Participatory forest planning using MCDA in northern Sweden

General case description

Brief overview

Lycksele is the main town of the Lycksele municipality in the county of Västerbotten in northern Sweden. The town Lycksele is the regional center in a forest landscape area where commercial forestry is an important industry for the local economy. In addition, the forest is important to the inhabitants for purposes other than timber production, e.g. for the reindeer herding industry, for preserving biodiversity, and for recreation, hunting, and fishing opportunities. These diverse interests in the forest are a potential source of conflict and the planning situation is further complicated by the fact that there are several owners: the Lycksele municipality, three commercial forest companies, the Church of Sweden, and a number of nonindustrial private forest owners. To address these problems, a participatory planning process was initiated by the municipality and supported by the forest owning companies and the Church of Sweden. The main objective of the participatory planning process in Lycksele was to produce a multiple-use forest management plan. The plan was to be a strategic forest management plan including timber production as well as other uses of the forest in a total area of ca 9 000 ha of productive forest around the town of Lycksele.

Organization

The planning process was initiated by the Lycksele municipality and supported by the forest companies and the Church of Sweden, who owns forest around Lycksele. The process started with a meeting for representatives from the three forest-owning companies, the Church of Sweden, the municipality, the Forest Agency, the County Board, and two researchers from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. In this first meeting, these representatives formed a steering group for the planning process. A general outline of a five-step process combining MCDA and participatory planning was proposed by the researchers: 1) stakeholder analysis, 2) structuring of the decision problem, 3) generation of alternatives, 4) elicitation of preferences, and 5) ranking of alternatives. The process and expectations and apprehensions of the forest owners were then discussed.

Problem structuring

In the first meeting of the steering group, two different exercises were used to define the problem and form a basis for the stakeholder analysis. In the first exercise, the members of the steering group were asked individually to write down potential stakeholders on Post-It notes. The notes were then displayed on a whiteboard. The results were discussed and the proposed stakeholders were grouped according to assumptions of common interests. The stakeholders that were identified were all associations, companies, and other organizations or groups, not individuals. The purpose of the second exercise was to determine appropriate levels of participation in the planning process. A variety of the ladder of participation (see Tab. 1) ^[1] was presented and briefly explained to the members of the steering group, who were asked to place the different groups of stakeholders on appropriate levels of participation. This task was also done individually, and each member presented and justified his or her suggestion. The results were then discussed by the group and a model was created with the desired level of participation for each group of stakeholders. According to this model, the forest owners were to retain the decision-making power, while representatives for nature conservation, outdoor activities, tourism, education, and the reindeer herding industry were placed on the involvement level. The general public was placed on the consultation level.

Table 1. The IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation (© 2007 International Association for Public Participation, www.iap2.org)

Level	Public participation goal
5. Empower	To place final decision-making in the hands of the public
4. Collaborate	To partner with the public in each aspect of the decision including the development of alternatives and identification of the preferred solution
3. Involve	To work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure public issues and concerns are consistently understood and considered
2. Consult	To obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives, and/or decisions
1. Inform	To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding problems, alternatives, and/or solutions

Intelligence

Stakeholders

After the first meeting, the list of identified stakeholders was concretized to selected people by the researchers, in cooperation with the municipality ecologist. The majority of people selected as representatives for different interests were members of an existing network used by the municipality ecologist as a reference group in forestry-related issues. The stakeholders were grouped into four different groups:

• Timber producers: Church of Sweden; Holmen; Lycksele municipality; SCA; Sveaskog; private forest owners.

• Environmentalists: County Board of Västerbotten; Lappmarkens skogsgrupp; Ornithologist; Swedish Forest Agency; Swedish Society for Nature Conservation

• Recreationists: Ansia Camping; Friluftsfrämjandet; Fritidsenheten/Folkhälsorådet, Lycksele municipality; Gammplatsen/Hembygdsgillet; Guidepoolen; Handikappförbundens samarbetsorgan; Korpen; Lappmarksryttarna; Lycksele fiskevårdsområdesförening; Lycksele IF; Närnaturguide; Primary schools; Sameföreningen; Snowled, Skoterföreningarna i Lycksele; Study Promotion Association; Swedish Association for Hunting and Wildlife Management; Swedish Tourist Association; Tannbergsskolan (preparatory high school), Skidgymnasiet and Naturbruksprogrammet

• Reindeer herders: Ubmeje tjeälddie (Umbyn’s reindeer herding district)

Objectives

Criteria for each of the four social groups were identified through individual interviews with the representative stakeholders identified in the stakeholder analysis. The interviews were semistructured and a form with the basic questions was used to make notes. Stakeholders were given maps on which they could mark areas of interest to them and explain why they were important, how they were used, and how they should be managed to benefit the stakeholder’s interests. The information from the interviews was used to construct a preliminary objective hierarchy for each of the four social groups. The maps drawn at the interviews were digitalized as files in ESRI® ArcGIS® Desktop (version 9.2) so that maps showing the areas of interest to the stakeholders of the recreation, environmentalist, and reindeer herding groups could be created. Areas with high biological values set aside for conservation by the forest owners were also included in areas of interest for biodiversity, for the environmentalists. All stakeholders that had been interviewed were invited to a meeting where the hierarchies and the maps were presented for discussion. Changes were made to the hierarchies according to opinions expressed in the meeting. The resulting objective hierarchy was as follows:

• Timber producers
  • Maximize net present value
  • Even harvest flow
  • Increase production capacity
    • Maximize fertilized area
    • Maximize thinning area
    • Maximize area of lodgepole pine

• Environmentalists
  • Maximize old forest (>120 yrs) area
  • Minimize clear-cut size
  • Maximize proportion of birch
  • Minimize total clear-cut area

• Recreationists
  • Maximize old forest (>120 yrs) area
  • Minimize clear-cut size
  • Maximize proportion of spruce and birch
  • Minimize total clear-cut area
  • Minimize area planted with lodgepole pine

• Reindeer herders
  • Maximize thinning area
  • Maximize old forest (>120 yrs) area
  • Minimize clear-cut size
  • Minimize total clear-cut area
  • Minimize area planted with lodgepole pine
  • Minimize fertilized area

Preferences

• how were the preferences of the decision makers and stakeholders elicited?

Information

• what information was collected?
• what tools were used for data collection?

Design

Alternatives

• What kind of alternatives were considered?
• How were they defined?
• Who defined them?
• What tools and methods (if any) were used to define them?

Choice

Usage of DSS

• What kind of DSS was used (if any)?
• How was the DSS used in the process?

Usage of models, methods and tools

• What kind of decision support tools (models, methods) were used, if any?
• How were the decision support tools used? (for instance, through internet, with the help of a facilitator, with hands-on experiments)
• Was the use of decision support tools interactive?

Monitoring

• Was the success of the project monitored?
• How was the success of the project monitored? (both process and product)
• Who monitored the success?
• Were the decisions/plans implemented?
• Was the implementation monitored?
• Were the goals set for participation achieved?

References

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.

Cited references

1. ↑ IAP2 (2007) IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation [online]. Available from: http://www.iap2.org/associations/4748/files/IAP2%20Spectrum_vertical.pdf. [14 October 2010]

External resources