IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v68y2009i10p2535-2548.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning

Author

Listed:
  • Ananda, Jayanath
  • Herath, Gamini

Abstract

This paper provides a review of research contributions on forest management and planning using multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) based on an exhaustive literature survey. The review primarily focuses on the application aspects highlighting theoretical underpinnings and controversies. It also examines the nature of the problems addressed and incorporation of risk into forest management and planning decision making. The MCDM techniques covered in this review belong to several schools of thought. For each technique, a variety of empirical applications including recent studies has been reviewed. More than 60 individual studies were reviewed and classified by the method used, country of origin, number and type of criteria and options evaluated. The review serves as a guide to those interested in how to use a particular MCDM approach. Based on the review, some recent trends and future research directions are also highlighted.

Suggested Citation

  • Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2009. "A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2535-2548, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:68:y:2009:i:10:p:2535-2548
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(09)00220-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Prato, Tony, 2007. "Assessing ecosystem sustainability and management using fuzzy logic," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 171-177, February.
    2. Russell, Clifford & Dale, Virginia & Lee, Junsoo & Jensen, Molly Hadley & Kane, Michael & Gregory, Robin, 2001. "Experimenting with multi-attribute utility survey methods in a multi-dimensional valuation problem," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 87-108, January.
    3. Hayashi, Kiyotada, 2000. "Multicriteria analysis for agricultural resource management: A critical survey and future perspectives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 486-500, April.
    4. Stewart, TJ, 1992. "A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 20(5-6), pages 569-586.
    5. Ralph L. Keeney & Detlof von Winterfeldt & Thomas Eppel, 1990. "Eliciting Public Values for Complex Policy Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(9), pages 1011-1030, September.
    6. Ralph L. Keeney & Timothy L. McDaniels & Cary Swoveland, 1995. "Evaluating Improvements in Electric Utility Reliability at British Columbia Hydro," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 43(6), pages 933-947, December.
    7. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2003. "Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 75-90, April.
    8. Stefan Hajkowicz & Mike Young & Darla Hatton MacDonald, 2000. "Supporting Decisions: Understanding natural resource management assessment techniques," Natural Resource Management Economics 00_003, Policy and Economic Research Unit, CSIRO Land and Water, Adelaide, Australia.
    9. Xu, Feng & Prato, Tony & Ma, Jian, 1995. "A Farm-Level Case Study of Sustainable Agricultural Production," Staff General Research Papers Archive 837, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    10. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeff & Louviere, Jordan, 2000. "Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 289-302, November.
    11. Kurttila, Mikko & Pesonen, Mauno & Kangas, Jyrki & Kajanus, Miika, 2000. "Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis -- a hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 41-52, May.
    12. Romero, Carlos & Rehman, Tahir, 1987. "Natural Resource Management and the Use of Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Techniques: A Review," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 14(1), pages 61-89.
    13. Gregory, Robin & Lichtenstein, Sarah & Slovic, Paul, 1993. "Valuing Environmental Resources: A Constructive Approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 177-197, October.
    14. Hill, Christine M. & Assim, Fatosh, 1997. "Multicriteria Analysis- A Tool for Wetland Management Decision Making," 1997 Conference (41st), January 22-24, 1997, Gold Coast, Australia 136218, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    15. Hajkowicz, Stefan, 2002. "An Evaluation of Options for Managing Dairying in the Lower Murray Reclaimed Irrigation Areas in South Australia Using Multiple Criteria Analysis," 2002 Conference (46th), February 13-15, 2002, Canberra, Australia 125098, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    16. Church, Richard L. & Murray, Alan T. & Figueroa, Michael A. & Barber, Klaus H., 2000. "Support system development for forest ecosystem management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 247-258, March.
    17. Gupta, A. P. & Harboe, R. & Tabucanon, M. T., 2000. "Fuzzy multiple-criteria decision making for crop area planning in Narmada river basin," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 1-18, January.
    18. Joubert, Alison R. & Leiman, Anthony & de Klerk, Helen M. & Katua, Stephen & Aggenbach, J. Coenrad, 1997. "Fynbos (fine bush) vegetation and the supply of water: a comparison of multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 123-140, August.
    19. Stefan Hajkowicz & Geoff McDonald & Phil Smith, 2000. "An Evaluation of Multiple Objective Decision Support Weighting Techniques in Natural Resource Management," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(4), pages 505-518.
    20. Duke, Joshua M. & Aull-Hyde, Rhonda, 2002. "Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 131-145, August.
    21. Raju, Komaragiri Srinivasa & Pillai, C. R. S., 1999. "Multicriterion decision making in performance evaluation of an irrigation system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 479-488, February.
    22. McDaniels, Timothy L. & Roessler, Craig, 1998. "Multiattribute elicitation of wilderness preservation benefits: a constructive approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 299-312, December.
    23. James S. Dyer & Peter C. Fishburn & Ralph E. Steuer & Jyrki Wallenius & Stanley Zionts, 1992. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: The Next Ten Years," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(5), pages 645-654, May.
    24. H. M. G. Herath & J. Brian Hardaker & Jock R. Anderson, 1982. "Choice of Varieties by Sri Lanka Rice Farmers: Comparing Alternative Decision Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 64(1), pages 87-93.
    25. Farber, Stephen & Griner, Brian, 2000. "Valuing watershed quality improvements using conjoint analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 63-76, July.
    26. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    27. Abu-Taleb, Maher F. & Mareschal, Bertrand, 1995. "Water resources planning in the Middle East: Application of the PROMETHEE V multicriteria method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 81(3), pages 500-511, March.
    28. Robin S. Gregory, 2000. "Valuing Environmental Policy Options: A Case Study Comparison of Multiattribute and Contingent Valuation Survey Methods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(2), pages 151-173.
