Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management

Anticipating and avoiding adverse environmental effects resulting from land-use changes and other anthropogenic interventions is the key objective of environmental assessment (EA). EA requires consideration of multiple environmental criteria to establish the receiving environment’s sensitivity and capacity to absorb change. With the increasing availability of and accessibility to spatial data, the adoption of spatial multi-criteria analysis, also known as GIS–MCA, has become a prominent technique to support EA. Using two diverging case studies, this paper reflects upon the advantages and disadvantages of applying GIS–MCA in EA reported in literature. While the significant contribution of this approach to increasing objectivity, transparency and accountability is corroborated, it is recognised that there is no one-fits-all solution. The widespread application of GIS–MCA calls for further research on the effects that methodological assumptions and data limitations may have at various planning hierarchies and decisions, and how these can be addressed to optimise the value of this technique in EA.

Expansion of renewable energy development causes concerns which traditional land-use planning may have limited capacity to address adequately. The complexity and multiplicity of scales, criteria and actors involved in decision-making processes requires a holistic approach that captures the variety in stakeholder interests. Reaching consensus across interests ensures democratic and cost-effective decision-making processes. The Consensus-based Siting (ConSite) tool suite was developed for optimal siting of onshore wind-power plants and routing of high-voltage power lines considering stakeholder interests. ConSite is based on the operational steps of spatial multi-criteria decision analysis using a bottom-up holistic approach. Its spatially explicit graphical user interface allows for a high level of stakeholder involvement and includes inherent capabilities of scenario modelling. ConSite thereby helps to structure decision problems, balance conflicting interests and identify relevant decision strategies based on risk assessment and trade-off analysis. ConSite visualises the spatial consequences of implementing various decision strategies and balancing site-specific conflict levels with energy production potential.

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a generic term for approaches supporting the systematic evaluation of alternatives in problems involving multiple criteria and stakeholders. One of the most challenging tasks is to gather preference information from stakeholders in a way that both reflects their true opinions and meets the theoretical requirements of the applied MCDA approach. Various techniques have been used in practice, including interviews and decision conferences. In this paper, we present a new cost-efficient approach in which an analyst generates weight profiles for various stakeholder groups. That is, instead of personally asking specific trade-off questions from the stakeholders, weight profiles are developed on the basis of more general preference information collected from the stakeholders. The potential advantages of this approach are: (i) the collection of the preferences using surveys is less laborious than personal interviews or decision conferences and (ii) the risk of cognitive biases in the weight elicitation can be reduced, because the most challenging task of MCDA — assigning weights to the criteria — is left to the analyst, who should be aware of typical biases and how to avoid them. We developed and tested the approach in a contested public decision-making situation related to the development of a new residential area. We utilised the data gathered from the participants of the workshops (21) as well as the data from a web survey including 177 responds via a randomly sampled closed survey, in addition to 484 responds via an open survey. Four preference profiles each having specific weight distributions to criteria were developed, using a multi-stage procedure. Four development alternatives were compared as based on the developed preference profiles. We were able to realise the MCDA process within a very tight time schedule, create plausible preference profiles and summarise each alternative’s pros and cons from different perspectives. However, we also identified several issues which have to be paid more attention in future cases or require further research.

The objectives in consolidating the urban form and preserving green spaces are often in conflict in growing cities. The usability of spatial multi-criteria decision analysis (SMCDA) was tested as a tool for integrating residential infill development and urban green spaces in the City of Järvenpää, Finland. In collaboration with local practitioners, this study focused on the benefits and challenges of SMCDA. The results were based on two workshops with the practitioners along with comprehensive GIS analyses based on a wide range of available data. The practitioners saw SMCDA as a useful method to bring together a variety of factors related to infill development. They highlighted the importance of the method’s transparency, emphasising the comprehensive explanation of each step of the method. Better understanding of the impact of individual criteria weightings on the results was mentioned as one of the key future developments of the method.

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) of regional level long-term forest management scenarios was conducted by applying spatially explicit information to examine the trade-offs between ecological, economic and social impacts. Interval scale judgements were applied to mapped and numerical information jointly, while assessing the performance of alternative scenarios. The experts relied mostly on the numerical information, with which they might have been more confident and familiar. The weight elicitation was based on SMART using Swings (SMARTS) and SMART Exploiting Ranks (SMARTER). SMARTS resulted in two scenarios being quite equal either due to experts truly considering them equally important or being unconfident to express their weights applying SMARTS. SMARTER was considered more understandable, but lead to total utilities having wider range. However, impact information had a greater effect on the overall utility than the weighting. Future insights include use of dynamic approach, considering the issue more from ecosystem services point of view and tighter integration of participatory MCDA and geographic information systems (GIS).