Analytic hierarchy process to select forest management methods in Durango

The forests of the state of Durango have been managed for more than 100 years in some regions. At present, the preference towards any method is at the substand level within each land, from a decision tree that includes questions in terms of the value of different parameters. However, this system does not allow to take into account other criteria that could be involved in each particular case. The MPC 2.01 MEX© program facilitates the selection of a forest management method by the forest manager, developing the multicriteria decisions making methodology of comparison by pairs (Analytic Hierarchy Process or AHP). The program considers a group of environmental, social, economic, and technical sustainability criteria in the decision type, and includes four alternatives of management: MMOBI (Mexican Method of Irregular Forests Regulation), MDS (Method for Forestry Development), Clear Cutting and Not to cut. Its application was analyzed in a land of Durango state, Mexico. Results indicate that slope is one of the most appreciated criteria at the moment of the management election, as well as the annual current increment and the establishment costs or regeneration management. The MMOBI and the MDS emphasized under great part of the criteria, while the application of Clear Cutting obtained the maximum score under the wood estimated incomes criterion; the Not to cut alternative was the most valued one under the criterion of costs establishment or regeneration management.

[1]  E. Triantaphyllou,et al.  A Sensitivity Analysis Approach for Some Deterministic Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods* , 1997 .

[2]  Annika Kangas,et al.  Multiple criteria decision support in forest management: the approach, methods applied, and experiences gained , 2005 .

[3]  E. U. Choo,et al.  Comparing Fundamentals of Additive and Multiplicative Aggregation in Ratio Scale Multi-Criteria Decision Making , 2008 .

[4]  Keith M. Reynolds,et al.  Relative importance of risk factors for spruce beetle outbreaks , 1994 .

[5]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  A multi-attribute preference model for evaluating the reforestation chain alternatives of a forest stand , 1993 .

[6]  Siana Halim,et al.  EVALUATING COMPARISON BETWEEN CONSISTENCY IMPROVING METHOD AND RESURVEY IN AHP , 2001 .

[7]  Zeshui Xu,et al.  A consistency improving method in the analytic hierarchy process , 1999, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[8]  Ying-Ming Wang,et al.  An approach to avoiding rank reversal in AHP , 2006, Decis. Support Syst..

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

[10]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  A Method for Integrating Risk and Attitude Toward Risk into Forest Planning , 1996, Forest Science.

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

[12]  William C. Wedley,et al.  Correcting illegitimate rank reversals: proper adjustment of criteria weights prevent alleged AHP intransitivity , 2008 .

[13]  S. H. Zanakis,et al.  A Monte Carlo investigation of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices in AHP , 1997 .

[14]  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 .

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

[16]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary , 2003, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[17]  B. C. Canada,et al.  A UNIT INTERPRETATION OF MULTI-CRITERIA RATIOS , 2001 .

[18]  D. Schmoldt,et al.  Analytical Group Decision Making in Natural Resources: Methodology and Application , 2000, Forest Science.

[19]  Guillermo A. Mendoza,et al.  Forest planning and decision making under fuzzy environments: an overview and illustration , 1989 .

[20]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation , 1990 .

[21]  D. Schmoldt,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resource and Environmental Decision Making , 2001, Managing Forest Ecosystems.

[22]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  A participatory approach to tactical forest planning , 1996 .

[23]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytical Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World , 1982 .

[24]  Ross A. Lumley,et al.  THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF AHP USING A SCALE DERIVED FROM THE TIME IT TAKES TO DECIDE BETWEEN TWO CHOICES INSTEAD OF ONE DERIVED FROM "1-9" ESTIMATES , 2001 .

[25]  Daniel L. Schmoldt,et al.  Developing inventory and monitoring programs based on multiple objectives , 1994 .

[26]  W. Wedley,et al.  Ambiguous Criteria Weights in AHP: Consequences and Solutions* , 1989 .