The use of analytic hierarchy process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 13-26

  Ananda, Jayanath ^a   Herath, Gamini ^a  

^a LA TROBE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Analytic Hierarchy Process; Australia; Public participation; Regional forest agreement; Stakeholder preferences

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037233063     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00043-6     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Bouma, J., Brouwer, R., van Ek, R., 2000. The use of integrated assessment methods in Dutch water management: a comparison of cost-benefit and multi-criteria analysis. Third International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, Vienna, May 3-6, 2000.
2. Buchy, M., Hoverman, S., Averill, C., 1999. Understanding public participation in forest planning in Australia: how can we learn from each other? ANU Forestry Occasional Paper 99.2, Australian National University, Canberra, http://www.anu.edu.au/Forestry/publications/staff.
3. Buchy, M., Hoverman, S., 2000. Understanding public participation: a review. Forest Policy and Economics 1, 15-25.
4. Carbone, F., De Montis, A., De Toro, P, Stagl, S., 2000. MCDA methods comparison: environmental policy evaluation applied to a case study in Italy. Third International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, Vienna, Austria, May 3-6, 2000.
5. Coakes, S., 1998. Valuing the social dimension. Social assessment in the regional forest agreement process. Australian Journal of Environmental Economics 5, 47-53.
6. Coakes, S., Fenton, M., 1999. The application of social assessment in the Australian Regional Forest Agreement process. International Forestry Review 1, 11-16.
7. Commonwealth of Australia, 1998. Social Assessment: North East Victoria Comprehensive Regional Assessment. Joint Commonwealth and Victorian Regional Forest Agreement Steering Committee: Canberra.
8. Commonwealth of Australia, 1999. North East Victoria Comprehensive Regional Assessment. Joint Commonwealth and Victorian Regional Forest Agreement Steering Committee: Canberra.
9. Crosby, N., 1996. Creating an authentic voice of the people. Deliberation on Democratic Theory and Practice, Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
10. Dargavel, J., 1995. Fashioning Australia's Forests. Oxford University Press Australia, Melbourne, pp. 312.
11. Dargavel, J., 1998. Politics, policy and processes in the forests. Australian Journal of Environmental Management 5, 25-30.
12. Dargavel, J., Proctor, W., Kanowski, P., 2000. Conflict and agreement in Australian forests. In: Tacconi, L. (Ed.), Biodiversity and Ecological Economics: Participation, Values and Resource Management. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London,.
13. De Marchi, B., Funtowicz, S., Gough, C., Guimaraes Pereira, A., Rota, E., 1998. The ULYSSES Voyage: The ULYSSES Project at the JRC. Report EUR 17760EN, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, http://alba.jrc.it/ulysses.html.
14. Eastman, R.J., Jiang, H., Toledana, J., 1998. Multi-criteria and multi-objective decision making for land allocation using GIS. In: Beinat, E., Nijkamp, P. (Eds.), Multicriteria Analysis for Land-Use Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,.
15. Fischhoff, B., Furby, L., 1988. Measuring values: a conceptual framework for interpreting transactions with special reference to contingent valuation of visibility. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1, 147-184.
16. Gregory, R., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., 1993. Valuing environmental resources: a constructive approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7, 177-197.
17. Grimble, R., Chan, M.K., 1995. Stakeholder analysis for natural resource management in developing countries: some practical guidelines for making management more participatory and effective. Natural Resources Forum 19, 113-124.
18. Grimble, R., Wellard, K., 1997. Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agricultural Systems 55, 173-193.
19. Harrison, S.R., Qureshi, M.E., 2000. Choice of stakeholder groups and members in multi-criteria decision models. Natural Resources Forum 24, 11-19.
20. Kangas, J., 1993. A multi-attribute preference model for evaluating the reforestation chain alternatives of a forest stand. Forest Ecology and Management 59, 271-288.
21. Kangas, J., 1994a. An approach to public participation in strategic forest management planning. Forest Ecology and Management 70, 75-88.
22. Kangas, J., 1994b. Incorporating risk attitude into comparison of reforestation alternatives. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 9, 297-304.
23. Kanowski, P.J., 1997. Regional forest agreements and future forest management. Proceedings of Outlook 97 Conference. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics: Canberra, pp. 225-235.
24. Keeney, R.L., 1992. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision analysis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
25. Keeney, R.L., Winterfeldt, D.V., Eppel, T., 1990. Eliciting public values for complex policy decisions. Management Science 36, 1011-1030.
26. Kirkpatrick, J.B., 1998. Nature conservation and the regional forest agreement process. Australian Journal of Environmental Management 5, 31-37.
27. Kurttila, M., Pesonen, M., Kangas, J., Kajanus, M., 2000. Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis - a hybrid method and its applications to a forest certification case. Forest Policy and Economics 1, 41-52.
28. Lane, M.B., 1999. Regional Forestry Agreements: resolving resource conflicts or managing resource politics. Australian Geographical Studies 37, 142.
29. McDaniels, T.L., 1996. A multiattribute index for environmental impacts of electric utilities. Journal of Environmental Management 46, 57-66.
30. McDaniels, T.L., Roessler, C., 1998. Multiattribute elicitation of wilderness preservation benefits: a constructive approach. Ecological Economics 27, 299-312.
31. Mercer, D., 2000. A question of balance. Natural Resource Conflict Issues in Australia. third ed. The Federation Press, Sydney.
32. Munda, G., 2000. Conceptualising and responding to complexity. In: Spash, C., Carter, C. (Eds.), Environmental Valuation in Europe. Cambridge Research for the Environment, Cambridge, Policy research brief, No. 2.
33. Omann, I., 2000. How can multi-criteria decision analysis contribute to environmental policy making? a case study on macro-sustainability in Germany. Third International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, Vienna, Austria, May 3-6, 2000.
34. O'Neill, J., Spash, C.L., 2000. Conceptions of value in environmental decision-making. In: Spash, C., Carter, C. (Eds.), Environmental Valuation in Europe. Cambridge Research for the Environment, Cambridge, Policy research brief No. 4.
35. Race, D., Buchy, M., 1999. A role for community participation in Australian forest management. Rural Society 9, 405-419.
36. Saaty, T.L., 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15, 234-281.
37. Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. third ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
38. Saaty, T.L., 1982. Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World. third ed. Lifetime Learning Publications, Belmont.
39. Varis, O., 1989. The analysis of preferences in complex environmental judgements - a focus on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Journal of Environmental Management 28, 283-294.
40. Yarrow, D., 1997. Ownership and control of natural resources and their impact on native title. In: Horrigan, B., Young, S. (Eds.), Commercial Implications of Native Title. Federation Press in association with the Centre for the Commercial and Property Law, Queensland University of Technology, Sydney, pp. 126-156.