Interactive Method for Supporting Forest Owners in Biodiversity Protection Decisions

Voluntary biodiversity protection tools have been adopted for practical use in many countries where non-industrial private forest ownership includes invaluable biodiversity resources. This has created a new kind of decision problem for individual forest owners: they should be able to define their conditions for entering into a biodiversity protection contract including sometimes a predetermined subsidy. This study presents a holding-level method for examining this decision problem. The method is based on utilization of interactive optimization where the possible subsidy has been included in the protection (no treatment) alternative of the examined stand. Generally, interactive optimization means that the landowner pinpoints the best plan by interactively studying and learning the production possibilities of his/her forest holding. Following changes made to the objective function by the forest owner, new solutions are presented for forest owners’ evaluation. If the “No treatments” option is selected in optimization for these areas, the forest owner would benefit more—in the current location of the production frontier and with the current subsidy—from entering into the protection contract than from cutting the specific forest area. In the case study, we demonstrate that the values of the holding-level goals, production possibilities of the planning area and the levels of the subsidy have a significant effect on the optimal decisions relating to biodiversity protection on the stand level.

[1]  Ralph E. Steuer Multiple criteria optimization , 1986 .

[2]  J. Pykäläinen Defining forest owner's forest-management goals by means of a thematic interview in interactive forest planning , 2000 .

[3]  Felipe Bravo,et al.  Managing forest ecosystems , 2008 .

[4]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  A heuristic optimization method for forest planning and decision making , 1993 .

[5]  P. Leskinen,et al.  Forest owners' decision support in voluntary biodiversity-protection projects. , 2008 .

[6]  Mikko Kurttila,et al.  Examining the performance of six heuristic optimisation techniques in different forest planning problems , 2005 .

[7]  G. Frank,et al.  Voluntary approaches in protection of forests in Austria , 2003 .

[8]  Terry P. Harrison,et al.  AN IMPLICIT/EXPLICIT APPROACH TO MULTIOBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION WITH AN APPLICATION TO FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANNING* , 1988 .

[9]  John Sessions,et al.  Eight heuristic planning techniques applied to three increasingly difficult wildlife planning problems , 2002 .

[10]  Timo Pukkala,et al.  Prediction of the amenity of a tree stand , 1988 .

[11]  Rauli Svento,et al.  Voluntary agreements in protecting privately owned forests in Finland — To buy or to lease? , 2008 .

[12]  Timo Pukkala,et al.  Methods to incorporate the amenity of landscape into forest management planning. , 1988 .

[13]  Ralph E. Steuer,et al.  An Interactive Multiple-Objective Linear Programming Approach to a Problem in Forest Management , 1978, Oper. Res..

[14]  Mikko Kurttila,et al.  Defining the forest landowner’s utility–loss compensative subsidy level for a biodiversity object , 2006, European Journal of Forest Research.

[15]  Kriteerityöryhmä Etelä-Suomen metsien monimuotoisuusohjelman luonnonsuojelubiologiset kriteerit , 2003 .

[16]  D. Kolb Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development , 1983 .

[17]  T. Pukkala Integrating Multiple Services in the Numerical Analysis of Landscape Design , 2008 .

[18]  Jason F. Shogren,et al.  Agglomeration bonus: an incentive mechanism to reunite fragmented habitat for biodiversity conservation , 2002 .

[19]  Reijo Mykkänen Aspiration-based utility functions in a planning model for timber flow management. , 1994 .

[20]  R. S. Laundy,et al.  Multiple Criteria Optimisation: Theory, Computation and Application , 1989 .

[21]  T. Pukkala,et al.  Integrating Timber Price Scenario Modeling with Tactical Management Planning of Private Forestry at Forest Holding Level , 2000 .