Advertisement

Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 387–417 | Cite as

Multicriteria Decision Analysis of Stream Restoration: Potential and Examples

  • H. J. Corsair
  • Jennifer Bassman Ruch
  • Pearl Q. Zheng
  • Benjamin F. HobbsEmail author
  • Joseph F. Koonce
Article

Abstract

Within stream restoration practice there has been little use of formal decision analysis methods for evaluating tradeoffs in selecting restoration sites and design alternatives. Restoration planning suffers from poorly defined objectives, confusion of objectives and means, and a lack of consideration of tradeoffs. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods have the potential to improve restoration decision making by quantifying non-economic objectives, communicating tradeoffs, facilitating consistent and explicit valuation, and focusing negotiation on ultimate objectives. To explore the potential usefulness of MCDA, we first review restoration practices and define the characteristics of projects that are good candidates for MCDA. We also present two case studies. The first study is a prioritization of stream reaches for restoration that illustrates how value judgments can affect such decisions. The second study addresses the proposed removal of the Ballville Dam on the Sandusky River in Ohio. An important challenge in the dam removal decision is the linking of habitat improvements to changes in species populations and ecological services that people value. The analysis shows how MCDA can assist decision making by clarifying tradeoffs, in this case by showing that the key issues are conflicts among ecological criteria—not all of which are improved by restoration.

Keywords

Multiattribute decision analysis Environmental management Stream restoration Public involvement 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson RM, Hobbs BF (2002) Using a Bayesian approach to quantify scale compatibility bias. Manag Sci 48(12): 1555–1568. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.48.12.1555.444 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson RM, Hobbs BF, Koonce JF, Locci A (2001) Using decision analysis to choose phosphorus targets for Lake Erie. Environ Manag 27(2): 235–252. doi: 10.1007/s002670010146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arcadis (2005) Investigation Program Report for Ballville Dam. Prepared for City of Fremont, OHGoogle Scholar
  4. Bach A, Trausch J (2006). The debated future of the Sandusky River. The Ohio small mouth alliance. www.smallmouth.org/OhioSandusky.htmlGoogle Scholar
  5. Baird RC (2005) On sustainability, estuaries, and ecosystem restoration: the art of the practical. Restor Ecol 13(1): 154. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2005.00019.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bednarek AT (2001) Undamming rivers: a review of the ecological impacts of dam removal. Environ Manag 27(6): 803–814. doi: 10.1007/s002670010189 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Belton V, Stewart TJ (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA, Allan JD, Alexander G, Barnas K, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm C, Follstad-Shah J, Galat D, Gloss S, Goodwin P, Hart D, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Katz S, Kondolf GM, Lake PS, Lave R, Meyer JL, O’Donnell TK, Pagano L, Powell B, Sudduth E (2005) Synthesizing US river restoration efforts. Science 308: 636–637. doi: 10.1126/science.1109769 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Biohabitats, Inc. (2005) Roland Run at Greenspring Stream Assessment and Restoration Concept Report. Prepared for Baltimore Co. Dept. of Environmental Protection & Resource ManagementGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown CA (1984) The central Arizona water control study: a success story for multicriteria planning and public involvement. Water Resour Bull 20(3): 331–338Google Scholar
  11. Brown L (2005) Ballville dam repair could cost up to $4 M. The News Messenger, Fremont, OH (Dec): 2Google Scholar
  12. Business Wire (2003) Mayor Hahn Announces LADWP, Inyo County Reach Tentative Agreement over Owens River Restoration, Dec. 17Google Scholar
  13. Cheng F, Zika U, Banachowski K, Gillenwater D, Granata T (2006) Modelling the effects of dam removal on migratory walleye (Sander vitreus) early life-history stages. River Res Appl 22(8): 837–851. doi: 10.1002/rra.939 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clemings R (2003) Fresno area farmers, environmentalists and water talks. Fresno Bee, April 18Google Scholar
  15. Cohn JP (2001) Resurrecting the dammed: a look at Colorado River restoration. Bioscience 51(12): 998–1003. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0998:RTDALA]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ehtamo H, Hamalainen RP, Heiskanen P, Teich J, Verkama M, Zionts S (1999) Generating Pareto solutions in a two-party setting: constraint proposal methods. Manag Sci 45(12): 1697–1709. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.45.12.1697 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Evans JE, Levine NS, Roberts SJ, Gottgens JF, Newman DM (2002) Assessment using GIS and sediment routing of the proposed removal of Ballville Dam, Sandusky River, Ohio. J Am Water Resour Assoc 38(6): 1549–1565. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2002.tb04364.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. FPS (Finkbeiner Pettis Strout) (1999) Raw water supply study. Prepared for City of Fremont, OhioGoogle Scholar
  19. Gainer S (2001) Sediment samples will aid decision on city reservoir. The News Messenger, Fremont, OH (Oct): 19Google Scholar
  20. Gainer S (2002) Reservoir funds OK’d. The News Messenger, Fremont, OH (Sept): 20Google Scholar
  21. Geiling WD, Kelso JRM, Iwachewski E (1996) Benefits from incremental additions to walleye spawning habitat in the Curent River, with reference to habitat modification as a walleye management tool on Ontario. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53(Suppl. 1): 79–87. doi: 10.1139/cjfas-53-S1–79 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gillenwater D, Granata T, Zika U (2006) GIS-based modeling of spawning habitat suitability for walleye in the Sandusky River, Ohio, and implications for dam removal and river restoration. Ecol Eng 28(3): 311–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. GLFC (Great Lakes Fishery Commission) (2000) TFM and sea Lamprey control: a success story. Ann Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar
  24. Gorman AM, Whiting PJ, Neeson TM, Koonce JF (2004) Geographic information system (GIS) can be used to predict fish habitat in Lake Erie Tributaries. Manuscript, Dept. of Biology, Case Western Reserve University, ClevelandGoogle Scholar
  25. Hart Y (2003) City water nitrate levels up again. The News Messenger, Fremont, OH (June): 20Google Scholar
  26. Herath G, Prato T (eds) (2006) Using multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: empirical applications. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, UKGoogle Scholar
  27. Hobbs BF (1985) Choosing how to choose: comparing amalgamation methods for environmental impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 5(4): 301–319. doi: 10.1016/0195-9255(85)90026-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hobbs RJ (2004) Restoration Ecology: The Challenge of Social Values and Expectations. Front Ecol Environ 2(1): 43–48. doi: 10.2307/3868294 Google Scholar
