Environmental Modelling and Software 147 (2022) 105233

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Modelling and Software

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsoft

Comparative study of fuzzy-AHP and BBN for spatially-explicit prediction

of bark beetle predisposition
Meryem Tahri a, *, Jan Kašpar a, Anders L. Madsen b, c, Roman Modlinger a, Khodabakhsh Zabihi a,
Róbert Marušák a, Harald Vacik d
a
Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague (CZU), Kamýcká 129, 16500 Praha 6, Suchdol, Czech Republic
b
HUGIN EXPERT A/S, Gasværksvej 5, 9000, Aalborg, Denmark
c
Department of Computer Science, Aalborg University (AAU), Selma Lagerlof Vej 300, 9220, Aalborg, Denmark
d
Institute of Silviculture, Department of Forest and Soil Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Peter Jordan Str. 82, 1190, Vienna, Austria

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The European spruce bark beetle ‘Ips typographus L.’ is the most serious disturbance agent for European forests.
Forest pest management The complex interactions of many influencing factors need to be integrated into a model-based decision-support
Bark beetle system to reduce the potential loss of forests. This paper compares two methodological approaches for spatially-
Outbreak disturbance
explicit prediction of the predisposition for bark beetle infestations. The fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and the
Fuzzy-AHP
BBN
Bayesian belief networks were used in combination with a geographical information system to manage un­
GIS certainties. Using available data resources, the two approaches were evaluated to produce robust results for
forest practitioners and to support measures to minimize the spread of bark beetles. The findings revealed that
nearly 32% of the sites investigated in a case study were moderately-high or high risk categories. It is concluded
that BBN is more efficient. Both methods can easily be used to analyze environmental problems involving
complex interactions among various criteria.

1. Introduction
Bark beetle (I. typographus L.) infestations have been steadily
increasing over recent decades, and insect diseases and climate change
are expected to damage about one million hectares of European forest in
the near future (Seidl et al., 2014; Augustynczik et al., 2021). Droughts
and the general rise in global temperature have triggered insect out­
breaks and mortality of the Norway spruce species (Pureswaran et al.,
2018; Jactel et al., 2019), as well as impacting the ecology, threatening
recreational activities and impacting the timber industry (Kunegel-Lion
and Lewis, 2020b; Hlásny et al., 2019). In the Czech Republic, the
annual loss of Norway spruce growing stock through bark beetle attacks
is around 3.1%–5.4% for the period 2017–2019 (Hlásny et al., 2021).
The environmental and ecological pressures (i.e. climatic changes,
acceleration of bark beetle spread, dramatic decline of the Norway
spruce species), and related economic losses are important drivers for
adaptive forest management (Biedermann et al., 2019; Hlásny et al.,
2021). Forest management requires a rational planning process to
reduce the uncertainty involved in choosing between alternatives (Seidl
et al., 2017). Understanding this complex and dynamic environment and
identifying relevant factors can help minimize the risks and uncertainty;
the use of modern planning methods and low-cost access to advanced
geospatial technologies in particular can support short and long-term
strategic forest planning (Tahri et al., 2021).
In this context, there has been a rapid rise in demand from forest
practitioners for support in decision-making based on the most recent
findings in forest science (Vacik and Lexer, 2014). Forest managers have
to take the essential measures to avoid damage to trees in the future,
which requires a good understanding of the disturbance regimes. The
available human and financial resources can then be directed towards
protecting the forests with a better chance of protecting the landscape in
the future. One of the challenges facing forest managers is the early
detection of potential disturbance agents and adopting the relevant
strategies to overcome them (Kunegel-Lion and Lewis, 2020a).
Various statistical methods, predictive models and expert systems
have been applied to detect and prevent outbreaks of bark beetle
(Netherer and Nopp-Mayr, 2005; Pasztor et al., 2014), including
multi-criteria analysis methods, machine learning algorithms and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tahri@fld.czu.cz (M. Tahri).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105233
Received 1 April 2021; Received in revised form 13 October 2021; Accepted 22 October 2021
Available online 28 October 2021
1364-8152/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Tahri et al.
remote sensing (Bright et al., 2020; Valdez Vasquez et al., 2020; Hollaus
and Vreugdenhil, 2019; Radl et al., 2018; Seidl et al., 2016). Under­
standing the inter-dependencies of forest disturbance agents and
involving different stakeholders in decision making considering spatial
and temporal aspects of bark beetle outbreaks is challenging. Many
studies have highlighted the need for an integrated model combining the
methodological advantages of different techniques (Tahri et al., 2020).
In this context, the use of Bayesian Belief Networks (BBN) and/or fuzzy
Analytic Hierarchy Process (fuzzy-AHP) techniques has been recently
proposed in the fields of environmental and industrial problems (Ar
et al., 2020; Shao et al., 2020). Fuzzy-AHP and BBN are well known for
their strengths in dealing with uncertainties and have proven to be
robust in solving complex decision-planning problems (Malczewski and
Rinner, 2015; Shao et al., 2020).
Radl et al. (2018) studied storm and bark beetle agent disturbances
in mountain forests at stand scale applying a BBN, including bark beetle
damages as a sub-model, to predict the number of damaged trees. It has
been evidenced that an understanding of Bayesian statistics is required
for probabilistic analysis (Kokolakis, 2010), and deterministic analysis is
useful in many applications. Several fuzzy-AHP technique studies have
proved to be useful in identifying risk areas (e.g. disasters and hazards)
for management planning (Yariyan et al., 2020; Lyu et al., 2020; Roy
and Saha, 2019; Haidara et al., 2019; Eskandari, 2017); these studies
indicate that they are reliably accurate when compared to ground truth,
and could provide a useful framework for other case studies. The tech­
niques involve different mathematical theories and require different
input data. BBN is based on the probabilistic interpretation of certain
factors as a directed acyclic graph (network process), which can provide
insight into conditional dependence and independence relations be­
tween variables by hypothetical observation (Pearl, 1988, 2009). Expert
knowledge is used in conjunction with empirical data in the graphical
model. Fuzzy-AHP is based on pairwise comparisons as a deterministic
matrix from expert perception only (Saaty, 1987; Emrouznejad and Ho,
2017). However, understanding of the effectiveness of such methods
remains limited and no formalized comparison between approaches
using fuzzy-AHP and BBN combined with GIS (Geographical informa­
tion system) has been carried out.
Our aim is therefore to compare the fuzzy-AHP and BBN approaches
to identify the probability of a forest stand being infested by Ips typog­
raphus L. To address the issues of intensified tree mortality with bark
beetle infestation, two model-based techniques are proposed for forest
practitioners, to reduce the uncertainty related to the future manage­
ment of the forests under changing environmental conditions (Kjærulff
and Madsen, 2008). We will demonstrate that the fuzzy-AHP and BBN
approach can be designed to help decision-makers in managing ambi­
guity on different temporal and spatial scales regarding bark beetle
outbreaks.
With this contribution we (i) introduce a combination of fuzzy-AHP
and BBN techniques with GIS to predict spatially explicit vulnerability to
bark beetle infestations and (ii) compare the characteristics and results
of the two methodological approaches for a case study in the Czech
Republic to identify the advantages and drawbacks for each method. The
fuzzy-AHP model is used to estimate the importance of the predisposi­
tion criteria for Ips typographus L. following the procedure described in
Tahri et al. (2017). The structure of the probabilistic network of the BBN
is set up comparatively to the fuzzy-AHP model following the recom­
mendations of Radl et al. (2018). A geographical information system is
used to map the estimated probability of bark beetle damages for both
models based on national-scale input data for the Czech Republic. The
approach proposed may help stakeholders gain a better understanding
of the relevance of a large set of spatially-explicit prediction parameters
and support the design of prevention measures within a short time
frame.
2
Environmental Modelling and Software 147 (2022) 105233
2. Material and methods
2.1. Criteria for assessing predisposition to bark beetle infestation
The selection of criteria for evaluating the predisposition of forest
stands to bark beetle infestation was based on a literature review and
inputs provided through an online panel discussion. For the panel dis­
cussion, online questionnaires were developed with input from forest
entomology and forest ecology experts. In total, eight criteria were
considered as important for predicting the predisposition: proportion of
Norway spruce (% of basal area); stand age (average years); drought
(categories); precipitation (mm/year); mean annual temperature ( C/
year); solar radiation (watt hours/m2); altitude (meters above sea level)
and soil type (different edaphic factor categories). The list of criteria is in
line with many studies related to the assessment of forest data and site
information as predisposing factors for I. typographus L. outbreaks (e.g.
Netherer and Nopp-Mayr (2005); Pasztor et al. (2014); Hlásny et al.
(2021). A web-based survey was designed to derive estimates for the
importance of the evaluation criteria in a pairwise comparison matrix.
Feedback provided via the online portal by the researchers involved in
the survey was also analyzed. The relation of the relevant criteria is
shown in the visualization of the Bayesian network diagram in Fig. 1.
2.2. Bayesian Belief Networks and GIS
BBN have been used in many different fields from medical science
(McLachlan et al., 2020; Hepler et al., 2019; Wang et al., 1999) to
environmental sciences (Roostaei et al., 2021; Baldock et al., 2019). The
latest literature review illustrates the emerging number of tools and
practices developed (De Iuliis et al., 2021; Zhang and Mahadevan, 2021;
Landuyt et al., 2015). In our study the causal influence of the identified
predisposition variables on the potential I. typographus L. outbreaks for
each stand is defined on a regional scale. The aim is to identify whether
or not a specific stand can be infested by the various Xc (child) consid­
ered as variable. A survey was carried out among researchers and senior
consultants in the field of forest entomology and forest management
planning with the aim of constructing a framework of influence dia­
grams for the BBN. To reduce the burden of a large number of estimates
for conditional probability distributions by the experts, the elicitations
were done in accordance with Wisse et al. (2008) applying the HUGIN
EXPERT tool. The experts were asked to build the network structure and
identify the names of variables and their relationships within the overall
‘bark beetle disturbance’. Once the network was constructed, the elici­
tation was accomplished using expert interviews, where experts
expressed their “beliefs” using the verbal statements: 1 = certain; 0.9 =
very probable; 0.5 = fifty-fifty; 0.2 = not probable; 0.1 = unlikely; 0 =
impossible. This allowed a simple assessment in the conditional proba­
bility tables (CPT) with the experts in face-to-face interviews. The
calculation of the conditional probability for each value xk of variable Xc
was estimated using an elicitation method for BBN, as below:
pa(Xc) is the parent node of the variable Xc and a corresponds to the
variable assignment, which is in our case {Low = 1, Moderately low = 2,
Moderately high = 3 and High = 4}
∫ imax,k
∑ i
f (i) × di
P(Xc |pa(Xc ) = a) = wk × min,k
k:X |pa(X )
k c
i max,k − imin,k
Where:
● f(i) : [0, 1]→[0, 1] were constructed by piecewise linear interpolation
function through the points (ijoint (axc ), P(Xc = xc |axc ))
● imin,k = min(ik(xk), ijoint(a))
● imax,k = max(ik(xk), ijoint(a))
● ijoint(a) is the individual influence factor for each conditioning vari­
able Xk ∈ pa(Xc) (Wisse et al., 2008).
M. Tahri et al. Environmental Modelling and Software 147 (2022) 105233

