IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v65y2008i2p325-335.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-attribute preference modelling and regional land-use planning

Author

Listed:
  • Ananda, Jayanath
  • Herath, Gamini

Abstract

Forest management policy decisions are complex due to the multiple-use nature of goods and services from forests, difficulty in monetary valuation of ecological services and the involvement of a large number of stakeholders. Multi-attribute decision techniques can be used to synthesise stakeholder preferences related to regional forest planning because it can accommodate conflicting, multidimensional, incommensurable and incomparable objectives. The objective of this paper is to examine how the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) can be used to incorporate stakeholder preferences in determining optimal forest land-use choices. The Australian Regional Forest Agreement Programme is taken as an illustrative case for the analysis. The results show that the AHP can formalise public participation in decision making and increase the transparency and the credibility of the process.

Suggested Citation

  • Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2008. "Multi-attribute preference modelling and regional land-use planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 325-335, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:65:y:2008:i:2:p:325-335
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(07)00359-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hayashi, Kiyotada, 2000. "Multicriteria analysis for agricultural resource management: A critical survey and future perspectives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 486-500, April.
    2. Buchy, M. & Hoverman, S., 2000. "Understanding public participation in forest planning: a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 15-25, May.
    3. Strager, Michael P. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2006. "Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: Weights and measures in spatial MCA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 79-92, June.
    4. Martin, Wade E. & Shields, Deborah J. & Tolwinski, Boleslaw & Kent, Brian, 1996. "An application of social choice theory to U.S.D.A. forest service decision making," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 603-621, December.
    5. Kurttila, Mikko & Pesonen, Mauno & Kangas, Jyrki & Kajanus, Miika, 2000. "Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis -- a hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 41-52, May.
    6. Jeffrey Kline & Dennis Wichelns, 1996. "Public Preferences Regarding the Goals of Farmland Preservation Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(4), pages 538-549.
    7. Duke, Joshua M. & Aull-Hyde, Rhonda, 2002. "Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 131-145, August.
    8. James S. Dyer & Peter C. Fishburn & Ralph E. Steuer & Jyrki Wallenius & Stanley Zionts, 1992. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: The Next Ten Years," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(5), pages 645-654, May.
    9. Robin S. Gregory, 2000. "Valuing Environmental Policy Options: A Case Study Comparison of Multiattribute and Contingent Valuation Survey Methods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(2), pages 151-173.
    10. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2005. "Evaluating public risk preferences in forest land-use choices using multi-attribute utility theory," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 408-419, November.
    11. Robin Gregory & Ralph L. Keeney, 1994. "Creating Policy Alternatives Using Stakeholder Values," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(8), pages 1035-1048, August.
    12. Wellstead, Adam M. & Stedman, Richard C. & Parkins, John R., 2003. "Understanding the concept of representation within the context of local forest management decision making," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, January.
    13. Mau-Crimmins, Theresa & de Steiguer, J. E. & Dennis, Donald, 2005. "AHP as a means for improving public participation: a pre-post experiment with university students," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 501-514, May.
    14. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2003. "The use of Analytic Hierarchy Process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 13-26, January.
    15. Strager, Michael P. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2006. "Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: Weights and measures in spatial MCA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 627-639, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mónica de Castro-Pardo & Fernando Pérez-Rodríguez & José María Martín-Martín & João C. Azevedo, 2019. "Planning for Democracy in Protected Rural Areas: Application of a Voting Method in a Spanish-Portuguese Reserve," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-17, October.
    2. Li, Ruihua & Lin, Hua & Niu, Haipeng & Chen, Yuqi & Zhao, Suxia & Fan, Liangxin, 2019. "Smallholder preference and agroecosystem service trade-offs: A case study in Xinzheng County, China," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 19-26.
    3. Vincent F. Yu & Hsiu-I Ting, 2009. "Identifying key factors affecting consumers' choice of wealth management services: an AHP approach," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 929-939, May.
    4. Amelia Bilbao-Terol & Mariano Jiménez & Mar Arenas-Parra, 2016. "A group decision making model based on goal programming with fuzzy hierarchy: an application to regional forest planning," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 137-162, October.
    5. Berthomé, Guy-El-Karim & Thomas, Alban, 2017. "A Context-based Procedure for Assessing Participatory Schemes in Environmental Planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 113-123.
    6. Ildephonse, Musafili, 2015. "An Economic Analysis Of Farmers’ Preferences For Participatory Management Of Volcanoes National Park In Rwanda," Research Theses 265680, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    7. Martin J Wassen & Hens Runhaar & Aat Barendregt & Tomasz Okruszko, 2011. "Evaluating the Role of Participation in Modeling Studies for Environmental Planning," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 38(2), pages 338-358, April.
    8. Schaft, Franziska & Balmann, Alfons (ed.), 2009. "Multi-level processes of integration and disintegration. Proceedings of the Third Green Week Scientific Conference," Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Transition Economies, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), volume 52, number 92312.
    9. Sonia Delphin & Katherine A. Snyder & Sophia Tanner & Karim Musálem & Stuart E. Marsh & José R. Soto, 2022. "Obstacles to the Development of Integrated Land-Use Planning in Developing Countries: The Case of Paraguay," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-21, August.
    10. de Castro-Pardo, Mónica & Pérez-Rodríguez, Fernando & Martín-Martín, José María & Azevedo, João C., 2019. "Modelling stakeholders’ preferences to pinpoint conflicts in the planning of transboundary protected areas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    11. Jaafari, Abolfazl & Najafi, Akbar & Melón, Mónica García, 2015. "Decision-making for the selection of a best wood extraction method: An analytic network process approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 200-209.
    12. Mauerhofer, Volker, 2016. "Public participation in environmental matters: Compendium, challenges and chances globally," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 481-491.
    13. Violeta Keršulienė & Zenonas Turskis, 2014. "A hybrid linguistic fuzzy multiple criteria group selection of a chief accounting officer," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 232-252, April.
    14. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2009. "A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2535-2548, August.
    15. Grošelj, Petra & Hodges, Donald G. & Zadnik Stirn, Lidija, 2016. "Participatory and multi-criteria analysis for forest (ecosystem) management: A case study of Pohorje, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 80-86.
    16. Petra Grošelj & Špela Pezdevšek Malovrh & Lidija Zadnik Stirn, 2011. "Methods based on data envelopment analysis for deriving group priorities in analytic hierarchy process," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 19(3), pages 267-284, September.
    17. Sasaki, Yasuo, 2023. "Strategic manipulation in group decisions with pairwise comparisons: A game theoretical perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(3), pages 1133-1139.
    18. Brunelli, Matteo, 2019. "A study on the anonymity of pairwise comparisons in group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 279(2), pages 502-510.
    19. de Castro, Mónica & Urios, Vicente, 2017. "A critical review of multi-criteria decision making in protected areas," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 16(02), January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2009. "A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2535-2548, August.
    2. Rico, Margarita & González, Andrés, 2015. "Social participation into regional forest planning attending to multifunctional objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 27-34.
    3. Sugimura, Ken & Howard, Theodore E., 2008. "Incorporating social factors to improve the Japanese forest zoning process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 161-173, January.
    4. Gamper, C.D. & Turcanu, C., 2007. "On the governmental use of multi-criteria analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 298-307, April.
    5. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2003. "Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 75-90, April.
    6. Miller, Harvey J. & Witlox, Frank & Tribby, Calvin P., 2013. "Developing context-sensitive livability indicators for transportation planning: a measurement framework," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 51-64.
    7. Lee, Seungbum & Walsh, Patrick, 2011. "SWOT and AHP hybrid model for sport marketing outsourcing using a case of intercollegiate sport," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 361-369.
    8. Kangas, Annika & Laukkanen, Sanna & Kangas, Jyrki, 2006. "Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management--a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 77-92, November.
    9. de Castro, Mónica & Urios, Vicente, 2017. "A critical review of multi-criteria decision making in protected areas," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 16(02), January.
    10. Sadler, Richard C. & Hippensteel, Christopher & Nelson, Victoria & Greene-Moton, Ella & Furr-Holden, C. Debra, 2019. "Community-engaged development of a GIS-based healthfulness index to shape health equity solutions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 227(C), pages 63-75.
    11. Parnphumeesup, Piya & Kerr, Sandy A., 2011. "Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3591-3601, June.
    12. Blackstock, K.L. & Kelly, G.J. & Horsey, B.L., 2007. "Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 726-742, February.
    13. Sironen, Susanna & Primmer, Eeva & Leskinen, Pekka & Similä, Jukka & Punttila, Pekka, 2020. "Context sensitive policy instruments: A multi-criteria decision analysis for safeguarding forest habitats in Southwestern Finland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    14. Cropper, Eric D. & McLeod, Donald M. & Bastian, Christopher T. & Keske, Catherine M. & Hoag, Dana L. & Cross, Jennifer E., 2012. "Factors Affecting Land Trust Agents’ Preferences for Conservation Easements," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 42(2), pages 1-16.
    15. Lynch, Lori & Duke, Joshua M., 2007. "Economic Benefits of Farmland Preservation: Evidence from the United States," Working Papers 7342, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    16. Maria Cerreta & Pasquale De Toro, 2012. "Strategic Environmental Assessment of Port Plans in Italy: Experiences, Approaches, Tools," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(11), pages 1-34, November.
    17. Loureiro, Maria L. & Dominguez Arcos, Fernando, 2012. "Applying Best–Worst Scaling in a stated preference analysis of forest management programs," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 381-394.
    18. Jinyang Deng & David Dyre, 2009. "Linking Tourism Resources and Local Economic Benefits: A Spatial Analysis in West Virginia," Working Papers Working Paper 2009-06, Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University.
    19. Jared Abigail Valencia-Salvador & Fabio Humberto Sepúlveda-Murillo & Miguel Alfonso Flores-Sánchez & Norely Margarita Soto Builes, 2022. "Spatial Distribution of Social Inequality in the Metropolitan District of Quito, Ecuador," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 163(2), pages 753-769, September.
    20. Jamile Eleutério Delesposte & Luís Alberto Duncan Rangel & Marcelo Jasmim Meiriño & Ramon Baptista Narcizo & André Armando Mendonça de Alencar Junior, 2021. "Use of multicriteria decision aid methods in the context of sustainable innovations: bibliometrics, applications and trends," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 501-522, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:65:y:2008:i:2:p:325-335. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.