IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v15y2012icp114-122.html

Selecting a forest plan among alternatives: Consistency of preferences within decision support frameworks

Author

Listed:
  • Eyvindson, Kyle
  • Hujala, Teppo
  • Kangas, Annika
  • Kurttila, Mikko

Abstract

Multi-criteria decision support (MCDS) tools assist the decision maker (DM) in selecting an appropriate option among pre-specified alternatives. In forest management context, criteria based on existing and utilized forest resources are used to compare and contrast the alternatives. Typically only a small group of the available criteria is used in the analysis. Deciding upon which criteria are used to represent the economic, ecological and social sustainability might have an impact on the final selection among the forest plans. This study's primary objective is to examine if DMs derive similar decisions regarding forest management with a varying level of information provided, thus illustrating how critical it is to negotiate about the criteria set in advance. Fifty forest science students were used as testees, using a representative sized forest tract as a case “holding” which provided semi-authentic data. A series of decision scenarios tested how the decision changed with an increase in the amount of information. Results of a systematic examination show that slightly over half of the participants selected the same plan in at least 2 out of 3 scenarios. The results also suggest that the most important requirement for criteria selection is that they display the dimensions where the plans markedly differ.

Suggested Citation

  • Eyvindson, Kyle & Hujala, Teppo & Kangas, Annika & Kurttila, Mikko, 2012. "Selecting a forest plan among alternatives: Consistency of preferences within decision support frameworks," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 114-122.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:15:y:2012:i:c:p:114-122
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.09.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138993411100164X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.09.009?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Beshears, John & Choi, James J. & Laibson, David & Madrian, Brigitte C., 2008. "How are preferences revealed?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(8-9), pages 1787-1794, August.
    2. Dan Ariely & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2003. ""Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 73-106.
    3. Hiltunen, Veikko & Kurttila, Mikko & Leskinen, Pekka & Pasanen, Karri & Pykäläinen, Jouni, 2009. "Mesta: An internet-based decision-support application for participatory strategic-level natural resources planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, January.
    4. Luis Diaz-Balteiro & Carlos Romero, 2007. "Multiple Criteria Decision-Making in Forest Planning: Recent Results and Current Challenges," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Andres Weintraub & Carlos Romero & Trond Bjørndal & Rafael Epstein & Jaime Miranda (ed.), Handbook Of Operations Research In Natural Resources, chapter 0, pages 473-488, Springer.
    5. Joseph Henrich & Steve J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan, 2010. "The Weirdest People in the World?," RatSWD Working Papers 139, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    6. Uri Gneezy & John A List, 2006. "Putting Behavioral Economics to Work: Testing for Gift Exchange in Labor Markets Using Field Experiments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(5), pages 1365-1384, September.
    7. KARRI PASANEN & MIKKO KURTTILA & JOUNI PYKÄlÄINEN & JYRKI KANGAS & PEKKA LESKINEN, 2005. "Mesta — Non-Industrial Private Forest Owners' Decision-Support Environment For The Evaluation Of Alternative Forest Plans Over The Internet," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(04), pages 601-620.
    8. Remus, William, 1986. "Graduate students as surrogates for managers in experiments on business decision making," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 19-25, February.
    9. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    10. Payne, John W & Bettman, James R & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 243-270, December.
    11. Gregory, Robin & Lichtenstein, Sarah & Slovic, Paul, 1993. "Valuing Environmental Resources: A Constructive Approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 177-197, October.
    12. Matthew Rabin, 1998. "Psychology and Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(1), pages 11-46, March.
    13. Kazana, Vassiliki & Fawcett, Roy H. & Mutch, William E. S., 2003. "A decision support modelling framework for multiple use forest management: The Queen Elizabeth Forest case study in Scotland," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 148(1), pages 102-115, July.
    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. de Castro-Pardo, Mónica & Pérez-Rodríguez, Fernando & Martín-Martín, José María & Azevedo, João C., 2019. "Modelling stakeholders’ preferences to pinpoint conflicts in the planning of transboundary protected areas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).

    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. Dohmen, Thomas, 2014. "Behavioral labor economics: Advances and future directions," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 71-85.
    2. Kuller, M. & Beutler, P. & Lienert, J., 2023. "Preference change in stakeholder group-decision processes in the public sector: Extent, causes and implications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 308(3), pages 1268-1285.
    3. Julien Milanesi, 2010. "Measuring demand for sanitation in developing countries: A new theoretical and methodological framework for contingent valuation surveys," Post-Print hal-00633288, HAL.
    4. Daniel Bromley, 2004. "Reconsidering Environmental Policy: Prescriptive Consequentialism and Volitional Pragmatism," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(1), pages 73-99, May.
    5. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & van Mossel, Allard & Broecks, Kevin P.F., 2015. "Public acceptance of energy technologies: The effects of labeling, time, and heterogeneity in a discrete choice experiment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 817-829.
    6. Thunström, Linda & Nordström, Jonas & Shogren, Jason F., 2015. "Certainty and overconfidence in future preferences for food," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 101-113.
    7. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    8. Yildiz, Özgür, 2014. "Lehren aus der Verhaltensökonomik für die Gestaltung umweltpolitischer Maßnahmen [Lessons from behavioral economics for the design of environmental policy measures]," MPRA Paper 59360, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Bogliacino, Francesco & Grimalda, Gianluca & Pipke, David, 2021. "Kind or contented? An investigation of the gift exchange hypothesis in a natural field experiment in Colombia," OSF Preprints xmjaq, Center for Open Science.
    10. Drichoutis, Andreas & Nayga, Rodolfo & Klonaris, Stathis, 2010. "The Effects of Induced Mood on Preference Reversals and Bidding Behavior in Experimental Auction Valuation," MPRA Paper 25597, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. A. Peter McGraw & Eldar Shafir & Alexander Todorov, 2010. "Valuing Money and Things: Why a $20 Item Can Be Worth More and Less Than $20," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 816-830, May.
    12. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    13. Moyersoen Johan, 2004. "Psychology's Prospect Theory: Relevance for Identifying Positions of Local Satiation as Robust Reference Points of Joint Actions in Peace Agreements," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 46-68, January.
    14. Martin Binder & Leonhard K. Lades, 2015. "Autonomy-Enhancing Paternalism," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(1), pages 3-27, February.
    15. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2013. "In search of a preferred preference elicitation method: A test of the internal consistency of choice and matching tasks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 126-140.
    16. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    17. Carola Braun & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2016. "Validity of Willingness to Pay Measures under Preference Uncertainty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    18. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    19. Andrew J Lloyd, 2003. "Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(5), pages 393-402, May.
    20. Susan J. Linz & Anastasia Semykina, 2012. "What Makes Workers Happy? Anticipated Rewards and Job Satisfaction," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(4), pages 811-844, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:15:y:2012:i:c:p:114-122. 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.