    29. Prato, Tony, 1999. "Multiple attribute decision analysis for ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 207-222, August.
    30. Hjortso, Carsten Nico & Straede, Steffen, 2001. "Strategic multiple-use forest planning in Lithuania -- applying multi-criteria decision-making and scenario analysis for decision support in an economy in transition," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3-4), pages 175-188, November.
    31. Brans, J. P. & Vincke, Ph. & Mareschal, B., 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: The method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 228-238, February.
    32. Korhonen, Pekka, 1988. "A visual reference direction approach to solving discrete multiple criteria problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 152-159, March.
    33. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2005. "Evaluating public risk preferences in forest land-use choices using multi-attribute utility theory," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 408-419, November.
    34. Tai-Yoo Kim & Seung-Jun Kwak & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 1998. "Applying Multi-attribute Utility Theory to Decision Making in Environmental Planning: A Case Study of the Electric Utility in Korea," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(5), pages 597-609.
    35. Paul J. H. Schoemaker & C. Carter Waid, 1982. "An Experimental Comparison of Different Approaches to Determining Weights in Additive Utility Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 182-196, February.
    36. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2008. "Multi-attribute preference modelling and regional land-use planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 325-335, April.
    37. Robin Gregory & Ralph L. Keeney, 1994. "Creating Policy Alternatives Using Stakeholder Values," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(8), pages 1035-1048, August.
    38. Kurttila, Mikko & Hamalainen, Kari & Kajanus, Miika & Pesonen, Mauno, 2001. "Non-industrial private forest owners' attitudes towards the operational environment of forestry -- a multinominal logit model analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 13-28, April.
    39. Juha M. Alho & Jyrki Kangas & Osmo Kolehmainen, 1996. "Uncertainty in Expert Predictions of the Ecological Consequences of Forest Plans," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 45(1), pages 1-14, March.
    40. Leskinen, Pekka & Kangas, Annika S. & Kangas, Jyrki, 2004. "Rank-based modelling of preferences in multi-criteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(3), pages 721-733, November.
    41. De Marchi, B. & Funtowicz, S. O. & Lo Cascio, S. & Munda, G., 2000. "Combining participative and institutional approaches with multicriteria evaluation. An empirical study for water issues in Troina, Sicily," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 267-282, August.
    42. Prato, Tony, 2001. "Modeling carrying capacity for national parks," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 321-331, December.
    43. William G. Stillwell & Detlof von Winterfeldt & Richard S. John, 1987. "Comparing Hierarchical and Nonhierarchical Weighting Methods for Eliciting Multiattribute Value Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(4), pages 442-450, April.
    44. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2003. "The use of Analytic Hierarchy Process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 13-26, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hajkowicz, Stefan & Higgins, Andrew, 2008. "A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 255-265, January.
    2. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2008. "Multi-attribute preference modelling and regional land-use planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 325-335, April.
    3. Stefan Hajkowicz & Kerry Collins, 2007. "A Review of Multiple Criteria Analysis for Water Resource Planning and Management," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 21(9), pages 1553-1566, September.
    4. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2003. "Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 75-90, April.
    5. Amelia Bilbao-Terol & Mariano Jiménez & Mar Arenas-Parra, 2016. "A group decision making model based on goal programming with fuzzy hierarchy: an application to regional forest planning," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 137-162, October.
    6. Hobbs, Benjamin F & Horn, Graham TF, 1997. "Building public confidence in energy planning: a multimethod MCDM approach to demand-side planning at BC gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 357-375, February.
    7. Wilson, Matthew A. & Howarth, Richard B., 2002. "Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 431-443, June.
    8. James S. Dyer & James E. Smith, 2021. "Innovations in the Science and Practice of Decision Analysis: The Role of Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5364-5378, September.
    9. Kwak, Seung-Jun & Yoo, Seung-Hoon & Kim, Tai-Yoo, 2001. "A constructive approach to air-quality valuation in Korea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 327-344, September.
    10. Garmendia, Eneko & Gamboa, Gonzalo, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: A case study on sustainable natural resource management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 110-120.
    11. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
    12. Gamper, C.D. & Turcanu, C., 2007. "On the governmental use of multi-criteria analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 298-307, April.
    13. Schlapfer, Felix, 2006. "Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 415-429, May.
    14. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2003. "The use of Analytic Hierarchy Process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 13-26, January.
    15. McDaniels, Timothy L. & Roessler, Craig, 1998. "Multiattribute elicitation of wilderness preservation benefits: a constructive approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 299-312, December.
    16. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    17. Stefan A. Hajkowicz, 2012. "For the Greater Good? A Test for Strategic Bias in Group Environmental Decisions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 331-344, May.
    18. Hojatollah Khedrigharibvand & Hossein Azadi & Dereje Teklemariam & Ehsan Houshyar & Philippe Maeyer & Frank Witlox, 2019. "Livelihood alternatives model for sustainable rangeland management: a review of multi-criteria decision-making techniques," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 11-36, February.
    19. Burak, Selmin & Samanlioglu, Funda & Ülker, Duygu, 2022. "Evaluation of irrigation methods in Söke Plain with HF-AHP-PROMETHEE II hybrid MCDM method," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 271(C).
    20. Ju-Hee Kim & Hyo-Jin Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2018. "Economic Value of Building a Firefighter Training Academy for Urban Disaster Management in Seoul, South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-11, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:68:y:2009:i:10:p:2535-2548. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.