Decision making in urban forestry by using approval voting and multicriteria approval method (case study: Zvezdarska forest, Belgrade, Serbia)

Participative forest planning: How to obtain knowledge

“…The objectifying process required for the development of management plans requires a process to interpret these demands. In the case of public participation, the first phase is the appropriate selection of representative individuals and groups (Elsasser, 2007;Nordström et al, 2010;Bruña-García & Marey-Pérez, 2014;Lakicevic et al, 2014). In the second phase, fundamental items are selected for management organization, on which local community must reach a consensus (Booth & Halseth, 2011).…”

“…Social interest insists on diversifying not only the structure but also the composition of species, which is a key element in the design of future forest management planning in the region. Booth & Halseth (2011) considered a challenge to seek consensus on natural resource management, and Lakicevic et al (2014) noted the difficulty in achieving it. Our methodology offers tools to reach this objective through the knowledge gained by selecting relevant information (preferences, opinions, and expectations) from past, present, and future forest activity, focusing on solutions to conflicts.…”

“…Based on the involvement of the participants, different level of participation can be defined, ranging from the simple delivery of information to self-organization (Arnstein, 1969;Buchy & Hoverman, 2000;Stenseke, 2009). In all cases, as indicated by Lakicevic et al (2014), introducing public opinion into decision-making continues to be an important problem.…”

The Challenge of Diffusion in Forest Plans: A Methodological Proposal and Case Study

“…The inclusion of people's opinions about the technical aspects of forest resources and their management has sparked scientific debate [5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. In a modern sense, public participation in the devising of forest plans is, preferably, voluntary [12,13].…”

“…If important stakeholders are left out, key issues may be ignored and the assessment of the situation will be incomplete [9,27]. A second risk of leaving out key stakeholders is that those key stakeholders will use their exclusion to attack the legitimacy of the process as a whole [28] Multifunctional and modern management requires coordination and agreement between diverging and contradictory stakeholders.…”