Skip to main content

Table 4 Characteristics of the participating teams (questions at the level of the individual have been aggregated as indicated in the corresponding footnote)

From: Resolving the trade-off between production and biodiversity conservation in integrated forest management: comparing tree selection practices of foresters and conservationists

Team Date Homogeneity of team Highest educationa Emphasis of Educationb Trade-off ecology-economy preferencec Thinning experienced Knowledge about considering TreMs in thinninge
C1 13.11 Nature conservation Mixed Mixed 1 Little One
C2 13.11 Nature conservation University All ecology 2 None Both
C3 13.11 Nature conservation University All ecology 2 None Both
C4 13.11 Nature conservation University All ecology 2 None Both
C5 13.11 Mixed (forestry stud.) Mixed Mixed 2 Little None
F1 14.11 Forestry University All forestry 4 Some Both
F2 14.11 Forestry (one private forest owner) Mixed All forestry 3 Much Both
F3 14.11 Forestry University All forestry 4 Much Both
F4 14.11 Forestry University All forestry 4 Some Both
F5 14.11 Forestry UAS All forestry 4 Much Both
F6 14.11 Forestry (one forestry student) n.a All forestry 4 Some Both
Team Number of different sources consultedf Self-evaluation of knowledge on economic tree valueg Self-evaluation of knowledge on TreMsh Aggr. Habitat value from tree retention i Aggr. Economic value from tree retentioni Opportunity cost of habitat pointj
C1 1 3 4 317.00 10,829 34
C2 4 2 5 351.25 5148 14
C3 8 2 5 387.50 4325 11
C4 6 2 4 371.00 4659 12
C5 n.a 3 2 331.00 11,594 35
F1 2 5 3 232.00 1677 7
F2 6 5 3 265.00 4144 15
F3 5 5 4 279.00 2366 8
F4 3 4 3 195.00 2214 11
F5 2 3 3 248.00 2429 9
F6 2 4 3 370.00 3811 10
  1. aAnswer categories «university» or «University of applied sciences» (UAS) aggregated to «university», «UAS» and «mixed»
  2. bAnswer categories «ecology” and «forestry” aggregated to «both ecology», «both forestry» and «mixed»
  3. cMeasured at team level with five-item scale from «1: strongly ecological» to «5: strongly economic»
  4. dAnswer categories «none, «occasionally», «regularly» aggregated to «none», «little», «some», «much»
  5. eAnswer categories «yes» amd «no» aggregated to «none», «one» and «both»
  6. fSum of the sources indicated
  7. gMeasured at team level with five-item scale from «1: very low» to «5: very good»
  8. hMeasured at team level with five-item scale from «1: very low» to «5: very good»
  9. iComputed from recorded habitat tree selection data
  10. jEconomic value of retained trees / habitat points of retained trees