Forest Landscape Development Scenarios (FoLDS)–A framework for integrating forest models, owners' behaviour and socio-economic developments

FORPOL-01559; No of Pages 11 Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forest Policy and Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol

Forest Landscape Development Scenarios (FoLDS)–A framework for integrating forest models, owners' behaviour and socio-economic developments Geerten M. Hengeveld a,⁎, Elmar Schüll b, Renats Trubins c, Ola Sallnäs c,d a

Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group & Team Vegetation, Forest & Landscape Ecology & Biometris, Wageningen UR. Droevendaalsesteeg 3a, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands Salzburg University of Applied Sciences, Society and Innovation Research Group, Urstein Süd 1, 5412 Puch/Salzburg, Austria Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Inst för sydsvensk skogsvetenskap, Box 49, 23053 Alnarp, Sweden d Joint Research Centre, Forest, Via Enrico Fermi, 2749, 21027 Ispra, VA, Italy b c

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 12 October 2015 Received in revised form 24 February 2017 Accepted 8 March 2017 Available online xxxx Keywords: Forest management approach Ecosystem services Forest owner types Behavioural matrix

a b s t r a c t The FoLDS framework presented in this paper is set up to develop scenarios for forested landscapes with a transparent connection between the broad-scale developments in socio-economic factors and the ecosystem services provided. The forests that provide these ecosystem services are managed by a multitude of forest owners. Different forest owners have their own objectives and will thus adjust their forest management differently to socioeconomic developments. The FoLDS framework breaks down the connection from socio-economic developments to the landscape level in three steps. In the first step, a structure is provided for deciding on scenarios combining the socio-economic factors that have most influence on forest owners. In the second step, the scenarios are translated to the distribution of forest management approaches in the landscape by invoking a behavioural matrix of forest owner types and forest management decisions. The third step involves the implementation of these forest management approaches in a forest modelling tool that is tailored to the specific landscape at hand. The results of these calculations are then translated to a set of indicators for the ecosystem services of interest. A survey among researchers experienced with the FoLDS framework indicates that there is an added value in systematically including both qualitative and quantitative scenario methods for forested landscapes. © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The distant future has always played a pivotal role within forest management decision making, because the general duration of forest development exceeds the usual planning horizons in other fields (Hoogstra and Schanz, 2009). Within forestry, this long-term perspective has mainly focused on the growth of trees in a given management setting for a single owner. However, many ecosystem services are the aggregate result of all forested areas within a specific landscape. As a consequence, the forest management decisions of many different owners affect the future provision of ecosystem services in a landscape. In this paper we propose a framework to explore the effect of developments in society, politics and the economy on the provisioning of ecosystem services through the forest management decisions made by those many different owners. By applying this framework, scenarios are developed that can support regional policy makers and other stakeholders in the forested landscape in their decision making process.

⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (G.M. Hengeveld), [email protected] (E. Schüll), [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] (O. Sallnäs).

In both the ecological and in the social sciences the landscape is recognised as a concept bridging biogeographical conditions, ecological processes and social scales (Görg, 2007; Turner and Gardner, 2015). For the management of forests, landscapes provide an integration of many locally managed forest management units. For many ecosystem services social, political and ecological processes interact with patterns in the landscape generated by the management decisions of multiple different forest owners (Görg, 2007; Seidl et al., 2013; van Oosten, 2013; Turner and Gardner, 2015). For the governance of forests and forest derived ecosystem services the forest landscape, defined as a scale level between the forest management unit and the region, is thus an important scale to consider. Traditionally, the future state of forests has been studied from the perspective of the timber yield of the forest stand (Pretzsch, 2009; Seidl et al., 2013). As a result, models of the growth and yield of forest stands with different management regimes and species composition are firmly rooted in data and literature (e.g., Vanclay, 1994; Pretzsch, 2009; Borges et al., 2014a; Biber et al., 2015). These forest growth models can produce quantitatively meaningful development trajectories for a forest stand under fixed assumptions of management and biogeographical conditions. By interpreting a forest landscape as a collection of stands a managed ecological landscape can be simulated (Schumacher et al., 2004; Borges et al., 2014a,b; Biber et al., 2015;

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.007 1389-9341/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Hengeveld, G.M., et al., Forest Landscape Development Scenarios (FoLDS)–A framework for integrating forest models, owners' behaviour and socio-economic d..., Forest Policy and Economics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.007

2

G.M. Hengeveld et al. / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Hengeveld et al., 2015). Although some attempts have been made to dynamically include management decisions, e.g., through agent based modelling, the agency has focussed on the response to tree growth rather than on the social part of the socio-ecological landscape (e.g. Rammer and Seidl, 2015; Yousefpour et al., 2015). National or continental scale assessments of the future state of forests and their provision of ecosystem services are reported in outlook studies (UNECE, 2011; Hurmekoski and Hetemäki, 2013; Rinaldi and Jonsson, 2014; Schelhaas et al., 2015). Quantitatively based in the data from national forest inventories for the development of forest stocks, a partial-equilibrium between the supply and demand for timber products is taken as proxy for the (rational) decisions forest owners take in response to changes in forest related policies and society (Solberg et al., 2003; Hurmekoski and Hetemäki, 2013; Rinaldi and Jonsson, 2014). These outlook studies provide insight in the potential of countries to supply in their demand for timber from internal or external markets and general trends in management intensity at national scale. These results do however not translate directly to a landscape level scenario of forest management and thus forest development. Thus, although the ecological development-trajectories of forested landscapes can be assessed quantitatively by applying appropriate forest growth models, assessing forest management for different scenarios of the future at the landscape scale is a qualitative exercise. More than at the national scale, at the landscape level the response of forest owners to non-financial factors will be apparent. This makes explicit inclusion of those factors in scenarios necessary. In this article, we propose a framework for scenario development that 1) builds on the application of quantitative forest modelling tools (FMT),1 2) incorporates the effect of relevant global or regional developments through a qualitative participatory process and 3) addresses the specific situation of a forested landscape comprising the lands of multiple owners. By translating the development of different external factors into the forest management response of different (types of) owners, and then feeding the aggregated response to the FMT, we can make projections of the future state of the forest-landscape and, to the extent that the specific FMT permits, the derived ecosystem services as a function of these external developments. Such projections can then be used in the development of scenarios which anticipate forest owners' decisions and their effect on the ecosystem services on a landscape level. For ease of reference we have named this framework by the acronym FoLDS, for the Forest Landscape Development Scenarios framework. Within FoLDS we start with the delineation of the external factors of interest and their development through a qualitative, participative and explorative scenario approach derived from the field of foresight (Steinmüller, 2012; Pillkahn, 2008: 200–205). The applied procedure assures that the resulting scenarios are consistent as regards the factors that drive the forest management decisions, the interactions between these factors and their expected future development. Within the FoLDS framework we translate these driver-scenarios into forest management choices by applying the behavioural matrix approach proposed by Trubins et al. (2014). In the matrix, the forest management choices are represented as a distribution of the forest area managed by different types of forest owners under different forest management approaches (Duncker et al., 2012). This matrix is then input for the applied FMT. From the FMT, the future state of the forest is derived with respect to the socio-economic changes described in the qualitative scenario. Within the FoLDS framework we distinguish four components of the full scenario development (Fig. 1). These components are: 1. The factors that influence forest management decisions, and thus can be considered as drivers of forest management, 2. The forest owners as the agents taking forest management decisions, 3. The forest management decisions 1 Many different forest growth models exist. Many of these models are implemented within computer programs into tools for decision support or research. Throughout this paper we will refer to the models and the computer tools as forest modelling tools (FMTs)