Fig. 1. Bayesian network diagram for bark beetle disturbance.

When pa(Xc) has positive influence on Xc, the joint influence factor state nodes for the Xc = {Low}. aneg,k+ is pa(Xc) assignment, where (Xk) is
ijoint is as follow: fleqntruemathmargin0pt in the most favorable state and all Xm ∈ pa(Xc) ~ Xk are in the least
∑ favorable. P(Xc = xmaxc |aneg,k+ ) and P(Xc = xc |aneg,k+ ) are the most and
min
k:X ∈pa(Xc ) ik (xk ) × (rank(xk ) − 1)
ijoint (a) = ∑k least favorable for high and low values of (Xc), respectively.
k:Xk ∈pa(Xc ) (rank(xk,max ) − 1)
All the criteria variables represented positive influences, except for
When pa(Xc) has negative influence on Xc, the joint influence factor precipitation and altitude, where high parent values pa(Xc) contributed
ijoint is written: fleqntruemathmargin0pt to the low probability child (Xc). The input data for each compartment
∑ were converted into raster files and subdivided into four states from 1 to
ijoint (a) =
k:Xk ∈pa(Xc ) ik (xk ) × (rank(xk,max ) − rank(xk ))
∑ 4, applying the equal interval classification method in ArcGIS (Appendix
k:Xk ∈pa(Xc ) (rank(xk,max ) − 1) A). To support the calculations for this study, the CPT algorithm was
implemented built and a new CPT program was designed in MATLAB
wk representing the weight for each parent Xk ∈ pa(Xc) is defined as:
software to accelerate the computation modeling. The results were then
1 δ+ 1 δ−k incorporated into HUGIN Researcher software (see network model in
wk = ∑ k
+ ∑ (1)
2 n:Xpn ∈pa(Xc ) δ+
n 2 −
n:Xpn ∈pa(Xc ) δn
Section Software and/or data availability).
Once the rasters were stacked, each raster was linked to a node in the
where δ+
k and δk are the highest and the lowest state of Xc.
−
model to propagate the evidence by applying the HUGIN plugin to the
δ+ P(Xc = xmax max open-source QGIS (Fig. 2). For each XY geographic location a Bayesian
= c |aneg,k+ ) − P(Xc = xc |aneg )
network case consists of the input data as evidence for the input node (i.
k

δ−k P(Xc = xmin min e. linked to a raster layer). The Bayesian network inserts and propagates
= c |aneg ) − P(Xc = xc |aneg,k+ )
the evidence in the model, resulting in two bands: the probability of a
and aneg corresponds to the best combination assignment of parent state with maximum probability and the other band is an index of state

Fig. 2. General framework for fuzzy-AHP and BBN methodologies.

3
M. Tahri et al. Environmental Modelling and Software 147 (2022) 105233

with maximum probability (YouTube tutorial link: Section Software
and/or data availability).
A scenario-based sensitivity analysis of the BBN method was carried
out for three different scenarios. The aim of this type of sensitivity
analysis is to assess the results of the model under specific types of
scenario. In the first scenario, a Bark Beetle Disturbance (BBD) was
considered assuming higher temperatures and old-aged forest stands.
For the two other scenarios, mountain forests above 490 m altitude and
lowland forests beyond 400 m altitude were considered (Table 1). The
second scenario combined all high state nodes in the mountain forest
stand, and the third scenario corresponded to the worst-case scenario of
forests in lowland areas with low precipitation (all high state nodes,
except for low state in terms of altitude and precipitation). In addition,
the entropy was measured to check how far the probability mass was
distributed across the states of a random variable (Cover and Thomas;
Kjærulff and Madsen, 2008).
2.3. Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process and GIS
The fuzzy-AHP approach is a well-known multi-attribute decision-
making approach (Zadeh, 1965; Saaty, 1987). It enables the expres­
sion of weights for each criterion to be calculated on the basis of expert
knowledge, and it also manages uncertain and imprecise data. Several
steps are involved in applying the fuzzy-AHP model. In this study, the
vulnerability of forest areas to Ips typographus L. was assessed by col­
lecting expert judgments on the importance of the predisposition criteria
in a pairwise comparison matrix (1 = equal importance; 3 = moderate
importance; 5 = strongly important; 9 = very important) (Saaty, 1977).
The model algorithm constructed has been used previously in other
studies (Haidara et al., 2019; Tahri et al., 2017). An online survey (http
s://bpmsg.com/ahp-online-calculator/) was used to retrieve expert
knowledge on the importance of the evaluation criteria regarding the
predisposing effect for bark beetle infestations, and speed up the data
collection process. The values of the pairwise comparison matrix was
extracted afterwards and incorporated in the fuzzy-AHP computation
modeling. The algorithm was implemented in a MATLAB Graphical User
Interface (GUI). The application can be found in Section Software
and/or data availability.
As in Buckley (1985), we noted by akij the relative importance of
criteria i and criteria j given by the expert k.
lij = min akij
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
∏n
akij
n
mij =
k=1
judgment matrix A ̃ of experts was built, independent of k, defined by:
⎡ ⎤
1, 1, 1 l12 , m12 , u12 ⋯ l1n , m1n , u1n
⎢ l21 , m21 , u21 1, 1, 1 ⋯ l2n , m2n , u2n ⎥
̃=̃
A aij = ⎢
⎣
⎥
⎦ (2)
⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮
ln1 , mn1 , un1 ln2 , mn2 , un2 ⋯ 1, 1, 1
Defuzzification of the fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix is given as
Liou and Wang (1992) as follows: For i < j
aij ) = [μ.fα (lij ) + (1 − μ).fα (uij )],
gα,μ (̃ 0 ≤ α, μ ≤ 1 (3)
1
gα,μ (̃
aij ) = 0 ≤ α, μ ≤ 1 : i>j (4)
gα,μ (̃
aij )
Where α corresponds to an index to define stable or unstable con­
ditions, μ is an index of the degree of pessimism of a decision-maker for
the judgment matrix A. ̃ While fα(lij) and fα(uij) are derived from α, μ and
from equation (3) and (4) as well (Tahri et al., 2017).
Finally, an I. typographus L. risk map was generated by applying
overlay layers in ArcGIS software, applying the geometrical mean values
for the evaluation criteria derived by the experts.
2.4. Validation of methodological approaches
Two different approaches were taken to validate the robustness of
the models: (i) comparison with empirical observations from a field
survey; (ii) comparison with a reference map based on documented bark
beetle infestations at national level.
First, to assess the accuracy of the fuzzy-AHP and BBN maps, a survey
was complemented by observations both in the field and in situ using
Google Earth images. Ground truth data were collected between May
and August 2019 at several spots in the study area, to identify trees
infected-uninfected by bark beetles. The spatial locations of 319 trees at
the green-attack stage were recorded using an ArcGIS collector app
(ESRI Inc., Redlands, CA) installed on a mobile phone. At the green-
attack stage, trees do not show any sign of discoloration (Niemann
and Visintini, 2005), so a visual survey of red-brown boring dust was
carried out to detect traces of beetles entering the bark. Uninfected trees
were observed in situ, linking the Google Earth image to ArcGIS, where
uninfected trees were clearly visible in situ by traces of salvage logging
or afforestation, and validated by an expert in the field. Points were
selected to cross-validate the predicted and field results using a confu­
sion matrix.
Second, we used a map based on the mean percentage of trees
affected by bark beetles between 2017 and 2019 at national level
(Hlásny et al., 2021). The majority of the input data for this map were

uij = max akij

based on statistical reports from the state agencies Forest of the Czech
for all i, j = 1, …, n. Republic, Military Forests and Properties, and the Czech Statistical Of­
Where lij, mij and uij are respectively minimum, geometrical mean, fice. The surface area for each class was calculated using ArcGIS for each
and maximum values of expert opinions (pairwise comparison matrix region. The reference map and the map of infected/uninfected trees
among k experts derived from AHP online calculator). The fuzzy were used to compare the outcomes for each model (fuzzy-AHP and BBN
risk maps).
Table 1
A script was built in RStudio software to compute the spatial dif­
Description of scenarios selected for sensitivity analysis. ferences between the two output raster datasets cell by cell (Bishop
et al., 1998; Wealands et al., 2005), and the fuzzy-AHP and BBN maps
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 (lowland
(mountain areas) areas - worst case)
for the same field area. The two continuous raster variables were
cropped and the data aggregated then resampled for the exact spatial
Temperature 7.66 ◦ C - 8.5 ◦ C > 8.5 ◦ C
resolution, to ensure coherent correlation. Stack and linear model
8.08 ◦ C
Stand age 83 years > 83 years > 83 years functions were also computed to generate a linear regression analysis in
Altitude n/a > 490 m < 382 m RStudio, to define the heterogeneity of the fuzzy-AHP and BBN models.
Drought n/a high (4th category) high In this case, the fuzzy-AHP variable was considered as a linear predictor.
Share n/a high (4th category) high Finally, a Pearson’s correlation coefficient was calculated to compare
Precipitation n/a > 706 mm < 621 mm the related differences and similarities between the fuzzy-AHP and BBN
Soil type n/a high (4th category) high methods.
Solar n/a > 1000 kWh/m2 > 1000 kWh/m2
radiation

n/a = not applied.

4
M. Tahri et al.
2.5. Study area description and input data
An area of around 20 to 30 × 106 m3 trees has been destroyed by
I. typographus L. calamity in the Czech Republic (out of 480 × 106 m3 of
spruce timber in total). Between 1990-1997, the Czech Republic was
ravaged by bark beetle outbreaks, following a storm in 1990 brought on
by several warm, dry summers (Schelhaas et al., 2003). Over the period
1964 to 1991, over five times the amount of salvage logging (70 × 106
m3) was carried out than sanitation felling (13 × 106 m3), when intensity
gradually increased (Modlinger and Novotný, 2015).
Within this context, a representative study area was selected to
include different landscape characteristics to test the approach. The
selected central Bohemian region represents an excellent example of
typical forest conditions in the Czech Republic. The study area is situ­
ated 35 km south-east of the capital Prague, between 14 41′ 56.4′′
longitude and 49 59′ 20.4′′ latitude, and covers an area of 80 000 ha.
The area is characterized by four vegetation types, with coniferous forest
covering 61% followed by 32% mixed forest; few areas are covered by
broad-leaved forest and transitional woodland-shrub (Fig. 3).
The forests are dominated by Norway spruce (Picea abies L.), and the
stand age varies between 34 and 100 years, while the oldest stands are
mainly found in the West and the South. The elevation in the study area
ranges between 409 and 493 m and the average altitude is 430 m.
Climate conditions vary significantly across the seasons and over the
year; the mean annual temperature is 7.9 ◦ C and the average annual
precipitation is 686 mm, although the southeast of the area often has no
rainfall during the growing season. A considerable proportion of the
area receives high-quantity solar irradiation. The study area in­
corporates diverse edaphic conditions; the forest site classification in­
dicates acidic, stagnic acidic, deep loamy soils, gleysols, peat and
organic soils. All the geographical criteria information appears in Ap­
pendix B.
Fig. 3. Study area location in the Czech Republic (Central Europe); Land use/land cover map in central Bohemia regions.
5
Environmental Modelling and Software 147 (2022) 105233
The input data for the evaluation criteria of the fuzzy-AHP and BBN
applications are listed in Appendix C. All raster were resampled to cell
size 200 × 200 m, and the output of the spatial raster resolution of the
both models were 1 : 0.54. The share of Norway spruce, stand age,
altitude and edaphic factors in the forest stand were collected from
Czech national forest inventory. The survey was carried out between
2011 and 2014 by the Forest Management Institute in the Czech Re­
public. The point data were interpolated using geostatistical tools in the
ArcGIS software, and the ordinary kriging was applied to provide a
logical framework for interpolation accuracy, which resulted in a
reduced mean square error.
The drought map was extracted as an image from INTERSUCHO
portal and was digitalized and geo-referenced in ArcGIS; the droughts
comprised standard classifications: abnormally dry, moderate drought,
severe drought and exceptional drought (Svoboda et al., 2002). The
solar radiation power per unit area was derived from the Digital
Elevation Model (DEM) by applying the spatial analyst tool of ArcGIS.
The DEM data were imported from NASA Earth Science Data (https
://search.earthdata.nasa.gov/).
3. Results
3.1. Fuzzy-AHP model
3.1.1. Weight calculation and map
Following the steps in subsection 2.3 and incorporating the Excel
data for each expert opinion, the weights were computed using the
defuzzification matrix method in Eq. (3) and Eq. (4). According to the
fuzzy-AHP assessment methodology applied, the eigenvalue was 8.60.
The consistency ratio was 0.06. Therefore, the matrix judgments were
considered reasonable and acceptable. The derived criteria weights are
presented in Table 2.
M. Tahri et al. Environmental Modelling and Software 147 (2022) 105233

Table 2 ● All parents had positive influence on ‘Predisposition’ and ‘Bark

Criteria priority results of fuzzy-AHP method based on MATLAB
application.
Criteria weights Fuzzy-AHP MATLAB GUI (%)
Stand age 22
Share of Norway spruce 20
Temperature 17
Drought 17
Precipitation 10
Altitude 7
Soil type 4 gorithm by Wisse et al. (2008). The resulting graphical curves are shown
Solar radiation 3 in Appendix E. Following the network structure design and based on the
Stand age and share of Norway spruce were more relevant than the
other criteria for detecting bark beetle outbreak predispositions, with
weights of 22% and 20%, respectively. The average temperature of over
8.5 ◦ C was considered a very high risk for spruce tree vulnerability. Also
the role of droughts 17% was considered a strong evidence that Norway
spruce trees can be affected by bark beetles. Although the elevation
above sea level (m.a.s.l.) is often considered to be a key parameter
affecting bark beetle infestations, in this case study, the altitude was
considered less important by the experts. However, there is a strong
relation to the average temperature, as it follows an altitudinal gradient.
The solar radiation criterion had the lowest weight with only 3%.
The different raster layer of the evaluation criteria were combined
considering the derived weightings for the fuzzy-AHP. The resulting
map is characterized by four levels of risk: low risk, moderately low risk,
moderately high risk and high risk. Areas prone to bark beetle infesta­
tion are indicated in Fig. 5a. With the fuzzy-AHP approach 38% of the
study area is in the moderately high or high risk category, while 25% is
low or moderately low.
GUI beetle disturbance’ nodes: ijointa(low) = 0; ijointa(m.low) = 0.33; ijointa(m.
high) = 0.66 and ijointa(high) = 1
● and one parent had negative influence on ‘Climate’ and ‘Site specific
stand’ nodes: ijointa(low) = 0; ijointa(m.low) = 0.11; ijointa(m.high) = 0.44
and ijointa(high) = 1
Four polygons were derived from the piecewise linear functions to
compute the estimation for each CPT node network following the al­
mathematical formula provided in subsection 2.3, one master BBN
model for bark beetle infestation was built; the MATLAB CPT automatic
computation and network model outcomes are given in section Software
and/or data availability.
Following HUGIN tool, Fig. 4 shows the Bayesian network model for
estimated bark beetle predisposition which was linked to QGIS to derive
a thematic risk map for the various factor categories. An example was
proposed in Table 4 for summer (with extreme climatic variables) and
winter (with a high precipitation variable), which revealed the maximal
high disturbance risk as occurring in the summer season, with a prob­
ability of 0.66. This result would occur only in extreme cases with high
temperature, drought and solar radiation variables. The risk of bark
beetle dropped to only 38% in the winter season.
As shown in the BBN map (Fig. 5b), 10% of the area has a probability
risk of between 31% and 41%, and around 22% of the area has a
moderately low risk. Around 30% of the study area are classified within
the two categories moderately high risk and high risk. The most
vulnerable sites are found in the central zone of the study area and in a
few parts in the north; the south and west are considered to be affected
by a high probability level as well.

3.1.2. Sensitivity analysis of the fuzzy-AHP model 3.2.2. Sensitivity analysis of BBN model
The sensitivity analysis of the fuzzy-AHP criteria weights were By simulating variations of the input values for share of Norway
assessed following the steps outlined by Triantaphyllou and Sánchez spruce and stand age, we computed the minimum, current and
(1997), to demonstrate how changes in the weighting could change the maximum probability values for each BBD risk state. The results are
ranking of the criteria. The most sensitive criteria were temperature, shown in Table 5. The entropy was H(BBD) = 1.09 of BBD risk. This
share of Norway spruce and drought (Appendix: Table D) as any changes shows that observation of share of Norway spruce variable would pro­
to these criteria would influence the criteria ranking. Stand age, solar duce non-significant variations in the posterior belief in states being
radiation and soil type showed a lower sensitivity coefficient. moderately high, moderately low, or low. A slight variation in the
posterior belief was noted for the state of high. However, stand age
3.2. BBN model showed significant variations in posterior belief for all states except
moderately high. The findings show that posterior distribution is very
3.2.1. Network and map robust for variations in input.
Based on expert assessments and according to Eq.(1) in subsection From an investigation of the impact of different subsets of the evi­
2.2. Table 3 shows each parent node weight (wk). The results show that dence on each state of the hypothesis variable, it is clear that the finding
predisposition and climate node are major drivers for bark beetle pre­ ϵSa on Sa (Stand age) acts in favor of the hypothesis H(BBD) = high. On
disposition. The weights of the child nodes specify, that drought, solar the other hand, the evidence ϵT on T (Temperature) acts slightly against
radiation and soil type contribute mostly to the parent nodes. The results the hypothesis, while the normalized likelihood of both evidence ϵT and
(ijoint) were derived using MATLAB software. ϵSa is 1.06, which acts slightly in favor of the hypothesis H(BBD) = high.
The evidence therefore supports the hypothesis that an outbreak
disturbance is driven by temperature and stand age. In the worst-case
scenario, the evidence ϵPr (Precipitation) acts against the hypothesis,
while ϵSr (Solar radiation) acts in favor of the hypothesis H(BBD).
The model behavior representing a variation of the state for each of
Table 3
the variables observed is reported for scenarios 2 and 3 (Appendix
BBN model wk weights for each parent and child node.
Table F). The findings show that posterior distribution is relatively non-
Node Weight (%) Criteria node Weight (%) sensitive to one-way variations in individual nodes. The distribution of
Predisposition node 51 Share of Norway spruce 11 bark beetle probability risk is non-sensitive to variations in the precip­
Stand age 26 itation node. The most sensitive observation is altitude and soil type in
Drought 63 scenario 2, and altitude followed by drought and solar radiation in
Climate node 46 Temperature 22
Solar radiation 61
scenario 3.
Precipitation 17 The parameter sensitivity analysis of the BBD hypothesis shows the
Site specific stand 2 Altitude 6 belief that BBD is high was 0.47 and the belief that it is low was 0.05.
Soil type 94 The altitude, drought, precipitation and solar radiation variables
revealed the most sensitivities and were influential of all connected

6
M. Tahri et al. Environmental Modelling and Software 147 (2022) 105233

Fig. 4. A Bayesian network distribution for probability of bark beetle disturbance.

Fig. 5. Mapping of fuzzy-AHP and BBN approaches bark beetle risk.

7
M. Tahri et al.
Table 4
Seasonal factor probability monitors.
Table 5
Posterior evidence sensitivity of ‘bark beetle disturbance risk probability hy­
pothesis’ variable to findings on the ‘share of Norway spruce’ variable.
Minimum Current Maximum
High 0.6 0.62 0.62
Moderately high 0.21 0.21 0.21
Moderately low 0.11 0.11 0.11
Low 0.08 0.08 0.09
nodes (Tahri et al., 2020). A tornado graph of all the root variables
(except T and Sa) is shown in the (Appendix Fig. G) showing the possible
variation of each state of BBD. Altitude is the variable with the greatest
potential impact on the probability distribution of BBD, and shows that
solar radiation, drought and precipitation also have the greatest po­
tential impact on BBD probability distribution.
3.3. Spatial comparative analysis
The two methodological approaches were compared in two steps: (i)
summary of the linear regression model and spatial correlation between
the two resulting raster layer, (ii) interpretation of the results of the two
approaches in comparison with reference data sets (Appendix Table H).
3.3.1. Comparison of risk maps
A summary of the linear regression models resulting from the raster
comparison of the fuzzy-AHP and BBN outputs is given in Table 6. A
comparison of the two maps resulted in a reduced standard error coef­
ficient (0.03). The result also reveals that the median was close to zero,
at 0.002, while the t coefficient values (116.86; 45.71) were relatively
high and are greatly relative to the standard error, which could signify
the existence of a relationship. The residual standard error was (0.049).
Fig. 6 shows the result of RStudio analysis; note the moderate positive
relationship between the two raster maps, fuzzy-AHP and BBN, with a
correlation coefficient of 0.66 with a confidence interval of 95%.
Spatial correlation analysis of the difference maps is shown in the
Fig. 6. The BBN model was more highly correlated with fuzzy-AHP
model, which also can seem similar by visual observation. Most dark
red color (High risk) areas are located in the north, central and south
where old forest cover mainly dominates. The small differences
observed were seen in the South and South-West (Fig. 5).
3.3.2. Validation of data with ground truth
The accuracy assessment between the fuzzy-AHP and BBN maps was
8
Environmental Modelling and Software 147 (2022) 105233
Table 6
Summary of the linear regression model of fuzzy-AHP and BBN raster outputs
computed by RStudio.
Residuals Min Median Max
Values − 0.19 0.002 0.15
Coefficients Estimate Standard Error t-value
(Intercept) 0.39 0.03 116.86
Values 0.03 0.00 45.71
compared with reference data and a field survey. The overall confusion
matrix with a confidence interval of 95% gave a result of nearly 87%
(kappa coefficient 71%) for the BBN model, while the overall confusion
matrix for the fuzzy-AHP model was 81% (kappa coefficient 56%). Both
models showed appropriate accuracy with the field survey. This was also
confirmed with the reference map (Hlásny et al., 2021), where the Kolin
and Praha regions were characterized by serious yearly losses of tree
stock, representing more than 73% of moderately-high and highly
vulnerable areas for both models (Appendix Table H). Although the
Benesov region was more uncertain with both models, the surrounding
border was shown to be characterized by a high density of Norway
spruce species, ancient forest stands with high temperature, and low
precipitation after checking the criteria maps, which confirms the ac­
curacy of the predicted results. The mismatch can probably be explained
by the different research scales used in the research: the reference map
was on the national scale, while our own study was based on a regional
scale. The Havlickuv Brod location gave a contradictory outcome with
the fuzzy-AHP technique, with climatic parameters assuming a high
weighting and dominating the southern area. In summary, the BBN
model gave more accurate prediction than the Fuzzy-AHP technique.
4. Discussion
To our knowledge, this comparative research is among the first ex­
amples, where a regional bark beetle disturbance mapping was done
with a fuzzy-AHP and BBN modeling approach in a GIS.
Comparing the criteria ranks of both applications indicate, that the
most relevant criteria in the fuzzy-AHP approach were quite similar to
those with the BBN approach. The parameters contributing to bark
beetle disturbance in both models were share of Norway spruce followed
by temperature, precipitation and drought. In this study a lower risk was
observed for young stands with a small share of Norway Spruce. This
interpretation concurs with works published previously (Stereńczak
et al., 2020; Radl et al., 2018), where high-risk disturbance sites were
M. Tahri et al. Environmental Modelling and Software 147 (2022) 105233

Fig. 6. Spatial correlation between two rasters, BBN and fuzzy-AHP (location: central Bohemian region, Czech Republic).

Christiansen et al., 1987).

Table 7
Matthews et al. (2018) also perceived a dependence on whether or
Comparison with previous similar bark beetle stands by Radl et al. (2018).
not a drought had occurred in the region. Netherer et al. (2019) inves­
Research Worst scenario Best scenario Stand A* tigated environmental drivers for bark beetle spread in the case of
studies
Austrian Norway spruce stands. The authors concluded that the warm
This study 0.67 high state 0.49 high state 0.47 high temperature and acute disposition of the trees to attack caused by
findings probability probability state
drought stress was likely to increase the risk of bark beetle infestation.
probability
Radl et al. High probability Low probability found Result The results of the work by Radl et al. (2018) were used to validate the
(2018) corresponds to high in high bark beetle identical to results of this study. For comparison purposes the probability level based
bark beetle predisposition level best scenario on four criteria was extracted: stand age, share of Norway spruce,
predisposition level drought and soil type. The BBN model of this study allows to reproduce
Note *: corresponds to the selected forest stand, characterized by 60–79 forest similar results (Table 7). Despite the different input models and selected
age stand, 25%–49% of share of Norway spruce proportion and cambisol soils criteria in the Austrian and Czech cases, the overall outcomes of the
type. studies have some similarities: older stands and a higher proportion of
Norway spruce in combination with an extreme drought event seem to
characterized by ancient stand age and proportion of Norway spruce as a contribute to higher probabilities for damages. The worst and best sce­
dominant species. Mezei et al. (2014) also demonstrated in their study narios revealed the estimated probability distributions, according to the
that forest stand age and proportion of Norway spruce are among the most up-to-date scientific literature findings on bark beetle disturbance.
parameters that cause spruce mortality. This research indicates that the The applied methodological approaches are different in terms of the
denser the spruce tree cover and the more advanced the age of the forest, underlying mathematical theories. While fuzzy-AHP requires a hierar­
the more vulnerable the trees are to bark beetle. This has also been chical process mode, BBN is based on a network process, taking into
demonstrated by other studies (Holeksa et al., 2017; Hlásny and account inter-dependencies between variables. Nevertheless, the major
Turčáni, 2013), where these parameters were considered as major advantages and drawbacks of both methods are identified along with the
driving factors for intense damage in the disturbed areas. Also precipi­ potential trade-offs. A summary of the differences between the two
tation, drought and temperature were often identified as relevant factors methods, based on literature reviews and the present research experi­
(Černý et al., 2020; Marini et al., 2017), and many reviews consider ment, is given in Table 8.
climate variables such as temperature and precipitation as the two main Concerning calculations, both approaches deal with uncertainty and
drivers leading to mass outbreaks of bark beetle (Brandl et al., 2020; imprecise data and require more complex systems. For this reason, the

9
M. Tahri et al.
Table 8
Summary of differences between fuzzy-AHP and BBN approaches based on literature reviews.
Fuzzy-AHP method
Expert elicitation Data input source Expert judgment (qualitative)
process
Data input type Deterministic
Input data size Unlimited number of experts (supports a large pairwise
survey matrix)
Data input Saaty’s numerical ratio scale 1-9
subtype
Participatory Broad range of stakeholders/decision-makers can participate
process
System Complex
Difficulty Pairwise comparison process can be time-consuming with a
large number of criteria
Computation results Software Proposed user-friendly fuzzy-AHP MATLAB GUI (See Section
Software and/or data availability)
Output treatment Allows to consider uncertainty implicitly
Output result Fixed output weights
fuzzy-AHP MATLAB GUI application is proposed for the non-specialist as it
provides straightforward guidance for a broad range of decision-makers
(academics, ecologists, consultants, etc.) to facilitate the decision-
making process for better understanding of forest issues. While using
BBN in our study research, the CPT MATLAB program was found to be
useful but limited to two or three directed node graphs. A new CPT al­
gorithm is needed, requiring an additional long process in cases with
four (or more) interconnected nodes. On the other hand, BBN can sup­
port a large number of criteria in the model. Unlike fuzzy-AHP, the
method has a threshold on the number of criteria that can be
incorporated.
A pairwise comparison questionnaire was carried out in fuzzy-AHP,
applying a free web survey integrated with mobile devices available on
the market, the online questionnaire offering a user-friendly remote tool
to involve various experts independently. The fuzzy-AHP was conse­
quently quicker at collecting expert judgments and avoided conflicting
compromises between parties more readily. The fundamental limitation
of fuzzy-AHP is that the required data input is restricted (expert judg­
ment only, according to the Saaty 9-point scale). In addition, the pair­
wise comparison questionnaire offers non-familiarity among
stakeholders (Tahri et al., 2017). Although there are no pairwise com­
parison matrices with the BBN technique, its main strength is the ability
to acquire probabilistic interdependency between uncertain variables
(Dai et al., 2021), based on non-homogeneous variables and many
different types of input data in one functional model. Expressing prob­
ability beliefs demanded enormous concentration but required a limited
number of experts (max. 2 per case study) to retrieve expert perceptions.
The major weaknesses associated with the BBN method compared to
the fuzzy-AHP technique are its highly complicated processes; it was
time-consuming to implement and retrieving the input data to convert
into conditional probability data was inherently challenging. This was
also confirmed by the majority of previous studies (Barton et al., 2020;
Nascimento et al., 2019), although the overwhelming relationship be­
tween dependence-independence probability nodes was problematic.
One of the key advantages of the BBN method is that it offers
10
Environmental Modelling and Software 147 (2022) 105233
BBN method
Expert judgment and/or empirical data (qualitative and/or
quantitative)
Probabilistic
Limited number of experts
Categorical; Boolean; numbered (continuous/discrete) and Interval
Broad range of stakeholders/decision-makers can participate
Transparency of the BBN graphical model enhances understanding
of system
Confusion around expressing input probability data with a large
number of sub-models
HUGIN and available software; limited and less user-friendly open-
source BBN software
Deals with uncertainty in environmental change and estimates the
uncertainty of unobserved variables
Dynamic output probability modeling in real-time depending on
evidence updating
meticulous transparency and produces dynamic results (Li et al., 2020;
Laurila-Pant et al., 2019), and also proves to be more precise at stand
and local levels. Building a sample regional BBN model generates mul­
tiple scenarios based on the various knowledge sources (Höfer et al.,
2020), which provides an insight into the relationship between the
forest components and the output nodes for each scenario. The func­
tional model can be applied to other local and/or regional forest en­
terprises by simply changing the input data. The spatial BBN represents a
trade-off between assessing the impact of bark beetle on different
ecosystem services and stakeholders’ knowledge of the effects on forest
management practices (Morris et al., 2017).
After overlaying and resampling different criteria, spatial patterns at
regional and local scales were easy to access for both methods and gave
closely-matching results in compiling thematic maps. This research
corroborates the work of Hlásny et al. (2021), where the Kolin, Praha
and Kutna Hora regions were well-matched in three models. According
to the confusion matrix results, the BBN model gives better results than
the fuzzy-AHP model.
It is argued that the maps produced provide both support for forest
management planning to prevent further disturbance, and monitoring
for efficient, strategic decision-making. An improved understanding of
regulated timber harvesting is therefore needed, which can be achieved
by the introduction of salvage-logging management (Vanická et al.,
2020; Dobor et al., 2020), and the reforestation and plantation of trees in
the most suitable areas (Thorn et al., 2017; Macek et al., 2017; Nováková
and Edwards-Jonášová, 2015).
The results of ground truth and reference data validations reveal that
BBN is more efficient than the fuzzy-AHP, but it cannot be concluded
that BBN is more effective than the other model, as either of them may
predominate depending on processing time, knowledge source, and goal
priority. The BBN technique requires computing capabilities and is time-
consuming to implement, but is more accurate and flexible in forest
stands since it takes into account many different types of dataset. Unlike
fuzzy-AHP, MATLAB GUI is a user-friendly tool offering rapid processing
and is practical at large spatial and temporal scales. Most importantly,
M. Tahri et al. Environmental Modelling and Software 147 (2022) 105233

both methods are reproducible for use in other types of case study warning tool, while the BBN approach proved to be effective for dy­
involving stakeholder insights and future priority research. namic and small-scale landscapes.

5. Conclusion Software and/or data availability

This research will be of great help for forest managers but also for
conducting further field research in this area. The results obtained from
overlaying raster maps of the spatial multi-criteria decision-making
method and Bayesian belief network analyses showed that most loca­
tions had a similar level of relevance in the region. The current situation
is challenging in terms of rethinking spatial planning, time available for
data collection and the high costs of field research. Two decision-support
system methods were selected to detect sites potentially disturbed by
bark beetles. The work carried out required input of a geo-referenced
data set. Several meteorological, topographical and forest-stand pa­
rameters were obtained, including the extraction of forest vegetation
and use of the national forest inventory database. However, once the
methods and data are provided, it is possible to update the input data
layer quickly and perform scenario analysis by changing the importance
of the evaluation criteria. This will allow a more robust and less sensitive
prediction of bark beetle infestations in the future.
The new MATLAB code was effective for both techniques, facilitating
accurate computational algorithms and programs. The conditional
probability table code and the fuzzy-AHP MATLAB user interface tools are
both useful for application in other study fields. The CPT code greatly
speeds up processing time and provides a dynamic output model for
each stand, depending on seasonal distribution. Since the fuzzy-AHP
code can be converted to a simple graphical user interface which no
longer requires a fuzzy specialist to compute the model, the fixed output
weight could be used in forest areas worldwide. The results of the
comparison show that both applications can easily be used to provide
solutions for complex environmental decision-making problems. The
efficiency of fuzzy-AHP MATLAB GUI was tested for use as an early
The fuzzy-AHP MATLAB GUI is freely available via the GitHub link
https://github.com/Meyem4/foman-FA. It was developed by Haytham
Tahri (haytham.tahri@gmail.com) and Meryem Tahri (see co-author
contact information) and launched in 2020.
Conditional probability tables and I. typographus L. network model
outcomes are provided via the GitHub link https://github.com/M
eyem4/foman-ITL-bbn. HUGIN EXPERT software is required to run
the I. typographus L. network model. This was developed by Meryem
Tahri under the supervision of Prof. Anders L. Madsen (see co-author
contact information). A YouTube tutorial on the HUGIN plugin for
QGIS (mapping) produced by Prof. Anders L. Madsen is provided at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCDfTMj5tOU.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by grant ”EVA4.0”, No. CZ 02.1.01/0.0/
0.0/16_019/0000803 financed by OP RDE. The authors gratefully
acknowledge Prof. Dr. Daniel Ames (Editor-in-Chief) and anonymous
reviewers for their scientific expertise. We would like to thank consul­
tants who participated in our survey, in particular thank to Dr. Andrew
Liebhold from US Forest Service Northern Research Station.

Appendix A. Criteria and/or node description, states

Criteria/variable Description State

Parameter node
1: Low risk 2: Moderate - 3: Moderate - 4: High risk
low risk high risk

Predisposition Share of Norway Proportion of Norway spruce in the stand: dense Low density Moderate High density Very high
spruce (%) spruce areas result in stronger I. typographus L. density density
attacks on trees
Drought Lack of rainfall: drought has significant influence Abnormally dry Moderate Severe drought Exceptional
on bark beetle drought drought
Stand age (years) Age of stand: the older the forest the higher the <50 50–64 64–78 >78
risk
Climate Annual Average yearly air temperature: high 6.3–7.6 7.6–8.0 8.0–8.50 8.50–9.2
Temperature (◦ C) temperature accelerates tree vulnerability stress
Solar radiation Solar radiation power per unit area: greater 322k - 864k 864k - 956k 956k - 1,021k 1,021k -
(Watt hours/m2) propagation attracts I. typographus L. 1,191k
Annual Annual precipitation: high precipitation reduces 706–820 660–706 622–660 550–622
precipitation (mm) risk of I. typographus L.
Site specific Altitude (m) Elevation above sea level: lower areas have >526 464–526 400–464 338–400
stand negative impact
Edaphic category Edaphic or ecological Gley soil, waterlogged Rich in water Fertile soils Acid soils
(soil type) soil, peats, organic soil soils

11
M. Tahri et al. Environmental Modelling and Software 147 (2022) 105233

Appendix B. Raster criteria considered in the application of fuzzy-AHP and BBN models in the Central Bohemian Region

Appendix C. Source table for data used

Parameter Institution Data origin Access format Cell size resolution

Share of Norway spruce (%)
Stand age (years)
Annual temperature (◦ C)
Annual precipitation (mm)
Solar radiation (Wh/m2)
Drought
Altitude (m a s l)
Edaphic categories
Forest Management Institute Czech National Forest Inventory 2011–2014 Database (*.accdb) 200 m
Forest Management Institute Czech National Forest Inventory 2011–2014 Database (*.accdb) 200 m
Czech Hydrometeorological Institute Meteorological station http://portal.chmi.cz/ ASCII Raster (*.asc) 500 m
Czech Hydrometeorological Institute Meteorological station http://portal.chmi.cz/ ASCII Raster (*.asc) 150 m
NASA ASTER sensor https://search.earthdata.nasa. Raster: Digital Elevation model 30 m
gov/
INTERSUCHO https://www.intersucho.cz/ PDF map: Digitalization 500 m
Forest Management Institute Czech National Forest Inventory 2011–2014 Database (*.accdb) 30 m
Forest Management Institute Czech National Forest Inventory 2011–2014 Database (*.accdb) 200 m

Appendix D. Sensitivity analysis results of fuzzy-AHP decision-making

Solar radiation Share of Norway spruce Stand age Altitude Temperature Soil type Precipitation Drought

Criticality degree of criterion (Ck) 369 1.8 9.95 5.9 1.7 9.74 2.77 3.55
Sensitivity coefficient of criterion (1/Ck) 0.00 0.56 0.10 0.17 0.59 0.10 0.36 0.28
Ranking 8 2 7 5 1 6 3 4

12
M. Tahri et al. Environmental Modelling and Software 147 (2022) 105233

Appendix E. Graphical curve outcome; examples to derive estimation of CPT distributions

Appendix F. Sensitivity analysis; min. – max. analysis of each observed node given the remaining observed nodes

Scenario 3 Scenario 2

Min Max Min Max

Precipitation Bark beetle disturbance risk = High 0.74 0.75 0.63 0.65
Bark beetle disturbance risk = Moderately high 0.17 0.18 0.2 0.21
Bark beetle disturbance risk = Moderately low 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.09
Bark beetle disturbance risk = Low 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.07
Soil type Bark beetle disturbance risk = High 0.73 0.75 0.53 0.63
Bark beetle disturbance risk = Moderately high 0.17 0.18 0.21 0.23
Bark beetle disturbance risk = Moderately low 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.13
Bark beetle disturbance risk = Low 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.12
Altitude Bark beetle disturbance risk = High 0.65 0.75 0.63 0.73
Bark beetle disturbance risk = Moderately high 0.17 0.2 0.18 0.2
Bark beetle disturbance risk = Moderately low 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.09
Bark beetle disturbance risk = Low 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.07
Drought Bark beetle disturbance risk = High 0.7 0.75 0.57 0.63
Bark beetle disturbance risk = Moderately high 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.22
Bark beetle disturbance risk = Moderately low 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.12
Bark beetle disturbance risk = Low 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.1
Stand age Bark beetle disturbance risk = High 0.72 0.75 0.6 0.63
(continued on next page)

13
M. Tahri et al. Environmental Modelling and Software 147 (2022) 105233

(continued )
Scenario 3 Scenario 2

Min Max Min Max

Bark beetle disturbance risk = Moderately high 0.18 0.17 0.21 0.21
Bark beetle disturbance risk = Moderately low 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.1
Bark beetle disturbance risk = Low 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.08
Temperature Bark beetle disturbance risk = High 0.73 0.75 0.52 0.63
Bark beetle disturbance risk = Moderately high 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.22
Bark beetle disturbance risk = Moderately low 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.13
Bark beetle disturbance risk = Low 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.12
Solar radiation Bark beetle disturbance risk = High 0.7 0.75 0.56 0.64
Bark beetle disturbance risk = Moderately high 0.17 0.18 0.2 0.22
Bark beetle disturbance risk = Moderately low 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.12
Bark beetle disturbance risk = Low 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.1
Share of Norway spruce Bark beetle disturbance risk = High 0.73 0.75 0.61 0.63
Bark beetle disturbance risk = Moderately high 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.21
Bark beetle disturbance risk = Moderately low 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.1
Bark beetle disturbance risk = Low 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.08

Appendix G. Tornado graph of all root variables except temperature and stand age nodes

14
M. Tahri et al. Environmental Modelling and Software 147 (2022) 105233

Appendix H. Comparison with reference map

Reference data (Hlásny et al., 2021) This study

Region % of trees stock loss (yearly) Categorie % of surface area using fuzzy-AHP % of surface area using BBN

Kolin 5%–7% Low risk 0 0

Moderately low risk 5 2
Moderately high risk 65 24
High risk 30 73
Praha-Vychod 3%–5% Low risk 0 10
Moderately low risk 15 17
Moderately high risk 73 32
High risk 12 41
Kutna Hora 3%–5% Low risk 48 25
Moderately low risk 32 32
Moderately high risk 21 24
High risk 0 19
Benesov 2%–3% Low risk 6 8
Moderately low risk 35 27
Moderately high risk 54 34
High risk 5 32
Havlickuv Brod 5%–7% Low risk 48 16
Moderately low risk 32 41
Moderately high risk 21 34
High risk 0 9

References jclepro.2021.127480. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959652

621016991.
De Iuliis, M., Kammouh, O., Cimellaro, G., Tesfamariam, S., 2021. Quantifying
Ar, I.M., Erol, I., Peker, I., Ozdemir, A.I., Medeni, T.D., Medeni, I.T., 2020. Evaluating the
restoration time of power and telecommunication lifelines after earthquakes using
feasibility of blockchain in logistics operations: a decision framework. Expert Syst.
Bayesian belief network model. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 208 https://doi.org/10.1016/
Appl. 158, 113543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113543. URL: http://
j.ress.2020.107320.
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957417420303675.
Dobor, L., Hlásny, T., Rammer, W., Zimová, S., Barka, I., Seidl, R., 2020. Is salvage
Augustynczik, A.L.D., Dobor, L., Hlásny, T., 2021. Controlling landscape-scale bark
logging effectively dampening bark beetle outbreaks and preserving forest carbon
beetle dynamics: can we hit the right spot? Landsc. Urban Plann. 209, 104035.
stocks? J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13518. URL:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.104035. URL: https://www.sciencedi
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1365-2664.13518.
rect.com/science/article/pii/S016920462031519X.
Emrouznejad, A., Ho, W., 2017. Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. CRC Press, Boca
Baldock, T.E., Shabani, B., Callaghan, D.P., 2019. Open access Bayesian Belief Networks
Raton.
for estimating the hydrodynamics and shoreline response behind fringing reefs
Eskandari, S., 2017. A new approach for forest fire risk modeling using fuzzy AHP and
subject to climate changes and reef degradation. Environ. Model. Software 119,
GIS in Hyrcanian forests of Iran. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 10, 190. https://
327–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.07.001. URL: https://www.scienc
doi.org/10.1007/s12517-017-2976-2. URL:
edirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364815219305547.
Haidara, I., Tahri, M., Maanan, M., Hakdaoui, M., 2019. Efficiency of fuzzy analytic
Barton, D., Sundt, H., Bustos, A., Fjeldstad, H.P., Hedger, R., Forseth, T., Berit, K., Aas, .,
hierarchy process to detect soil erosion vulnerability. Geoderma 354, 113853.
Alfredsen, K., Madsen, A., 2020. Multi-criteria decision analysis in Bayesian
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.07.011. URL: http://www.sciencedirect.
networks - diagnosing ecosystem service trade-offs in a hydropower regulated river.
com/science/article/pii/S0016706118317361.
Environ. Model. Software 124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.104604.
Hepler, S., McKnight, E., Bonny, A., Kline, D., 2019. A latent spatial factor Approach for
Biedermann, P.H., Müller, J., Grégoire, J.C., Gruppe, A., Hagge, J., Hammerbacher, A.,
Synthesizing opioid-associated deaths and treatment Admissions in Ohio counties.
Hofstetter, R.W., Kandasamy, D., Kolarik, M., Kostovcik, M., Krokene, P., Sallé, A.,
Epidemiology 30, 365–370. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000000978.
Six, D.L., Turrini, T., Vanderpool, D., Wingfield, M.J., Bässler, C., 2019. Bark beetle
Hlásny, T., Turčáni, M., 2013. Persisting bark beetle outbreak indicates the
population dynamics in the Anthropocene: challenges and solutions. Trends Ecol.
unsustainability of secondary Norway spruce forests: case study from Central
Evol. 34, 914–924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.06.002. URL: https://linki
Europe. Ann. For. Sci. 70, 481–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-013-0279-7.
nghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0169534719301673.
URL: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01201492.
Bishop, G.D., Church, M.R., Aber, J.D., Neilson, R.P., Ollinger, S.V., Daly, C., 1998.
Hlásny, T., Krokene, P., Liebhold, A., Montagné-Huck, C., Müller, J., Qin, H., Raffa, K.,
A comparison of mapped estimates of long-term runoff in the northeast United
Schelhaas, M.J., Seidl, R., Svoboda, M., Viiri, H., European Forest Institute, 2019.
States. J. Hydrol. 206, 176–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00113-9.
Living with Bark Beetles: Impacts, Outlook and Management Options. From Science
URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169498001139.
to Policy. European Forest Institute. https://doi.org/10.36333/fs08. URL: https
Brandl, S., Paul, C., Knoke, T., Falk, W., 2020. The influence of climate and management
://www.efi.int/publications-bank/living-bark-beetles-impacts-outlook-and-mana
on survival probability for Germany’s most important tree species. For. Ecol. Manag.
gement-options.
458, 117652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117652. URL: https://linkingh
Hlásny, T., Zimová, S., Merganičová, K., Štěpánek, P., Modlinger, R., Turčáni, M., 2021.
ub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0378112719316068.
Devastating outbreak of bark beetles in the Czech Republic: drivers, impacts, and
Bright, B., Hudak, A., Meddens, A., Egan, J., Jorgensen, C., 2020. Mapping multiple
management implications. For. Ecol. Manag. 490, 119075. https://doi.org/10.1016/
insect outbreaks across large regions annually using landsat time series data. Rem.
j.foreco.2021.119075. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
Sens. 12 https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12101655.
S037811272100164X.
Buckley, J.J., 1985. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Set Syst. 17, 233–247. https://doi.
Höfer, S., Ziemba, A., El Serafy, G., 2020. A Bayesian approach to ecosystem service
org/10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9. URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
trade-off analysis utilizing expert knowledge. Environ. Syst.Decis. 40, 67–83.
article/pii/0165011485900909.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-019-09742-2. URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1
Černý, J., Pokorný, R., Vejpustková, M., Šrámek, V., Bednář, P., 2020. Air temperature is
007/s10669-019-09742-2.
the main driving factor of radiation use efficiency and carbon storage of mature
Holeksa, J., Jaloviar, P., Kucbel, S., Saniga, M., Svoboda, M., Szewczyk, J., Szwagrzyk, J.,
Norway spruce stands under global climate change. Int. J. Biometeorol. https://doi.
Zielonka, T., Żywiec, M., 2017. Models of disturbance driven dynamics in the West
org/10.1007/s00484-020-01941-w. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00484-02
Carpathian spruce forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 388, 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
0-01941-w.
foreco.2016.08.026. URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
Christiansen, E., Waring, R.H., Berryman, A.A., 1987. Resistance of conifers to bark
S0378112716304406.
beetle attack: Searching for general relationships. For. Ecol. Manag. 22, 89–106.
Hollaus, M., Vreugdenhil, M., 2019. Radar Satellite imagery for detecting bark beetle
https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(87)90098-3. URL: http://www.sciencedirect.
outbreaks in forests. Current Forestry Reports 5, 240–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/
com/science/article/pii/0378112787900983.
s40725-019-00098-z. URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40725-019-00098-z.
Cover, T.M., Thomas, J.A., 1991. Elements of Information Theory 774.
Jactel, H., Koricheva, J., Castagneyrol, B., 2019. Responses of forest insect pests to
Dai, L., Han, Q., de Vries, B., Wang, Y., 2021. Applying Bayesian Belief Network to
climate change: not so simple. Current Opinion in Insect Science 35, 103–108.
explore key determinants for nature-based solutions’ acceptance of local
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2019.07.010. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.
stakeholders. J. Clean. Prod. 310, 127480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
com/retrieve/pii/S2214574519300227.

15
M. Tahri et al.
Kjærulff, U.B., Madsen, A.L., 2008. Bayesian Networks and Influence Diagrams: A Guide
to Construction and Analysis. Information Science and Statistics. Springer-Verlag,
New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-74101-7. URL: https://www.sprin
ger.com/gp/book/9781441925466.
Kokolakis, G., 2010. Bayesian statistical analysis. In: Peterson, P., Baker, E., McGaw, B.
(Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education, third ed. Elsevier, Oxford,
pp. 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.01308-7. URL: https
://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080448947013087.
Kunegel-Lion, M., Lewis, M., 2020a. Mountain pine beetle outbreak duration and pine
mortality depend on direct control effort. J. Environ. Manag. 260 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110167.
Kunegel-Lion, M., Lewis, M.A., 2020b. Factors governing outbreak dynamics in a forest
intensively managed for mountain pine beetle. Sci. Rep. 10, 7601. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41598-020-63388-8. URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-02
0-63388-8.
Landuyt, D., Van der Biest, K., Broekx, S., Staes, J., Meire, P., Goethals, P.L.M., 2015.
A GIS plug-in for Bayesian belief networks: towards a transparent software
framework to assess and visualise uncertainties in ecosystem service mapping.
Environ. Model. Software 71, 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsoft.2015.05.002. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1364815215001334.
Laurila-Pant, M., Mäntyniemi, S., Venesjärvi, R., Lehikoinen, A., 2019. Incorporating
stakeholders’ values into environmental decision support: a Bayesian Belief Network
approach. Sci. Total Environ. 697, 134026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2019.134026. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S00489
69719340033.
Li, M., Wang, H., Wang, D., Shao, Z., He, S., 2020. Risk assessment of gas explosion in
coal mines based on fuzzy AHP and bayesian network. Process Saf. Environ. Protect.
135, 207–218.
Liou, T.S., Wang, M.J.J., 1992. Ranking fuzzy numbers with integral value. Fuzzy Set
Syst. 50, 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(92)90223-Q. URL: http
://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016501149290223Q.
Lyu, H.M., Shen, S.L., Yang, J., Yang, J., Zhou, A.N., 2020. Risk assessment of
earthquake-triggered geohazards surrounding Wenchuan, China. Nat. Hazards Rev.
21 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000375.
Macek, M., Wild, J., Kopecký, M., Červenka, J., Svoboda, M., Zenáhlíková, J., Bru˙na, J.,
Mosandl, R., Fischer, A., 2017. Life and death of Picea abies after bark-beetle
outbreak: ecological processes driving seedling recruitment: Ecological. Ecol. Appl.
27, 156–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1429.
Malczewski, J., Rinner, C., 2015. Multicriteria decision analysis in geographic
information science. In: Advances in Geographic Information Science. Springer-
Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74757-4. URL: http
s://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540747567.
Marini, L., Økland, B., Jönsson, A.M., Bentz, B., Carroll, A., Forster, B., Grégoire, J.C.,
Hurling, R., Nageleisen, L.M., Netherer, S., Ravn, H.P., Weed, A., Schroeder, M.,
2017. Climate drivers of bark beetle outbreak dynamics in Norway spruce forests.
Ecography 40, 1426–1435. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.02769. URL: https
://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ecog.02769.
Matthews, B., Netherer, S., Katzensteiner, K., Pennerstorfer, J., Blackwell, E.,
Henschke, P., Hietz, P., Rosner, S., Jansson, P.E., Schume, H., Schopf, A., 2018.
Transpiration deficits increase host susceptibility to bark beetle attack: experimental
observations and practical outcomes for Ips typographus hazard assessment. Agric.
For. Meteorol. 263, 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.08.004.
McLachlan, S., Dube, K., Hitman, G., Fenton, N., Kyrimi, E., 2020. Bayesian networks in
healthcare: distribution by medical condition. Artif. Intell. Med. 107 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.artmed.2020.101912.
Mezei, P., Grodzki, W., Blaženec, M., Jakuš, R., 2014. Factors influencing the wind–bark
beetles’ disturbance system in the course of an Ips typographus outbreak in the Tatra
Mountains. For. Ecol. Manag. 312, 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foreco.2013.10.020. URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0378112713006877.
Modlinger, R., Novotný, P., 2015. Quantification of Time Delay between Damages
Caused by Windstorms and by Ips Typographus, p. 11.
Morris, J.L., Cottrell, S., Fettig, C.J., Hansen, W.D., Sherriff, R.L., Carter, V.A., Clear, J.L.,
Clement, J., DeRose, R.J., Hicke, J.A., Higuera, P.E., Mattor, K.M., Seddon, A.W.R.,
Seppä, H.T., Stednick, J.D., Seybold, S.J., 2017. Managing bark beetle impacts on
ecosystems and society: priority questions to motivate future research. J. Appl. Ecol.
54, 750–760. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12782. URL: https://besjournals.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1365-2664.12782.
Nascimento, N., West, T.A.P., Biber-Freudenberger, L., Sousa-Neto, E.R.d., Ometto, J.,
Börner, J., 2019. A Bayesian network approach to modelling land-use decisions
under environmental policy incentives in the Brazilian Amazon. J. Land Use Sci.
1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2019.1709223. URL: https://www.tandf
online.com/doi/full/10.1080/1747423X.2019.1709223.
Netherer, S., Nopp-Mayr, U., 2005. Predisposition assessment systems (PAS) as
supportive tools in forest management—rating of site and stand-related hazards of
bark beetle infestation in the High Tatra Mountains as an example for system
application and verification. For. Ecol. Manag. 207, 99–107. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.020. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/artic
le/pii/S0378112704007303.
Netherer, S., Panassiti, B., Pennerstorfer, J., Matthews, B., 2019. Acute drought is an
important driver of bark beetle infestation in Austrian Norway spruce stands.
Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2019.00039.
URL: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2019.00039/full.
16
Environmental Modelling and Software 147 (2022) 105233
Niemann, K.O., Visintini, F., 2005. Assessment of potential for remote sensing detection
of bark beetle-infested areas during green attack: a literature review 2005-02. URL:
http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/publications?id=25269.
Nováková, M., Edwards-Jonášová, M., 2015. Restoration of central-european mountain
Norway spruce forest 15 years after natural and anthropogenic disturbance. For.
Ecol. Manag. 344, 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.02.010.
Pasztor, F., Matulla, C., Rammer, W., Lexer, M.J., 2014. Drivers of the bark beetle
disturbance regime in Alpine forests in Austria. For. Ecol. Manag. 318, 349–358.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.01.044. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.co
m/science/article/pii/S0378112714000681.
Pearl, J., 1988. Chapter 4 - belief updating BY network propagation. In: Pearl, J. (Ed.),
Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco
(CA), pp. 143–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-051489-5.50010-2. URL:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080514895500102.
Pearl, J., 2009. Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible
inference. In: The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Representation and Reasoning. Rev. 2.
Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, Calif transferred to digital printing ed.
Pureswaran, D.S., Roques, A., Battisti, A., 2018. Forest insects and climate change.
Current Forestry Reports 4, 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-018-0075-6.
URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40725-018-0075-6.
Radl, A., Lexer, M.J., Vacik, H., 2018. A bayesian belief network approach to predict
damages caused by disturbance agents. Forests 9, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/
f9010015. URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/9/1/15.
Roostaei, J., Colley, S., Mulhern, R., May, A., Gibson, J., 2021. Predicting the risk of
GenX contamination in private well water using a machine-learned Bayesian
network model. J. Hazard Mater. 411 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2021.125075.
Roy, J., Saha, S., 2019. Landslide susceptibility mapping using knowledge driven
statistical models in Darjeeling District, West Bengal, India. Geoenvironmental
Disasters 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40677-019-0126-8.
Saaty, T.L., 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math.
Psychol. 15, 234–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5. URL: http
s://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022249677900335.
Saaty, R.W., 1987. The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Math.
Model. 9, 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)90473-8. URL: http
://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0270025587904738.
Schelhaas, M.J., Nabuurs, G.J., Schuck, A., 2003. Natural disturbances in the European
forests in the 19th and 20th centuries. Global Change Biol. 9, 1620–1633. https://
doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00684.x. URL:
Seidl, R., Schelhaas, M.J., Rammer, W., Verkerk, P.J., 2014. Increasing forest
disturbances in Europe and their impact on carbon storage. Nat. Clim. Change 4,
806–810. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2318. URL: https://www.nature.
com/articles/nclimate2318.
Seidl, R., Müller, J., Hothorn, T., Bässler, C., Heurich, M., Kautz, M., 2016. Small beetle,
large-scale drivers: how regional and landscape factors affect outbreaks of the
European spruce bark beetle. J. Appl. Ecol. 53, 530–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1365-2664.12540. URL: https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/1
0.1111/1365-2664.12540.
Seidl, R., Thom, D., Kautz, M., Martin-Benito, D., Peltoniemi, M., Vacchiano, G., Wild, J.,
Ascoli, D., Petr, M., Honkaniemi, J., Lexer, M.J., Trotsiuk, V., Mairota, P.,
Svoboda, M., Fabrika, M., Nagel, T.A., Reyer, C.P.O., 2017. Forest disturbances
under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 395–402. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nclimate3303.
Shao, Z., Huq, M.E., Cai, B., Altan, O., Li, Y., 2020. Integrated Remote Sensing and GIS
Approach Using Fuzzy-AHP to Delineate and Identify Groundwater Potential Zones
in Semi-arid Shanxi Province, China, vol. 134. Environmental Modelling & Software,
p. 104868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104868. URL: http://www.sci
encedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364815220309257.
Stereńczak, K., Mielcarek, M., Kamińska, A., Kraszewski, B., Piasecka Miścicki, S.,
Heurich, M., 2020. Influence of selected habitat and stand factors on bark beetle Ips
typographus (L.) outbreak in the Białowieża Forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 459 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117826.
Svoboda, M., LeComte, D., Hayes, M., Heim, R., Gleason, K., Angel, J., Rippey, B.,
Tinker, R., Palecki, M., Stooksbury, D., Miskus, D., Stephens, S., 2002. The drought
monitor. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 83, 1181–1190. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-
0477-83.8.1181. URL: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/83/8/
1520-0477-83_8_1181.xml.
Tahri, M., Maanan, M., Maanan, M., Bouksim, H., Hakdaoui, M., 2017. Using Fuzzy
Analytic Hierarchy Process multi-criteria and automatic computation to analyse
coastal vulnerability. Prog. Phys. Geogr.: Earth Environ. 41, 268–285. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0309133317695158. URL: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.11
77/0309133317695158.
Tahri, M., Kašpar, J., Vacik, H., Marušák, R., 2020. Predict Potential Risk of Bark Beetle
Disturbance Applying Bayesian Belief Networks. Technical Report EGU2020-21348.
Copernicus Meetings. https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-21348. URL:
https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2020/EGU2020-21348.html.
Tahri, M., Kaspar, J., Vacik, H., Marusak, R., 2021. Multi-attribute decision making and
geographic information systems: potential tools for evaluating forest ecosystem
services. Ann. For. Sci. 78, 41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-021-01049-0. URL:
https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13595-021-01049-0.
Thorn, S., Bässler, C., Svoboda, M., Müller, J., 2017. Effects of Natural Disturbances and
Salvage Logging on Biodiversity – Lessons from the Bohemian Forest Q, vol. 7. Forest
Ecology and Management.
Triantaphyllou, E., Sánchez, A., 1997. A sensitivity analysis approach for some
deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods. Decis. Sci. J. 28, 151–194.
M. Tahri et al.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01306.x. URL: https://onlinelibrary.
wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01306.x.
Vacik, H., Lexer, M.J., 2014. Past, current and future drivers for the development of
decision support systems in forest management. Scand. J. For. Res. 29, 2–19. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2013.830768. URL:
Valdez Vasquez, M., Chen, C.F., Lin, Y.J., Kuo, Y.C., Chen, Y.Y., Medina, D., Diaz, K.,
2020. Characterizing spatial patterns of pine bark beetle outbreaks during the dry
and rainy season’s in Honduras with the aid of geographic information systems and
remote sensing data. For. Ecol. Manag. 467 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foreco.2020.118162.
Vanická, H., Holuša, J., Resnerová, K., Ferenčík, J., Potterf, M., Véle, A., Grodzki, W.,
2020. Interventions have limited effects on the population dynamics of Ips
typographus and its natural enemies in the Western Carpathians (Central Europe).
For. Ecol. Manag. 470–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118209.
Wang, X.H., Zheng, B., Good, W.F., King, J.L., Chang, Y.H., 1999. Computer-assisted
diagnosis of breast cancer using a data-driven Bayesian belief network. Int. J. Med.
Inf. 54, 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1386-5056(98)00174-9. URL: https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386505698001749.
17
Environmental Modelling and Software 147 (2022) 105233
Wealands, S.R., Grayson, R.B., Walker, J.P., 2005. Quantitative comparison of spatial
fields for hydrological model assessment—-some promising approaches. Adv. Water
Resour. 28, 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2004.10.001. URL: https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309170804001575.
Wisse, B.W., Gosliga, S.P.v., Elst, N.P.v., Barros, A.I., TNO Defensie en Veiligheid, 2008.
Relieving the elicitation burden of bayesian belief networks. URL: http://resolver.
tudelft.nl/uuid:4ac862cd-4576-4271-b8e4-2d72cb9ac048.
Yariyan, P., Zabihi, H., Wolf, I., Karami, M., Amiriyan, S., 2020. Earthquake risk
assessment using an integrated fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with Artificial
neural networks based on GIS: a case study of Sanandaj in Iran. Int. J. Disaster .Risk.
Reduct 50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101705.
Zadeh, L.A., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8, 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-
9958(65)90241-X. URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S001999586590241X.
Zhang, X., Mahadevan, S., 2021. Bayesian network modeling of accident investigation
reports for aviation safety assessment. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 209 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ress.2020.107371.