Abstract
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.
Highlights
Since the United Nations Conference on the Environment (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, sustainability and the development of indicators for Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) have received greater attention, and have advanced [1]
Several SFM processes have been enacted over the last 25 years to develop criteria and indicators for the conceptualization, monitoring and creation of a solid basis for decision-making at international, national, and local levels [1,3]. These criteria and indicators have evolved in line with the thinking on SFM and have gradually adapted to the changes in the ecological, economic and social aspects of the forest and to new demands from other processes such as the Convention on Climate Change or the UN Convention to Combat Desertification. All these international processes converge to similar principles that are adopted in the global-United Nations definition of SFM as a “a dynamic and evolving concept [that aims] to maintain and enhance the economic, social, and environmental values of all types of forests, for the benefit of present and future generations”
For the choice of the SFM indicators used in this study we considered the objectives of the plan: improvement of the forest structure, regulated exploitation of timber, the park’s function to reduce CO2 by increasing biomass
Summary
Since the United Nations Conference on the Environment (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, sustainability and the development of indicators for Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) have received greater attention, and have advanced [1]. Several SFM processes have been enacted over the last 25 years to develop criteria and indicators for the conceptualization, monitoring and creation of a solid basis for decision-making at international, national, and local levels [1,3] During this time, these criteria and indicators have evolved in line with the thinking on SFM and have gradually adapted to the changes in the ecological, economic and social aspects of the forest and to new demands from other processes such as the Convention on Climate Change or the UN Convention to Combat Desertification. Key issues like forest resources, afforestation/reforestation, health and vitality, damages, productive functions, biodiversity, protective functions, and economic issues are well covered by indicators in all C&I processes [4]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
