Multicriteria and Critical Threshold Value Analyses in Assessing Sustainable Forestry

Mendoza, Guillermo A.; Hartanto, H.; Prabhu, Ravi; Villanueva, Teodoro R.

doi:10.1300/j091v15n02_02

Cited by 14 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Criteria and Indicator (C&I) processes (see Mendoza et al, 2002;Mendoza and Prabhu, 2003)) and in policy implementation (governance of community-based forest management (see Mutimukuru et al, 2006;Campo et al, 2009)). These are processes in which the members of a heterogeneous society, like the cases in Africa or south-eastern Asia, share a strong motivation to affect the existing power balance and the improvement of livelihoods within poor communities (see also McDougall et al, 2008).…”

Section: Assessment Of the Evolvement Of Problem Structuring In Foresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several of the reviewed studies dealt with the process of developing and using C&Is (Fraser et al, 2006;Nordström et al, 2010;Mendoza et al, 2002;Prabhu, 2005b, 2006;Purnomo et al, 2005aPurnomo et al, , 2005b. In general, C&I processes imply a variety of rigorous and messy tasks (Khadka and Vacik, 2012), and thus the potential positive effects of problem structuring might support these activities.…”

Section: Fulfillment Of the Expectations Of Problem Structuring And Imentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, availability of sufficient resources for facilitation has been seen as a critical issue in participatory forest planning, in which processes will ultimately change relationship patterns and affect power relationships (Buchy and Hoverman, 2000). Mendoza et al (2002) and Purnomo et al (2003) proposed using and developing facilitated modelling methods in forest management (at that time the term collaborative modelling was typically used). Now, approximately a decade later, the forest-research community lacks summarized hitherto knowledge of how PSMs and facilitated modelling features have assimilated to participatory forestplanning research and how they have tackled the challenge of messy, ill-defined land use and policy planning problems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Problem structuring in participatory forest planning

Khadka

Hujala

Wolfslehner

et al. 2013

Forest Policy and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Assessment Of the Evolvement Of Problem Structuring In Foresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Fulfillment Of the Expectations Of Problem Structuring And Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Problem structuring in participatory forest planning

Khadka

Hujala

Wolfslehner

et al. 2013

Forest Policy and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Mendoza et al, 2002;Mendoza and Prabhu, 2003). In some cases, the workshop outputs made with manual tools like flipcharts and pens were later digitized and further analyzed with spreadsheets and other software (e.g.…”

Section: Software Types Use Modesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review. Supporting problem structuring with computer-based tools in participatory forest planning

Hujala¹,

Khadka²,

Wolfslehner³

et al. 2013

For. syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim of study: This review presents the state-of-art of using computerized techniques for problem structuring (PS) in participatory forest planning. Frequency and modes of using different computerized tool types and their contribution for planning processes as well as critical observations are described, followed by recommendations on how to better integrate PS with the use of forest decision support systems.Area of study: The reviewed research cases are from Asia, Europe, North-America, Africa and Australia.Materials and methods: Via Scopus search and screening of abstracts, 32 research articles from years 2002–2011 were selected for review. Explicit and implicit evidence of using computerized tools for PS was recorded and assessed with content-driven qualitative analysis.Main results: GIS and forest-specific simulation tools were the most prevalent software types whereas cognitive modelling software and spreadsheet and calculation tools were less frequently used, followed by multi-criteria and interactive tools. The typical use type was to provide outputs of simulation–optimization or spatial analysis to negotiation situations or to compile summaries or illustrations afterwards; using software during group negotiation to foster interaction was observed only in a few cases.Research highlights: Expertise in both decision support systems and group learning is needed to better integrate PS and computerized decision analysis. From the knowledge management perspective, it is recommended to consider how the results of PS – e.g. conceptual models – could be stored into a problem perception database, and how PS and decision making could be streamlined by retrievals from such systems.Keywords: facilitated modeling; group negotiation; knowledge management; natural resource management; PSM; soft OR; stakeholders.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, this problem fits in very well with the multiple criteria decisionmaking paradigm. Thus, Prahbu (2000a,b, 2003) and Mendoza et al (2002) recommend the use of some qualitative multi-criteria methods for the assessment of indicators of forest sustainability. Bousson (2001) applies a multi-criteria methodology (ELECTRE) to the choice of the most preferred management alternative according to several criteria.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%