Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of the European experts on the application of the AHP method in sustainable forest management

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To apply the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to solve forest management problems, it is necessary to determine when the use of this method is appropriate and when another method would be more appropriate due to the limitations of the method itself. In this study, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) and meta-SWOT analyses were conducted to assess the applicability of the AHP method to sustainable forest management problems. Sixteen experts from 11 different European countries participated in the research. First, they evaluated the AHP method from the SWOT perspective and weighted the SWOT factors and groups using the AHP method. The results showed that the AHP method is more suitable for application in sustainable forest management than other multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) methods with respect to two competitive dimensions: design and calculation. However, the application of the AHP in sustainable forest management also has some weaknesses and threats that should be considered. Involving stakeholders with expertise and skills in model development and pairwise comparisons is the most important issue in this area; otherwise, incorrect results could be obtained for forest management decisions. Problem-solving conditions such as uncertainty, the interactions among criteria and the economic constraints of the problem may also lead to the use of other methods instead of the AHP in sustainable forest management. The results of this study contribute to global studies on decision-making in natural resource and environmental management, especially decisions related to forest management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

For further information please contact the corresponding author's email (mehdi.zandebasiri@yahoo.com).

References

  • Agarwal, R., Grassl, W., & Pahl, J. (2012). Meta-SWOT: Introducing a new strategic planning tool. Journal of Business Strategy, 33(2), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/02756661211206708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akaa, O.U., Abu, A., Spearpoint, M., Giovinazzi, S., (2016). A group-AHP decision analysis for the selection of applied fire protection to steel structures. Fire Safety Journal, 86, 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2016.10.005

  • Alho, J.A., Kangas, J., (1997). Analyzing uncertainties in experts' opinions of forest plan performance, Forest Science, 43(4), 521–528, https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/43.4.521

  • Ananda, J., & Herath, G. (2009). A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning. Ecological Economics, 68, 2535–2548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anuradha, Gupta S. (2022). AHP-based multi-criteria decision-making for forest sustainability of lower Himalayan foothills in northern circle, India-a case study. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 194(12), 849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-10510-0. PMID: 36198890.

  • Asadabadi, M. R., Chang, E., & Saberi, M. (2019). Are MCDM methods useful? A critical review of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and analytic network process (ANP). Cogent Engineering, 6(1), 1623153. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2019.1623153?needAccess=true

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benzaghta, M. A., Elwalda, A., Mousa, M. M., Erkan, I., & Rahman, M. (2021). SWOT analysis applications: An integrative literature review. Journal of Global Business Insights, 6(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.5038/2640-6489.6.1.1148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bihamta, M. R., & Zare Chahouki, M. A. (2015). Priciples of statistics for the natural resources science. University of Tehran Press (In Persian).

  • Blagojević, B., Jonsson, R., Björheden, R., Nordström, E. M., & Lindroos, O. (2019). Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in forest operations–an introduction review. Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering, 40(1), 191–2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boardman, E.A., Greenberg, D.H., Vining, A.R., Weimer, D.L., (2018). Cost–Benefit Analysis, Concepts and Practice. Fifth edition. Cambridge University Press.

  • Boggia, A., & Cortina, C. (2010). Measuring sustainable development using a multi-criteria model: A case study. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(11), 2301–2306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.06.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diaz-Balteiro, L., & Romero, C. (2008). Making forestry decisions with multiple criteria: A review and an assessment. Forest Ecology and Management, 255, 3222–3241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.01.038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diaz-Balteiro, L., González-Pachón, J., & Romero, C. (2017). Measuring systems sustainability with multi-criteria methods: A critical review. European Journal of Operational Research, 258(2), 607–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.08.075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobšinská, Z., Živojinović, I.,Nedeljković, J., et al., (2020). Actor power in the restitution processes of forests in three European countries in transition. Forest Policy and Economics, 113, 102090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102090

  • Dos Santos, P.H., et al. (2019). The analytic hierarchy process supporting decision making for sustainable development: An overview of applications. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.270

  • Ebrahimi Rostaghi, M. (2005). The role of policy-making and decision-making in protection of outside North forests: In Proceedings of the Conference on Protection of Forests in Sustainable Forest Management, Tehran, Iran, 11–13 October 2004 (pp. 137–151). Iranian Society of Forestry (In Persian).

  • Etongo, D., Kanninena, M., Epule Epuled, T., & Fobissiea, K. (2018). Assessing the effectiveness of joint forest management in Southern Burkina Faso: A SWOT-AHP analysis. Forest Policy and Economics, 90, 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.01.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gebre, S. L., Cattrysse, D., Alemayehu, E., & Orshoven, J. V. (2021). Multi-criteria decision making methods to address rural land allocation problems: A systematic review. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 9, 490–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2021.04.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goepel, K. D. (2013). Implementing the analytic hierarchy process as a standard method for multi-criteria decision making in corporate enterprises—A new AHP excel template with multiple inputs. In Proceedings of the international symposium on the analytic hierarchy process, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

  • Grošelj, P., & Zadnik Stirn, L. (2015). The environmental management problem of Pohorje, Slovenia: A new group approach within ANP–SWOT framework. Journal of Environmental Management, 161, 106–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.06.038

  • Grošelj, P., Hodges, D. G., & Zadnik Stirn, L. (2016). Participatory and multi-criteria analysis for forest (ecosystem) management: A case study of Pohorje, Slovenia. Forest Policy and Economics, 71, 80–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.05.006

  • Gyani, J., Ahmed, A., & Haq, M. A. (2022). MCDM and various prioritization methods in AHP for CSS: A comprehensive review. IEEE Access. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9740206

  • Hengst-Ehrhart, Y., & Schraml, U. (2020). Back to the Forest’s future: Guiding principles of German forest stakeholders and their impact on the forestry sector. Land Use Policy, 94, 104496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishizaka, A., & Siraj, S. (2018). Are multi-criteria decision-making tools useful? An experimental comparative study of three methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 264(2), 462–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.05.041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Işık, Ö., Jones, M. C., & Sidorova, A. (2013). Business intelligence success: The roles of BI capabilities and decision environments. Information & Management, 50(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2012.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsson, R., Olofsson, E., & Ambrose-Oji, B. (2021). Stakeholder perceptions, management and impacts of forestry conflicts in southern Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 36(1), 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2020.1854341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juutinen, A., Tolvanen, A., & Koskela, T. (2020). Forest owners’ future intentions for forest management. Forest Policy and Economics, 118, 102220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, P., Hujala, T., Kurtiila, M., et al. (2019). Application of multi criteria analysis methods for a participatory assessment of nonwood forest products in two European case studies. Forest Policy and Economics, 103, 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kangas, J. (1999). The Analytic Hierachy Process (AHP): standard version, forestry application and advances. In Multiple use of forests and other natural resources (pp. 96–105). Springer.

  • Kangas, J., Pukkala, T., Kangas, A.S. (2001). HERO: Heuristic Optimisation for Multi-Criteria Forestry Decision Analysis. In: Schmoldt, D.L., Kangas, J., Mendoza, G.A., Pesonen, M. (eds) The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resource and Environmental Decision Making. Managing Forest Ecosystems, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9799-9_4

  • Kangas, J., & Kangas, A. (2005). Multiple criteria decision support in forest management—The approach, methods applied, and experiences gained. Forest Ecology and Management, 207(1–2), 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazama, V. S., Dalla Corte, A. P., Robert, R. C. G., Sanquetta, C. R., Arce, J. E., Oliveira-Nascimento, K. A., & DeArmond, D. (2021). Global review on forest road optimization planning: Support for sustainable forest management in amazonia. Forest Ecology and Management, 492, 119159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khosravian, R., & Aadnøy, B. S. (2022). Chapter Ten—Well completion optimization by decision-making. Methods for Petroleum Well Optimization. Automation and Data Solutions. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-90231-1.00012-1

  • Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage Publications Ltd.

  • Kurttila, M., Pesonen, M., Kangas, J., & Kajanus, M. (2000). Utilizing the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis—A hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case. Forest Policy and Economics, 1, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(99)00004-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P. (1998). Marketing management: Analysis, planning, implementation, and control (6th ed.). Prentice-Hall International Edition.

  • Leskinen, P. & Kangas, J. (1998). Analysing uncertainties of interval judgment data in multiple-criteria evaluation of forest plans. Silva Fennica, 32(4), 363–372.

  • Leskinen, P., Kangas, J., Pasanen, A-M., (2003). Assessing ecological values with dependent explanatory variables in multicriteria forest ecosystem management. Ecological Modelling, 170(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(03)00283-7

  • Mann, C., Loft, L., & Hernández-Morcillo, M. (2021). Assessing forest governance innovations in Europe: Needs, challenges and ways forward for sustainable forest ecosystem service provision. Ecosystem Services, 52, 101384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melillo, P., & Pecchia, L. (2016). What is the appropriate sample size to run analytic hierarchy process in a survey-based research? In Proceedings of the international symposium on the analytic hierarchy process, London, UK (pp. 4–8).

  • Mendoza, G.A., Sprouse, W., (1989). Forest planning and decision making under fuzzy environments: An overview and illustration. Forest Science, 35(2), 481–502. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/35.2.481

  • Mendoza, G. A., & Martins, H. (2006). Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: A critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. Forest Ecology and Management, 230, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.03.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miura, S., Amacher, M., Hofer, T., et al. (2015). Protective functions and ecosystem services of global forests in the past quarter-century. Forest Ecology and Management, 352, 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.03.039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mobtaker, A., Ouhimmou, M., Audy, J. F., & onnqvist, M.R.,. (2021). A review on decision support systems for tactical logistics planning in the context of forest bioeconomy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 148, 111250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moghtadernejad, S., Chouinard, L. E., & Mirza, M. S. (2018). Multi-criteria decision-making methods for preliminary design of sustainable facades. Journal of Building Engineering, 19, 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.05.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munier, N., & Hontoria, E. (2021). Uses and limitations of the AHP method. Springer.

  • Nilsson, H., Nordström, E. M., & Öhman, K. (2016). Decision support for participatory forest planning using AHP and TOPSIS. Forests, 7(5), 100. https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/7/5/100

  • Pesonen, M., Kurttila, M., Kangas, J., Kajanus, M., Heinonen, P., (2001). Assessing the priorities using A'WOT among resource management strategies at the finnish forest and park service, Forest Science, 4(4), 534–541. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/47.4.534

    Google Scholar 

  • Pezdevšek Malovrh, S. Groselj, P., Zadnik Stirn, L., & Krc, J., (2012). The Present State and Prospects of Slovenian Private Forest Owners’ Cooperation within Machinery Rings. Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering, 331, 105–114.

  • Rauch, P., Wolfsmayr, U. J., Alexandru Borz, S., et al. (2015). SWOT analysis and strategy development for forest fuel supply chains in South East Europe. Forest Policy and Economics, 6, 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.09.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadollah, A., Nasir, M., & Geem, Z. W. (2020). Sustainability and optimization: From conceptual fundamentals to applications. Sustainability, 12, 2027. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schönherr, S., Fabian Bichler, B., Pikkemaat, B., (2023). Attitudes not set in stone: Existential crises changing residents’ irritation. Tourism Management, 96, 104708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2022.104708

  • Segura, M., Ray, D., & Maroto, C. (2014). Decision support systems for forest management: A comparative analysis and assessment. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 101, 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2013.12.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tadesse, T., Teklay, G., Mulatu, D. W., Rannestad, M. M., Meresa, T. M., & Woldelibanos, D. (2022). Forest benefits and willingness to pay for sustainable forest management. Forest Policy and Economics, 138, 102721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallejo-Díaz, A., Moya, I. H., Mariñez, C.P., Lara, E.G., Victorino, C.C., (2023). Key factors influencing urban wind energy: A case study from the Dominican Republic. Energy for Sustainable Development, 73, 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2023.01.017

  • Weihrich, H. (1982). The TOWS matrix—A tool for situational analysis. Long Range Planning, 15(2), 54–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfslehner, B., Vacik, H., & Lexer, M. J. (2005). Application of the analytic network process in multi-criteria analysis of sustainable forest management. Forest Ecology and Management, 207(1–2), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfslehner, B., & Vacik, H. (2008). Evaluating sustainable forest management strategies with the Analytic Network Process in a Pressure-State-Response framework. Journal of Environmental Management, 88(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zandebasiri, M., & Pourhashemi, M. (2016). The place of AHP among the Multi criteria decision making methods in forest management. International Journal of Applied Operational Research, 6(2), 75–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziari, K., Hajian Hossein Abadi, M., & Khavarian Garmsir, A. R. (2020). Making competitive cities in the light of the meta-SWOT Tool: A case study of Tehran, Iran. Planning Practice & Research, 35(4), 466–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2020.1757844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Živojinović, I., Nedeljković, J., Stojanovski, V., et al. (2017). Non-timber forest products in transition economies: Innovation cases in selected SEE countries. Forest Policy and Economics, 81, 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.04.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude and appreciation to the experts for their dedication and support in collecting and evaluating the data on the application of the AHP method in forest management.

Funding

This work was supported by the Slovenian Research Agency, research core funding No. P4-0059.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Forestry and Renewable Forest Resources, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Petra Grošelj & Špela Pezdevšek Malovrh

  2. Research Division of Natural Resources, Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Shahrekord, Iran

    Mehdi Zandebasiri

Authors
  1. Petra Grošelj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mehdi Zandebasiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Špela Pezdevšek Malovrh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehdi Zandebasiri.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A

See Appendix Table 6.

Table 6 Expertise of the selected experts
Full size table

Appendix B

See Appendix Table 7.

Table 7 The final list of SWOT factors that was sent to European experts (by questionnaire for weighting) in the second stage of the study
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grošelj, P., Zandebasiri, M. & Pezdevšek Malovrh, Š. Evaluation of the European experts on the application of the AHP method in sustainable forest management. Environ Dev Sustain (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03859-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03859-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation