitis
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Spatial Planning and Development, School of EngineeringAristotle University of ThessalonikiVeriaGreece
  2. 2.Department of Civil Engineering, School of EngineeringAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessaloníkiGreece

Personalised recommendations