AGGREGATION OF STAKEHOLDER PREFERENCES IN SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT USING AHP

C. Maroto, M. Segura, C. Ginestar, J. Uriol, B. Segura

Abstract

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is the most often applied approach to modelling strategic forest management problems. When dealing with Multiple Criteria Decision Making, AHP allows one to take social, economic and environmental criteria of sustainability concept, as well as public participation, into account. We carried out a workshop to validate a decision hierarchy for Sustainable Management in Mediterranean forests, as well as two surveys to elicit social priorities. Stakeholder and expert judgments were integrated using the geometric mean to obtain group preferences. We applied this method to develop empirical research into sustainable forest management in a Mediterranean region, where the environmental and social services of the forest are more important than the economic ones. We quantified weights of criteria, objectives and management strategy priorities and discuss the obtained results.

References

  1. Ananda, J. 2007. Implementing Participatory Decision Making in Forest Planning, Environmental Management, 39, 534-544.
  2. Ananda, J. and Herath, G., 2008. Multi-attribute preference modelling and regional land use planning, Ecological Economics, 65, 325-335.
  3. Ananda, J. and Herath, G. 2009. A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning, Ecological Economics, 68, 2535-2548.
  4. Belton, V., and Stewart, T. J. 2003. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis- an integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
  5. Díaz-Balteiro, L. and Romero, C. 2008. Making forestry decision with multiple criteria: A review and assessment, Forest Ecology and Management, 255, 3222-3241.
  6. Díaz-Balteiro, L.; González-Pachón, J. and Romero, C. 2009. Forest management with multiple criteria and multiple stakeholders: An application to two public forests in Spain, Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 24, 87-93.
  7. FORSYS. 2011. Forest Management Decision Support Systems. http://fp0804.emu.ee/wiki/index.php/Partici patory_processes
  8. IPCC. 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Fourth Assessment Report. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Summary for Policymakers
  9. Kangas, A.; Saarinen, N.; Saarikoski, H.; Leskinen, L. A.; Hujala, T. and Tikkanen, J. 2010. Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Programmes in Finland, Forest Policy and Economics, 12, 213-222.
  10. Keeney, R. L. 2002. Common mistakes in making value trade-offs, Operations Research, 50 (6), 935-945.
  11. Martell, D. L.; Gunn, E. A. and Weintraub, A. 1998. Forest management challenges for operational researchers, European Journal of Operational Research 104, 1 -17.
  12. Mendoza, G. A. and Martins, H. 2006. Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: A critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. Forest Ecology and Management. 230, 1- 22.
  13. Nordström, E. M.; Romero, C.; Eriksson, L. O. and Öhman, K. 2009. Aggregation of preferences in participatory forest planning with multiple criteria: an application to the urban forest in Lycksele, Sweden. Can.J.For.Res., 39, 1979-1992.
  14. Nordström, E. M.; Eriksson, L. O. and Öhman, K. 2010. Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis in participatory forest planning: Experience from a case study in northern Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics, 12,562-574
  15. PATFOR, 2011, Plan de Acción Territorial Forestal de la Comunitat Valenciana, Generalitat Valenciana, http:// www.cma.gva.es/web/indice.aspx?nodo=72266&idio ma=C.
  16. Saaty, T. L. 2006. Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh,USA.
  17. Saaty, T. L. and Peniwati, K. 2008. Group Decision Making: Drawing out and Reconciling Differences. RWS Publications.
  18. Saaty, T. L. and Shih, H. 2009. Structures in decision making: On the subjective geometry of hierarchies and networks, European Journal of Operational Research, 199, 867-872.
  19. SuperDecisions.2010. http://www.superdecisions.com/
  20. Xu, Z. 2000. On consistency of weighted geometric mean complex judgement matrix in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 126, 683-687.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Maroto C., Segura M., Ginestar C., Uriol J. and Segura B. (2012). AGGREGATION OF STAKEHOLDER PREFERENCES IN SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT USING AHP . In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems - Volume 1: ICORES, ISBN 978-989-8425-97-3, pages 100-107. DOI: 10.5220/0003697401000107


in Bibtex Style

@conference{icores12,
author={C. Maroto and M. Segura and C. Ginestar and J. Uriol and B. Segura},
title={AGGREGATION OF STAKEHOLDER PREFERENCES IN SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT USING AHP},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems - Volume 1: ICORES,},
year={2012},
pages={100-107},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0003697401000107},
isbn={978-989-8425-97-3},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems - Volume 1: ICORES,
TI - AGGREGATION OF STAKEHOLDER PREFERENCES IN SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT USING AHP
SN - 978-989-8425-97-3
AU - Maroto C.
AU - Segura M.
AU - Ginestar C.
AU - Uriol J.
AU - Segura B.
PY - 2012
SP - 100
EP - 107
DO - 10.5220/0003697401000107