Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Conceptual Framework for Characterizing Forest Areas with High Societal Values: Experiences from the Pacific Northwest of USA and Central Europe

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent decades, much work has been invested to describe forest allocations with high societal values. Yet, few comparative analyses have been conducted on their importance and differences across the regions of the globe. This paper introduces a conceptual framework to characterize forest priority areas defined as areas with identified higher importance of societal values in the context of multi-objective forest management. The six dimensions of the framework (designation objective, prioritization of objectives, governance, permanency, spatial scale, and management regime) characterize the general approach (integrative vs. segregative) to multi-objective forest management and explain the form and role of priority areas for providing forest services. The framework was applied in two case study regions—Pacific Northwest of USA (PNW) and Central Europe (CE). Differences between the regions exist in all dimensions. Late-successional and riparian reserves are specific to the PNW, while protection against natural hazards is specific to CE. In PNW, priority areas are mainly focused on public lands whereas in CE they include public and private lands. Priority areas in PNW are designated in a much larger spatial context and have longer time commitments. In CE, integration of management objectives on priority areas prevails, whereas in PNW priority areas tend to be designated for single objectives. In CE, greater tolerance of timber management within priority areas compared to PNW is allowed. Convergent trends in application of priority areas between the regions indicate mixing of segregation and integration approaches to forest management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AAA (American Antiquities Act) (1906) Public Law 16, U.S.C. 431–433

  • Angelstam P, Kapylova E, Korn H, Lazdinis M, Sayer JA, Teplyalkov V, Törnblom J (2005) Changing forest values in Europe. In: Sayer JA, Maginnis S (eds) Forests in landscapes. Ecosystem approaches to sustainability. Earthscan, London, pp 59–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Asah ST, Blahna DJ, Ryan CM (2012) Involving forest communities in identifying and constructing ecosystem services: millennium assessment and place specificity. J For 110(3):149–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer J, Kniivilä M, Schmithüsen F (2004) Forest legislation in Europe. Geneva timber and forest discussion paper ECE/TIM/DP/37, United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland

  • Bauerhansl C, Berger F, Dorren L, Duc P, Ginzler C, Kleemayr K, Koch V, Koukal T, Mattiuzzi M, Perzl F, Prskawetz M, Schadauer K, Schneider, W, Seeback L (2010) Development of harmonized indicators and estimation procedures for forests with protective functions against natural hazards in the alpine space (PROALP). EUR 24127 EN Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

  • Behan RW (1990) Multiresource forest management: a paradigmatic challenge to professional forestry. J For 88(4):12–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Belin D, Kittredge D, Stevens T, Dennis D, Schweik C, Morzuch B (2005) Assessing private forest owner attitudes toward ecosystem-based management. J For 103(1):28–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger F, Rey F (2004) Mountain protection forests against natural hazards and risks: new French developments by integrating forests in risk zoning. Nat Hazards 33:395–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettelini D, Cantiani MG, Mariotta S (2000) Experiences in participatory planning in designated areas: the Bavona Valley in Switzerland. Forestry 73(2):187–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollmann K, Braunisch V (2013) To integrate or to segregate: balancing commodity production and biodiversity conservation in European forests. In: Kraus D, Krumm F (eds) Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of forest biodiversity. EFI, Joensuu, pp 18–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Bončina A (2011) Conceptual approaches to integrate nature conservation into forest management: a Central European perspective. Int For Rev 13(1):13–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Borchers J (2010) Segregation versus Multifunktionalität in der Forstwirtschaft. Forst Holz 65(7/8):44–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyland M, Nelson J, Bunnell FL (2004) Creating land allocation zones for forest management: a simulated annealing approach. Can J For Res 34(8):1669–1682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brang P, Schönenberger W, Frehner M, Schwitter R, Thormann JJ, Wasser B (2006) Management of protection forests in the European Alps: an overview. For Snow Landsc Res 80(1):23–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratton SP (1985) Management of national parks and public lands. Environ Ethics 7(2):117–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantiani MG (2012) Forest planning and public participation: a possible methodological approach. Forest 5:72–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng AS, Mattor KM (2010) Place-based planning as a platform for social learning: insights from a national forest landscape assessment process in Western Colorado. Soc Nat Resour 23(5):385–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Côté P, Tittler R, Messier C, Kneeshaw DD, Fall A, Fortin MJ (2010) Comparing different forest zoning options for landscape-scale management of boreal forest: possible benefits of the TRIAD. For Ecol Manage 259:418–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cubbage F, Harou P, Sillsa E (2007) Policy instruments to enhance multi-functional forest management. For Policy Econ 9(7):833–851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullotta S, Bončina A, Carvalho-Ribeiro SM, Chauvind C, Farcy C, Kurttila M, Maetzke FM (2014) Forest planning across Europe: the spatial scale, tools, and inter-sectoral integration in land-use planning. J Environ Plan Manag. doi:10.1080/09640568.2014.927754

