A Forest Management Map of European Forests

Author(s): Geerten M. Hengeveld, Gert-Jan Nabuurs, Markus Didion, Isabel van den
Wyngaert, A.P.P.M. (Sandra) Clerkx and Mart-Jan Schelhaas
Source: Ecology and Society , Dec 2012, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Dec 2012)
Published by: Resilience Alliance Inc.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26269226

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26269226?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ecology and Society

This content downloaded from

168.228.213.74 on Mon, 27 Mar 2023 00:42:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Copyright © 2012 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.
Hengeveld, G. M., G.-J. Nabuurs, M. Didion, I. Van den Wyngaert, A. P. P. M. Clerkx, and M.-J.
Schelhaas. 2012. A forest management map of European forests. Ecology and Society 17(4): 53. http://dx.
doi.org/10.5751/ES-05149-170453

Research, part of a Special Feature on Sustainability Impact Assessment of Forest Management Alternatives in Europe
A Forest Management Map of European Forests
Geerten M. Hengeveld 1, Gert-Jan Nabuurs 2, Markus Didion 1, Isabel van den Wyngaert 1, A.P.P.M. (Sandra) Clerkx 1
and Mart-Jan Schelhaas 1

ABSTRACT. Forest management to a large extent determines the possible services that the forest can provide. Different objectives
in forest management determine the rotation length and valuation of different stages in forest succession. We present a method
of mapping potential forest management at 1-km resolution to inform policy, land use modeling, and forest resource projections.
The presented method calculates the suitability of a location to different forest management alternatives based on biotic, abiotic,
socioeconomic, and political factors. A sensitivity analysis of the resulting map to the data sources used was performed. This
showed that the results are very sensitive to some data sources. The potential use of the map and the sensitivity to the availability
of data sources are discussed. An extension to the method, including regional scaling, is suggested. Data availability is the main
restriction on refinement of the proposed methodology.
Key Words: Europe; forest management approach; land use mapping

INTRODUCTION al. 2008). Informed inclusion of the basic differentiation in

European forests provide many services to society, ranging forest management practices will improve predictions of land
from recreation to habitat functions, the regulation of water, use, land use change, and associated carbon flux.
erosion, and air quality, and the provisioning of wood products
At the very local scale, stand-level models have been used as
like timber and biomass for bioenergy (UN-ECE 2005, EEA
scientific and practical tools (Bugmann 2001, Didion et al.
2007, FAO 2007, IPCC 2007, MCPFE 2007, EEA 2008,
z 2007, Pretzsch et al. 2008). For specific regions within Europe,
Tupek et al. 2010, Verkerk et al. 2010). Historically, European
simulation models have been developed and applied
forests have been managed to increase the output of a particular
(Hasenauer et al. 2006, Pretzsch et al. 2008, Palahi et al. 2009).
service, most often the value of timber (Nabuurs 2001).
At the European scale, one harmonized model ([EFISCEN
However, this attention is shifting and broadening. We know
V3] Nabuurs et al. 2003, Schelhaas et al. 2007) is now used
that the focus of a certain management type towards one goal
to support the international negotiations on the role of forests
will affect the performance of the forest for other services. An
in European commitments to reduce greenhouse gases
intense timber production may, for example, have a negative
(Bottcher et al. 2012). Although the current EFISCEN has a
effect on the habitat functions of the forest (Paillet et al. 2010).
large number of forest types, management regimes, and
The recent interest in forests for sequestration of carbon, on
regionally specific data, it cannot capture the huge ecological
the one hand, and provision of biomass for bioenergy, on the
diversity across Europe, nor the huge management diversity.
other, also illustrates the possible trade-off even within the
theme of climate change mitigation (Zanchi et al. 2010). To increase spatial resolution of forest representation in
Europe, Brus et al. (2012) produced a tree species forest map
Thus strategically, thinking about fulfilling different forest
of Europe at 1-km resolution, which is an important step when
functions across the European scale becomes more and more
desiring to improve forest resource and management analyses
important. The first strategic separation of functions at the
across Europe. However, it is impossible to manually define
European scale has already been set by the Birds and Habitat
the management in each of the 5.5 million pixels.
Directive and its implementation in Natura2000 sites. This
gives prime attention to the nature conservation value at those We present a conceptual framework and first tests to stratify
sites, with possible detrimental effects on timber production. forest management across European forests using the tree
To understand such trade-offs between forest functions, a species map and other abiotic constraints. The approach is to
series of models has been developed to aid policy-makers and classify management throughout Europe into broad groups
managers in optimizing management in view of the specific with similar objectives and strategies. These broad
demands of society and the environment. management approaches can then be further detailed into
silvicultural operations according to regional or local
But also for land use (change) analyses of Europe, insight into
circumstances, traditions, and management regulations.
the state of local forests and forest management is important.
Duncker et al. (2012) present such a broad approach, which
Currently, however, land use models only sparsely include
defines five forest management approaches (FMAs) along a
differences in forest and forest management types (Schulp et

1
ALTERRA - Wageningen UR, 2European Forest Institute

This content downloaded from

168.228.213.74 on Mon, 27 Mar 2023 00:42:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ecology and Society 17(4): 53
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss4/art53/

gradient of production intensity. Our objective is to issued at various levels of organization. While the stand
conceptualize and test a detailed map that reflects the local characteristics may partially influence the decision of an
constraints that differentiate and spatially distribute broad owner about what to do and what to strive for, at the same time
forest management approaches in Europe using the framework they reflect past decisions and operations and might reveal
of Duncker et al. (2012). some of the intentions of the forest owner.

METHODS We assumed that we could approximate the forest owner’s

The basis for the forest management map is the European tree choice of an FMA by combining underlying drivers in the four
species map (Brus et al. 2012). This map defines the categories. For each of these categories, we identified at least
probability of occurrence for 20 species groups at a 1-km one European-wide spatially explicit data set that corresponds
resolution. For all species groups with a probability of to a factor that will influence the owner’s decision. In total,
occurrence greater than 1%, the probability of occurrence was we selected eight factors based on availability and suitability
taken to represent the area of a forest stand dominated by the (Fig. 1). For the biotic conditions, we used the applicability
species group. For each of these stands, we defined the most of the dominant species (a) in each stand for a given FMA
suitable forest management alternative based on eight factors. (Table 2). To incorporate regional differences in species use,
The most suitable forest management alternative at the pixel these applicabilities were assigned based on four
level was then defined by the forest management alternative biogeographical regions (b). For the abiotic conditions, we
that was most suitable in the largest area in that 1 x 1 km pixel. selected the slope (c) as the important decision variable. The
slope sets important constraints on the applicability of
Forest management approach framework intensive silvicultural operations (Sterba et al. 2000). Two
Duncker et al. (2012) present a framework for classifying types of proximity maps (Verburg et al. 2008) were used as a
different FMAs along a gradient of intensity of intervention proxy for socioeconomic conditions. Small-scale proximity
with the natural processes in a forest. They distinguish five (d), defined as distance to cities of at least 25,000 inhabitants,
FMAs: FMA I: unmanaged nature reserves; FMA II: close- represented recreation pressure. The large-scale proximity (e),
to-nature forestry; FMA III: combined objective forestry; i.e., to cities of at least 750,000 inhabitants, was considered a
FMA IV: intensive even-aged; and FMA V: short rotation proxy for distance to major wood-working industries (Sterba
forestry (Table 1). These FMAs differ in both objective and et al. 2000, Beach et al. 2005). Additionally, we used the
allowed silvicultural operations. For a full elaboration, we percentage of the pixel covered by forest (f) (Schuck et al.
refer to Duncker et al. (2012). These FMAs provide a cross- 2002) and stand area (g) (Brus et al. 2012) as a proxy for the
continental framework for defining management options. economic feasibility of intensive forestry (Beach et al. 2005).
For the political category, we used a map with the Natura2000
Table 1. Description of forest management approaches sites (h) (European Commission, DG Environment, 2009,
(FMAs), following Duncker et al. (2012). Natura2000 database, version July 2009) as an indication of
where operations will be more likely to be influenced by
FMA Description Intensity of management conservation policies (Verkerk and Lindner 2008).
I Nature reserve No intervention
II Close-to-nature Interventions mimic natural processes Calculation method
III Combined objective Limited interventions For each stand, the local suitability for being managed
forestry according to an FMA of type j (S[FMAj]) was calculated using
IV Even-aged forestry Interventions follow production goals
V Short rotation Intensive management for maximum the following algorithm:
forestry biomass

(1)
Conceptual framework
The decision by a forest manager about how to manage a
specific forest stand is influenced by many different factors.
They can be divided in four categories: biotic, abiotic,
socioeconomic, and political. The biotic component includes where pFMA,jx is the applicability of FMAj for species x (Table
stand characteristics like stand area, tree species composition, 2), αij is a weighting factor indicating the importance of factor
and stand structure. Abiotic conditions include site factors like gi for FMAj (Table 3), and Fij is the response function of FMAj
climate, topography, and soil. Socioeconomic conditions to factor gi, where:
include the wood market, extraction costs, transport (2)
opportunities, specific goals or interests of the forest owner,
subsidies, and recreation pressure. Political factors include
policies, regulations, and restrictions on forest operations

This content downloaded from

168.228.213.74 on Mon, 27 Mar 2023 00:42:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ecology and Society 17(4): 53
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss4/art53/

Table 2. The applicability of forest management approaches (pFMA) for the different species separated by biogeographic regions.
FMA I: nature reserve, II: close-to-nature, III: combined objective, IV: even-aged forestry, V: short rotation. Applicability ranges
from small (1) to large (4). Based on author judgment.

