On the Interplay of Ownership Patterns, Biodiversity, and Conservation in Past and Present Temperate Forest Landscapes of Europe and North America

Abstract

Purpose of Review Ownership patterns and the associated management characteristics are related to forest structures, biodiversity patterns, and their conservation worldwide. A literature review on this topic is missing so far. We fill this gap with an emphasis on the temperate forests of Europe and North America. Mixed-ownership landscapes are the special focus of the analysis. In a first step, historical effects of ownership patterns on forest structure and biodiversity are elucidated. Second, connections between present-time forest ownership patterns and both forest structural and biodiversity patterns are analyzed. Finally, implications for integrative conservation management are evaluated with a special focus on mixed-ownership forest landscapes. Recent Findings Close linkages between ownership type-specific forest management and particular forest structural and biodiversity patterns are identified for past and current forest landscapes. Both in Europe and North America, publicly and privately owned forests show comparable lines of historical development but with a time shift. Forest reserves and ancient woodland with long ecological continuity appear to be mainly connected with public ownership. A high diversity of management approaches and cultural landscape habitats is characteristic of non-industrial small private forests. In mixed-ownership landscapes, a more diverse mosaic of habitats has developed than in mono-ownership landscapes. Summary We conclude that cross-boundary ecosystem management is crucial for effective conservation in present-day mixed-ownership landscapes. Integrative forest management that considers biodiversity and social-ecological aspects across ownerships is indispensable. We present a framework of implications for conservation management in mixed-ownership forest landscapes that build on each other and may enhance cross-boundary ecosystem management.

Owner attitudes and landscape parameters drive stand structure and valuable habitats in small-scale private forests of Lower Saxony (Germany)

“…In privately owned forest parcels (43% of the forested area), 22% of the area consists of parcels larger than 5 ha but at most 20 ha, and 23% of the area is occupied by parcels of 5 ha or less (ML, 2014). The distribution of forest ownership classes and small-scale structural diversity is comparable to many European countries (Mölder et al, 2021;Schmithüsen and Hirsch, 2010), which allows for a transfer of our results.…”

“…While forestry in owner groups with larger properties (state and federal forests, communal forests, and larger private properties) has undergone increased mechanization and orientation towards economic objectives in the past, SPF owners have often been less inclined to extract wood from their forests. Furthermore, many SPFs in Germany are of very small sizes (average private forest parcel size of 3 ha) (BMEL, 2014), often precluding economic use, especially by heavy machinery, and leading to signi cantly different forest structures in SPFs compared to other ownership types (Mölder et al, 2021). Most notably, SPFs have been shown to feature higher structural diversity (Maltamo et al, 1997;Rendenieks et al, 2015;Schaich and Plieninger, 2013) and biodiversity (Torras et al, 2012).…”

“…Consequently, deadwood structures could be a primary target of individualized conservation efforts to reach out to SPF owners.Management intensity is also in uenced by owner attitudes: The application of more extensive forms of forest management, but also of traditional, nowadays mostly abandoned forms of management with high importance for biodiversity protection in cultural landscapes, like coppicing or coppicing with standards, would be desirable from a nature conservation perspective(Buckley, 2020). Extremely structure-rich remnants of formerly coppiced forests are still found throughout our study area in SPFs(Mölder, 2016;Mölder et al, 2021), but need appropriate management lest they become lost in the conversion to high forest(Buckley, 2020).In contrast to forests in other ownership types, SPF owners are an exceptionally heterogeneous group(Blanco et al, 2015;Deu c et al, 2018;Weiss et al, 2019;Westin et al, 2023), and it might prove bene cial to develop differentiated policy instruments to address different owner types. Many forest owners in our study area value the conservation of biodiversity higher than resource use or the generation of income, but this attitude is not readily translated into consequential behavior(Tiebel et al, 2023).…”

Understanding small‐scale private forest owners is a basis for transformative change towards integrative conservation

“…A simultaneous implementation of different approaches aiming to strengthen conservation distributes the risk of ineffective measures (Bauhus et al., 2021). The landscape scale seems to be an appropriate level here, as certain factors, such as forests belonging to mixed‐ownership structures, can be considered (Mölder et al., 2021). The area‐specific knowledge gained by local stakeholders through past changes and experiences may further contribute to transformative change (Priebe et al., 2022).…”

“…forest management objectives, integrative forest management, forest owner typology, smallscale private forests for integrative forest management and research on integrative conservation are largely missing for private forests and even for mixedownership landscapes. This is particularly true for small-scale private forests with holdings of less than 20 hectares that are characterized by fragmented structures, a mix of management approaches and various cultural landscape habitats of conservation concern (Loeb & D'Amato, 2020;Mölder et al, 2021;Schaich & Plieninger, 2013). This is a relevant research gap since the heterogeneous group of private forest owners (Häggqvist et al, 2014;Tiebel et al, 2021a) comprises a particularly important set of stakeholders to consider.…”