 |
 | Presentation WP 5
| 366.71KB | 29.10.2009 | Alfons Bieling | Kick-off meeting | |
 |
| Presentation WP 6
| 758.25KB | 29.10.2009 | Alfons Bieling | Kick-off meeting | |
|
| Presentation WP 7
| 477.94KB | 29.10.2009 | Alfons Bieling | Kick-off meeting | |
|
| Presentation_PENSOFT
| 5.07MB | 29.10.2009 | Alfons Bieling | Kick-off meeting | |
|
| Progress and outlook alpine case study 27th April
Presentation on the current state of the alpine case study (3b1) with an outlook on the next steps ahead. Presented at the MOTIVE annual meeting on the 27th of April 2010 in Copenhagen. | 5.63MB | 29.04.2010 | Michael Maroschek | Presentations 27 April | |
|
| Protocol for simulating adaptive management
| 344.17KB | 19.11.2009 | Pavel Stoev | Session 3_WP4, deliverables | |
|
 | Questionnaire presentation
Presentation of questionnaire study and some preliminary results, 100427 | 6.55MB | 30.04.2010 | Kristina Blennow | Presentations 27 April | |
|
| Rammer_Progress Report WP 6
| 1.9MB | 05.12.2011 | Alfons Bieling | Presentations | |
|
 | Report for using and disseminating the knowledge incl OA
Reporting template for using and disseminating the knowledge including open access information for publications | 14.52KB | 23.06.2011 | Ulla Vänttinen | Templates (ppt, poster, deliverables) | |
|
| Report On Abiotic and Biotic Risks: Case Study Areas: Deliverable 4.1
This report first provides an overview and description of the key abiotic and biotic hazards affecting European forests. We then discuss the particular hazards affecting each case study area with a description of the nature of the hazard, the impact of the hazard and how these hazards are managed. Accompanying the discussion is a table of the main hazards affecting the key tree species in each case study area, which outlines the beneficial or detrimental response of the hazard to different site and silvicultural factors, and the economic, environmental and social impacts of the hazard on the forest. In addition, there is a list of any modelling tools that are available to evaluate the risk from each hazard. | 2.68MB | 08.04.2011 | Barry Gardiner | WP4_documents | |
|
| Reporting slides from WP5 in Copenhagen meeting
| 589.5KB | 01.05.2010 | Bo Thorsen | Presentations 26 April | |
|
 | Results_Questionnaires_risks_and_issues_per_case
| 35KB | 07.12.2009 | | WP3_documents | |
|
| Revised DoW
| 2.31MB | 08.04.2011 | Alfons Bieling | Administrative documents | |
|
| Reyer_cascade of uncertainty
| 4.58MB | 12.04.2013 | Alfons Bieling | PDF versions ready for publication | |
|
| Reyer_D2.4
| 1.04MB | 05.12.2011 | Alfons Bieling | Presentations | |
|
| Risk Management in British forestry with special emphasis on Picea sitchensis, Picea abies, Pinus sylvestris and Quercus spp.
In the course of climate change it is getting more and more important to develop strategies to adapt Europe's forests for the prevention of heavy damages. For this, research was intensified during the last years.
The aim of this scientific work is to find the most suitable Forest Management
Alternative (FMA) for British forests, considering Close-to-nature forestry,
Combined-objective forestry, Intensive-even aged forestry and Wood-biomass production. The purpose is to minimize the risk of disturbances, namely wind, fire, deer, Hylobius abietis, Elatobium abietinum, colytidae, Heterobasidion annosum, Armillaria spp. and Dotistroma septosporum, to four of Britain’s main tree species: Picea sitchensis, Picea abies, Pinus sylvestris and Quercus spp. A Multi-Criteria-Risk-Analysis (MCRA) was performed for each country of Great Britain (Wales, Scotland and England). This MCRA is part of a European project, called “MOdels for adapTIVE forest management” (MOTIVE Commission 2009).
Additionally, a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) was conducted to get an idea about the value of different forest types.
To perform the MCRA it was necessary to collect information about the main
disturbances of each considered tree species. This information contains their
occurrence, level of damage, development under a certain management strategy and
how they will react under a changing climate. Collected data were organised in
spreadsheets. The interpretation was done with a decision support tool, called
Decision Lab (Visual Decision Inc. 1999).
For the CBA, only already existing data was used. It was collected from different
sources and standardized with the capitalized value, containing a discount rate 1% and 3.5% for two separate presumptions about how natural resources like forests should be discounted.
For all considered species in each country of Great Britain, the MCRA indicates that Close-to-nature forestry is the best alternative to prevent risks. As the findings of the
MCRA are very general and the interpretation of the results needs to be done carefully, Close-to-nature forestry should not generally be seen as the less risky management system. For example, the wind exposed sites of the Scottish Highlands, especially if spruces are planted, need to be managed with a system that implies shorter rotations to minimize the risk.
Regarding only the monetary values of the costs and benefits, Intensive-even aged forestry is more favourable considering a discount rate of 1%. With 3.5% Close-tonature is on the top rank, mainly because of its low establishment costs. By taking the non-market values like recreation into account, the outcome supports Close-to-nature
forestry for both discount rates.
Keywords: Multi-Criteria-Risk-Analysis, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Risk Management,
Climate Change, Decision Support Tool, Silviculture, Forest Protection | 1.62MB | 18.11.2010 | Barry Gardiner | WP4_documents | |
|
| Role of stakeholder interactions
| 1.31MB | 16.12.2010 | Ulla Vänttinen | Presentations | |
|
| Rupert Seidl Presentation
| 2.61MB | 16.09.2012 | Barry Gardiner | Risk Workshop Bordeaux August 2012 | |
|
| Scenarios and input data
| 89.11KB | 19.11.2009 | Pavel Stoev | Session 4_Interface WPs 5-6 and working groups | |
|
| Schelhaas_European Scale
| 3.33MB | 15.04.2013 | Alfons Bieling | PDF versions ready for publication | |
|
 | schema_wales
| 50.54KB | 16.11.2010 | Pavel Stoev | Case Atlantic Wales | |
|
| Second peridoc report (Word version)
| 10.49MB | 13.02.2012 | Alfons Bieling | Second reporting period | |
|
| Second periodic report (full version)
| 6.5MB | 13.02.2012 | Alfons Bieling | Second reporting period | |
|
| Silv. regimes 1
| 58.33KB | 19.11.2009 | Pavel Stoev | Session 3_WP4, deliverables | |
|
| Silv. regimes 2
| 51.38KB | 19.11.2009 | Pavel Stoev | Session 3_WP4, deliverables | |
See all files in tree view
|
|
Document Library