IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v8y2006i3p267-278.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adapting modern strategic decision support tools in the participatory strategy process--a case study of a forest research station

Author

Listed:
  • Leskinen, Leena A.
  • Leskinen, Pekka
  • Kurttila, Mikko
  • Kangas, Jyrki
  • Kajanus, Miika

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Leskinen, Leena A. & Leskinen, Pekka & Kurttila, Mikko & Kangas, Jyrki & Kajanus, Miika, 2006. "Adapting modern strategic decision support tools in the participatory strategy process--a case study of a forest research station," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 267-278, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:8:y:2006:i:3:p:267-278
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389-9341(04)00122-4
    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. Lahdelma, Risto & Miettinen, Kaisa & Salminen, Pekka, 2003. "Ordinal criteria in stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA)," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 117-127, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Edwards, Ward & Barron, F. Hutton, 1994. "SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 306-325, December.
    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. Tahseen, Samiha & Karney, Bryan, 2017. "Opportunities for increased hydropower diversion at Niagara: An sSWOT analysis," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 757-770.
    2. Menconi, M.E. & Tasso, S. & Santinelli, M. & Grohmann, D., 2020. "A card game to renew urban parks: Face-to-face and online approach for the inclusive involvement of local community," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    3. Kajanus, Miika & Leskinen, Pekka & Kurttila, Mikko & Kangas, Jyrki, 2012. "Making use of MCDS methods in SWOT analysis—Lessons learnt in strategic natural resources management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 1-9.
    4. Chanthawong, Anuman & Dhakal, Shobhakar, 2016. "Stakeholders' perceptions on challenges and opportunities for biodiesel and bioethanol policy development in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 189-206.
    5. Farangiz Khaledi Koure & Marzieh Hajjarian & Omid Hossein Zadeh & Ahmad Alijanpour & Razieh Mosadeghi, 2023. "Ecotourism development strategies and the importance of local community engagement," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(7), pages 6849-6877, July.
    6. 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.
    7. Mohammad Taleai & Ali Mansourian & Ali Sharifi, 2009. "Surveying general prospects and challenges of GIS implementation in developing countries: a SWOT–AHP approach," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 291-310, September.
    8. Miika Kajanus & Carmen Nastase & Paavo Maskulainen, 2009. "Universities as Channels for Structural Fund Interventions Aiming to SME Growth – A Case Study from Finnish and Romanian Regions," Research in Economics and Business: Central and Eastern Europe, Tallinn School of Economics and Business Administration, Tallinn University of Technology, vol. 1(1).

    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. Kajanus, Miika & Leskinen, Pekka & Kurttila, Mikko & Kangas, Jyrki, 2012. "Making use of MCDS methods in SWOT analysis—Lessons learnt in strategic natural resources management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 1-9.
    2. Jiménez, Antonio & Mateos, Alfonso & Sabio, Pilar, 2013. "Dominance intensity measure within fuzzy weight oriented MAUT: An application," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 397-405.
    3. Kunsch, Pierre L. & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2018. "Multiple-criteria performance ranking based on profile distributions: An application to university research evaluations," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 48-64.
    4. Jiang, Yanping & Liang, Xia & Liang, Haiming & Yang, Ningman, 2018. "Multiple criteria decision making with interval stochastic variables: A method based on interval stochastic dominance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(2), pages 632-643.
    5. Corrente, Salvatore & Figueira, José Rui & Greco, Salvatore, 2014. "The SMAA-PROMETHEE method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 514-522.
    6. Ahrens, Heinz & Kantelhardt, Jochen, 2007. "Integrating Ecological And Economic Aspects In Land Use Concepts: Some Conclusions From A Regional Land Use Concept For Bayerisches Donauried," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7986, Agricultural Economics Society.
    7. 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.
    8. Gözaçan Nazlıcan & Lafci Çisem, 2020. "Evaluation of Key Performance Indicators of Logistics Firms," Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges, Sciendo, vol. 11(1), pages 24-32, February.
    9. García Cáceres, Rafael Guillermo & Aráoz Durand, Julián Arturo & Gómez, Fernando Palacios, 2009. "Integral analysis method - IAM," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(3), pages 891-903, February.
    10. Sabina Kordana-Obuch & Michał Wojtoń & Mariusz Starzec & Beata Piotrowska, 2023. "Opportunities and Challenges for Research on Heat Recovery from Wastewater: Bibliometric and Strategic Analyses," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-36, September.
    11. Podinovski, Vladislav V., 2020. "Maximum likelihood solutions for multicriterial choice problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(1), pages 299-308.
    12. Kavitha, S. & Satheeshkumar, J. & Amudha, T., 2024. "Multi-label feature selection using q-rung orthopair hesitant fuzzy MCDM approach extended to CODAS," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 148-173.
    13. Lahdelma, Risto & Miettinen, Kaisa & Salminen, Pekka, 2005. "Reference point approach for multiple decision makers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 164(3), pages 785-791, August.
    14. Javier Mendoza Jiménez & Montserrat Hernández López & Susana Eva Franco Escobar, 2019. "Sustainable Public Procurement: From Law to Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-23, November.
    15. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Stochastic preference analysis in numerical preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(2), pages 628-633.
    16. P P Sutton & R H Green, 2007. "Choice is a value statement. On inferring optimal multiple attribute portfolios from non-optimal nominations," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(11), pages 1526-1533, November.
    17. Deparis, Stéphane & Mousseau, Vincent & Öztürk, Meltem & Huron, Caroline, 2015. "The effect of bi-criteria conflict on matching-elicited preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(3), pages 951-959.
    18. Hayashi, Kiyotada, 1998. "Multicriteria aid for agricultural decisions using preference relations: methodology and application," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 483-503, December.
    19. Yael Grushka-Cockayne & Bert De Reyck & Zeger Degraeve, 2008. "An Integrated Decision-Making Approach for Improving European Air Traffic Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(8), pages 1395-1409, August.
    20. Raquel González del Pozo & Luis C. Dias & José Luis García-Lapresta, 2020. "Using Different Qualitative Scales in a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Procedure," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-20, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:8:y:2006:i:3:p:267-278. 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.