Quantifying Public Preferences in Regional Forest Planning: A Comparison of Decision Theoretic Models
AbstractForest policy decisions are complex and often multi-faceted. A major criticism of the neoclassical approach is the omission of risk and uncertainty, multiple attributes of agricultural and forestry decisions and use of income or profit as the sole metric for evaluation of alternative decisions. This paper evaluates an alternative methodological approach - Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, which can be used to articulate public preferences for forest policy options. The three techniques generated comparable results indicating there is a potential to use such techniques in forest planning and decision making exercises. Notwithstanding the issues of representation and implementation in practical policy settings, the MCDA is well-suited to clarify tradeoffs and to increase transparency in forest policy decisions.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Deakin University, Faculty of Business and Law, School of Accounting, Economics and Finance in its series Economics Series with number 2008_02.
Length: 41 pages
Date of creation: 11 Oct 2008
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood 3125
Phone: 61 3 9244 3815
Web page: http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/aef/index.php
forest policy; stakeholder preferences; regional forest planning; analytic hierarchy process; multi-attribute value theory; multi-attribute utility theory; forest option ranking;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Gregory, Robin & Wellman, Katharine, 2001. "Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: a community-based estuary case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 37-52, October.
- 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.
- Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2008. "Multi-attribute preference modelling and regional land-use planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 325-335, April.
- F. Reed Johnson & Kristy E. Mathews, 2001. "Sources and Effects of Utility-Theoretic Inconsistency in Stated-Preference Surveys," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1328-1333.
- Katherine R. Smith, 2006. "Public Payments for Environmental Services from Agriculture: Precedents and Possibilities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1167-1173.
- 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.
- Stefan Hajkowicz & Geoff McDonald & Phil Smith, 2000. "An Evaluation of Multiple Objective Decision Support Weighting Techniques in Natural Resource Management," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(4), pages 505-518.
- John O'Neill & Clive L. Spash, 2000. "Conceptions of Value in Environmental Decision-Making," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 9(4), pages 521-536, November.
- Belton, Valerie, 1986. "A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and a simple multi-attribute value function," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 7-21, July.
- Delforce, Robert J. & Hardaker, J. Brian, 1985. "An Experiment In Multiattribute Utility Theory," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 29(03), December.
- Paul J. H. Schoemaker & C. Carter Waid, 1982. "An Experimental Comparison of Different Approaches to Determining Weights in Additive Utility Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 182-196, February.
- Robert J. Delforce & J. Brian Hardaker, 1985. "An Experiment In Multiattribute Utility Theory," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 29(3), pages 179-198, December.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dr Xueli Tang).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.