4.6 Article

A Participatory and Spatial Multicriteria Decision Approach to Prioritize the Allocation of Ecosystem Services to Management Units

Journal

LAND
Volume 10, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/land10070747

Keywords

forest management planning; MCDA; multicriteria Pareto frontier methods; focus group; EMDS; GIS

Funding

  1. European Union [676754, 773324]
  2. Marie Skodowska-Curie Research and Innovation Staff Exchange (RISE) within the H2020Work Programme (H2020-MSCA-RISE-2015)
  3. Portuguese Science Foundation (FCT), Portugal [PD/BD/128257/2016, SFRH/BD/108225/2015, DL57/2016/CP1382/CT15, UIDB/00239/2020, LISBOA01-0145-FEDER-030391, PTDC/ASP-SIL/30391/2017, PCIF/MOS/0217/2017]
  4. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [UIDB/00239/2020, PD/BD/128257/2016, PTDC/ASP-SIL/30391/2017, PCIF/MOS/0217/2017, SFRH/BD/108225/2015] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study proposed a method for spatially allocating forest ecosystem services (ESs) to management units (MUs) based on the management priorities of different interest groups, and found significant differences in ESs allocation priorities among different stakeholder groups in a real-world application in Portugal.
Forest management planning can be challenging when allocating multiple ecosystem services (ESs) to management units (MUs), given the potentially conflicting management priorities of actors. We developed a methodology to spatially allocate ESs to MUs, according to the objectives of four interest groups-civil society, forest owners, market agents, and public administration. We applied a Group Multicriteria Spatial Decision Support System approach, combining (a) Multicriteria Decision Analysis to weight the decision models; (b) a focus group and a multicriteria Pareto frontier method to negotiate a consensual solution for seven ESs; and (c) the Ecosystem Management Decision Support (EMDS) system to prioritize the allocation of ESs to MUs. We report findings from an application to a joint collaborative management area (ZIF of Vale do Sousa) in northwestern Portugal. The forest owners selected wood production as the first ES allocation priority, with lower priorities for other ESs. In opposition, the civil society assigned the highest allocation priorities to biodiversity, cork, and carbon stock, with the lowest priority being assigned to wood production. The civil society had the highest mean rank of allocation priority scores. We found significant differences in priority scores between the civil society and the other three groups, highlighting the civil society and market agents as the most discordant groups. We spatially evaluated potential for conflicts among group ESs allocation priorities. The findings suggest that this approach can be helpful to decision makers, increasing the effectiveness of forest management plan implementation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available