This paper explores the ecosystem services associated with woodlands, as they are viewed by individuals in Scotland, with the idea to reconcile objectives for multifunctionality with the legacy of past forestry systems that were not designed with multifunctionality in mind. Research follows a semi-qualitative route and applies the Q method to identify and explain a range of attitudes among the general public and forestry-associated stakeholders regarding the functional future of forestry in Scotland. Four distinctive groups of attitudes were identified and key factors influencing the attitudinal diversity were explained. Despite the uncovered attitudinal heterogeneity, all groups of attitudes have strong emphasis on native woodland regeneration and on improvement of aesthetic values of woodlands but differ concerning afforestation. An improved understanding of what people think provided an indication of their recognition of ecosystem services types and the trade-offs between these, opportunities available, and factors that can hamper forestry development (e.g., concerning the aspiration of increasing Scotland’s forest cover to 25%). Findings suggest that the productivists’ position (for which the economic objectives are important) remains strong in Scotland. Results (compared with those in several other countries) demonstrate comparability between public and stakeholder perspectives in support of the multifunctional forestry, and this has distinct policy relevance and implications for decision-making.

No abstract

Treeline areas provide a range of ecosystem services, but there are diverging views as to how and for whose benefit, these ecosystem services are managed. Applying a Q-method, we explore experts' attitudes towards forest related decision-making and governance in treeline areas to reveal the attitudinal divergences that exist and analyse patterns of shared assumptions forming attitude-related communities. Experiences, trends, opportunities and challenges in European treeline area decision-making are considered. Our results reveal four attitude-related communities, representing four distinctive types of expert attitudes. Findings demonstrate a number of similarities in attitudes among experts indicating, for example, that treeline area decision-making is hardly socially innovative as it tends to happen in a top-down manner. However, some do and others don't see tree-line governance beneficial from an ecological perspective. The attitudinal heterogeneity identified offers insights into treeline decision-making and could, therefore, be useful to public decision-makers in addressing the opinions of each attitudinal group on a case-by-case basis. The general conclusions are that forest related decision-making in treeline areas requires social innovation and a high level of stakeholder competence and capacity-building; and that an improved knowledge of experts' attitudes, together with an emphasis on increased participation in decision-making, could be of help to policy and practice communities in triggering innovative changes locally.

This paper presents an economic analysis of the planting of trees on marginal lands in Ukraine for timber production, erosion prevention, and climate mitigation. A methodology combining econometric analysis, simulation modelling, and linear programming to analyse the costs and benefits of such afforestation has been adopted. The research reveals that, at discount rates lower than 2%, establishment of new forests is economically justified in the majority of forestry zones. Incorporating the effects of afforestation on mitigating climate change increases social benefits. However, the results indicate that whilst soil protection benefits to agriculture from afforestation in the Steppe are expected to be high, carbon sequestration and timber production activities in the Steppe are cost inefficient due to low rates of tree growth and relatively high opportunity costs of land. The opportunity costs of land are also high in the Polissja where afforestation is cost inefficient at 2% and higher discount rates.

No abstract