DIGITALNA ARHIVA ŠUMARSKOG LISTA
prilagođeno pretraživanje po punom tekstu



ŠUMARSKI LIST 7-8/2013 str. 51     <-- 51 -->        PDF

Forman, E., Peniwati, K., 1998: Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process, European Journal of Operational Research, 108: 165–169.
Hartmann, S., Martini, C., Sprenger, J., 2009: Consensual Decision-Making among Epistemic Peers, Episteme, 6: 110–129.
Hiltunen, V., Kurttila, M., Leskinen, P., Pasanen, K., Pykäläinen, J., 2009: Mesta: An internet-based decision-support application for participatory strategic-level natural resources planning, Forest Policy and Economics, 11: 1–9.
Kangas, J., Kangas, A., 2005: Multiple criteria decision support in forest management--the approach, methods applied, and experiences gained, Forest Ecology and Management, 207: 133–143.
Lešnik Štuhec, T., Gulič, J., 2010: Poročilo o opravljenih SWOT analizah na področjih gozdarstva, kmetijstva in turizma na Pohorju, projekt: NATREG, Available at: www.zrsvn.si/dokumenti/64/2/2010/141010_SWOT_TLS_JGk_2125.pdf.
Macpherson, H., 2004, Participation, Practitioners and Power: Community Participation in North East Community Forests, 64 p., Newcastle upon Tyne.
Menzel, S., Nordström, E.-M., Buchecker, M., Marques, A., Saarikoski, H., Kangas, A., 2010: Between ethics and technology – evaluation criteria for the development of appropriate DSS in the context of participatory planning, In: Falcao, A. O.,Rosset, C. (ed.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Decision Support Systems in Sustainable Forest Management, University of Lisbon, 6 p., Lisbon.
Mianabadi, H., Afshar, A., Zarghami, M., 2011: Intelligent multi­-stakeholder environmental management, Expert Systems with Applications, 38: 862–866.
NATREG, 2011: NATREG – Managing Natural Assets and Protected Areas as Sustainable Regional Development Opportunities Ljubljana.
Nordström, E.-M., 2010: Integrating Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis into Participatory Forest Planning, Faculty of Forest Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 70 p., Umeå.
Nose Marolt, M., Lešnik Štuhec, T., 2010, Stanje gozdov in divjadi ter gozdarstva in lovstva na projektnem območju Pohorje, Predstavitev strokovne študije in SWOT analiza – Poročilo, 12 p., Pohorje.
Pezdevšek Malovrh, Š., Grošelj, P., Zadnik Stirn, L., Krč, J., 2012: The Present State and Prospects of Slovenian Private Forest Owners’ Cooperation within Machinery Rings, Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering, 33: 105–114.
Reed, M. S., 2008: Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review, Biological Conservation, 141: 2417–2431.
Rowe, G., Frewer, L. J., 2000: Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation, Science, Technology & Human Values, 25: 3–29.
Saaty, T. L., 1980: The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, 287 p., New York.
Saaty, T. L., Peniwati, K., 2008: Group decision making: Drawing out and reconciling differences, RWS Publications, 385 p., Pittsburgh, PA.
Sheppard, S. R. J., Meitner, M., 2005: Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups, Forest Ecology and Management, 207: 171–187.
Steele, K., Regan, H. M., Colyvan, M., Burgman, M. A., 2007: Right Decisions or Happy Decision-makers?, Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 21: 349–368.
Uratarič, N., Marega, M., 2010: Poročilo z zaključne delavnice za izdelavo analize SWOT in oblikovanje elementov vizije, projekt: NATREG, Available at: www.natreg.eu/pohorje/uploads/.../Porocilo_SWOTinVIZIJA_2124(1).pdf.
Wijnmalen, D. J. D., 2007: Analysis of benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks (BOCR) with the AHP–ANP: A critical validation, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46: 892–905.
Wolfslehner, B., Vacik, H., 2008: Evaluating sustainable forest management strategies with the Analytic Network Process in a Pressure-State-Response framework, Journal of Environmental Management, 88: 1–10.
Wolfslehner, B., Seidl, R., 2010: Harnessing Ecosystem Models and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the Support of Forest Management, Environmental Management, 46: 850–861.
Sažetak:
Upravljanje šumama evaluiralo je u složeniji zadatak, budući da je ekonomska dobit samo jedna od nekoliko važnih ciljeva upravljanja. Uvažavajući tako različit skup ciljeva upravljanja, zahtijeva korištenje višekriterijske metode odlučivanja. Kada je maksimalna proizvodnja drva bila jedini cilj, odluke o planiranju procesa u većini slučajeva donosio je vlasnik šume. Posljednjih dvadeset godina, proces planiranja se promijenio te uključuje interese više zainteresiranih strana kao npr. lokalne zajednice, javne predstavnike, lovce, ekologe, rekreativce i druge. Oni imaju različita znanja, iskustva, perspektive i interese. Formiranje grupe treba se temeljiti na participativnom planiranju. Glavni problem grupnog odlučivanja je rješavanje konflikta između različitih ciljeva i preferencija. Grupiranje pojedinačnih preferencija nije samo matematički već i filozofski problem. U radu smo predstavili analitički hijerarhijski proces kao prikladnu višekriterijsku metodu, koja se već primjenjuje u području šumarstva, planiranju žetve, očuvanju biološke raznolikosti, prostornom planiranju, održivosti šuma i drugdje. Studija o šumskom području Pohorja, planinskom lancu u sjevernoj Sloveniji, izvodi se prema opisanim teorijskim osnovama. Cilj našeg istraživanja bio je izbor optimalne alternative