Use of swot and analytic hierarchy process integration as a participatory decision making tool in watershed management

被引:29
|
作者
Yavuz, Fadim [1 ]
Baycan, Tuzin [2 ]
机构
[1] Necmettin Erbakan Univ, Fac Engn & Architecture, Dept Urban & Reg Planning, TR-42090 Konya, Turkey
[2] Tech Univ Istanbul, Fac Architecture, Dept Urban & Reg Planning, TR-34367 Istanbul, Turkey
关键词
Multi-Criteria Decision Making; Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP); SWOT Analysis; Participatory Watershed Management; Beysehir Lake Basin;
D O I
10.1016/j.protcy.2013.11.019
中图分类号
S2 [农业工程];
学科分类号
0828 ;
摘要
The most critical issue of the decision making process in watershed management is the active involvement of a range of stakeholder groups whose views usually conflict with each other. Participatory approaches must fully respect the knowledge, experiences, values, and interests of various stakeholders. This study addresses the Beysehir Lake Basin, the largest freshwater lake in Turkey, and focuses on inhabitants' perceptions and approaches in order to find out the optimal watershed management strategies. The study illustrates the feasibility of SWOT analysis and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) integration to incorporate stakeholder preferences in the decision making process. The results provide the following crucial information: (i) the main problems of the basin (h) the most important advantages of the basin in terms of 'Strengths' and 'Opportunities' (iii) the most important disadvantages of the basin in terms of 'Weaknesses' and 'Threats' (iv) the most appropriate watershed management strategies those enable ecological and socio-cultural sustainability of the basin. (C) 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of The Hellenic Association for Information and Communication Technologies in Agriculture Food and Environment (HAICTA)
引用
收藏
页码:134 / 143
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Practical and User Friendly Tool of Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decision Making
    Basari, Abd Samad Hasan
    Hussin, Burairah
    Shibghatullah, Abdul Samad
    [J]. COMPUTING & INFORMATICS, 2009, : 259 - 263
  • [2] ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS FOR SPATIAL DECISION MAKING
    Ozturk, Derya
    Batuk, Fatmagul
    [J]. SIGMA JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND NATURAL SCIENCES-SIGMA MUHENDISLIK VE FEN BILIMLERI DERGISI, 2010, 28 (02): : 124 - 137
  • [3] Approach of Decision Making Based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Urban Landscape Management
    Srdjevic, Zorica
    Lakicevic, Milena
    Srdjevic, Bojan
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2013, 51 (03) : 777 - 785
  • [4] Approach of Decision Making Based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Urban Landscape Management
    Zorica Srdjevic
    Milena Lakicevic
    Bojan Srdjevic
    [J]. Environmental Management, 2013, 51 : 777 - 785
  • [5] The use of the analytic hierarchy process to aid decision making in acquired equinovarus deformity
    van Til, Janine A.
    Renzenbrink, Gerbert J.
    Dolan, James G.
    Ijzerman, Maarten J.
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION, 2008, 89 (03): : 457 - 462
  • [6] Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process and the analytic network process- Preface
    Whitaker, Rozann
    [J]. MATHEMATICAL AND COMPUTER MODELLING, 2007, 46 (7-8) : 837 - 839
  • [7] Analytic hierarchy process as a tool for infrastructure management
    Smith, James T.
    Tighe, Susan L.
    [J]. PAVE MANAGEMENT; MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND DATA STORAGE; AND ACCELERATYED TESTING 2006, 2006, (1974): : 3 - 9
  • [8] Group Decision Making with Dispersion in the Analytic Hierarchy Process
    Natalie M. Scala
    Jayant Rajgopal
    Luis G. Vargas
    Kim LaScola Needy
    [J]. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2016, 25 : 355 - 372
  • [9] Ethical Decision Making Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process
    Ido Millet
    [J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 1998, 17 : 1197 - 1204
  • [10] Group Decision Making with Dispersion in the Analytic Hierarchy Process
    Scala, Natalie M.
    Rajgopal, Jayant
    Vargas, Luis G.
    Needy, Kim LaScola
    [J]. GROUP DECISION AND NEGOTIATION, 2016, 25 (02) : 355 - 372