IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dkn/econwp/eco_2008_02.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Quantifying Public Preferences in Regional Forest Planning: A Comparison of Decision Theoretic Models

Author

Listed:

Abstract

Forest 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Jayanath Ananada & Gamini Herath, 2008. "Quantifying Public Preferences in Regional Forest Planning: A Comparison of Decision Theoretic Models," Working Papers 2008_02, Deakin University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:dkn:econwp:eco_2008_02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/aef/workingpapers/papers/2008_02eco.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:dkn:econwp:eco_2008_02. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Xueli Tang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sedeaau.html .

    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.