IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v103y2019icp103-111.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Application of multi criteria analysis methods for a participatory assessment of non-wood forest products in two European case studies

Author

Listed:
  • Huber, P.
  • Hujala, T.
  • Kurttila, M.
  • Wolfslehner, B.
  • Vacik, H.

Abstract

With the advent of the European bioeconomy and a shift in lifestyle among European citizens, non-wood forest products (NWFPs) are given more attention in the public debate. Their potential to strengthen the economic viability of rural economies appears to be high, particularly in regions where wood is not the most profitable forest product. However, information on NWFP production potentials are scarce and tools to support forest owners in decision making about NWFP management are rarely available. Considering the complex relationships between a sustained production of NWFPs, the use of the available ecological resources, as well as the organizational and the market potential of forest management regimes, we introduce a knowledge-based expert model for supporting NWFP management. In a mixed-method approach qualitative and quantitative techniques are combined to depict regional production and business potentials of NWFPs, explicitly addressing different environmental and socio-economic contexts. For the model building multi-criteria analysis methods were used for preference elicitations in an iterative form, including stakeholders and experts. Within two distinct case study settings (i.e. Austria and Finland) the expert model is tested for applicability and to depict the most suitable option from a suite of selected NWFPs. Results for both case studies well reflect current NWFP business potentials and provide insights to the opportunities of mixing more resilient and more risky NWFPs to a solid regional business portfolio, fostering the co-production of wood and non-wood resources. The approach presented has a potential to steer the mindset of different forest owner types to critically revise their interests in forest management. It could act as an eye-opener for forestry-oriented stakeholders who have not yet considered NWFPs as potential assets in forest management systems. With its ability to include various NWFPs and to consider different forest owner preferences, future applications can be tailored towards the needs of both small-scale (non-industrial) forest owners and bigger forest holdings.

