How considering multiple criteria, uncertainty scenarios and biological interactions may influence the optimal silvicultural strategy for a mixed forest
Introduction
Paradigms for silvicultural strategies are continuously evolving to reflect stakeholders' current perceptions and needs. For example, forestry in Fennoscandia has mainly built on even-aged stand management and clear-cut silviculture over the last 70 years (Kuuluvainen et al., 2012). Nowadays, a growing number of scientific studies consider continuous cover forestry as a more appropriate alternative (Lundmark et al., 2016; Nieminen et al., 2018; Peura et al., 2018; Seedre et al., 2018). In Germany, pure even-aged coniferous stands have been the dominant forestry strategy of past centuries, but scenario models on future management pathways now assume higher shares of native broadleaves and mixed forests (Schwaiger et al., 2019; Toraño Caicoya et al., 2018). In Great Britain, the often-used notion of “broadleaved woodlands” underlines the importance of native tree species for addressing multiple stakeholders' preferences in modern multifunctional forest management (Burton et al., 2018; Raum and Potter, 2015). This practice is mirrored in Central European forestry more broadly, where extensive conifer stands are transitioning towards multifunctional forests, mainly through admixing European beech (Jandl et al., 2019; Kolář et al., 2017; Pretzsch et al., 2012).
Modelling analyses to support multifunctional forest management commonly build on pre-defined scenarios. Optimising forest management directly based on the (multiple) objectives and uncertainty attitudes of stakeholders remains rare. Optimisation is the process of selecting the best set of actions or of making the best decisions for a given problem or system (Kaya et al., 2016). New optimisation models must provide modelling flexibility to account for variable management preferences in forestry (Heinonen et al., 2020). For example, the preferences of decision-makers and stakeholders will be influenced by their objectives (Aldea et al., 2014), their constraints and their attitudes towards uncertainty (Eyvindson and Kangas, 2016). Ex-post analyses can only partly capture this variation, because they focus on a limited number of scenarios. Such analyses are still the status quo to inform silvicultural management strategies. Examples include Csépányi and Csór (2017), Tarp et al. (2000), Price and Price (2006), Ralston et al. (2004), Andreassen and Øyen (2002), Knoke and Plusczyk (2001) as well as Hanewinkel (2001), who all assessed the economic performance of pre-defined silvicultural strategies. While these studies focus on a single economic criterion, more recent studies have integrated multiple decision criteria in their assessment (Creutzburg et al., 2017; Eggers et al., 2019; Hilmers et al., 2020; Mina et al., 2017; Pardos et al., 2017).
Despite the valuable insights from studies focusing on pre-defined silvicultural strategies, the comparability of scenarios can be limited, because usually no optimisation has been applied (Rämö and Tahvonen, 2017). Therefore, there is no guarantee that pre-defined scenarios actually include the best option available. Studies by Tahvonen, 2009, Tahvonen, 2015 as well as Tahvonen and Rämö (2016) provide alternative optimisation-based modelling approaches building on mathematical programming. These approaches maximise an economic objective by scheduling individual (or all) trees for harvesting over time. Aspects such as individual tree growth, prices and costs for timber logs, regeneration costs, fixed costs and discount rate affect the number and the selection of the remaining trees for further growth. Depending on the assumed conditions, either even-aged or uneven-aged silvicultural strategies emerge as optimal strategies.
While the rationale for these optimisation-based approaches is very convincing, the models show high non-linearity, are very complex and assume certainty of all input information (e.g. tree growth, survival, prices, costs). Heuristic and metaheuristic algorithms used for optimising such non-linear problems do not guarantee finding the optimal solution, but may come close enough to the optimum. Unfortunately, exact solution procedures are available only for much simpler non-linear problems. For example, Messerer et al. (2020) have applied combinatorial methods to solve low-complexity non-linear forest decision problems, which allowed also considering the influence of uncertainty. On the contrary, for complex non-linear models (e.g., Roessiger et al., 2016; Tahvonen and Rämö, 2016), integrating uncertainty is not practical, as this would exponentiate model complexity. However, uncertainty may have an important impact on decision-making (Bikhchandani et al., 2015), if decision-makers are averse to uncertainty. In land-use decisions, aversion to uncertainty is the rule rather than the exception (Di Falco and Perrings, 2005).
As our main contribution, we develop and present a novel model approach for the forest stand level, seeking a compromise between modelling biological complexity and uncertainty. The approach can consider uncertainty in simulated decision-making and allows for the integration of multiple objectives. We base our model on published empirical growth data and make simple assumptions concerning biological interactions. Biological interactions lead to emergent properties of a forest stand not possessed by its single parts (Lidicker, 1979). Examples for biological interactions in forest stands include mutualism and commensalism, when one or multiple tree species benefit from a mixture with other tree species. Competition among single trees is another example, which depends, inter alia, on stand density. Our model considers two types of biological interactions: the influence of mixing various tree species on the survival of the tree species (Brandl et al., 2020), and the enhanced growth of trees remaining after partial harvest operations (Messerer et al., 2020). We apply a reference point method (Estrella et al., 2014), as developed in Knoke et al. (2020b) for the simulation of tropical deforestation. However, stand level optimisation requires a dynamic approach considering input coefficients that change over time, whereas the mentioned studies only apply static optimisation based on time invariant input coefficients. To develop a novel optimisation approach we build on the analytical framework used by Roessiger et al. (2011). No existing study has coupled Roessiger's stand level approach with a reference point approach to optimise multiple criteria, while considering biological interactions. For example, Roessiger et al. (2013) optimised stand management for a single objective only, using predefined tree species compositions to optimise the schedule of timber harvesting. In a more complex optimisation approach, Roessiger et al. (2016) disregarded uncertainty.
Given this basic setting, we investigate what proportions of a forest stand a manager should allocate to either Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) H. Karst.), Silver fir (Abies alba Mill.) or European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.). In addition, we simulate the optimal timing and extent of partial harvest operations to establish regeneration in gap cuttings. We define four decision perspectives (explained in the next section), while optimising for: 1) the expected value of a single economic criterion, 2) the robust provision of a single economic criterion, 3) the expected levels for multiple criteria, and 4) the robust levels for multiple criteria. The scenarios building on robust optimisation assume the decision-maker is averse to uncertainty and provide acceptable solutions not only for specific input data, but also for a range of input data. We use “uncertainty” to describe our limited knowledge about the true contribution of management operations to the decision criteria. The alternative term “risk” would require allocating probabilities to our input data (Walker et al., 2016), which is not the case in our robust modelling approach. Decision criteria include the soil expectation value (SEV), the volume of timber harvested, the sum of undiscounted cash flows and the average amount of carbon stored in forest aboveground biomass.
Our main questions are:
- (i)
How do silvicultural decision-makers' preferences for specific criteria and concerning uncertainty influence optimal stand composition and stand management?
- (ii)
How do biological interactions, such as improved survival in mixed stands and growth response after partial harvesting influence the modelling results?
- (iii)
What is the influence of changes in climate variables, establishment costs and discount rate?
- (iv)
How do simulation results correspond to silvicultural strategies applied in practice?
