Fine-scale conservation planning outside of reserves: Cost-effective selection of retention patches at final harvest

Ecological Economics

Volumn 70, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 771-777

  Perhans, Karin ^a   Glöde, Dan ^b   Gilbertsson, Jessica ^c   Persson, Anette ^d   Gustafsson, Lena ^a  

^a SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^b Uppsala Science Park   (Sweden)

^c WSP Environmental   (Sweden)

^d Swedish Forest Agency   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Biodiversity; Boreal forest; Economics; Green tree retention; Policy; Variable retention harvesting

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; BOREAL FOREST; CONSERVATION PLANNING; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HABITAT CONSERVATION; HARVESTING; NATURE RESERVE; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION; SWAMP FOREST;

SWEDEN;

BRYOPHYTA; BRYOPHYTES;

EID: 79451469696     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.11.014     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Ando A., Camm J., Polasky S., Solow A. Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science 1998, 279:2126-2128.
2. Babcock B.A., Lakshminarayan P.G., Wu J., Zilberman D. Targeting tools for the purchase of environmental amenities. Land Economics 1997, 73:325-339.
3. Balmford A., Gaston K.J. Why biodiversity surveys are good value. Nature 1999, 398:204-205.
4. Carlén O., Mattsson L., Atlegrim O., Sjöberg K. Cost-efficiency in pursuing environmental objectives in forestry. Journal of Environmental Management 1999, 55:111-125.
5. Church R.L., Stoms D.M., Davis F.W. Reserve selection as a maximal covering location problem. Biological Conservation 1996, 76:105-112.
6. Debinski D.M. Forest fragmentation and matrix effects: the matrix does matter. Journal of Biogeography 2006, 33:1791-1792.
7. Drakenberg B., Lindhe A. Indirekt naturvärdesbedömning på beståndsnivå - en praktiskt tillämpbar metod. Skog & Forskning 1999, 2:60-66. (in Swedish).
8. Ekvall H. Plan 33 - ett verktyg för ekonomisk analys av skogsbruksföretagets virkesproduktion 2005, Department of Forest Economics, SLU, Umeå, (in Swedish).
9. Esseen P.-A., Ehnström B., Ericson L., Sjöberg K. Boreal forests. Ecological Bulletins 1997, 46:16-47.
10. Ferraro P.J. Assigning priority to environmental policy interventions in a heterogeneous world. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2003, 22:27-43.
11. Franklin J.F., Berg D.R., Thornburgh D.A., Tappeiner J.C. Alternative silvicultural approaches to timber harvesting: variable retention systems. Creating a forestry for the 21st century - the science of forest management 1997, 111-139. Island Press, Washington. K.A. Kohm, J.F. Franklin (Eds.).
12. The 2000 Red List of Swedish Species 2000, Swedish Species Information Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala. U. Gärdenfors (Ed.).
13. The 2005 Red List of Swedish Species 2005, Swedish Species Information Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala. U. Gärdenfors (Ed.).
14. Glöde D., Persson A., Norstedt G., Weslien J. Gröna skogsbruksplaner kan bli grönare (Green forestry plans could be greener). Skogforsk Resultat 20/2003 2003, Skogforsk, Uppsala, (in Swedish with English summary).
15. Gotelli N.J., Colwell R.K. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters 2001, 4:379-391.
16. Gustafsson, L., Perhans, K., 2010. Biodiversity conservation in Swedish forests: Ways forward for a 30-year-old multi-scaled approach. AMBIO. 39, 546-554.
17. Gustafsson L., Kouki J., Sverdrup-Thygeson A. Tree retention as a conservation measure in clear-cut forests of northern Europe: a review of ecological consequences. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 2010, 25:295-308.
18. Håkansson M., Larsson M. Skogsbrukets ekonomi 1998, Stockholm, (in Swedish).
19. Hanski I., Ovaskainen O. The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape. Nature 2000, 404:755-758.
20. ILOG CPLEX System 9.1. Gentilly, France 2005.
21. Ingemarsson F., Hedman L., Dahlin B. Nature conservation in forest management plans for small-scale forestry in Sweden. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy 2004, 3:17-34.
22. Johansson A. Skogsbrukets kostnader och intäkter 2000 - ett år med vind och vatten. Resultat nr 7, SkogForsk, Uppsala 2001, (in Swedish).
23. Jonsson M., Ranius T., Ekvall H., Bostedt G., Dahlberg A., Ehnström B., Nordén B., Stokland J.N. Cost-effectiveness of silvicultural measures to increase substrate availability for red-listed wood-living organisms in Norway spruce forests. Biological Conservation 2006, 127:443-462.
24. Juutinen A., Mäntymaa E., Mönkkönen M., Salmi J. A cost-efficient approach to selecting forest stands for conserving species: a case study from Northern Fennoscandia. Forest Science 2004, 50:527-539.
25. Larsson, J., 2001. Evaluation of the forest biodiversity potential method-an indirect biodiversity assessment. MSc thesis no 70. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Conservation Biology, Uppsala.
26. Lindenmayer D.B., Franklin J.F. Conserving Forest Biodiversity: A Comprehensive Multiscaled Approach 2002, Island Press, Washington.
27. Lindenmayer D.B., Margules C.R., Botkin D. Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conservation Biology 2000, 14:941-950.
28. Longton R.E. The role of bryophytes and lichens in terrestrial ecosystems. Bryophytes and Lichens in a Changing Environment 1992, 32-76. Oxford University Press, New York. J.W. Bates, A.M. Farmer (Eds.).
29. McCune B., Grace J.B. Analysis of Ecological Communities 2002, MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, Oregon.
30. McCune B., Mefford M.J. PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data, Version 4 1999, MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, Orgeon.
31. Meir E., Andelman S., Possingham H.P. Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world?. Ecology Letters 2004, 7:615-622.
32. Messer K.D. The conservation benefits of cost-effective land acquisition: a case study in Maryland. Journal of Environmental Management 2006, 79:305-315.
33. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current States and Trends. Chapter 21: Forest and Woodland Systems 2005, Island press, Washington D.C.
34. Signalarter. Indikatorer på skyddsvärd skog. Flora över kryptogamer 2000, Swedish Forest Agency, Jönköping, (in Swedish). J. Nitare (Ed.).
35. Perhans K., Kindstrand C., Boman M., Djupström L.B., Gustafsson L., Mattsson L., Schroeder L.M., Weslien J., Wikberg S. Conservation goals and the relative importance of costs and benefits in reserve selection. Conservation Biology 2008, 22:1331-1339.
36. Perhans K., Appelgren L., Jonsson F., Nordin U., Söderström B., Gustafsson L. Retention patches as potential refugia for bryophytes and lichens in managed forest landscapes. Biological Conservation 2009, 142:1125-1133.
37. Persson A., Glöde D., Larsson J. Ekonomisk värdering av hänsynsytor - ett delprojekt inom familjeskogsbrukets profilfrågor. Report, The Forestry Research Institute of Sweden 2002, (in Swedish).
38. Polasky S., Camm J.D., Garber-Yonts B. Selecting biological reserves cost-effectively: an application to terrestrial vertebrate conservation in Oregon. Land Economics 2001, 77:68-78.
39. Ranius T., Ekvall H., Jonsson M., Bostedt G. Cost-efficiency of measures to increase the amount of coarse woody debris in managed Norway spruce forests. Forest Ecology and Management 2005, 206:119-133.
40. Ricketts T.H. The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. The American Naturalist 2001, 158:87-99.
41. Rosenvald R., Lõhmus A. For what, when, and where is green-tree retention better than clear-cutting? A review of the biodiversity aspects. Forest Ecology and Management 2008, 255:1-15.
42. Rosenzweig M. Species Diversity in Space and Time 1995, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
43. Simberloff D. Management of boreal forest biodiversity - a view from the outside. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, Suppl 2001, 3:105-118.
44. SKSFS SKSFS 1993:2. Skogsstyrelsens föreskrifter och allmänna råd till skogsvårdslagen (SFS 1979:429) 1993, (in Swedish).
45. Smith A.B. Caution with curves: caveats for using the species-area relationship in conservation. Biological Conservation 2010, 143:555-564.
46. Snyder S.A., Tyrrell L.E., Haight R.G. An optimization approach to selecting research natural areas in national forests. Forest Science 1999, 45:458-469.
47. Spjotvoll E., Stoline M.R. An extension of the T-method of multiple comparison to include the cases with unequal sample sizes. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1973, 68:976-978.
48. StatSoft Statistica, version 7.1. Tulsa, Oklahoma 2005.
49. Strange N., Rahbek C., Jepsen J.K., Lund M. Using farmland prices to evaluate cost-efficiency of national versus regional reserve selection in Denmark. Biological Conservation 2006, 128:455-466.
50. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Swedish Forest Agency Nationell strategi för formellt skydd av skog. Stockholm and Jönköping 2005, (in Swedish).
51. Swedish Forest Agency Gallringsmallar, norra Sverige. Jönköping 1984, (in Swedish).
52. Swedish Forest Agency Statistical yearbook of forestry. Jönköping 2008.
53. Swedish Forest Stewardship Council Svensk FSC-standard för certifiering av skogsbruk 2009, The Swedish FSC-council, (in Swedish).
54. Timonen J., Siitonen J., Gustafsson L., Kotiaho J.S., Stokland J.N., Sverdrup-Thygeson A., Mönkkönen M. Woodland key habitats in northern Europe: concepts, inventory and protection. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 2010, 25:309-324.
55. Uliczka H., Angelstam P., Jansson G., Bro A. Non-industrial private forest owners' knowledge of and attitudes towards nature conservation. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 2004, 19:274-288.
56. Wikberg S., Perhans K., Kindstrand C., Djupström L.B., Boman M., Mattsson L., Schroeder L.M., Weslien J., Gustafsson L. Cost-effectiveness of implemented conservation strategies in boreal forests: the area selection process. Biological Conservation 2009, 142:614-624.