Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis in participatory forest planning: Experience from a case study in northern Sweden

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 12, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 562-574

  Nordström, Eva Maria ^a   Eriksson, Ljusk Ola ^a   Öhman, Karin ^a  

^a SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Analytic Hierarchy Process; Decision support; Forest management planning; Public participation; Stakeholders

Indexed keywords

ARITHMETIC MEAN; COMPLEX FORESTS; CONSISTENCY RATIO; DECISION PROBLEMS; DECISION SUPPORT; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FOREST PLANNING; FOREST-MANAGEMENT PLANNING; INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCE; INTEGRATED APPROACH; KEY ISSUES; MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS; MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDERS; PARTICIPATORY PLANNING; PARTICIPATORY PROCESS; PLANNING PROCESS; PUBLIC PARTICIPATION; PUBLIC VALUES; RANKING OF ALTERNATIVES; SOCIAL GROUPS; SPECIFIC AREAS; STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS; STAKEHOLDERS; STUDY SUPPORTS; URBAN FORESTS;

ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; FORESTRY; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS; INTEGRATED CONTROL; INTEGRATION; PLANNING; REGIONAL PLANNING; RESEARCH; STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS;

DECISION MAKING;

DECISION MAKING; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FORESTRY; INTEGRATION; PLANNING; RESEARCH;

EID: 77957778460     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2010.07.006     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Ananda J., Herath G. Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach. Ecol. Econ. 2003, 45:75-90.
2. Ananda J., Herath G. The use of Analytic Hierarchy Process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning. For. Policy Econ. 2003, 5:13-26.
3. Ansell C., Gash A. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J. Publ. Adm. Res. Theor. 2008, 18:543-571.
4. Arnstein S.R. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1969, 35:216-224.
5. Banville C., Landry M., Martel J.M., Boulaire C. A stakeholder approach to MCDA. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 1998, 15:15-32.
6. Beierle T.C. Public participation in environmental decisions: an evaluation framework using social goals. Resources for the Future. Discussion Paper 99-06 1998, Washington D.C.
7. Beierle T.C., Cayford J. Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions 2002, Resources for the Future Press, Washington, D.C.
8. Belton V., Pictet J. A framework for group decision using a MCDA model: sharing, aggregating or comparing individual information?. Rev. Syst. Décis. 1997, 6:283-303.
9. Belton V., Stewart T.J. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis-An Integrated Approach 2002, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
10. Berkes F. Co-management: bridging the two solitudes. North. Perspect. 1994, 22:18-20.
11. Blackstock K.L., Kelly G.J., Horsey B.L. Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 60:726-742.
12. Buchy M., Hoverman S. Understanding public participation in forest planning: a review. For. Policy Econ. 2000, 1:15-25.
13. Campbell T. Co-management of aboriginal resources. Inf. North. 1996, 22:1-6.
14. Campo P.C., Mendoza G.A., Guizol P., Villanueva T.R., Bousquet F. Exploring management strategies for community-based forests using multi-agent systems: a case study in Palawan, Philippines. J. Environ. Manage. 2009, 90:3607-3615.
15. Castelletti A., Soncini-Sessa R. A procedural approach to strengthening integration and participation in water resource planning. Environ. Modell. Softw. 2006, 21:1455-1470.
16. Checkland P. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice 1981, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
17. Cheng A., Mattor K. Why won't they come? Stakeholder perspectives on collaborative national forest planning by participation level. Environ. Manage. 2006, 38:545-561.
18. Chess C., Purcell K. Public participation and the environment: do we know what works?. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1999, 33:2685-2692.
19. Diaz-Balteiro L., Romero C. Making forestry decisions with multiple criteria: a review and an assessment. For. Ecol. Manage. 2008, 255:3222-3241.
20. Eden C. Cognitive mapping. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1988, 36:1-13.
21. Eriksson L.O. Timber class formation by cluster analysis. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Technology. Report No. 157 1983, Garpenberg, Sweden.
22. Germain R.H., Floyd D.W., Stehman S.V. Public perceptions of the USDA Forest Service public participation process. For. Policy Econ. 2001, 3:113-124.
23. Grimble R., Wellard K. Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agric. Syst. 1997, 55:173-193.
24. Hamersley Chambers F., Beckley T. Public involvement in sustainable boreal forest management. Towards Sustainable Management of the Boreal Forest 2003, 113-154. NRC Research Press, Ottawa, Canada. P.J. Burton, C. Messier, D.W. Smith, W.L. Adamowicz (Eds.).
25. Hiltunen V., Kurttila M., Leskinen P., Pasanen K., Pykäläinen J. Mesta: an internet-based decision-support application for participatory strategic-level natural resources planning. For. Policy Econ. 2009, 11:1-9.
26. Hoen H.F., Eid T. En modell for analyse av behandlingsstrategier for en skog ved bestandssimulering og lineær programmering. [A model for analysis of forest management strategies in stand simulation and linear programming. In Norwegian] Rapport/Norsk institutt for skogforskning-NISK, 90:9 1990, Ås, Norway.
27. IAP2, 2007. IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation. Accessed 4 January, 2010. http://www.iap2.org/associations/4748/files/IAP2%20Spectrum_vertical.pdf.
28. Janis I.L. Victims of Groupthink 1972, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
29. Johnson K.N., Scheurman H.L. Techniques for prescribing optimal timber harvest and investment under different objectives-discussion and synthesis. For. Sci., Monograph 18 (Supplement to Number 1, 1 March 1977) 1977.
30. Kangas J., Kangas A. Multiple criteria decision support in forest management-the approach, methods applied, and experiences gained. For. Ecol. Manage. 2005, 207:133-143.
31. Kangas J., Store R. Internet and teledemocracy in participatory planning of natural resources management. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 62:89-101.
32. Kangas A., Kangas J., Pykäläinen J. Outranking methods as tools in strategic natural resources planning. Silva Fenn 2001, 35:215-227.
33. Kangas A., Haapakoski R., Tyrväinen L. Integrating place-specific social values into forest planning-case of UPM-Kymmene forests in Hyrynsalmi, Finland. Silva Fenn 2008, 42:773-790.
34. Kangas A., Saarinen N., Saarikoski H., Leskinen L.A., Hujala T., Tikkanen J. Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Programmes in Finland. For. Policy Econ. 2010, 12:213-222.
35. Keeney R.L. Value-focused Thinking-A Path to Creative Decisionmaking 1992, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
36. Lahdelma R., Salminen P., Hokkanen J. Using multicriteria methods in environmental planning and management. Environ. Manage. 2000, 26:595-605.
37. Laukkanen S., Palander T., Kangas J. Applying voting theory in participatory decision support for sustainable timber harvesting. Can. J. For. Res. 2004, 34:1511-1524.
38. Malczewski J. GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis 1999, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
39. Maness T., Farrell R. A multi-objective scenario evaluation model for sustainable forest management using criteria and indicators. Can. J. For. Res. 2004, 34:2004-2017.
40. Mendoza G.A., Martins H. Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: a critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. For. Ecol. Manage. 2006, 230:1-22.
41. Mendoza G.A., Prabhu R. Combining participatory modeling and multi-criteria analysis for community-based forest management. For. Ecol. Manage. 2005, 207:145-156.
42. Munda G. Social multi-criteria evaluation: methodological foundations and operational consequences. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2004, 158:662-677.
43. Peterson M.N., Peterson M.J., Peterson T.R. Conservation and the myth of consensus. Conserv. Biol. 2005, 19:762-767.
44. Phillips R.A. Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Bus. Ethics Q. 1997, 7:51-66.
45. Pykäläinen J., Kangas J., Loikkanen T. Interactive decision analysis in participatory strategic forest planning: experiences from state owned boreal forests. J. For. Econ. 1999, 5:341-364.
46. Rauschmayer F., Wittmer H. Evaluating deliberative and analytical methods for the resolution of environmental conflicts. Land Use Policy 2006, 23:108-122.
47. Saaty T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation 1990, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
48. Sandström C., Widmark C. Stakeholders' perceptions of consultations as tools for co-management-a case study of the forestry and reindeer herding sectors in northern Sweden. For. Policy Econ. 2007, 10:25-35.
49. Sheppard S.R.J., Meitner M. Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups. For. Ecol. Manage. 2005, 207:171-187.
50. Starr M.K., Zeleny M. MCDM-state and future of the arts. Multiple Criteria Decision Making 1977, 5-29. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam. M.K. Starr, M. Zeleny (Eds.).
51. Webler T., Tuler S., Krueger R.O.B. What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environ. Manage. 2001, 27:435-450.
52. Zeleny M. Multiple Criteria Decision Making 1982, McGraw-Hill, New York.