Combining holding-level economic goals with spatial landscape-level goals in the planning of multiple ownership forestry
Tóm tắt
In Finland, management of biological diversity at the landscape level is complicated by the relatively small size of the holdings. To alleviate this problem, this study presents a hierarchical planning model that aims at combining spatial landscape-level ecological goals with holding-level owner-specific goals. The influence of ecological objectives extends across holding borders, but their impact is greatest in areas where they are least in conflict with the owners’ goals. This feature, which results in minimum losses to individual landowners, can be called ecological efficiency. In the case study, the ecological objective was to cluster the breeding and foraging areas of flying squirrel (Pteromys volans). Other sets of objectives were related to individual holdings according to the various preferences of the forest owners. The forest plan produced by the presented planning model was compared with two other forest plans: 1) a combination of independent forest holding level plans, which were assumed to represent the outcome of the current planning tradition, and 2) an area-level plan, where the holding borders and holding-specific objectives were not taken into account. The same objective variables and objective weights were used in all plans. All the plans were produced for six planning areas (ranging from 404.6 to 984.9 ha) and 110 forest holdings (ranging from 0.6 to 449.8 ha) within these areas. The case-study results were promising: with the model presented here, the spatial structure of flying squirrel breeding and foraging areas could be improved with only minor losses in holding-level objectives. The spatial structure of the landscape after the 60-year planning period was very close to the area-level plan. This outcome was made possible by synchronizing the treatment proposals across forest-holding borders. The outcome of the model seems promising also from the practical standpoint: because the variation in the objectives of forest owners is efficiently taken into account in optimization, only rarely do the solutions suggest that the holding-level targets be compromised.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Andrén H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71: 355–366.
Boston K. and Bettinger P. 1999. An analysis of Monte Carlo integer programming, simulated annealing and tabu search for solving spatial harvest scheduling problems. Forest Science 45: 292–301.
Connelly B. 1996. A definition of hierarchical analysis in forest planning. In: Martell D.L., Davis L.S. and Weintraub A. (eds), Proceedings of a Workshop on Hierarchical Approaches to Forest Management in Public and Private Organizations. Petawawa National Forestry Institute, Canadian Forest Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Information Report PI-X-124. p. 1.
Davis L.S. and Liu G. 1991. Integrated forest planning across multiple ownerships and decision makers. Forest Science 37: 200–226.
Davis R.G. and Martell D.L. A decision support system that links short-term silvicultural operating plans with long-term forestlevel strategic plans. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 23: 1078–1095.
Dowsland K.A. 1993. Simulated annealing. In: Reeves C.R. (ed.), Modern Heuristic Techniques for Combinatiorial Problems. pp. 20–69. Blackwell Scientific Publications, London, UK.
Esseen P.-A., Ehnström B., Ericson L. and Sjöberg K. 1992. Boreal forests-the focal habitats of Fennoscandia. In: Hansson L. (ed.), Ecological Principles of Nature Conservation, pp. 252–325. Elsevier Applied Science, London, UK.
Forest protection in southern Finland and Ostrobotnia. 2000. The Finnish Environment 437. 284 p. In Finnish with English summary.
Fries C., Lindén G. and Nillius E. 1998. The stream model for ecological landscape planning in non-industrial private forestry. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 13: 370–378.
Hanski I. 1998. Home ranges and habitat use in the declining flying squirrel Pteromys volans, in managed forests. Wildlife Biology 4: 33–46.
Hanski I.K., Stevens P., Ihalempiä P. and Selonen V. 2000. Home range size, movements and nest-site use in the Siberian flying squirrel (Pteromys volans). Journal of Mammalogy 81: 798–809.
Harrison S. and Fahrig L. 1995. Landscape pattern and population conservation. In: Hansson L., Fahrig L. and Merriam G. (eds), Mosaic Landscapes and Ecological Processes. IALE Studies in Landscape Ecology, Vol. 2: 293–308. Chapman & Hall, London, UK.
Hof J.G. and Pickens J.B. 1987. A pragmatic multilevel approach to large-scale renewable resource optimization: a test case. Natural Resource Modeling 1(2): 245–264.
Huhta E., Jokimäki J. and Rahko P. 1999. Breeding success of Pied Flycatchers in artificial forest edges: the effects of a suboptimally shaped foraging area. Auk 116: 528–535.
Ihalainen R. 1992. Yksityismetsänomistuksen Rakenne 1990. The Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki, Finland. Research Notes 405, 41 p.
Jokimäki J. and Huhta E. 2000. Metsäalueiden pirstoutumisen vaikutukset eliöstöön-alue-ekologisen suunnittelun mahdollisuudet biodiversiteetin ylläpitämiseen suojelu-ja talousmetsissä. In: Kangas J., Kokko A. and Jokimäki J. (eds), Alue-ekologisia 540 Tutkimustuloksia ja Suunnittelukokemuksia. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki, Finland. Research Notes 779: 7–14.
Kangas J. 1992. Metsikön Uudistamisketjun Valinta-Monitavoitteiseen Hyötyteoriaan Perustuva Päätösanalyysimalli. Summary: Choosing the Regeneration Chain in a Forest Stand: a Decision Analysis Model Based on Multiattribute Utility Theory. University of Joensuu, Publications in Sciences, Finland. 24. 230 p.
Karppinen H. 1998a. Values and objectives of nonindustrial private forest owners in Finland. Silva Fennica 32: 43–59.
Karppinen H. 1998b. Objectives of non-industrial private forest owners: differences and future trends in southern and northern Finland. Journal of Forest Economics 4: 147–173.
Kurttila M. 2001. The spatial structure of forests in the optimization calculations of forest planning-a landscape ecological perspective. Forest Ecology and Management 142: 127–140.
Kurttila M., Pukkala T. and Kangas J. 2001. Composing landscape level forest plans for forest areas under multiple private ownership. Boreal Environment Research 6: 285–296.
Kurttila M., Pukkala T. and Loikkanen J. 2002a. The performance of alternative spatial objective types in forest planning calculations: a case for flying squirrel and moose. Forest Ecology and Management 166: 245–260.
Kurttila M., Uuttera J., Mykrä S., Kurki S. and Pukkala T. 2002b. Decreasing fragmentation of old forests in landscapes involving multiple ownership in Finland: economic, social and ecological consequences. Forest Ecology and Management 166: 69–84.
Luonnonläheinen metsänhoito. 1994. Metsänhoitosuositukset. Metsäkeskus Tapion julkaisuja 1994:6. 74 p.
McGarigal K. and Marks B.J. 1995. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Quantifying Landscape Structure. USDA Forest Service, PNW, Portland, Oregon, USA. General Technical Report, 351.
Metsälaki perusteluineen. 1997. Lakikokoelma. Oy Edita Ab, Helsinki, Finland.
Mönkkönen M., Reunanen P., Nikula A., Inkeriöinen J. and Forsman J. 1997. Landscape characteristics associated with the occurrence of the flying squirrel Pteromys volans in old-growth forests of northern Finland. Ecography 20: 634–642.
Navon D. and Weintraub A. 1986. Operational model of supply for wildland enterprises. TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences 21: 353–370.
Öhman K. 2000. Creating contiguous areas of old forest in long term forest planning. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30: 1817–1823.
Oksanen-Peltola L. and Paananen R. 1995. Metsäsuunnittelu-Yksityismetsätalouden Toiminnan Perusta. Työtehoseuran Metsätiedote 546. 8 p.
Pukkala T. 2001. Monsu Metsäsuunnitteluohjelma. Ohjelmiston Toiminta ja Käyttö. Mimeograph at The University of Joensuu, Finland. 75 p.
Pukkala T. and Kangas J. 1993. A heuristic optimization method for forest planning and decision making. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 8: 560–570.
Pukkala T., Kellomäki S. and Mustonen E. 1988. Prediction of the amenity of a tree stand. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 5: 263–275.
Pukkala T., Nuutinen T. and Kangas J. 1995. Integrating the amenity of forest area into numerical forest planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 132: 185–195.
Pukkala T., Kangas J., Kniivilä M. and Tiainen A.-M. 1997. Integrating forest-level and compartment-level indices of species diversity with numerical forest planning. Silva Fennica 31: 417–429.
Pukkala T., Ketonen T. and Pykäläinen J. 2003. Predicting timber harvests from private forests-a utility maximisation approach. Forest Policy and Economics. (in press).
Pykäläinen J., Pukkala T. and Kangas J. 2001. Alternative priority models for forest planning on the landscape level involving multiple ownership. Forest Policy and Economics 2: 293–306.
Reunanen P., Mönkkönen M. and Nikula A. 2000. Managing boreal forest landscapes for flying squirrels. Conservation Biology 14: 218–226.
Reunanen P., Nikula A., Mönkkönen M., Hurme E. and Nivala V. 2002. Predicting the occupancy for the Siberian flying squirrel in old-growth forest patches. Ecological Applications 12(4): 1188–1198.
Van Langevelde F., Schotman A., Claassen F. and Sparenburg G. 2000. Competing land use in the reserve site selection problem. Landscape Ecology 15: 243–256.
Weintraub A. and Cholaky A. 1991. A hierarchical approach to forest planning. Forest Science 37(2): 439–460.