Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 56, Issue 2, pp 373–388 | Cite as

Hybrid MCDA Methods to Integrate Multiple Ecosystem Services in Forest Management Planning: A Critical Review

  • Britta UhdeEmail author
  • W. Andreas Hahn
  • Verena C. Griess
  • Thomas Knoke
Article

Abstract

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a decision aid frequently used in the field of forest management planning. It includes the evaluation of multiple criteria such as the production of timber and non-timber forest products and tangible as well as intangible values of ecosystem services (ES). Hence, it is beneficial compared to those methods that take a purely financial perspective. Accordingly, MCDA methods are increasingly popular in the wide field of sustainability assessment. Hybrid approaches allow aggregating MCDA and, potentially, other decision-making techniques to make use of their individual benefits and leading to a more holistic view of the actual consequences that come with certain decisions. This review is providing a comprehensive overview of hybrid approaches that are used in forest management planning. Today, the scientific world is facing increasing challenges regarding the evaluation of ES and the trade-offs between them, for example between provisioning and regulating services. As the preferences of multiple stakeholders are essential to improve the decision process in multi-purpose forestry, participatory and hybrid approaches turn out to be of particular importance. Accordingly, hybrid methods show great potential for becoming most relevant in future decision making. Based on the review presented here, the development of models for the use in planning processes should focus on participatory modeling and the consideration of uncertainty regarding available information.

Keywords

Ecosystem services Trade-offs Forest management planning Stakeholder participation Uncertainty Quantitative optimization Multiple criteria 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study is part of the two projects “Tree species diversity in Chilean forests – are naturalness and economics compatible?” funded by the Bauer Foundation within the “Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft” and “ARANGE – Advanced multifunctional forest management in European mountain ranges” (FP7-KBBE-2011-5) funded by the European Commission, FP7. The authors wish to thank Laura Carlson and John Guess for the language editing of the manuscript.

References

  1. Aldea J, Martínez-Peña F, Diaz-Balteiro L (2012) Integration of fungal production in forest management using a multi-criteria method. Eur J Forest Res 131:1991–2003. doi: 10.1007/s10342-012-0649-y Google Scholar
  2. Ananda J, Herath G (2005) Evaluating public risk preferences in forest land-use choices using multi-attribute utility theory. Ecol Econ 55:408–419. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.12.015 Google Scholar
  3. Ananda J, Herath G (2009) A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning. Ecol Econ 68:2535–2548. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.010 Google Scholar
  4. André FJ, Cardenete MA, Romero C (2010) Designing public policies. An approach based on multi-criteria analysis and computable general equilibrium modeling. Springer, Berlin, p 642Google Scholar
  5. Behzadian M, Kazemzadeh R, Albadvi A, Aghdasi M (2010) PROMETHEE: a comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur J Oper Res 200:198–215. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021 Google Scholar
  6. Bell D (1975) A decision analysis of objectives for a forest pest problem. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, LaxenburgGoogle Scholar
  7. Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis. An integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  8. Bjørndal T, Herrero I, Newman A, Romero C, Weintraub A (2012) Operations research in the natural resource industry. Int Trans Oper Res 19:39–62. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-3995.2010.00800.x Google Scholar
  9. Boggia A, Cortina C (2010) Measuring sustainable development using a multi-criteria model: a case study. JEMA 91:2301–2306. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.06.009 Google Scholar
  10. Boroushaki S, Malczewski J (2010) ParticipatoryGIS: a web-based collaborative GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. Urisa 22:23–32Google Scholar
  11. Boyland M, Nelson J, Bunnell FL, D’Eon RG (2006) An application of fuzzy set theory for seral-class constraints in forest planning models. Forest Ecol Manag 223:395–402. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.12.001 Google Scholar
  12. Brans J, Mareschal B (2005) PROMETHEE methods. In: Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, Boston, pp 163–196Google Scholar
