Sign Up Submit Enquiry

Integrating Technical, Socio-Economic, and Sustainability Dimensions for Spatial Stratification of Ecosystem Services Using the AHP Method

Home Integrating Technical, Socio-Economic, and Sustainability Dimensions for Spatial Stratification of Ecosystem Services Using the AHP Method

Related Articles

Contact us

Article Content

Abstract

Forest management is inherently complex, requiring a multi-dimensional approach to set management goals that balance the competing demands of ecosystem services, public expectations, and scientific-political considerations. This study addresses the necessity for recognising, prioritizing, and spatially stratifying ecosystem services (ES) based on technical suitability, stakeholder involvement, and the categories of sustainability within Turkey’s forest ecosystem management framework in Yalnızçam case study area. By leveraging Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods, particularly the Delphi technique with Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), this research captures both scientific ground and perspectives of various sectors with a stratification model to determine ES provisions. The iterative framework includes ES identification and prioritization steps, culminating in their spatial stratification of forest stands with geographic information system. The results indicate that ES stratification highlighted the primary focus on biodiversity conservation (78.5%) and water protection (13.3%), with minimal provision for timber production (7.9%) and soil protection (0.04%), and none for climate regulation, eco-tourism, and non-wood forest products. This approach enables a more efficient spatial zoning strategy, balancing technical and socio-cultural factors, and streamlining decision-making processes crucial for sustainable forest management paradigm.

 

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

  • Applied Ecology
  • Ecosystem Services
  • Environmental Geography
  • Forestry
  • Forest Ecology
  • Forestry Management

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Notes

  1. The power index was developed through the systematic evaluation of ten prominent MCDM tools used in forest management, assessed by a panel of MCDM specialists. This assessment was conducted using 12 structured questionnaires that incorporated nine carefully selected evaluation criteria: ease of use, interpretability of parameters, clarity of results, capacity for detailed sensitivity analysis, graphical modeling capability, support for group decision-making, ability to incorporate constraints, accuracy, and operational speed.

  2. These areas are legally designated as forest land, even in the absence of vegetation, as they may have been historically cleared due to anthropogenic activities, natural disturbances, or converted from other land uses such as rangelands.

References

  • Anonymous (2007) Yalnızçam Forest Management Plan (2007–2026). Forest Management Planning Department of General Directorate of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Ankara.

  • Balasbaneh AT, Aldrovandi S, Sher W (2025) A systematic review of implementing multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approaches for the circular economy and cost assessment. Sustainability 17(11):5007. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17115007.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Barlı Ö, Başkent EZ, Türker M (2006) Analytical approach for analysing and providing solutions for the conflicts among forest stakeholders. Forest Policy and Economics. [DOI not provided — please confirm journal volume and issue for full citation]

  • Başkent EZ (2018) A review of the development of the multiple use forest management planning concept. Int Forestry Rev 20(3):296–313. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554818824063014.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Başkent EZ (2020) A framework for characterizing and regulating ecosystem services in a management planning context. Forests 11(1):102. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11010102.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Başkent EZ (2021) Assessment and valuation of key ecosystem services provided by two forest ecosystems in Turkey. J Environ Manag 285:112135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112135.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Başkent EZ (2023) Characterizing and assessing key ecosystem services in a representative forest ecosystem in Turkey. Ecol Inf 74:101993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2023.101993.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Başkent EZ, Balci H (2024) A priory allocation of ecosystem services to forest stands in a forest management context considering technical appropriateness, stakeholder involvement and sustainability perception with multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) technique: A case study in Turkey. J Environ Manag 369:122230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122230.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Başkent EZ, Yolaşığmaz HA (1999) Forest landscape (ecosystems) management revisited. Environ Manag 24(4):437–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679900240.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Başkent EZ, Başkaya Ş, Terzioğlu S (2008) Developing and implementing participatory and ecosystem based multiple use forest management planning approach (ETÇAP): Yalnızçam case study. Ecol Manag 256(5):798–807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.05.039.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Başkent EZ, Borges JG, Kašpar J (2024) An updated review of spatial forest planning: Approaches, techniques, challenges, and future directions. Curr Forestry Rep. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-024-00222-8.

  • Başkent EZ, Keleş S, Kadıoğulları Aİ, Bingöl Ö (2011) Quantifying the effects of forest management strategies on the production of forest values: Timber, carbon, oxygen. water, soil Environ Model Assess 16(2):145–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-010-9244-1.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Behzadian M, Kazemzadeh RB, Albadvi A, Aghdasi M (2010) PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur J Oper Res 200(1):198–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Blagojević B, Jonsson R, Björheden R, Nordström EM, Lindroos O (2019) Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in forest operations – An introductional review. Croatian J Eng 40(1):191–206. [DOI not available].

    Google Scholar

  • Bončina A, Simončič T, Rosset C (2019) Assessment of the concept of forest functions in Central European forestry. Environ Sci Policy 99:123–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.05.009.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Borges JG, Marques S, Garcia-Gonzalo J, Rahman AU, Bushenkov V, Sottomayor M, Carvalho PO, Nordström EM (2017) A multiple criteria approach for negotiating ecosystem services supply targets and forest owners’ programs. Sci 63(1):49–61. https://doi.org/10.5849/FS-2016-033R1.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Bruzzese S, Blanc S, Novelli S, Brun F (2023) A multicriteria analysis to support natural resource governance: The case of chestnut forests. Resources 12(3):40. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12030040.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Çağlayan İ, Yeşil A, Kabak Ö, Bettinger P (2021) A decision making approach for assignment of ecosystem services to forest management units: A case study in northwest Turkey. Ecol Indic 121:107056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107056.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Cammerino ARB, Ingaramo M, Piacquadio L, Monteleone M (2023) Assessing and mapping forest functions through a GIS-based, multi-criteria approach as a participative planning tool: An application analysis. Forests 14:934. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14050934.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Cavender-Bares J, Polasky S, King E, Balvanera P (2015) A sustainability framework for assessing trade-offs in ecosystem services. Ecol Soc 20(1):17. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06917-200117.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Cord AF, Bartkowski B et al. (2017) Towards systematic analyses of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: Main concepts, methods and the road ahead. Ecosyst Serv 28(C):264–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.012.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P, van der Ploeg S, Anderson SJ, Kubiszewski I, Farber S, Turner RK (2014) Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob Environ Change 26:152–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Davis LS, Johnson KN, Bettinger P, Howard TE (2001) Forest management: To sustain ecological, economic, and social value (4th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

  • De Meo I, Cantiani MG, Ferretti F, Paletto A (2018) Qualitative assessment of forest ecosystem services: The stakeholders’ point of view in support of landscape planning. Forests 9(8):465. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9080465.

    Article Google Scholar

  • De Pellegrin LI, Hoganson HM, Carson MT, Windmuller-Campione M (2017) Recognizing spatial considerations in forest management planning. Curr Forestry Rep 3(4):308–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-017-0068-x.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Deng D, Ye C, Tong K, Zhang J (2023) Evaluation of the sustainable forest management performance in forestry enterprises based on a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model: A case study in China. Forests 14(11):2267. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14112267.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Eggers J, Holmgren S, Nordström E-M, Lämås T, Lind T, Öhman K (2019) Balancing different forest values: Evaluation of forest management scenarios in a multi-criteria decision analysis framework. Policy Econ 103:55–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.02.010.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Eggers J, Räty M, Öhman K, Snäll T (2020) How well do stakeholder-defined forest management scenarios balance economic and ecological forest values?. Forests 11(1):86. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11010086.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Escribano M, Díaz-Caroc C, Mesias FJ (2018) A participative approach to develop sustainability indicators for dehesa agroforestry farms. Sci Total Environ 640–641:89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.297.

    Article CAS Google Scholar

  • European Commission (2011) Our life insurance, Our Natural Capital: An EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. European Commission.

  • Ezquerro M, Diaz-Balteiro L, Pardos M (2023) Implications of forest management on the conservation of protected areas: A new proposal in Central Spain. Ecol Manag 548:21428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2023.120428.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Ezquerro M, Pardos M, Diaz-Balteiro L (2019) Sustainability in forest management revisited using multi-criteria decision-making techniques. Sustainability 11(13):3645. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133645.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Filyushkina A, Strange N, Löf M, Ezebilo EE, Boman M (2018) Applying the Delphi method to assess impacts of forest management on biodiversity and habitat preservation. Ecol Manag 409:179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.10.022.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Fisher JA, Patenaude G, Giri K, Lewis K, Meir P, Pinho P, Rounsevell MDA, Williams M (2014) Understanding the relationships between ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: A conceptual framework. Ecosyst Serv 7:34–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.08.002.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Geijzendorffer IR, Cohen-Shacham E, Cord AF, Cramer W, Guerra C, Martín-López B (2017) Ecosystem services in global sustainability policies. Environ Sci Policy 74:40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.017.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Geneletti D (2011) Reasons and options for integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of spatial planning. Int J Biodivers Sci, Ecosyst Serv Manag 7(3):143–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2011.617711.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Glur C (2018) Package AHP. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ahp/ahp.pdf

  • Groselj P, Zandebasiri M, Malovrh SP (2023) Evaluation of the European experts on the application of the AHP method in sustainable forest management. Environ Dev Sustainability. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03859-1

  • Hajizadeh H, Fallah A, Hosseini S (2022) Evaluation of forest ecosystem functions using integrated methods of multi-criteria decision making (case study: Mazandaran Provence, Shiadeh and Diva Forest Ecosystem). Ecol Iran 10(20):33–42. https://doi.org/10.52547/ifej.10.20.33.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Kajanus M, Kangas J, Kurttila M (2004) The use of value focused thinking and the A’WOT hybrid method in tourism management. Tour Manag 25(4):499–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00120-1.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Kangas, A, Kangas, J, Kurttila, M (2008) Decision support for forest management. Springer, Netherlands.

    Google Scholar

  • Kangas A, Kangas J, Pykäläinen J (2001) Outranking methods as tools in strategic natural resources planning. Silva Fennica 35(2):Article 597. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.597.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Kangas, A, Kurttila, M, Hujala, T, Eyvindson, K, & Kangas, J (2015) Group decision-making and participatory planning. In Decision support for forest management (Vol. 30, pp. 205–220). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23522-6_9

  • Kaya T, Kahraman C (2011) Fuzzy multiple criteria forestry decision making based on an integrated VIKOR and AHP approach. Expert Syst Appl 38(6):7326–7333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.003.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Khadka C, Vacik H (2012) Use of multi-criteria analysis (MCA) for supporting community forest management. iForest 5(1):60–71. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor0608-009.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Kpadé CP, Tamini LD, Pepin S, Khasa DP, Abbas Y, Lamhamedi MS (2024) Evaluating multi-criteria decision-making methods for sustainable management of forest ecosystems: A systematic review. Forests 15(10):1728. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15101728.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Kurt R (2020) Determining the priorities in utilization of forest residues as biomass: An A’WOT analysis. Biofuels, Bioprod Bioref 14(2):315–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.2077.

    Article CAS Google Scholar

  • Lakićević, MD (2013). Application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and participatory decision-making in management of the National Park “Fruška gora” (Doctoral dissertation, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Forestry, Belgrade). [In Serbian].

  • Lakicevic MD, Reynolds KM, Gawryszewska BJ (2021) An integrated application of AHP and PROMETHEE in decision making for landscape management. Austrian J Sci 138(3):167–182. https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/xywfp.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Lakicevic M, Srdjevic B, Velichkov I (2018) Combining AHP and smarter in forestry decision making. Balt Forestry 24(1):42–49. https://doi.org/10.1515/bf-2018-0006.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Landeta J (2006) Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technol Forecast Soc Change 73(5):467–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005.09.002.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Marques M, Reynolds KM, Marques S, Marto M, Paplanus S, Borges JG (2021) A participatory and spatial multicriteria decision approach to prioritize the allocation of ecosystem services to management units. Land 10(7):747. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10070747.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Marttunen M, Lienert J, Belton V (2017) Structuring problems for multi-criteria decision analysis in practice: A literature review of method combinations. Eur J Oper Res 263(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.04.041.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Murphy PJ (2014) Criterium DecisionPlus. In K. Reynolds, P. Hessburg, & P. Bourgeron (Eds.), Making transparent environmental management decisions (pp. 105–125). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32000-2_6

  • Nordström E, Romero C, Eriksson LO, Öhman K (2009) Aggregation of preferences in participatory forest planning with multiple criteria: An application to the urban forest in Lycksele, Sweden. Can J Res 39(10):1979–1992. https://doi.org/10.1139/X09-107.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Raum S (2018) A framework for integrating systematic stakeholder analysis in ecosystem services research: Stakeholder mapping for forest ecosystem services in the UK. Ecosyst Serv 29:170–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.01.001.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biol Conserv 141(10):2417–2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Reynolds KM, Hessburg PF, Bourgeron PS (Eds.). (2014) Making transparent environmental management decisions: Applications of the ecosystem management decision support system. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32000-2

  • Rodríguez-Merino A, García-Murillo P, Fernandez-Zamudio R (2020) Combining multi-criteria decision analysis and GIS to assess vulnerability within a protected area: An objective methodology for managing complex and fragile systems. Ecol Indic 108:105738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105738.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Saaty TL (1994) Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process. RWS Publications. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9799-9_2

  • Saaty TL (2003) Decision making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary?. Eur J Operational Res 145(1):85–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00227-8.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1(1):83–98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Scolozzi R, Morri E, Santolini R (2012) Delphi-based change assessment in ecosystem service values to support strategic spatial planning in Italian landscapes. Ecol Indic 21:134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.07.019.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Serrano-Ramírez E, Valdez-Lazalde JR, de los Santos-Posadas HM, Mora-Gutiérrez RA, Ángeles-Pérez G (2021) A forest management optimization model based on functional zoning: A comparative analysis of six heuristic techniques. Ecol Inf 61:101234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2021.101234.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Shan Y, Bettinger P, Cieszewski CJ, Li RT (2009) Trends in spatial forest planning. Int J Math Comput Simul 1(2):86–112.

    Google Scholar

  • Tahri M, Kaspar J, Vacik H, Marusak R (2021) Multi-attribute decision making and geographic information systems: Potential tools for evaluating forest ecosystem services. Ann Sci 78: 41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-021-01083-7.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Takam Tiamgne X, Kanungwe Kalaba F, Raphael Nyirenda V, Phiri D (2022) Modelling areas for sustainable forest management in a mining and human dominated landscape: A Geographical Information System (GIS)- Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) approach. Ann GIS 28(3):343–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475683.2022.2026469.

    Article Google Scholar

  • TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Ecological and economic foundations (P. Kumar, Ed.). Earthscan.

  • Theis T, Tomkin J (2015) Sustainability: A comprehensive foundation (12th ed.). Cengage Learning. ISBN: 1680921533.

  • Tiemann A, Ring I (2018) Challenges and opportunities of aligning forest function mapping and the ecosystem service concept in Germany. Forests 11(7):691. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11070691.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Tomashevskii I, Tomashevskii D (2019) A non-heuristic multi-criteria decision-making method with verifiable accuracy and reliability. J Oper Res Soc 72(1):78–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2019.1650621.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Turkelboom F, Leone M, Jacobs S, Kelemen E, García-Llorente M, Baró F, Rusch V (2018) When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning. Ecosyst Serv 29:566–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.011.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Wątróbski J, Jankowski J, Ziemba P, Karczmarczyk A, Zioło M (2019) Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection. Omega 86:107–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2018.07.004.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Yılmaz E, Abbak A, Kırış R, Sayin MA (2015) Social dimension of forest management planning: A case study of Pozantı Forest Sub-District Directorate. J Forestry Res 26(1):35–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-014-0535-9.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Zandebasiri M, Pourhashemi M (2016) The place of AHP method among the multi-criteria decision making methods in forest management. Int J Appl Oper Res 6(2):75–89.

    Google Scholar

Acknowledgements

This study received support from the project “NAZV QK21010354: Progressive Methods of Forest Management Planning to Support Sustainable Forest Management” at the Czech Uni-versity of Life Sciences Prague. We extend our gratitude to Burak Saygılı, MScF, the forest management chief of Yalnızçam, for his invaluable help in conducting the Delphi survey, as well as to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback and insightful suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey

    Emin Zeki Başkent

  2. Affiliated with the Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czechia

    Emin Zeki Başkent

  3. The Forest Research Centre, School of Agriculture, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    Emin Zeki Başkent

  4. Graduate student, Department of Nutrition Science, Faculty of Health Science, Ondokuzmayıs University, Samsun, Turkey

    Hümeyra Başkent

Contributions

Conceptualization and original draft: E.Z.B., Writing—data acquisition, review and editing; E.Z.B. and H.B.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emin Zeki Başkent.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

About this article

Cite this article

Başkent, E.Z., Başkent, H. Integrating Technical, Socio-Economic, and Sustainability Dimensions for Spatial Stratification of Ecosystem Services Using the AHP Method. Environmental Management (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02224-z

  • Received
  • Accepted
  • Published
  • DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02224-z

Keywords

  • Forest management planning
  • ecosystem services
  • forest stratification
  • AHP

 

Copyright © All rights reserved Designed and Developed by Digital Flavers

WhatsApp