Using a Compromise Programming framework to integrating spatially specific preference information for forest management problems

The development of forest management plans is a multi-criteria problem that usually involves multiple stakeholders. In forested recreational areas or natural parks, stakeholders could include government officials, forest companies and visitors to the area. With the progress of mobile phone technology, preference information (including aesthetic values) can be conveniently obtained from stakeholders while they are in the forest. This paper develops a methodological approach that incorporates place-specific opinion preference into the development of alternative forest management plans. Through the use of a modified Compromise Programming approach, prospective alternatives are developed, which optimize the opinions of stakeholders and the quantity of timber over time depending on specified parameters. The analysis is based on a small simulated forest holding and place-specific simulated opinion data. To allow for a comparison between potential stakeholder groups, the opinion data was generated by a method that produced three separate groups. The results indicate the practical use of place-specific preferences and provide a means to incorporate the information to generate possible alternative plans. In addition, the analysis highlights that by segregating the preference information into groups, the planning of more specific courses of actions can be made. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  A. Kangas,et al.  Integrating place-specific social values into forest planning : case of UPM-Kymmene forests in Hyrynsalmi, Finland , 2008 .

[2]  Michael Roth,et al.  Validating the use of internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment : An empirical study from Germany , 2006 .

[3]  Carlos Romero,et al.  Making forestry decisions with multiple criteria: A review and an assessment , 2008 .

[4]  Martin Weber,et al.  Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making , 1993 .

[5]  H Rantanen,et al.  The SoftGIS approach to local knowledge. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[6]  R Lahdelma,et al.  Using Multicriteria Methods in Environmental Planning and Management , 2000, Environmental management.

[7]  T. Pukkala,et al.  Prediction models of landscape preferences at the forest stand level , 2001 .

[8]  Jacinto González-Pachón,et al.  Goal programming in forest management: customising models for the decision-maker's preferences , 2013 .

[9]  Gregory Brown,et al.  Validation of a Forest Values Typology for Use in National Forest Planning , 2000, Forest Science.

[10]  S. Shiffman,et al.  Ecological momentary assessment. , 2008, Annual review of clinical psychology.

[11]  Hirotaka Nakayama.  Trade-off analysis using parametric optimization techniques , 1992 .

[12]  Annika Kangas,et al.  Adaptive decision analysis in forest management planning. , 2009 .

[13]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Integrating scenic and recreational amenities into numerical forest planning , 1995 .

[14]  D. Spruijt-Metz,et al.  Investigating Children's Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior Using Ecological Momentary Assessment With Mobile Phones , 2011, Obesity.

[15]  J. Schipperijn,et al.  Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas , 2007 .

[16]  Gregory Brown,et al.  Public Participation GIS: A New Method for Use in National Forest Planning , 2009, Forest Science.

[17]  Eva-Maria Nordström,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis with consideration to place-specific values in participatory forest planning , 2011 .

[18]  EyvindsonKyle.  Balancing equity and efficiency of goal programming for use in forest management planning , 2012 .

[19]  Mikko Kurttila,et al.  Interactive Method for Supporting Forest Owners in Biodiversity Protection Decisions , 2009, Small-scale Forestry.

[20]  P. Yu.  A Class of Solutions for Group Decision Problems , 1973 .