Use of decision analysis interviews to support the sustainable use of the forests in Finnish Upper Lapland

Building a decision-support tool to inform sustainability approaches under complexity: Case study on managing wild ruminants

In wildlife management, differing perspectives among stakeholders generate conflicts about how to achieve disparate sustainability goals that include ecological, economic, and sociocultural dimensions. To mitigate such conflicts, decisions regarding wildlife management must be taken thoughtfully. To our knowledge, there exists no integrative modeling framework to inform these decisions, considering all dimensions of sustainability. We constructed a decision-support tool based on stakeholder workshops and a Bayesian decision network to inform management of wild ruminants in the federal state of Lower Austria. We use collaborative decision analysis to compare resource allocations while accounting for trade-offs among dimensions of sustainability. The tool is designed for application by non-technical users across diverse decision-making contexts with particular sets of wildlife management actions, objectives, and uncertainties. Our tool represents an important step toward developing and evaluating a transparent and replicable approach for mitigating wildlife-based conflicts in Europe and beyond.

Towards a sustainable fisher-dolphin coexistence: Understanding depredation, assessing economic damage and evaluating management options

Finding solutions for a sustainable coexistence between wildlife and humans is considered among the most challenging environmental management issues for scientists, conservationists, managers, and stockholders world-wide. Depredation by the common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) on small scale fisheries has increased in the recent years, leading to a growing conflict in many areas of the Mediterranean Sea and pressing for urgent management solutions. This study aims at developing a management framework for a sustainable coexistence between fishers and dolphins in Sardinia (Mediterranean Sea). Relying on the combination of different approaches (field study, literature review and Multi Criteria Decision Analysis), the scientific evidence necessary for understanding dolphin depredation were updated and improved, the related economic damage was calculated, and different management options were identified and evaluated by several stakeholder groups to support the decision-making process. Averaging for all investigated net types (gillnet and trammel net), a depredation frequency of 53% was found, the highest values ever found in both Sardinia and many other Mediterranean sites. Depredation probability was influenced by different factors, such as net type, fishing operation duration, depth of the fishing site and period. The estimated economic damage due to depredation ranges on average between 6492 and 11,925 euro per year and depends on the type of fishing net. The results from the field study, the literature review and the stakeholder involvement allowed us to define the most plausible and shared management options, identifying a framework for assessing and managing the conflict between fishers and dolphins for the creation of a more sustainable vision for the future.

Broadening the toolset for stakeholder engagement to explore consensus over wolf management

Facilitating coexistence between people and large carnivores is critical for large carnivore conservation in human-dominated landscapes, when their presence impacts negatively on human interests. Such situations will often require novel ways of mediating between different values, worldviews and opinions about how carnivores should be managed. We report on such a process in an agricultural area of recent wolf recovery in central Italy where unsolved social tensions over wolf presence have radicalized opinions on either side of the wolf debate, resulting in a stalemate. Where previous mitigation policies based on top-down damage compensation have failed, we tested the potential for applying a participatory approach to engage different stakeholder groups in a dialogue aimed at sharing a deep understanding of the problem and co-creating potential solutions. We based our approach on the theory of meta-consensus, using a decision support tool known as Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Over the course of three months, we carried out five workshops with stakeholder representatives from farming, hunting and environmental associations, and one biologist. Stakeholders shared several objectives and agreed over many management interventions, including the management of free-ranging dogs, the implementation of damage prevention measures, and a damage compensation system suitable for farmers. The process facilitated agreement over actions aimed at improving relations between stakeholders and enhancing the state of knowledge on the issues at stake. Most importantly, we recorded positive social and relationship outcomes from the workshops, and observed a willingness from participants to engage in further discussions over disputed management preferences. Overall, we found MCDA to be a useful tool for laying the groundwork for further participatory and deliberative processes on wolf management. However, challenges ahead included the involvement of a larger number of representatives of different social sectors, and a simplification of the methodology which some participants found too complicated and time consuming.

