Hybrid MCDA Methods to Integrate Multiple Ecosystem Services in Forest Management Planning: A Critical Review

被引:0
|
作者
Britta Uhde
W. Andreas Hahn
Verena C. Griess
Thomas Knoke
机构
[1] Technische Universität München,Institute of Forest Management, Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Management, Center of Life and Food Sciences Weihenstephan
[2] University of British Columbia,Department of Forest Resources Management, Faculty of Forestry
来源
Environmental Management | 2015年 / 56卷
关键词
Ecosystem services; Trade-offs; Forest management planning; Stakeholder participation; Uncertainty; Quantitative optimization; Multiple criteria;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a decision aid frequently used in the field of forest management planning. It includes the evaluation of multiple criteria such as the production of timber and non-timber forest products and tangible as well as intangible values of ecosystem services (ES). Hence, it is beneficial compared to those methods that take a purely financial perspective. Accordingly, MCDA methods are increasingly popular in the wide field of sustainability assessment. Hybrid approaches allow aggregating MCDA and, potentially, other decision-making techniques to make use of their individual benefits and leading to a more holistic view of the actual consequences that come with certain decisions. This review is providing a comprehensive overview of hybrid approaches that are used in forest management planning. Today, the scientific world is facing increasing challenges regarding the evaluation of ES and the trade-offs between them, for example between provisioning and regulating services. As the preferences of multiple stakeholders are essential to improve the decision process in multi-purpose forestry, participatory and hybrid approaches turn out to be of particular importance. Accordingly, hybrid methods show great potential for becoming most relevant in future decision making. Based on the review presented here, the development of models for the use in planning processes should focus on participatory modeling and the consideration of uncertainty regarding available information.
引用
收藏
页码:373 / 388
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Indicators of Cultural Ecosystem Services for urban planning: A review
    La Rosa, Daniele
    Spyra, Marcin
    Inostroza, Luis
    ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2016, 61 : 74 - 89
  • [42] Forest ecosystem services in Romania: Orchestrating regulatory and voluntary planning documents
    Nichiforel, Liviu
    Duduman, Gabriel
    Scriban, Ramona Elena
    Popa, Bogdan
    Barnoaiea, Ionut
    Dragoi, Marian
    ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2021, 49
  • [44] Effects of forest management on some ecosystem services in temperate forest ecosystems of Mexico
    Carlos Monarrez-Gonzalez, Jose
    Perez-Verdin, Gustavo
    Lopez-Gonzalez, Celia
    Antonio Marquez-Linares, Marco
    del Socorro Gonzalez-Elizondo, Maria
    MADERA Y BOSQUES, 2018, 24 (02):
  • [45] Valuing Ecosystem Services at the Urban Level: A Critical Review
    Croci, Edoardo
    Lucchitta, Benedetta
    Penati, Tommaso
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2021, 13 (03) : 1 - 16
  • [46] A model to integrate ecosystem services into spatial planning: Ria de Aveiro coastal lagoon study
    Sousa, Lisa P.
    Alves, Fatima L.
    OCEAN & COASTAL MANAGEMENT, 2020, 195
  • [47] How ecosystem services are co-produced: a critical review identifying multiple research framings
    Woodhead, A. J.
    Kenter, J. O.
    Thomas, C. D.
    Stringer, L. C.
    ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2025, 71
  • [48] Cultural ecosystem services and public preferences: How to integrate them effectively into Smart City planning?
    Machac, J.
    Hekrle, M.
    Meyer, P.
    Stankova, N.
    Brabec, J.
    Sykorova, M.
    2020 SMART CITY SYMPOSIUM PRAGUE (SCSP), 2020,
  • [49] Multiple-use forest management versus ecosystem forest management: A religious question?
    Nelson, Robert H.
    FOREST POLICY AND ECONOMICS, 2013, 35 : 9 - 20
  • [50] Which type of forest management provides most ecosystem services?
    Pukkala, Timo
    FOREST ECOSYSTEMS, 2016, 3