Facilitated Group Decision Making in Hierarchical Contexts

Part of the Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation book series (AGDN, volume 4)


Decision-orientated negotiation faces a particular challenge as regards information logistics when the acting group is part of a larger decision-making hierarchy. This is typically the case in large companies, policy processes, and in land-use planning. In hierarchical planning, the higher (top) levels of decision making frame, and are informed by the lower levels. Concurrently, the lower (subordinate) levels implement, and further specify, the directions given by the higher levels while feedback concerning the lower-level situation and staffs’ anticipations is collected and passed upwards. The groups of stakeholders may use several hard and soft OR methods to assist hierarchical negotiation, but their co-usage needs to be fitted with the requirements of the hierarchical case. This chapter discusses the tasks of groups and their moderators in hierarchical decision making and presents three generic approaches to be applied in solving hierarchical planning problems. In addition, three in-depth examples from natural resources management are presented; the first introduces strategic participative planning of state-owned forests, the second describes forest policy on regional and national scales, and the third illustrates how hierarchical negotiation can be accelerated by using an incentive


Planning Area Production Possibility Hierarchy Level Acceptance Threshold Protection Area Network 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adams JC (1963) Toward an understanding of inequity. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 67:422–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaudoin D, Frayret J-M, LeBel L (2008) Hierarchical forest management with anticipation: an application to tactical–operational planning integration. Can J Forest Res 38(8):2198–2211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beers P, Boshuizen H, Kirschner P, Gijselaers W (2006) Common ground, complex problems and decision making. Group Decis Negotiation 15(6):529–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beierle TC (2002) The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Anal 22:739–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belton V, Stewart TJ (2001) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  6. Benz A (1999) Multi-level governance. In: Glück P, Oesten G, Schanz H, Volz K-R (eds) Formulation and implementation of national forest programmes, vol I: theoretical aspects. European Forest Institute (EFI) proceedings 30, EFI, Joensuu, Finland, pp 73–84Google Scholar
  7. Bitran GR, Hax AC (2007) On the design of hierarchical production planning systems. Decis Sci 8(1):28–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brams SJ, Fishburn PC (1978) Approval voting. Am Pol Sci Rev 72(3):831–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown G (2005) Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for natural resource management: methods and applications. Soc Nat Resour 18(1):1–23Google Scholar
  10. Checkland P (1981) Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  11. Church RL, Murray AT, Figueroa MA, Barber KH (2000) Support system development for forest ecosystem management. Eur J Oper Res 121(2):247–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis LS, Liu G (1991) Integrated forest planning across multiple ownerships and decision makers. Forest Sci 37:200–226Google Scholar
  13. Dempster MAH, Fisher ML, Jansen L, Lageweg BJ, Lenstra JK, Rinnooy Kan AHG (1981) Analytical evaluation of hierarchical planning systems. Oper Res 29(4):707–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeSanctis G, Gallupe RB (1987) A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Manage Sci 33(5):589–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dudek G (2009) Collaborative planning in supply chains: a negotiation-based approach, 2nd edn. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dudek G, Stadtler H (2005) Negotiation-based collaborative planning between supply chains partners. Eur J Oper Res 163(3):668–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eden C (1988) Cognitive mapping. Eur J Oper Res 36(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Forester J (1989) Planning in the face of power. University of California Press, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  19. Gertler MS, Wolfe DA (2004) Local social knowledge management: community actors, institutions and multilevel governance in regional foresight exercises. Futures 36(1):45–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Godet M (2001) Creating futures: scenario planning as a strategic management tool. Economica, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Hänninen H, Ollonqvist P (2002) Institutional aspects as supporting and impeding factors on the process of Finnish national forest programme. In: Tikkanen I, Glück P, Pajuoja H (eds) Cross-sectoral policy impacts on forests. EFI proceedings 46, EFI, Joensuu, Finland, pp 177–187Google Scholar
  22. Harding R, Hendriks C, Faruqi M (2009) Environmental decision-making: exploring complexity and context. Federation Press, AnnandaleGoogle Scholar
  23. Hiltunen V, Kurttila M, Leskinen P, Pasanen K, Pykäläinen J (2009) Mesta: an internet-based decision-support application for participatory strategic-level natural resources planning. Forest Pol Econ 11(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hodginson G, Maule J, Bown N (2004) Causal cognitive mapping in the organizational strategy field: a comparison of alternative elicitation procedures. Organ Res Meth 7(1):3–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Homburg C (1998) Hierarchical multi-objective decision making. Eur J Oper Res 105(1):155–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Honold L (1997) A review of the literature on employee empowerment. Empowerment Organ 5(4):202–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hytönen LA, Leskinen P, Store R (2002) A spatial approach to participatory planning in forestry decision making. Scand J Forest Res 17:62–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jackson MC (1999) Towards coherent pluralism in management science. J Oper Res Soc 50(1):12–22Google Scholar
  29. Janis I (1972) Victims of groupthink: a psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  30. Jankowski P, Nyerges T (2001) Geographic information systems for group decision making: towards a participatory geographic information science. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Kangas AS, Laukkanen S, Kangas J (2006) Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management – a review. Forest Pol Econ 9:77–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kangas AS, Haapakoski R, Tyrväinen L (2008a) Integrating place-specific social values into forest planning – case of UPM-Kymmene forests in Hyrynsalmi, Finland. Silva Fenn 42:773–790Google Scholar
  33. Kangas AS, Kangas J, Kurttila M (2008b) Decision support for forest management. In: Managing forest ecosystems, vol 16. Springer, Berlin, 222pGoogle Scholar
  34. Kangas AS, Saarinen N, Saarikoski H, Leskinen LA, Hujala T, Tikkanen J (2010) Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Programmes in Finland. Forest Pol Econ 12:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kangas J, Leskinen P (2005) Modelling ecological expertise for forest planning calculations – rationale, examples, and pitfalls. J Environ Manage 76:125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kotiadis K, Mingers J (2006) Combining PSMs with hard OR methods: the philosophical and practical challenges. J Oper Res Soc 57:856–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kurttila M, Pukkala T (2003) Combining holding-level economic goals with spatial landscape-level goals in the planning of multiple ownership forestry. Landscape Ecol 18:529–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kurttila M, Pukkala T, Kangas J (2001) Composing landscape level plans for forest areas under multiple private ownership. Boreal Environ Res 6(4):285–296Google Scholar
  39. Kurttila M, Leskinen P, Pykäläinen J, Ruuskanen T (2008) Forest owners’ decision support in voluntary biodiversity-protection projects. Silva Fenn 42(4):643–658Google Scholar
  40. Laukkanen S, Kangas A (2002) Applying voting theory in natural resource management: a case of multiple-criteria group decision support. J Environ Manage 64:127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Leskinen LA, 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 Pol Econ 8:267–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Leskinen P, Hujala T, Tikkanen J, Kainulainen T, Kangas A, Kurttila M, Pykäläinen J, Leskinen LA (2009) Adaptive decision analysis in forest management planning. Forest Sci 55(2):95–108Google Scholar
  43. Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (2006) The construction of preference. Cambridge University Press, New York, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lind EA, Tyler TR (1988) The social psychology of procedural justice: critical issues in social justice. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Meal HC (1984) Putting production decisions where they belong. Harv Bus Rev 62(2):102–111Google Scholar
  46. Mendoza G, Prabhu R (2005) Combining participatory modelling and multi-criteria analysis for community-based forest management. Forest Ecol Manage 207(1–2):145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mendoza GA, Martins H (2006) Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: a critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. Forest Ecol Manage 230(1–3):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Niskanen A, Väyrynen J (eds) (1999) Regional forest programmes: a participatory approach to support forest based regional development. In: EFI proceedings 32, EFI, Joensuu, Finland, pp 1–240Google Scholar
  49. Pahl-Wolstl C (2005) Information, public empowerment, and the management of urban watersheds. Environ Model Softw 20(4):457–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Parkhurst GM, Shogren JF, Bastian C, Kivi P, Donner J, Smith RBW (2002) Agglomeration bonus: an incentive mechanism to reunite fragmented habitat for biodiversity conservation. Ecol Econ 41(2):305–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pasanen K, Kurttila M, Pykäläinen J, Kangas J, Leskinen P (2005) Mesta – non-industrial private forest landowners’ decision support for the evaluation of alternative forest plans over the Internet. Int J Inf Technol Decis Making 4:601–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Prager K, Freese J (2009) Stakeholder involvement in agri-environmental policy making – learning from a local- and a state-level approach in Germany. J Environ Manage 90(2):1154–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Prager K, Nagel UJ (2008) Participatory decision making on agri-environmental programmes: a case study from Sachsen-Anhalt (Germany). Land Use Policy 25(1):106–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Primmer E, Kyllönen S (2006) Goals for public participation implied by sustainable development, and the preparatory process of the Finnish National Forest Programme. Forest Pol Econ 8:838–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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 Forest Res 37:853–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Raitio K (2008) “You can’t please everyone” – conflict management practices, frames and institutions in Finnish state forests. Academic Dissertation, Faculty of Social Sciences and Regional Studies, University of JoensuuGoogle Scholar
  57. Reed P, Brown G (2003) Values suitability analysis: a methodology for identifying and integrating public perceptions of forest ecosystem values in national forest planning. J Environ Plann Manage 46(5):643–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rouwette EAJA, Vennix JAM (2008) Team learning on messy problems. In: Sessa VI, London M (eds) Work group learning: understanding, improving and assessing how groups learn in organizations. Taylor & Francis, New York, NY, pp 243–284Google Scholar
  59. Sandkuhl K (2009) Information logistics in networked organizations: selected concepts and applications. Lect Notes Bus Inf Process 12:43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schneeweiss C (1999) Hierarchies in distributed decision making. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schneeweiss C (2003) Distributed decision making – a unified approach. Eur J Oper Res 150(2):237–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schneeweiss C, Zimmer K (2004) Hierarchical coordination mechanisms within the supply chain. Eur J Oper Res 153:687–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Siitonen M, Anola-Pukkila A, Haara A, Härkönen K, Redsven V, Salminen O, Suokas A (eds) (2001) MELA handbook 2000 edition. The Finnish Forest Research Institute, VantaaGoogle Scholar
  64. Steuer RE (1986) Multiple criteria optimization: theory, computation and application. Wiley, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  65. Tikkanen J, Leskinen LA, Leskinen P (2003) Forestry organisation network in Northern Finland. Scand J Forest Res 18:547–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tikkanen J, Isokääntä T, Pykäläinen J, Leskinen P (2006) Applying cognitive mapping approach to explore the objective-structure of forest owners in a Northern Finnish case area. Forest Pol Econ 9:139–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tittler R, Messier C, Burton PJ (2001) Hierarchical forest management planning and sustainable forest management in the boreal forest. Forest Chron 77(6):998–1005Google Scholar
  68. Turner ME, Pratkanis AR (1998) Twenty-five years of groupthink theory and research: lessons from the evaluation of a theory. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 73(2–3):105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tyler TR (2003) The group engagement model: procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 7(4):349–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vainikainen N, Kangas A, Kangas J (2008) Empirical study on voting power in participatory forest planning. J Environ Manage 88:173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wallenius P (2001) Osallistava strateginen suunnittelu julkisten luonnonvarojen hoidossa [Participative strategic planning in managing public natural resources]. Metsähallituksen metsätalouden julkaisuja 41. Edita Oyj, Helsinki (In Finnish)Google Scholar
  72. Weintraub A, Cholaky A (1991) A hierarchical approach to forest planning. Forest Sci 37:439–460Google Scholar
  73. Weintraub A, Davis L (1996) Hierarchical planning in forest resource management: defining the dimensions of the subject area. In: Hierarchical approaches to forest management in public and private organizations. Petawawa National Forestry Institute, Information Report PI-X-124, pp 2–14Google Scholar
  74. von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W (1986) Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Finnish Forest Research InstituteJoensuu Research UnitJoensuuFinland

Personalised recommendations