4.4 Article

Quantifying and easing conflicting goals between interest groups in natural resource planning

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH
卷 49, 期 10, 页码 1233-1241

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/cjfr-2019-0026

关键词

biodiversity; boreal forest; conflict management; ecosystem services; efficiency; Finland; forestry; forest planning; multifunctionality; optimization

类别

资金

  1. Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
  2. European Union through the ERA-NET SumForest program (project: FutureBioEcon-Sustainable future of European Forests for developing the bioeconomy)
  3. European Union through Academy of Finland [275329]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Management of natural resources at the regional level is a compromise between a variety of objectives and interests. At the local level, management of the forests depends upon the ownership structure, with forest owners using their forests as they see fit. A potential conflict occurs if the forest owners' management decisions are counter to the interests of society in general or the industry that relies on the forest resource as their raw material. We explore the intensity of this conflict at the regional level in several large boreal forest production landscapes. To explore the conflict, we investigate three main interest groups: (i) economically oriented forest owners; (ii) industry groups (focusing on maintaining an even timber supply); and (iii) a group representing general public interests (focusing on enhancing ecosystem services and biodiversity protection). The severity of conflicts differs between interest groups; we found a minor conflict between the economically oriented forest owners and industry and a severe conflict among general public interests and the other groups. By quantifying the conflicts, visualizing the impacts shared among interest groups, we anticipate that through shared discovery and understanding, forests can be managed to lessen the conflicts between interest groups.

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

4.4
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