Fig. 1. conceptual FoLDS framework linking drivers of forest management decisions to forest owners. These forest owners each respond in their own way by adjusting their forest management, in line with their own preferences. The forest management is used in a forest simulator to project a scenario-specific landscape level provisioning of ecosystem services.

that are actually applied, and 4. The portfolio of ecosystem services that comes about on landscape level as the aggregated result of individual forest owners management decisions. It is important to underline that the final scenarios should not be considered as forecasts in the terms of ‘so it will be’. They aim at illustrate potentialities, possible developments and future situations whose realisation is not necessary, but possible. Their internal consistency makes them plausible from a present point of view and indicates what one would have to expect given that this or that development might come true (cf. Steinmüller, 2012, p. 109). We will first outline the rationale behind the foresight methods that are used in the FoLDS framework. We then discuss how we can use the results from these methods to inform FMTs. Finally we report the findings of a survey that has been conducted in order to evaluate the added value of that framework. The survey was directed at the researchers of the INTEGRAL project that applied the FoLDS framework in 20 case studies across Europe to setup scenarios about future development of forest-derived ecosystem services at landscape level (Hinterseer et al., 2014; Banos et al., 2014; Biber et al., 2014; Bonsu et al., 2014; Borges et al., 2014c; Brodrechtová et al., 2014; Brukas et al., 2014; Carlsson et al., 2014; de Bruin et al., 2014; Dokov et al., 2014; Favero et al., 2014; Carlsson et al., 2015, summarised in Riemer, 2015). 2. The FoLDS framework The FoLDS framework draws on the basic sociological distinction between actor and structure (e.g. Giddens, 1984). Actors take decisions and act according to their needs, preferences and logic – usually reflected in different actor models. However, the actions and decisions which actors take do not only depend on their specific set of preferences, abilities and characteristics. One also has to consider the social structure and the specific situation in which the actors have to act. This structure includes, for example, social norms and expectations from others, legal restrictions or economic freedom. So, in order to develop scenarios on a landscape level, we need to consider that different owners, or types of owners (e.g., Blanco Gonzalez et al., 2015), will take different actions and decisions in similar situations (e.g., Kuuluvainen et al., 1996; Karppinen, 1998; Favada et al., 2009). When making management decisions, forest owners take into account information on ecological, economic, legal and sociological factors, (i.e., ‘what does the forest need’, ‘what makes the money’, ‘what is allowed’ and ‘what is expected’). As the objectives of different types of forest owners are different (Blanco Gonzalez et al., 2015), so will their decisions be sensitive to changes in different external and internal factors. The FoLDS framework carries the development of full scenarios through six subsequent steps (Table 1). The first step in the FoLDS framework is to identify those external factors to which most forest

Please cite this article as: Hengeveld, G.M., et al., Forest Landscape Development Scenarios (FoLDS)–A framework for integrating forest models, owners' behaviour and socio-economic d..., Forest Policy and Economics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.007

G.M. Hengeveld et al. / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2017) xxx–xxx Table 1 The six steps in full scenario development of the FoLDS framework.

Table b1 Participants of the participatory workshop.

Step

Method

Stakeholder type

1

Identification of external factors

2

Combinations of factors

3 4 5

Driver scenario selection Integration of actors behaviour Simulation of the ecosystem services Scenario writing

Literature review and stakeholder workshop Stakeholder workshop and expert assessment Expert assessment Expert assessment Quantitative modelling and expert assessment Expert assessment

Forest authority Private forest owner Forest industry company Forest owners association Non-governmental organisation Total number of participants

6

3

1 5 2 1 2 11

2.1. Identification of external factors owners respond in their management decisions. Second, several future manifestations of these factors, which appear possible and probable from a present point of view, are described and assessed. In the third step, these manifestations are bundled in a limited number of scenarios. Then (step four), for each of the forest owner types, the development of these external factors within a scenario is translated to a (set of) forest management approaches. In step five these forest management approaches are used as inputs for a forest simulation which is case-study specific. From this simulation, the evolution of the different ecosystem services under the different scenarios is derived (Fig. 1). Finally, (step six) the full scenario description is built around the results of steps three, four and five. The information box provides an example of how the FoLDS is applied in practice. The full resulting scenario is given in Appendix A. In the following sections, these separate steps in developing a full scenario for forested landscapes are explained in more detail.2

The development of the “Green values” scenario for the Helgeå case study area in southern Sweden.3 For the development of the “Green values” scenario for the Helgeå case study area (Fig. b1) in southern Sweden the FoLDS framework was applied. For step 1 a participative workshop was organised involving local actors from the study area in which the contextual factors were selected (Table b1). Factors' manifestations were later defined by the researchers' team (step 2). The “Green values” scenario was based on one combination of the manifestations of the factors (step 3, Table b2). Actors' behaviour. Based on the assumed factors' development, responses of forest owners were deliberated within the research group (step 4, Table b3). This was preceded by an extensive review of quantitative and qualitative studies on forest owner behaviour. Ecosystem services. ES provisioning (step 5) was estimated using a number of indicators derived from the forest modelling tool, Heureka (Wikström et al., 2011). The model was run using a management specification according to Table b3. Results are presented in Fig. b2. Full scenario. With the information summarised in Tables b2 and b3 and Fig. b2, the full description of the “Green values” scenario was developed (step 6). This scenario assumes an increasingly strong influence of ENGO's in advocating for increased natural values protection in forestry. Green values enjoy strong public support which is reflected in the government's policies promoting shifts towards more benign forest management. A full description is given in Appendix A.

2 For a description and evaluation of this explorative scenario approach see Steinmüller, 2012. 3 A full description of the scenario building process and the scenarios resulting from it can be found at https://forestwiki.jrc.ec.europa.eu/integral/index.php/Helge%C3%A5.

The approach suggested in this paper is based on the assumption of structural stability: it is the assumption that the rationality of the actors as well as the social structure of which they are a part will not experience sudden and major changes in the future. This means that the factors that can explain the development so far, are expected to be of importance for the future development of things as well (cf. critically Neuhaus, 2006, p. 105–129). As a consequence, the basic aim of this first step is to identify those factors, trends and influences. At the end, there should be an answer to the questions ‘Which factors will influence the forest management decisions in that area the most? What will be the major drivers for forest management decisions?’ The complexity of these questions becomes apparent, if the applied perspective is not restricted to focus on forests as bio-ecological systems, but appreciates the wider socio-economic context in which forest development takes place. Although forests are appreciated as complex systems and their future development will be influenced by virtually uncountable events, influences and coincidences, it is legitimate and economically reasonable to focus on the most important ones. This research step aims at identifying these key factors of forest management decisions. A long list of factors that drive forest management decisions in the regional context is identified based on literature study. In a workshop the scientific and theoretical knowledge derived from literature is tested against the practical knowledge and experiences of local forest stakeholders. A so-called cross-impact analysis (Pillkahn, 2008, p. 138–141) or structural analysis (Arcade et al., 2009; Amer et al., 2013, p. 34f.) is performed to identify the most important factors by using the knowledge of the participating experts. The result of this workshop is a list of key factors that have been selected as being the most decisive ones for forest related management decisions and the future forest development in the specific landscape. This does not mean, however, that these factors necessarily have to act as ‘changers’. Very often, their influence is the reason for a continuous development that would otherwise change its direction. As a consequence, institutional structures and other influences that work in favour of path dependency are also considered as possible ‘factors’ for forest development.4 2.2. Combinations of factors The next steps in the process represent the core of an explorative scenario process. First, if possible and reasonable, interrelated factors are aggregated into somewhat larger and generic issues as compared

4 Experience indicates that is very helpful to organise the identified factors according to societal fields, for example using the STEEP-categories ‘society’, ‘technology’, ‘economy’, ‘ecology’ and ‘politics’ (Pillkahn, 2008, p. 85). In addition it is also helpful to organise the factors according to their geographical origin: do they stem from the very case study area (e.g. local traditions), do they have a national background (regulations or subsidies) or are they founded on a super-national level (e.g. global demand for timber). The assignment to the categories micro (local level), meso (national) and macro (international) refers to the origin or background of these factors. The very reason for the factors to be included in the list is their assumed importance for the given landscape, i.e. they all are supposed to act at the micro level.

Please cite this article as: Hengeveld, G.M., et al., Forest Landscape Development Scenarios (FoLDS)–A framework for integrating forest models, owners' behaviour and socio-economic d..., Forest Policy and Economics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.007

4

G.M. Hengeveld et al. / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Table b2 “Green values” scenario factors and manifestations. Factor

Manifestation

Population Ownership structure Public opinion Forest management paradigm Laws & and regulations Economic tools & incentives EU policies National welfare development Forest commodity markets

Same pace of urbanisation Small scale urban ownership Focus on environment Promoting alternatives to even-aged Medium degree of regulation Incentives for nature conservation Focus on environment Stably positive Increased prices, all products

to the individual key factors, e.g. ‘invasive species’ and ‘forest pests’ could be subsumed under the category ‘calamities’, and ‘migration’, and ‘depopulation in rural areas’ could be aggregated into ‘demographic changes’. These terms describe the elements that can be considered as being key for the future development of the landscape under study. Then, possible future developments are described for each of the selected elements. This is done by combining the available knowledge on the current status quo and present changes with assumptions that usually vary from issue to issue, and which serve as premises for the projections. These descriptions represent the decisive step into the future. In some areas, there are elaborate theories about patterns of change to fall back on. In other fields, especially on the factors with national and international background, there might exist outlook studies on trends and probable future developments to draw on. Nevertheless, in many cases one has to rely on experts' opinion and the results of group discussions. Very often the local stakeholders provide their expectations about the future developments of a specific forest-related issue in the participative workshop. The results of this step are descriptions of alternative future developments of a given element. These alternative future developments are called variations. They are described according to a common structure in order to keep them comparable. Fig. 2 illustrates that idea using the example of the element ‘population’ which integrates the factors ‘population size’, ‘age structure’ and ‘migration’ and shows three alternative future developments.

2.3. Scenario drivers In the next step it is estimated how well each of the future developments previously described goes together with the alternative developments of the other elements. Given that there simply is no empirical approach to do research on future developments, it is important to note that the results of this research step are always based on human assessments. However, morphological analysis help to control these assessments and make them transparent (cf. e.g., Pillkahn, 2008, p. 203ff; Ritchey, 2009; Amer et al., 2013, p. 34f). The aim of the morphological analysis is to select the final scenarios by narrowing down

the number of all possible combinations to the most coherent and consistent ones. Fig. 3 illustrates that idea – the final scenarios are the combination of the future developments in several elements that have been identified as decisive for the landscape under study.

2.4. Integration of actors behaviour Within the FoLDS framework we wish to assess the change of forest management in response to changes in some external factors. In our approach we use the concept of forest management approaches as a coherent sequence of silvicultural actions to a forest stand cf. Duncker et al. (2012). Forest management approaches can be widely different, from a no-intervention approach performing no actions in the forest to highly intense biomass production, but can also differ on details, e.g., only on the length of a forest-rotation. Different types of forest owners respond differently to external factors. For many countries forest owner typologies have been created. Examples are Ingemarson et al. (2006) in Sweden, Boon et al. (2004) in Denmark, Karppinen (1998) in Finland, Hogl et al. (2005) in Austria, Stanislovaitis et al. (2015) in Lithuania, Dhubhain and Wall (1999) in Ireland and Wiersum et al. (2005) and Blanco Gonzalez et al. (2015) for Europe. Most of the typologies are based on stated objectives or preferences rather than observed behaviour. However, there is an implicit assumption that the stated objectives affect the actual forest management behaviour (Ní Dhubháin et al., 2007). Together these two typologies, one of forest owners, one of forest management approaches, form the two axes of the behaviour matrix approach proposed by Trubins (2014). The behavioural matrix is a way of structuring the representation of forest management behaviour at a landscape scale. The structure allows for representation of several distinct behaviour types and facilitates the formulation and the application of associated response programs. The rows of the behavioural matrix (Fig. 4) are associated with different forest owner types, the columns with forest management approaches. Si show the proportion of the forest landscape associated with forest owner type i. The values of Pij show the proportion of the forest landscape within the domain of forest owner type i associated forest management program j. Each row including a forest owner type and the associated division of the forest landscape among the forest management approaches constitutes a forest manager behaviour type. Practical application of this representational structure involves formulation of forest manager's behaviour types as combinations of forest owner types and forest management approaches and determination of the distribution of the forest landscape among these. The procedure suggested by Trubins (2014) makes maximal use of existing quantitative and qualitative findings on private forest owners such as typologies based on objectives or/and observed behaviour, empirical decision models, findings on risk attitudes etc. combined with expert knowledge and possible stakeholder involvement and forest inventory data in formulating response programs.

Table b3 Behavioural matrix for the “Green values” scenario in Helgeå case study. The numbers outside brackets show the proportions of FOT's and FMA's including the assumed response. The numbers in brackets show the difference to the initial or BAU matrix. FMA % FOT Economist Traditionalist Multi-objective Conservation Passive Public Total area %

Area % 13 (−17) 13 (−7) 26 (+11) 25 (+8) 13 (−5) 10 (+10) 100

TRAD 46 (−9) 37 (−3) 18 (−2) 10 (0) 5 (0) 0 (na) 19 (−11)

PROL 7 (−3) 22 (−4) 37 (−4) 47 (−3) 40 (−5) 0 (na) 30 (−1)

MaxNPV 20 (0) 10 (0) 10 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (na) 7 (−3)

EXTENS 5 (−2) 9 (0) 11 (0) 17 (0) 33 (−2) 50 (na) 18 (+3)

CONV 15 (+8) 15 (+5) 15 (+2) 16 (0) 15 (+5) 25 (na) 16 (+5)

CCF 7 (+7) 7 (+2) 9 (+4) 10 (+3) 7 (+2) 25 (na) 10 (+6)

Please cite this article as: Hengeveld, G.M., et al., Forest Landscape Development Scenarios (FoLDS)–A framework for integrating forest models, owners' behaviour and socio-economic d..., Forest Policy and Economics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.007

G.M. Hengeveld et al. / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

5

Fig. 2. The description of alternative future developments, example: Population.

The descriptions of the forest owner types can be used as the base for the response and the forest management approaches. The response programs are documented adding more details to the forest owner type characteristics or kept more open for discussions on concrete effects of every particular external factor. A natural reference in exploring future forest management is the current (past, in a strict sense) management. The forest management approaches have to cover the entire variation of the forest management within any of the forest owner types. For convenience reasons, the number of forest management approaches should not be too large, preferably four to seven. Thus, a compromise between the number of approaches and the coarseness of representation need to be found. It is advisable, to consider already at this stage how the forest management approaches will be specified in the specific FMT that will be used. Besides the description of the forest owner type, forest inventory data is an important source of information on current and past management. For example, observed age class structure tells about the actually

applied rotation ages. Species composition of young forests tells about the choice of species, regeneration method and precommercial thinnings. The adequacy of forest management program specifications and the associated forest area distribution can be judged also by simulation outputs such as harvested volume. If the final harvest ages and thinning frequencies have been adequately specified, the resulting harvested volume should not divert dramatically from the recently observed values. The assessment of the effects of changes in external factors on the distribution of land within the behavioural matrix proceeds as follows. The reasoning is based on what is known about the forest owner types and the external factors. First, shifts in the proportions of the different forest owner types are determined. Changes in land prices, urbanisation trends, and economics of forestry (wood prices, input prices) are some of the aspects that can be considered in this step. New forest owner types can be added if needed. Next, the proportions of forest management approaches within each owner type are reconsidered given the response programs and the specified changes in the external factors, documented or agreed upon in one of the previous steps. New forest management approaches can be added if needed. Changes in the economics of forestry, subsidies and the effect of laws and policies are to be considered here.

