More is more? : Forest management allocation at different spatial scales to mitigate conflicts between ecosystem services
Pohjanmies, T., Eyvindson, K., Triviño, M., & Mönkkönen, M. (2017). More is more? : Forest management allocation at different spatial scales to mitigate conflicts between ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology, 32 (12), 2337-2349. doi:10.1007/s10980-017-0572-1
Julkaistu sarjassaLandscape Ecology
OppiaineEkologia ja evoluutiobiologia
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017. This is a final draft version of an article whose final and definitive form has been published by Springer. Published in this repository with the kind permission of the publisher.
Context Multi-objective management can mitigate conflicts among land-use objectives. However, the effectiveness of a multi-objective solution depends on the spatial scale at which land-use is optimized. This is because the ecological variation within the planning region influences the potential for site-specific prioritization according to the different objectives. Objectives We optimized the allocation of forest management strategies to maximize the joint production of two conflicting objectives, timber production and carbon storage, at increasing spatial scales. We examined the impacts of the extent of the planning region on the severity of the conflict, the potential for its mitigation, and the strategies that were identified as optimal. Methods Using forecasted data from a forest simulator, we constructed Pareto frontiers optimizing the joint provision of the objectives in production forests in Finland. Optimization was conducted within increasing hierarchical spatial scales and outcomes were compared in terms of the severity of the conflict and the solution to mitigate it. Results The trade-offs between timber production and carbon storage appeared less severe and could be mitigated more effectively the larger the planning regions were, but the improvements became minor beyond the scale of ‘large forest holding’. The results thus indicate that this scale, approximately 100 stands or 200 ha, is large enough to effectively mitigate the conflict between timber production and carbon storage. Conclusions Management planning over relatively small forest areas (200 ha) can mitigate ecosystem service trade-offs effectively. Thus the effective use of multi-objective optimization tools may be feasible even in small-scale forestry. ...