Resolving the trade-off between production and biodiversity conservation in integrated forest management: comparing tree selection practices of foresters and conservationists

Abstract

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 Use of Tree-Related Microhabitats as Forest Biodiversity Indicators and to Guide Integrated Forest Management

“…While TreMs have so far been used mostly in this context, they can equally well be used in other types of forest management as well as the management of urban parks and street trees [18]. In addition, they are useful for communication of biodiversity focused forest management approaches [19]. Against this background, this review seeks to:…”

Stand Composition, Tree-Related Microhabitats and Birds—A Network of Relationships in a Managed Forest

“…In the past, hornbeam was used mainly for fuel, but recent changes in heating techniques have reduced interest in this species, so its share in managed forests can be expected to decline over time. Because of its low economic value, however, foresters often choose hornbeams for use as habitat trees [58]. Our findings suggest that such selection may be beneficial for forest biodiversity.…”

Protecting old-growth forests in Europe - a review of scientific evidence to inform policy implementation

“…While integrative forest management approaches have huge potential for biodiversity conservation when implemented on a large scale (i.e. the majority of managed forests in Europe), their implementation is also challenging as it requires the continuous balancing of tradeoffs between conservation objectives and production objectives from forest managers (Winkel et al, 2015;Aggestam et al, 2020;and Krumm et al, 2020). In addition, as integrative forest management approaches are often voluntary, it cannot be guaranteed that they will be maintained in the long-term or permanently.…”

“…For example, it is necessary to explore what policy instruments could facilitate further implementation of integrative approaches to forest management, including legal instruments, economic instruments, certification, and advisory services. The role of land ownership, education, and practical knowledge related to forest management effects on biodiversity conservation are further topics that influence uptake of good practices, for example how to preserve and develop tree microhabitats that support biodiversity (Cosyns et al, 2020). Stakeholder dialogue, trust building, and raising awareness are further aspects which can greatly support biodiversity conservation (cf.…”