IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v88y2019ics0264837719309287.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Use of the ANP methodology to prioritize rural development strategies under the LEADER approach in protected areas. The case of Lagodekhi, Georgia

Author

Listed:
  • Fernandez Portillo, Luis A.
  • Nekhay, Olexandr
  • Estepa Mohedano, Lorenzo

Abstract

The prioritization of rural development strategies under the rural territorial development approach according to the European Union’s LEADER methodology, especially in protected natural environments, presents a certain degree of complexity due to its multiple and opposed co-existing objectives and the necessity of the local population’s participation in decision-making. However, LEADER does not clearly propose a prioritization methodology beyond simple scoring methods. The objective of this study is to compare the results of an unsophisticated prioritization with the ANP multicriteria methodology in the case of the municipality of Lagodekhi, Georgia, where there is a specially protected area and where the LEADER approach is being applied for the strategic planning of rural development. The ANP methodology, compared to a less sophisticated method, demonstrably better adapts to the LEADER approach in protected areas because it allows for a clearer and more consistent prioritization of the need for environmental protection and effectively compiles the interactions between the different economic, social, and environmental dimensions of development.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:88:y:2019:i:c:s0264837719309287
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104121
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837719309287
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104121?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. James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
    2. Oedl-Wieser, Theresia & Dax, Thomas & Fischer, Michael, 2017. "A new approach for participative rural development in Georgia – reflecting transfer of knowledge and enhancing innovation in a non-European Union context," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, vol. 119(1), April.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    6. Saaty, Thomas L. & Takizawa, Masahiro, 1986. "Dependence and independence: From linear hierarchies to nonlinear networks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 229-237, August.
    7. James S. Dyer, 1990. "A Clarification of "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 274-275, March.
    8. Belton, Valerie, 1986. "A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and a simple multi-attribute value function," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 7-21, July.
    9. Sisto, Roberta & Lopolito, Antonio & van Vliet, Mathijs, 2018. "Stakeholder participation in planning rural development strategies: Using backcasting to support Local Action Groups in complying with CLLD requirements," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 442-450.
    10. Leung, Lawrence C. & Cao, Dong, 2001. "On the efficacy of modeling multi-attribute decision problems using AHP and Sinarchy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 39-49, July.
    11. 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. Sisto, Roberta & Fernández-Portillo, Luis A. & Yazdani, Morteza & Estepa-Mohedano, Lorenzo & Torkayesh, Ali Ebadi, 2022. "Strategic planning of rural areas: Integrating participatory backcasting and multiple criteria decision analysis tools," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 82(PA).
    2. Mónica de Castro-Pardo & João C. Azevedo, 2021. "A Goal Programming Model to Guide Decision-Making Processes towards Conservation Consensuses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-25, February.
    3. Carpitella, Silvia & Mzougui, Ilyas & Benítez, Julio & Carpitella, Fortunato & Certa, Antonella & Izquierdo, Joaquín & La Cascia, Marco, 2021. "A risk evaluation framework for the best maintenance strategy: The case of a marine salt manufacture firm," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).

    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. Gomez-Limon, J.A. & Atance, I., 2004. "Identification of public objectives related to agricultural sector support," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 26(8-9), pages 1045-1071, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Rauch, Peter, 2017. "Developing and evaluating strategies to overcome biomass supply risks," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 561-569.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Lai, S-K., 1995. "A preference-based interpretation of AHP," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 453-462, August.
    7. Sandeep Singh & Jaimal Singh Khamba & Davinder Singh, 2023. "Study of energy-efficient attributes of overall equipment effectiveness in Indian sugar mill industries through analytical hierarchy process (AHP)," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 14(1), pages 374-384, March.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    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. Bentes, Alexandre Veronese & Carneiro, Jorge & da Silva, Jorge Ferreira & Kimura, Herbert, 2012. "Multidimensional assessment of organizational performance: Integrating BSC and AHP," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(12), pages 1790-1799.
    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. Kumar, N. Vinod & Ganesh, L. S., 1996. "A simulation-based evaluation of the approximate and the exact eigenvector methods employed in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 656-662, December.
    15. Oliva, Gabriele & Scala, Antonio & Setola, Roberto & Dell’Olmo, Paolo, 2019. "Opinion-based optimal group formation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 164-176.
    16. Jordi Gallego-Ayala & Dinis Juízo, 2014. "Integrating Stakeholders’ Preferences into Water Resources Management Planning in the Incomati River Basin," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(2), pages 527-540, January.
    17. Belton, Valerie & Goodwin, Paul, 1996. "Remarks on the application of the analytic hierarchy process to judgmental forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 155-161, March.
    18. Márcia Oliveira & Dalila B. M. M. Fontes & Teresa Pereira, 2013. "Multicriteria Decision Making: A Case Study in the Automobile Industry," FEP Working Papers 483, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.
    19. Bowen, William M., 1995. "A Thurstonian comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and probabilistic multidimensional scaling through application to the nuclear waste site selection decision," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 151-163, June.
    20. 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.

    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:lauspo:v:88:y:2019:i:c:s0264837719309287. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.