Habitat trees provide microhabitats for many forest-related species, and thus habitat-tree retention is one of the main measures to integrate nature conservation objectives into forests managed for wood production. By setting aside habitat trees, forest managers have to solve a crucial tradeoff between economic and environmental benefits. Therefore, it is of major importance that trees with desired characteristics are retained as habitat trees. In this study, we analyze habitat-tree selection. Specifically, we are analyzing the outcome of a habitat-tree selection exercise that took place in a so-called "marteloscope" or "tree marking training site" with silviculture trainers, district foresters, and forestry students. Our results show that participants consistently selected habitat trees with a low economic value. However, the habitat values of the selected trees were highly variable. Selection behavior depended on participants' expertise, with forestry trainers making more consistent decisions and outperforming the students as well as the foresters. Our results show that the selection of optimal habitat trees is not self-evident. We provide some ideas about how it can be improved, benefiting both ecological and economic forest management objectives.
Integrating nature conservation effectively in forests managed for timber production implies reconciling a trade-off between ecological and economic objectives. In continuous cover forest management, this culminates in decisions about tree harvesting (or retention) determining both the prevalence of tree-related microhabitats in the forest and the economic viability of timber management. Applying an innovative mixed methods approach, we compare conservationists and foresters performing a tree selection exercise. We assess the outcomes of their forest management decisions quantitatively and explore their strategies and the underlying reasoning based on qualitative data. Our findings show that particularly the habitat trees differ greatly between the two groups: while conservationists retained almost exclusively large oaks at often high opportunity costs, foresters retained a notable number of smaller-diameter hornbeams. These differences are related to a different perception of opportunity costs of retention by both groups, as well as because they do not agree about how to value current tree-related microhabitats and their projection into the future. Such diverging patterns of reasoning imply incompatible interpretations of what constitutes a habitat tree. Our results indicate that it is important to apply benchmarks for evaluating ecological goals as well as to increase foresters’ and conservationists’ understanding about the motivations and restrictions of the respective counterpart. Our study points out a significant potential for (mutual) learning, and illustrates the complementarity of quantitative and qualitative research methods to examine tree selection behaviour.
The present study assesses the impact of a rural development project on farmers' livelihoods, as perceived by farmers, development organization staff and researchers. The project concerned, aimed to increase small-scale farmers' financial benefits by promoting the commercialization of Ricinodendron heudelotii (Baill.) Pierre ex Pax kernels (njansang) in Cameroon. The three parties evaluated the impacts of the project, over the 2005-2010 period, through indicators embedded in the Sustainable Livelihood Framework (natural, financial, human, social and physical assets). Project households were compared with control households.Results show that farmers' and development organization staff's views were aligned regarding the relative importance of the indicators to measure success (with overlaps > 85%). The three stakeholders evaluated changes of farmers' livelihood indicators over the 2005-2010 period on 5-point Likert items. All three stated that most indicators improved significantly more in project than in control households (p < 0.001). Development organization staff probably overestimated changes induced by project interventions as they perceived significantly larger changes as compared with farmers and researchers (p < 0.05). Our study highlights the differences between impact perceived by farmers, development organization staff and researchers and helps to build the knowledge base of the potential and reliability of participatory evaluation approaches. Furthermore, an approach to assess impacts on people's livelihood is proposed, combining the strengths of participatory evaluation with those of classic evaluation methods.
Zum Waldnaturschutz besteht inzwischen eine schwer überschaubare Vielfalt an sich stetig weiterentwickelnden Konzepten, Förderprogrammen und Umsetzungsstrategien. Im deutschsprachigen Raum wurden produktionsintegrierte Waldnaturschutzkonzepte durch die grossen Forstbetriebe für den öffentlichen Wald und die Forstverwaltungen aufgebaut. Dies sowohl aus eigenem Antrieb aber auch wegen dem Druck der Naturschutzorganisationen und der rechtlichen Entwicklung. Dabei kamen teils auch partizipative Verfahren zum Einsatz. Ein Vergleich ausgewählter Programme zeigt, dass diese sich nicht nur betreffend Massnahmen und Ambition unterscheiden, sondern auch betreffend die Möglichkeiten zur flexible Umsetzung. Diesbezüglich scheint vor allem die Eigentümerstruktur des Waldes ausschlaggebend.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.