Power analysis as a tool to analyse trade-offs between ecosystem services in forest management: A case study from nine European countries

How national bioeconomy strategies address governance challenges arising from forest-related trade-offs

“…We build on a recent list of trade-offs among forest ecosystem services (developed from a European context) and the potential conflicts arising thereof (Juerges et al, 2021). Juerges et al (2021) suggest a classification of these conflicts: first, 'overarching conflicts' are very general notions of conflicts while the conflicts due to 'silvicultural practices' are relevant to judge possible consequences of intensified timber production, but as such do not directly capture the different interests for such intensified management. Conflicts arising due to the shift toward a bioeconomy are rather included in the categories 'energy', 'climate change' and 'recreation'.…”

“…One implication of a bioeconomy is an increased utilization of wood, not only for construction, pulp and paper and new chemical treatment but also for the substitution of fossil energy sources. Hence, the material vs. energetic utilization of wood is a particularly relevant category of forest ecosystem services trade-offs also in the typology of Juerges et al (2021). If used as material, wood can substitute energy-intensive materials whereas if it is used directly for energy production, it can substitute fossil energy sources (Werner et al, 2010).…”

“…This addition can give rise to new or aggravate existing trade-offs between forest ecosystem services, i.e. situations in which prioritizing and hence intensifying certain forest utilizations comes at the expense of forest uses for other purposes (Juerges et al, 2021). Such trade-offs can manifest in conflicts between actors, as deciding on them will create winners and losers.…”

“…We deliberately go beyond the more obvious potential trade-offs between different utilizations of wood or between timber mobilizations and nature conservation. Proceeding from a recent list of relevant trade-offs between forest ecosystem services provided by Juerges et al (2021), we also emphasize less obvious conflicts that are likely to occur under the premise of a bioeconomy. A progressive notion of the bioeconomy implies that also non-timber-based forest ecosystem services, such as recreation or carbon sequestration, will be marketized more systematically, as non-extractive forest utilization holds the promise of decoupling economic growth from resource utilization (Boecher et al, 2020).…”

“…If wind energy is permissible in forested areas, this may conflict with the goal of forest protection (Höfer et al, 2016). In that case, the trade-off prevails between all forest ecosystem services that could possibly be provided on that spot and the benefit derived from the alternative utilization (Juerges et al, 2021).…”