Decision Support in Assessing the Sustainable Use of Forests and Other Natural Resources - A Comparative Review

Myllyviita, Tanja; Hujala, Teppo Jouko Elias; Kangas, Annika; Leskinen, Pekka

doi:10.2174/1874398601104010024

Cited by 16 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 149 publications

(148 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Qualitative methods, in turn, may be used to define relevant aspects and to reach common understanding of the decision problem. In each planning case, the planners select one or more methods based on aspects such as their knowledge and experiences on the methods, needs and abilities of the actual DMs, the properties of the case and the methods, and the availability of information on these methods (Myllyviita et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mixing methods – assessment of potential benefits for natural resources planning

Myllyviita

Hujala

Kangas

et al. 2013

Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multi-objective forest planning is a multi-methodological endeavor whose success largely depends on how well the combined use of different methods contributes to the goals of the planning. This review assessed the benefits of mixing methods in natural resources planning. A sample of 30 peer-reviewed research articles was analyzed using an evaluation framework, designed based on democracy and planning theories, and participatory planning literature, including four dimensions: transparency, flexibility, consensus building, and operability. According to analyses, mixing different types (i.e. qualitative and quantitative) of methods generally yields greater benefits than the combination of similar methods. The subsample of 12 planning cases that utilized simulation-optimization software (SOS) appeared operable and moderately transparent, whereas flexibility and consensus building were often lacking. In comparison to the wide scholarly discussion on multi-methodology and mixing methods, it was observed that successful mixing examples in natural resource planning are still scarce and there are weaknesses in bridging the methods together. There is an evident need to pursue and to better communicate the benefits of mixing. Some good mixing examples utilizing SOS provided evidence that forest planning processes would make an excellent venue for studying the benefits and caveats of using mixed methods.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mixing methods – assessment of potential benefits for natural resources planning

Myllyviita

Hujala

Kangas

et al. 2013

Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hierarchical analysis techniques compare the outcomes of different planning alternatives (Hujala and Kurttila, 2010). Multi-criteria analysis methods can assist in the evaluation of multiple variables influencing the decision-making process (Myllyviita et al, 2011). Communitarian biomaps (Bressane et al, 2011) can be used for spatial mapping of environmental issues, based on the participants' knowledge.…”

Section: Methodological Proposalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Various tools have been developed to encourage and improve the involvement of community members in environmental management, among which are communitarian biomaps (Bressane et al, 2011), pebble distributions (Sheil and Liswanti, 2007), the scenarios method (Peterson et al, 2003), spider diagrams (Lynam, 2001), who counts matrices (Colfer et al, 1999), and Venn diagrams (Pretty et al, 1995). Important tools based on mathematical modeling include multi-criteria decision analysis (Myllyviita et al, 2011), hierarchical analysis (Hujala and Kurttila, 2010), bayesian belief networks (Sayer and Campbell, 2004), and metagame theory (Jeffers, 1997). However, despite success-ful efforts to empower society and stimulate its involvement, there are still issues to overcome, such as integrating technical knowledge with community understanding (Stoll-Kleemann and Welp, 2008;Lynam et al, 2007;Kellert et al, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fuzzy-based methodological proposal for participatory diagnosis in the linear parks management

Bressane

Biagolini

Mochizuki

et al. 2017

Ecological Indicators

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TParticipatory decision-making in the management of linear parks can provide better outcomes than classical topdown procedures. However, the integration of technical knowledge with the understanding of the community requires an approach able to deal with uncertainty, due to the issues of vagueness and subjectivity. Therefore, the present paper introduces a fuzzy-based proposal for supporting participatory diagnosis. For this purpose, five Mamdani-type systems were built based on the knowledge of experts, including as indicators the species richness of fauna and flora, land cover, basic and recreational facilities, support services, and the park users' perceptions. By integrating such indicators, three indexes were obtained for assessing the natural condition, infrastructure, and functional performance of a linear park. The proposed system was then applied in a case study of the Tiquatira linear park in São Paulo city, Brazil. The results indicated that the park has high functional performance, but that improvements in its natural condition and infrastructure are needed, such as the reclamation of disturbed areas and ongoing maintenance of the facilities. The use of fuzzy modeling enabled integration of the technical assessment by experts and the users' perception, in order to support a participatory diagnosis taking into account the existing uncertainties. In conclusion, this fuzzy-based proposal can be considered a promising approach for the participatory management of linear parks. In future studies, techniques for the case-by-case weighting of variables could be assessed, in order to strengthen the systems described in the present paper.

show abstract

“…Hybrid methods can be combinations of quantitative and qualitative methods (Myllyviita et al 2011). Qualitative methods (interviews, voting, etc.…”

Section: Management Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hybrid MCDA Methods to Integrate Multiple Ecosystem Services in Forest Management Planning: A Critical Review

Uhde

Hahn

Griess

et al. 2015

Environmental Management

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a decision aid frequently used in the field of forest management planning. It includes the evaluation of multiple criteria such as the production of timber and non-timber forest products and tangible as well as intangible values of ecosystem services (ES). Hence, it is beneficial compared to those methods that take a purely financial perspective. Accordingly, MCDA methods are increasingly popular in the wide field of sustainability assessment. Hybrid approaches allow aggregating MCDA and, potentially, other decision-making techniques to make use of their individual benefits and leading to a more holistic view of the actual consequences that come with certain decisions. This review is providing a comprehensive overview of hybrid approaches that are used in forest management planning. Today, the scientific world is facing increasing challenges regarding the evaluation of ES and the trade-offs between them, for example between provisioning and regulating services. As the preferences of multiple stakeholders are essential to improve the decision process in multi-purpose forestry, participatory and hybrid approaches turn out to be of particular importance. Accordingly, hybrid methods show great potential for becoming most relevant in future decision making. Based on the review presented here, the development of models for the use in planning processes should focus on participatory modeling and the consideration of uncertainty regarding available information.

show abstract

Decision Support in Assessing the Sustainable Use of Forests and Other Natural Resources - A Comparative Review

Cited by 16 publications

References 149 publications

Mixing methods – assessment of potential benefits for natural resources planning

Mixing methods – assessment of potential benefits for natural resources planning

Fuzzy-based methodological proposal for participatory diagnosis in the linear parks management

Hybrid MCDA Methods to Integrate Multiple Ecosystem Services in Forest Management Planning: A Critical Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About