FMA
Species Biogeographical region I II III IV V
Abies spp. Atlantic 0 0 4 4 1
Boreal 0 0 3 4 1
Continental 4 4 3 1 0
Mediterranean 0 0 2 3 1
Larix spp. Atlantic and Boreal 0 1 4 4 3
Continental 1 1 4 4 1
Mediterranean 0 1 3 2 0
Picea spp. Atlantic 0 1 3 4 4
Boreal 2 3 4 3 1
Continental 2 3 4 4 2
Mediterranean 1 1 4 4 1
Pinus pinaster Atlantic 0 0 3 4 1
Mediterranean 1 2 4 4 4
Pinus sylvestris Atlantic 3 4 4 4 4
Boreal and Mediterranean 2 2 4 4 0
Continental 3 4 4 4 0
Other Pinus spp. Atlantic and Boreal 0 0 4 4 3
Continental 0 1 4 3 2
Mediterranean 2 2 2 2 0
Pseudotsuga spp. Atlantic 0 1 4 4 3
Continental 0 1 4 4 1
Mediterranean 0 0 3 4 4
Other conifers All 2 2 2 2 2
Alnus spp. Atlantic 4 4 2 2 1
Boreal 2 2 3 3 1
Continental 3 3 3 2 0
Mediterranean 4 4 1 1 0
Betula spp. Atlantic 4 4 2 0 0
Boreal 3 3 3 2 0
Continental 2 2 3 2 0
Mediterranean 4 4 4 1 0
Carpinus spp. Atlantic and Continental 4 4 2 0 0
Mediterranean 4 4 3 1 0
Castanea spp. Atlantic 0 1 4 4 0
Continental 0 1 2 2 0
Mediterranean 4 4 3 2 0
Eucalyptus spp. Atlantic 0 0 1 4 4
Mediterranean 0 0 3 4 4
Fagus spp. Atlantic 4 4 4 3 0
Continental 4 4 4 4 0
Mediterranean 4 4 4 3 0
Fraxinus spp. Atlantic 2 2 2 2 2
Boreal 4 4 3 1 0
Continental 4 4 4 1 0
Mediterranean 4 4 4 2 0
Populus spp. Atlantic and Continental and Mediterranean 4 4 4 4 4
Boreal 2 2 0 0 2
Quercus robur and Q. petraea Atlantic 4 4 4 1 0
Continental 4 4 4 3 2
Mediterranean 4 4 4 3 0
Other Quercus spp. Atlantic 0 1 3 2 0
Continental 4 4 4 4 2
Mediterranean 4 4 4 3 0

(con'd)

This content downloaded from

168.228.213.74 on Mon, 27 Mar 2023 00:42:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ecology and Society 17(4): 53
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss4/art53/

Robinia spp. Atlantic 0 0 4 4 3

Continental 0 1 4 4 3
Mediterranean 0 1 4 4 3
Other broad-leaved All 2 2 2 2 2
Multiple species Atlantic and Mediterranean 4 4 2 1 0
Boreal 4 4 3 2 0
Continental 4 4 3 1 0

rotation forestry (FMA V). Productivity and being indigenous

Table 3. Qualitative weighting factors α (Eq. 1) for effect of differs by species within Europe. Therefore, we regionalized
a factor on suitability. + indicates a minor positive effect, - the values for pFMA,jx according to four broad biogeographic
indicates a minor negative effect, and ++ indicates a major regions (Fig. 1b), as shown in Table 2.
positive effect. For step functions, the cut-off point is given The assignment of response functions and weighting factors
in brackets. FMA I: nature reserve, II: close-to-nature, III: for each of the other data sets is presented in Table 3 and was
combined objective, IV: even-aged forestry, V: short rotation. based on the authors’ judgment. Effects can be strongly
positive or negative, weakly positive or negative, or neutral.
I II III IV V
If no effect was assumed, this was due to either no expected
c slope - (> 25) - (> 10)
d proximity 1 ++ + ++ effect or to multiple trends in opposite directions. Strong and
e proximity 2 - + + weak effects were implemented by assigning weighting
f forest cover ++ + factor α arbitrary values of 9 and 2, respectively.
g stand area (SA) - + +
h Natura2000 + (> SA) + (> SA) - (< SA) We expected slope to negatively affect the suitability of the
productive FMAs (IV and V) because steeper slopes are
susceptible to soil erosion under intensive management.
In principle, Fij can take any form, and is flexible to either Suitability was therefore reduced for slopes greater than 10%
categorical or continuous data. for FMA V and for slopes greater than 25% for FMA IV (EEA
2007).
In Eq. 1, j ranges from 1 to 5, corresponding to the five FMAs
defined by Duncker et al. (2012). Species x corresponds to the Proximity to small towns was considered to have a major
20 species groups defined in the European tree species map positive effect on the suitability of both FMA II and FMA IV
(Brus et al. 2012; see Table 2 for tree species groups). Factor and a minor positive effect on the suitability of FMA III.
gi corresponds to the six data sets, c–h, mentioned in Methods: Proximity to either small or large cities had a positive effect
Conceptual framework. Each gi was scaled using either linear on the nature-recreation value that is important for FMA II,
(proximity, the percentage of forest in the pixel, and the area and on the multiple objectives being targeted in FMA III, and
of the stand) or threshold response functions Fij(gi) to values short distances to labor will enhance the value of a forest stand
between -0.5 and 0.5. Specific weighting factors (aij) and for timber production. The proximity to large cities,
response functions (Fij(gi)) are explained in Methods: Factor considered as a proxy for distance to major industry, was
description. assumed to have a positive effect on suitability for biomass
production in FMA V, whereas suitability for FMA I, which
Using this algorithm, each stand could be assigned a suitability is free of human intervention, was considered to be negatively
for being managed according to a given FMA. An FMA was influenced by proximity to large urban areas.
assigned to the stand according to the highest suitability. For
the pixel, the FMA type covering the largest area (summed The production of timber and biomass can be done most
over all stands in the pixel) was taken. efficiently in large forest complexes and/or in large stands.
Therefore, suitability of both FMA IV and V were assumed
Factor description to increase with forest cover within the pixel and with the size
The applicability of an FMA to a species (pFMA,jx) was of the stand. Small stands are especially suitable for FMA II,
expressed on a scale ranging from 1 (hardly applicable) to 4 in which the production objective is restricted by management
(highly applicable) based on the authors’ judgment. objectives for recreation and biodiversity purposes.
Indigenous species are likely to appear in nature reserves
(FMA I) and close-to-nature forestry (FMA II). Species able In Natura2000 areas, the main function of forests is the
to provide timber of good quality and with a reasonable protection of biodiversity (European Commission, DG
production are likely to be associated with combined objective Environment, 2009, Natura2000 database, version July 2009,
management (FMA III) and even-aged forestry (FMA IV). available only within EU countries). Forests within
High-yielding species are likely to be associated with short Natura2000 areas were therefore considered to have a higher

This content downloaded from

168.228.213.74 on Mon, 27 Mar 2023 00:42:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ecology and Society 17(4): 53
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss4/art53/

Fig. 1. Flow chart for compilation of the map of forest management approaches. Schematic representation of how the
different (GIS-) data sets were combined using the parameter values of Tables 1 and 2 in Equation 1. Data sets are (a) tree
species distribution map, (b) biogeographic regions, (c) slope, (d) proximity to towns larger than 25,000 inhabitants, (e)
proximity to cities larger than 750,000 inhabitants, (f) forest cover, (g) stand area derived from the tree species map of
Europe, and (h) Natura2000 regions. Arrow (i) combines the biogeographic and species information with the regional species
suitability to form pFMA in Equation 1 (k). Arrow (j) combines the data sets (c–h) on factors (gi) with the weighting factors
(α) from Table 2 in Equation 1. Equation 1 (k) combines the different data sets into a suitability measure for each forest
management approach in each stand. Arrow (l) combines these suitabilities into a map of the most suitable forest
management approach per square kilometer (m).

likelihood of having FMA I and II, and a lower likelihood of Validation

the production-oriented FMA IV and V. Stands smaller than In order to assess the accuracy of the resulting FMA map, we
the Natura2000 areas in a pixel were assigned higher suitability used two approaches. In the first approach, we assigned FMAs
for the nature-oriented FMAs I and II. to the plots based on the national forest inventory of the
Netherlands (Dirkse et al. 2003; Daamen, 2004, personal
Sensitivity analysis communication) and the regional inventory of Umbria (Italy)
A sensitivity analysis was performed to test the effect of the (Colle et al. 2006; Teobaldelli, 2007, personal
different layers on the final FMA assignment. To this end, the communication). This data set comprises 2,659 plots in
map was recalculated six times, each time omitting one map Umbria and 2,551 plots in the Netherlands, distributed evenly
layer. The sensitivity of an FMA type to a map layer was then over the two sample areas. The reclassification of the original
expressed as the percentage of pixels that changed to another management categories into FMAs is given in Table 4. The
FMA type relative to the original map.

This content downloaded from

168.228.213.74 on Mon, 27 Mar 2023 00:42:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ecology and Society 17(4): 53
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss4/art53/

Fig. 2. Dominant forest management approach (FMA) in Europe. Distribution of FMAs according to dominant suitability per
1-km2 pixel, using parameters from Table 2. Results are shown for pixels with more than 25% forest cover. For a definition
of dominant suitability, see text.

average suitability of the observed FMAs at the observed approach are summed. Figure 2 shows the dominant FMA
location was then compared to the average suitability of the mapped per 1 km2 pixel. Access to the detailed map and the
FMA in the region. suitability scores for each pixel is given through online
resource 1. These results are dominated by FMA III (64.7%
In the second approach, we compared the total area classified
of the stands), which is an intermediate intensity management
in the different FMAs for each country with the areas reported
that describes forest management with a production-oriented
under the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests
objective but which also allows for alternative objectives that
in Europe (MCPFE) class 1 (MCPFE 2007). Following the
reduce production. Eighteen percent of the stands were
descriptions of the FMAs presented by Duncker et al. (2012),
assigned to FMA II, which is forest with a close-to-nature
subclasses 1.1 and 1.2 were categorized as FMA I, and subclass
management regime, while the other FMAs were assigned to
1.3 was categorized as FMA II.
less than 10% of the stands.
RESULTS Potentially, the various FMAs occur throughout Europe. There
The assigned forest management approaches for the whole of are no large-scale trends differentiating management intensity
Europe are summarized in Table 5, and the number of stands across Europe; this is quite well in line with the forest
with maximum suitability for each forest management characterization of Europe (Farrell et al. 2000, MCPFE 2007).

This content downloaded from

168.228.213.74 on Mon, 27 Mar 2023 00:42:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ecology and Society 17(4): 53
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss4/art53/

Table 4. Classification of forest management descriptions to Table 5. Number of stands assigned to each forest management
forest management approaches (FMAs). (Forest management approach (FMA) for the whole of Europe before aggregating
descriptions from national inventory plots. FMAs I: nature- to pixel level. (FMA I: nature reserve; II: close-to-nature; III:
reserve; II: close-to-nature; III: combined objective; IV: even- combined objective; IV: even-aged forestry; V: short rotation)
aged forestry; V: short rotation)
FMA Number of stands % of stands
Region Forest management description FMA I 1,620,334 8.2
Umbria Direct protection I II 3,599,386 18.3
Ecological II III 12,757,591 64.7
Indirect protection II IV 1,126,088 5.7
Nonwood production II V 613,308 3.1
Tourist-recreational III
Wood production IV
Netherlands Onbeheerd (unmanaged) I
Spontaan bos (spontaneous forest) I The sensitivity to each of the input GIS layers was expressed
Struweel < 8 m (thicket) I as the fraction of pixels that changed FMA due to the removal
Omvorming (transition) II of one layer from the calculations (Table 6). Overall sensitivity
Recreatiebos (recreation forest) II
to slope was low, whereas sensitivity to small-scale proximity
Houtwal (wooded bank) III
Laan (avenue) III was 79%, and sensitivity to stand area was 74%. Within each
Landgoedbos (estate forest) III FMA type, sensitivity was greatest for different layers:
Landschap (landscape) III Natura2000 and stand area for FMA I, large-scale proximity
Ongelijkjarig (uneven-aged) III
for FMA II, small-scale proximity and stand area for FMA III,
Overige niet-recreatieve bosfunctie (other III
nonrecreative function) forest cover for FMA IV, and small-scale proximity for FMA
Singel III V. The weighting factor α was of importance for the
Boombos IV assignment of FMA IV and to a lesser extent FMA I and FMA
Gelijkjarig (even-aged) IV
V. The suitability of the species for an FMA was important
Hakhout (coppice) IV
Schermbos (protective forest) IV mostly for FMA IV and FMA V.
Griend-energie (short rotation coppice) V
Table 6. Sensitivity of the map to data sources. Fraction of
pixels that changed dominant forest management approach
However, some regional characterization is apparent. (FMA) after removal of the different data sources (a–h) and
Scandinavia is characterized by large areas that are most application of equal weights to minor and major effects. (FMA
suitable for FMA IV, intensive even-aged forest, with I: nature reserve; II: close-to-nature; III: combined objective;
relatively large patches suitable for FMA V (short rotation IV: even-aged forestry; V: short rotation)
forestry) and FMA I (unmanaged forests). The latter are
generally restricted to high altitude and high latitude forests. All I II III IV V
The western central European countries show a highly α 0.13 0.49 0.03 0.03 0.75 0.48
a * b species * biogeo 0.10 0.02 0.11 0.09 0.25 0.37
fragmented forest landscape with a mix of all FMAs. The c slope 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05
regions of Aquitaine, France and the north of Catalonia, Spain d proximity 1 0.79 0.23 0.35 1.00 0.00 0.97
are characterized by a relatively large area that is suitable for e proximity 2 0.13 0.22 0.62 0.04 0.11 0.09
FMA IV, intensive even-aged forest, while Portugal is f forest cover 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.96 0.05
g stand area 0.74 0.40 0.33 0.93 0.15 0.04
characterized by patches of high suitability for short rotation h Natura2000 0.36 0.40 0.30 0.35 0.30 0.78
forestry types in a landscape dominated by combined objective
forests. Spain shows potential for some large reserves (FMA
I-dominated areas). Towards the east in the Baltic states and Two attempts at the validation of calculated suitabilities were
Belarus, combined objective management dominates, with undertaken. First, the calculated suitability for the observed
scattered areas suitable for short rotation forestry. Towards forest management at plot locations in regions in Europe was
the Carpathians, combined objective management dominates compared to the average suitability in the region. The results
as well, with scattered areas with high suitability for reserves. are shown in Table 7. Compared to the distribution of observed
This is also the case in Bulgaria, Greece, and Italy. The western FMAs at the plot locations, the distribution of suitability for
Balkans are also dominated by combined objective forests, FMAs at the stands shifted downward, with the most
with some areas suitable for intensive even-aged forests. frequently observed FMA, FMA IV (even-aged management,
75% of the observations for Umbria and 67.5% in the
Netherlands) shifting to a prediction that FMA III is the most
suitable (multi-functional management, 64.9% of the

This content downloaded from

168.228.213.74 on Mon, 27 Mar 2023 00:42:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ecology and Society 17(4): 53
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss4/art53/

Table 7. Distribution and suitability index of observed forest management approaches (FMAs) in Umbria and the Netherlands.
Distribution is given for plots (observations) and stands (predictions), both in absolute numbers and in percentages. Calculated
suitability indices for the recorded FMA at the plot data locations (Suitability of plots) are compared to average suitability of
this FMA within the region (Suitability all). (FMA I: nature reserve; II: close-to-nature; III: combined objective; IV: even-aged
forestry; V: short rotation)

Region FMA Number of plots % of plots Number of stands % of stands Suitability of Suitability all
plots
Umbria I 25 0.9 2,407 11.0 -0.03 -0.09
II 0.0 3,696 16.9
III 636 23.9 14,177 64.9 0.13 0.18
IV 1,995 75.1 1,052 4.8 0.03 0
V 0.0 512 2.3
Netherlands I 28 1.1 1,983 3.4 0.05 -0.09
II 190 7.6 15,272 26.5 0.2 0.21
III 586 23.6 39,549 68.7 0.28 0.25
IV 1,677 67.5 554 1.0 0.04 -0.02
V 5 0.2 246 0.4 -0.07 -0.05

