1 resultado para process risk evaluation
em Publishing Network for Geoscientific
Filtro por publicador
- Aberdeen University (1)
- Abertay Research Collections - Abertay University’s repository (1)
- Academic Archive On-line (Stockholm University; Sweden) (1)
- AMS Tesi di Dottorato - Alm@DL - Università di Bologna (5)
- AMS Tesi di Laurea - Alm@DL - Università di Bologna (2)
- Aquatic Commons (10)
- Archive of European Integration (1)
- Archivo Digital para la Docencia y la Investigación - Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad del País Vasco (11)
- Aston University Research Archive (21)
- Biblioteca de Teses e Dissertações da USP (2)
- Biblioteca Digital | Sistema Integrado de Documentación | UNCuyo - UNCUYO. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE CUYO. (1)
- Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (9)
- Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (BDPI/USP) (2)
- Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações Eletrônicas da UERJ (13)
- BORIS: Bern Open Repository and Information System - Berna - Suiça (33)
- Brock University, Canada (1)
- Bulgarian Digital Mathematics Library at IMI-BAS (2)
- CaltechTHESIS (4)
- Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (16)
- CentAUR: Central Archive University of Reading - UK (16)
- Chinese Academy of Sciences Institutional Repositories Grid Portal (6)
- Cochin University of Science & Technology (CUSAT), India (2)
- Comissão Econômica para a América Latina e o Caribe (CEPAL) (3)
- CORA - Cork Open Research Archive - University College Cork - Ireland (3)
- Corvinus Research Archive - The institutional repository for the Corvinus University of Budapest (2)
- Dalarna University College Electronic Archive (3)
- Digital Commons - Michigan Tech (1)
- Digital Commons @ Winthrop University (1)
- Digital Commons at Florida International University (9)
- Digital Peer Publishing (2)
- DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center (14)
- Duke University (1)
- eResearch Archive - Queensland Department of Agriculture; Fisheries and Forestry (21)
- FUNDAJ - Fundação Joaquim Nabuco (2)
- Glasgow Theses Service (1)
- Greenwich Academic Literature Archive - UK (1)
- Helda - Digital Repository of University of Helsinki (20)
- Helvia: Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Córdoba (1)
- Indian Institute of Science - Bangalore - Índia (21)
- Institutional Repository of Leibniz University Hannover (1)
- INSTITUTO DE PESQUISAS ENERGÉTICAS E NUCLEARES (IPEN) - Repositório Digital da Produção Técnico Científica - BibliotecaTerezine Arantes Ferra (4)
- Instituto Politécnico de Santarém (1)
- Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Portugal (3)
- Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada - Lisboa (1)
- Memoria Académica - FaHCE, UNLP - Argentina (3)
- Ministerio de Cultura, Spain (1)
- National Center for Biotechnology Information - NCBI (4)
- Plymouth Marine Science Electronic Archive (PlyMSEA) (3)
- Portal de Revistas Científicas Complutenses - Espanha (2)
- Publishing Network for Geoscientific & Environmental Data (1)
- QUB Research Portal - Research Directory and Institutional Repository for Queen's University Belfast (34)
- Queensland University of Technology - ePrints Archive (380)
- RDBU - Repositório Digital da Biblioteca da Unisinos (1)
- Repositório Alice (Acesso Livre à Informação Científica da Embrapa / Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from Embrapa) (3)
- Repositório Científico da Universidade de Évora - Portugal (1)
- Repositório Científico do Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa - Portugal (1)
- Repositório Científico do Instituto Politécnico de Santarém - Portugal (1)
- Repositório digital da Fundação Getúlio Vargas - FGV (8)
- Repositório Digital da UNIVERSIDADE DA MADEIRA - Portugal (1)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade de Aveiro - Portugal (3)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade de Brasília (1)
- Repositório Institucional UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista "Julio de Mesquita Filho" (40)
- Repositorio Institucional Universidad de Medellín (3)
- Research Open Access Repository of the University of East London. (2)
- RUN (Repositório da Universidade Nova de Lisboa) - FCT (Faculdade de Cienecias e Technologia), Universidade Nova de Lisboa (UNL), Portugal (3)
- Scielo España (2)
- SerWisS - Server für Wissenschaftliche Schriften der Fachhochschule Hannover (1)
- South Carolina State Documents Depository (1)
- Universidad de Alicante (1)
- Universidad del Rosario, Colombia (7)
- Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (16)
- Universidade Complutense de Madrid (1)
- Universidade de Lisboa - Repositório Aberto (1)
- Universidade de Madeira (1)
- Universidade Federal do Pará (3)
- Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN) (5)
- Universidade Metodista de São Paulo (1)
- Universitat de Girona, Spain (1)
- Universitätsbibliothek Kassel, Universität Kassel, Germany (1)
- Université de Lausanne, Switzerland (6)
- Université de Montréal, Canada (3)
- University of Connecticut - USA (1)
- University of Michigan (8)
- University of Queensland eSpace - Australia (16)
- University of Washington (5)
- WestminsterResearch - UK (1)
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.