- -

Comparative analysis between AHP and ANP in prioritization of ecosystem services - A case study in a rice field area raised in the Guadalquivir marshes (Spain)

RiuNet: Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

Compartir/Enviar a

Citas

Estadísticas

  • Estadisticas de Uso

Comparative analysis between AHP and ANP in prioritization of ecosystem services - A case study in a rice field area raised in the Guadalquivir marshes (Spain)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Ficheros en el ítem

dc.contributor.author Jorge-García, David es_ES
dc.contributor.author Estruch-Guitart, Vicente es_ES
dc.date.accessioned 2023-09-21T18:06:30Z
dc.date.available 2023-09-21T18:06:30Z
dc.date.issued 2022-09 es_ES
dc.identifier.issn 1574-9541 es_ES
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10251/196936
dc.description.abstract [EN] Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Analytic Network Process (ANP) are helpful multi-criteria methods used by the decision-makers to prioritize the ecosystem services provided to humankind by a natural area. Despite being the most common in this field, as it is the easiest and quickest method, AHP simplifies reality by distributing criteria as a hierarchy. As many ecosystem services are firmly connected, this simplification can alter the results owing to the inherent subjectivity of the decision-makers¿ judgments when completing the required pairwise comparisons. In contrast, ANP considers the relationships among criteria, drawing a complex network that can help in reducing subjectivity and uncertainty. This study aims to compare how both the methods deal with these possible biases. This study prioritizes the ecosystem services provided by a farming area in an internationally recognized wetland with various interconnected services. The case study was conducted in a rice field area raised in the Guadalquivir marshes located within the Doñana Biosphere Reserve in Spain. After applying both methodologies, the results conclude that AHP considerably overestimates the most abstract services. Generally, decision-makers overvalue cultural services as they are socially more visible than others, and in AHP, they are not compared directly with other elements. Additionally, when a problem impacts the production and many people are affected, AHP also magnifies its importance because it is in the limelight. Therefore, ANP is an efficient method when a study requires higher accuracy and coexists with intangible assets despite the benefits and drawbacks of each multi-criteria method. es_ES
dc.description.sponsorship Funding for open access charge: CRUE-Universitat Politècnica de València. We would like to thank all the farmers, technicians, and organizations that have participated as experts and the local government of Isla Mayor and its mayor for facilitating us everything we needed during our stay in the rice field area. es_ES
dc.language Inglés es_ES
dc.publisher Elsevier es_ES
dc.relation.ispartof Ecological Informatics es_ES
dc.rights Reconocimiento - No comercial - Sin obra derivada (by-nc-nd) es_ES
dc.subject Ecosystem services es_ES
dc.subject Multi-criteria Decision-making es_ES
dc.subject AHP es_ES
dc.subject ANP es_ES
dc.subject Economic valuation es_ES
dc.subject Environmental policy es_ES
dc.subject.classification ECONOMIA, SOCIOLOGIA Y POLITICA AGRARIA es_ES
dc.title Comparative analysis between AHP and ANP in prioritization of ecosystem services - A case study in a rice field area raised in the Guadalquivir marshes (Spain) es_ES
dc.type Artículo es_ES
dc.identifier.doi 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2022.101739 es_ES
dc.rights.accessRights Abierto es_ES
dc.contributor.affiliation Universitat Politècnica de València. Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería Agronómica y del Medio Natural - Escola Tècnica Superior d'Enginyeria Agronòmica i del Medi Natural es_ES
dc.description.bibliographicCitation Jorge-García, D.; Estruch-Guitart, V. (2022). Comparative analysis between AHP and ANP in prioritization of ecosystem services - A case study in a rice field area raised in the Guadalquivir marshes (Spain). Ecological Informatics. 70:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2022.101739 es_ES
dc.description.accrualMethod S es_ES
dc.relation.publisherversion https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2022.101739 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpinicio 1 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpfin 11 es_ES
dc.type.version info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion es_ES
dc.description.volume 70 es_ES
dc.relation.pasarela S\468996 es_ES
dc.contributor.funder Universitat Politècnica de València es_ES
dc.subject.ods 02.- Poner fin al hambre, conseguir la seguridad alimentaria y una mejor nutrición, y promover la agricultura sostenible es_ES
dc.subject.ods 03.- Garantizar una vida saludable y promover el bienestar para todos y todas en todas las edades es_ES
dc.subject.ods 06.- Garantizar la disponibilidad y la gestión sostenible del agua y el saneamiento para todos es_ES
dc.subject.ods 08.- Fomentar el crecimiento económico sostenido, inclusivo y sostenible, el empleo pleno y productivo, y el trabajo decente para todos es_ES
dc.subject.ods 11.- Conseguir que las ciudades y los asentamientos humanos sean inclusivos, seguros, resilientes y sostenibles es_ES
dc.subject.ods 13.- Tomar medidas urgentes para combatir el cambio climático y sus efectos es_ES
dc.subject.ods 15.- Proteger, restaurar y promover la utilización sostenible de los ecosistemas terrestres, gestionar de manera sostenible los bosques, combatir la desertificación y detener y revertir la degradación de la tierra, y frenar la pérdida de diversidad biológica es_ES
dc.subject.ods 17.- Fortalecer los medios de ejecución y reavivar la alianza mundial para el desarrollo sostenible es_ES


Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem