Making use of MCDS methods in SWOT analysis—Lessons learnt in strategic natural resources management

Kajanus, Miika; Leskinen, Pekka; Kurttila, Mikko; Kangas, Jyrki

doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2012.03.005

Cited by 130 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…According to that study, the hybrid framework is able to communicate the planners', designers' and decision maker's perspectives, to enhance transparency in the decision process and thus to increase acceptance, as well as to act as a learning process. Our experiences gained through A'WOT applications are in line with those of the above-mentioned studies (Kajanus et al, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Incorporating MCDS and voting into SWOT: Basic idea and experiences

Kangas¹,

Kajanus²,

Leskinen³

et al. 2016

Serb J Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The idea in using Multiple Criteria Decision Support (MCDS) and voting methods within a SWOT framework is to evaluate systematically the SWOT factors, and to assess them with respect to their priorities. The MCDS method applied initially, and most often, with SWOT has been the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and the hybrid AHP-SWOT approach has been called the A'WOT. Any MCDS method can, however, be applied; the choice of the method depending on the strategy process in question. In this article, experiences of using the A'WOT method with AHP, SMART and SMAA-O techniques is summarized. In addition, an illustrative example of making use of social choice theory within SWOT framework is presented. The hybrid MCDS-SWOT approach has gained growing popularity, and it has been applied in different fields world-widely. It may provide not only a solid decision support but also an effective framework for learning in strategic decision support, as well as for communication in strategy processes with multiple stakeholders. The Voting-SWOT approach (VotSWOT) fits especially well with participatory strategy processes, as it reflects decision makers' and stakeholders' natural ways of communication.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…The A'WOT approach with various versions has gained considerable use and popularity in many different areas worldwide (Shrestha et al, 2004;Masozera et al, 2006;Shinno et al, 2006;Cenzig et al, 2007;Kajanus et al, 2012;Okello et al, 2014;Bottero, 2015;Nikolić et al, 2015;Posch et al, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incorporating MCDS and voting into SWOT: Basic idea and experiences

Kangas¹,

Kajanus²,

Leskinen³

et al. 2016

Serb J Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Accordingly, a rating system (Table 2) was adopted based on Saaty's [42] rating that uses a scale from 1 to 9 with their reciprocals (i.e., 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6, 1/7, 1/8, and 1/9). However, a pilot testing of the full-scale pair-wise comparison proved to be too tedious for respondents and a simpler scale allowed for a smoother pair-wise comparison using the terms of "equally", "slightly less/more", or "strongly less/more".…”

Section: Ahp-swot Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

A Positive Apportionment Framework Towards Enhancing Cooperation in the Jordan River Basin

Quba’a¹,

El‐Fadel²,

Alameddine³

et al. 2017

WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Jordan River Basin (JRB) has presented for long a sensitive water management challenge due to its direct association with water scarcity and socio-political conflicts amongst its riparians. This study emphasizes the limitations of existing bilateral agreements with respect to water allocation and argues for the potential of using renewable energy to catalyse a more lasting agreement within the basin based on mutual interest and benefit sharing beyond the river with third party involvement under the context of a "Positive Apportionment Framework". A SWOT analysis for the framework indicated that while there are incentives for all riparians and for third parties to collaborate towards attractive benefits, there are equally challenging weaknesses and threats. In an effort to rank the relative importance of these factors, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was applied. Responses from experts indicated that the highest influencing factors were the external threats stemming from regional politics and existing instability. These were followed by the weakness of the framework's ability to operate under existing economic disparities, regulatory and institutional discrepancies among riparian states, as well as deep-rooted socio-political conflicts between riparians. Still, highly influencing strengths and opportunities exist to build upon, such as the need to enhance water supply under an integrated water resources management and the potential for the framework to balance the bargaining power between riparians.

show abstract

“…The aim of using SWOT analysis to a participative decision making process is to develop and adopt a strategy that represents best the internal and external factors that are evidenced by the stakeholders. Recently, SWOT analysis was combined with different MCDS (Multiple Criteria Decision Support) methods-such as AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), SMART (Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique), and SMAA (Stochastic Multi-criteria Acceptability Analysis) methods-to assess the relative importance of the SWOT factors (Kajanus et al, 2012). In particular, SWOT-AHP was applied for the first time to evaluate local stakeholders' opinions on adopting certification schemes in private forest farm (Kurttila et al, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholders' appraisal of biomass-based energy development at local scale

Nikodinoska

Mattivi

Notaro

et al. 2015

Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bioenergy has a key role in the European Union (EU) policy aimed at enhancing energy security and mitigating climate change. In the implementation of EU policy at national, and—especially—at regional and local levels, the inclusion of stakeholders' opinions is crucial to increase social acceptance and to reduce conflicts between the parties. This study analyzes stakeholders' opinions of biomass-based energy development at the local level (Sarentino valley, South Tyrol region, Italy) by using the SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats)-AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) approach. SWOT-AHP methodology was implemented in three stages: stakeholders analysis, identification of the SWOT factors, and evaluation of the SWOT factors. Strategic factors were evaluated using the outcomes of a questionnaire administered to five groups of stakeholders (public administrations, NGO and associations, academia, farmers, and forest-wood chain actors). The results showed a firm prevalence for the strengths (33.3%) and opportunities (32.9%) over the potential threats (18.8%) and weaknesses (15%) of the actual bioenergy supply chain in Sarentino valley. SWOT-AHP methodology could be useful in the development and implementation of a local and regional participatory decision making process in the forest-wood-energy supply chain as it can provide structural and quantified analysis of the subjective preferences of the stakeholders.

show abstract

Making use of MCDS methods in SWOT analysis—Lessons learnt in strategic natural resources management

Cited by 130 publications

References 46 publications

Incorporating MCDS and voting into SWOT: Basic idea and experiences

Incorporating MCDS and voting into SWOT: Basic idea and experiences

A Positive Apportionment Framework Towards Enhancing Cooperation in the Jordan River Basin

Stakeholders' appraisal of biomass-based energy development at local scale

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About