P. 1
Sonia Carvalho-Ribeiro PhD Thesis

Sonia Carvalho-Ribeiro PhD Thesis

|Views: 106|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Sonia Maria Carvalho Ribeiro on Jun 07, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/17/2014

pdf

text

original

THE ROLE OF MULTIFUNCTIONAL FORESTS IN SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPES: A CASE STUDY FROM PORTUGAL

Sónia Maria Carvalho Ribeiro

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia March 2009

© This copy of the thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the author and that no quotation from the thesis, nor any information derived therefrom, may be published without the author’s prior, written consent.

1

THE ROLE OF MULTIFUNCTIONAL FORESTS IN SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPES: A CASE STUDY FROM PORTUGAL

Abstract Forests provide a range of goods and services that are of utmost importance in addressing the challenge of managing for “sustainable landscapes”. However, it is difficult to implement sustainable forestry management (SFM) across landscapes because of interactions between the different scales at which planning and decision making take place, as well as spatial variations in stakeholder preferences for forest characteristics and the roles that forest need to perform. This thesis adopts a multi-scale approach to investigate mechanisms for the implementation of SFM. It uses GIS techniques together with quantitative (e.g. statistical analysis) and qualitative approaches (e.g. focus groups meetings), aided by visual tools such as photographs. The specific focus is on the Portuguese forestry sector with the following four main objectives: 1) investigate associations between forest characteristics and socio-economic development at national and regional scales 2) identify the role(s) of forests within an urban-rural gradient at river basin scale 3) assess variations in public preferences for forest characteristics at a river basin 4) develop and evaluate scenarios for SFM in rural parishes within northern Portugal. The results indicated that forest characteristics, roles and public preferences varied at several geographical scales. This suggests that strategies for SFM need to vary as well, but also take into account the linkage of roles across urban-rural gradients. At the parish scale, two scenario storylines were created, developed and validated by broad group of stakeholders, but the governance mechanisms to implement these ideas were not in place. The study provides a template for developing sustainable forestry practices in the Portuguese context or further afield, but additional research is needed to extend the “toolkit” used here and address the policy and management challenges that remain.

2

Acknowledgements
This research was made possible by the participation of a great number of people. I am grateful to all survey respondents, focus group members and workshop participants for their essential contribution to this study. Special thanks are due to the staff of all the Forestry Municipal offices in Minho region of Portugal, particularly to those in Ponte da Barca and Arcos de Valdevez and ARDAL -Associação Regional de Desenvolvimento do Alto Lima -for their assistance in the scenario creation and development. I am especially thankful for the invaluable guidance that I have received throughout this project from my supervisor Professor Andrew Lovett. Without his guidance and encouragement this thesis could not have been completed. I would also like to thank other members of the faculty and research staff at the University of East Anglia who have supported me throughout this journey. Special thanks are due to Professor Tim O‟Riordan for his guidance and support namely in the implementation of focus groups meetings and workshop. Thanks are also due to Dr. Peter Simmons, Professor Kate Brown and Professor Ian Bateman. Special thanks are also due to Trudie Dockerty, Katy Appleton, Janice Darch, Elah Matt and Adrian Southern for their help in proof reading the chapters of this thesis. I am particularly grateful to my field assistants at different stages of the project namely David Benson, Thunuadee, Tania Teixeira, Linda Cerqueira, Cristina Vieira, Beatriz Contreras and Gil Ferreira. Huge thanks are also due to my friends and colleagues with whom I have shared much of my time at the University of East Anglia, namely Marta, Irena, Natália, Beatriz, Janice, Ana, Joana, Zé, Angelo, Marco, Nunos, Elah, Adrian, Camy, Saffron, Pham, Steve. The Portuguese-international lunches in which we all participated every Thursdays were undoubtedly a great moment of the week. Funding for this research was provided by the Fundação para a Ciencia and Tecnologia in Portugal to whom I am sincerely grateful. I wish to thank to my family and friends for being always with me despite from afar. Special thanks go to my mother Gemina, my father João my sisters and brother Augusta, Fátima and Serafim and their respective partners Teixeira, Augusto and Sameiro as well as to my nieces and nephews Tania, Tina, Sofia, Miguel, João and David. To all my friends who shared with me the great experience of being alive and certainly shaped who I am today. Finally, I thank my husband, Gil, for his support throughout this journey. Above all, thank you for bringing happiness to my live.

3

Abbreviations

C& I Criteria and Indicators CAP Common Agriculture Policy EA EU Ecosystems Approach European Union

NGO Non Governmental Organisation SD SES Sustainable Development Social- Ecological System

SFM Sustainable Forestry Management WFD Water Framework Directive

4

....................................................................... 60 2.................................................. SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY MANAGEMENT & MULTIFUNCTIONAL FORESTS ........................................................2...................2..2.............................................................................4.......................... 80 3....................................................... 87 3.... landscapes and sustainable development ....................2...............3................................................................................... Research questions ..... A CASE STUDY IN PORTUGAL ....... 53 2.......................... 20 1............. 84 3............. 34 1.......2................................................................... 49 1..................................2.......................... 17 1..............4..................................2................ RESULTS .................................. RESEARCH RATIONALE AND AIMS ................................................................... SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPE PLANNING AND LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE AS A WAY TO MOVE FORWARD..........................................2...................3..3..............................................5. 84 3......................................5.......................4................................ 13 1................................. FORESTRY IN EUROPE ....2....................... FORESTS IN LANDSCAPES ..........2............. 26 1....................... 41 1.. 9 1...........1................................. 54 2.......................4................ Forestry and land use planning in Portugal ............................ 69 2........... Forests...........................1.................................2 Variations in class metrics .........................1.......................................... INTRODUCTION ..... Multifunctional landscapes ......................................................................Multifunctionality .............................................................. Regional scale trends ..................... Defining the problem ............................................................. 80 3......................... Pursuing SD at the landscape scale ......... FORESTRY AND LAND MANAGEMENT IN EUROPE: A CASE STUDY FROM PORTUGAL ................................................................................ Multifunctionality: the forest scale ...................... 35 1...... 63 2.............. Brief description of the country .................................................................... INTRODUCTION: SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPES & MULTIFUNCTIONAL FORESTS .................. 25 1..................3....................1.....4..............TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1..................................................................... Socio-economic classification ....................3...........................................2................ Moving towards SFM in Portugal .3........................ 11 1..3.... 72 CHAPTER 3............2........................2.............1...3.................................2...... 77 3.................................................................................. DISCUSSION .... Sustainable Forestry Management (SFM) .....................................1.....2..............................................................2............................................2.......2......................................2.......3....................... Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Cluster Analysis (CA) ......................2............................................................................................ 75 3..................................................................1.............................. 60 2................................................................................................... Sustainable Development (SD)...................... National scale trends ................................... Analysis techniques ................................. Ranking method .................. 85 3................... 38 1.....1...........2................... 8 1........................................................................................................................ 95 5 .................................................................2............ dominant use ..........................................................1 Data sources ...1..........................................2. THESIS STRUCTURE .............................. 51 CHAPTER 2................. CONCLUSIONS ........................2...................................................................1.............2................1....................1................................................. 89 3..................1.............................. 81 3....................2...2.............................. Multifunctional forestry vs.2.....1......... DATA AND METHODS ...... 82 3........... 83 3....2...................................................... 92 3................................................................ 9 1............................... 19 1.......2....................... Goods and services provided by forests ...................................................................................2.......................................................3.. 27 1...2...... Good forestry practices ...................................................................................2......... ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN FOREST CHARACTERISTICS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: A CASE STUDY FROM PORTUGAL ............

.................. Study area ............2.....3..........3................................1....................................3............................. management preferences across the rural/urban gradient ....110 4...................................................................................................................................140 5............... Percentage of forest cover (F photos) ......... Overall method and approach ...........................................137 5..................2..2....1........1...... 96 4.................. Questionnaire survey ............2...................................................................................... Study area ..................................4.......................................................................................................153 5.... 148 5.................. 3.........................146 5.........129 CHAPTER 5................. 138 5.............2..........126 4................................. RESULTS ...........................5....... INTEGRATING PUBLIC USES AND PREFERENCES IN THE DESIGN OF MULTIFUNCTIONAL PLANS AT THE CATCHMENT SCALE: A CASE STUDY IN THE MINHO REGION OF PORTUGAL ................................................151 5............................................................3...................156 6 ............................113 4......................................................................................................... DISCUSSION ....2.......2...... 4.................................................................................................1............................................................................................... Characterisation of forest plots in the study area .........1...105 4........3..............3................ DISCUSSION .......................................2...................2........... Contrasting verbal and visual approaches .............................. Public preferences for forests and ecology of forests ecosystems ....................2.........2.......... Questionnaire survey ....................................................... INTRODUCTION ............................ PUBLIC OPINION REGARDING ATTRACTIVENESS AND MANAGEMENT OF FOREST LANDSCAPES: PREFERENCES FOR FOREST COVER AND STAND STRUCTURE ..... 139 5.............................................. 147 5..........151 5....................................................... The questionnaire images ......................................................2...................................................................3 Trends of change in forest characteristics ......107 4............................................................................ 120 4..................................................................................... 116 4..........................................................................3..3....................................................................3.. INTRODUCTION .111 4........................................................ CONCLUSION ............. Statistical analysis .....................................................109 4........137 5.1.2........... Preferences for management strategy ...... Type of users ............................ 113 4.................... CONCLUSIONS .............137 5.....1.2...............................................................3.................3............... Uses of forests .........3.......................3... Stand structure (S photos) . OVERALL RESULTS ........... MATERIAL AND METHODS ..............................................2....3..............2.2..............................................................................................3......3................... 145 5.........................140 5......................................................... Results of the questionnaire survey ...1......................3................ RESULTS ................................................ Characterisation of forest plots in the study area ... 143 5.........2.............................CHAPTER 4.....................3............................2....3..... 131 5. Comparing the field and questionnaire surveys........... DATA COLLECTION AND METHODS ..................................................................5....................................1.......................2..........2..3.................................................................. Attractiveness vs............................2....................................... Attractiveness vs................................3.......143 5...........................................121 4..............133 5......................................................................................... Correlation coefficients of attractiveness and management rankings ..1.......................2.......................111 4....4........................................................................ management across user groups .. 98 4......................2...............................................4..............105 4...............................................................................................2....................................2.......................

................ THE ROLE OF MULTIFUNCTIONAL FORESTS IN SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPES: WIDER IMPLICATIONS ............ RESULTS .................1.............2............2.............................................................210 7...................2................................... 169 6......2............ European forestry will become more diverse in the future ......................................................2.........................2......................................3......................................................... 212 APPENDICES .............. Enhanced communication between researchers..................................................................................................................................164 6..........1........................................................... Scenario evaluation and implementation .................... Land use change models .....178 6............4.............................................................................................4............. Implementation .............................................3.................................................................... WHAT ROLES MIGHT MULTIFUNCTIONAL FORESTS HAVE IN SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPES? .........................................................................................2...................................................................................................................................... Workshop.................2..........................................1............CHAPTER 6....................................................4.....................................................2.........................................204 7...............4.......................................................................................................................3..............................................211 REFERENCES .............................1...............................................................................2........................... INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... Scenario evaluation and implementation ........................................2........................... Creation and development of scenario storylines ........3............................164 6................................ 171 6.................................. 189 7.4......201 7....1....165 6........... Research caveats: problems and difficulties .. Description of the storylines ............. CONCLUSIONS: THE ROLE OF MULTIFUNCTIONAL FORESTS IN SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPES ....185 6...............................2........................ Future research: there is no panacea but there might be trends.........3...167 6.............3... Forestry and land management in the study area ............3...............3......................... DISCUSSION ........................................... CONCLUSION ....187 CHAPTER 7.....159 6...............1................207 7..........195 7.............................. The need for a portfolio of measures for SFM in Europe ............. 2....................................... 188 7...2..181 6.................................................................173 6........3............... STUDY AREA AND METHODS ...........1 Study area and case study selection ......................................... HOW CAN SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPE PLANNING AND LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE GUIDE FOREST PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT? ... GOVERNING FOR SUSTAINABILITY: IMPLEMENTING SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY MANAGEMENT IN NORTHERN PORTUGAL .....4.........175 6............................................................. 234 7 .................. 173 6.....................................................................2................ the public and decision makers is important 206 7.................205 7. 175 6.....5..........................3............................................3..................4 RESEARCH CAVEATS AND FURTHER RESEARCH ............1..................................... 2.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS.. Focus group meetings ........ 157 6...................................................207 7......................................................................................

one that sustained human progress not just in a few places for a few years...We came to see that a new development path was required.. but for the entire planet into the distant future” WCED (1987:4) CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION: SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPES & MULTIFUNCTIONAL FORESTS 8 .

CBD. Sachs. OECD. Section 1. Recent work has stressed the need for pursuing SD at the landscape scale because it is at this scale that stakeholder demands influence landscape development (Naveh. and the multi-scale approaches that were developed to inform planning and management strategies for SFM at different spatial scales. 2008. Selman. OECD. Tress et al. SD has challenged governments and societies as well as science to work together (Cash et al. Jabareen. 2003).1. 2002. 2006. 2002.2 explores the background literature regarding both Sustainable Forestry Management (SFM) and multifunctional forestry.1. 2004). 1998. embracing the challenge of putting into place development strategies able to meet the “needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED.1. 2006. The third section explores the ways in which sustainable landscape planning and landscape governance can guide the development of strategies to implement sustainable forestry management across landscapes. 1987:8)..1 of this chapter defines the problem under analysis.4 sets out the main aims of the research.. O' Riordan and Voisey. 2001). 2008). 2006.1. Pursuing SD implies integrating societies. 1993. whilst Section 1. Forests in landscapes The research reported in this thesis concerns the issue of how to plan and govern forests in a sustainable manner. 2007. Despite recognising landscapes as an appropriate scale to deal with sustainability there are issues that need to be carefully addressed in order to attain sustainable forestry management within a sustainable landscape framework. Although contested and several times redefined (e..g. These issues set the frame for the general problem addressed throughout this thesis. It implies not some form of present status quo but rather the potential transformation and evolution of the current economic and social paradigm towards the integration of environmental concerns in development processes (Cash et al. 2006. economies and environment in decision making and participation in development processes (Cashman. Sustainable development (SD) needs addressing at different ecological and institutional scales (Cash et al. 2003. 1. Finally. Section 1. UNEP) the term has been central to the international environmental debate. 2006).. 2002) 9 . O' Riordan and Stoll-Kleemann. Sustainable Development (SD) There has been an extensive discussion in the literature about the integration of socioeconomic and environmental issues in order to implement sustainable development (SD) at spatial scales from the international to the local (Kozlowski and Hill.

. 2007). For human populations embracing SD means transforming our way of living to increase the chances that environmental conditions will indefinitely support human well-being by continually assuring the flow of non substitutable goods and services from ecosystems (McMichael et al. long period phenomena set physical constraints on smaller scale. Natural capital is often interpreted as the stock of natural ecosystems that yields a flow of valuable ecosystem goods or services into the future (Balmford et al. Another concept which has helped to tackle the SD challenge is that of social-ecological systems (SESs) (Folke et al.g.. Managing natural resources without undermining the natural capital of an area (Costanza and Daly.g. large scale. 1992) is seen as a prudent “rule” for assuring sustainability. Pursuing SD also involves enhancing social capital which refers to connections within and between social networks as well as connections among individuals (Pretty. For example.1). institutions) and ecosystems (that also have their own structure and functioning).. with the potential to generate a stream of vital life-support services meriting careful evaluation and investment (Turner and Daily. Similarly to ecosystems. this may include individuals or households (Box 1. The different scales reflect the different levels at which decisions on the utilization of resources are made. Costanza et al.. in social-ecologycal systems (SESs). a hierarchy of institutions can be distinguished (Ostrom. In the same way. As a consequence. demineralisation of organic material and nitrogen fixation). shorter period ones (MEA.. At the lowest institutional level. large scale processes may be driven by the joint impact of small scale processes (Folke et al. 2005).. national or international can be also distinguished (O' Riordan and Voisey. 2003). Higher institutional scales such as the provincial.In order to deal with the inherent complexity of pursuing SD a set of concepts have been developed that help to set the frame for moving towards it (McMichael et al. there are also cross 10 . In general. 2002. Since the concept appeared policies are often classified as “weak” or “strong” sustainability dependent on the extent to which they assure the natural capital rule (Costanza and Daly. Ecosystems can be defined at a wide range of scales ranging from the level of a plant up to biomes covering several thousand square kilometres (Box 1. 2001). ecosystems are increasingly seen as capital assets. 2003). 2002. 2003). Pretty and Ward. 2008).1).. 2003. 2005). Folke et al. 1997). microbes operate on the scale of micrometers and minutes but their cumulative activity determines large scale processes such as the nutrient cycle (e. 1998). In parallel with ecological scale. 1992). These socialecological systems can be seen as a set of interactions between the human system (characterised by both structure and functioning e.

(sustainable) forestry (Siry et al. influences the ways in which land is managed for agriculture at the household scale (Deybe. Holistic also means that each element receives its significance only because of its position and relationship with the surrounding elements in Antrop and Eetvelde (2000) 11 . However.scale interactions between institutional levels in such a way that decisions made at one scale influence the scales above and below (CBD. 2000). It results from the ways that different components of the environment both ecological (geology. (sustainable) water management (Cashman. Modern theories of landscape represent it as a holistic1 entity within which natural and human processes merge. disciplines have addressed SD in a “specialised” manner by dealing separately with fields such as (sustainable) agriculture. Approaches to tackle SD have to a large extent focussed on i) single issues or resources not properly addressing it ii) scale dependency (Folke et al. OECD. soils. 2006). For example the EU. 2003. (sustainable) cities. 2008). Pursuing SD at the landscape scale Landscape was defined in the European Landscape Convention as “an area. Landscape is a concept of multiple meanings. through the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) (International scale). when the balance between economysociety and environment has been attempted in practice the concept has been revealed to be sufficiently “open-ended” to leave a vast array of problems to be solved (Jacobs. 2002. 1986).. Traditionally. whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors” (Council of Europe. as perceived by people. Box 1. 2005).. climate. 1. and where economic 1 Holism means that the whole is more important than the composing parts.. flora and fauna) and cultural (institutions) interact together in material and imaginary ways (Selman 2006:13). 2005).1 Ecological and institutional scales Ecological scales Global Biome Landscape Ecosystem Plot Plant Institutional scales International National State/provincial Municipal Household Individual Source: Adapted from de Groot and Hein (2007: 30) Moving towards SD is an overarching goal worldwide (Cash et al.1. 2002). 2007).2. O' Riordan and Stoll-Kleemann. 2008). without focussing on the interactions of these systems in the wider issues related to the landscape (Lindenmayer et al..

1986. fisheries or forestry) or area (e.g. The broadening of the SD concept to a landscape level combines a focus on sustainability of ecosystems (e. 2006). 2006b.g. instead there are a multitude of interactions between them. forests) and places (e. forests. In addition.g. 2002).. Lindenmayer.g. Selman. 2005. instead. fisheries) into a system of sustainable management to meet explicit production goals as well as other goals of the wider community (Sayer and Maginnis. 2006). 2008.social and ecological objectives can be balanced (Antrop. Furthermore. whereas at the level of one field fewer 2 Strategies are proactive. Therefore. it means that sustainability may be better addressed. there are at present strong arguments to examine issues of environmental condition (e. Selman.. Based on the two previous definitions (landscape and sustainable environment) it can be said that developing strategies2 for sustainable landscapes involves guiding the process of interaction between natural (e. Lindenmayer et al. neither are rural areas or cities separate entities. Liu and Taylor. carbon sequestration. rural) is less valued. It does not mean that pursuing sustainability of a single ecosystem (e. 2006). 2005. This is more realistic in the sense that humankind does not interact with either forests or agriculture in isolation. and more realistically implemented. institutions) in ways that landscapes (seen as the area as perceived by people) will neither lose ecological integrity nor the ability to fulfil basic human needs. Selman. Jacobs. 1986. Mander et al. intended to effect the forces (causes) of conflicts and problems Ahern (1995) 3 Spatial scale refers to the spatial dimension of an object or process-that is by the degree of resolution and the size of the geographical area in question. 1999.g. Adapted from Selman (2006:24) 12 . 2007.g. cities. biodiversity). Jacobs.. 2006. 2006. It is increasingly acknowledged that depending on the spatial scale under analysis the number of ecosystem functions that can be observed varies: in larger areas the full spectrum of ecosystem functions can be realised (e. through a landscape perspective (Potschin and Haines-Young. 2006). According to Forman (1995:519) a sustainable environment “is an area in which ecological integrity and basic human needs are concurrently maintained over generations”.g. 2008. biodiversity) at spatial scales3 larger than a single ecosystem recognising that the “dynamic whole is greater than the sum of the parts” (Antrop. rural areas) in such a way that sustainability is pursued through landscapes (Lindenmayer et al. based on a plan. there is a need to put into practice integrated natural resource management (INRM) which incorporates multiple aspects of use of different natural resources (e. ecosystems) and human factors (e.g. Selman. in a sustainable landscape a multitude of functions occur simultaneously and link people and environment altogether in a self-reinforcing manner (Antrop. 2005).g. 2006.

Compared with other land use types such as agriculture. 2005). 2003). soils and to maintain landscape ecological functions and ecosystem integrity (FAO. 2009).. 2007. Consequently.1. Olivier et al... upland forests protect lower areas from soil erosion) (Fisher et al. carbon sequestration. 2003.. where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant aesthetic.areas of land. Spiecker.functions (e. water resources.. 2004. 1994 cited by Selman 2006:6) 13 . Section 1.g. and often with high ecological biodiversity (IUCN. landscapes and sustainable development Forestry is one activity that needs to be addressed and coordinated at a multitude of scales (CBD. 2008. Box 1..g. trees and forests have a longer permanency in landscapes and the benefits from forests extend far away from the places where forests are located (e. it is at the landscape level that conflicting interests of production and conservation need to be coordinated (Tress et al. 2003.... Forests are crucial to conserve biological diversity. 2003.2) needs to be coordinated both at different ecological and institutional scales (Box 1. MEA.. the role of forestry has been increasingly recognised to be of utmost importance in sustaining landscapes (FAO. 2000). Mander et al. MCPFE. thus it is at the landscape scale that SD may be pursued and its implementation tested (Selman. industry.1) (Baskent and Yolasigmaz. Communities. biodiversity) (Box 1. ecological.3. Landscape types Cultural landscape “. Forests. Due to the ability of forests to provide an array of functions i) at different scales and ii) in different places within the landscape (Section 1.2. 2009). legislators. MEA.g.2 further explores this topic. MCPFE.2. 2007) because the ways in which goods and services are provided and delivered in forestry also occur across a range of spatial scales (e. This work focuses mainly on cultural and protected landscapes. yet recognising the cross-scale effects. 2000. Consequently....2). MCPFE. Sayer and Maginnis. productivity) appear (Lindenmayer et al. Moore et al.1). Definitions of these two landscape types are given in Box 1. sustainable forestry management SFM (the concept is defined in Section 1.. 2007. and/or cultural value.. local stakeholders and the public at large make different demands on landscape and influence landscape development (McMichael et al. 2008. 2001). 2007. 2003. Stengera et al.areas whose extent people intuitively grasp and whose distinctive character derives from centuries of human activity” (Selman 2006:7) Protected (areas) landscape “. 2006). 1. 2003).

14 . cities. 2005). 2005). Selman. 2006). agriculture and forestry) and places (e. and the preservation of particular species on the other (Duhme et al. Within the “whole landscape” there are rural and urban areas and sustainability should deal with both urban and rural issues (Antrop.. Selman. Therefore. focussing on the protection of nature reserves on the one hand.) (Duhme et al. Increased awareness of the importance of managing natural resources i) in an integrated manner and ii) at broader spatial scales (Moore et al. 2006). incentivises cooperation between towns and countryside aiming at strengthening functional regions (CEMAT. as research is demonstrating. 2006). rural areas) to embracing the challenge of sustainable landscapes (Forman. 1997.g. cultural. 2006). that rural and urban “sustainabilities” will depend on each other (Antrop. Acknowledging the potential of the landscape approach has lead to a shift from focussing on sustaining individual ecosystems (e.3. European Landscape Convention and Carbon markets (Box1.3). 1995. 2000). as addressed by the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). However.. Water Framework Directive. If it is likely that sustainable urbanized landscapes will imply completely different aspects than sustainable rural ones. conservation goals require strategies for managing the “whole landscape” (concept defined in Section 1. So. trees. independently of whether they are protected. nature conservation will be better addressed if wider conservations strategies across both cultural and protected areas are put into place.Nature conservation practice has long been defensive. 2007. 2009) has lead to the development of a set of strategies by the European Union (EU) such as the “Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy”.. 1997). urban or of rural character (Sayer and Maginnis. woodlands and forests are a recurrent feature in many landscape types.g. However. it is also likely. Margules and Pressey. It is important however to acknowledge that because forests are one landscape feature they may be seen as only one aspect in addressing landscape sustainability. The theme of “urban-rural” partnerships. There are different types of landscapes and one of the factors varying between them is the amount and type of forest ecosystems. it is at the landscape level that different interests or multiple preferences for forest management need to be tackled (Sayer and Maginnis.

Increasingly. 2005). 1986). 2000. for example timber production. Recently. 2002). 2005) or type of recreational activity (Harshaw et al.2). governments and societies have become engaged in a constant trade off between productive and other environmental functions such as protection and recreation (Sayer and Maginnis. Tips and Vasdisara. forest managers.3. shows that there is no panacea in addressing natural resource 15 . Some clearly put emphasis on the productive functions. The problem is that management strategies undertaken in different places across landscapes influence the delivery of services from forests i) at a variety of scales and ii) in places other than where management strategies occur (Section 1. management and planning of European landscapes and organises European co-operation on landscape issues. 2007b.. 2005).Box 1. Therefore. 1986.. Roovers et al. It also has been reported that across landscapes public preferences for forests vary hugely. others are willing to get into carbon markets (Basu.. 2001). Another issue is that a huge amount of research done so far. Policies that encourage a landscape approach Water Framework Directive In 2000 EU launched the Water Framework Directive (WFD) which sets up the future frame for regulation and protection of water resources in Europe.europa. European Landscape Convention Promotes the protection. 2009) or focus on transforming forest biomass into “green sources of energy” (Okkonen. In January 2005 the European Union established the Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) Source: Council of Europe webpage. there is a need to incorporate a multitude of public preferences into forest management (Sheppard and Harshaw. It is the first international treaty to be exclusively concerned with all dimensions of European landscape Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS) The principal aim of the Strategy is to find a consistent response to the decline of biological and landscape diversity in Europe and to ensure the sustainability of the natural environment Carbon market The global carbon market established in 2001 as part of the Kyoto protocol allow the trade of carbon credits. 2006.eu/environment [Accessed 12 February 2009] Across a variety of landscapes different socio ecological systems (SESs) are likely to “explore” different functions of forest ecosystems (the concept of forest functions is defined in Section 1. Other communities explore non timber products such as livestock grazing or even recreational use (Janse and Ottitsch. There are also studies reporting differences and conflicts between preferences of “local and extra-local” inhabitants of protected areas (Zube. http://ec. for example by Elianor Ostrom and colleagues. A review of public preferences for forests indicates that preferences are likely to vary by personal characteristics and socio-economic factors such as gender and landownership (Abello and Bernaldez. 1986). Winter. professional background (Rogge et al.2). 2008).

2004. 16 . The multiple processes occurring in complex SESs (of which forests are only a part) raise enormous challenges in the implementation of SD and hence of sustainable forestry management (SFM) in different landscape types (Box 1. Tress and Tress.2). Above all is the purpose of human activity on the land.3) have a multifunctional character (Mander et al.g. places and economies are to be welcomed if they create functionality and coherence. industrial or commercial purposes. or scenario for. In countries such as Spain and Portugal for example. new associations (or reinventing old ones) between people. 2001). It is known that strategies to implement SD are likely to vary according to socio-economic and environmental circumstances making it likely that there is more than one trajectory to. 2007. 2005). Many elements in either protected or cultural landscapes (Box 1. For example. forests.. During the late 20th century landscape functions such as the production of agro-forestry products or nature conservation. 2007. heterogeneity is a basic characteristic of landscape implying the capacity of landscape to support various.eea. Sayer and Maginnis. or other features that cover the land e. a sustainable landscape (Antrop. Consequently. In the same way that landscape multifunctionality is at peril in some areas so the multifunctionality of agriculture and forestry is not self reinforcing (Pereira et al.europa. 2003). there is a need to go beyond panaceas and explore different solutions to specific contexts for integrating forests with other land use types within the landscape. hedgerows and forests as well as various agricultural and grassland ecosystems control various energy and material fluxes in the landscape which simultaneously protect biodiversity and provide both income and recreational opportunities for people (Matsuoka and Kaplan. 2001. 2007). Moreover.eu/EEAGlossary/L/land_use 5 Land cover refers to the vegetation. grass. structures... 2006). Pereira and Fonseca. 2003). it has been reported that even in places with identical socio-economic characteristics and similar environmental conditions the development paths can greatly differ (Niskanen and Lin. have tended to become segregated in most European landscapes as a result of specialisation and intensification of production (Antrop. Selman (2006:15) considers “this functional separation of land to be an underlying contributor to many environmental problems”. In European Environment Agency http://glossary. 2005.management in different SESs (Ostrom. for farming or forestry. the agro4 Land use corresponds to the socio-economic description (functional dimension) of areas: areas used for residential. 2006). for recreational or conservation purposes. 2006. Different ecosystems combine in a variety of mosaics of land use4/land cover5 mosaics to create heterogeneous landscapes (Fry. 2001). sometimes contradictory functions simultaneously (Antrop. So. Ostrom et al. 2004. 2008. 2005). Matthews and Selman. In these cases.

1993. 2001. Managing forests through a landscape perspective implies addressing multiple functions from forests (multifunctionality is further explored in Section 1.silvo systems are being threatened by several socio-economic changes (Andresen and Castelbranco. the role of forestry is changing from not only productive. 4. Defining the problem It follows from the above that despite agreement about the (potential) role of forestry in pursuing sustainable development there are difficulties in the implementation of sustainable forestry management (SFM) across a range of landscape types because: 1. in turn. 2005). This “new” holistic approach does not physically and permanently divide the land base for certain uses. The amount and type of forests varies across landscapes and thus the role of forests in sustainable landscapes is also likely to differ.1). Niskanen and Lin. This implies going beyond describing the “idyllic” roles of forests from the past. it aims to manage the forest ecosystems as a whole to provide multiple functions simultaneously (Baskent and Yolasigmaz. 2008) according to different vocations of the territories as well as the social dynamics in place. 1999).4. 2001. At the landscape scale there are a multitude of users with different interests in forest management 3. Siry et al. There are also different preferences for forest characteristics amongst stakeholder groups within the landscape. providing biodiversity.g. Firmino.g. 2001. but also consumptive (e.1. 2007a). across landscapes. instead. As was previously stated. recreation activities in aesthetically pleasing forest areas) and protective (e... the ways in which strategies can be developed for managing the whole mosaic of ecosystems (of which forests are only a part) in ways that 17 . 2000). flood avoidance and soil erosion) and this will require a new coordination of forest functions in post-industrial landscapes that needs to be carefully addressed (Nabuurs et al. In the forestry sector there is a need for integration of different functions in order to fully address the goal of managing forests sustainably (Section 1. there is a need to study the ways in which agriculture and forestry may be able to contribute to sustainable landscapes. 2. influences other scales (Box 1.2 and Chapter 4). The landscape scale is influenced by and. This calls for the study of “viable” multifunctionalites (Pinto-Correia and Breman. There is also a need to find ways in which multifunctional forestry may contribute to more sustainable landscapes (Sheppard and Harshaw.2) as it has to include multiple demands from different stakeholders also reflecting their multiple preferences regarding forests. Consequently. Slee. Consequently. 1.

1) in such a manner that there is cross-scale coordination to allow the implementation of SD through landscapes (Blaschke.. Naveh. 2006. Moreover.. 2005. planning and governance mechanisms must deal with managing that process of transformation (or paths) in the interests of long term sustainability (Jacobs. Blaschke.3) are recognised to be key vehicles to deliver SD through a range of world landscapes (Ahern. policies) at a multitude of scales (Box 1. Selman. this section has described the advantages of pursuing SD through a landscape perspective and the difficulties in reconciling a multitude of aspects of forest management through landscapes.” Studies such as that by Forman and Collinge (1997) further demonstrate that nature is best conserved with rather than without planning as a tool to guide the process of change.. 2006. 2007). Antrop. 2001) . the role of planning and governance systems has been stressed as of utmost importance in order to guide the interactions between humans and nature.” As sustainable development is based on the transformation of living resources to achieve societal goals. One of the issues is how to reconcile a multitude of 18 . planning and governance systems address and coordinate mechanisms (e.landscapes as “the area as perceived by people” will neither lose their ecological integrity nor the ability to fulfil basic human needs has been receiving much attention (Ahern. Naveh. Though recognising landscapes as an appropriate scale to deal with sustainability issues the ways in which SD may be achievable through landscapes is an ongoing debate . planning and management enforced by effective governance systems (concepts defined in Section 1. 2006. Lindenmayer et al. 2008. Independently of the process of transformation/path to be followed for a transition to SD to occur. Summarising. 2005. needs to be coordinated at a range of scales due to the nature of services from forests (Section 1. 2000. Tress et al. Blaschke (2006:198) refers to the developments concerning “sustaining landscapes” as follows: “Environmental management has predominantly focussed on individual ecosystems but is increasingly confronted with managing and planning entire landscapes which often consist of complex interacting mosaics of different habitat patches and ecosystems. 2005. Hanna.. Concerning forest management. 1986. von Haaren and Ott. Antrop (2006:195) reinforces the need for planning to achieve sustainable landscapes “Sustainable landscapes are no fiction if the landscapes qualities are well defined and the context of change and future functioning is set right and fixed.2). guidance from planning and governance systems.g. plans. 2008). Following this.. 2005. 2007.. 2006).those interact and combine in a way that may not be obvious.

What role(s) forests might have in a sustainable landscape? What type of crossscale coordination will be likely to deliver the implementation of SFM at the landscape scale in the context of Portugal? 3. In addition. There is a need to address forest management at different spatial scales. aiming at describing the ways in which forests may contribute to more sustainable landscapes. Box 1. Moreover. 19 . Across landscapes there are differences in public preferences for forests and these need to be addressed in forestry planning D. Box 1.multiscale approach. what might be a set of tools and methods (based on planning and governance systems) that could help to guide the implementation of sustainable forestry management at different spatial scales (see Section 1. there is a need to address the multiple roles that forests may have in sustainable landscapes (Chapter 2). B.2. Framing the general problem/general questions A.4 summarises these problems which are addressed throughout this thesis.3 explores the ways in which planning and governance might inform strategies able to deliver more sustainable landscapes.3). There are a multitude of users of forest resources that need to be reconciled at the landscape scale C. before addressing those issues Section 1.4. Planning and governance systems are seen as the way to move forward in order to “guide the process” of interaction between man and nature General problem/questions: 1. However. The problem. then is. What are the wider implications of this work? Section 1. Sustainable forestry management & multifunctional forests This section begins by defining the concept of sustainable forestry management.forest functions which reflect a multitude of interests into management strategies where there are different preferences for forest characteristics. 1. how to guide sustainable forestry management at a range of scales in order to move towards sustainable landscapes. How to guide the implementation of SFM across a range of scales? What are the set of tools and methods (from sustainable landscape planning and landscape governance) that can help to guide the implementation of SFM at different spatial scales? 2.2 defines the concepts of sustainable forestry management and multifunctionality. It also reviews the ways in which concepts and tools from landscape planning/governance approaches might help to guide forestry management with sustainable goals at different scales.

5 ha and width of more than 20 m. and including felled areas.Following this. 2007. complex and dynamic systems. 1999. each type of forest ecosystem having specific problems to face (WRI.2. Forests are diverse.3). or open forest formations with a continuous vegetation cover in which tree crown cover exceeds 10 percent. the concept of multifunctionality is explored at the forest scale (Section 1. firebreaks and other small open areas. temperate (Ehrlich. 2009). There are different types of forest ecosystems at different latitudes namely boreal (CBD. Definition by Forestry Commission UK 20 . WRI. May consist either of closed forest formations where trees of various storeys and undergrowth cover a high proportion of the ground. including rubber wood plantations and cork oak stands. The trees should be able to reach a minimum height of 5 meters (m) at maturity in situ. windbreaks and shelterbelts of trees with an area of more than 0.fao. as are areas normally forming part of the forest area which are unstocked as a result of human intervention or natural causes but which are expected to revert to forest.2. cleared tracts.. Spiecker. 2009). forest in national parks. 2003). At the forest scale emphasis is put on the description of forest functions and the ways they may be delivered through landscapes.” (Definition by FAO 2002 available at http://www. Tropical forests have been suffering deforestation (Nagendra.2. Strassburg et al..5 hectares (ha). 2007. The definition used by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) after consultation with experts worldwide in 2002 is as follows: “Land with tree crown cover (or equivalent stocking level) of more than 10 percent and area of more than 0. 1996) and tropical forests (Foley et al. 2008. It also includes: forest nurseries and seed orchards that constitute an integral part of the forest.1. nature reserves and other protected areas such as those of specific scientific. historical. Nagendra. forest roads. Sustainable Forestry Management (SFM) Different definitions of the term “forest” are used in different contexts.org/docrep/006/ad665e/ad665e06. cultural or spiritual interest. 2009) whilst the area of 6 land under stands of trees with a canopy cover of at least 20% (or having the potential to achieve this). Young natural stands and all plantations established for forestry purposes which have yet to reach a crown density of 10 percent or tree height of 5 m are included under forest.2) as well as at the landscape scale (Section 1. including integral open space. 1. some being pristine while others are under several human induced pressures (Powers.htm ) [Accessed online 10 January 2009] Throughout this thesis the term forest also applies to woodlands6. plantations primarily used for forestry purposes. 2007).

. 21 .. 1996). water quality and quantity or biodiversity to cite only a few (Sayer and Maginnis. Sayer and Maginnis. 2) problems arising from invasive tree species and through forest fires may threaten sustainability of entire landscapes (Cash et al. 2009). Powers. 1996. Some management practices aimed at enhancing yield of certain forest products are incompatible with the provision of other goods at a local scale but might be compatible when placed within the landscape scale (Stevens and Montegomerey. 2007). WRI. 1998. For example. 2005) . Nabuurs et al.temperate and boreal forests has been increasing (Green et al. 2003). As was previously explained there are a multitude of interests for management related to the provision of goods and services such as timber. 2003. 1999). 2004. 2005). There are a multitude of aspects that we as individuals. 2003. Spiecker. there is a huge diversity of types of forest ecosystems (Ehrlich. Different tree species and forest ecosystems have more or less capacity to act as a carbon sink helping to mitigate climate change (Lexer et al. 1999). Hector and Bagchi. At the same time. a single tree might provide an array of services useful for humans but if the timber is harvested the tree ceases to provide other functions that it would have if it was not felled. 2009). 2007. Stengera et al. Mather and Needle. 2002). If there is little doubt that the halting of deforestation and the replanting of large areas would absorb CO2 while trees mature say for 40-60 years.. roughly 50-70 percent of fixed carbon is lost in respiration of foliage and other woody tissues. Not all of the carbon fixed by unit area/time (the gross primary production GPP) is converted to plant biomass instead. The diversity in forest characteristics and type of threats suffered gives an indication of the different meanings that SFM may have depending upon the various socio-economic and ecological settings (Powers. That which remains is called net primary productivity (NPP) a rate expressed as biomass production/unit/area (Powers. 2005. 2009). Strassburg et al. Clemente et al. 2000. researchers and decision makers need to be aware of when dealing with forest management. Other problems arising from forests are: 1) intensive productive systems may threaten the ecology of an area (Ehrlich.. Forests are a type of ecosystem which is very difficult to manage (Spiecker.. In addition. it is also well known that it will only “buy time” for developing other solutions to deal with climate change issues (Boyle.. the forest sector accounts for around 17 % of global green house gas emissions due to deforestation and forest degradation (Hector and Bagchi. Forests have both the capacity to provide conditions for more sustainable landscapes but can also be a threat to landscape sustainability. 2005). the forestry managers. 1999. 1999). Forests produce the greatest rates of NPP of any vegetation unit (Powers. 2001..

that maintains their biodiversity. It recognises that humans. 2005:3). national and global levels. at local. At intermediate institutional levels there are the communal or municipal. are an integral component of many ecosystems” (Sayer and Maginnis. The ecosystems approach (EA) was defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity as follows and generally applies to all natural resources: “a strategy for the integrated management of land. and that does not cause damage to other ecosystems” (Sayer and Maginnis. relevant ecological economic and social functions. 2005). productivity. livestock grazers representing different individual interests (Grimble and Chan. both concepts aim at promoting conservation and management practices which are environmentally. The European strategy to promote SFM is implemented by the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) which defined the concept as: “the stewardship and use of forests and forests lands in a way. farmers. Sayer and Maginnis. functions and interactions among organisms and their environment. socially and economically sustainable and which generate and maintain benefits for both present and future generations (FAO. vitality and their potential to fulfil. These are the ecosystems approach (EA) and sustainable forestry management (SFM). hunters. Despite such conceptual differences a review from FAO (2003) provides evidence for a full integration of the two concepts highlighting the need to provide support for the actual implementation of both. 1995). nationally and locally thus making it possible to distinguish a hierarchy of institutions dealing with forests (Box 1. state or provincial interests and the national stakeholders that through the formal forestry offices deal with the 22 . with their cultural diversity. now and in the future. SFM has been addressed internationally. which encompasses the essential structures. and at rate. processes.1). water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. The conceptual differences between the two sets of principles stem from different starting points: production forests and forest management in SFM while EA focuses on conservation ecology.At present. Both concepts are guided by a set of principles. This hierarchy reflects the different levels at which decisions relating to forest use and management are taken. regeneration capacity. 2003. two main views exist to address forests‟ contribution to sustainability. Although evolving separately. An ecosystems approach is based on the application of appropriate scientific methodologies focussed on levels of biological organisation. At the lowest level there are forest landowners. 2005:2).

The United Nations (UN). it provides information on the impacts of products they purchase. For buyers and consumers. An example of a cross-scale mechanism linked with SFM is that of forest certification. Sayer and Maginnis. 2005). through its Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD). Forest certification shares the aim of promoting SFM with another tool. 2003). usually because of the lack of direct connection among government departments. namely Criteria and Indicators (C&I) for SFM (Rametsteiner et al. One of the major problems in developing strategies for SFM is to precisely coordinate such a diverse range of institutional scales (CBD. in addition to assuring the adoption of the statement of forest principles also. At the international level different institutions deal with sustainable forestry management. e. certification.g. At the European level the European Forestry Commission (EFC) is one of FAO‟s six regional forestry commissions. 2008). 2005).implementation of SFM (Sayer and Maginnis. Forest certification meets different interests.. 2003). For industry and trade. What is often missing is consistency among these various levels of policy. For forest owners and managers. For governments. to national policies and finally to local policies that influence individual communities directly (Box 1. so providing an essential reference basis for forest certification (Olivier et al. it is a tool for market advantage. or between levels of government (CBD. Policies often occur for. and accreditation. from international policies. established the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF). 23 . 2008. The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) is currently the lead agency for forests in the UN. and affect. Sets of C&I describe and monitor status and trends in forests and forest management in parallel.5 defines these concepts. Box 1. it is a means to introduce good management practices and value the forest‟s resources (Rametsteiner et al. it is an instrument for environmental marketing and market access. different scales.1). 2000). All certification schemes are made up of three elements: standard. Forest certification is a seal of approval for forestry operations that implement good management practices.

Higman et al. Other groups. Australian Forestry Standard (AFS). It is clear in the literature that SFM is still an evolving concept. 2) to recognise that there are numerous circumstances under which regional development takes place and this is a precondition for understanding the multifaceted nature of regional development in the forest sector (Munda 2005). 2000). the Montreal process (WWW. Rather than enumerate several lists of C&I for different spatial scales it is important 1) to coordinate efforts across a range of scales in order to attempt to implement SFM (CBD. Summarizing. 1999). this time to represent the tropical forests. 2008). Examples of certifiers arise from several parts of the world namely from Canada.Box 1. Performance standards specify the level of performance or results that must be achieved in a forest. Debating the same issue. Source Sayer and Magginnis (2005) With respect to certification goals. Certificación Forestal (Certfor). although much remains unknown and much remains to be done.5. (1999) see SFM as the forests contribution to SD but recognise the need to agree upon more precise ways to implement it. Sistema Brazileiro de Certificação Florestal (CERFLOR) and Spain. Brazil. Siry et al.. 3) to explore the types 24 .org) [accessed 16 March 2009] was established to develop and implement internationally agreed upon Criteria and Indicators (C&I) for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests.mpci. There are two different types of standards: system standards and performance standards. Accreditation is the mechanism for ensuring that the organisations that undertake certification (known as certifiers or certification bodies) are competent and can produce credible results. the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) whose members comprise non-governmental organisations (NGO) and the private sector. Australia. Certification is the process of establishing whether or not a standard has been met. performance and system standards deliver totally different outcomes and cannot be considered equivalent (WWF. Canadian Standard‟s Association (CSA). Wang (2004) also discuss the difficulty in applying the concept on the ground. With the same purpose. the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) established guidelines for sustainable management for the forests in the tropics. System standards specify the management systems that must be in place within an organisation to ensure it is managing quality and environmental and social performance consistently. have also developed principles and criteria for forest management for a range of spatial scales (Higman et al. Forest certification Standard defines the level of forest management practice that must be achieved. (2005) concluded that the scientific community and forest managers must be “cautiously optimistic” about SFM as defined by the Montreal Process. Also Pearce (2001) notes that in some cases unsustainable forestry management is more profitable than the gain that the certification process and SFM may deliver.

forest management institutions have recently shifted their management focus from sustaining yields to sustaining ecosystems (Sayer and Maginnis. for example. 2007. Multifunctionality can be 25 . 1. 2002.of multiple functions that post-modern societies are demanding from forests in order to implement multifunctional forest management that meets the needs of the present and future generations.. 2006). Zander et al. 2005: 2). 2007). 2007).2. Some interpretations focus on the positive views of multifunctionality addressing. multifunctionality implies a situation in which the effects of the delivery of multiple functions or joint production is in accordance with the objectives of citizens and politicians. Commercial interests. As is implicit in the two previous definitions (EA and SFM). 2005). 2000). One way of obtaining a multitude of goods and services from forests is to engage with a broader group of stakeholders (Baskent and Yolasigmaz. 2007.2. Other interpretations use analytical tools to explore topics such as externalities. such as having a beautiful landscape alongside agricultural production. 1999). A concise summary of different interpretations of the concept of multifunctionality was developed by Hagedorn (2007). sustainable forestry. This requires managing for a multiplicity of goals and functions. so multifunctional forestry is of utmost importance in sustaining a range of landscape types (Baskent and Yolasigmaz. jointeness of production in which “bads and goods” are accounted for (Mander et al. and other cases where joint production has a negative impact like nitrate pollution of ground water (Mander et al. In other words.. recreationists and scientists should create constructive and sincere partnerships for management decisions. the role of policies in preserving the multifunctional character of sectors such as agriculture (Firmino. 2006). other approaches address the issues of (re) creating and implementing multifunctionality on the grounds that some aspects of multifunctionality from the past might not viable in the present (Matthews and Selman. Accompanying such a shift. In addition.. sustained yield forestry. 1999). Mander et al. Multifunctionality Multifunctionality implies the delivery of multiple functions from a single parcel of land (Hagedorn. and sustainable forestry management represent a progression of basic forest management concepts that demonstrates the recent trend to greatly increase the range of goods and services for which sustainability is sought (Sayer et al. environmentalists. Multifunctionality is also often interpreted as a jointness of production in which outcomes of the physical process of production are considered as either positive or negative externalities (OECD. 2005)..

recreation and protection (FAO. 2000). In both agriculture and forestry activities the multifunctional character can be obtained in three different spatial ways: 1) by pursuing different goals in a mixture of separate plots of land.6.4 describe different facets of forest management. The first way can be defined as spatial multifunctionality because different spatial units (plots) have clearly defined management goals. Major functions of forest ecosystems Production forest land designated/used for production and extraction of forest goods. Protection forest land designated/used for protection of soil and water also assuring other protective functions such as biodiversity Recreation forest land designated/used for the provision of social services including recreation. whereas in forestry three functions (that are related to different management systems) are normally recognised. Sections 1. but sequentially in time.analysed both at the landscape scale as well as from activities such as forestry and agriculture (Mander et al. 2007). 2) by pursuing different goals on the same parcel of land. Lexer and Brooks. The primary production sectors such as agriculture. but when zooming in and out to generate a mosaic the landscape appears to be more or less multifunctional.1. in 26 . By contrast. 2005. 1.2. 2005). tourism. or 3) by integrating from the beginning and coordinating the different goals to accomplish them simultaneously (de Blust and Olmen.2. Multifunctionality: the forest scale Multifunctionality is used to characterize the activities in the primary production sector (Hagedorn..1.. horticulture and related land dependent activities are considered as having a primary or main function (production) and related joint production which typically include a mix of material and non-tangible goods as well as a mix of private and public goods (externalities) (Lexer and Brooks. Agriculture functions may be divided into primary and secondary (production and externalities).2. Within the primary sector path (multifunctional) agriculture has received most attention whilst the forestry sector is barely referred to but has a longer tradition of multifunctional thinking (through terms such as multiple purpose or multiple use forestry). 2005). forestry. Box 1. 2007). Source: FAO (2005) Global forest resources assessment update: terms and definitions Consequently.6.1. it can be said that in the primary sector path the term multifunctionality is relatively well defined and accepted (Vejre et al.2. education and or conservation of cultural spiritual sites. namely production. In spatial multifunctionality each piece of land has one function.1 to 1. These three types of function are described in Box 1. including both wood and non wood forest products. 2007).

.50 ha) Pr /Pt/Rc Integrated multifunctionality Pr Rc Pt Spatial multifunctionality (in forestry also called multiple use by adjency) Pr-Production. 2004). Lexer and Brooks. This “new” holistic approach for forest management through landscapes tends to not physically and permanently divide the land base for certain uses.. adapted from de Blust and Olmen (2000) Figure 1. Agreement was 27 .1. 2007). The last report of the Millenium Ecosystem Assessement in 2005 made an attempt to bring order to the many definitions of “functions”. 2001. there is still not a clear consensus on the final definitions of these concepts (de Groot and Hein.1. Goods and services provided by forests The three functions of forests described in Box 1. 2000.6. Despite the large body of literature on ecosystem (or landscape) functions. the role of forestry is changing to include not only productive.2. Stand scale/ plot of land (e. 2005). 2000). 2007a). 2008). but also consumptive (recreation) and protective functions. This type of multifunctional land use can be defined as integrated multifunctionality (de Blust and Olmen. 1. Turner and Daily. Achieving this will require a new coordination of forest functions in post-industrial landscapes that certainly needs to be carefully addressed (Nabuurs et al. especially problematic is the distinction between function and service (Fisher et al. Slee. Figure 1. it aims to manage the forest ecosystems as a whole to provide multiple functions simultaneously (Baskent and Yolasigmaz. 2001. Goods and services provided by forests can be included in a broader category of goods and services provided by the environment (de Groot et al. “goods” and “services”. 2007a. The next section explores the goods and services provided by forests.6 (related to three different management systems) provide a variety of goods and services.g.1 shows the two types of multifunctionality at a forest scale. different goals are attained in the same spatial unit (successively in the second and simultaneously in the third). instead..2. Slee. Rc-Recreation see Box 1. goods and services.2.the second and third variants. Pt-Protection. Multifunctionality at forest scale As was previously stated in Section 1. Niskanen and Lin. 2002.

Many authors however. Decision contexts addressed by Fisher et al (2004) were education and understanding.g. For example de Groot et al (2002:394) defined function as “. The term forest functions implies a normative–ontological approach to the analysis of relationships between society and the environment. The concept of „forest functions‟ also implies that forest land-use management is a task to be managed and planned (forests can be managed for production. decision making or research) in which ecosystem service may be important. 2007). land management and distribution and equity in human welfare. have highlighted a principal difference between the term function and service. and in order to avoid lengthy texts it was decided to use the term “services” for both goods and services as well as the underlying functional processes and components of the ecosystems providing them (de Groot and Hein.. Functions are seen as the actual (functional) processes and components in ecosystems and landscapes that provide.7 and Figure 1. protection and recreation). Fisher et al (2004) argued that any attempt at classifying ecosystem services should be based on both the characteristics of interest and a decision context. The land management context defined by Fisher et al (2004) was considered useful for the purpose of this research and a discussion of this follows. This is contested by some scholars (Janse and Ottitsch. in which natural resources are seen as entities providing „functions‟ for society. 28 . Box 1. Acknowledging that there is not one classification scheme that will be adequate for the multitude of contexts (e. Describing relationships between service production and where the benefits are realized (as explored by Fisher et al 2004) is important in the forestry context. 2005). directly or indirectly.reached to define services as “the benefits people derive from ecosystems”. 2007). valuation.the capacity of ecosystems to provide goods and services that satisfy human needs either directly or indirectly”.2 show that the manner in which forest services are provided (P) and benefits (B) delivered may occur in at least three different ways: 1) in situ.. 2) omni-directional and 3) directional. goods and services which benefit human welfare (de Groot and Hein.

Places where services are provided (P) and benefits delivered (B) As previously discussed to the most common functions attributed to forestry are those of production.Box 1. The services are provided and the benefits are realized in the same location (e. The services are provided in one location. besides timber production. Directional. The service provision benefits a specific location due to the flow direction. soil formation. production comprises both timber and non timber products. Source: Fisher et al (2004) p. In 4 the service provision unit could be coastal wetlands (or forests) providing storm and flood protection to a coastline. For example. that forests fulfil. for example water. (1997) (and widely criticized see Balmford et al. carbon sequestration. Places where services are provided (P) and benefits delivered (B) 1. Generally. in the well known paper by Costanza et al. 12 Figure 1. protection and recreation (Box 1. 2002) the economic value of forests represented 30 % of the total economic 29 . 2. and 4. The terms Non-Wood Forest Products and Services (NWFPS) or Non Timber forest products (NTFP) are also used when talking about the broad scope of functions.2. Omni-directional. it is increasingly recognised that a variety of environmental services provided by forests are very important and thus have an economic value (Pearce.6). but benefit the surrounding landscape without directional bias (e. At present.g. pollination) 3. 2001). provision of raw materials).7. In 3 down slope units benefit from services provided in uphill areas.g. In situ.

Slee. (2006) investigated the effect of forest management on future carbon pools and fluxes. there is a strong demand for scientific estimates of the current and potential contribution of forests in both carbon sequestration (wood and forest soil) and forest biomass as a renewable source of energy (Karjalainen et al. carbon sequestration and forest biomass. Table 1. 2001). forests also provide other environmental functions such as watershed protection.. Furthermore. 2007a). many important forest functions. Schmid et al. most of the functions from forests (that become services) do not have effective markets (Pearce. This study shows that different forest management strategies alter the ability of forests to act as a carbon sink or source (Schmid et al. although valued. According to Pearce (2001:284) “all ecological functions of forests are also economic functions” however they may either represent a gain for society (biodiversity. Nagendra. Regarding forestry biomass. 2004). Bateman et al. Slee. For example. 2001. 2006). there are studies reporting the economic value of services provided by forests. prevention of wild fire. The problems of transferring values across places are well known but these values reveal the economic importance of forests for recreation activities.. This can occur either by using forests ability to sequester carbon in living wood and soils (Bateman and Lovett. combat invasive tree species). timber and non timber products) or be an expense (e. 2007a).value of the world ecosystems (Balmford et al.. In addition to timber and non timber products. 2006). 2002. (2005) calculated the economic value of recreation in woodlands and forests for England. Concerning carbon sequestration. 2003. However. 1997. 30 .g. Costanza et al. 2002. recent studies indicate that forestry practices such as whole tree harvesting (log+ wood residuals in order to produce renewable energy) will cause net losses of nitrogen in some forest areas which means that forestry will not be sustainable unless nutrients are added through compensatory fertilization (Akselsson et al. with either emergent or indirect markets.. Despite this. recreation. 2003)... One contemporary expectation of humans regarding forests is to use their characteristics to overcome global warming threats (Karjalainen et al. sewage treatment and noise reduction. have no markets and hence no apparent economic value (Pearce. The problem is that whether they are valued or not.. This is one of the causes of the loss of forest area that occurs mainly in the tropics (Balmford et al.8 shows different forest goods/services according to the places in which services are delivered and benefits occur. Schmid et al.. 2000) or their capacity to produce “green” energy through different processes that transform forest biomass (Boyle. 2007). 2007).

Some of the goods and services provided by forests described in Table 1. some financial mechanisms through which stakeholders downstream can provide payments for afforestation projects to stakeholders located upstream in the catchment (Johnson et al. A review of financial mechanisms for developing markets for water services from forests is presented by Johnson et al. 2002)..There are however. The next section describes multifunctional and dominant use types of forestry. This topic is further discussed in Chapter 4. 31 .8 might be generated either by dominant or multifunctional use. (2005). (2002) and Sabatier et al.

cork. All natural systems help to reduce these differences. 2005) Non timber products (Janse and Ottitsch.77/GJ to £3. A single large tree can transpire 450 l of water per day. Examples include mushrooms. 1999) 32 . There are different ways in each recreation may generate income. Local climate and even weather is affected by places such as cities. and rubber. Trees can lower summer temperatures markedly by decrease energy use for heating and air-conditioning when shading houses in the summer and reducing wind speed in winter. Pure spruce forest may filter 2 or 3 times as much. 2005) (Bolund and Hunhamm ar. for example for heat supply to buildings and dwellings within an estate.. A survey of published reports found supply price estimates ranging from £ 0.8. These may be traded in a variety of ways such as distant markets or be part of local development strategies. The income generated by selling NTP varies from product to product and the length of the trade circuit. 2001) (Bateman et al. But coniferous trees are sensitive to air pollution and deciduous trees are better to absorb gases. whereas for Norwegian forest owners it is more promising to focus on offering wilderness-experience 'all-in package-deals' to tourists. in combination with amounts of energy use in cities. Biomass energy (which includes forestry biomass) is an emerging industry which does not yet have established supply chains or quality standards. or planting three trees per building lot could reduce the energy expenses by 50-90 US dollars per dwelling unit per year Sources (Bateman et al. 2) the price for medium to large volumes of wood chip will tend to be set by the cost of collection. 2007) (Boyle. at street and city level (Bolund and Hunhamm ar. 2005) Forest biomass (DTI.2/GJ.Table 1.. Vegetation reduces air pollution but to what level seems to depend on the local situation. Goods and services provided by forests P/B In situ Good/ Service Timber Description Timber is a product which needs no detailed description. 1 ha of mixed forest removes 15 tonnes of particles per year. This capacity is also grater because the needles are also shed during the winter. medicinal plants. processing and transport plus a small margin. is caused by the large area of heat absorbing surfaces. An increase of 10% in tree cover. The reduction is caused by vegetation filtering pollution from the air. In the rural areas across Europe for example forest owners in the Netherlands focus on offering smallscale. Because of the larger total surfaces of needles. The recreational aspects are perhaps the most valued ecosystems services for urban dwellers. Bateman et al (2005:111) assess both the social and private value of timber production in the UK. called urban heat island effect. There are a multitude of non-timber products that forests may provide. Thick vegetation may simple cause turbulence in the air while thinner cover may let the air through and filter it. nature-based facilities for (short-stay) recreationists. coniferous trees have a larger filter capacity than the trees with deciduous leaves. As a result biomass prices may be quite variable year on year reflecting production/availability. This phenomenon.. There are only limited markets for forest biomass so the normal recommendations are : 1) small scale production is mainly relevant to local utilisation. Filtering capacity increases with leaf area so is higher for trees than bush and grassland. 2004) Recreation and cultural values (Brainard et al. and between localities reflecting differing supply demand balances. Prices of timber vary according with tree species as well as the timber characteristics and commercial circuit. 1999) Air filtering Microclimate regulation.

Schmid et al. Forested slopes provide both water retention and avoid landslides at areas located downhill. Sabatier et al. basic relationships that reflect the importance of forests in the whole catchment management: 1) Forests slow the rate of runoff in a watershed. Though of value there are still no markets for these services provided by forests nor were market values found. Karjalaine n et al. European Commission initiated the emission trade schemes in 2005 see Box 1. Different studies achieve very different results. Clean Development Mechanism CDM which are systems by which participating countries or institutions can meet some of their greenhouse gas reductions by buying certified carbon credits. de Groot et al. The different models may result in different carbon estimates at the ecosystem scale.4). Some studies shown that wetlands and forests can significantly reduce the costs of sewage treatments. 2002) Flood protection Whole catchment manageme nt (Johnson et al. In vegetation free areas such as cities about 60% of the rainwater is instead disposed of through storm water drains. Taking care of sewage costs. The global carbon market established in 2001 as part of the Kyoto protocol allow the trade of carbon credits e. 2) Forests reduce soil erosion and sedimentation of waterways. In India were reported at $65 per year for each hectare committed to grow they forests for four years rather than logging every year. 1999) (Fisher et al.... 2005) Omni direction al Carbon sequestrati on (Basu. Johnson et al. 2009.Good/ Service Noise reduction Description Vegetation contributes to a decrease in the propagation noise but at what level is uncertain. 1999) Sewage treatment Directio nal Rain water drainage (Bolund and Hunhamm ar. There is a suite of techniques for predicting carbon pools and fluxes. 1999) (Bolund and Hunhamm ar. Forests located in coastal areas also provide storm and flood protection to a coastline. Pollination function is very important in assuring food security. mainly in cities large amounts of money. and the nutrients that are still released contribute to eutrophication of the surrounding water ecosystems.. 2002. with the rest evaporating or infiltrating the ground.g. 2004. 2007. In vegetated areas only 5-15% of the rain water runs off the ground. Valuation of this service depends upon the local situation. All the models used for such purposes are situated somewhere on the gradient between empirical based models and process models. people and water are highly variable. Though of value there are still no markets for these services provided by forests nor were market values found. Prices vary. Though of value there are still no markets for these services. Sources (Bolund and Hunhamm ar. 2006) Pollination (de Groot and Hein. There are however arrangements in place in order to manage this service with the whole catchment vision In a area of a single watershed the biophysical relationships between forests. 2003. There are however.. 3) Forest soils filter contaminants and influence water chemistry. The presence of trees and forests provides habitat for pollinators such as bees... 2002) 33 .

Heavy cutting may make the forests less effective as a regulator of runoff and certainly impairs its value for recreation.2. Land use planning under the MUSY Act aimed at coordinating potentially conflicting uses rather than zoning for single uses. Multi resource management is a challenge because “Simultaneous use of the same piece of land for several purposes is often difficult since many uses compete with as well as supplement each other. the latter refers to the productive capacity of the land and the compatibility of one forest use with another. Timber use production is the most prominent of the dominant uses though the simultaneous use of the same piece of land for several purposes allows the “simultaneous or joint exploitation” of different products from the same plot of land. 2002). 34 . However.2. Complete preservation of natural conditions for the benefit of the water supply or the nature lover puts a stop to all industrial use” Dana (1943) cited by Stevens and Montegomerey (2002:1). 2002). from product output focus to an ecosystem health focus. Full utilization of forage reduces the yield of the wood. mixed species forest and replanting to a single species forest reduces biodiversity. Although the call was for integration of uses the feeling prevailed that forest management had often followed a zoning model of many dominant uses named as “multiple use by adjacency” (Stevens and Montegomerey. According to Stevens and Montegomerey (2002) multiresource research in forestry has two major components namely valuation and production possibilities. from emphasis on one use or product to the joint production of multiple products and services (Stevens and Montegomerey. Multifunctional forestry vs. however often the management result was viewed as adjacent. One of the first landmarks proclaiming the shift from dominant to multiple use forestry occurred in the US through the Multiple-Use and Sustained Yield Act (MUSY) of 1960. Compatibility research tries to provide guidance on the cost of increasing one forest use at the expense of other forest uses (Stevens and Montegomerey. The former refers to public preferences and social values guiding the desirability of increasing one forest use even when it implies decreasing another. 2002). dominant use Management of forests has evolved from dominant use to multiple use. For example. single resource land use allocations. the consumption or use of one forest product or service may have an effect on other products and functions. Research on tradeoffs and complementarity of production in the multiresource forest environment helps guide these choices. clear-cutting a mix aged.1. Maximum production of timber interferes with maximum production of wildlife.3.

2002). flexible wood production and nature protection ++++ +++ ++++ +++ Protection Nature conservation Strict forest reserves providing uneven natural structures and processes + +++++ ++ +++++ Comparison of different management approaches with an indication of their respective fulfilment of specific management goals. Above all. Good forestry practices The types of functions that forests are able to provide (production. According to Stevens and Montegomery (2002) the majority of the compatibility studies of forests have been carried out at stand level. forests will provide more or less timber as well be more or less appropriate for biodiversity requirements. The table shows some basic principles and general features of the three management approaches to forestry. recreation) deliver different goods and services such as production of timber and biodiversity (see Table 1. protection. Forest functions and management strategies Function Management approach Specific management goals Production of timber Landscape beauty Recreation Biodiversity Production Plantation Focus on timber production and direct economic outcome +++++ ++ ++ + Recreation Nature based integrative Recreation.In this respect. As a consequence. where “+” = low goal fulfilment and “+++++”= high goal fulfilment. At the present.9). uses can be considered incompatible when investigated at smaller scales and compatible when broader scales are considered (Stevens and Montegomerey. 2006). 1. scale is of extreme importance because what may be multiple uses at the forest level may actually be dominant use at the stand level.4. If there are a multitude of studies addressing valuation of forest goods and services there are fewer studies addressing compatibility of forests at the landscape scale (de Groot. Both have strengths and/or weaknesses and are more or less appropriate for different environmental and socio-economic dynamics. Forest uses are more likely to be compatible at regional or forest scale than at the smaller stand or management unit scale. Table 1.2. Moreover. multiple vs dominant use are clearly different in ways to look at forestry. depending on the management system undertaken.9. 2008). The goal fulfilment is subjectively scored on a scale from 1 to 5 plusses. Source: Adapted from Sayer and Maginnis (2005:62) 35 .2. multifunctional forest management has been increasingly recognised as crucial in moving towards SD through landscapes but there is a need to further investigate the types of multifunctionality able to do so (Pinto-Correia and Breman.

In order to overcome the severe effects of wild fires the use of controlled fires has been increasingly recognised to be a “good management practice”.10) is needed and is an important feature of SFM. 1992). 2001). In some temperate forests of North America and in Mediterranean countries as well as in Australia. The most distinctive characteristic of forestry is the long length of the production process (known as the rotation period).. One of the reasons for supporting CCF is the need to overcome the recent trends of fragmentation in forest areas (Fahrig. 2003). Other techniques for fire management are variation of stand structures because in an uneven stand fire progression is slower due to different wood densities. Another is that of incentivising Continuous Cover Forestry (CCF) which despite not being a new idea in forest management has been of renewed interest for the potential it has to meet sustainability requirements (Pommerening and Murphy. 1996). 2005). Avoiding the spread of diseases as well as removing litter from forest plots is very important in SFM. promoting mixed aged class stands (see Table 1.Although different management systems have specific “good practices” for example. 36 . There are studies reporting the importance of controlled fires breaks in continuous forests to avoid a rapid spread of fire (Fernandes. the notion of strategic (or long range) planning is widely known with origins that can be traced back to centuries ago. Another matter of concern in forest management at present is to overcome the trends towards simplification of stand structures caused mostly by even aged plantations in the past. the risk of wild fires is an important matter of concern. a good practice in a forest managed for recreation is to vary the stand composition by putting together broadleaves and coniferous forests and also varying the stand ages (different levels of canopy). Thus. One of the “universal” good practice rules in order to maintain the natural capital of an area is not to surpass the yield capacity (Costanza and Daly. Another universal rule is to manage forests in such a way that the sanitary conditions of forests are assured (Ehrlich. some general rules for good forest management practices may be defined. Fire causes important changes in environmental conditions for plant growth and establishment both due to the destruction of above ground biomass as well as direct effects on soil physical properties and biogeochemical processes (Clemente et al. In forestry. 2004).

Table 1. 7 Low forests are forests entirely managed on a short rotation basis by coppicing (coppice system) while middle forests (coppice with standards) are result of coppice though allowing some individual tree to full growth Pommering and Murphy (2004) 37 . Multifunctional forest management was described as of utmost importance. Afterwards the target species are introduced being protected against extremes of weather from the pioneer species. 2004) This section has indicated that forests may provide an array of goods and services that extend beyond the place in which forests are located. The next section explores the concept of multifunctionality from a landscape perspective. diseases and fire cannot spread as easily as in pure stands). Retaining a certain amount of lying and standing deadwood in each forest stand is recommended both for biodiversity and amenity reasons (though some studies show that the presence of deadwood decreases recreational value) Tackle fragmentation issues by enhancing forest networks. There are a multitude of management strategies that can differentially deliver goods and services from forests. Tree species and provenance choice should be dependent on site conditions. abiotic and economic risks (e. Good forest management practices Good forest management practice Continuous cover forestry (when possible) Awareness about negative effects of CCF Description and sources Includes those sylvicultural systems which involve continuous and uninterrupted maintenance of forest cover avoiding clearcutting. Mixed forests provide a wider range of size classes and timber products allowing flexible and rapid response to market conditions without decreasing total volume production Establishment of mixed stands sometimes implies to have shelter trees or nurse crops.10. Adapted from (Pommerening and Murphy. Contiguous high forests such as beech can have negative effects on tree species diversity because less competitive species tend to be extinguished compared to middle or low forests7 Diversification from monospecies coniferous plantations reduces biotic.g. Native tree species and broadleaves should be favoured. deadwood and protection of rare species Spatial arrangement maters Source. Establishment of forest margins as transition zones between the open landscape and forests. Variety of stand structures (mixed age classes and tree species) Using protective silvicultural techniques such as nurse crops Attention to site limitations Conservation of old trees. The procedure is to establish a nurse crop of a pioneer species by planting or seeding at a comparatively wide spacing.

the benefits of the resource may accumulate to stakeholders at a range of institutional scales. Competitive interactions are strongest among species that have similar functions and operate at similar scale. 2007). multifunctionality is used to characterize the landscape per se (Vejre et al.. productivity) appear (Mander et al. cultural and supporting. rather they are difficult to realise due to the complex character of functionality in landscape ecosystems. the functioning of ecosystems depends upon processes that take place over a range of ecosystems and institutional scales (Box 1. However.. In 38 . if present. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment initiative (MEA 2003. In contrast to the primary sector. regulating. Based on a modified version of the MEA (2005) (supporting was replaced by habitat function because the paper focussed on economic valuation and there was the risk of double counting some services) de Groot and Hein (2007) analysed the types of landscape functions and their implications for the ecological and institutional scales shown in Box 1. 2005) has nevertheless distinguished four groups of landscape functions namely provisioning. functions of landscapes are not by definition grouped. 2008). as was previously pointed out. residents. Compared to agriculture and forestry.1). whereas at the level of one field fewer functions (e.. where functions such as production.3. 2007). the benefits of the resources may accumulate to stakeholders at a range of institutional scales. Furthermore. To analyse the ecological impacts of the resource use. Production functions are concerned with the possibility of “harvesting” products from natural or semi-natural landscapes and this depends upon the availability of the resource. or the harvest that can be supported. As can be seen from the description of the different landscape functions in Table 1. At local scale. protection and recreation are straightforward to reach agreement upon. 2008). Vejre et al. Multifunctional landscapes In the landscape setting (or path).2..11.. Also. Thus embracing the complexity of multifunctionality at landscape level is an enormous challenge.1. the appropriate scale of analysis is the level of the landscape supplying the service. at the landscape scale the full spectrum of ecosystem processes or functions can be realised. These interactions encourage functional diversity within a scale and the distribution of ecological functions across scales (Peterson et al. 2007). the actors within the landscape sciences have not reached a common agreement on the terms function and hence multifunctionality (Fry. are often an important actor. Ecological organization at a specific scale is determined mainly by interactions between species and processes operating within that scale (Peterson et al.g.1. 2001.

The multiple functions occurring in a landscape also imply a linkage between a community and its environment (landscape) and in some regions this is at peril (Antrop. Cultural functions are also supplied at different ecological and institutional scales.addition. It is. As the value attached to the cultural service depends on the background of the stakeholders involved there may be very different perceptions of such values at different scales. Selman. it is acknowledged that some protected and cultural (Box 1.sustaining because the links between landscapes. 2006). As was discussed in Section 1. The multifunctionality of forestry and agriculture (Section 1. For example. 2006. 2007).. As was previously discussed. community and economy are no longer self reinforcing (Mander et al. Selman. Land use is a term that makes sense in describing the functionality of farming and forestry as well as the landscape systems (Vejre et al.2).7 Figure 1. 2007. likely that the types of function at the forest scale will have effects on landscape multifunctionality. 2007. Mander et al. a large plot of forest primarily managed for production is likely to provide few opportunities for scenic landscapes in the area it is located.2) and the multifunctionality of the landscape (Section 1. multifunctionality has also to be seen in terms of negative aspects..3) have land use as a common denominator. the impact of the water buffering capacity of forests will be noticed downstream in the same catchment (Box 1. As there are different types of landscapes one of the factors varying between them is the amount and type of forest ecosystems and.11). Regulation and habitat functions can be interpreted as ecological processes that have (actual or potential) economic value because they may have an economic impact outside the studied landscape and/or if they provide a direct benefit to people living in the area (Table 1. arising not necessarily only from the jointness of production. processed or consumed at larger spatial scales. 2007). 2007). In addition.1.. there may be stakeholder interests at wider scales if the goods involved are harvested. for example.2. 2006. combining forests with surrounding land uses such as urban or agriculture will certainly create a multitude of different functions at the landscape level. it is important to investigate 39 . As a consequence there are multifunctional landscapes in which the link with sustainability is loose (Hagedorn. For some regulation functions not only the scale is important but additionally the position in the landscape plays a role. Nevertheless.2. however. forests may be only a part of the multiple ecosystems across landscapes.2) landscapes in post-industrial societies are not self. Vejre et al. It is obvious that between agricultural or forestry and landscape viewpoints there is the issue of scale..

local stakeholders may attach particular value to local heritage whereas national/global stakeholders may have a particular interest in the conservation of nature and biodiversity. Habitat functions refer in particular to the opportunity to maintain and protect biological diversity offered by landscape-as an end in itself. Regulation functions Habitat functions Cultural and amenity functions (most common is recreation) Based on de Groot and Hein (2007:30) To summarise.g. the impact of the water buffering capacity of forests will be noticed only downstream in the same catchment.2. Stakeholders in cultural services can vary from the individual to the global scale. In order to do so.11.the type of forestry that is likely to contribute to more sustainable landscapes (PintoCorreia and Breman. Nature tourism has become a major cultural service in western countries and has linked stakeholders from the local to global scales. The next section presents the possible ways to move forward by specifically addressing the tools and methods that might help to inform SFM at different spatial scales. The value of the service may differ e.3). the appropriate scale of analysis is the level of the landscape supplying the service. SFM needs to be addressed at a multitude of ecological and institutional scales (Box 1.2.2 started by defining the concept of sustainable forestry management. such as the presence of a monumental tree or a natural park. Section 1. Stakeholders of habitat functions are all people residing in or otherwise depending upon the area affected by the service.1). 2008). Following this. Cultural and amenity function are supplied by landscapes at different ecological scales. the benefits of the resource may accumulate to stakeholders at a range of institutional scales. Stakeholders in a regulation service are all people residing in or otherwise depending upon the area affected by the service. For many regulation services not only the scale but the position in the landscape plays a rolefor example. Description of landscape functions Landscape functions Provision functions Description To analyse the ecological impacts of the resource use. However. this aims at coordinating the ways in which forests may contribute to more sustainable landscapes. Table 1. Regulation services are typically generated at a specific ecological scale but the benefits may accrue to stakeholders at a range of institutional scales.2) as well as at the landscape scale (Section 1. 40 . It was stressed that forests may provide a multitude of functions that may lead to landscape sustainability and this is better achieved if multifunctional forest management is put into practice. the concept of multifunctionality was explored at the forest scale (Section 1. or the harvest that can be supported.

Nicholson-Cole and O'Riordan. the mere act of establishing goals and adopting programs (in planning). Landscape governance furnishes an effective setting for the operation of area-based partnerships which can intervene in a more integrated and place-sensitive manner (Selman..g. will never result in more than just goals and programs unless these are made fully operational and enforceable in order to achieve the stated goals (Carlman.e. planning is “a forward-looking action to enhance. A “whole landscape approach” was defined by Dolman et al. establishing the linkage between the concept of landscape with the concept of steered or planned sustainability is.3.1 and 1. Sustainable landscape planning and landscape governance as a way to move forward Sustainable planning seeks to link knowledge about sustainability with actions to achieve it (Ahern. 2005). to address fuzzy8 concepts and doctrines) in an attempt to identify appropriate responses for a specific socio-economic and ecological (SESs) context. if not utopia 8 The word fuzzy is used to refer to situations where there is lack of clarity in the basic concepts 41 .2.1. 2004).. According to the European Landscape Convention. It aims at delivering policies or mechanisms (e. tax reduction) able to implement the stated planning goals on the ground (Milligan and O'Riordan. in other words. 2006).landscape elements”.2). (2001:306) as “a process of integrated planning across property boundaries that optimizes the amount. As was previously highlighted (Section 1. 2000). Nevertheless. 2008). governance for sustainability can be understood as “the emergence and the implementation of innovative shared forms of planning and managing of socio-spatial dynamics” (CEMAT. One of the roles of planning/governance systems is to navigate through multiple realities and recognize uncertainty (i. a “place making” instrument. 2006:29). Sustainable planning therefore attempts to “implement” or “operationalise” the principles of sustainability in planning (Kato and Ahern.2. Thus. means the routine tasks required in order to achieve the planning goals. 2007). Management. on the other hand. 2009). Landscape governance aims at implementing the stated planning goals by working at the institutional level (Adger et al. configuration and management of. location. In these settings. These specific socio-ecological (SESs) contexts will create different forms of agriculture and forestry which in turn will influence the multifunctional character of the landscape (Sections 1. 1997. Planning is generally associated with the integration within place or.1) a spatial planning approach is thus a tool for planning for the “whole landscape”. It follows from the above that planning and governance for sustainability is an immense challenge (Forman and Collinge. however of great support. 2005).. restore or create landscapes” (Council of Europe.

How can landscapes (seen as holistic) be planned? Even more importantly is how can landscapes be planned for sustainability? Sustainable landscape planning and landscape governance aim at coordinating the processes occurring between man and nature (Naveh. strategies and recommendations for the implementation of sustainable landscapes are reviewed in Ahern (2005). quantitative approaches are used at broader spatial scales because of their inherent analytical power. (2005) in which different spatial levels were combined within a framework. According to Cash et al (2006:2) “cross scale” means the interactions across different scales. the Millenium Ecosystem Assessement (MEA) used a multiscale approach that consisted of component assessments undertaken at multiple spatial scales ranging from individual villages to the globe. In general. barriers. 2005)..(Antrop. 2003) as they allow a focus on both interactions within or across scales. Multiscale assessements are both resource and time intensive but they do provide a “complete insight” to the problems addressed (MEA. challenging. For example. different categories of sub-global assessements (MEA. Studies describing challenges. different methods are likely to be more or less appropriate for different scales of analysis (Herrmann and Osinski.. MEA. In such a multiscale analysis the highest level provides general ideas for the development of planning measures at the lower scales of analysis (Lopes-Ridaura et al. There are also multiscale studies such as those by Herrmann and Osinki (1999) and LopesRidaura et al. at least. As the problem definition and therefore the research questions are likely to vary between spatial scales. at more detailed spatial scales in-depth studies usually require qualitative approaches (Flick. 2003). Qualitative approaches may be put into practice in a variety of forms such as focus groups and interviews. methodological approaches used and ultimately the outcome of the analysis. 2006). In the MEA there were. By contrast. 2007). 2008). 2005). 2002). 2003. Flick (2002) reviews the strength and weakness of different qualitative methods. 2005) representing those different forms of relating and cross scaling the different analyses undertaken. 1999). There are also studies reporting the way in which planning provided mechanisms through which communities developed sustainability discourses (Hanna. The literature on sustainable landscape planning refers to several components that landscape planning and 42 . The scale at which an analysis is undertaken significantly influences the problem definition. 2006. Recognition of the importance of scale in the context of environmental resources assessment and management has grown considerably over the past decade (Cash et al. however. Landscape planning occurs at different planning levels covering different spatial scales (von Haaren and Ott.

43 . their interpretations may be somewhat different. This implies the use and the integration of knowledge from research fields such as environmental sciences. 2002). can. Disciplines such as landscape ecology study the composition and configuration of landscape patches in order to characterise functions and processes operating in it (Dolman et al. McGarigal et al. This software computes a wide variety of landscape metrics for categorical map patterns (McGarigal et al. 2003. 2001). The problem is. 1995. while others quantify landscape configuration. Transdisciplinarity is a approach where integrative forms of research (comprising more than one research field) interact with extra-scientific experience and practice (often involving stakeholders outside science) in concrete problem-solving (Tress and Tress. 2003.. deal with the challenges at stake. landscape metrics represent the spatial pattern of the entire landscape mosaic. There are different studies calculating metrics for forests (both class and landscape) in the study of ecological process such as fragmentation (Fahrig. 2001.12. The original software (version 2) was released in the public domain during 1995. of which the most common is the program FRAGSTATS.. Both at the class and landscape level. 2008). 2002). One widely used tool in landscape ecology is the calculation of landscape (or class) metrics by using different types of software. Naveh. social sciences and economics together with practitioners and stakeholders into concrete problem solving (Naveh. As highlighted in Table 1. Class metrics represent the spatial distribution and pattern within a landscape of a single patch type while. Forman. FRAGSTATS computes several statistics for each patch and class (patch type) in the landscape and for the landscape as a whole. some of the metrics quantify landscape composition. 2002) (Chapter 3 further explores this topic). even though many of the indices have counterparts at the class and landscape levels. 2007).12 summarizes some important principles for sustainable landscape planning and landscape governance. Table 1. in order to plan for sustainability. instead transdisciplinary approaches should be used as the guiding principle (Naveh. Hersperger and Forman. Other researchers have highlighted the usefulness of landscape metrics in addressing sustainability (Botequilha Leitao and Ahern.. 2007) Seeking to implement sustainable landscape planning also involves a wide range of techniques tools and methods from research fields such as environmental and social sciences.. economics. and institutional theory. considering all patch types simultaneously (McGarigal et al. 2007). as construed at present. in isolation. none of the disciplines of ecology. 2002).landscape governance with sustainability goals must address in order to move towards more sustainable landscapes (von Haaren and Ott.

Appleton. 2003. As shown in Table 1. (2001) which addressed public preferences for forests based on both visual and verbal data. For example Botequilha Leitao and Ahern (2002) proposed a set of five stages (landscape analysis. Based generally in participatory approaches. 2002. 2005) (Chapter 5 addresses this topic). Slee. In these types of studies either questionnaires including a set of photos (photo-questionnaire) or interviews and focus group meetings are widely used (Bogaert. As was previously discussed in Section 1.. There is a huge body of literature studying the effects that public preferences may have on the ecological functioning of ecosystems (Gobster et al. prognosis. Research on landscape planning has proposed different steps or stages in planning processes.. Each landscape plan and the expected changes it addresses is unique for a specific place and for a particular suite of issues and landscape changes (there is no universal panacea!). 2001. In recent years the use of visualization tools has been increasingly recognised as of utmost importance and several studies have used these in order to effectively engage the public in environmental management (Appleton and Lovett. 2003.. Fisher et al. Daniel and Meitner. An enormous variety of valuation methods have been developed and are of utmost importance in informing policy makers worldwide (Balmford et al. another important feature in planning for sustainability is to deal with both diversity and uncertainty (Shearer.. 2007). There are also studies such as that by Tahvanainen et al. 2001.. Winter. 2009). environmental social sciences aim at producing understanding that can be applied to the resolution of environmental conflicts by exploring institutional arrangements and governance systems likely to promote sustainable management of natural resources (Adger et al.. 1995).Social scientists have. diagnosis.. 2002. 2004). Stengera et al. valuable knowledge in dealing with stakeholder engagement throughout planning and governance processes (Milligan et al. 44 .. Tahvanainen et al. 2006). 2007. 2009) and the value of different forest functions has been calculated in a range of studies (Pearce. Wang et al. The use of participatory approaches in natural resource management is a well known research field (Grimble and Chan.1 there are differences in public preferences for forests across stakeholders groups (Lewis and Sheppard. 2006). de Groot et al. 2007a. and will keep adding. 2001). Economists have a crucial role in their work on ecosystem and landscape valuation (DEFRA. For Sustainable Forestry Management (SFM) the involvement of stakeholders is crucial and various studies have examined stakeholders preferences for multiple forest values (Kummar and Kant. 2005).. There are a variety of methods used to value different goods and services provided by forests (Pearce. 2002.12. 2006). 2001). 2004).

2003). 1999). Land use allocation procedures in Geographical Information Systems (GIS) software are also valuable tools in order to account for different environmental. every landscape plan is subject to the full spectrum of uncertainty related not only to that specific place but also to neighbouring areas or even from unexpected events occurring in remote places (Hersperger and Forman. It is clear that the use of landscapes for the functions of production e.g.e. 2006). to cite only a few examples. Scenarios are not predictions. social and economic options (Kangas and Kangas. 2004). 2005. housing. creates conflicts that need to be solved through planning (Hanna. 2008). 2005. 2005). multi objective approaches are very important to systematically represent the tradeoffs that need to be made (Kangas and Kangas. Dealing with uncertain futures is a facet implicit in planning for sustainability. 1999).. 2005. groundwater recharge. recreation and transportation. 2003). Malczewski. Herrmann and Osinski. for cereals or timber. There are varying scenario typologies more or less appropriate for different research questions (Borjeson et al. Multi criteria. The ways in which the future may unfold i. 45 . Tress and Tress. instead they are seen as plausible accounts of the future (Carpenter et al. Mendoza and Prabhu. “future studies” are the subject of analysis and may consist of a vast array of approaches of which “scenario” creation and development are particularly used (Shearer.. One of the great problems faced in scenario development is the integration of different and often opposing functions occurring in ecosystems at a multitude of levels (McIntyre and Hobbs. 2005. 2006). Independently of the phases and steps in planning.evaluation and monitoring) while other researchers have suggested from six to eleven interacting steps (Kato and Ahern.

2007) Forman (1995 :518) (Potschin and HainesYoung. 1986. knowledge is incomplete Multifunctionality Account for multiple values of ecosystems Equal balance of ecological and environmental issues Goods and services are important (de Groot and Hein..12 ). Scenario approaches Integrating functions such as production and protection Focus on a number of concurrent variables rather than one. Selman and Knight. which address possible ways to move towards the 46 . Sources (Fry.12. 2006. 2006. 2007) there are several concepts. share of responsibility between multiple sectors and actors Technology is important “clean” solutions.. 2007. multicriteria. O'riordan and StollKleemann. Naveh. The tongue model The spatial solution is a pattern of ecosystems or land uses that will conserve the most important attributes such as biodiversity and other processes in any landscape.. 2002) (Jacobs. Multiple lines of converging evidence. often based on transdisciplinarity. 1986) Spatial arrangement matters! Seek to create new basis of attraction and create virtuous circles Sustainable development strategies should focus on encouraging “virtuous circles” in landscapes so that the linkages between the socio-economic sphere and environmental functions are reinforced. 2006. Selman. GIS. Tress et al. Hersperger. Potschin and HainesYoung. 2007.Table 1. Adaptability.Principles for sustainable landscape planning Principles Transdisciplinarity Description/methods used Integrating knowledge from different research fields can help solve and coordinate the conflicting interests when approached as a common effort by several disciplines. Hersperger and Forman. Public preferences are important. 2007. 2000. Tress and Tress. 2006) (Hawkins and Selman.. Try to optimize instead of maximize. 2002)) Uncertainty. 2006) (Gobster et al. land allocation modules Account for values beyond the marketable Linkage between humans and nature Acknowledging social dynamics: culture and traditions are key cohesive forces Landscapes are more or less sustainable in terms of the outputs of goods and services that are important to people. Harshaw et al. Blaschke. 2006a. 2000. 2001. Mander et al. 2007. yet recognising the value of the “no panaceas” rule. There are differences in preferences amongst stakeholders Environmental and social planning Acknowledge cross scale interaction Promotion of partnerships.. in developing Engaging the public in the design of sustainable landscapes Address the landscape scale Governance for sustainability Seek technologically appropriate solutions Putting this altogether. 2001) (Kato and Ahern. tools. Ostrom et al. 1986) (Brandt et al.. 2002) (Jacobs. 2008) (Jacobs. 2003) (Matthews and Selman. (Ostrom. 2006b) (Baskent and Yolasigmaz. 2001. methods and frameworks (Table 1.

cultural (Box 1. Selman (2006) refers to this duality as “old world vs. Second. planning can be used when the goal is conservation of certain landscape types or values. Also. Selman. in new world. independently of whether they are rural or urban and being of natural. the challenge is often one of adjusting colonial mindsets to discover new ways (or rediscover old ways) of sustainable living in fragile and over-exploited terrains” Selman (2006:5) 47 . First. 2006) so that the linkages between the socio-economic sphere and environmental functions are reinforced. Potschin and HainesYoung (2006) propose the “landscapes and sustainability model” to addressing the sustainable landscapes challenge based on the concept of natural capital. the challenges are essentially those of finding new and self-sustaining means of retaining landscapes whose qualities are being undermined by functional obsolescence. It is also argued that there is a need to create “basins of attraction” (Mathews and Selman 2006:202) admitting that these may vary depending on the socioeconomic and environmental circumstances.3 illustrates such a view. Based upon Antrop (2006) and Selman (2006) planning for sustainability can be seen in two ways. This is further explored in Chapter 4. acknowledging socio-economic and environmental distinctiveness which may be able to self-reinforce different processes across landscapes. 2006). planning for sustainability can be used to “guide” the transformations of landscapes with inherent potential in order to create new basins of attraction able to reach new virtuous circles (Matthews and Selman.implementation of more sustainable landscapes in different settings. new world” landscapes challenges in the following terms:“In old world landscapes. Figure 1. The combination of both arguments (goods/services and spatial configuration) is likely to address two major issues for planning for sustainability. The principles behind this argument highlight the need to move from a vicious circle in which both landscape quality and quality of life for its inhabitants are deteriorating to a situation in which both are enhanced and self-reinforcing. highlighting the usefulness of qualitative approaches for identifying such issues (Selman and Knight. 2003). work by Selman has suggested that sustainable development strategies should focus on encouraging „„virtuous circles‟‟ in landscapes (Matthews and Selman. Within this logic planning can reinforce the continuation of the existing practices that maintain and organize these landscapes. 2006. In this model they argue that landscapes are more or less sustainable in terms of the outputs of goods and services that are important to people in a specific context. or even of ordinary charisma.2). 2006). This model was criticized by Blaschke (2006) because it mistreated the issues related to the spatial arrangement of natural resources that certainly influence the provision of such goods (Hersperger and Forman.

3.. 2001.3). multifunctionality has increasingly been proposed as a principal “hallmark” of landscape. 2002). The vicious and virtuous circles Source: Selman (2006:172) The old vs.2. 2007. Also in 48 .12.2. new landscape challenges apply to the difficulties of dealing with multifunctionality both at forest and landscape scales (Sections 1. As shown in Table 1. Mander et al.  Outmigration Loss of local entrepreneurship Landscape quality Vicious circle   Quality of life Dissolution of links between landscape and community Loss of distinctiveness   Landscape quality Vibrant economy and customs Investment in land care Virtuous circle   Enhancing well-being Land care efforts sustain population base Quality of life personal Figure 1.1 it has been increasingly acknowledged that some cultural landscapes are not self reinforcing (Matthews and Selman.2 and 1. As was explored in Section 1. 2000. Fry. Selman.. 2006). strengthening its case for being at the heart rather than periphery of integrated spatial planning (Brandt et al.

see Chapter 2) affected the composition and configuration of forests. 1. scenarios for SFM were developed (Figure 1. based on a multiscale approach. aided by GIS tools. The broad aim of the research was to inform planning and management strategies for SFM at different spatial scales. statistical analysis and GIS. class metrics such as patch size (PS). 49 . With such an aim.4). going down in scale the research also examined public uses and preferences for forests at the watershed scale. In this country many of mosaics of land use that were viable in the past are not sustainable at present and rural areas face depopulation trends due to socio-economic changes related to agricultural and forestry abandonment. Those tools and methods were differentially used according to the scale under analysis.2 it was stressed that it is important to investigate the type of forestry that is likely to contribute to sustainable landscapes in such a way that man. this time using qualitative approaches. At the national and regional scales.nature linkages are self reinforcing.4 schematically shows the research framework as well as the different scales of analysis. patch density (PD) and percentage of landscape (PLAND) for the most common tree species were used to investigate the ways in which development patterns occurring in the context of Portugal (increasing urbanisation one hand and land abandonment in the other.Section 1. the study used concepts and methods from research areas such as landscape ecology and social sciences. Subsequently.4. At this stage the tools and methods used were landscape metrics. Going even further down in scale. Figure 1. The work started by using quantitative approaches at the national/regional scales in order to describe the condition of forests based upon a set of landscape metrics. Portugal was used as a case study in order to investigate the ways in which forestry may contribute to more sustainable landscapes. Research rationale and aims The research presented in this thesis examines the issue of how to manage for multifunctional forests based on forestry management practice in Portugal.

Incorporating concepts. At the catchment scale public preferences for forest characteristics were surveyed (by including in the questionnaire a set of photos showing different forest characteristics) At the parish scale scenarios for SFM were created and developed for two parishes through a participatory process which comprised two focus group meetings in each parish and one final workshop. field and questionnaire surveys were undertaken.4. the type of forest multifunctionality that is likely to deliver a selfreinforcing link between people and forests within the urban-rural gradient was studied. tools and methods from SLP and landscape governance into SFM Sustainable landscape planning (SLP) SFM Forest science Scale National/regional landscape River basin River basin Local Tool/Method Landscape metrics Questionnaire survey Photo-questionnaire Focus group Scenarios for SFM uestionnaire “Toolbox” for “guiding” the implementation of SFM at different spatial scales ? PROBLEM DEFINITION: How can SLP and governance “guide” SFM through landscapes? Figure 1. 50 . In order to do so. Research framework At the catchment scale.

This introduction raised the topics that need to be dealt with to implement sustainable forestry management. planning and forestry practitioners.5. In Chapter 4. in Chapter 2. specific research questions addressed at different spatial scales are also described. 51 . 1. Chapter 2 describes the characteristics of the forestry sector in Portugal and sets Portugal within the European context. Chapter 3 investigates the extent to which forest landscape metrics vary across different socio-economic settings and identifies planning priorities for rural and urban areas. the type of multifunctional forest management likely to reinforce urban-rural partnerships is explored. Chapters 3 to 6 are presented in paper format that I would like to submit to peer reviewed journals. namely: 1) How can landscape planning and landscape governance concepts. tools and methods be used to guide forestry management at different spatial scales? Within this topic. 2) What might be the role(s) of forests in helping to sustain landscapes in Northern Portugal? One important topic addressed at this stage is the cross-scale coordination needed to deliver the implementation of SFM at the landscape scale. namely decision making. Figure 1.After answering some specific questions in each chapter (these are summarised at the end of Chapter 2) the three overall questions presented in Box 1. Chapter 5 examines multiple functions of forests by contrasting attractiveness and management public preferences. based on uses and public preferences for forests. Finally. the usefulness of different tools to address SFM in the context of Portugal is further explored. Furthermore. It further explores the impacts that public preferences may have on the ecology of forests. At this stage.5 shows the overall structure of the thesis. 3) What are the wider implications of the work developed throughout this thesis? Under this question the major findings are summarised and implications of this work are explored. In Chapter 6 scenarios for multifunctional forests are developed and the means to fully implement those are explored. the usefulness of the set of tools used in tackling the challenge of guiding SFM at different spatial scales is explored.4 will be used to summarise the conclusions of this work. Chapter 7 gathers together conclusions and recommendations for future work. Chapter 3 is already in press in the Journal of Environmental Management and I intend to submit the other data chapters after having my viva. Thesis structure The structure of the thesis is as follows. The usefulness of the toolbox used is described for three contexts.

Associations between forest characteristics and socio-economic development: A case study from Portugal From National to Local scale CHAPTER 4.5. Public opinion regarding attractiveness and management of forests: preferences for percentage of forest cover and stand structures in northern Portugal CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS The role of multifunctional forests in sustainable landscapes Figure 1. 52 . Integrating public uses and preferences for forests into multifunctional forest management plans at catchment scale CHAPTER 5. Thesis structure.CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Sustainable landscape planning & multifunctional forest management CHAPTER 2. CASE STUDY Forestry and land management in Europe: A case study from Portugal CHAPTER 3. Governing for sustainability: Implementing multifunctional forest management in Portuguese rural areas CHAPTER 7.

“I like trees because they seem more resigned to the way they have to live than other things” Willa Cather 1873-1947 CHAPTER 2. Forestry and land management in Europe: A case study from Portugal 53 .

These mean values hide a huge diversity of forests amongst countries and even within countries (Niskanen and Lin.org) [accessed December 2008] It has been argued by Mather (1992) that forestry in Europe has passed through distinct historic phases of development: a pre-industrial phase.6 m3/ha (Nabuurs et al. Mather named this trend “the forest transition”. there are only small remnant areas of relatively undisturbed natural forests such as the forest of Bialowieza in Poland. In Europe. Spiecker.6 million hectares of the most regularly managed forests and these are amongst the most intensively used forests in the world (Nabuurs et al. 2003). Forests in Europe Source: CIFOR (www.. The physical extent of forest cover in Europe ranges from 1% in Iceland to well over 50% in Finland or Slovenia (Slee.cifor.1). an industrial phase and a post industrial-phase. 2001) (Figure 2. Figure 2.2. Forestry in Europe The area of forests in Europe has been increasing and protected areas occupy 18 % of European land (Nabuurs et al. 2001). 2001. 2007a). Spiecker.1. 2003).. In the pre-industrial phase 54 .1. In the last decade of the 20th century European forests comprised 168.. The average age of European forests in 1990 was 57 years with a mean growing stock of 142 m3/ha and a net annual increment of 4. 2001.

2004. 1998. Although this monofunctional industrial style of forestry remains to some extent in parts of Europe. In order to explore the diversity of forests in Europe as well as the diverse ways in which forests are perceived by policymakers. Slee. Slee (2007a: 70) defined six broad regions. “+++”= high goal fulfilment. forests functions are perceived in very different ways by different stakeholders (Elands and Praestholm. Mediterranean. 1999. This classification was developed by Slee through the programme COST ACTION E 30 (Economic integration of urban consumers‟ demand and rural forestry production) . UK. Elands and Wiersum.. northern part of France and Belgium) are generally characterised by high 55 . Source: Adapted from Slee (2007a) Countries included in the North Sea/ North West European group (Denmark. The goal fulfilment is subjectively scored on a scale from 1 to 3. 2007a). Forest functions across Europe Productive Timber North Sea/North West Nordic Mediterranean Germanic Balkan Baltic + +++ ++ ++ ++ + Non timber +++ +++ +++ +++ ++ ++ +++ ++ ++ +++ ++ ++ +++ +++ ++ +++ + ++ Recreational Protective Comparison of different management approaches with an indication of their respective fulfilment of different management goals. Germanic.1 summarises the importance given to different functions provided by forests across the groups defined by Slee (2007a). Over the 18th and 19th centuries the growing imperial powers and the industrial revolution created more mono-functional demand for specific types of timber (the industrial phase). in different regions. Iceland. “++”= medium goal fulfilment and “+”= low goal fulfilment. 2001) so the importance attributed to each function in each group is no more than indicative and was based on the description below. Nordic. Table 2. Mather et al. namely: North sea/ North West. Balkan/ Eastern European and Baltic groups. Mather and Needle. Netherlands. Table 2. the most recent post-industrial phase has introduced demands for more varied styles of forestry with a stronger amenity or post-production function (Mather. 2008.1. owners and general public.forestry was principally a provider of local livelihoods supplying a range of timber and non timber products. Within these groups.

these countries seek to balance environmental protection and production functions of forests (Angelstam et al. 2004). The forestry sector in these countries is characterised by a predominance of non timber production motives such as biodiversity and recreation (the exception is Ireland which puts some emphasis on production) (Angelstam et al.. 2004) .. In countries fringing the Mediterranean (Italy. The German speaking countries of central Europe. The state forest sector in these countries is often significant and the state is the major provider of forest recreational activities (Mather. average holding size is above 10 ha. 2005). Germany and Switzerland tend to have a high degree of forest cover (Nabuurs et al. Forests are still seen as an important complementary activity to farming and strong farm-forest associations support forest productive activity (timber) (Nabuurs et al. In countries comprising Central and Eastern Europe although restitution of forests to private holders has happened the State still retains a substantial area of forests which include important environmentally sensitive areas (Angelstam et al. Both timber production and non timber forest products are important (Angelstam et al.. Slee et al. von Haaren and Warren-Krestzchmar. 2005)... 2007a).. Niskanen and Lin. 2001). Portugal and Northern Italy) and industries based on pulp transformation afforest huge areas annually with non native tree species such as eucalyptus. 2001). In these countries. There are extensive areas of communal lands (in northern and central Portugal as well as in the Spanish region of Galicia). There are strong traditions of multifunctional forest management (Mander et al. many of which deliver important recreational and landscape as well as timber functions (Niskanen and Lin. 2005). With the exception of Switzerland. including Austria. There has been growing interest in timber exploitation (Spain. 1999. 2006).. 2001). Non timber products are very important in some areas. Certain 56 .levels of environmental consciousness and a strong interest in forestry and woodland (Mather et al.. 2001). 2008). 2005. Greece... forestry as a productive activity is mostly grant or subsidy-driven (Nabuurs et al. Portugal as well as southern parts of France) management of small scale forests is prevalent (Nabuurs et al.. In parallel to these productive functions there are also strong public access rights in all forests and wild berries and fungi are widely gathered. Spain. Thus. Average size of private forest holdings is small and abandonment of forests often occurs (Pinto-Correia and Breman. 2001). 2001). In the Nordic group of counties (excluding Denmark which was included in the previous group) the prevailing private sector model is of reasonably sized forestry units (averaging 50 ha) (Slee. 2007.

2005).2). According to Elands and Wiersum (2001). As was reported by Pinto-Correia and Breman (2008:1) the situation faced in the diverse conditions of Europe will demand varying types of agriculture and forestry in different places. utilitarian. The state has retained a substantial proportion of forests for both wood raw material production and recreational and environmental functions (Angelstam et al. 2008). supporting socio-economic regeneration of marginalized areas. hedonist.. agri-ruralist. 2001). “In some regions. Baltic countries were classified as a hybrid between the Nordic and the Central Eastern models (Angelstam et al.g. Those roles vary from providing income and employment (in the utilitarian discourse). 2004.. community stability and nature conservation (Table 2.activities such as mushroom gathering are important social and cultural activities as well as delivering subsistence support to poor rural households (Niskanen and Lin. 57 . Within the same group different countries have reported different preferences for management strategies (Niskanen and Lin. there is a productivist orientation and productive functions have a dominant economic role. rural vs urban (Elands et al. In these countries there is a desire to create a Nordic model for holdings.. This classification has been presented as indicative of the diversity of forests in Europe.. Elands and Praestholm. 2005).. and thus also the functions they are able to support”. Even within the same region different values have been attributed to productive and protective functions of forests in contrasting places e. although the holding size is smaller and the farmers have no tradition of forestry management (Slee. 2001).territories is different. The different roles of forests will be more or less appropriate for a particular place depending upon both environmental conditions and the social groups involved. complementing and diversifying farming systems (agri-ruralist). 2007a). forests in Europe may have five major roles namely. The vocation of the. while other [regions] will need to be supported on other functions to survive economically and socially. or may be best suited to environmental functions alone. increasing living conditions in remote places (community stability) and being preserved as strategic natural areas (nature conservation).

2008). The diversity of circumstances across Europe also calls for different types of functions occurring in contrasting settings. nature has intrinsic values Uncontrolled incursion of rural areas into wilderness Conception Problem Future New social contract farmerssociety. The dynamic force of development was urban growth and the main function of rural areas (of which forests are an important feature (Niskanen and Lin. There are however different circumstances across Europe and this diversity has been addressed by different research projects such as EU RURALIS and RUFUS. 2006). Rural development discourses Rural areas Discourses Agri-ruralist Farmers as stewards of the countryside Crises in modern farming Hedonist Countryside as the garden of the city Deteriorating aesthetic. sustainability and quality Reestablishment of these values above all Need for innovative economic activities Marginalisation. meant erasing the cultural and environmental differences between regions (OECD.2. Pinto-Correia and Breman (2008) propose a methodological approach to identify different vocational areas in which different types functions of agriculture and forestry are likely to occur. cultural values Utilitarian Production areas to be used for economic purposes Under development and retardation Community sustainability Remote places Nature conservation Potential nature areas. in some cases.Table 2. the key principles focussed on economics of scale and enhancement of production (Okkonen. multifunctionality from primary sector activities such as agriculture and forestry has been increasingly valued in postindustrial societies (Pinto-Correia and Breman. This has been considered as causing “dependent” development. policy decisions and distant agencies. 2008).rural future networks.inventing the identity of the rural territory (Okkonen. The problems arising from such exogenous rural development gave an impetus for forms of endogenous development more focussed on recovering or re.creation of basic socialeconomic structures and living conditions Creation of new controlled balance between rural areas and nature areas Source: Elands and Wiersun (2001) Exogenous development models in post-war Europe combined subsidizing improvements to agricultural (and forestry) production to enhance farm incomes. 2008). the subsidies. stagnation and decrease in liveability and economic vitality Re. 58 .3). 2001)) was primarily production for rapidly expanding urban economies. As was previously discussed in Chapter 1 (Section 1.

some of these forestry plans are not mandatory (CBD. Instead. legally binding only becoming so when integrated into town and country planning (von Haaren and Warren-Krestzchmar. Town and County planning in the UK is based on the production of development plans which zone different categories of use. 2007). 2008). the CAP is under transformation towards a Common Agricultural and Rural Policy for Europe (CARPE). The EU identifies a clear role for forestry in combating climate change and as major contributor to the protection and maintenance of biodiversity (Dwyer. often without having forests integrated in the formal planning system. within this protective forest functions have been receiving much attention. However. particularly for Europe‟s rural environment (Dwyer. Although this is monitored by the Ministerial Conference for the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) the responsibility for forestry policies lie with the individual Member States. The problems arising for framing strategies for SFM in Europe are therefore twofold 1) there is a need to integrate and coordinate forestry policies across Member States in order to explore the emergent markets of goods and services from forests and ii) each Member State attempts to develop forestry policies. Currently. forests do not have a European policy framework. 1997). 2001. forestry) are not directly regulated (Selman. Furthermore. However. 2006). Germany is one of the EU countries which has been focusing on sustainable landscape planning and its land planning system is an example for most of the remaining EU members (von Haaren and Ott. Instead. forest policies are generally included in the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP). Some land uses are regulated by statute (including construction. In the formal planning system in Germany. Above all. Selman. there are very detailed sectoral forestry plans that have not been especially successful at integrating forestry within the wider landscape context. Different European countries have distinct planning systems but there is an overall trend not to include activities such as forestry into formal planning mechanisms (Niskanen and Lin. other measures put into place by the EU such as carbon markets and biodiversity are of great importance for the forestry sector. in most States the landscape plan is not. there are enormous differences in forest cover across 59 . 2002).g. in principle. In forestry and woodland management emerging market trends for forestry biomass and carbon sequestration appear potentially beneficial. 1997. in contrast to agriculture. 2007).In a much differentiated Europe. 2008). the State as well as the regional and local Governments are obliged to produce a landscape plan (von Haaren and Ott. it has been reported that multifunctional management plans are missing (Selman. mineral extraction) whereas other land use categories (e. Moreover. 2002). 2008).

In the last few decades major socio-economic changes have been occurring in this country.2. 60 . 2.889 km2 (218 km in breadth.2. Niskanen and Lin. Forests are an important landscape feature whose management has faced a number of challenges. It follows that across Europe post productivist conditions call (now more than ever) for the integration of environmental considerations into policy. I felt that the country provided an appropriate example in which to investigate issues of sustainable development with regard to forestry. 2. an increase in area of non native tree species such as eucalyptus and a steady increase in abandonment of the inland rural areas. the EU puts faith on isolated measures hoping that the individual Member States will manage forests sustainably as is the goal of the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE). 2008). INE. 2007).Member States in Europe. with even the amount and condition of forests being highly variable within a single country (Elands and Wiersum. 2006.2).215 km of border with Spain (INAG. 2005). 2001. It has 832 km of Atlantic coastline and 1.2). Given the importance and diversity of forests in Portugal. as well as the range of socioeconomic settings. There are major threats to sustainability arising from wildfires. in the far southwest of Europe and covers for 88. Its physical environment can be generally described as mountainous north of the Tagus River with plains in south (Figure 2. 561 km in length). A case study in Portugal As previously stated Portugal will be used as a case study throughout this thesis. Meanwhile major city regions located near to the sea coast such as Lisbon and Porto are becoming increasingly urbanised (Figure 2. In forestry and woodland management this means a shift from timber based production to “production” of other environmental goods (Sayer and Maginnis.1. 2001). Brief description of the country The area of the Portuguese mainland outlines the shape of a “rectangle” located in the Iberian Peninsula. Although the EU identifies a clear role for forestry in combating climate change as well as being a major contributor to the protection and maintenance of biodiversity (Dwyer.

united-states-map. and the inland region which has a Mediterranean climate. The mean annual rainfall is about 920 mm in the Portuguese mainland having a non-uniform spatial distribution more concentrated on the Northwest (Minho) hydrographical region where the rainfall level is 61 .Figure 2. The mean annual temperature varies between 7ºC in the hills of the interior central region to 18ºC on the South coast. Pinto-Correia. The rainfall across the Portuguese mainland greatly varies in space and in time.2. is a characteristic agroforestry system based on livestock (Pereira and Fonseca. Mean annual rainfall values greater than 1500 mm occur on the coast in the North of the country and in the hills of interior regions in the North and Centre. In the northwest part the “green Minho” is located (study area of Chapters 4.990 metres. which corresponds to the Spanish dehesa. South of Minho and Tras-os-Montes are the central mountains of Serra da Estrela of which the highest peak is 1. Located in the southern part of Portugal are the plains of Alentejo dominated by “montado” and the well known tourist region of Algarve. 2000). The North part of Portugal has two major regions. Montado. 5 and 6). in the northeast the Tras-os-Montes region is situated. Portugal: Location and topography Source: Maps of the world (www. 2003.org) [accessed 12 March 2009] Portugal has two climatic regions: the region under influence of the Atlantic sea.

mean annual temperature (upper right). 2001b). soil types (bottom left) and major river basins in the Portuguese mainland are represented. from October to March.. Figure 2.practically double the average for the remaining country (Moreira et al. Figure 2. Portuguese mainland characterisation 62 . Average rainfall distribution in the year is markedly non-uniform: about 75% to 80% of the mean annual rainfall is concentrated in the six wettest months.3.3 shows four maps in which elevation (upper left).

g. for the first time in recent Portuguese demography. in 1918. Despite efforts made to increase the average schooling years. In Portugal. Close to the border areas of Spain the “deep countryside” can be still found where natural landscapes and culture survive relatively intact (Firmino 1999). Portugal‟s territorial organization consists of 18 Districts in the mainland and two autonomous regions. there are still issues related to educational quality that need to translate into an increase in labour force skills (Pina and Aubyn. the Azores and Madeira islands. 2003. During the “consumptive growth” period rapid land use change and environmental problems arose. This “consumptive period” was followed by a period in which the Portuguese economy became more oriented to service sectors and. roads) that were required to improve transportation and housing.. Inside this administrative and territorial organization Portugal is a small but rather diversified country in terms of landscape (Firmino. due to the 1918 pandemic flu that affected the country (INE. a negative value (-0. a polarisation of human and economic resources along the sea coast is found (Antrop. In particular. 2008). Niza and Ferrao. Forestry and land use planning in Portugal The vast majority of the landscapes in the country before the 1940s could be characterized as follows: the valleys and shallow slopes were used as agricultural land. with extremely small mixed farm holdings (usually less than 2 ha) with pastures and a wide range of crops 63 .2. predictably. 2006). partly because of its different climatic conditions and morphologic genesis but also because of the impact of human activity on land use. 1999). to less material intensity. displayed in 2007. 2004). 2.Demographic indicators for 2007 reveal that the main recent demographic trends in Portugal have remained unchanged: slower population growth and demographic ageing (INE. was a negative value registered. the study shows that the highest growth rate occurred in the construction sector. which has been showing a decreasing trend for decades. 2005).01%). as happens elsewhere in Europe. There are studies that report that during the last two decades of the 20th century Portugal experienced a period of increasing material consumption which was associated with transitional economies (Canas et al. The poorer Portuguese territory is located in the interior of the country along the border with Spain. Since the beginning of the 20th century on only one other occasion. Studies such as that by Niza and Ferrao (2006) demonstrated that the development model that led the Portuguese economy to a transitional state corresponded with an increase in material consumption related to strengthening the critical infrastructures (e. The natural growth rate.2. 2008). Portugal is a mosaic of landscapes.

Denoting the long lasting importance of the forestry sector in Portugal the Forestry Institute was created in 1886 (Table 2. The Forestry Regime legislation (1901) is one of the most important in Portuguese forestry history. sheep and goats. The photo in Figure 2. At higher altitudes.3) promoted afforestation on communal lands. 2001b).3). in the slopes between the farmed land and the mountains. cereals and potatoes.4 shows a typical Portuguese landscape that still prevails in the deep countryside of the Northern Region of Portugal. several policy measures (Table 2. Parallel to this decline in population and agricultural activities. there was a region where privately owned shrubland areas with some scattered trees (called boucas) as well as communal small plots (called maninhos) were used as a source of timber and organic matter to fertilize the lowland soils. Figure 2. Inspired by French legislation with the same name this law is defined as “implementation of legislation mechanisms to assure whether the creation. 2001b).. A typical rural landscape in Minho region of Portugal Several changes in socio-economic and political conditions in the second half of the 20th century caused abandonment of farming activities and emigration flows which were most pronounced during the 1960s (Moreira et al. exploration and conservation of forests according the national 64 . In the baldios small to medium sized forested patches of pines and oak also occurred (Moreira et al.such as corn.. Surrounding the valleys. large extents of communal lands (called baldios) were used as pasture for cattle.4.

3 shows the different change in strategies that have been occurring in forestry organisation. In the following decade (1970s) environmental degradation became a significant problem as a result of plans for development which emphasised paper production. All these policy instruments promoted afforestation mostly based on coniferous trees. in the 1970s. In addition to the Forestry Regime the “Plano de Povoamento Florestal” aimed at afforestating the communal lands (baldios) as well as shrubland areas in the slopes and mountains and the “Fundo de Fomento Florestal” aimed at promoting afforestation of private land. the water system and other environmental aspects”. Other political measures included the “Projecto Florestal Portugues” and the “Programa de Accao Florestal”. the National Ecological Reserve and the Land Use Regional plans aimed at safeguarding fragile ecosystems and heritage landscapes threatened by development as well as defining land-use norms for regions economically and ecologically homogeneous.. increasing tourism pressures. particularly maritime pine (Pinus pinaster) (Moreira et al. In order to steer away from these unfavourable trends of land use change. particularly along the coast.4). the Town Master Plan. textile and chemical industries as well as other heavy industries. natural reserves. 2001b). led to rapid land use changes.economy whether to defend the public utility as safeguarding the erosion. As a result. The former two were created in 1982 and their goal was to protect 12% of prime land suitable for agriculture (National Agriculture Reserve) and to define the principles and rules of land use as well as the integration of the plans with other planning levels (Town Master Plan). 65 . the Portuguese government created four mandatory landscape plans namely. the only national park (Peneda-Geres National Park) and other sites and protected landscapes were classified. landscape planning shifted from a hobby of a minority of professionals to a valuable tool to support environmental policies. Landscape planning approaches in Portugal started to be used during the 1960s although only by a small minority of professionals involved in urban and regional planning. In addition to these factors. Created in 1983. the National Ecological Reserve and the Land Use Regional Plan (Table 2. In the years 1982 and 1983. Table 2. National Agriculture Reserve.

Table 2.º 33/96 Law n. the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and the European Social Fund (ESF).Commission for the management of public and communal forests Extinguishment of DGF and creation of DGRF Creation of Autoridade Florestal Nacional (AFN) 1936 Law 27 207 11/11/1936 Law 1971 15 June 1938 1976 19/01/1976 1965 1980s 1995 17/08/1996 15/03/1998 Creation of JCI Afforestation plan Portuguese constitution Law 39and 40 of 1976 Fundo de Fomento Florestal PFP and PAF Law nº 134/95 Law n.º 14307/99. Law n. Sustainable plan for the development of Portuguese forestry Regulation for regional forestry management plans (PROF) and local plans (PDF) Extinguishement of ENGEF Creation of a COFLORGEST.3. Law n. At the 66 .º 33/98.º 7781/2001 Creation of DGRF Extinction of DGRF Creation of AFN From 1986 up to 1999 the “development” across the Portuguese territory was financially supported by the EU Regional Development Plan (Portugal Joined the EU in 1986) namely through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). 08/04/1999 09/06/1999 28/07/1999 14/04/2001 2003 2008 Law n.º 204/99 and205/99 Law n. Forestry laws and institutional organizations in Portugal year 1886 1901 Law/Institution Creation of Forestry services Forestry Regime Function The forestry services were included in Direccao Geral de Agricultura dec 25/11/1885 Manuel Francisco Vargas created the special fund for forestry services Creation of Junta de Colonizacao Interna in order to increase productivity both in agriculture and forestry sector Afforestation of 420 000 ha Portuguese constitutions which refers to forests as an national interest Law regulating the communal land management systems Promoting afforestation of private land Projecto Florestal Portugues Programa de Accao Florestal Approval of the Peneda-Geres National Park management plan Forestry law Creation of an agency to manage public and communal lands Empresa Pública Florestal ENGEF.º 27/99 of 18th of March.

At national level there is also a funding scheme created from revenues from petrol consumption (Fundo Florestal Permanente) which provides financial support for forestry related investments (DGRF. The relevant instrument in the Portuguese Constitution states that “the State will promote forestry policies according to ecologic and social circumstances” (Portuguese constitution. In addition to this. there are the PROTs (Regional Plans that regulate all land uses). 67 .4 shows the plans and the regional scale addressed. the urbanisation plan (PU). All three regional plans are only mandatory on public land which represents approximately 2 % of all forest land. This regulates all land uses. 2008). There have been. continuous changes in the “strategy” of forestry polices in Portugal and there is a need to better integrate forests within the formal planning system. helped to enforce awareness of environmental issues. however. The Forestry Policy Act (1996). in addition to PROFs (forestry sector plans). Despite such efforts on environmental issues economic development funds such as ERDF and EAGGF had major impacts on the Portuguese landscapes (Andresen and Castelbranco. together with a Plan for the Sustainable Development of the Portuguese Forest PSDPF (1999). silent regarding landscape planning as a tool to support environmental policy. the fourth environmental program (1987-1992) tackled environmental issues such as prevention of pollution and the improvement of natural resources management. however. provides for the national strategy for forests in Portugal. Also at national level there is a plan for protecting forests against fire (PNDFCI). In the same way. 2007b). These are the official plans that. in 2008. Table 2. 1993). In Portugal the integration of forestry with other land use planning systems is weak (Fidelis and Sumares. Rural Development and Fisheries Ministry (Ministerio da Agricultura Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas MADRP). number two). This program was. the Law of Environmental Base created in 1987. PMOTS are the mandatory plans at the local level for private and communal property and include the Municipal Director Plan (PDM). The formal land use planning system is the responsibility of the Environment. should cooperate but in practice there are few linkages between them. forestry in Portugal has a top-down type strategy. in theory. At regional level. The two Ministries. ruled the forestry sector. and other specific plans (PP). and the PEOT (created exclusively for regulation of land use allocation in protected areas). Forestry planning responsabilities are included in the Agriculture. Ordenamaneto do Territorio e Desenvolvimento Regional MAOTDR). 93rd article. Territorial Planning and Regional Development Ministry (Ministerio do Ambiente.same time. The Plano Director Municipal (PDM) is the landscape plan which incorporates the municipal plan for defence of forests against fire (PMDFCI).

Andresen and Castelbranco questioned the likelihood of a post-modern landscape being achievable in the short term “the gap between landscape planning.Table 2. because these criteria do not account for “naturalness” or “uniqueness of the area” municipalities do not have incentives (except from tourism revenues that anyway are not direct) to preserve either agriculture nor 68 . One of the problems that was raised by Andresen and Castelbranco in 1993 was the fact that municipalities receive their funds based on criteria such as number of inhabitants or area occupied by infrastructure such as roads and airports (which is understandable because these require major financial expenses). At the time their work was published (1993) their concerns had to do with the pressure of environmental legislation that was still fragile and relatively untested. environmental policy and economic development raised serious questions about the likelihood of a postmodern landscape being achieved in a near future” Andressen and Castelbranco (1993:187). Sixteen years on (in 2009) the Town Plan as well as national agriculture and ecological reserves (although with several changes in legislation) have had time enough to establish roots.4. however. Current arrangements for planning and funding forest management in Portugal Scope National Formal Planning MAOTDR Portuguese constitution National Plan for “land use planning” PNOT National Agriculture reserve (RAN) and National Ecological Reserve (REN) Forestry planning MADRP Forestry Policy Act (1996) Portuguese strategy for forests (EFN) Plan for the Sustainable Development of the Portuguese Forest PSDPF (1999) National plan for defence of forests against fire PNDFCI Regional Plan for forests PROF Regional Municipal Regional plan for ordenamento do territorio PROT Special plan for ordenamento do territorio (protected areas) PEOT Municiplal plan ordenamento do territorio PMOT Municipal directive plan PDM Urbanisation Plan (PU) Municipal plan for defence of forests against fire PMDFCI Local Management plan for private forests PGF Management plan for communal forests PUBs Management plan for private and communal forests ZIFs In 1993. 2008). However. land use changes driven by “economic development pressures” are still an overwhelmingly obvious reality in Portugal (Fidelis and Sumares.

This is a similar value to the National Forest Inventory carried out in 1995-1998 (3. are a matter of concern for the whole society but still there are not yet effective solutions for such an enormous problem. „work better and cost less” (Araújo.. 2. Forest fires.20 million hectares). the values should be looked at from a qualitative perspective.heritage landscapes. 69 . thus.5 Portugal is one of the OECD countries in which forest cover is higher. Estimates in international databases such as OECD slightly increase the area of Portuguese forest cover to around 40 %. in spite of integration of planning throughout the whole landscape. Moving towards SFM in Portugal The total forest area in Portugal is estimated at 3.3. According to official Portuguese sources the total forest area corresponds to around 38% of the Portuguese land cover. fragmenting habitats and adding non-point pollution and pollutants to runoff and streams.” As is evident in Table 2. Forestry is an important sector in the Portuguese economy and the public has been feeling the consequences of less successful management. As can be seen in Figure 2. above all. 2008). The creation of autonomous organisations (such as agencies) in government has been a trend in many OECD countries influenced by „new public management‟ ideas on methods of how to organise the public sector (Araújo. There are agriculture. in theory. which translate into altering natural drainage patterns and natural rainfall-runoff-storage relationships. increasing surface temperatures that cause decline in habitat quality and biodiversity and limiting the public’s ability to enjoy many of the benefits these area provide. by the values of the public domain and politicians”. land management and forestry regulations have been changed yet. Fidelis and Sumares (2008: 299) described the situation in Portugal at the present as follows: “Natural areas and associated biodiversity continue to be degraded by the negative impacts of urbanisation. 2001).3 on several occasions..24 million hectares (Rego 2006).2. Araújo (2001:3) examined the influence of new public management ideas on recent changes in Portuguese central administration and concluded that public management “is not restricted to effectiveness and efficiency reasons but. emphasis has been put on sectoral approaches. 2001. urbanization and forestry specific programs created by autonomous (public) organisations in which the links with regional planning are loose (Fidelis and Sumares. 2000). for example. The methodologies and technology to produce these estimates are different. Silveira. The following section further describes the Portuguese forestry sector. The arguments for this convergence of administrative reforms are that new organisational forms will.

b). 2005). Moreira et al. Contrary to other southern European countries. normally in mixed stands. In the North and Centre maritime pine planted in the 40s (several afforestation plans in Table 2.). 2007a). holm oak (Quercus ilex L. the previously described montado (broadleaved trees such as cork oak and holm oak) are a predominant landscape feature. along with rural exodus and decreasing intensity of agricultural uses (Fernandes.00% 10. Fire is a major issue for forestry management in Portugal (Moreira et al. Pulp industries own 6% of the forest area. Portuguese forest land is mainly in private ownership (80%). b).Korea.5.00% 40. 2001.com/table. The area occupied by eucalyptus represents 23% of the forestry area and has been increasing steadily (DGRF. burnt area in Portugal has increased in the last decades (Catry et al.3) as well as common oak (Quercus robur) are the most representative.00% 70.cgi?LG=e&TP=ee01-4&RG=1 [accessed January 2009] According to the last two forestry inventories (1995/98 and 2004/2006) maritime pine (Pinus pinaster Ait.00% Japan Sweden Finland Luxembourg Mexico Greece Austria Netherlands United Kingdom Belgium Australia Ireland Turkey Italy France Switzerland Germany Czech Republic New Zealand Figure 2.6).00% 30.. 2007a. eucalyptus (mainly Eucalyptus globulus Labill.. (DGRF.) and stone pine (Pinus pinea L. 70 United States Denmark Slovakia Portugal Canada Hungary Norway Iceland Poland Spain .) together make up 91% of Portuguese forest cover (DGRF. In the South. spread over more than 400. Maritime pine is the main conifer (29%) and is spread across the country but predominates in the centre and north.). 2007a.00% 0. It is known that both fire frequency and area burnt has increased since the mid 20th century. Forest cover in OECD countries Source: http://dataranking. 2001b). Republic of … 80. A study by Catry et al. 2007a). 2001a).. Forest structure and composition varies across the country (Figure 2. local communities 12% (baldios) whilst the forest public area is only 2% (DGRF. cork oak (Quercus suber L.).00% 50.00% 20.00% 60.000 holdings of which the vast majority ( 93% of the holdings) are smaller than 10 ha.

The extent of area burnt is higher in less populated areas. 2001). management and governance within a landscape context because one of the major threats to forest sustainability arises from its proximity to urban land use (Clemente et al. mainly in inaccessible mountainous regions (Moreira et al. 2001a). These results emphasise the crucial role of human distribution and activity in the spatial distribution of wildfire ignitions (Moreira et al. The majority of fire ignitions (98%) occur within 2 Km of urban areas (Catry et al. Stand composition (broadleaves..6. They also highlight the need to integrate forest planning. 2005).. mixed stands) in Portugal 71 . Fernandes.. 2005. Figure 2.. Although municipalities with more than 100 inhabitants only represent 21% of the territory they accounted for more than 70 % of fire ignitions and about 14% of total burnt area.(2005) for the period 2001-2005 showed that many fire ignitions are located in the most populated parts of North and Central littoral region. 2001b). coniferous.

4.g. This thesis was the work of a single researcher and therefore cannot be transdisciplinary in the strict sense. a multidisciplinary approach was used by putting together concepts. 2007). As was explained in the Chapter 1 varying tools were employed at different spatial scales. Research questions The approach used throughout this PhD addressed SFM in the context of Portugal at different spatial scales. 2. which at the national scale affects forest land. Much has been done (e. This research examines possible ways to move towards the implementation of SFM and hence aims at exploring the ways in which forestry may contribute to more sustainable landscapes in Portugal.In summary. At the present. 5. At the national scale because there were generalised “pressures” in the Portuguese development patterns (as referred by Niza and Ferrao 2006) this work used landscape metrics in order to investigate if different socio-economic areas had contrasting forests characteristics (Chapter 3). Subsequently. the research surveyed uses and public 72 . training courses to enhance competitiveness in the forestry sector) but the lack of effective planning as well as the continually changing governance systems in the forestry sector has its effects on the ground (Fidelis and Sumares. The wild fires which almost every year destroy vast areas of forestry and unfortunately cause fatalities. The “consumptive” development process. In order to tackle these issues there is a need to implement SFM in Portugal. 3. Santos et al.. The small size of most forest property holdings making economic exploitation difficult. 1999). public education for tackling forest fires. 2. 2008. Depopulation trends in rural areas with coastal regions becoming increasingly urbanised.4. A formal planning system which barely includes forestry issues. Instead. and analysing specific questions at different spatial scales in a way that the higher levels were informative for the analysis at scales below (Herrmann and Osinski. tools and methods from different research fields within a framework. attaining sustainable landscapes requires a transdisciplinary team (integrating the knowledge of different research fields as well as engagement of the public). the public as well as governmental bodies are increasingly aware of the need to move towards SFM (MAOTDR. As was described in the introduction. 2001).2. the problems concerning forestry in Portugal arise from: 1.

preferences at the level of watersheds which are said to be appropriate to explore landscape scale issues. Finally, at the parish scale ways to move towards more sustainable forest management were investigated by developing scenarios through a participatory process. Because public opinion is of great importance in forging strategies for the forestry types of the future, the research included public involvement throughout (3 out 4 data chapters involved different forest stakeholders as well as the general public). In order to do so the use of visual tools (e.g. photography) was widely used due to its ability to effectively help in engaging stakeholders for sustainable forestry management (Lewis and Sheppard, 2006; Meitner et al., 2005; Sheppard, 2005; Sheppard and Harshaw, 2000, 2001) As indicated in Chapter 1, at broader scales there are several studies focussing on landscape metrics of forests but so far, to my knowledge, none have investigated the variation in landscape metrics in diverse socio-economic settings (Botequilha Leitao and Ahern, 2002). This provided an avenue for conducting an innovative piece of research. At river basin scale, thus far, the sustainable landscapes framework (despite highlighting the need for creating synergies across regions) does not show obvious ways in which such an issue can be tackled (Antrop, 2006). At the watershed scale there are several studies addressing public preferences for the natural environment but only few contrasted scenic beauty preferences with preferences for management strategy (Sheppard and Harshaw, 2000, 2001). At local scales two key issues are to define designs for more sustainable forests in which stakeholders views are represented and explore multiple functions of forests (Elands and Praestholm, 2008; Elands and Wiersum, 2001). Moreover, if designs and planning principles are agreed by stakeholders, how can the knowledge developed from landscape governance help to implement “successful” forestry planning on the ground. These questions are explored in the research undertaken in the following chapters. Figure 2.7 shows the different scales of analysis as well as the specific research questions addressed.

73

National /regional

Chapter 3 1. Are there relationships between forest condition and measures of socio-economic development? 2. Is there a systematic variation in forest metrics according to the stage of socioeconomic development of the municipalities? 3. How can landscape metrics from forests inform strategies to enhance sustainability?

Chapter 4
1. What role(s) should forest serve in the study

River basin

area? 2. Is the forest role(s) identical across the area (e.g. in urban and rural areas)? 3. How can forests contribute to the sustainable development of the whole region?

Chapter 5
1. Do public preferences for forests vary according to whether attractiveness or management objectives are considered? 2. Are there differences in aesthetic and management preferences across different user groups? 3. Is there any indication that human preferences may threaten the ecology of forests? 4. Do public preferences vary according to

Local (parish)

whether verbal or visual approaches are used?

Chapter 6
1.What scenario storylines are considered viable? 2.What type(s) of planning approaches and governance systems are needed to implement multifunctional forests? 3. How can these two storylines be implemented through a pilot- scheme?

Figure: research questions

Figure 2.7. Research questions

74

Chapter 3. Associations between forest characteristics and socio-economic development: A case study from Portugal

The content of this Chapter is published in the Journal of Environmental Management. The publication is presented in Appendix 1.

75

Abstract The integration of socio-economic and environmental objectives is a major challenge in developing strategies for sustainable landscapes. We investigated associations between socio-economic variables, landscape metrics and measures of forest condition in the context of Portugal. The main goals of the study were to 1) investigate relationships between forest conditions and measures of socio-economic development at national and regional scales, 2) test the hypothesis that a systematic variation in forest landscape metrics occurs according to the stage of socio-economic development and, 3) assess the extent to which landscape metrics can inform strategies to enhance forest sustainability. A ranking approach and statistical techniques such as Principal Component Analysis were used to achieve these objectives. Relationships between socio-economic characteristics, landscape metrics and measures of forest condition were only significant in the regional analysis of municipalities in Northern Portugal. Landscape metrics for different tree species displayed significant variations across socio-economic groups of municipalities and these differences were consistent with changes in characteristics suggested by the forest transition model. The use of metrics also helped inform place-specific strategies to improve forest management, though it was also apparent that further work was required to better incorporate differences in forest functions into sustainability planning. Keywords: forest sustainability, forest transition, landscape metrics, landscape planning

76

while in rural regions experiencing depopulation there is a need to focus on economic and social regeneration (Antrop. Wu. Since the Brundtland report defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED. 2006. Pinto-Correia. particularly at different spatial scales. 1991. 77 . A key tool in landscape ecology is the use of metrics that describe the spatial structure of a landscape in terms of both composition and configuration (McGarigal et al. However the form of these “virtuous circles” varies between rural and urban areas. functions and conflicts” (Selman. 1999. Introduction Implementing sustainable development at spatial scales from the international to the local is nowadays a key goal for many researchers.g. 2006) so that the linkages between the socio-economic sphere and environmental functions are reinforced. WCED. 2006:146). Wu. Lele. Landscape ecology offers theories and methods that can contribute to the formulation of sustainability strategies through a better understanding of processes and functions in different environmental settings (Potschin and Haines-Young. 2002). 2000). This paper aims to contribute to the ongoing landscapes and sustainability debate (Antrop.3. 2006) through an examination of relationships between indicators of socio-economic development. 2006). Blaschke. governments and nongovernmental organisations. landscape metrics and measures of forest condition in Portugal. 2006. 2006. 2006). Potschin and Haines-Young. planners. In an urban area where land use is becoming more intensive the policy emphasis is likely to be on “guiding” processes of change. rural of urban and deep rural. 2006b. Selman (2006) cites Antrop (2004) as arguing that landscapes in Europe “can broadly be categorized as urban centre. 1987) Recent work has suggested that sustainable development strategies should focus on encouraging “virtuous circles” in landscapes (Matthews and Selman. but it is generally recognised that there needs to be more empirical assessment of such associations. A number of researchers (e.1). and that these display characteristic structures. urban fringe. There have been major socio-economic changes in this country since it joined the EU in 1986 and forests are an important landscape feature whose management has faced a number of challenges (Firmino. Botequilha Leitão and Ahern 2002) have discussed possible relationships between landscape metrics and sustainability (see summary in Table 3. 2006b.. 1987:8) there has been an extensive discussion in the literature about the integration of socio-economic and environmental issues in order to attain sustainability (Antrop.1.

Indicators for landscape stability and resilience at water catchments level were developed in order to describe/represent condition and trends of change in water catchments with the goal to manage towards more sustainable condition (Aspinal and Pearson. “Heterogeneity per se appears useful to planning a sustainable environment. Diffusion rates. Ji et al. 1995) p491. Fractal dimension index (FRAC) Euclidean nearest neighbour (ENN) 78 . 2006) Number of patches (NP). Associations between landscape metrics and sustainability Metric type Area/density/edge metrics Metric Percentage of landscape (PLAND) Relation with sustainability “If one class dominates completely the landscape then it will provide little support for multi-habitat species” (Botequilha Leitao and Ahern. “The heterogeneity provided by patches and corridors in an area plays a key role in sustainability” (Forman.. dominance. but more important is the actual arrangement of patches and corridors” “Geometry patterns are indicators of human disturbance (roads.Table 3. Patch size (PS) and Patch density (PD). there is only one land use type and landscape lacks diversity” “The arrangement of coarse/fine grained areas within the landscape is doubtless key factor to achieve a sustainable environment” (Forman. “If mean patch size is small and number of patches is high it can indicate a fragmented landscape” (Botequilha Leitao and Ahern. Lacunarity. 2007. “greenways offer a promising planning strategy to address the challenge of making landscape planning sustainable” (Ahern. 2002) p75 “To increase sustainability the obvious solution to shortcomings of both coarse/fine grained landscapes is to vary in grain size” (Forman. Isolation/proximity Nearest neighbour distance (MNND) Proximity (PROXIM) Contagion/interspeciation and Isolation/proximity metrics Contagion.. Consensus is emerging: some form of ecological infrastructure is necessary to achieve a sustainable landscape condition (Rescia et al. Indicators for change in landscape structure caused by urbanization provided information about specific aspects of landscape structure and thus were helpful to “guide” process of urbanization towards sustainability (DiBari. 2002) p75 “At its lowest limit. 2002) p75. 2006). 1995) p 488. “The spread of disturbances such as diseases and fire are greater when MNND is low and when PROXIM values are high” (Botequilha Leitao and Ahern. Patch richness (PR) Diversity Patch richness(PR) Shape metrics Perimeter area ratio distribution (PARA). 1995) p489. 1995) p 489. urban areas)” (Forman.1. Percolation Largest Patch index (LPI) . Fractal dimension. 2000). 1995) p152.

industrial or post-industrial. 2005). economic. 1995. The need for this type of integrative effort (interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary) has been increasingly recognised in studies of environmental and landscape change (Tress and Tress. Lopes-Ridaura et al. There are still rural areas with common lands where forests provide a variety of products typical of the preindustrial stage. as well as the range of socioeconomic settings. Given the importance and diversity of forests in Portugal. However. Three specific goals arose from these considerations. Many different approaches to this issue exist including the application of indicators for Sustainable Forest Management (Kangas and Kangas. 2005) the adoption of practices such as continuous cover forestry and “back to nature” management strategies (Gamborg and Larsen. as well as districts where timber production dominates and other urban regions or national parks where the service functions characteristic of post-industrial forestry are apparent.. 2) test the hypothesis that a systematic variation in forest landscape metrics 79 . we felt that the country provided one appropriate example in which to investigate issues of sustainable development with regard to forestry. see Mather. 1996). 2005).g. but there are major threats to sustainability arising from wild fires and an increase in the area of non-native tree species such as eucalyptus (DGF. 1992) appears to vary across the country (particularly on a transect from the coast to the inland mountains) (Rudel et al. 2006). 2003). Comparing the 1995 and 2005 forest inventories indicates that many coastal areas had changes in forest area in the range -10 to +10%. the use of certification tools. 2007a). This diversity in turn raises questions as to how criteria for sustainable forest management should be defined (Shifley. landscape metrics and socio-economic characterisation) to bridge the social. 2005. and environmental dimensions of sustainability. Munda. Rudel et al. In developing our analysis we sought to consider both national and regional scales and to combine variables from several different research fields (e.. the use of such techniques needs to be sensitive to socio-economic circumstances so that the “virtuous circles” underpinning sustainable development are reinforced.At present. (2005) suggest that economic factors linked to labour scarcity have been a key driver of the forest transition in Portugal and at present the stage reached (pre-industrial. some 38% of land is occupied by forests. 2005. 2001) and we see our research as an example of this wider approach. namely to 1) investigate relationships between forest conditions and measures of socio-economic development at national and regional scales. whereas adjoining the Spanish border the values were typically -30 to -50% (DGRF. Sheppard. and the valuation of goods and services provided by the forests (Mangold.

Socio-economic data were obtained primarily from the website of the Portuguese national statistic office. Data at municipal level were derived from 1:25. 1990). In subsequent analysis the broadleaved and coniferous classes were separated into different tree species namely maritime pine. Detailed land cover categories were combined to produce urban. Data and Methods 3. agriculture. Instituto Nacional de Estatística (INE. 2000). water bodies. 2001). The land-use sheets were appended and matched with the boundaries of the municipalities using union commands in the ArcGIS software. unproductive. 80 .2. Details of forest conditions and other characteristics at NUTS III level were obtained from the two most recent Portuguese forestry inventories (1995-1998) and (2005-2006).occurs according to the stage of socio-economic development and. The latter was selected due to its diversity in both forest types and socio-economic characteristics.2. This information is available for download from the website of the major forestry institution in Portugal. 3. broadleaved and coniferous forest classes. oak. Regional analysis was also necessary because it was not practical to calculate detailed landscape metrics at a national scale. The national scale analysis was based on the 28 Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics level III (NUTS III) areas on the Portuguese mainland.1 Data sources We used data on forest and socio-economic characteristics at national and regional scales (Table 3. 2007a).000 scale land-use map sheets for 1990 (Carta de Ocupação do Solo COS‟90) downloadable from the Portuguese Geographic Institute (IGEO.2). the regional analysis focused on 83 Northern Portuguese municipalities. Direcção Geral dos Recursos Florestais (DGRF. This information included a development index for Portugal that quantifies the level of economic and social development for NUTS III regions and municipalities using 1998 and 1999 data (Fonseca. 3) assess the extent to which landscape metrics can inform strategies to enhance forest sustainability. other broadleaved trees and eucalyptus.

The run parameters in FRAGSTATS were set with a 81 . 1997) IND91 Illi_91 NDOC Dev_Id Forest condition Ba80/05 N. Equals the number of patches of the corresponding patch type.3. Analysis techniques Landscape metrics were calculated at the regional scale using the FRAGSTATS program version 3. Fonseca 2000 Source INE Supporting references (Gamborg and Larsen.. Equals the sum. 1999) (Vora. Percentage of landscape quantifies the proportional abundance of each patch type in the landscape.2.F Brod. 1997) (Botequilha Leitao and Ahern. 2001b) Regional Landscape metrics NP COS‟90IGEO COS‟90IGEO (Vora.. of the corresponding patch metric values.2. 2002). (McGarigal et al. Variable descriptions and data sources Scale National and Regional Category Socioeconomic Variable UN91 UN98 CPOP N.soc Pry_91 Sec_91 Ter_91 DOM91 Description Unemployment rate 1991 Unemployment rate 2001 Change in population between 1991_ and 2001 Number of enterprises 1996 (societies) Percentage of economic activity primary sector 1991 Percentage of economic activity secondary sector 1991 Percentage of economic activity tertiary sector 1991 Domestic electricity consumption 1991 Industrial electricity consumption Illiteracy in 1991 Number of medical doctors/1000 inhabitants Development Index 98/99 (Included in the ranking but not in PCA) Area burnt in the period 1980/2005 Number of fires that occurred between 1980/2005 Percentage of broadleaved trees Percentage of Coniferous trees Percentage of forests Number of Patches. Equals the number of patches of the corresponding patch type divided by total landscape area (m2) converted to hectares.2. Conif Forest DGRF IGEO (Moreira et al. 2002) PS PD COS‟90IGEO PLAND COS‟90IGEO 3. across all patches in the landscape.Table 3. divided by the total number of patches. 2003) (Noss.

3. Ranking method The first approach used to compare forest characteristics in different development situations was a ranking method (Malczewski. Simple exploratory analyses of the extent to which these assessments coincided were then performed by dividing the overall measures into two classes (above and below the median values) and displaying the results on maps or scatterplots. forest conditions and landscape metrics were obtained by calculating the average rank for each observation on the different sets of variables. 1999. Munda. Table 3. 82 . 1) was given to the area with the poorest performance and the highest (i. Summaries of the metrics and land-use profiles for each municipality were subsequently exported to the SPSS software for statistical analysis.pixel size of 30 meters and calculations were performed accounting for eight neighbouring pixels.2.3 summarises how the end points of each ranking scale were defined. 28 in the case of the NUTS III and 83 in the case of the municipalities areas) to that with the best. anticipated relationships with sustainability (see Table 3.1.e. This meant that there were two final average rankings for each NUTS III area and three for each municipality. In all the rankings the lowest value (i. overall measures for socio-economic development. These metrics were selected on the basis of their ease of interpretation.2. At the regional scale it was also possible to rank each municipality on five landscape metrics. patch size (PS) and patch density (PD). Once the individual variables had been ranked.e. Each NUTS III area was ranked on five socioeconomic development and five forest condition variables (see Table 3. From the set of metrics proposed by Botequilha Leitão and Ahern (2002) we calculated class metrics such as percentage of landscape (PLAND).1) and to provide coverage of both composition and configuration dimensions.3). 2005). The degree to which the average rankings corresponded was also assessed by calculating Spearman rank correlation coefficients.

2. 3. This approach to socio-economic grouping was adopted in preference to a reliance on the Fonseca (2000) development index because we wanted to ensure that more account was taken of social characteristics (e.Table 3.2.2. Characteristics used to rank variables Category Socioeconomic Variable Increase in population Development index Primary sector Unemployment Number of enterprises Forest condition Burnt area Eucalyptus area Broadleaved area Coniferous area Percentage of forest in the spatial unit Class metrics Number of broadleaved patches Number of coniferous patches Mean area of broadleaved patches Mean area of coniferous patches Broadleaved patch density Good Highest value Highest value Lowest values Lowest values Highest values Smallest area of burnt forests Smallest area of Eucalyptus Largest area of broadleaved trees Largest area of coniferous trees Highest forested area High number of patches High number of patches High mean patch size High mean patch size High patch density Poor Lowest value Lowest value Highest values Highest values Lowest values Largest area of burnt forest Largest area of Eucalyptus Smallest area of broadleaved trees Smallest area of coniferous trees Lowest forested area Low number of patches Low number of patches Low mean patch size Low mean patch size Low patch density Note: High patch density of broadleaved tree species was interpreted as “good” due to its association with the presence of native tree species such as oak. Values for the 83 municipalities on the eleven socio-economic variables in Table 3. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Cluster Analysis (CA) One limitation of the ranking approach was that it took no account of intercorrelations between the original input variables. population change) as 83 .3.g. To tackle this and extend the analysis we undertook a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and k-means cluster analysis (CA) at the regional scale.2 provided the input to the PCA and the scores on the most important components were then used to classify the areas.

Analysis of Variance was then used to compare landscape metrics for three different tree species (eucalyptus.0 15. maritime pine and oak) across the socio-economic groups of municipalities. 25. percentage of primary sector activity (MPS) and percentage of tertiary sector activity (MTS). All of the areas were also classified into four groups according to whether they were above or below the median values on the two variables.00 20.1.1. change in population (MCPOP). National scale trends Figure 3.00 15.00 Mean rank of 5 socio-economic variables Figure 3. Results 3.well as economic ones.00 10.0 5. coniferous plantations (maritime pine) and species introduced from the 1970s onwards for economic reasons (eucalyptus).3. 3. Following the CA.00 25.0 Minho-Lima Grande Lisboa 10.31). 84 .0 5.0 Mean rank of 5 forest condition variables Alentejo Litoral 20. Nevertheless.1 plots the 28 NUTS III areas using their average rankings for forest and socioeconomic conditions. The distribution shows no obvious relationship between the two variables and the Spearman rank correlation of -0.3.20 was not significant (p = 0. Mean ranks of Portuguese NUT III areas on forest condition and socio-economic variables. key characteristics of the groups of municipalities were assessed by calculating mean values for variables such as population density (MPOP). to help with the interpretation of the component scores we also correlated them with the Fonseca (2000) development index. These tree species were selected to represent the native broadleaf cover (oak).

Regional scale trends The plot in Figure 3.2.3 shows a much stronger association between forest and socioeconomic characteristics at regional scale than was apparent in the national analysis. Figure 3.Figure 3. There was also an obvious group of areas with below median forest conditions and socio-economic development in the north east of Portugal.2. For 85 .3. Classification of Portuguese NUT III areas on the basis of forest condition and socioeconomic development.2 maps the results and indicates some clear geographical blocks with the coastal areas generally having higher levels of socio-economic development. 3.

00 60. 86 .00 40.00 R Sq Linear = 0.00 50. with a significant Spearman rank correlation of +0.00 Mean rank of 5 socio-economic variables Figure 3. At the municipality scale it was also possible to compare an average ranking derived from five landscape metrics (see Table 3.3 there is greater variation around the OLS regression line (r2 = 19.01).339 20.3 shows the general trend.the 83 municipalities in the Northern region there was a significant negative Spearman rank correlation of -0. The plot in Figure 3.1%).9%).00 20. 80.3.00 80.00 Mean rank of 5 forest condition variables 70.4 shows a positive association.00 30.00 70.00 50.3) with that for forest conditions. The Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression line in Figure 3.60 (p < 0.00 30.01) indicating better forest conditions in the less developed municipalities. Mean ranks of Northern region municipalities on forest condition and socio-economic variables.44 (p < 0.00 60. but it is also apparent that there was considerable variation around this (r2 = 33. Compared to Figure 3.00 40.

00 80. -0.1.00 60. These results indicate that.93 and -0.66 respectively.84) and tertiary sectors (+0.3.76). Socio-economic classification The result of the PCA (with varimax rotation) on the 11 socioeconomic variables indicated that two components explained 70% of the original variance. The five group solution was selected 87 .00 50. Positive scores on this component were interpreted as an indicator of rurality.80. A k-means cluster analysis was used classify the municipalities into five groups on the basis of their component scores on PC1 and PC2.00 70.01) between the index and PC1 and an insignificant positive association of +0.50 were considered high loadings.00 40. To further understand the meaning of the PCs the two sets of scores were correlated with the Fonseca (2000) index of development (not included in the PCA input).00 50.00 40. Principal Component 1 (PC1) had high loadings for change in population between 1991 and 2001 (-0. Loadings stronger than +/0.93) and rates of domestic and industrial electricity consumption.00 30. The highest positive scores on this component were for the largest urban centres such as Porto.191 20.00 Mean rank of 5 class metrics Figure 3.84). The results were a significant negative correlation of -0. Mean ranks of Northern region municipalities on forest condition and class metric variables.4. as intended. the PCA-based approach covered broader socio-economic dimensions than the Fonseca (2000) index.00 R Sq Linear = 0.00 60.11 (p = 0.88 (p <0. percentage of economic activity in the primary sector (+0. 3. illiteracy (+0.34) with PC2.00 Mean rank of 5 forest condition variables 70.89) and the number of medical doctors per inhabitant (+0.00 30.00 20.2.69). PC2 had high loadings on the percentage of economic activity in secondary (-0.

2 -0.6 1.5 maps the results of the classification.0 9. Tourism is important in these areas.4. change in population (MCPOP). primary (MPS) and tertiary (MTC) sector economic activity. These statistics indicate some clear contrasts that can be readily interpreted as an urban-rural gradient. The two remainder groups can be denoted as developing rural and deep rural.4. 88 . Within the latter there are also a number of municipalities that contain land designated as National Parks.9 11.7 1. Table 3. Beyond this there is a similar sized set of municipalities that can be termed the outer urban fringe. This classification was also different from that obtained using the Fonseca (2000) index alone where there were very uneven numbers of municipalities across the five groups. Table 3.because this was felt to provide the best substantive representation of socio-economic contrasts within the region.3 -10. Characteristics of the five socio-economic groups Classification Number of Municipalities n=1 n=17 n=17 n=12 n=36 MPOP (inhabitants) Urban centre Inner urban fringe Outer urban fringe Developing rural Deep rural 5787 959 498 119 52 MCPOP (%) -13. The coastal areas around Porto and the most developed municipalities in Northern Portugal can be described as inner urban fringe. Porto was identified as the sole urban centre. MCPOP Mean change in Population.3 MPS (%) 0.5 11. MPS Mean Primary sector. as reflected in the increase in the MTC percentage in Table 3.5 5.2 MTS (%) 88 73 54 52 65 Note: MPOP Mean population density. MTS Mean Tertiary sector Figure 3.4 lists the number of municipalities in each group and their mean values with respect to population density (MPOP).

2.6 shows how the mean values of PLAND varied across the socio-economic groups.5. Figure 3. It approaches 0 when the class type becomes increasingly rare in the studied area and 100 when the entire area consists of a single patch type (McGarigal et al. Maritime pine stands out as the dominant class in all socio-economic categories while the value for eucalyptus was highest in the outer urban fringe group and that for oak in the deep rural areas.Figure 3. Percentage of landscape (PLAND) quantifies the proportional abundance of each patch type in the landscape. 2002). maritime pine and oak) were compared across the five socioeconomic groups discussed above. mean patch size. Socio-economic classification of Northern region municipalities. and patch density) for three tree species (eucalyptus.3. 89 . 3. These three metrics were included in the set proposed by Botequiha Leitão and Ahern (2002) and their importance has also been highlighted in earlier studies such as Forman (1995).2 Variations in class metrics Three class metrics (percentage of landscape..

Patch sizes for oaks increased across the urban-rural gradient.6.00 10.7. Figure 3.14. 30. The mean patch area equals the sum of the area across all patches in the municipality. those for maritime pine displayed a more mixed trend. 2002).7 illustrates how patch size (PS) varied across the groups.00 4.00 0.00 5. divided by the total number of patches in the municipality (McGarigal et al.00 2.00 10.00 Mean PS (ha) 15.00 Urban centre Inner urban fringe Outer urban fringe Developing rural Deep rural Socio-economic groups Maritime pine Eucalyptus Oak Figure 3.00 Mean PLAND (%) 8.00 6.00 25.00 Urban centre Inner urban fringe Outer urban fringe Developing rural Deep rural Socio-economic groups Maritime pine Eucalyptus Oak Figure 3. Variations in percentage of landscape (PLAND) metrics for three tree species across the socio-economic groups of municipalities. Variations in patch size (PS) metrics for three tree species across the socio-economic groups of municipalities.00 0.00 12. and the values for eucalyptus were higher in the urban fringe than the rural categories.00 20.. 90 .

30 0.8. 0.40 0.10 0.80 0.40 0.05 level 91 .70 0.01 Patch size 0.15 0. Since there was only one urban centre municipality this category had to be excluded from the analysis and the comparisons in Table 3.60 Mean PD (patch/ha) 0.. Variations in patch density (PD) metrics for three tree species across the socioeconomic groups of municipalities. Significance of differences in class metrics across the socio-economic groups.05 level.20 0. while those for oak and eucalyptus were similar in several categories. Tree species Maritime pine Oak Eucalyptus Percentage of landscape 0.39 0. Table 3. 2002).50 0.18 0. The results indicate that all three tree species had significant differences in either PLAND or PD. Figure 3. while none of the contrasts in PS were significant at the 0.03 0. For each tree species it was also the case that the lowest mean PD occurs in one of the two rural categories.5.Patch density (PD) values for individual tree species are generally interpreted as a measure of fragmentation (McGarigal et al.15 Patch density 0.8 indicates that across all five socioeconomic groups the PDs were generally highest for maritime pine.01 Note: Values in bold are statistically significant at the 0.5 are based on the remaining four groups.01 0.00 Urban centre Inner urban fringe Outer urban fringe Developing rural Deep rural Socio-economic groups Maritime pine Eucalyptus Oak Figure 3. Analysis of variance was used to assess the significance of differences in the class metrics across the socio-economic groups.

The results suggested a number of trends and contrasts (see Figures 3. with a particular contrast in forest conditions between the inland parts of southern Portugal (e. the absence of landscape metrics meant that factors such as contrasts in stand structure were not taken into account. Lisboa and on the Algarve). At the national scale there was only a weak correlation between socio-economic development and forest conditions in NUT III areas. around Porto. the plains of Alentejo) and the more mountainous area further north. 92 . The initial ranking analysis at the regional scale indicated a positive association between measures of forest condition and a set of landscape metrics (Figure 3. to generate landscape metrics at a national scale) would be considerable.g. A weaker association at the national scale can be attributed to the interaction of several factors. A second objective was to examine whether there was a systematic variation in forest landscape metrics according to the stage of socio-economic development. restricting the analysis to this region helped to control for some of the key differences in tree species and forestry systems.g. More detailed assessment of differences in specific metrics for particular tree species was then conducted. However. Alentejo is dominated by a livestock-based agroforestry system known as “montado” with scattered cork trees which are relatively easy to maintain in good condition (Firmino. eucalyptus or oaks which are more challenging to manage and vulnerable to wildfires. As Figure 3.2 indicates.g. Almost all of the Northern region included in the municipality analysis had below median forest conditions on the national scale (see Figure 3. Forests further north are characterised by relatively dense stands of pines. Discussion The first goal of this study was to investigate relationships between forest conditions and measures of socio-economic development at national and regional scales in Portugal. Further analysis could be conducted to tackle these problems. variables such as the percentage of broadleaved trees used in the national analysis (although the best available) were not sufficiently sensitive to these regional differences in tree species or forestry systems. In addition.6 to 3. 1999).8 and Table 3.4.2). With hindsight. there was a clear tendency for poorer forest conditions to occur in a number of the most urbanised areas (e.3. The outcome was a stronger trend for higher levels of socio-economic development (mainly near the coast) to coincide with poorer forest conditions (Figure 3. In rural regions the situation is more variable. a stronger and statistically significant negative correlation was identified at the regional scale.3). but the data and processing requirements (e.4).5). However.

Chaves. 2004. A second factor is the presence of a number of National Parks with distinct features such as absence of eucalyptus trees and an emphasis on tourism i. Several factors help to explain this result.5) and the change is not as marked as might be anticipated in some cases (e. 1999). Within the deep rural group there are still common lands where forests provide a variety of products characteristic of pre-industrial forestry (Brouwer. these results suggest that the different socio-economic groups have contrasting forest characteristics which reflect the pre-industrial. This is a common trend and reflects a number of other studies (Antrop. Both these characteristics reflect planned initiatives (e. Forman. 1998) and more generally these areas have features typical of “industrial” forestry.7). The presence of larger patches and higher percentages of area occupied by the same tree species would.supporting the conclusion of Botequilha Leitão and Ahern (2002) that metrics such as PLAND.7).g. 1992). Taken together. suggest a connected landscape.g. Roche. Interpretation of the differences in the tree species metrics can be facilitated by reference to the forest transition concept (Mather. PS and PD are of value in evaluating sustainability issues. often being over 15-20 hectares. the interpretation of the patch density metric (Figure 3.e. 1995). at first sight. The deep rural category of municipalities still has the largest proportion (2. “post-industrial” forestry.6).5%) of its area with oak trees. The values of patch size show some signs of increasing across the urban-rural gradient (Figure 3. there has been a transformation of natural Portuguese broadleaf (particularly oak) forest into more productive tree species alongside the broader process of socio-economic development. for oaks). One is that the deep rural group (where forests might be expected to cover larger areas in bigger patches) includes some mountainous regions where the environmental conditions are unfavourable for large areas of trees.8) shows a more fragmented landscape in urbanised areas. It is also worth noting that the metrics used in this study are quite effective in distinguishing the “industrial” from other categories of forestry. but less so in separating pre and post industrial features. as well as protected 93 . However. Viana do Castelo and Vila Real during the 1940s (Brouwer. state funded development of coniferous plantations) in municipalities such as Bragança. industrial and postindustrial categories embedded in the forest transition concept. The patch sizes for pine and eucalyptus species are also much larger (Figure 3. the outer urban fringe group have much higher percentages of landscape with non-native species such as eucalyptus (Figure 3. 1999. In essence. By contrast. but the differences were not statistically significant (Table 3.

In other words. but needs to be accompanied by measures to maintain other. This would help tackle a critical problem in these areas. but the silvicultural techniques (e. This is a similar recommendation to rural areas. 2007). 2006. This highlights that it is important to consider issues of functions as well as composition/configuration in assessing issues of landscapes and sustainability (Blaschke. activities such as livestock grazing. forests need to be better integrated into the continuum of land uses that encompasses landscapes. in urban areas 94 .e. Consequently. namely the disappearance of the “idyllic landscape” shaped by “traditional farmers” with a mixture of low intensity crop. tree spacing and stand age composition) would need to vary according to management priorities (i. The third goal of this study was to assess the extent to which landscape metrics can inform strategies to enhance forest sustainability. Contagion/interspersion metrics could play a role in helping to identify compatible land use mosaics that would provide sustainability benefits in such areas. Acknowledging such a view. it is also evident that they have some limitations in terms of distinguishing some of different functions that forests can perform. although there has been a reversal of forest loss in many developed areas. potentially conflicting. A challenge for management of forests in these rural areas is thus to create adjacent uses with low level of conflict. However. the priority in urban areas should be to enhance landscape connectivity in order assure provision of environmental goods and services. From the previous discussion it is clear that landscape metrics can be used to identify some of the different problems and issues in urban and rural areas. a key protective step in the deep rural areas would be an increase in both the percentage of landscape and patch size of oaks and other broadleaved trees. This highlights that recommendations to improve forest condition need to be place specific and take account of other surrounding land uses (since these will influence the functions that forests need to perform). In addition. the characteristics of these new forests are not especially appropriate to fulfil the increasing needs of recreation and tourism activities. 1999). Enlarging the area and patch sizes of broadleaves would help to support economic and social regeneration through other means (e. grazing and forest land uses (Firmino. defensive. Thus. Perz.areas where the service functions characteristic of post-industrial forestry are apparent. according to Ahern (1995) the most appropriate strategy for an urban centre is a defensive one. To achieve this it seems sensible to propose an increase in both percentage of landscape and patch size of oaks and other broadleaved trees.g.g. to connect the landscapes in urban areas and promote economic and social regeneration in rural areas). tourism). offensive and opportunistic. By contrast. Planning strategies have been defined by Ahern (1995:139) as protective.

Our study suggests that it is possible to identify a positive association between landscape metrics and measures of better condition for forests and that the calculation of metrics for individual tree species can help inform strategies for sustainable forest management in urban and rural areas.management priorities should focus on enhancing vegetation structure in existing woodlands as well as improving connectivity between them. This capability is an important aspect in any assessment of sustainability at the landscape scale (Selman. 2006) and it therefore suggests that future research should either evaluate more refined metrics to represent such functions or examine how basic metrics can be best supplemented by other indicators in the toolbox for sustainable landscape management. for instance dealing with the fact that dead wood both “enhances biodiversity” and is “not aesthetically attractive”. Conclusions The approach presented in this study is innovative in correlating ecological landscape metrics for tree species with socio-economic indicators for the areas in which the forests occur. 2008) and aesthetics. They also note that many of the challenges to forest management in urban areas are concerned with reconciling “management for biodiversity” (Hedblom and Soderstrom. It therefore provides an example of a simple interdisciplinary method for investigating sustainability issues and demonstrates that landscape metrics can be used as a measure of socio-economic change. 3. Diversity and connectivity measures are therefore examples of the types of landscape metrics that can help in planning enhancements to the sustainability benefits associated with forests in urban areas. The results of this study have several implications for the wider landscapes and sustainability debate. 95 . These recommendations are similar those presented by Hedblom and Soderstrom (2008) in their study of urban woodlands in Sweden. but those used in this study are limited in their ability to distinguish the different functions or services of forests.5. 2006). Landscape metrics clearly have value in detecting patterns of land cover or environmental change. The research also demonstrates how forest characteristics vary over an urban-rural gradient and therefore reinforces the point that criteria for sustainable management or strategies to establish “virtuous circles” need to be context specific (Matthews and Selman.

Chapter 4. Integrating public uses and preferences in the design of multifunctional plans at the catchment scale: A case study in the Minho region of Portugal 96 .

as is implicit in the Water Framework Directive (WFD). In deep rural areas an integrated type of multifunctionality is critical due to the need to fully integrate protection. As so. it is also likely that rural and urban sustainabilities will differ from each other. As a consequence. further research addressing smaller scales (e. However. Combining a literature review about the roles of forest in the area with both the field and the questionnaire surveys it was possible to distinguish between the role(s) of forests across the area of two watersheds.g. the characteristics of the forests were surveyed by gathering data such as stand composition and diameter classes. Further. However. in order to implement those strategies. Although the analysis of the public uses and public preferences for management strategies in each municipality revealed the need to implement multifunctional forests. Subsequently. Based on a set of simple tools such as questionnaire and field surveys supported by Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques the study highlights ways to move towards sustainable forestry management in two watersheds in Northern Portugal. The results show that it is likely that sustainable urbanized landscapes will imply completely different aspects than sustainable rural ones. it is crucial to involve all forest stakeholders in the creation of whole catchment governance strategies. On the contrary.Abstract This chapter explores the potential role of forests in sustainable landscape management within two surface water catchments located in the Minho region of Portugal. a questionnaire survey collected data concerning public uses and preferences for forests. the results also indicate that there is a need to vary the type of multifunctionality within the area of the two watersheds. In order to do so it is crucial to i) integrate forestry within a formal planning context ii) create public-private partnerships to address the multitude of ecosystem services forests have the capacity to provide iii) transcend property boundaries to implement desirable forest management strategies. the results suggest that even in municipalities within similar characteristics (either urban or rural) it is likely that the role(s) of forests may be different. parish) are likely to be important to further exploring the role(s) of forests within the study area. in more urbanised areas dominant uses such as recreation and production are of foremost importance indicating that the option of spatially separating the functions (spatial multifunctionality or dominant use) is likely to be a wiser strategy as it works in tandem with the dynamics currently in place. In order to do so. recreation and production functions. it is suggested that there need to be strategies to strengthen rural/urban patterns of development based on an ecosystem approach to watershed management. 97 .

2007. 2007:29). 1993.. 2006). 2007).g. 2001. multifunctionality has increasingly been proposed as a principal “hallmark” of landscape strengthening its case for being at the heart rather than the periphery of integrated spatial planning (Hector and Bagchi. Matthews and Selman. 2007.4. sustainable landscape governance requires the negotiation of a set of commonly agreed objectives and a framework of shared responsibilities to effectively enable spatial development strategies and policies (CEMAT. Kozlowski and Hill.1. nature conservation. 2007). Thus. 2006). Furthermore. 2006). multifunctionality either from a single land use type such as agriculture (multifunctional agriculture) or from several land use types (multifunctional land use) is increasingly being promoted as a means of moving towards sustainability (Fry. Fry. 2000)... there is a need to put into practice effective governance systems for sustainability (Dolman et al. Selman.. Introduction Sustainable landscape planning is concerned with guiding the actions and interactions of natural and human factors so landscapes lose neither their ecological integrity nor their ability to fulfil basic human needs (Brandt et al. 2000). 2001. ELC. Consequently. if a land use type is able to provide multiple uses and functions it is more likely that it will fulfil the needs of a broader group of people (Baskent. 2001.. 2002). restore or create landscapes” (Council of Europe. Sustainable landscapes are inherently multi-functional linking people and their natural environment (Brandt et al. OECD.. Mander et al. leisure) have tended to become segregated in most European landscapes as a result of the specialisation and intensification of production (Mander et al. 2007). 2000. 2000. Selman (2006:15) considers this functional separation of land uses to be an underlying contributor to many environmental problems. During the late 20th century landscape functions (e. Baskent et al. 2000). 2000. Fry. 2001. In addition to effective planning. According to the European Landscape Convention. 1) pursuing different goals in a corresponding mixture of separate land use types or 2) integrating consistently different goals from the beginning in order to accomplish them simultaneously (de Blust and Olmen. 2007.. Mander et al. In spatial 98 . Selman. On the contrary. Governance over a territory can be understood as “the emergence and implementation of innovative shared forms of planning and managing of socio-spatial dynamics” (CEMAT. planning is “a forward-looking action to enhance. The first way can be defined as spatial multifunctionality because different spatial units have an unequivocal goal and management. Multifunctional forestry can be achieved in two distinct ways by.

community and economy are no longer self reinforcing (Selman. integrity and stability. is more likely to address these major issues in planning for sustainability by acknowledging socio-economic and environmental distinctiveness which may be able to reinforce different processes across landscapes (Baskent and Yolasigmaz. livestock grazers) as well as governments shape the landscape in order to achieve different outputs from landscapes such as. Elands and Praestholm. water resources. 2005. 2006) so that the linkages between the socio-economic sphere and environmental functions are reinforced. 2000) Forests play a crucial role in conserving biological diversity. 2008. Haines-Young (2002). 1999) or urban context 99 . in the second case different goals are attained in the same spatial unit. As a consequence there are multifunctional landscapes where sustainability is weak. Recent work has suggested that sustainable development strategies should focus on encouraging „„virtuous circles‟‟ in landscapes (Matthews and Selman. By contrast. However. The combination of both arguments (goods/services and spatial configuration) into a more holistic approach. In these cases. from urban to rural. 2000). In this model it is argued that landscapes are more or less sustainable in terms of the outputs of goods and services that are important to people in a specific context. diversity. 2001). Different users and managers of natural resources (e.. It is acknowledged that some “cultural” landscapes in post-industrial societies are not self sustainable because the links between landscapes.g.. Elands and Praestholm. Slee.multifunctionality each piece of land has one function and thus when zooming in or out an area appears to be more or less multifunctional. Slee and Snowdon. a range of settings. 2005). This type of multifunctionality can be defined as integrated multifunctionality (de Blust and Olmen. essentially giving landscapes a multifunctional character (Tress and Tress. foresters. 2003). Forests are normally studied either in a rural (Elands et al. 2002). productivity. there is a need to (re) create “viable” multifunctional land use (Pinto-Correia and Breman. This model was criticized by Blaschke (2006) because it mistreats issues related to the spatial arrangement of natural resources that certainly influence the provision of goods and services (Hersperger and Forman. 2006) there are problems when it comes to the implementation of sustainable forestry management (SFM) across a range of landscape types (Elands et al. Also. 2004. Despite agreement about the important role of forests in sustainable development (Sayer and Magginnis. 2008). find their multifunctionality and distinctiveness compromised (Selman. 2004. based on the concept of natural capital proposes the “landscapes and sustainability model” for addressing the sustainable landscapes challenge. soil and the maintenance of ecological functions and ecosystems integrity (Sayer and Maginnis. 2008). 2006).

the goods and services generated. Slee et al. 3) non market goods/services and finally by 4) promoting local identity based on culture and history (Slee. both SFM and EA do not address the issue of how ecosystem functions such as production. carbon storage and amenity (Sayer and Magginnis. recreation activities in aesthetically pleasing forest areas) and protective (e.1. recreation and water and soil protection can be supported across bio-geographical areas such as river basins (Sayer and Maginnis.. the methods used for its estimation as well as the functions of forests that are associated with the provision of these benefits.g. 2005). Selman. Table 4. Sustainable forestry management (SFM) and the ecosystem approach (EA) as applied to forests address the critical contribution forestry makes to broader sustainability issues.(Matsuoka and Kaplan. Consequently. both inside and outside woodlands and forests. 100 . Trees. 2006). 2006. fibre. by providing: 1) direct marketable goods. shows the forest contribution. 2008). avoid floods and soil erosion) services. 2001. Elands and Wiersum. The Understanding Forestry In Rural Development research project (UFIRD) identifies four major ways in which forests may contribute to sustainable development in rural areas. are increasingly being recognized for their important contribution to humanity through the provision of fuel. but the ways in which forests may help to reinforce the links between the urban-rural are not obvious in the literature. However. 2005). 2004). mechanisms for the reconciliation of multiple functions across landscapes are of critical importance (Elands and Praestholm. As a consequence. This has become more important recently as forestry moves from a primarily production based focus to include consumptive (e. 2) “shadow” or “halo” benefits. habitat for biodiversity. providing biodiversity. 2008. it is important to study the ways in which forests may facilitate the creation of “virtuous circles” across urban-rural regions.g.

complementing and diversifying farming systems (agri-ruralist).g. carbon credits) Social (non marketable goods) The social values attributable to forests and woodlands which range from their contribution to symbolic capital and community identity to their contribution to social capital building. Recreation Conventional non marketable goods The non-market values of forests and woodland. the appropriateness of these discourses in different locations within a watershed catchment has not been explored.g. Goods and services provided by forests and estimation methods Forest contribution Conventional marketable goods Description Goods/services provided Timber. air quality. 101 . distinguish five different roles for forestry. traditions Focus groups local /broader group of sectors followed by interpretative methods Recreation. which although not generating immediate regional income. to supporting socio-economic regeneration of marginalized areas by improving living conditions in remote places (community stability). income Income generated due to presence of forests (e. increase in value of property) Carbon sequestration. Therefore. However. Community identity. Within each of these five rural development discourses forests may have distinct roles.g. community stability and nature conservation. recreation Estimation methods Function of forest Production The impact of forestry activity. including forest related work and the upstream and downstream connections of forestry on employment and income. multifunctional forest management can overcome some of the problems that rural landscapes face (e. employment multipliers Focus groups broader group of sectors followed by Keynesian local income. These roles vary from providing income and employment (in the utilitarian discourse). hedonist. agri-ruralist. honey).g.Table 4. Non-timber products (e. The indirect impact of forestry on surrounding economic activity Surveys within forestry sector followed by Keynesian local income. culture.1. Source: Slee (2006) In a high diversified Europe Elands and Wiersum (2001). do create a contribution to national green accounts Field surveys characteristics of forests followed by benefit transfer methods Protection (also productive e. employment. biodiversity. source of direct income or through recreational activities). employment multipliers “Shadow “or “halo” non marktable goods/services Protection. utilitarian. as well as assuring biodiversity (nature conservation).

called urban heat island effect. Forests provide different functions depending their location. coniferous trees have a larger filter capacity than the trees with deciduous leaves. Table 4.2. All natural systems in urban areas will help to reduce these differences.. protection and recreation) can be made across the entire area of catchments comprising urban and rural areas (Sabatier et al. there is a need to go beyond distinguishing between different roles for forestry in rural and urban and explore the ways in which rural/ urban partnerships may be reinforced (Antrop.2) such as air filtering.. Johnson et al. 2005. 2008) However. Sources (Bolund and Hunhammar. Matsuoka and Kaplan. 2004). forests are well known for the provision of protective environmental services (Table 4. noise reduction recreational provision (Matsuoka and Kaplan. This phenomenon. Taking care of sewage costs cities large amounts of money. 1999) In vegetated areas only 5-15% of the rain water runs off the ground. Some studies have been showing that wetlands and forests can significantly reduce the costs with sewage treatments The recreational aspects of urban ecosystems are perhaps the most valued ecosystems services in the cities (Bolund and Hunhammar. regulating city temperatures. 2005). 2006). These different functions can be provided through monofunctional or multifunctional land use in forest areas (Stevens and Montegomerey. Services of forests in urban areas Service Air filtering Description and justification Vegetation reduces air pollution but to what level seems to depend on the local situation. This can be achieved by investigating the ways in which the integration of forest functions (production. forests may have distinct roles in assuring the welfare of urban and rural residents. in combination with amounts of energy use in cities. 1999) Microclimate regulation. Furthermore.In urban areas. 2002). 1999) (Bolund and Hunhammar. is caused by the large area of heat absorbing surfaces. 2008). 2001. Because of the larger total surfaces of needles. Local climate and even weather is affected by the city.. and the nutrients that are still released contribute to eutrophication of the surrounding water ecosystems. 1999. with the rest evaporating or infiltrating the ground. In vegetation free cities about 60% of the rainwater is instead led off through storm water drains. But coniferous trees are sensitive to air pollution and deciduous trees are better to absorb gases. Wu. at street and city level Rainwater drainage (Bolund and Hunhammar. 2006. This capacity is also grater because the needles are also shed during the winter. 102 . The forestry sector has had a long tradition of thinking in “multiple uses” and “multipurpose” being these recurrent terms in the forestry literature (Stevens and Montegomerey.. 2002) Sewage treatment Recreational and cultural values (Brainard et al. with both “in situ” as well distant locational effects either omnidirectionally or according to the flow of a river (Fisher et al.

An overview of these studies shows compatibility or competition between timber and most other resources (e.2002). timber and wildlife. Furthermore. Compatibility between forest uses is more easily achieved at the regional or forest scale than at the smaller scales of stand or management unity reinforcing the argument for planning forests at larger spatial scales (Wu. streams in agricultural areas in temperate regions typically have nitrate levels 10 times higher than streams in nearby forested watersheds. Forest reduces soil erosion and sedimentation of waterways. 3. timber and water quality. Forest soils usually have a higher water storage capacity than non forest soils. Nevertheless. 2006). allowing them to filter out contaminants. For example. Johnson et al (2002) summarized four simplified basic relationships as follows: 1. Extensive root systems help hold soil more firmly in place and resist landslides. 4. water quality) but only rarely incompatibility (Stevens and Montegomerey. 2002). Forest vegetation takes up water and delays the time to soil saturation. within this literature authors can be found to support the integration of functions while others advocate spatial multifunctionality or even dominant use (Stevens and Montegomerey. By slowing the runoff rate forests may also increase minimum stream flows during the dry season. 2005). forests can help to minimize flooding in smaller watersheds.g. Forest soils filter contaminants and influence water chemistry. Forest soils are more waterlogged than other soils (except wetlands) and contain more nutrients. the more complex structure of the forest ground surface and underlying soil allows more efficient soil infiltration compared to a deforestated watershed. Forests slow the rate of runoff in a watershed. For example. Contrary to popular opinion forests generally reduce the total annual stream flow. Interception of rain and snowfall by forest canopies means that less water falls on the ground compared to a deforested watershed. soils and vegetation types (Sabatier et al. Integration of functions in the forestry context has been the focus of many research studies addressing compatibilities and incompatibilities of forest functions such as timber and recreation. The degree to which forest reduce stream flow. however. However. 2002).. In the area of a single watershed the biophysical relationships between forests. Forests reduce the total annual water flow in a watershed. 2. By slowing down the rate of runoff. shallow-rooted trees tend to use less water 103 . people and water are highly variable depending on climate. This is because trees consume water for transpiration which is then evaporated back to the atmosphere. depends on factors such as type of roots as well as rotation period.

there is a growing interest in ecosystem based approaches to ensuring clean water services that go beyond the more typical regulatory measures or subsidies to provide new financial mechanisms which encourage new forms of land management techniques in private lands (Johnson et al.. The latter two mechanisms imply some form of governmental intervention either as a regulator of trading schemes or by public payment schemes. the situations in which they are appropriate is beyond the scope of this Chapter (but see Johnson et al. Sabatier et al. As a result.. 2002).. Here.. The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) (Directive 2000/60/EC) is a legally binding document that requires European member states to implement management measures to achieve “good water quality” by 2015.g. as well as to indicate the important role governments may have in leading this trend (Johnson et al. Accordingly. A review of these financial mechanisms and. 2005).. self organised private deals. 2005). 2005).than deep rooted trees.. Young regenerating forests tend to use much more water than mature old growth forests.. Also in the US it has been found that every $1 invested in watershed protection can save from $7. the PerrierVittel group of water bottler in France).. it is important to recognise them as strategies already in practice which support the argument for promoting sustainable forestry management across regions within the same catchment. 2002. Sabatier et al. Worldwide. The WFD is built upon two main 104 . The hydrological services of forests are amongst the most valuable of the many ecosystem services from forests (Johnson et al. 2002). by investing approximately $ 1 billion dollars in land protection and conservation practices New York City hopes to avoid spending $4-6 billion on end of pipe filtration and treatment. Sabatier et al. 2002 for a review). Milligan et al (2009) suggested that the present moment is appropriate for considering new governance arrangements that adopt and implement fresh approaches to participatory decision-making and natural resources management. 2002. For example. several key recommendations have been identified for engaging forest stakeholders to improve participation and effective dialogue around sustainable forest management. According to Johnson et al. trading schemes and public payment schemes (Johnson et al. 2002). there are growing examples of different types of financial mechanisms being used in ecosystem based watershed management (Johnson et al. 2002. Self organized private deals arise where private entities have developed their own mechanisms to pay for watershed protection with little or no government involvement (e.5 to nearly $200 in costs for new filtration and water treatment facilities (Johnson et al. (2002) there are three major types of financial mechanisms for watershed management..

According to the main steps and deadlines written into the WFD. 2006). 2007). This study explores multifunctional forest management using two river catchments in Northern Portugal as case studies.innovative approaches. What role(s) should forests serve in the study area? 2. forests may filter contaminants and influence water chemistry. few countries have mandatory plans for forestry (Selman. there is still much debate as to how the latter (governance mechanisms and public participation) can be implemented in a fair manner (Bateman et al. with the aim of informing future strategies for sustainable forestry management. more sophisticated guidance from planning and government agencies is required in order to best integrate functions in the forestry arena. One of the problems which WFD aims to tackle is the diffuse emission of pollutants from agriculture and this may imply drastic changes in already fragile rural economies in countries such as England (Bateman et al. It follows from the above. 2005). Consequently.3. such as the WFD which may also be met by sustainable forest management practices. Data Collection and Methods 4. detailed river basin plans should be published in 2009 providing an opportunity to both engage the public and private sectors (including forest stakeholders) in whole catchment management (INAG. For example. 2006).2). Study area This research explored the contribution of forests to sustainable development by analysing the potential role(s) of forests within two river basin catchments in the Minho region of 105 . it reinforces the need for public participation in policy implementation (Steyaert and Ollivier.. in urban and rural areas) of two watershed catchments? 3.g. on the other hand.. that forests may have an important role to play in the implementation of the WFD.2. 1997).1.3. Questions 1. Despite legally binding documents at the EU level.1 and 4. Box 4.2. How can forests contribute to the sustainable development of the whole region? 4. If there is agreement upon the former approach (ecological benefits of the WFD) as it aims at enhancing the ecological and chemical status of water bodies. Additionally forests may have a major role in both rural and urban development processes (Tables 4. Is the forest role identical across the area (e. This aim was guided by three key questions which are presented in Box 4. it proposes on the one hand more integrated ecological definitions of water and.

106 . A recent study by Pinto Correia and Breman (2008:1) identified different “vocations” for the Portuguese municipalities in terms of the role that farming could have in their future. Around these municipalities there is a second set that were classified as areas for extensive agriculture with high environmental quality in diversified landscapes (2b in the legend). Despite differences. agriculture is clearly residual both in terms of land cover and economic activity. Figure 4. According to the previous study. the landscape pattern has been progressively simplified as farming areas disappeared or were reduced in size (Pinto-Correia and Breman. In type 3b. The purpose of the two classifications was different and they consequently show considerable variations. 2008).g for production. protection and recreation) across the area. The remaining two municipalities in the top of the catchment (Terras do Bouro and Arcos de Valdevez) were classified as 3b. the patches of Portuguese pristine forest (oak) had relatively low mean patch sizes (around 5 ha) although higher mean patch sizes were found in rural areas.1 shows both the classification made in the Chapter 3 as well as the one by Pinto Correia and Breman (2008).northern Portugal. In the top of the catchments one municipality (Ponte da Barca) was included in type 2a in which the characteristic feature is the extensive silvo-pastoral system. In Chapter 3 it was shown that the level of socio-economic development of the Northern Portuguese municipalities ranges from deep rural to urban centre categories (Carvalho-Ribeiro and Lovett. As can be seen in the final typology from Pinto-Correia and Breman (upper map Figure 4. The authors assumption was that as the territories are different then the type of multifunctionality municipalities‟ should deliver should also vary. but in contrast to type 2b. what both classifications indicate is that there is a need to diversify the type of management strategy for agriculture and forests (e. In these municipalities forest cover is dominant as are extensive grazing areas.1) the areas in black (1b) were classified as areas of production and specialised agriculture with high profitability. 2009) and were also variation in forest patch size across the rural-urban gradient.

eliciting stakeholder preferences and opinions on forest management. The field survey was not intended to be a full forest inventory but rather a simple characterization of the basic stand structure and the cleanliness of the plots. Classification of the area based in two studies 4.2.2.Figure 4.2 107 .1. located in six municipalities spread throughout the catchment (Figure 4. The questionnaire survey was designed to be short to increase the sample size. Overall method and approach Two key methods employed were forest field survey and stakeholder questionnaires. use and the provision of ecosystem services.2). Figure 4.

108 .3). Data collection across the municipalities Figure 4. Figure 4. COS90).3 shows the land use of the area using a map from the 90s (IGEOE.2. The Lima and Cávado river basins flow from a mountainous region in which the highest peak is 1530 meters high to the sea coast along a distance of approximately 80 kilometres.shows the geographical location of the municipalities and distinguishes between those where both questionnaire and field survey were conducted (dark shading) and those in which only questionnaire surveys was undertaken (no shade). As can be seen urban and agriculture areas are predominant in the bottom of the catchments while at the top forests are predominant (Figure 4.

at an intermediate location (Ponte de Lima and Braga) and at the top of the catchment (the mountainous areas of Ponte da Barca and Terras do Bouro). Characterisation of forest plots in the study area Between September and October 2006 a field survey was conducted in six municipalities of the Lima and Cávado catchments in order to characterise the forests in the study area. The six municipalities where selected based on their position in the catchment (Figure 4. Land use in the study area based on COS 90 4.3.3.2.2). It was important to survey municipalities in the bottom (Esposende and Viana do Castelo). The locations of the plots surveyed were selected by expert staff of the municipal forestry office based on 109 . Within the area of each municipality a random sample of approximately ten plots were inventoried for characteristics such as stand structure and other parameters according with the field sheet presented in Appendix 2. Another important factor in the selection of the municipalities was formal permission from the municipal forestry office to undertake the field survey.Figure 4.

pure versus mixed stands). such as recreation and timber collection. In the introduction the purpose of the study was explained and respondents asked about where they lived.4). landownership. In order to get data from such a broad group of people. Finally. The general public questionnaires were done as a street survey in the bigger villages (or cities) in each municipality.4.the representativeness of the plot for the municipality. These management strategies were illustrated in the form of photos (Box 4. their diameters at breast height (dbh) were measured and the presence of natural regeneration and litter were recorded (see Appendix 2 for further details and a copy of the recording sheet). that would most adequately support the management strategy selected in the previous question. Due to time constraints this was not achieved in some municipalities. 500m2 circular plots were established and all the trees species were identified and counted within them. The questionnaire took approximately fifteen minutes to administer and was organised in four sections: 1) introduction. from two contrasting characteristics (e.g. From this set of contacts a “snow-ball” sample strategy was used to increase the sample size by asking respondents for the contact details of other users in their parish or municipality.2. employment and income was collected. respondents were asked to rank their preferred management strategy (production. level of education. The second section gathered data relating to the frequency interviewees‟ use of forests based on several predefined categories. Interviewees were then asked to select one. Other questions focussed on the importance that respondents gave to the goods and services provided by forests in the area they lived at present and what they perceived would be important in 20 years time. 4. protection and recreation) for where they lived. in each municipality a meeting with the municipal forestry office (Gabinete Tecnico Florestal-GTF) was prearranged in order to gather contacts for forest related people to be sampled. socio-economic data such as age class. 2) uses of forests. The two major trends of change were also ranked. The aim was to collect information from around 30 people in each municipality by interviewing approximately fifteen “forest related people” as well as fifteen members of the “general public”. 110 . 3) perceptions of a sustainable forest and 4) characterization of the interviewees (see Appendix 3 for a copy of the questionnaire). In section three. however 375 questionnaires were completed. Questionnaire survey The survey was undertaken with help of one field assistant between March and August 2007.

Pictures of forests under different management PRODUCTION 4.1. 29 plots were pure stands of either of broadleaves and coniferous (52%) while 27 had a mixed composition with both coniferous and broadleaves (49%) these plots having a recurrent presence of eucalyptus trees. 55 plots of 500 m2 were surveyed. From the total of 55 plots.Box 4. Table 4.3. In the vast majority of the plots 80 % (44 out of 55) natural regeneration was found.5 summarises the data gathered throughout the field survey by municipality.3. Litter was present in 40% of the plots (23 out of 55) revealing concerns about sanitary condition of the forest plots. and also indicates how the municipalities were classified by both Carvalho Ribeiro and Lovett (2009) and PintoCorreia and Breman (2008). 111 . Results PROTECTION RECREATION 4. Characterisation of forest plots in the study area In six municipalities.4.

0 Deep Rural 2a 9 66.9 37. 3cAgriculture environmental quality in urban areas The percentage of the plots surveyed in which natural regeneration was present was.Pinto Correia and Breman (2008): 1 ProductionSpecialized agriculture with high profitability 2aExtensive agriculture environmental quality homogeneous landscapes.3 30. cans) scattered in the plots indicated that more effectively enforced management of the forests in the region is required.6 13.9 50. 15 and 25 cm.0 33.5 cm to 7. and so on.4 1. Also. 112 . As can be seen in Figure 4.6 Developing rural Outer urban Inner urban 2b 10 9 70.9 30.Table 4. This result indicated that old growth forestry is minimal in the study area.6 the presence of old growth forest (diameters above 47.Carvalho Ribeiro and Lovett (2009).0 37.5 cm and below 12.4 and in Table 4. PC&B.2bExtensive agriculture environmental quality diversified landscapes 3b Agriculture environmental quality in forested areas.4 55. in general. high in all the municipalities indicating a good capacity of forests to regenerate naturally in the region (Table 4.5 Inner urban 3c CR&L.0 CR&L PC&B Terras de Bouro Ponte da Barca Ponte de Lima Esposende Viana do Castelo Braga 10 45.0 8.5. The geographical distribution of the diameter classes found across the area is shown in Figure 4. Despite indications that forests in the region regenerate naturally less than 50 % of the plots surveyed in each municipality had a mixed stand composition meaning that pure stands were more prominent. The 5 cm class included all the trees in which the diameter at breast height varied between 2.8 15.0 Plots surveyed with litter (%) 40.5 cm) is very low in the municipalities surveyed.0 Deep Rural 3b 10 70.0 40.0 88.6). The dominant diameter classes were the smallest of 5.0 Mixed stands (%) Diameter > 47. The 15 cm class included all the trees in which the diameter at breast height was above 7. the presence of litter (plastic bags. Forest characteristics in the surveyed plots Municipalities N Natural regeneration (%) 90.3 1 2b 8 87.0 4.5 30.5 cm.7 44.4.5cm (%) 13.5 cm.

2. The overall data shows that the activities in which there were higher frequencies of use were recreation. traditional activities in forest areas such as grazing and hunting are still important activities in some locations. 113 . Above all. 4.1.Figure 4. people that own forest land (landowners) had higher frequencies of use. 57% of the interviewees were male (213 out of 375) the remaining 162 (43%) were female. there were no obvious differences in the conditions of the forests across the groups of Carvalho Ribeiro and Lovett (2009) or Pinto Correia and Breman (2008). In addition to being used for collection of timber and non-timber products. the field survey demonstrated that forests in the area are far from demonstrating sustainable forestry management.3.6. 3. However. From this sample. Uses of forests In Minho region of Portugal people use forests in order to get multiple goods and services. Results of the questionnaire survey From street survey and the meetings with “forest-connected people” the total sample size collected was 375 questionnaires. as shown in Table 4. Mean diameter class in all plots by municipality The low number of sampling sites discouraged a statistical comparison of the forests across the socio-economic groups presented in Chapter 3. timber collection and grazing. In general. This argument is further developed in section 4.3. 4.4.3. forests are also used as recreation sites.2.

0 18.Specialized agriculture with high profitability 2aExtensive agriculture environmental quality homogeneous landscapes. recreation and grazing. This table shows the municipalities surveyed as grouped by Carvalho Ribeiro and Lovett (2009) with the shading representing the groups from deep rural (no colour) to inner urban (dark grey).95 4.41 9.48 2.61 3.06 8.83 10.96 28.64 15. whereas municipalities such as Esposende and Braga.14 18.6.32 3. timber and non-timber collections.67 4.0 0.39 0.04 10.04 5. 3a Agriculture environmental quality in forested areas 3b Agriculture environmental quality in mountainous areas. respectively.95 91.82 3.5.56 1. The first column of the table also shows the classification of the municipalities by Pinto-Correia and Breman (2008).13 3. Despite such a range of uses (recreation.05 7.31 13. people in different municipalities uses forests in order to obtain different goods or services.22 2.87 12.6 and Figure 4.82 95.00 3. people from Braga (a large city) spent in 2006 approximately 10 days doing recreation activities in forests. Uses such as hunting and grazing are marginal in Braga.17 8.90 0.89 3.87 17.44 3. Mean frequency of use of forests (number of days spent in a year) Pinto-Correia and Breman (2008) 3a 3a 2a 3b 3a 3b 2b 2b 2b 2b 1 1 2b 3c Municipality N Recreation Timber Non timber 3.08 2.22 5.44 0.38 1.0 115.45 7.0 72.17 1.86 3. outer and inner urban.25 2.23 2.29 1.72 11.04 18.5 shows the geographic variation in the key uses of timber.96 26.89 82.28 23. Municipalities such as Montalegre.10 Hunting Grazing Arcos Valdevez Terras Bouro Pte Barca Montalegre Vieira Minho Melgaco Vila Verde Amares Povoa Lanhoso Pte Lima Barcelos Esposende Viana Castelo Braga Total landowners Total non land owners 28 32 38 22 23 9 26 20 20 23 29 28 32 29 205 170 11.07 5. and Arcos de Valdevez (classified as deep rural in Carvalho-Ribeiro and Lovett 2009) have the highest mean of use for grazing activity.26 3.72 5. Note the shadow represents the gradient from deep rural (no colour) to inner urban (dark shadow) Figure 4.11 8.88 PCR&B:Pinto Correia and Breman (2008): 1 Production.81 10.67 8.05 26.67 2.43 163.24 0.48 15.6.76 42.58 85.86 5.64 1.81 0. As can be seen in both Table 4. 2bExtensive agriculture environmental quality diversified landscapes.The mean frequency of use (number of days spent over one year in forests by activity) in each municipality is shown in the Table 4. hunting and grazing) occurring simultaneously the results of the study show that in some municipalities the mean frequency of use is overall low.25 .69 9.0 0. For example.07 1. Table 4. 3cAgriculture environmental quality in urban areas.35 5.11 7.74 13.89 0.0 22.93 5. respectively have highest means for 114 .17 2.58 12.22 3.24 . 2 and 1 days collecting timber products and non timber products.

it can be said that more traditional uses such as grazing are predominant in rural areas at the top of the catchments. of an urbanrural gradient which was identified in Chapter 3.g. Respondents that had values above the mean for more than one activity (e. this rural-urban gradient. This result supports the existence.g. LIMA CÁVADO Figure 4. After highlighting the different character of the two watersheds. However. Frequency of use of forests across the study area Analysis of the frequency of use for each respondent showed that there were different types of users. in more developed areas (except Viana do Castelo and Barcelos) people use mainly the forest areas as “play grounds” for several recreation activities. timber collection and livestock grazing) were classified as multi-users. in terms of forest uses. By contrast. as far as use of forest is concerned. Some respondents use forests daily for a variety of goods/services while other people use forests mainly for recreation.recreation activities. When frequencies of uses were below the mean in all activities participants were classified as occasional users. recreation) were classified as single users. Respondents with frequency of use above the mean in only one activity (e. Finally. participants with 115 .5. In order to represent this variety a classification by type of user was created. is more obvious for the Cávado (including municipalities such as Braga) than the Lima river basin which has high mean frequency of use for grazing across the area.

2. in some way. 116 . Overall. Firmino. 4. Preferences for management strategy Figure 4. As a result. protection and recreation) were selected as “first choice” in at least one of the municipalities. Pereira et al. Only in rural areas. Only 21% (79 out 375) of the respondents used forests in order to get a multitude of goods/services throughout the year (multi-users) and even for multi users the income generated via forestry was said to be marginal. 2005). 1993. Type of users by socio-economic group It was clear from the survey that the past role of forests as a complement to agricultural and animal husbandry activities has been declining steadily due to constraints related to declines in primary sector activity which some authors attribute to CAP policies (Andresen and Castelbranco. It can be seen that in deep rural areas the majority of the interviewees were either multi users or single users while in the remaining socio-economic categories single and occasional users were more frequent.7. used forest areas. Figure 4. 2008). 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Deep Rural Developing Rural Outer urban Inner urban Multi user Single user Occasional user Non user Figure 4. do forests still have importance in complementing other activities such as livestock grazing (remnants from the past) but these uses are not providing income to rural populations and several rural villages are already completely abandoned (Pinto-Correia and Breman.6 shows the way in which the types of user were scattered across the urban rural gradient.6. at present. The vast majority of the respondents were either occasional or single users of which the most representative were the recreationalists. 1999.5 % of the interviewees.less than five visits in a year to a forest were classified as non users.2. shows that all the three functions of forests (production. the use of forests as an income source is minimal with the majority of forests in the region in a near-abandonment situation.3. 87..

Furthermore.8. that protection and recreation were priorities of the majority of people living in deep rural municipalities.7 does not reveal an obvious association between the level of socio-economic development and preference for management strategy. while recreation and protection were chosen by 141 and 132 respondents respectively.5 and 4. The same happened in Esposende which had higher mean frequencies of use for recreation and.7. in the vast majority of cases. Preference for management strategy across the area By comparing Figures 4. when analysing which management strategy was ranked first. however. The developing rural group was the one in which the productive function was more often selected.Figure 4. Despite an overall trend of agreement between uses and preference for management strategy across the municipalities Figure 4.7 it can be seen that in municipalities such as Barcelos higher mean frequencies of use for timber collection were consistent with the choice of production as a management strategy by the majority of the respondents. 117 . It can be seen in Figure 4. the results were evenly distributed: 102 respondents selected production. recreation as the preferred forest management strategy.

Bio: Biodiversity Amongst these who ranked production last were the majority of people living in deep rural areas (Figure 4. Pt: Protection. CS: Carbon sequestration. SW: Soil and water protection. HV: Heath and vitality. Preference for management strategies by socio-economic group 118 .8. its association with criteria for SFM Code PrRcPt PrPtRc RcPrPt PtPrRc RcPtPr PtRcPr 1st Production Production Recreation Protection Recreation Protection 2nd Recreation Protection Production Production Protection Recreation 3rd Protection Recreation Protection Recreation Production Production N 36 65 54 44 86 87 To 4 4 7 7 34 23 HV 13 10 36 25 17 37 Ti 15 36 1 6 9 6 CS 1 6 8 4 4 8 SW 1 6 2 1 14 8 Bio 2 2 1 8 4 Pr:Production. Rc:Recreation.8) while productive functions were more important for people living both in developing rural and outer urban areas. Rankings of management strategies. Pt: Protection Figure 4. number of responses.By analysing the ways in which the three functions were ranked by each respondent it can be seen that 46% of the respondents (87+86=173 out of 375) placed production last when ranking criteria (last two rows in Table 4. N. Ti:Timber.7. 50 45 40 35 30 25 Deep rural Developing rural 20 15 10 Outer urban Inner urban 5 0 PrRcPt PrPtRc RcPrPt PtPrRc RcPtPr PtRcPr Pr:Production.7). Rc:Recreation. This means that a considerable percentage of people were more interested in recreation and protection rather in productive functions of forests. Table 4. To:Tourism.

8 shows the preferences for forests characteristics according to the management strategy chosen. a higher percentage of respondents preferred a mixed rather than pure stands. Rc:Recreation.9.The way in which different type of users (multi. Independently of the management option. Putting more emphasis on protective issues (PtRcPr) were single users (in majority recreationalists). On the contrary. The preferred type of mixture was often one of pine and oak though in the case of productive functions eucalyptus*oak was more common. The only characteristics that differed depending upon management option were shape and area of the plots. Autochthones tree species were preferred over exotic tree species. Preference for management strategies by type of user group Table 4. single occasional and non-users) prioritized the management options is shown in Figure 4. 119 . 45 40 35 30 25 20 multiuser single user occasional user non user 15 10 5 0 PrRcPt PrPtRc RcPrPt PtPrRc RcPtPr PtRcPr Pr:Production. Uneven stands were clearly preferred over even stands (again.9. Pt: Protection Figure 4. Respondents that selected recreation were in favour of smaller plots of irregular shapes. the difference was less evident in the case of production). the majority of respondents that selected production preferred bigger plots.

2. Figure 4. The role of forests in contributing to a more decarbonised life style increased. both air quality and soil and water protection got higher percentages in the very important category. timber collection and timber activity. 120 . from 15. In 20 years time. timber collection and tourism activities were classified as very important. Forest characteristics for different management strategies Management N=375 Stand structure Mixture Pure Type of Mixture Pine*oak Pine*eucalyptus Stand_age Even aged Uneven aged Area_plots Big (>10 hectares) Small(<10 ha) Shape_plots Regular Irregular Species origin Local Exotic Tree species Pine tree Oak tree Eucalyptus Production 101 72 29 48 43 34 67 74 27 43 57 60 38 35 19 47 Protection 132 121 11 112 9 14 118 75 57 35 96 129 2 18 107 7 Recreation 140 135 5 114 23 22 117 44 95 23 116 130 5 26 93 21 4.7% at the present to 56% in the future. Regarding indirect goods/services provided by forests.3. The same trend is shown by direct goods such as recreation. direct goods/services such as recreation. in the very important category.Table 4. the indirect goods/services kept the same level of importance.10 shows the importance attributed to goods/services at present and in the future in the study area. In the future new goods/ services are expected to be provided by forest areas in this region.3 Trends of change in forest characteristics At the present time. One example is that of a forest contribution to more “green” life styles by both sequestering carbon as well as providing more “green” sources of energy (renewable energy).8.

As far as reasons for this are concerned.90 80 70 60 50 40 30 At present In 20 years time 20 10 0 Recreation Collection Collection timber non. The public clearly prefers uneven stands. Comparing the field and questionnaire surveys From comparing the results of the questionnaire with those of the field survey it is apparent that there is a mismatch between what the public considers as “good forests” and the forests that exist in the area.10. degradation of forest conditions has been occurring in all surveyed municipalities. according to respondents‟ opinions. Very important goods and services provided by forests (present and future) Regarding trends in forest condition. the results indicate that wild fires are by far the most important factor (Figure 4.timber products products Hunting (fishing) Grazing areas Tourism Air quality Soil and water protection Renewable energy Figure 4.11. 80% of the interviewees (301 out 375 interviewees) stated that in the last 20 years the condition of forests had become worse. 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Fragmentation Decrease in area Burnt area Simplification of stand structure Invasion of exotic tree species Figure 4.11).3. Threats to SFM in the region 4. preferably of oak 121 .3.

g. Across the study area as a whole the number of respondents preferring different management strategies was roughly similar but priorities varied between municipalities (Figure 4. The field survey showed that there are still good natural conditions assuring prosperity of forests in the study area (as indicated by the abundant presence of natural regeneration).5 cm). 2006). This increase in area of forests in more developed municipalities was linked with productive functions (e. public preferences for forests and the provision of services by forests across the rural-urban gradient highlights the need to move towards other type of forestry management that can shift from “vicious” to “virtuous” circles (Matthews and Selman.. In the area there are some uneven stands however. in the range of -10 to +10%. According the vast majority of the interviewees (80%) the condition of the forests in the region has become worse and this clearly calls for action to reverse such unfavourable trends of change. However. the use of forests as an income source is minimal in the region with many forests being in a near-abandonment situation (e. Consequently. these are mostly of pine and eucalyptus and there are few old trees (with diameter above 47. while for inland areas (adjoining Spanish border) the changes were in the order of -30 to -50%. There is thus a need to forge new or reinvent “old practices” in order to vary forest roles across the area. the comparison between the present condition of forests. From this it can be concluded that multifunctional forest management is needed across the area of the two watersheds. 2008). and farming related activities are decreasing (Pereira et al.g.g. the agro-silvo-pastoral system) (Firmino. In other words. Although there are still multifunctional forests in the area (e. It is evident from this analysis that in order to move away from “a vicious towards virtuous circle” there is a need to go beyond a “zoning productive functions approach” across the 122 . 2008). Pinto-Correia and Breman. 2005.7). these are remnants of “old traditional management practices” that are known not to be sustainable at present. enforcing management is likely to be important to overcome some threats such disappearance of old growth forests and the recurrent presence of litter (Gibbons et al. the role that forests had in the past as a complement of agricultural and animal husbandry is not viable at present. As already discussed in Chapter 3 coastal areas had changes in forest area during 19952005. plantations of maritime pine and eucalyptus by timber and pulp industries) indicating that dynamics were already in place to further enhance the rural/urban disparities. Currently. litter in the majority of the plots).and pine in which old trees are present. 1999).. In these areas population is declining.

the results indicate that an integration of functions is crucial.area. especially in rural areas.12 shows the ways that different types of multifunctionality could vary across the area. This indicates the need to create partnerships between the areas downstream and the forest stakeholders upstream in order to work together for whole catchment management. grazing areas in forests). protection and recreation) while spatially separating the functions of production. municipalities on the sea coast are dependent on services such as flood prevention and soil retention from the forests located in the top of the catchment. Different types of multifunctionality across the area 123 . It follows from the above that in rural areas it is crucial to reinforce the strengths of an integrated type of multifunctionality in order to provide a multitude of goods and services (timber and non timber products. Figure 4. Figure 4. However. In order to promote such whole catchment management the research suggests that in the municipalities located at the top of the catchment there is need to integrate a multitude of forest functions (production.12. Instead. For urban areas a spatial separation of functions such as production and recreation (already in place in urban areas) may be more suitable. recreation and protection (spatial multifunctionality) or even using forests as mainly productive in some areas (through dominant use for timber production) is likely to be more appropriate in the municipalities at the bottom of the catchment.

2006). 124 . (2004) and de Blust and Omen (2000) related to rural development discourses. Slee et al. hedonist or agri-ruralist roles while in rural areas their role has more to do with sustaining living communities as well as preserving nature (community stability and nature conservation). while the “basins of attraction” (Matthews and Selman. Based on the findings of Elands and Wiersun (2001). It is important. Table 4.9 presents suggestions regarding forest roles and strategies in different parts of the Minho region. Consequently. to recognise that the traditional way of sustaining living communities is.This distinction can be further interpreted within the framework proposed by Elands and Wiersun (2001) regarding the roles of forests in Europe. however. goods and services provided by forests and the three types of multifunctionality. 2006) in rural areas are likely to be more related to conservation and maintaining living communities which may be easily associated with tourism (which will require a more multifunctional forest) those in urban areas are likely to be more related to conciliating profitable timber exploitation and recreation (Matthews and Selman. Based on this framework it can be said that within the study area (Lima and Cávado watersheds) forests in more urbanised areas are likely to have either utilitarian. respectively. obsolete therefore new strategies ought to be developed. at the present.

Furthermore. because the dynamics in urban areas are towards more productive functions the increase in patch size of broadleaves will be lower than what would be ideal for rural areas. timber exploitation in the area is based mainly on maritime pine timber which is either transformed in local sawmills or it is exported. Carbon sequestration Biodiversity Community stability Integrated Community stability Integrated Community stability. This suggestion of management targets is based in the assumption that enhancing protective functions such as water and soil protection as well as promoting tourism in rural areas will require a faster increase in the patch size of broadleaved tree species. Role of forests in sustaining landscapes in the region Carvalho Ribeiro and Lovett (2009) Deep rural Goods and services provided by forests Role of discourse forestry Type of Multifunctionality Timber and nontimber products Social. traditions (shadow or halo) Tourism enhancer. cultural identity. Nature conservation Nature conservation. 125 . Community stability Utilitarian Integrated/Spatial Integrated/Spatial Integrated/Spatial Water and soil protection Developing rural. Community stability Nature conservation. The other tree species that is becoming increasingly important in urban areas (inner and outer as well as in developing rural) is Eucalyptus globulus used mainly for pulp production by the paper industry.Table 4.9. On the other hand. Consequently. Community stability Nature conservation. urban (Inner and Outer) (direct) mostly timber Forest biomass for renewable energy Complement of agriculture (Shadow or halo) recreational activities Integrated/Spatial Dominant use (production) Utilitarian Dominant use (production) Agri ruralist Spatial (protection and recreation) Dominant use ( recreation) Spatial (protection and recreation) Hedonist Related to this the extent to which forest management targets should vary can be further explored. in urban areas although broadleaves are important for recreational activities the increase of patch size of broadleaves is likely to be done at slower pace.

g. 1999. Based on Forman (1995) achieving a patch size of 30 ha can be suggested as the target management goal in deep rural areas but this is only presented as indicative. the landscape may be better suited to spatial multifunctionality where each plot is managed for one major function (e. Management targets suggested for the patch size of broadleaves 4. production). 2000). Although there are still integrated multifunctional forests in the areas located at the top of the catchment (e. More detailed ecological and economic valuation needs to explicitly address the patch size for broadleaves in the area for the fulfilment of the purposed role.13. 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2000 2020 integrated multifunctionality 2040 2060 spatial multifunctionality Figure 4.g. income from these forests is minimal and they are in many cases nearing abandonment (Firmino. In Figure 4. Discussion Based on the results presented in this chapter there is a need to vary the management of forest functions spatially across the area of the two watersheds in order to promote whole catchment management. Varying the type of functions that forests provide suggests that in some areas integrated multifunctionality may be the best management option to pursue (within single forest plots).13 the minimum patch size of 5 ha is based on the results of Chapter 3 as this was the mean value across the area.This recommendation refines what was suggested in the discussion of Chapter 3. these are remnants of “old traditional management practices” that are no longer sustainable. namely a general increase of patch size for broadleaves tree species across the area. As a result. 126 . 4. the agro-silvo-pastoral system). Whereas in other areas. Nonetheless when the totality of the catchment is considered a multifunctional landscape mosaic would be present (de Blust and Olmen.

It follows then. Incentivisation is associated with governmental support to private operators (e. 2008) and the exploitation of forests for timber and pulp production. Thus there is a need to forge new practices or reinvent “old practices” in order to re-link rural people and forests in a sustainable virtuous cycle (Matthews and Selman. monetary disincentives to discourage undesirable uses. Thus a set of legally binding mechanisms combined with an appropriate set of measures (for example the “menu” presented above) could be mixed to create win-win partnerships so that urban areas may gain by investing in forestry activities located in upper reaches of the catchment thereby reducing flood risk. financial incentives to encourage desirable uses and other voluntary methods (e. This highly productive trend is already occurring in the more developed areas in the form of very profitable intensive agricultural systems (PintoCorreia and Breman. regulation and extension work (Selman.. These types of arrangements are already in place elsewhere in Europe (Group Perrier Vitel) and the USA (e.g. demonstration) could be combined in order to influence “desirable” action on the ground (Gilg. In urban areas. farmers) to practise desirable land use practices in the forms of subsidies or grants. advice. Finally. this would require the establishment of partnerships that span different government institutions (e. 2005). municipalities) and should include the private sector to overcome some of the problems highlighted in rural areas whilst also addressing the needs of urban communities.g. The WFD clearly calls for partnerships that enable whole catchment management. these highly production orientated systems which are occurring in the municipalities located near to the coast are dependent on ecological services such as flood prevention. However. 2006). 2006). Regulation on the other hand controls by enforced penalties for non compliance. 2006). primary and tertiary sectors compete fiercely over land use and regardless of the type of economic activity the primary concern is profitability and competitiveness (Niza and Ferrao. 1996 cited by Selman 2006: 128). regulatory controls. In addition to the WFD. that there are clear opportunities for good implementation of the WFD in the two catchments studied.Pereira et al. a range other of measures such as: ownership or management of the land via long term leases. soil retention and water flow maintenance provided by forests upstream. New York City). in order to setup a useful framework for whole catchment management and the establishment of effective partnerships there will be a need for an appropriate mix of incentivisation. water shortages and water purification costs. However. extension work seeks to 127 .g.g.

In addition to the public awareness of the need to avoid massive forest fires. Furthermore. There are a number of pitfalls for participation. This raises the need to integrate forestry into formal planning mechanisms that merge different sectoral interests. sustainable forestry management is also a stated priority for the Portuguese Government (DGRF.euroresidentes.html) [accessed online on 14 March 2009]. carbon sequestration). as can be seen in Table 4.. In order to efficiently tackle the trends of depopulation and population ageing forestry needs to be more competitive and fully embrace the ecosystem services it provides. there are not institutions in place that can lead the implementation of whole catchment management but the WFD is likely to help in this. 2006). including the practical challenge of involving multiple 128 . 2005. INAG. This ecological disaster was widely discussed in the Portuguese media and there is public awareness of the need to tackle forest fires at the river basin scale. the OECD (2006) has already pointed out that the ways to move forward should be based more on investments and partnerships across places instead of relying in subsidies and grants as occurred in the past. 2006).improve and actively promote information. In addition to the above. However. maintaining and enforcing new types of partnerships to face uncertain futures. the WFD and its river basin plans could have a crucial role. Forests have to be regarded as one component of the whole landscape mosaic. 2008) there is a need to embrace the challenge of creating. For this to happen. It is true that there is a need to deal with incipient “markets” in which uncertainty is enormous (Dwyer. 2007). the implementation of the WFD and the participation/governance mechanisms inherent to it are far from being easy to achieve (Bateman et al. In such a diversified Europe (Pinto-Correia and Breman. in order to implement these different roles for forests there will need to be an integration of forestry with at least three other sectors namely tourism.com/Blogs/2005_08_01_archive. agriculture and energy (forestry biomass. The severe wild fires in the mountains of neighbour Galicia in 2005 have already demonstrated that fires upstream may undermine a million Euro sea food business located downstream (http://www. So far. This research also suggests that it is of upmost importance to tackle the problem of the wild forest fires which are a matter of concern within the whole region and need to be addressed both in rural and urban areas. demonstration and extension services in the belief that this can lead to improved practice (Selman. These two premises seem to be a good basis to move towards sustainable forestry management at the catchment scale. 2007a. 2006).13. b.

In other words. mechanisms able to manage the whole landscape (Dolman et al.. 2002). 4. but conditions need to be agreed upon by all the stakeholders involved and economic incentives from governments are likely to be required at least in the initial stage of the process (O' Riordan and StollKleemann. 129 . 2007).viewpoints without focussing too much on individual and personal biases (Milligan et al. However. 2006). The research also suggests that the implementation of multifunctionality in forestry greatly depends on the integration of forests within the whole landscape mosaic (Dolman et al. 2001) transcending property boundaries need to be agreed upon by land owners and governments. 2004). balancing the interests of multiple stakeholders is extremely difficult (Adger et al. 2005. 2009). the river basin plans to be put into place by the end of 2009.5. The Water Framework Directive will require governance systems that deal with very sensitive issues such as land ownership because the vast majority of the land within the study area is privately owned (DGRF. it appears important that further research needs to focus on smaller scales for example at the parish level. it is also likely that the sustainability of rural and urban landscapes will depend on each other. It has been argued here that achieving sustainability in urbanized landscapes will require different strategies from in rural landscapes (Antrop. 2007a). As previously stated. These may be addressed by separating ownership of the land from management via long term leases. 2007. Conclusion It is likely that forests will have different roles in contributing to sustainable landscapes. 2005.. It will also call for a more effective integration of forestry with other activities such as tourism or even with sectors such as energy (Dwyer. However. 2006). forests are needed to provide a multitude of goods and services that supply direct goods for rural communities and assure environmental protection for downstream areas. 2002).. The results of this study indicate that different “spatial” approaches for forestry will be required in different locations within and between watersheds in order to strengthen “virtuous circles” across an urban-rural gradient in Northern Portugal. 2004. defining the specific role that forests may have in different places within the area of river basins seems to require a more fine scale of analysis. and strategies that strengthen rural/urban patterns of development will be important (Johnson et al. because within the area of a single municipality the roles of forests greatly vary.. clearly need to negotiate a set of commonly agreed objectives as well as a framework of shared responsibilities (CEMAT. Therefore. In practice. In rural areas. This certainly requires the establishment of public-private partnerships in order to be successful (Dwyer. 2007).. INAG.

130 . It is also apparent that it is crucial to create and reinforce partnerships amongst forest stakeholders downstream and upstream of each other. In this context.2001). European policies such as the WFD may provide the means to move towards sustainable forestry management in the Minho Region of Northern Portugal.

CHAPTER 5. PUBLIC OPINION REGARDING ATTRACTIVENESS AND MANAGEMENT OF FOREST LANDSCAPES: PREFERENCES FOR FOREST COVER AND STAND STRUCTURE 131 .

This suggests that the majority of the public consider a “beautiful forest” also a “well managed forest”. In the research it was also apparent that the use of the photos was critical. This suggests that preferences for forests from both public in general and specific stakeholders need to be carefully addressed in planning and more work needs to be done to achieve a whole catchment approach. Key words: attractiveness.g. decision makers and the general public need to work together in order to fully embrace the challenge of multifunctional forestry management. Both verbal and visual approaches were used. rankings. photos. In addition. However. but.g. the effects of stakeholders‟ preferences of “good management” on the ecological functioning of forests has not received much attention. There is an ongoing debate about the ways in which aesthetic preferences may threaten the ecology of natural ecosystems. By calculating the degree of correlation between two rankings of a set of photos showing i) different area of forest cover and ii) stand ages based on attractiveness and management criteria. multifunctional forests. correlation 132 . providing biodiversity and avoiding floods and soil erosion) functions. the study found that the vast majority of the public ordered the two sets of photos similarly independent of the criteria under consideration. planners. Due to the ability of forests to provide an array of these services their role has been increasingly recognised as being of utmost importance in sustaining landscapes. there were contrasts in preferences for management strategies that could compromise the ecological functioning of forest ecosystems. if only verbal data were used there were no conclusive findings about public preferences for forest cover. This study examined public aesthetic and management preferences for forest cover and stand age. differences in both the rankings of attractiveness and management were found across user groups. management. Above all. researchers.Abstract The role of forestry is changing from an emphasis on production to also include consumptive (e. recreational activities in aesthetically pleasing forest areas) and protective (e.

2000: 284). 1982. Sheppard and Harshaw. Selman (2006) also raises the issue by addressing what he called “nature-society” debate. hedgerows and other natural features (Evernden. 2007. According to Selman one practical problem for landscape planning is whether there are fundamental differences or similarities between the environmental requirements of wild species and the landscape desire of humans.. The authors argued that visually appealing landscapes are not always ecologically healthy. Misgav. 2000) forests are a recurrent topic in the literature (Ribe.. “ecologically healthy landscapes may not be aesthetically pleasing” (Gobster et al 2007: 962).1. 1989). there is also a third dimension which is related to the ways in which the productive functions of forests are achieved. the study of aesthetic preferences or scenic beauty (Daniel. there are a variety of other non-timber goods such as honey and game that are likely to be important for the livelihoods of the communities that live around the forests. in the same way. 2007). 1991). in addition to aesthetics and ecology issues.5. and that what looks good may not be ecologically sustainable” (Sheppard et al. 2001) in relation to the characteristics of natural environment is a recurrent topic in the literature (Thorne and Huang. The stand composition and structure as well as the arrangement of forest patches can enhance or detract from the ability of the forest ecosystem to provide such goods (Kellomaki and Pukkala. 2000). (2007) as the “aesthetics-ecology debate”.. in addition to timber. In their work some correspondence between aesthetics and ecology was found but was not universally present “it can be seen that what is believed to be ecologically good may not look good. Despite a vast repertoire of studies reporting public aesthetic preferences for agrarian systems (Rogge et al. Associated with productive functions of forests. The disjuncture between human preferences and the “ecological status” of the environment was termed by Gobster et al. A similar argument was previously developed by Sheppard and Harshaw (2000). This debate is of major importance in order to plan (establishing goals and policies) and manage (putting planning goals into practice) towards sustainable environments (Gobster et al. As far as forests are concerned. He argues that is likely that people prefer a) tidiness and b) tend to avoid “landscapes of fear” whereas nature a) often likes “scruffiness” and b) requires natural disturbance such as fire and landslides (Selman. Acknowledging such importance. a forest in which ground vegetation is removed in order to 133 . 2006: 63). 1988. Introduction Previous research has established that there is a difference between human preferences for natural resources and the “ecological status” of those resources (Gobster et al. 1989). For example. 2007b).

For example. In the majority of the work done so far. For example. 2001). A review of public preferences for forests indicates that preferences are likely to vary with personality and socio-economic factors such as gender and landownership (Abello and Bernaldez. while acknowledging that his/her own livestock will not be able to thrive in such habitat. These authors argue that scenic beauty (aesthetics) and preferences for management strategy (management) can be distinct. Tips and Vasdisara. honey production will be marginal. For example. preferences for forest characteristics that can enhance the provision of certain goods or services are important in order to manage towards sustainability. 1986. Although huge efforts have been made to explore attractiveness of forests as well as public opinion about forestry management practices per se. 2000). at least in the area he/she grazes livestock (Ribe. Recognising the importance of forest management in the delivery of ecosystem goods and services. one of the reasons for the complexity of addressing public preferences is the difficulties in disaggregating “the eye from the beholder” (Sheppard et al. It follows from the above that. Consequently. 2008). beekeepers and landowners in Southern Portugal.. research methods conclude that public aesthetic and management preferences are positively associated. 2002). a livestock grazer may find a dense and contiguous forest aesthetically pleasing. 1989). a recent study by Surova and Pinto Correia (2008) reports divergent preferences for cork oak montado characteristics among hunters. there also studies exploring public preferences for practices such as thinning (Silvennoinen et al. Ground vegetation removal is one example of forest management practices that affect the provision of both timber and non-timber goods. professional background (Rogge et al. mushroom pickers. 1986).. hunters preferred forests with ground vegetation because they provide “good quality” hunting reserves while beekeepers preferred forests where floral composition was richer because it was associated with “better” quality honey (Surova and Pinto-Correia. in the forestry arena. furthermore. because ground (and floral) vegetation will be minimal. 1998) and clear cutting types (Rekola and Pouta. 134 . Public preference for forests is defined by Sheppard and Harshaw (2005:7) as “the degree to which a person or group prefers a situation or feature over other situations or features”. thus making it likely that he or she will not favour continuous cover forestry as a management strategy. there are few cases in which the differences between attractiveness and management preferences for forests have been explored in the literature.reduce competition between species (trees and understorey) for increasing timber yield will lack appropriate refuge for game. afforestation styles (Karjalainen and Komulainen. 2005) in order to improve management programs (Kellomaki and Pukkala.. 2007b.

.Winter. 2005). In order to plan for sustainable landscapes where forests are an integral part.. there is a requirement to engage with the public in order to create awareness that their preferences for environmental characteristics might interfere with ecosystems and other functions. but it is also likely that trade-offs between wood production and other forest products and values may need to occur (Stevens and Montegomerey. 2006. As a consequence. This challenge is one of the reasons why the distinction between aesthetic and management preferences is very important when trying to achieve multifunctional landscapes that can 135 . 2005) and type of recreational activity (Harshaw et al. but different from. 2002). ecological and management goals together? With increasing recreation pressures occurring on woodlands and forests should planners “favour” special management types? If so. aesthetics and management are consistent with each other. Tahvanainen et al (2001) found that scenic beauty and recreational preferences differed considerably from each other. As well as examining preferences for forests across stakeholders groups. Differences between aesthetic preferences and acceptability of management options were also found by Ribe (2002). 1986). this study also investigated the extent to which public aesthetic and preferences for management strategy are related. timber production and water quality . recreation (related to aesthetics) and production (related to management practices) is required. e. Roovers et al. 2002). planning and management towards sustainable environments needs to focus on ways in which ecology.. How then can planning and management integrate scenic beauty. what are the ecological implications? Furthermore. some combination of the functions of protection (ecology). 2007b). experts and country dwellers have different perception of agrarian landscapes in Flandres (Rogge et al.. In the same way it was found that farmers. Some studies have identified compatibilities between forest uses. Another study reported differences and conflicts between preferences of “local and extra-local” inhabitants of protected areas (Zube. Previous research on this topic has generated varied findings. approaches to plan for sustainability need to be able to communicate explicitly to the general public in order to provide evidence that in order to provide “invisible” services such as soil and water protection ecosystems may have to be less attractive and/or provide less direct goods such as timber or other non-timber products. scenic ratings (Shelby et al.g.. Another study found that recreation ratings were related to. preferences for what types of activities should be represented in forest land use planning? (Harshaw et al. In this situation. 2006) It can be argued that rather than accounting for all needs separately.

The visual approach is. is to reduce the impact of wild forest fires. The former was used as an indicator of fragmentation and the latter stand simplification (Fahrig. it is also acknowledged that contiguity of forest stands causes problems in fire combat. If it is known that fragmentation is a major threat to forests. 2005. These variables were investigated in the setting of northern Portugal where forests are an important landscape feature whose management has faced a number of challenges (Firmino. 2006).. Box 5. 2001). 2001). A key principle underpinning this study was therefore that members of the public and stakeholders need to be aware of the implications that their preferences (for both aesthetics and management) might have on the ecology of natural resources.1 shows the main questions addressed by the research. per se. 2001). as well as in other Mediterranean countries. Sheppard and Harshaw. 2000. These factors need to be taken into account when interpreting attitudes to variables such as forest cover and stand ages in a country such as Portugal. 2000).support sustainability goals (Mander et al. one of the most used techniques due to its ability to set the frame and put everyone‟s mind in the same context (Tahvanainen et al. 2003). This study specifically investigated people‟s preferences for attractiveness and management for forest as far as percentage of forest cover and stand evenness were concerned. in order to attain public participation and engagement in the design of sustainable landscapes public preferences for these two parameters of forests are crucial (Sheppard. and consequently discontinuities have been created in order to reduce the risks of fire spread. 2002). 1999. Consequently. Active involvement of “lay” people and their organizations in planning for sustainability is desirable in many ways (Selman. consciously or not. Another measure to reduce fire impacts is to create variations in stand structures since the different wood densities delay spread more easily than homogeneous stands. Because technical concepts such as forest cover and stand structure can be unfamiliar to respondents the questions were addressed both verbally and visually. 136 . Pinto-Correia. Public preferences can either be studied throughout verbal and visual approaches (Tahvanainen et al. The former was used because when asked first verbally the respondents had the opportunity to “frame” their own view and meaning of the concept and this may contribute. to a better “framing” of what he/she has been asked to answer. Two widely reported threats to forest in temperate regions are fragmentation of forest landscapes and simplification of stand structures (Jongman.. 2007). One of the key issues for forest management in Portugal.

1. within the Lima and Cavado watersheds an urban-rural gradient has been identified by Carvalho Ribeiro and Lovett (2009). Material and methods 5. Study area River basins are claimed to be appropriate units to study forest ecosystems due to their ability to link together cultural and biophysical systems and thus represent a suitable scale to address landscape issues (Selman. This research indicates that the socio-economic characteristics of the municipalities in Lima and Cávado watersheds ranges from deep rural in inland mountainous areas to urban areas (outer and inner urban) located mainly in the coast. Are there differences in aesthetic and management preferences across different user groups? 3. In Northwest Portugal.2.Box 5. The study area is mainly under Atlantic climatic influence. Broad-leaved trees such as oak (Quercus robur) are characteristic of the zone. though some areas show Mediterranean microclimate. The Lima and Cávado river basins are located in the Minho region of Northwest Portugal and flow from a mountainous region in which the highest peak is 1530 meters high to the sea coast along a distance of approximately 80 kilometres. In order to distinguish public preferences for level of fragmentation and stand structure across the urban-rural gradient a questionnaire survey was conducted in all fourteen municipalities within the area of these two watersheds. Do public preferences for level of forest cover and stand structure vary according to whether attractiveness or management objectives are considered? 2.1. Questions 1. 2006). The survey also collected details 137 . The majority of the land is privately owned although some communal lands are found in the mountainous areas. Questionnaire survey Public preferences were studied through a questionnaire survey which investigated opinions regarding i) “attractiveness” and ii) “management” of forests as reflected in variations of area covered by forests and stand structure. 5.2. but the most predominant tree species is maritime pine (Pinus pinaster) while in recent years the area of eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus globulus) has been increasing steadily. Are there indications that public preferences might threaten the ecological functioning of forests? 4. The mountainous regions are predominantly rural whereas areas near the sea coast are clearly urban.2. Are the results similar independent of whether verbal or visual approaches were used? 5.2.

The questionnaire images In order to study people‟s opinions on different fragmentation levels and stand structures typical scenes representing the forests in the study area were chosen. Because the concepts of attractiveness and management can have different meanings for different people respondents were told in the attractiveness case “please rank this set of photos according to the visual appeal of the forests shown”. using only pure pine stands provided a “control” for species diversity. Each respondent ranked from 1 to 5 the photos for fragmentation (labelled FA to FE) and those for stand structure (labelled SA to SE). once evaluating attractiveness and secondly management.1. The questionnaire work was conducted between March-August 2007 and obtained a total sample of 375 responses. This task was carried out twice. grazing and hunting. Photos from the study area were considered most appropriate to match with the familiarity of respondents. When these contacts were made a “snow ball” approach was used in order to enlarge the sample.e. The scenes 138 . The initial part the questionnaire focussed on verbally expressed preferences for forest characteristics (see Card D in Annexe 3). In the latter they were asked to rank five photos showing areas with different amounts of forest cover and five photos showing contrasting stand structures.2. Pine forest was selected for all the scenes since. In the first case 1 represented the most attractive and 5 the least attractive. In addition. In both sets of photos there was one image (FE and SE) where controlled fire had been used as a forest management tool.of the individual frequency of forest use in activities such as timber and non-timber product collection. During the planning phases of the questionnaire a meeting with the forestry office of each municipality was arranged in order to identify contacts for people in the forestry sector. All the photos were taken in September 2005 (thus not varying the season) using a Nikon digital camera with a 28 mm lens. i) preferences for continuous forest cover or a patchy forest ii) preference for even or uneven stands. despite the presence of oak in rural areas.2. This question was repeated for attractiveness and management criteria. In addition. These forestry stakeholders were then included in the sample. This was followed by the respondents ranking sets of photographs according to attractiveness and management criteria (see visual approach-photos shown in Annexe 4). a street survey was carried out in the town centre of each municipality in order to collect information from non-users. 5. In the second 1 represent the best management and 5 the worst. it is the most common tree species in the watersheds. recreation. For the management criteria respondents were asked to rank photos “according to the characteristics of forests that most favour your lifestyle and are considered by you to be good management”. In the initial part of the survey respondents were asked verbally to select one from two contrasting characteristics i.

2. Based on frequency of use of forests (questions 1 to 4. The values of the differences were squared. Instead a grey sky was used. participants were classified as occasional users. recreationalists vs. This was done to assess the sensitivity of the results to the inclusion of such images. In addition. in order to investigate if there were correlations between the rankings of attractiveness and management a Spearman rank correlation for each respondent was calculated.used for the study of forest cover were distant views of forests in a mountain setting whereas for stand structure purposes the images were closer up.2. pictures showing different levels of forest cover were in landscape orientation while the photos showing stand structures were in portrait. However. non recreationalists. multiplied by six and divided by either 120 or 60 depending 139 . Due to the variety of use patterns a further classification was created: respondents that had frequencies above the mean for more than one activity (e. Both set of pictures were taken at the eye level of the observer. it was decided not to set a blue sky in the photos with even stands because it reduced the realism of the photos. The final digital images were printed in A5 format and laminated in order to be kept in good condition throughout the survey.g. in the questionnaire. When calculating the correlation coefficients two strategies were followed by either including or removing the photos (FE and SE) depicting burnt forests. Consistency of the rankings amongst user groups was studied by using the Kruskal Wallis test.2. In addition. In order to compare the rankings of attractiveness and management. photos showing different levels of forest cover were subtracted (e. When frequency of use was below the mean in all activities. e. setting the same light and sky colours). Finally. The squared differences for each photo were summed. value of the ranking for attractiveness FA-ranking of management FA). all the background colours were set to approximately same value in order to show only variations in the fragmentation and stand structure parameters (e. see Appendix 3) participants were classified into groups. The digital images were imported into the Adobe Photoshop image-processing software and image manipulation tools were used to eliminate all the features such as roads. timber collection and livestock grazing) were classified as multi-users while respondents with above-average frequency of use in only one activity were classified as single users. timber and non timber collectors. urban areas and other unwanted features likely to distract respondents from the factors under study. 5. Statistical analysis Data from the questionnaire survey were analysed in SPSS.g.g. participants with fewer than five visits per year to a forest were classified as non-users. This photo manipulation was done taking care not to diminish the “realism” of the scenes.g.

the majority of respondents 68% (257 out of 375) had a rural background (deep and developing rural categories).1. 87. Results 5.5%) did not use forests on a daily basis (non-users) (Figure 5. Spearman rank correlation formula. 79 people visited forests for a multitude of uses throughout the year (multiuser). Overall. in some way. therefore only 31. di = difference between attractiveness and management ranking n=either 4 or 5 depending whether or not burnt forests (FE and SE) were included. Figure 5.5 % of the interviewees. Overall results From the total sample of 375 questionnaires 213 of the interviewees were male (57%) and 162 (43%) were female. of whom the most common were recreationalists. this value was subtracted from one according to the Spearman rank correlation formula below.whether or not FE was considered (number of rankings was either n=4 or n=5). Number of respondents by type of users The upper and intermediate areas of Lima and Cávado watersheds are predominantly rural.4% of respondents (118 out of 375) had a urban background (outer and inner urban) 140 . used forest areas and 47 (12.1). The same procedure was used for the photos showing different stand structures (S photos). The major cities are located near the sea coast occupying a small area of the two catchments.3. finally.1.3. and as would be expected. The vast majority of the respondents were either occasional users or single users. 5.

The photos are also presented in a larger format in Appendix 4.e. lowest score).1 show. the photo showing some discontinuity of forest cover (FA) was ranked as both the most attractive and best managed. Therefore. it was not the photo showing the most connected forest (FC) that got best ranking (i. This is probably due to its association with easier fire spread. Photo FC showing a contiguous forest got a better ranking for attractiveness than management implying that this type of forest. the photos used in this survey and the overall rankings by respondents.Figure 5. 141 . Instead.2.3 and Table 5. respectively. The analysis of the mean rank for the set of photos showing different levels of fragmentation indicated that there was a general trend for more fragmented forests to be regarded as less attractive. the type of forest that is likely to both fulfil aesthetic and management requirements in the study area is one that shows some degree of discontinuity of forest cover (FA). However. though aesthetically pleasing might not be considered good management. Number of respondents by area of residence Figure 5.

501 2.611 1.88 .119 In Table 5.930 2.229 1.03 FA 1.84 1.38 .16 2.970 .FC FA FD FB FE SB SD SA SC SE Figure 5.34 .074 1.28 .841 4.69 FD 3.60 SA 2.00 FB 3.534 3.411 2.450 2.63 SB 2.693 2.723 1. As far as attractiveness of stand structures is concerned the photo that got the best score was an uneven stand structure in which ground cover by shrubs was minimal (SB) while photo SA showing an even stand with no shrubs at all was rated best for management.530 2.964 1.1.57 SC 2.91 SE 4.032 .181 1.04 1.21 1. Mean rank of attractiveness and management for each photo FOREST COVER (from higher to lower percentage of forest cover) Photos Attractiveness Mean rank Variance Management Mean rank Variance FC 2.71 1.1.1 lower scores represent better rankings and higher ones worse.38 .09 STAND STRUCTURE (from uneven to even stands) SD 2.73 .350 2.3. in general higher variances occurred in the ratings of management than attractiveness (the exception is SC with a higher variance for 142 .977 4. Photos included in the survey Table 5.55 FE 4.865 3. As also shown in Table 5.

2.5<rsF<1) between the rankings of attractiveness and management was found for 73% of the cases (263 respondents). Altogether. Therefore. When photo FE showing burnt forests was excluded (n=4) the percentage of respondents with positive correlations decreased to 81% (291 out of 356).attractiveness).g either not ranking for management or attractiveness criteria. There was no correlation (rs=0) in 1% of cases (5 out 356) and negative correlations occurred with 17% of respondents (60 out of 356). There was no correlation (rs=0) between the two rankings in 3% of the cases (11 people) and a negative rank correlation (rs<0) occurred in just 5 % of the cases (19 out 356). the results suggest that preferences for management strategy are likely to be more individualistic than assessments of beauty. Correlation coefficients of attractiveness and management rankings In order to investigate if there were correlations between the rankings of attractiveness and management a Spearman rank correlation for each respondent was calculated.3. for recreation or timber collection) and different users value management in contrasting ways thus increasing the variance value.2.1. Percentage of forest cover (F photos) The results in Figure 5. the sample size for the analysis of the spearman rank correlation was 356 individuals.3.4 show that 43% of respondents (156 out of 356) ordered all five photos in exactly the same way independently of the criteria under consideration. therefore. This suggests that the consistently low rating of photo FE enhanced the positive correlation between the two sets of ratings. 5. 143 . In this case the Spearman rank correlation was 1 (rs=1).g. This presumably occurs either because people do not fully understand the meaning of management (despite the efforts made in survey implementation) or because attitudes to management greatly depend on the way individuals interact with forests (e. the vast majority of the respondents (91%) ordered the rankings of the five photos FA to FE in the same way independently of the criteria at stake. 5. Nineteen respondents did not give valid answers for both questions e. A strong positive correlation (0.

5% 60 16% 144 . Table 5. Type of user and place of residence of respondents with negative correlations in the F photos ranking Deep Rural Developing (135) Rural (104) Outer Urban fringe (56) 4 10 2 0 Inner Urban Fringe (61) 0 5 8 2 Total Total % category of Multiuser (75) Single user (119) Occasional user (117) Non user (45) Total Total % of category 4 6 5 2 5 2 5 0 13 23 20 4 17.2.All Five Photos Photo FE Excluded Figure 5.4. Of the 60 respondents that had negative correlations when rating the four photos only four were non users. 29 respondents (17+12) lived in rural areas and 31 (16+15) lived in urban areas. single and occasional users) were more likely to make a distinction between attractiveness and management criteria.3% 17.0% 8.6% 12 11. Spearman rank correlations for forest cover including and excluding FE As can be seen in the last column in the Table 5.5% 16 28.2.5% 15 24. users of forests (multi.3% 19.8% 17 12.

86% of respondents had a positive correlation coefficient.2.5. Table 5. 145 . Spearman rank correlations for stand structure including and excluding SE The respondents that had negative correlations (i.3 shows these results. In total.5.2. All Five Photos Photo SE Excluded Figure 5.e. differentiated between criteria) in the assessment of stand structures were mainly recreationalists (single and occasional users) of which a considerable percentage lived in urban areas.3. A negative spearman rank correlation occurred in 10 % of the cases (36 out 356). In 18% of the cases (65) a negative correlation occurred. When photo SE was excluded 78% (279) of the cases still had positive correlation coefficients and 40 % (144 respondents) had a value of 1. Stand structure (S photos) Figure 5.5 indicates that 30% of respondents (130 out of 345) rated the five stand structure photos identically (rs=1) independent of the criteria under consideration.

7% user 6 3 Occasional user (117) Non (45) Total user 2 13 19 18.1. As a result.2 and 5. 2001). the results presented in this section show: 1) that the photos depicting burnt areas (FE and SE) were consistently ranked as the least attractive and with poorest management.3% 16 20.3) people that use the forests regularly (multi and single users) were more likely to make differences in their assessments.3. Nevertheless.2% 65 18. These differences in preferences between user groups are considered further below.3.8% 22. The generally strong positive correlation between the two rankings indicates 2) that there are no differences in preferences for forests according to attractiveness and management criteria. 5.2% 17.6% 21. This finding implies a negative answer to the first question in Box 5. despite the general positive association there were cases in which negative correlations occurred. Type of user and place of residence of respondents with negative correlations in the S photos ranking Deep Rural (135) Multiuser (75) Single (119) 2 Developing Rural (104) Outer Urban fringe (56) 1 10 6 0 Inner Urban Fringe (61) 1 6 6 3 Total Total % category of 1 4 11 3 5 26 26 8 6. With the aim of investigating if there were differences in the rankings amongst type of users as well as according to places where people lived a Kruskal-Wallis test was used. their inclusion in the rankings influences the results by increasing the positive correlations. The results of the 146 . As shown in Tables 5.6% category Summarising.2% 17 30.2% Total % of 9.3. Attractiveness vs. namely that there are not differences in public preferences depending on the criteria under consideration.Table 5. management across user groups In the research literature the interrater and interclass correlation are the most used techniques to assess reliability of repeated measurements such as rating of photos by different people or at different times (Palmer and Hoffman.

83 1.42 4. Att. Man: Management Table 5.4 indicates that respondents who regularly used the forests (multiple and single users) gave lower rankings (higher approval) to the photos showing a discontinuity of forest cover (FA and FD) for both attractiveness and management.63 0.68 3.40 4.53 4. Kruskal-Wallis tests for the rankings of attractiveness and management across user groups (F photos) Photo Mean rank Multi user (79) Single user (129) Occasion al user (120) Non user (47) Sig KruskalWallis FC Att. People who made little use of the forests (non and occasional users) rated a continuous cover (FC) as more attractive than regular users but the difference in ranks was not statistically significant.25 1. Table 5.61 4. Man.847 0. FA Man.31 2.73 4.77 3.575 Note: Values in bold are statistically significant at the 0. FE Man. Att.89 2.3.1.58 3.46 3.77 4.46 0.20 1.03 0.3. explores the results by geographical area. while multi-users were least likely to consider such a forest well managed. FB Man.94 3. Section 5.05 level.001 0. The average ratings for these two photos were significantly different across the user groups. The photo showing a burnt forest (SE) got the best assessment from the multi-users suggesting that people who use forests daily recognize fire as a management strategy in 147 .34 0.3.analysis by type of user are presented in Section 5.62 1. Att.00 2. with the more regular users preferring this image.341 0.3. FD Man.90 2. one example being the “park-like” forest shown in SA which got better rankings from people who do not use forests on a daily basis.20 2.51 3.46 4.00 2. 5.05 0.53 2.1.06 2.60 1.66 2.5 presents a similar analysis for the S photos.66 1.68 3. With the ratings for management there were more significant differences.76 2.21 3.98 2.3.17 4.14 3.33 1.59 1.85 3.4. Att.205 0.3.2. Type of users Table 5. Att: Attractiveness. Only photo SB showing an uneven stand produced a statistically significant difference in attractiveness ratings.49 1.01 0.73 2. 2.

Man: Management 5.order to reduce the intensity of wild forest fires. SE Att.022 0. Kruskal-Wallis tests for the rankings of attractiveness and management across user groups (S photos) Photo Mean rank Multi user (79) Single user (129) Occasional user (120) Non (47) user 2.46 4.778 0.g.319 0.33 2. 148 .2. There was a statistically significant difference in the rankings of this photo across the user groups.20 2.31 2.35 2.24 2.30 2.46 2.6 shows the variation in the mean rank values for the photos showing different levels of forest cover across the socio-economic groups of municipalities.00 2.657 0. Attractiveness vs.05 level.64 1.67 2.59 3.007 0.36 4. Man.48 1. SC Att.012 Note: Values in bold are statistically significant at the 0. Table 5.77 4.19 Sig.34 2.94 3. as reflected in the lower mean rank for the attractiveness criteria for photo FC in the inner urban group.058 0.95 3. SB Man.82 2.99 2. Man. Att: Attractiveness.71 2.95 2.51 2.92 2. KruskalWallis 0.2.46 2.67 4.659 0.041 0.43 Att. Man.83 2. SD Att.03). management preferences across the rural/urban gradient Figure 5.91 2. Photo FA was particularly preferred in the rural areas and in the Deep Rural category the difference in photo rankings was statistically significant (p=0.296 0.96 3.80 2.5.52 1.17 4. SA Att.40 2. There was variation in preferences across the urban/rural gradient with respondents from urban areas favouring more connected landscapes e. Man.53 1.94 2.81 4.46 4. 2.82 3.3.

5.00 FC FA FD FB FE Deep rural Developing rural Outer urnan Inner urban Figure 5.50 3. 5.50 2.00 1.50 2.75.00 3.8 and 5. It can be seen that the mean ranks for attractiveness criteria across the rural-urban gradient are between 2 and 3.00 4.50 4.00 2.7.00 3. Public preference for fragmentation level by municipality group in terms of attractiveness Photo FA (with an intermediate level of connection) was consistently ranked as the best with respect to forest management (Figure 5.00 1.50 1.00 FC FA FD FB FE Deep rural Developing rural Outer urnan Inner urban Figure 5. A Kruskal-Wallis test showed statistically significant differences across the socio-economic 149 . Public preference for fragmentation level by municipality group in terms of management criteria Figures 5.50 4.9 show the results for stand structure preferences across the urban-rural gradient.00 4.6.00 2.7). An exception is photo SE which got a mean rank of 4.50 1.50 3.

9 show that in all areas photo SE was considered to be the least well managed.8 also shows that in rural areas (deep and developing rural) the mean rank values for four of the photos are more widely distributed whilst in urban areas the mean rank value of the photos is more similar. By contrast.groups for photos SA. The ratings for management in Figure 5. SC and SE. However.9. The photo showing an uneven stand (SB) got lower mean ranks (rated more attractive) by rural rather than urban dwellers. On the contrary photo SC (showing an even stand) was found more attractive by urban respondents. Figure 5. Public preference for stand structure by municipality group in terms of management criteria 150 .035) implying that rural inhabitants are more likely to acknowledge fire issues. SB. 5 4 3 2 1 Deep rural SC Developing rural SA Outer urban SD SB Inner urban SE Figure 5. this image got better mean ranks (lower scores) in rural than in urban areas (p=0. Public preference for stand structure by municipality group in terms of attractiveness 5 4 3 2 1 Deep rural SC Developing rural SA Outer urban SD SB Inner urban SE Figure 5.8. reflecting the preference amongst urban inhabitants for forest environments suitable for recreational activities. the trend in ratings for photo SA is very different.

Such an interpretation is supported by the fact that the burnt forest photos (FE and SE) got better ratings for management than attractiveness criteria. When management was considered 151 . This implies a positive answer to the second question posed in Box 5. the results presented in this section show that there are differences in ratings of forest characteristics across both user groups and the urban-rural gradient. Management practices that can be used to reduce a threat such as wild fires might also affect the ability of forest to provide other ecosystem services such as soil and water protection. the positive effects of scrubland ground cover in reducing soil erosion and promoting water retention are well known by forestry practitioners.3. This implies that the public associates removal of ground vegetation with good management practices. 52% of the interviewees considered a continuous forest to be more attractive than a patchy forest. There are also well known beneficial effects of continuous cover forestry. 2.1 indicated that photo SA (an even stand forest with no understorey) got the best rating for management. 5. Controlled fire techniques have been used in countries with high wild fire risk (Portugal. while the type of forest shown in photo SC (even stand with understory) was regarded as “not good management”. 5. It is also worth noting that the survey was conducted in an area which lacks a major urban centre and consequently in a region with such a feature the contrasts could be even greater. On a catchment scale it could also mean that trying to incorporate public preferences for forest management could complicate effective partnerships between municipalities located in the top and downstream parts of a watershed.6. This has implications for the issues discussed in Chapter 4. Public preferences for forests and ecology of forests ecosystems The results presented earlier in Table 5. Greece) as a tool to remove understorey vegetation and slow fire spread. Spain.Overall.4.3% preferred the latter.3. while 45. namely that there are differences in preferences.1. Overall. but in this survey photos of a contiguous forest (FC) got better ratings for attractiveness rather than management.7% did not answer the question. However. The next section explores the third research question which asks whether there are indications that human preferences might threaten the ecology of forest ecosystems. The results of this study therefore provide a further example illustrating the tensions between aesthetic and ecological objectives in multifunctional landscape planning. Contrasting verbal and visual approaches Results from the section of the survey where respondents were asked verbally to select forest characteristics are summarised in Table 5.3.

These results indicate that there was a relatively small change in opinion when respondents were asked to consider attractiveness or management criteria.7% 80. In responding to a verbal question regarding stand structure preferences 81% of interviewees said that they preferred uneven stands in terms of attractiveness. Table 5.42.3% Note: For the attractiveness question there were 10 and 2 missing values for fragmentation and stand structure respectively.10 plots the mean ranks of four photos (excluding the burnt area FE) showing different levels of fragmentation differentiating between respondents according to their stated verbal preferences. Very little difference is apparent. A similar situation occurred when verbal and visual approaches were compared regarding preferences for stand structures (Figure 5.6% associated good management practices with discontinuity of tree cover thus choosing fragmented forests.6).6% 18.4% of respondents considered connectivity of forests as a good management practice while 57. Figure 5. When asked to consider this choice on management grounds the proportion barely changed (see Table 5.4% 57. Mean rank of attractiveness for photos (visual approach) according to verbal stated preferences for percentage of forest cover 152 .11). Verbal stated preferences for contiguity of forest cover and stand structure Attractiveness Management Connected Fragmented Even aged stands Uneven stands 52% 45.8% 42.6.7% 81.10. Visual preferences attractiveness mean value 1 the most attractive 5 the least attractive 5 4 3 2 1 FC FA FD FB gradient of fragmentation connected to fragmented CONNECTED FRAGMENTED Figure 5.3% 18.

The same happened in the case of stand structure. A Spearman rank correlation between the rankings of the two sets of photos on attractiveness and management grounds showed that the great majority of respondents (around 80% when photos of burnt forests were removed from the study) ordered the photos in the same way irrespective of the criterion under consideration.10 show that independent of respondent‟s stated verbal preferences for either a “patchy” or a “contiguous” forest the photos showing different levels of forest cover were similarly ordered.11. the results in Figure 5. Therefore the verbal and visual approaches delivered similar overall results in the sense that both analysis suggest that the public do not make a distinction between attractiveness and management criteria. This result implies some inconsistency between responses to verbal and visual questions. Referring to the results obtained through the use of photos.6 indicate that there were only small changes in public preferences when they were asked about attractiveness and management criteria verbally. 2001).4. Including the photos of burnt scenes (FE and SE) in the calculations further increased the extent of positive correlations. highlighting the value of sensitivity analysis when working with visual images (Palmer and Hoffman. 153 . Discussion This study has focused on the comparison of public opinions regarding percentage of forest cover and stand structure given attractiveness and management objectives. 5. Nevertheless.Visual preferences attractiveness mean value 1 the most attractive 5 the least attractive 5 4 3 2 1 SC SA SD SB gradient of simplification even to non even stands EVEN AGED UNEVEN STANDS Figure 5. the Spearman rank correlations show that the majority of the public ranked the set of photos in the same way for the two criteria under analysis.11. Mean rank of attractiveness of photos (visual approach) according to verbal stated preferences for stand structure The results in Table 5. as shown in Figure 5.

Differences in preferences for forests across user groups are widely reported in the literature (Ribe.Independent of whether the photos of burnt scenes were included in the analysis. This calls for active involvement of the public in forest management . 2007a). by contrasting attractiveness and management preferences for forests the research has highlighted how simply following aesthetic preferences may have negative consequences for ecosystem functions. in the vast majority of cases where higher (lower) rankings were given for attractiveness then similar ratings were given for management. The association between aesthetic preferences and respondent background and place of residence does not.. Firstly. although it is likely that aesthetic and management preferences will be positively correlated (as was the case for 80% of respondents in this study) it may still be the case that some respondents make a distinction (18% of respondents had an inverse relationship between aesthetic and management preferences). Second. rural residents value collection of products (e. It is clear that the public needs to be engaged in order to understand the trade-offs that need 154 . multi and single users) as well as between rural or urban populations. attractive environments. however. urban residents‟ favouring contact with nature. while poor management was not aesthetically pleasing. 2008). consequently. On the other hand. 2002). is how to integrate the different preferences of diverse users into forest management in a way that human preferences do not threaten the ecology of forest ecosystems.g. research needs to attempt to distinguish between stakeholder‟s attractiveness and management preferences for forests instead of simply associating public preferences with interviewees‟ background. A key issue.g. These results therefore support the view that the general public is not able to disaggregate “the eye from the beholder”. negate the advantages in surveying both aesthetic and management opinions. This suggests an avenue for further research where transdisciplinary approaches “work” to create public awareness of the importance of multifunctional forest management. Roovers et al. In this study different aesthetic and management preferences for forests were found between types of user (e. play and privacy (Matsuoka and Kaplan. one example of which is tourism (Rogge et al. fuelwood) and a natural environment that is able to promote socio-economic wellbeing.. In my opinion. places for recreation. This accords with previous findings that urban and rural dwellers have different needs. It is therefore possible that a better understanding of human-nature relationships can be achieved if attractiveness and management criteria are addressed separately. This implies that whatever was considered by the public as “good management” was also regarded as aesthetically pleasing. 1989.

It is therefore possible that an association was made between the characteristics shown and the places in which the forests were located. Completely removing understorey (or at least planning to do so) from the forests will undermine the multifunctional management strategy that was proposed in Chapter 4. only varying forest cover and stand structures) it was apparent during the survey that many people were trying to locate the photos within the study area. in which forests may have an important role by providing services such as soil and water protection. Furthermore. 2000. This puts emphasis on the need to widely use visual tools in questionnaire surveys (Tahvanainen et al. 2002) in which there is a need to conciliate forest management for a variety of goods and services. 2001. General public and forest stakeholders need to fully embrace the challenge of multifunctionality (Brandt et al. 2001.. In essence.to be made between human preferences (both aesthetic and management) and the ecology of forest ecosystems (Fry. Mander et al. For example.g. when only making use of verbal data it was not possible to depict a trend in public preferences for percentage of forest cover. the public in general needs to be aware that good management does not necessarily imply the complete removal of understorey from the forests. respondents had different mental images of those concepts that were “made concrete” by the use of the photos. 2007. Despite the efforts made in eliminating from the photos other factors likely to distract respondents from the factors under analysis (e. by using the photos public preference for a certain degree of discontinuity on forest cover was apparent (photo FA). Creating more sustainable landscapes. Selman. in countries with problems of wild fires. However.. Gobster et al. One of the reasons for such a result is that respondents may have had different mental images of “continuous forest” and “patchy forest” in the case of fragmentation and “even stands” and “uneven stands” in the case of stand structure. There is here scope for further engagement with the public to attain sustainable forestry management. Fry... 2001). 2007). For example. will depend mostly on the farmers and forest landowners who in countries such as Portugal and Spain are the owners of the majority of the forest land. This is a similar finding to the work by Tahvanainen et al (2001). It was found that verbally stated preferences did not consistently correspond with the rankings of photos (visual preference). Image capture technology along with simple photo manipulation was found to be very effective as a means of investigating preferences in this study. This may explain why the ratings of the photos were similar independent of stated verbal preferences. The fourth research question in this study focussed on contrasting verbal and visual approaches. continuous forest cover such as shown in photo FC is typical of the region of the Geres 155 .

Methods such as the one employed in this study in which public is engaged in exercises of comparing several criteria for forestry management could well help in such a demanding task. although there were advantages in showing forests from the study area it needs to be acknowledged that this could have influenced the results. 156 . in turn. influenced their ratings for the two criteria being considered. There is a need to create public awareness of the impact their preferences might have on the ecology and thus contribute positively to the nature-society and aesthetic-ecology debates..society” debates (Selman. By contrasting attractiveness and management criteria within forest management this research has presented a simple approach to engage the public in the “aesthetics-ecology” (Gobster et al. 2007) or “nature. 5. Consequently.National Park as so when respondents were rating the photo may have made this connection and this. Conclusions In addition to distinguishing between preferences for forests across user groups this study has shown that not only aesthetic preferences but also preferences for management strategy can compromise the functioning of forest ecosystems.5. public opinion regarding management also needs to be included in the aesthetics-ecology debate. 2006). Therefore.

GOVERNING FOR SUSTAINABILITY: IMPLEMENTING SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY MANAGEMENT IN NORTHERN PORTUGAL 157 . 2006: 36) CHAPTER 6. you have seen one rural place” (OECD.“If you have seen one rural place.

However. For agreement to occur. and.Abstract Managing forests in a way that user groups. integrated landscape planning. The case study involved two communities in the Minho region of Portugal (Gavieira and Entre Ambos-os-Rios) combining the local communities. there were neither robust planning mechanisms nor adaptive governance systems with the capacity to put into place forest management “futures” likely to deliver more sustainable landscape-scale uses in these areas. The other concentrated on indirect ecological services. This chapter explores the policy dimensions of multifunctional forest management. contradictory. through an exploratory case study. one comprehensive workshop and one expert meeting). as well as carbon sequestration (new-multifunctionality). the National Park. via viable landscape design procedures. such as soil and water protection. One scenario focussed on continuity of the traditional management patterns. there is a need to negotiate a set of common objectives and shared responsibilities. and local forestry and tourism offices. through which multiple functions (production. given a policy setting that is confused. and where the “status quo” tends to be given prominence. proposes a mechanism for cooperative planning and institutional design. sustainable forest management. developed and validated two scenario storylines through a series of participatory processes (two focus groups meetings. An attempt was also made to implement the storylines through initiating a pilot project in both of the case study areas. The case study created. This chapter illustrates the difficulties in forging governance systems that have the capacity and the vision to be able to put sustainable development concepts into practice. Keywords: multifunctional forests. sustainability practitioners and forestry institutions all agree with is not easy. rural diversity in Portugal 158 . with an emphasis on direct goods such as timber and livestock grazing (traditional multifunctionality). environmental protection and recreation) may be coordinated by means of innovative planning.

O'Riordan and Voisey. 2007:29). it is a “place making” instrument. In addition to effective planning. Planning is generally associated with integration across space. or at least are supposed to have. In addition. location. 2002. Such institutions in Western Europe have. 2002). 2004. 2007).6. configuration and management of. the mere act of establishing goals and adopting programs will never be successful unless such objectives are made fully operational and enforceable (Carlman. rational specialisation of tasks. and so on. thus calling for a whole landscape approach. there has been a trend to broaden the concept emphasising the integration of place within the whole landscape by means of a spatial planning approach. together with a professional and high skilled civil service (OECD. higher abilities to deal with challenges to attain sustainability (O' Riordan and Stoll-Kleemann. However.landscape elements”. 2002) A whole landscape approach requires a full integration of responsibilities and “mind-sets” between planning institutions (Dolman et al. restore or create landscapes (Council of Europe. landscape heritage plans. (2001:306) as “a process of integrated planning across property boundaries that optimizes the amount. (Selman. Western European countries have well established public administration systems based on rule of law. A “whole landscape approach” is defined by Dolman et al. Introduction Planning and management for sustainable use of natural resources enforced by governance systems able to deal the challenges involved are seen as key vehicles for a transition to sustainability (OECD. “planning” is a forward-looking action to enhance. 2000.. 2001) “traditional” planning is still embedded in sectoral approaches (Selman. the extent to which these 159 . Governance over a territory can be understood as “the emergence and implementation of innovative shared forms of planning and managing of socio-spatial dynamics” (CEMAT. 2005). According to the European Landscape Convention. 2006). landscape social plans. Yet. there are landscape ecological plans for agriculture. Despite increasing recognition of a need to manage the whole landscape (Dolman et al. 2000).1.. Consequently. forestry and coastal areas where the link between these and the whole landscape (including living communities) is vague. there are landscape economic plans. there is a need to put into practice effective governance systems for sustainability (Adger et al.. while “management” means the routine tasks needed in order to achieve the planning goals. CouncilofEurope. OECD.. 2002). 2002.. 2001). 1998). To govern a territory means to negotiate a set of commonly agreed objectives as well as a framework of shared responsibilities by the use of spatial development strategies and policies (CEMAT. Recently. 2002).

or by means of integrating of several land use types (multifunctional land use). There are studies reporting forest transition in countries such as France (Mather et al. Nicholson-Cole and O'Riordan. The evidence in rural areas of Europe. While the first two stages can be ascribed to traditional utilitarian management approaches. involving “fresh” institutional arrangements and funding for an orderly transition to more sustainable landscapes to occur (Milligan et al. there has been a recent call for new forms of cooperation between public and private property rights. as well as from case-studies promoted by programs such as FAIR 160 . Vejre et al. 1998). for community living as a way to move towards sustainability. 2007.“well-functioning institutions” and the operational plans they put into practice. The concept of multifunctionality. 1999). 1998). Niskanen and Lin. Despite considerable criticism of the current performance by top-down approaches. Scotland (Mather. The area of forest in Europe has increased by almost 13 million ha in the past 15 years mainly due to planting of new forests and natural expansion of forests onto former agricultural land (MCPFE. 2007. This chapter explores the issues related to innovative planning and governance for sustainable forestry management in rural areas of Northern Portugal. Mather (1992) summarises the overall trend as a change from a pre-industrial stage through an industrial stage towards a post-industrial stage of forestry. Nabuurs et al. For example. forest management in the post-industrial stage perceives forests less as commodities and more as functioning ecosystems serving multiple purposes.. 2007). 2007). and even an increase in area of forests. both from the development of various scenarios... 2007b). is of major importance in context of rural development (Dwyer. 2006). 2008). 2008). This reversion of deforestation rates. Spain (Marey-Pérez and Rodríiguez-Vicente. either addressed throughout a single land use type such as forestry or agriculture. It explores the ways in which forests can be integrated into the whole landscape. forestry institutions have offered financial support both for new plantations and for protection of established forest areas (DGRF. in economic and regional development strategies currently being pursued EU countries have encouraged reforestation (Okkonen. 2001.. as in other European countries. 2004) and Denmark (Mather et al. 2009). Hagedorn. The post-industrial stage calls for multi-purpose forestry in which forests provide a wide range of functions across whole landscapes (Mander et al. A review of the different ways in which European countries deal with the forestry sector is presented in the work by Marey-Perez and Rodriguez-Vicente (2008). is explained by the forest transition concept (Mather and Needle. 2001).. 2007. In Portugal. really do promote sustainable development is now being critically examined. It has also been suggested that a “new paradigm” for policy and governance is crucial for any successful move forward (OECD.. 2009.

Elands and Praestholm. the particular activities undertaken. Selman. Rural development is recurrently addressed within two contrasting perspectives namely.. endogenous and exogenous development.. 2002). 2007).(from which one example is the Impact project (Knickel and Renting. 2000). 2008). Fry. Multifunctional land use can be achieved in three ways: 1) by pursuing different goals in a corresponding mixture of separate land use types.. 2008. or 3) by integrating from the beginning and coordinating the different goals to accomplish them simultaneously (de Blust and Olmen. Multifunctionality is the simultaneous and interrelated provision of different functions from a single land use type (Mander et al. Forestry is increasingly recognised as a critical activity for retaining viable livelihoods within rural development for many EU countries (Slee. 2007b. 2000. The former is conceived as a bottom-up process in which rural development results from local initiatives. 2004. Mander et al. 2004. Mander et al. fibre. 2005). 2) by pursuing different goals on the same parcel of land. 2002. and the patterns of motivation that emerge (Elands et al. Hence. 2000. reveal the contours of a new development trajectory in which the key features are diversity and multifunctionality. Diversity is reflected in the actors involved. 2000). The concept of multifunctionality has attracted the attention of several scholars (Brandt et al. An array of topics exploring the concept have been presented in various international conferences such as “multifunctional landscapes” (Brandt et al. timber and fuel (Knickel and Renting. 2008). The latter is conceived as a top-down process in which rural development is the result of political and economic dynamics created outside rural areas (Okkonen. 2005). Vejre et al. 2006.. 2006. Multifunctionality lies within the operational role of sustainable development and is based on the assumption that agricultural and forestry usage have always fulfilled more than just their primary aim of producing food. in the second and third variants. Stengera et al. By contrast. Selman. 2009)... Research by Elands and Wiersum (2001) 161 . 2000). In spatial multifunctionality each piece of land has one function. Slee et al. the study of “viable multifunctionalities” aiming at creating sustainable livelihoods in otherwise deprived rural areas is of upmost importance (Pinto-Correia and Breman. it appears to be more or less multifunctional (de Blust and Olmen. but sequentially in time... 2007). The first way can be defined as spatial multifunctionality because different spatial units (land use types) have clearly defined management goals. different goals are attained in the same spatial unit (successively in the second and simultaneously in the third). These different processes of development raise different rural discourses. This type of multifunctional land use can be defined as integrated multifunctionality (Brandt et al. but when zooming in or out to see a full landscape. 2007). 2001... 2007.

By performing both land suitability analysis and land use allocation. the development and assessment of land use scenarios can play an important role in promoting the understanding of such complex and uncertain systems (Shearer. either by optimising forest labour employment or by optimising forest production as a complement to farm production. should not become too dominant in any given area thereby jeopardising farmers‟ traditional stewardship. In the nature conservation discourse. forests are regarded as complementary to agriculture. The aim of land use suitability analysis is to identify the best site for some activity given a set of potential sites (Malczewski. These are agri-ruralist. community stability and nature conservation. However. Some are multi-scale (global and local scenarios) such as the work developed in the Med Action Programme by Kok et al. Kok et al (2006:264) defined scenarios as “plausible. utilitarian. Some examples are projects such as EU Ruralis. It therefore seems sensible to explore the relationships between these discourses and the type of multifunctional land uses that they are likely to create. 2005. Prelude. socio-cultural and economic drivers affecting the future(s) of rural Europe. ecological thresholds for tree species). and hence. Mediterranean and watersheds within the Mediterranean. hedonist. In the community stability discourse. Tress and Tress. the alternative sites are ranked based on their characteristics so that the best site can be identified for a specific land use (Malczewski. Visions. In theory. Land use suitability analysis is a widely used approach for modelling future land use allocations in scenario studies. There are several scenario studies addressing the possible futures of rural Europe. 2003)..g. In this type of analysis relevant attributes of the “object” to model are known (e. 2004). Within the agri-ruralist discourse. boundaries between these various forest management discourses are discernible. and Corason (Tovey. Another common feature of the studies dealing with scenario development across Europe is the use of participatory processes (Kok et al. 2004). hence nearto-nature management practices are stimulated. This variant regards forests as an income provider. forests are planned to sustain forest dependent communities. 2008). challenging and relevant stories about how the future might unfold that can be told in both words and numbers”. Under the utilitarian discourse forests are mostly seen as a source of income. the extent to which it is possible to distinguish between these various interpretations in practical terms is more problematic. The hedonist discourse promotes the creation of “wilderness” areas and places forestry as a driver for recreational attractiveness. (2006) for Europe.distinguishes between different roles for forestry based on five discourses of rural development. Because there are complex ecological. intrinsic protection of forests is an aim in itself. 162 .

social and economic importance (PintoCorreia and Breman. 1999) as a form of “sustainable” multifunctionality connecting agriculture. One example is the use of understorey from forests as a bed for livestock which in turn provided manure to fertilize the fields. The research particularly addresses the issues that planning and governance systems have to tackle in order to place multifunctional forests within the whole landscape mosaic as a means to move towards effective sustainability in revitalising rural areas of Northern Portugal.. 2008). The study of “viable” multifunctionalities in a post-modern Portugal is of major environmental.2006). there are also shortcomings related to the effects of “powerful” stakeholders that may clearly influence the participatory process. 2005. These are not simple conditions to meet (Milligan and O'Riordan. Pereira and Fonseca. 163 . and means of ensuring wider interests are fully taken into account. representativeness of participants. 3) examining appropriate governance systems likely to implement the storylines seen as “viable” and. These relate to issues such as the credibility of the policy framework for adapting to the demands and expectations of stakeholders. forest and grazing area land use types. 2007). time for resolving conflicts. As a consequence of the disruption of the equilibrium between the mosaics of agriculture. the traditional management which created an integrated multifunctionality is no longer working. A review of participatory processes and their possible drawbacks is offered by Milligan and O‟Riordan (2007).1. The four major questions addressed here are presented in Box 6. animal husbandry and forests complemented each other (Pereira et al. 1993). Despite wide agreement on the advantages of participatory processes. 2003). raising issues such as depopulation and ageing of rural population in many inland rural areas. shifts in policy and economic conditions as the process evolves. This was reported by several authors (Firmino. This traditional management system worked well in a localised economy context. By using scenario approaches in two specific case studies this study focused on: 1) developing scenario storylines for integrating forestry within the whole landscape mosaic in rural areas of Northern Portugal. 4) implementing those storylines through a pilot project. Successive Common Agriculture Policies (CAP) are blamed for disrupting these traditional systems by incentivising mass agricultural production against which such “traditional management” practices could not compete (Andresen and Castelbranco. In countries such as Portugal during the recent past (1950s) forests in rural areas were regarded as an agro-silvo-system where agriculture. 2) exploring “viable” designs for land use as well as planning mechanisms to implement those designs. forestry and grazing areas.

Box 6.1. Questions addressed in the case studies

1. What scenario storylines for sustainable forests and rural communities are considered viable by local stakeholders in northern Portugal? 2. What type of multifunctionality (ies) are likely to be viable? 3. What type(s) planning approaches as well as governance systems are needed to implement those multifunctionalities? 4. How can these two storylines be implemented through a pilot- scheme?

6. 2. Study area and methods
6.2.1 Study area and case study selection The Minho region is located 38 km north of Porto and stretches to the frontier of Galicia in north-western Spain. Within Minho there are two sub-regions: the upper area (Alto Minho) and the lower area closer to Porto (Baixo Minho). Arcos de Valdevez and Ponte da Barca are two Municipalities located in the Alto Minho region of Portugal. In this study storylines for “viable futures” were created for two parishes, namely Gavieira and Entre Ambos-os-Rios in Arcos de Valdevez and Ponte da Barca municipalities, respectively. Important changes in agro ecosystem resources in the Minho region were reported in the Millennium Ecosystems Assessment programme (MEA, 2003; Pereira et al., 2005). In the Minho region local communities recognized that local forests provide direct benefits which increase social wellbeing such as wood, fuel and fodder. In addition, forests contribute to local income generation throughout the trade of timber. Local communities also recognized indirect services provided by forests such as air purification, healthy environment, food for hunted animals, water springs and oxygen (Pereira et al., 2005). The selection of the parishes in which this research took place was one of the outcomes of a questionnaire survey undertaken in previous research. In 2007 fourteen municipalities within the Lima and Cávado watersheds in Minho region were surveyed in order to study public uses and preferences for forests (Chapters 4 and 5). During this survey fourteen municipal forestry offices in the Minho region were contacted by the author in order to gather information regarding the dynamics of the forestry sector in each municipality. From this initial round of meetings two municipalities within Lima watershed, namely Arcos de Valdevez and Ponte da Barca, were selected due to their proactive attitude towards sustainable land use planning, and their enthusiasm to put into practice a participatory process for forest scenario development. These two municipalities voluntarily embraced the challenge of scenarios development. Their forestry offices assumed the responsibility of contacting relevant stakeholders and arranging local meetings. The 164

organizing leaders of the group were the rural development association ARDAL in Arcos de Valdevez, and the municipal forestry office in Ponte da Barca. Those two entities drafted an invitation list of relevant stakeholders to be involved in the focus group meetings in each municipality. The participants‟ selection was done jointly by the research team and local leaders. This was an agreed arrangement as it was considered vital to obtain both representativeness and credible participation to work through the offices of the regional and local governmental machinery. Respondents were therefore selected for their knowledge, viewpoints, occupation and degree of involvement in forest management. This approach is also endorsed by Milligan et al (2009) in their work on coastal futures planning in North Norfolk. In Arcos de Valdevez, the relevant parties suggested inviting national park officials, local farmers, tourism and industry stakeholders, in addition to the ARDAL and municipal forestry office. In Ponte da Barca the stakeholder group included farmers, local fire-fighters, and local government decision makers, as well as the forestry engineer from the municipal forestry office. 6.2.2. Forestry and land management in the study area Forests are a prominent land cover type in Minho region (Moreira et al., 2001a; Moreira et al., 2001b; Pereira et al., 2005). Arcos de Valdevez and Ponte da Barca are included in the Alto Minho Regional Forestry Plan “Plano Regional de Ordenamento Florestal PROF Alto Minho”. This regional plan refers to the Forestry Policy Act (1996), which provides the national strategy for forests in Portugal, as well as to the Plan for the Sustainable Development of the Portuguese Forest PSDPF (1999). Also at national level there is a plan to protect forests against fire (PNDFCI). The relevant instrument in the Portuguese constitution states that “the state will promote forestry policies according to ecologic and social circumstances” (Portuguese constitution, 93rd article, number two). At national level there is also a funding scheme created from revenues from petrol consumption (Fundo Florestal Permanente) which provides financial support for forestry related investments (DGRF, 2007b). Regionally, in addition to PROFs (forestry sector plans), there are the PROTs (Regional Plan that regulates all land uses), and the PEOT (created exclusively for regulation of land use allocation in protected areas). All the three regional plans are only mandatory on the public land which represents approximately 2 % of all forest land. Plans that are mandatory at local level for private and communal property are the PMOTs, which include the municipal director plan (PDM). This regulates all land uses, the urbanization plan (PU), and other specific plans (PP). In the case of private property included in protected areas, 165

there is a special plan, PEOT, that operates throughout the management tiers. For the protected area, the PO regulates all land uses. At local level, there are landscape plans called Plano Director Municipal (PDM) which incorporate the municipal plan for defence of forests against fire (PMDFCI). Table 2 shows the plans and the scale addressed. These are the official plans that, in 2008, controlled the forestry sector. There have been, however, continuous changes in the “strategy” for forestry polices in Portugal. From the 1980s until 2004 the state financed private forestry organizations in order to entice both private and communal landowners. From 2004 onwards there was a shift from financing private forestry associations to the direct support of municipal forestry offices.
Table 6.2. Current arrangements for planning and funding forest management in Portugal Scope Legal document Law/plan N155 12 08 2005 PNOT Law forestry policy EFN PNDFCI PNCD PROT PEOT PROF PMOT PDM PMDFCI PGF PUBs ZIFs Land use classes Land use classes Sector Sections/ project forestry Sub region Homogeneous region Regions Portuguese territory

International Portuguese constitution and National Plan for “ordenamento do National territorio” Forestry Policy Act (1996) Plan for the Sustainable Development of the Portuguese Forest PSDPF (1999) National plan for defence of forests against fire Plan for combat desertification Regional Regional plan for ordenamento do territorio Special plan for ordenamento do territorio (protected areas) Regional plan Ordenamento florestal (forests) Municipal Municiplal plan ordenamneto do territorio Municipal directive plan Municipal plan for defence of forests against fire Local Management plan for private forests Management plan for communal forests Management plan for private and communal forests

166

6.2.3. Creation and development of scenario storylines The first contact with the municipalities in Minho region occurred in early 2006 with the aim of gathering socio-economic and digital data. In 2007 a questionnaire survey was conducted in fourteen municipalities in order to survey public uses and preferences for different qualities of forest landscape. The creation and development of the storylines occurred in two separate sets of focus group sessions between January and May 2008 in the two parishes. During a combined workshop in May, the two groups together with local forestry institutions validated the storylines. The workshop aimed to further discuss the storylines as well as sharing the experiences of the two neighbouring parishes. Because high level representatives were present in the final workshop the focus group members had the opportunity of discussing their views with the Peneda-Geres National Park manager. An expert meeting was held in July 2008 in order to study the possibility of implementation of the two scenarios through a pilot-scheme. During the two focus group meetings storylines were created and developed, aided by land use modelling tools such as multi-criteria evaluation, in order to create landscape suitability maps and different allocations land use types for the two contrasting storylines. In the workshop and expert meeting those storylines were validated. During this stage photo-montages were created to help stakeholders visualise the outcomes of the two scenarios. The scheme in Figure 6.2 summarises research goals, objectives and phases.

167

The Structure of the research approach 168 . Create storylines for “viable futures” 2. landscape histories.Goal: Policy dimensions for the implementation of multifunctional forest management in rural areas Objectives 1. Validation of storylines and explore ways for Expert meeting Economic evaluation Piloting implementation of scenarios? possible implementation Policy dimensions Patterns of planning guidelines. Test their implementation Questionnaire survey 1) Setting the scene for scenarios development 2) Choice of the study sites Focus groups and final workshop 1.2. landscape ownership and neighbouring cooperation Framework for implementing multifunctional forest management in rural areas of Northern Portugal based on broad sustainability principles Figure 6. financing arrangements.Creation and development of storylines 2. local to regional political relationships.

3. and in groups. biodiversity was explained as a high diversity of animal and plant species).g. These were “carbon offsetting forestry” and “conventional forestry” scenarios. This process was based on established research practice in forest aesthetics (Ribe. These were: “How can forests in this region: 1) fulfil society‟s needs. individually. This exercise was explained as no more than “explore plausible futures” that could be seen as likely to occur.. In the former.1. The last exercise introduced the theme of scenarios defined as meaning “possible futures” for the region. participants ranked two sets of photos of forested landscapes according to scenic beauty and management criteria. The overarching goal for the two focus group meetings was formulated on the basis of three questions. Focus group meetings The scenarios development phase occurred between January and March 2008. three exercises were conducted. b) SADNESS (what aspect of the forests causes you sadness?). 2006). during the first focus group meeting. In January 2008. This is a variant of the well known strengths. c) HOPE (what hopes do you have for the forests of this region?) and finally d) FEARS (what do you fear that can happen to the forests here?). The usage of these simpler words had more resonance for participants who were not schooled in management speak.2. the participants addressed their feelings about the forests of the region focusing on the following feelings: a) PROUD (what makes feel you proud of the forests of this region?). These baseline storylines were discussed for twenty minutes. carbon sequestration and energy from forests biomass were supposed to take over all the other “old” uses. and 3) be ecologically rich (e. 169 .6. Two focus group meetings were held in each one of the two parishes (Gavieira and Entre Ambos-osRios). 2009). weaknesses. In an icebreaking exercise. According to these results forestry biomass and carbon sequestration were regarded as new uses likely to have a major impact on the future of the region (Carvalho-Ribeiro and Lovett. opportunities and threats (SWOT) used in many assessment exercises (Leskinen et al. A secondary task was to enumerate three characteristics that a “good” forest in the region should have. Participants had 5 minutes to write down their own ideas and in a subsequent 15 minute discussion the individual ideas were grouped into clusters to guide further discussion. In the last 10 minutes the group evaluated the session. 2) be economically viable. On the basis of previous work (Chapter 4) two scenario storylines were proposed as a basis for analysis. without being intended to be predictions. In the latter these “new” uses were implemented on a small scale based on the view that reluctant farmers are likely to use the precautionary principle in adopting new uses. The two baseline storylines were proposed based on the results of the questionnaire survey conducted in 2007. In the second exercise. 2000). Sheppard and Harshaw. 1989.

groups of interested and knowledgeable parties addressed the concept and image of a sustainable managed forest in their region. As can be seen in Box 6. The two focus groups were conducted in two study areas so as to capture the possible differences in perception and expectation.3. 170 . This presentation included the first version of the land use models that were created for each scenario (Section 6. issues of implementation for each scenario were addressed. During the following group discussion. The aim of the focus groups was to explore how two differently selected.3 participants were given the opportunity to incorporate further ideas related to the “construction” of a third distinct storyline. The discussion around the questions raised (see Box 6. the participants gave their opinion about the results presented. but representative.3 below) further contributed to the storyline development. In a final stage in the discussion.The second focus group meeting (March 2008) started with a brief presentation of the results of the January meeting.1). these included the institutional arrangements regarded as likely to promote each one of the scenarios created. New versions of the storylines were created in order to incorporate participants‟ proposals.

171 .2. Based on climatic data such as temperature and rainfall as well as ecological variables (Table 1. At the end of the session a summary of the results for each question was made.Box 6.3. 2) study of people‟ opinion about a “good” forest 3) introduce the topic of scenarios as “possible futures” Questions Focus Group 2 (March 2008) Develop the storylines drafted on the previous focus group meeting Q1: What is an attractive/well managed forest in this region? Q2: What are you feelings in relationship of the forests of your region? Q3: What type of forests do you would like to have in this region? Q4: What are the possible futures for the forests of this Municipality (20 minutes) Q1: In your personal opinion how can the storylines be improved Q2: Are these storylines credible? Q3: Are there other(s) possible futures? Q4: What is the most desirable future for this parish? Q5: Who will win/lose in these futures? Q6: What stop us to have the desirable future? Q7: What type(s) institutional arrangements will promote the desirable future? Exercises Q1:Ranking a set of photos (5 minutes) Q2: Fill the PROUD/SADNESS and HOPE/FEAR boxes (20minutes) Q3: “Good” forest characteristics (20 minutes) Q4: scenarios (25 minutes) Evaluation All questions: Each participant wrote down their individual Ideas (approximately 3 minutes) this was followed by a group discussion. 2004). suitability maps were created for broadleaves. coniferous. Focus Group 1 (January 2008) Aims “1) Build cohesive working groups.2.3. Evaluation 6. eucalyptus. Annexe 5). The structure of questions used in the focus groups in each of the two study sites. Land use change models Land use suitability analysis aims at identifying the most appropriate spatial pattern for future land uses according to given suitability criteria (Malczewski.

The base maps had a 20 meter pixel size and the number of columns and rows was 1850 and 2000 respectively.atalsambiente. maximum y= 570 000. maximum x 205 000.5 to max 15 Soil type Rankers.pt). From the national data base.4. Cambisol humicos Distance to rivers (meters) Cope well with frost for more than 4 months Very sensible (less than one month) Sensible but all region meets its requirements Very sensible (less than 1 month) Cope well with frost for more than 4 months Coniferous (maritime pine) Eucalyptus globulus Broadleaves (common oak) Agriculture (e.5 and 15 but still does well across the region Favours cambisol but still grown in rankers As close as possible All faster growths between 12. minimum y= 530 000.corn) Pastures (natural) Urban=no.5 and 15 All Faster growth in cambisol but still grows well in rankers Can be far way More sensible to type of soil prefer cambisol More sensible to type of soil prefer cambisol All Consumes a lot of water.g. Table 1 for detailed description 172 . Place it far ways from the rivers Not surrounding urban areas but relatively close (10 km) As close as possible Cope well in dry places Distance to urban (meters) Not surrounding urban areas but relatively close (5 km) As close as possible As close as possible As close as possible Away from urban Distance to the same Land use (meters) Close As close as possible As close as possible As close as possible Source: Characterisation of the requirements of tree species in Portugal see Annexe 5. to between 3 and 4 Ecological zoning Mediterranean Atantic Insolation (n. months) less than 1. Constraints and factors in the suitability maps Ecological requirements Base maps used Constraints Factors: Slope (degrees) Frost (n. unproductive=no and water bodies=no. to 2500 Mean Annual Temperature (degrees Celsius) min 7. All these base maps were downloaded from the Portuguese Atlas available at (www. regional maps for the study area were extracted with the following coordinates: minimum x=168 000.5 and 15 Grows better between 12.agriculture and pastures by using multi-criteria evaluation techniques. Table 6. All Mediterranean All Tolerate all Max number hours possible Tolerate all Max number hours possible Tolerate all All Copes with all faster growths between 12. hours of sunlight) 1800. Max 45 Max 25 Max 45 Max 15 Max 30 Adapted to all All.

6.3. The land use models were revised after the workshop and the expert meeting. challenges and types of financial support needed to implement those scenarios.4. The land use allocation was made based on the description of scenario storylines (Table 6.7) land use allocations were made according to the values in Table 6.1.7. Scenario evaluation and implementation 6. Subsequently. 2006) to produce landuse allocations under the different storylines (Table 3. Land use allocations Land uses modelled Agriculture Coniferous Broadleaved Grazing areas Eucalyptus Traditional (n.5.row showing land use in 100 ha).cells) (15%) 413438 (10%) 275625 (40%) 1102500 (15%) 275625 (20%) 551250 Note: The number of cells was calculated as follows: 1 cell (20*20m)=400 m2=0. these suitability maps were combined through a multi-objective land use allocation command in the IDRISI ANDES GIS (Eastman. Second. Detailed information about this procedure is given in Annexe 4. participants in the Gavieira and Entre-Ambos-os-Rios focus groups were told to select the preferred future for their area of residence as well as to explore further the opportunities.5). Workshop The evaluation of the two storylines was done in two ways. cells) (10%) 275625 (20%) 551250 (10%) 275625 (50%)1378215 (10%) 275625 New Multifunctionality (n.2.5.04 ha. 2) analyse policy changes effects in the environment 3) value the 173 . A percentage of the total number of cells correspondent to the description of the scenario (see Table 6.4.The land use modelling criteria.7) was allocated in the land use map for each storyline. Total cells=2 756 250=110 205 ha. were discussed with the parishes representatives on the January and March focus groups outlined in Box 6. a concise economic evaluation of both scenarios was made based on DEFRA‟s framework of 1) assessing the environmental baseline. Annexe 5). Based on the description of the scenario storylines (Table 6. Table 6. as well as the weightings for factors (Table 2. During the May workshop interim results of the modelling were shown along with digitally-altered photographs illustrating how local landscape views could change (Figure 6.2. Annexe 5). First.

three subsidiary questions were addressed. According to this framework a broad calculation of the costs and benefits was made for each scenario. 2007b). in which the participants had been involved. and. In this initial part of the workshop both groups had opportunity to share their views. followed by a group discussion. and. this time bringing together members of both previous focus groups. The first evaluation step occurred during a workshop organised by the lead author in partnership with ARDAL and the municipal forestry office of Ponte da Barca Municipality whilst the economic valuation was presented at an expert meeting. 2) Institutions. financial mechanisms and partnerships able to promote the scenario. The final workshop aimed to present and evaluate the storylines developed in the preceding focus group meetings. 2) what should be their role in the implementation of a forest “future”?. The economic values used were based on data from the forestry national institute (DGRF. 2006). This simplistic analysis intended to stimulate discussion and to be further improved after consultation with experts in the area. each group had its own facilitator who explained the plan for work as well as the “good practice” rules. 3) what type of financial incentives is (are) required to implement the preferred future? The workshop started with a presentation of the work developed since January. and. The groups addressed the financial support needed to put the scenario into practice.changes of ecosystems in relation to human wellbeing (DEFRA. To get to this conclusion. The topics addressed were: 1) Opportunities and challenges for the scenario chosen. The overarching question was: “What types of institutional arrangements might be able to deliver these “futures”. In this plenary session the group discussions were guided by the following questions: a) are the storylines credible? b) how can these storylines be improved? c) is there another possible future? d) is there agreement on who will win/lose in these scenarios?. Those were: 1) who should be involved?. They were given tasks such as: 1) Identify sources of income as well as expenses that are likely to be linked with the implementation of the scenario 174 . Individuals wrote down their personal opinions about the topics. Working in separate groups in different rooms. finally e) what is your preferred future? Immediately after the participants had chosen their preferred future the participants were divided into two discussion groups based on the “future chosen”.

with an emphasis on direct goods such as timber and livestock grazing (traditional multifunctionality). Results The case study created. In the invitation letter the purpose and agenda of the meeting were explained and a summary of the work done was sent. one comprehensive workshop and one expert meeting). by filling in an application form for a pilot-project. invitations were made to the regional office of the major forestry institution (Direccao Geral dos Recursos Florestais). the groups were asked to simulate applying for financial support. it was agreed by the author. All the participants in the focus groups meetings and in the workshop were also invited for the meeting.4. as well as to the National Park (Parque Nacional da Peneda-Geres).3. The format of the meeting was informal.2. 6. The form to be filled had the following structure: 1) coordinator of the project. b1) Are there economic values for the services provided by forests locally able to improve the analysis done so far? c) Are these scenarios “good enough” to be tested through a pilot project? 6. 3) Finally. and. Accordingly.2.ARDAL 175 . The other concentrated on indirect ecological services. 7) steps to implement the scenario. It involved a presentation of the two scenarios followed by the presentation of a first draft of the economic analysis of both scenarios. developed and validated two scenario storylines through a series of participatory processes (two focus groups meetings.2) Identify what institution (s) are seen as able to directly manage the preferred future (the coordinator) as well as those seen as potential partners. 3) business plan 4) ways in which coordinator and partners will overcome financial needs. The participants in the focus group meetings for Gavieira and Entre-Ambos-os-Rios were appointed by different local institutions namely a rural development association. 5) external financial support need. the ARDAL and the forestry municipal office that the results would be better validated by formally engaging the major forestry institutions in the study area. The forestry institutions had the opportunity to select their team members who were believed to have contributed significantly during the process of discussions.internal financing. One scenario focussed on continuity of the traditional management patterns. b) How can the economic evaluation be improved?. Implementation After all the previous phases. The discussion was framed by four questions namely: a) are the scenario storylines credible?. 2) partnerships to put into place. such as soil and water protection as well as carbon sequestration (new multifunctionality). 6) promotion and divulgation of activities.

their usage of forests and scenario chosen 176 . The participants in the two focus groups reflected the different patterns of usage of their forests. Gavieira Participants National Park… Farmer Forestry… Forestry Engineer Ardal 0 1 2 3 4 Forestry engineer City council Forestry… Farmer Local government Fire fighters 0 2 4 Entre Ambos os-Rios Number of visits to forests Once a month Once a week Twice a week Daily 0 1 2 3 Once a month Once a week Twice a week Daily 0 1 2 3 Scenario chosen "Scenario 2 New multifunctionality" "Scenario 1 Traditional… "Business as usual" 0 1 2 3 4 "Scenario 2 New multifunctionality" "Scenario 1 Traditional multifunctionality" "Business as usual" 0 2 4 6 Figure 6. professional planning and managers as well as farmers and industry representatives participated (Figure 6. In Gavieira. Professional activity of participants.4.and parish council of Entre Ambos-os-Rios.4). In Entre Ambos-os-Rios the group had a majority of farmers and forestry landowners as well as forestry related people such as local fire-fighters.

hunters and landowners.6 summarizes the “feelings” of the two groups about the forests of their region. the carbon offsetting and conventional forestry preliminary scenarios.4 were possibly influenced by the provenance and background of the participants.6. In Entre Ambos-os-Rios the preferred future was the “traditional multifunctionality” while Gavieira participants clearly preferred the “new multifunctionality”. In Entre Ambos-os-Rios the use patterns are dominated by farmers. both groups emphasised the need to create multifunctional forests.Remarkably. The opinions of the two groups diverged upon the type of multifunctionality thought likely to be successful. Instead. Table 6. had a very similar opinion about the strengths and weaknesses of the forests in the region. 177 . The next section describes the two contrasting storylines developed. Table 6. in each parish a unanimous decision within the group was reached in order to select the desired future for each parish. with different backgrounds. Yet these two groups. The responses of the stakeholders to the issues raised by multifunctional forest management in the two case study areas. PROUD “There are still pristine oak forests” “The landscape is beautiful” “There is a multifunctional landscape with multiple uses and functions that allow a multitude of livelihoods” “Tradition and culture shapes the landscape” “ Good policies such as the one supporting local fire-fighters teams” HOPE “Better ability to manage” “Entrepreneurship from local population” “Policies appropriate to reverse depopulation of rural areas” “New uses such as carbon sink projects and forestry biomass” “Arson and bad management punishment” SADNESS “Depopulation trendsAbandonment of rural” “Litter and scrubs scattered in forests with its related fire ignition potential” “Soil erosion” “Decrease in primary sectors activities (forestry and agriculture)” “Multifunctional land uses that are not viable anymore” FEAR “Forests will disappear due to fire and abandonment” “Bad management” “Economic pressures from new uses such as carbon sequestration (mainly eucalyptus) and forestry biomass (damage in natural regeneration)” “Increase in area of exotic tree species” “Landslides due to soil erosion” Although different in composition. both groups were unanimous in rejecting the base-line storylines initially proposed. namely. while in Gavieira participants represented a mixture of backgrounds and relationships with forests reflecting a more varied pattern of management. These results in Figure 6.

7. parish council technically helped by public institutions such as National park. goat meat. timber and non timber products such as honey. In Table 6. Table 6. (Bottom-up) NEW MULTIFUNTIONALITY Change: Focuses on ecosystem services and embraces the challenge of build new markets for environmental services that are still in initial stages Spatial Exogenous Nature conservation Strong sustainability “active” tourism Income sources: Tourism.3. ~30 a 40 % forest managed for timber production and silvo-pastural as defined in PROF ~40 % natural grazing areas ~10% agriculture ~10% other uses 60% of the area is traditionally managed. municipalities and forestry office) (Top-down) Type of Multifunctionality Rural Development Role of forestry discourse Sustainability Economic driver Land use (in 100 ha) Management Protection of nature Institutions able to promote it 178 . councils and DGRF. Income generated globally ~50 a 60% forest managed for conservation and protection as defined in PROF. ~10 % improved grazing areas ~15 % agriculture ~25 % other uses 100 % of the area has professionalized management Sell services Very much emphasis on ecology and ecological care High level institution which manages different interests (national park.g.6.7 the major differences between the two types of multifunctional forests are summarised. ecosystem services carbon trade. Sell products Emphasis and ecological care Local e. Income sources: Tourism. Characteristics of the two multifunctional landscape scenarios Name Philosophy TRADITIONAL Continuity: Focuses on traditional goods such as timber and non-timber products though uses a more efficient approach in order to increase income. Integrated Endogenous Utilitarian/Community stability Weak sustainability “cultural” tourism. certified timber. Income generated locally. game. Description of the storylines The two types of multifunctional forests named as “traditional” and “new” were seen by local stakeholders as being able to overcome the unfavourable trends that the forestry sector has been facing in the region.1.

Livestock grazing and the related income (selling cows and goat meat) is one of the traditional revenues of rural populations. This scenario also acknowledged the importance of other indirect ecosystem services such as soil protection and waste assimilation. By contrast. grazing areas form the “matrix” of the landscape (Figure 5-left side) and livestock circulates “free” within the area. within the new multifunctionality scenario view. Because these goods are the ones traditionally used by the rural communities. such as existed in a pre-industrial age. In this scenario the removal of the natural capital is minimal. emphasis was put on ecosystem services such as water flow regulation and carbon sequestration. its philosophy is based on radical change. Recognizing such an issue. Due to all this. Because this scenario assumes a radical change in management. Another difference between the two scenarios involves livestock grazing. while the traditional multifunctionality scenario focuses on the short-medium and more consumist needs (weak sustainability).One scenario focussed on continuity of the traditional management system well known by its patchy and mosaic landscape (traditional multifunctionality). the new multifunctionality scenario addresses the long term. These new markets of ecosystem services that forests provide were though likely to be very important in a climate change context. help to promote the health and vitality of the whole landscape. In the traditional multifunctionality scenario the major goal was to increase productivity both for direct goods. as the scenario is in favour of a strong sustainability approach. namely timber and non-timber products in such a way that the income generated could attract new rural population into the parish. This was intended to create continuous cover forestry. The other scenario aimed at radical changes in both management and the institutional arrangements to deliver it (new multifunctionality). By contrast. the philosophy on which this scenario was based on is one of continuity. in the new multifunctionality scenario. All these measures in the new multifunctionality scenario were seen as requiring professional management which could create a new form of ecosystem services market that so far has never been tried in Portugal (an exception is small scale projects for carbon credits trading by the National Park). in the traditional multifunctionality scenario. grazing areas are reduced to small plots where improvements 179 . Figure 6.5 shows the land use maps and the photo-montages that were used to illustrate the landscape features of each scenario for the two parishes.

in pasture take place (Figure 6. areas with broadleaved trees managed for carbon sequestration shape the landscape mosaic. On the other hand. According to work in Chapter 5. 180 . the area of those new uses. but those forests were largely destroyed during subsequent “development” processes.5) that will resemble native forests in Europe (centuries ago). In the case of the traditional scenario it is known that the mosaic that would be created is very valued by people (Figure 6. In contrast. In addition to the cost of reforestation.g. the role of forestry in the traditional scenario matches the “community stability” discourse. the new multifunctionality implies a landscape with big blocks of oaks and other broadleaves (Figure 6. at present. Another factor to be considered is the way in which the two scenarios influence the landscape. the traditional scenario relies on the assumption that goods and services are generated and provided by the local community without direct interference of external agents (endogenous). care needs to be taken to minimize the impacts that the new plantations could have on the scenic beauty of the landscape in the only National Park of Portugal. though significant.5–right side) and these will be fenced to avoid damage from livestock in natural regeneration of oak trees and other broadleaves plantations. The increasing numbers of visitors in the National Park clearly appreciate such a landscape in which culture and tradition are embedded. pastures from forests) in the new multifunctionality. However. It seems that these are the characteristics which people in the region most value (Chapter5). On the other hand. the effect of the plantations in the landscape could be minimized if the shape of the new plantations will be irregular with uneven stands of a mixture of tree species. in the new multifunctionality scenario. Another issue is the size of the area that needs to be afforested in order to implement the new multifunctionality scenario. As far as rural development discourses are concerned. the new multifunctionality scenario depends on external markets (exogenous). was not a prominent feature. In the traditional multifunctionality scenario.5). while the nature conservation discourse is prominent on the new multifunctionality scenario. In addition. There were also differences between the two scenarios relatively to “new” uses such as forest biomass and carbon sequestration. It was envisaged that an integration of functions in the same spatial area would occur in the traditional scenario with a spatial separation of functions (e. this mosaic has not been proven viable. Rural areas are depopulating and this particular mosaic is not able to reverse such a trend.

TRADITIONAL MULTIFUNCTIONALITY Land use models NEW MULTIFUNCTIONALITY Gavieira EntreAmbosos-Rios Figure 6.3. Thus there is a 181 . Multifunctional scenarios as developed and presented in the case studies Larger format photos are shown in Annexe 5. Scenario evaluation and implementation An overarching result of the workshop was an agreement amongst the group of participants that the current situation will not be able to deliver a sustainable landscape. 6.5.2.

successful implementation is only achievable through engagement of a wide range of institutions and local stakeholders. 2) overcoming problems of fragmented landownership and transcend property boundaries. Challenges for the new multifunctionality scenario were related to: 1) regulation of uses namely by restricting the areas for livestock grazing. While the traditional multifunctionality scenario requires a 182 . Because it generates indirect services which are difficult to perceive by the general public. policies and review financial incentives in order to achieve multi functional forests in Minho region of Portugal. Even more remarkable is that in each parish a unanimous decision within the group was reached in order to select the desired future for the parish. 2) defeating bureaucracy in order to bring investments namely for tourism related activities. economic and social uncertainties are faced. The new multifunctionality scenario deals with uncertainties by safeguarding critical natural resources.need to make changes in institutional arrangements. challenges and institutions needed to put each scenario into practice (see Table 6. This scenario also requires sharing of responsibilities between public and private landowners. Another outcome was that the storylines of the two scenarios (traditional and new multifunctionality) were accepted by the stakeholders. will only be an “innovative academic thought”. In the traditional multifunctionality scenario major challenges identified by the stakeholders were: 1) improving the relationship between local communities and the National Park. both of which could deliver a viable multifunctionality in the local forest landscape. the new multifunctionality scenario and its ideas. For each scenario the participants were able to list and evaluate the various opportunities.9). institutions have a major role in order to “make obvious” to the stakeholders the benefits that this scenario is likely to generate. 3) bringing entrepreneurship and active populations to rural areas. thereby maintaining more resilient environmental conditions. This can be very valuable when all manner of environmental. 3) transcending property boundaries and achieving the whole landscape management. If that does not happen. Other opportunity highlighted was the familiarity that local communities have already with this type of management approach. However. According to the group these two possible futures represent two different strategies. The participants who had chosen the traditional scenario referred to its opportunities regard to the appropriateness of the scenario for a protected area such as the Peneda-Geres National Park. Thus it is very important to have a public-private partnership in which institutions engage communities in this process of change in ecosystem management. According to participants the two scenario storylines will require two completely distinct institutuional arrangements.

) should work together.local based “governance”. sustainable forestry . “Revert depopulation trends” Improve the relationship between local population with Peneda-Geres National park “lack of dialogue grows tension” “Creation of tourism infra-structures that do not exist at present” Defeat bureaucracy. ARDAL and ADERE) The last stage of this study was based on an “expert-meeting session” on which the ideas developed throughout the focus groups and the workshop were shown to the two major institutions namely Direccao Geral dos Recursos Florestais (DGDR) and the Peneda183 . Landscape management implications arising from the comprehensive workshop TRADITIONAL “More appropriate for the type of landscape of Peneda-Geres National Park (cultural landscape)” “Local communities are already familiar with the assumptions of this scenario” “Generates income that goes directly to the farmers and this will increase “attractiveness” of rural areas” Most suited to local culture and economy yet enhancing ecological integrity..” “Will be able to integrate traditional and old uses throughout technical expertise in order to minimize conflicts between uses (eg. the new multifunctionality scenario needs a higher level institution with professional managers able to deal with incipient markets and finding other financial means for cooperation between upstream and downstream municipalities in order to promote whole catchment management (Chapter 4).. sustainable agriculture.. namely by a partnership of parish councils with local NGOs aided by the technical expertise of the National Park. improved grazing areas. agriculture.“local farmers need to fill in too many forms” “transcend property boundaries” “Local parish professionals” councils backed up by NEW MULTI FUNCTIONALITY “Explores the protection throughout economic valuation of ecosystem services such as soil and water protection” “Will allow a “viable planning” of a mixture of blocks within the landscape such as pristine areas..8.eg create a trust or a foundation to manage the whole mountain” “Two major goals are professionalism and integrated management of all the resources” “The first task of this Foundation is to engage with local stakeholders showing the economic benefits likely to occur” Opportunities and challenges Institutions Geres National Park (preferably with a cooperative approach towards local populations via the municipalities) “Municipalities in league with national park and other planning bodies” “Local development organizations”(eg. Table 6.fenced grazing areas to not damage new forests)” “Establishing new rules for users” “Need to engage local stakeholders into this process of change” “Need to show economic viability and well defined institutional arrangement to gain credibility” “Overcome problems of fragmented land ownership” “transcend property boundaries” “Bring new entrepreneur and active people to the area” “Need to create a more professionalized institution that will be able to do integrated management of the whole landscape” “Forests can‟t be the focus rather different interests groups (tourism.

because without people with viable livelihoods. The experts raised aspects to possibly overcome the depopulation trends. 184 . Another outcome of this meeting was that there are planning instruments. Despite the support for the two storylines. both scenarios need to tackle that matter first. A ZIF creates a joint management plan for forests belonging to a group of forest landowners. The overall goal is to overcome the fragmented land tenure system by giving economic incentives for communal forest management. none of the scenarios are likely to be socially and economically credible. Another issue raised was how to sustain livelihoods and conserve nature in an area with fragile ecosystems prone to erosion. The National Park was not supportive of the implementation of the traditional multifunctionality scenario within the national park boundaries. which was under revision at the time the study was developed. The National Park. The economic evaluation was barely commented upon and none of the institutions offered any further indication of other possible sources of economic data. there was no consensus amongst the expert group concerning any viable means to test the implementation of the scenarios.2. with the consent of the research team. Although guided by a series of questions (see Section 6. There are also legal frameworks on which the management strategies can be supported by legislation into place such as PROFS. that this matter has been approached instead by supporting large scale infrastructure projects that are planned to be located in nearby urban centres. Despite this. One of the topics addressed was the relevance of small scale projects using forestry biomass for heating buildings which were seen as an opportunity to overcome the depopulation trends. In their opinion. recognising difficulties in building cohesive governance that would promote their implementation via a pilot scheme. however. Overall the experts considered that both storylines were viable though National Park officials clearly favoured the new multifunctionality scenario while the national forestry office was more sympathetic with the traditional multifunctionality scenario. neither the National Park nor the regional forestry office fully supported the implementation of the storylines.Geres National Park. namely the “Zonas de Intervencao Florestal” (ZIFs) that can be used to implement both scenarios.4. introduced the two storylines in its management plan. It was also said.2) the discussion was long and sometimes confusing. As a result a second version of the traditional multifunctionality scenario was made this time increasing the area of broadleaves trees and diminishing the area of coniferous trees such as maritime pine.

nor are they sufficiently institutionally and financially supported. validated and supported from local stakeholders according to the state of the art participatory approaches (Milligan and O'Riordan. 2001. 2002. there is a need to negotiate a set of commonly agreed objectives and shared responsibilities (Milligan and O'Riordan. While there are planning and management rules in Portugal for approaching these matters. Sheppard and Harshaw. through which multiple functions (production. although “viable future” storylines were created. For agreement to occur. sustainability practitioners and forestry institutions agree upon is not easy (O' Riordan and Stoll-Kleemann. 2009). 2001). the creation of a ZIF in each parish (Table 6. and the present institutional arrangements and outlooks. Consequentely. This conclusion challenges the current planning and governance systems in place. e. 2008). There is. In this study.4. to work on a coherent multifunctional basis. via viable landscape design procedures. With such an inconstant institutional and financing system it is difficult to successfully implement long term revenues in a sector such as forestry. 185 . no formal planning framework in Portugal for whole landscape sustainable management. the workshop and expert meeting revealed there were neither robust planning mechanisms nor adaptive governance systems with the capacity to put into place “futures” likely to deliver more sustainable landscape-scale uses in these areas. in a policy setting that is confused. are not compatible for dealing with whole landscapes on a multifunctional basis. Nor is there a property rights basis for engaging landowners to cooperate on a fully collaborative arrangement. they are not strong enough. 2007.g. 2007) and stakeholder engagement techniques (Grimble and Chan. Nicholson-Cole and O'Riordan. thus compromising the implementation of SFM in Portugal. In two sides of the same river this study found that different communities are likely to see different “futures” for forestry in their area of residence corroborating the idea of a much diverse rural Europe (Elands and Wiersum. This study therefore suggests that both the conceptual approach to sustainable forestry management. 2007).1). environmental protection and recreation) may be coordinated by means of innovative planning. Discussion Managing forests in a way that user groups.6. 1995). as yet. Pinto-Correia and Breman. contradictory. and where the “status quo” tends to be given prominence (Milligan and O'Riordan. the research illustrates the difficulties in forging governance systems that have the capacity and the vision to be able to put the sustainable development concept into practice. The legal framework for the ZIFs is under recurrent re arrangement.

financing and management through four levels. who prefer to promote mosaics of land use and economic diversity. the basis for moving forward is to coordinate the machinery of planning. There is still a dysfunction between the viewpoints of conservationists and National Park planners who appear to seek to reintroduce indigenous biodiversity. 2001) with the type of multifunctional land uses (integrated and spatial) that they are likely to create (Brandt et al. Another novel contribution of the research was the establishment of relationships between rural development discourses (Elands and Wiersum. 2007). The two multifunctional landscape scenarios offer a way to approach this requirement for reconciliation and consensus building. However. 2000). to the municipalities at the local level.. 2008). and those at the municipal level of local politics. 2003. 186 . the Portuguese nation through its regional development mechanisms. with national policies for sustaining local land use and local communities. 2003). but the way that Portuguese government is dealing with this issue by supporting large scale projects reduces the opportunities of rural areas to create small scale heating projects that will likely contribute to overcoming depopulation trends as has being demonstrated viable for other parts of rural Europe (Okkonen. If there is a call for approaches less focussed on subsidies and more grounded in investments (OECD. set in a framework of user values and expectations. This can best be done by exploring emerging EU policy of rural revival and the advancement of viable rural economies. Milligan and O'Riordan. rooted in stakeholder understanding and aspirations. namely the EU though its environmental and regional funds. and finally. and geographically embedded and landscape cultures and histories. In the two storylines forestry biomass was seen as a way to move forward. The role of GIS maps. the test of its implementation was hampered by the weakness of governance systems currently in place. The method of establishing whole landscape preferences.This research has provided a basis for moving forward. 2006) there are not yet mechanisms able to develop the path for investing in forestry for small scale heating projects. forms a basis for establishing this dialogue (Appleton and Lovett. supported by the overlaying photograph images. Therefore. provides a basis for mapping and revealing multifunctional whole landscape scenarios that are both well grounded and comprehensible to a wide range of stakeholders (Appleton and Lovett. the sub-regions of Portugal through their rural diversity arrangements. There are still unsolved issues related to the reconciliation of sustaining living rural communities and ecological integrity of areas such as National Parks.

6.g. Such a perspective has to return to life as Europe struggles for its soul and the aftermath of profound economic uncertainty. For this workshop to be truly successful. agriculture). economic. and social advantages of living with and for nature. 187 . but ultimately ineffective political hand–wringing. a broader group of stakeholders (e. There is much to play for. including tourism and energy sectors) needs to be engaged. Conclusion “New paradigms” for sustainable rural development have been suggested namely by OECD (2006) calling for approaches that focus on places instead of sectors (e. through which all the relevant parties can meet and debate the creation of additional planning and financial arrangements for multifunctional sustainable forest management in Portugal. The research presented here falls within this new paradigm even though.There is perhaps a case for a specially convened policy/governance workshop. arising from this research.5. huge social distress and well intentioned.g. there were no governance systems willing to take up the challenge to test the implementation of the “desirable” futures as seen by local stakeholders. since the current debate in Europe on viable rural futures is coinciding with a fresh look at the commercial.

(1995:225) CHAPTER 7. N.K.“If human understanding of nature is imperfect. So if resource management is thought of from the outset as an experiment. then human interaction with nature should be experimental. policies should be designed and implemented as experiments probing the behaviour of the natural system. CONCLUSIONS: The role of multifunctional forests in sustainable landscapes 188 . Experiments often surprise and scientists learn from surprises. That is. surprises are opportunities to learn rather than failures to predict” Lee.

How can sustainable landscape planning and landscape governance guide forest planning and management? The goal of this research. PLAND) and spatial arrangement (PD) which helped to inform placespecific strategies to improve forest management (Chapter 3). it was shown that there is a need to vary the type of forestry across the area of two watersheds in the Minho region (PintoCorreia and Breman. By incorporating public uses and preferences for forests into multifunctional plans. describes difficulties encountered in this research. 2007). as defined in the introductory chapter of the thesis. Misgav.4). This raises concerns about important ecological functions such as soil and water protection (Chapter 5) that. are important in forging strategies able to reinforce development across urban and rural regions (CEMAT.. This can be achieved by creating different “multifunctionalities” illustrating ways in which some forest functions are better provided if integrated (integrated multifunctionality) or separated in space (spatial multifunctionality or dominant use) across the area of the two river basins (Chapter 4) (Mander et al. tools and methods might be used to inform SFM at a range of scales in Portugal. as shown in Chapter 4. Section 7. in developing scenarios for sustainable forestry management (SFM) it was shown 189 .1 to 7.4. might undermine the ecology of forests ecosystems (Gobster et al. 2005. tools and methods were crucial in providing a framework for guiding forest planning and management geared to sustainable goals in Portugal. 7. was to explore some of the guiding principles for implementing sustainable forestry management (SFM) at different spatial scales in such a way that forests might contribute to more sustainable landscapes. Planning tools such as landscape metrics allowed the study of forest composition (PS. Finally. It provides a synthesis of the research presented in Chapters 3 to 6 which addressed the particular questions at specific scales presented in Figure 2. The analysis of public preferences for forests (Chapter 5) showed that different stakeholders groups have contrasting preferences for forest characteristics. Landscape planning and landscape governance concepts.This concluding chapter is framed by the set of questions originally posed in Chapter 1 (Box 1. 2007). and explores directions for further research.. 2000). A concluding statement is given in Section 7.3 explain how the original questions were addressed. caveats in the use of its findings. using two criteria (attractiveness and management). These findings are in accordance with the findings of others (Harshaw and Tindall. 2008). Sections 7. but also what is perceived by stakeholders as “good management”. 2007). The analysis of public preferences for forests.5. It specifically addressed the ways in which planning and governance concepts. revealed that not only scenic beauty.1.7 of Chapter 2.

that the ways in which forests might be integrated in the whole landscape are likely to vary in different parishes with similar socio-economic conditions within a single watershed. It was also pointed out that there is a need for a new governance approach to implement successful planning (Chapter 6), as there were no governance systems in place to test the implementation of any of the scenario storylines. The tools, concepts and methods used in this work (Table 7.1) were helpful to guide forest management at different spatial scales. This set of tools might be used by 1) decision makers, 2) planners and 3) forestry practitioners dealing with the implementation of sustainable forestry management, as follows 1. Decision-making (at the local scale): parish councils are often confronted with decisions about alternative future investments. Promoting a set of discussions, framed by questions such as those presented in Table 6.3 in Chapter 6, may help to better address alternative futures and help in developing participatory processes for decision-making. Furthermore, the set of questions proposed are likely to facilitate the setting of priorities and decisions to be made. Using visual images such as photographs proved to be very effective in engaging the public for the study of public preferences for environmental conditions. Moreover, as was shown in Chapter 5, it is important to create awareness amongst the public that there are different criteria for forest management and that public preferences for forests might threaten some “invisible” ecological functions. This calls for partnerships between researchers, forestry practitioners and decision makers (Section 7.3.3). 2. Guiding the planners: Planners are frequently asked to provide “remedies” that can guide favourable development patterns in an appropriate timing at a reasonable cost. The set of landscape metrics presented in this thesis might help to set possible guidelines for more detailed planning actions. For example, by using a set of class metrics that are relatively easy to interpret, such as those used in Chapter 3 (NP, PD and PLAND), it is inexpensive and straightforward to obtain a broad picture of the environmental conditions in an area. Furthermore, Chapters 3 to 5 of this thesis focused on specific aspects of planning that allowed the study of: i) forest structure by focussing on the analysis of forest landscape metrics across different socio-economic regions (Chapter 3), ii) forest functioning, by suggesting different forest management strategies for contrasting socioeconomic and environmental places (Chapter 4) and iii) landscape evaluation, in which public preferences for forests were surveyed (Chapter 5). These might be seen as different planning stages as defined by Botequilha Leitao and Ahern (2002) and the approach presented here touches on the different planning phases. 190

3. Guidance for practitioners: For practitioners this toolbox might help to give context for afforestation projects implemented at a local scale. For example, forestry projects for afforestation must take account of public preferences for forests, providing a mixture of tree species as well as uneven stand structures (Chapter 5). However practitioners need also to be aware of the implications of what is understood as good practice. For example, fire management might reduce the forests‟ ability to provide other services such as soil and water protection (Chapter 5). Foresters need to be more aware that afforestations projects on the ground are often threatened by external factors arising from neighbouring land uses. Hence, placing forests within the whole landscape has to be one priority for forestry in the 21st century. The toolbox used throughout this work was able to address forestry within the whole landscape mosaic, as illustrated in Table 7.1 below. The multi scale approach adopted was useful in the sense that what was depicted at larger spatial scales was further refined when smaller spatial scales were addressed (Herrmann and Osinski, 1999). For example, at the national scale no association was found between the characteristics of the forests and the level of socio-economic development. On the contrary, when the analysis focused on the Northern region, landscape metrics were used revealing that at this scale an inverse correlation between higher levels of socio-economic and better forest condition appeared (Chapter 3). The work at regional scale also suggested that different strategies are likely to be needed in order to move towards SD. Going even further down the scale of analysis, this time focussing on two watershed catchments located within the regional scale of analysis, it was possible to better address how management strategies are likely to differ across the gradient depicted at the higher scale of analysis. When analysing landscape metrics in the Northern region of Portugal it was suggested that different strategies would be needed to implement forest management in urban and rural regions (Chapter 3). The research at the watershed scale further demonstrated the ways in which strategies can be put into practice by varying the type of multifunctionality (integrated vs. spatial or even dominant use). It also revealed that there were differences in uses of forests across the rural/urban gradient. Forests in rural areas were used for a multitude of goods, while in urban areas the major uses were production and recreation (Elands and Wiersum, 2001). It was also evident that forest conditions are far from demonstrating sustainable characteristics. Therefore, forest management practices aiming at, for example, increasing the age/diameter classes of forests in the study area are of utmost importance (Nabuurs et al., 2001; Pommerening and Murphy, 2004). Still at the watershed scale, the study found variations in public preferences regarding forest cover and stand age across different user groups (Chapter 5), this finding being in accordance 191

with a large body of literature on public preferences for natural resources (Abello and Bernaldez, 1986; Harshaw and Tindall, 2005).
Table 7.1. The toolbox used Scale National /Regional Goal Study how forests vary in contrasting regions in order to set appropriate management strategies Tools and methods 1) Group regions according to socio-economic characteristics (e.g. PCA and CA) 2) Calculate simple class metrics (or landscape metrics) 3) Correlate socio-economic conditions of groups of municipalities with the characteristics of their forests (metrics) 1) Field survey for evaluate forest condition 2) Questionnaire survey: uses, public preferences 3) Evaluate “desirable” multifunctionalities ( the distribution of forestry functions across the area) River basin Study people preferences for forests 1) Survey uses of forests and group stakeholders accordingly 2) Photo-questionnaire: showing forests with different characteristics 3) Study public preferences for forests Parish Study of viable 1) Focus group meetings for develop scenario futures for allocating storylines. different land use 2) Land use modelling for allocate land uses types according to storylines developed 3) Present the outcome of the modelling using visual tools

River basin

Study people‟s preferences

The smallest scale analysed in the research was the parish scale. At this scale, an in depth study was conducted to investigate the type of forest that stakeholders see as viable for the future. As this was a relatively small area, it was possible to define the type of multifunctionality that stakeholders see as viable for two parishes. As such, this piece of work further refined the achievements of broader spatial scales. Chapter 4 concluded that multifunctional forest management was of utmost importance and Chapter 6 further demonstrated the type of multifunctionality that stakeholders see as desirable. Table 7.2 shows the different research stages.

192

Table 7.2. Research stages
2005 2006 (National/ regional) AprilBeginning of PhD Gather data, build socioeconomic and forests metrics of databases Field survey (photos were taken) Analyse of socioeconomic and forest metrics data Questionnaire survey (including the photoquestionnaire) 2007 (River basin) 2008 (Parish)

January, March

May

July

Focus group 1 and 2 (in each parish) (creating and developing storylines)

Workshop (Two groups together as well as national park representative)

Expert meeting (Local and regional forestry institutions)

One parish aimed at forestry to sustain living communities, while the other preferred to implement forest management for nature conservation (Chapter 6). The findings of this study are illustrative of the diversity of rural areas in Europe (Elands and Wiersum, 2001; Nabuurs et al., 2001; Niskanen and Lin, 2001; Slee, 2007a), highlighting that forests may have different role(s) across landscapes. Even within a rural area with similar characteristics (Chapter 6), two contrasting futures were envisioned by different stakeholder groups. These findings are in agreement with a substantial body of literature reporting that there is no panacea in management of natural resources (Ostrom, 2007; Ostrom et al., 2007). It also shows that if the two local scenarios were implemented this would be likely to create a multifunctional landscape able to fulfil the preferences for forests of a broader group of stakeholders. It was reported in Chapter 5 that there are people (single users) who preferred to see continuous cover forestry (Photo FC), such as the new multifunctionality scenario would be likely to deliver. Meanwhile other stakeholders (multi-users) valued a mosaic landscape as shown in Photo FA. Therefore, the combination of the two scenarios at watershed scale would be ideal and in line with the wishes of a broader group of stakeholders. The two scenarios were different in many aspects. One scenario clearly implied the notion of endogenous (traditional multifunctionality) development, while the other was based in the exogenous (new multifunctionality) model (Okkonen, 2008). Similarly, in the traditional multifunctionality scenario the notion of “weak sustainability” was implicit in the sense that it was short-term-driven. In contrast, the new multifunctionality implied “strong sustainability” in which nature conservation would be the overarching goal (Costanza and Daly, 1992; Costanza et al., 1997). When looking at the two storylines, 193

. the work of the scenario creation and development took four days of stakeholders‟ time (one day in each focus group. questionnaire survey). they prefer a scenario that they are able to understand. One issue that this research does not fully explore (although the implications of the scenario storyline at landscape level were described) is the ways in which these two scenarios may be geographically compatible (Hersperger.based on a temporal perspective. By conducting the research in this manner. concepts and methods employed in this thesis began by using approaches of quantitative character. it can be suggested that the traditional scenario might be transformed into the new multifunctionality scenario in the longer term. For example. one day in the workshop and one day in the expert meeting). It is recognised that quantitative approaches are less able to deliver a complete understanding of complicated socio-ecological systems (SESs) thus overall trends might be misunderstood (Antunes et al. in the case of the questionnaire survey it was apparent that forestry in the future is likely to be influenced by 194 . however. at larger spatial scales (landscape metrics. On the contrary. the traditional scenario is more focused and dependent on local strategies. focus group meetings) were later used at smaller scales (parish) (Flick. as the new multifunctionality scenario is driven by external demands (increasingly affected by external factors e. so far. carbon markets) which are not controlled locally it is more susceptible to international drivers. 2006). the work developed at smaller scales was framed by the achievements of the higher scales of analysis. That is to say. Although this approach was justified because it goes from the general to the specific (always setting the frame for the smaller scales). 2002).g. 2002). 2003). it also had its drawbacks (Flick. 2006. Hersperger and Forman. stakeholders preferring the traditional scenarios are not able to understand the ways in which partnerships for whole catchment management can be put into practice.g. This allowed effectively use of the time requested of stakeholders. if environmental services such as water and soil protection were to become the focus for whole catchment management then it is possible that the traditional multifunctionality scenario would evolve towards the premise of the new multifunctionality scenario. that the combination of both scenarios within the area of the watershed will deliver a diverse landscape mosaic that will create ecosystems able to support a variety of animal and plant species. As such. The framework of tools. Furthermore. 2002). Furthermore. Qualitative approaches (e. Also by these reasons the combination of both at the landscape level seems ideal. still in its infancy. environmental services provision and whole catchment management is. Developed in such a manner. It is likely. avoiding timeconsuming processes that might cause participatory “fatigue” (Flick. At present.

Spiecker. by providing different combinations of goods and services such as timber and non-timber products. These preliminary storylines were. What roles might multifunctional forests have in sustainable landscapes? Forests may contribute to sustainable landscapes in a range of ways.. If. 2003. According to 195 . This holistic approach is able to broaden the goals of the forester by including forestry within the whole landscape (Dolman et al.. 2001). Despite recognising the effect that the approach used might have on the results of this research. according to the stakeholders‟ views. water and soil protection. that the research would have required more time for completion (Flick. 2001). 2008). 1999.new uses such as carbon sequestration and forestry biomass. it is likely. it is fair to say that the approach used (first quantitative and qualitative later) was effective in the sense that it allowed for more effective time management. biodiversity. 2007) (Chapter 4) ii) engage the public in forest management (Chapters 5 and 6). If qualitative approaches had been employed in the beginning. Chapter 4 illustrated the ways in which different ecological functions of forests are able to deliver services across the area of two watershed catchments in Northern Portugal. 2006. modern forestry has to i) find viable multifunctionalites for forests across different settings (Pinto-Correia and Breman. tools and methods contributed to the study of the role of forests in different settings. looking for opportunities to interact with other sectors such as tourism and energy (Dwyer. recreation and carbon sequestration to cite a few examples (Slee et al. but as a wider development opportunity (Dwyer. Flick.. With the results of the questionnaire in mind two baseline storylines for scenario development were proposed (conventional forestry and green forestry) and presented in the initial focus group meeting (Chapter 6). (Antunes et al. If it is increasingly recognised that forests gain from being studied at landscape scale. 2009). 2002).. the work had focused initially on the analysis of smaller scales (in which qualitative approaches are more effective) a more robust approach based on a better understanding of the issues at stake might have been implemented. in opposition to more traditional uses such as grazing.2. 2004. completely inappropriate to the area of those parishes. 7. Stengera et al. in order to explore the varied functions of forests across different socio-economic settings. not only based on forest scenic beauty (Daniel. 2007) and finally iii) be capable of coordinating the implementation of SFM across different scales. instead of starting the study by addressing broader scales using quantitative approaches. 2002) due to researcher inexperience and this could have compromised the analysis at other spatial scales. sustainable landscape planning concepts. Slee and Snowdon. Summarising.

ultimately undermined the aim of testing the implementation of the scenario storylines through a pilot scheme was that at higher hierarchical scales mechanisms able to enforce local scale dynamics were absent. 196 . In the Lima watershed. there are not. who seek to reintroduce indigenous biodiversity. As this study has demonstrated. mechanisms in place that will allow for the implementation of futures that forest stakeholders see as desirable.. In addition to these different visions. in my opinion. Figure 7. 2001). it is suggested that the implementation of the two scenarios needs to be put into practice at the catchment scale. for example at a higher scale (the Northern region). there were no partnerships created. even if leaders could have been found. what. As such. at present. In order to provide appropriate goods and services.stakeholder opinions the services provided by forests are very important in sustaining the landscapes of the region. that would allow the implementation of either type of forestry and thus. In order to test the implementation of both local scale scenarios there was a need for the following coordination at the catchment scale: 1) a leader (or several) to embrace the challenge of starting the scenario implementation and 2) creation of partnerships amongst stakeholders in order to share responsibility for its implementation.1 suggest approaches that might contribute to this coordination. their role was likely to be compromised due to non-existent measures to help accomplish the goal. Landscape is the scale at which conflicting uses need to be coordinated and compatibilities between type of forestry pursued (Tress et al. where the local scenarios were created and developed. nor was there a leader. Coordinating bottom up and top down approaches is crucial in implementing sustainable forestry management in Northern Portugal. There was also an absence of mechanisms in place. one of the issues that requires further attention is the discrepancy between the viewpoints of conservationists (National Park). and those in local level politics who prefer to promote mosaics of land use and economic diversity. the findings of this study suggest that planning and governance systems in the forestry sector need to be better coordinated across scales. At the local scale.

A T I O N Figure 7.1.EUROPE Strenghetening of environmental policies C R PORTUGAL Integration of forestry within formal planning sector O S S Urban-rural partnerships Restore confidence in institutions Sectoral integration (agriculture. transdisciplinarity. energy) Enhance mechanisms to publicprivate investments Engage public into forest management T E S T Transcend property boundaries S C NORTH Creation of a “portfolio of measures for different types of forestry A L E C CATCHMENT Encourage partnerships. The role of science. forestry. Participatory tools. Cross scale coordination to implement SFM at the landscape scale 197 . address functional compatibilities between different types of forestry O O R D I N LOCAL (PARISH) Identify the type of forestry (ies) stakeholders‟ see as viable. leadership to implement.

in the cases in which local communities are supportive of a traditional approach.Because forests characteristics within Portugal vary from the North to the South of the country (Chapter 3). 2002). measures such enforcing the linkage between rural areas and urban centres through the provision of environmental services such as soil and water protection. schemes such as environmentally friendly farming will be important in both cases.. there are cases in which local communities value the new multifunctionality aspect of forestry. On the other hand. linked with cultural activities such as transhumance9 has to be put into practice as packages (Figure 7.2). This could create and put into practice ecosystem goods and services partnerships across regions as is already happening in the US and France (Johnson et al. Traditional multifunctionaity Small scale forestry biomass Cultural traditions (folklore) New multifunctionality Flood management Urban-rural partnerships Carbon market Environmental services House heating Cheese Goat and sheep meet Environmental farming schemes Biodiversity Figure 7.g. Both the traditional and the new multifunctionality types of forestry assume that agriculture is a “companion” of forests. typically to higher pastures in summer and to lower valleys in winter 198 . For this to happen. a different portfolio of policies sufficient to promote different functions needs to be made available. services provided by forests in the top of the mountains have to be the subject of ecosystem valuation and partnerships between rural and urban municipalities by means of the Water Framework Directive need to be supported to enable whole catchment management. At this level. handicrafts made with wool). In addition. Consequently. cheese. it will be of value if EU policies become more 9 Transhumance is the seasonal movement of people with their livestock over relatively short distances. I would be in favour of coordinating the different roles of forests at the level of the Northern region. a combination of measures able to promote the certification of products such as meat from cows and goats as well the products derived from them (e.2. For example. Portfolio of measures for different types of forestry For this portfolio of measures to be available in the Northern region of Portugal it seems essential that forest planning and management in Portugal is better integrated with the tourism and energy sectors.

and finally to the municipalities and parishes at local level (Figure 7.. I would be in favour of more effective guidance from the EU. as far as planning regulations are concerned. as it is known that eucalyptus trees do efficiently sequester carbon. So far.1. Formal planning in Portugal acknowledges that the ecological balance of landscapes is of utmost importance. It is evident from the regulatory bodies in place that enormous efforts have been made. For this to happen there is a need for multi level governance systems. In countries such as Portugal in which forests are an important landscape feature and where there are difficulties in implementation and delivery of policy mechanisms. 2008). in order to “steer” away 199 . the Portuguese nation through its regional development mechanisms.integrated. sustainable development has been introduced at all levels of Portuguese planning and governance systems from national to local scale. For example. However. Changes have been made by bodies such as the Portuguese Commission for Sustainable Development and the Ministry of Agriculture and the Environment in order to better manage forests and support integrated approaches for sustainable forestry management. influence the forestry sector but there is no coordination amongst the different measures and some of them may be spatially contradictory. 1995). restoration of institutional confidence and engagement of the public in forest management (Figure 7.1). 2005.1). The EU rural development “package” needs to be coordinated across the “machinery of planning and management” through four levels.. forests may be afforested with eucalyptus trees. In forestry policies at the EU level. with the goal of sequestering carbon. measures promoted by institutions such as the EU namely the carbon markets and Natura 2000. In recent years. Critical aspects that should be tackled both from bottom-up and top-down perspectives include the transcendence of property boundaries. As shown in Figure 7. However. This test is crucial in order to better understand the dynamics between ecosystems and society as pointed out in the body of literature on Socio Ecological Systems (SESs) (Folke et al. promotion of urban-rural partnerships. Member States have sovereignty over implementation. Folke et al. Namely the EU by strengthening the links between its environmental and socioeconomic policies. Lee. planning and governance for sustainability in Portugal has yet to become more integrated between sectors. in order to move towards more sustainable landscapes (Fidelis and Sumares. this may undermine the biodiversity measures that are also the focus of EU policies. 2002. this coordination should create conditions to test the implementation of storylines such as those developed in Chapter 6 of this thesis. the sub regions of Portugal through their rural diversity arrangements.

As far as governance is concerned. This undermines the potential role(s) of forests in more sustainable landscapes in Northern Portugal. 3) it is necessary to go beyond planning. Despite such efforts. 2001). one of the measures proposed by Andersen and Castelbranco (1993). Forests are not yet integrated in formal planning nor are there any public-private partnerships for forest management. 200 .2).8. However. the forestry sector has to be seen not in isolation but integrated in the tourism and energy sectors. is seen as one step closer to the integration of different functions (Southern. For this to happen. namely to include an index based on area of ecological reserve (which can work as an incentive to the municipalities to protect nature and their cultural heritage). 2008).1). will be more successful than creating a new agency. In England. If this multi-scale and cross sectoral coordination does not happen (Figure 7. In Portugal an institution such as Natural England (Natural Portugal?) will. Although the existing legal framework holds potential for the implementation of sensitive landscape planning based on the integration of ecological principles and economic development. Governance for sustainability will require effective partnerships between public bodies and the private sector that are not yet in place (Chapter 6). Wild forest fires already. In my opinion. as discussed in Chapter 2. created in 2006. the lack of coordination on the ground reduces the prospects for the creation of a post-modern attitude towards the Portuguese landscape (Fidelis and Sumares. and focus on governance systems able to put successful planning into practice. and giving them the goal of integrating functions. there is a need to transcend property boundaries as stated by the groups of stakeholders involved in the scenario creation and development (Table 6. forests will continue to be neglected and this will accentuate the well known issues. the Natural England agency. is likely to contribute to better integrated ecological principles and economic development. such as wild forest fires. be of value for integrating forestry with agri-environmental measures. Chapter 6). reforming current institutions at a regional scale.from unfavourable patterns of development (Chapter 2). which threaten the functionality of the entire landscapes. Furthermore. it is necessary to integrate sectoral interests in order to govern for sustainability. in theory. Some of the reasons for this are: 1) it is not through a sectoral effort that a “whole landscape approach” can be achieved 2) more than focussing on elaborated sectoral planning. successes of implementation are more likely to be achieved through integrated planning and governance approaches. This will allow the creation of a portfolio of measures for particular regions with specific forestry vocations (Figure 7. the agencies created in Portugal so far have not been able to deliver efficiency and this may undermine the purpose of creating a new organisation (Araújo. 2008).

7. The role of multifunctional forests in sustainable landscapes: wider implications This research has examined the ways in which SFM may be guided at different spatial scales. Not only in Portugal but also across Europe. Fry. 201 . type and composition of forest varies hugely across landscapes. Other areas with higher productive ability and yields will probably favour the utilitarian role and timber/non-timber products will be the main focus of forest management. with emphasis on the cross-scale coordination that is needed in order to implement landscape planning and governance at the landscape scale. will forest management become a priority in Portugal. demonstrate that forest management requires attention from society. Characterisation of forest conditions at regional scale. 2008). though likely. In other remote inland areas community stability and nature conservation linked with tourist activities is most likely to be a way to move forward. transport and energy are put into practice.3. as well as coordination of governance strategies across scales. as previously mentioned. In a sustainable landscape. However. Jabareen. agriculture. researchers and governments alike. As such. 2006. there is a need to look for new. 2007). In some areas in which agriculture still flourishes forests might be regarded as an important activity to complement agriculture (agri-ruralist). Forests are only one type of ecosystem and the amount. 2001.. all this will require more effective planning and governance mechanisms able to coordinate different roles across the area as well as across scales. 2. 2006). multifunctionalities in cultural landscapes (Mander et al. The toolbox used in the context of forestry sector in Portugal enables the: 1. forestry is only a part of the problem (Seymour. in which different “basins of attraction” might help to reinforce or create “virtuous circles” through landscapes (Matthews and Selman. Study of the possible roles of forests within a urban-rural gradient. 2007). If full integration of sectors such as tourism. multiple functions occur simultaneously and link people and environment together (Antrop. that only when a major catastrophe occurs. It is unfortunate. forests in the Northern region of Portugal are likely to have all the five roles described by Elands and Wiersun (2001). it is at this level that multiple stakeholders should be engaged in order to truly implement multifunctional landscapes. As the landscape scale affords a territorial framework for sustainable development.unfortunately. or recreate old.

This multifunctionality reflects a variety of economic activities and social demands that can replace vicious circles of monofunctionality and dysfunction (Selman. It addressed public preferences for forests in a way that could reinforce the issues in the ongoing aesthetics-ecology debate (Gobster et al. It further demonstrated the diversity of rural Europe and therefore the need for diverse approaches to tackle rural development issues (OECD. puts emphasis on visual tools for engaging the public for environmental management (Appleton. The approach used throughout this work.. by analysing different spatial scales. Furthermore. based on both quantitative and qualitative approaches. 2006). 2006b) and spatial arrangements (Blaschke. 2006) which when driven by multiple stakeholder participation are inherently multifunctional. Potschin and Haines-Young. 2006) in order to move towards SFM. 2007. Study of public preferences for forests in contrasting settings. and the research conducted may be of some use in the contemporary research debate: 1.3. 2. 3. the type of cross-scale coordination required for implementing landscape scale approaches in Portugal was specified (in this study landscape scale was associated with the area of river basin catchments). 2002).3. the provision of goods and services (Potschin and Haines-Young. Namely. The set of tools used throughout this work show some ways to move forward. 2006). 2003). Selman. This may be useful in order to explore the possible roles of forestry in the future. It also shows that the conditions to effectively tackle the challenge of sustainable forestry management are not yet in place. It therefore provides an example of a simple interdisciplinary method for investigating sustainability issues and further demonstrates that landscape metrics can be used for such a task (Botequilha Leitao and Ahern. The approach was innovative in correlating ecological landscape metrics for tree species with socio-economic indicators for the areas in which forests are located. This research shows that there is a need to search for “virtuous circles” (Matthews and Selman. 4. 4. 2002. Though this research may represent a step forward in dealing with SFM across 202 . Investigation of possible ways to implement sustainable forestry management by exploring the type of forestry (ies) of the future. 2006). 2006a. It brought together two of the major issues for sustainable landscapes. The work developed in the context of Portugal could be applied elsewhere in Europe and it is useful to identify the different and possible roles of forestry in contrasting places from rural to urban regions (see Section 7.1).

MEA. However. Figure 7. Above all. 1997). In order to study the different vocations of the territory. but it still requires more detailed approaches to tackle issues that there were not investigated in this research.scales. 2006.3 shows other tools besides those used throughout this study.2 must deliver a landscape in which multiple functions occur simultaneously and link people and environment together. A more complete approach than the one applied in this study needs to address the issues of compatibility between the types of forestry (Hersperger. Hersperger and Forman. The following sections explore such topics. the toolbox used was of value. 2003). 2006. 203 . the coordination of scales previously referred to in Section 7. recognising the need to fully address issues other than those covered by this research project. in order to set the frame for the catchment scale. upscale the results of local scenarios to the watershed level (de Groot. and investigate the types of mechanisms that will enhance the creation of partnerships amongst different institutions. which may help to study the role of forests in sustainable landscapes. more effectively present solutions to integrate forests into formal planning (Selman. 2001) at the landscape scale. it is still possible to draw conclusions regarding the wider implications of this work. wider and more robust approaches are needed to fully address the issue of SFM implementation through landscapes. evaluate the goods and services provided by the different types of forestry (Pearce. 2003).

7.3. Analysis workshop and MOLA Regional.1.Role of multifunctional forests in sustainable landscapes EU Strengthening of environmental policies Toolbox used Landscsape metrics Scenario Questionnaire development Visual tools survey Ecosystem services valuation Other participatory approaches Compatibility of storylines? Land use modelling National. European forestry will become more diverse in the future There is no panacea for forest management! The roles of forests are likely to vary across environmental conditions as well as socio-economic dynamics. Portugal Integrate forestry into formal planning Scenario development Focus Multigroup criteria meetings. The role of multifunctional forests in sustainable landscapes: coordination mechanisms to deal with it.3. Within the same catchment 204 . Northern Portugal Create a “portfolio” of measures Catchment Conciliate different types of forestry (ies) Identify ecological vocations and dynamics in place to implement different vocations Municipal/Parish Define strategies for forest management In a sustainable landscape multiple functions occur simultaneously and those link people and environment together Figure 7.

this study has found that different communities would like to see different “futures” for forestry in their area of residence. Hence, it was demostrated that different “basins of attraction” which may deliver contrasting “virtuous circles” (Matthews and Selman, 2006) are likely to occur even in places with similar characteristics. This may mean that European forestry will become more diverse in the future, delivering a mosaic of forest types existing next to each other rather than the homogeneous forestry pattern of the past (Elands and Wiersum, 2001; Slee, 2007a). It is also likely that across Europe forestry institutions will put emphasis on good forest management practices such as continuous cover forestry, managing a mixture of trees and stand ages in order to fulfil societal demands (Pommerening and Murphy, 2004). There are already studies which indicate that district heating systems using locally produced woodchips could produce heat at a lower price than individually heated houses (Okkonen, 2008) and this might help to attract people to rural areas inverting the trends of depopulation in rural areas (Firmino, 1999). New technologies are likely to appear for efficiently transforming forest resources (for example forestry biomass) into renewable sources of energy and this may bring new roles for forestry in the future. More research needs to be undertaken in order see the extent to which new uses such as forestry biomass and carbon sequestration are compatible with SFM practices. Tourism is likely to increase in the future and forests may play an important role in tourist activity (Slee et al., 2004). In parallel to these new uses traditional forest management for production of timber will continue to be important even though the importance of the protective functions from forests has been increasing (Niskanen and Lin, 2001). The production system for timber needs to be more environmental friendly than ever, otherwise it will compromise the outcome of beautiful landscapes for tourism activities (Pommerening and Murphy, 2004). The problem is to control public demand for timber products because if Europe decreases internal production of timber it will still need to import it from elsewhere. If this happens Europe is transferring the problem to other parts of the world compromising, in this way, sustainability at global scale. 7.3.2. The need for a portfolio of measures for SFM in Europe As has been shown in the case of Portugal, in order to address such diverse forestry types it is likely that a portfolio of measures need not only to be put into place but more than that, the portfolio of measures needs to be efficiently coordinated at global, national and regional levels (Dwyer, 2007). The problem is that in such different European contexts the portfolio has to be implemented differentially in different places. For example, in where a 205

community stability discourse is occurring the portfolio of measures will have to be different from those related to nature conservation (Elands and Wiersum, 2001). Furthermore the geographical compatibility of the roles of forest needs to be addressed (Blaschke, 2006). In addition, the goods and services provided in each different type of forestry (Potschin and Haines-Young, 2006b) need to be placed within broader geographical settings such as the area of river basins. There are projects such as RUFUS (www. rufus-eu.de) [Accessed online 25 March 2009 ] which are already dealing with the diversity of areas in the European context, which may be used a base for further work. In RUFUS a new typology for rural areas is being created and local case studies across Europe will investigate the possible futures for rural areas. This type of approach can be used as a basis for understanding the different roles of forestry as well as creating a set of policies that will help in the delivery of these futures. 7.3.3. Enhanced communication between researchers, the public and decision makers is important The toolbox used throughout this work was based on scientific knowledge from different research fields and was effective in engaging the general public, forest stakeholders, decision makers such as parish and municipal councils as well as the managers of the Peneda-Geres National park. It was clear from the research that there is a need for partnerships between researchers and decision makers from different backgrounds (conservation and municipal officers) in order to solve the recurrent dilemma of nature conservation/biodiversity and sustaining living communities (O' Riordan and StollKleemann, 2002) in protected areas across Europe. As such, it is important to investigate the methods that wider approaches for conservation must be based upon (Margules and Pressey, 2000). This study also shows that transdisciplinary approaches are needed to deal with the multifacets of the concept of multifunctionality (de Groot and Hein, 2007; Fry, 2001; Mander et al., 2007). It is well known that society is demanding more ecosystem goods and services from forests such as water and soil protection. However, preferences, for example, for forests which allow a multitude of recreational activities, may influence the delivery of other goods and services (Chapter 5). Hence, there is a need to engage with the public in order to address the issue that some human preferences may undermine the ecology of forest ecosystems (Gobster et al., 2007; Selman, 2006).

206

7.4 Research caveats and further research
7.4.1. Research caveats: problems and difficulties This project has been an ambitious attempt at a multidisciplinary project by one person. Inevitably the results reflect the absence of a research team of experts and some questions are left unanswered. As was previously discussed in Section 7.2.1., the multi scale approach was found to be valuable for investigating the roles of forests in sustainable landscapes, though at different particular scales there are still topics to be explored in order to fully understand the ways in which forests might contribute to sustainable development across different regions. One example concerns the use of landscape metrics. The measures used in this study (Chapter 3) were informative to distinguishing between industrial and non industrial types of forestry, but they were not so effective in distinguishing between the pre and post industrial type of forestry. Furthermore, there are patch metrics, class metrics and landscape metrics that might be confusing in use. The research used class metrics because the analysis was conducted at municipality level and these metrics were appropriate for that scale of analysis. It is known that across Europe the area of municipalities varies from country to country, necessitating the selection of the appropriate type of metric for each particular area under analysis. Another problem worth considering is pixel size. In this study a pixel resolution of 30 meters was used, it is likely however that if the pixel size were larger or smaller the results could possibly differ. In this study the land cover map was from the 90s and the socio-economic data used were from the same time period. It is known that there is a time lag between the socio-economic changes that will reflect on characteristics of the forests. This study has shown that even with maps and socioeconomic data from the same time period there were differences in forests across the urban-rural gradient probably because of changes and trends from the past. It is also worthwhile to point out that in addition to the rural/urban gradient there is also an environmental gradient across the area and this might be also reflected in the differences in the forest metrics. In the analysis at river basin scale both a questionnaire and a field survey were conducted. One of the problems already pointed out was the small number of plots surveyed in the field which did not allow a statistical comparison of the characteristics of the forests across the area. This small number was justified by the difficulties in both 1) obtaining formal permission to undertake the field survey and 2) obtaining the appropriate help from the municipal forestry offices to conduct the survey. When initially contacted the municipal 207

forestry offices gave very positive feedback and it was arranged that the municipality personnel would help in the field. However, when the field survey was about to be conducted few of the technicians were willing to go to the field on the dates proposed. Luckily other PhD students offered to help and so the field survey was not cancelled. Despite not being suitable for conducting statistical analysis the data gathered in the field survey do indicate that there is a need for more enforced management if moving towards SFM is the goal (disappearance of old growth forestry and litter in the plots illustrated the abandonment situation). The questionnaire survey in 14 municipalities aimed at surveying both landowners and general public was a very difficult task to carry out. The help of a field assistant was crucial in completing the survey of 375 people. The method for conducting the survey was rehearsed between the two interviewers before the start of the survey and the question cards were read out exactly the same way by each interviewer. Nevertheless, it might be that other factors not controlled by the researcher had an influence on the results. For example, in the study of forest fragmentation and simplification (Chapter 5) an attempt was made to eliminate other confounding factors (e.g. roads) from the photos by varying only forest cover and stand structure. Even though this effort was made, the ranking of the photos might be influenced by the presence of blue sky in the photos showing uneven stand structures while in the even stands was not possible to see the sky due to the characteristics of the forests. This happened because the researcher felt that realism of the photos should not be compromised but it is also acknowledged that this might have influenced the results. Another problem related to the questionnaire survey was managing the enormous amount of data collected. One of the initial aims of the photo-questionnaire was to predict public preferences for forests based on socio-economic data such as age, or relation with forestry (e.g. multiuser, single user). However, this revealed not to be possible due to the high variability of the data. When ordinal regression models were evaluated they had a very low pseudo R square and were not much better than the ones created by chance. This forced a revision of thinking which was time consuming and it was slow progress to re-plan the structure of Chapter 5. If Chapter 5 had a slow start, after initiating the research steps of Chapter 6 it was very difficult to steer the progress of the focus group meetings. The stakeholders involved were highly motivated and happily continued in the process of meeting at three month intervals (January, March, May, and July). The problem instead was how not to disappoint such a motivated group of people. Because the meetings were planned to be carried out every three months it compromised for example the development of visualisations for the area 208

the forestry institutions (the National Forestry Office-DGRF and Peneda Geres National Park) were not willing to test the implementation of the two very different strategies for forestry management. Despite this the National Park did request the information related to the storylines and included these in the management plan of the National Park. overall. in Photo-Shop the photos were changed in order to show the different land uses maps in the photos. the group of participants in the focus group meetings of Gavieira and Entre Ambos-os-Rios were of different composition and this might have influenced the choice of different futures for different places. 209 . For this. The second option was adopted which despite not being so sophisticated neatly solved the problem of showing realistic visualisations of the two different futures. This was not an initial goal but the researcher felt the necessity of not disappointing the stakeholders‟ aspirations. of foremost importance was the network of contacts that I had from seven years of experience as a forestry engineer in a non-governmental institution in Northern Portugal. In order to do so the land use models were imported to the VNS visualisation software and a view point approximately located on the view point of the photos to show the land use scenarios developed in the IDRISI programme. A problem experienced during the research was the fact that it was based in England addressing sustainable forestry management in Portugal. As referred to in Chapter 6.based on programmes such as Visual Nature Studio (VNS) and instead photo-montages were used. Dealing with this situation required coordination of tasks and the setting of a rigid calendar. The dynamics created between the researcher and the stakeholders initiated an attempt to implement the two storylines via a pilot project. considered very positive. which did not allowed sufficient detail in the topography of the study area. Following this. an expert meeting was organised and despite acknowledging the validity of the work. This raised the need to make a trade-off between whether to spend time in solving the DEM problem (by incorporating additional data) as well as improving technical skills required for a realistic visualisation or instead to use photo montages for the area which were quicker to produce. The local organisations (Ardal and the forestry office of Ponte da Barca) were of great support and their involvement in this work was. The problem encountered with the visualisation software was due to the quality of the data used. The contacts already in place were crucial to the successful development of the different research steps. With obvious problems to face such as programming field work and meetings in Portugal while based in England. especially the 100 meters DEM.

c functions with it. For example. by using some of different groups of countries created by Slee (2007a).. These forestry types have to be translated into land cover maps. to investigate which forest functions may work as “basins of attraction” in different places across Europe. For example.y.b. 2007) it will be challenging. more metrics would need to be included.7. though time consuming. This will allow a better understanding of the role of forests in different places. A case study approach at the local level would be ideal.. Future research: there is no panacea but there might be trends. Following this. it would be feasible to undertake case studies based on participatory approaches such as focus group meetings (that may be framed by similar questions as the ones addressed in Chapter 6) in different countries across Europe. the functions associated with them could be investigated. whether a forest with particular composition when surrounded by x. One approach that could be used is to calculate landscape metrics. however. The type of functions from forests likely to be “explored” in different SESs is likely to depend upon socio-economic and environmental characteristics of the regions.4. 2006). 2. Another approach would be to explore how the metrics for tree species in an area are correlated with the surrounding land uses. Local land use cover patterns then have to be upscaled for example to the area of watershed catchments in order to study the multiple forest functions at the landscape level (de Groot. 2007. urban and forests to see what type of correlations there are. Such an approach would allow the study of possible roles of forests across regions (de Groot. Ostrom et al. This will certainly help in framing the approaches that will be required for 210 .z has associated a.. 2006). agricultural. depicting the possible roles of forests could also be inferred from a literature review of participatory studies of natural resource management across Europe. 2006). For example. As previously discussed in Chapter 3 the set of metrics used throughout this work was not so effective in distinguishing the pre and post industrial types of forestry so. The main aim of this future work would be to investigate which forest functions may work as “basins of attraction” in different places (Matthews and Selman. Although acknowledging the no panacea rule (Ostrom. though possible. also requiring a huge amount of resources. The aggregation of the results of the local focus groups (or from reviewing research done so far) would give a picture of the type of forestry in the future and the ways in which it is likely that they will be distributed across Europe. by using available land use maps such as CORINE 2000 to calculate a set of metrics characterising. It would be useful to have a set of landscape metrics able to distinguishing different types of forestry.

