MCDM methods in strategic planning of forestry on state‐owned lands in Finland: applications and experiences

The forests in Finland have been under intensive planning for decades. Currently, mathematical programming is widely used in planning of wood production. Today's multi-functional forestry, however, calls for more flexible decision support methods. MCDM tools have been used in responding to fresh planning challenges. For example, the Finnish Forest and Park Service, entrusted with the care of the vast majority of state-owned natural resources in Finland, endeavours to produce large-scale natural resource plans satisfying the needs of both economic, social, and ecological sustainability. Participatory approach is applied in the process. Several forestry applications of MCDM methods, particularly those making use of the AHP or the HIPRE program, have been presented. Also, the outranking methods ELECTRE and PROMETHEE have been tested. Due to the nature of forestry applications, statistical techniques for analysing uncertainties in pairwise comparisons and for utilizing interval judgement data have been developed to improve the usability of the AHP. Recently, a hybrid method called A'WOT, making use of the AHP and SWOT, was also introduced into strategic forest planning. This paper summarizes the experiences gained in applying a MAVT and two outranking methods in connection with a participatory natural resource planning process in Finland. In addition, some results of the method development work related to application needs are briefly presented. The details of the planning cases reviewed here have previously been presented in forestry journals. The purpose of this paper is not only to show how MCDM methods have been applied in forestry, but also to discuss the usability and usefulness of MCDM methods from the viewpoint of supporting forestry decision making—and how they might further be improved. Also, some perspectives for the future development work of MCDM applications in the field of natural resource management are focused on. As a conclusion, the use of more than just one MCDM method in a single planning process is seen usually recommendable. In addition, developing hybrid MCDM methods is regarded as a potential direction for future research. Also, closer co-operation between method developers and appliers is called for to produce more useful applications. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  R. Westbrook,et al.  SWOT Analysis: It's Time for a Product Recall , 1997 .

[2]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  The Analytic Hierachy Process (AHP): Standard Version, Forestry Application and Advances , 1999 .

[3]  Bernard Roy,et al.  Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples , 1968 .

[4]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Analysing uncertainties of interval judgment data in multiple-criteria evaluation of forest plans , 1998 .

[5]  M. Denanot,et al.  In situ thermal annealing of InP amorphous layer induced by Si + implantation , 1991 .

[6]  Pekka Salminen,et al.  Choosing a solid waste management system using multicriteria decision analysis , 1997 .

[7]  R. Hämäläinen,et al.  On the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process , 1997 .

[8]  Mikko Kurttila,et al.  Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis — a hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case ☆ , 2000 .

[9]  Mark Gershon,et al.  Multiobjective Approaches to River Basin Planning , 1981 .

[10]  P. Leskinen.  Measurement scales and scale independence in the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2000 .

[11]  Mikko Kurttila,et al.  Application of even swaps for strategy selection in a rural enterprise , 2001 .

[12]  Guillermo A. Mendoza,et al.  Multiple criteria decision making approaches to assessing forest sustainability using criteria and indicators: a case study , 2000 .

[13]  Fu Li,et al.  EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION MODELS FOR APPLICATION TO WATER RESOURCES PLANNING , 1992 .

[14]  V. Tummala,et al.  A comparative study of multiattribute decision making methodologies , 1990 .

[15]  T. L. Saaty.  A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures , 1977 .

[16]  Stelios H. Zanakis,et al.  Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods , 1998, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[17]  Kaisa Miettinen,et al.  Decision-aid for discrete multiple criteria decision making problems with imprecise data , 1999, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[18]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Analyzing consistency of experts' judgments: Case of assessing forest biodiversity , 1998 .

[19]  A. Rapoport,et al.  A Comparison of the Eigenvalue Method and The Geometric Mean Procedure for Ratio Scaling , 1986 .

[20]  Annika Kangas,et al.  Outranking methods as tools in strategic natural resources planning , 2001 .

[21]  Mikko Kurttila,et al.  Applying A’WOT to Forest Industry Investment Strategies: Case Study of a Finnish Company in North America , 2001 .

[22]  Risto Lahdelma,et al.  Comparing multicriteria methods in the context of environmental problems , 1998 .

[23]  Max D. Larsen,et al.  In the mainstream: environmental attitudes of mid-south forest owners. , 1997 .

