Articles containing the keyword 'trade-offs'

Traditional timber production may have negative effects on other ecosystem services. Therefore, new forest management guidelines have been developed in order to enhance a habitat suitable for wildlife. In Finland, a recent example of this is grouse-friendly forest management (GFFM) which emphasises the preservation of grouse species (Tetronidae) habitats. This study aimed to analyse the economic effects of these guidelines. An analysis was made on how the application of GFFM affected the Net Present Value (NPV) in a 30-year simulation of forest management of four large forest holdings located from south to north in Finland. In the simulations, traditional forest management practices were compared to two levels of GFFM. Five levels of interest rate were used, namely 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5%. In most of the simulations, the NPV was reduced by about 1% or less due to the application of GFFM in comparison to the traditional reference forest management. Only in one case with more intensive GFFM, was the reduction of NPV more than 5%. The interest rates had an impact on the differences between the management approaches. For example, a low interest rate resulted in a higher thinning intensity in GFFM in comparison to traditional forest management, which lead to a higher NPV in GFFM. To sum up, it seems that it would be possible to manage forest holdings in a grouse-friendly manner with minor effects on the economics.

• Haara, LUKE https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6895-5300 E-mail: arto.haara@luke.fi
• Matala, Natural Resources Institute Finland, (Luke), Natural resources, Yliopistokatu 6B, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: juho.matala@luke.fi
• Melin, Natural Resources Institute Finland, (Luke), Bioeconomy and environment, Yli opistokatu 6B, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: markus.melin@luke.fi
• Miettinen, Finnish Wildlife Agency, Ratatie 41, FI-91501 Muhos, Finland E-mail: janne.miettinen@riista.fi
• Korhonen, Natural Resources Institute Finland, (Luke), Bioeconomy and environment, Yli opistokatu 6B, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: kari.t.korhonen@luke.fi
• Packalen, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, P.O. Box 30, FI-00023 GOVERNMENT, Finland E-mail: tuula.packalen@mmm.fi
• Varjo, Finnish Wildlife Agency, Sompiontie 1, FI-00730 Helsinki, Finland E-mail: jari.varjo@riista.fi

Timber production is an economically important provisioning ecosystem service in forests, but is often in conflict with the provision of other ecosystem services. In multifunctional forestry, the production of timber and non-timber ecosystem services should coexist in the same landscape. To this end, we explored the capacity of a boreal landscape to simultaneously produce collectable goods − bilberry (Vaccimium myrtillus L.), cowberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.) and cep (Boletus edulis Bull.) − alongside timber revenues. We also identified optimal forest management plans to achieve this. Furthermore, we analyzed trade-offs between collectable good yields and timber production, as well as between their economic values. We ran forest growth simulations under seven alternative management regimes at a landscape level across 50-year planning horizons. Then, we used multi-objective optimization to explore trade-offs and identify optimal forest management plans. The results showed that the strongest trade-off was between bilberry and timber production, resulting in a large loss in timber revenues for a gain in bilberry production. However, the conflicts between other collectables and timber production were relatively small: it was possible to increase the provision of collectable goods 4–15% with small reductions (3−5%) from timber revenues. With careful forest planning, there is the potential to simultaneously produce high levels of collectable goods and timber revenues in the landscape.

• Peura, University of Jyvaskyla, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014, University of Jyväskylä, Finland E-mail: maiju.h.peura@jyu.fi
• Triviño, University of Jyvaskyla, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014, University of Jyväskylä, Finland E-mail: maria.trivino@jyu.fi
• Mazziotta, University of Jyvaskyla, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014, University of Jyväskylä, Finland; Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark E-mail: adriano.mazziotta@snm.ku.dk
• Podkopaev, University of Jyvaskyla, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014, University of Jyväskylä, Finland; Systems Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Newelska 6, 01-447 Warsaw, Poland E-mail: dmitry.podkopaev@gmail.com
• Juutinen, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Economics and Society, P.O. Box 413, FI-90014 University of Oulu, Finland; University of Oulu, Department of Economics, P.O. Box 4600, FI-90014 University of Oulu, Finland E-mail: artti.juutinen@luke.fi
• Mönkkönen, University of Jyvaskyla, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014, University of Jyväskylä, Finland E-mail: mikko.monkkonen@jyu.fi