"Land-sparing benefits biodiversity while land-sharing benefits ecosystem services": Stakeholders' perspectives on biodiversity conservation strategies in boreal forests.
Forestry
Nature reserves
SLOSS
Scenario analysis
Stakeholder analysis
Journal
Ambio
ISSN: 1654-7209
Titre abrégé: Ambio
Pays: Sweden
ID NLM: 0364220
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2024
Jan 2024
Historique:
received:
05
12
2022
accepted:
23
08
2023
revised:
19
04
2023
medline:
4
12
2023
pubmed:
11
10
2023
entrez:
11
10
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Biodiversity conservation and economic profit from forests can be combined by various land-sparing and land-sharing approaches. Using a semi-structured survey, we evaluated support for scenarios representing contrasting conservation strategies in a managed boreal forest landscape. Land-sparing approaches were supported by the conservation organisation, regional administrations and the forest company, mainly motivated by the benefit for biodiversity based on ecological theory. Land-sharing approaches were supported by one recreational organisation, some municipalities and the forest owners' association, mainly motivated by the delivery of ecosystem services. Stakeholder groups using certain ecosystem services had motivations that we related to an anthropocentric mindset, while others focused more on species conservation, which can be related both to an anthropocentric or an ecocentric mindsets. Forest conservation planning should consider stakeholders' preferences to handle land-use conflicts. Since reaching consensus among multiple stakeholders seems unfeasible, a combination of land-sparing and land-sharing approaches is probably the best compromise.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37819440
doi: 10.1007/s13280-023-01926-0
pii: 10.1007/s13280-023-01926-0
pmc: PMC10692042
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
20-33Subventions
Organisme : Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas
ID : 2016-00786
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Angelstam, P., M. Manton, M. Green, B.G. Jonsson, G. Mikusinski, J. Svensson, and F.M. Sabatini. 2020. Sweden does not meet agreed national and international forest biodiversity targets: A call for adaptive landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 202: 103838.
doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103838
Angelstam, P., J.-M. Roberge, R. Axelsson, M. Elbakidze, K.O. Bergman, A. Dahlberg, and J. Törnblom. 2013. Evidence-based knowledge versus negotiated indicators for assessment of ecological sustainability: The Swedish Forest Stewardship Council standard as a case study. Ambio 42: 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0377-z .
doi: 10.1007/s13280-012-0377-z
Anonymous. 2021. Government bill 2021/22:28 Stärkt äganderätt, flexibla skyddsformer och ökade incitament för naturvården i skogen med frivillighet som grund. Stockholm: Government Offices. https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/proposition/2021/11/prop.-20212258 .
Beland Lindahl, K., A. Sténs, C. Sandström, J. Johansson, R. Lidskog, T. Ranius, and J.-M. Roberge. 2017. The Swedish forestry model: More of everything? Forest Policy and Economics 77: 44–55.
doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.10.012
Bennett, E.L. 2000. Timber certification: Where is the voice of the biologist? Conservation Biology 14: 921–923.
doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.000e3.x
Betts, M.G., B.T. Phalan, C. Wolf, S.C. Baker, C. Messier, K.J. Puettmann, R. Green, S.H. Harris, et al. 2021. Producing wood at least cost to biodiversity: Integrating Triad and sharing-sparing approaches to inform forest landscape management. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 96: 1301–1317.
doi: 10.1111/brv.12703
Bjärstig, T., C. Sandström, J. Sjögren, J. Soneson, and A. Nordin. 2019. A struggling collaborative process—Revisiting the woodland key habitat concept in Swedish forests. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 34: 699–708.
doi: 10.1080/02827581.2019.1674916
Bostedt, G., J. de Jong, H. Ekvall, A.R. Hof, J. Sjögren, and A. Zabel. 2021. An empirical model for forest landscape planning and its financial consequences for landowners. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 36: 626–638.
doi: 10.1080/02827581.2021.1998599
Brown, J.S. 2001. Ngongas and ecology: On having a worldview. Oikos 94: 6–16.
doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2001.11309.x
Cheung, L.T.O., and L. Fok. 2014. The motivations and environmental attitudes of nature-based visitors to protected areas in Hong Kong. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 21: 28–38.
doi: 10.1080/13504509.2013.832711
Coleman, T.H., C.C. Schwartz, K.A. Gunther, and S. Creel. 2013. Grizzly bear and human interaction in Yellowstone National Park: An evaluation of bear management areas. Journal of Wildlife Management 77: 1311–1320.
doi: 10.1002/jwmg.602
Cote, P., R. Tittler, C. Messier, D.D. Kneeshaw, A. Fall, and M.J. Fortin. 2010. Comparing different forest zoning options for landscape-scale management of the boreal forest: Possible benefits of the TRIAD. Forest Ecology and Management 259: 418–427.
doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.10.038
Danley, B., T. Bjärstig, and C. Sandström. 2021. At the limit of volunteerism? Swedish family forest owners and two policy strategies to increase forest biodiversity. Land Use Policy 105: 105403.
doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105403
DESA. 2019. Global forests goals and targets of the UN strategic plan for forests 2030. New York: DESA, UN.
Dietsch, A.M., T.L. Teel, and M.J. Manfredo. 2016. Social values and biodiversity conservation in a dynamic world. Conservation Biology 30: 1212–1221.
doi: 10.1111/cobi.12742
Edwards, D.M., M. Jay, F.S. Jensen, B. Lucas, M. Marzano, C. Montagné, A. Peace, G. Weiss. 2012. Public preferences across europe for different forest stand types as sites for recreation. Ecology and Society 17: 1.
doi: 10.5751/ES-04520-170127
Eggers, J., S. Holmgren, E.-M. Nordström, T. Lämås, T. Lind, and K. Öhman. 2019. Balancing different forest values: Evaluation of forest management scenarios in a multi-criteria decision analysis framework. Forest Policy and Economics 103: 55–69.
doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.07.002
Eggers, J., M. Räty, K. Öhman, and T. Snäll. 2020. How well do stakeholder-defined forest management scenarios balance economic and ecological forest values? Forests 11: 86.
doi: 10.3390/f11010086
Elbakidze, M., P. Angelstam, K. Andersson, M. Nordberg, and Y. Pautov. 2011. How does forest certification contribute to boreal biodiversity conservation? Standards and outcomes in Sweden and NW Russia. Forest Ecology and Management 262: 1983–1995.
doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.08.040
Emerson, K., and T. Nabatchi. 2015. Collaborative governance regimes. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Eriksson, L.A., O. Sallnäs, and G. Ståhl. 2007. Forest certification and Swedish wood supply. Forest Policy and Economics 9: 452–463.
doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2005.11.001
FAO. 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010: Main Report (Vol. FAO Forestry Paper no 163): [FAO] Food Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.
Felton, A., T. Löfroth, P. Angelstam, L. Gustafsson, J. Hjältén, A.M. Felton, P. Simonsson, A. Dahlberg, et al. 2020. Keeping pace with forestry: Multi-scale conservation in a changing production forest matrix. Ambio 49: 1050–1064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01248-0 .
doi: 10.1007/s13280-019-01248-0
Filyushkina, A., L.A. Widenfalk, E.-M. Nordström, H. Laudon, and T. Ranius. 2022. Expert assessment of landscape-level conservation strategies in boreal forests for biodiversity, recreation and water quality. Journal for Nature Conservation 67: 126180.
doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2022.126180
Ghazoul, J. 2001. Barriers to biodiversity conservation in forest certification. Conservation Biology 15: 315–317.
doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.015002315.x
Grass, I., P. Batáry, and T. Tscharntke. 2021. Chapter Six—Combining land-sparing and land-sharing in European landscapes. In Advances in ecological research, vol. 64, ed. D.A. Bohan and A.J. Vanbergen, 251–303. New York: Academic Press.
Gustafsson, L., S.C. Baker, J. Bauhus, W.J. Beese, A. Brodie, J. Kouki, D.B. Lindenmayer, A. Lõhmus, et al. 2012. Retention forestry to maintain multifunctional forests: A world perspective. BioScience 62: 633–645.
doi: 10.1525/bio.2012.62.7.6
Gustafsson, L., and K. Perhans. 2010. Biodiversity conservation in swedish forests: Ways forward for a 30-year-old multi-scaled approach. Ambio 39: 546–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0071-y .
doi: 10.1007/s13280-010-0071-y
Hallberg-Sramek, I., T. Bjärstig, and A. Nordin. 2020. Framing woodland key habitats in the Swedish media—How has the framing changed over time? Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 35: 198–209.
doi: 10.1080/02827581.2020.1761444
Hanski, I. 2000. Extinction debt and species credit in boreal forests: Modelling the consequences of different approaches to biodiversity conservation. Annales Zoologici Fennici 37: 271–280.
Hanski, I. 2011. Habitat loss, the dynamics of biodiversity, and a perspective on conservation. Ambio 40: 248–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0147-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s13280-011-0147-3
Horstkotte, T., T. Lind, and J. Moen. 2016. Quantifying the implications of different land users’ priorities in the management of boreal multiple-use forests. Environmental Management 57: 770–783.
doi: 10.1007/s00267-015-0643-5
Hurlbert, M., and J. Gupta. 2015. The split ladder of participation: A diagnostic, strategic, and evaluation tool to assess when participation is necessary. Environmental Science and Policy 50: 100–113.
doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.01.011
Husa, M., and A.-K. Kosenius. 2021. Non-industrial private forest owners’ willingness to manage for climate change and biodiversity. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 36: 614–625.
doi: 10.1080/02827581.2021.1981433
Hysing, E. 2021. Challenges and opportunities for the Ecosystem Services approach: Evaluating experiences of implementation in Sweden. Ecosystem Services 52: 101372.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101372
Johansson, J., Sandström, C., & Lundmark, T. 2018. Inspired by structured decision making: A collaborative approach to the governance of multiple forest values. Ecology and Society 23.
Johansson, T., J. Hjälten, J. de Jong, and H. von Stedingk. 2013. Environmental considerations from legislation and certification in managed forest stands: A review of their importance for biodiversity. Forest Ecology and Management 303: 98–112.
doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2013.04.012
Jones, C., D. Newsome, and J. Macbeth. 2016. Understanding the conflicting values associated with motorized recreation in protected areas. Ambio 45: 323–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0721-1 .
doi: 10.1007/s13280-015-0721-1
Joshi, A., S. Kale, S. Chandel, and D.K. Pal. 2015. Likert scale: Explored and explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology 7: 396–403.
doi: 10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975
Juutinen, A., Y. Mitani, E. Mäntymaa, Y. Shoji, P. Siikamäki, and R. Svento. 2011. Combining ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: A choice experiment application. Ecological Economics 70: 1231–1239.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.02.006
Kok, M.T., R. Alkemade, M. Bakkenes, M. van Eerdt, J. Janse, M. Mandryk, T. Kram, T. Lazarova, et al. 2018. Pathways for agriculture and forestry to contribute to terrestrial biodiversity conservation: A global scenario-study. Biological Conservation 221: 137–150.
doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.03.003
Kortenkamp, K.V., and C.F. Moore. 2001. Ecocentrism and anthropocentrism: Moral reasoning about ecological commons dilemmas. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21: 261–272.
doi: 10.1006/jevp.2001.0205
Kremen, C. 2015. Reframing the land-sparing/land-sharing debate for biodiversity conservation. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1355: 52–76.
doi: 10.1111/nyas.12845
Larsen, J.B., P. Angelstam, J. Bauhus, J.F. Carvalho, J. Diaci, D. Dobrowolska, A. Gazda, L. Gustafsson, et al. 2022. Closer-to-Nature forest management. From science to policy. Joensuu: European Forest Institute.
Law, B.E., L.T. Berner, P.C. Buotte, D.J. Mildrexler, and W.J. Ripple. 2021. Strategic Forest Reserves can protect biodiversity in the western United States and mitigate climate change. Communications Earth & Environment 2: 254.
doi: 10.1038/s43247-021-00326-0
Lindenmayer, D.B., J.F. Franklin, and J. Fischer. 2006. General management principles and a checklist of strategies to guide forest biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 131: 433–445.
doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.02.019
Löfmarck, E., Y. Uggla, and R. Lidskog. 2017. Freedom with what? Interpretations of “responsibility” in Swedish forestry practice. Forest Policy and Economics 75: 34–40.
doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.12.004
Manfredo, M.J., T.L. Teel, and K.L. Henry. 2009. Linking society and environment: A multilevel model of shifting wildlife value orientations in the western United States. Social Science Quarterly 90: 407–427.
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00624.x
Mason, W.L., J. Diaci, J. Carvalho, and S. Valkonen. 2021. Continuous cover forestry in Europe: Usage and the knowledge gaps and challenges to wider adoption. Forestry 95: 1–12.
doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpab038
Mell, I.C. 2017. Green infrastructure: Reflections on past, present and future praxis. Landscape Research 42: 135–145.
doi: 10.1080/01426397.2016.1250875
Michanek, G., G. Bostedt, H. Ekvall, M. Forsberg, A.R. Hof, J. De Jong, J. Rudolphi, A. Zabel. 2018. Landscape planning—Paving the way for effective conservation of forest biodiversity and a diverse forestry? Forests 9: 523.
doi: 10.3390/f9090523
Naumov, V., M. Manton, M. Elbakidze, Z. Rendenieks, J. Priednieks, S. Uhlianets, T. Yamelynets, A. Zhivotov, et al. 2018. How to reconcile wood production and biodiversity conservation? The Pan-European boreal forest history gradient as an “experiment.” Journal of Environmental Management 218: 1–13.
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.03.095
Ngoprasert, D., A.J. Lynam, and G.A. Gale. 2017. Effects of temporary closure of a national park on leopard movement and behaviour in tropical Asia. Mammalian Biology 82: 65–73.
doi: 10.1016/j.mambio.2016.11.004
Niemelä, J., J. Young, D. Alard, M. Askasibar, K. Henle, R. Johnson, M. Kurttila, T.B. Larsson, et al. 2005. Identifying, managing and monitoring conflicts between forest biodiversity conservation and other human interests in Europe. Forest Policy and Economics 7: 877–890.
doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2004.04.005
Nieminen, E., S. Kareksela, P. Halme, and J.S. Kotiaho. 2021. Quantifying trade-offs between ecological gains, economic costs, and landowners’ preferences in boreal mire protection. Ambio 50: 1841–1850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01530-0 .
doi: 10.1007/s13280-021-01530-0
Nousiainen, D., and B. Mola-Yudego. 2022. Characteristics and emerging patterns of forest conflicts in Europe—What can they tell us? Forest Policy and Economics 136: 102671.
doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102671
Paillet, Y., L. Bergès, J. Hjältén, P. Ódor, C. Avon, M. Bernhardt-Römermann, R.J. Bijlsma, L.U. De Bruyn, et al. 2010. Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged forests: Meta-analysis of species richness in Europe. Conservation Biology 24: 101–112.
doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01399.x
Paul, C., and T. Knoke. 2015. Between land sharing and land sparing—What role remains for forest management and conservation? The International Forestry Review 17: 210–230.
doi: 10.1505/146554815815500624
PEFC Sweden Certification system for sustainable forest management, PEFC SWE 001:4 C.F.R. 2017.
Phalan, B., M. Onial, A. Balmford, and R.E. Green. 2011. Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: Land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333: 1289–1291.
doi: 10.1126/science.1208742
Ranius, T., and O. Kindvall. 2006. Extinction risk of wood-living model species in forest landscapes as related to forest history and conservation strategy. Landscape Ecology 21: 687–698.
doi: 10.1007/s10980-005-5222-3
Roberge, J.-M., C. Fries, E. Normark, E. Mårald, A. Sténs, C. Sandström, J. Sonesson, C. Appelqvist, et al. 2020. Forest management in Sweden current practice and historical background, 96. Joenkoeping: Skogsstyrelsen.
Rodriguez, A., A.M. Hekkala, J. Sjögren, J. Strengbom, and T. Löfroth. 2021. Boreal forest fertilization leads to functional homogenization of ground beetle assemblages. Journal of Applied Ecology 58: 1145–1154.
doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.13877
Sandström, C., A. Carlsson-Kanyama, K.B. Lindahl, K.M. Sonnek, A. Mossing, A. Nordin, E.M. Nordström, R. Räty. 2016. Understanding consistencies and gaps between desired forest futures: An analysis of visions from stakeholder groups in Sweden. Ambio 45 Suppl 2: 100–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0746-5 .
doi: 10.1007/s13280-015-0746-5
Schneider, J., A. Ruda, Ž Kalasová, and A. Paletto. 2020. The Forest Stakeholders’ Perception towards the NATURA 2000 Network in the Czech Republic. Forests 11: 491.
doi: 10.3390/f11050491
SEPA. 2023. Skog formellt skyddad. https://www.naturvardsverket.se/data-och-statistik/skog/skog-formellt-skyddad/ (In Swedish). Accessed 19 Apr 2023
Silvertown, J. 2015. Have ecosystem services been oversold? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 30: 641–648.
doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2015.08.007
Sténs, A., and E. Mårald. 2020. “Forest property rights under attack”: Actors, networks and claims about forest ownership in the Swedish press 2014–2017. Forest Policy and Economics 111: 102038.
doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102038
Sterling, E.J., E. Betley, A. Sigouin, A. Gomez, A. Toomey, G. Cullman, C. Malone, A. Pekor, et al. 2017. Assessing the evidence for stakeholder engagement in biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 209: 159–171.
doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.008
Svensson, J., J.W. Bubnicki, B.G. Jonsson, J. Andersson, and G. Mikusinski. 2020. Conservation significance of intact forest landscapes in the Scandinavian Mountains Green Belt. Landscape Ecology 35: 2113–2131.
doi: 10.1007/s10980-020-01088-4
Taylor, B.R. 2005. Environmental ethics. In Encyclopedia of religion and nature, ed. B.R. Taylor, 597–608. London: Continuum.
Telbisz, T., Z. Imecs, A. Máthé, and L. Mari. 2023. Empirical investigation of the motivation and perception of tourists visiting the Apuseni Nature Park (Romania) and the relationship of tourism and natural resources. Sustainability 15: 4181.
doi: 10.3390/su15054181
The FSC National Forest Stewardship Standard of Sweden. 2020.
Tiebel, M., A. Mölder, and T. Plieninger. 2022. Conservation perspectives of small-scale private forest owners in Europe: A systematic review. Ambio 51: 836–848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01615-w .
doi: 10.1007/s13280-021-01615-w
Venier, L.A., I.D. Thompson, R. Fleming, J. Malcolm, I. Aubin, J.A. Trofymow, D. Langor, R. Sturrock, et al. 2014. Effects of natural resource development on the terrestrial biodiversity of Canadian boreal forests. Environmental Reviews 22: 457–490.
doi: 10.1139/er-2013-0075
Wiens, J.A. 2008. Landscape ecology as a foundation for sustainable conservation. Landscape Ecology 24: 1053–1065.
doi: 10.1007/s10980-008-9284-x
Wikström, P., L. Edenius, B. Elfving, L.O. Eriksson, T. Lämås, J. Sonesson, K. Öhman, J. Wallerman, et al. 2011. The Heureka forestry decision support system: an overview. Mathematical and Computational Forestry and Natural-Resource Sciences 3: 87–95.