Fig. 3. The inductive development of scenarios by combining alternative future developments of elements (key factors). (Source: Pillkahn, 2008, p. 203.)

Fig. 4. An example of a behavioural matrix with 5 forest owner types (FOT) and 5 management programs (FMP); Si – area proportions of RP/FOT; Pij – area proportion of FMP's within each FOT.

Please cite this article as: Hengeveld, G.M., et al., Forest Landscape Development Scenarios (FoLDS)–A framework for integrating forest models, owners' behaviour and socio-economic d..., Forest Policy and Economics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.007

6

G.M. Hengeveld et al. / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Depending on the level of detail in which the FMT can process the work with the available forest data, either the full matrix or the summary proportions of the forest management programs from the new matrix are then implemented in the FMT for the next step in the scenario development. 2.5. Simulation of the ecosystem services There are many FMTs available to translate a set of forest management approaches to development of ecosystem services in a given forest area. These tools range from simple growth and yield tables for a species on a specific soil type to full-fledged enterprise-level decision support systems (Borges et al., 2014a). Most of these tools are rather specific for a region, species or the type of management that can be considered (Biber et al., 2015). Based on the FMT outcome, a set of indicators for the provisioning of ecosystem services which is considered relevant in this context can be calculated. The FoLDS framework is flexible to be used with many different FMTs. However, some translation might be necessary from the forest management approaches to specific actions in the simulations. Furthermore the researchers applying the FoLDS framework should agree with the relevant stakeholders on the ecosystem services for which indicators are calculated. The resulting scenario is then built around these three components: the development in the external factors, the response of the forest owners to these developments and the response of the forest ecosystem to the applied management. 3. Evaluation of the FoLDS framework The FoLDS framework for the development of future scenarios of forest landscapes was implemented within the INTEGRAL project (integral-project.eu) in 20 case studies in 13 European countries (Hinterseer et al., 2014; Banos et al., 2014; Biber et al., 2014; Bonsu et al., 2014; Borges et al., 2014c; Brodrechtová et al., 2014; Brukas et al., 2014; Carlsson et al., 2014; de Bruin et al., 2014; Dokov et al., 2014; Favero et al., 2014; Carlsson et al., 2015; Riemer, 2015). Riemer (2015) gives illustrative summaries of the different scenarios developed using the FoLDS framework. More detailed descriptions of the processes that produced the scenarios are given in the associated country reports (Banos et al., 2014; Biber et al., 2014; Bonsu et al., 2014; Borges et al., 2014c; Brodrechtová et al., 2014; Brukas et al., 2014; Carlsson et al., 2014; de Bruin et al., 2014; Dokov et al., 2014; Favero et al., 2014) and in Carlsson et al. (2015). As a result, the general framework has been tested by various research groups in different contexts. In order to assess the added value of our approach to the future-oriented management of forested landscapes we conducted a survey among the researchers involved drawing on their experiences with the presented approach. The survey period was 19 May to 6 June 2015. Invitations were sent out via email to 79 members of the INTEGRAL consortium. 55 persons activated the link to the online-survey and 40 participants completed the survey, which equals a response rate of 51%. The report on the overall results of the online-survey can be downloaded from the website of the INTEGRAL-project.5 Here only the most relevant results will be presented and subsequently discussed. Because the results are only used as indicative, no statistical testing for differences between response groups was performed. 3.1. Possible addressees of the scenarios The INTEGRAL-project aimed at support for actual decision making processes. Therefore the researchers were asked whether they thought

5

integral-project.eu

that the final scenarios might actually be useful for addressees outside the project, too.6 The vast majority (90.2%) of the respondents indicated that the scenarios “could be used by different stakeholders like scientists, forest owners, politicians and others.” When asked, who could be the users of the produced scenarios7 16.4% of the respondents indicated that they expected regional decision makers to be interested in the resulting scenarios. Other groups of possible addressees are politicians and decision makers at national level (15.9%), regional stakeholders (15.9%), scientists (14.9%), decision makers in state forestry (11.8%), politicians and decision makers at EU level (10.3%), individual forest owners (7.7%) or community workers (5.1%). Furthermore, the respondents named the following groups as possible users of the scenarios: spatial planners at regional or national level, forest owner associations, forest cooperatives, students and scholars and forest stakeholders in general (Fig. 5). 3.2. Added value of the approach As indicated above, there are already existing models and approaches to anticipate future forest developments and to inform forest managers about possible effects of their decisions. Therefore, we asked the researchers to keep in mind the previously named addressees of the scenarios and evaluate the added value of the applied approach in comparison to regular qualitative and explorative scenarios.8 Overall, i.e. without considering the disciplinary background, 88.9% of the respondents think that the applied approach yields an added value in comparison to scenarios that are produced in a throughout qualitative process without involving quantitative modelling. More or less the same share of the respondents (84.4%) agreed to the statement that the applied approach does offer an added value compared to FMTprojections produced without the integration of the behavioural matrix and qualitative scenario approaches. However, the response behaviour differed slightly according to the disciplinary background of the researchers. All respondents who were only involved in the forest modelling, think that the applied methodology has an added value compared to the scenarios produced in a throughout qualitative way, while “only” 75% of the same group approved the added value in comparison to the mentioned FMTprojections. Of the respondents who were exclusively active in the political and social science part of the project, “only” 78.6% think that there is an added value of the applied methodology compared to a pure FMT-projection approach. 87.5% of the same group do see an added value of the applied procedure in comparison to scenarios produced in a throughout qualitative way. However, the highest agreement on the added value of the applied methodology compared to the mentioned FMT-projections was shown by respondents who were actively involved in both parts of the project. 92.9% of the researchers who dealt with the quantitative modelling work, the qualitative foresight approach and their integration with the behavioural matrix think that the suggested approach does offer an added value in comparison to existing FMT-projections. These results indicate that the applied framework is overall highly appreciated, while the researches active in quantitative modelling seem not as convinced of the added value of the applied approach as

6 The question asked was: “One of the innovations of phase 2 of the INTEGRAL project was bringing together actors' behaviour (via the behavioural matrix) with existing DSS and making that behavioural matrix approach part of an exploratory, qualitative scenario process. How do you evaluate these scenarios regarding their potential usage?” 7 The question asked was: “In your opinion, who could be the users or addressees of the scenarios which have eventually been produced in phase 2?”. Please note that multiple answers were possible for this question. 8 The question asked was “When you think about the group of persons you indicated before as possible users or addressees of the scenarios, is there an added value in the scenarios produced in phase 2 of INTEGRAL (or others produced using the same method) compared to the following alternatives?”.

Please cite this article as: Hengeveld, G.M., et al., Forest Landscape Development Scenarios (FoLDS)–A framework for integrating forest models, owners' behaviour and socio-economic d..., Forest Policy and Economics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.007

G.M. Hengeveld et al. / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

7

Fig. 5. Suggested beneficiaries from the scenario studies developed within the Integral Program. Y axis gives the number of times a beneficiary is selected. Multiple answers could be provided.

the community of qualitative scenarios developers. The results also indicate that those researchers who cover both areas appreciate the added value provided by the suggested approach to a higher extent than the researchers who stick to the perspective of a single approach. When asked to give details on the added value of the applied approach, 30 persons provided the following answers9: Most often (15 times) the added value of the methodological exploration was mentioned, including the inspiration through interdisciplinarity, the linkage and dialogue between quantitative and qualitative methodologies and the broadening of the perspective. Connected to this topic, the improvement of forecasting/planning (more realistic due to consideration of external factors and behaviours) was mentioned in 10 cases. The added value also derives from a better understanding of stakeholders' perspective (3), from an increased feeling of ownership by stakeholders through participation (2) and from the development of concrete assessment elements for stakeholders (2). The role of integrating actor models into the methodology via the behavioural matrix approach (Trubins et al., 2014) was considered as highly relevant. More than 50% of all researchers involved considered the integration of actors' behaviour as very important (24.2%) or important (39.4%) for the overall research results. 30.3% assessed the behavioural matrix approach as rather important. None of the respondents considered the integration of actors' behaviour via the behavioural matrix approach as unimportant.10 3.3. Was it worth the effort? Even if there is a broad consensus among the involved researchers that the extended research approach, implied by the FoLDS framework, led to an added value as regards the research results and that the resulting scenarios are expected to be of interest for several forestrelated user groups, there is still the question whether the added

9 The question asked was: “Could you please describe why or in what sense there is an added value in comparison to the regular procedure of qualitative scenario development and/or application of DSS?” Please note that the question was open-ended, i.e. several answers were possible. 10 6.1% of the respondents declared that they were not able to give a reliable assessment.

value was worth the effort. Doing extensive literature and desk research, preparing and conducting participative workshops, analysing the results in order to feed them into the FMT and bringing all this together with an approach to model actors' behaviour proved to be a demanding task – more demanding than the familiar application of the FMT, and more constrained than the development of qualitative scenarios. Since time and financial resources are always limited one has to ask the question whether the added value justified the additional efforts. Overall, i.e. without considering their scientific discipline, the involved researchers were quite convinced by the experiences they made with the newly developed and applied approach. 82.4% of the respondents said that the gained added value justified the additional efforts. 17.6% stated that “the additional efforts that have been made exceeded the gained value”.11 Again, the disciplinary background proved to make a difference, and again the quantitative modellers were more critical than the social and political science researchers. Of the researchers involved in quantitative modelling “only” 66.7% said that the added value was worth the effort, while 86.7% of the researchers with a social sciences background and 84.6% of the researchers who were active in both parts of the project agreed to said statement. When asked to give details on why the additional value justified the additional efforts, 14 persons provided answers. The aspect of more realistic, consistent and reliable results was mentioned 8 times, while the following aspects were each named once: the participation of stakeholders, the approach being an easy tool for stakeholders, the approach being a good method of sharing and integrating knowledge, the approach providing a more open perspective on the future, and the possibility to verify a new methodological approach. 4. Discussion & conclusion The FoLDS framework presented in this paper is set up to develop scenarios on future development of the forested landscape. To do so, 11 The question asked was: “Time and resources available for conducting research are scarce. So, one has to decide on where to best allocate the given time and resources to. In this context, do you think that the gain in usefulness (the added value) that was achieved by combining a scenario approach with DSS and the behavioural matrix was worth the additional effort?”.

Please cite this article as: Hengeveld, G.M., et al., Forest Landscape Development Scenarios (FoLDS)–A framework for integrating forest models, owners' behaviour and socio-economic d..., Forest Policy and Economics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.007

8

G.M. Hengeveld et al. / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

landscape (Borges et al., 2014a; Hoogstra-Klein et al., 2016). Rather than an indication of the probability of future events, a set of scenarios developed with the FoLDS framework is meant to give a flavour of the range of possible futures. As with any framework for developing scenarios, this range of possible futures is limited by the framework. For the FoLDS framework examples of such limitations are 1. The importance of stakeholders in identifying those socio-economic factors that have the largest impact on the future forest management decisions. Fig. b1. Location of the study area in southern Sweden, 90,000 ha.

this framework provides a transparent connection between broad-scale socio-economic developments and the ecosystem-services that the forested landscape provides. This connection is not trivial, as – at least in Europe – the forests that provide these ecosystem services are managed by a multitude of forest owners. Different forest owners have their individual objectives (Blanco Gonzalez et al., 2015) and will thus adjust their forest management differently in response to socio-economic developments. By combining quantitative methods, where available with qualitative methods, where needed this framework allows for the construction of scenarios of future developments of the landscape strongly supported by scientific knowledge and experience stakeholders and experts. The FoLDS framework starts with setting up scenarios for the future manifestation of those socio-economic factors that the forest owners see as most important. Using the behavioural matrix approach developed by Trubins (2014) the differentiated effect of these socioeconomic factors on the different forest owners can be translated to a change in the forest management in the landscape. Using FMTs attuned to the region the effect of the change in forest management on the ecosystem services provided at the landscape level can be quantified. As indicated by the researchers that have applied the framework within the European FP7 project Integral, the FoLDS-scenarios are mainly targeted at an audience of regional stakeholders and regional to national decision makers. The scenarios developed with the FoLDS framework are mainly explorative (van Notten et al., 2003). In contrast to more normative approaches, an explorative scenario on itself will not provide answers on how to achieve a desired state for the forest

2. The rather limited and fixed number of forest management approaches in the behavioural matrix. 3. The limitations of FMTs to provide good indicators of the level of provisioning of ecosystem services at the forest landscape level. These examples all highlight the potential to produce an overly positive outlook on the robustness of the forest landscape. It should thus be noted that while developing scenarios, one should always keep an open eye for the outside options, e.g., that factors that are currently not limiting forest management decisions, could become limiting in the future, that new forest management programs can arise and that some ecosystem services will be better represented in the forest models than others. Traditionally, FMTs are developed to calculate the future state of the forest with respect to timber; standing stock and harvest, and with the focus on individual stands to single holdings (Vanclay, 1994; Wolfslehner and Seidl, 2010). Where demands from forests have expanded, FMTs have expanded by including indicators for other ecosystem services, e.g., carbon stored, water quality, soil, biodiversity, tourism (Fontes et al., 2010; Wolfslehner and Seidl, 2010). The state of these ecosystem services is generally not modelled dynamically, but derived from the calculated state of the forest. When moving to the forest landscape, the state of ecosystem services is not always a summation over the individual stands that make up the landscape (Seidl et al., 2013). For ecosystem services that interact between stands in a landscape or that are emergent at the landscape level indicators used on these services should be appropriate to the scale of the scenarios in which these indicators are used (cf. Seidl et al., 2013). As a consequence, if an ecosystem service relates non-linearly between the scale of the forest model and the scale of the scenarios indicators should be developed that address these non-linearity (e.g., Biber et al., 2015; Hengeveld et al., 2015). Where the formal approach of forest models would prefer a data-based derivation of these landscape scale indicators, within the FoLDS framework these FMTs are embedded in

Fig. b2. Levels of ecosystem services: A – year 50, B – year 100. Indicators used: harvest (average), carbon storage total (assessment year), deciduous tree share in volume (average), dead wood (assessment year), deciduous large trees (assessment year), Mercury contents in water (average), Dissolved Organic Contents in water (average).

Please cite this article as: Hengeveld, G.M., et al., Forest Landscape Development Scenarios (FoLDS)–A framework for integrating forest models, owners' behaviour and socio-economic d..., Forest Policy and Economics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.007

G.M. Hengeveld et al. / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

a qualitative, expert-based framework allowing more flexibility to integrate additional (e.g. GIS) and more ‘soft’ information (e.g. expert judgement) into such indicators. Despite these limitations, 80% of the researchers that have applied the framework appreciate the benefit that this framework brings. This benefit lies in bridging the gap between qualitative and participative research on socio-economic developments and the quantitative research on how forest management impacts the forest. The FoLDS framework suggests a thorough understanding of the forest owners in a landscape both through the different stakeholders in the landscape and the scientific background of FMTs used. From this understanding, the FoLDS framework structures the expected responses by forest owners on external developments and translates them to the ecosystem services provided by the landscape, thus embedding the quantitative modelling of forests into a socio-economic scenario that makes sense from the point of view of the stakeholders. The resulting scenarios provide internally consistent qualitative and quantitative flavour to the exploration of possible futures. There are alternative ways of exploring the sensitivity of the forest landscape to changes in forest management. Exploring the potential of a landscape, one could start from the forest models rather than from the socio-economic factors, and calculate the production possibility frontiers of the forest landscape for the ecosystem services of interest. These frontiers could be calculated using forward simulation, or rather optimisation approaches (e.g. Borges et al., 2014b). These frontiers show the sensitivity of the forest landscape to forest management configurations, enabling stakeholders to focus on how to achieve a desired level of ecosystem service provisioning. The FoLDS framework in contrast focuses on less centrally organised landscapes where the forest management decisions of the individual forest owners are not attuned to achieve a centrally agreed goal. Rather, each forest owner type is expected to respond differently to the stimuli that are determined by the socio-economic developments that define the scenarios. Hoogstra-Klein et al. (2016) identify a lack of studies bridging the gap between qualitative research on the socio-economic developments and the quantitative research on how forest management impacts the forest. That our framework fills part of this gap is illustrated by the response of the researchers that have applied it. Despite the extra effort that the framework asks from researchers over 88% of these researchers appreciate the added value of combining insights from different disciplines. This is a high appreciation, even considering that some researchers might be positively biased as they were part of the project in which the framework is developed. The FoLDS scenarios should however be seen as a starting point for the actual decision making process. During the process of scenario development stakeholders in the forested landscape are brought together to discuss those factors that drive decision making now and in the future. They interact with researchers operating locally attuned forest resource models, gaining understanding in those models and in their projections of the future development of the forest. By explicitly developing a number of scenario storylines with the associated developments in the management of the forested landscape and the ecosystem services that are derived from this landscape, regional stakeholders and decision makers increase their understanding of the robustness of the forested landscape and the elasticity to different policy options. From this understanding the FoLDS scenarios can support decision making processes or can be used as a basis for more specific normative scenario exercises in which specific future goals, or specific policy options are targeted. The FoLDS framework combines the qualitative knowledge of local stakeholders on what drives the decisions on forest management, with quantitative knowledge as it is encapsulated in forest growth models. With this combination, the FoLDS framework creates possible futures that each have a significant effect on forest management and quantifies the cascading effects on forest derived ecosystem services. In these futures, the ecological potential of a forest landscape is

9

constrained not only by the management choices per se, but by management choices made by different forest owners that act in the same socio-economic world. Acknowledgement This project has received funding from the European Union's Seventh Program for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement No. 282887 (INTEGRAL). Appendix A. ‘Green values for the future’ Keywords: green values – regionalisation – urbanisation – carbon sequestration – high demand for timber – continuous cover forestry Out of concern for future generations and the damaging effects of climate change, the public opinion in Sweden and Europe are stressing environmental values and sustainability. Politicians and stakeholders are working together towards the aim of achieving a bioeconomy within the safe boundaries of ecosystem sustainability. The influence of European Union (EU) policies on Sweden is strong and forestry is since some years an integrated part of EU legislation. Several new directives concerning nature protection and conservation have been ratified by Sweden and other member states during the last decades. The population in rural areas is growing older and older and the availability of services such as schools, commuter traffic and petrol stations decrease, making it difficult to sustain good life in rural areas. The forest owners are not living close to their rural forest holdings. The new generation of forest owners taking over estates are equally many women as men and in most cases already well-established in the urban areas. The total degree of activity within forest management as well as the self-employment in the forest is decreasing. Few of the urban forest owners find the time to attend their forest regulatory and execute necessary forest operations. This has created a high demand for professional managers and more services connected to forest management. Green building and European Union (EU) trade regulations (EUTR and FLEGT) have jointly had a large impact on the timber market and have promoted the use of wood produced in Europe. In comparison to sources in, for example, the southern hemisphere it is easy to get adequate documentation of sustainable forest management when purchasing wood from Sweden and other forest rich EU member states. This results in a high demand for large dimension hardwood timber within Europe. Relatively speaking there is a small set-off for smaller dimensions of timber due to a decreased demand for paper and capacity decrease within the Northern pulp industry. Bioenergy from the forest is not used on a larger scale but has been replaced with other sources of renewable energy such as wind-and solar-power. Forest owners and managers are influenced by market forces to use longer rotation times and/or selective cuttings for producing larger timber dimensions. Positive welfare development in Sweden for the last years has promoted imports of forest commodities such as round wood or bioenergy in the form of pellets and similar. The forest industry face disadvantages from increased relative wages and ensuing higher production costs. Availability of labour force decreases as employment rates are high, but educational quality is good and entrepreneurship strong. The competitiveness of the Swedish economy is increasing but the import of forest products and other commodities, in a normally export dependent economy, is threatening to turn the welfare development in an opposite direction in the near future. The government and the forest policy are giving a mix of incentives to the forest management, partly in order to spread risks. There is a high willingness to pay for recreation and other social and environmental values by the increasingly urbanised population. These values are enhanced in proximity to urban areas by applying continuous cover forest management (CCF). The forest legislation only states basic requirements for nature protection and other values on productive forest

Please cite this article as: Hengeveld, G.M., et al., Forest Landscape Development Scenarios (FoLDS)–A framework for integrating forest models, owners' behaviour and socio-economic d..., Forest Policy and Economics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.007

10

G.M. Hengeveld et al. / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

land, meaning green tree retention, high stumps and buffer zones. These basic requirements are controlled by the Forest Agency, which hand over cases to the jurisdictional bodies if legislative requirements are not being met. These legislative measures are coupled with promotion of voluntary measures for nature conservation. Advisory services and information campaigns are also carried out by the Forest Agency, indicating best practises within forest management. The present forest management regime can be seen as a balance between the even-aged forest management strategy and CCF. Continuous cover forestry is so far actively applied on 10% of the forest land, but is gaining in importance and area cover. Clear-cutting as a silvicultural system is however still dominant. Even-aged forest management is now in general applying longer rotation times, up to double the lowest allowable cutting-age, and then with many thinnings to extract larger timber dimension. An increasing proportion of forest land is dedicated to regeneration with broadleaf tree species. The dominant harvesting technology is single-grip harvesters performing felling, de-branching as well as cutting into assortments, while the timber is then transported to roadside by a forwarder. Smaller machines or even motor-manual labour are employed for the operations in forests managed according to CCF methods. Forestry entrepreneurship is thriving as self-employment is low at the same time as CCF requires more labour. New interest groups are forming around the emerging CCF, offering courses in different applications. Already new structures are created within the forest sector challenging the traditional institutions. The result of applied forest management is, on landscape level, high growing stocks and carbon storage. Broadleaf forests are spreading and hardwood volumes increasing. Water quality has improved somewhat during the last years since there is a decreased leakage of mercury and dissolved organic content (DOC). References Amer, M., Daim, T.U., Jetter, A., 2013. A review of scenario planning. Futures 46, 23–40. Arcade, J., Godet, M., Meunier, F., Roubelat, F., 2009. Structural Analysis with the MICMAC Method & Actors' Strategy with MACTOR Method. Futures Research Methodology 3.0 (CD-ROM). J. C. Glenn and T. J. Gordon. Banos, V., Deuffic, P., Hautdidier, B., Sergent, A., 2014. INTEGRAL National Case Study Reports, France. Retrieved 24-2, 2017, from. http://integral-project.eu/images/ Documents/Publications/Deliverables/CaseStudyReports/Case%20Study%20Reports_ France.pdf. Biber, P., Borges, J., Moshammer, R., Barreiro, S., Botequim, B., Brodrechtová, Y., Brukas, V., Chirici, G., Cordero-Debets, R., Corrigan, E., Eriksson, L., Favero, M., Galev, E., GarciaGonzalo, J., Hengeveld, G., Kavaliauskas, M., Marchetti, M., Marques, S., Mozgeris, G., Navrátil, R., Nieuwenhuis, M., Orazio, C., Paligorov, I., Pettenella, D., Sedmák, R., Smreček, R., Stanislovaitis, A., Tomé, M., Trubins, R., Tuček, J., Vizzarri, M., Wallin, I., Pretzsch, H., Sallnäs, O., 2015. How sensitive are ecosystem services in European forest landscapes to silvicultural treatment? Forests 6 (5), 1666. Biber, P., Cappelmann, L., Hengst-Ehrhart, Y., Moshammer, R., Pretzsch, H., Schraml, U., Selter, A., Sotirov, M., Storch, S., 2014. INTEGRAL National Case Study Reports, Germany. Retrieved 24-2, 2017, from. http://integral-project.eu/images/Documents/ Publications/Deliverables/CaseStudyReports/Case%20Study%20Reports_Germany. pdf. Blanco Gonzalez, V., Brown, C., Rounsevell, M., 2015. Characterising forest owners through their objectives, attributes and management strategies. Eur. J. For. Res. 134 (6), 1027–1041. Bonsu, N., Corrigan, E., Ní Dhubháin, Á., Harper, C., Meijer, S., Nieuwenhuis, M., 2014. INTEGRAL National Case Study Reports, Ireland. Retrieved 24-2, 2017, from. http:// integral-project.eu/images/Documents/Publications/Deliverables/CaseStudyReports/ Case%20Study%20Reports_Ireland.pdf. Boon, T.E., Meilby, H., Thorsen, B.J., 2004. An Empirically Based Typology of Private Forest Owners in Denmark: Improving Communication Between Authorities and Owners. Scand. J. For. Res. 19 (sup004), 45–55. Borges, J.G., Nordstrom, E., Garcia-Gonzalo, J., Hujala, T., Trasobares, A., 2014a. Computerbased tools for supporting forest management. The Experience and the Expertise World-wide. Dept. of Forest Resource Management, Swedish Univ. of Agricultural Sciences. Borges, J.G., Garcia-Gonzalo, J., Bushenkov, V., McDill, M.E., Marques, S., Oliveira, M.M., 2014b. Addressing Multicriteria Forest Management with Pareto Frontier methods: an application in Portugal. For. Sci. 60 (1), 63–72. Borges, J.G., de Carvalho, P.O., Garcia, J., Marques, S., Mendes, A., Ribeiro, M., Sottomayor, M., 2014c. INTEGRAL National Case Study Reports, Portugal. Retrieved 24-2, 2017, from Portugal. http://integral-project.eu/images/Documents/Publications/ Deliverables/CaseStudyReports/Case%20Study%20Reports_Portugal.pdf.

Brodrechtová, Y., Navrátil, R., Sedmák, R., Smreček, R., Tuček, J., 2014. INTEGRAL National Case Study Reports, Slovakia. Retrieved 24-2, 2017, from. http://integral-project.eu/ images/Documents/Publications/Deliverables/CaseStudyReports/Case%20Study% 20Reports_Slovakia.pdf. Brukas, V., M. Kavaliauskas, G. Mozgeris, A. Raupelienė and A. Stanislovaitis. (2014). "INTEGRAL National Case Study Reports, Lithuania." Retrieved 24-2, 2017, from http:// integral-project.eu/images/Documents/Publications/Deliverables/CaseStudyReports/ Case%20Study%20Reports_Lithuania.pdf. Carlsson, J., Eggers, J., Eriksson, L.O., Nordström, E., 2014. INTEGRAL National Case Study Reports, Sweden. Retrieved 24-2, 2017, from. http://integral-project.eu/images/ Documents/Publications/Deliverables/CaseStudyReports/Case%20Study%20Reports_ Sweden.pdf. Carlsson, J., Eriksson, L.O., Öhman, K., Nordström, E.-M., 2015. Combining scientific and stakeholder knowledge in future scenario development — a forest landscape case study in northern Sweden. Forest Policy Econ. 61, 122–134. de Bruin, J.O., Hengeveld, G.M., Hoogstra-Klein, M.A., 2014. INTEGRAL National Case Study Reports, The Netherlands. Retrieved 24-2, 2017, from. http://integral-project.eu/ images/Documents/Publications/Deliverables/CaseStudyReports/Case%20Study% 20Reports_The Netherlands.pdf. Dhubhain, A.N., Wall, S., 1999. The new owners of small private forests in Ireland. J. For. 97 (6), 28–33. Dokov, K., Draganov, V., Dragozova, E., Galev, E., Ivanov, I., Kovacheva, S., Paligorov, I., Stiptzov, V., 2014. INTEGRAL National Case Study Reports, Bulgaria. Retrieved 24-2, 2017, from. http://integral-project.eu/images/Documents/Publications/Deliverables/ CaseStudyReports/Case%20Study%20Reports_Bulgaria.pdf. Duncker, P.S., Barreiro, S.M., Hengeveld, G.M., Lind, T., Mason, W.L., Ambrozy, S., Spiecker, H., 2012. Classification of Forest management approaches: a new conceptual framework and its applicability to European forestry. Ecol. Soc. 17 (4). Favada, I.M., Karppinen, H., Kuuluvainen, J., Mikkola, J., Stavness, C., 2009. Effects of timber prices, ownership objectives, and owner characteristics on timber supply. For. Sci. 55 (6), 512–523. Favero, M., Marchetti, M., Pettenella, D., Vizzarri, M., 2014. INTEGRAL National Case Study Reports, Italy. Retrieved 24-2, 2017, from. http://integral-project.eu/images/ Documents/Publications/Deliverables/CaseStudyReports/Case%20Study%20Reports_ Italy.pdf. Fontes, L., Bontemps, J.-D., Bugmann, H., Van Oijen, M., Gracia, C., Kramer, K., Lindner, M., Rötzer, T., Skovsgaard, J.P., 2010. Models for supporting forest management in a changing environment. For. Sys. 19 (2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.5424/fs/201019S9315 Special Issue. Trends in modeling to address forest management and environmental challenges in Europe. Giddens, A., 1984. The Constitution of Society. Polity Press, Cambridge. Görg, C., 2007. Landscape governance: the “politics of scale” and the “natural” conditions of places. Geoforum 38 (5), 954–966. Hengeveld, G.M., Didion, M., Clerkx, S., Elkin, C., Nabuurs, G.-J., Schelhaas, M.-J., 2015. The landscape-level effect of individual-owner adaptation to climate change in Dutch forests. Reg. Environ. Chang. 15 (8), 1515–1529. Hinterseer, T., Koulelis, P., Jonsson, R., McDermott, C.L., Sallnäs, O., Schröter, W., Schüll, E., Schwingsmehl, M., Sotirov, M., Barron, D., Kubo, K., 2014. Synthesis Report on Integrated Forest Management Scenarios in Europe including the National Case Study Reports and the Report on the Role of EU Commodity Consumption. Integral Project Deliverable Retrieved 24–2, 2017, from. http://www.integral-project.eu/images/ Documents/Publications/Deliverables/D3.3.pdf. Hogl, K., Pregernig, M., Weiss, G., 2005. What is new about new forest owners? A typology of private forest ownership in Austria. Small Scale For. Econ. Manag. Policy 4 (3), 325–342. Hoogstra-Klein, M.A., Hengeveld, G.M., de Jong, R., 2016. Analysing scenario approaches for forest management — One decade of experiences in Europe. Forest Policy Econ. Hoogstra, M.A., Schanz, H., 2009. Future orientation and planning in forestry: a comparison of forest managers' planning horizons in Germany and the Netherlands. Eur. J. For. Res. 128 (1), 1–11. Hurmekoski, E., Hetemäki, L., 2013. Studying the future of the forest sector: review and implications for long-term outlook studies. Forest Policy Econ. 34, 17–29. Ingemarson, F., Lindhagen, A., Eriksson, L., 2006. A typology of small-scale private forest owners in Sweden. Scand. J. For. Res. 21 (3), 249–259. Karppinen, H., 1998. Values and objectives of non-industrial private forest owners in Finland. Silva Fenn. 32 (1), 43–59. Kuuluvainen, J., Karppinen, H., Ovaskainen, V., 1996. Landowner objectives and nonindustrial private timber supply. For. Sci. 42 (3), 300–309. Neuhaus, C., 2006. Zukunft im Management. Orientierungen für das Management von Unge-wissheit in strategischen Prozessen. Carl-Auer Verlag, Heidelberg. Ní Dhubháin, Á., Cobanova, R., Karppinen, H., Mizaraite, D., Ritter, E., Slee, B., Wall, S., 2007. The values and objectives of private Forest owners and their influence on forestry behaviour: the implications for entrepreneurship. Small-scale For. 6 (4), 347–357. Pillkahn, U., 2008. Using Trends and Scenarios as Tools for Strategy Development. Shaping the Future of Your Enterprise. Publicis Corporate Publishing, Erlangen. Pretzsch, H., 2009. Forest Dynamics, Growth and Yield, from Measurement to Model. Springer, Berlin. Rammer, W., Seidl, R., 2015. Coupling human and natural systems: simulating adaptive management agents in dynamically changing forest landscapes. Glob. Environ. Chang. 35, 475–485. Riemer, A., 2015. Explorative Future Scenarios for Integrated Forest Management in Europe-An Overview of Scenario Storylines Developed in the Project INTEGRAL. (http://integral-project.eu/images/Documents/Publications/Appendix%203.3._ Scenario%20Storylines_29062015.pdf, published by Fraunhofer MOEZ, Leipzig 2015). Rinaldi, F., Jonsson, R., 2014. Information, multi-faceted forest ownership and timber supply. For. Res. 3 (129).

