Sustainable Forest Management in a Mediterranean region: Social preferences

In oduc ion Fo es Managemen has been a sou ce o nume ous decision-making p oblems ela ed o p incipally indus y in No h Ame ica, La in Ame ica, Scandi- na ia, Aus alia and New Zealand. S a egic o es planning has e ol ed om egula ing he low o indus ial imbe esou ces o i s cu en ocus on sus ainable o es managemen (Ma ell e al., 1998). The cu en use o o es s is o ien ed o mul iple ob- jec i es, and in s a egic planning he main idea is o de ine wha is wan ed om he o es and o en in ol- es nume ous s akeholde s. They could be he owne s o he o es s, people connec ed wi h ou ism, e- c ea ion se ices o na u e conse a ion, as well as o es y companies (Kangas e al., 2008). Nowadays, economic, social and en i onmen al c i e ia a e in- ol ed in p ac ically all decision making si ua ions. Wi hin his con ex , he decision p ocess should ex- plo e he con lic ing na u e o he c i e ia, he goals se by he decision make s, and he way in which hese can be in oduced in o an app op ia e decision model ha akes in o accoun he p e e ences o he s akeholde s. Mul iple C i e ia Decision Making (MCDM) me- hods ha e been widely applied o sol ing o es ma- Sus ainable Fo es Managemen in a Medi e anean egion: social p e e ences C. Ma o o1*, M. Segu a1, C. Gines a 1, J. U iol2and B. Segu a3 1 Depa men o Applied S a is ics, Ope a ions Resea ch and Quali y. Uni e si a Poli ècnica de València. Camino de Ve a, s/n. 46021 Valencia, Spain 2 Depa men o Ru al and Ag i ood Enginee ing. Uni e si a Poli ècnica de València. Camino de Ve a, s/n. 46021 Valencia, Spain 3 Depa men o Economics and Social Sciences. Uni e si a Poli ècnica de València. Camino de Ve a, s/n. 46021 Valencia, Spain Abs ac Aim o s udy: The e is a lack o empi ical esea ch ha deals wi h sus ainable o es managemen in Medi e anean egions, among he mos ulne able ecosys ems. The main pu pose o his wo k is o de ine he s a egic c i e ia and objec i es o sus ainable o es managemen and agg ega e he p e e ences o s akeholde s in a Medi e anean egion, using AHP and Goal P og amming. A ea o s udy: Valencian Communi y (Spain). Ma e ial and Me hods: Fi s ly, we iden i ied o es s akeholde s and s uc u ed a decision hie a chy. Then a wo kshop was ca ied ou o es and alida e he p oposed c i e ia and objec i es, as well as a su ey o de e mine social p e e ences. Secondly, ano he su ey was conduc ed amongs expe s o p io i ize ac ion plans. Main esul s: S akeholde s’ p e e ences ga e he g ea es impo ance o he en i onmen al c i e ia (hyd ological egula ion and e osion, clima e change mi iga ion and biodi e si y) wi h an a e age weigh o 40%. Social c i e ia (employmen , ec ea ional ac i i ies and landscape) had a weigh o 38% and 22% he economic c i e ia case (wood, hun ing and ishing, li es ock, enewable ene gies, u al ou ism and mining). The esul s showed ha new p oduc s and se ices such as ou ism, enewable ene gies, landscape, hyd ological egula ion and e osion con ol, biodi e si y o clima e change mi iga ion a e e y ele an objec i es. We also p io i ized ac ion plans compa ing hem wi h he dis ibu ion o he adminis a ion budge . Resea ch highligh s: The en i onmen al and social c i e ia a e much mo e impo an han he economic ones in he egional planning o he Medi e anean o es , ega dless o he me hod used o agg ega e he social p e e ences and i he o es is public o p i a e. Key wo ds: mul iple c i e ia decision making; goal p og amming; analy ic hie a chy p ocess; p e e ences agg e- ga ion. * Co esponding au ho : [email p o ec ed].es Recei ed: 26-02-13. Accep ed: 19-06-13. Ins i u o Nacional de In es igación y Tecnología Ag a ia y Alimen a ia (INIA) Fo es Sys ems 2013 22(3): 546-558 A ailable online a www.inia.es/ o es sys ems ISSN: 2171-5068 h p://dx.doi.o g/10.5424/ s/2013223-04135 eISSN: 2171-9845 nagemen p oblems o e he pas ew decades and a e a well-es ablished pa adigm o add essing many p o- blems in his a ea. The applica ions can be classi ied in o ha es scheduling, o es biodi e si y conse - a ion, o es sus ainabili y, o es a ion, egional planning, o es y indus y and isk and unce ain y (Díaz-Bal ei o and Rome o, 2008). The li e a u e e- iew o hese au ho s poin s ou an inc easing in e es in using G oup Decision Making me hods (GDM) wi h a mul iple c i e ia app oach. Ananda and He a h (2009) p o ide ano he ecen e iew on o es managemen and planning using MCDM, con i ming ha published s udies a e only applied o cases in coun ies such as Finland, Canada, USA and Aus alia. These au ho s emphasize he im- po ance o empi ical applica ions and sugges a eas o imp o emen in u u e esea ch such as he p ocess o selec ing he decision c i e ia, as well as a clea de- ini ion o c i e ia. Analyzing in dep h he con ibu ions in hese a eas o e he las decade, we ind se e al s udies ha ocus on egional o es planning e e ing o he No h Eas Vic o ia egion (Aus alia). Ananda and He a h (2003a) used Mul i-A ibu e Value Theo y o analyse s ake- holde alues. They conside ed a simpli ied model wi h 3 a ibu es (old-g ow h o es conse a ion, ha d- wood imbe p oduc ion and ec ea ion in ensi y) and 3 hypo he ical o es managemen op ions o s a egies, cons uc ed by aking he s a us quo as a basis. They in e iewed 36 s akeholde s om i e g oups ( imbe indus y, en i onmen alis s, a me s, ec ea ionis s and ou ope a o s). Ano he pape shows ha Analy ic Hie a chy P ocess (AHP) can be a ool o o malize public pa icipa ion in decision making wi h he same p oblem as an illus a i e example, bu hey used hypo he ical da a and hus he esul s do no ha e any empi ical alidi y (Ananda and He a h, 2003b). La e , Ananda (2007) and Ananda and He a h (2008) p esen- ed a eal AHP applica ion o a p e ious case s udy in ol ing a g ea e numbe o s akeholde s. Kazana e al. (2003) used a mul iple c i e ia app oach o suppo decisions in o es managemen a a ac ical le el in a Na ional Fo es Pa k in Sco land. Hjo sø (2004) e alua ed so OR o enhance public pa ici- pa ion in ac ical o es planning wi h a case s udy in Denma k. Díaz-Bal ei o e al. (2009) used Goal P o- g amming (GP) o agg ega e he p e e ences o o es- y s uden s, exp essed h ough pai wise compa ison ma ices, e e ing o wo public o es s in Spain, o elici weigh s o ou objec i es. No ds öm e al. (2009) applied MCDM and g oup decision making in planning u ban o es in Sweden. They designed a hie a chy wi h 4 s akeholde g oups ( imbe p oduce s, en i onmen alis s, ec ea ionis s and eindee he de s), each o which ha e hei own di e en objec i es. GP models a e used o agg ega e s akeholde p e e ences and o ob ain c i e ia weigh s o be used o anking 12 o es managemen plans. In No ds öm e al. (2010) ano he app oach using AHP was applied o agg ega e s akeholde p e e ences o he same u ban o es , aking 3 plans in o accoun . Hil unen e al. (2009) es- ed he Mes a In e ne -based decision-suppo applica- ion in s a egic planning p ocesses in Finland (Lapland). The main ole o s akeholde s in sus ainable o es ma- nagemen has also been highligh ed in o he ecen s udies ocused on egional o es p og ammes in Fin- land (Kangas e al., 2010). Decision making and public opinion appea s as one o he ele an hemes o u u e esea ch in na u al esou ce managemen (Pe oko sky e al., 2010). In p ac ice, MCDM me hods ha e been implemen ed o in o m decision p oblems and public pa icipa ion and hey will con inue o be essen ial in o es and en i on- men al managemen (Kangas and Kangas, 2005). Ne e heless, se e al e iews (Mendoza and Ma ins, 2006; Ananda and He a h, 2009) and an ex ensi e analysis o he li e a u e o da e, show a lack o empi i- cal esea ch e e ing o Medi e anean o es , one o he mos ulne able ecosys ems, acco ding o he In e go e nmen al Panel on Clima e Change (2007). We can di e en ia e wo main o es zones in Spain: A lan ic and Medi e anean. A lan ic o es s ha e a wood p oduc i i y as high as o es s in cen al and no he n Eu ope. In con as , Medi e anean o es s, in gene al, p o ide a low wood p oduc i i y and non- wood se ices.Valencian o es is a good example o he Medi e anean o es . Fo es land is de ined as hose a eas which p esen one o mo e uses which can be conside ed o es y use. Thus he Valencian Commu- ni y has a o al o es a ea o 1,323,465 hec a es, ep esen ing 57% o he o al land wi h he cu en end inc easing he o es a ea a a a e o abou 3,300 ha/yea , mos ly h ough neglec ed ag icul u al a eas and hei subsequen colonisa ion by o es species. Fo es woodlands now occupy 54% o he o es land (PATFOR, 2011). Managemen objec i es a e no always known o , in some cases, hey can only be elici ed h ough p io ana- lysis (Schmold e al., 2001). This is he case in sus ai- nable managemen o Medi e anean o es , so expli- Social p e e ences in Sus ainable Fo es Managemen 547 ci ly speci ying all ele an objec i es and quan i ying hei impo ance in i s s a egic and sus ainable mana- gemen a e e y in e es ing con ibu ions owa ds de eloping public policies acco ding o social p e e- ences in Eu ope. The decision make in sus ainable o es planning p oblem is he egional go e nmen , which dis ibu es public unds o he di e en ac ion plans. Eu opean public policies mus each a consensus h ough public pa icipa ion. Public pa icipa ion means ha ci izens a e in ol ed in na u al esou ce decision-making ha has an e ec on hem. Public pa icipa ion is also seen as pa o sus ainable de elopmen (FORSYS, 2011). The objec i es o his a icle a e o de ine he s a e- gic c i e ia o he sus ainable managemen o Medi- e anean o es s, as well as o elici and agg ega e he s akeholde s’ p e e ences, using se e al me hods o inc ease he objec i i y and obus ness o he esul s. Finally, we p io i ize he ac ion plans o he public adminis a ion, aking he social p e e ences we ob ai- ned in o accoun . In de eloping he decision hie a chy we ied o ba- lance comple eness wi h conciseness, wo con lic ing equi emen s in de ining c i e ia and objec i es o ou p oblem. Ano he impo an aspec conside ed is ha he in o ma ion demands on he people in ol ed should no be excessi e, ollowing he ecommenda- ion o Bel on and S ewa (2003). Ou hie a chy is logical and includes a comple e se o undamen al objec i es and has been alida ed by a la ge g oup o expe s in a wo kshop (Saa y and Shih, 2009). The es o he pape is o ganized as ollows: The nex sec ion desc ibes he public pa icipa ion ech- niques and he me hods used o agg ega e he p e e en- ces o sus ainable managemen o Medi e anean o es s, in pa icula o he Valencian egion. A e ha , he esul s a e p esen ed: he decision hie a chy, ma ix consis ency, social p e e ences o c i e ia and objec i es as well as he global p io i ies o he ac ion plans. Finally, he esul s a e discussed and he main conclusions o his empi ical esea ch a e poin ed ou . Ma e ial and me hods The Analy ic Hie a chy P ocess and Goal P og amming Models The me hod de eloped by Saa y, AHP, is undoub- edly one o hose mos commonly used o iden i y and p io i ize objec i es and al e na i es in he ield o o es managemen . I s app oach is based on h ee p inciples: cons uc ion o he decision hie a chy, lo- gical consis ency and se ing o p io i ies. The me hod allows us o inco po a e quali a i e aspec s in o he hie a chy de ini ion and o use quan i a i e aspec s o measu e p e e ences and p io i ies. I also allows g oup pa icipa ion in decision-making. Fi s , he decision hie a chy, o which all he ac o s in ol ed in decision-making ha e been iden i ied, is designed. Secondly he indi idual p e e ences a e ob ained by pai wise compa isons, i.e. compa ing wo elemen s o he same le el o he hie a chy wi h espec o a c i e ion o a highe le el. Compa isons a e collec- ed in a ma ix ha allows us o check he consis ency o he p e e ences. Each elemen o he compa ison ma ix A, aij e- p esen s he ela i e impo ance o an elemen , i o ano he elemen , j wi h espec o a c i e ion in he uppe le el. The Saa y undamen al scale is se om 1 o 9, whe e 1 indica es ha he wo elemen s a e equally impo an , 3 mode a e impo ance, 5 s ong impo - ance, 7 e y s ong impo ance and 9 ex eme impo - ance o he i s elemen , i wi h ega d o he second, j. I we we e o compa e o he second elemen , j agains he i s , i, he alues would be gi en in e sely (1, 1/2 …1/9). This ma ix A is consis en i aij =aikakj o e e y elemen i, j and k. Tha is, i elemen i has a ela i e impo ance o 2 compa ed o elemen k and elemen k has a ela i e impo ance o 2 compa ed o a hi d ele- men , j hen elemen i should ha e a ela i e impo - ance o 4 compa ed o elemen j o a consis en esponse. F om his ma ix A we ob ain he associa ed eigen- ec o , which ep esen s he indi idual weigh s w1, w2…wn o each c i e ion (Saa y, 2008). To ob ain he p e e ences o a g oup o people he geome ic mean o all pai wise compa isons is used (Saa y and Peni- wa i, 2008; Xu, 2000). The Goal P og amming Models a e an al e na i e me hod o AHP o agg ega ing s akeholde p e e- ences om compa ison ma ices and ob aining weigh s o c i e ia. F om indi idual s akeholde ma ices we ob ained a consensus ma ix o each g oup using he Ex ended Goal P og amming model de eloped by González-Pachón and Rome o (2007). In he second s ep, we de i ed he weigh s o he ela i e impo ance a ached by he i h s akeholde g oup o he h c i e ion om he consensus ma ix using ano he Goal P og amming model de eloped by González-Pachón and Rome o (2004). Bo h models a e p esen ed in he annex. 548 C. Ma o o e al. / Fo es Sys ems (2013) 22(3): 546-558 Expe s, s akeholde s, wo kshop and su eys In many eal p oblems i is no easy o es ablish he goals ha should in o m decision-making and his is pa icula ly ue when making go e nmen decisions which a ec na u al esou ce managemen and espe- cially in o es managemen , whe e public pa icipa ion is becoming inc easingly impo an . The pa icipa ion o quali ied expe s and s akeholde s is o pa amoun impo ance in de ining and selec ing egional planning objec i es. Expe in e iews and wo kshops a e sui a- ble pa icipa o y echniques o s a egic o es mana- gemen . S uc u ed su eys allow us o quan i y he impo ance o he objec i es and ac ion plans, which can se e as indica o s o in o m o ma ion and p io i iza ion o public policies. F om bo h he au ho s knowledge and exhaus i e in- e iews wi h expe s he ollowing s akeholde g oups ha e been iden i ied: Adminis a ion, P o essional Enginee ing Associa ions, people in ol ed in Fo es Resea ch and Educa ion, Hun ing and Fishing Fede a- ions, Fo es Owne s (p i a e and municipali ies), Companies and Land S ewa dship, En i onmen alis and Conse a ionis G oups. Rep esen a i es o all hese g oups ha e been in i ed by he Regional Go- e nmen o collabo a e in de eloping new o es p o- g ammes in he Valencian Communi y. A e iden i ying he s akeholde s, a decision hie a chy wi h sus ainable managemen o Medi- e anean o es as he decision goal a he i s le el was p oposed. The second le el consis s o social, eco- nomic, and en i onmen al c i e ia, he h ee basic pilla s o he sus ainabili y concep as well as he mul i- unc ional o es . Each o hese c i e ia is di ided in o speci ic objec i es in he hi d le el wi h enough de ail o include all aspec s which a e cu en ly ele an o he Valencian egion. A decision hie a chy which con- side s se e al ac ion plans was comple ed. In he nex phase, a wo kshop a he uni e si y (2010) was ca ied ou , wi h ep esen a i es o s akeholde s o es and alida e he p oposed decision hie a chy. P esiden s o Associa ions o Public and P i a e P o- pe y, P o essional O ganiza ions and Fede a ions, Manage s o Public Fo es y se ices, Companies and Land S ewa dship, En i onmen alis and Conse a- ionis G oups ook pa , bo h di ec o s and echnical s a . Fo es y esea che s, eache s and s uden s also pa icipa ed in he all-day-wo kshop, which had almos 200 pa icipan s. In his wo kshop we held a ound- able mee ing wi h s akeholde ’s ep esen a i es, ollo- wed by a colloquium and gene al deba e be ween all pa icipan s. P incipal s a is ical da a on Valencian o es s and maps wi h public and p i a e o es a eas, as well as he decision hie a chy o s a egic manage- men o Medi e anean o es s, in pa icula he o es s o he Valencian Communi y, was p esen ed ollowing he ecommenda ion om Sheppa d and Mei ne (2005). In he wo kshop Saa y’s basic scale o compa isons be ween pai s o c i e ia (Saa y, 2008) was also ex- plained, wi h he objec i e ha s akeholde s could espond o a ques ionnai e designed o elici hei p e- e ences. Then, wo su eys we e ca ied ou , he i s one amongs he s akeholde s o de e mine hei c i e ia and objec i e p e e ences. Due o he lack o da a, o quan i y he con ibu ion o he di e en ac ion plans o he adminis a ion o he objec i es included in he decision hie a chy, a second su ey was ca ied ou amongs expe s. These expe s came om he ad- minis a ion, companies and esea che s in he o es a ea. Finally, weigh s o c i e ia and objec i es we e ob ained by agg ega ing s akeholde p e e ences, using wo me hods: AHP and Goal P og amming models. Fo bo h me hods, consensus ma ices o s akeholde g oups we e de i ed. The weigh s o p e e ences o c i e ia and objec i es and global p io i ies o ac ion plans we e hen de e mined. The whole p ocess has been ep esen ed in Fig. 1. Resul s Decision hie a chy Fig. 2 syn hesizes he c i e ia, objec i es and ac ion plans, adop ed a e he a o emen ioned wo kshop. The i s le el is he goal o he decision; he second le el conside s social, economic, and en i onmen al c i e ia. Social c i e ia a e di ided in o employmen c ea ion, educa ional and ec ea ional ac i i ies and landscape. En i onmen al c i e ia ha e been g ouped in o hyd o- logical egula ion and e osion con ol, clima e change mi iga ion and minimizing biodi e si y loss. In eco- nomic c i e ia we ind mo e adi ional objec i es, such as wood p oduc ion, hun ing and ishing, li es ock and o he p oduc ion ( u les, mush ooms, co k, e c.) and mining. We also include o he goods and se ices, such as enewable ene gies and u al ou ism. Finally, we comple ed he decision hie a chy wi h he ollowing six ac ion plans: Social p e e ences in Sus ainable Fo es Managemen 549 1. Fi e p e en ion and ex inc ion. Pes p e en ion. 2. Re o es a ion and o es y. 3. Hun ing and ishing species managemen , including he main enance o game ese es. 4. Managemen o lo a and auna, conse a ion o lo a mic o- ese es, wildli e co ido s and enhan- cemen o he Na u e 2000 ne wo k, in o de o p e- se e he biodi e si y o he Valencian Communi y. 5. T ails and o he ec ea ional and ou ism in- as uc u es ( ec ea ional a eas, cabins, shel e s, e c.). 6. Fo es esea ch, s udies, educa ion p og ammes, in en o y and planning. 550 C. Ma o o e al. / Fo es Sys ems (2013) 22(3): 546-558 Si ua ion analysis /A ailable da a Expe in e iews Iden i ying s akeholde s Designing decision hie a chy All-day wo kshop Tes ing and alida ing decision hie a chy 1 s Su ey: c i e ia S akeholde s S akeholde s’ p e e ences: C i e ia and objec i es 2 nd Su ey: ac ion plans Expe s P e e ences GPP e e ences AHP Con ibu ion o Objec i es: AHP Con ibu ion o Objec i es: GP P io i ies/Ranking AHP Ac ion Plans P io i ies/Ranking GP Ac ion Plans P io i ies/Ranking o Ac ion Plans (AHP and Goal P og amming Models) Figu e 1. Flow-cha o p ocess o ob ain s akeholde s’ p e e ences and o p io i ize ac ion plans. Nowadays all ac ion plans excep o Fo es in en- o y and Planning ha e an adminis a ion budge . These budge s a e dedica ed o inancing bo h public and p i a e o es ( he la e h ough g an s o he owne s). Some s akeholde s a he wo kshop sugges ed he inclusion o ac ions o