The DOI matches its Crossref record; 83 of the 83 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning
Open accessAbstract
This paper provides a review of research contributions on forest management and planning using multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) based on an exhaustive literature survey. The review primarily focuses on the application aspects highlighting theoretical underpinnings and controversies. It also examines the nature of the problems addressed and incorporation of risk into forest management and planning decision making. The MCDM techniques covered in this review belong to several schools of thought. For each technique, a variety of empirical applications including recent studies has been reviewed. More than 60 individual studies were reviewed and classified by the method used, country of origin, number and type of criteria and options evaluated. The review serves as a guide to those interested in how to use a particular MCDM approach. Based on the review, some recent trends and future research directions are also highlighted.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Zadeh, L. A. (1965) · Information and Control · doi:10.1016/s0019-9958(65)90241-x · Cited by 67,855
Zadeh, L. A. (1996) · Cited by 46,844
Herne, H., Cooley, W. W., & Lohnes, P. R. (1973) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General) · doi:10.2307/2344428 · Cited by 35,697
(1997) · Chemometrics in Environmental Analysis · doi:10.1002/352760216x.ch5 · Cited by 18,653
The Analytic Hierarchy Process
SAATY, T. L., & KEARNS, K. P. (1985) · Analytical Planning · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-032599-6.50008-8 · Cited by 15,357
A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures
Saaty, T. L. (1977) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5 · Cited by 10,360
Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs.
Tsoukias, A., Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1994) · The Journal of the Operational Research Society · doi:10.2307/2584151 · Cited by 8,370
(2001) · Empirical Direction in Design and Analysis · doi:10.4324/9781410600004-24 · Cited by 6,808
Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method
(1989) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-0417 · Cited by 4,215
How to select and how to rank projects: The Promethee method
Brans, J. P., Vincke, P., & Mareschal, B. (1986) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/0377-2217(86)90044-5 · Cited by 2,692
Cited by
STATE OF ART SURVEYS OF OVERVIEWS ON MCDM/MADM METHODS
Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Kildienė, S. (2014) · Technological and Economic Development of Economy · doi:10.3846/20294913.2014.892037 · Cited by 931
Sahoo, S. K., & Goswami, S. S. (2023) · Decision Making Advances · doi:10.31181/dma1120237 · Cited by 585
A bibliometric-based survey on AHP and TOPSIS techniques
Zyoud, S. H., & Fuchs-Hanusch, D. (2017) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2017.02.016 · Cited by 492
Calkin, D. E., Venn, T., Wibbenmeyer, M., & Thompson, M. P. (2013) · International Journal of Wildland Fire · doi:10.1071/wf11075 · Cited by 67
Metadata
- Authors
- Ananda, J., & Herath, G.
- Venue
- Ecological Economics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-08
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2535-2548
- ISSN
- 0921-8009 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2001045211
- Cited by
- 451
- References
- 83
- FWCI
- 28.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.010
- The paper
- Ananda, J., & Herath, G. (2009). A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning. Ecological Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.010
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
