The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011 Applying...

The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011

Applying Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to a Conflict between Reindeer Herding,

Nature, and Forest Management

Experiences from the Upper Lapland Case

Jyri MustajokiTampere University of Technology

Mika Marttunen & Heli SaarikoskiFinnish Environmental Institute

The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, FinlandJune 14, 2011


Outline of the presentation

Background of the Upper Lapland conflict Implementation of the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

process Special characteristics of the case

How did we dealt with these? Pros and cons of our approach

Conclusion and lessons learned


Conflict in Finnish Upper Lapland

Main conflict between reindeer herding and forest management on state-owned forests Adverse impacts of forestry to old-growth forests Legal right for free grazing with certain restrictions

Conflict also concerns other issues Old-growth forests valuable wilderness areas Effects of forestry to tourism Effects of forestry to cultural values

Situation has been sensitive for decades Many legal proceedings initiated by reindeer owners

In spite of various research studies and conflict resolution attempts, solution has not been found until recently


Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) process Implemented with multi-attribute value tree (MAVT) method

and decision analysis interviews (DAIs) Carried out in collaboration with

Sustainable multiple use of forests in northern Lapland project of Finnish Forest Research Institute (FFRI)

Mainly responsible for the impact assessment Initiated and partly funded by the Ministry of Forestry and

Agriculture High level endorsement Already a steering group with representatives from almost all the

different stakeholder groups Conflict over consensus project of Finnish Environmental

Institute (FEI) Mainly responsible for carrying out the decision analysis process


Main objectives of MCDA

Evaluation and comparison of the effects of different forest management alternatives in

a common framework

Evaluation of the importance of the objectives

Illustration of the different views of the stakeholders

Supporting the stakeholders’ learning

Enhancing value-focused thinking

Increasing the overall

under-standing of the problem


Value tree

Constructed in expert group meetings Modified and accepted by the steering group

Stakeholders’ preferences in DAIs

Local gross income effects

Forest sector

Reindeer herding

Tourism

Employment

Forest sector

Reindeer herding

Tourism

Sámi reindeer herding cultureVitality

Control of grazing areas

Recreational use of nature

Outdoor activities

Wilderness experience

Hunting and berry picking

Biodiversity Biodiversity

Mutual understanding Consensus

Alt. 1: 300 000 m3

Alt. 2: 150 000 m3

Alt. 3: 115 000 m3

Alt. 4: 80 000 m3

Alt. 5: 30 000 m3

AlternativesSubcriteriaCriteria

Overall goal


Multi-attribute value tree method

Additive value function

where n is the number of attributes wi [0, 1] the overall weight of attribute i xi the consequence of alternative x with respect to

attribute i vi(xi) its score on 0–1 scale

Evaluation of the alternatives Natural scale for employment (work years) and local

income (€) Constructed -5 – 5 scale for other criteria

Alternatives based on the amount of logging and the areas reserved for loggings

n

iiii xvwxv

1

)()(


15 personal decision analysis interviews(2–4 hours each)

Description of the objectives and phases of the interview

Review of the background material

Description of the MCDA approach

Decision analysis interview

Review of the value tree and definition of

attribute-wise values of the alternatives

Weighting of criteria and sub-criteria (and

reasoning for weighting)

Analysis of the results, sensitivity analysis and

possible changes in evaluation

Feedback


Interviewed stakeholder groups

Reindeer herding•Reindeer Herding Co-operative of Hammastunturi•Reindeer Herders' Association

Sámi culture•Sámi Parliament•Sámi Council

Local Economy•Municipality of Inari (two representatives in a joint interview)

Forest sector•Finnish Forest and Park Service (Metsähallitus)•Forestry Experts’ Association•Upper Lapland Forestry Society

Nature conservation and local nature use

•Association of the friends of Inari nature•Nature Services of the Finnish Forest and Park Service•Association of the Finnish Cross-Country Skiing•Local Hunters' Association of Inari

Authorities•Forestry Centre of Lapland•Employment and Economic Development Centre of Lapland•Lapland Regional Environment Centre


