Optimizing forest landscape composition for multiple ecosystem services based on uncertain stakeholder preferences

Chreptun, Claudia; Ficko, Andrej; Gosling, Elizabeth; Knoke, Thomas

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159393

Cited by 7 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These techniques all have growing track records as more humble ecosystem management tools. Appropriately applied, they can help buffer social, economic, and ecological uncertainties [84,85].…”

Section: Planning Under Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

Comment on ‘In complexity we trust: learning from the socialist calculation debate for ecosystem management’

Bingham,

Van Kleunen,

Kolisnyk

et al. 2023

Environ. Res. Lett.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a metaphor based on a historical debate between socialist and free-market economists, Salliou and Stritih (Environ. Res. Lett. 18 151001) advocate for decentralizing environmental management to harness emergent complexity and promote ecosystem health. Concerningly, however, their account seems to leave little room for top-down processes like government-led sustainability programs or centrally-planned conservation initiatives, the cornerstone of the post-2020 biodiversity framework. While we appreciate their call for humbleness, we offer a few words in defense of planning. Drawing on evidence from ecology, economics, and systems theory, we argue that (1) more complexity is not always better; (2) even if it were, mimicking minimally-regulated markets is probably not the best way to get it; and (3) sophisticated decision support tools can support humble planning under uncertainty. We sketch a re-interpretation of the socialist calculation debate that highlights the role of synthesis and theoretical pluralism. Rather than abandoning big-picture thinking, scientists must continue the difficult work of strengthening connections between and across multiple social, ecological, and policy scales.

show abstract

Section: Planning Under Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

Comment on ‘In complexity we trust: learning from the socialist calculation debate for ecosystem management’

Bingham,

Van Kleunen,

Kolisnyk

et al. 2023

Environ. Res. Lett.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Unveiling the nexus of scientific plans and real-world outcomes: A comparative analysis of land use optimization and agent-based simulation results in a natural landscape

Siroosi,

Heshmati,

Salmanmahiny

2025

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Severe and frequent extreme weather events undermine economic adaptation gains of tree-species diversification

Fuchs,

Husmann,

Schick

et al. 2024

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forests and their provision of ecosystem services are endangered by climate change. Tree-species diversification has been identified as a key adaptation strategy to balance economic risks and returns in forest stands. Yet, whether this synergy between ecology and economics persists under large-scale extreme weather events remains unanswered. Our model accounts for both, small-scale disturbances in individual stands and extreme weather events that cause spatio-temporally correlated disturbances in a large number of neighboring stands. It economically optimizes stand-type allocations in a large forest enterprise with multiple planning units. Novel components are: spatially explicit site heterogeneity and a comparison of economic diversification strategies under local and regionally coordinated planning by simplified measures for $$\alpha$$ α , $$\beta$$ β , and $$\gamma$$ γ -diversity of stand types. $$\alpha$$ α -diversity refers to the number and evenness of stand types in local planning units, $$\beta$$ β -diversity to the dissimilarity of the species composition across planning units, and $$\gamma$$ γ -diversity to the number and evenness of stand types in the entire enterprise. Local planning led to stand-type diversification within planning units ($$\alpha$$ α -diversity), while regionally coordinated planning led to diversification across planning units ($$\beta$$ β -diversity). We observed a trend towards homogenization of stand-type composition likely selected under economic objectives with increasing extreme weather events. No diversification strategy fully buffered the adverse economic consequences. This led to fatalistic decisions, i.e., selecting stand types with low investment risks but also low resistance to disturbances. The resulting forest structures indicate potential adverse consequences for other ecosystem services. We conclude that high tree-species diversity may not necessarily buffer economic consequences of extreme weather events. Forest policies reducing forest owners’ investment risks are needed to establish stable forests that provide multiple ecosystem services.

show abstract

Optimizing forest landscape composition for multiple ecosystem services based on uncertain stakeholder preferences

Cited by 7 publications

References 55 publications

Comment on ‘In complexity we trust: learning from the socialist calculation debate for ecosystem management’

Comment on ‘In complexity we trust: learning from the socialist calculation debate for ecosystem management’

Unveiling the nexus of scientific plans and real-world outcomes: A comparative analysis of land use optimization and agent-based simulation results in a natural landscape

Severe and frequent extreme weather events undermine economic adaptation gains of tree-species diversification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About