Comparison of AHP and a Utility-Based Theory Method for Selected Vertical and Horizontal Forest Structure Indicators in the Sustainability Assessment of Forest Management in the Sierra de Guadarrama National Park, Madrid Region

This paper compares two pairwise comparison methods, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and a utility theory based method (UTB method), for sustainability assessment in forest management at the local level. Six alternatives were ranked, corresponding to six different types of forest management in the Sierra de Guadarrama National Park in the Madrid Region in Spain. The methods were tested by postgraduate students enrolled in a “Decision Support Systems” course at Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Three sustainability indicators were considered: structural diversity, timber yield, and amount of biomass. The utility theory based method was the first to be compared, which is implemented in the computer program SILVANET. For each pair of alternatives, the students were asked which one they considered to be more sustainable. In the case of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, the students compared the indicators and the alternatives for each indicator. The Spearman’s correlation coefficient indicated that there was no correlation between the rankings for most of the students. The results revealed that the convergence in opinion in the AHP method was higher than in the utility based method for a low number of participants, and distinguished the differences between the alternatives more accurately. However in the case of the UTB method, the participants considered sustainability as a whole and made a more context-based comparison.

Planning nature in urbanized countries. An analysis of monetary and non-monetary impacts of conservation policy scenarios in the Netherlands

Planning and conserving nature areas are challenging tasks in urbanized and intensively used countries like the Netherlands. This paper supports decision making and public policy debate about these tasks in both an empirical and a methodological way. Empirically, we explore policy alternatives by determining the potential consequences of different nature policy scenarios in the Netherlands. Methodologically, we employ a mixed monetary and non-monetary evaluation method known as multi-criteria cost-benefit analysis (MCCBA). We evaluate four new future directions of Dutch nature policy that address four dominant stakeholder demands: biodiversity conservation, the provision of ecosystem services, recreational potential as well as economic gains. To balance compact presentation of evaluation outcomes on the one hand and information richness of results on the other, we distinguish between two impact indicator sets: three “headline” and ten “elaborate” indicators. Using these indicators we discuss the quantitative assessment of the four nature policy scenarios by comparing them to two other scenarios, reflecting the 2010 stand-still baseline situation (2010) as well as a reference policy (Trend). In total, we evaluate six scenarios; four present new directions and two reflect existing or recently (2010) halted practices. Our findings first of all show that even in an urbanized country like the Netherlands, with its intensive competition among land use functions, serious gains in national and international biodiversity are possible. Second, we find that it is doubtful whether stimulating the provision of regulating ecosystem services in a country which applies intensive and profitable agricultural techniques is beneficial. Other countries or areas that are less suitable for intensive agricultural practices may be more logical for this. Finally we demonstrate that increasing urban recreational green space − a common challenge for many urban areas − can only be achieved at relatively high costs, while it does not seem to lead to relatively high scores on nature appreciation. Nature appreciation seems to be served better by wilder nature than by park-like nature.

Hybrid MCDA Methods to Integrate Multiple Ecosystem Services in Forest Management Planning: A Critical Review

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.

Use of multicriteria decision analysis to address conservation conflicts

Conservation conflicts are increasing on a global scale and instruments for reconciling competing interests are urgently needed. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a structured, decision-support process that can facilitate dialogue between groups with differing interests and incorporate human and environmental dimensions of conflict. MCDA is a structured and transparent method of breaking down complex problems and incorporating multiple objectives. The value of this process for addressing major challenges in conservation conflict management is that MCDA helps in setting realistic goals; entails a transparent decision-making process; and addresses mistrust, differing world views, cross-scale issues, patchy or contested information, and inflexible legislative tools. Overall we believe MCDA provides a valuable decision-support tool, particularly for increasing awareness of the effects of particular values and choices for working toward negotiated compromise, although an awareness of the effect of methodological choices and the limitations of the method is vital before applying it in conflict situations.