IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i11p4101-d181505.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of AHP and a Utility-Based Theory Method for Selected Vertical and Horizontal Forest Structure Indicators in the Sustainability Assessment of Forest Management in the Sierra de Guadarrama National Park, Madrid Region

Author

Listed:
  • Susana Martín-Fernández

    (ETSI Montes, Forestal y del Medio Natural, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria sn, 28040 Madrid, Spain)

  • Adrián Gómez-Serrano

    (ETSI Montes, Forestal y del Medio Natural, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria sn, 28040 Madrid, Spain)

  • Eugenio Martínez-Falero

    (ETSI Montes, Forestal y del Medio Natural, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria sn, 28040 Madrid, Spain)

  • Cristina Pascual

    (ETSI Montes, Forestal y del Medio Natural, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria sn, 28040 Madrid, Spain)

Abstract

This paper compares two pairwise comparison methods, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and a utility theory based method (UTB method), for sustainability assessment in forest management at the local level. Six alternatives were ranked, corresponding to six different types of forest management in the Sierra de Guadarrama National Park in the Madrid Region in Spain. The methods were tested by postgraduate students enrolled in a “Decision Support Systems” course at Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Three sustainability indicators were considered: structural diversity, timber yield, and amount of biomass. The utility theory based method was the first to be compared, which is implemented in the computer program SILVANET. For each pair of alternatives, the students were asked which one they considered to be more sustainable. In the case of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, the students compared the indicators and the alternatives for each indicator. The Spearman’s correlation coefficient indicated that there was no correlation between the rankings for most of the students. The results revealed that the convergence in opinion in the AHP method was higher than in the utility based method for a low number of participants, and distinguished the differences between the alternatives more accurately. However in the case of the UTB method, the participants considered sustainability as a whole and made a more context-based comparison.

Suggested Citation

  • Susana Martín-Fernández & Adrián Gómez-Serrano & Eugenio Martínez-Falero & Cristina Pascual, 2018. "Comparison of AHP and a Utility-Based Theory Method for Selected Vertical and Horizontal Forest Structure Indicators in the Sustainability Assessment of Forest Management in the Sierra de Guadarrama N," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:11:p:4101-:d:181505
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/11/4101/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/11/4101/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Appelstrand, Marie, 2002. "Participation and societal values: the challenge for lawmakers and policy practitioners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 281-290, December.
    2. Nishimura, Hiroki, 2018. "The transitive core: inference of welfare from nontransitive preference relations," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(2), May.
    3. Ness, Barry & Urbel-Piirsalu, Evelin & Anderberg, Stefan & Olsson, Lennart, 2007. "Categorising tools for sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 498-508, January.
    4. Sung-Ho Kil & Dong Kun Lee & Jun-Hyun Kim & Ming-Han Li & Galen Newman, 2016. "Utilizing the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Establish Weighted Values for Evaluating the Stability of Slope Revegetation based on Hydroseeding Applications in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-17, January.
    5. Michiel C. Zijp & Reinout Heijungs & Ester Van der Voet & Dik Van de Meent & Mark A. J. Huijbregts & Anne Hollander & Leo Posthuma, 2015. "An Identification Key for Selecting Methods for Sustainability Assessments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-23, March.
    6. 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.
    7. Jose Eugenio Martínez-Falero & Esperanza Ayuga-Tellez & Concepcion Gonzalez-Garcia & M. Angeles Grande-Ortiz & Alvaro Sánchez De Medina Garrido, 2017. "Experts’ Analysis of the Quality and Usability of SILVANET Software for Informing Sustainable Forest Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-13, July.
    8. Mwana N. Mawapanga & David L. Debertin, 1996. "Choosing between Alternative Farming Systems: An Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 18(3), pages 385-401.
    9. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    10. Thomas L. Saaty, 1994. "How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 19-43, December.
    11. 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.
    12. Zhiqiang Li & Yiguo Xue & Daohong Qiu & Zhenhao Xu & Xueliang Zhang & Binghua Zhou & Xintong Wang, 2017. "AHP-Ideal Point Model for Large Underground Petroleum Storage Site Selection: An Engineering Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-12, December.
    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. Ravindra Kumar & Rajeev Kumar Mishra & Satish Chandra & Asif Hussain, 2021. "Evaluation of urban transport-environment sustainable indicators during Odd–Even scheme in India," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(12), pages 17240-17262, December.
    2. Zi-Yun Zhang & Fang-Le Peng & Chen-Xiao Ma & Hui Zhang & Su-Juan Fu, 2021. "External Benefit Assessment of Urban Utility Tunnels Based on Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-23, January.
    3. Carrese, Stefano & Petrelli, Marco & Renna, Alessandra, 2022. "A new approach for the identification of strategic Italian ports for container traffic," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 47-55.

    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. Hyungjun Seo & Seunghwan Myeong, 2020. "The Priority of Factors of Building Government as a Platform with Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-28, July.
    2. Sunita Guru & Jitendra Nenavani & Vipul Patel & Nityesh Bhatt, 2020. "Ranking of perceived risks in online shopping," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 47(2), pages 137-152, June.
    3. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    4. Daji Ergu & Gang Kou, 2012. "Questionnaire design improvement and missing item scores estimation for rapid and efficient decision making," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 5-23, August.
    5. Seul-gi Lee & Bashir Adelodun & Mirza Junaid Ahmad & Kyung Sook Choi, 2022. "Multi-Level Prioritization Analysis of Water Governance Components to Improve Agricultural Water-Saving Policy: A Case Study from Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-18, March.
    6. Thies, Christian & Kieckhäfer, Karsten & Spengler, Thomas S. & Sodhi, Manbir S., 2019. "Operations research for sustainability assessment of products: A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(1), pages 1-21.
    7. Min Li & Tsung-Chih Hsiao & Chih-Cheng Chen, 2020. "Exploring the Factors of Cooperation between Artists and Technologists in Creating New Media Art Works: Based on AHP," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-22, September.
    8. Eliküçük, Seval & Polat, Zeynel Abidin, 2021. "Identifying key factors affecting foreigners' choice on real estate acquisition: The case of İzmir City, Turkey," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    9. Kadriye Burcu Yavuz Kumlu & Şule Tüdeş, 2019. "Determination of earthquake-risky areas in Yalova City Center (Marmara region, Turkey) using GIS-based multicriteria decision-making techniques (analytical hierarchy process and technique for order pr," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 96(3), pages 999-1018, April.
    10. Katie Steele & Yohay Carmel & Jean Cross & Chris Wilcox, 2009. "Uses and Misuses of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in Environmental Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 26-33, January.
    11. O. Flores Baquero & J. Gallego-Ayala & R. Giné-Garriga & A. Jiménez-Fernández. Palencia & A. Pérez-Foguet, 2017. "The Influence of the Human Rights to Water and Sanitation Normative Content in Measuring the Level of Service," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 133(2), pages 763-786, September.
    12. Milan Ranđelović & Jelena Stanković & Kristijan Kuk & Gordana Savić & Dragan Ranđelović, 2018. "An Approach to Determining the Importance of Model Criteria in Certifying a City as Business-Friendly," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 48(2), pages 156-165, April.
    13. Song-Kyoo Kim, 2014. "Explicit Design of Innovation Performance Metrics by Using Analytic Hierarchy Process Expansion," International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences, Hindawi, vol. 2014, pages 1-7, May.
    14. Virginia Racioppi & Gabriella Marcarelli & Massimo Squillante, 2015. "Modelling a sustainable requalification problem by analytic hierarchy process," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 1661-1677, July.
    15. Emre Özþahin, 2015. "Landslide Susceptibility Analysis of Tekirdað City Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)," Eurasian Academy Of Sciences Social Sciences Journal, Eurasian Academy Of Sciences, vol. 6(6), pages 50-71, November.
    16. Gomez-Limon, Jose Antonio & Riesgo, Laura, 2010. "Sustainability assessment of olive grove in Andalusia: A methodological proposal," 120th Seminar, September 2-4, 2010, Chania, Crete 109323, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Ergu, Daji & Kou, Gang & Peng, Yi & Shi, Yong, 2011. "A simple method to improve the consistency ratio of the pair-wise comparison matrix in ANP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 213(1), pages 246-259, August.
    18. Madhusudhan Adhikari & Laxman Prasad Ghimire & Yeonbae Kim & Prakash Aryal & Sundar Bahadur Khadka, 2020. "Identification and Analysis of Barriers against Electric Vehicle Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-20, June.
    19. Chuc Anh Tu & Tapan Sarker & Ehsan Rasoulinezhad, 2020. "Factors Influencing the Green Bond Market Expansion: Evidence from a Multi-Dimensional Analysis," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-14, June.
    20. Ho Huu Loc & Pham Minh Duyen & Thomas J. Ballatore & Nguyen Hoang My Lan & Ashim Gupta, 2017. "Applicability of sustainable urban drainage systems: an evaluation by multi-criteria analysis," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 332-343, September.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:11:p:4101-:d:181505. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.