IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v12y2010i8p562-574.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Nordström, Eva-Maria
  • Eriksson, Ljusk Ola
  • Öhman, Karin

Abstract

Forest planning in a participatory context often involves multiple stakeholders with conflicting interests. A promising approach for handling these complex situations is to integrate participatory planning and multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA). The objective of this paper is to analyze strengths and weaknesses of such an integrated approach, focusing on how the use of MCDA has influenced the participatory process. The paper outlines a model for a participatory MCDA process with five steps: stakeholder analysis, structuring of the decision problem, generation of alternatives, elicitation of preferences, and ranking of alternatives. This model was applied in a case study of a planning process for the urban forest in Lycksele, Sweden. In interviews with stakeholders, criteria for four different social groups were identified. Stakeholders also identified specific areas important to them and explained what activities the areas were used for and the forest management they wished for there. Existing forest data were combined with information from interviews to create a map in which the urban forest was divided into zones of different management classes. Three alternative strategic forest plans were produced based on the zonal map. The stakeholders stated their preferences individually by the Analytic Hierarchy Process in inquiry forms and a ranking of alternatives and consistency ratios were determined for each stakeholder. Rankings of alternatives were aggregated; first, for each social group using the arithmetic mean, and then an overall aggregated ranking was calculated from the group rankings using the weighted arithmetic mean. The participatory MCDA process in Lycksele is assessed against five social goals: incorporating public values into decisions, improving the substantive quality of decisions, resolving conflict among competing interests, building trust in institutions, and educating and informing the public. The results and assessment of the case study support the integration of participatory planning and MCDA as a viable option for handling complex forest-management situations. Key issues related to the MCDA methodology that need to be explored further were identified: 1) the handling of place-specific criteria, 2) development of alternatives, 3) the aggregation of individual preferences into a common preference, and 4) application and evaluation of the integrated approach in real case studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Nordström, Eva-Maria & Eriksson, Ljusk Ola & Öhman, Karin, 2010. "Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis in participatory forest planning: Experience from a case study in northern Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(8), pages 562-574, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:12:y:2010:i:8:p:562-574
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389-9341(10)00105-X
    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. Eden, Colin, 1988. "Cognitive mapping," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 1-13, July.
    2. Hiltunen, Veikko & Kurttila, Mikko & Leskinen, Pekka & Pasanen, Karri & Pykäläinen, Jouni, 2009. "Mesta: An internet-based decision-support application for participatory strategic-level natural resources planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, January.
    3. Buchy, M. & Hoverman, S., 2000. "Understanding public participation in forest planning: a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 15-25, May.
    4. Germain, Rene H. & Floyd, Donald W. & Stehman, Stephen V., 2001. "Public perceptions of the USDA Forest Service public participation process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3-4), pages 113-124, November.
    5. Beierle, Thomas, 1998. "Public Participation in Environmental Decisions: An Evaluation Framework Using Social Goals," RFF Working Paper Series dp-99-06, Resources for the Future.
    6. 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.
    7. Phillips, Robert A., 1997. "Stakeholder Theory and A Principle of Fairness," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 51-66, January.
    8. Grimble, Robin & Wellard, Kate, 1997. "Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 173-193, October.
    9. Blackstock, K.L. & Kelly, G.J. & Horsey, B.L., 2007. "Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 726-742, February.
    10. Munda, Giuseppe, 2004. "Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(3), pages 662-677, November.
    11. Sandstrom, Camilla & Widmark, Camilla, 2007. "Stakeholders' perceptions of consultations as tools for co-management -- A case study of the forestry and reindeer herding sectors in northern Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1-2), pages 25-35, December.
    12. Kangas, A. & Saarinen, N. & Saarikoski, H. & Leskinen, L.A. & Hujala, T. & Tikkanen, J., 2010. "Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Programmes in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 213-222, March.
    13. Beierle, Thomas C., 1998. "Public Participation in Environmental Decisions: An Evaluation Framework Using Social Goals," Discussion Papers 10497, Resources for the Future.
    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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jalilova, Gulnaz & Khadka, Chiranjeewee & Vacik, Harald, 2012. "Developing criteria and indicators for evaluating sustainable forest management: A case study in Kyrgyzstan," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 32-43.
    2. Hallberg-Sramek, Isabella & Nordström, Eva-Maria & Priebe, Janina & Reimerson, Elsa & Mårald, Erland & Nordin, Annika, 2023. "Combining scientific and local knowledge improves evaluating future scenarios of forest ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    3. de Sousa Xavier, António Manuel & Costa Freitas, Maria de Belém & de Sousa Fragoso, Rui Manuel, 2015. "Management of Mediterranean forests — A compromise programming approach considering different stakeholders and different objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 38-46.
    4. Brandt, Patric & Kvakić, Marko & Butterbach-Bahl, Klaus & Rufino, Mariana C., 2017. "How to target climate-smart agriculture? Concept and application of the consensus-driven decision support framework “targetCSA”," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 234-245.
    5. Marques, Marlene & Juerges, Nataly & Borges, José G., 2020. "Appraisal framework for actor interest and power analysis in forest management - Insights from Northern Portugal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    6. Sotirov, Metodi & Sallnäs, Ola & Eriksson, Ljusk Ola, 2019. "Forest owner behavioral models, policy changes, and forest management. An agent-based framework for studying the provision of forest ecosystem goods and services at the landscape level," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 79-89.
    7. Mónica de Castro-Pardo & Pascual Fernández Martínez & Amelia Pérez Zabaleta & João C. Azevedo, 2021. "Dealing with Water Conflicts: A Comprehensive Review of MCDM Approaches to Manage Freshwater Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-32, April.
    8. Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron J. & Smetschka, Barbara, 2018. "Improving payments for ecosystem services (PES) outcomes through the use of Multi-Criteria Evaluation (MCE) and the software OPTamos," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 47-55.
    9. Serafin Corral & Jesús Hernández & Manuel Navarro Ibáñez & José Luis Rivero Ceballos, 2016. "Transforming Mature Tourism Resorts into Sustainable Tourism Destinations through Participatory Integrated Approaches: The Case of Puerto de la Cruz," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-17, July.
    10. Vera Ferreira & Ana Paula Barreira & Luís Loures & Dulce Antunes & Thomas Panagopoulos, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Engagement on Nature-Based Solutions: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-27, January.
    11. Bergseng, Even & Ask, Jon Andreas & Framstad, Erik & Gobakken, Terje & Solberg, Birger & Hoen, Hans Fredrik, 2012. "Biodiversity protection and economics in long term boreal forest management — A detailed case for the valuation of protection measures," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 12-21.
    12. Khadka, Chiranjeewee & Hujala, Teppo & Wolfslehner, Bernhard & Vacik, Harald, 2013. "Problem structuring in participatory forest planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 1-11.
    13. de Castro-Pardo, Mónica & Pérez-Rodríguez, Fernando & Martín-Martín, José María & Azevedo, João C., 2019. "Modelling stakeholders’ preferences to pinpoint conflicts in the planning of transboundary protected areas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    14. Mwongera, Caroline & Shikuku, Kelvin M. & Twyman, Jennifer & Läderach, Peter & Ampaire, Edidah & Van Asten, Piet & Twomlow, Steve & Winowiecki, Leigh A., 2017. "Climate smart agriculture rapid appraisal (CSA-RA): A tool for prioritizing context-specific climate smart agriculture technologies," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 192-203.
    15. Grošelj, Petra & Hodges, Donald G. & Zadnik Stirn, Lidija, 2016. "Participatory and multi-criteria analysis for forest (ecosystem) management: A case study of Pohorje, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 80-86.
    16. Allain, Sandrine & Plumecocq, Gaël & Leenhardt, Delphine, 2017. "How Do Multi-criteria Assessments Address Landscape-level Problems? A Review of Studies and Practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 282-295.
    17. Corral, Serafín & Legna-de la Nuez, David & Romero-Manrique de Lara, David, 2015. "Integrated assessment of biofuel production in arid lands: Jatropha cultivation on the island of Fuerteventura," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 41-53.
    18. Athanasiadis, Antonios & Andreopoulou, Zacharoula, 2019. "E-praxis: A web-based forest law decision support system for land characterization in Greece," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 157-166.
    19. Susete Marques & Marco Marto & Vladimir Bushenkov & Marc McDill & JoséG. Borges, 2017. "Addressing Wildfire Risk in Forest Management Planning with Multiple Criteria Decision Making Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-17, February.
    20. de Castro, Mónica & Urios, Vicente, 2017. "A critical review of multi-criteria decision making in protected areas," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 16(02), January.

