Balancing forest ecosystem services by adapting their management to the forest type and the ecological context: a case study in Southern Belgium

(1)

ESP Europe 2018 Regional conference

T10b - Towards multifunctional landscapes – assessing and governing synergies between biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services

Tuesday, October 16

Balancing forest ES by adapting their management to

the ecological context: a case study in Southern Belgium

Laura Maebe (PhD student) – laura.maebe@uliege.be Hugues Claessens & Marc Dufrêne (co-advisors)

(2)

Objectives

2

1. Map ES supply depending on the ecological

context (i.e. natural conditions) and the management (i.e. human activities)

2. Test different management scenarios on ES supply depending on the

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

Assessing ES and their interactions

9

(10)

Assessing ES and their interactions

10

Individual interests

(11)

Assessing ES and their interactions

11

Variety of ES assessment

methods but should take into account the ecological context and the management

(12)

Assessing ES and their interactions

12 _{ES 1 ES 2 ES 3 ES 4} LUCL 1 7 6 6 6 LUCL 2 5 4 3 2 LUCL 3 7 4 3 1 LUCL 4 4 3 2 2

ES matrix (Burkhard et al., 2009)

1 Minimal capacity 2 Very low capacity 3 Low capacity 4 Medium capacity 5 Good capacity 6 Very good capacity 7 Maximum capacity Scale of the ES ranking

(13)

Methodology

ES Matrix

13

Improvements:

• Consider the management

(14)

Methodology

14

Irregular broadleaved forest

ES Matrix

Improvements:

(15)

Methodology

15

Ecological

context Wood Carbon Flood Erosion Water Recreation Brown soil Steep slope Alluvial soil Wet soil Podzolic soil Peat soil Brown soil Steep slope Alluvial soil Wet soil Podzolic soil Peat soil Improvements:

• Take into account the ecological context

(16)

Methodology

16

Good soils

Sensitive soils = (1) non productive soils or

(2) high ecological issues

Ecological

context Wood Carbon Flood Erosion Water Recreation Brown soil Steep slope Alluvial soil Wet soil Podzolic soil Peat soil Brown soil Steep slope Alluvial soil Wet soil Podzolic soil Peat soil Improvements:

• Take into account the ecological context

(17)

Methodology

17

Six ES ranked

Ecological

context Wood Carbon Flood Erosion Water Recreation

Brown soil Steep slope Alluvial soil Wet soil Podzolic soil Peat soil Brown soil Steep slope Alluvial soil Wet soil Podzolic soil Peat soil ES Matrix

(18)

Methodology

Six ES ranked

ES Matrix

18

Ecological

Brown soil Steep slope Alluvial soil Wet soil Podzolic soil Peat soil Brown soil Steep slope Alluvial soil Wet soil Podzolic soil Peat soil

(19)

Methodology

Six ES ranked

ES Matrix

19

Ecological

Brown soil Steep slope Alluvial soil Wet soil Podzolic soil Peat soil Brown soil Steep slope Alluvial soil Wet soil Podzolic soil Peat soil

(20)

Methodology

20

Six ES ranked based on literature review revised by experts

Ecological

Brown soil Steep slope Alluvial soil Wet soil Podzolic soil Peat soil Brown soil Steep slope Alluvial soil Wet soil Podzolic soil Peat soil ES Matrix

(21)

Methodology

21

Pure even-aged spruce forest

• High wood production except on some sensitive soils

1 Minimal capacity

2 Very low capacity

3 Low capacity

4 Medium capacity

5 Good capacity

6 Very good capacity

7 Maximum capacity

Scale of the ES ranking

(22)

22

Pure even-aged spruce forest

• Low regulating and cultural ES especially on sensitive soils

Methodology

(23)

Methodology

ES Matrix

23

(24)

Methodology

ES Matrix

24

(25)

Objectives

25

context (i.e. natural conditions) and the management (i.e. human activities)

(26)

Methodology

Case study

(27)

Methodology

Case study

27

Mettre des images de la forêt feuillues et résineuse -> les photos de Marc sur flickr

• 54% of forests

• Half of broadleaved forest , mostly

beech and oak in irregular stand

• Half of coniferous forest, mostly

spruce, Douglas fir, larch and Scots

(28)

Methodology

ES Mapping

28

v v

(29)

Methodology

ES Mapping

29

Soil Sensitivity Map (Jacquemin, 2015)

v v

(30)

Methodology

ES Mapping

30

Soil Sensitivity Map (Jacquemin, 2015)

v v

(31)

