European Journal of Forest Research

, Volume 134, Issue 5, pp 755–767 | Cite as

Forests for wood production and stress recovery: trade-offs in long-term forest management planning

  • Eva-Maria NordströmEmail author
  • Ann Dolling
  • Erik Skärbäck
  • Jonathan Stoltz
  • Patrik Grahn
  • Ylva Lundell
Original Paper


Forests play an important role, contributing to human health and well-being as environments for recreation and rehabilitation. Stress has become a significant problem in modern societies, and the importance of forests as environments for stress relief has been recognized in recent years. To maintain and create forests for rehabilitation, consideration of their rehabilitation value needs to be incorporated into forest management planning and to do this, we need to define and quantify the characteristics of good rehabilitation forests. This study presents an approach for including rehabilitation value as an aspect of forest management planning. This approach is applied to three case study areas in northern, middle and southern Sweden to identify trade-offs between maintaining high wood production while creating forest areas suitable for rehabilitation from stress-related diseases. The results show that quite large areas of rehabilitation forest (10–15 % of total forest area) can be maintained at a relatively small loss in economic net present value (NPV) of wood production (ca 2 % of maximum NPV). When using the rehabilitation value indicator defined in this study, age and spatial variables (distance to roads and water) seem to be the most limiting factors.


Forestry Indicator Landscape Rehabilitation Restorative effect Stand-level variables 



This work was supported by the Forest Society Foundation (Stiftelsen Skogssällskapet) under Grant 1011-78/150-7 and by the Faculty of Forest Sciences at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences as a part of the research program Forest and Health. We thank Karin Öhman, Hampus Holmström and Ljusk Ola Eriksson for Heureka support as well as creative discussions about treatment simulations and the optimization model. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.