Section snippets
Decision perspectives
What constitutes appropriate management of the forest depends on the perspective of the decision-maker. For example, optimal forest management may need to consider various economic, ecological and social criteria to satisfy the requirements of different stakeholder groups simultaneously. The optimal solution for multiple criteria will likely look different to forest management that aims to maximise economic return alone. Even a combination of different economic criteria may lead to alterations
Results
Table 3 shows some general trends in our simulations. For example, the proportion of Norway spruce progressively decreases from optimising for expected economic return only, over optimising robust economic return and multiple expected criteria to optimising robust multiple criteria. We also see that the economically less favourable, broadleaved European beech only comprises small proportions of the forest stand, even when considering multiple criteria. This also reflects its lower volume growth
Discussion and conclusions
Our study has developed a novel and flexible method to create clearly defined management scenarios that are comparable across different conditions and for several criteria (e.g., with or without considering biological interactions, changes in climate, discount rate and establishment costs). The approach is capable of including other growth and yield data, alternative uncertainty scenarios and many more decision criteria than we used for our example. Future studies could integrate, for example
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
Acknowledgements
The study has emerged from the project NOBEL, “Novel business models and mechanisms for the sustainable supply of and payment for forest ecosystem services”, which is part of the ERA-NET Cofund ForestValue. ForestValue is a project of European Union's Horizon 2020 Program, grant agreement N° 773324. Mengistie Kindu receives funding from NOBEL. Thomas Knoke and Isabelle Jarisch are also grateful for the funding of the project “Bringing Uncertain Ecosystem Services into Forest Optimization” by
References (92)
A note on the ecological–economic modelling of marine reserves in fisheries
Ecol. Econ.
(2007)- et al.
The influence of climate and management on survival probability for Germany’s most important tree species
For. Ecol. Manag.
(2020) - et al.
Reviewing the evidence base for the effects of woodland expansion on biodiversity and ecosystem services in the United Kingdom
For. Ecol. Manag.
(2018) - et al.
Global timber investments, wood costs, regulation, and risk
Biomass Bioenergy
(2010) - et al.
Crop biodiversity, risk management and the implications of agricultural assistance
Ecol. Econ.
(2005) - et al.
Measuring the sustainability of a natural system by using multi-criteria distance function methods: some critical issues
J. Environ. Manag.
(2018) Land expectation values for spruce and beech calculated with Monte Carlo modelling techniques
Forest Policy Econ.
(2001)- et al.
Balancing different forest values: evaluation of forest management scenarios in a multi-criteria decision analysis framework
Forest Policy Econ.
(2019) - et al.
Economic impact of growth effects in mixed stands of Norway spruce and European beech – a simulation based study
Forest Policy Econ.
(2019) - et al.
A practical guide to robust optimization
Omega
(2015)
A goal programming approach to evaluate agroforestry systems in Eastern Panama
J. Environ. Manag.
Economic aspects of the transformation from even-aged pure stands of Norway spruce to uneven-aged mixed stands of Norway spruce and beech
For. Ecol. Manag.
On economic consequences of transformation of a spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) dominated stand from regular into irregular age structure
For. Ecol. Manag.
Optimizing agricultural land-use portfolios with scarce data—a non-stochastic model
Ecol. Econ.
A critical view on benefit-cost analyses of silvicultural management options with declining discount rates
Forest Policy Econ.
Use and misuse of the net present value in environmental studies
Ecol. Econ.
Temporal changes in the climate sensitivity of Norway spruce and European beech along an elevation gradient in Central Europe
Agric. For. Meteorol.
Applications of second-order cone programming
Linear Algebra Appl.
Optimizing the joint production of timber and bilberries
For. Ecol. Manag.
The German struggle between the ‘Bodenreinertragslehre’ (land rent theory) and ‘Waldreinertragslehre’ (theory of the highest revenue) belongs to the past — but what is left?
Forest Policy Econ.
Mixed-species plantations: prospects and challenges
For. Ecol. Manag.
Could continuous cover forestry be an economically and environmentally feasible management option on drained boreal peatlands?
For. Ecol. Manag.
Continuous cover forestry is a cost-efficient tool to increase multifunctionality of boreal production forests in Fennoscandia
Biol. Conserv.
Creaming the best, or creatively transforming?: might felling the biggest trees first be a win–win strategy?
For. Ecol. Manag.
Forestry paradigms and policy change: the evolution of forestry policy in Britain in relation to the ecosystem approach
Land Use Policy
How economic performance of a stand increases due to decreased failure risk associated with the admixing of species
Ecol. Model.
An economic evaluation of strategies for transforming even-aged into near-natural forestry in a conifer-dominated forest in Denmark
Forest Policy Econ.
