Abstract
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) possesses certain characteristics that make it a useful tool for natural resource decision making. The AHP’s capabilities include: participatory decision making, problem structuring and alternative development, group facilitation, consensus building, fairness, qualitative and quantitative information, conflict resolution, decision support, and preferences structuring. For each of these facilities, we describe how it is reflected in land management and then illustrate how it is addressed by the AHP. Based on this analysis and on the preceding chapters of the book, we offer some suggestions for extending the AHP in new directions, e.g. peer-to-peer networking, site-specific management, forest management planning, statistical analyses, and software enhancements. The ability of the AHP to incorporate the human dimension (subjective preference) and to aid group decisions of choice are seen as the method’s most noteworthy features.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Alho, IM. and Kangas, J. 1997. Analyzing uncertainties in experts’ opinions of forest plan performance. Forest Science 43: 521–528.
Alho, J.M., Kangas, J. and Kolehmainen, O. 1996. Uncertainty in the expert predictions of the ecological consequences of forest plans. Applied Statistics 45: 1–14.
Asahi, T., Turo, D. and Shneiderman, B. 1995. Using Treemaps to visualize the analytic hierarchy process. Informations Systems 6: 357–375.
Bard, J. F. 1992. A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process with multiattribute utility theory: A case study. ILE Transactions 24: 111–121.
Crawford, G. and Williams, C. 1985. A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 29: 387–405.
de Jong, P. 1984. A statistical approach to Saaty’s scaling method for priorities. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 28: 467–478.
Eastman, J. R., Jiang, H., and Toledano, J. 1998. Multi-criteria and multi-objective decision making for land allocation using GIS. Pages 227–252 in Beinat, E. and Nijkamp, P. (eds.) Multicriteria Analysis for Land-Use Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Engelbart, D. and Lehtman, H.. 1988. Working smarter. BYTE 13: 245–252.
Jankowski, P. 1995. Integrating geographical information systems and multiple criteria decision-making methods. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 9: 251–273.
Jankowski, P., Nyerges, T. L., Smith, A., Moore, T. J., and Horvath E. 1997. Spatial group choice a SDSS tool for collaborative spatial decision making. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 11: 576–602.
Kajala, L. (ed.) 1996. Lapin metsästrategia. [Strategy for the forest of Finnish Lapland, In Finnish]. Maa-ja metsätalousministeriön julkaisuja 2/1996.
Kangas, J. 1994. An approach to public participation in strategic forest management planning. Forest Ecology and Management 70: 75–88.
Kangas, J. 1999. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP): Standard version, forestry application and advances. Pages 96–105 in Helles, F., Holten-Andersen, P. and Wichmann, L. (eds.) Multiple Use of Forests and Other Natural Resources. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Amsterdam.
Kangas, J., Alho, J., Kolehmainen, O. and Mononen, A. 1998. Analysing consistency of experts’ judgments — Case of forest biodiversity. Forest Science 44: 610–617.
Leskinen, P. and Kangas, J. 1998. Analysing uncertainties of interval judgment data in multiple criteria evaluation of forest plans. Silva Fennica 32: 363–372.
Mendoza, G. A. and Prabhu, R. 2000. Multiple criteria analysis for assessing criteria and indicators in sustainable forest management: A case study on participatory decision making in a Kalimantan forest. Environmental Management 26: 659–673.
Pesonen, M., Kurttila, M., Kangas, J., Kajanus, M. and Heinonen, P. 2001. Assessing the priorities among resource management strategies at the Finnish Forest and Park Service. Forest Science (in press).
Peterson, D. L., Schmoldt, D. L. and Silsbee, D. G. 1994. A case study of resource management planning with multiple objectives and projects. Environmental Management 18: 729–742.
Pykäläinen, J., Kangas, J. and Loikkanen, T. 1999. Interactive decision analysis in participatory strategic forest planning: Experiences from state-owned boreal forests. Journal of Forest Economics 5: 341–364.
Saaty, T. L. and Alexander, J. M. 1989. Conflict Resolution: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Praeger Publishers, New York.
Schmoldt, D. L. 1998. Knowledge acquisition using linguistic-based knowledge analysis. AI Applications 12: 1–20.
Schmoldt, D. L. and Peterson, D. L. 2000. Analytical group decision making in natural resources: Methodology and application. Forest Science 46: 62–75.
Schmoldt, D. L., Peterson, D. L., Keane, R. E., Lenman, J., McKenzie, D. M., Weise, D. R. and Sandberg, D. V. 1998. Modeling the effects of fire disturbance on ecosystsm: A scientific agenda for research and management. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Report PNW-GTR-455. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland OR
Schmoldt, D. L., Peterson, D. L. and Smith, R. L. 1995: The analytic hierarchy process and participatory decisionmaking. Pages 129–143 In Power, J. M., Strome, M. and Daniel, T. C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Advanced Technology in Natural Resources Management. American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda MD
Smith, R. L., Bush, R. J. and Schmoldt, D. L. 1995. A hierarchical analysis of bridge decision makers. Wood and Fiber Science 27: 225–238.
Store, R. and Kangas, J. 2001. Integrating spatial multi-criteria evaluation and expert knowledge for GIS based habitat suitability modelling. Landscape Planning (in press).
Twery, M. J., Rauscher, H. M., Bennett, D. J., Thomasma, S.A., Stout, S. L., Palmer, J. F., Hoffman, R. E., DeCalesta, S. A., Gustafson, E., Cleveland, H., Grove, J. M., Nute, D., Kim, G. and Kollasch, R. P. 2000. NED-1: Integrated analysis for forest stewardship decisions. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 27: 167–193.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schmoldt, D.L., Mendoza, G.A., Kangas, J. (2001). Past Developments and Future Directions for the AHP in Natural Resources. In: Schmoldt, D.L., Kangas, J., Mendoza, G.A., Pesonen, M. (eds) The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resource and Environmental Decision Making. Managing Forest Ecosystems, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9799-9_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9799-9_18
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5735-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9799-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive