Turkish Journal of Forestry (Sep 2021)
Prioritization of forest cadastre commissions by a multi-criteria approach according to their performances
Abstract
Determining the working performances and priorities of forest cadastre commissions with a multi-criteria approach will contribute to increase the efficiency of forest cadastre activities. This study was handled in order to determine the priorities of forest cadastre commissions in the Bartın province according to their performance by the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique. The study was conducted on 9 forest cadastre commissions working in the Bartın province borders in 2017. Some of the research data were obtained through the questionnaires and information collection forms conducted on the Advisory Group members consisting of 16 people by face-to-face interviews. Some of them were obtained from the records of the related forest cadastre commissions. The data obtained were evaluated by the AHP technique and the priority values and ranks of the forest cadastre commissions were determined according to their performances with a multi-criteria and objective approach based on expert opinions. In the study, performance constraints (partial service purchase, full service purchase, lack of chairman or member, proxy to another commission, site-based work) were developed in order to equalize the working conditions of forest cadastre commissions and their correction coefficients were calculated. The performances of forest cadastre commissions were evaluated using the six criteria developed (the number of declared units, total forest area, 2/B parcel number, 2/B parcel area, number of measured points, working precision) and ranked according to their priorities by the AHP technique. In the study, the weights of performance criteria were respectively; working precision (0.5380), number of measured points (0.1353), 2/B parcel number (0.1083), 2/B parcel area (0.0774), number of declared units (0.0740) and total forest area (0.0671). Within the framework of these criteria and weights, it was determined that the best performing commission was the E Forest Cadastre Commission and the lowest performing commission was the G Forest Cadastre Commission. According to the results of the research, some suggestions were developed to increase the performance of forest cadastre commissions.
Keywords