  13. Brans J, Vincke P, Mareschal B (1986) How to select and how to rank projects: the Promethee method. Eur J Oper Res 24:228–238. doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(86)90044-5 Google Scholar
  14. Brugha CM (2004) Phased multicriteria preference finding. Eur J Oper Res 158:308–316. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2003.06.006 Google Scholar
  15. Butler B, Tyrell M, Feinberg G, VanManen S, Wiseman L, Wallinger S (2007) Understanding and reaching family forest owners: lessons from social marketing research. J Forest 105:348–357Google Scholar
  16. Carson RT (2012) Contingent valuation: a practical alternative when prices aren’t available. J Econ Perspect 26:27–42. doi: 10.1257/jep.26.4.27 Google Scholar
  17. Cheng H (2013) A satisficing method for fuzzy goal programming problems with different importance and priorities. Qual Quant 47:485–498. doi: 10.1007/s11135-011-9531-0 Google Scholar
  18. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260. doi: 10.1038/387253a0 Google Scholar
  19. de Keyser W, Peeters P (1996) A note on the use of PROMETHEE multicriteria methods. Eur J Oper Res 89:457–461Google Scholar
  20. Destan S, Yilmaz O, Sahin A (2013) Making objective forest stand maps of mixed managed forest with spatial interpolation and multi-criteria decision analysis. iForest 6:268–277. doi: 10.3832/ifor0099-006 Google Scholar
  21. Diaz-Balteiro L, Romero C (2003) Forest management optimisation models when carbon captured is considered: a goal programming approach. Forest Ecol Manag 174:447–457. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00075-0 Google Scholar
  22. Diaz-Balteiro L, Romero C (2008) Making forestry decisions with multiple criteria: a review and an assessment. Forest Ecol Manag 255:3222–3241. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.01.038 Google Scholar
  23. Diaz-Balteiro L, Bertomeu M, Bertomeu M (2009a) Optimal harvest scheduling in eucalyptus plantations. Forest Policy Econ 11:548–554. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2009.07.005 Google Scholar
  24. Diaz-Balteiro L, Gonzalez-Pachon J, Romero C (2009b) Forest management with multiple criteria and multiple stakeholders: an application to two public forests in Spain. Scan J For Res 24:87–93. doi: 10.1080/02827580802687440 Google Scholar
  25. Diaz-Balteiro L, Martell DL, Romero C, Weintraub A (2014) The optimal rotation of a flammable forest stand when both carbon sequestration and timber are valued: a multi-criteria approach. Nat Hazards 72:375–387. doi: 10.1007/s11069-013-1013-3 Google Scholar
  26. Doole GJ, Pannell DJ (2013) A process for the development and application of simulation models in applied economics. Aust J Agr Res Econ 57:79–103. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8489.2012.00607.x Google Scholar
  27. Ducey MJ, Larson BC (1999) A fuzzy set approach to the problem of sustainability. Forest Ecol Manag 115:29–40. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00433-2 Google Scholar
  28. Duncker PS, Raulund-Rasmussen K, Gundersen P, Katzensteiner K, de Jong J, Ravn HP et al (2012) How forest management affects ecosystem services, including timber production and economic return: synergies and trade-offs. Ecol and Soc 17:50. doi: 10.5751/ES-05066-170450 Google Scholar
  29. Durbach IN, Stewart TJ (2012) Modeling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis. Eur J Oper Res 223:1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2012.04.038 Google Scholar
  30. Farmer JD, Foley D (2009) The economy needs agent-based modelling. Nature 460:685–686. doi: 10.1038/460685a Google Scholar
  31. Feizizadeh B, Blaschke T (2013) GIS-multicriteria decision analysis for landslide susceptibility mapping: comparing three methods for the Urmia lake basin, Iran. Nat Hazards 65:2105–2128. doi: 10.1007/s11069-012-0463-3 Google Scholar
  32. Field D (1973) Goal programming for forest management. J Forest 19:125–135Google Scholar
  33. Flavell RB (1976) A new goal programming formulation. Omega 4:731–732. doi: 10.1016/0305-0483(76)90099-2 Google Scholar
  34. Fontana V, Radtke A, Bossi Fedrigotti V, Tappeiner U, Tasser E, Zerbe S, Buchholz T (2013) Comparing land-use alternatives: using the ecosystem services concept to define a multi-criteria decision analysis. Ecol Econ 93:128–136. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.05.007 Google Scholar
  35. García-Barrios L, Speelman E, Pimm M (2008) An educational simulation tool for negotiating sustainable natural resource management strategies among stakeholders with conflicting interests. Ecol Model 210:115–126Google Scholar
  36. Ghajar I, Najafi A (2012) Evaluation of harvesting methods for sustainable forest management (SFM) using the analytical network process (ANP). Forest Policy Econ 21:81–91. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.01.003 Google Scholar
  37. Goldstein JH, Caldarone G, Duarte TK, Ennaanay D, Hannahs N, Mendoza G et al (2012) Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:7565–7570. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1201040109 Google Scholar
  38. Gómez T, Hernández M, León M, Caballero R (2006) A forest planning problem solved via a linear fractional goal programming model. Forest Ecol Manag 227:79–88. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.02.012 Google Scholar
  39. Görener A (2012) Comparing AHP and ANP: an application of strategic decisions making in a manufacturing company. Int J Bus Soc Sci 3:194–208Google Scholar
  40. Greene R, Devillers R, Luther JE, Eddy BG (2011) GIS-based multiple-criteria decision analysis. Geogr Comp 5:412–432. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2011.00431.x Google Scholar
  41. Groselj P, Zadnik Stirn L (2013) Between compromise and consensus in group decisions in forest management. Šumar list 7–8:403–410Google Scholar
  42. Gupta A, Harboe R, Tabucanon M (2000) Fuzzy multiple-criteria decision making for crop area planning in Narmada river basin. Agr Syst 63:1–18Google Scholar
  43. Hahn A, Knoke T (2010) Sustainable development and sustainable forestry: analogies, differences, and the role of flexibility. Eur J Forest Res 129:787–801Google Scholar
  44. Hahn A, Knoke T (2013) Angebot, Nachfrage und Nachhaltigkeit im Wald. Holz-Zentralblatt 139:530–531Google Scholar
  45. Halog A, Manik Y (2011) Advancing integrated systems modelling framework for life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 3:469–499. doi: 10.3390/su3020469 Google Scholar
  46. Härtl F, Hahn A, Knoke T (2013) Risk-sensitive planning support for forest enterprises: the YAFO model. Comput Electr Agr 94:58–70Google Scholar
  47. Hausman J (2012) Contingent valuation: from Dubious to hopeless. J Econ Perspect 26:43–56. doi: 10.1257/jep.26.4.43 Google Scholar
  48. Herva M, Roca E (2013) Review of combined approaches and multi-criteria analysis for corporate environmental evaluation. J Clean Prod 39:355–371. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.058 Google Scholar
  49. Hjortsø CN (2004) Enhancing public participation in natural resource management using Soft OR—an application of strategic option development and analysis in tactical forest planning. Eur J Oper Res 152:667–683. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00065-1 Google Scholar
  50. Huth A, Drechsler M, Köhler P (2004) Multicriteria evaluation of simulated logging scenarios in a tropical rain forest. JEMA 71:321–333. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.03.008 Google Scholar
  51. Huth A, Drechsler M, Köhler P (2005) Using multicriteria decision analysis and a forest growth model to assess impacts of tree harvesting in Dipterocarp lowland rain forests. Forest Ecol Manag 207:215–232. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.028 Google Scholar
  52. Hyde KM (2006) Uncertainty analysis methods for multi-criteria decision analysis. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Adelaide, AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  53. Jactel H, Branco M, Duncker P, Gardiner B, Grodzki W, Langstrom B et al (2012) A multicriteria risk analysis to evaluate impacts of forest management alternatives on forest health in Europe. Ecol and Soc 17:52. doi: 10.5751/ES-04897-170452 Google Scholar
  54. Kangas J (1992a) Metsikön uudistamisketjun valinta—monitavoitteiseen hyötyteoriaan perustuva päätösanalyysimalli. Summary: Choosing the regeneration chain in a forest stand: a decision analysis model based on multi-attribute utility theory. University of Joensuu, JoensuuGoogle Scholar
  55. Kangas J (1992b) Multiple-use planning of forest resources by using the analytic hierarchy process. Scan J For Res 7:259–268. doi: 10.1080/02827589209382718 Google Scholar
  56. Kangas J (1996) A participatory approach to tactical forest planning. Finnish society of forest planning; Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki. Acta For Fenn 251Google Scholar
  57. Kangas AS, Kangas J (2004) Probability, possibility and evidence: approaches to consider risk and uncertainty in forestry decision analysis. Forest Policy Econ 6:169–188. doi: 10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00083-7 Google Scholar
  58. Kangas J, Kangas A (2005) Multiple criteria decision support in forest management—the approach, methods applied, and experiences gained. Forest Ecol Manag 207:133–143. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.023 Google Scholar
  59. Kangas J, Store R, Leskinen P, Mehtatalo L (2000) Improving the quality of landscape ecological forest planning by utilizing advanced decision support tools. Forest Ecol Manag 132:157–171Google Scholar
  60. Kangas A, Kangas J, Pykäläinen J (2001a) Outranking methods as tools in strategic natural resources planning. Silva Fenn 35:215–227Google Scholar
  61. Kangas J, Hytönen LA, Loikkanen T (2001b) Integrating the AHP and HERO into process of participatory natural resources planning. In: Schmoldt DL, Kangas J, Mendoza G, Pesonen M (eds) The analytic hierarchy process in natural resource and environmental decision making. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 131–147Google Scholar
  62. Kangas J, Kangas A, Leskinen P, Pykäläinen J (2001c) MCDM methods in strategic planning of forestry on state-owned lands in Finland: applications and experiences. J Multi Crit Decis Anal 10:257–271. doi: 10.1002/mcda.306 Google Scholar
  63. Kangas J, Pesonen M, Kurttila M, Kajanus M (2001) A’WOT: integrating the AHP with SWOT analysis. In: Dellman K (ed) Proceedings of the sixth international symposium on the analytic hierarchy process ISAHP 2001. Kursaal Bern, 2–4 Aug, Berne-Switzerland pp 189–199Google Scholar
  64. Kangas J, Pukkala T, Kangas A (2001e) HERO: heuristic optimisation for multi-criteria forestry decision analysis. In: Schmoldt DL, Kangas J, Mendoza G, Pesonen M (eds) The analytic hierarchy process in natural resource and environmental decision making. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 51–66Google Scholar
  65. Kangas A, Kangas J, Lahdelma R, Salminen P (2006) Using SMAA-2 method with dependent uncertainties for strategic forest planning. Forest Policy Econ 9:113–125. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2005.03.012 Google Scholar
  66. Kangas A, Kangas J, Kurttila M (2008) Decision support for forest management. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  67. Kao C (2009) Efficiency measurement for parallel production systems. Eur J Oper Res 196:1107–1112. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2008.04.020 Google Scholar
  68. Kaya T, Kahraman C (2011) Fuzzy multiple criteria forestry decision making based on an integrated VIKOR and AHP approach. Expert Syst Appl 38:7326–7333. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.003 Google Scholar
  69. Keeney R, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives. preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  70. Khadka C, Vacik H (2012) Use of multi-criteria analysis (MCA) for supporting community forest management. iForest 5:60–71. doi: 10.3832/ifor0608-009 Google Scholar
  71. Khadka C, Hujala T, Wolfslehner B, Vacik H (2013) Problem structuring in participatory forest planning. Forest Policy Econ 26:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.09.008 Google Scholar
  72. Kloeze H, Molenkamp A, Roelofs F (1980) Strategic planning and participation: a contradiction in terms? Long Range Plann 13:10–20. doi: 10.1016/0024-6301(80)90098-9 Google Scholar
  73. Knoke T, Calvas B, Ochoa Moreno WS, Onyekwelu JC, Griess VC (2013) Food production and climate protection—what abandoned lands can do to preserve natural forests. Global Environ Chang 23:1064–1072. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.004 Google Scholar
  74. Korosuo A, Wikström P, Öhman K, Eriksson LO (2011) An integrated MCDA software application for forest planning: a case study in southwestern Sweden. Math Comput For Nat Res Sci 3:75–86Google Scholar
  75. Krcmar E, van Kooten GC, Vertinsky I (2005) Managing forest and marginal agricultural land for multiple tradeoffs: compromising on economic, carbon and structural diversity objectives. Ecol Model 185:451–468. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2004.12.014 Google Scholar
  76. Kurttila M, Pesonen M, Kangas J, Kajanus M (2000) Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process AHP in SWOT analysis a hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case. Forest Policy Econ 1:41–52Google Scholar
  77. Leskinen P (2007) Comparison of alternative scoring techniques when assessing decision maker’s multi-objective preferences in natural resource management. JEMA 85:363–370. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.10.003 Google Scholar
  78. Leskinen L, Leskinen P, Kurttila M, Kangas J, Kajanus M (2006) Adapting modern strategic decision support tools in the participatory strategy process—a case study of a forest research station. Forest Policy Econ 8:267–278. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2004.06.007 Google Scholar
  79. Lexer M, Vacik H, Palmetzhofer D, Oitzinger G (2005) A decision support tool to improve forestry extension services for small private landowners in southern Austria. Comput Electr Agr 49:81–102. doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2005.02.004 Google Scholar
  80. Limaei SM (2013) Efficiency of Iranian forest industry based on DEA models. J For Res 24:759–765. doi: 10.1007/s11676-013-0371-8 Google Scholar
  81. Limaei SM, Kouhi MS, Sharaji TR (2014) Goal programming approach for sustainable forest management (case study in Iranian Caspian forests). J For Res 25:429–435. doi: 10.1007/s11676-014-0472-z Google Scholar
  82. Linkov I, Bakr Ramadan A (eds) (2004) Comparative risk assessment and environmental decision making., NATO science series. Series IV, Earth and environmental sciencesKluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, p 38Google Scholar
  83. Linkov I, Seager T, Kiker G, Bridges T (2004) Multi-criteria decision analysis: a framework for structuring remedial decisions at contaminated sites. In: Linkov I, Bakr Ramadan A (eds) Comparative risk assessment and environmental decision making, vol 38., NATO science series. Series IV, Earth and environmental sciencesKluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 15–54Google Scholar
  84. Lootsma FA (1990) The French and the American school in multi-criteria decision analysis. Oper Res 24:380–388Google Scholar
  85. Lynam T, de Jong W, Sheil D, Kusumanto T, Evans K (2007) A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural resources management. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art5/. Accessed 14 Aug 2013
  86. Malczewski J (1999) GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  87. Malczewski J (2006) GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 20:703–726. doi: 10.1080/13658810600661508 Google Scholar
  88. McCarl BA, Spreen TH (1997) Applied mathematical programming using algebraic systems. http://agecon2.tamu.edu/people/faculty/mccarl-bruce/books.htm. Accessed 14 Aug 2013
  89. MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. A report of the millennium ecosystem assessment. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  90. Mendoza G, Martins H (2006) Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: a critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. Forest Ecol Manag 230:1–22. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.03.023 Google Scholar
  91. Mendoza GA, Prabhu R (2000) Development of a methodology for selecting criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management: a case study on participatory assessment. Environ Manage 26:659–673. doi: 10.1007/s002670010123 Google Scholar
  92. Mendoza GA, Bruce Bare B, Zhou Z (1993) A fuzzy multiple objective linear programming approach to forest planning under uncertainty. Agr Syst 41:257–274. doi: 10.1016/0308-521X(93)90003-K Google Scholar
  93. Mendoza G, Macoun P, Prabhu R, Sukadri D, Purnomo H, Hartanto H (1999) Guidelines for applying multi-criteria analysis to the assessment of criteria and indicators, vol 9., The Criteria & indicators toolbox seriesCenter for International Forestry Research, JakartaGoogle Scholar
  94. Mustajoki J, Saarikoski H, Marttunen M, Ahtikoski A, Hallikainen V, Helle T et al (2011) Use of decision analysis interviews to support the sustainable use of the forests in Finnish Upper Lapland. J Environ Manage 92:1550–1563. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.01.007 Google Scholar
  95. Myllyviita T, Hujala T, Kangas A, Leskinen P (2011) Decision support in assessing the sustainable use of forests and other natural resources—a comparative review. Open For Sci J 4:24–41Google Scholar
  96. Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron D et al (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7:4–11. doi: 10.1890/080023 Google Scholar
  97. Nordström E, Eriksson L, Öhman K (2010) Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis in participatory forest planning: experience from a case study in northern Sweden. Forest Policy Econ 12:562–574. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2010.07.006 Google Scholar
  98. Nordström E, Holmström H, Öhman K (2013) Evaluating continuous cover forestry based on the forest owner’s objectives by combining scenario analysis and multiple criteria decision analysis. Silva Fenn. 47:1–22. doi: 10.14214/sf.1046 Google Scholar
  99. Ozturk D, Batuk F (2011) Implementation of GIS-based mulicriteria decision analysis with VB in ArcGIS. Int J Infor Tech Dec Mak 10:1023–1042. doi: 10.1142/S0219622011004695 Google Scholar
  100. Pagiola S, von Ritter K, Bishop J (2004) Assessing the economic value of ecosystem conservation. World Bank Environment Department, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  101. Palma J, Graves A, Burgess P, van der Werf W, Herzog F (2007) Integrating environmental and economic performance to assess modern silvoarable agroforestry in Europe. Ecol Econ 63:759–767. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.011 Google Scholar
  102. Paul C, Knoke T (2015) Between land sharing and land sparing—what role remains for forest management and conservation? Int Forest Rev (in press)Google Scholar
  103. Pauwels D, Lejeune P, Rondeux J (2007) A decision support system to simulate and compare silvicultural scenarios for pure even-aged larch stands. Ann For Sci 64:345–353. doi: 10.1051/forest:2007011 Google Scholar
  104. Perman R (2011) Natural resource and environmental economics, 4th edn. Pearson Addison Wesley, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  105. Polatidis H, Haralambopoulos D, Munda G, Vreeker R (2006) Selecting an appropriate multi-criteria decision analysis technique for renewable energy planning. Energy Source Part B 1:181–193. doi: 10.1080/009083190881607 Google Scholar
  106. Pukkala T, Kangas J (1993) A heuristic optimization method for forest planning and decision making. Scan J For Res 8:560–570. doi: 10.1080/02827589309382802 Google Scholar
  107. Pykäläinen J, Hiltunen V, Leskinen P (2007) Complementary use of voting methods and interactive utility analysis in participatory strategic forest planning: experiences gained from western Finland. Can J For Res 37:853–865. doi: 10.1139/X06-241 Google Scholar
  108. Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson G, Bennett E (2010) Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:5242–5247. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0907284107 Google Scholar
  109. Rinner C, Malczewski J (2002) Web-enabled spatial decision analysis using ordered weighted averaging (OWA). J Geogr Syst 4:385–403. doi: 10.1007/s101090300095 Google Scholar
  110. Rivas-Dávalos F, Moreno-Goytia E, Gutiérrez-Alcaraz G, Tovar-Hernández J (2007) Evolutionary multi-objective optimization in power systems: state-of-the-art. In : IEEE Lausanne Power Tech, 2007. Lausanne, Switzerland. IEEE Service Center, Piscataway, 1–5 July 2007Google Scholar
  111. Robert N (2013) Sustaining the supply of multiple ecosystem services. An analysis based on the simulation of the joint production of wood and non-wood goods in forests. Dissertation, Paris Tech, Nancy Cedex. French National Institute of Geographic and Forest Information (IGN) and Laboratory of Forest EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  112. Roessiger J, Griess VC, Knoke T (2011) May risk aversion lead to near-natural forestry? A simulation study. Forestry 84:527–537. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpr017 Google Scholar
  113. Romero C, Tamiz M, Jones DF (1998) Goal programming, compromise programming and reference point method formulations: linkages and utility interpretations. J Oper Res Soc 49:986–991. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600611 Google Scholar
  114. Roy B (1968) Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples—La méthode ELECTRE. RIRO 8:57–75Google Scholar
  115. Saaty T (1990) The analytic hierarchy process. planning, priority setting, resource allocation, 2nd edn. RWS Publications, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  116. Sandker M, Campbell B, Ruiz-Pérez M, Sayer J, Cowling R, Kassa H, Knight A (2010) The role of participatory modeling in landscape approaches to reconcile conservation and development, 2. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art13/. Accessed 14 Aug 2013
  117. Sanon S, Hein T, Douven W, Winkler P (2012) Quantifying ecosystem service trade-offs: the case of an urban floodplain in Vienna, Austria. JEMA 111:159–172. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.06.008 Google Scholar
  118. Schmoldt DL, Mendoza G (2001) Past developments and future directions for the AHP in natural resources. In: Schmoldt DL, Kangas J, Mendoza G, Pesonen M (eds) The analytic hierarchy process in natural resource and environmental decision making. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 289–305Google Scholar
  119. Schwenk W, Donovan T, Keeton W, Nunery J (2012) Carbon storage, timber production, and biodiversity: comparing ecosystem services with multi-criteria decision analysis. Ecol Appl 22:1612–1627Google Scholar
  120. Seidl R, Lexer MJ (2013) Forest management under climatic and social uncertainty: trade-offs between reducing climate change impacts and fostering adaptive capacity. J Environ Manage 114:461–469. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.09.028 Google Scholar
  121. Sharma LK, Kanga S, Nathawat MS, Sinha S, Pandey PC (2012) Fuzzy AHP for forest fire risk modeling. Disaster Prevent Manag 21:160–171. doi: 10.1108/09653561211219964 Google Scholar
  122. Shen J, Jing Z, Wen Y (2013) Measuring the true technical efficiency of farmers’ forest management in Fujian, China: a three-stage dea analysis. Inf Technol J 12:8604–8608. doi: 10.3923/itj.2013.8604.8608 Google Scholar
  123. Sheppard SR, Meitner M (2005) Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups. Forest Ecol Manag 207:171–187. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.032 Google Scholar
  124. Stewart TJ, French S, Rios J (2013) Integrating multicriteria decision analysis and scenario planning—review and extension. Omega 41:679–688. doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2012.09.003 Google Scholar
  125. Tamiz M, Jones D, Romero C (1998) Goal programming for decision making: an overview of the current state-of-the-art. Eur J Oper Res 111:569–581. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00317-2 Google Scholar
  126. Triantakonstantis DP, Kalivas DP, Kollias VJ (2013) Autologistic regression and multicriteria evaluation models for the prediction of forest expansion. New Forest 44:163–181. doi: 10.1007/s11056-012-9308-x Google Scholar
  127. Triantaphyllou E (2000) Multi-criteria decision making methods. A comparative study. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  128. UNCED (1992) The non-legally binding authoritative statement of principles for a global consensus on the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests. Report on the United Nations Conference on Environment and Dept. Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  129. Uribe D, Geneletti D, del Castillo R, Orsi F (2014) Integrating stakeholder preferences and GIS-based multicriteria analysis to identify forest landscape restoration priorities. Sustainability 6:935–951. doi: 10.3390/su6020935 Google Scholar
  130. Vahidnia M, Alesheikh A, Alimohammadi A, Bassiri A (2008) Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process in GIS application. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 37(B2):593–596Google Scholar
  131. Vainikainen N, Kangas A, Kangas J (2008) Empirical study on voting power in participatory forest planning. JEMA 88:173–180. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.02.004 Google Scholar
  132. Vassilev V, Genova K, Vassileva M (2005) A brief survey of multicriteria decision making and software systems. Cybernet Inf Tech 5:3–13Google Scholar
  133. Velasquez M, Hester PT (2013) An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods. Int J Oper Res 10:56–66Google Scholar
  134. von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W (1986) Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  135. Weintraub A, Romero C (2006) Operations research models and the management of agricultural and forestry resources: a review and comparison. Interfaces 36:446–457. doi: 10.1287/inte.1060.0222 Google Scholar
  136. Willis AJ (1997) The ecosystem: an evolving concept viewed historically. Funct Ecol 11:268–271Google Scholar
  137. Wise M, Calvin K, Thomson A, Clarke L, Bond-Lamberty B, Sands R et al (2009) Implications of Limiting CO2 concentrations for land use and energy. Science 324:1183–1186. doi: 10.1126/science.1168475 Google Scholar
  138. Wolfslehner B, Seidl R (2010) Harnessing ecosystem models and multi-criteria decision analysis for the support of forest management. Environ Manag 46:850–861. doi: 10.1007/s00267-009-9414-5 Google Scholar
  139. Wolfslehner B, Vacik H, Lexer MJ (2005) Application of the analytic network process in multi-criteria analysis of sustainable forest management. For Ecol Manag 207:157–170. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.025 Google Scholar
  140. Wolfslehner B, Brüchert F, Fischbach J, Rammer W, Becker G, Lindner M, Lexer MJ (2012) Exploratory multi-criteria analysis in sustainability impact assessment of forest-wood chains: the example of a regional case study in Baden-Württemberg. Eur J Forest Res 131:47–56. doi: 10.1007/s10342-011-0499-z Google Scholar
  141. Zadeh L (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353Google Scholar
  142. Zadnik Stirn L (2006) Integrating the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with dynamic programming approach for determining the optimal forest management decisions. Ecol Model 194:296–305. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.10.023 Google Scholar
  143. Zarghami M, Szidarovszky F (2011) Multicriteria analysis. Applications to water and environment management. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  144. Zeleny M (1973) Compromise programming. In: Cochrane JL, Zeleny M (eds) Multiple criteria decision making, 1st edn. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, pp 262–301Google Scholar
  145. Zhang Z, Sherman R, Yang Z, Wu R, Wang W, Yin M et al (2013) Integrating a participatory process with a GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis for protected area zoning in China. J Nat Conserv 21:225–240. doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2012.12.006 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Britta Uhde
    • 1
    Email author
  • W. Andreas Hahn
    • 1
  • Verena C. Griess
    • 2
  • Thomas Knoke
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Forest Management, Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Management, Center of Life and Food Sciences WeihenstephanTechnische Universität MünchenFreisingGermany
  2. 2.Department of Forest Resources Management, Faculty of ForestryUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations