The Library
Democratising forest management : applying multiwinner approval voting to tree selection
Tools
Tools
Tools
Pommerening, Arne, Brill, Markus, Schmidt-Kraepelin, Ulrike and Haufe, Jens (2020) Democratising forest management : applying multiwinner approval voting to tree selection. Forest Ecology and Management, 478 . 118509. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118509 ISSN 0378-1127.
|
PDF
1-s2.0-S0378112720312780-main.pdf - Published Version - Requires a PDF viewer. Available under License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. Download (1126Kb) | Preview |
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118509
Abstract
Climate change, biodiversity losses, global health threats, changing recreation patterns are but a few of the many challenges that currently, and for some time to come, the world has to cope with. To address these challenges and to mitigate some of them, ecosystem and particularly conservation management increasingly have to adopt strategies never considered before. One such new possibility is crowdsourcing, a variant of public consultation, where a number of experts are invited and, for example, asked to mark trees that – in their opinion – should be removed in order to improve or restore a forest ecosystem. This type of crowdsourcing has recently been carried out in many European countries and overseas as part of what commonly is referred to as marteloscope. In this paper, we addressed the question of how the rating or voting of such a crowd of experts is best aggregated to obtain one final, consolidated list of trees to be evicted. Standard approval voting often leads to a domination by the majority of voters and important contributions by minority experts are largely ignored. To avoid this and to better represent the pluralism of expertise and opinions in matters, where currently no best-practice guidelines exist, we analysed the effects of three proportional multiwinner rules used in political science by applying them to 50 marteloscope experiments in Great Britain. Our results indicated that proportional rules – particularly in situations where the invited expert markers disagree – achieved a better representation of different opinions than standard approval voting. Proportional rules also act as a safety mechanism reducing risks when the majority decisions prove inappropriate and as a consequence forest development could completely go astray.
| Item Type: | Journal Article | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subjects: | S Agriculture > SD Forestry | ||||||||
| Divisions: | Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Science > Computer Science | ||||||||
| Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): | Forest conservation, Forest biodiversity conservation, Forest management, Forest ecology, Crowdsourcing | ||||||||
| Journal or Publication Title: | Forest Ecology and Management | ||||||||
| Publisher: | Elsevier Science BV | ||||||||
| ISSN: | 0378-1127 | ||||||||
| Official Date: | 15 December 2020 | ||||||||
| Dates: |
|
||||||||
| Volume: | 478 | ||||||||
| Article Number: | 118509 | ||||||||
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118509 | ||||||||
| Status: | Peer Reviewed | ||||||||
| Publication Status: | Published | ||||||||
| Access rights to Published version: | Open Access (Creative Commons) | ||||||||
| Date of first compliant deposit: | 2 November 2022 | ||||||||
| Date of first compliant Open Access: | 2 November 2022 | ||||||||
| RIOXX Funder/Project Grant: |
|
||||||||
| Is Part Of: | 1 |
Request changes or add full text files to a record
Repository staff actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
Downloads
Downloads per month over past year
