prilagođeno pretraživanje po punom tekstu

ŠUMARSKI LIST 7-8/2013 str. 50     <-- 50 -->        PDF

group. Development of tourism (6.9 percent) and economic issues (8.4 percent) ranked last overall since they emphasize only the importance of one sector for Pohorje development.
Sustainable development of forestry has a significant influence on the preservation of Pohorje. The most important issues are conservation of biodiversity, unpolluted groundwater, and sustainable use of renewable forest sources. Timber production is not considered an economically efficient business opportunity. Insufficient attention is paid to education, experience of nature, or cultural heritage in forests (Nose Marolt and Lešnik Štuhec 2010).
The next step will involve inclusion of SWOT analysis of tourism and agriculture in the decision tree. Pairwise comparisons in AHP should be performed on all important groups of stakeholders at Pohorje. The results from the forestry side should then be combined with the results of agriculture and tourism to inform the comprehensive management plan.
The results of our study show how we can incorporate different objectives in the model that often appear in forestry planning. In our case study, timber production could not be considered as the only important opportunity because of other important issues in Pohorje; namely, tourism, agriculture, biodiversity, water, air, climate, recreation for people, and education. In such cases, group decision making is important in order to include different views, experiences and knowledge in the model. The main stakeholders should not be only from the field of forestry but also, in our case, from important fields, such as protection of nature, agriculture, tourism. It could also be worth including representatives of local groups.
We are grateful to Dr. Darij Krajčič and Gregor Danev from The Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation for all data from the NATREG project. The research was partly performed in the frame of project COOL, EU Iniciative WoodWisdom-Net 2, No 3211-11-000450.
Ananda, J., Herath, G., 2009: A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning, Ecological Economics, 68: 2535–2548.
Arnstein, S. R., 1969: A Ladder Of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35: 216 – 224.
Brumec, D., Rozman, Č., Janžekovič, M., Turk, J., Čelan, Š., 2013: An assessment of different scenarios for agroforestry environment regulation of degraded land using integrated simulation and a multi-criteria decision model – a case study, Šumarski list, 3–4: 147–161.
Dyer, R. F., Forman, E. H., 1992: Group decision support with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Decision Support Systems, 8: 99–124.