nach oben

Environmental Management

Erschienen in:

03.09.2022

Decision Support Framework for Evaluating The Barriers To Salvage Logging: A Case Study on Private Forest Management in Slovenia

verfasst von: Darja Stare, Petra Grošelj, Špela Pezdevšek Malovrh

Erschienen in: Environmental Management | Ausgabe 4/2023

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Natural disturbances have increased the extent of forest damage in recent decades and influenced the share of salvage logging and forest management practices in many European countries. These challenges have a significant impact on private forest owners, as 56% of all forestland in Europe is privately owned. The current study researched barriers to salvage logging in private forests in a three-phase framework. First, barriers were identified by conducting a literature review, and they were critically reviewed by experts. In the second phase, stakeholders were selected, and in the third phase, they evaluated barriers using the multicriteria decision-making, best-worst method. The developed framework was applied in the case of Slovenian private forest management. According to the stakeholders, the most important group of barriers consists of organizational and logistical factors, while the most important individual barrier is the organization of logging and skidding. It is expected that this framework can contribute to finding appropriate solutions that meet stakeholders’ expectations and that are very helpful and important in removing barriers to the efficiency of salvage logging in private forests.

Vorheriger Artikel Analysis of the Relations Between Forestry Financial Supports and Forest Crimes

Nächster Artikel Environmental Impacts of Hurricane Harvey on the Neches-Brakes Bayou River System in Beaumont, Texas

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

For more details about the review process, see Stare et al. (2020).

Baselli G, Contreras F, Lillo M, Marín M, Carrasco RA (2020) Optimal decisions for salvage logging after wildfires R. Omega 96:102076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2019.06.002CrossRef

Benítez J, Delgado-Galván X, Izquierdo J, Pérez-García R (2012) Improving consistency in AHP decision-making processes. Appl Math Comput 219(5):2432–2441. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AMC.2012.08.079CrossRef

Bilici E, Andiç GV, Akay AE, Sessions J (2019) Productivity of a portable winch system used in salvage logging of storm-damaged timber. Croat J For Eng 40(2):311–318. https://doi.org/10.5552/crojfe.2019.590CrossRef

Blennow K, Persson J, Tomé M, Hanewinkel M (2012) Climate change: believing and seeing implies adapting. PLoS ONE 7(11):50182. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050182CrossRef

Brodrechtova Y, Navrátil R, Sedmák R, Tuček J (2018) Using the politicized IAD framework to assess integrated forest management decision-making in Slovakia. Land Use Policy 79:1001–1013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.10.015CrossRef

Brunette M, Foncel J, Kéré EN (2017) Attitude towards risk and production decision: an empirical analysis on French private forest owners. Environ Modeling Assess 22(6):563–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-017-9570-6CrossRef

BWM Solvers (2016). Solver Linear BWM. Retrieved June 16, 2021, from https://bestworstmethod.com/software/

Couture S, Cros MJ, Sabbadin R (2016) Risk aversion and optimal management of an uneven-aged forest under risk of windthrow: A Markov decision process approach. J For Econ 25:94–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2016.08.002CrossRef

De Groot M, Diaci J, Kandare K, Krajnc N, Pisek R, Ščap Š, Stare D, Ogris N (2021) Private forest owner characteristics affect European Spruce Bark Beetle management under an extreme weather event and host tree density. Forests 12(3):346. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12030346CrossRef

Deuffic P, Ní Dhubháin Á (2020) Invisible losses. What a catastrophe does to forest owners’ identity and trust in afforestation programmes. Sociologia Ruralis 60(1):104–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/SORU.12272CrossRef

European Green Deal (2019) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The European Council, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions The European Green Deal. COM/2019/640 final. Retrieved November 3, 2021, from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1576150542719&uri=COM%3A2019%3A640%3AFIN

Fischer AP (2012) Identifying policy target groups with qualitative and quantitative methods: The case of wildfire risk on nonindustrial private forest lands. For Policy Econ 25:62–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.08.008CrossRef

