Integrated Scenario Planning and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Framework with Application to Forest Planning

Livia Bizikova^1*, Emina Krcmar²

¹International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Ottawa, Canada.
²Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

DOI: 10.4236/ojf.2015.52014                

Abstract

This paper explores approaches concerning complex forest planning challenges, such as restoration after large-scale disturbances and under climate change. It introduces a new framework that integrates qualitative scenario planning with quantitative multi-criteria decision analysis. This framework allows stakeholders without background in forestry to express their preferences as a set of scenarios that are further assessed for specific forest management goals and activities using multi-criteria models. The assessment of the modelled scenarios created a common understanding for the stakeholders and experts to compare trade-offs between several management options and needed policy choices. The framework was applied in the case study of forest restoration following insect disturbance in British Columbia, Canada. The framework enabled structured stakeholder groups’ interactions such as industry, business associations, local and regional governments, and non-governmental organizations to identify potential restoration options. Different community futures were envisioned by two scenarios: one resembling current conditions and standard practices, while another promoting diversification of the forestry sector. The results indicated that each of the scenarios leads to different consequences for the community measured by levels of economic benefits, total harvest volumes and harvest flows over time. The results also show that the developed framework linking scenarios and multi-criteria decision analyses proved crucial to broaden the discussion on relevant species mixes and management practices, and their implications for the community and policy development.

Keywords

Forest Restoration, Scenario Planning, Multi-Criteria Decision Analyses, British Columbia, Canada, Stakeholders’ Participation