Please cite this article as: Hengeveld, G.M., et al., Forest Landscape Development Scenarios (FoLDS)–A framework for integrating forest models, owners' behaviour and socio-economic d..., Forest Policy and Economics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.007

G.M. Hengeveld et al. / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2017) xxx–xxx Ritchey, T., 2009. Morphological Analysis. Futures Research Methodology 3.0 (CD-ROM). J. C. Glenn and T. J. Gordon. Schelhaas, M.-J., Nabuurs, G.-J., Hengeveld, G., Reyer, C., Hanewinkel, M., Zimmermann, N.E., Cullmann, D., 2015. Alternative forest management strategies to account for climate change-induced productivity and species suitability changes in Europe. Reg. Environ. Chang. 15 (8), 1581–1594. Schumacher, S., Bugmann, H., Mladenoff, D.J., 2004. Improving the formulation of tree growth and succession in a spatially explicit landscape model. Ecol. Model. 180 (1), 175–194. Seidl, R., Eastaugh, C.S., Kramer, K., Maroschek, M., Reyer, C., Socha, J., Vacchiano, G., Zlatanov, T., Hasenauer, H., 2013. Scaling issues in forest ecosystem management and how to address them with models. Eur. J. For. Res. 132 (5), 653–666. Solberg, B., Moiseyev, A., Kallio, A.M.I., 2003. Economic impacts of accelerating forest growth in Europe. Forest Policy Econ. 5 (2), 157–171. Stanislovaitis, A., Brukas, V., Kavaliauskas, M., Mozgeris, G., 2015. Forest owner is more than her goal: a qualitative typology of Lithuanian owners. Scand. J. For. Res. 30 (5), 478–491. Steinmüller, K., 2012. Szenarien–Ein Methodenkomplex zwischen wissenschaftlichem Anspruch und zeitgeistiger Bricolage. In: Popp, R. (Ed.), Zukunft und Wissenschaft. Wege und Irrwege der Zukunftsforschung. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 101–137. Trubins, R., 2014. Non-industrial Private Land Use and Forest Management, Landscape and Policy Perspectives. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Trubins, R., Jonsson, R., Wallin, I., Sallnäs, O., 2014. Behavioral matrix - an approach to representing forest management and linking qualitative and quantiative scenarios in forest policy scenario construction. In: Trubins, R. (Ed.), Non-industrial Private

11

Land Use and Forest Management, Landscape and Policy Perspectives. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, p. 44. Turner, M.G., Gardner, R.H., 2015. Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice, Pattern and Process. Springer, New York. UNECE, 2011. The European Forest Sector Outlook Study II 2010–2030. (https://www. unece.org/efsos2.html). van Notten, P.W.F., Rotmans, J., van Asselt, M.B.A., Rothman, D.S., 2003. An updated scenario typology. Futures 35 (5), 423–443. van Oosten, C., 2013. Restoring landscapes—governing place: a learning approach to Forest landscape restoration. J. Sustain. For. 32 (7), 659–676. Vanclay, J.K., 1994. Modelling Forest Growth and Yield: Applications to Mixed Tropical Forests. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Wiersum, K.F., Elands, B.H.M., Hoogstra, M.A., 2005. Small-scale forest ownership across Europe: characteristics and future potential. Small Scale For. Econ. Manag. Policy 4 (1), 1–19. Wikström, P., Edenius, L., Elfving, B., Eriksson, L.O., Lämås, T., Sonesson, J., Öhman, K., Wallerman, J., Waller, C., Klintebäck, F., 2011. The Heureka forestry decision support system: an overview. Math. Comput. For. Nat.-Res. Sci. 3 (2). Wolfslehner, B., Seidl, R., 2010. Harnessing ecosystem models and multi-criteria decision analysis for the support of Forest management. Environ. Manag. 46 (6), 850–861. Yousefpour, R., Didion, M., Jacobsen, J.B., Meilby, H., Hengeveld, G.M., Schelhaas, M.-J., Thorsen, B.J., 2015. Modelling of adaptation to climate change and decision-makers behaviours for the Veluwe forest area in the Netherlands. Forest Policy Econ. 54, 1–10.

Please cite this article as: Hengeveld, G.M., et al., Forest Landscape Development Scenarios (FoLDS)–A framework for integrating forest models, owners' behaviour and socio-economic d..., Forest Policy and Economics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.007