IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v64y2023ics2212041623000682.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What drives forest multifunctionality in central and northern Europe? Exploring the interplay of management, climate, and policies

Author

Listed:
  • Toraño Caicoya, Astor
  • Vergarechea, Marta
  • Blattert, Clemens
  • Klein, Julian
  • Eyvindson, Kyle
  • Burgas, Daniel
  • Snäll, Tord
  • Mönkkönen, Mikko
  • Astrup, Rasmus
  • Di Fulvio, Fulvio
  • Forsell, Niklas
  • Hartikainen, Markus
  • Uhl, Enno
  • Poschenrieder, Werner
  • Antón-Fernández, Clara

Abstract

Forests provide a range of vital services to society and are critical habitats for biodiversity, holding inherent multifunctionality. While traditionally viewed as a byproduct of production-focused forestry, today's forest ecosystem services and biodiversity (FESB) play an essential role in several sectoral policies’ needs. Achieving policy objectives requires careful management considering the interplay of services, influenced by regional aspects and climate. Here, we examined the multifunctionality gap caused by these factors through simulation of forest management and multi-objective optimization methods across different regions - Finland, Norway, Sweden and Germany (Bavaria). To accomplish this, we tested diverse management regimes (productivity-oriented silviculture, several continuous cover forestry regimes and set asides), two climate scenarios (current and RCP 4.5) and three policy strategies (National Forest, Biodiversity and Bioeconomy Strategies). For each combination we calculated a multifunctionality metric at the landscape scale based on 5 FESB classes (biodiversity conservation, bioenergy, climate regulation, wood, water and recreation). In Germany and Norway, maximum multifunctionality was achieved by increasing the proportion of set-asides and proportionally decreasing the rest of management regimes. In Finland, maximum MF would instead require that policies address greater diversity in management, while in Sweden, the pattern was slightly different but similar to Finland. Regarding the climate scenarios, we observed that only for Sweden the difference in the provision of FESB was significant. Finally, the highest overall potential multifunctionality was observed for Sweden (National Forest scenario, with a value of 0.94 for the normalized multifunctionality metric), followed by Germany (National Forest scenario, 0.83), Finland (Bioeconomy scenario, 0.81) and Norway (National Forest scenario, 0.71). The results highlight the challenges of maximizing multifunctionality and underscore the significant influence of country-specific policies and climate change on forest management. To achieve the highest multifunctionality, strategies must be tailored to specific national landscapes, acknowledging both synergistic and conflicting FESB.

Suggested Citation

  • Toraño Caicoya, Astor & Vergarechea, Marta & Blattert, Clemens & Klein, Julian & Eyvindson, Kyle & Burgas, Daniel & Snäll, Tord & Mönkkönen, Mikko & Astrup, Rasmus & Di Fulvio, Fulvio & Forsell, N, 2023. "What drives forest multifunctionality in central and northern Europe? Exploring the interplay of management, climate, and policies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:64:y:2023:i:c:s2212041623000682
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101575
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041623000682
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101575?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:64:y:2023:i:c:s2212041623000682. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.