Applying Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
to a Conflict between Reindeer Herding,
Nature, and Forest Management
Experiences from the Upper Lapland Case
The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland
June 14, 2011
Jyri Mustajoki
Tampere University of Technology
Mika Marttunen & Heli Saarikoski
Finnish Environmental Institute
The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011
Outline of the presentation
 Background of the Upper Lapland conflict
 Implementation of the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
process
 Special characteristics of the case
 How did we dealt with these?
 Pros and cons of our approach
 Conclusion and lessons learned
The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011
Conflict in Finnish Upper Lapland
 Main conflict between reindeer herding and forest
management on state-owned forests
 Adverse impacts of forestry to old-growth forests
 Legal right for free grazing with certain restrictions
 Conflict also concerns other issues
 Old-growth forests valuable wilderness areas
 Effects of forestry to tourism
 Effects of forestry to cultural values
 Situation has been sensitive for decades
 Many legal proceedings initiated by reindeer owners
 In spite of various research studies and conflict resolution
attempts, solution has not been found until recently
The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)
process
 Implemented with multi-attribute value tree (MAVT) method
and decision analysis interviews (DAIs)
 Carried out in collaboration with
 Sustainable multiple use of forests in northern Lapland
project of Finnish Forest Research Institute (FFRI)
 Mainly responsible for the impact assessment
 Initiated and partly funded by the Ministry of Forestry and
Agriculture  High level endorsement
 Already a steering group with representatives from almost all the
different stakeholder groups
 Conflict over consensus project of Finnish Environmental
Institute (FEI)
 Mainly responsible for carrying out the decision analysis process
The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011
Main objectives of MCDA
Evaluation and comparison of the effects of
different forest management alternatives in
a common framework
Evaluation of the importance of the
objectives
Illustration of the different views of the
stakeholders
Supporting the stakeholders’ learning
Enhancing value-focused thinking
The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011
Increasing
the overall
understanding of
the problem
Value tree
Criteria
Subcriteria
Alternatives
Forest sector
Local gross income effects
Reindeer herding
Tourism
Alt. 1: 300 000 m3
Forest sector
Employment
Reindeer herding
Alt. 2: 150 000 m3
Tourism
Overall
goal
Sámi reindeer herding culture
Vitality
Alt. 3: 115 000 m3
Control of grazing areas
Outdoor activities
Recreational use of nature
Alt. 4: 80 000 m3
Wilderness experience
Hunting and berry picking
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Mutual understanding
Consensus
 Constructed in expert group meetings
 Modified and accepted by the steering group
 Stakeholders’ preferences in DAIs
The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011
Alt. 5: 30 000 m3
Multi-attribute value tree method
 Additive value function
n
v( x)   w i v i ( x i )
i 1
where n is the number of attributes
wi  [0, 1] the overall weight of attribute i
xi the consequence of alternative x with respect to attribute i
vi(xi) its score on 0–1 scale
 Evaluation of the alternatives
 Natural scale for employment (work years) and local
income (€)
 Constructed -5 – 5 scale for other criteria
 Alternatives based on the amount of logging and the
areas reserved for loggings
The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011
15 personal decision analysis interviews
(2–4 hours each)
Description of the objectives and phases of the interview
Review of the background material
Description of the MCDA approach
Decision analysis interview
Review of the value
tree and definition of
attribute-wise values of
the alternatives
Weighting of criteria
and sub-criteria (and
reasoning for
weighting)
Analysis of the results,
sensitivity analysis and
possible changes in
evaluation
Feedback
The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011
Interviewed stakeholder groups
Reindeer herding
• Reindeer Herding Co-operative of
Hammastunturi
• Reindeer Herders' Association
Sámi culture
Forest sector
• Finnish Forest and Park Service
(Metsähallitus)
• Forestry Experts’ Association
• Upper Lapland Forestry Society
Local Economy
• Municipality of Inari (two
representatives in a joint interview)
• Sámi Parliament
• Sámi Council
Nature conservation and local
nature use
• Association of the friends of Inari nature
• Nature Services of the Finnish Forest and
Park Service
• Association of the Finnish Cross-Country
Skiing
• Local Hunters' Association of Inari
Authorities
• Forestry Centre of Lapland
• Employment and Economic
Development Centre of Lapland
• Lapland Regional Environment
Centre
The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011
Results – Weights of the interviewees
 Results analyzed collaboratively at the steering group
meeting
1.0
Consensus
0.8
Diversity
0.6
Use of nature
0.4
Reindeer
herding
Employment
0.2
Local income
0.0
The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011
Results – Overall values for the alternatives
1
0.8
Consensus
Diversity
Use of nature
Reindeer herding
Employment
Local income
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Alt. 1
Alt. 2
Alt. 3
Alt. 4
 Each bar represents the overall value of one
stakeholder for this alternative
The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011
Alt. 5
Challenges for applying MCDA
 MCDA not applied earlier to conflicts between reindeer
herding and forest management
 Special characteristics of the case should be considered
 The conflict has been going on for decades
 Considerable distrust towards a yet new approach
 MCDA carried out at closing stages of the FFRI project
 Not tightly integrated in the process
 What are the effects and limitations of this?
The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011
Large differences in the estimated effects
of alternatives
 Initial effects estimated with expert evaluation
 Some interviewees strongly contested these
 On some criteria/alternatives almost opposite views
 No time to collect new research information
 Stakeholders allowed to change initial estimates to their
own estimates
+ We could collect views about the estimates
 Analysed jointly to gain deeper understanding of these
differences
− Gave stakeholders a venue for manipulation
 Some stakeholders tended to give high estimates to their
favourite alternatives
The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011
Example about the estimates – Sámi
reindeer herding culture
 Variation due to many factors affecting reindeer herding:
 Logging refuse
 Snow conditions
 Amount of lichen
→ additional feeding
 Amount of reindeer
 Location of grazing grounds
 Forest roads
 Centralization of reindeer
husbandry
 Etc.
The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011
Use of mutual understanding as a criterion
 Mutual understanding explicitly considered as a criterion
 Often implicitly studied by comparing weights of stakeholders
+ Evaluation of how much the stakeholders actually
appreciate reaching consensus
 Important aspect of the decision making situation
 Views about alternatives’ ability to improve mutual
understanding
− Quite a vague criterion
 Especially on this criterion stakeholders tended to give high
estimates to their favourite alternatives
 E.g. versatile employment structure would probably have
been a better criterion name
 Essentially the same idea, but narrower scope for interpretation
The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011
Mutual understanding
”Mutual understanding is
extremely important for the
development of the area”
”The main issue is the rights of the
Sámi people, not the reconciliation of
different sources of livelihood”
 Generally quite highly or moderately weighted
 Some stakeholders gave only little weight
 Results indicate a desire for seeking solution
 “Mutual understanding should be truly mutual”
The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011
Time span of the alternatives
 Logging takes place little by little
 Effects of logging can only be seen after years or decades
 A long enough time span needed to estimate the effects
 Long-term logging plans are made on a strategic level
 In long term, logging is affected by various external factors
 Economic situation, structural changes, etc.
 Not reasonable to specify exactly which forest stands are to
be logged
 Difficult to estimate plans very specifically
The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011
30-year time span selected for the model
+ Long-term effects of the logging included in the model
− Plans are made on a strategic level
 Effects of the alternatives on certain forest stands unknown
 Makes estimation of the effects very difficult on some criteria
 May reduce the credibility of the whole process
− Caused confusion for some stakeholders
 Forest grows continuously
 Current situation is not the same as after doing nothing for 30
years
 What is the zero point?
• Current situation or
• Situation after carrying out current strategy for 30 years or
• Situation after 30 years of doing nothing
 On some attributes difficult to consider the effects that far
The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011
Suitability of DAI approach to meet
different objectives
 Based on the questionnaire for the steering group members
Finding an agreement that is acceptable for all
the different parties
Comparing and combining incommensurable
effects
Increasing understanding of the alternatives and
their effects
Increasing understanding of the views of
different stakeholders
Describing the preferences of different
stakeholder groups.
Collection of the effect information and views
about the alternatives and discussion of them
Identification and structuring of the central issues
of the Upper Lapland case
0%
Very well
Well
Quite well
20%
40%
60%
Not well nor poorly
The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011
80%
Poorly
100%
Conclusions and lessons learned
 MCDA with DAIs is an applicable approach for the case
 Especially suitable for
 identification and structuring of the central issues
 describing the preferences of the stakeholders
 Not very suitable for finding an agreement
 Tight integration of MCDA to the planning process
especially important
 Characteristics of the problem better adapted in the model
 We implemented MCDA as a separate process
 Inability to fully respond to the issues characteristic to the case
 Ambiguity of the alternatives in strategic planning is
problematic
 Estimation of some effects difficult without knowing the
exact locations of the actions
The 21th International Conference on MCDM – Jyväskylä, Finland, June 14, 2011