    Google Scholar 

  • Deal RL, Cochran B, LaRocco G (2012) Bundling of ecosystem services to increase forestland value and enhance sustainable forest management. For Policy Econ 17:69–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DellaSala DA, Anthony RG, Bond ML, Fernandez ES, Frissell CA, Hanson CT, Spivak R (2013) Alternative views of a restoration framework for federal forests in the Pacific Northwest. J For 111(6):420–429

    Google Scholar 

  • Diaci J (ed) (1998) Virgin forests and forest reserves in Central and East European countries. Department of Forestry and Renewable Forest Resources, Biotechnical Faculty, Ljubljana

    Google Scholar 

  • Diaci J, Kerr G, O’Hara K (2011) Twenty-first century forestry: integrating ecologically based, uneven-aged silviculture with increased demands on forests. Forestry 84(5):463–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dönz-Breuss M, Maier B, Malin H (2004) Management for forest biodiversity in Austria—the view of a local forest enterprise. Ecol Bull 51:109–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorren LKA, Berger F, Imeson AC, Maier B, Rey F (2004) Integrity, stability and management of protection forests in the European Alps. For Ecol Manag 195(1–2):165–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dudley N, Phillips A (2006) Forests and protected areas: guidance on the use of the IUCN protected area management categories. IUCN, Gland

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • EEA (European Environment Agency) (2005) Protected areas in Europe—an overview (EEA Report No 5/2012). European Environment Agency, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellenberg H (1988) Vegetation ecology of Central Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2010) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. Forestry Paper 163

  • FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team) (1993) Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment (Number 1993-793-071). Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Ficko A, Bončina A (2013) Probabilistic typology of management decision making in private forest properties. For Policy Econ 27:34–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank G, Parviainen J, Vandekerhove K, Latham J, Schuck A, Little D (2007) Protected forest areas in Europe—analysis and harmonization (PROFOR): results, conclusions and recommendations. COST Action E 27 Vienna, PROFOR

  • Franklin JF, Dyrness CT (1973) Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington (General Technical Report PNW-GTR-008). US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin JF, Johnson KN (2012) A restoration framework for federal forests in the Pacific Northwest. J For 110:429–439

    Google Scholar 

  • Fries C, Carlsson M, Dahlin B, Lämås T, Sallnäs O (1998) A review of conceptual landscape planning models for multiobjective forestry in Sweden. Can J For Res 28(2):159–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forest Europe, UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2011) State of Europe’s Forests 2011. Status and trends in sustainable forest management in Europe. Rome, Italy

  • Führer E (2000) Forest functions, ecosystem stability and management. For Ecol Manag 132:29–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gluck P (1987) Social values in forestry. Ambio 16(2–3):158–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Glück P (2000) Policy means for ensuring the full value of forests to society. Land Use Policy 17:177–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson EJ (1996) Expanding the scale of forest management: allocating timber harvests in time and space. For Ecol Manag 87:27–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HSA (Historic Sites Act) (1935) 49 Stat. 666, 16 U.S.C. 641

  • Jennings SR, Nussbaum NJ, Evans T (2003) The high conservation value forest toolkit, 1st edn. ProForest, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson KN, Swanson FJ (2009) Historical context of old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest—policy, practices, and competing worldviews. In: Spies TA, Duncan SL (eds) Old growth in a new world: a Pacific Northwest icon reexamined. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 12–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaeser A, Zimmermann W (2014) Influencing factors on the implementation of forest reserves in Switzerland. Biodivers Conserv 23:3501–3517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaeser A, Bernasconi J, Zimmermann W (2013) Governance approaches in Swiss forest biodiversity policy: do they really work? For Policy Econ 36:6–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearney AR, Bradley G, Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1999) Stakeholder perspectives on appropriate forest management in the Pacific Northwest. For Sci 45(1):62–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Kissling-Näf I, Bisang K (2001) Rethinking recent changes of forest regimes in Europe through property-rights theory and policy analysis. For Policy Econ 3(3–4):99–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline JD, Mazzotta MJ, Spies TA, Harmon ME (2013) Applying the ecosystem services concept to public land management. ARER 42(1):139–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch NE, Skovsgaard JP (1999) Sustainable management of planted forests: some comparison between Central Europe and the United States. New For 17(1–3):11–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konijnendijk CC (1997) Urban forestry: overview and analysis of European forest policies—Part 1: Conceptual framework and European urban forestry history. EFI working Paper 12

  • Konijnendijk CC, Ricard RM, Kenney A, Randrup TB (2006) Defining urban forestry—a comparative perspective of North America and Europe. Urban For Urban Green 4(3–4):93–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kräuchi N, Brang P, Schönenberger W (2000) Forests of mountainous regions: gaps in knowledge and research needs. For Ecol Manage 132(1):73–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence A, De Vreese R, Johnston M, Konijnendijk van den Bosch CC, Sanesi G (2013) Urban forest governance: towards a framework for comparing approaches. Urban For Urban Green 12(4):464–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF (2002) Conserving forest biodiversity: a comprehensive multiscaled approach. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomis JB (2002) Integrated public lands management—principles and applications to national forests, parks, wildlife refuges, and BLM lands. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Macura B, Secco L, Pullin AS (2013) Does the effectiveness of forest protected areas differ conditionally on their type of governance? Environ Evid 2013:2–14

    Google Scholar 

  • McAlpine CA, Spies TA, Norman P, Peterson A (2007) Conserving forest biodiversity across multiple land ownerships: lessons from the Northwest Forest Plan and the Southeast Queensland regional forests agreement (Australia). Biol Conserv 134:580–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh R (1995) The history and multi-purpose management of Kielder forest. For Ecol Manag 79(1–2):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MCPFE (Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe) (2007) State of Europe’s forests 2007: the MCPFE report on sustainable forest management in Europe. Liaison Unit Warsaw, UNECE, FAO, Warsaw

    Google Scholar 

  • MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Merenlender AM, Huntsinger L, Guthey G, Fairfax SK (2004) Land trusts and conservation easements: who is conserving what for whom? Conserv Biol 18(1):65–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messier C, Kneeshaw D (1999) Thinking and acting differently for a sustainable management of the boreal forest. For Chron 75:929–938

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montigny MK, MacLean DA (2006) Triad forest management: scenario analysis of forest zoning effects on timber and non-timber values in New Brunswick, Canada. For Chron 82(4):496–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neet C, Bolliger M (2004) Biodiversity management in Swiss mountain forests. Ecol Bull 51:101–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Niedzialkowski K, Paavola J, Jedrzejewska B (2012) Participation and protected areas governance: the impact of changing influence of local authorities on the conservation of the Bialowieza primeval forest, Poland. Ecol Soc 17(1):2. doi:10.5751/ES-04461-170102

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemela J, Young J, Alard D, Askasibar M, Henle K, Johnson R, Kurttila M, Larsson TB, Matouch S, Nowicki P, Paiva R, Portoghesi L, Smulders R, Stevenson A, Tartes U, Watt A (2005) Identifying, managing and monitoring conflicts between forest biodiversity conservation and other human interests in Europe. For Policy Econ 7(6):877–890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nitschke CR, Innes JL (2005) The application of forest zoning as an alternative to multiple-use forestry. In: Innes JL, Hickey GM, Hoen HF (eds) Forestry and environmental change: socioeconomic and political dimensions. Cabi Publishing, Oxford, pp 97–124

