2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.05.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Towards harmonized assessment of European forest availability for wood supply in Europe

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
38
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
38
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…5). This figure is significantly lower than large-scale estimates of AWS in Europe (e.g., 44-96% in Alberdi et al 2016), mostly due to the high incidence of protected areas, privately owned forests -particularly in chestnut (98%) and oak (72%) forests, and high distance from roads, mostly in pine (94%) and larch (60%) forests. It is not unlikely that both private owners and protected areas could be included in a forest carbon management project, if obstacles posed by property fragmentation and by allowed harvest in protected areas could be overcome.…”
Section: Carbon Accountingmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…5). This figure is significantly lower than large-scale estimates of AWS in Europe (e.g., 44-96% in Alberdi et al 2016), mostly due to the high incidence of protected areas, privately owned forests -particularly in chestnut (98%) and oak (72%) forests, and high distance from roads, mostly in pine (94%) and larch (60%) forests. It is not unlikely that both private owners and protected areas could be included in a forest carbon management project, if obstacles posed by property fragmentation and by allowed harvest in protected areas could be overcome.…”
Section: Carbon Accountingmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…Forests and wood products play a key role in international climate policy, as they can store carbon, and, in addition, wood-based products can be used to replace materials and energy from non-renewable sources. Carbon credits and increased demand for bioenergy (European Commission 2009;2014) have again arisen concern about the availability of wood recourses (Hänninen and Kallio 2007;Nabuurs et al 2007;Alberdi et al 2016;Barreiro et al 2016;Packalen et al 2016). At the same time, political decisions have been made to preserve forest biodiversity (United Nations 1992;European Commission 2006;2011) and, consequently, to increase areas setaside for conservation and encourage ecologically oriented forest management.…”
Section: Information Needs For Policy Supportmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The national definitions of FAWS differ considerably from country to country as summarised in Table 2.5, extracted from Alberdi et al (2016). Generally, different restrictions and thresholds are considered by the countries to determine "forest not available for wood supply" (FNAWS) (such as protected areas or slope) and therefore FAWS is estimated by exclusion.…”
Section: Differences In National Definitionsmentioning
confidence: 99%