Mixing methods - assessment of potential benefits for natural resources planning

Multi-objective forest planning is a multi-methodological endeavor whose success largely depends on how well the combined use of different methods contributes to the goals of the planning. This review assessed the benefits of mixing methods in natural resources planning. A sample of 30 peer-reviewed research articles was analyzed using an evaluation framework, designed based on democracy and planning theories, and participatory planning literature, including four dimensions: transparency, flexibility, consensus building, and operability. According to analyses, mixing different types (i.e. qualitative and quantitative) of methods generally yields greater benefits than the combination of similar methods. The subsample of 12 planning cases that utilized simulation-optimization software (SOS) appeared operable and moderately transparent, whereas flexibility and consensus building were often lacking. In comparison to the wide scholarly discussion on multi-methodology and mixing methods, it was observed that successful mixing examples in natural resource planning are still scarce and there are weaknesses in bridging the methods together. There is an evident need to pursue and to better communicate the benefits of mixing. Some good mixing examples utilizing SOS provided evidence that forest planning processes would make an excellent venue for studying the benefits and caveats of using mixed methods.