IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v9y2006i1p77-92.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management--a review

Author

Listed:
  • Kangas, Annika
  • Laukkanen, Sanna
  • Kangas, Jyrki

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:9:y:2006:i:1:p:77-92
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389-9341(05)00048-1
    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. Duncan Black, 1976. "Partial justification of the Borda count," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 1-15, December.
    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. Yilmaz, Mustafa R., 1999. "Can we improve upon approval voting?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 89-100, March.
    4. Vossler, Christian A. & Kerkvliet, Joe, 2003. "A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 631-649, May.
    5. Gallagher, Michael, 1992. "Comparing Proportional Representation Electoral Systems: Quotas, Thresholds, Paradoxes and Majorities," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(4), pages 469-496, October.
    6. Lahdelma, Risto & Hokkanen, Joonas & Salminen, Pekka, 1998. "SMAA - Stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 137-143, April.
    7. Kant, Shashi, 2004. "Economics of sustainable forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 197-203, June.
    8. 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.
    9. Paul B. Simpson, 1969. "On Defining Areas of Voter Choice: Professor Tullock on Stable Voting," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 83(3), pages 478-490.
    10. 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.
    11. Shields, Deborah J. & Tolwinski, Boleslaw & Kent, Brian M., 1999. "Models for conflict resolution in ecosystem management," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 61-84, March.
    12. Satterthwaite, Mark Allen, 1975. "Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 187-217, April.
    13. Donald Saari & Jill Newenhizen, 1988. "The problem of indeterminacy in approval, multiple, and truncated voting systems," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 101-120, November.
    14. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    15. Sen, Amartya, 1997. "On Economic Inequality," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198292975.
    16. Kangas, Jyrki & Store, Ron & Kangas, Annika, 2005. "Socioecological landscape planning approach and multicriteria acceptability analysis in multiple-purpose forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 603-614, May.
    17. Lahdelma, Risto & Miettinen, Kaisa & Salminen, Pekka, 2003. "Ordinal criteria in stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA)," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 117-127, May.
    18. Tideman, T Nicolaus & Tullock, Gordon, 1976. "A New and Superior Process for Making Social Choices," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 84(6), pages 1145-1159, December.
    19. Gehrlein, William V. & Lepelley, Dominique, 2001. "The Condorcet efficiency of Borda Rule with anonymous voters," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 39-50, January.
    20. Jac C. Heckelman, 2003. "Probabilistic Borda rule voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 21(3), pages 455-468, December.
    21. Risto Lahdelma & Pekka Salminen, 2001. "SMAA-2: Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis for Group Decision Making," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 444-454, June.
    22. Holly Wise Bender & Wade E. Martin, 2003. "Modelling conflict using spatial voting games: an application to USDA Forest Service lands," International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(2), pages 149-167.
    23. Timothy L. McDaniels & Karen Thomas, 1999. "Eliciting preferences for land use alternatives: A structured value referendum with approval voting," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 264-280.
    24. Nurmi, Hannu & Kacprzyk, Janusz & Fedrizzi, Mario, 1996. "Probabilistic, fuzzy and rough concepts in social choice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 264-277, December.
    25. Kant, Shashi & Lee, Susan, 2004. "A social choice approach to sustainable forest management: an analysis of multiple forest values in Northwestern Ontario," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 215-227, June.
    26. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
    27. 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.
    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. F. Pastorella & G. Giacovelli & M. Maesano & A. Paletto & S. Vivona & A. Veltri & G. Pellicone & G. Scarascia Mugnozza, 2016. "Social perception of forest multifunctionality in southern Italy: The case of Calabria Region," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 366-379.
    3. Diaby, Moussa & Ferrer, Hélène & Valognes, Fabrice, 2013. "A social choice approach to primary resource management: The rubber tree case in Africa," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 8-14.
    4. Hiltunen, Veikko & Kangas, Jyrki & Pykalainen, Jouni, 2008. "Voting methods in strategic forest planning -- Experiences from Metsahallitus," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 117-127, January.
    5. Yuni Xu & Xiang Fu & Xuefeng Chu, 2019. "Analyzing the Impacts of Climate Change on Hydro-Environmental Conflict-Resolution Management," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 33(4), pages 1591-1607, March.
    6. Iker Etxano & Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Oihana Garcia, 2018. "Conflicting Values in Rural Planning: A Multifunctionality Approach through Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-29, May.
    7. Kajanus, Miika & Leskinen, Pekka & Kurttila, Mikko & Kangas, Jyrki, 2012. "Making use of MCDS methods in SWOT analysis—Lessons learnt in strategic natural resources management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 1-9.
    8. 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.
    9. González-Pachón, Jacinto & Romero, Carlos, 2016. "Bentham, Marx and Rawls ethical principles: In search for a compromise," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 47-51.
    10. Farzane Karami & Alireza B. Dariane, 2018. "Many-Objective Multi-Scenario Algorithm for Optimal Reservoir Operation Under Future Uncertainties," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 32(12), pages 3887-3902, September.
    11. Kijazi, Martin Herbert & Kant, Shashi, 2011. "Social acceptability of alternative forest regimes in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania, using stakeholder attitudes as metrics of uncertainty," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 242-257, April.
    12. Kijazi, Martin Herbert & Kant, Shashi, 2010. "Forest stakeholders' value preferences in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 357-369, June.
    13. Kijazi, Martin Herbert & Kant, Shashi, 2011. "Evaluation of welfare functions of environmental amenities: A case of forest biomass fuels in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 129-139.
    14. Corral, Serafín & Legna-de la Nuez, David & Romero-Manrique de Lara, David, 2015. "Integrated assessment of biofuel production in arid lands: Jatropha cultivation on the island of Fuerteventura," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 41-53.
    15. Z. Sarvašová & Z. Dobšinská, 2016. "Provision of ecosystem services in mountain forests - case study of experts' and stakeholders' perceptions from Slovakia," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 380-387.

    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. Kangas, Jyrki & Store, Ron & Kangas, Annika, 2005. "Socioecological landscape planning approach and multicriteria acceptability analysis in multiple-purpose forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 603-614, May.
    2. 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.
    3. García Cáceres, Rafael Guillermo & Aráoz Durand, Julián Arturo & Gómez, Fernando Palacios, 2009. "Integral analysis method - IAM," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(3), pages 891-903, February.
    4. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Stochastic preference analysis in numerical preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(2), pages 628-633.
    5. R. Pelissari & M. C. Oliveira & S. Ben Amor & A. Kandakoglu & A. L. Helleno, 2020. "SMAA methods and their applications: a literature review and future research directions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 293(2), pages 433-493, October.
    6. Wang, Sen & Wilson, Bill, 2007. "Pluralism in the economics of sustainable forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(7), pages 743-750, April.
    7. Song, Shiling & Yang, Feng & Yu, Pingxiang & Xie, Jianhui, 2021. "Stochastic multi-attribute acceptability analysis with numerous alternatives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 295(2), pages 621-633.
    8. Kajanus, Miika & Leskinen, Pekka & Kurttila, Mikko & Kangas, Jyrki, 2012. "Making use of MCDS methods in SWOT analysis—Lessons learnt in strategic natural resources management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 1-9.
    9. Sell, Joachim & Koellner, Thomas & Weber, Olaf & Proctor, Wendy & Pedroni, Lucio & Scholz, Roland W., 2007. "Ecosystem services from tropical forestry projects - The choice of international market actors," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(5), pages 496-515, January.
    10. Fan, Zhi-Ping & Liu, Yang & Feng, Bo, 2010. "A method for stochastic multiple criteria decision making based on pairwise comparisons of alternatives with random evaluations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 906-915, December.
    11. Jiang, Yanping & Liang, Xia & Liang, Haiming & Yang, Ningman, 2018. "Multiple criteria decision making with interval stochastic variables: A method based on interval stochastic dominance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(2), pages 632-643.
    12. Corrente, Salvatore & Figueira, José Rui & Greco, Salvatore, 2014. "The SMAA-PROMETHEE method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 514-522.
    13. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2018. "σ-µ efficiency analysis: A new methodology for evaluating units through composite indices," MPRA Paper 83569, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Brandl, Florian & Brandt, Felix, 0. "A natural adaptive process for collective decision-making," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society.
    15. Lahdelma, Risto & Miettinen, Kaisa & Salminen, Pekka, 2005. "Reference point approach for multiple decision makers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 164(3), pages 785-791, August.
    16. Valentin Bertsch & Wolf Fichtner, 2016. "A participatory multi-criteria approach for power generation and transmission planning," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 177-207, October.
    17. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    18. Erdamar, Bora & Sanver, M. Remzi & Sato, Shin, 2017. "Evaluationwise strategy-proofness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 227-238.
    19. Tomas J. McIntee, 2017. "A geometric model of sensitivity of multistage elections to change," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(1), pages 89-115, June.
    20. Salvatore Barbaro & Anna Specht, 2021. "Simple-majority rule and the size of the Bundestag," Working Papers 2105, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.

    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:forpol:v:9:y:2006:i:1:p:77-92. 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.