predictions for Umbria and 68.7% in the Netherlands). A forest This projection is thus subject to both the assumption that
management approach was, on average, not observed on suitability is correctly calculated and local forest owners
locations with higher predicted suitability for this approach. would manage according to the highest suitability.
Secondly, the areas reported under MCPFE class 1 were The forest management assigned is determined by tree species,
compared to the areas predicted to be most suitable for FMA slope, percentage of forest, proximity to cities, and
I and II (Fig. 3). MCPFE classes 1.1 and 1.2 were categorized Natura2000 areas. The sensitivity of the map to these different
as FMA I, and MCPFE class 1.3 was categorized as FMA II. factors is diverse. Slope seems to have little added effect on
The maps in Figure 3 show that there were marked regional the results, whereas proximity to small villages has a large
differences between predicted area of each FMA and the area effect. This will be caused partly by interactions between the
reported under MCPFE class 1. For some countries (e.g., different factors—e.g., those areas influenced by slope could
Finland, Netherlands, Switzerland), the predictions seemed to be part of Natura2000 areas, which causes them to maintain
match reported areas, whereas for other countries (e.g., France, their original classification. The major effect of the proximity
Germany, and Italy), the predictions did not match the reported to small villages is that suitability for FMA III, the most
areas at all. In most cases where predictions did not match, common FMA in the result, is determined only by this factor.
there was a strong overprediction for both FMA I and II. Thus, removing this factor majorly changes the suitability of
Marked exceptions were the area predicted for FMA II in almost all pixels that were assigned this FMA. Most FMAs
Germany, and the area predicted for FMA I in Italy. In these are affected by several factors and can even be majorly affected
cases, the areas reported were far larger than the areas by the exclusion of layers that do not directly determine their
predicted. suitability (e.g., FMA III is affected by the exclusion of stand
area, thus causing a large move from FMA III to FMA II).
DISCUSSION
We have presented a conceptual method for assigning forest Some of the factors used are rough proxies, and could, in the
management approaches to forests across Europe. Forest future, be replaced by better data sources. For example, the
management approaches are a grouping of forest management proximity to large cities could be replaced by the actual
systems that allows for cross-region comparison of the effect location and size of pulp mills, paper mills, and sawmills.
of forest management (Duncker et al. 2012). The strategic However, existing data sets at the European scale are not
management choices of where to conserve nature and where complete (http://www.sawmilldatabase.com/). Data availability
to produce wood are often done locally at the management is also a problem for other potentially important data sources,
unit or nationally at assigning reserve areas. The mapping of such as detailed maps on forest ownership, actual strict
potential management at the European scale has never been reserves maps, and potential productivity per species. Most
done. The method presented here, and the results are a first important in this is the lack of productivity-related factors
step in such a direction. (Beach et al. 2005) in the calculation of the suitability, because
historically, less productive sites were set aside more easily
The conceptual method calculates the local suitability for each for nonproductive forest management targets. Other
FMA based on local GIS information. The FMA for which the improvements could be the inclusion of stand characteristics,
local suitability is highest is then projected as the local FMA.

This content downloaded from

168.228.213.74 on Mon, 27 Mar 2023 00:42:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ecology and Society 17(4): 53
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss4/art53/

such as the number of species or the range of diameter classes

Fig. 3. Comparing forest management approach (FMA) I in the stand, and national requirements of wood supply or
and II with Ministerial Conference on the Protection of production, which would set target total areas for the more
Forests in Europe (MCPFE) class 1. (a) For each country, productive forest management approaches, for example.
the summed area reported under MCPFE 1.1 and 1.2 is
shown (white bar) next to the area predicted most suitable For the Netherlands and Umbria, this map is compared to a
for FMA I (black bar). (b) For each country, the area reference data set of national forest inventory plots. The results
reported under MCPFE 1.3 is shown (white bar) next to the indicate that the predicted FMAs are on average about one
area predicted most suitable for FMA II (black bar). For class lower than the actual FMA as classified on the plot data:
Spain, no forest area according to the MCPFE classification FMA IV is highly common in the observations, whereas FMA
is reported (MCPFE 2007). Numbers in the legend show the III is overrepresented in the predictions. Interpretation of this
area (km2) represented by the bars. difference is difficult. First of all, the classification of actual
management is rather uncertain. As shown by Duncker et al.
(2012), one forest can show characteristics of different FMAs
at the same time for a range of different assessment criteria.
Assignment of management types is usually based on only one
field observation and on limited criteria (appearance of the
forest and signs of recent harvest activities [Dirkse 2003]).
Future reassessment of permanent sample plots might lead to
more precise assignment of actual management. The
subsequent aggregation into FMAs is subjective as well, thus
leading to additional uncertainty.
Apart from the classification uncertainty, this test compares
suitability with actual management. It is thus a combined test
of the quality of the suitability calculation and the rationality
of the forest manager. Regional circumstances and owner
preferences might well lead to other management goals than
expected based on the rationale behind the suitability
calculation. For a better validation, more detailed data sets on
actual management should be available, and preferably would
be continuous over large regions. Ideally, this information
should then be combined with independent expert estimates
of optimal FMA and/or information on regional policies,
owner preferences, and other important influences. However,
it is exactly the lack of such information that led to the
construction of the approach presented here.
The areas reported to the MCPFE were used for comparison
at the national level. Of the areas reported under MCPFE class
1, the subcategories most closely matching FMA I and FMA
II were used. For most countries, the areas reported are smaller
than the areas predicted to be most suitable. This would
indicate an underutilization of the potential for nature
conservation in many counties. To fit the model predictions
to such regional statistics, the final areas predicted can be
adjusted through scaling (e.g., Tröltzsch et al. 2009).
Constraints on the choice for an FMA through, for example,
the demand for certain forest services or owner preferences is
not accounted for in the calculation of the suitability. Iterative
scaling methods (Tröltzsch et al. 2009) can be used to adjust
the model predictions to regional demand for certain FMAs.
In such a scaling procedure, the total suitability of each FMA
in each region is adjusted to meet the target area for each FMA,
while the variation within the region for each suitability is
maintained.

This content downloaded from

168.228.213.74 on Mon, 27 Mar 2023 00:42:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ecology and Society 17(4): 53
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss4/art53/

Sources for regional FMA distributions can be statistics

reported by national forest inventories or indirect information Acknowledgments:
because the areas reported under the MCPFE classification,
This research was funded by the European Commission
the national or regional timber yield, and regional information
through the projects EFORWOOD (contract nr FP6-518128-2)
on ownership of forests can potentially be translated into
and MOTIVE (grant No. 226544), and the BSIK-IC2-project,
regional FMA distributions. Currently, integrated information
co-funded by the strategic research programs “Sustainable
at the European scale is, however, lacking (Schelhaas et al.
spatial development of ecosystems, landscapes, seas and
2003).
regions" and “Climate change” of the former Dutch Ministry
A European map of forest management approaches as of Agriculture, Nature Conservation and Food Quality. Data
presented has several applications. The differentiation of from the forest inventory of Umbria were provided by Dr. M.
forest land in areas with different management goals can Teobaldelli. We thank Dr. Bill Mason, Rach Colling, and two
inform policy-makers on the suitability of European forests anonymous reviewers for commenting on earlier versions of
for different goals. Taken more in detail, attempts can be made this manuscript.
to explicitly map ecosystem services that are likely to be
coupled with specific FMA types in combination with other
GIS information. Differences in forest management objectives LITERATURE CITED
imply different valuation of the forested lands under these Beach, R. H., S. K. Pattanayak, J-C Yang, B. C. Murray, and
FMAs. This information can inform land use and land cover R. C. Abt. 2005. Econometric studies of non-industrial private
models on the differences in transition rates from specific forest management: a review and synthesis. Forest Policy and
FMA types to nonforested land use types, for example, to Economics 7(3):261–281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341
ensure continuity of protected forests or to align land use (03)00065-0
change with rotation cycles in short rotation or even-aged Bottcher, H., M. Gusti, P. J. Verkerk, and P. Havlik. 2012.
forestry. Projection of the EU27 forest sector carbon sink and effects
Combined with information on tree species (Brus et al. 2012) of recent bioenergy policies using two advanced forestry
and biomass (Gallaun et al. 2010), this map provides essential models. Manuscript based on DG ENV tender contract
information for the development and application of high- 07.0307/2009/541003/SER/C5. In press.
resolution forest resource models, thus enabling projections Brus, D. J., G. M. Hengeveld, D. J. J. Walvoort, P. W.
on the potential for forests to deliver ecosystem services as Goedhart, A. H. Heidema, G. J. Nabuurs, and K. Gunia. 2012.
carbon storage, timber, and recreation more accurately than Statistical mapping of tree species over Europe. European
can be done using current European models (Schelhaas et al. Journal of Forest Research 131(1):145–157. http://dx.doi.
2003). org/10.1007/s10342-011-0513-5
Given the limited availability of data on forest management Bugmann H. 2001. A review of forest gap models. Climate
practices in specific stands at the European scale, we presented Change 51(3–4): 259–305.
a method to assign forest management approaches to a high-
resolution forest stand map in order to facilitate forest resource Colle, G., F. De Natale, L. Di Cosmo, A. Floris, C. Gagliano,
and land use change modeling. In the long run, this map could P. Gasparini, A. Paletto, G. Scrinzi, G. Tabacchi, and V. Tosi.
also facilitate strategic European policy processes. This 2006. Principali aspetti methodologici delínventario nazionale
approach emulates the decision-making process of local forest delle foreste e dei serbatoi forestali dicarbonio Atti del 42°
owners and managers within the framework of physical, legal, Corso di Cultura in Ecologia “Stima del carbonio in foresta:
and ecological constraints. Using these constraints, we metodologie ed aspetti normativi”. Università di Padova,
propose a formal method to calculate the theoretical suitability Dipartimento Territorio e Sistemi Agro-forestali. San Vito di
for different forest management approaches at the square Cadore (BL), 5–8 Giugno 2006:23–34.
kilometer level across Europe. This theoretical approach Didion, M., M.-J. Fortin, and A. Fall. 2007. Forest age
acknowledges the variation between localities in their structure as indicator of boreal forest sustainability under
suitability for different management approaches, and allows alternative management and fire regimes: a landscape level
for scaling to regional trends in forest management. The sensitivity analysis. Ecological Modelling 200:45–58. http://
presented map is a first attempt in that direction, and is awaiting dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.07.011
further availability of European-wide information.
Dirkse, G. M., W. P. Daamen, H. Schoonderwoerd, and J. M.
Paasman. 2003. Meetnet Fuctievervulling bos Het Nederlandse
Responses to this article can be read online at: bos in 2001–2002. Expertisecentrum LNV, Ede.
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/responses.
php/5149

This content downloaded from

168.228.213.74 on Mon, 27 Mar 2023 00:42:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ecology and Society 17(4): 53
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss4/art53/

Duncker, P. S., S. M. Barreiro, G. M. Hengeveld, T. Lind, W. U. Gradin, R. Kanka, L. Lundin, S. Luque, T. Magura, S.
L. Mason, S. Ambrozy, and H. Spiecker. 2012. Classification Matesanz, I. Mészáros, M.-T. Sebastià, W. Schmidt, T.
of forest management approaches: a new conceptual Standovár, B. Tóthmérész, A. Uotila, F. Valldares, K. Vellak,
framework and its applicability to European forestry. Ecology and R. Virtanen. 2010. Biodiversity differences between
and Society 17(4): 51. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05262-170451 managed and unmanaged forests: meta-analysis of species
richness in Europe. Conservation Biology 24(1):101–112.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01399.x
European Environmental Agency (EEA). 2007. Environmentally
compatible bio-energy potential from European forests. http:// Palahí, M., T. T. Pukkala, J. A. A. Bonet, C. C. Colinas, C. C.
biodiversity-chm.eea.europa.eu/information/database/forests/ R. Fischer, and J. J. R. Martínez de Arago´ón. 2009. Effect of
EEA_Bio_Energy_10-01-2007_low.pdf the inclusion of mushroom values on the optimal management
of even-aged pine stands of Catalonia. Forest Science 55:503.
European Environmental Agency (EEA). 2008. European
forests—ecosystem conditions and sustainable use. European
Environment Agency Report nr 3/2008. Copenhagen, Pretzsch, H., R. Grote, B. Reineking, T. Roetzer, and S. Seifert.
Denmark. 2008. Models for forest ecosystem management: a European
perspective. Annals of Botany 101(8):1065–1087.
Farrell, E. P., E. Führer, D. Ryan, F. Andersson, R. Hüttl, and
P. Piussi. 2000. European forest ecosystems: building the Schelhaas, M. J., J. Eggers, M. Lindner, G. J. Nabuurs, A.
future on the legacy of the past. Forest Ecology and Pussinen, R. Päivinen, A. Schuck, P. J. Verkerk, D. C. van der
Management 132:5–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127 Werf, and S. Zudin. 2007. Model documentation for the
(00)00375-3 European Forest Information Scenario model (EFISCEN 3.1).
Wageningen, Alterra, Alterra report 1559, EFI Technical
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
Report 26, Joensuu, Finland.
(FAO). 2007. State of the world’s forests 2007. Food and
Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Schelhaas, M. J., A. Schuck, S. Varis, and S. Zudin. 2003.
Database on forest disturbances in Europe (DFDE)—technical
Gallaun, H., G. Zanchi, G. J. Nabuurs, G. Hengeveld, M.
description. Internal Report 14. European Forest Institute,
Schardt, and P. J. Verkerk. 2010. EU-wide maps of growing
Joensuu, Finland.
stock and above-ground biomass in forests based on remote
sensing and field measurements. Forest Ecology and Schuck, A., J. Van Brusselen, R. Päivinen, T. Häme, P.
Management 260(3): 252–261. Kennedy, and S. Folving. 2002. Compilation of a calibrated
European forest map derived from NOAA-AVHRR data.
Hasenauer, H. (editor). 2006. Sustainable forest management.
Internal Report 13, European Forest Institute, Joensuu,
Growth models for Europe. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany.
Finland.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-31304-4
Schulp, C. J. E., G. J. Nabuurs, and P. H. Verburg. 2008. Future
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007.
carbon sequestration in Europe—effects of land use change.
Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the fourth
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 127(2008):251–
assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.04.010
Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Sterba, H., M. Golser, M. Moser, and K. Schadauer. 2000. A
Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe
timber harvesting model for Austria. Computers and
(MCPFE). 2007. State of Europe’s forests 2007. The MCPFE
Electronics in Agriculture 28:133–149. http://dx.doi.
report on sustainable forest management in Europe. MCPFE/
org/10.1016/S0168-1699(00)00121-6
UNECE/FAO, Warsaw, Poland.
Tröltzsch, K., J. Van Brusselen, and A. Schuck. 2009. Spatial
Nabuurs, G.J. 2001. European forests in the 21st century: long-
occurrence of major tree species groups in Europe derived
term impacts of nature oriented forest management assessed
from multiple data sources. Forest Ecology and Management
with a large scale scenario model. Research Notes 121.
257(1):294–302. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.09.012
Dissertation. University of Joensuu, Finland. ALTERRA z
Scientific Contributions 2. Wageningen, The Netherlands. Tupek, B., G. Zanchi, P. J. Verkerk, G. Churkina, N. Viovy,
J. K. Hughes, and M. Lindner. 2010. A comparison of
Nabuurs, G. J., R. Päivinen, A. Pussinen, and M. J. Schelhaas.
alternative modelling approaches to evaluate the European
2003. European forests until 2050—a projection of forests and
forest carbon fluxes. Forest Ecology and Management 260
forest management in thirty countries. European Forest
(3):241–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.01.045
Institute Research Report 15. Brill. Leiden, Boston, Kölln.
UN-ECE. 2005. European forest sector outlook study, main
Paillet, Y., L. Bergès, J. Hjältén, P. Ódor, C. Avon, M.
report. ECE/TIM/SP/20. United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland.
Bernhardt-Römermann, R.-J. Bijlsma, L. de Bruyn, M. Fuhr,

This content downloaded from

168.228.213.74 on Mon, 27 Mar 2023 00:42:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ecology and Society 17(4): 53
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss4/art53/

Verburg, P. H., B. Eickhout, and H. van Meijl. 2008. A multi-

scale, multi-model approach for analyzing the future dynamics
of European land use. Annals of Regional Science 42(1):57–
77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00168-007-0136-4
Verkerk, H., and M. Lindner. 2008. Report describing the link
between external drivers, forest management practices and the
main forest externalities. EXIOPOL deliverable report II.4b-1.
EXIOPOL Report Series, http://www.feem-project.net/
exiopol/userfiles/file/Cluster%20II_M18_PU/EXIOPOL_DII.4.
b-1_FINAL.pdf. FEEM, Milano, Italy.
Verkerk, H., M. Lindner, P. Anttila, and A. Asikainen. 2010.
The realistic supply of biomass from forests. Pages 56–79
inEUwood—final report. Hamburg, Germany.
Zanchi, G., N. Pena, and N. Bird. 2010. The upfront carbon
debt of bioenergy. Joannaeum research, Graz.

This content downloaded from

168.228.213.74 on Mon, 27 Mar 2023 00:42:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms