Experiences on applying MCDM tools in natural resources management The 21st International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making

Jyväskylä, 14 June 2011

Jyrki Kangas, Metsähallitus

2

Contents

MetsähallitusNatural resource planning at MetsähallitusMCDM methods applied in natural resource planningExperiencies on MCDM methods

3

Metsähallitus

Metsähallitus is a state-owned enterprise that runs business activities while also fulfilling many public services and also some administration duties

Manages practically taken all the state-owned lands and waters

Provides natural resources sector services to a diverse customer base, from private individuals to major companies

Operations are based on the knowledgeable and co-operative use of state land and water areas

4

Lands and watersmanaged by Metsähallitus

Forest land in multiple-use forests, 3.6 million ha

Poorly productive and non-productive land, 1.5 million ha (non-protected)

Protected areas, wilderness reserves and other areas, 4.0 million ha

Water areas, 3.4 million haPublic water areas

In total 12.5 million ha = 1/3 of the country

5

We serve the Finnish society

Areas of different administrative status, with different natural conditions, and with different objectives are managed as one whole

Metsähallitus strives at managing these areas in a way that benefits Finnish society to the greatest extent possible

Our tasks can be organised into three categories: natural heritage services (costs 54 MEUR, mainly from the state budget), business operations (turnover 367 MEUR, profit 114 MEUR), and considering ecological, social and cultural benefits in business operations (decreases the profit by about 50 MEUR)

To ensure balanced and sustainable use of the resources, Metsähallitus uses modern planning systems and state-of-the-art information systems

A key tool in that is Participatory Natural Resource Planning

6

Comprehensive planning systems for multi-objective natural resources management

Site-specific operationalplanning

Planning of management and use at special sites

Sub-sectional ecological analysis

Regional natural resourceplanning

Up-to-date information on natural resources

Data on approx. 1.5 million forest and other compartments (measurement units) in the GIS

7

Natural resource planning

7 natural resource plans cover all the areasParticipatory planning processes; open interaction using

regional co-operation groups, local meetings and other public participation techniques and channels

Sum of natural resource plans should fulfil the overall aims determined by the owner, i.e. the state, via democratic system

Multiple criteria and multiple stakeholders are involved in all natural resource planning processes

The plans are based on the use of simulation, analysis, optimisation and decision-support methods

8

Results include: land-use guidelines, timber cutting and forestry plan, biodiversity conservation program, choice of areas where recreation and tourism are specially promoted as well as those for reindeer husbandry (=> profit & decrease of it!)

1. Analysis of the present situation• Natural resources• Operating environments • Success of the previous plan

2. Analysis of objectives• Aims and restrictions by the owner• Demand from the markets• Expectations and wishes of stakeholders and the public

5. Comparison and choice• Comparing alternative plans• Decision-support calculations• Negotiating on the choice• Choosing one plan as the basis

6. Elaborating a program for putting the plan into practice

4. Producing and analysing alternative plans• Analysing the production possibilities• Generating alternative plans• Analysing the alternatives

7. Implementation and follow-up

3. Data aquisition• Analysing the available data• Gathering additional data needed

9

MCDM methods applied already in the previous century

AHP– First efforts in 1991– First application to participatory planning in 1992-

1993A’WOT = SWOT + AHP”Interactive Utility Analysis (IUA)”

– Combination of AHP and SMART (Value Tree analysis)

ELECTRE and PROMETHEE– Only tested, not gained real practical application

10

More recently applied MCDM methods

Multicriteria Approval (MA)Multicriteria Approval Voting (MAV)

– An elaboration of MA, MESTA software– MAV + IUA (ordinal + cardinal)

Traditional voting techniques, e.g. cumulative voting and borda count

SMAA methods– Under consideration just now, not yet applied in

practiceSystem intelligence in approaching and structuring the

choice problem, and in analysing the success of the current plan and fine-tuning it

11

Experiences on using MCDM methods in practical planning processes

Different methods often give different results in the same choice problem; these may be due to:– differencies in preference estimation processes, in

choice problem formulations, in calculation procedures– ability to make full use of different kinds of data

Normally, this is not so serious since e.g.– information is always more or less incomplete– each method can give some additional decision aid– differences in results make people involved think

harder– differencies in results help to learn about methods

applied and on how their results should be interpreted– differencies in results make people understand the

uncertainty involved in any planning calculation

12

There is room for a variety of methodsThere is no universally the best method or methods; no

method is always suitable but all methods may have their applications in natural resource management

The MCDM methods should be chosen in line with the decision problem, e.g., so that all the information available can be utilised and people can provide the preference information required

It normally makes sense to invest in acquiring as high-quality data as possible (on preferences, and priorities of alternatives); and to use corresponding methods

However, we often have to content with low-quality information; then methods developed for dealing with that kind of information are worth applying

13

Behavioral aspects are important, especially in participatory processes

Required inquiries 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

Many people more easily accept a satisfactory solution the rationale of which they can understand than results of optimisation that is too complex for them

Easiness to use and understand especially important in group decision support and participatory approaches– Fascilitators, visualisation, etc needed to interpret

calculations, alternatives, resultsA problem: applying an easy, simple method might lead to

underutilisation of the available informationApplying MCDM may really provide education and learning

14

Integrated use of MCDM methods may strengthen planning processes

Applying more than just one MCDM method as complementary tools in a planning process often useful (especially from the learning point of view)

Easy & more difficult; qualitative & quantitative; ordinal & cardinal– e.g. MA & IUA (or SMAA); applying first an easier

one gives a sound basis for performing deeper analyses; both in behavioral and technical sense

Familiar & new– e.g. A’WOT = SWOT + AHP; ”new” method (AHP)

easy to introduce in a familiar framework (SWOT)

15

Sometimes we really need to apply

After all, it is often more important how the method is applied than which method is applied

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

Methods should sometimes be fine-tuned for practical tasks; even some violence against the very fundamentals of the methods and theories…

Valuable feedback for method development work can be gained via practical applications => less violence will be needed in the future?

16

Final remarks

Metsähallitus is proud to announce that it has been, is, and will be in the forefront of practical MCDM application (at least in the field of natural resources management)

Experiences in using MCDM methods in natural resource planning at Metsähallitus have been good Applying MCDM may really provide education and

learning We will continue making use of them We are interested in still developing the methods and

their applications, especially for participatory processes

At the moment, methods based on social choice theory for participatory phases and more versatile MCDM methods for deeper calculations by experts are of special interest

In order to enhance the development of MCDM applications, co-operation of method developers, application builders and practitioners is called for

6.2.2009

Etunimi Sukunimi

152 YEARS FORERUNNER