This paper introduces the concept of complementary use of voting methods and interactive utility analysis (IUA) in strategic natural resource planning in western Finland as organized by Metsähallitus. The voting and IUA methods were used by three working groups, the aim in using these methods being to support the working groups in formulating their decision proposals for Metsähallitus. Ordinal preference information was collected by using the voting methods, whereas the IUA method defined the participants’ preferences by using the interval scale. In all the three working groups, four out of seven alternatives shared the first place in ranking when applying the voting methods, and one alternative was priorized over the other alternatives when using the IUA method. The stakeholders’ feedback indicated that the methods used were not too difficult to use and understand. The IUA method was especially efficient in promoting the participants’ learning process, which as a consequence made formulation of the decision proposal easier for them. It was also noticed that the standard versions of the voting methods do not necessarily fulfill the needs of decision support in strategic natural resource planning as such. Instead, complementary use with more profound methods (e.g., IUA) may be needed.
Normalisation of Confidence Voting Methods Applied to a Fast Handwritten OCR Classification
