IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v26y2024i11d10.1007_s10668-023-03859-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of the European experts on the application of the AHP method in sustainable forest management

Author

Listed:
  • Petra Grošelj

    (University of Ljubljana)

  • Mehdi Zandebasiri

    (AREEO)

  • Špela Pezdevšek Malovrh

    (University of Ljubljana)

Abstract

To apply the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to solve forest management problems, it is necessary to determine when the use of this method is appropriate and when another method would be more appropriate due to the limitations of the method itself. In this study, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) and meta-SWOT analyses were conducted to assess the applicability of the AHP method to sustainable forest management problems. Sixteen experts from 11 different European countries participated in the research. First, they evaluated the AHP method from the SWOT perspective and weighted the SWOT factors and groups using the AHP method. The results showed that the AHP method is more suitable for application in sustainable forest management than other multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) methods with respect to two competitive dimensions: design and calculation. However, the application of the AHP in sustainable forest management also has some weaknesses and threats that should be considered. Involving stakeholders with expertise and skills in model development and pairwise comparisons is the most important issue in this area; otherwise, incorrect results could be obtained for forest management decisions. Problem-solving conditions such as uncertainty, the interactions among criteria and the economic constraints of the problem may also lead to the use of other methods instead of the AHP in sustainable forest management. The results of this study contribute to global studies on decision-making in natural resource and environmental management, especially decisions related to forest management.

Suggested Citation

  • Petra Grošelj & Mehdi Zandebasiri & Špela Pezdevšek Malovrh, 2024. "Evaluation of the European experts on the application of the AHP method in sustainable forest management," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(11), pages 29189-29215, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:26:y:2024:i:11:d:10.1007_s10668-023-03859-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-023-03859-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-023-03859-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-023-03859-w?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. Hengst-Ehrhart, Yvonne & Schraml, Ulrich, 2020. "Back to the Forest’s future: Guiding principles of German forest stakeholders and their impact on the forestry sector," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    2. Juutinen, Artti & Tolvanen, Anne & Koskela, Terhi, 2020. "Forest owners' future intentions for forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    3. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2009. "A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2535-2548, August.
    4. Nolberto Munier & Eloy Hontoria, 2021. "Uses and Limitations of the AHP Method," Management for Professionals, Springer, number 978-3-030-60392-2, December.
    5. Grošelj, Petra & Hodges, Donald G. & Zadnik Stirn, Lidija, 2016. "Participatory and multi-criteria analysis for forest (ecosystem) management: A case study of Pohorje, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 80-86.
    6. Dobšinská, Zuzana & Živojinović, Ivana & Nedeljković, Jelena & Petrović, Nenad & Jarský, Vilém & Oliva, Jiří & Šálka, Jaroslav & Sarvašová, Zuzana & Weiss, Gerhard, 2020. "Actor power in the restitution processes of forests in three European countries in transition," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    9. Ali Sadollah & Mohammad Nasir & Zong Woo Geem, 2020. "Sustainability and Optimization: From Conceptual Fundamentals to Applications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-34, March.
    10. Diaz-Balteiro, L & González-Pachón, J. & Romero, C., 2017. "Measuring systems sustainability with multi-criteria methods: A critical review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(2), pages 607-616.
    11. Etongo, Daniel & Kanninen, Markku & Epule, Terence Epule & Fobissie, Kalame, 2018. "Assessing the effectiveness of joint forest management in Southern Burkina Faso: A SWOT-AHP analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 31-38.
    12. Keramatollah Ziari & Mohammad Hajian Hossein Abadi & Amir Reza Khavarian Garmsir, 2020. "Making Competitive Cities in the Light of the Meta-SWOT Tool: A Case Study of Tehran, Iran," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(4), pages 466-484, July.
    13. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid, 2018. "Are multi-criteria decision-making tools useful? An experimental comparative study of three methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 462-471.
    14. Mann, Carsten & Loft, Lasse & Hernández-Morcillo, Mónica, 2021. "Assessing forest governance innovations in Europe: Needs, challenges and ways forward for sustainable forest ecosystem service provision," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    15. Tadesse, Tewodros & Teklay, Gebreegziabher & Mulatu, Dawit W. & Rannestad, Meley Mekonen & Meresa, Tigabu Molla & Woldelibanos, Dawit, 2022. "Forest benefits and willingness to pay for sustainable forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Calabrese, Armando & Costa, Roberta & Levialdi, Nathan & Menichini, Tamara, 2019. "Integrating sustainability into strategic decision-making: A fuzzy AHP method for the selection of relevant sustainability issues," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 155-168.
    2. Alan Renwick & Robyn Dynes & Paul Johnstone & Warren King & Lania Holt & Jemma Penelope, 2019. "Challenges and Opportunities for Land Use Transformation: Insights from the Central Plains Water Scheme in New Zealand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-18, September.
    3. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    4. Baffoe, Gideon, 2019. "Exploring the utility of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in ranking livelihood activities for effective and sustainable rural development interventions in developing countries," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 197-204.
    5. Lucas, Rochelle Irene & Promentilla, Michael Angelo & Ubando, Aristotle & Tan, Raymond Girard & Aviso, Kathleen & Yu, Krista Danielle, 2017. "An AHP-based evaluation method for teacher training workshop on information and communication technology," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 93-100.
    6. Paweł Karczmarek & Witold Pedrycz & Adam Kiersztyn, 2021. "Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in a Graphical Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 463-481, April.
    7. 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).
    8. Jane Musole Kwenye & Xiaoting Hou Jones & Alan Renwick, 2023. "Understanding Land-Use Trade-off Decision Making Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process: Insights from Agricultural Land Managers in Zambia," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, February.
    9. Daeryong Park & Myoung-Jin Um, 2018. "Robust Decision-Making Technique for Strategic Environment Assessment with Deficient Information," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 32(15), pages 4953-4970, December.
    10. Ruiz, Francisco & El Gibari, Samira & Cabello, José M. & Gómez, Trinidad, 2020. "MRP-WSCI: Multiple reference point based weak and strong composite indicators," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    11. Roszkowska Ewa & Wachowicz Tomasz, 2019. "The Impact of Decision-Making Profiles on the Consistency of Rankings Obtained by Means of Selected Multiple Criteria Decision-Aiding Methods," Econometrics. Advances in Applied Data Analysis, Sciendo, vol. 23(2), pages 1-14, June.
    12. Tsai, Pei-Hsuan & Chen, Chih-Jou & Hsiao, Wei-Hung & Lin, Chin-Tsai, 2023. "Factors influencing the consumers’ behavioural intention to use online food delivery service: Empirical evidence from Taiwan," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    13. Kodikara, P.N. & Perera, B.J.C. & Kularathna, M.D.U.P., 2010. "Stakeholder preference elicitation and modelling in multi-criteria decision analysis - A case study on urban water supply," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(1), pages 209-220, October.
    14. Barbosa, Ailson de Souza & Shayani, Rafael Amaral & Oliveira, Marco Aurélio Gonçalves de, 2018. "A multi-criteria decision analysis method for regulatory evaluation of electricity distribution service quality," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 38-48.
    15. Ustaoglu, E. & Aydınoglu, A.C., 2020. "Suitability evaluation of urban construction land in Pendik district of Istanbul, Turkey," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    16. Dalton Garcia Borges de Souza & Erivelton Antonio dos Santos & Nei Yoshihiro Soma & Carlos Eduardo Sanches da Silva, 2021. "MCDM-Based R&D Project Selection: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-34, October.
    17. Hussein Samh Al-Masroori & Shekar Bose, 2021. "Fisheries sustainability assessment and sensitivity analysis: an illustration," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(11), pages 16283-16303, November.
    18. Rovelli, Roberto & Senes, Giulio & Fumagalli, Natalia & Sacco, Jessica & De Montis, Andrea, 2020. "From railways to greenways: a complex index for supporting policymaking and planning. A case study in Piedmont (Italy)," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    19. Janová, Jitka & Hampel, David & Kadlec, Jiří & Vrška, Tomáš, 2022. "Motivations behind the forest managers’ decision making about mixed forests in the Czech Republic," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    20. Fontana, Veronika & Ebner, Manuel & Schirpke, Uta & Ohndorf, Markus & Pritsch, Hanna & Tappeiner, Ulrike & Kurmayer, Rainer, 2023. "An integrative approach to evaluate ecosystem services of mountain lakes using multi-criteria decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).

    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:spr:endesu:v:26:y:2024:i:11:d:10.1007_s10668-023-03859-w. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.