Abstract
Forest policy decisions are often a source of debate, conflict, and tension in many countries. The debate over forest land-use decisions often hinges on disagreements about societal values related to forest resource use. Disagreements on social value positions are fought out repeatedly at local, regional, national, and international levels at an enormous social cost. Forest policy problems have some inherent characteristics that make them more difficult to deal with. On the one hand, forest policy decisions involve uncertainty, long time scales, and complex natural systems and processes. On the other hand, such decisions encompass social, political, and cultural systems that are evolving in response to forces such as globalization. Until recently, forest policy was heavily influenced by the scientific community and various economic models of optimal resource use. However, growing environmental awareness and acceptance of participatory democracy models in policy formulation have forced the public authorities to introduce new participatory mechanisms to manage forest resources. Most often, the efforts to include the public in policy formulation can be described using the lower rungs of Arnstein’s public participation typology. This paper presents an approach that incorporates stakeholder preferences into forest land-use policy using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). An illustrative case of regional forest-policy formulation in Australia is used to demonstrate the approach. It is contended that applying the AHP in the policy process could considerably enhance the transparency of participatory process and public acceptance of policy decisions.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ananda J (2004) Multiple criteria decision making in forest management: an application to the North East Victoria forest Region in Australia. Ph.D. thesis, La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia
Antunes P, Santos R, Videira N (2006) Participatory decision making for sustainable development—the use of mediated modelling techniques. Land Use Policy 23:44–52
Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Planners 35:216–224
Bojórquez-Tapia LA, Sánchez-Colon S, Martinez AF (2005) Building consensus in environmental impact assessment through multicriteria modelling and sensitivity analysis. Environ Manage 36:469–481
Bouma J, Brouwer R, van Ek R (2000) The use of integrated assessment methods in Dutch water management: a comparison of cost-benefit and multi-criteria analysis. Third International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, Vienna, 3–6 May 2000
Buchy M, Hoverman S (2000) Understanding public participation: a review. Forest Policy Econ 1:15–25
Clark J (2004) Forest policy for sustainable commodity wood production: an examination drawing on the Australian experience. Ecol Econ 50:219–232
Commonwealth of Australia (1992) National Forest Policy Statement, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service
Commonwealth of Australia (1999) Northeast Victoria Comprehensive Regional Assessment. Joint Commonwealth and Victorian Regional Forest Agreement Steering Committee: Canberra
Creighton J (1986) Managing conflicts in public involvement settings: training manual for Bonneville Power Administration. Palo Alto, California. Creighton and Creighton, Los Gatos, CA
Dargavel J, Proctor W, Kanowski P (2000) Conflict and agreement in Australian forests. In: Tacconi L (ed), Biodiversity and ecological economics: participation, values and resource management, Earthscan Publications Ltd., London
Duke JM, Aull-Hyde R (2002) Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process. Ecol Econom 42:131–145
Grimble R, Chan MK (1995) Stakeholder analysis for natural resource management in developing countries: some practical guidelines for making management more participatory and effective. Natural Resources Forum 19:113–124
Hair JF, Bush RP, Ortinau DJ (2000) Marketing research: a practical approach for the new millennium. McGraw-Hill Publications, Boston, pp 325–368
Harrison SR, Qureshi ME (2000) Choice of stakeholder groups and members in multi-criteria decision models. Nat Resources Forum 24:11–19
Healey J (2002) The forestry debate, issues in society, volume 168. The Spinney Press, Sydney
Kant S (2003) Extending the boundaries of forest economics. Forest Economics Policy 5:39–56
Kant S, Lee S (2004) A social choice approach to sustainable forest management: an analysis of multiple forest values in Northwestern Ontario. Forest Policy Economics 6:215–227
Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. John Wiley & Sons, New York
Kirkpatrick JB (1998) Nature conservation and the regional forest agreement process. Austral J Environ Manage 5:31–37
Korfmacher KS (2001) The politics of participation in watershed modeling. Environ Manage 27:161–176
Kurttila M, Pesonen M, Kangas J, Kajanus M (2000) Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis – a hybrid method and its applications to a forest certification case. Forest Policy Econ 1:41–52
Mardle S, Pascoe S, Herrero I (2004) Management objective importance in fisheries: an evaluation using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Environ Manage 33:1–11
Mendoza G, Prabhu R (2000) Multiple criteria decision making approaches to assessing forest sustainability using criteria and indicators: a case study. Forest Ecol Manage 131:107–126
Mendoza G, Prabhu R (2005) Combining participatory modeling and multiple-criteria analysis for community-based forest management. Forest Ecol Manage 207:145–156
Mobbs C (2003) National forest policy and regional forest agreements. In: Dovers S, River SW (eds.) Managing Australia’s environment. The Federation Press, Sydney
Rosenberger RS (1998) Public preferences regarding the goals of farmland preservation programs: comment. Land Economics 74:557–565
Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15:234–281
Schmoldt DL, Kangas JK, Mendoza GA (2001) Basic principles of decision making in natural resources and the environment. In: Schmoldt DL, Kangas JK, Mendoza GA, Pesonen M (eds) The analytic hierarchy process in natural resource and environmental decision making. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 1–13
Sheppard SRJ (2005) Participatory decision support for sustainable forest management: a framework for planning with local communities at the landscape level in Canada. Can J Forest Res 35:1515–1526
Slee B (2001) Resolving production-environment conflicts: the case of the Regional Forest Agreement Process in Australia. Forest Policy Econ 3:17–30
Striegnitz M (2006) Conflicts over coastal protection in a national park: mediation and negotiated law making. Land Use Policy 23:26–33
Tacconi L (2000) Economics, land use planning and participation. In: Tacconi L, (eds) Biodiversity and ecological economics: participation, values and resource management. Earthscan Publications, London, pp 77–98
Timney MM, Kelly TP (2000) New public management and the demise of popular sovereignity. Admin Theory Praxis 22:555–569
van den Hove S (2000) Participatory approaches to environmental policy-making: the European Commission Climate Policy Process as a case study. Ecol Econ 33:457–472
Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL (2000) Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington, DC
Acknowledgments
An earlier version of this paper has been presented at the Centre of Excellence, Kobe University and Japan Economic Policy Association (JEPA) Joint International Conference, December 17–18, 2005, Kobe, Japan. The author wishes to thank Dr. Virginia Dale, Editor-in-Chief, Environmental Management for her guidance and patience, Dr. M. Timney and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. Thanks are also due to Debra McKenzie for her assistance in finalizing the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ananda, J. Implementing Participatory Decision Making in Forest Planning. Environmental Management 39, 534–544 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-006-0031-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-006-0031-2