4.7 Article

Trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services under different forest management scenarios - The LEcA tool

期刊

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
卷 28, 期 -, 页码 67-79

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.006

关键词

Integrated sustainability assessment; Industrial wood; Bioenergy; Carbon storage; Recreation values; Habitat networks

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (FORMAS)
  2. Swedish strategic research programme STandUP for Energy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Forests provide a multitude of ecosystem services. In Sweden, the goal to replace fossil fuels could induce substantial changes in the current management and use of forests. Therefore, methods and tools are needed to assess synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services for policy and planning alternatives. The aim of this study was to develop methods for integrated sustainability assessment of forest management strategies for long-term provisioning of various ecosystem services. For this purpose, the Landscape simulation and Ecological Assessment (LEcA) tool was developed to analyse synergies and trade-offs among five ecosystem services: bioenergy feedstock and industrial wood production, forest carbon storage, recreation areas and habitat networks. Forest growth and management were simulated for two scenarios; the EAF-tot scenario dominated by even-aged forestry (EAF), and the CCF-int scenario with a combination of continuous-cover forestry (CCF) and intensified EAF. The results showed trade-offs between industrial wood and bioenergy production on one side and habitat, recreation and carbon storage on the other side. The LEcA tool showed great potential for evaluation of impacts of alternative policies for land zoning and forest management on forest ecosystem services. It can be used to assess the consequences of forest management strategies related to renewable energy and conservation policies. (C) 2017 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