IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

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

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.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

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

Paper provided by Deakin University, Faculty of Business and Law, School of Accounting, Economics and Finance in its series Economics Series with number 2008_02.

as
in new window

Length: 41 pages
Date of creation: 11 Oct 2008
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:dkn:econwp:eco_2008_02
Contact details of provider: Postal: 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood 3125
Phone: 61 3 9244 3815
Web page: http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/aef/index.php

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Katherine R. Smith, 2006. "Public Payments for Environmental Services from Agriculture: Precedents and Possibilities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1167-1173.
  2. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2005. "Evaluating public risk preferences in forest land-use choices using multi-attribute utility theory," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 408-419, November.
  3. John O'Neill & Clive L. Spash, 2000. "Conceptions of Value in Environmental Decision-Making," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 9(4), pages 521-536, November.
  4. F. Reed Johnson & Kristy E. Mathews, 2001. "Sources and Effects of Utility-Theoretic Inconsistency in Stated-Preference Surveys," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1328-1333.
  5. Delforce, Robert J. & Hardaker, J. Brian, 1985. "An Experiment In Multiattribute Utility Theory," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 29(03), December.
  6. Russell, Clifford & Dale, Virginia & Lee, Junsoo & Jensen, Molly Hadley & Kane, Michael & Gregory, Robin, 2001. "Experimenting with multi-attribute utility survey methods in a multi-dimensional valuation problem," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 87-108, January.
  7. Paul J. H. Schoemaker & C. Carter Waid, 1982. "An Experimental Comparison of Different Approaches to Determining Weights in Additive Utility Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 182-196, February.
  8. Belton, Valerie, 1986. "A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and a simple multi-attribute value function," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 7-21, July.
  9. Prato, Tony, 1999. "Multiple attribute decision analysis for ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 207-222, August.
  10. Stefan Hajkowicz & Geoff McDonald & Phil Smith, 2000. "An Evaluation of Multiple Objective Decision Support Weighting Techniques in Natural Resource Management," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(4), pages 505-518.
  11. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2003. "Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 75-90, April.
  12. Robert J. Delforce & J. Brian Hardaker, 1985. "An Experiment In Multiattribute Utility Theory," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 29(3), pages 179-198, December.
  13. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2008. "Multi-attribute preference modelling and regional land-use planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 325-335, April.
  14. Prato, Tony, 2003. "Multiple-attribute evaluation of ecosystem management for the Missouri River system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 297-309, June.
  15. Gregory, Robin & Wellman, Katharine, 2001. "Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: a community-based estuary case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 37-52, October.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

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.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dr Xueli Tang)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.