  1. Adevi A, Mårtensson F (2013) Stress rehabilitation through garden therapy: the garden as a place in the recovery from stress. Urban For Urban Green. 12(2):30–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annerstedt M, Norman J, Boman M, Mattsson L, Grahn P, Währborg P (2010) Finding stress relief in a forest. Ecol Bull 53:33–42Google Scholar
  3. Brunberg T (1995) Basic data for productivity norms for heavy-duty single-grip harvesters in final felling. Skogforsk, Redogörelse 8. (In Swedish with English summary.)Google Scholar
  4. Brunberg T (1997) Underlag för produktionsnorm för engreppsskördare i gallring. Skogforsk, Redogörelse 8. (In Swedish with English summary.)Google Scholar
  5. Brunberg T (2004) Underlag till produktionsnorm för skotare. Skogforsk, Redogörelse 3. (In Swedish with English summary.)Google Scholar
  6. Davis LS, Johnson KN, Bettinger PS, Howard TE (2001) Forest Management, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Edwards DM, Jay M, Jensen FS, Lucas B, Marzano M, Montagné C, Peace A, Weiss W (2010) Public preferences for silvicultural attributes of European forests. EFORWOOD Report D2.3.3, Forest Research, UKGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwards DM, Jay M, Jensen FS, Lucas B, Marzano M, Montagné C, Peace A, Weiss G (2012) Public preferences across Europe for different forest stand types as sites for recreation. Ecol Soc. 17(1): article 27Google Scholar
  9. Eriksson L, Lindhagen A (2001) A model indicating effects of multi-purpose use of forestry at the stand level. In: Niskanen A, Väyrynen J (eds) Economic sustainability of small-scale forestry. European Forest Institute, Joensuu, pp 161–176Google Scholar
  10. Gatersleben B, Andrews M (2013) When walking in nature is not restorative—the role of prospect and refuge. Health Place 20:91–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gesler WM (1992) Therapeutic landscapes: medical issues in light of the new cultural geography. Soc Sci Med 34(7):735–746PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gesler WM (1993) Therapeutic landscapes: theory and a case study of Epidaurus Greece. Environ Plan D Soc Space 34(7):735–746Google Scholar
  13. Glise K (2014) Exhaustion disorder—identification, characterization and course of illness. Doctoral thesis. The Sahlgrenska Academy and the University of Gothenburg, GothenburgGoogle Scholar
  14. Grahn P, Stigsdotter U (2010) The relationship between perceived sensory dimensions of urban green space and stress recovery. Landsc Urban Plan 94:264–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gundersen VS, Frivold LH (2008) Public preferences for forest structures: a review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban For Urban Green 7:241–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hartig T (2004) Restorative environments. In: Spielberger C (ed) Encyclopedia of applied psychology, vol 3. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  17. Hartig T, Cooper Marcus C (2006) Essay. Healing gardens—places for nature in health care. Lancet 368:36–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hartig T, Evans GW, Jamner LD, Davis DS, Gärling T (2003) Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. J Environ Psychol 23(2):109–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson KN, Scheurman HL (1977) Techniques for prescribing optimal timber harvest and investment under different objectives—discussion and synthesis. For Sci. Monograph 18 (Supplement to For Sci 23(1))Google Scholar
  20. Kangas J, Store R, Kangas A (2005) Socioecological landscape planning approach and multicriteria acceptability analysis in multiple-purpose forest management. For Policy Econ 7(4):603–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaplan S (1995) The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. J Environ Psychol 15:169–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Korpela KM (2003) Negative mood and adult place preference. Environ Behav 35(3):331–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morita E, Fukuda S, Nagano J, Hamajima N, Yamamoto H, Iwai I, Nakashima T, Ohira H, Shirakawa T (2007) Psychological effects of forest environments on healthy adults: Shinrin-yoku (forest-air bathing, walking) as a possible method of stress reduction. Public Health 121(1):54–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nilsson K, Sangster M, Konijnendijk CC (2011) Forest, trees and human health and wellbeing: inroduction. In: Nilsson K, Sangster M, Gallis C, Hartig T, de Vries S, Seeland K, Schipperijn J (eds) Forest, trees and human health. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nordh H, Grahn P, Währborg P (2009) Meaningful activities in the forest, a way back from exhaustion and long-term sick leave. Urban For Urban Green 8(3):207–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nordström E-M, Eriksson LO, Öhman K (2011) Multiple criteria decision analysis with consideration to place-specific values in participatory forest planning. Silva Fenn 45(2):253–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Öhman K, Edenius L, Mikusiński G (2011) Optimizing spatial habitat suitability and timber revenue in long-term forest planning. Can J Forest Res 41(3):543–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ottosson J, Grahn P (2008) The role of natural settings in crisis rehabilitation: how does the level of crisis influence the response to experiences of nature with regard to measures of rehabilitation? Landsc Res 33(1):51–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pálsdottír AM, Persson D, Persson B, Grahn P (2014) The journey of recovery and empowerment embraced by nature—clients’ perspectives on nature-based rehabilitation in relation to the role of the natural environment. Int J Environ Res Public Health 11(7):7094–7115PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pukkala T, Kellomäki S, Mustonen E (1988) Prediction of the amenity of a tree stand. Scand J Forest Res 3:533–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pukkala T, Nuutinen T, Kangas J (1995) Integrating scenic and recreational amenities into numerical forest planning. Landsc Urban Plan 32(3):185–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sonntag-Öström E (2014) Forests for rest. Recovery from exhaustion disorder. Doctoral Dissertation. Umeå University, UmeåGoogle Scholar
  34. Sonntag-Öström E, Nordin M, Slunga Järvholm L, Lundell Y, Brännström R, Dolling A (2011) Can the boreal forest be used for rehabilitation and recovery from stress-related exhaustion? A pilot study. Scand J For Res 26(3):245–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sonntag-Öström E, Nordin M, Lundell Y, Dolling A, Wiklund U, Karlsson M, Carlberg B, Slunga Järvholm L (2014) Restorative effects of visits to urban and forest environments in patients with exhaustion disorder. Urban For Urban Green 13(2):344–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stigsdotter UK, Palsdottir A-M, Burls A, Chermaz A, Ferrini F, Grahn P (2011) Nature-based therapeutic interventions. In: Nilsson K, Sangster M, Gallis C, Hartig T, de Vries S, Seeland K, Schipperijn J (eds) Forests, trees and human health and well-being. Springer, Berlin, pp 309–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stoltz J, Grahn P, Skärbäck E, van den Bosch M, Lundell Y, Nordström E-M, Dolling A (under review) Evaluation of restorative qualities in forest stands using available forest stand data. Eur J For ResGoogle Scholar
  38. Store R (2009) Sustainable locating of different forest uses. Land Use Policy 26(3):610–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tenngart Ivarsson C, Abramsson K (2006) Nature and health in Sweden. In: Hassink J, van Dijk M (eds) Farming for health. Green-care farming across Europe and the United States of America. Springer, Berlin, pp 127–134Google Scholar
  40. Tyrväinen L, Ojala A, Korpela K, Lanki T, Tsunetsugu Y, Kagawa T (2014) The influence of urban green environments on stress relief measures: a field experiment. J Environ Psychol 38:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ulrich RS (1984) View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 224(4647):420–421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ulrich RS, Simons RF, Losito BD, Fiorito E, Miles MA, Zelson M (1991) Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J Environ Psychol 11:201–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Umaerus P, Lidestav G, Eriksson LO, Högvall Nordin M (2013) Gendered business activities in family farm forestry: from round wood delivery to health service. Scand J For Res 28(6):596–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Velarde MD, Fry G, Tveit M (2007) Health effects of viewing landscapes—landscape types in environmental psychology. Urban For Urban Green 6:199–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Währborg P, Petersson I, Grahn P (2014) Nature-assisted rehabilitation for reactions to severe stress and/or depression in a rehabilitation garden: long-term follow-up including comparisons with a matched population-based reference cohort. J Rehabil Med 46(3):271–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wakefield S, McMullan C (2005) Healing in places of decline: (re)imagining everyday landscapes in Hamilton Ontario. Health Place 11(4):299–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ward Thompson C (2011) Linking landscape and health: the recurring theme. Landsc Urban Plan 99(3–4):187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. White M, Smith A, Humphryes K, Pahl S, Snelling D, Depledge M (2010) Blue space: the importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes. J Environ Psychol 30(4):482–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wikström P, Edenius L, Elfving B, Eriksson LO, Lämås T, Sonesson J, Öhman K, Wallerman J, Waller C, Klintebäck F (2011) The Heureka forestry decision support system: an overview. Math Comput For Nat Resour Sci 3(2):87–95Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eva-Maria Nordström
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ann Dolling
    • 2
  • Erik Skärbäck
    • 3
  • Jonathan Stoltz
    • 4
  • Patrik Grahn
    • 5
  • Ylva Lundell
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Forest Resource ManagementSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU)UmeåSweden
  2. 2.Department of Forest Ecology and ManagementSLUUmeåSweden
  3. 3.Department of Landscape Architecture, Planning and ManagementSLUAlnarpSweden
  4. 4.Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary GeologyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  5. 5.Department of Work Science, Business Economics and Environmental PsychologySLUAlnarpSweden

Personalised recommendations