4.5 Article

Implementing participatory decision making in forest planning

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 39, 期 4, 页码 534-544

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-006-0031-2

关键词

public policy; analytic hierarchy process; australia; forest land-use decisions; public participation; stakeholders

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Forest policy decisions are often a source of debate, conflict, and tension in many countries. The debate over forest land-use decisions often hinges on disagreements about societal values related to forest resource use. Disagreements on social value positions are fought out repeatedly at local, regional, national, and international levels at an enormous social cost. Forest policy problems have some inherent characteristics that make them more difficult to deal with. On the one hand, forest policy decisions involve uncertainty, long time scales, and complex natural systems and processes. On the other hand, such decisions encompass social, political, and cultural systems that are evolving in response to forces such as globalization. Until recently, forest policy was heavily influenced by the scientific community and various economic models of optimal resource use. However, growing environmental awareness and acceptance of participatory democracy models in policy formulation have forced the public authorities to introduce new participatory mechanisms to manage forest resources. Most often, the efforts to include the public in policy formulation can be described using the lower rungs of Arnstein's public participation typology. This paper presents an approach that incorporates stakeholder preferences into forest land-use policy using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). An illustrative case of regional forest-policy formulation in Australia is used to demonstrate the approach. It is contended that applying the AHP in the policy process could considerably enhance the transparency of participatory process and public acceptance of policy decisions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据