library.gito.de


WI2020
2020

Blockchain-based Governance for Social Welfare in the Forestry

Sven Willrich, Tim Straub, Christof Weinhardt

FZI Research Center for Information Technology, Karlsruhe/Berlin, Germany, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany


✉ Kontakt zum Autor

https://doi.org/10.30844/wi_2020_x5-willrich

While the future must be aligned more ecologically, different intensive challenges arise for the society. We exemplify these challenges by the multi objectives of a forest, since it offers renewable resources, conserves biodiversity, acts as a carbon sink, and provides recreational functions in a simultaneous manner. We approach the forest management problem (FMP) by using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) with diverging stakeholder preferences as input and social welfare across participating stakeholders as output. To reach social welfare, we focus on mechanism design to gather truthful stakeholder valuations. Hence, this research in progress presents an instantiation of the participatory MCDA in the context of forestry. The research objective is to examine how distributed ledger technologies (DLT) can help to implement the mechanism and to coordinate the participatory MCDA transparently and securely.

Keywords: Blockchain, Forest Management, Social Welfare, MCDA, Governance


1. Dieterich, V.: Forstwirtschaftspolitik, eine Einführung. , Berlin (1953).
2. Ananda, J., Herath, G.: Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: A value function approach, (2003).
3. Ananda, J., Herath, G.: Ananda, Herath - 2009 - A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and plan.pdf, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800909002201, (2009).
4. Guyot, S.: The Instrumentalization of Participatory Management in Protected Areas: The ethnicization of participation in the Kolla-Atacameña Region of the Central Andes of Argentina and Chile. J. Lat. Am. Geogr. (2012).
5. Reed, M.S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C., Quinn, C.H., Stringer, L.C.: Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J. Environ. Manage. (2009).
6. Tanz, J.S., Howard, A.F.: Meaningful public participation in the planning and management of publicly owned forests. For. Chron. 67, 125–130 (1991).
7. Kangas, J., Kangas, A.: Multiple criteria decision support in forest management - The approach, methods applied, and experiences gained. In: Forest Ecology and Management. pp. 133–143 (2005).
8. Matsatsinis, N.F., Samaras, A.P.: MCDA and preference disaggregation in Group Decision Support Systems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 130, 414–429 (2001).
9. Kangas, J.: An approach to public participation in strategic forest management planning. For. Ecol. Manage. 70, 75–88 (1994).
10. Narahari: Game Theory and Mechanism Design. (2013).
11. Osgood, R.: The Future of Democracy: Blockchain Voting. In: COMP116: Information Security. pp. 1–21 (2016).
12. Jentzsch, C.: Decentralized Autonomous Organization to Automate Governance. white Pap. (2016).
13. Beck, R., Stenum Czepluch, J., Lollike, N.N., Malone, S., Czepluch, S., Lollike, N.N., Malone, S., Stenum Czepluch, J., Lollike, N.N., Malone, S.: Blockchain - The Gateway to trust-free cryptographic Transactions. In: Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) (2016).
14. Böhme, R., Christin, N., Edelman, B., Moore, T.: Bitcoin: Economics, Technology, and Governance. J. Econ. Perspect. 29, 213–238 (2015).
15. Blinded For Review I.
16. Blinded For Review II.
17. Offermann, P., Levina, O., Schönherr, M., Bub, U.: Outline of a design science research process. 1 (2009).
18. Meurs, M.: Understanding Institutional Diversity. Comp. Econ. Stud. 49, 482–484 (2007).
19. Hanewinkel, M.: Multifunktionalität des Waldes. Forum für Wissen. 7–14 (2011).
20. Steiner, M., Meißner, M.: A User’s Guide to the Galaxy of Conjoint Analysis and Compositional Preference Measurement. Mark. ZFP. 40, 3–25 (2018).
21. Lönnstedt, L.: Goals and cutting decisions of private small forest owners. Scand. J. For. Res. 4, 259–265 (1989).
22. UNIQUE forestry and land use GmbH: Leitfaden Waldneuordnung 2020. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. 104 (2018).
23. Muth, R., Eisenhut, K., Rabe, J., Tschorsch, F.: BBBlockchain: Blockchain-Cased Participation in Urban Development, https://bbblockchain.de/wpcontent/ uploads/2019/07/BBBlockchain.pdf.
24. Csapó, G.: Mechanism Design for Public Goods , Exclusive Private Goods and Subcontracting. 163 (2015).
25. Moldoveanu, M., Martin, R.: Agency theory and the design of efficient governance mechanisms. Rotman Sch. Manag. Toronto. 1–57 (2001).
26. Bodegom, A. van, Klaver, D., Schoubroeck, F. van: FLEGT beyond T: exploring the meaning of’Governance’concepts for the FLEGT process. (2008).
27. Butler, J.K.: Behaviors, Trust, and Goal Achievement in a Win-Win Negotiating Role Play. Gr. Organ. Manag. 20, 486–501 (1995).
28. Beck, R., Müller-Bloch, C., King, J.L.: Governance in the Blockchain Economy: A Framework and Research Agenda. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 19, 1020–1034 (2018).
29. Wood, G.: Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger, https://ethereum.github.io/yellowpaper/paper.pdf, (2014).
30. Kalodner, H., Carlsten, M., Ellenbogen, P., Bonneau, J., Narayanan, A.: An empirical study of Namecoin and lessons for decentralized namespace design. 14th Annu. Work. Econ. Inf. Secur. (2015).

 

Beitrag herunterladen