During the preparation of the papers included in this thesis, extensive consideration was given to how these studies could be progressed and to the identification of fundamental questions to be addressed in the future.
Paper I identified problems in assessing both spatial and temporal data within a DSS. In the future, particular emphasis should be placed on the development of simple, logical user interfaces for DSS programs, and to providing more support for the analysis of maps. The implementation of a spatial preference elicitation method such as that described in Paper II into a DSS would also be of interest. The use of new technology, such as touchpads and smartphones, could also offer new possibilities for interactive evaluations of spatial data, in combination with methods such as that described in Paper II.
Based on the results presented in Paper II, it seems that it would be sensible to combine the value functions based on the responses of different individuals into an aggregate measure of group consensus. Such a measure could then be used to evaluate different scenarios developed using the approach outlined in Paper III, and to form a subutility function that would more accurately reflect the preferences of DMs. Moreover, the impact of map scale on the DMs’ stated preferences should be investigated in more detail. For example, should different methods of elicitation be used when working with maps of different scales?
It would be interesting to analyze the landscape indices presented Paper III to determine the effect of varying the total habitat space, and to develop combined indices that account for this factor alongside the other variables considered. Other methods for solving the problem instead of the SA used in Paper III could also be tested.
In Paper IV, strong simplifications and assumptions were made with respect to the prevailing forest management practice, as well as to the effects of the different forestry treatments. Further research on the effects of the treatment
models are thus needed to validate the results of Paper IV. Another important factor that was possibly oversimplified in Paper IV is the definitions of primary and secondary pasture, areas with different proportions of lichen in the ground layer that are suitable as reindeer pasture. In particular, the scope for including a spatial dimension in this definition would be an interesting topic for future research. The establishment of such a measure might make it possible to better understand the dynamics of reindeer grazing and thereby identify management regimes that satisfy the requirements of both reindeer husbandry and commercial forestry.
More generally, the issues associated with eliciting preferences regarding changes over time were not addressed in this thesis. However, this is an important challenge, especially in long term forest planning. The tradition of discounting future economic profits to present date is based on the assumptions of preferring near-future events to those farther away in time. As of today, there is no such mechanism for discounting factors other than timber production in forest planning. Therefore, in order to improve the utility of multi-objective planning, techniques for eliciting and describing the changes in preferences over time with respect to non-timber objectives are required.
References
Angelstam, P. & Pettersson, B. (1997). Principles of present Swedish forest biodiversity management. Ecological Bulletins, 191-203.
Aronoff, S. (1989). Geographic information systems: a management perspective. Ottawa: WDL Publications.
Baskent, E.Z. (1999). Controlling spatial structure of forested landscapes: a case study towards landscape management. Landscape Ecology 14(1), 83-97.
Baskent, E.Z. & Jordan, G.A. (1996). Designing forest management to control spatial structure of landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 34(1), 55-74.
Baskent, E.Z. & Keles, S. (2005). Spatial forest planning: A review. Ecological Modelling 188(2- 4), 145-173.
Beinat, E. (1997). Value Functions for Environmental Management. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Belton, V. & Hodgkin, J. (1999). Facilitators, decision makers, DIY, users: Is intelligent multicriteria decision support for all feasible or desirable? European Journal of Operational
Research 113(2), 247-260.
Belton, V. & Stewart, T.J. (2002). Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Berg, A., Östlund, L., Moen, J. & Olofsson, J. (2008). A century of logging and forestry in a reindeer herding area in northern Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management 256(5), 1009- 1020.
Beshears, J., Choi, J.J., Laibson, D. & Madrian, B.C. (2008). How are preferences revealed?
Journal of Public Economics 92(8), 1787-1794.
Bettinger, P., Graetz, D., Boston, K., Sessions, J. & Chung, W. (2002). Eight heuristic planning techniques applied to three increasingly difficult wildlife planning problems. Silva Fennica 36(2), 561-584.
Bettinger, P. & Sessions, J. (2003). Spatial forest planning: To adopt, or not to adopt? Journal of
Forestry 101(2), 24-29.
Bogetoft, P. & Pruzan, P.M. (1997). Planning with multiple criteria: investigation,
communication and choice. 2. ed. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.
Bostedt, G. & Mattsson, L. (1995). The value of forests for tourism in Sweden. Annals of Tourism
Research 22(3), 671-680.
Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J. & Brown, T.C. (2003). A primer on nonmarket valuation. Dortrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Danell, Ö. (2000). Status, directions and priorities of reindeer husbandry research in Sweden.
Polar Research 19(1), 111-115.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. Boston: Heath & cop.
Edenius, L. & Mikusiński, G. (2006). Utility of habitat suitability models as biodiversity assessment tools in forest management. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 21(S7), 62- 72.
Fahrig, L. (2003). Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology
Evolution and Systematics 34, 487-515.
FSC (2013). Svensk skogsbruksstandard enligt FSC med SLIMF-indikatorer [Online]. Uppsala: Forest Stewardship Council. Available at: http://www.fsc-sverige.org (2012-08-21). Geneletti, D. (2004). A GIS-based decision support system to identify nature conservation
priorities in an alpine valley. Land Use Policy 21(2), 149-160.
Geneletti, D. & van Duren, I. (2008). Protected area zoning for conservation and use: A combination of spatial multicriteria and multiobjective evaluation. Landscape and Urban
Planning 85(2), 97-110.
Geoghegan, J., Wainger, L.A. & Bockstael, N.E. (1997). Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework: an ecological economics analysis using GIS. Ecological Economics 23(3), 251- 264.
Gregory, R., Failing, L., Harstone, M., Long, G., McDaniels, T. & Ohlson, D. (2012). Structured
decision making: a practical guide to environmental management choices. Chichester, West
Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hurme, E., Kurttila, M., Mönkkönen, M., Heinonen, T. & Pukkala, T. (2007). Maintenance of flying squirrel habitat and timber harvest: a site-specific spatial model in forest planning calculations. Landscape Ecology 22(2), 243-256.
Kajanus, M., Kangas, J. & Kurttila, M. (2004). The use of value focused thinking and the A'WOT hybrid method in tourism management. Tourism Management 25(4), 499-506.
Kangas, A., Haapakoski, R. & Tyrväinen, L. (2008). Integrating place-specific social values into forest planning–Case of UPM-Kymmene forests in Hyrynsalmi, Finland. Silva Fennica 42(5), 773-790.
Kangas, J. & Kangas, A. (2005). Multiple criteria decision support in forest management—the approach, methods applied, and experiences gained. Forest Ecology and Management 207(1– 2), 133-143.
Keeney, R.L. (1992). Value-focused thinking: A path to creative decisionmaking. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Keeney, R.L. & Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value
Kurttila, M. (2001). The spatial structure of forests in the optimization calculations of forest planning — a landscape ecological perspective. Forest Ecology and Management 142(1–3), 129-142.
Kurttila, M. & Pukkala, T. (2003). Combining holding-level economic goals with spatial landscape-level goals in the planning of multiple ownership forestry. Landscape Ecology 18(5), 529-541.
Kurttila, M., Pukkala, T. & Loikkanen, J. (2002). The performance of alternative spatial objective types in forest planning calculations: a case for flying squirrel and moose. Forest Ecology and
Management 166(1-3), 245-260.
Larsson, S. & Danell, K. (2001). Science and the management of boreal forest biodiversity.
Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 16(S3), 5-9.
Lichtenstein, S. & Slovic, P. (2006). The construction of preference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lindhagen, A. (1996). Forest recreation in Sweden. Four case studies using quantitative and qualitative methods. Uppsala: Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet (Institutionen för Skoglig Landskapsvård, Rapport 1996:64).
Long, J.A., Nelson, T.A. & Wulder, M.A. (2010). Characterizing forest fragmentation: Distinguishing change in composition from configuration. Applied Geography 30(3), 426- 435.
MacMillan, D. & Marshall, K. (2004). Optimising capercailzie habitat in commercial forestry plantations. Forest Ecology and Management 198(1), 351-365.
Malczewski, J. (1999). GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D. & Theoret, A. (1976). The structure of "unstructured" decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 246-275.
Murray, A.T. & Weintraub, A. (2002). Scale and unit specification influences in harvest scheduling with maximum area restrictions. Forest Science 48(4), 779-789.
Nordström, E.M., Eriksson, L.O. & Öhman, K. (2011). Multiple criteria decision analysis with consideration to place-specific values in participatory forest planning. Silva Fennica 45(2), 253-265.
Pukkala, T. & Heinonen, T. (2006). Optimizing heuristic search in forest planning. Nonlinear
analysis: real world applications 7(5), 1284-1297.
Pukkala, T. & Kurttila, M. (2005). Examining the performance of six heuristic optimisation techniques in different forest planning problems. Silva Fennica 39(1), 67-80.
Pukkala, T., Nuutinen, T. & Kangas, J. (1995). Integrating scenic and recreational amenities into numerical forest planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 32(3), 185-195.
Reed, M.S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review.
Biological Conservation 141(10), 2417-2431.
Simon, H.A. (1960). The new science of management decision: Harper and Row. Skogsstyrelsen. (2013). Forestry. [online] Available at:
http://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/en/forestry/Forestry/ (2012-10-15).
SLU (2012). Skogsdata 2012 Umeå: Department of Forest Resource Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU). (Official Statistics of Sweden).
Snyder, S.A., Haight, R.G. & ReVelle, C.S. (2004). A scenario optimization model for dynamic reserve site selection. Environmental Modeling & Assessment 9(3), 179-187.
Store, R. & Jokimäki, J. (2003). A GIS-based multi-scale approach to habitat suitability modeling. Ecological Modelling 169(1), 1-15.
Uran, O. & Janssen, R. (2003). Why are spatial decision support systems not used? Some experiences from the Netherlands. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 27(5), 511- 526.
Van Herwijnen, M. (1999). Spatial decision support for environmental management. Diss. Amsterdam:Vrije University.
Venema, H.D., Calamai, P.H. & Fieguth, P. (2005). Forest structure optimization using evolutionary programming and landscape ecology metrics. European Journal of Operational
Research 164(2), 423-439.
von Winterfeldt, D. & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioural research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zucca, A., Sharifi, A.M. & Fabbri, A.G. (2008). Application of spatial multi-criteria analysis to site selection for a local park: A case study in the Bergamo Province, Italy. Journal of
Environmental Management 88(4), 752-769.
Öhman, K., Edenius, L. & Mikusinski, G. (2011). Optimizing spatial habitat suitability and timber revenue in long-term forest planning. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 41(3), 543-551.
Öhman, K. & Eriksson, L.O. (2002). Allowing for spatial consideration in long-term forest planning by linking linear programming with simulated annealing. Forest Ecology and
Management 161(1), 221-230.
Öhman, K. & Wikström, P. (2008). Incorporating aspects of habitat fragmentation into long-term forest planning using mixed integer programming. Forest Ecology and Management 255(3), 440-446.
Acknowledgements
I woke up in a tent at the root of Norway’s national mountain Stetind after an epic 23-hour-climb, when my phone rang. Ljusk Ola Eriksson called to inform that I had a chance to do a Ph.D. in Umeå. On our way back home, we took a quick glance at the impressive Blåberget in Bjurholm, and the less impressive indoor wall at IKSU, and decided to move to Sweden. Now, after four and a half years, I am certain that this was the right choice to have made.
Ola, thank you for that call and for all the support and understanding you have given me since then. This thesis would not exist without your insight, guidance and optimism. I am especially grateful to you for having allowed me to explore the world and for trusting me to meet all of the deadlines even when I doubted myself.
Karin, you are a true role model of a scientist. You have shown that it is possible to combine a career with the other aspects of life – and always remember the syfte! Thank you for being there whenever I needed you.
Malin, these years would have been so much more difficult without you! Thank you for being quiet in the mornings, understanding in the afternoons and just for being there all the other times. And thank you for taking care of my education in the Swedish language and culture. Du är den bästa lärare jag känner!
Hampus, Peder, Per and Tero, I am grateful for having had the chance to work with you and learn from you.
During my years at SLU, I have met and worked with numerous other people who have made the time worth all the struggles – and often made the struggles that much easier. To my fellow Ph.D. students, the Forest Planning section, and all my other friends and colleagues at the Department of Forest Resource Management: thank you for letting me into your world, and for all the help, company and encouragement!
I am deeply grateful to Professor Andrés Weintraub for welcoming me to Universidad de Chile and Santiago, and for giving me both scientific and
cultural insights. My stay in Chile was partly funded by the ForEAdapt project (PIRSES-GA-2010-269257) funded by 7th EU Framework Programme.
Other travel grants from Lennart Hjelm’s Fund, Seth M Kempe’s Stipend Fund, SLU Fund, SLU Council of Postgraduate Education and the Swedish- Finnish Cultural Foundation have allowed me to attend courses and conferences in Dresden, Gilleleje, Helsinki, Maitencillo, Nancy, Trento, Uppsala and Ås. These experiences have been invaluable in inspiring me and in helping me to formulate my thesis and future career goals. I am especially thankful for all the old and new friends and acquaintances I have met during these visits.
To all my friends outside the university - thank you for reminding me of the existence of the world outside the office, and especially for making the wall at IKSU so much more inviting.
To my family back in Finland - thank you for accepting the distance between us and for your unconditional support and love. It is easy to take chances when you know you have somewhere to return to if things don’t work out.
Saku. Without you, this thesis could maybe have been finished even sooner… But I would have missed so many other things in life. And I would still be climbing 6b. On top rope.