Integrating Expert Knowledge into Mapping Ecosystem Services Trade-offs for Sustainable Forest Management

Grêt‐Regamey, Adrienne; Brunner, Sybil H.; Altwegg, Juerg; Christen, Marc; Bebi, Peter

doi:10.5751/es-05800-180334

Cited by 89 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 45 publications

(54 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The model chain used provides an important tool for linking land-cover and land-use change with changes in EGS. Grêt-Regamey et al (2013) present an integration of expert knowledge into EGS mapping. Insights from expert surveys were fed into a GIS-based Bayesian network for valuing EGS under different land-use and climate change scenarios.…”

Section: Contents Of This Special Featurementioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainable Land-use Practices in European Mountain Regions under Global Change: an Integrated Research Approach

Huber¹,

Bugmann²,

Buttler³

et al. 2013

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. This Special Feature on sustainable land-use practices in European mountain regions presents results from the inter-and transdisciplinary research project MOUNTLAND. The goal was to investigate the sensitivity of the provision of ecosystem services to both climatic and land-use changes and to suggest alternative policies and governance structures for mitigating the impact of such changes and enhancing sustainable management practices in mountain regions. The individual articles provide: (1) new scientific findings regarding the impacts of climate and land-use changes on ecosystem processes in three sensitive mountain regions of Switzerland; (2) an assessment of the feedback effects arising from changing socioeconomic and political conditions, land use, and adaptation to climate change, using modeling techniques and transdisciplinary stakeholder interactions; and (3) suggestions for alternative policy solutions to ensure sustainable land use in mountain regions. In our synthesis of the project, we provide insights from the ecological, socioeconomic, and political sciences in the context of humanenvironment interactions in mountain regions. The innovation of this Special Feature lies in the fact that all articles present truly inter-or transdisciplinary research, ranging from natural sciences to economics and political sciences, based on an overarching set of unifying research questions.

show abstract

Section: Contents Of This Special Featurementioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainable Land-use Practices in European Mountain Regions under Global Change: an Integrated Research Approach

Huber¹,

Bugmann²,

Buttler³

et al. 2013

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For a Central European perspective, multifunctional forestry extended the focus from timber to multiple human benefits from forests (McArdle 1953, Ammer and Püttmann 2009, Grêt-Regamey et al 2013, Kindler 2016. In addition, the concept of forest functions, i.e., societal demand from forests, and its implementation in forest-function maps are well-established and legally required planning instruments in German-speaking countries (Pistorius et al 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do ecosystem services provide an added value compared to existing forest planning approaches in Central Europe?

Meyer¹,

Schulz²

2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. In forestry research, the concept of ecosystem services (ESS) is less prominent than in agricultural studies. One reason might be that multifunctional forestry and the concept of forest functions, i.e., societal demand from forest, are established and legally required planning approaches in Central Europe, e.g., in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. To explore differences in concept and perspective, we conducted a participatory stakeholder workshop to identify, score, and map ESS in an urban forest in Germany. For comparison, we used existing forest function maps. Forest function mapping as planning approach is based on a regional-scale expert assessment of forest agencies. The local ESS scoring showed a clear preference for recreation, drinking water, biodiversity, mediation of climate and water, and wood provision in decreasing order. Most stakeholder groups scored recreation highest. Drinking water was also important for most stakeholders. Recreation stakeholders scored unbalanced with an apparent focus on their own demand (Gini coefficient: 0.83). Contrastingly, forestry stakeholders scored the ESS in a balanced manner (Gini coefficient: 0.47). ESS and forest function maps highly overlapped. The stakeholders identified both synergies and trade-offs between timber and biodiversity and between drinking water and biodiversity depending on the management. Recreation has mostly trade-offs, with timber, hunting, and drinking water. The stakeholders mapped only few ESS in addition to forest functions, e.g., feed production, beekeeping, and biodiversity hotspots. Although forest functions consider most forest benefits despite weak stakeholder consultation, the opportunity to prioritize forest benefits and to analyze interactions is a clear added value of the ESS approach. The paradigm of simultaneous provision of all forest functions does not reflect heterogeneous societal preferences. The stakeholders showed a rather low level of conflict and a high level of understanding for differences in their prioritization. The reason might be the long local tradition of multiple-use forestry beginning in the late 1800s. The study area is an example for an urban forest of a larger city in Europe with high pressure from local recreation. It would be interesting to test the approach for other environmental conditions and locations of an urban forest. In general, the developed approach could be used to evaluate the quality of other planning instruments for multiple-use forestry worldwide regarding their consideration of stakeholder requirements and the potential added value of the ESS approach.

show abstract

“…No obstante, es necesario logar una adecuada toma de datos y un amplio y experimentado conocimiento. Grêt-Regamey et al (2013) y Lavorel et al (2011 han demostrado cómo los modelos de relación entre las variables ambientales pueden ser aplicados en áreas alpinas con éxito.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

La valoración de los servicios ecosistémicos en los ecosistemas forestales: un caso de estudio en Los Alpes Italianos

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrating Expert Knowledge into Mapping Ecosystem Services Trade-offs for Sustainable Forest Management

Cited by 89 publications

References 45 publications

Sustainable Land-use Practices in European Mountain Regions under Global Change: an Integrated Research Approach

Sustainable Land-use Practices in European Mountain Regions under Global Change: an Integrated Research Approach

Do ecosystem services provide an added value compared to existing forest planning approaches in Central Europe?

La valoración de los servicios ecosistémicos en los ecosistemas forestales: un caso de estudio en Los Alpes Italianos

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About