{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02042483660130719, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.805555555555555, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Spatial Multi-Criteria Analysis in Environmental Assessment: A Review and Reflection on Benefits and Limitations

Anticipating and avoiding adverse environmental effects resulting from land-use changes and other anthropogenic interventions is the key objective of environmental assessment (EA). EA requires consideration of multiple environmental criteria to establish the receiving environment’s sensitivity and capacity to absorb change. With the increasing availability of and accessibility to spatial data, the adoption of spatial multi-criteria analysis, also known as GIS–MCA, has become a prominent technique to support EA. Using two diverging case studies, this paper reflects upon the advantages and disadvantages of applying GIS–MCA in EA reported in literature. While the significant contribution of this approach to increasing objectivity, transparency and accountability is corroborated, it is recognised that there is no one-fits-all solution. The widespread application of GIS–MCA calls for further research on the effects that methodological assumptions and data limitations may have at various planning hierarchies and decisions, and how these can be addressed to optimise the value of this technique in EA.