For several reasons the conversion of monospecies into mixed-species forests is presently a major concern of forest management and policy in Central Europe. Although it is possible to show a clear trend in favour of mixed-species forests, private forest owners and some forest economists have often not favoured mixed forests, assuming that they are less profitable. The trend towards mixed forests seems mainly for ecological reasons, while sound economic analysis of mixed forests is still rare. Based on this background the objective of the study is to answer the following four questions: (1) Does the yield of mixed-species forests differ from that of pure forests? (2) Does the mixing of tree species influence the ecological stability of forests? (3) Is the economic value of a mixed forest less than that of a monoculture? (4) How do forest economic models integrate the findings on yield and ecological stability of mixed forests? To answer these questions a literature review was conducted on the possible impacts of mixed-species forests. In comparison to pure stands a greater yield is not necessarily given in mixed stands. Yet, mixed-species stands are better able to compensate disturbances than monocultures. Moreover, there is substantial evidence that mixed-species stands are more resistant against biotic and abiotic disturbances. Applying an extended forest economic model, it was possible to demonstrate that mixing large blocks of native broadleaf species into pure conifer forests may lead to a significant reduction of financial risk. From a risk-averse perspective the economic value of a mixed-species forest may thus be greater than that of a mono-species forest. Yet, it became clear that forest economists do not often integrate the research findings on yield and ecological stability of mixed stands in modelling, but rather apply simple bioeconomic modelling. Moreover, in the context of mixed forests economists also largely ignore even classical financial approaches, which consider risk and risk preferences. We concluded that forest economics has to close substantial research gaps. Firstly, the knowledge of how to integrate biophysical properties of mixed forests in bioeconomic modelling is still an open question. Secondly, forest economists have to adopt the modern approaches of financial theory and management science to value mixed forests.
Increasing demands for livelihood resources in tropical rural areas have led to progressive clearing of biodiverse natural forests. Restoration of abandoned farmlands could counter this process. However, as aims and modes of restoration differ in their ecological and socio-economic value, the assessment of achievable ecosystem functions and benefits requires holistic investigation. Here we combine the results from multidisciplinary research for a unique assessment based on a normalization of 23 ecological, economic and social indicators for four restoration options in the tropical Andes of Ecuador. A comparison of the outcomes among afforestation with native alder or exotic pine, pasture restoration with either low-input or intense management and the abandoned status quo shows that both variants of afforestation and intense pasture use improve the ecological value, but low-input pasture does not. Economic indicators favour either afforestation or intense pasturing. Both Mestizo and indigenous Saraguro settlers are more inclined to opt for afforestation.
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.