Multiple-use forest management in consideration of climate change and the interests of stakeholder groups

Abstract

In this study, the overall utility of forest management alternatives at the forest management unit level is evaluated with regard to multi-purpose and multi-user settings by a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) method. The MCA is based on an additive utility model. The relative importance of partial objectives of forest management (carbon sequestration, ground water recharge, biodiversity, and timber production) is defined in cooperation with stakeholders. The forest growth model 4C (Forest Ecosystems in a Changing Environment) is used to simulate the impact of six forest management strategies and climate on forest functions. Two climate change scenarios represent uncertainties with regard to future climatic conditions. The study is based on actual forest conditions in the Kleinsee management unit in east Germany, which is dominated by Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and oak (Quercus robur L. and Quercus petraea Liebl.) stands. First, there is an analysis of the impact of climate and forest management on forest functions. Climate change increases carbon sequestration and income from timber production due to increased stand productivity. Secondly, the overall utility of the management strategies is compared under the priority settings of different stakeholder groups. From an ecological perspective, a conservation strategy would be preferable under all climate scenarios, but the business as usual management would also fit the expectations under the current climate due to high biodiversity and carbon sequestration in the forest ecosystem. In contrast, a forest manager in public-owned forests or a private forest owner would prefer a management strategy with an intermediate thinning intensity and a high share of pine stands to enhance income from timber production while maintaining the other forest functions.

Appendices

Appendix A

The following functions were used as utility functions of the decision criteria. They are linear functions defined by supporting points (Table 6) and are valid between the particular minimum and maximum values of the decision criterion.

$$ f_{1} = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {0;}{x <x_{1} } \\ {b_{1} x + b_{2} ;}{x_{1} \le x \le x_{2} } \\ {1;}{x >x_{2} } \\ \end{array} } \right. $$

(6)

$$ f_{2} = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {0;}{x <x_{1} } \\ {b_{1} x + b_{2} ;}{x_{1} \le x <x_{2} } \\ {b_{3} x + b_{4} ;}{x_{2} \le x <x_{3} } \\ {b_{5} x + b_{6} ;}{x_{3} \le x \le x_{4} } \\ {1;}{x >x_{4} } \\ \end{array} } \right. $$

(7)

$$ f_{3} = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {0;}{x <x_{1} } \\ {b_{1} x + b_{2} ;}{x_{1} \le x <x_{2} } \\ {b_{3} x + b_{4} ;}{x_{2} \le x \le x_{3} } \\ {1;}{x >x_{3} } \\ \end{array} } \right. $$

(8)

$$ f_{4} = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {b_{1} x + b_{2} ;}{x <x_{1} } \\ {1;}{x_{1} \le x \le x_{2} } \\ {b_{3} x + b_{4} ;}{x >x_{2} } \\ \end{array} } \right. $$

(9)

$$ f_{5} = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {1;}{x <x_{1} } \\ {b_{1} x + b_{2} ;}{x_{1} \le x \le x_{2} } \\ {0;}{x >x_{2} } \\ \end{array} } \right. $$

(10)

Table 6 Parameters of the utility functions of the lowest-level decision criteria (Eqs. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)

Appendix B

The values of decision criteria (Table 7) under the chosen six management strategies and three climate scenarios and the achievement values of decision criteria (Table 8) are described in Appendix B.

Table 7 Values of the decision criteria for all management strategies (MS, compare Table 3) under three climate scenarios

Table 8 Utility values of the lowest-level criteria for all management strategies (MS, compare Table 3) under three climate scenarios