Nine factors were initially suggested by spruce beetle (Dendroctonusrufipennis (Kby.)) experts in Alaska as potentially important in determining the risk of a spruce beetle outbreak in stands. Factors suggested were stand hazard, size and trend of spruce beetle population in neighboring stands, degree–days in the past June, total rainfall in the past summer, and availability of four types of breeding material. Risk factors were organized into a hierarchical model of spruce beetle risk, and the relative importance of factors for determining risk was analyzed in three stages with the analytic hierarchy process. This process derives subjective estimates of factor importance values through a process of pair-wise comparisons. Analysis in stage 1 involved independent responses of two experts from Alaska. In stage 2, three experts from Alaska provided responses as a group. In stage 3, five experts, representing Alaska, British Columbia, and the Rocky Mountain region, provided responses as a group. In the final stage of analysis, stand hazard and windthrown trees were identified as the two most important factors determining risk of a spruce beetle outbreak. Hazard and windthrow were considered about equally important and together accounted for almost two-thirds of the total allocation of importance values among risk factors. The analytic hierarchy process is an effective method for eliciting expert knowledge and can be a useful tool for development of expert systems in natural resource management, where even expert knowledge is often incomplete.

Land managers in the western US are beginning to understand that early 20th century forests displayed complex patterns of composition and structure at several different spatial scales, that there was interplay between patterns and processes within and across scales, and that these conditions have been radically altered by management. Further, they know that restoring integrity (see Definition of Terms) of these conditions has broad implications for the future sustainability (see Definition of Terms) of native species, ecosystem services, and ecological processes. Many are looking for methods to restore (see Definition of Terms) more natural landscape patterns of habitats and more naturally functioning disturbance regimes; all in the context of a warming climate. Attention is turning to evaluating whole landscapes at local and regional scales, deciphering recent changes in trajectories, and formulating landscape prescriptions that can restore ecological functionality and improve landscape resilience (see Definition of Terms). The business of landscape evaluation and developing landscape prescriptions is inherently complex, but with the advent of decision support systems, software applications are now available to conduct and document these evaluations. Here, we review several published landscape evaluation and planning applications designed with the Ecosystem Management Decision Support (EMDS) software, and present an evaluation we developed in support of a landscape restoration project. We discuss the goals and design of the project, its methods and utilities, what worked well, what could be improved and related research opportunities. For readability and compactness, fine and broad-scale landscape evaluations that could be a part of multi-scale restoration planning, are not further developed here.

The paper compares two multi-criteria methods, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and the best–worst method (BWM), in assessing criteria related to the quality of urban parks. The criteria assessed were accessibility, location, biodiversity preservation, park equipment, water elements, terrain configuration, cultural and historical value, and the presence of small architectural objects. Five decision-makers participated in the research, having expertise in urban greenery, urban forestry, environmental protection, landscape design, and cultural and historical heritage. The results of decision-makers’ evaluations were compared at individual and group levels after the application of three aggregation procedures: CRITIC, ENTROPY, and WGGM (weighted geometric mean method). Similarities in results, i.e., priorities of analyzed criteria after applying the two different decision support methods, indicated high consistency between experts during the cognitive evaluation processes. All applied aggregation schemes performed well and may be considered trustworthy in identifying the group solution. One of the conclusions is that either the AHP or the BWM can be efficiently used in evaluations of criteria for assessing the quality of urban parks if the members of a group are consistent, regardless of whether the consensus process is properly carried out before the decision-making process.