Adopting robust decision-making to forest management under climate change
Multi-objective robust decision making is a promising decision-making method in forest management under climate change as it adequately considers deep uncertainties and handles the long-term, inflexible, and multi-objective character of decisions. This paper provides guidance for application and recommendation on the design.
Recent studies have promoted the application of robust decision-making approaches to adequately consider deep uncertainties in natural resource management. Yet, applications have until now hardly addressed the forest management context.
This paper seeks to (i) assemble different definitions of uncertainty and draw recommendation to deal with the different levels in decision making, (ii) outline those applications that adequately deal with deep uncertainty, and (iii) systematically review the applications to natural resources management in order to (iv) propose adoption in forest management.
We conducted a systematic literature review of robust decision-making approaches and their applications in natural resource management. Different levels of uncertainty were categorized depending on available knowledge in order to provide recommendations on dealing with deep uncertainty. Robust decision-making approaches and their applications to natural resources management were evaluated based on different analysis steps. A simplified application to a hypothetical tree species selection problem illustrates that distinct robustness formulations may lead to different conclusions. Finally, robust decision-making applications to forest management under climate change uncertainty were evaluated and recommendations drawn.
Deep uncertainty is not adequately considered in the forest management literature. Yet, the comparison of robust decision-making approaches and their applications to natural resource management provide guidance on applying robust decision making in forest management regarding decision contexts, decision variables, robustness metrics, and how uncertainty is depicted.
As forest management is characterized by long decision horizons, inflexible systems, and multiple objectives, and is subject to deeply uncertain climate change, the application of a robust decision-making framework using a global, so-called satisficing robustness metric is recommended. Further recommendations are distinguished depending on the decision context.
KeywordsDeep uncertainty Robustness metrics Uncertainty levels Climate change Forest management Multi-objective robust decision making
Compliance with ethical standards
- Ben-Haim Y (2006) Info-gap decision theory. Decisions under severe uncertainty, 2nd edn. Academic Press/Elsevier, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Colloff MJ, Doherty MD, Lavorel S, Dunlop M, Wise RM, Prober SM (2016) Adaptation services and pathways for the management of temperate montane forests under transformational climate change. Clim Chang:267–282Google Scholar
- Faustmann M (1849) Calculation of the value which forestland and immature stands possess for forestry. J For Econ 1:7–44Google Scholar
- Hall JW, Lempert RJ, Keller K, Hackbarth A, Mijere C, McInerney DJ (2012) Robust climate policies under uncertainty. A comparison of robust decision making and info-gap methods. Risk Anal 32:1657–1672Google Scholar
- Herman JD, Zeff HB, Reed PM, Characklis GW (2014) Beyond optimality: Multistakeholder robustness tradeoffs for regional water portfolio planning under deep uncertainty. Water Resour Res 50:7692–7713Google Scholar
- Knight FH (1921) Risk, uncertainty, and profit. Hart, Schaffner and Marx, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Knoke T, Stimm B, Ammer C, Moog M (2005) Mixed forests reconsidered: A forest economics contribution on an ecological concept. For Ecol Manag 213:102–116Google Scholar
- Knoke T, Hildebrandt P, Klein D, Mujica R, Moog M, Mosandl R (2008) Financial compensation and uncertainty: Using mean-variance rule and stochastic dominance to derive conservation payments for secondary forests. Can J For Res 38:3033–3046Google Scholar
- Knoke T, Paul C, Hildebrandt P, Calvas B, Castro LM, Hartl F, Dollerer M, Hamer U, Windhorst D, Wiersma YF, Curatola Fernandez GF, Obermeier WA, Adams J, Breuer L, Mosandl R, Beck E, Weber M, Stimm B, Haber W, Furst C, Bendix J (2016) Compositional diversity of rehabilitated tropical lands supports multiple ecosystem services and buffers uncertainties. Nat Commun 7:11877CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Lempert RJ, Collins MT (2007) Managing the risk of uncertain threshold responses: Comparison of robust, optimum, and precautionary approaches. Risk Anal 27:1009–1026Google Scholar
- Lempert RJ, Popper SW, Bankes SC (2003) Shaping the next one hundred years: New methods for quantitative, long-term policy analysis and bibliography. RAND, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
- Lempert RJ, Bryant BP, Bankes SC (2008) Comparing algorithms for scenario discovery. RAND, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
- Lindner M, Fitzgerald JB, Zimmermann NE, Reyer C, Delzon S, van der Maaten E, Schelhaas M-J, Lasch P, Eggers J, van der Maaten-Theunissen M, Suckow F, Psomas A, Poulter B, Hanewinkel M (2014) Climate change and European forests. What do we know, what are the uncertainties, and what are the implications for forest management? J Environ Manag 146:69–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ogden AE, Innes J (2007) Incorporating climate change adaptation considerations into forest management planning in the boreal forest. Int For Rev 9:713–733Google Scholar
- Pasalodos-Tato M, Mäkinen A, Garcia-Gonzalo J, Borges JG, Lämås T, Eriksson LO (2013) Assessing uncertainty and risk in forest planning and decision support systems. Review of classical methods and introduction of new approaches. For Syst 22:282Google Scholar
- Starr MK (1963) Product design and decision theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
- Taleb NN (2010) The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable, 2nd edn. Penguin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar