1

Experiences on the use of decision support tools in participatory forest planning at Metsähallitus

Robin Wood conference 11.10. 2013Veikko Hiltunen, Metsähallitus, Forestry

- senior adviser

Contents Introduction of Metsähallitus Use of decision support tools Experiences

References: - Forest Policy and Economics 10 (2008) 117-127 - Forest Policy and Economics 9 (2009) 1-9

- Can. J. For. Res. 37: 853-865 (2007) - Silva Fennica 46(4): 539-554 (2012)

2

Metsähallitus’ lands and waters

State (Metsähallitus)CompaniesOther Private forest owners

Ownership of forest land in Finland

Forest land in commercial forests, 3.6 million ha Poorly productive and non-productive land, 1.5 million ha (excluded from forestry)Protected areas, wilderness reserves and other areas, 4.0 million haWater areas, 3.4 million haPublic water areasIn total 12.5 million ha = 1/3 of the country

History of the use of desion support (DS) tools

Participation was started in early 1990’s Regional stakeholder groups are in the key role Citizens have also their says in the planning

Use of decision support tools started parallel with participation

Evaluation of alternative plans were supported first With numerical, cardinal DS methods, like aplications of AHP and

SMART We have normally 5 - 8 different optional plans in comparison

Support for criteria selection and preference eliciting started in early 2000’s Ordinal DS methods, like voting methods, were adapted

Combined use of ordinal and cardinal DS methods was taken into use in late 2000’s

In evaluation3

4

Voting techniques applied 1(2)

Plurality voting and approval voting (AV)

Have been used in selection of the decision criteriao objectives (= what we want) are discribed in more details in terms of criteria

In deciding the number of the criteria In selection between competitave criteria candidates

o In plurality voting every voter has one voice that she/he casts to the candidate she/he prefers. The candidate getting most votes is the winner.

o In approval voting every voter gives a vote to so many candidates than she/he “approves”. The candidate getting most votes is the winner.

Traditional voting techniques applied 2(2)

Borda count and cumulative voting Have been used in eliciting preferences of stakeholders

o (= how important are different objectives in relation to each others)

o In Borda count method, in a case of n candidates, a voter gives points to the most preferred candidate, n-1 to the second preferred candidate, etc., until one to the least preferred one

o In a common application of cumulative voting, a voter distributes 100 points to the candidates in a way she/he prefers

In both methods the group’s preferences consist of the sum of the individuals’ preferences

5

Multicriteria decision support (MCDS) methods applied in the evaluation of the alternative plans Multicriteria approval (MA)

Approval borders (thresholds)are first decided for every criterion Plan alternatives are classified as approved or disapproved in regard

of every criterion In holistic evaluation of the alternatives importance order of the

criteria is utilised Provides the rank of the alternatives (= ordinal evaluation)

Interactive utility analysis (IUA) Structuring the decision hierarchy of the problem (Value tree analysis) Deciding the weights of the criteria on each level (by AHP or SMART) Provides cardinal,numerical evaluation of the alternatives

Combination of MA and IUA Ranking the alternatives by MA Deeper cardinal analysis with IUA (for best alternatives)

We have tested also some other techniques, but they are not repoted here

6

Experiences on the use of DS methods 1(2) Voting methods

Plurality voting and approval voting (AV) Both work well in criteria selection, our experiences recommend using

AV

Borda count and cumulative voting Both work in preference eliciting, our experiences recommend the use

of Borda Count method

MA- method Evaluation solution can often be found by MA-voting,

Example of Kainuu If not, deeper analysis can be carried out with cardinal methods

In that phase, the participants are well educated into the planning problem, which helps in selecting an appropriate method and finding a common solution

Allow only simple sensitivity analysis7

8

Example 1. Results of cumulative voting and Borda Count voting in the planning case of KainuuPreference of the criteria in the stakeholder group by different votings results differ by methods and by a priori / posteriori eliciting

