Advertisement

SOMERSET-P: a GIS-based/MCDA platform for strategic planning scenarios’ ranking and decision-making in conflictual socioecosystem

  • Jean-Francois GuayEmail author
  • Jean-Philippe Waaub
Original Article
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

This contribution proposes an application of the SOMERSET-P platform for strategic environmental assessment of regional planning scenarios related to the municipality of Ste-Claire (Quebec, Canada). The platform combines spatial analysis and multicriteria decision-aid support and is supplied with data from several stakeholder expectations and planning issues. Stakeholders are modeled according to the following five groups: “Owners” (civil administration representatives), Farmers, Foresters, Environmentalists, and Neo-rural dwellers. Each scenario was built according to a hierarchy of planning objectives. Scenarios were assessed in accordance with 12 decision criteria and related indicators of performance. The spatial translation and spatial analysis of the territorial impacts of the scenarios are performed within the ArcGIS geographic information system. These scenarios were integrated into multicriteria and multi-stakeholders analysis software implementing the PROMETHEE/GAIA methodology. Four elements were computed to support the stakeholder negotiations and decision analysis: scenario strengths and weaknesses, individual and multi-stakeholder scenario rankings, and visual analysis of conflicts and synergies between criteria, and between stakeholders. Results suggest that a potential compromise is located in-between the full economic growth and the ecological scenarios. Since regional planning processes are becoming increasingly complex with time due to the group polarization and the emergence of conflictual societal value schemes among stakeholders hierarchical and networked relations approaches involving multiple stakeholders like this one are fully justified in the future.

Keywords

Land-use planning Scenario modelling GIS Decision-making Multicriteria analysis 

Mathematics Subject Classification

90B50 

Notes

References

  1. Aenishaenslin C, Bélanger D, Fertel C, Hongoh V, Mareschal B Waaub JP (2019) Guide pratique de mise en place d’un processus décisionnel multicritère et multi-acteurs: étapes et outils. Cahier du GERAD G-2019-02, HEC Montréal, École Polytechnique, McGill, UQAM. Montréal. Janvier, p 29Google Scholar
  2. Albrechts L (2004) Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined. Environ Plan B Plan Des 31:743–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. AMPQ (2014) Caractérisation des marchés publics membres de l ‘AMPQ. Rapport final de l’Association des Marchés Publiques du Québec, Saint Rédempteur, QCGoogle Scholar
  4. Arciniegas Lopez GA, Janssen R, Omtzigt AQA (2011) Map-based multicriteria analysis to support interactive land use allocation. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 25(12):1931–1947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belton V, Stewart TJ (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernard P (1999) La Cohésion sociale: critique d’un quasi-concept. Lien social et Politiques–RIAC, 41:47–59Google Scholar
  7. Brans JP, Mareschal B (2002) PROMETHEE-GAIA: une méthodologie d’aide à la décision en présence de critères multiples. Bruxelles: Édition de l’Université de Bruxelles (collection “Statistique et Mathématiques appliquées”)Google Scholar
  8. Brans JP, Mareschal B (2005) Promethee methods. In: Figueira JR, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis. State of the art survey. Springer, ISBN 038723067X, New York, USA, pp 112–131Google Scholar
  9. CANADA (2015) Land cover and Land use. Natural Resources Canada, [Website]Google Scholar
  10. Checkland P, Scholes J (1990) Soft systems methodology in action. Wiley, New-York, p 318Google Scholar
  11. Côté G, Waaub J (2000) L’évaluation des impacts d’un projet routier: l’utilité de l’aide multicritère à la décision. Cahiers de géographie du Québec 44(121):43–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crossland MD, Perkins WC, Wynne BE (1995) Spatial decision support systems: an overview of technology and a test of efficacy. Decis Support Syst 14:219–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Densham PJ, Goodchild M (1989) Spatial decision support systems: a research agenda. Unknown J 707–716Google Scholar
  14. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Hannut Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fasli M (2003) Interrelations between the BDI primitives: towards heterogeneous agents. Cognit Syst Res 4:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Field BG, McGregor BD (2018) Population in forecasting techniques for urban and regional planning. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Friedmann J, Sorensen A (2019) City unbound: emerging mega-conurbations in Asia. In: International Planning Studies, vol 24, 2019—Issue 1: New Scales of Mega-conurbation in AsiaGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaigné C, Goffette-Nagot F (2003) Localisation rurale des activités industrielles. Que nous enseigne l’économie géographique? Rev Agric Environ Stud 87(2)Google Scholar
  19. Gangbazo G, Vallée P, Émond C, Roy J, Beaulieu R, Gagnon E (2006) Contrôle de la pollution diffuse d’origine agricole: quelques réflexions basées sur la modélisation de scénarios de pratiques agricoles pour atteindre le critère du phosphore pour la prévention de l’eutrophisation dans la rivière aux Brochets Québec, QuébecGoogle Scholar
  20. Gifford R (2011) The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am Psychol 66(4):290–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guay JF, Waaub JP (2015) Application of a territorial soft system approach for conceptual modelling of an agro-ecosystem. Environ Syst Decis 35(3):363–374.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-015-9536-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heath TR, Lane M (2019) Science-based scenario design: a proposed method to support political-strategic analysis. Santa Monica, CA. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2833.html
  23. ICRA (2013) Scénarios et Stratégies: concepts-clefs. Ressource pédagogique préparée par N. Sellamna pour l’ICRA (http://www.icra-edu.org). Richard Hawkins, ed. [Publication internet]. Adresse URL: http://www.icraedu.org/objects/francoleam/Scenstratcon.pdf, Page consultée le 15 janvier 2014
  24. Ishizaka A, Nemery P (2013) Multi-criteria decision analysis: methods and software. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jensen FS (1993) Landscape managers and politicians perception of the forest and landscape preferences of the population. For Landsc Res 1(1):79–93Google Scholar
  26. Joerin F (2008) Information and territorial decision support. Paper presented at the International Conference of Territorial Intelligence, Besançon, FranceGoogle Scholar
  27. Joerin F, Wauub J-P (2013) Éditorial: aide multicritère et décisions territoriales. Int J Geomat Spatial Anal 23(1):7–11Google Scholar
  28. Julien PA, Lamonde P, Latouche D (1975) La méthode des scenarios en prospective. L ‘Actualité Économique 51(2):253–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kahn H, Wiener A (1967) The year 2000. MacMillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Kangas A, Kangas J, Pykäläinen J (2001) Outranking methods as tools in strategic natural resources planning. Silva Fennica 35(2):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Keenan P (2003) Spatial decision support systems. In: Mora M, Forgionne GA, Gupta JN (eds) Decision making support system: achievement, trends and challenges for the new decade. Idea Group Publishing, London, pp 28–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lewis SM, Gross S, Visel A, Kelly M, Morrow W (2014) Fuzzy GIS-based multi-criteria evaluation for US Agave production as a bioenergy feedstock. GCB BioenergyGoogle Scholar
  33. Linkov I, Varghese A, Jamil S, Seager TP, Kiker G, Bridges T (2004) Multi-criteria decision analysis: a framework for structuring remedial decisions at contaminated sites. In: Comparative risk assessment and environmental decision making. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 15–54Google Scholar
  34. Malczewski J (1999) GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  35. Mareschal B (1988) Weight stability intervals in multicriteria decision aid. Eur J Oper Res 33(1):54–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mcharg I (1969) Design with nature. Natural History Press, Garden CityGoogle Scholar
  37. Meyer V (2008) La méthode des scénarios: un outil d’analyse et d’expertise des formes de communication dans les organisations. Études de communication [En ligne] mis en ligne le 01 décembre 2010, consulté le 25 juillet 2019Google Scholar
  38. Mosadeghi R, Warnken J, Tomlinson R, Mirfenderesk H (2015) Comparison of Fuzzy-AHP and AHP in a spatial multi-criteria decision making model for urban land-use planning. Comput Environ Urban SystGoogle Scholar
  39. MRN (2008) Données du 3e inventaire forestier [fichiers numériques.shp], 1:20,000, Direction des Inventaires forestiers, ministère des Ressources Naturelles du Québec. QuébecGoogle Scholar
  40. Nardo M, Saisana M, Saltelli A, Tarantola S, Hoffman A, Giovannini E (2008) Handbook on constructing composite indicators and user guideGoogle Scholar
  41. Németh B, Molnár A, Bozóki S, Wijaya K, Inotai A, Campbell JD, Kaló Z (2019) Comparison of weighting methods used in multicriteria decision analysis frameworks in healthcare with focus on low-and middle-income countries. J Compar Effect Res 8(4):195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ninacs WA (2008) Autonomisation et intervention: Développement de la capacité d ‘agir et de solidarité. Presse de l’Université Laval, Québec, p 140Google Scholar
  43. Nyeko M (2012) GIS and multi-criteria decision analysis for land use resource planning. J Geogr Inf Syst 4(4):341–348Google Scholar
  44. Parrott L (2011) Hybrid modelling of complex ecological systems for decision support: recent successes and future perspectives. Ecol Inf 6:44–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Prévil C, Saint-Onge B, Waaub JP (2004) Aide au processus décisionnel pour la gestion par bassin versant au Québec: Étude de cas et principaux enjeux. Cahiers de Géographie du Québec 48(134):209–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Proulx MU (2008) Quarante ans de planification territoriale au Québec. In: Gauthier M, Gariépy M, Trépanier MO (ed) Renouveler l’aménagement et 1’urbanisme. Planification territoriale, débat public et développement durable. P.U.M. Montréal, pp 23–54Google Scholar
  47. Quebec (2001) Les orientations du gouvernement en matière d’aménagement—La protection du territoire et des activités agricoles. Document complémentaire. Ministère des Affaires municipales et de la Métropole, Direction de l’aménagement et du développement localGoogle Scholar
  48. Quebec (2004) Commission d’étude sur la gestion de la forêt publique québécoise, Rapport. http://www.commission-foret.qc.ca/rapportfinal.htm
  49. Quebec (2007a) Agriculture and agrifood: choosing the future. Consultation report, Commission sur l’Avenir de l’Agriculture et l’Agroalimentaires du Québec, Gouvernement du Québec. Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’AlimentationGoogle Scholar
  50. Quebec (2008a) Agriculture et Agroalimentaire: Assurer et bâtir l’avenir. Rapport final de la Commission sur l’Avenir de l’Agriculture et l’Agroalimentaires du Québec, Gouvernement du Québec. Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’AlimentationGoogle Scholar
  51. Québec (2013) Statistiques et publications: coup d’œil sur les régions et les MRC. La Chaudière-Appalaches ainsi que ces municipalités régionales de comté. Institut de la statistique du Québec (Internet publication) Google Scholar
  52. Rinner C (2018) Spatial decision support. In: Wilson JP (ed) The geographic information science and technology body of knowledge (2nd Quarter 2018 Edition). Topic GS-25. https://gistbok.ucgis.org/bok-topics/spatial-decision-support(Publication internet)
  53. RQGE (2011) Perspectives critiques de l’aménagement durable des forêts du Québec. Mémoire présenté au Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune du Québec lors de la consultation publique sur l’aménagement des forêtsGoogle Scholar
  54. Saltelli A, Ratto M, Andres T, Campolongo F, Cariboni J, Gatelli D, Salsana M, Tarantola S (2008) Global sensitivity analysis: the primer. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  55. Samoura K (2011) Contributions méthodologiques à l’évaluation environnementale stratégique de l’exploitation du potentiel hydroélectrique des bassins côtiers en milieu tropical: cas du Konkouré, en Guinée. Thèse. Montréal (Québec, Canada), Université du Québec à Montréal, Doctorat en Sciences de l’environnementGoogle Scholar
  56. Schmitt RC (1952) Demography and city planning. Social ForcesGoogle Scholar
  57. Simâo A, Densham PJ, Hakla YM (2009) Web-based GIS for collaborative planning and public participation: an application to the strategy planning of wind farrn sites. J Environ Manag 90:2027–2040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Statistique Canada (2016) Recensement de la population, Éléments hydrographiques tirés de la Base nationale de données géographiques (Publication internet) Google Scholar
  59. Sugarman R, Degroote J (2010) Spatial decision support systems: principles and practicesGoogle Scholar
  60. Talukder BW, Hipel K (2018) The PROMETHEE framework for comparing the sustainability of agricultural systems. Resources 7:74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tomlison R (1968) A geographical information system for regional planning, Gouvernement du Canada, Ottawa [Publication internet]. https://gisandscience.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/1-a-gis-for-regional-planning_ed.pdf. Page consultée le 23 juin 2019
  62. Tzeng GH, Chen TY, Wang JC (1998) A weight-assessing method with habitual domains. Eur J Oper Res 110:342–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9317 (2013) ULB, Universite Libre de BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  64. Vazquez Rascon M, Waaub JP, Ilinca A (2013) Territorial intelligence modelling for energy development (TIMED)—a case study for the Baie-des-Sables (Canada) wind farm. Int J Multicrit Decis Making 3(2–3):236–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vinodh S, Girubbha JR (2012) PROMETHEE based sustainable concept selection. Appl Math Model 36:5301–5308 (Vol 30, No. 3, pp 300–304) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Waaub JP, Barrange F, Côté G, Schaillée N, Shardonofsky S (2005) Projet pilote de réalisation d’une évaluation environnementale stratégique territoriale par les Atikamekw. Rapport final. Tome 1—Rapport méthodologique. Rapport du GEIGER au Conseil de la Nation Atikamekw, MontréalGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universite du Quebec a MontrealMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations