Selecting Suitable Forest Areas for Honey Production Using the Ahp: A Case Study in Turkey

Abstract

SEN, G. Selecting suitable forest areas for honey production using the ahp: a case study in Turkey. CERNE, v. 24, n. 1, p. 67-79, 2018. HIGHLIGHTSAssesed criteria and subcriteria were determined by the participant approach.Ranking-AHP methods were used to define the most suitable forest are for honey produse.The most priority socio-cultural sub-criteria is the contribution to employment.Among the economic sub-criteria, the priority is cost of honey production.Honey-producing plants stand out in the sub-criteria of ecological-environmental. ABSTRACTHoney production forests (HPFs) are crucial forest areas for the preservation and transfer of biodiversity for future generations, provision of sustainable food safety, supporting rural development, and the rehabilitation of barren forests so that society can benefit from them. The purpose of this study is to prepare a model for conducting planning and prioritizing for HPF areas. For this purpose, using a multidimensional decision support model, we determined the most suitable three areas by way of prioritizing potential HPF areas identified. Bartın in Turkey which was chosen as the area of study, in line with the criteria (ecological-environmental, economic, and socio-cultural) set out using the participatory approach. The ranking and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methods were employed. The results of the study indicate that public institutions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) prioritize ecological-environmental criteria (especially the type of honey) in their identification of HPFs, whereas the locals care more about the economic criteria, especially the potential for honey production, when identifying HPFs. Moreover, the fact that the level of demand is at the top among the economy-based sub-criteria indicates that the demands and expectations of interest groups should definitely be taken into consideration in the functional provision of forest resources. If HPF areas are planned and established by paying attention to the priorities, HPFs would contribute to an increase in added value and social welfare in the local area as well as to employment, rural development, and the sustainable management of forest resources.

Sustainable Afforestation Strategies: Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model in Post-Mining Rehabilitation

“…Many studies in the literature have been undertaken using the MCDM method [15]. Due to its flexibility and high efficiency in analyzing decision problems, MCDM has been used in many prioritization studies for forest creation [16][17][18][19]. On the other hand, it can be stated that many post-mining rehabilitation and afforestation projects utilize the MCDM process.…”

Characterization of Turkish Pine Honey and Differentiation from Floral Honeys by NMR Spectroscopy and Chemometric Analysis

“…Even within the same region, distinctive seasonal periods may lead to fluctuations in both the quantity and quality of honey (Tsuruda, Chakrabarti and Sagili, 2021;Walker et al, 2022). On a global scale, Turkey ranks second only to China, boasting an annual honey production capacity of 100,000 tons, encompassing diverse types such as mono-floral, multi-floral, honeydew, and pine honey (Güngör and Sen, 2018;Erdal and Tipi, 2022;Özkök, Yüksel and Sorkun, 2022;Parin et al, 2021). Among these honey types, pine honey presents a particularly intriguing case.…”

“…On a global scale, Turkey ranks second only to China, boasting an annual honey production capacity of 100,000 tons, encompassing diverse types such as mono-floral, multi-floral, honeydew, and pine honey (Güngör and Sen, 2018;Erdal and Tipi, 2022;Özkök, Yüksel and Sorkun, 2022;Parin et al, 2021). Among these honey types, pine honey presents a particularly intriguing case.…”

Prioritization of Criteria and Tree Species in Agroforestry

“…Despite having highly qualified studies conducted on agroforestry in the literature, there exist studies, where multi-criteria decision systems are used especially in forestry, (Pereira et al, 1993 (Apichatvullop, 1997;Liu and Wang, 2006;Reubens et al, 2011;Stainback et al, 2011;Ahmad et al , 2012;Ahmad et al, 2015;Carfagna and Gallego, 2005;Gungor, 2018;Gungor and Sen, 2018;Sen and Gungor, 2018b).…”