  29. Hobbs RJ, Harris JA (2001) Restoration ecology: repairing the earth’s ecosystems in the new millennium. Restor Ecol 9: 239–246. doi: 10.1046/j.1526-100x.2001.009002239.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hobbs BF, Meier P (2000) Energy decisions & The environment: a guide to the use of multicriteria methods. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  31. Jones ML, Netto JK, Stockwell JD, Mion JB (2003) Does the value of newly accessible spawning habitat for walleye (Stizostedion Vitreum) depend on its location relative to nursery habitats. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 60(12): 1527–1538. doi: 10.1139/f03-130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kauffman JB, Beschta RL, Otting N, Lytjen D (1997) An ecological perspective of Riparian and stream restoration in the Western United States. Fisheries 22(5): 12–24. doi: 10.1577/1548-8446(1997)022<0012:AEPORA>2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Kim JB, Hobbs BF, Koonce JF (2003) Multicriteria Bayesian analysis of lower tropic level uncertainties and value of research in Lake Erie. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 9(4): 1023–1057. doi: 10.1080/713610022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Koonce JF, Eshenroder RL, Christie GC (1993) An economic injury level approach for establishing the intensity of sea lamprey control in the Great Lakes. North Am J Fish Manage 13(1): 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Koonce JF, Locci AB, Knight RL (1999) Contribution of fishery management to changes in walleye and yellow perch populations of Lake Erie. In: Taylor WW, Ferreri CP Great lake fishery policy and management: a binational perspective. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  37. Leclerc M, Boudreault A, Bechara JA, Belzile L (1996) Numerical method of modeling spawning habitat at dynamics of landlocked Salmon, Salmo Salar. Regul Rivers Res Manag 12: 273–285. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1646(199603)12:2/3<273::AID-RRR395>3.0.CO;2-J CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Kiker G, Seager TP, Bridges TS, Gardner KH, Rogers SH, Meyer A (2006) Multicriteria decision analysis: a comprehensive decision approach for management of contaminated sediments. Risk Anal 26(1): 61–78. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00713.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Locci AB, Koonce JF (1999) A theoretical analysis of food web constraints on walleye dynamics in Lake Erie. In: Munawar M, Edsall T, Munawar IF (eds) State of Lake Erie: past, present and future. Backhuys Publishers, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  40. Locke B, Belore M, Cook A, Einhouse D, Kenyon R, Knight R, Newman K, Ryan P, Wright E (2005) Lake Erie walleye management plan. Prepared for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Lake Erie CommitteeGoogle Scholar
  41. Lowie CE, Haynes JM, Walter RP (2001) Comparison of walleye habitat suitability index (HSI) information with habitat features of a walleye spawning stream. J Freshw Ecol 16(4): 621–631Google Scholar
  42. McMahon TE, Terrell JW, and Nelson PC (1984) Habitat suitability information: walleye, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Release No. FWS/OBS-82/10.56Google Scholar
  43. Minns CK, Bakelaar CN (1999) A method for quantifying the supply of suitable habitat for fish stocks. State of Lake Erie: past, present and future. Backhuys Publishers, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  44. Mion JB, Stein RA, Marschall EA (1998) River discharge drives survival of larval walleye. Ecol Appl 8(1): 88–103. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(1998)008[0088:RDDSOL]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Neeson TM, Gorman AM, Whiting PJ, Koonce JF (2008) Factors affecting accuracy of stream channel slope estimates derived from geographical information systems. North Am J Fish Manage 28(3): 722–732. doi: 10.1577/M05-127.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. ODNR (Ohio Department of Natural Resources) (2003). Dam Safety Inspection Report—Ballville Dam, Columbus, OhioGoogle Scholar
  47. PR Newswire (1999) Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Press Release, Healthy Willamette River Goal of State Plan, April 20Google Scholar
  48. PR Newswire (2004) PPL Corporation Agreement to Sell Three Maine Dams to Restore Atlantic Salmon Takes Important Step Forward, June 25, Financial News, Allentown, PAGoogle Scholar
  49. Prato T (2003) Multiple attribute evaluation of ecosystem management for the Missouri River. Ecol Econ 45: 297–309. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00077-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pruitt DG, Carnevale PJ (1993) Negotiation in social conflict. Open Univ Press, BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  51. Raiffa H (1982) The art and science of negotiation. Belknap Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  52. Robertson L (2001) Oregon panel targets 27 critical actions needed to restore health to waterway. The Register Guard, Eugene, OR (Feb): 22Google Scholar
  53. Rossi G, Cancelliere A, Giuliano G (2005) Case study: multicriteria assessment of drought mitigation measures. J Water Resour Plan Manag 131(6): 449–457. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2005)131:6(449) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schmidt J (1998) Science and values in river restoration in the Grand Canyon. Bioscience 48(9): 735. doi: 10.2307/1313336 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sullivan WP, Christie GC, Cornelius FC, Fodale MF, Johnson DA, Koonce JF, Larson GL, McDonald RB, Mullett KM, Murray CK, Ryan PA (2003) The sea Lamprey in Lake Erie: a case history. J Great Lakes Res 29(Suppl. 1): 615–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. The Heinz Center (2002) Dam removal-science and decision making report. The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  57. USEPA (2000) Principles for the ecological restoration of aquatic resources. EPA841-F-00-003. Office of Water (4501F). United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 4 pGoogle Scholar
  58. Wallington TJ, Hobbs RJ, Moore SA (2005) Implications of current ecological thinking for biodiversity conservation: a review of the salient issues. Ecol Soc 10(1): 15Google Scholar
  59. Ward JV, Stanford JA (1995) Ecological connectivity in alluvial river ecosystems and its disruption by flow regulation. Regul Rivers 11(1): 105–119. doi: 10.1002/rrr.3450110109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ward MH, deKok TM, Levallois P, Brender J, Gulis G, Nolan BT, VanDerslice J (2005) Workgroup report: drinking-water nitrate and health—recent findings and research needs. Environ Health Perspect 113(11): 1607–1614CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. J. Corsair
    • 1
  • Jennifer Bassman Ruch
    • 1
    • 2
  • Pearl Q. Zheng
    • 1
  • Benjamin F. Hobbs
    • 1
    Email author
  • Joseph F. Koonce
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Geography and Environmental EngineeringThe Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Energetics Inc.7067 Columbia Gateway DriveColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations