Representative Group Decision-Making in Forest Management: A Compromise Approach

The correct aggregation of stakeholders' preferences is a vital aspect of solving problems associated with natural resources. In fact, there is no one solution that permits the incorporation of those preferences into techniques that, in turn, address multiple objectives in the management of those resources. In this context, this work aims to assign, analyse, and compare the weights of importance to groups of stakeholders (representativity) starting from different approaches and methodologies: pairwise comparison matrices (using a subjective approach) and the voting power notion (when an objective approach is deployed). For the latter, a variant of the extended goal programming model is employed. The results show different weight values and, therefore, scenarios, in which the social groups defined acquire diverse importance. It is also observed that there are scenarios determined by different values of the control parameter, in which the results of the two above-mentioned approaches are similar. Finally, it is demonstrated how the affiliation of stakeholders to other social groups (different identities) affects the results obtained.

Automated summary

The correct aggregation of stakeholders' preferences is crucial in solving natural resource problems. This study analyzes and compares the importance weights of stakeholder groups using pairwise comparison matrices and the voting power notion. The results show different weight values and scenarios, and the influence of control parameter values on similarity of results is observed.