2013-09-18
Jose Borges
Ljusk Ola Eriksson
Jordi Garcia
Ola Sallnäs
Elmar Schüll
Model for linking scenario information with DSS usage
The driver scenarios designed and formulated in terms of factor manifestations in WP 3.2,
should be interpreted in terms of forest management for implementation in the DSSs. This
means that the main task at this stage consists in estimating how the forest owners
represented in the case study areas will manage their forest stands given the situation
described in the driver scenarios. This estimation or interpretation should be based on the
behavioural models. The design of the behavioural models constitutes a crucial part of the
scenario building process as their implementation will allow estimating the production of
different ES in the specific case study area. The driver scenarios, the behaviour matrices
discussed below and these production levels form the “raw scenarios”.
A common structure for expressing the management-related behaviour of the actors
(behavioural models) will be used in the individual case studies. The base is a matrix expressing
management programs that are expected to be employed by different owner types and the
total area assigned to each combination owner-management program. One such matrix is
linked to each driver scenario (see a generic example of a behaviour matrix in table 1).
Table 1: Generic example of a behavior matrix showing the area assigned to each management alternative for
each owner type.
% of area under management programs inside types
Owner type
Prog1
Prog2
Prog3
% of total
area
Type 1
50
90
10
Type2
30
10
80
Type3
20
Sum
100
100
10
100
….
….
10
90
To set up the “behaviour model” three steps should be followed
1.
2.
3.
Sum
Define and describe the forest owner types
Define and describe the management programs.
“Fill” the matrix for each driver scenario that should be analysed.
100
Step 1: Definition of Forest Owner Types
Generally speaking the owner types are ideally based on the concept of “goals for forestry”.
Examples of types could be “economic man”, ”inertia” or “nature conservation”. Normally the
work in WP 3.1 and WP 3.2 has generated information and knowledge that is essential for
defining the owner types that exist, or can be expected to emerge, in a case study area. It is
therefore reasonable that WP3 researchers provide the different owner groups and their
relative size (in terms of forest area) in the case study area. The relative sizes could differ
between scenarios.
Table 2: Generic table (and example) for description of forest owner types
Name
Type 1
Type 2
…
Description
“economic man”
Nature conservation
Relative size
X%
Y%
Step 2: Definition/Translation of Forest management programs
It is important to identify and define the different management programs that are expected to
be used in the area. This work would be separated in two steps. In the first step WP 3.2
researchers list what different management objectives that could be at hand in the area, while
in the second step WP 2.2 researchers convert these objectives to management
specifications/rules to be used for the runs with the DSS. This means that the information
given by WP3.2 could, and maybe should be, rather qualitative (e.g. Table 3).
Table 3: Generic table (and example) for description of management programs (description provided by WP3.2).
Management objectives
Name
Description
Prog 1
Management seeking increased
carbon sequestration.
Prog 2
Increase share of broadleaves
…
...
Relevant for owner types
1,3
2,3
...
Then wp2.2 researchers will interpret the qualitative definitions of forest management
programs (FMAs) and operationalize them into prescriptions that are used in their DSS in order
to make the projections of forest growth and the subsequent provision of Ecosystem Services
(ES). The example in table 4 gives an indication of how an operationalization might look like. It
is difficult to be very specific at this stage since the operationalization will depend on the
properties of the DSS (yield curves vs. flexible stand projection tools, fixed establishment
programs vs. variable choice of species, intensity, treatments, etc.) in use.
Table 4: Generic table for the translation of the management objectives described by WP3.2 into management
programs that can be used by the DSS.
Management programs
Name
Description
Prog 1
Management seeking increased
carbon sequestration.
Specification
Delayed cutting through:
 In scots pine stands 1 thinning will be
done at 40 years old with a reduction
of Basal area of 30% and a final cutting
when the stand is 75 Year.


Prog 2
Increase share of broadleaves

Pine stands will be thinned when they
are 30 years (30% basal area
reduction) final cutting when they are
50 years. After final cutting Quercus
Robur will be planted.

…
Step 3: Filling the matrix
The last step is, using the owner types and area distribution from step 1 and the set of
specified management programs from step 2, to fill the matrices as in the example shown in
Table 1. This step includes the additional work to estimate to what extent the different
management programs can be expected to be used by the different owner types. This task lies
just in between the competencies of WP3.2 and WP2.2 researchers. Given that WP2.2
researchers are more knowledgeable about the content and likely consequences of the FMAs,
it is their responsibility to supply the numbers, with the support of WP3.2 researchers.
Alternative scenarios
The above mentioned matrices should be generated for each driver scenario. However, in
many cases, owner types and management program are identical in the different scenarios,
implying that it is the area distribution and the owner type’s mix of management programs
that should differ.