عملکرد و حساسیت روش‏های تصمیم‏گیری دلفی و AHP به پاسخ گروه‏های تصمیم‏گیری در پژوهش‏های منابع طبیعی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری علوم جنگل، دانشکدۀ منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تهران، کرج، ایران

2 استادیار گروه جنگل‌داری و اقتصاد جنگل، دانشکدۀ منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تهران، کرج، ایران

3 استاد گروه جنگل‌داری و اقتصاد جنگل، دانشکدۀ منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تهران، کرج، ایران

چکیده

برای مدیریت و برنامه‏ریزی صحیح و توسعه در هر بخش از منابع طبیعی، باید عوامل مختلفی را از نظر فنی، اقتصادی ـ اجتماعی، محیط زیست، و اکولوژیک مدنظر قرار داد. بدین سبب، مدلی که این معیارها را در فرایند تصمیم‏گیری به‌کار بگیرد و نتایج مطمئنی ارائه بدهد، ضروری خواهد بود. از روش‏هایی که در سال‏های اخیر در چنین مطالعاتی مورد توجه پژوهشگران در داخل کشور قرار گرفته فرایند تحلیل سلسله‌مراتبی است. اما اینکه آیا این فرایند می‏تواند مدلی مطلوب در چنین مطالعاتی باشد و اینکه نتایج حاصل از آن تا چه حد قابلیت استفاده در مرحلۀ اجرا را دارد، خود نیاز به بررسی و مطالعۀ جداگانه‏ای دارد. بنابراین، در این پژوهش که با هدف ارزیابی چند‌معیاری شبکۀ جاده‏های جنگلی صورت گرفته، از دو روش مختلف ارزیابی، یعنی روش دلفی و روش AHP، استفاده شد تا نحوۀ اولویت‏بندی معیار‏ها از سوی کارشناسان در دو روش مقایسه شود. نتایج این مطالعه نشان داد که اکثر کارشناسان این مطالعه نظرهای متفاوتی (در رابطه با اولویت‏بندی و میزان اهمیت معیار‏ها) را در دو روش مختلف ارائه دادند. همچنین نتایج حاصل از میانگین‏گیری و تلفیق امتیازها در دو روش نشان داد که ترتیب اولویت‏های مربوط به 4 معیار اول از 8 معیار تعیین‏شده در دو روش همخوان بوده و ترتیب سایر اولویت‏ها در این دو روش متفاوت بوده است. طبق نتایج این مطالعه، اختلاف نظر در بین کارشناسان در روش دلفی به‌دلیل تکرار دور‏های مطالعه و تکیه ‏بر اصل توافق جمعی، در مرحلۀ پایانی این روش به‏طور چشمگیر کاهش یافت. اما در رابطه با روش AHP نتایج نشان داد که حساسیت اجرای این روش به پاسخ‏های کارشناسان بسیار بوده که ضرورت دقت بیشتر پژوهشگران در استفاده از این روش و استفاده از نتایج این روش در عمل و همچنین توجه بیشتر کارشناسان در هنگام وزن‌دهی را می‏طلبد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Performance and Sensitivity of the Delphi and AHP Decision Making Methods to the Response of Experts in Natural Resources Research

نویسندگان [English]

  • Elyas Hayati 1
  • Ehsan Abdi 2
  • Baris Majnounian 3
  • Majid Makhdom 3
1 Ph.D. Candidate, Forest Engineering, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Forestry and Forest Economic, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran
3 Professor, Department of Forestry and Forest Economic, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran
چکیده [English]

In order to achieve a sustainable management and development of natural resources, a set of technical, eco-social, environmental and ecological criteria must be considered in the planning process. An appropriate model is therefore needed to address all the criteria mentioned above, in the decision making process and finally provide a reliable result. In the last few years, analytical hierarchical processes were used increasingly in natural resources research. The question is, can the method be used in such research and would the output be applicable? Delphi and AHP methods were used to conduct a multi-criteria based forest road planning. The order of ranked criteria in both methods were investigated and compared. According to the obtained data from participants different ratings for the criteria in the two different methods were recognized. However, average rating (overall weight of each criterion) showed that the four most important criteria out of the eight criteria were ranked in the same order in these two methods, but the priority levels 5, 6, 7, and 8 were ranked differently in the two methods. According to the results, variances among the experts during the Delphi process were noticeably reduced because it is performed in three rounds so that it can lead to a consensus within the panel of experts. However, results of performing AHP showed that this method is so sensitive to the experts’ responses, thus the output cannot be easily used in practice. Therefore, researcher should care more when using this method or its output and, similarly, experts when rating criteria by this method.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • criteria rating
  • expert consensus
  • forest road network
  • Multi-criteria evaluation
[1]. Malczewski, J. (2006). GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 20(7): 703–726.

[2]. Pukkala, T. (2002). Multi-objective Forest Planning: Managing Forest Ecosystems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

[3]. Ananda, J., and Herath, G. (2008). Multi-attribute preference modeling and regional land use planning. Ecological Economics, 65: 325–335.

[4]. Sohrab, S.M. (2011). Zoning and determining spatial preference recreational activity using AHP method (case study: Telar forest park in Qaemshahr). M.Sc. Thesis, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Iran, 130 p.

[5]. Shiravani, Z. (2009). Recreational potential assessing of neka-zalemrood forest management plan on basis of analytic hierarchy process (AHP). M.Sc. Thesis, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Iran, 102 p.

[6]. Karami, S. (2008). Analysis of the effective parameters in species selection for green space establishment along rail ways line. M.Sc. Thesis, College of Natural Resource, University of Tehran, Iran, 88 p.

[7]. Mohamadi Samani, K., Najafi, A., Hoseiny, S.A., and Lotfalian, M. (2010). Planning road network in mountain forest using GIS and AHP. Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences, 8(2): 151-162.

[8]. Naghdi, R., and Babapour, R. (2009). Planning evaluating of forest roads network with respect to environmental aspects via GIS application (case study: Shafaroud forest, northern Iran). Proceeding of second international conference on environmental and computer science. 28-30 December 2009. Dubai, UAE. 424-427.

[9]. Kooch, Y., and Najafi, A. (2010). Application of analytical hierarchy process (AHP) in ecological potential assessment of forest stands in Darabkola region. Journal of Forest and Wood Products, 63 (2):161-175.

[10]. Zandebasiri, M., and Ghazanfari, H. (2010). The main consequences of affecting factors on forest management of local settlers in the Zagross forests (case study: Ghalegol watershed in Lorestan province). Iranian Journal of Forest, 2(2): 127-138.

[11]. Mohammadzadeh, K. (2010). Investigation of socio-economic problems of Poplar plantation development and giving suitable solutions for providing wood and paper industries consumption. M.Sc. thesis, College of Natural Resource, University of Tehran, Iran. 115 p.

[12]. Mohammadi, F., Shabanian, N., Pourhashemi, and M., Fatehi, P. (2010). Risk zone mapping of forest fire using GIS and AHP in a part of Paveh forests. Iranian Journal of Forest and Poplar Research, 18 (4): 569-586.

[13]. Souri, M. (2011). Determining suitable locations for precipitation collection and storage practices using spatial decision support system. Ph.D. dissertation, College of Natural Resource, University of Tehran, Iran. 222 p.

[14]. Moeinaddini, M. (2007). Site selection for solid waste sanitary landfill for Karaj city by using analytical hierarchy process and GIS. M.Sc. thesis, College of Natural Resource, University of Tehran, Iran.121 p.

[15]. Azizi, M. (2002). Evaluation of Plywood and Veneer industry Location and development in Iran. Ph.D dissertation, Wood & Paper Sciences and Industries, University of Tehran, Iran.

[16]. Nouri, S.H., and Nilipour Tabatabaie, S. (2007). The prioritization of the development of the conversion and complementary industries in agriculture sector, using Delphi technique. Geographical Research, 39 (61):161-177.

[17]. Austen, E., and Hanson, A. (2008). Identifying wetland compensation principles and mechanisms for Atlantic Canada using a Delphi method approach. Wetlands, 28(3): 640–655.

[18]. Linstone, H.A., and Turrof, M. (2002). The Delphi Method Techniques and Applications, Addison Wesley publishing, digital version, p. 571.

[19]. Taylor, J.G., and Ryder, S.D. (2003). Use of the Delphi method in resolving complex water resources issues. Journal American Water Resources Association, 39:183–89.

[20]. Steinmüller, T. (2003). Evaluation of the social and economic benefits of subsidized forest road developments in Austria. In: Proceedings of the Austro2003 meeting: High Tech Forest Operations for Mountainous Terrain. CD ROM. Limbeck-Lilienau, Steinmüller and Stampfer (editors). October 5-9, 2003, Schlaegl – Austria. 10 p.

 [21]. Sepasi, Y., Danehkar, A., Alizadeh, A., Darvishsefat, A.A., and Sharifipoor, R. (2010). Environmental management planning of Hengam Island for conservation and tourism using spatial multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE). Journal of Natural Environmental, 63(2): 159-172.

[22]. Saaty, T.L. (2000). Decision making for leaders, RWS publications, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 323.

[23]. Mitchell, V.W. (1991). The Delphi technique: an exposition and application. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 3:333–358.

[24]. Brockhoff, K. (1975). The performance of forcasting goups in computer dialogue and face-to-face discussion. In Linstone, H. A. & Turloff, M., (Ed.), The Delphi method: Techniques and applications (pp. 291 - 321). Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.

[25]. Malczewski, J. (1999). GIS and Multi-criteria Decision Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

[26]. Makhdom, M. (2009). Models which are Never to be modeled or Models with Irrational Prediction. Environmental sciences, 6(3): 185-192.

[27]. Ghodsipour, H. (2010). Analytical Hierarchy Process. Amirkabir University of Technology. 236 p.