[24]  H. Karppinen.  Values and objectives of non-industrial private forest owners in Finland. , 1998 .

[25]  Valerie Belton,et al.  Integrated Support from Problem Structuring through to Alternative Evaluation Using COPE and V·I·S·A , 1997 .

[26]  Jean Pierre Brans,et al.  HOW TO SELECT AND HOW TO RANK PROJECTS: THE PROMETHEE METHOD , 1986 .

[27]  Annika Kangas,et al.  Optimization bias in forest management planning solutions due to errors in forest variables , 1999 .

[28]  Vladimir M. Ozernoy,et al.  Choosing The “Best” Multiple Criterlv Decision-Making Method , 1992 .

[29]  M. Pirlot.  A characterization of ‘min’ as a procedure for exploiting valued preference relations and related results , 1995 .

[30]  C. Genest,et al.  A statistical look at Saaty's method of estimating pairwise preferences expressed on a ratio scale , 1994 .

[31]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Analyzing uncertainties in experts' opinions of forest plan performance , 1997 .

[32]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Opinion of forest owners and the public on forests and their use in Finland , 1996 .

[33]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Integrating the AHP and HERO into the Process of Participatory Natural Resources Planning , 2001 .

[34]  B. Roy.  THE OUTRANKING APPROACH AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF ELECTRE METHODS , 1991 .

[35]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Improving the quality of landscape ecological forest planning by utilising advanced decision-support tools , 2000 .

[36]  D. Bouyssou.  Ranking methods based on valued preference relations: A characterization of the net flow method , 1992 .

[37]  G. Crawford,et al.  A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices , 1985 .

[38]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Uncertainty in Expert Predictions of the Ecological Consequences of Forest Plans , 1996 .

[39]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  A heuristic optimization method for forest planning and decision making , 1993 .

[40]  George Wright,et al.  Future‐focussed thinking: combining scenario planning with decision analysis , 1999 .

[41]  P. D. Jong.  A statistical approach to Saaty's scaling method for priorities , 1984 .

[42]  William Emmanuel S. Yu,et al.  Aide multicritere a la decision dans le cadre de la problematique du tri , 1992 .

[43]  A. Luloff,et al.  Attitudes toward the management of nonindustrial private forest land , 1994 .

[44]  Luis G. Vargas,et al.  A probabilistic study of preference structures in the analytic hierarchy process with interval judgments , 1993 .

[45]  Paul Goodwin,et al.  Enhancing Strategy Evaluation in Scenario Planning: a Role for Decision Analysis , 2001 .

[46]  Annika Kangas,et al.  HERO: Heuristic Optimisation for Multi-Criteria Forestry Decision Analysis , 2001 .

[47]  Pekka Salminen,et al.  Locating a Waste Treatment Facility by Multicriteria Analysis , 1997 .

[48]  Reid Kreutzwiser,et al.  Factors influencing integrated forest management on private industrial forest land , 1990 .

[49]  P. Leskinen,et al.  Regression Methods for Pairwise Comparison Data , 2001 .

[50]  F. Lootsma.  SCALE SENSITIVITY IN THE MULTIPLICATIVE AHP AND SMART , 1993 .

[51]  J. Kuuluvainen,et al.  Landowner objectives and nonindustrial private timber supply , 1996 .

[52]  D. Bouyssou,et al.  Ranking methods for valued preference relations: A characterization of a method based on leaving and entering flows , 1992 .

[53]  L. Tyrväinen,et al.  Forest management and public perceptions — visual versus verbal information , 2001 .

[54]  J. Kangas,et al.  Interactive decision analysis in participatory strategic forest planning: experiences from state owned boreal forests. , 1999 .

[55]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  An approach to public participation in strategic forest management planning , 1994 .

[56]  John Buchanan,et al.  Capturing decision maker preference: Experimental comparison of decision analysis and MCDM techniques , 1997 .

[57]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  Preference Assessment by Imprecise Ratio Statements , 1992, Oper. Res..

[58]  Philippe Vincke,et al.  An outranking method under uncertainty , 1988 .

[59]  James Corner,et al.  Teaching Decision Analysis , 1997 .

[60]  Pekka Salminen,et al.  ELECTRE III and IV Decision Aids in an Environmental Problem , 1997 .