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Beardmore, T., & Winder, R. (2011). Review of Science-Based Assessments of Species Vulnerability: Contributions to Decision-Making for Assisted Migration. The Forestry Chronicle, 87, 745-754. http://dx.doi.org/10.5558/tfc2011-091
[2]	Bell, M. L., Hobbs, B. F., Elliott, E. M., Ellis, H., & Robinson, Z. (2001). An Evaluation of Multi-Criteria Methods in Integrated Assessment of Climate Policy. JMCDA, 10, 229-256.
[3]	Belton, V., & Stewart, T. J. (2002) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1495-4
[4]	Bohunovsky, L., Omann, I., & Jager, J. (2011). Participatory Scenario Development for Integrated Sustainability Assessment. Regional Environmental Change, 11, 271-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-010-0143-3
[5]	Bolte, J. P., Hulse, D. W., Gregory, S. V., & Smith, C. (2006). Modeling Biocomplexity: Actors, Landscapes and Alternative Futures. Environmental Modelling & Software, 22, 570-579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.12.033
[6]	Borges, J. G., Garcia-Gonzalo, J., Bushenkov, V. A., McDill, M. E., Marques, S., & Oliveira, M. M. (2014). Addressing Multi-Criteria Forest Management with Pareto Frontier Methods: An Application in Portugal. Forest Science; in Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/forsci.12-100
[7]	British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range (B.C. MoF) (2008) Sustaining Communities: 2006-2011 Mountain Pine Beetle Action Plan. Progress Report. Victoria: British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range.
[8]	British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range (B.C. MoF). (2007) TIPSY. www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/gymodels/TIPSY/index.htm
[9]	Brooke, A., Kendrick, D., Meeraus, A., & Raman, R. (2004). GAMS: A User’s Guide. Washington DC: GAMS Development Corporation.
[10]	Cuginotti, A., Miller, K. M., & van der Pluijm, F. (2008). Design and Decision Making: Backcasting Using Principles to Implement Cradle-To-Cradle. Karlskrona: School of Engineering Blekinge Institute of Technology.
[11]	Diaz-Balteiro, L., & Romero, C. (2008). Making Forestry Decisions with Multiple Criteria: A Review and an Assessment. Forest Ecology and Management, 255, 3222-3241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.01.038
[12]	Diaz-Balteiro, L., Bertomeu, M., & Bertomeu, M. (2009). Optimal Harvest Scheduling in Eucalyptus Plantations: A Case Study in Galicia (Spain). Forest Policy and Economics, 11, 548-554. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2009.07.005
[13]	Diaz-Balteiro, L., Voces, R., & Romero, C. (2011). Making Sustainability Rankings Using Compromise Programming. An Application to European Paper Industry. Silva Fennica, 45, 548-554. http://dx.doi.org/10.14214/sf.103
[14]	Ducheyne, E. I., De Wulf, R. R., & De Baets, B. (2006). A Spatial Approach to Forest-Management Optimization: Linking GIS and Multiple Objective Genetic Algorithms. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 20, 917-928. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13658810600711287
[15]	Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2002). FAO Global Forest Products Outlook Study. Rome: FAO.
[16]	Forest Ecosystems Solutions Ltd. (FESL) (2008). Economic Operability Assessment and Priority Classification in MPB Impacted Areas in the Quesnel Timber Supply Area. Vancouver: FESL.
[17]	Future Forest Ecosystems Initiative (FFEI) (2008). Future Forest Ecosystems Initiative: Strategic Plan. Victoria: British Columbia Ministry of Forests.
[18]	Government of British Columbia (2006). British Columbia’s Mountain Pine Beetle Action Plan 2006-2011. Victoria: Government of B.C.
[19]	Hamann, A., & Wang, T. (2005). Models of Climatic Normals for Genecology and Climate Change Studies in British Columbia. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 128, 211-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2004.10.004
[20]	Harshaw, H. W., Sheppard, S. R. J., Kozak, R. A., & Maness, T. C. (2006). CANFOR Sustainable Forest Management Public Opinion Survey 2005/2006. Vancouver: Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia.
[21]	Kangas, J., & Kangas, A. (2005). Multiple Criteria Decision Support in Forest Management—The Approach, Methods Applied, and Experiences Gained. Forest Ecology and Management, 207, 133-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.023
[22]	Karjalainen, T., Pussinen, A., Liski, J., Nabuurs, G. J., Eggers, T., Lapvetelainen, T., & Kaipainen, T. (2003). Scenario Analysis of the Impacts of Forest Management and Climate Change on the European Forest Sector Carbon Budget. Forest Policy and Economics, 5, 141-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00021-2
[23]	Khadka, C., & Vacik, H. (2012). Use of Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) for Supporting Community Forest Management. iForest -Biogeosciences and Forestry, 5, 60-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.3832/ifor0608-009
[24]	Khadka, C., Hujalab, T., Wolfslehnera, B., & Vacik, H. (2013). Problem Structuring in Participatory Forest Planning. Forest Policy and Economics, 26, 1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.09.008
[25]	Kimmins, J. P., Blanco, J. A., Seely, B., Welham, C., & Scoullar, K. (2008). Complexity in Modelling Forest Ecosystems: How Much Is Enough? Forest Ecology and Management, 256, 1646-1658. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.03.011
[26]	Kok, K., Patel, M., Rothman, D. S., & Quaranta, G. (2006). Multi-Scale Narratives from an IA Perspective: Part II. Participatory Local Scenario Development. Futures, 38, 285-311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.07.006
[27]	Kowalski, K., Stagl, S., Madlener, R., & Omann, I. (2009). Sustainable Energy Futures: Methodological Challenges in Combining Scenarios and Participatory Multi-Criteria Analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 197, 1063-1074. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.12.049
