IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v15y2012icp91-97.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determining appropriate forestry extension model: Application of AHP in the Zagros area, Iran

Author

Listed:
  • Samari, Davood
  • Azadi, Hossein
  • Zarafshani, Kiumars
  • Hosseininia, Gholamhossein
  • Witlox, Frank

Abstract

Determining an appropriate forestry extension model remains as a major challenge if sustainable forest management is a goal. This article was an attempt to show how the analytical hierarchy process can effectively be helpful in selecting appropriate model for forestry extension. The results revealed that the present situation fails to regard the ‘privatized extension’ as an appropriate model for the Zagros area in Iran. The results also showed while the beneficiaries select ‘cooperative extension system’ as the most appropriate model, it has no tangible difference with ‘public extension system’ as the second preferred option. Accordingly, a hybrid forestry extension model was recommended as an appropriate model.

Suggested Citation

  • Samari, Davood & Azadi, Hossein & Zarafshani, Kiumars & Hosseininia, Gholamhossein & Witlox, Frank, 2012. "Determining appropriate forestry extension model: Application of AHP in the Zagros area, Iran," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 91-97.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:15:y:2012:i:c:p:91-97
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.10.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934111001869
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.10.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Thomas L. Saaty, 1986. "Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 841-855, July.
    2. Jie Lu & Guangquan Zhang & Da Ruan & Fengjie Wu, 2007. "Fuzzy Group Decision Making," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Multi-Objective Group Decision Making Methods, Software and Applications with Fuzzy Set Techniques, chapter 10, pages 207-227, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Hossein Azadi & Peter Ho & Erni Hafni & Kiumars Zarafshani & Frank Witlox, 2011. "Multi-stakeholder involvement and urban green space performance," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(6), pages 785-811.
    4. Jie Lu & Guangquan Zhang & Da Ruan & Fengjie Wu, 2007. "Group Decision Making," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Multi-Objective Group Decision Making Methods, Software and Applications with Fuzzy Set Techniques, chapter 3, pages 39-51, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Pohekar, S. D. & Ramachandran, M., 2004. "Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning--A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 365-381, August.
    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. Hojatollah Khedrigharibvand & Hossein Azadi & Dereje Teklemariam & Ehsan Houshyar & Philippe Maeyer & Frank Witlox, 2019. "Livelihood alternatives model for sustainable rangeland management: a review of multi-criteria decision-making techniques," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 11-36, February.
    2. 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.
    3. Thi Dieu Linh Nguyen & Brent Bleys, 2021. "Applying Analytic Hierarchy Process to Adaptation to Saltwater Intrusion in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-16, February.

    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. Wenjing Luo & Zhi Qiu & Yurika Yokoyama & Shengyuan Zheng, 2022. "Decision-Making Mechanism of Joint Activities for the Elderly and Children in Integrated Welfare Facilities: A Discussion Based on “Motivation–Constraint” Interaction Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-23, August.
    2. Wanke, Peter Fernandes & Chiappetta Jabbour, Charbel José & Moreira Antunes, Jorge Junio & Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, Ana Beatriz & Roubaud, David & Sobreiro, Vinicius Amorim & Santibanez Gonzalez‬, Erne, 2021. "An original information entropy-based quantitative evaluation model for low-carbon operations in an emerging market," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    3. Eduardo Fernández & Claudia Gómez-Santillán & Nelson Rangel-Valdez & Laura Cruz-Reyes, 2022. "Group Multi-Objective Optimization Under Imprecision and Uncertainty Using a Novel Interval Outranking Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 945-994, October.
    4. Zhang, Ruijun & Lu, Jie & Zhang, Guangquan, 2011. "A knowledge-based multi-role decision support system for ore blending cost optimization of blast furnaces," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 215(1), pages 194-203, November.
    5. Virginia Racioppi & Gabriella Marcarelli & Massimo Squillante, 2015. "Modelling a sustainable requalification problem by analytic hierarchy process," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 1661-1677, July.
    6. Fang Liu & Mao-Jie Huang & Cai-Xia Huang & Witold Pedrycz, 2022. "Measuring consistency of interval-valued preference relations: comments and comparison," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 371-399, March.
    7. Cebi, Selcuk & Ilbahar, Esra & Atasoy, Aylin, 2016. "A fuzzy information axiom based method to determine the optimal location for a biomass power plant: A case study in Aegean Region of Turkey," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(P1), pages 894-907.
    8. Guangquan Zhang & Jie Lu, 2010. "Fuzzy bilevel programming with multiple objectives and cooperative multiple followers," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 403-419, July.
    9. Pham Thanh Vu & Vo Quang Minh & Phan Chi Nguyen & Tran Van Dung & Nguyen The Cuong & Ngo Thi Phong Lan, 2020. "Estimating the criteria affected to agricultural production: case of Chau Thanh A district, Vietnam," Asian Journal of Agriculture and rural Development, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 10(1), pages 463-472, June.
    10. Borawska Anna, 2017. "Cognitive Neuroscience Tools in Economic Experiments Investigating the Decision Making Process," Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia, Sciendo, vol. 17(1), pages 159-169, June.
    11. Harrison Mutikanga & Saroj Sharma & Kalanithy Vairavamoorthy, 2011. "Multi-criteria Decision Analysis: A Strategic Planning Tool for Water Loss Management," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(14), pages 3947-3969, November.
    12. Behnoosh Matani & Babak Shirazi & Javad Soltanzadeh, 2019. "F-MaMcDm: Sustainable Green-Based Hydrogen Production Technology Roadmap Using Fuzzy Multi-Aspect Multi-Criteria Decision-Making," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(08), pages 1-32, December.
    13. R. O. Parreiras & P. Ya. Ekel & D. C. Morais, 2012. "Fuzzy Set Based Consensus Schemes for Multicriteria Group Decision making Applied to Strategic Planning," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 153-183, March.
    14. Adriana Galderisi & Andrea Ceudech & Massimiliano Pistucci, 2008. "A method for na-tech risk assessment as supporting tool for land use planning mitigation strategies," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 46(2), pages 221-241, August.
    15. Liu, Fang & Chen, Ya-Ru & Zhou, Da-Hai, 2023. "A two-dimensional approach to flexibility degree of XOR numbers with application to group decision making," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 267-287.
    16. 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.
    17. Banai, Reza, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    18. Rubio Rodríguez, M.A. & Ruyck, J. De & Díaz, P. Roque & Verma, V.K. & Bram, S., 2011. "An LCA based indicator for evaluation of alternative energy routes," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(3), pages 630-635, March.
    19. Berna Tektas Sivrikaya & Ferhan Cebi & Hasan Hüseyin Turan & Nihat Kasap & Dursun Delen, 2017. "A fuzzy long-term investment planning model for a GenCo in a hybrid electricity market considering climate change impacts," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 975-991, October.
    20. Berna Tektaş & Hasan Hüseyin Turan & Nihat Kasap & Ferhan Çebi & Dursun Delen, 2022. "A Fuzzy Prescriptive Analytics Approach to Power Generation Capacity Planning," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-26, April.

    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:forpol:v:15:y:2012:i:c:p:91-97. 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/forpol .

    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.