Holistic Indicator for Optimizing Forest Governance

Chapter
Part of the World Sustainability Series book series (WSUSE)

Abstract

Forests have a key role in the wellbeing of the mankind. To fulfil sustainably all demands, forest governance must adapt to ever emerging needs and values of the society. The indicator proposed here is a criterion to optimize forest governance to ever changing social needs and development. It is based on an innovative mathematical theory, named holistic-integrative field theory, developed for this purpose. The theory uses linear algebra, statistics and discrete analysis, in order to integrate all forest outputs, perceived as important by at least one actor, into an indicator. Also some fractal and cybernetic principles are embedded in the logic and algorithms of the indicator. Problems raised by the heterogeneity of the outputs are solved using vector-based mathematics. Outputs are considered as vectors with an unknown number of dimensions but with known modules (lengths). Statistical methods and discrete analysis methods are used to compute the length of a resultant vector which represents the optimization criterion. The criterion measures the effects of change on forest outputs and is used as a feedback to improve forest governance. The indicator can integrate any available data, in an iterative manner. The holistic-integrative indicator has the potential to improve forests-society-science-policy-practice interface and to operationalize the concepts of natural capital and ecosystem services as well as to provide the means for a more sustainable, efficient and integrated usage of ecosystems. It also has the advantage that it uses general public as well as scientists, industry, political or any other actors’ opinions in a continuous and integrated manner, thus it is promoting an inclusive and democratic approach in forest governance. It can also be updated for maintaining governance system connected with the development of society and to prevent unexpected negative side effects of governance changes. In the end of the chapter an example is provided.

Keywords

Optimal forest governance General public acceptance Inclusive forest policy Equitability 

References

  1. Arts B, Buizer M (2009) Forests, discourses, institutions. For. Policy Econ. 11:340–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Augusto L, Bonnaud P, Ranger J (1998) Impact of trees species on forest soil. For Ecol Manage 105:67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blagojević D, Martire S, Hendrickson CY, Hanzu M, Galante MV, Kähkönen T, Põllumäe P, Fontana V, Radtke A, Stojanovski V et al (2016) Making forest values work: enhancing multi-dimensional perspectives towards sustainable forest management. South-east European for. [Internet]. [cited 19 Jan 2016];7. Available from: http://www.seefor.eu/vol-7-no-1-blagojevic-et-al-making-forest-values-work.html
  4. COMM/CLIMA/0002: Forests and Agriculture. [Internet] 2010. Brussels: EU Commission Climate Action; [updated 2015 Dec 23; cited 1 Jan 2016]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/forests/index_en.htm
  5. Dimitrov RS (2006) Hostage to Norms: States, Institutions and Global Forest Politics. MIT Press [Internet], [updated 2006 Mar 13; cited 25 Jan 2016]. Available from: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/152638005774785499#.VqXW3ip95aQ
  6. Dobertin M (2002) Influence of stand structure and site factors on wind damage comparing the storms Vivian and Lothar. For Snow Landsc Res 77:187–205Google Scholar
  7. FAO (2011) Framework for assessing and monitoring forest governance, [Internet], [cited 12 Jan 2016]. Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2227e/i2227e00.pdf
  8. FAO (2015) Foresters call for action: future land management needs better integration of sectors, [Internet], [cited 14 Jan 2016]. Available from http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5227e.pdf
  9. GISTEMP Team (2015) GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Available online at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp, updated on 7 Mar 2016, checked on 16 Mar 2016
  10. Giurgiu V, Drăghiciu D (2004) Modele matematico-auxologice şi tabele de producţie pentru arborete, Bucureşti, (2004) (Mathematical—increment models and yield tables for forest stands) (in Romanian)Google Scholar
  11. Gottdenker NL, Streicker DG, Faust CL, Carroll CR (2014) Anthropogenic land use change and infectious diseases. A review of the evidence. EcoHealth 11(4):619–632.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-014-0941-z
  12. Hanzu M (2009) A method for evaluating the structure efficiency of the forest stands with recreational functions. In: Proceedings of the Conference Forest and Sustainable Development, (17–18 Oct 2008). Faculty of Silviculture and Forest Engineering, Braşov (RO).Google Scholar
  13. Hanzu M (2013) Integrative indicator for optimizing decisions in multifunctional forestry. In: Sisak L, Dudik R, Hrib M (eds) Socio-economic Analyses of Sustainable Forest Management. Proceedings of the conference of IUFRO 4_05_00 division. 15–17 May 2013, Prague (CZ): Mendel University. Available from: www.iufro.org/download/file/…/40500-40501-40502-prague13_pdf/
  14. Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 57:209–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Knudson T (2009) The cost of the biofuel boom: destroying Indonesia’s forests: yale environment 360. Available online at http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_cost_of_the_biofuel_boom_destroying_indonesias_forests/2112/, checked on 16 Mar 2016
  16. Mustalahti I (2015) Towards a sustainable bioeconomy innovative methods and solutions for the agriculture and forest sectors. Oral presentation. BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  17. Phelps J, Webb EL, Agrawal A (2010) Land use. Does REDD + threaten to recentralize forest governance? Science 328:312–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pretzsch H (2009) Forest dynamics, growth and yield. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rametsteiner E (2009) Governance concepts and their application in forest policy initiatives from global to local levels. Small-scale For. 8:143–158Google Scholar
  20. Samuelson P (1974) Economics of forestry in an evolving society, [Internet] MIT. Economic Inquiry. [cited 5 Apr 2015]. Available from http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/sv/oekonomi/ECON4925/h11/Samuelsonj.1465-7295.1976.tb00437.x%5B1%5D.pdf, checked on 4/5/2015
  21. Santos JM (1998) The economic valuation of landscape change. Theory and policies for land use and conservation, U.KGoogle Scholar
  22. Stewart A, Edwards D, Lawrence A (2013) Improving the science–policy–practice interface. Decision support system uptake and use in the forestry sector in Great Britain. Scand J For Res 29:144–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (2015) Adoption of the Paris agreement. Available online at: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest BiometricsNational Institute for Research and Development in Silviculture” Marin Drăcea”VoluntariRomania

Personalised recommendations