Test
From forestDSS
Methods and Dimensions
| Has temporal scale | Long term (strategic) |
|---|---|
| Has spatial context | Spatial with neighborhood interrelations |
| Has spatial scale | Forest level |
| Has objectives dimension | Multiple |
| Has goods and services dimension | Market non wood products, Market wood products;Non market services |
| Has decision making dimension | More than one decision maker/stakeholder |
| Has risk/uncertainty analysis | no |
| Has advantages | AHP is a relatively simple and transparent method which is an advantage in participatory planning. |
| Has disadvantages | Using the standard AHP with pairwise comparisons of both criteria and alternatives may be cognitively demanding to the DM(s) with a larger number of criteria and alternatives. In turn, this may lead to inconsistency in preferences. |
| Has main contraints | The number of elements to be compared at each level should probably not exceed 4-5. |
| Has related method | |
| Has method | |
| Has submethods | |
| Has detailed description of methods application in the DSS | |
| Uses programming language | |
| Has reference | Nordström E.-M., Eriksson Ljusk O. & Öhman K. 2010. Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis in participatory forest planning: Experience from a case study in northern Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics 12(8): 562-574. |
| Has related DSS | In this paper, no full DSS was used; Web-HIPRE was used for the AHP. Since then, AHP has been implemented in the Heureka PlanEval application. |
