Throughout recent decades, in the context of forest planning and management there has been an increasing demand for stakeholders' and citizens' involvement in the decision-making process. The investigation of stakeholders’ preferences in participatory forest planning has become of paramount importance in understanding priorities and preventing conflicts. This paper is aimed at combining a Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) approach, such as pairwise comparison and value measurement model, in order to assess stakeholders’ preferences for different goods and services provided by forests. The analysis of the results focused on assessing how pairwise comparison is able to heighten the information that can be obtained by the application of the value measurement model. The research was conducted within a framework of a Forest Landscape Management Plan (FLMP) in a case study in Southern Italy. 99 stakeholders were involved in the survey in order to analyze their preferences towards goods and services provided by forests (26 institutional actors, 44 technicians of public sector, 7 NGOs and 22 actors of agricultural-forest sector). Findings from the study highlighted that the pairwise comparison method made possible a first ranking of preferences that could be a useful tool to orientate forest planners in defining the priorities of FLMP.
You have requested a machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Neither BioOne nor the owners and publishers of the content make, and they explicitly disclaim, any express or implied representations or warranties of any kind, including, without limitation, representations and warranties as to the functionality of the translation feature or the accuracy or completeness of the translations.
Translations are not retained in our system. Your use of this feature and the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in the Terms and Conditions of Use of the BioOne website.
Vol. 19 • No. 4