Table 1. Local weighting (LW)a and global weighting (GW) of SWOT factors of NIFMS transfer to Karelia (the factors are ranked in decreasing order from highest to lowest weightings with respect to each SWOT group, the factor with the higher weighting is located above others) (CR is the consistency index per SWOT group)b.
Strengths (CR = 0.060) LW GW Weaknesses (CR = 0.059) LW GW
Improving productivity and quality of timber 0.292 0.116 Slow return on investments 0.342 0.059
Support for principles of sustained yield 0.262 0.104 High cost for young forest thinning 0.185 0.032
Better forest road network 0.120 0.048 Low market demand for energy wood 0.184 0.032
Contribution to municipal and regional economy 0.119 0.047 High demand for skilled specialists 0.169 0.029
Employment development 0.116 0.046 Lack of investments in R&D 0.120 0.021
Improving forest health and fire control 0.091 0.036
Opportunities (CR = 0.064) LW GW Threats (CR = 0.071) LW GW
High potential of forest resource 0.308 0.055 Unprepared regulatory environment 0.311 0.077
Proven Nordic expertise 0.221 0.040 Insecurity of private investments 0.185 0.046
Authority programs for forest sector development 0.196 0.035 Low forest road density and quality 0.160 0.040
Wood-based energy development 0.145 0.026 Low profitability in forestry 0.101 0.025
Availability of new technology 0.129 0.023 High investment cost 0.088 0.022
Negative attitude to intensive forestry 0.082 0.021
Forest degradation 0.072 0.018
a The group priority was calculated as following: Strengths 0.398; Weaknesses 0.174; Opportunities 0.180; Threats 0.249.
b The consistency ratio (CR) of the comparisons between four SWOT groups was 0.043.
1

Fig. 1. Descriptive statistics for local weightings (LW) for strengths by respondent group obtained with the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) procedure.

2

Fig. 2. Descriptive statistics for local weightings (LW) for weaknesses by respondent group obtained with the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) procedure.

3

Fig. 3. Descriptive statistics for local weightings (LW) for opportunities by respondent group obtained with the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) procedure.

4

Fig. 4. Descriptive statistics for local weightings (LW) for threats by respondent group obtained with the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) procedure.

5

Fig. 5. Descriptive statistics for local weightings (LW) for the SWOT groups by respondent group obtained with the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) procedure.

6

Fig. 6. Graphical interpretation of the global priorities for factors with respect to each SWOT group (the higher the priority, the outermost the point).