Title: Anne-Marie Hagman, Mika Marttunen
1Multicriteria decision analysis in lake
restoration projects
- Anne-Marie Hagman, Mika Marttunen Ilkka
Sammalkorpi
2Backround
- C. 1500 lakes need restoration. Hundreds of
initiatives of restoration projects to the
Regional Environment Centers - The estimated costs exceed the available
government funding - Need for a systematic and transparent method to
prioritize these initiatives and to identify the
lakes in which restoration need and opportunities
for the successful outcome are highest. - A multi-criteria decision analysis approach is
currently being developed in the Finnish
Environment Institute for the systematic
comparison of the lakes in the municipality of
Mäntsälä and in the Uusimaa region in southern
Finland.
3Multicriteria method for the priorization
- 1. Minimum criteria (example activity, use of
lake, state of lake, nature protection status) - 2. Quality of the background information of the
lake/project (water quality, foodweb, loading,
activity) - 3. Feasibility estimate division into 3
categories urgent important useful) based
on use and state of the lake and overall
feasibility of the project - 4. Final ranking by the Web-Hipre model
4Web-hipre-model
- 1. Choosing the objectives and attributes for the
comparison. Two main value trees have been
developed for that - - State of the lake
- - Recreational and nature values of the lake
- 2. Assessing the performance of each lake in
respect to each attribute - 3. Defining the relative importance of the
attributes - 4. Calculating priorities for each lake by using
Web-HIPRE model - 5. Analysing the results and drawing diagrams and
other figures
5Criteria of the model (state of lake)
- Water quality Total phosphorus,Chlorophyll-
a, occurence of oxygen depletion, elevated
pH values, Secchi depth - Fish stock -chl-a/TP ratio (indirect indication
of high planktivore density)-CPUE and cyprinid
of Nordic multimesh gillnets - Algal blooms frequency and intensity of blooms
reported from the beaches by health authorities
or citizens
6Criteria of the model (use of lake)
- Current use beaches, cottages, tourism,
- camp areas, nature trails
- Potential use attainment (lakes distance to the
nearest town in this case)
7The Uusimaa-region
- Totally 86 lakes compared
- 58 lakes pass through to the second phase
- 25 lakes have enough information -gt phase 3
- 8 lakes conclude to urgent-group -gt
Prioritization with the Web-HIPRE-model
8(No Transcript)
9(No Transcript)
10Classification of the restoration need
- Two priority values for each lake-Recreational
and nature valuesuse-Ecological status of each
lakestate - Are calculated with the Web-HIPRE-model
- Plotting these priorities helps to analyse the
differences in the status and the use of the lakes
11The priority values for the ecological status of
Uusimaa lakes. The higher the priority value the
poorer is the condition.
12The priority values for the recreational use of
Uusimaa lakes. The higher the value, the higher
is the use of lake.
13The result of the analyses
High need for restoration
Advises to local volunteer lake managers
No need for restoration
Regular monitoring
14Conclusions
- All eight lakes which restoration needs were
highest have already restoration projects in the
Uusimaa region. And all projects have been
funded. - Background information of lakes can be saved and
easily updated and new priority values can be
calculated. - The method is flexible and characteristics of
different areas and different background
information can be taken into account.