Results – Weights of the interviewees

Results analyzed collaboratively at the steering group meeting

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0Consensus

Diversity

Use of nature

Reindeer herding

Employment

Local income


Results – Overall values for the alternatives

Each bar represents the overall value of one stakeholder for this alternative

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

ConsensusDiversityUse of natureReindeer herdingEmploymentLocal income


Challenges for applying MCDA

MCDA not applied earlier to conflicts between reindeer herding and forest management Special characteristics of the case should be considered

The conflict has been going on for decades Considerable distrust towards a yet new approach

MCDA carried out at closing stages of the FFRI project Not tightly integrated in the process What are the effects and limitations of this?


Large differences in the estimated effects of alternatives Initial effects estimated with expert evaluation

Some interviewees strongly contested these On some criteria/alternatives almost opposite views

No time to collect new research information

Stakeholders allowed to change initial estimates to their own estimates

+ We could collect views about the estimates Analysed jointly to gain deeper understanding of these

differences

− Gave stakeholders a venue for manipulation Some stakeholders tended to give high estimates to their

favourite alternatives


Example about the estimates – Sámi reindeer herding culture

Variation due to many factors affecting reindeer herding: Logging refuse Snow conditions Amount of lichen

→ additional feeding Amount of reindeer

Location of grazing grounds Forest roads Centralization of reindeer

husbandry Etc.


Use of mutual understanding as a criterion

Mutual understanding explicitly considered as a criterion Often implicitly studied by comparing weights of stakeholders

+ Evaluation of how much the stakeholders actually appreciate reaching consensus Important aspect of the decision making situation Views about alternatives’ ability to improve mutual

understanding

− Quite a vague criterion Especially on this criterion stakeholders tended to give high

estimates to their favourite alternatives E.g. versatile employment structure would probably have

been a better criterion name Essentially the same idea, but narrower scope for interpretation


Mutual understanding

Generally quite highly or moderately weighted Some stakeholders gave only little weight

Results indicate a desire for seeking solution “Mutual understanding should be truly mutual”

”The main issue is the rights of the Sámi people, not the reconciliation of

different sources of livelihood”

”Mutual understanding is extremely important for the development of the area”


Time span of the alternatives

Logging takes place little by little Effects of logging can only be seen after years or decades A long enough time span needed to estimate the effects

Long-term logging plans are made on a strategic level In long term, logging is affected by various external factors

Economic situation, structural changes, etc. Not reasonable to specify exactly which forest stands are to

be logged Difficult to estimate plans very specifically


30-year time span selected for the model

+ Long-term effects of the logging included in the model− Plans are made on a strategic level

Effects of the alternatives on certain forest stands unknown Makes estimation of the effects very difficult on some criteria

May reduce the credibility of the whole process

− Caused confusion for some stakeholders Forest grows continuously

Current situation is not the same as after doing nothing for 30 years

What is the zero point?• Current situation or • Situation after carrying out current strategy for 30 years or • Situation after 30 years of doing nothing

On some attributes difficult to consider the effects that far


Suitability of DAI approach to meet different objectives

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Identification and structuring of the central issues of the Upper Lapland case

Collection of the effect information and views about the alternatives and discussion of them

Describing the preferences of different stakeholder groups.

Increasing understanding of the views of different stakeholders

Increasing understanding of the alternatives and their effects

Comparing and combining incommensurable effects

Finding an agreement that is acceptable for all the different parties

Very well Well Quite well Not well nor poorly Poorly

Based on the questionnaire for the steering group members


Conclusions and lessons learned

MCDA with DAIs is an applicable approach for the case Especially suitable for

identification and structuring of the central issues describing the preferences of the stakeholders

Not very suitable for finding an agreement Tight integration of MCDA to the planning process

especially important Characteristics of the problem better adapted in the

model We implemented MCDA as a separate process

Inability to fully respond to the issues characteristic to the case

Ambiguity of the alternatives in strategic planning is problematic Estimation of some effects difficult without knowing the exact

locations of the actions

The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011 Applying...

Documents

Transcript of The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011 Applying...