4.7 Article

Value-based ecosystem service trade-offs in multi-objective management in European mountain forests

期刊

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
卷 26, 期 -, 页码 245-257

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.001

关键词

Ecosystem services; Mountain forests; Trade-off analysis; Indicators; Multi-criteria analysis

资金

  1. EU through the Marie Curie Initial Training Networks (ITN) action CASTLE [316020]
  2. EU FP7 project ARANGE [KBBE-289437]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mountain forests provide a diverse range of ecosystem services (ES). In case of conflicting ES, trade-offs must be considered in forest resource planning. In this study, simulation-based scenario analysis and multi-criteria decision analysis is used to analyse expected utilities and value-based trade-offs in multi-objective forest management related to four key ES (timber production, carbon storage, biodiversity conservation, protection against gravitational hazards) in three European mountain regions. In each case study area a set of management alternatives including no-management were simulated over 100 years and ES quantified using ES indicators. Multifunctional goal scenarios are employed to aggregate partial ES utilities, accumulated RMSE between ES are used to quantify trade-offs. In two analysed case study areas no-management generated highest ES utilities for biodiversity conservation, carbon storage and protection against gravitational hazards. Alternatives based on small-scale silviculture combined timber production and biodiversity conservation very well. In all case study areas increasing goal preferences for timber production or biodiversity and nature conservation result in increasing overall trade-offs with rather decreasing overall utilities. In all case study areas the analysed managements support multiple ES and can thus be considered as multifunctional. Based on the presented analysis management alternatives could be further improved. (C) 2017 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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