Wildfires impact the outcomes of forest management plans. Addressing that impact is thus critical for effective forest ecosystem management planning. This paper presents research on the use of multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods that integrate wildfire risk in planning contexts characterized by multiple objectives. Specifically, an a posteriori preference modeling approach is developed that adds wildfire criteria to a set of objectives representing ecosystem services supply values. Wildfire risk criteria are derived from stand-level wildfire occurrence and damage models as well as from the characteristics of neighboring stands that may impact wildfire probability and spread. A forested landscape classified into 1976 stands is used for testing purposes. The management planning criteria include the carbon stock, harvest volumes for three forest species, the volume of the ending inventory, and resistance to wildfire risk indicators. Results show the potential of multiple criteria decision making methods to provide information about trade-offs between wildfire risk and the supply of provisioning (timber) as well as regulatory (carbon) ecosystem services. This information may contribute to the effectiveness of forest ecosystem management planning.

This study examines the potential of combining decision support approaches to identify optimal bundles of ecosystem services in a framework characterized by multiple decision-makers. A forested landscape, Zona de Intervenção Florestal of Paiva and Entre-Douro and Sousa (ZIF_VS) in Portugal, is used to test and demonstrate this potential. The landscape extends over 14,388 ha, representing 1976 stands. The property is fragmented into 376 holdings. The overall analysis was performed in three steps. First, we selected six alternative solutions (A to F) in a Pareto frontier generated by a multiple-criteria method within a web-based decision support system (SADfLOR) for subsequent analysis. Next, an aspatial strategic multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) was performed with the Criterium DecisionPlus (CDP) component of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support (EMDS) system to assess the aggregate performance of solutions A to F for the entire forested landscape with respect to their utility for delivery of ecosystem services. For the CDP analysis, SADfLOR data inputs were grouped into two sets of primary criteria: Wood Harvested and Other Ecosystem Services. Finally, a spatial logic-based assessment of solutions A to F for individual stands of the study area was performed with the NetWeaver component of EMDS. The NetWeaver model was structurally and computationally equivalent to the CDP model, but the key NetWeaver metric is a measure of the strength of evidence that solutions for specific stands were optimal for the unit. We conclude with a discussion of how the combination of decision support approaches encapsulated in the two systems could be further automated in order to rank several efficient solutions in a Pareto frontier and generate a consensual solution.

Forest management planning is a challenge due to the diverse criteria that need to be considered in the underlying decision-making process. This challenge becomes more complex in joint collaborative management areas (ZIF) because the decision now may involve numerous actors with diverse interests, preferences, and goals. In this research, we present an approach to identifying and quantifying the most relevant criteria that actors consider in a forest management planning process in a ZIF context, including quantifying the performance of seven alternative stand-level forest management models (FMM). Specifically, we developed a combined multicriteria decision analysis and group decision-making process by (a) building a cognitive map with the actors to identify the criteria and sub-criteria; (b) structuring the decision tree; (c) structuring a questionnaire to elicit the importance of criteria and sub-criteria in a pairwise comparison process, and to evaluate the FMM alternatives; and (d) applying a Delphi survey to gather actors’ preferences. We report results from an application to a case study area, ZIF of Vale do Sousa, in North-Western Portugal. Actors assigned the highest importance to the criteria income (56.8% of all actors) and risks (21.6% of all actors) and the lowest to cultural services (27.0% of all actors). Actors agreed on their preferences for the sub-criteria of income (diversification of income sources), risks (wildfires) and cultural services (leisure and recreation activities). However, there was a poor agreement among actors on the sub-criteria of the wood demand and biodiversity criteria. For 27.0% of all actors the FMM with the highest performance was the pedunculate oak and for 43.2% of all actors the eucalypt FMM was the least preferable alternative. The findings indicate that this approach can support ZIF managers in enhancing forest management planning by improving its utility for actors and facilitating its implementation.

In this paper, we present a web-based decision support system (DSS)—wSADfLOR—to facilitate the access of stakeholders to tools that may contribute to enhancing forest management planning. The emphasis is on a web-based architecture and a web graphic user interface (wGUI) that may effectively support the analysis of trade-offs between ecosystem services in order to address participatory and sustainable forest management objectives. For that purpose, the wGUI provides remote access to a management information system, enabling users to analyze environmental and biometric data and topological information as well. Moreover, the wGUI provides remote access to forest simulators so that users may define and simulate prescriptions such as chronological sequences of management options and the corresponding forest ecosystem services outcomes. Remote access to management planning methods is further provided so that users may input their objectives and constraints. The wGUI delivers information about tradeoffs between ecosystem services in the form of decision maps so that users in different locations may negotiate bundles of ecosystem services as well as the plan needed to provide them. The multiple criteria programming routines provide proposals for management plans that may be assessed further, using geographical and alphanumeric information provided by the wGUI. Results for an application to a forested landscape extending to 14,388 ha are presented and discussed. This landscape provides several ecosystem services and the development of its management plan involves multiple stakeholders. Results show that the web-based architecture and the wGUI provide effective access for stakeholders to information about the forest management planning area and to decision support tools that may contribute to addressing complex multi-objective and multiple-decision-maker management planning contexts. They also highlight that the involvement and participation of stakeholders in the design of the web-based architecture contributes to assuring the quality and the usability of the system.

Forest management planning can be challenging when allocating multiple ecosystem services (ESs) to management units (MUs), given the potentially conflicting management priorities of actors. We developed a methodology to spatially allocate ESs to MUs, according to the objectives of four interest groups—civil society, forest owners, market agents, and public administration. We applied a Group Multicriteria Spatial Decision Support System approach, combining (a) Multicriteria Decision Analysis to weight the decision models; (b) a focus group and a multicriteria Pareto frontier method to negotiate a consensual solution for seven ESs; and (c) the Ecosystem Management Decision Support (EMDS) system to prioritize the allocation of ESs to MUs. We report findings from an application to a joint collaborative management area (ZIF of Vale do Sousa) in northwestern Portugal. The forest owners selected wood production as the first ES allocation priority, with lower priorities for other ESs. In opposition, the civil society assigned the highest allocation priorities to biodiversity, cork, and carbon stock, with the lowest priority being assigned to wood production. The civil society had the highest mean rank of allocation priority scores. We found significant differences in priority scores between the civil society and the other three groups, highlighting the civil society and market agents as the most discordant groups. We spatially evaluated potential for conflicts among group ESs allocation priorities. The findings suggest that this approach can be helpful to decision makers, increasing the effectiveness of forest management plan implementation.