Research article

Benefit, cost and risk analysis on extending the forest roads network: A case study in Crasna Valley (Romania)

Marian Drăgoi , Ciprian Palaghianu, Marius Miron- Onciul

Marian Drăgoi
University “Ştefan cel Mare” Suceava, Faculty of Forestry, Universităţii 13, 720229 Suceava, Romania. Email:
Ciprian Palaghianu
University “Ştefan cel Mare” Suceava, Faculty of Forestry, Universităţii 13, 720229 Suceava, Romania
Marius Miron- Onciul
University “Ştefan cel Mare” Suceava, Faculty of Forestry, Universităţii 13, 720229 Suceava, Romania

Online First: April 22, 2015
Drăgoi, M., Palaghianu, C., Miron- Onciul, M. 2015. Benefit, cost and risk analysis on extending the forest roads network: A case study in Crasna Valley (Romania). Annals of Forest Research DOI:10.15287/afr.2015.366

The paper presents how the Analytic Hierarchy Process can be used to select the most suitable combination of new forest roads to build onto a forested area provided that social or ecological aspects are not jeopardized. All important features worth being considered when a new network of forest roads is designed were grouped in three types of criteria, which are benefits, costs and risks. Further, in order to ease the pairwise comparisons between criteria, both benefits and costs have been divided into private and social, while the risks refer to the events that might be triggered or favoured by the construction of new roads, like habitat fragmentation, landslides in case of heavy rainfall during the construction phase or even illegal cuttings. The outcome consists of a series of benefit-cost-and-risk indices and benefit-cost ratios, one for each combination of forest roads, including the status quo. The method has been tested on three combinations of new forest roads already designed for a small forest management unit located in Prahova County, encompassing 838.0 ha of mountainous forest.

Ali, J., et al. 2005. The road to deforestation: An assessment of forest loss and its causes in BashoValley, Northern Pakistan." Global Environmental Change 15(4): 370-380. DOI: 10. 1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.06.004

Ananda, J., Herath, G., 2003a. Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach. Ecological Economics 45, 75-90. DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00004-1

Ananda, J., Herath, G., 2003b. The use of Analytic Hierarchy Process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning. ForestPolicy and Economics 5, 13-26. DOI: 10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00043-6

Ananda, J., Herath, G., 2008. Multi-attribute preference modelling and regional land-use planning. Ecological Economics 65, 325-335. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon. 2007.06.024

Ananda, J., Herath, G., 2009. Acritical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning. Ecological Economics 68, 2535-2548. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.010

Anonymous, 2003: Ministerial Orders 860 863 on the methodological guidelines applicable for the framework procedures on environment impact assessment. . Official Journal ofRomania, vol. 52/30.01.2003

Anonymous, 2007. Forestry and Forest Industry inRomania: wood sector study. In. Austroprojekt, Agency for Technical Cooperation Ltd.,Vienna, p. 166.

Anonymous, 2008.RomanianForestAct. Official Journal of Romania vol. 238 March 27, 1st section, Anonymous, 2009: Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the SEA Directive (2001/42/EC) European Commission, DG ENV, Final report, April 2009, 153 p.

Arnáez, J., et al. 2004. "Surface runoff and soil erosion on unpaved forest roads from rainfall simulation tests in northeaster Spain." CATENA 57(1): 1-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.catena. 2003.09.002

Colchero, F., et al. 2011. Jaguars on the move: modelling movement to mitigate fragmentation from road expansion in the MayanForest. Animal Conservation 14(2): 158-166. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00406.x

Correa, C. M. C., et al. 2007. Real and estimative erosion through RUSLE from forest roads in two relief conditions and four soils profile. SCIENTIA FORESTALIS 35(76): 57-66.

Coulter, E.D., Coakley, J., Sessions, J., 2006. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Tutorial for Use in PrioritizingForest RoadInvestments to Minimize Environmental Effects. International Journal ofForestEngineering 17, 51-69.

Demir, M., 2007. Impacts, management and functional planning criterion of forest road network system in Turkey. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 41, 56-68. DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2006.05.006

García-Cascales, M. S., & Lamata, M. T. 2012. On rank reversal and TOPSIS method. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 56(5-6), 123–132. DOI: 10.1016/j.mcm.2011.12.022

Gumus, S., 2009. Constitution of the forest road evaluation form for Turkish forestry. African Journal of Biotechnology 8, 5389-5394.

Hayati, E.; Abdi, E.; Majnounian, B. Makhdom, M., 2013: Application of Sensitivity Analysis inForest RoadNetworks Planning and Assessment. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, Volume: 15 (4), pp: 781-792

Kangas, J., Kuusipalo, J., 1993. Integrating biodiversity into forest management planning and decision-making. ForestEcology and Management 61, 1-15. DOI: 10.1016/0378-1127(93) 90186-Q

Kurttila, M., Pesonen, M., Kangas, J., Kajanus, M., 2000. Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis -- a hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case. ForestPolicy and Economics 1, 41-52. DOI: 10.1016/S1389-9341(99)00004-0

Lugo, A.E., Gucinski, H., 2000. Function, effects, and management of forest roads. ForestEcology and Management 133, 249-262. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00237-6

Maleki, H., & Zahir, S. 2013. AComprehensive Literature Review of the Rank Reversal Phenomenon in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 20(3-4), 141–155 DOI: 10.1002/mcda.1479

Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G., O'Neill, J., 1998. Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics. Ecological Economics 26, 277-286. DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00120-1

Mendoza, G.A., Martins, H., 2006. Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: A critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. ForestEcology and Management 230, 1-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.03.023

Miller, G.A., 1957. The magical number of seven plus or minus two: Some limits of our capacity for processing information. Psychological review 63, 81-97. DOI: 10.1037/h0043158

Pérez, J., Jimeno, J., Ethel Mokotoff, 2006. Another potential strong shortcoming of AHP. Top, vol. 14, issue 1, 99-111. DOI: 10.1007/BF02579004

Rafatnia, N.A., O.Abdi, Shataei, J.S., 2006. Determining Proper Method of Preliminary Forecasting of Mountain andForestRoads Using GIS. Iranian Journal ofForestand Poplar Research 14, 244-257.

Rametsteiner, E., Simula, M. 2003. Forestcertification—an instrument to promote sustainable forest management? Journal of Environmental Management, 67(1), 87–98. DOI: 10.1016/ S0301-4797(02)00191-3

Saaty, T., L., 2013: Mathematical Principles of Decision Making. Principia Matematica Decernendi. The Complete Theory of Analytic Hierarchy Process. RWS Publications,Pittsburgh, 154-155.

Saaty, T.L., 1980. The analytic hierarchy process planning, priority setting, resource allocation.McGraw-Hill,New York.

Saaty, T.L., 1994. Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research 74, 426-447. DOI: 10.1016/ 0377-2217(94)90222-4

Saphores, J.-D.M., R.Vincent, J., Marochko, V., Abrudan, I.V., Bouriaud, L., Zinnes, C., 2006. Detecting Collusion in Timber Auctions: An Application toRomania. In, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4105, p. 58.

Šegotić, K., Posavec, S., 2007. AssessingForestValue with the Eigenvector Method. Ekológia 26, 362–370.

Shiba, M., 1995. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)-Based Multi-Attribute Benefit Structure Analysis of Road Network Systems in Mountainous Rural Areas of Japan. International Journal of ForestEngineering; Volume 7, No 1, 41-50. DOI: 10.1080/08435243.1995.10702677

Tam C.M, Tong Thomas K.L, Chiu Gerald, W.C., 2006. Comparing non-structural fuzzy decision support system and analytical hierarchy process in decision-making for construction problem. European Journal of operational Research. 174: p. 1317-1324. DOI: 10.1016/ j.ejor.2005.03. 013

Tadajewski, M., 2009. The Debate That Won't Die? Values Incommensurability, Antagonism and Theory Choice. In, pp. 467-485.

Vacik, H., Lexer, M.J., 2001. Application of a spatial decision support system in managing the protection forests of Viennafor sustained yield of water resources. ForestEcology and Management 143, 65-76. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-1127 (00)00506-5

Wang, Y.-M., & Elhag, T. M. S. 2006. An approach to avoiding rank reversal in AHP. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1474–1480. DOI: 10.1016/j.dss.2005.12.002

Wang, Y.-M., & Luo, Y. 2009. On rank reversal in decision analysis. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 49(5-6), 1221–1229. DOI: 10. 1016/j.mcm.2008.06.019

Winston, W., L., 1994: Operations research: Applications and Algorithms. Duxbury Press International Thomson Publishing, 3rd Edition, 1318 p.

Wolfslehner, B., Vacik, H., Lexer, M.J., 2005. Application of the analytic network process in multi-criteria analysis of sustainable forest management. ForestEcology and Management 207, 157-170. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004. 10.025

Supplementary Data
No metrics available for this article.

Related Articles

Related Authors


In Google Scholar

In Annals of Forest Research

In Google Scholar

  • Marian Drăgoi
  • Ciprian Palaghianu
  • Marius Miron- Onciul
  • Marian Drăgoi
  • Ciprian Palaghianu
  • Marius Miron- Onciul