MCDM methods in strategic planning of forestry on state-owned lands in finland: Applications and experiences

Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Volumn 10, Issue 5, 2001, Pages 257-271

  Kangas, Jyrki ^a   Kangas, Annika ^a   Leskinen, Pekka ^a   Pykäläinen, Jouni ^b  

^a FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

Author keywords

Forest management; Forestry decision support; Multi attribute value function; Outranking; Participatory planning; Statistical analysis

Indexed keywords

EID: 0011882876     PISSN: 10579214     EISSN: 10991360     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/mcda.306     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Alho, JM., Kangas, J., Kolehmainen, O., 1996. Uncertainty in expert predictions of the ecological consequences of forest plans. Applied Statistics 45: 1-14.
2. Alho, JM., Kangas, J., 1997. Analyzing uncertainties in experts’ opinions of forest plan performance. Forest Science 43: 521-528.
3. Alho, JM., Kolehmainen, O., Leskinen, P., 2001. Regression methods for pairwise comparisons data. In The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resources and Environmental Decision Making, Managing Forest Ecosystems. Schmoldt D, Kangas J, Mendoza GM, Pesonen M. (eds), Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht; 235-251.
4. *A. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6: 115-130.
5. Belton, V., Stewart, TJ., 2001. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.
6. Bliss, JC., Nepal, SK., Brooks Jr RT, Larsen, MD., 1997. In the mainstream: environmental attitudes of mid-south forest owners. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 21: 37-43.
7. Bourke, L., Luloff, AE., 1994. Attitudes toward the management of nonindustrial private forest land. Society and Natural Resources 7: 445-457.
8. Boyssou, D., 1992. Ranking methods based on valued preference relations: a characterization of the net flow method. European Journal of Operational Research 60: 61-67.
9. Boyssou, D., Perny, P., 1992. Ranking methods for valued preference relations: a characterization of a method based on leaving and entering flows. European Journal of Operational Research 61: 186-194.
10. Brans, JP., Vincke, Ph., Mareschal, B., 1986. How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research 24: 228-238.
11. Budescu, DV., Zwick, R., Rapoport, A., 1986. A comparison of the eigenvalue method and the geometric mean procedure for ratio scaling. Applied Psychological Measurement 10: 69-78.
12. Crawford, G., Williams, C., 1985. A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 29: 387-405.
13. Corner, J., 1997. Teaching decision analysis. Interfaces 27: 131-139.
14. Corner, J., Buchanan, J., 1997. Capturing decision maker preference: experimental comparison of decision analysis and MCDM techniques. European Journal of Operational Research 98: 85-97.
15. d’Avignon, GR., Vincke, Ph., 1988. An outranking method under uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research 36: 311-321.
16. De Jong, P., 1984. A statistical approach to Saaty’s scaling method for priorities. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 28: 467-478.
17. Genest, C., Rivest, L-P., 1994. A statistical look at Saaty’s method of estimating pairwise preferences expressed on a ratio scale. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 38: 477-496.
18. Gershon, ME., Duckstein, L., 1983. Multiobjective approaches to river basin planning. Journal of Water Resource Planning 109: 13-28.
19. Goicoechea, A., Stakhiv, EZ., Li, F., 1992. Experimental evaluation of multiple criteria decision models for application to water resources planning. Water Resources Bulletin 28: 89-102.
20. Goodwin, P., Wright, G., 2001. Enhancing strategy evaluation in scenario planning: a role for decision analysis. Journal of Management Studies 38: 1-16.
21. Heinonen, P., 1997. Balancing forest uses at regional level: the case of State forests in western Finland. EFI Proceedings 14: 203-211.
22. Hill, T., Westbrook, R., 1997. SWOT analysis: It’s time for a product recall. Long Range Planning 30: 46-52.
23. Hokkanen, J., Salminen, P., 1997a. Choosing a solid waste management system using multicriteria decision analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 98: 19-36.
24. Hokkanen, J., Salminen, P., 1997b. Locating a waste treatment facility by multicriteria analysis. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6: 175-184.
25. Hokkanen, J., Salminen, P., 1997c. ELECTRE III and IV decision aids in an environmental problem. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6: 215-226.
26. Hämäläinen, R., Lauri, H., 1995.Hipre 3+ Users Guide. Helsinki University of Technology, Systems Analysis Laboratory.
27. Kajanus, M., Ahola, J., Kurttila, M., Pesonen, M., 2001. Application of Even Swaps for strategy selection in a rural enterprise. Management Decision, to appear.
28. Kangas, A., Kangas, J., 1999. Optimization bias in forest management planning solutions due to errors in forest variables. Silva Fennica 33: 303-315.
29. Kangas, A., Kangas, J., Pykäläinen, J., 2001. Outranking methods as tools in strategic natural resources planning. Silva Fennica 35: 215-227.
30. Kangas, J., 1994. An approach to public participation in strategic forest management planning. Forest Ecology and Management 70: 75-88.
31. Kangas, J., 1999. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP): standard version, forestry applications and advances. In Multiple Use of Forests and Other Natural Resources, Forestry Sciences. Helles F, Holten-Andersen P, Wichmann L (eds), vol. 61. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht; 96-105.
32. Kangas, J., Alho, JM., Kolehmainen, O., Mononen, A., 1998. Analyzing consistency of experts’ judgments - Case of assessing forest biodiversity. Forest Science 44: 610-617.
33. Kangas, J., Hytönen, L., Loikkanen, T., Integrating the AHP and HERO into the Process of Participatory Natural Resources Planning. In The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resources and Environmental Decision Making, Managing Forest Ecosystems. Schmoldt D, Kangas J, Mendoza GM, Pesonen M (eds), vol. 3. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht; 131-148.
34. Kangas, J., Loikkanen, T., Pukkala, T., Pykäläinen, J., 1996. A participatory approach to tactical forest planning. Acta Forestalia Fennica 251: 4.
35. Kangas, J., Niemeläinen, P., 1996. Opinion of forest owners and the public on forests and their use in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 11: 269-280.
36. Kangas J, Pukkala, T., & Kangas, AS., 2001b. HERO: Heuristic optimisation for multi-criteria forestry decision analysis. In The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resources and Environmental Decision Making, Managing Forest Ecosystems, Schmoldt D, Kangas J, Mendoza GM, Pesonen M (eds), vol. 3. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht; 51-65.
37. Kangas, J., Store, R., Leskinen, P., Mehtätalo, L., 2000. Improving the quality of landscape ecological forest planning by utilising advanced decision-support tools. Forest Ecology and Management 132: 157-171.
38. Karni, R., Sanchez, P., Tummala, V., 1990. A comparative study of multiattribute decision making methodologies. Theory and Decision 29: 203-222.
39. Karppinen, H., 1998. Values and objectives of non-industrial private forest owners in Finland. Silva Fennica 32: 43-59.
40. Korhonen K-M, Laamanen R, Savonmäki S. (eds). 1998. Environmental Guidelines to Practical Forest Management. Forest and Park Service, Oy Edita Ab: Helsinki.
41. Kreutzwiser, RD., Wright, CS., 1990. Factors influencing integrated forest management on private industrial forest land. Journal of Environmental Management 30: 31-46.
42. Kurttila, M., Pesonen, M., Kangas, J., Kajanus, M., 2000. Utilizing AHP in SWOT analysis: a hybrid method and its application. Forest Policy and Economics 1: 41-52.
43. Kuuluvainen, J., Karppinen, H., Ovaskainen, V., 1996. Landowner objectives and nonindustrial private timber supply. Forest Science 42: 300-309.
44. Laukkanen, S., Kangas, A., Kangas, J., 2001. Applying voting theory in natural resource management: a case of multiple-criteria group decision support. Journal of Environmental Management, to appear.
45. Leskinen, P., 2000. Measurement scales and scale independence in the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 9: 163-174.
46. Leskinen, P., Kangas, J., 1998. Analysing uncertainties of interval judgment data in multiple-criteria evaluation of forest plans. Silva Fennica 32: 363-372.
47. Loikkanen T, Simojoki T, Wallenius P. (eds). 1999. Participatory Approach to Natural Resource Management. Forest and Park Service, Suomen Graafiset Palvelut Oy LTD: Kuopio.
48. Loikkanen, T., Wallenius, P., 1997. Experiences from the regional natural resource planning process in Kainuu. EFI Proceedings 14: 197-202.
49. Lootsma, FA., 1990. The French and American school in multicriteria decision analysis. Recherche Operationelle 24: 263-285.
50. Lootsma, FA., 1993. Scale sensitivity in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 2: 87-110.
51. Ma, D., Zheng, X., 1991. 9/9-9/1 Scale Method of AHP. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on the AHP, vol. 1. University of Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh, PA; 197-202.
52. Mendoza, GA., 2000. Multiple criteria decision making approaches to assessing forest sustainability using criteria and indicators: a case study. Forest Ecology and Management 131: 107-126.
53. Miettinen, K., Salminen, P., 1999. Decision-aid for discrete multiple criteria decision making problems with imprecise data. European Journal of Operational Research 119: 50-60.
54. Moreno-Jimenez, JM., Vargas, LG., 1993. A probabilistic study of preference structures in the analytic hierarchy process with interval judgments. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 17(4/5): 73-82.
55. Oksanen-Peltola, L., 1999. Metsäsuunnittelun lähtökohta. In Metsäsuunnittelun tietohuolto, Heikinheimo M (ed.). Finnish Forest Research Institute, Research Notes 751.
56. Ozernoy, VM., 1992. Choosing the ‘best’ multiple criteria decision-making method. INFOR 30: 159-171.
57. Pesonen, M., Ahola, J., Kurttila, M., Kajanus, M., Kangas, J., 2001a. Applying A’WOT to the evaluation of investment strategies of the forest industries: a case study of a Finnish forest-industry company in North America. In The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resources and Environmental Decision Making, Managing Forest Ecosystems. Schmoldt D, Kangas J, Mendoza GM, Pesonen M. (eds), vol. 3. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordresht; 187-198.
58. Pesonen, M., Kurttila, M., Kangas, J., Kajanus, M., Heinonen, P., 2001b. Assessing the priorities among resource management strategies at the Finnish forest and park service. Forest Science 45: 534-541.
59. Pirlot, M., 1995. A characterization of ‘Min’ as a procedure for exploiting valued preference relations and related results. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 4: 37-56.
60. Pukkala, T., Kangas, J., 1993. A heuristic optimization method for forest planning and decision-making. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 8: 560-570.
61. Pykäläinen, J., 2001. Interactive use of multi-criteria decision analysis in forest planning. D.Sc. Thesis. University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forestry.
62. Pykäläinen, J., Kangas, J., Loikkanen, T., 1999. Interactive decision analysis in participatory strategic forest planning: experiences from State owned boreal forests. Journal of Forest Economics 5: 341-364.
63. Roy, B., 1968. Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples (la méthode ELECTRE). Revue Française d’Informatique et de Reserche Opérationelle 8: 57-75.
64. Roy, B., 1991. The outranking approach and the foundations of Electre methods. Theory and Decision 31: 49-73.
65. Saaty, TL., 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15: 234-281.
66. Saaty, TL., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill: New York.
67. Salminen, P., Hokkanen, J., Lahdelma, R., 1998. Comparing multicriteria methods in the context of environmental problems. European Journal of Operational Research 104: 485-496.
68. Salo, AA., Hämäläinen, RP., 1992. Preference assessment by imprescise ratio statements. Operations Research 40: 1053-1061.
69. Salo, AA., Hämäläinen, RP., 1997. On the measurement of preferences in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6: 309-319.
70. Schmoldt D, Kangas J, Mendoza GA, Pesonen M. (eds). 2001. The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resource and Environmental Decision Making. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
71. Tahvanainen, L., Tyrväinen, L., Ihalainen, M., Vuorela, N., Kolehmainen, O., 2001. Forest management and public perceptions - visual versus verbal information. Landscape and Urban Planning 53: 53-70.
72. Tarp, P., Helles, F., 1995. Multi-criteria decision-making in forest management planning. Journal of Forest Economics 1: 273-306.
73. Vincke, Ph., 1992.Multi-Criteria Decision Aid. Wiley: New York.
74. Voogd, H., 1983.Multicriteria Evaluation for Urban and Regional Planning. Pion: London.
75. Wheelen, TL., Hunger, JD., 1995. Strategic Management and Business Policy. (5th edn). Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.
76. Wright, G., Goodwin, P., 1999. Future-focused thinking: combining scenario planning with decision analysis. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 8: 311-321.
77. Yu, WYu W., 1992. Aide multicritère à la décision dans le cadre de la problématique du tri: méthodes et applications. Ph.D. Thesis, LAMSADE, Université Paris-Dauphine, Paris.
78. Zanakis, SH., Solomon, A., Wishart, N., Dublish, S., 1998. Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods. European Journal of Operational Research 107: 507-529.