Results

31

ES Maps _{Flood control} _{• High supply in most of}

the areas

• Low supply in pure even-aged spruce

(32)

Results

• High supply in most of the areas

32

v

• High supply in most of the areas

• Low supply in pure even-aged spruce

forests on sensitive soils

(33)

Results

33

ES Maps Natural areas for recreation

• High supply in half of the territory (irregular broadleaved forest) • Low supply in the

other half (pure even-aged spruce forest)

(34)

Methodology

ES Mapping

34

Average of 5 regulating and

cultural ES (collective interests)

v

(35)

Methodology

35 v

_

ES Mapping v

_

Provisioning ES (individual interests) Average of 5 regulating and

(36)

Methodology

36 v

_

ES Mapping v

_

Provisioning ES (individual interests) Average of 5 regulating and

=

Balance between collective and

individual interests

(37)

Results

37

ES Maps Balance between collective and individual interests

v

• Pure even-aged spruce forest: individual >

(38)

Results

38

ES Maps Balance between collective and individual interests

v

• Pure even-aged spruce forest: individual >

collective interests • Irregular broadleaved

forest: collective > individual interests

(39)

Objectives

39

2. Test different management scenarios on ES supply depending on the

(40)

Methodology

ES scenarios

Three scenarios to test different managements on the supply of ES

On all sensitive soils (10%) 1.a. Scenario « restoration »

(41)

On good soils (10%)

On all sensitive soils (10%) (10%)

1.a. Scenario « restoration »

1.b. Scenario « restoration + compensation »

ES scenarios

(42)

1.a. Scenario « restoration »

1.b. Scenario « restoration + compensation » 2. Scenario « continuous forest cover »

(40% + 10%)

ES scenarios

(43)

2. Scenario « continuous forest cover »

ES rankings were adapted with literature + experts

ES scenarios

(44)

-2 0 2 4 6 8

Results

44 ES Scenarios ≠ be tw ee n scena ri o and c urr en t st atus (% ) Restoration _{Restoration +} compensation

Continuous forest cover

On sensitive soils (10%) On good soils (10%) On sensitive soils (10%) (40% + 10%) Good soils Sensitive soils

• « Continuous forest cover » > « Restoration » > « Restoration + compensation »

(45)

-2 0 2 4 6 8

Results

45 ES Scenarios

• Wood : « Restoration + compensation » = « Continuous forest cover »

« Restoration » ≠ be tw ee n scena ri o and c urr en t st atus (% ) Restoration _{Restoration +} compensation

Continuous forest cover

On sensitive soils (10%) On good soils (10%) On sensitive soils (10%) (40% + 10%) Good soils Sensitive soils

(46)

Discussion

46

• High spatial variability in maps

(47)

Discussion

47

• Intensive management

(48)

Discussion

48

• Ecological context X management

(49)

Discussion

49

v

• Management recommendations

(50)

Discussion

50

• Management recommendations

- Maps to identify areas of improvement

- Adapting the management to the ecological context

Sensitive soils with natural forest

Regulating and cultural ES

Collective > individual interests

Good soils with productive forest

All ES

(51)

Conclusion

51

context and the management

• A forest is not like another: depending on the ecological context and management, a forest provides a different set of ES

• It is important to map the heterogeneity to identify which management can be applied where

(52)

Conclusion

52

• Adapt the management to the ecological context 2. Test different management scenarios

on ES supply depending on the ecological context

Sensitive soils Good soils

(53)

Thank you for your attention

Laura Maebe - laura.maebe@uliege.be

(54)

Methodology

ES scenarios

Three scenarios to test different managements on the supply of ES 1.a. Scenario « restoration »

1.b. Scenario « restoration + compensation » 2. Scenario « continuous forest cover »

𝐷 = 𝑥𝑖 𝑆𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑜 _{∗ 𝑆} 𝑖𝑆𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑜 − 12𝑖=1 𝑥𝑖𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑠 ∗ 𝑆𝑖𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑠 12 𝑖=1 𝑥_𝑖𝑆𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑜 ∗ 𝑆_𝑖𝑆𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑜 + 12 𝑖=1 12𝑖=1 𝑥𝑖𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑠 ∗ 𝑆𝑖𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑠

D = Difference in the capacity to supply the ES between the scenario and the current status i = each combination of a type of management with a type of ecological context

x = the ranking of the ES

S = the surface (ha) covered by each combination of a type of management with a type of ecological context