The objectives of this research are threefold: (i) to develop a conceptual framework and a prototype in order to extend the application capability of a category of multiple objective decision support systems (MODSS) techniques; (ii) to explore the combined functionalities of knowledge-based expert systems (ES) and MODSS through embedding an intelligent front-end, and (iii) to develop a new system and process of dealing with multiple objective decision making (MODM) models in a group decision support system (GDSS) framework. Ultimately, a system that integrates MODSS, ES and GDSS is generated, which is then evaluated in a laboratory experimental setup. This integrated system contains a sufficient number of MODM methods to solve MODM problems, provides an ES-based guide to select and use the most suitable MODM method, and has the capability to aggregate individual decision makers' preferences to produce a compromise solution of an MODM problem in different forms and styles of group meetings. The system is supported by a set of group decision making (GDM) methods which combine the preferences of the individual group members and thus increases the confidence of each group member in the compromise solution.The research is conducted using a multiple-methodologies approach using the system development methodology as the backbone. The conceptual framework of the integrated system is elaborated to integrate multiple system elements into one facility at the application system level based on functional and resource integration. A prototype implements this conceptual framework as an intelligence-based and graphical user interface (GUI)-based MODSS that works in an individual/group environment. Both the conceptual framework and the prototype are called Intelligent Multiple Objectives Group Decision Support Systems (IMOGDSS).Initial evaluation of the IMOGDSS is encouraging, which ++ / is conducted in the form of testing a number of hypotheses in an experimental setup. This research thus makes contributions in both theoretical and application domains. Five major contributions are listed below:It develops a unique conceptual framework of integrating MODSS, ES and GDSS effectively to deal with MODM problem in individual/group decision making under a knowledge-based intelligent architecture.It provides a new application of ES, that is, utilising knowledge-based ES to select the most efficient MODM method for each particular decision maker (or decision group) in a particular decision problem.The complete method management function of the MODM methodology base guides the decision makers to use the most suitable method to solve their decision making problems, allows them to use multiple methods to resolve complex problems, that could not otherwise be solved with a single MODM, and also allows the group members to get solutions from different methods.This study produces an opportunity to select and apply the 'best' aggregation model to aggregate the individual solutions of an MODM problem through integrating various GDM methods in a methodology base.This study implements a two-stage configuration of group decision support software that provides a GUI-based hierarchical procedure for solving MODM problems with intelligent guidance in a decision group. The two-stage group decision making procedure is able to help the decision makers to analyse, understand and interact cooperatively in the group decision making process to reach a compromise solution.

Abstract This thesis presents innovative applications of Multi-Objective Decision Support Systems (MODSS) to forestry decision support. New MODSS methodologies were developed to assess and evaluate forestry practices and finance regimes. The assessment of forestry investments draw on case studies conducted in the Hodgson Creek catchment on the Darling Downs in south Queensland and on the Atherton Tablelands in north Queensland, Australia. MODSS are systems that aid decision-making, in which a set of alternative management options are evaluated against a set of decision criteria. The criteria, that represent the stakeholders’ goals and objectives, are weighted to reflect stakeholder preferences regarding their relative importance. The weighted criteria scores are then aggregated to create an overall measure of option performance. In the first case study, MODSS procedures identified from the literature as being most suitable to forestry and the MODSS software package DEFINITE was used. After a critical review of the first study, a new MODSS was developed to address the particular needs of forestry evaluations and the weaknesses of current MODSS for addressing these needs. Limitations of the Hodgson Creek MODSS included lack of stakeholder engagement in the MODSS development process, inefficient use of the stakeholder time and an excessive work load on the experts in the scoring process. The new MODSS development process included the combined use of weighted sum and Electré aggregation methods, these being compensatory and non-compensatory aggregation methods. This combination of aggregation methods provided a measure of overall option performance and identified the presence of fatal flaws in the options. Various criteria weighting methods were trialled – including rank order methods, the analytical hierarchy process and direct assessments – to assess their utility for defining weights that reflected stakeholder priorities. A new hybrid weighting technique was developed using a combination of rank order methods and direct assessments. A new and innovative process for scoring options and criteria was developed, using an adaption of the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) in conjunction with a new computer-based Group Decision Support System (GDSS). This iterative process involved repeated rounds of individual scoring and group discussions. In the workshop conducted to elicit scores from experts, the GDSS was used to identify criteria where the elicited scores differed and discussions were focused on these criteria. After the discussions the options were rescored against the criteria and discussed further. This analysis was innovative in that uncertainty around the individual option scores was addressed for the first time using MODSS. This new application was developed in a spreadsheet using the risk analysis package @RISK. Evaluations of forestry options were undertaken at various time scales to address the long delay between incurring costs of tree planting and receiving returns from harvest. The various time scales identify the periods in which environmental and social benefits occurred as the trees grow and the economic benefits occurred at clearfell (or selective) harvest. This thesis specifically focuses on situations where measured and modelled data is not available, and seeks to increase the scientific rigour of the use of expert and stakeholder opinion in MODSS. The MODSS analyses revealed that forestry in the case study areas had the potential to offer considerable economic, environmental and social benefits to both landholders and the wider community. However, these benefits (and the associated costs) were not viewed as equally important. The MODSS developed in this study addressed these concerns. The benefits and costs of an option were reflected in its performance against the criteria. The degree of importance of the individual criteria varied from minor to high and overriding all other considerations. Criteria against which an option performed highly (the option’s strengths) were identified, as were criteria against which an option performed poorly (the option’s weaknesses). When these weaknesses occurred in highly important criteria, these were identified as fatal flaws in the option. The first case study in the Hodgson Creek catchment considered eight forestry options against 17 economic criteria, 12 environmental criteria and 12 social criteria. The second case study on the Atherton Tablelands considered 16 forestry options against eight economic criteria, six environmental criteria and five social criteria. The MODSS analysis identified the most preferred forestry options and the strengths and weaknesses of the options. In both case studies the most preferred options were large or medium-sized plantations with monoculture plantings with an element of non-landholder funding, in the form of government funding, joint ventures or land leasing agreements. These options had the highest performance against the economic criteria at all time scales and satisfactory environmental and social performance. Other forestry options that performed well included plantings focused on under-utilised land areas and salinity prevention areas, agroforestry, and selective harvesting of private native forest. These options generally had a higher level of performance against the social and environmental criteria, but lower levels of performance against economic criteria. These plantings would be undertaken for environmental and social reasons and not for financial returns. The application of MODSS developed in this thesis presents a significant scientific contribution to MODSS methodology. This thesis includes: the use of multiple time-periods to address the temporal differences in the delivery of benefits and costs, the use of NGT and a GDSS to provide a process for rapidly eliciting expert opinion, and the use of the combination of Electré and weighted sum aggregation methods to provide an overall measure of option performance and to identify fatal flaws in the options.

Abstract This thesis presents innovative applications of Multi-Objective Decision Support Systems (MODSS) to forestry decision support. New MODSS methodologies were developed to assess and evaluate forestry practices and finance regimes. The assessment of forestry investments draw on case studies conducted in the Hodgson Creek catchment on the Darling Downs in south Queensland and on the Atherton Tablelands in north Queensland, Australia. MODSS are systems that aid decision-making, in which a set of alternative management options are evaluated against a set of decision criteria. The criteria, that represent the stakeholders’ goals and objectives, are weighted to reflect stakeholder preferences regarding their relative importance. The weighted criteria scores are then aggregated to create an overall measure of option performance. In the first case study, MODSS procedures identified from the literature as being most suitable to forestry and the MODSS software package DEFINITE was used. After a critical review of the first study, a new MODSS was developed to address the particular needs of forestry evaluations and the weaknesses of current MODSS for addressing these needs. Limitations of the Hodgson Creek MODSS included lack of stakeholder engagement in the MODSS development process, inefficient use of the stakeholder time and an excessive work load on the experts in the scoring process. The new MODSS development process included the combined use of weighted sum and Electré aggregation methods, these being compensatory and non-compensatory aggregation methods. This combination of aggregation methods provided a measure of overall option performance and identified the presence of fatal flaws in the options. Various criteria weighting methods were trialled – including rank order methods, the analytical hierarchy process and direct assessments – to assess their utility for defining weights that reflected stakeholder priorities. A new hybrid weighting technique was developed using a combination of rank order methods and direct assessments. A new and innovative process for scoring options and criteria was developed, using an adaption of the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) in conjunction with a new computer-based Group Decision Support System (GDSS). This iterative process involved repeated rounds of individual scoring and group discussions. In the workshop conducted to elicit scores from experts, the GDSS was used to identify criteria where the elicited scores differed and discussions were focused on these criteria. After the discussions the options were rescored against the criteria and discussed further. This analysis was innovative in that uncertainty around the individual option scores was addressed for the first time using MODSS. This new application was developed in a spreadsheet using the risk analysis package @RISK. Evaluations of forestry options were undertaken at various time scales to address the long delay between incurring costs of tree planting and receiving returns from harvest. The various time scales identify the periods in which environmental and social benefits occurred as the trees grow and the economic benefits occurred at clearfell (or selective) harvest. This thesis specifically focuses on situations where measured and modelled data is not available, and seeks to increase the scientific rigour of the use of expert and stakeholder opinion in MODSS. The MODSS analyses revealed that forestry in the case study areas had the potential to offer considerable economic, environmental and social benefits to both landholders and the wider community. However, these benefits (and the associated costs) were not viewed as equally important. The MODSS developed in this study addressed these concerns. The benefits and costs of an option were reflected in its performance against the criteria. The degree of importance of the individual criteria varied from minor to high and overriding all other considerations. Criteria against which an option performed highly (the option’s strengths) were identified, as were criteria against which an option performed poorly (the option’s weaknesses). When these weaknesses occurred in highly important criteria, these were identified as fatal flaws in the option. The first case study in the Hodgson Creek catchment considered eight forestry options against 17 economic criteria, 12 environmental criteria and 12 social criteria. The second case study on the Atherton Tablelands considered 16 forestry options against eight economic criteria, six environmental criteria and five social criteria. The MODSS analysis identified the most preferred forestry options and the strengths and weaknesses of the options. In both case studies the most preferred options were large or medium-sized plantations with monoculture plantings with an element of non-landholder funding, in the form of government funding, joint ventures or land leasing agreements. These options had the highest performance against the economic criteria at all time scales and satisfactory environmental and social performance. Other forestry options that performed well included plantings focused on under-utilised land areas and salinity prevention areas, agroforestry, and selective harvesting of private native forest. These options generally had a higher level of performance against the social and environmental criteria, but lower levels of performance against economic criteria. These plantings would be undertaken for environmental and social reasons and not for financial returns. The application of MODSS developed in this thesis presents a significant scientific contribution to MODSS methodology. This thesis includes: the use of multiple time-periods to address the temporal differences in the delivery of benefits and costs, the use of NGT and a GDSS to provide a process for rapidly eliciting expert opinion, and the use of the combination of Electré and weighted sum aggregation methods to provide an overall measure of option performance and to identify fatal flaws in the options.

Abstract This thesis presents innovative applications of Multi-Objective Decision Support Systems (MODSS) to forestry decision support. New MODSS methodologies were developed to assess and evaluate forestry practices and finance regimes. The assessment of forestry investments draw on case studies conducted in the Hodgson Creek catchment on the Darling Downs in south Queensland and on the Atherton Tablelands in north Queensland, Australia. MODSS are systems that aid decision-making, in which a set of alternative management options are evaluated against a set of decision criteria. The criteria, that represent the stakeholders’ goals and objectives, are weighted to reflect stakeholder preferences regarding their relative importance. The weighted criteria scores are then aggregated to create an overall measure of option performance. In the first case study, MODSS procedures identified from the literature as being most suitable to forestry and the MODSS software package DEFINITE was used. After a critical review of the first study, a new MODSS was developed to address the particular needs of forestry evaluations and the weaknesses of current MODSS for addressing these needs. Limitations of the Hodgson Creek MODSS included lack of stakeholder engagement in the MODSS development process, inefficient use of the stakeholder time and an excessive work load on the experts in the scoring process. The new MODSS development process included the combined use of weighted sum and Electré aggregation methods, these being compensatory and non-compensatory aggregation methods. This combination of aggregation methods provided a measure of overall option performance and identified the presence of fatal flaws in the options. Various criteria weighting methods were trialled – including rank order methods, the analytical hierarchy process and direct assessments – to assess their utility for defining weights that reflected stakeholder priorities. A new hybrid weighting technique was developed using a combination of rank order methods and direct assessments. A new and innovative process for scoring options and criteria was developed, using an adaption of the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) in conjunction with a new computer-based Group Decision Support System (GDSS). This iterative process involved repeated rounds of individual scoring and group discussions. In the workshop conducted to elicit scores from experts, the GDSS was used to identify criteria where the elicited scores differed and discussions were focused on these criteria. After the discussions the options were rescored against the criteria and discussed further. This analysis was innovative in that uncertainty around the individual option scores was addressed for the first time using MODSS. This new application was developed in a spreadsheet using the risk analysis package @RISK. Evaluations of forestry options were undertaken at various time scales to address the long delay between incurring costs of tree planting and receiving returns from harvest. The various time scales identify the periods in which environmental and social benefits occurred as the trees grow and the economic benefits occurred at clearfell (or selective) harvest. This thesis specifically focuses on situations where measured and modelled data is not available, and seeks to increase the scientific rigour of the use of expert and stakeholder opinion in MODSS. The MODSS analyses revealed that forestry in the case study areas had the potential to offer considerable economic, environmental and social benefits to both landholders and the wider community. However, these benefits (and the associated costs) were not viewed as equally important. The MODSS developed in this study addressed these concerns. The benefits and costs of an option were reflected in its performance against the criteria. The degree of importance of the individual criteria varied from minor to high and overriding all other considerations. Criteria against which an option performed highly (the option’s strengths) were identified, as were criteria against which an option performed poorly (the option’s weaknesses). When these weaknesses occurred in highly important criteria, these were identified as fatal flaws in the option. The first case study in the Hodgson Creek catchment considered eight forestry options against 17 economic criteria, 12 environmental criteria and 12 social criteria. The second case study on the Atherton Tablelands considered 16 forestry options against eight economic criteria, six environmental criteria and five social criteria. The MODSS analysis identified the most preferred forestry options and the strengths and weaknesses of the options. In both case studies the most preferred options were large or medium-sized plantations with monoculture plantings with an element of non-landholder funding, in the form of government funding, joint ventures or land leasing agreements. These options had the highest performance against the economic criteria at all time scales and satisfactory environmental and social performance. Other forestry options that performed well included plantings focused on under-utilised land areas and salinity prevention areas, agroforestry, and selective harvesting of private native forest. These options generally had a higher level of performance against the social and environmental criteria, but lower levels of performance against economic criteria. These plantings would be undertaken for environmental and social reasons and not for financial returns. The application of MODSS developed in this thesis presents a significant scientific contribution to MODSS methodology. This thesis includes: the use of multiple time-periods to address the temporal differences in the delivery of benefits and costs, the use of NGT and a GDSS to provide a process for rapidly eliciting expert opinion, and the use of the combination of Electré and weighted sum aggregation methods to provide an overall measure of option performance and to identify fatal flaws in the options.