4.7 Article

Assessing impacts of intensified biomass production and biodiversity protection on ecosystem services provided by European forests

期刊

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 155-165

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.06.004

关键词

Biodiversity; Bio-energy; Ecosystem services; Forests; Synergy; Trade-off

资金

  1. EU 6th Framework Program, EXIOPOL project [037033-2]
  2. EU 7th Framework Program, GHG-Europe project [244122]
  3. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, European Forest Sector Outlook Study II

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To develop viable strategies for intensifying the use of forest biomass and for increasing forest protection, impacts on ecosystem services need to be assessed. We investigated the biophysical and economic impacts of increased forest biomass production and biodiversity protection on forest ecosystem services. The European Forest Information SCENario (EFISCEN) model was applied for 26 European countries. Three different scenarios were considered: a reference scenario (no policy changes, a moderate increase in roundwoocl, residue and stump biomass production), a wood energy scenario (enhanced roundwood, residue and stump biomass production to achieve national renewable energy targets), and a biodiversity scenario (setting aside 5% of the forest area with restrictions on wood production combined with biodiversity-friendly management on the remaining area). The impacts were assessed by analyzing impacts on provisioning (roundwood production and residue and stump biomass production) and other services (carbon storage, deadwood and recreation) for the period 2010-2030. We found that roundwood, residue and stump biomass production could be intensified, but there are trade-offs with non marketed ecosystem services. Increasing biomass production could lead to a net societal benefit in 2030. However, larger benefits would be obtained within Europe if forest biodiversity protection is enhanced. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据