Non-market forest ecosystem services and decision support in Nordic countries

Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 99-110

  Filyushkina, Anna ^a,b   Strange, Niels ^a   Löf, Magnus ^b   Ezebilo, Eugene E ^b   Boman, Mattias ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^c UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES   (Trinidad and Tobago)

Author keywords

decision support; Ecosystem services; forest management; review; trade offs; valuation

Indexed keywords

BIOPHYSICS; COMMERCE; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; ECOLOGY; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; ECONOMICS; FORESTRY; INTEGRATION; RESOURCE VALUATION; REVIEWS;

COMPOSITE INDICATORS; DECISION SUPPORT MODELS; DECISION SUPPORTS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENTS; SOCIO-ECONOMIC MODEL; TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL; TRADE OFF;

ECOSYSTEMS;

EID: 84947047494     PISSN: 02827581     EISSN: 16511891     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02827581.2015.1079643     Document Type: Review

References (117)

1. J.Ananda, G.Herath. 2009. A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning. Ecol Econ. 68:2535–2548. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.010
2. P.Asante, G.W.Armstrong, W.L.Adamowicz. 2011. Carbon sequestration and the optimal forest harvest decision: a dynamic programming approach considering biomass and dead organic matter. J For Econ. 17:3–17.
3. T.H.Beery. 2013. Nordic in nature: friluftsliv and environmental connectedness. Environ Educ Res. 19:94–117. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2012.688799
4. E.M.Bennett, G.D.Peterson, L.J.Gordon. 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett. 12:1394–1404. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x
5. A.Berg, L.Östlund, J.Moen, J.Olofsson. 2008. A century of logging and forestry in a reindeer herding area in northern Sweden. For Ecol Manage. 256:1009–1020. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.06.003
6. J.G.Borges, E.-M.Nordström, J.Garcia-Gonzalo, T.Hujala, A.Trasobares. 2014. Computer-based tools for supporting forest management. The experience and the expertise world-wide [Internet]. [cited 2015 Mar 13]. Available from: http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/11417/7/borges_jg_etal_140825.pdf
7. G.Bostedt, L.Mattsson. 1995. The value of forests for tourism in Sweden. Ann Tour Res. 22:671–680. doi: 10.1016/0160-7383(95)00007-S
8. C.Bouget, A.Lassauce, M.Jonsell. 2012. Effects of fuelwood harvesting on biodiversity — a review focused on the situation in Europe. Can J For Res. 42:1421–1432. doi: 10.1139/x2012-078
9. A.Bujosa Bestard, A.Riera Font. 2010. Estimating the aggregate value of forest recreation in a regional context. J For Econ. 16:205–216.
10. F.Burstein, C.W.Holsapple, editors. 2008. Handbook on decision support systems 1. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
11. S.R.Carpenter, H.A.Mooney, J.Agard, D.Capistrano, R.S.Defries, S.Díaz, T.Dietz, A.K.Duraiappah, A.Oteng-Yeboah, H.M.Pereira, 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 106:1305–1312. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0808772106
12. K.M.A.Chan, M.R.Shaw, D.R.Cameron, E.C.Underwood, G.C.Daily. 2006. Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol. 4:2138–2152.
13. M.Christensen, J.Emborg. 1996. Biodiversity in natural versus managed forest in Denmark. For Ecol Manage. 85:47–51. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(96)03749-8
14. D.J.Cooper. 1969. Looking forward timber forests versus amenity forests. Forestry Supp. 119–121.
15. R.M.Cowling, B.Egoh, A.T.Knight, P.J.O'Farrell, B.Reyers, M.Rouget, D.J.Roux, A.Welz, A.Wilhelm-Rechman. 2008. An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 105:9483–9488. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0706559105
16. G.C.Daily, editor. 1997. Nature's services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
17. G.C.Daily, S.Polasky, J.Goldstein, P.M.Kareiva, H.MooneyHa, L.Pejchar, T.H.Ricketts, J.Salzman, R.Shallenberger. 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ. 7:21–28. doi: 10.1890/080025
18. R.S.De Groot, R.Alkemade, L.Braat, L.Hein, L.Willemen. 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex. 7:260–272. doi: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006
19. L.Diaz-Balteiro, C.Romero. 2008. Making forestry decisions with multiple criteria: a review and an assessment. For Ecol Manage. 255:3222–3241. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.01.038
20. [DIVERSITAS] Integrating Biodiversity Science for Human Well-being. 2015. [cited 2015 Feb 24]. Available from: http://www.diversitas-international.org/
21. P.S.Duncker, K.Raulund-Rasmussen, P.Gundersen, K.Katzensteiner, J.De Jong, H.Peter. 2012. How forest management affects ecosystem services, including timber production and economic return: synergies and trade-offs. Ecol Soc. 17:50.
22. D.M.Edwards, 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. Ecol Soc. 17:27.
23. J.Englin. 1990. Backcountry hiking and optimal timber rotation. J Environ Manage. 31:97–105. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4797(05)80001-5
24. [ESP] Ecosystem Services Partnership. 2015. [cited 2015 Mar 13]. Available from: http://www.es-partnership.org/esp
25. E.E.Ezebilo, M.Boman, L.Mattsson, A.Lindhagen, W.Mbongo. 2015. Preferences and willingness to pay for close to home nature for outdoor recreation in Sweden. J Environ Plan Manag. 58:283–296. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2013.854196
26. A.Felton, M.Lindbladh, J.Brunet, Ö.Fritz. 2010. Replacing coniferous monocultures with mixed-species production stands: an assessment of the potential benefits for forest biodiversity in northern Europe. For Ecol Manage. 260:939–947. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2010.06.011
27. B.Fisher, R.K.Turner, P.Morling. 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ. 68:643–653. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014
28. J.A.Foley, R.Defries, G.P.Asner, C.Barford, G.Bonan, S.R.Carpenter, F.S.Chapin, M.T.Coe, G.C.Daily, H.K.Gibbs, et al. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science. 309:570–574.
29. K.O.Fossestøl, A.Sverdrup-Thygeson. 2009. Saproxylic beetles in high stumps and residual downed wood on clear-cuts and in forest edges. Scand J For Res. 24:403–416. doi: 10.1080/02827580903143871
30. E.Framstad, H.de Wit, R.Mäkipää, M.Larjavaara, L.Vesterdal, E.Karltun. 2013. Biodiversity, carbon storage and dynamics of old northern forests [Internet]. [cited 2013 Oct 25]. Available from: http://www.norden.org/en/publications/publikationer/2013-507
31. P.Fredman, M.Boman, L.Lundmark, L.Mattsson. 2012. Research note: economic values in the Swedish nature-based recreation sector – a synthesis. Tour Econ. 18:903–910. doi: 10.5367/te.2012.0149
32. C.Fries, G.Lindén, E.Nillius. 1998. The stream model for ecological landscape planning in non-industrial private forestry. Scand J For Res. 13:370–378. doi: 10.1080/02827589809382996
33. Gamfeldt L, Snäll T, Bagchi R, Jonsson M, Gustafsson L, Kjellander P, Ruiz-Jaen MC, Fröberg M, Stendahl J, Philipson CD, et al. 2013. Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are found in forests with more tree species. Nat Commun. 4:1340.
34. E.Geijer, G.Bostedt, R.Brännlund. 2011. Damned if you do, damned if you do not-reduced climate impact vs. sustainable forests in Sweden. Resour Energy Econ. 33:94–106. doi: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2010.01.004
35. J.H.Goldstein, G.Caldarone, T.K.Duarte, D.Ennaanay, N.Hannahs, G.Mendoza, S.Polasky, S.Wolny, G.C.Daily. 2012. Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 109:7565–7570. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1201040109
36. M.M.Gossner, T.Lachat, J.Brunet, G.Isacsson, C.Bouget, H.Brustel, R.Brandl, W.W.Weisser, J.Müller. 2013. Current near-to-nature forest management effects on functional trait composition of saproxylic beetles in beech forests. Conserv Biol. 27:605–614. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12023
37. D.Gough, S.Oliver, J.Thomas. 2012. An introduction to systematic reviews. London: SAGE Publications.
38. D.Gough, J.Thomas, S.Oliver. 2012. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Rev. 1:28. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-28
39. V.S.Gundersen, L.H.Frivold. 2008. Public preferences for forest structures: a review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban For Urban Green. 7:241–258. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2008.05.001
40. L.Gustafsson, J.Kouki, A.Sverdrup-Thygeson. 2010. Tree retention as a conservation measure in clear-cut forests of northern Europe: a review of ecological consequences. Scand J For Res. 25:295–308. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2010.497495
41. H.Hakkarainen, E.Korpimaki, V.Koivunen, S.Kurki. 1997. Boreal owl responses to forest management: a review. J Raptor Res. 51:125–128.
42. P.A.Harrison, P.M.Berry, G.Simpson, J.R.Haslett, M.Blicharska, M.Bucur, R.Dunford, B.Egoh, M.Garcia-Llorente, N.Geamănă, 2014. Linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: a systematic review. Ecosyst Serv. 9:191–203. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.006
43. R.Hartman. 1976. The harvesting decision when a standing forest has value. Econ Inq. 14:52–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7295.1976.tb00377.x
44. P.Holgén, G.Bostedt. 2004. Should planting of broad-leaved species be encouraged at the expense of spruce? An economic approach to a current southern Swedish forestry issue. J For Econ. 10:123–134.
45. P.Holgén, L.Mattsson, C.-Z.Li. 2000. Recreation values of boreal forest stand types and landscapes resulting from different silvicultural systems: An economic analysis. J Environ Manage. 60:173–180. doi: 10.1006/jema.2000.0377
46. D.Hooper, F.Chapin, J.Ewel. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr. 75:3–35. doi: 10.1890/04-0922
47. L.Hörnsten, P.Fredman. 2000. On the distance to recreational forests in Sweden. Landsc Urban Plan. 51:1–10. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00097-9
48. M.Hytönen. 1995. Multiple-use forestry in the Nordic countries. Jyväskylä: Metla, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki Research Centre.
49. ICSU, UNESCO, UNU. 2008. Ecosystem change and human well-being. Research and monitoring priorities based on the findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Paris: International Council for Science.
50. [IPBES] Intergovernmental Plantform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. 2015. [cited 2014 Jun 13]. Available from: http://www.ipbes.net/
51. F.S.Jensen, J.P.Skovsgaard. 2009. Precommercial thinning of pedunculate oak: recreational preferences of the population of Denmark for different thinning practices in young stands. Scand J For Res. 24:28–36. doi: 10.1080/02827580802592475
52. P.Johansson, H.Rydin, G.Thor. 2007. Tree age relationships with epiphytic lichen diversity and lichen life history traits on ash in southern Sweden. Ecoscience. 14:81–91. doi: 10.2980/1195-6860(2007)14[81:TARWEL]2.0.CO;2
53. A.Juutinen, E.Mäntymaa, M.Mönkkönen, J.Salmi. 2004. A cost-efficient approach to selecting forest stands for conserving species: a case study from northern Fennoscandia. For Sci. 50:527–539.
54. J.Kangas, R.Store, A.Kangas. 2005. Socioecological landscape planning approach and multicriteria acceptability analysis in multiple-purpose forest management. For Policy Econ. 7:603–614. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2003.12.001
55. K.Kangas, M.Luoto, A.Ihantola, E.Tomppo, P.Siikamäki. 2010. Recreation-induced changes in boreal bird communities in protected areas. Ecol Appl. 20:1775–1786. doi: 10.1890/09-0399.1
56. R.L.Keeney, R.S.Gregory. 2005. Selecting attributes to measure the achievement of objectives. Oper Res. 53:1–11. doi: 10.1287/opre.1040.0158
57. S.Kellomäki, R.Savolainen. 1984. The scenic value of the forest landscape as assessed in the field and the laboratory. Landsc Plan. 11:97–107. doi: 10.1016/0304-3924(84)90033-9
58. M.Kettunen, P.Vihervaara. 2013. Socio-economic importance of ecosystem services in the Nordic countries–Synthesis in the context of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) [Internet]. [cited 2013 Oct 8]. Available from: http://www.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/TEEB_Nordic_-_technical_summary.pdf
59. Kinell G, Soderqvist T, Hasselstrom L. 2010. Default monetary values for environmental change [Internet]. [cited 2014 Jun 13]. Available from: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/978-91-620-6323-8.pdf?pid=3630
60. E.Koskela, M.Ollikainen, T.Pukkala. 2007. Biodiversity conservation in commercial boreal forestry: the optimal rotation age and retention tree volume. For Sci. 53:443–452.
61. T.Kuuluvainen, O.Tahvonen, T.Aakala. 2012. Even-aged and uneven-aged forest management in boreal Fennoscandia: a review. Ambio. 41:720–737. doi: 10.1007/s13280-012-0289-y
62. J.Kuusipalo, J.Kangas. 1994. Managing biodiversity in a forestry environment. Conserv Biol. 8:450–460. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08020450.x
63. Y.Laurans, L.Mermet. 2014. Ecosystem services economic valuation, decision-support system or advocacy? Ecosyst Serv. 7:98–105. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.10.002
64. Y.Laurans, A.Rankovic, R.Billé, R.Pirard, L.Mermet. 2013. Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: questioning a literature blindspot. J Environ Manage. 119:208–219. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.008
65. Lindgren. 1995. Forest aesthetics. In: M.Hytönen, editor. Multiple-use forestry in the Nordic countries. Jyväskylä: Metla, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki Research Centre; p. 279–293.
66. H.Lindhjem. 2007. 20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: a meta-analysis. J For Econ. 12:1–36.
67. M.Löf, M.Boman, J.Brunet, M.Hannerz. 2010. Broadleaved forest management for multiple goals in southern Sweden–an overview including future research prospects. Ecol Bull. 53:235–245.
68. G.M.Mace, K.Norris, A.H.Fitter. 2012. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol Evol. 27:19–26. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006
69. J.Maes, M.Paracchini, G.Zulian. 2011. A European assessment of the provision of ecosystem services: towards an atlas of ecosystem services [Internet]. [cited 2014 Jul 4]. Available from: http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/111111111/16103
70. P.Martikainen, J.Siitonen, P.Punttila. 2000. Species richness of Coleoptera in mature managed and old-growth boreal forests in southern Finland. Biol Conserv. 94:199–209. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00175-5
71. B.Martín-López, E.Gómez-Baggethun, M.García-Llorente, C.Montes. 2014. Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecol Indic. 37:220–228. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.003
72. J.Matala, L.Kärkkäinen, K.Härkönen, S.Kellomäki, T.Nuutinen. 2009. Carbon sequestration in the growing stock of trees in Finland under different cutting and climate scenarios. Eur J For Res. 128:493–504. doi: 10.1007/s10342-009-0299-x
73. L.Mattsson, C.Li. 1993. The non-timber value of northern Swedish forests. An economic analysis. Scand J For Res. 8:426–434. doi: 10.1080/02827589309382789
74. L.Mattsson, C.Li. 1994. How do different forest management practices affect the non-timber value of forests?—an economic analysis. J Environ Manage. 41:79–88. doi: 10.1006/jema.1994.1035
75. L.Mazza, M.Bröckl, S.Ahvenharju, P.ten Brink, T.Pursula. 2013. Natural capital in a Nordic context. Status and challenges in the decade of biodiversity. A study prepared by Gaia consulting Oy and the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) for the Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen [Internet]. [cited 2014 Apr 24]. Available from: http://www.norden.org/en/publications/publikationer/2013-526
76. G.McComb, V.Lantz, K.Nash, R.Rittmaster. 2006. International valuation databases: overview, methods and operational issues. Ecol Econ. 60:461–472. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.009
77. [MEA] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. [cited 2013 Sep 24]. Available from: http://www.unep.org/maweb/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf
78. Y.Melin, H.Petersson, G.Egnell. 2010. Assessing carbon balance trade-offs between bioenergy and carbon sequestration of stumps at varying time scales and harvest intensities. For Ecol Manage. 260:536–542. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2010.05.009
79. G.A.Mendoza, H.Martins. 2006. Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: a critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. For Ecol Manage. 230:1–22. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.03.023
80. K.Mielikäinen, J.Hynynen. 2003. Silvicultural management in maintaining biodiversity and resistance of forests in Europe–boreal zone: case Finland. J Environ Manage. 67:47–54. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00187-1
81. J.Müller, R.Bütler. 2010. A review of habitat thresholds for dead wood: a baseline for management recommendations in European forests. Eur J For Res. 129:981–992. doi: 10.1007/s10342-010-0400-5
82. J.Mustajoki, H.Saarikoski, M.Marttunen, A.Ahtikoski, V.Hallikainen, T.Helle, M.Hyppönen, M.Jokinen, A.Naskali, S.Tuulentie, 2011. Use of decision analysis interviews to support the sustainable use of the forests in Finnish Upper Lapland. J Environ Manage. 92:1550–1563. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.01.007
83. E.Næsset, T.Gobakken, H.Hoen. 1997. Economic analysis of timber management practices promoting preservation of biological diversity. Scand J For Res. 12:264–272. doi: 10.1080/02827589709355409
84. E.Nelson, G.Mendoza, J.Regetz, S.Polasky, H.Tallis, D.CameronDr, K.M.Chan, G.C.Daily, J.Goldstein, P.M.Kareiva, 2009. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ. 7:4–11. doi: 10.1890/080023
85. A.B.Nielsen, S.B.Olsen, T.Lundhede. 2007. An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landsc Urban Plan. 80:63–71. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.06.003
86. J.Niemelä. 1997. Invertebrates and boreal forest management. Conserv Biol. 11:601–610. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.06008.x
87. K.N.Ninan, M.Inoue. 2013. Valuing forest ecosystem services: what we know and what we don't. Ecol Econ. 93:137–149. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.05.005
88. E.Nordström, L.O.Eriksson, K.Öhman. 2011. Multiple criteria decision analysis with consideration to place-specific values in participatory forest planning. Silva Fennica. 45:253–265. doi: 10.14214/sf.116
89. K.Öhman, L.Edenius, G.Mikusiński. 2011. Optimizing spatial habitat suitability and timber revenue in long-term forest planning. Can J For Res. 41:543–551. doi: 10.1139/X10-232
90. E.Ostrom. 2007. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 104:15181–15187. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702288104
91. Y.Paillet, L.Bergès, J.Hjältén, P.Odor, C.Avon, M.Bernhardt-Römermann, R.-J.Bijlsma, L.De Bruyn, M.Fuhr, U.Grandin, 2010. Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged forests: meta-analysis of species richness in Europe. Conserv Biol. 24:101–112. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01399.x
92. D.Pearce, T.Seccombe-Hett. 2000. Economic valuation and environmental decision-making in Europe. Environ Sci Technol. 34:1419–1425. doi: 10.1021/es9906711
93. R.Penttilä, J.Siitonen, M.Kuusinen. 2004. Polypore diversity in managed and old-growth boreal Picea abies forests in southern Finland. Biol Conserv. 117:271–283. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2003.12.007
94. M.Petticrew, H.Roberts. 2012. Systematic reviews in the social sciences. A practical guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
95. S.Polasky, C.Costello, A.Solow. 2005. Chapter 29 the economics of biodiversity. Handb Environ Econ. 3:1517–1560. doi: 10.1016/S1574-0099(05)03029-9
96. A.S.Pullin, T.M.Knight. 2009. Doing more good than harm – building an evidence-base for conservation and environmental management. Biol Conserv. 142:931–934. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.01.010
97. A.S.Pullin, G.B.Stewart. 2006. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conserv Biol. 20:1647–1656. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00485.x
98. C.Raudsepp-Hearne, G.D.Peterson, E.M.Bennett. 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 107:5242–5247. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0907284107
99. P.Reunanen, M.Mönkkönen, A.Nikula. 2000. Managing boreal forest landscapes for flying squirrels. Conserv Biol. 14:218–226. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98387.x
100. R.G.Ribe. 1989. The aesthetics of forestry: what has empirical preference research taught us? Environ Manage. 13:55–74. doi: 10.1007/BF01867587
101. M.Ruckelshaus, E.McKenzie, H.Tallis, A.Guerry, G.Daily, P.Kareiva, S.Polasky, T.Ricketts, N.Bhagabati, S.A.Wood, J.Bernhardt. 2015. Notes from the field: lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecol Econ. 115:11–21. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.009
102. M.A.Rudd, K.F.Beazley, S.J.Cooke, E.Fleishman, D.E.Lane, M.B.Mascia, R.Roth, G.Tabor, J.A.Bakker, T.Bellefontaine, 2011. Generation of priority research questions to inform conservation policy and management at a national level. Conserv Biol. 25:476–484. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01625.x
103. R.Scolozzi, E.Morri, R.Santolini. 2012. Delphi-based change assessment in ecosystem service values to support strategic spatial planning in Italian landscapes. Ecol Indic. 21:134–144. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.07.019
104. R.C.Stern. 1985. Treatment of woodland for non-timber benefits in South East England. Forestry. 58:205–211. doi: 10.1093/forestry/58.2.205
105. A.Stewart, D.Edwards, A.Lawrence. 2013. Improving the science–policy–practice interface: decision support system uptake and use in the forestry sector in Great Britain. Scand J For Res. 29:144–153. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2013.849358
106. [TEEB] The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. 2015. [cited 2014 Apr 24]. Available from: http://www.teebweb.org/
107. P.Ten Brink, A.Berghofer, C.Schroter-Schlaack, P.Sukhdev, A.Vakrou. 2011. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for national and international policy makers - summary: responding to the value of nature [Internet]. [cited 2013 Nov 18]. Available from: http://www.teebweb.org/publication/teeb-for-policy-makers-summary-responding-to-the-value-of-nature/
108. M.Termansen, M.Zandersen, C.J.McClean. 2008. Spatial substitution patterns in forest recreation. Reg Sci Urban Econ. 38:81–97. doi: 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2008.01.006
109. Timonen J, Gustafsson L, Kotiaho JS, Mönkkönen M. 2011. Hotspots in cold climate: Conservation value of woodland key habitats in boreal forests. Biol Conserv. 144:2061–2067.
110. A.Törn, A.Tolvanen, Y.Norokorpi, R.Tervo, P.Siikamäki. 2009. Comparing the impacts of hiking, skiing and horse riding on trail and vegetation in different types of forest. J Environ Manage. 90:1427–1434. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.08.014
111. K.G.Turner, M.V.Odgaard, P.K.Bøcher, T.Dalgaard, J.C.Svenning. 2014. Bundling ecosystem services in Denmark: trade-offs and synergies in a cultural landscape. Landsc Urban Plan. 125:89–104. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.02.007
112. B.Uhde, W.Andreas Hahn, V.C.Griess, T.Knoke. 2015. Hybrid MCDA methods to integrate multiple ecosystem services in forest management planning: a critical review. Environ Manage. 56:373–388. doi: 10.1007/s00267-015-0503-3
113. P.Vihervaara, M.Rönkä, M.Walls. 2010. Trends in ecosystem service research: early steps and current drivers. Ambio. 39:314–324. doi: 10.1007/s13280-010-0048-x
114. P.Wikström, L.Edenius, B.Elfving. 2011. The Heureka forestry decision support system: an overview. Math Computational For Nat Sci. 3:87–94.
115. P.Wikström, L.Eriksson. 2000. Solving the stand management problem under biodiversity-related considerations. For Ecol Manage. 126:361–376. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00107-3
116. K.G.Willis, J.F.Benson. 1989. Recreational values of forests. Forestry. 62:93–110. doi: 10.1093/forestry/62.2.93-a
117. M.Zandersen, R.S.J.Tol. 2009. A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe. J For Econ. 15:109–130.