[28]	Krcmar, E., & van Kooten, G. C. (2008). Economic Development Prospects of Forest-Dependent Communities: Analyzing Trade-Offs Using a Compromise-Fuzzy Programming Framework. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90, 1103-1117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01149.x
[29]	Krcmar, E., van Kooten, G. C., & Vertinsky, I. (2005). Managing Forests for Multiple Tradeoffs: Compromising on Timber, Carbon Uptake and Biodiversity Objectives. Ecological Modelling, 185, 451-468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2004.12.014
[30]	Kumar, A., Flynn, P. C., & Sokhansanj, S. (2005). Feedstock Availability and Power Costs Associated with Using B.C.’s Beetle-Infested Pine. Victoria: BIOCAP Canada Foundation (Kingston) and the Province of British Columbia.
[31]	Leslie, R. N. (2009). The Future of Forests in Asia and the Pacific: Outlook for 2020. FAO, Bangkok (Thailand). Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific; Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission, Bogor (Indonesia). http://www4.fao.org/cgi-bin/faobib.exe?rec_id=584521&database=faobib&search_type= link&table=mona&back_path=/faobib/mona&lang=eng&format_name=EFMON
[32]	MacKendrick, N., & Parkins, J. (2005). Socio-Economic Dimensions of Community Vulnerability to Mountain Pine Beetle: Final Report to the Foothills Models Forest. Edmonton: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service.
[33]	Mendoza, G. A., & Martins, H. (2006). Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Natural Resource Management: A Critical Review of Methods and New Modelling Paradigms. Forest Ecology and Management, 230, 1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.03.023
[34]	Mendoza, G. A., & Prabhu, R. (2005). Combining Participatory Modeling and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Community-Based Forest Management. Forest Ecology and Management, 207, 145-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.024
[35]	Montibeller, G., & Franco, L. A. (2010). Raising the Bar: Strategic Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62, 855-867. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jors.2009.178
[36]	Montibeller, G., Gummer, H., & Tumidei, D. (2006). Combining Scenario Planning and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Practice. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 14, 5-20.
[37]	Ndubisi, F. (2002). Ecological Planning: A Historical and Comparative Synthesis. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
[38]	Pahl-Wostl, C. (2002). Participative and Stakeholder-Based Policy Design, Evaluation and Modelling Processes. Integrated Assessment, 3, 3-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/iaij.3.1.3.7409
[39]	Pasalodos-Tato, M., Makinen, A., Garcia-Gonzalo, J., Borges, J. G., Lamas, T., & Eriksson, L. O. (2013). Review. Assessing Uncertainty and Risk in Forest Planning and Decision Support Systems: Review of Classical Methods and Introduction of New Approaches. Forest Systems, 22, 282. http://dx.doi.org/10.5424/fs/2013222-03063
[40]	Pukkala, T. (Ed.). (2002). Multi-Objective Forest Planning. Managing Forest Ecosystems, Vol. 6. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[41]	Quesnel Community and Economic Development Corporation (QCEDC) (2008). A Prosperous and Sustainable Way Forward for Quesnel. Quesnel: QCEDC.
[42]	Rehfeldt, G. E., & Jaquish, B. C. (2010). Ecological Impacts and Management Strategies for Western Larch in the Face of Climate-Change. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 15, 283-306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11027-010-9217-2
[43]	Robinson, J., & Tansey, J. (2006). Co-Production, Emergent Properties and Strong Interactive Social Research: The Georgia Basin Futures Project. Science and Public Policy, 33, 151-160.
[44]	Romero, C., Amador, F., & Barco, A. (1987). Multiple Objectives in Agricultural Planning: A Compromise Programming Application. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 69, 78-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1241308
[45]	Sarewitz, D., & Pielke, R. A. (2007). The Neglected Heart of Science Policy: Reconciling Supply of and Demand for Science. Environmental Science & Policy, 10, 5-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.001
[46]	Schroeder, M. J., & Lambert, J. H. (2011). Scenario-Based Multiple Criteria Analysis for Infrastructure Policy Impacts and planning. Journal of Risk Research, 14, 191-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.515314
[47]	Stewart, T. J. (2005). Dealing with Uncertainties in MCDA. In J. Figueira, S. Greco, & M. Ehrgott (Eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys (pp. 445-470). Berlin: Springer.
[48]	Stewart, T., French, S., & Rios, J. (2013). Integrating Multicriteria Decision Analysis and Scenario Planning—Review and Extension. Omega-International Journal of Management Science, 41, 679-688. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2012.09.003
[49]	Stirling, A. (2006). Analysis, Participation and Power: Justification and Closure in Participatory Multi-Criteria Analysis. Land Use Policy, 23, 95-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.08.010
[50]	Swart, R. J., Raskin, P., & Robinson, J. (2004). The Problem of the Future: Sustainability Science and Scenario Analysis. Global Environmental Change, 14, 137-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.002
[51]	Thomson, K. J., & Psaltopoulos, D. (2005). Economy-Wide Effects of Forestry Development Scenarios in Rural Scotland. Forest Policy and Economics, 7, 515-525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2003.07.005
[52]	Volkery, A., Ribeiro, T., Henrichs, T., & Hoogeveen, Y. (2008). Your Vision or My Model? Lessons from Participatory Land Use Scenario Development on a European Scale. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 21, 459-477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11213-008-9104-x
[53]	Wollenberg, E., Edmunds, D., & Buck, L. (2000). Using Scenarios to Make Decisions about the Future: Anticipatory Learning for the Adaptive Co-Management of Community Forests. Landscape and Urban Planning, 47, 65-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00071-7