| Title |
Hybrid MCDA Methods to Integrate Multiple Ecosystem Services in Forest Management Planning: A Critical Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Management, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00267-015-0503-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Britta Uhde, W. Andreas Hahn, Verena C. Griess, Thomas Knoke |
| Abstract |
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. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 249 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 242 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 53 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 42 | 17% |
| Researcher | 41 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 4% |
| Other | 36 | 14% |
| Unknown | 50 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 70 | 28% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 32 | 13% |
| Engineering | 26 | 10% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 9 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 3% |
| Other | 36 | 14% |
| Unknown | 68 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 July 2015.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#1,820
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,321
of 279,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#45
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,761 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.