Forestry appllication of the AHP by use of MPC © software

Referencias bibliográficas

• Altuzarra A, Moreno JM, Salvador M. 2000. Medidas de influencia para los juicios en el proceso analítico jerárquico (AHP). Proc XIV Reunión ASEPELT-España, Oviedo (Spain), June 22-23.
• Biederman I, Cooper EE. 1992. Size invariance in visual object priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 18, 121-133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.18.1.121
• Carmone FJ, Kara A, Zanakis S. 1997. A Monte Carlo investigation of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 102, 538-553. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(96)00250-0
• Chun MM, Cavanagh P. 1997. Seeing two as one: Linking apparent motion and repetition blindness. Psychological Science 8, 74-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00686.x
• Coulter ED, Sessions J, Wing MG. 2003. An exploration of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and its potential for use in forest engineering. Proc Council on Forest Engineering, Bar Harbor, Maine (USA), September 7-10.
• Gadow KV, Bredenkamp B. 1992. Forest management. Academica, Pretoria, South Africa. 151 pp.
• Henderson JM, Hollingworth A. 2003. Eye movements and visual memory: Detecting changes to saccade targets in scenes. Perception & Psychophysics 65(1), 58-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03194783 PMid:12699309
• Hollingworth A. 2007. Object-position binding in visual memory for natural scenes and object arrays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 33, 21-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.1.31 PMid:17311477
• Kangas J, Kangas A. 2005. Multiple criteria decision support in forest management. The approach, methods applied, and experiences gained. For Ecol Manage 207, 133-143.
• Kangas A, Kangas J, Kurttila M. 2008. Decision Support for Forest Management. Springer Science. 221 pp.
• Kurtilla M, Pesonen M, Kangas J, Kajanus M. 2000. Utilizing the analytic hierarchic process (AHP) in SWOT analysis - a hybrid method and its application to forestcertification case. Forest Policy and Economics 1, 41-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(99)00004-0
• Mendoza GA, Martins H. 2006 Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: A critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. For Ecol Manage 230, 1-22.
• Oddershede A, Arias A, Cancino H. 2005. Rural development decision support using analytic hierarchy process. Proc ISAHP 2005, Honolulu, Hawaii (USA), July 8-10.
• Pérez-Rodríguez F, Rojo A. 2010. Apply the AHP by new free software called MPC for take decisions in forest Management. Proc XXIII IUFRO World Congress, Seoul (Korea), August 23-28.
• Pukkala T, Kangas J. 1993. A heuristic optimization method for forest planning and decision-making. Scand J For Res 8, 560-570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02827589309382802
• Pukkala T, Kangas J. 1996. A method for incorporating risk and risk attitude into forest planning. Forest Science 42, 198-205.
• Raharjo J, Halim S, Wanto S. 2001. Evaluating comparison between consistency improving method and resurvey in AHP. Proc ISAHP 2001, Berne (Switzerland), August 2-4.
• Saaty TL. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Planning priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York (USA). 287 pp.
• Saaty TL. 1990. Decision making for leaders. The Analytic Hierarchy Process for decision in a complex World. University of Pittsburgh. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh (USA). 292 pp.
• Saaty TL. 1996. Ratio scales are fundamental in decision making. Proc ISAHP 1996, Vancouver (Canada), July 12-15. pp. 146-156.
• Schmoldt DL, Kangas J, Mendoza GA, Pesonen M (eds.). 2001. The Analytic Hierarchy Process in natural resource and environmental decision making. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dortrecht (Netherlands). 335 pp.
• Schoner B, Wedley W. 2007. Ambiguous criteria weights in AHP: Consequences and solutions. Faculty of Business Administration, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. (Canada), VSA IS6.
• Tam CM, Tong TKL, Chiu GWC. 2006. Comparing non-structural fuzzy decision support system and analytical hierarchy process in decision-making for construction problems. European Journal of Operational Research 174, 1317-1324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.03.013
• Treisman AM, Kanwisher NG. 1998. Perceiving visually presented objects: recognition, awareness and modularity. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 8, 218-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4388(98)80143-8
• Triantaphyllou E, Sánchez A. 1997. A sensitivity analysis approach for some deterministic multi-criteria decision making methods. Decision Sciences 28(1), 151-194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01306.x
• Wijnmalen DJD, Wedley WC. 2009. Correcting illegitimate rank reversals. Proper adjustment of criteria weights prevent alleged AHP intransitivity. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 15, 135-141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mcda.431
• Zanazzi JL. 2003. Anomalías y supervivencia en el método de toma de decisiones de Saaty. In: Problemas del Conocimiento en Ingeniería y Geología (Godoy LA, ed), Vol. I. Editorial Universitas, Córdoba (Spain). pp. 148-170. [In Spanish].
• Zeshui XM, Cuiping W. 1999. A consistency improving method in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research 116, 443-449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00109-X