Suggested Citation

  • Huber, P. & Hujala, T. & Kurttila, M. & Wolfslehner, B. & Vacik, H., 2019. "Application of multi criteria analysis methods for a participatory assessment of non-wood forest products in two European case studies," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 103-111.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:103:y:2019:i:c:p:103-111
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.07.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934116304452
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.07.003?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. Cai, Mattia & Pettenella, Davide & Vidale, Enrico, 2011. "Income generation from wild mushrooms in marginal rural areas," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 221-226, March.
    2. Rodríguez-Vicente, Verónica & Marey-Pérez, Manuel F., 2010. "Analysis of individual private forestry in northern Spain according to economic factors related to management," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 269-295, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Prokofieva, Irina & Gorriz, Elena, 2013. "Institutional analysis of incentives for the provision of forest goods and services: An assessment of incentive schemes in Catalonia (north-east Spain)," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 104-114.
    5. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    6. Ludvig, Alice & Tahvanainen, Veera & Dickson, Antonia & Evard, Camille & Kurttila, Mikko & Cosovic, Marija & Chapman, Emma & Wilding, Maria & Weiss, Gerhard, 2016. "The practice of entrepreneurship in the non-wood forest products sector: Support for innovation on private forest land," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 31-37.
    7. Edwards, Ward & Barron, F. Hutton, 1994. "SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 306-325, December.
    8. Chukwuone, N.A. & Okeke, C.A., 2012. "Can non-wood forest products be used in promoting household food security?: Evidence from savannah and rain forest regions of Southern Nigeria," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 1-9.
    9. Voces, Roberto & Diaz-Balteiro, Luis & Alfranca, Óscar, 2012. "Demand for wild edible mushrooms. The case of Lactarius deliciosus in Barcelona (Spain)," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 47-60.
    10. Schulp, C.J.E. & Thuiller, W. & Verburg, P.H., 2014. "Wild food in Europe: A synthesis of knowledge and data of terrestrial wild food as an ecosystem service," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 292-305.
    11. Calama, Rafael & Mutke, Sven & Tomé, José & Gordo, Javier & Montero, Gregorio & Tomé, Margarida, 2011. "Modelling spatial and temporal variability in a zero-inflated variable: The case of stone pine (Pinus pinea L.) cone production," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(3), pages 606-618.
    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. Winkel, Georg & Lovrić, Marko & Muys, Bart & Katila, Pia & Lundhede, Thomas & Pecurul, Mireia & Pettenella, Davide & Pipart, Nathalie & Plieninger, Tobias & Prokofieva, Irina & Parra, Constanza & Pülz, 2022. "Governing Europe's forests for multiple ecosystem services: Opportunities, challenges, and policy options," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    2. Andreas Kuckertz, 2020. "Bioeconomy Transformation Strategies Worldwide Require Stronger Focus on Entrepreneurship," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-8, April.
    3. Mónica de Castro-Pardo & João C. Azevedo, 2021. "A Goal Programming Model to Guide Decision-Making Processes towards Conservation Consensuses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-25, 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. Christoph Schunko & Christian R. Vogl, 2018. "Is the Commercialization of Wild Plants by Organic Producers in Austria Neglected or Irrelevant?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, October.
    2. Maier, Carolin & Hebermehl, Wiebke & Grossmann, Carol M. & Loft, Lasse & Mann, Carsten & Hernández-Morcillo, Mónica, 2021. "Innovations for securing forest ecosystem service provision in Europe – A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    3. Christoph Schunko & Sarah Lechthaler & Christian R. Vogl, 2019. "Conceptualising the Factors that Influence the Commercialisation of Non-Timber Forest Products: The Case of Wild Plant Gathering by Organic Herb Farmers in South Tyrol (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-21, April.
    4. Yael Grushka-Cockayne & Bert De Reyck & Zeger Degraeve, 2008. "An Integrated Decision-Making Approach for Improving European Air Traffic Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(8), pages 1395-1409, August.
    5. Iwaro, Joseph & Mwasha, Abrahams & Williams, Rupert G. & Zico, Ricardo, 2014. "An Integrated Criteria Weighting Framework for the sustainable performance assessment and design of building envelope," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 417-434.
    6. Tom Pape, 2020. "Prioritising data items for business analytics: Framework and application to human resources," Papers 2012.13813, arXiv.org.
    7. Takuya Takahashi & Takahiro Tsuge & Shingo Shibata, 2022. "Innovativeness of Japanese Forest Owners Regarding the Monetization of Forest Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-11, February.
    8. Tom Pape, 2020. "Value of agreement in decision analysis: Concept, measures and application," Papers 2012.13816, arXiv.org.
    9. de Frutos, Pablo & Rodriguez-Prado, Beatriz & Latorre, Joaquín & Martinez-Peña, Fernando, 2019. "A Gravity Model to Explain Flows of Wild Edible Mushroom Picking. A Panel Data Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 164-173.
    10. James Dolan, 2010. "Multi-Criteria Clinical Decision Support," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 229-248, December.
    11. Bragge, Johanna, 2001. "Premediation analysis of the energy taxation dispute in Finland," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 1-16, July.
    12. Pape, Tom, 2017. "Value of agreement in decision analysis: concept, measures and application," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 68682, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Li, Yaxin & Ding, Yuxin & Guo, Yuliang & Cui, Haizhou & Gao, Haiyi & Zhou, Ziyu & (Aaron) Zhang, Nanbo & Zhu, Siyao & Chen, Faan, 2023. "An integrated decision model with reliability to support transport safety system analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 239(C).
    14. Çağlar Kıvanç Kaymaz & Salih Birinci & Yusuf Kızılkan, 2022. "Sustainable development goals assessment of Erzurum province with SWOT-AHP analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 2986-3012, March.
    15. Lucas Borges Leal Da Silva & Evanielle Barbosa Ferreira & Rodrigo José Pires Ferreira & Eduarda Asfora Frej & Lucia Reis Peixoto Roselli & Adiel Teixeira De Almeida, 2023. "Paradigms, Methods, and Tools for Multicriteria Decision Models in Sustainable Industry 4.0 Oriented Manufacturing Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-27, May.
    16. Rađenović Žarko & Veselinović Ivana, 2017. "Integrated AHP-TOPSIS Method for the Assessment of Health Management Information Systems Efficiency," Economic Themes, Sciendo, vol. 55(1), pages 121-142, March.
    17. Scholz, Michael & Pfeiffer, Jella & Rothlauf, Franz, 2017. "Using PageRank for non-personalized default rankings in dynamic markets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 388-401.
    18. Schulp, C.J.E. & Thuiller, W. & Verburg, P.H., 2014. "Wild food in Europe: A synthesis of knowledge and data of terrestrial wild food as an ecosystem service," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 292-305.
    19. Hamunen, Katri & Kurttila, Mikko & Miina, Jari & Peltola, Rainer & Tikkanen, Jukka, 2019. "Sustainability of Nordic non-timber forest product-related businesses – A case study on bilberry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    20. Diaz-Balteiro, L. & Alfranca, O. & Voces, R. & Soliño, M., 2023. "Using google search patterns to explain the demand for wild edible mushrooms," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).

    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:103:y:2019:i:c:p:103-111. 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.