1 resultado para acceptability
em Publishing Network for Geoscientific
Filtro por publicador
- JISC Information Environment Repository (1)
- Repository Napier (1)
- Aberdeen University (5)
- Aberystwyth University Repository - Reino Unido (2)
- AMS Tesi di Dottorato - Alm@DL - Università di Bologna (2)
- AMS Tesi di Laurea - Alm@DL - Università di Bologna (1)
- Aquatic Commons (26)
- Archimer: Archive de l'Institut francais de recherche pour l'exploitation de la mer (4)
- Archivo Digital para la Docencia y la Investigación - Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad del País Vasco (1)
- Aston University Research Archive (33)
- Biblioteca de Teses e Dissertações da USP (5)
- Biblioteca Digital | Sistema Integrado de Documentación | UNCuyo - UNCUYO. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE CUYO. (3)
- Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (9)
- Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (BDPI/USP) (6)
- Biblioteca Digital de la Universidad Católica Argentina (1)
- Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações Eletrônicas da UERJ (7)
- Bioline International (2)
- BORIS: Bern Open Repository and Information System - Berna - Suiça (23)
- Brock University, Canada (2)
- Bucknell University Digital Commons - Pensilvania - USA (1)
- Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (2)
- CentAUR: Central Archive University of Reading - UK (33)
- Chinese Academy of Sciences Institutional Repositories Grid Portal (1)
- Cochin University of Science & Technology (CUSAT), India (5)
- CORA - Cork Open Research Archive - University College Cork - Ireland (5)
- Corvinus Research Archive - The institutional repository for the Corvinus University of Budapest (1)
- Dalarna University College Electronic Archive (6)
- Deakin Research Online - Australia (138)
- Department of Computer Science E-Repository - King's College London, Strand, London (1)
- DI-fusion - The institutional repository of Université Libre de Bruxelles (1)
- Digital Commons - Michigan Tech (2)
- Digital Commons - Montana Tech (1)
- Digital Commons at Florida International University (4)
- DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center (13)
- DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln (3)
- DRUM (Digital Repository at the University of Maryland) (2)
- Duke University (9)
- eResearch Archive - Queensland Department of Agriculture; Fisheries and Forestry (4)
- Glasgow Theses Service (3)
- Greenwich Academic Literature Archive - UK (3)
- Helda - Digital Repository of University of Helsinki (10)
- Indian Institute of Science - Bangalore - Índia (7)
- Instituto Politécnico de Bragança (1)
- Instituto Politécnico de Viseu (1)
- Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Portugal (3)
- Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada - Lisboa (2)
- Lume - Repositório Digital da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (1)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1)
- Memorial University Research Repository (1)
- National Center for Biotechnology Information - NCBI (5)
- Nottingham eTheses (2)
- Portal de Revistas Científicas Complutenses - Espanha (1)
- Publishing Network for Geoscientific & Environmental Data (1)
- QUB Research Portal - Research Directory and Institutional Repository for Queen's University Belfast (63)
- Queensland University of Technology - ePrints Archive (94)
- RepoCLACAI - Consorcio Latinoamericano Contra el Aborto Inseguro (1)
- Repositório Científico da Universidade de Évora - Portugal (3)
- Repositorio de la Universidad de Cuenca (1)
- Repositório digital da Fundação Getúlio Vargas - FGV (6)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade de Aveiro - Portugal (1)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade de Brasília (1)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande - FURG (1)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (1)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (RIUT) (3)
- Repositório Institucional UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista "Julio de Mesquita Filho" (86)
- RUN (Repositório da Universidade Nova de Lisboa) - FCT (Faculdade de Cienecias e Technologia), Universidade Nova de Lisboa (UNL), Portugal (1)
- SAPIENTIA - Universidade do Algarve - Portugal (3)
- Savoirs UdeS : plateforme de diffusion de la production intellectuelle de l’Université de Sherbrooke - Canada (2)
- School of Medicine, Washington University, United States (1)
- Universidad de Alicante (6)
- Universidad del Rosario, Colombia (4)
- Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (15)
- Universidade do Algarve (1)
- Universidade Federal do Pará (3)
- Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN) (10)
- Universidade Metodista de São Paulo (2)
- Universidade Técnica de Lisboa (1)
- Universita di Parma (1)
- Universitat de Girona, Spain (1)
- Université de Lausanne, Switzerland (2)
- Université de Montréal (5)
- Université de Montréal, Canada (29)
- Université Laval Mémoires et thèses électroniques (1)
- University of Canberra Research Repository - Australia (1)
- University of Michigan (6)
- University of Queensland eSpace - Australia (24)
- University of Washington (2)
- WestminsterResearch - UK (4)
- Worcester Research and Publications - Worcester Research and Publications - UK (2)
Resumo:
The selection of metrics for ecosystem restoration programs is critical for improving the quality of monitoring programs and characterizing project success. Moreover it is oftentimes very difficult to balance the importance of multiple ecological, social, and economical metrics. Metric selection process is a complex and must simultaneously take into account monitoring data, environmental models, socio-economic considerations, and stakeholder interests. We propose multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods, broadly defined, for the selection of optimal sets of metrics to enhance evaluation of ecosystem restoration alternatives. Two MCDA methods, a multiattribute utility analysis (MAUT), and a probabilistic multicriteria acceptability analysis (ProMAA), are applied and compared for a hypothetical case study of a river restoration involving multiple stakeholders. Overall, the MCDA results in a systematic, unbiased, and transparent solution, informing restoration alternatives evaluation. The two methods provide comparable results in terms of selected metrics. However, because ProMAA can consider probability distributions for weights and utility values of metrics for each criteria, it is suggested as the best option if data uncertainty is high. Despite the increase in complexity in the metric selection process, MCDA improves upon the current ad-hoc decision practice based on the consultations with stakeholders and experts, and encourages transparent and quantitative aggregation of data and judgement, increasing the transparency of decision making in restoration projects. We believe that MCDA can enhance the overall sustainability of ecosystem by enhancing both ecological and societal needs.