IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v103y2019icp55-69.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Balancing different forest values: Evaluation of forest management scenarios in a multi-criteria decision analysis framework

Author

Listed:
  • Eggers, Jeannette
  • Holmgren, Sara
  • Nordström, Eva-Maria
  • Lämås, Tomas
  • Lind, Torgny
  • Öhman, Karin

Abstract

Besides traditional timber production, other forest functions, such as biodiversity and recreation, have gained increasing importance during the last few decades. Demands on forests have become more diversified, thus making forest management and planning more complex. To meet these challenges, there is a growing interest in a more diversified silviculture, for which a number of different management options are available. However, it remains unclear how the various management options affect economic, ecological, and social aspects of sustainable forest management. Hence, in this study, we assess the consequences of various management options on different aspects of sustainable forest management through scenario analysis using a forestry decision support system. We evaluate 10 different forest management scenarios for two contrasting municipalities in Sweden, based on expert participation by way of a web-based multi-criteria decision analysis framework. We asked experts in economic, ecological, and social forest values, as well as those in reindeer husbandry, to weigh a number of indicators in their field of expertise against each other, and to create value functions for each indicator. We then determined scenario ranking for different sets of weights for economic, ecological and social forest values. Our results indicate that current management practices are favorable for economic aspects (wood production), while a number of scenarios would be better suited to fulfill the Swedish co-equal forest policy goal of production and consideration of environmental issues, such as scenarios with longer rotation periods, a larger share of set-asides and a higher share of continuous cover forestry. These measures would be beneficial not only for ecological values, but also for social values and for reindeer husbandry. Furthermore, we found that expert participation through the web-tool was a promising alternative to physical meetings that require more commitment in terms of time and resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Eggers, Jeannette & Holmgren, Sara & Nordström, Eva-Maria & Lämås, Tomas & Lind, Torgny & Öhman, Karin, 2019. "Balancing different forest values: Evaluation of forest management scenarios in a multi-criteria decision analysis framework," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 55-69.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:103:y:2019:i:c:p:55-69
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.07.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934116303872
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.07.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lidskog, Rolf & Löfmarck, Erik, 2016. "Fostering a flexible forest: Challenges and strategies in the advisory practice of a deregulated forest management system," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 177-183.
    2. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2003. "Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 75-90, April.
    3. Lindahl, Karin Beland & Sténs, Anna & Sandström, Camilla & Johansson, Johanna & Lidskog, Rolf & Ranius, Thomas & Roberge, Jean-Michel, 2017. "The Swedish forestry model: More of everything?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 44-55.
    4. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2009. "A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2535-2548, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hertog, Iris Maria & Brogaard, Sara & Krause, Torsten, 2022. "Barriers to expanding continuous cover forestry in Sweden for delivering multiple ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    2. Hallberg-Sramek, Isabella & Nordström, Eva-Maria & Priebe, Janina & Reimerson, Elsa & Mårald, Erland & Nordin, Annika, 2023. "Combining scientific and local knowledge improves evaluating future scenarios of forest ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    3. Danley, Brian & Bjärstig, Therese & Sandström, Camilla, 2021. "At the limit of volunteerism? Swedish family forest owners and two policy strategies to increase forest biodiversity," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    4. Fridén, Alexia & D'Amato, Dalia & Ekström, Hanna & Iliev, Bogomil & Nebasifu, Ayonghe & May, Wilhelm & Thomsen, Marianne & Droste, Nils, 2024. "Mapping two centuries of forest governance in Nordic countries: An open access database," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    5. Zanchi, Giuliana & Brady, Mark V., 2019. "Evaluating the contribution of forest ecosystem services to societal welfare through linking dynamic ecosystem modelling with economic valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    6. Andersson, Martina & Bostedt, Göran & Sandström, Camilla, 2022. "The role of Swedish forests in climate change mitigation – A frame analysis of conflicting interests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    7. João Reis & Paula Santo & Nuno Melão, 2020. "Artificial Intelligence Research and Its Contributions to the European Union’s Political Governance: Comparative Study between Member States," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-17, November.
    8. Xiaoshu Li & G. Andrew Stainback, 2020. "On-Site Experience Effect on Stakeholders’ Preferences of Forest Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-16, September.
    9. Mónica de Castro-Pardo & João C. Azevedo, 2021. "A Goal Programming Model to Guide Decision-Making Processes towards Conservation Consensuses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-25, February.
    10. Grilli, Gianluca & Fratini, Roberto & Marone, Enrico & Sacchelli, Sandro, 2020. "A spatial-based tool for the analysis of payments for forest ecosystem services related to hydrogeological protection," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    11. Knoke, Thomas & Kindu, Mengistie & Jarisch, Isabelle & Gosling, Elizabeth & Friedrich, Stefan & Bödeker, Kai & Paul, Carola, 2020. "How considering multiple criteria, uncertainty scenarios and biological interactions may influence the optimal silvicultural strategy for a mixed forest," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    12. Chao Wang & Xi Chu & Jinyan Zhan & Pei Wang & Fan Zhang & Zhongling Xin, 2019. "Factors Contributing to Efficient Forest Production in the Region of the Three-North Shelter Forest Program, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-19, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Curtis, Keeli & Guillén, Luis Andrés & Brukas, Vilis, 2023. "Creating the landscape, one stand at a time: The dual roles of timber buyers in the nested domains of Swedish forestry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    2. Jafari, Ali & Sadeghi Kaji, Hamdollah & Azadi, Hossein & Gebrehiwot, Kindeya & Aghamir, Fateme & Van Passel, Steven, 2018. "Assessing the sustainability of community forest management: A case study from Iran," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 1-8.
    3. Amelia Bilbao-Terol & Mariano Jiménez & Mar Arenas-Parra, 2016. "A group decision making model based on goal programming with fuzzy hierarchy: an application to regional forest planning," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 137-162, October.
    4. Lodin, Isak & Brukas, Vilis & Wallin, Ida, 2017. "Spruce or not? Contextual and attitudinal drivers behind the choice of tree species in southern Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 191-198.
    5. Chiasson, Guy & Angelstam, Per & Axelsson, Robert & Doyon, Frederik, 2019. "Towards collaborative forest planning in Canadian and Swedish hinterlands: Different institutional trajectories?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 334-345.
    6. Parnphumeesup, Piya & Kerr, Sandy A., 2011. "Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3591-3601, June.
    7. Corrado Battisti, 2018. "Preparing students for the operational environmental career: an integrated project-based road map for academic programs," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 8(4), pages 573-583, December.
    8. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    9. Artur José Sitoe & Seunghoo Lim, 2024. "Understanding citizens' perception of channels for participating in administration based on their motivation in an authoritarian regime: The case of Gaza Province, Mozambique," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(1), pages 606-625, January.
    10. Nilsson, Jerker & Helgesson, Matilda & Rommel, Jens & Svensson, Ellinor, 2020. "Forest-owner support for their cooperative's provision of public goods," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    11. Regina Márcia Longo & Alessandra Leite da Silva & Admilson Irio Ribeiro & Raissa Caroline Gomes & Fabricio Camillo Sperandio & Adélia N. Nunes, 2024. "Evaluating the Environmental Quality of Forest Remnants Using Landscape Metrics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-19, February.
    12. Boukherroub, Tasseda & LeBel, Luc & Ruiz, Angel, 2017. "A framework for sustainable forest resource allocation: A Canadian case study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 66(PB), pages 224-235.
    13. Andonegi, Aitor & Garmendia, Eneko & Aldezabal, Arantza, 2021. "Social multi-criteria evaluation for managing biodiversity conservation conflicts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    14. Jing Zhao & Hui Hu & Jinglei Wang, 2022. "Forest Carbon Reserve Calculation and Comprehensive Economic Value Evaluation: A Forest Management Model Based on Both Biomass Expansion Factor Method and Total Forest Value," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-15, November.
    15. Lawrence, Anna & Deuffic, Philippe & Hujala, Teppo & Nichiforel, Liviu & Feliciano, Diana & Jodlowski, Krzysztof & Lind, Torgny & Marchal, Didier & Talkkari, Ari & Teder, Meelis & Vilkriste, Lelde & W, 2020. "Extension, advice and knowledge systems for private forestry: Understanding diversity and change across Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    16. Arif Wismadi & Mark Zuidgeest & Mark Brussel & Martin Maarseveen, 2014. "Spatial Preference Modelling for equitable infrastructure provision: an application of Sen’s Capability Approach," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 19-48, January.
    17. repec:sae:envval:v:25:y:2016:i:6:p:633-637 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Hertog, Iris Maria & Brogaard, Sara, 2021. "Struggling for an ideal dialogue. An analysis of the regional dialogue processes within Sweden's first National Forest Program," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    19. Elomina, Jerbelle & Pülzl, Helga, 2021. "How are forests framed? An analysis of EU forest policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    20. Michael B. Wironen & Robert V. Bartlett & Jon D. Erickson, 2019. "Deliberation and the Promise of a Deeply Democratic Sustainability Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, February.
    21. Chelsea Batavia & Michael Paul Nelson, 2018. "Translating climate change policy into forest management practice in a multiple-use context: the role of ethics," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 81-94, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:103:y:2019:i:c:p:55-69. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.