A Multicriteria Risk Analysis to Evaluate Impacts of Forest Management Alternatives on Forest Health in Europe

Jactel, H., et al., 2012. Ecology and Society

Original research (primary data)
View External Publication Link

Abstract

Due to climate change, forests are likely to face new hazards, which may require adaptation of our existing silvicultural practices. However, it is difficult to imagine a forest management approach that can simultaneously minimize all risks of damage. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been developed to help decision makers choose between actions that require reaching a compromise among criteria of different weights. We adapted this method and produced a multicriteria risk analysis (MCRA) to compare the risk of damage associated with various forest management systems with a range of management intensity. The objective was to evaluate the effect of four forest management alternatives (FMAs) (i.e., close to nature, extensive management with combined objectives, intensive even-aged plantations, and short-rotation forestry for biomass production) on biotic and abiotic risks of damage in eight regional case studies combining three forest biomes (Boreal, Continental, Atlantic) and five tree species (Eucalyptus globulus, Pinus pinaster, Pinus sylvestris, Picea sitchensis, and Picea abies) relevant to wood production in Europe. Specific forest susceptibility to a series of abiotic (wind, fire, and snow) and biotic (insect pests, pathogenic fungi, and mammal herbivores) hazards were defined by expert panels and subsequently weighted by corresponding likelihood. The PROMETHEE ranking method was applied to rank the FMAs from the most to the least at risk. Overall, risk was lower in short-rotation forests designed to produce wood biomass, because of the reduced stand susceptibility to the most damaging hazards. At the opposite end of the management intensity gradient, close-to-nature systems also had low overall risk, due to lower stand value exposed to damage. Intensive even-aged forestry appeared to be subject to the greatest risk, irrespective of tree species and bioclimatic zone. These results seem to be robust as no significant differences in relative ranking of the four FMAs were detected between the combinations of forest biomes and tree species.

Case studies

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-28
  • Intervention type: Created habitats
  • Intervention description:

    Wood biomass objective: Produce the greatest amount of wood biomass Principles: Plantation, monocultures, even-aged structure, fast-growing species, site preparation, cultivation, fertilization, short rotation, clearcut harvesting, removal of residues

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Boreal forest biome, Central region

  • Country: Sweden
  • Habitat/Biome type: Created forest |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-27
  • Intervention type: Created habitats
  • Intervention description:

    Wood biomass objective: Produce the greatest amount of wood biomass Principles: Plantation, monocultures, even-aged structure, fast-growing species, site preparation, cultivation, fertilization, short rotation, clearcut harvesting, removal of residues

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Boreal forest biome, Silesia region

  • Country: Poland
  • Habitat/Biome type: Created forest |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-26
  • Intervention type: Created habitats
  • Intervention description:

    Wood biomass objective: Produce the greatest amount of wood biomass Principles: Plantation, monocultures, even-aged structure, fast-growing species, site preparation, cultivation, fertilization, short rotation, clearcut harvesting, removal of residues

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Atlantic forest biome, Scotland

  • Country: United Kingdom
  • Habitat/Biome type: Created forest |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-25
  • Intervention type: Created habitats
  • Intervention description:

    Wood biomass objective: Produce the greatest amount of wood biomass Principles: Plantation, monocultures, even-aged structure, fast-growing species, site preparation, cultivation, fertilization, short rotation, clearcut harvesting, removal of residues

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Atlantic forest biome, Aquitaine region

  • Country: France
  • Habitat/Biome type: Created forest |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-24
  • Intervention type: Created habitats
  • Intervention description:

    Wood biomass objective: Produce the greatest amount of wood biomass Principles: Plantation, monocultures, even-aged structure, fast-growing species, site preparation, cultivation, fertilization, short rotation, clearcut harvesting, removal of residues

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Atlantic forest biome, Central region

  • Country: Portugal
  • Habitat/Biome type: Created forest |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-23
  • Intervention type: Created habitats
  • Intervention description:

    Wood biomass objective: Produce the greatest amount of wood biomass Principles: Plantation, monocultures, even-aged structure, fast-growing species, site preparation, cultivation, fertilization, short rotation, clearcut harvesting, removal of residues

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Continental forest biome, Central region

  • Country: Austria
  • Habitat/Biome type: Created forest |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-22
  • Intervention type: Created habitats
  • Intervention description:

    Wood biomass objective: Produce the greatest amount of wood biomass Principles: Plantation, monocultures, even-aged structure, fast-growing species, site preparation, cultivation, fertilization, short rotation, clearcut harvesting, removal of residues

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Continental forest biome, Baden-Württemberg region

  • Country: Germany
  • Habitat/Biome type: Created forest |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-21
  • Intervention type: Created habitats
  • Intervention description:

    Intensive even- aged objective: Optimize wood production Principles: Plantation, monocultures, even-aged structure, site preparation, cultivation, fertilization, regular thinnings, rotation length adapted to the economic return, clearcut harvesting

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Continental forest biome, Baden-Württemberg region

  • Country: Germany
  • Habitat/Biome type: Created forest |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-20
  • Intervention type: Created habitats
  • Intervention description:

    Intensive even- aged objective: Optimize wood production Principles: Plantation, monocultures, even-aged structure, site preparation, cultivation, fertilization, regular thinnings, rotation length adapted to the economic return, clearcut harvesting

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Boreal forest biome, Central region

  • Country: Sweden
  • Habitat/Biome type: Created forest |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-19
  • Intervention type: Created habitats
  • Intervention description:

    Intensive even- aged objective: Optimize wood production Principles: Plantation, monocultures, even-aged structure, site preparation, cultivation, fertilization, regular thinnings, rotation length adapted to the economic return, clearcut harvesting

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Boreal forest biome, Silesia

  • Country: Poland
  • Habitat/Biome type: Created forest |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-18
  • Intervention type: Created habitats
  • Intervention description:

    Intensive even- aged objective: Optimize wood production Principles: Plantation, monocultures, even-aged structure, site preparation, cultivation, fertilization, regular thinnings, rotation length adapted to the economic return, clearcut harvesting

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Atlantic forest biome, Scotland

  • Country: United Kingdom
  • Habitat/Biome type: Created forest |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-17
  • Intervention type: Created habitats
  • Intervention description:

    Intensive even- aged objective: Optimize wood production Principles: Plantation, monocultures, even-aged structure, site preparation, cultivation, fertilization, regular thinnings, rotation length adapted to the economic return, clearcut harvesting

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Atlantic forest biome, Aquitaine region

  • Country: France
  • Habitat/Biome type: Created forest |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-16
  • Intervention type: Created habitats
  • Intervention description:

    Intensive even- aged objective: Optimize wood production Principles: Plantation, monocultures, even-aged structure, site preparation, cultivation, fertilization, regular thinnings, rotation length adapted to the economic return, clearcut harvesting

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Atlantic forest biome, Central region

  • Country: Portugal
  • Habitat/Biome type: Created forest |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-15
  • Intervention type: Created habitats
  • Intervention description:

    Intensive even- aged objective: Optimize wood production Principles: Plantation, monocultures, even-aged structure, site preparation, cultivation, fertilization, regular thinnings, rotation length adapted to the economic return, clearcut harvesting

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Continental forest biome, Central region

  • Country: Austria
  • Habitat/Biome type: Created forest |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-14
  • Intervention type: Management
  • Intervention description:

    Forest management: combined objectives - Natural regeneration, mixed stands, site cultivation, and thinnings, rotation length adapted to optimal wood productivity, harvesting limited to solid wood

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Continental forest biome, Central region

  • Country: Austria
  • Habitat/Biome type: Temperate forests |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-13
  • Intervention type: Management
  • Intervention description:

    Forest management: "Close to nature" described as Natural regeneration, mixed stands, no site preparation or thinnings, long rotation length, selection harvesting

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Continental forest biome, Central region

  • Country: Austria
  • Habitat/Biome type: Temperate forests |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-12
  • Intervention type: Management
  • Intervention description:

    Forest management: combined objectives - Natural regeneration, mixed stands, site cultivation, and thinnings, rotation length adapted to optimal wood productivity, harvesting limited to solid wood

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Continental forest biome, Baden-Württemberg region

  • Country: Germany
  • Habitat/Biome type: Temperate forests |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-11
  • Intervention type: Management
  • Intervention description:

    Forest management: "Close to nature" described as Natural regeneration, mixed stands, no site preparation or thinnings, long rotation length, selection harvesting

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Continental forest biome, Baden-Württemberg region

  • Country: Germany
  • Habitat/Biome type: Temperate forests |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-10
  • Intervention type: Management
  • Intervention description:

    Forest management: combined objectives - Natural regeneration, mixed stands, site cultivation, and thinnings, rotation length adapted to optimal wood productivity, harvesting limited to solid wood

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Central region

  • Country: Sweden
  • Habitat/Biome type: Boreal forests and taiga |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-9
  • Intervention type: Management
  • Intervention description:

    Forest management: "Close to nature" described as Natural regeneration, mixed stands, no site preparation or thinnings, long rotation length, selection harvesting

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Central region

  • Country: Sweden
  • Habitat/Biome type: Boreal forests and taiga |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-8
  • Intervention type: Management
  • Intervention description:

    Forest management: combined objectives - Natural regeneration, mixed stands, site cultivation, and thinnings, rotation length adapted to optimal wood productivity, harvesting limited to solid wood

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Silesia region

  • Country: Poland
  • Habitat/Biome type: Boreal forests and taiga |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-7
  • Intervention type: Management
  • Intervention description:

    Forest management: "Close to nature" described as Natural regeneration, mixed stands, no site preparation or thinnings, long rotation length, selection harvesting

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Silesia region

  • Country: Poland
  • Habitat/Biome type: Boreal forests and taiga |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-6
  • Intervention type: Management
  • Intervention description:

    Forest management: combined objectives - Natural regeneration, mixed stands, site cultivation, and thinnings, rotation length adapted to optimal wood productivity, harvesting limited to solid wood

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Atlantic forest biome, Scotland

  • Country: United Kingdom
  • Habitat/Biome type: Temperate forests |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-5
  • Intervention type: Management
  • Intervention description:

    Forest management: "Close to nature" described as Natural regeneration, mixed stands, no site preparation or thinnings, long rotation length, selection harvesting

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Atlantic Forest Biome, Scotland

  • Country: United Kingdom
  • Habitat/Biome type: Temperate forests |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-4
  • Intervention type: Management
  • Intervention description:

    Forest management: combined objectives - Natural regeneration, mixed stands, site cultivation, and thinnings, rotation length adapted to optimal wood productivity, harvesting limited to solid wood

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Atlantic forest biome in Aquitaine region

  • Country: Portugal
  • Habitat/Biome type: Temperate forests |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-3
  • Intervention type: Management
  • Intervention description:

    Forest management: "Close to nature" described as Natural regeneration, mixed stands, no site preparation or thinnings, long rotation length, selection harvesting

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Atlantic forest biome in Aquitaine region

  • Country: France
  • Habitat/Biome type: Temperate forests |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-2
  • Intervention type: Management
  • Intervention description:

    Forest management: combined objectives - Natural regeneration, mixed stands, site cultivation, and thinnings, rotation length adapted to optimal wood productivity, harvesting limited to solid wood

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Atlantic forest biome in central Portugal

  • Country: Portugal
  • Habitat/Biome type: Temperate forests |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-095-1
  • Intervention type: Management
  • Intervention description:

    Forest management: "Close to nature" described as Natural regeneration, mixed stands, no site preparation or thinnings, long rotation length, selection harvesting

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Unclear results impact on [extent of] biological damage in terms of damage to wood quality, tree mortality, tree growth
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Atlantic forest biome in Central Portugal

  • Country: Portugal
  • Habitat/Biome type: Temperate forests |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: No comparison to a control or baseline therefore unable to make conclusion of effectiveness, labeled as unclear. Focus of the paper is to compare different management alternatives Economic outcomes considered in part of the analysis because in assessing the level of risk of the forests to hazards, the level of [economic] value of the trees was included [the value of trees varied based on the type of intervention, some assigned higher value to trees than others, therefore the loss of a tree in the former situations had more negative outcomes]
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic: