IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v41y2014icp40-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How reserve selection is affected by preferences in Swedish boreal forests

Author

Listed:
  • Lundström, Johanna
  • Öhman, Karin
  • Rönnqvist, Mikael
  • Gustafsson, Lena

Abstract

It is important to consider the preferences of the various stakeholders involved when evaluating effective reserve selection, since it is largely their preferences that determine which of a given set of potential reserve networks that actually is “the best”. We interviewed eight conservation planners working at the county administrative boards in each of the eight administrative counties covering boreal Sweden to establish weightings for different structural biodiversity indicators by using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The subjective weightings were applied in a reserve selection model based on a goal programming (GP) approach. The structural indicators were derived from the Swedish National Forest Inventory (NFI) and used as proxy for biodiversity potential. A biodiversity indicator score, based on the values of those indicators, was maximized. The model adjusted this score ensuring that all indicators were represented in the selection, and further also adjusted the influence of the indicators based on the subjective weightings. We evaluated the GP approach by comparing it to a simple linear programming (LP) formulation, only maximizing the indicator richness. In all cases the model was limited either by a budget or an area. The biodiversity potential in young forests are often neglected within present conservation policies, however, the proportion of selected forest under 15years was relatively high in all our cost-effective cases, varying between 32% and 60% using the individual planners subjective weightings, compared to 80% when using a simple LP model. The proportion of selected forest over 100years varied between 69% and 85% in the area-effective cases using the subjective weightings, compared to 80% when using a simple LP model. Middle-aged forest was not favored in any of the selections, although they make up a substantial part of the total area. We conclude that there are differences in how conservation planners prioritize the indicators, and depending on how specific biodiversity indicators are weighted the age distribution of the selected reserves differs. This demonstrates the importance of considering how to establish appropriate weightings. It is also important to consider the, at least in our case, substantial difference in how common the different indicators are to ensure that the weightings get their intended impact on the selections.

Suggested Citation

  • Lundström, Johanna & Öhman, Karin & Rönnqvist, Mikael & Gustafsson, Lena, 2014. "How reserve selection is affected by preferences in Swedish boreal forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 40-50.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:41:y:2014:i:c:p:40-50
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.12.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934113002542
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.12.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Ho, William, 2008. "Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications - A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 211-228, April.
    2. Strager, Michael P. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2006. "Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: Weights and measures in spatial MCA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 627-639, June.
    3. Ramanathan, R. & Ganesh, L. S., 1994. "Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members' weightages," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 249-265, December.
    4. James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
    5. Strager, Michael P. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2006. "Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: Weights and measures in spatial MCA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 79-92, June.
    6. Linares, Pedro, 2009. "Are inconsistent decisions better? An experiment with pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 193(2), pages 492-498, March.
    7. Stephen Polasky & Jeffrey D. Camm & Brian Garber-Yonts, 2001. "Selecting Biological Reserves Cost-Effectively: An Application to Terrestrial Vertebrate Conservation in Oregon," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(1), pages 68-78.
    8. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    9. C. R. Margules & R. L. Pressey, 2000. "Systematic conservation planning," Nature, Nature, vol. 405(6783), pages 243-253, May.
    10. 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.
    11. James S. Dyer, 1990. "A Clarification of "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 274-275, March.
    12. 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.
    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. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(10), pages 1801-1812, October.
    2. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    3. M Tavana & M A Sodenkamp, 2010. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis model for advanced technology assessment at Kennedy Space Center," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(10), pages 1459-1470, October.
    4. 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.
    5. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 700-710, April.
    6. Fernandez Portillo, Luis A. & Nekhay, Olexandr & Estepa Mohedano, Lorenzo, 2019. "Use of the ANP methodology to prioritize rural development strategies under the LEADER approach in protected areas. The case of Lagodekhi, Georgia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    7. Eneko Garmendia & Gonzalo Gamboa, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: a case study on sustainable natural resource management," Working Papers 2012-06, BC3.
    8. Zahir, Sajjad, 1999. "Geometry of decision making and the vector space formulation of the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 373-396, January.
    9. Höfer, Tim & Sunak, Yasin & Siddique, Hafiz & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Wind farm siting using a spatial Analytic Hierarchy Process approach: A case study of the Städteregion Aachen," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 222-243.
    10. 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.
    11. Tomashevskii, I.L., 2015. "Eigenvector ranking method as a measuring tool: Formulas for errors," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(3), pages 774-780.
    12. John C. Butler & James S. Dyer & Jianmin Jia, 2006. "Using Attributes to Predict Objectives in Preference Models," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 100-116, June.
    13. Zygmunt Korban & Maja Taraszkiewicz-Łyda, 2022. "The Impact of Time Pressure on the Results of Psychotechnical Tests Based on the Findings of Pilot Studies Conducted on a Group of Students of the Silesian University of Technology—A Case Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-12, November.
    14. Butler, John C. & Dyer, James S. & Jia, Jianmin & Tomak, Kerem, 2008. "Enabling e-transactions with multi-attribute preference models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 748-765, April.
    15. Ramanathan, R. & Ganesh, L. S., 1995. "Energy resource allocation incorporating qualitative and quantitative criteria: An integrated model using goal programming and AHP," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 197-218, September.
    16. K. Madan Shankar & P. Udhaya Kumar & Devika Kannan, 2016. "Analyzing the Drivers of Advanced Sustainable Manufacturing System Using AHP Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-10, August.
    17. Siraj, Sajid & Mikhailov, Ludmil & Keane, John A., 2015. "Contribution of individual judgments toward inconsistency in pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(2), pages 557-567.
    18. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi & Dai, Min, 2008. "A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 229-242, April.
    19. 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.
    20. Schuwirth, N. & Reichert, P. & Lienert, J., 2012. "Methodological aspects of multi-criteria decision analysis for policy support: A case study on pharmaceutical removal from hospital wastewater," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(2), pages 472-483.

    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:41:y:2014:i:c:p:40-50. 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.