    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. Kangas, Annika & Heikkilä, Juuso & Malmivaara-Lämsä, Minna & Löfström, Irja, 2014. "Case Puijo—Evaluation of a participatory urban forest planning process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 13-23.
    2. 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.
    3. Bethmann, Stephanie & Simminger, Eva & Baldy, Jana & Schraml, Ulrich, 2018. "Forestry in interaction. Shedding light on dynamics of public opinion with a praxeological methodology," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 93-101.
    4. Kangas, Annika & Laukkanen, Sanna & Kangas, Jyrki, 2006. "Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management--a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 77-92, November.
    5. Parnphumeesup, Piya & Kerr, Sandy A., 2011. "Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3591-3601, June.
    6. Artur José Sitoe & Seunghoo Lim, 2024. "Understanding citizens' perception of channels for participating in administration based on their motivation in an authoritarian regime: The case of Gaza Province, Mozambique," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(1), pages 606-625, January.
    7. Yu, Bing & Xu, Linyu, 2016. "Review of ecological compensation in hydropower development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 729-738.
    8. Marttunen, Mika & Haara, Arto & Hjerppe, Turo & Kurttila, Mikko & Liesiö, Juuso & Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Tolvanen, Anne, 2023. "Parallel and comparative use of three multicriteria decision support methods in an environmental portfolio problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 842-859.
    9. Loureiro, Maria L. & Dominguez Arcos, Fernando, 2012. "Applying Best–Worst Scaling in a stated preference analysis of forest management programs," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 381-394.
    10. Nuno Videira & Paula Antunes & Rui Santos & Sofia Gamito, 2003. "Participatory Modelling in Environmental Decision-Making: The Ria Formosa Natural Park Case Study," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(03), pages 421-447.
    11. Sell, Joachim & Koellner, Thomas & Weber, Olaf & Pedroni, Lucio & Scholz, Roland W., 2006. "Decision criteria of European and Latin American market actors for tropical forestry projects providing environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 17-36, June.
    12. S. Franceschini & G. Marletto, 2017. "The dynamics of social capital during public participation: new knowledge from an on-going monitoring," Working Paper CRENoS 201706, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    13. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2008. "Multi-attribute preference modelling and regional land-use planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 325-335, April.
    14. Axel Marx & Jan Wouters, 2011. "Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation: Conclusions and Implications," Chapters, in: David Vogel & Johan Swinnen (ed.), Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation, chapter 12, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Weber, Norbert, 2018. "Participation or involvement? Development of forest strategies on national and sub-national level in Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 98-106.
    16. Lia T. Vasconcelos & Flávia Z. Silva & Filipa G. Ferreira & Graça Martinho & Ana Pires & José Carlos Ferreira, 2022. "Collaborative process design for waste management: co-constructing strategies with stakeholders," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(7), pages 9243-9259, July.
    17. Kleinschmit, Daniela & Pülzl, Helga & Secco, Laura & Sergent, Arnaud & Wallin, Ida, 2018. "Orchestration in political processes: Involvement of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals in forest policy making," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 4-15.
    18. Sell, Joachim & Koellner, Thomas & Weber, Olaf & Proctor, Wendy & Pedroni, Lucio & Scholz, Roland W., 2007. "Ecosystem services from tropical forestry projects - The choice of international market actors," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(5), pages 496-515, January.
    19. van den Hove, Sybille, 2000. "Participatory approaches to environmental policy-making: the European Commission Climate Policy Process as a case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 457-472, June.
    20. Kozová, Mária & Dobšinská, Zuzana & Pauditšová, Eva & Tomčíková, Ivana & Rakytová, Iveta, 2018. "Network and participatory governance in urban forestry: An assessment of examples from selected Slovakian cities," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 31-41.

    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:forpol:v:12:y:2010:i:8:p:562-574. 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/forpol .

    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.