Decision Support for Participatory Forest Planning Using AHP and TOPSIS

Long-term forest management planning often involves several stakeholders with conflicting objectives, creating a complex decision process. Multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) presents a promising framework for finding solutions in terms of suitable trade-offs among the objectives. However, ma...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Forests
Main Authors: Hilma Nilsson, Eva-Maria Nordström, Karin Öhman
Format: Text
Language:English
Published: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute 2016
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.3390/f7050100
id ftmdpi:oai:mdpi.com:/1999-4907/7/5/100/
record_format openpolar
spelling ftmdpi:oai:mdpi.com:/1999-4907/7/5/100/ 2023-08-20T04:08:47+02:00 Decision Support for Participatory Forest Planning Using AHP and TOPSIS Hilma Nilsson Eva-Maria Nordström Karin Öhman agris 2016-05-05 application/pdf https://doi.org/10.3390/f7050100 EN eng Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f7050100 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Forests; Volume 7; Issue 5; Pages: 100 Analytic Hierarchy Process forest decision support system forest management the Heureka system multiple criteria decision analysis multiple objectives Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution Text 2016 ftmdpi https://doi.org/10.3390/f7050100 2023-07-31T20:53:00Z Long-term forest management planning often involves several stakeholders with conflicting objectives, creating a complex decision process. Multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) presents a promising framework for finding solutions in terms of suitable trade-offs among the objectives. However, many of the MCDA methods that have been implemented in forest management planning can only be used to compare and evaluate a limited number of management plans, which increases the risk that the most suitable plan is not included in the decision process. The aim of this study is to test whether the combination of two MCDA methods can facilitate the evaluation of a large number of strategic forest management plans in a situation with multiple objectives and several stakeholders. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to set weights for objectives based on stakeholder preferences and the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) was used to produce an overall ranking of alternatives. This approach was applied to a case study of the Vilhelmina municipality, northern Sweden. The results show that the combination of AHP and TOPSIS is easy to implement in participatory forest planning and takes advantage of the capacity of forest decision support systems to create a wide array of management plans. This increases the possibility that the most suitable plan for all stakeholders will be identified. Text Northern Sweden MDPI Open Access Publishing Forests 7 12 100
institution Open Polar
collection MDPI Open Access Publishing
op_collection_id ftmdpi
language English
topic Analytic Hierarchy Process
forest decision support system
forest management
the Heureka system
multiple criteria decision analysis
multiple objectives
Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
spellingShingle Analytic Hierarchy Process
forest decision support system
forest management
the Heureka system
multiple criteria decision analysis
multiple objectives
Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
Hilma Nilsson
Eva-Maria Nordström
Karin Öhman
Decision Support for Participatory Forest Planning Using AHP and TOPSIS
topic_facet Analytic Hierarchy Process
forest decision support system
forest management
the Heureka system
multiple criteria decision analysis
multiple objectives
Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
description Long-term forest management planning often involves several stakeholders with conflicting objectives, creating a complex decision process. Multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) presents a promising framework for finding solutions in terms of suitable trade-offs among the objectives. However, many of the MCDA methods that have been implemented in forest management planning can only be used to compare and evaluate a limited number of management plans, which increases the risk that the most suitable plan is not included in the decision process. The aim of this study is to test whether the combination of two MCDA methods can facilitate the evaluation of a large number of strategic forest management plans in a situation with multiple objectives and several stakeholders. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to set weights for objectives based on stakeholder preferences and the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) was used to produce an overall ranking of alternatives. This approach was applied to a case study of the Vilhelmina municipality, northern Sweden. The results show that the combination of AHP and TOPSIS is easy to implement in participatory forest planning and takes advantage of the capacity of forest decision support systems to create a wide array of management plans. This increases the possibility that the most suitable plan for all stakeholders will be identified.
format Text
author Hilma Nilsson
Eva-Maria Nordström
Karin Öhman
author_facet Hilma Nilsson
Eva-Maria Nordström
Karin Öhman
author_sort Hilma Nilsson
title Decision Support for Participatory Forest Planning Using AHP and TOPSIS
title_short Decision Support for Participatory Forest Planning Using AHP and TOPSIS
title_full Decision Support for Participatory Forest Planning Using AHP and TOPSIS
title_fullStr Decision Support for Participatory Forest Planning Using AHP and TOPSIS
title_full_unstemmed Decision Support for Participatory Forest Planning Using AHP and TOPSIS
title_sort decision support for participatory forest planning using ahp and topsis
publisher Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
publishDate 2016
url https://doi.org/10.3390/f7050100
op_coverage agris
genre Northern Sweden
genre_facet Northern Sweden
op_source Forests; Volume 7; Issue 5; Pages: 100
op_relation https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f7050100
op_rights https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
op_doi https://doi.org/10.3390/f7050100
container_title Forests
container_volume 7
container_issue 12
container_start_page 100
_version_ 1774721267173163008