Multi-criteria decision approach for climate adaptation of cultural resources along the Atlantic coast of the southeastern United States: Application of AHP method

IF 4.8 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Abu SMG Kibria , Erin Seekamp , Xiao Xiao , Soupy Dalyander , Mitchell Eaton
{"title":"Multi-criteria decision approach for climate adaptation of cultural resources along the Atlantic coast of the southeastern United States: Application of AHP method","authors":"Abu SMG Kibria ,&nbsp;Erin Seekamp ,&nbsp;Xiao Xiao ,&nbsp;Soupy Dalyander ,&nbsp;Mitchell Eaton","doi":"10.1016/j.crm.2024.100587","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Prioritizing climate adaptation actions is often made difficult by stakeholders and decision-makers having multiple objectives, some of which may be competing. Transparent, transferable, and objective methods are needed to assess and weight different objectives for complex decisions with multiple interests. In this study, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to examine priorities in managing cultural resources in the face of climate change at Cape Lookout National Seashore on the Atlantic coast of the southeastern United States. In this process, we conducted facilitated discussion sessions with the selected stakeholder representatives to elicit a comprehensive list of management objectives. Objectives were then merged into three categories: 1) Maximize retention of historic character and condition (HCC); 2) Foster heritage awareness (HA); and 3) Maximize financial benefits (FB). We facilitated two AHP exercise sessions, both individually and in groups, to seek consensus on the relative importance of the objectives. The AHP process created a space for stakeholders (government agencies and local citizens) to consider and present arguments that we used to contextualize their trade-offs between the objectives. The stakeholders' top priority was to maximize the HCC. This objective was prioritized more than HA and FB in the individual trade-off choices, while HA was given nearly equal priority to FB. The consensus priority vectors of two management objectives (HCC and HA) differ significantly from FB, but the difference between HCC and HA is slight and not statistically different. FB and HA had larger changes in consensus priority vectors among the three objectives relative to individual priority vectors. For HCC, the difference between individual and consensus priority vectors was the smallest and nearly equal. Moreover, very high levels of consistency were found in consensus priority trade-off discussions and AHP application. Our research highlights the advantage of using a two-step AHP process in climate adaptation planning of vulnerable resources to enhance robustness in decision making. Coupling this approach with future efforts to develop management priorities would help estimate indices to determine the order in which adaptation treatments are applied to vulnerable cultural resources.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54226,"journal":{"name":"Climate Risk Management","volume":"43 ","pages":"Article 100587"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096324000044/pdfft?md5=9d30bbe3eda3578b6fd3fa5bb8b151d7&pid=1-s2.0-S2212096324000044-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Climate Risk Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096324000044","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Prioritizing climate adaptation actions is often made difficult by stakeholders and decision-makers having multiple objectives, some of which may be competing. Transparent, transferable, and objective methods are needed to assess and weight different objectives for complex decisions with multiple interests. In this study, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to examine priorities in managing cultural resources in the face of climate change at Cape Lookout National Seashore on the Atlantic coast of the southeastern United States. In this process, we conducted facilitated discussion sessions with the selected stakeholder representatives to elicit a comprehensive list of management objectives. Objectives were then merged into three categories: 1) Maximize retention of historic character and condition (HCC); 2) Foster heritage awareness (HA); and 3) Maximize financial benefits (FB). We facilitated two AHP exercise sessions, both individually and in groups, to seek consensus on the relative importance of the objectives. The AHP process created a space for stakeholders (government agencies and local citizens) to consider and present arguments that we used to contextualize their trade-offs between the objectives. The stakeholders' top priority was to maximize the HCC. This objective was prioritized more than HA and FB in the individual trade-off choices, while HA was given nearly equal priority to FB. The consensus priority vectors of two management objectives (HCC and HA) differ significantly from FB, but the difference between HCC and HA is slight and not statistically different. FB and HA had larger changes in consensus priority vectors among the three objectives relative to individual priority vectors. For HCC, the difference between individual and consensus priority vectors was the smallest and nearly equal. Moreover, very high levels of consistency were found in consensus priority trade-off discussions and AHP application. Our research highlights the advantage of using a two-step AHP process in climate adaptation planning of vulnerable resources to enhance robustness in decision making. Coupling this approach with future efforts to develop management priorities would help estimate indices to determine the order in which adaptation treatments are applied to vulnerable cultural resources.

美国东南部大西洋沿岸文化资源气候适应性的多标准决策方法:AHP 方法的应用
确定气候适应行动的优先次序往往因利益相关者和决策者拥有多重目标而变得困难,其中一些目标可能是相互竞争的。在涉及多方利益的复杂决策中,需要透明、可转移和客观的方法来评估和权衡不同的目标。在本研究中,我们使用了层次分析法(AHP)来研究美国东南部大西洋沿岸的洛考特角国家海岸在面对气候变化时管理文化资源的优先事项。在此过程中,我们与选定的利益相关者代表进行了讨论,以获得一份全面的管理目标清单。随后,我们将目标合并为三类:1) 最大限度地保留历史特征和历史条件 (HCC);2) 培养遗产意识 (HA);3) 实现经济效益最大化 (FB)。我们协助开展了两次 AHP 工作会议,既有个人会议,也有小组会议,目的是就各项目标的相对重要性达成共识。AHP 过程为利益相关者(政府机构和当地公民)创造了一个考虑和提出论点的空间,我们利用这些论点来说明他们在目标之间的权衡。利益相关者最优先考虑的是最大化 HCC。在个人权衡选择中,该目标的优先级高于 HA 和 FB,而 HA 的优先级几乎与 FB 相当。两个管理目标(HCC 和 HA)的共识优先级向量与 FB 有显著差异,但 HCC 和 HA 之间的差异很小,在统计上没有差异。相对于单个优先级向量,FB 和 HA 在三个目标之间的共识优先级向量变化较大。而对于总部合同委员会,单个优先向量与共识优先向量之间的差异最小,几乎相等。此外,在共识优先权权衡讨论和 AHP 应用中发现了非常高的一致性。我们的研究强调了在脆弱资源的气候适应规划中使用两步式 AHP 流程的优势,以提高决策的稳健性。将这种方法与未来制定管理优先级的工作相结合,将有助于估算指数,以确定对脆弱文化资源采取适应性处理措施的顺序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Climate Risk Management
Climate Risk Management Earth and Planetary Sciences-Atmospheric Science
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
76
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊介绍: Climate Risk Management publishes original scientific contributions, state-of-the-art reviews and reports of practical experience on the use of knowledge and information regarding the consequences of climate variability and climate change in decision and policy making on climate change responses from the near- to long-term. The concept of climate risk management refers to activities and methods that are used by individuals, organizations, and institutions to facilitate climate-resilient decision-making. Its objective is to promote sustainable development by maximizing the beneficial impacts of climate change responses and minimizing negative impacts across the full spectrum of geographies and sectors that are potentially affected by the changing climate.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信