Difference between revisions of "Test"
From COST Action FP0804: FORSYS
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Methods and Dimensions | {{Methods and Dimensions | ||
| − | |Has temporal scale= | + | |WikiPageTitle=test |
| − | |Has spatial context=Spatial with | + | |Has related DSS=In this paper, no full DSS was used; Web-HIPRE was used for the AHP. Since then, AHP has been implemented in the Heureka PlanEval application. |
| − | |Has spatial scale=Forest level | + | |Has temporal scale=Long term (strategic); |
| − | |Has objectives dimension= | + | |Has spatial context=Spatial with neighborhood interrelations; |
| − | |Has goods and services dimension=Market non | + | |Has spatial scale=Forest level; |
| − | + | |Has decision making dimension=More than one decision maker/stakeholder; | |
| − | |Has risk/uncertainty analysis= | + | |Has objectives dimension=Multiple |
| − | |Has advantages= | + | |Has goods and services dimension=Market non wood products;Market wood products;Non market services; |
| − | |Has disadvantages= | + | |Has risk/uncertainty analysis=no |
| − | |Has main contraints= | + | |Has advantages=AHP is a relatively simple and transparent method which is an advantage in participatory planning. |
| − | |Has related DSS development= | + | |Has disadvantages=Using the standard AHP with pairwise comparisons of both criteria and alternatives may be cognitively demanding to the DM(s) with a larger number of criteria and alternatives. In turn, this may lead to inconsistency in preferences. |
| − | + | |Has main contraints=The number of elements to be compared at each level should probably not exceed 4-5. | |
| − | + | |Has related DSS development= | |
| − | + | |Has reference=Nordström E.-M., Eriksson Ljusk O. & Öhman K. 2010. Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis in participatory forest planning: Experience from a case study in northern Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics 12(8): 562-574. | |
| − | |Has reference= | + | |
| − | + | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 13:39, 3 April 2013
Methods and Dimensions
| Has temporal scale | Long term (strategic); |
|---|---|
| Has spatial context | Spatial with neighborhood interrelations; |
| Has spatial scale | Forest level; |
| Has objectives dimension | Multiple |
| Has goods and services dimension | Market non wood products;Market wood products;Non market services; |
| Has decision making dimension | More than one decision maker/stakeholder; |
| Has risk/uncertainty analysis | no |
| Has advantages | AHP is a relatively simple and transparent method which is an advantage in participatory planning. |
| Has disadvantages | Using the standard AHP with pairwise comparisons of both criteria and alternatives may be cognitively demanding to the DM(s) with a larger number of criteria and alternatives. In turn, this may lead to inconsistency in preferences. |
| Has main contraints | The number of elements to be compared at each level should probably not exceed 4-5. |
| Has related method | |
| Has method | |
| Has submethods | |
| Has detailed description of methods application in the DSS | |
| Uses programming language | |
| Has reference | Nordström E.-M., Eriksson Ljusk O. & Öhman K. 2010. Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis in participatory forest planning: Experience from a case study in northern Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics 12(8): 562-574. |
| Has related DSS | In this paper, no full DSS was used; Web-HIPRE was used for the AHP. Since then, AHP has been implemented in the Heureka PlanEval application. |
