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