Fo es in en o y and Planning, no conside ed p e iously. The ac ion plans ha e been g ouped in o six ca ego ies due o he me hodology o pai wise compa ison. A g ea e numbe o plans would imply a g ea e numbe o ques ions ( edious su eys) and lesse consis ency in he esul ing ma ices. Su eys and ma ix consis ency Mainly due o he la ge numbe o c i e ia and objec- i es unde conside a ion wo phases we e planned. A i s su ey was ca ied ou o ga he he p e e ences o s akeholde g oups o c i e ia and objec i es. The second su ey allowed us o de e mine he con ibu ion o ac ion plans o each objec i e which is a ques ion o a echni- cal na u e, no o p e e ences. Thus, his second phase in ol ed expe s who pa icipa ed in he i s one. In bo h su eys we asked he s akeholde s ( i s su ey) o expe s (second su ey) o comple e he op hal o he compa ison ma ix and we assumed a ecip ocal ma ix. Table 1 shows he dis ibu ion o he 46 ques ionnai es ob ained om he s akeholde g oups. Adminis a ion was he bigges one, because o he need o balance he di e en aspec s and se ices in ol ed such as o es managemen , i e p e en ion, hun ing and ishing and biodi e si y conse a ion. The second su ey asked abou he ela i e con i- bu ion o each ac ion plan o each objec i e, using he Social p e e ences in Sus ainable Fo es Managemen 551 Figu e 2. Decision hie a chy o s a egic managemen o Medi e anean o es s. Social C i e ia Employmen c ea ion Fi e p e en ion and ex inc ion. Pes p e en ion Re o es a ion and o es y Hun ing and ishing species managemen Managemen o lo a and auna T ails and o he ec ea ional and ou ism in as uc u e Fo es esea ch, in en o y and planning Educa ional and ec ea ional ac i i ies Landscape Wood p oduc ion Hun ing and ishing Li es ock and o he p oduc ion Ru al u ism Renewable ene gies Mining Hyd ological egula ion and e osion con ol Clima e change mi iga ion Minimising biodi e si y losses Economic C i e ia SSuuss aaiinnaabbllee mmaannaaggeemmeenn oo MMeeddii ee aanneeaann oo eess ss En i onmen al C i e ia same money o each ac ion plan being compa ed. In Fig. 2 he links be ween nodes o hi d le el and ou h le el o he decision hie a chy ep esen he con ibu ion o each ac ion plan o objec i es. Fo exam ple, all six ac ion plans con ibu e o employmen c ea ion, bu only ou o hem con ibu e o u al ou ism. In his second phase we ob ained 17 ques ionnai es and hei dis ibu ion amongs he g oups o o es y expe s is as shown in Table 1. We in eg a ed all o hem in jus one g oup because he objec i e is o es ima e he con ibu ion o each ac ion plan o each objec i e by p o iding expe judgmen s. The ma ix Inconsis ency Index (II) was ob ained using Supe decisions So wa e (2010). In ou analysis only ma ices ha ing an inconsis ency index less han o equal o 0.1, a e used (Saa y, 2006). The pe cen age o consis en ma ices is 67 % when s akeholde s compa e 3 c i e ia and 50% when 6 c i e ia we e in- ol ed in he pai compa isons. We ha e 17 expe s who esponded o he second ques ionnai e om each o whom we ob ained 11 ma ices o pai wise compa ison. An in e es ing e- sul o he s udy is ha he consis ency o hese ma ices e e ing o echnical aspec s is g ea e han in he i s ques ionnai e (p e e ences) and does no depend so much on he numbe o s a egies o be compa ed. The pe cen age o consis en ma ices was be ween 71 and 82 % wi h 3, 4, 5 and 6 s a egies o compa e. Only in clima e change (65%) and enewable ene gies (53%) did he pe cen age dec ease, which would seem o be ela ed o he newness o hese c i e ia. P e e ences o s akeholde abou c i e ia and objec i es In his sec ion he esul s o s akeholde p e e ences, ob ained wi h AHP and GP a e p esen ed. In his la e case, p e e ence esul s om he poin o iew o mos o he people a e ep esen ed in igu es. A e ha , he di e ences when he opinions o mino i ies a e inco - po a ed in o he model a e discussed. Fig. 3 highligh s he g ea impo ance o he en- i onmen al c i e ion in gene al, which is he mos im- po an o adminis a ion, o es esea ch and edu- ca ion, hun ing and ishing ede a ions and o es owne s. As he la e g oup is o med o p i a e and public owne s, we highligh ha his esul is due o he p e e ences o he people ep esen ing municipali ies. Only enginee ing associa ions ga e much mo e impo - ance o social and economic c i e ia han en i onmen- al ones in sus ainable managemen . On he con a y, economic c i e ia ha e less ele ance in gene al, bu hey a e he mos impo an o o es y companies. Analysing he esul s wi h espec o public o es he answe s highligh he lowe ele ance o economic c i e ia and he g ea e weigh o social c i e ia compa- ed o all he o es s. A dec ease in economic p io i ies is compensa ed mainly by an inc ease in he weigh s 552 C. Ma o o e al. / Fo es Sys ems (2013) 22(3): 546-558 Table 1. Dis ibu ion o ques ionnai es among s akeholde g oups ( i s su ey) and he expe g oup (second su ey) Numbe S akeholde s g oups o ques ionnai es Fis Second su ey su ey Adminis a ion 17 9 P o essional Enginee ing Associa ions 5 3 Fo es esea ch and educa ion 8 3 Hun ing and ishing ede a ions 3 — Fo es owne s 4 — Fo es y companies 6 2 Land s ewa dship, en i onmen alis and conse a ionis g oups 3 — To al 46 17 Figu e 3. P io i ies o social, economic and en i onmen al c i- e ia in sus ainable managemen o Valencian o es by s ake- holde g oups. 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 AHP GP AHP GP AHP GP Social Economic En i onmen al c i e ia c i e ia c i e ia Adminis a ion Enginee associa ions Fo es esea ch and educa ion Hun ing and ishing ede a ions Fo es owne s Fo es y companies Land_S _En _Cons_G oups AAllll gg oouuppss o social c i e ia. S akeholde s we e also asked i hey would change hei opinion abou he ela i e im- po ance o he speci ic objec i es ( he hi d le el o he hie a chy) o hose public o es s ha a e di ec ly managed by he adminis a ion. A la ge majo i y said no and he pe cen ages do no di e g ea ly om one s akeholde g oup o ano he . The pe cen age o s ake- holde s wi h a nega i e esponse is 65%, 28% said yes and 7% did no answe . The objec i e con ibu ion o social c i e ia can be seen in Fig. 4. In gene al, he employmen objec i e is in he i s place, excep in he case o land s ewa d- ship, en i onmen alis and conse a ionis g oups. As i could be expec ed, ec ea ional ac i i ies a e mo e ele an o his las g oup. Resul s o hun ing and ishing ede a ions we e no ob ained due o he lack o consis en indi idual ma ices. In Fig. 5 he p io i ies o en i onmen al objec i es can be seen. Hyd ological egula ion and e osion con ol a e e y impo an o almos all g oups. In his case, any indi idual ma ix is consis en o land s e- wa dship, en i onmen al and conse a ionis g oup and we only ha e one om hun ing and ishing e- de a ions. Fig. 6 displays he esul s o he weigh s o economic objec i es om he s akeholde s wi h consis en indi idual ma ices. As i is well known, as he numbe o elemen s o compa e inc eases, he di icul y o ob- aining consis en ma ices also inc eases. Nowadays, adi ional o es p oduc s, such as wood p oduc ion and li es ock ha e less weigh in Medi e anean o- es s, only hun ing and ishing ac i i ies main ain some Social p e e ences in Sus ainable Fo es Managemen 553 Figu e 4. P io i ies o social objec i es o Valencian o es by s akeholde g oups. 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 AHP GP AHP GP AHP GP Employmen Rec ea ional Landscape ac . Adminis a ion Enginee associa ions Fo es esea ch and educa ion Fo es owne s Fo es y companies Land_S _En _Cons_G oups AAllll gg oouuppss Figu e 5. P io i ies o en i onmen al objec i es o Valencian o es by s akeholde g oups. 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 AHP GP AHP GP AHP GP Hyd ological Clima e change Biodi e si y egula ion and e osion con ol Adminis a ion Enginee associa ions Fo es esea ch and educa ion Hun ing and ishing ede a ions Fo es owne s Fo es y companies AAllll gg oouuppss Figu e 6. P io i ies o economic objec i es o Valencian o es by s akeholde g oups. 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Adminis a ion Enginee associa ions Fo es esea ch and educa ion Fo es owne s Fo es y companies AAllll gg oouuppss Wood p oduc ion AHP Wood p oduc ion GP Hun ing and ishing AHP Hun ing and ishing GP Li es ock_OP AHP Li es ock_OP GP Ru al ou ism AHP Ru al ou ism GP Renewable ene gies AHP Renewable ene gies GP Mining AHP impo ance. New se ices and p oduc ion, such as u al ou ism and enewable ene gies a e g ea e impo ance in gene al, wi h weigh s o be ween 15 and 40 pe cen , depending on he s akeholde g oup unde conside- a ion. The indus ial ac i i y o mining (mainly qua ies) is also an impo an sou ce o income o some o es owne s in he Medi e anean a ea. Figs. 3, 4, 5 and 6 ep esen he solu ion o goal p o- g amming models o con ol pa ame e λ= 1, which shows he p e e ences o he majo i y. The model has also been sol ed o all s akeholde s when λ= 0. This solu ion gene a es he agg ega ed p e e ences when minimizing he maximum de ia ion o indi idual p e- e ences ega ding he consensus ma ix. The model o in e media e alues o he con ol pa ame e has also been sol ed as shown in Fig. 7. As i can be seen, he p io i y o biodi e si y a ies be ween 17 and 25%. The a ia ion o p e e ences is g ea e in he o he wo objec i es. In gi ing mo e weigh o he mino i ies, he p io i y o hyd ological egula ion and con ol o e osion inc eases. This inc ease is compensa ed by lowe alues o he mi iga ion o clima e change. By a ying he con ol pa ame e in he models o social and economic objec i es, p io i ies a e e y si- mila o all alues o λ. The same applies o he solu ion o he models ha allow us o ob ain he agg e- ga ed p io i y c i e ia, showing a g ea e p e e ence o he en i onmen al and social c i e ia han o he economic c i e ia in he Medi e anean o es , om he poin o iew o he majo i y and o he mino i y. Global p io i ies o ac ion plans Table 2 shows he esul s o he global p io i ies o ac ion plans ( ou h le el o decision hie a chy, Fig. 2) o sus ainable and pa icipa i e managemen o Va- lencian o es s. Enough ques ionnai es we e ob ained o balance he di e en a eas o people’s expe ise and i s dis ibu ion among adminis a ion, enginee asso- cia ions, companies, esea ch and educa ion, o y o cap u e all ele an knowledge. Due o ac ion plans ep esen ing lines o public bud- ge , how much hese plans con ibu ed o mining was no asked, because his is a p o i able indus ial ac i i y and does no ecei e public unds om he o es ad- 554 C. Ma o o e al. / Fo es Sys ems (2013) 22(3): 546-558 Figu e 7. P io i ies o en i onmen al objec i es when a ying he con ol pa ame e in he Ex ended Goal P og amming model. 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 λ=1 λ= 0.5 λ= 0.2 λ= 0.1 λ=0 HR and e osion con ol Clima e change mi iga ion Biodi e si y Table 2. Global p io i ies o ac ion plans by s akeholde g oups and public budge S akeholde g oups Weigh o public Ac ion plans Adminis- Enginee Resea ch Owne s Companies All budge 2010 a ion assoc. and educ. Fi e p e en ion. Pes p e en ion GP 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.24 0.25 0.43 AHP 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.26 Re o es a ion and o es y GP 0.24 0.22 0.23 0.21 0.26 0.24 0.24 AHP 0.28 0.25 0.29 0.29 0.25 0.27 Hun ing and ishing species managemen GP 0.09 0.11 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.03 AHP 0.10 0.13 0.08 0.10 0.15 0.11 Managemen o lo a and auna GP 0.13 0.10 0.17 0.16 0.08 0.14 0.09 AHP 0.10 0.09 0.12 0.11 0.07 0.10 T ails and o he ec ea ional in as . GP 0.08 0.17 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.17 AHP 0.08 0.13 0.05 0.09 0.07 0.08 Fo es esea ch. In en o y and planning GP 0.22 0.16 0.28 0.27 0.29 0.23 0.04 AHP 0.18 0.14 0.20 0.15 0.21 0.18