Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 46, Issue 6, pp 941–952 | Cite as

How to Support Forest Management in a World of Change: Results of Some Regional Studies

  • C. FürstEmail author
  • C. Lorz
  • H. Vacik
  • N. Potocic
  • F. Makeschin
Article

Abstract

This article presents results of several studies in Middle, Eastern and Southeastern Europe on needs and application areas, desirable attributes and marketing potentials of forest management support tools. By comparing present and future application areas, a trend from sectoral planning towards landscape planning and integration of multiple stakeholder needs is emerging. In terms of conflicts, where management support tools might provide benefit, no clear tendencies were found, neither on local nor on regional level. In contrast, on national and European levels, support of the implementation of laws, directives, and regulations was found to be of highest importance. Following the user-requirements analysis, electronic tools supporting communication are preferred against paper-based instruments. The users identified most important attributes of optimized management support tools: (i) a broad accessibility for all users at any time should be guaranteed, (ii) the possibility to integrate iteratively experiences from case studies and from regional experts into the knowledge base (learning system) should be given, and (iii) a self-explanatory user interface is demanded, which is also suitable for users rather inexperienced with electronic tools. However, a market potential analysis revealed that the willingness to pay for management tools is very limited, although the participants specified realistic ranges of maximal amounts of money, which would be invested if the products were suitable and payment inevitable. To bridge the discrepancy between unwillingness to pay and the need to use management support tools, optimized financing or cooperation models between practice and science must be found.

Keywords

Forest management Management support tools User requirements Delphi study Information and decision process Market potentials 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank all end-users and stakeholders, who participated in the regional studies. Without their great commitment it would not have been possible to realize these studies. The authors wish to thank also the funding organizations. The central study REFORMAN (MOE 07/S05) was supported by each partner nation in the SEE-ERA NET, REG-TRANSEKT (MOE 07/001) and ENFORCHANGE (0330634 K) by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research and IT-REG-EU (EUSN-06-J3-1-D1287-ERN) in the INTERREG-III-a program.

References

  1. Andersson F, Feger KH, Hüttl R et al (2000) Forest ecosystem research—priorities for Europe. Forest Ecology and Management 132(1):111–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asgary A, Levy JK, Mehregan N (2007) Estimating willingness to pay for hypothetical earthquake early warning systems. Environmental Hazards 7(4):312–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baskent EZ, Başkayaa S, Terzioğlua S (2008) Developing and implementing participatory and ecosystem based multiple use forest management planning approach (ETÇAP): Yalnızçam case study. Forest Ecology and Management 256(4):798–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Yokoyama KK, Freeman PR (2001) Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment. Journal of Health Economics 20(3):441–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borg WR, Gall MD (1989) Educational research: an introduction, 5th edn. Longman, White Plains, NY, 534 ppGoogle Scholar
  6. Buttoud G (2002) Multipurpose management of mountain forests: which approaches? Forest Policy and Economics 4(2):83–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buzan T (1995) The mind map book. BBC Books, London, UK, 319 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Castella JC, Boissau S, Thanh NH, Novosad P (2006) Impact of forestland allocation on land-use in a mountainous province of Vietnam. Land-use Policy 23(2):47–160Google Scholar
  9. Cooke RM (1991) Experts in uncertainty: opinion and subjective probability in science. Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford, 330 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. Dalkey N, Helmer O (1963) An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science 9(3):458–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. EVALSED (2003) Delphi method. Evaluating Socio Economic, Development, SOURCEBOOK 2: Methods & Techniques, DG Regional Policy. http://www.evalsed.info/frame_downloads.asp. Accessed 16 January 2009
  12. Farell EP, Führer E, Ryana D et al (2000) European forest ecosystems: building the future on the legacy of the past. Forest Ecology and Management 132(1):5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Führer E (2000) Forest functions, ecosystem stability and management. Forest Ecology and Management 132(1):29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fürst C, Vacik H, Lorz C et al (2007) Meeting the challenges of process-oriented forest management. Forest Ecology and Management 248(1–2):1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fürst C, Davidsson C, Pietzsch K et al (2008) “Pimp your landscape”—interactive land-use planning support tool. Transactions on the Built Environment (ISSN 1743–3509). Geoenvironment and Landscape Evolution III 2:219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Henle K, Alard D, Clitherow J et al (2008) Identifying and managing the conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe—A review agriculture. Ecosystems and Environment 124(1):60–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johann E (2007) Traditional forest management under the influence of science and industry: the story of the alpine cultural landscapes. Forest Ecology and Management 249(1):54–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kissling-Näf I, Bisang K (2001) Rethinking recent changes of forest regimes in Europe through property-rights theory and policy analysis. Forest Policy and Economics 3(3–4):99–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ljungman L (1994) The changing role of forestry institutions in former centrally planned economies of Eastern Europe, Unasylva 178/45(3). http://www.fao.org/docrep/t3350e/t3350e00.htm#Contents. Accessed 2 July 2009
  20. Manners G (1981) Regional policies and the national interest. Geoforum 12(4):281–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martinez de Anguita P, Alonso E, Martin MA (2008) Environmental economic, political and ethical integration in a common decision-making framework. Journal of Environmental Management 88(1):154–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Matthies M, Giupponi C, Ostendorf B (2007) Environmental decision support systems: current issues, methods and tools. Environmental Modelling and Software 22(2):123–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maxim L, van der Sluijs JP (2007) Uncertainty: cause or effect of stakeholders’ debates? Science of the Total Environment 376(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller MM (1993) Enhancing regional analysis with the Delphi method. Review of Regional Studies 23(2):191–212Google Scholar
  25. Montiel C, Galiana L (2005) Forest policy and land planning policy in Spain: a regional approach. Forest Policy and Economics 7(2):131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. O’Didia D (1997) Democracy, political instability and tropical deforestation. Global Environmental Change 7(1):63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parviainen J, Frank G (2003) Protected forests in Europe approaches-harmonising the definitions for international comparison and forest policy making. Journal of Environmental Management 67(1):27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pettenella D (1994) Institutional changes in forestry administrative structures: the Italian experience, Unasylva 178/45(3). http://www.fao.org/docrep/t3350e/t3350e00.htm#Contents. Accessed 2 July 2009
  29. Price C (2007) Sustainable forest management, pecuniary externalities and invisible stakeholders. Forest Policy and Economics 9(7):751–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rauscher MH, Reynolds KM, Vacik H (eds) (2005) Decision support systems for forest management. Special Issue of Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 49:1–3Google Scholar
  31. Schmidt-Thomé P (ed) (2005) The spatial effects and management of natural and technological hazards in Europe, Final Report of the European Spatial Planning and Observation Network (ESPON) project 1.3.1, Geological Survey of Finland, Espoo, 197 ppGoogle Scholar
  32. Scholles F (2001) Delphi. In: Fürst D, Scholles F (eds) Handbook of theories and methods of spatial and environmental planning 4. Dortmunder Vertrieb für Bau- und Planungsliteratur, pp 203–206Google Scholar
  33. Shimamoto M, Ubukata F, Seki Y (2004) Forest sustainability and the free trade of forest products: cases from Southeast Asia. Ecological Economics 50(1–2):23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Speier C, Brown CV (1997) Differences in end-user computing support and control across user departments. Information & Management 32(2):85–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Spieker H (2002) Silvicultural management in maintaining biodiversity and resistance of forests in Europe—temperate zone. Journal of Environmental Management 67(1):55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stupak I, Asikainen A, Jonsel M et al (2007) Sustainable utilisation of forest biomass for energy, Possibilities and problems: Policy, legislation, certification, and recommendations and guidelines in the Nordic, Baltic, and other European countries. Biomass and Bioenergy 31(10):666–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Turoff M, Linstone H (1975) The Delphi method: techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 620 ppGoogle Scholar
  38. Uran O, Janssen R (2003) Why are spatial decision support systems not used? Some experiences from the Netherlands. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 27:511–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van Paassen A, Roetter RP, Van Keulen H, Hoanh CT (2007) Can computer models stimulate learning about sustainable land-use? Experience with LUPAS in the humid (sub-)tropics of Asia. Agricultural Systems 94(3):874–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vos W, Meekes H (1999) Trends in European cultural landscape development: perspectives for a sustainable future. Landscape and Urban Planning 46(1):3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weiss G (2004) The political practice of mountain forest restoration—comparing restoration concepts in four European countries. Forest Ecology and Management 195(1–2):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. White W, Lamb DR, Yun S (2004) Development of an empirically based area-type model. Transportation Research Record 1895:25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wohlgemuth T, Bürgi M, Scheidegger C, Schütz M (2002) Dominance reduction of species through disturbance—a proposed management principle for central European forests. Forest Ecology and Management 166(1–3):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wolfslehner B, Vacik H (2008) Evaluating sustainable forest management strategies with the Analytic Network Process in a Pressure-State-Response framework. Journal of Environmental Management 88:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vuletic D, Potocic N, Krajter S, Seletkovic I, Fürst C, Makeschin F, Galic Z, Lorz C, Matijasic D, Zupanic M, Simoncic P, Vacik H (submitted) How socio-economic frame conditions influence forest policy development in Central and South-Eastern Europe. Environmental ManagementGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Fürst
    • 1
    Email author
  • C. Lorz
    • 1
  • H. Vacik
    • 2
  • N. Potocic
    • 3
  • F. Makeschin
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Soil Science and Site EcologyDresden University of TechnologyTharandtGermany
  2. 2.Institute of SilvicultureUniversity of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences ViennaWienAustria
  3. 3.Croatian Forest Research Institute JastrebarskoJastrebarskoCroatia

Personalised recommendations