Ecosystem service trade-offs for adaptive forest management
Ecosyst. Ser.
Modelling near-natural silvicultural regimes for beech – an economic sensitivity analysis
For. Ecol. Manag.
Participatory goal programming in forest management: an application integrating several ecosystem services
Forests
Economic consequences of three silvicultural methods in uneven-aged mature coastal spruce forests of central Norway
Forestry
Environmental economics. Determining benefits and costs for future generations
Science (New York, N.Y.)
Managing increasing environmental risks through agrobiodiversity and agrienvironmental policies
Agric. Econ.
Robust Optimization
The Analytics of Uncertainty and Information
The north-eastern distribution range of European beech a review
Forestry
Integrated bio-economic models as tools to support land-use decision making: a review of potential and limitations
J. Bioecon.
Forest management scenarios in a changing climate: trade-offs between carbon, timber, and old forest
Ecol. Appl.
Economic assessment of European beech and Turkey oak stands with close-to-nature forest management
Acta Silv. Lign. Hungar.
Timber investment returns for selected plantations and native forests in South America and the Southern United States
New For.
Global timber investments and trends, 2005-2011
New Zealand J. For. Sci.
Comparison of three ideal point-based multi-criteria decision methods for afforestation planning
Forests
Integrating risk preferences in forest harvest scheduling
Ann. For. Sci.
Can the use of continuous cover forestry alone maintain silver fir (Abies alba Mill.) in central European mountain forests?
Forestry
Optimizing silviculture in mixed uneven-aged forests to increase the recruitment of browse-sensitive tree species without intervening in ungulate population
iForest
Effect of species complementarity on financial return in mixed stands of European beech and scots pine in northern Spain
Forests
Cited by (30)
Exploring the effects of various rotation lengths on the ecosystem services within a multiple-use management framework
2023, Forest Ecology and ManagementPests, wind and fire: A multi-hazard risk review for natural disturbances in forests
2023, Ecological EconomicsOptimizing forest landscape composition for multiple ecosystem services based on uncertain stakeholder preferences
2023, Science of the Total EnvironmentCitation Excerpt :This aligns with the results of Roessiger et al. (2013) and Roessiger et al. (2011) who found that species-rich stands minimize risk based on financial optimization. Knoke et al. (2020) also found that mixed uneven-aged stands perform better economically under uncertainty than pure stands, using robust multi-criteria optimization informed by cost-benefit data. In addition, calamities (e.g. due to wind storms or bark beetles) in even-aged, mostly pure Norway spruce stands have become a perennial forest problem in many parts of Germany, which speaks against continuing with this forest practice (BMEL, 2017).
Auctioning approaches for ecosystem services – Evidence and applications
2022, Science of the Total EnvironmentCitation Excerpt :Notably, Lewis and Polasky (2018) describe a reverse auction mechanism that accounts for climate risk by soliciting bids for conservation in a current and future period, then using dynamic programming to select winning bids in a spatially explicit way. Thus, ES auctions may offer new applications for risk-sensitive environmental planning tools like stochastic programming (e.g. Eyvindson and Kangas, 2016) and robust optimization (Knoke et al., 2020). For instance, constructing Pareto frontiers based on robust solutions (Zhou et al., 2018) could guarantee bidders minimum provision levels.
Exploring trade-offs in agro-ecological landscapes: Using a multi-objective land-use allocation model to support agroforestry research
2022, Basic and Applied EcologyCitation Excerpt :All possible combinations of expected and worst-case scores form what we refer to as uncertainty sets for each indicator (2number of land uses). In this way the optimization simultaneously considers a range of input scores (including worst-case scores) for each land use and indicator when determining the optimal land allocation of one model run (Knoke et al., 2020). Furthermore, the risk attitude of the decision-maker is incorporated into our robust optimization approach by defining the size of the uncertainty space by the multiple of the considered standard deviation (or standard error) (Ben-Tal et al., 2009; Knoke et al., 2015; Palma & Nelson, 2009).