. 7. As a concluding remark it is fair to say that the work developed throughout this PhD has shown some ways to move forward towards sustainable forestry management that might contribute to more sustainable landscapes in the context of Portugal.hopefully! Implementing SD through landscapes has been proposed as a basis for moving forward and this has been addressed in research agendas that are increasingly engaging with a broad group of stakeholders through transdisciplinarity approaches. The challenges ahead are enormous thus the objectives may seem utopian. instead investments (OECD. based on public consultation aided by visual tools and GIS techniques. for effective carbon credit markets) that will incentivise forest landowners in going for such as strategy. likely issues that policies need to tackle relate to water shortages that are likely to be important in the future. there is still a need for improving and coordinating planning and governance systems in order to pursue sustainability across a range of scales. 2006) need to be made to re-create virtuous circles (Matthews and Selman. We will arrive there. Forests provide a multitude of functions that are essential to achieving this but the forest contribution is only a part of the landscape sustainability. As such. Already in the present and certainly in the future it is likely that policies subsidizing forestry and agriculture will not be viable. has proven to be robust for addressing sustainable forestry management and in exploring the ways in which forestry is in accordance with the dynamics of the whole landscape.planning of sustainable landscapes in Europe. 211 . This multi scale approach was able to explore the ways in which cross-scale coordination can be made in order to put into practice a landscape scale approach. 2006).g.. for example in the Mediterranean. In some areas. The toolbox used..5 Concluding remarks Forests inhabited the earth well before humans did. Finally. SD and SFM imply that humans will be able to manage the forests in such a manner that they will benefit from the multitude of functions that forests are able to provide. continuous cover forestry) will have to develop mechanisms (e. Fulfilling the demands of a broad group of stakeholders requires managing to obtain more than one function from a plot of land thus highlighting the need to create multifunctional landscapes. the type of forestry favouring this service (e. society and environment are well balanced. There is also a need to reconcile top down and bottom up approaches to reach the overarching goal of pursing sustainable development through landscapes. As this research shows.g. but there is evidence that pursuing SD and SFM through a landscape perspective is actually attainable. there is a need to continuously look for measures that may create virtuous circles in which economy.

Angelstam. CSERGE Working paper EDM 02-04 (http://www. Westling. Sayer. Jorban. C.htm (March 2009). Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. G. .. Earthscan. ed. J. P. A. Antrop. 2000. Theories. pp. Opdam. 2005. A. Tornblom. M. Maginnis. Landscape and Urban Planning 13:19-28. G. M. H. J. Tress. J. Gundersen. Sayer. Forest Ecology and Management 238 167–174... Lazdinis.... Andresen.. Brown.. J.. Seyfang. C.. S. A...uk/env/cserge/pub/wp/by_year. Landscape and Urban Planning 23(3-4):183-194. K. Greenways as a planning strategy. in: From landscape research to landscape planning: Aspects of integration. 119131. Ahern.. Landscape and Urban Planning 33(13):131-155.. Kapylova.. M. Landscape preference and personality. J. Paavola. R. 1993. Wagenigen. Methods & Strategies for Sustainable Landscape Planning.). 212 . Antrop.. Changing Forest values in Europe. Akselsson.ac. N. Teplyakov. Adger.References Abello. T. Heading for a Postmodern Landscape Portuguese Trends in the Reconciliation of Environmental-Quality and Landscape Planning with Economic-Development. M. S.. 2004. Springer. Sustainable urban landscapes: The Surrey design charrette. pp. London. Tress. J. 2007. Castelbranco. education and application (B. Landscape and Urban Planning 67(1-4):9-26... V. Sverdrup. in: Forest in Landscapes. Korn. 2005. 2005.. G... eds... Ecosystem Approaches to Sustainability (J. Governance for sustainabilty: Towards a thick undesrtanding of evironmental decision making. Landscape and Urban Planning 70(1-2):21-34. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future?. P. Ahern. P.). P. 1986. E. 2004.. 59-74.uea. Fry. W. H. Nutrient and carbon budgets in forest soils as decision support in sustainable forest management. Rosendo. Bernaldez. Ahern. O. 1995... Landscape and Urban Planning 50(4):271-273.

.. Designing forest landscape management. Universidade do Minho. Turk J Agric For 24:443–451. Reflection on the current status and future challenges of forest management planning system in Turkey. K. E. E. S. Yolasigmaz. A... K. K. Universidade do Minho. M.. Developments in Change Management in Portuguese Central Administration: the dilemma between hierarchy and agencification (E.... Forestry Chronicle 76(5):739-742. 213 . Landscape and Urban Planning 75(3-4):187-197.. 2000. E... BRAGA. F. M. Munro. Journal of Environmental Management 59:299-319. Scientific Tools and Research Needs for Multifunctional Mediterranean Forest Ecosystem Management (56):35-43 Baskent. Campus Universitário de Gualtar4710-057 BRAGA. PORTUGAL. J. A. Land Use Policy 23:44-52. Green. A. Escola de Economia e Gestão.. D.. Antunes. F. 168. Turner. Landscape and Urban Planning 65(3):117-131. Pearson. Integrated geographical assessement of environmental condition in water catchments: linking landscape ecology. J. N. pp. A. 2002. Myers. A.. Science 297(5583):950-953. PORTUGAL. Nurullah. Trumper. Costanza. S. Participatory decision making for sustainable development-the use of mediated modelling techniques.... Z.. Exploring the concept of a forest landscape management paradigm. 2006. Araújo. Z.. Yolasigmaz. Bruner. University of East anglia. M. 2000. Aspinal. Environmental Management 24(4):437-448. 2003... Norwich. E. N. GIS-based visualisation of rural landscapes: defining 'sufficient' realism for environmental decision-making. V.. H.. J. Cooper. Jefferiss. e. Lovett. S. A. K.. Campus Universitário de Gualtar. E. environmental modelling and GIS.. R.. P. K. P. J. PhD Thesis. G. Ecology Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. 2001. R. 2007. R. Paavola.. Jordan. 1999. GIS-Based landscape visualisation for environmental management. G. Z. Farber.. M. Baskent. E.. Rayment. Sustainable landscapes: contradiction. Jessamy. A. Z. Baskent. Jenkins.. P. Roughgarden. Forest landscape management revisited. R. fiction or utopia?. Baskent. in: School of Environmental Sciences.. E.. BRAGA. Rosendo. d.. eds. 2003. Appleton.. 2006. R.. Madden. 2000. Appleton. Naeem.). Videira... M. J. P. Santos. H. Balmford.Antrop.

. S. ed. Landscape and Urban Planning 59(2):65-93. D. L. J. A green investment. S.. A. 2009. Analysing the agricultural costs and non-market benefits of implementing the Water Framework Directive. J. J. Journal of Agricultural Economics 57(2):221-237..)... P. Hunhammar.uea.. Lovett.J. Rigby.).R. 2000. Tress. Brainard. Cambridge University Press. Oxford. M. Bateman. B..uk/env/cserge/pub/wp/by_year. Finnveden. J. H..Sheppard. Hojer.. Ekval. Hutchins. Boyle. M.. Scenario types and techniques: Towards a user's guide. Dreborg. The role of the spatial dimension within the framework of sustainable landscapes and natural capital. Tress... G. Jones. J. CABI Publishing in association with IUFRO 2001.. G.. 2006.. Bateman. Kay. Tress. J.. Ecological econmomics 29:293-301. Hadley.. Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Ecosystem services in urban areas. 2006. Neal.. I. A. Modelling and valuing carbon sequestration in softwood and hardwood tres. B. C.. Georgiou.. timber products and forest soils CSERGE Working paper.. A. 2002.. I. 2006. Bateman. P. H. P. University of East Anglia GEC 2000-13 (http://www. G. Botequilha Leitao. Renewable energy. Ahern. Borjeson. 2002... Bateman. Lovett. Posen. Blaschke. Multifunctional landscapes:Interdisciplinary approaches to landscape research and management (J. Tress. Harshaw (Eds). Oxford University Press in association with Open University.. A.. A. A.. A. in: Renewable energyPower for a sustainable future (G. Bolund. UK. 2000. Applied Environmental economics: a GIS approach to Cost-benefit Analysis.. A. J.. Landscape and Urban Planning 75(3-4):198-226... Lovett.. D. Day. IUFRO research series 6. 2005.. 214 .. I..W. Turner. Davies. Brouwer. H. Nature 457(8 January). Brandt. H. Cambridge. Brainard. S. Deflandre. D. B..ac. Lewis. Brandt. 1999. Leeks. Bogaert..Basu.. Landscape and Urban Planning 59:125-127. Forestry 74(5):423-438. K. 2001. Lovett. P.. Forests and landscapes-linking ecology. eds. S. M. R. sustainability and asthetics S. K. Modelling demand for recreation in English woodlands. G... T. G.. J. R. T. Futures 38:723-739. 2004. A. Di Falco. Boyle.Power for a sustainable future.htm (March 2009)). I.

Moreira. S..39 (I. Ferrao. Spain.. N. N... Journal of Legal Pluralism 43.Centre for landscape research Roscilde. Cashman.. Lebel. W. Mitchell. S. Canas. R. Peterson. 2009. 2006.. Ambio 34(2):163168. Dickson. M. D. D. M. G. 2005.). Olsson. Thompson. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and Information in a multilevel World. Lovett... Carvalho-Ribeiro. E. Denmark.:1-30. Catry... W. P. A new environmental Kuznets curve? Relationship between direct material input and income per capita: evidence from industrialised countries. 2003. 2006. Alcocock.. Conceicao. L. Water and Environment journal 20:26. 2008. D. The rule of sustainability and planning adaptativity.. P. Canada. 2003. Denmark. N. W.. Young. L. 2006. FAO.org/vol11/iss2/art8/. UNEP. R. Carpenter. eds. J... clark. F.. Adger... Silva. Sevilla. W. in: Wildfire 2007. CBD. Ecology & Society 11(1):[online] URL: http://ecologyandsociety. B. CBD. Christophersen. Jager. Journal of Environmental Management (in press). J. Cash.... Ecology & Society 11(2):[online] URL http://ecologyandsociety. Cross-sectoral toolkit for the conservation and sustainable management of forest biodiversity. Carlman. F. A watery form of sustainability. Spatial distribution patterns of wildfire ignitions in Portugal. T. Changing name-tags: A legal antropolological approach to communal lands in Portugal. Ecological Economics 46(2):217-229. Scenarios for ecosystem services: An overview. 215 ... Brouwer. M. Knowledge systems for sustainable development... Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(14):8086-8091. 2005.. A. Eckley. I. Cash. Garden.. P. Montreal.org/vol11/iss1/art29/. Roskilde. O.. A. in: Technical Series No.. Benett. F.. Damasceno.. H. Pritchard. F. C. M. 1999. Associations between forest characteristics and socio-economic development: A case study from Portugal.. October 18-202000. A. Galante. P. S. Berkes. Guston. P.

Centre for Landscape Research... 1997. 2000. R. R... M. G. C. Daniel.. H. Limburg. 1992. 2007. Paruelo. de Blust. vandenBelt.CEMAT. in: Multifunctional landscapes: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Landscape Reseach and Management (J... 2002. F. Mander.. Berlin.. R. B. description and valuation of ecosystem functions. J. Natural capital and sustainable development. goods and services. Costanza. eds. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. R. Daly. S. Strasbourg. K. R. Centre for Landscape Research. Nature 387(6630):253-260. Landscape and Urban Planning 75:175-186. Hein. Roskilde. 2005. Meitner. 216 .. Hannon. M.. eds. Brandt. Costanza.. 2000. Growth water relations and photosynthesis of seedlings and resprouts after fire. Council of Europe Publishing. de Groot... Strasbourg. E. V. R. G. 41(SPECIAL ISSUE: The Dynamics and Value of Ecosystem Services: Integrating Economic and Ecological Perspectives):393–408. Wiggering.. Springer.. G. Clemente. J. Council of Europe. A typology for the classification.. Wilson.... Conservation Biology 6(1):37-46. P. M.. Roskilde. Tress. Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable. Acta Oecologica 27:233-243. V.. R. Ecological Economics. de Groot. Concepts and valuation of landscape functions at different scales. Monitoring multifunctional terrestrial landscapes: some coments.. The European Landscape Convention.. Sutton. 2007. Rego. de Groot. 2001. M. Olmen. 2006. S. Tress. A. Helming. 14-36. Boumans. M. S. H. Representational validity of landscape visualisations: The effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. in: Multifunctional land use: meeting future demands for landscape goods and services (U..). in: Territory and landscape n. Landscape and Urban Planning 54:267-281. A. 2001.). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessement in the 21 st century. B. Correia.. 2. T.. K. M. R. R. R. Grasso. Naeem. T.. Denmark. Daniel. deGroot. dArge.. M. Farber. Denmark. Spatial development glossary. Journal of environmental Psychology 21(61-72). pp. L. Raskin. multifunctional landscapes. O. ONeill. C.

pt/portal (September 2008) (DGRF. Cobb. 2007b. USA. 143-152. Clark University. Landscape Research 26(4):305-335.).. The state of the rural environment in Europe:what challenges and oportunities for future policies.. u. in: Multifunctional land use. pp.). in: http://www. Direccao Geral dos Recursos Florestais. DGF. Lisbon. Pauleit. Berlin.. Meeting future demands for landscape goods and services (U.. Food and Rural Affairs. Conservation in temperate forests:what do we need to know and do?. Lovett. Department for Environment. pp. A. Arisona. Department of Trade and Industry.min-agricultura. Lisbon. Baier.. eds. T. Economic Analysis of biomass energy.. Deybe. 33/96 (D. J. K. London. Valuing our natural environment. Clark Labs. MA.dgrf. 3-5.). Matriz estruturante para as florestas. DiBari.. Policies. Dolman. Landscape and Urban Planning 37:73-84. Designing Whole Landscapes. Wiggering.. Helming. DGRF. florestas.). P. 2007a. d. O'Riordan. 217 .DEFRA. 1997. N. in: http://www. g. Forestry Ecology and Management 85:9-19. H. S. IDRISI Andes Manual. Brussels. Eastman.. 2006. Ehrlich. F. J. in: UK Biomass Strategy (DTI. Mander. DGRF.min- agricultura. J. DTI. 2007. ed.). Duhme. Springer. P.pt/portal (September 2008). in: Lei n... Dwyer. P. Evaluation of five landscape-level metrics for measuring the effects of urbanisation on landscape structure: the case of Tucson. Direcção-Geral das Florestas. Lei de bases da política florestal. 1996. London. M. Quantyfying targets for nature conservation in future European landscapes. 2007.. 2001. 2007. Worcester. in: Final report NR0103. Lisbon. research perspective and challenges on multifunctional land use. Energy Technologies Unit: Department of Trade and Industry. Group. 1996. H. Direcao Geral dos Recursos Florestais. ed. ed. in: Future policies for rural Europe 2013 and beyonddelivering sustainable rural land management in a changing Europe (L.. Inventario Florestal Nacional. ed. USA.dgrf. 2007. Landscape and Urban Planning 79(3-4):308-313. R. D. 2006. D.

). UEA. 1999. F. Rome.. Sustainable forest management and the ecosystems approach: two concepts one goal. A.). European Environment 18:298-311.. Agriculture and landscape in Portugal. K.. Flick. M. ed. Forest Ecology and Management 144:67-74. O'Leary. D. Annual Review Ecology and Evolution 34:483-515. M. Forest Policy and Economics 6:469-482.. Forestry and rural development in Europe: an exploration of socio-political discourses. Fernandes.. The Beauty of the Environment . T. H. London. H. Morling. P. Landscape and Urban Planning 46(1-3):83-91. Forest as a mirror of rural conditions.)... U. Wiersum. J. A. Environmental Ethics 10(2):183-186. B. FAO. Rome. Boerwinkel. Global forest resources assessement update. 2003. N. Praestholm. ed. M.. Forest Policy and Economics 3(1-2):5-16. T.Y. W. 2008. Norwich. M. K. B. 2001.. 2003. B. 2005. FAO. 2004.. Defining and Classifying Ecosystem Services for Decision Making. Journal of Rural Studies 24(1):72-85. ELC. Fahrig.a General-Model for Environmental Aesthetics . ed. department..Elands.).. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2002. Nature conservation and urban development control in the Portuguese planning system: A new impetus agains old praxis?. Firmino.. ed. Elands. in: Forest management working paper FM 25 (F. N. B.. Strasbourg. in: CSERGE Working Paper EDM 07-04 (CSERGE. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. K. ed. 2008. Fisher.). Europe. Turner. local views on the role of forests across Europe. L.Sepanmaa.. H. Fire spread prediction in shrub fuels in Portugal. 2004. R. in: Working paper 83 (FAO. 2001. 2000. FAO. The European Landscape Convention (C. H.. f. An Introduction to qualitative research (Sage.. 218 . F. Fidelis.. o. Costanza. 1988.. Sumares. S. P. Evernden. Elands. Landowners' perspectives on the rural future and the role of forests across Europe. Wiersum.

Gibbs. N. H. Science 307(28 January):550-555.. N. Conservation Biology 22(5):1309-1319. 2007. 2002. Holling. L. R. pp.Foley.. Amazonia revealed: forest degradation and loss of ecosystem goods and services in the Amazon Basin. A. Estatistica. T. Back to nature .. G. Fry. Ryan. Ramankutty. Folke. C. Landscape and Urban Planning 37(1-2):129-135. Ambio 31(5):437-440.. Fry. Forman. (I.. Lisbon. Adaptative governance of socialecological systems.. Hahan. Gobster. 219 . L. 1995. C. B.33.. ed.. Lindenmayer. Norberg.:559-571.... J.. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5(1):25-32. Fischer. The Future of Scattered Trees in Agricultural Landscapes.. T. A. R.. Asner. Cambridge.. DeFries. T. S.. Barrett. W. 2008. Landscape Ecology 22:959-972. Indices de desenvolvimento concelhio. S. Farming and the fate of wild nature.. E. 1-34. P. B.. P.. Patz. Green. d. 632. S. Daniel.. Chan. K. K. Grimble.. Nassauer. quadrimestre de 2002. pp. Stakeholder analysis for natural resources management in developing countries. J. J. J.. R. Carpenter. Scharlemann.. S. R...1-8. The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology?. Larsen. Manning. 1997. K. C. Howard. Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a World of Transformations.. C.. P.. 2. D. 2007. J... Forest Ecology and Management 179. T. A. Folke... Fonseca. Elmqvist. J. Multifunctional landscapes-towards transdiciplinary research. Nature conserved in changing landscapes with and without spatial planning.. T. Forman. 2001.. Cornell. P. J. P. Balmford. P. 2005. Snyder. G. S. Landscape and Urban Planning 159:159-168. M. E. H. R. in: Volume II. T. Natural Resource Forum 19(2):113-124. P... 2000. 1995. Olsson. Seddon. P.. Gamborg. 2005. J... J.. A. Gibbons.. Gunderson. Collinge. A. Cambridge University Press.. T..a sustainable future for forestry?. T. C. I. Instituto Nacional de Estatistica. 2003.. M. Weinberg. Costa.). Walker. M. G. Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. A. H. Coe.. G. Annual Review Environmental Resources 30:8.. Olson. D.

IGEO. ed. Adjacency arrangement effects on plant diversity and composition in woodland patches. K. 1990. M. Planning for sustainability. G. D. 2008. Higman. Oikos 101(2):279-290.. Harshaw.. K. Hanna.. A. identities and values: A network approach to undestanding people's relationships to forests. T. in: Instituto da Agua. J. Landscape and Urban Planning 77:227-239..).. 2006. 2005.:62-73.). R. W.inag. S. Hersperger.. H. Nussbaum. R. p.. 220 . 1999. 2007. S.. K. pp. S. A. M. Landscape scale planning: exploring alternative land use scenarios. Lisbon. A. Herrmann. P. Carta de ocupação do solo (COS' 90) (I. W.. ed. Kozak.. Mayers. R... Forman. E. Landscape and Urban Planning 84. 2002.. Portugal. Harshaw. Landscape and Urban Planning 46:93-101. 2005. Bass. A. Landscape and Urban Planning 78:33-49. T. Sheppard. Planning sustainable land use in rural areas at different spatial levels using GIS and modelling tools. 2005. London. INAG. structure and management implications... 105-124. Selman. H. Journal of Leisure Research 37(4):426-449.. http://www. Helming. V. S. Biodiversityand ecosystem multifunctionality. 2003. in: Multifunctional land use. 2006. 2007. Portugal.. S. Mander. Meeting future demands for landscape goods and services (U. 1999. Instituto Geografico de Portugal. Hawkins.. Landscape and Urban Planning 60(4):211-224.pt/ (March 2009). Towards an institutional theory of multifunctionality. J. The sustainable forestry handbook.. Hector.. d. B. Springer. Social structure. Planos de Bacia Hidrografica.Hagedorn. Hersperger. Spatial adjencies and interactions: Neighborhood mosaics for landscape ecologycal planning.. Lisbon. M.A pratical guide for tropical forest managers on implementing new standards (E. Wiggering. Woodlands across Swedish urban gradients: Status. Judd. N. How well are outdoor recreationists represented in forest land use planning? Perceptions of recreationists in the Sea-toSky corridor of British Columbia. Journal of the American Planning Association 71(1):27-40. Nature 448(12 July). Berlin. R. Hedblom. Ltd. H. R... B. INAG. Soderstrom. Osinski.). eds. Tindall. Bagchi.

G. G. J. (Portugal). USA. 2005. Homogenisation and fragmentation of the European landscape: ecological consequences and solutions. 2001. in: Populacao e Sociedade (I. Factors influencing the role of Non-Wood Forest Products and Services. Karjalainen. 2006... D.. Landscape and Urban Planning 13:349-358. Kangas. http://www. K. Forest Ecology and Management 207(1-2):133-143. Environment and Urban Systems 30:861-879..). Field afforestation preferences: A case study in northeastern Finland. G. E.... R. K. Kaipainen. Lisbon. Estatisticas Demograficas 2007.. Multiple criteria decision support in forest management. N. trends. Computers. N.inag. INE. T. INE.. Karjalainen. T. d. in: Instituto da Agua. Twibell. J... Forest Policy and Economics 5:141155. J. M. 1998. 2005. INAG. Nabuurs. W. eds. 2006. Kangas. White. Ji. 2002. N.. Institute. Jacobs.INAG. E. Lapvetelainen.). methods applied and experiences gained. 221 . R. Johnson.the approach. Liski. Lisbon. J.. Y. Environment Development and Sustainability (10):179-192.pt/ (March 2009). ed. Jongman. A. R. 2008.. LISBON.. Underhill. A. R. 2003. Scenario analysis of the impacts of forest management and climate change on the European forest sector carbon budget. Characterising urban sprawl using multistage remote sensing images and landscape metrics. 1986. Ma. Instituto Nacional de Estatística (Portugal). Sustaining landscapes: sustaining societies.. Landscape and Urban Planning 43:79-90. T.. Jabareen. d. E. P. INE. Pussinen. ed. Perrot-Maite. Komulainen. Janse. W.. Forest Policy and Economics 7(3):309-319.. H.. group.. 2008. 2002. A. T. Ottitsch.. Eggers. Instituo Nacional de Estatistica INE. A new conceptual framework for sustainable development. A.). Landscape and Urban Planning 58(2-4):211-221. T.. Retractos territoriais (I. Plano Nacional da Agua. Developing markets for water services from forests: Issues and lessons for innovators (F. Portugal.

Adapting modem strategic decision support tools in the participatory strategy process . 1991. Light. Hill. S. H. Sustainable development. 2005. Holling. M. Kok. Pukkala. eds. Forest Policy and Economics 8(3):267-278. 2000. Culture and comunication: Can landscape visualisation improve forest management consultation with indigenous comunities?. Hill.. R. R. S. Futures 38:261–284. S. I. 2006. 373. Kummar. A.. M. 214-238.. Brooks. pp. J. Landscape and Urban Planning 18:117-125.a case study of a forest research station. J.. Multi-scale narratives from an IA perspective: Part I. Lexer. Kant. in: Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions (C. Lewis.). S. Ahern. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51(4):543559. Kurttila. Lee. T. M.. 1993.. T. Rothmanc. Sheppard.. 1995.. Knickel. Kajanus. Patel. European and Mediterranean scenario development.... N. 2008. S. Brookfield USA. Kangas. Forest landscape: A method of amenity evaluation based on computer simulation. J. Renting.Kato. J. Leskinen. Lele. 2006. Avebury. Sociologia Ruralis 40(4):512-528. Landscape and Urban Planning 77:291-313. L. Methodological and conceptual Issues in the study of multifunctionality and rural development. D. S. 1989. Columbia University Press. 2006.a critical review..). Forest Policy and Economics 9:516-526.. P. 222 . 2007. G. Kozlowski.. S. World Development 19(6):607-621. M.. G.. K. J. Decision support for multple purpose forestry. Forest Ecology and Management 207:1-3. Exploded logit modelling of stakeholders' preferences for multiple forest values. pp. Towards planning for sustainable development. Learning by doing: adaptative planning as a strategy to adress uncertainty in planning. Kozlowski... New-York. L. Leskinen. S.... I. J. S. K.. eds.. Deliberately seeking sustainability in the Columbia river basin. M. Kellomaki. S. A guide for the ultimate environmental treshold (UET) method (J. K..

Kromp-Kolb. Mander. R. J. W. H.. MacGregor. M. G.. 2007. Cambridge University Press. H. Fischer. Honninger. Lopes-Ridaura. V.. D. J.. 2005... Gibbons.. A. Wiens.. A. Keulen.. T.. in: Integrating landscae ecology into natural resource management (J. Future directions for biodiversity conservation in managed forests:indicator species. R.. S.. Lindenmayer. Driscoll.. U. GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: a critical overview. K. S. 1999. eds.). M. Taylor. 1999. Hobbs. Coupling landscape ecology with natural resource management: Paradigm shifts and new approaches. Mooney.. impact studies and monitoring programs. 1995.. P. Helming. Schmiegelow...). B. Wiggering. P. 2000. Fahrig. Ecology Letters 11:78-91. A.. J. Scheifinger. Alexandra. D. E. S. Montague-Drake. J... R. ed. Haila.. L. M.. Malczewski. Springer. A.. Saunders.. Silva Fennica 34(2):113-129. J. K. H. M. in: Multifunctional land use: meeting future demands for landscape goods and services (U.. (I. Progress in Planning 62:3-65. Lindenmayer. C. Taylor. Sisk... GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis. 2008... D.. M. Miller.. 223 . J.. Helming.. Walker.. Forest Ecology and Management (115):277-287. H. A checklist for ecological management of landscapes for conservation. Multiscale methodologycal Framework to derive criteria and indicators for sustainability evaluation of peasant natural resource management systems. Burgman.. Malczewski. Luck. Groll.. H. Matulla. Y. Nally. Cramer. The sensitivity of central European mountain forests to scenarios of climatic change: Methodological frame for a large-scale risk assessment. Possingham. Multifunctional land use: meeting future demands for landscape goods and services. Franklin. B. P. Scott. Tabor. (Eds). R. J.. D. John Wiley & Sons... D. Mangold. Liu.. K.. C. McIntyre.. Mander. Sustainable development.. G. H. Simberloff. eds. Leffelaar.. J.. Berlin... Calhoun. Environment Development and Sustainability 7:51-69. Cale. M.. Ittersum.. J.the forest services approach. 2004. Journal of forestry 93(11):25-28. Woinarski.. Wiggering.. D.Lexer. H. 2002. V. V. F. Cambridge.. Noss. W.. Hunter. UK. J.. Cullen. J. Zavaleta.). USA. R. Bennett. P. Manning... N. Lake. Liu.

Fairbairn. Mather. C. Science 302(12 December):1919-1920. Nature 405(11 May):243-253. A. Amherst. Journal of Rural Studies 15(1):65-90. Ministerial Conference for protection of forests in Europe. Coull. D.. Needle. 224 . Landscape as a focus for integrating human and environmental processes. Systematic conservation planning. Area 30(2):117-124. C.. Mather. E. New visions for adressing sustainability. The course and drivers of the forest transition: the case of France. Folke. Conservation Biology 13(6):1282-1292. A. FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. Territorial Planning and Regional Development Francisco Nunes Correia. 1998. Scottish Geographical Journal 120(1-2):83-98. Mather. R. C. Hobbs. C. Kaplan... Butler. C. Mather. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts.. L. Forest transition theory and the reforesting of Scotland. A.. P. 1998. Mather.MAOTDR. Needle. in: European Water Conference (E. S. McGarigal. 2003.. 2006. L. S. J.. 2007. S. R. 1999. E.org/. A framework for conceptualizing human effects on landscapes and its relevance to management and research models. S. The forest transition. www. H... 1992. The forest transition: a theoretical basis.. S. 2007. R. R.). 1999.. S. C..umass. R.. in: http://www. A. s. Ene. K. R.. Needle. 2009/03/09. J. Selman. A.. 2000.. C. Brussels. S. Margules.. M.. Pressey. Cushman. ed. L. Directorate-General.... Area 24(4):367-379. McMichael.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.htm. Journal of Agricultural Economics 57(2):199-212. McIntyre. 2004. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 5(3):182-193. MCPFE. Landscape and Urban Planning 84:7-19. People needs in the urban landscape: Analysis of Landscape and Urban Planning contributions.mcpfe. R. Matsuoka. 2002. L.. A. J. 2008... C.. Speech delivered by the Portuguese Minister of Environment. From resource crisis to sustainability: the forest transition in Denmark. Matthews. A. Neel.

. C. J. 2001b.. F. Combining participatory modelling and multicriteria analysis for comunity-based forest management.millenniumassessment. Temporal (1958-1995) pattern of change in a cultural landscape of northwestern Portugal: implications for fire occurrence.aspx ( 10 January 2009). Ferreira. Prabhu. Ehrlich. Picard. R. Measuring sustainability: a multi-criterion framework. 61-83. C. G. Harrison.. Moreira. http://www. Cavens. P.aspx (9 March 2009). Milligan. G. P. Chapter 4.. 2005. R. C. 2001a. Visual preference of the public for vegetation groups in Israel.. Land Use Policy 26:206-213. R. The multiscale approach. O'Riordan. Gandy. Levin.. 2007.. 225 . H. T. A..MEA. Landscape changes and breeding bird assemblages in northwestern Portugal: the role of fire. S.. Diversity in Current Ecological Thinking: Implications for Environmental Management. Misgav. J. A.. Governance for sustainable coastal futures. P. Westoby. Environmental Management 43(1):17-27..org/en/index. 2000. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 49:192-205. 2005. D. 2009. Bunting. Watkinson. R. G. T. Synthesis Reports: Biodiversity. Lindenmayer. J. M. Nicholson-Cole. C.. Sheppard. Environment Development and Sustainability 7:117-134. O'Riordan. A. M. H. Harshaw. Mendoza. pp. 2003... Wallington.org/en/index. R. S. Pahl-Wostl... in: Millenium Ecosystems Assessement. Munda. Moreira. S... Hobbs.. Ferreira. Moore.. Holling. Landscape and Urban Planning 48(3-4):143-159.. M. D. Rego.. F... J. The multiple roles of environmental data visialisation in evaluating alternative forest management strategies.. S. D. Forest Ecology and Management 207:145-156.. P. 2005. Landscape Ecology 16(2):175-187. T. MEA.... Landscape Ecology 16(6):557-567..millenniumassessment. Coastal Management 35:499-509. Meitner. Possingham. in: http://www. S. Rego. F... Nature conservation for future sustainable shorelines: lessons from seeking to involve the public.. G. Turner.. 2009. Milligan. F.. 2005.

. Cambridge. Voisey. O'riordan. 2007. Stoll-Kleemann. The politics of Agenda 21 in Europe (T.. N. 226 . I. Cambridge University Press. H. K. Cambridge. O'Brien.. Agenda 21. 2002.. sustainability and human comunities.). A. in: Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds. O'Riordan.).Nabuurs. Niskanen. 2002.. 2009. sustainability and human comunities. T.. eds. pp. O' Riordan.. O'riordan. 317. S. Adger. O' Riordan. Voisey. Noss. C. T. H. Regional similarities of forest resources and socio-economic structures in EU member states. London. Landscape ecology and sustainability. Ferrao. Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: A suggested framework and indicators. Forest Ecology and Management 115(2-3):135-146. Niza.. O'Riordan. Earthscan Publication Ltd..). O'Riordan. Stoll-Kleemann. Cambridge University Press. 2006. Protecting beyond the protected (T.. Paivinen. Cambridge. pp. S. Protecting beyond the protected (T. Drivers of reforestation in human dominated forests. eds. Stoll-Kleemann. Resources Conservation and Recycling 46(3):265-280. H. Adaptive governance for a changing coastline: science. 2007.. J. H... 2001. Biodiversity. T. policy and publics in search of a sustainable future. 2001. The political economy of the sustainability transition.. Schanz. UK. H. 317. UK. Z. O'Riordan. F. Forest Policy and Economics 3:55-67. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(39):15218-15223. Nicholson-Cole. G.). Lin. A transitional economy's metabolism: The case of Portugal. Governance (W. R. eds. 1998. P. A. 320. Voisey. T. Landscape Ecology 22(10):14371440. eds. R.).. Voisey. London. Naveh. in: The transition to sustainability: the politics of Agenda 21 in Europe (T. The transition to sustainability. eds. UK.. O'Riordan.. T. Biodiversity. Nagendra. Stool-Kleemann. Forest Policy and Economics 3:155-173. H. 1998.a projection with EFISCEN until 2050. Cambridge University Press. Lorenzoni. Values. pp. Sustainable management regimes for Europe's forests. 1999..

. H.. S. pp. F. 2002. Oxon. in: OECD Rural Policy Reviews (OECD. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(39):15176-15178.. Ecological resilience.OECD. Sheppard. Ostrom. a. J. 2005. Pereira. 2000. P. eds. J. ed. Vicente. Okkonen. Harshaw. Wallingford. E. R. Perz. C. 2003. Ostrom... E. OECD.). R. Five OECD case studies (O. Policies and governance.. P. Peterson. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(39):15181-15187. R. L. Pereira.. Harshaw. C.... 2007. L. Allen.. M.. Palmer. 73-93. Going beyond panaceas... CABI in association with IUFRO. Conservation ecology 7(3):7. c. 2008. Anderies. Pereira. Kimmins. J. C. J. E. in: Forests and Landscapes-linking ecology. 227 . M. J. Fonseca. 2008. E. C. H. G. Nature vs nurture:the making of montado ecosystem. D. M. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Queiroz. H.. 2001. Grand theory and context-specificity in the study of forest dynamics: forest transition theory and other directions. M. A. G. 2007. 2006.. Governance for sustainable development. H. 2007. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51(2):221-232. D. Landscape and Urban Planning 54(1-4):149-161.)... Ecosystems health 7(4):284296. W. Criteria and Indicators of sustainable forestry: A systems approach. Holling.. Janssen. Pearce. 384. R. OECD.. Ecosystem Services and Human Well-Being: A participatory study in a mountain community in Portugal. Organization for economic cooperation anddevelopment OECD. f. sustainability and aesthetics (S.). S.. The Professional Geographer 59(1):105-114. Olivier. Hoffman. Sheppard. Ecosystems 1:6-18. pp. M. S. P. OECD Paris. Ecology & Society 10(2):14. e. The economic value of forest ecosystems. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. 2001. biodiversity and scale.. The new rural paradigm. From exogenous to endogenous development in Scottish forestry: the feasibility of small-scale wood energy enterprise. ed.

J. R. S. 1982.. Environmental analysis in selection of alternative corridors in a long distance linear project: a methodological proposal... 2005. T. Bono. H. Astrada. Potschin. Journal of Policy Modelling 27:585-598.. E. B. R.. definitions and methods of continuous cover forestry with special attention to afforestation and restocking. R.. C. J.. M. Ward. S. Landscape and Urban Planning 75(3-4):155-161. 1999. Breman. B. Adamoli. Science 302(5652):1912-1914. New Forests 17:263-306. Haines-Young. M. Comparing macroeconomic returns on human and public capital: An empirical analysis of the Portuguese case (1960-2001). T. F. Rekola. Regional Environmental Change. Future development in Portuguese rural areas: How to manage agricultural support for landscape conservation?. P. Landscapes and sustainability.. 2000. Murphy. Forestry 77(1):27-44. J. A. A review of the history. Meli.a Response.. Pretty. Pretty.. Landscape and Urban Planning 75(3-4):162-174.. New roles for farming in a differentiated countryside: the Portuguese example.. Pinto-Correia. Haines-Young. Blasco. 2008.. Aubyn. On the Possibility of Quantifying Scenic Beauty .. Journal of Environmental Management 80:266-278. Potschin. Pommerening. G. 228 .. J.. E. 2005.Pina. A.. Ribe. On the sustainable productivity of planted forests.. Public preferences for uncertain regeneration cuttings: a contingent valuation experiment involving Finnish private forests. M. 2004.. T. 2006. Landscape Planning 9(1):61-74.. R. H.. "Rio+10". M. Pouta... 2003. Powers. 2001. A. 2006a. Forest Policy and Economics 7(4):635-649. Pinto-Correia.. Rescia. 2006b. Social capital and the collective management of resources. Landscape and Urban Planning 50(13):95-106. M. World Development 29(2):209-227. sustainability science and Landscape Ecology. Social capital and the environment.

). Focht.. Environmental Management 13(1):55-74. Is scenic beauty a proxy for acceptable management? The influence of environmental attitudes on landscape perceptions. Ecosystem approaches to sustainability. Sayer. 2005. Xu. 2005. Sachs. Rudel. Nevens. VA. Forests in landscapes... M. T... Santos. the afforestation of the commons and state formation in Portugal.. Magginnis. Landscape and Urban Planning 59:129-145.Ribe.. H. Coomes. Gullink.. A. W.). Lubell.. Vedlitz. Swimming Upstream.. Moran. 257.. M. S. London. M. F. Hermy. Sabatier. 2007. G. D. M. 229 . Moita. The aesthetics of forestry: what has empirical preference research taught us?. pp. Landscape and Urban Planning 82(4):159-173. Forests in landscapes. 2004.. F. Visitor profile. H. E. K. Trachtenberg. Executive summary and conclusions (GRADIVA. in: The Earthscan forestry library (J. Massachusetts. perceptions and expectations from a gradient of increasing urbanisation in central Belgium. Maginnis. 2005.. R. Science 304(30 April 2004):649. Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management (P. Impacts and adaptation measures SIAM. E. Z.. Environment and Behavior 34(6):757780. ed. M. USA. K. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 15(1):23-31. ed. O. W. pp. F. Ribe. eds. Ecosystem approaches to sustainability (J. P... Lubell. Lisbon. A.. A. J. A. D. Trachtenberg. C. Achard. S.. 2005. VA. Vedlitz. Matlock. S. Journal of Rural Studies 14(2):268-269. Forest transitions: towards a global understanding of land use change.. London. S. IUCN. A. 2002. Roovers. 2002. Cambridge. 1998.. P. IUCN The Earthscan forestry library. Sterling. A. Rogge..).. J. S.. Roche.. 257. Perception of rural landscapes in Flandres:Looking beyond aesthetics. Gullink.. Maginnis. R. Angelsen. Planting power. Z.. G. MIT Press. A. Focht. A.. J.. T. Sterling. Sayer. Climate change in Portugal: Scenarios. Lambin. eds. Forbes. A. M. 2001.. E. 1989. Sayer. Sabatier. R. Maginnis.). J.. Matlock. Sustainable Development.

. Forest Ecology and Management 237:6582. Johnson. Environment and Planning B: Planning and design 32:67-87. R.. Sheppard. 2006. 2006.. Local Environment 7(3):283-294. J. Sheppard. F. Sheppard. Harshaw. S... 2006... J.. Seeking solutions: Our planet the future of forests (FAO. H.). Thompson. S. 2005. Selman. S.. R. a. 2005. Selman.. W. J.). R. sustainability and aesthetics (S. Forests and landscapes:linking ecology. Priorities for reconciling sustainability and aesthetics in forest landscape management.. 2000. P. J. P. Kaufmann. R. P. Shearer. Effect of forest management on future carbon pools and fluxes. Journal of Environmental Management 75:239-246. 1997. On the nature of virtuous change in cultural landscapes: Exploring sustainability through qualitative models. Lischke. 294. H. M. ed. Landscape Research 31(3):295-307. R. Multi-function landscape plans: a missing link in sustainability planning?. E.Schmid.. R. pp. J.. Harshaw. Sustainable forestry in the balance. Bugman.. Sheppard. Participatory decision support for sustainable forest management: a framework for planning with local comunities at the landscape level in Canada. Journal of Forestry 4:187-195.. H. S. CABI publishing. P. eds... A decade of recreation ratings for six silviculture treatments in Western Oregon. Planning at the landscape scale. 2001.. e. E.. in: Forests and lansdcapes230 . S... pp. London and New York. 2000. Seymour. H. CABI publisher in association with IUFRO. Routledge. 213.. L. Harshaw. Shelby. Thurig. R. Harshaw. 2005. H. H. Selman. Wallingford. Knight. M. H. The role of forestry in meeting planning objectives. Sheppard. R. Brunson. W. ed. B. E. W. 2002. H. Land Use Policy 14(1):55-73. 2007. Selman. Sheppard. Approaching scenario based studies:three perceptions about the future and considerations for landscape planning. sustainability and aesthetics (S.. Priorities for reconciling sustainability and aesthetics in forest landscape management. W. J. in: Forests and lansdcapes-linking ecology..). Oxon. McBride.

).). Landscape goods and services related to forestry land use. Silvicultural management in mantainning biodiversity and resistence of forests in Europe. C. 2002. Understanding the compatibility of multiple uses on forest land: A survey of multiresource research with application to the Pacific 231 . F. University of East Anglia. Wallingford.. Berlin. PhD Thesis. Southern. J. Forestry in the rural economy: a new approach to assessing the impact of forestry on rural development. Sustainable forestry management: global trends and opportunities. 2009. pp. Montegomerey. Forest Policy and Economics 7:551-561. Stengera. ed. Slee. P. eds. Shifley. 2007b. 2007a. Slee.. 2004. Slee.. Forestry 72(3):273-284. S. Origins and evolution of the Portuguese administrative system in comparative perspective (U. Snowdon. Lisbon. H. Journal of Forest Economics 15(1-2):1-14. Prediction models of landscape preferences at forest stand level. Harshaw.. S. Silvennoinen.linking ecology. Social indicators of multifunctional rural land use: The case of forestry in the UK. Alho. Slee. in: School of Environmental Sciences. 230.. R. A... Universidade Nova de Lisboa.. Kolehmainen. B. B. Pukkala. pp. 2006. Lisboa. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 120(1):31-40... B.. 2008. Cubbage. H. Roberts. Stevens. H.. Sustainable forestry in the balance. sustainability and aesthetics (S. O. Valuing environmental goods and services derived from the forests... P. Springer. Mander. 263-287. Silveira. J. eds. M. Rural development forestry in the United Kingdom. Evans. 2005. Ahmed... Forestry 77(5):441-453. Sheppard. Haroub.. Journal of Environmental Management 67:55-65. A. R. N. Norwich. L.). in: Multifunctional land use: Meeting future demands for landscape goods and services (U. Journal of Forestry 4. CABI publisher in association with IUFRO.. H. pp.. The socio-economic evaluation of the impact of forestry on rural development: A regional level analysis. A. T. 64-82.. Landscape and Urban Planning 56:11-20. Navrudc. Siry. 2003. 2001. d. B. Wiggering... Oxon. J. 2000. D.:187-195.. Spiecker.. 1999. Helming. P. W. B. Forest Policy and Economics 8(5):542-554. 2006. K. Implementing an integrated approach to natural resource governance: A case study in whole landscape design at the catchment scale. Slee.

F. G.. Bridging human and natural sciences in landscape research.visual versus verbal information.. B. B. d'Hauteserre. Landscape and Urban Planning 57(3-4):137-141.. Surova. 2001. Vasdisara. 1986. Landscape and Urban Planning 53(1-4):53-70. Landscape and Urban Planning 21:61-79.. Online. Turner. G... H. in: General technical report PNW-GTR-539.a study from Denmark. Steyaert. Strassburg. L. T. A. Turner.The "combined incentives" mechanism and empirical simulations. 1991. D. ed. Tress... Tips. Tress.Northwest. R. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA. Landscape and Urban Planning 13(Short communication):225-230. J. Ecology and Society 12(1):art 25.... Lovett. S.. The European Water Framework Directive: How ecological assumptions frame technical and social change. Ollivier. Landscape preferences in the cork oak Montado region of Alentejo. Sociologia Ruralis 48(3):185-199.. Ihalainen... 2008.). Landscape and Urban Planning 64(3):161-178. The influence of the socio-economic background of subjects on their landscape preference evaluation. 2001. M. L. Washington. Kolehmainen. Scenario visualisation for participatory landscape planning . K.. B.. Tress. E. Tress. 2007. Tovey. 2003. Thorne.. Tyrvainen. 2008.. Global Environmental Change in press. N.. 2008. Introduction:Rural Sustainable Development in the Knowledge Society Era. Tress. Huang. The Ecosystem Services Framework and Natural Capital Conservation... G. O. M. K. Landscape and Urban Planning 57(3-4):143-157. C. Forest management and public perceptions . Tress. Landscape Research 33(3):311-330. Environmental and Resource Economics 39:25-35. Fisher. Pinto-Correia...... C. 2009. R. 232 .. Decamps. Daily. J. B. 2001. P. W. Vuorela. H. Schaeffer. Toward a landscape ecological aesthetic: methodologies for designers and planners. Reducing emissions from deforestation. Tahvanainen. southern Portugal: Searching for valuable landscape characteristics for different user groups. A. Capitalising on multiplicity: a transdisciplinary systems approach to landscape research. G. G. T.. B.

).. Journal of Forestry September. The forest industry in the 21st Century. J. Our common future.. E.. P.. Anerden. Multifunctional agriculture and multifunctional landscapes. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation. UK. von Haaren. C. B. Kristensen.. and the general public in Australia.. Challenges in Visualizing Forests and Landscapes. Helming.. Society & Natural Resources 18(6):541-555.. Germany. pp. Meeting future demands for landscape goods and services (U. pp. B... K. Praestholm. LaCroix. Springer. Wiggering. Chen.. 93-104. R. Institute. Indicators and methods to measure and assess multifunctionality: Multiagri project. Berlin. H. Surrey.land use as an interface. Washington. S. Local and extra-local perceptions of National Parks and protected areas. Vora. 2007. B.. Brandt. G. Wu. Developing programs to monitor ecosystems health and effectiveness of management practices on lake states national forests... ed.. J. Leipzig. eds. A. cross-disciplinarity and sustainability science. Zander. 2006.). Abildtrup. WWF. 233 . J. Song. G.. Hasler. 2005. Andersen. T. J. S. 2006. I. C. Warren-Krestzchmar. Dalgaard. 2000. H. R. Landscape Research 31(1):83-85. C. 1997. E. Biological Conservation 80:289-302. Crow. von Haaren. USA. Zube. in: Executive summary (W. WRI. H.. Landscape Ecology 21(1):1-4. C. 2008. 1987. S.. The basis of sustainable landscape development.. V. ed. Germany. 2006..). Landscape ecology.. Oxford University Press. Mander. A. T. Busck.. WCED. Karpinski. Huusom.. Landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 13:11-17. Ott. R... H. Knierim.. Preferences and values for forests and wetlands: A comparison of farmers. in: Multifunctional land use. 2005. Kristensen.Vejre. J.. Forest ecosystems: Forest extent and change (W. USA. L. 2009. Winter.. 383. P. environmentalists. The interactive landscape plan: use and benefits of new technologies in landscape planning and discussion of the interactive landscape plan in Koenigslutter am Elm. Wang. X. Oxford and New York. 1986. J. Forests.

Appendices 234 .

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->