Thomas Knoke, Peter Biber, Tobias Schula, Jonathan Fibich, Benjamin Gang
{"title":"Minimising the relative regret of future forest landscape compositions: The role of close-to-nature stand types","authors":"Thomas Knoke, Peter Biber, Tobias Schula, Jonathan Fibich, Benjamin Gang","doi":"10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103410","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Increasingly uncertain decision outcomes prevail in forest management and hamper choosing a single optimal management alternative. Confronting all management alternatives with multiple future scenarios and selecting an alternative minimising the regret under the worst scenario may provide suitable guidance under such uncertainty. Here, we search for future forested landscape compositions using regret minimisation for different objectives. We consider even-aged and uneven-aged stand types (called close-to-nature stand types) as management alternatives. Close-to-nature forest stand types supported the minimisation of regret for all objectives (represented by financial return, volume increment, C-storage, and two biodiversity indicators). However, close-to-nature stand types covered 18 % to 43 % of the future forest landscape in our study, which shows that even-aged stands are also necessary. For example, supporting biodiversity or multiple objectives simultaneously required large proportions of light-demanding and climate-change-tolerant Oak stands (even aged). Such Oak stands are difficult to achieve under shady conditions with limited canopy openings, which is typical for uneven-aged systems. Building on robust Pareto frontiers, we show a substantial trade-off between supporting biodiversity and maximising financial return but only a moderate trade-off between supporting biodiversity and maximising the C storage in a forest landscape. We suggest that such landscape-level trade-offs be quantified and discussed more intensively.","PeriodicalId":12451,"journal":{"name":"Forest Policy and Economics","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forest Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103410","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Increasingly uncertain decision outcomes prevail in forest management and hamper choosing a single optimal management alternative. Confronting all management alternatives with multiple future scenarios and selecting an alternative minimising the regret under the worst scenario may provide suitable guidance under such uncertainty. Here, we search for future forested landscape compositions using regret minimisation for different objectives. We consider even-aged and uneven-aged stand types (called close-to-nature stand types) as management alternatives. Close-to-nature forest stand types supported the minimisation of regret for all objectives (represented by financial return, volume increment, C-storage, and two biodiversity indicators). However, close-to-nature stand types covered 18 % to 43 % of the future forest landscape in our study, which shows that even-aged stands are also necessary. For example, supporting biodiversity or multiple objectives simultaneously required large proportions of light-demanding and climate-change-tolerant Oak stands (even aged). Such Oak stands are difficult to achieve under shady conditions with limited canopy openings, which is typical for uneven-aged systems. Building on robust Pareto frontiers, we show a substantial trade-off between supporting biodiversity and maximising financial return but only a moderate trade-off between supporting biodiversity and maximising the C storage in a forest landscape. We suggest that such landscape-level trade-offs be quantified and discussed more intensively.
期刊介绍:
Forest Policy and Economics is a leading scientific journal that publishes peer-reviewed policy and economics research relating to forests, forested landscapes, forest-related industries, and other forest-relevant land uses. It also welcomes contributions from other social sciences and humanities perspectives that make clear theoretical, conceptual and methodological contributions to the existing state-of-the-art literature on forests and related land use systems. These disciplines include, but are not limited to, sociology, anthropology, human geography, history, jurisprudence, planning, development studies, and psychology research on forests. Forest Policy and Economics is global in scope and publishes multiple article types of high scientific standard. Acceptance for publication is subject to a double-blind peer-review process.