Understanding the compatibility of multiple uses on forest land: a survey of multiresource research with application to the Pacific Northwest.

Is an attractive forest also considered well managed? Public preferences for forest cover and stand structure across a rural/urban gradient in northern Portugal

“…The stand composition and structure as well as the arrangement of forest patches can enhance or detract from the ability of the forest ecosystem to provide such direct goods (Kellomaki and Pukkala, 1989). For example, a forest in which ground vegetation is removed in order to reduce competition between species (trees and understorey) and increase timber yield will lack appropriate refuge for game; furthermore, because ground (and floral) vegetation will be minimal, and honey production will be marginal (Stevens and Montegomerey, 2002). Ground vegetation removal is one example of forest management practices that affect the provision of both timber and non-timber goods (Brose and Wade, 2002).…”

Modest Trade-Offs Between Timber Management and Fire Susceptibility of a Bolivian Semi-Deciduous Forest

“…Despite this realization, sustainable forest management, which promises continuous delivery and maintenance of multiple goods, services, and processes, has become the predominant management paradigm in tropical countries. Although research into the compatibility among different objectives of forest management has advanced substantially in temperate forests (e.g., Johnson et al 2002, Stevens andMontgomery 2002), such research is scarce in tropical forests. Elucidation of the tradeoffs between management for sustained timber production and fire susceptibility is especially important Manuscript considering the large proportion of tropical forests designated for timber production, the potential for such forests to contribute to conservation and development objectives, and the increasing prevalence of wildfire in these forests.…”

Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services in the management of public lands

“…14). Similar to the case with a social welfare function, the tangency of that ratio-a straight line-with the production possibility frontier would identify the socially preferred maximum combination of services that could be produced on the landscape over that defined production range, given a defined management budget (Stevens and Montgomery 2002). Whether based on a social welfare function or a values ratio, the combination of ecosystem services defined by tangency with the production possibilities frontier identifies that management outcome that makes people as happy as they can be, given the production possibilities available on the landscape.…”

“…Greater difficulties arise when addressing multiple ecosystem services and the interactions among them. These situations typically would require complex empirical models with which to characterize key relationships among landscape conditions and processes and their resulting ecosystem services, including the use of mathematical algorithms and optimization methods to evaluate likely management outcomes (e.g., Stevens and Montgomery 2002). Also contributing to complexity in evaluating and communicating tradeoffs is the inter-temporal nature of forest management effects.…”

“…Conceptually, tradeoffs among ecosystem services are best illustrated by using the economic concept of "production possibility frontiers" (e.g., Bowes andKrutilla 1989: 49, Stevens andMontgomery 2002). Production possibility frontiers show the combinations and levels of ecosystem services that can be produced on a landscape given that landscape's capacity to produce those services (e.g., its size and biophysical features) and management inputs (e.g., labor) and capital improvements (e.g., roads, trails, culverts).…”