Cumulative voting, Borda count voting, Borda count voting, a priori a priori posteriorcriterion- CUT - ECONETWORK - JOBS- QUAL OF ENW - SCENERY - CUT- SCENERY - CUT - SCENERY- JOBS - JOBS - QUAL OF ENW- ECONETWORK - QUAL OF ENW - ECONETWORK- TURNOVER - GAME - TURNOVER- GAME - INCOME - GAME- INCOME - TURNOVER - INCOME

Importance order of the criteria is different by different methods and in a priori and posteriori votings

In group discussions, Borda Count posteriori was assessed as the most valid and to be used in evaluation

9

Example 2. Results of MA evaluation of the alternative plans in Kainuu region

-Alternative 5 became a clear favoriteCriteria in their importance order

Jobs Cut Scenery

Qual of EcoNW

EcoNetWork

Turnover

Game Income

Alternative (1) + + - + - + + +(2) - + - - - + + +(3) - - + + + - - -(4) + + - - - + + +(5) + + + + - + + +(6) - - + + + - - -(/) + + - - - + + +(8) - - + + + - - -

Experiences on the use of DS methods 2(2)

Cardinal methods (like IUA) Provide ”exact” prefence information between the alternative

plans and allow sophisticated sensitivity analysis Participants need to know and understand the methods well An outsider expert / facilitator is generally needed for use the

method

Combined use of ordinal and cardinal methods The plans are first analysed by ordinal voting methods Deeper cardinal analysis for best alternatives with cardinal

methods, like IUA Example of Western Finland

10

11

Example 3. Results of MA evaluation of the alternative plans Western Finland region

Criteria in their importance order ECONET RECR JOBS RICH CUT BEAUT INC TURN

Alternative (1) BASIC - - + - + - + +(2) ECONO - - + - + - + +(3) CONS - - + + + - + -(4) CONS2 + + - + - + - -(5) REC + + - + - + - -(6) COMB + + - + - + - -(7) PROTEC + + - + - + - -

Alternatives (4) – (7) seem to do equally well

12

Example 4. Results of IUA evaluation of alternatives in Western Finland region

Global priorities of the alternatives - Alternative 5 carries highest utility

Global priorities of the alternatives

0,000

0,100

0,200

0,300

0,400

0,500

0,600

0,700

JOBS, p.y.

TURN [M€/a]

BEAUT [ha]

RECR [ha]

RICH [ha]

ECONET [ha]

INC [M€/a]

CUT [m3/a]

13

Lessons Multi-goal approach is the basic matter in participatory

planning

Use of DS tools improves work of the participatory groups and makes it more efficient

Mutually agreed concepts pointless arguing decreases Emphasis on elements to be decided, like priorities and

criteria

The process becomes more transparent and fair Also the ”shy and silent” become equally heard with DS

tools

Transparency improves understanding of other participants’ sights in the group facilitates group negotiations and finding the group’s common decision

However, final decisions have in all our cases been a matter of human judgement

Acceptance of the results has improved due to the applied DS methods

14

Lessons Behavioral aspects are important

Easiness to use and understand applied methods is especially important in participatory approaches

Many people more easily accept a satisfactory solution the rationale of which they can understand than results of sophisticated methods which are too complex for them

Facilitators, visualisation, etc. is needed to interpret calculations, alternatives, results

Inquiries needed in a DS method should not be too difficult e.g. if it is hard for stakeholders to express cardinal importance for

the criteria, forcing them to answer corresponging inquiries might lead to biased results

Interactivity is a precondition of the effectiveness of most decision support processes (with any method)

Main messages Generally, keep a participatory process as simple as

possible

Use decision support methods adaptively Apply ”easy” ordinal methods first, Cardinal methods thereafter if necessary

Voting methods provide relevant support also for evaluation Voting methods are familiar to most participants from other

contexts (like elections), easy in their principles, and easy to use

If deeper analysis are needed, the voting results serve a natural basis for cardinal analysis

Direct holistic evaluation seldom provides the best solution 15

Thank you !