Joining or not joining non-industrial private forests into a single management unit: A case-study shaped as an Analytic Network Process

An extensive survey was carried out in order to find out the most important criteria worth being taken into account when such a decision shall be made, as well as the landowners' expectations, concerns and uncertainties with respect to the two options: business as usual scenario and a new FMU respectively. A second survey was distributed among the villagers of a neighboring commune in order to appraise the local demand for fuelwood. Based on the information collected at the first hand four subnets referring to benefits, costs, opportunities and risks have been produced and, within each subnet, three different clusters were defined in order to appraise the relative importance of economic, social, and ecologic aspects. Making pairwise comparisons between alternatives against criteria, clusters, and subnets, we have concluded that a new management unit for NIPFs is feasible and desirable. Even though ANP seems to be a very flexible tool for making complex decisions, any potential user shall be aware of some risks pertaining to ANP methodology, especially the tendency to make too complex networks, compelling to pairwise comparisons that make less sense. On the other hand, the case study presented in this article has demonstrated that pairwise comparisons may refer not only to the relative importance of whatever two criteria or alternatives, but also to the likelihood or desirability of some certain processes that might occur in case of pursuing one of the two alternatives taken into consideration. The procedure we have proposed for making or not making a new FMU can be developed or adapted to other situations where a consistent dialogue between the decision makers and the stakeholders is a more than necessary.