Gardiner B, Welten P (2013) Mitigation of forest damage. In B Gardiner, A Schuck, M-J Schelhaas, C Orazio, K Blennow, & B Nicoll (Eds.), Living with storm damage to forests. What Science Can Tell Us 3 (pp. 79–86). European Forest Institute

Grošelj P, Zadnik Stirn L (2015) The environmental management problem of Pohorje, Slovenia: A new group approach within ANP —SWOT framework. J Environ Manag 161:106–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.06.038CrossRef

Gupta H, Barua MK (2018) A framework to overcome barriers to green innovation in SMEs using BWM and Fuzzy TOPSIS. Sci Total Environ 633:122–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2018.03.173CrossRef

Juutinen A, Kurttila M, Pohjanmies T, Tolvanen A, Kuhlmey K, Skudnik M, Triplat M, Westin K, Mäkipää R (2021) Forest owners’ preferences for contract-based management to enhance environmental values versus timber production. For Policy Econ, 132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102587

Kangas A, Saarinen N, Saarikoski H, Leskinen LA, Hujala T, Tikkanen J (2010) Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Programmes in Finland. For Policy Econ 12:213–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2009.10.006CrossRef

Kangas J, Kangas A, Leskinen P, Pykäläinen J (2002) MCDM methods in strategic planning of forestry on state-owned lands in Finland: applications and experiences. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 10(5):257–271. https://doi.org/10.1002/MCDA.306CrossRef

Kangas A, Kurttila M, Hujala T, Eyvindson K, Kangas J (2015) Multi-criteria Decision Problems. In: Decision Support for Forest Management. Managing Forest Ecosystems, vol 30. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23522-6_4

Kilham P, Hartebrodt C, Schraml U (2019) A conceptual model for private forest owners’ harvest decisions: A qualitative study in southwest Germany. For Policy Econ 106:101971. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORPOL.2019.101971CrossRef

Lawrence A (2018) Do interventions to mobilize wood lead to wood mobilization? A critical review of the links between policy aims and private forest owners’ behaviour. For: Int J For Res 91(4):401–418. https://doi.org/10.1093/FORESTRY/CPY017CrossRef

Leverkus AB, Lindenmayer DB, Thorn S, Gustafsson L (2018) Salvage logging in the world’s forests: Interactions between natural disturbance and logging need recognition. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 27(10):1140–1154. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12772CrossRef

Liang F, Brunelli M, Rezaei J (2020) Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds ✩. Omega 96:102175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2019.102175CrossRef

Lindenmayer DB, Foster DR, Franklin JF, Hunter ML, Noss RF, Schmiegelow FA, Perry D (2004) Salvage harvesting policies after natural disturbance. Science 303(5662):1303. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1093438CrossRef

Lindenmayer D, Burton P, Franklin J (2008) Salvage Logging and Its Ecological Consequences. Bibliovault OAI Repository, the University of Chicago Press

Marques M, Reynolds KM, Marto M, Lakicevic M, Caldas C, Murphy PJ, & Borges JG (2021). Multicriteria decision analysis and group decision-making to select stand-level forest management models and support landscape-level collaborative planning. Forests, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/f12040399

Marttunen M, Lienert J, Belton V (2017) Structuring problems for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in practice: A literature review of method combinations. Eur J Oper Res 263(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.04.041CrossRef

Mentis M (2020) Environmental rehabilitation of damaged land. For Ecosyst, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-020-00233-4

Mostegl NM, Pröbstl-Haider U, Jandl R, Haider W (2019) Targeting climate change adaptation strategies to small-scale private forest owners. For Policy Econ 99:83–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.10.001CrossRef

Müller J, Noss RF, Thorn S, Bässler C, Leverkus AB, Lindenmayer D (2019) Increasing disturbance demands new policies to conserve intact forest. Conserv Lett 12(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12449CrossRef

Nichiforel L, Keary K, Deuffic P, Weiss G, Thorsen BJ, Winkel G, Avdibegović M, Dobšinská Z, Feliciano D, Gatto P, Gorriz Mifsud E, Hoogstra-Klein M, Hrib M, Hujala T, Jager L, Jarský V, Jodłowski K, Lawrence A, Lukmine D, Bouriaud L (2018) How private are Europe’s private forests? A comparative property rights analysis. Land Use Policy 76:535–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2018.02.034CrossRef

Nilsson H, Nordström E-M, Öhman K (2016) Decision support for participatory forest planning using AHP and TOPSIS. Forests 7(12):100. https://doi.org/10.3390/f7050100CrossRef

Odenthal-Kahabka J (2005) Handreichung Sturmschadensbewältigung. Hrsg. Landesforstverwaltung Baden-Württemberg und Landesforsten Rheinland-Pfalz. https://www.waldwissen.net/en/forestry/forest-protection/storm-and-snow-damage/order-of-harvesting-and-processing-storm-damaged-timber?L=1

Orazio C (2013) Immediate crisis response. In: Barry Gardiner, Andreas Schuck, Mart-Jan Schelhaas, Christophe Orazio, Kristina Blennow and Bruce Nicoll (eds). Living with storm damage to forests. What Science Can Tell Us 3. European Forest Institute. pp. 97–102.

Pezdevšek Malovrh Š, Kurttila M, Hujala T, Kärkkäinen L, Leban V, Lindstad BH, Peters DM, Rhodius R, Solberg B, Wirth K, Zadnik Stirn L, Krč J (2016) Decision support framework for evaluating the operational environment of forest bioenergy production and use: Case of four European countries. J Environ Manag 180(2016):68–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.05.021CrossRef

Pröbstl-Haider U, Mostegl NM, Jandl R, Formayer H, Haider W, Pukall K, Melzer V (2017) Bereitschaft zur Klimawandelanpassung durch Kleinwaldbesitzer in Österreich. Allg Forst- Und Jagdztg 188(7/8):113–126

Rezaei J (2015) Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53:49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009CrossRef

Rezaei J (2016) Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega 64:126–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.001CrossRef

Rezaei J (2020) A concentration ratio for nonlinear best worst method. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 19(3):891–907. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622020500170CrossRef

Rules on forest protection (2009) Officiel Gazzet of Republic of Slovenia, vol 114/09 and 31/16

Sanginés de Cárcer P, Mederski PS, Magagnotti N, Spinelli R, Engler B, Seidl R, Eriksson A, Eggers J, Bont LG, Schweier J (2021) The management response to wind disturbances in European forests. Curr Forestry Rep. 7(4):167–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-021-00144-9CrossRef

Schelhaas MJ, Patacca M, Lindner M, Zudin S (2020) Database on Forest Disturbances in Europe (DFDE), European Forest Institute, Joensuu, Finland. Retrieved November 30, 2021, from https://dfde.efi.int/db/dfde_app.php

Seidl R, Aggestam F, Rammer W, Blennow K, Wolfslehner B (2016) The sensitivity of current and future forest managers to climate-induced changes in ecological processes. Ambio, 45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0737-6

Seidl R, Schelhaas MJ, Rammer W, Verkerk PJ (2014) Increasing forest disturbances in Europe and their impact on carbon storage Nat Clim Change 4(9):806–810. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2318CrossRef

Seidl R, Thom D, Kautz M, Martin-Benito D, Peltoniemi M, Vacchiano G, Wild J, Ascoli D, Petr M, Honkaniemi J, Lexer MJ, Trotsiuk V, Mairota P, Svoboda M, Fabrika M, Nagel TA, O Reyer CP (2017) Forest disturbances under climate change. Nature Publishing Group, 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE3303

Senf C, Seidl R (2021) Storm and fire disturbances in Europe: Distribution and trends. Glob Change Biol 27(15):3605–3619. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15679CrossRef

Stare D, Grošelj P, Pezdevšek Malovrh Š (2020) Ovire in rešitve pri sanaciji v ujmah poškodovanih zasebnih gozdov. Acta Silvae et Ligni 123:23–30. https://doi.org/10.20315/asetl.123.2CrossRef

Sténs A, Bjärstig T, Nordström EM, Sandström C, Fries C, Johansson J (2016) In the eye of the stakeholder: The challenges of governing social forest values. Ambio 45:87–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0745-6CrossRef

Ščap Š, Stare D, Krajnc N, Triplat M (2021) Značilnosti opravljanja sečnje in spravila v zasebnih gozdovih v Sloveniji. Acta Silvae et Ligni 125:25–38. https://doi.org/10.20315/asetl.125.3CrossRef

Thorn S, Bässler C, Brandl R, Burton PJ, Cahall R, Campbell JL, Castro J, Choi CY, Cobb T, Donato DC, Durska E, Fontaine JB, Gauthier S, Hebert C, Hothorn T, Hutto RL, Lee EJ, Leverkus AB, Lindenmayer DB, Müller J (2018) Impacts of salvage logging on biodiversity: A meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol 55(1):279–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12945CrossRef

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2020) Who Owns our Forests? Forest Ownership in the ECE Region. United Nations.

Wagner S, Nocentini S, Huth F, & Hoogstra-Klein M (2014) Forest management approaches for coping with the uncertainty of climate change: trade-offs in service provisioning and adaptability. Ecol Soc, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06213-190132

Weiss G (2004) The political practice of mountain forest restoration—Comparing restoration concepts in four European countries. For Ecol Manag 195(1–2):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.03.019CrossRef

Weiss G, Lawrence A, Lidesdav G, Feliciano DMS, Hujala T (2017) Changing Forest Ownership in Europe—Main Results and Policy Implications: COST Action FP1201 FACESMAP POLICY PAPER. EFICEEC-EFISEE Research Report. European Forest Institute Central-East and South-East European Regional Office. http://facesmap.boku.ac.at/index.php/activities/policy-paper-briefs

Weiss G, Lawrence A, Hujala T, Lidestav G, Nichiforel L, Nybakk E, Quiroga S, Sarvašová Z, Suarez C, Živojinović I (2019) Forest ownership changes in Europe: State of knowledge and conceptual foundations. For Policy Econ 99:9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.03.003CrossRef

Wilkes-Allemann J, Deuffic P, Jandl R, Westin K, Lieberherr E, Foldal C, Lidestav G, Weiss G, Zabel A, Pecurul-Botines M, Koller N, Haltia E, Sarvašová Z, Sarvaš, M, Curman M, Riedl M, Jarský V (2021) Communication campaigns to engage (non-traditional) forest owners: A European perspective. For Policy Econ, 102621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102621

ZGS (2021) Report of Slovenian Forest Service about forests for 2020. Slovenia Forest Service: Ljubljana, Slovenia

Živojinović I, Weiss G, Lidestav G, Feliciano D, Hujala T, Dobšinská Z, Lawrence A, Nybakk E, Quiroga S, Schraml U (2015) Forest Land Ownership Change in Europe (Issue JUNE).

Titel: Decision Support Framework for Evaluating The Barriers To Salvage Logging: A Case Study on Private Forest Management in Slovenia
verfasst von: Darja Stare
Petra Grošelj
Špela Pezdevšek Malovrh
Publikationsdatum: 03.09.2022
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Environmental Management / Ausgabe 4/2023
Print ISSN: 0364-152X
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1009
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-022-01712-w

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2023

Estimation of Anthropogenic VOCs Emission Based on Volatile Chemical Products: A Canadian Perspective

Environmental Impacts of Hurricane Harvey on the Neches-Brakes Bayou River System in Beaumont, Texas

Integrating Ecosystem Health and Services for Assessing Ecological Risk and its Response to Typical Land-Use Patterns in the Eco-fragile Region, North China

Evaluation of the costs of agricultural diffuse water pollution abatement in the context of Lithuania’s water protection goals and climate change

Correction to: Identifying Key Stressors Driving Biological Impairment in Freshwater Streams in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, USA

Remediation of Chromium (VI) from Contaminated Agricultural Soil Using Modified Biochars