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • NSAA (National Scenic Area Act) (2003) Columbia River National Scenic Area Act, 16 U.S.C., sec. 2

  • NTSA (National Trails Systems Act) (1968) 16 U.S.C. § 1241 et seq

  • OA (Organic Act) (1897) Forest Service Organic Administration Act of 1897

  • OFRI (Oregon Forest Resources Institute) (2012) The 2012 Forest Report: an economic assessment of Oregon’s forest and wood products manufacturing sector. Oregon Forest Resources Institute, Portland, OR

    Google Scholar 

  • Parviainen J, Frank G (2003) Protected forests in Europe approaches—harmonizing the definitions for international comparison and forestry policy making. J Environ Manage 67(1):27–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parviainen J, Bücking W, Vanderkerhove K, Schuck A, Päivinen R (2000) Strict forest reserves in Europe: efforts to enhance biodiversity and research on forests left for free development in Europe (EU-COST-Action E4). Forestry 73(2):107–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pistorius T, Schaich H, Winkel G, Plieninger T, Bieling C, Konold W, Volz K-R (2012) Lessons for REDDplus: A comparative analysis of the German discourse on forest functions and the global ecosystem services debate. For Policy Econ 18:4–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pröbstl U, Elands B, Wirth V (2009) Forest recreation and nature tourism in Europe: context, history and current situation. In: Bell S, Simpson M, Tyrväinen L, Sievänen T, Pröbstl U (eds) European forest recreation and tourism: a handbook. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 12–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Riegert C, Bader A (2010) On uses, effects, meanings and tasks of German forests linking forest functions and ecosystem services. http://www.uni-kielde/ecology/projects/salzau/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Background-Paper-Riegert_Baderpdf

  • Sabatier PA, Loomis J, McCarthy C (1995) Hierarchical controls, professional norms, local constituencies, and budget maximization: an analysis of US Forest Service planning decisions. AJPS 39:204–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SAEFL (2004) Swiss National Forest Programme (Swiss NFP). Environmental documentation No. 363. Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape, Bern

  • SBS (Staatsbetrieb Sachsenforst) (2004) Waldfunktionenkartierung (Mapping of forest functions) Grundsätze und Verfahren zur Erfassung der besonderen Schutz-und Erholungsfuntionen des Waldes im Freistaat Sachsen Staatsbetrieb Sachsenforst, Freistaat Sachsen

  • Schlueter A (2008) Small-scale European forestry, an anticommons? IJC 2(2):248–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulzke R, Stoll S (2008) Forests and forestry in Hesse, Germany: meeting the challenge of multipurpose forestry. In: Correiro MM, Song YC, Wu YC (eds) Ecology, planning and management of urban forests. Springer, Berlin, pp 293–300

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Secco L, Pettenella D, Gatto P (2011) Forestry governance and collective learning process in Italy: likelihood or utopia? For Policy Econ 13(2):104–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simončič T, Bončina A, Rosset C, Binder F, De Meo I, Cavlović J, Gal J, Matijašić D, Schneider J, Singer F, Sitko R (2013) Importance of priority areas for multi-objective forest planning: a Central European perspective. Int For Rev 15(4):509–523

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith WB, Miles PD, Perry CH, Pugh SA (2009) Forest Resources of the United States, 2007. General Technical Report WO-78. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office, Washington DC

  • Smith N, Deal R, Kline J, Blahna D, Patterson T, Spies TA, Bennet K (2011) Ecosystem services as a framework for forest stewardship: Deschutes national forest overview. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-852. USDA, Forest Services, Pacific Northwest Research Station

  • Soules MC (2002) An analysis of NorthWest Forest Plan land use allocations. NRJ 42(2):353–383

    Google Scholar 

  • Spies TA, Duncan SL (eds) (2009) Old growth in a new world: a Pacific Northwest icon re-examined. Island Press, Covelo

    Google Scholar 

  • Spies TA, Johnson KN (2003) The importance of scale in assessing the compatibility of forest commodities and biodiversity. In: Monserud RA, Haynes RW, Johnson AC (eds) Compatible forest management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 211–235

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Spies TA, Johnson KN, Burnett KM, Ohmann JL, McComb BC, Reeves GH, Bettinger P, Kline JD, Garber-Yonts B (2007) Cumulative ecological and socioeconomic effects of forest policies in coastal Oregon. Ecol Appl 17(1):5–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spies TA, Giesen TW, Swanson FJ, Franklin JF, Lach D, Johnson KN (2010) Climate change adaptation strategies for federal forests of the Pacific Northwest, USA: ecological, policy, and socio-economic perspectives. Landsc Ecol 25(8):1185–1199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stamper TJ, Hicke JA, Jennings M, Aycrigg J (2013) Spatial and temporal patterns of changes in protected areas across the Southwestern United States. Biodivers Conserv 22(2):343–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanfield BJ, Bliss JC, Spies TA (2002) Land ownership and landscape structure: a spatial analysis of sixty-six Oregon (USA) Coast Range watersheds. Landsc Ecol 17(8):685–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stankey GH, Bormann BT, Ryan C, Shindler B, Sturtevant V, Clark RN, Philpot C (2003) Adaptive management and the Northwest Forest Plan: rhetoric and reality. J For 101(1):40–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern M (2008) The power of trust: toward a theory of local opposition to neighboring protected areas. Soc Nat Resour 21:859–875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Store R (2009) Sustainable locating of different forest uses. Land Use Policy 26(3):610–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas JW, Franklin JF, Gordon J, Johnson NK (2006) The Northwest forest plan: origins, components, implementation experience, and suggestions for change. Conserv Biol 20(2):277–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) (1994) Standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the Northern Spotted Owl. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR

  • USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) (2006a) Forest Service Handbook. Land management planning handbook, chapter 10—Land management plan. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Headquarters Washington

  • USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) (2006b) A functional classification system for marine protected areas in the United States. National Marine Protected Areas Center

  • USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) (2009) Special areas and forest plan revision. Special Area Work Group. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region

  • USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) (2012) National forest system land management. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. Fed Regist 77(68):21162–21276

    Google Scholar 

  • USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) (2014) USDA experimental forests and ranges. http://www.fs.fed.us/research/efr/efr-sites/index.shtml

  • USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) (2015) Forest Service Handbook (FSH 1090.12) Chapter 40. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC

  • Verkerk PJ, Zanchi G, Lindner M (2014) Trade-offs between forest protection and wood supply in Europe. Environ Manage 53:1085–1094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vincent J, Binkley C (1992) Forest-based industrialization: a dynamic perspective. In: Sharma NP (ed) Managing the world’s forests: looking for a balance between conservation and development. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, pp 93–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Vining J, Tyler E (1999) Values, emotions and desired outcomes reflected in public responses to forest management plans. Hum Ecol Rev 6(1):21–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Volk H, Schirmer C (eds) (2003) Leitfaden zur Kartierung der Schutz-und Erholungsfunktionen des Waldes (Waldfunktionskartierung). WFK Projektgruppe Forstliche Landespflege, Frankfurt am Main, Sauerländer

    Google Scholar 

  • WA (Wilderness Act) (1964) Public Law 88-577, 16 U.S.C. 1131-1136

  • Wells M, McShane TO (2004) Integrating protected area management with local needs and aspirations. Ambio 33(8):513–519

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson CF, Anderson HM (1987) Land and resource planning in the national forests. Island Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL (2000) Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright BA, Kaiser RA, Nicholls S (2002) Rural landowner liability for recreational injuries: myths, perceptions, and realities. J Soil Water Conserv 57(3):183–191

    Google Scholar 

  • WSRA (Wild and Scenic Rivers Act) (1968) Public Law 90-542, 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq

  • Zhang Y (2005) Multiple-use forestry vs forestland-use specialization revisited. For Policy Econ 7(2):143–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Christian Rosset and Tom Nygren for providing reviews of an early draft. We would also like to thank Pahernik Foundation for supporting the publishing of results.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Forestry and Renewable Forest Resources, Biotehnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Vecna pot 83, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Tina Simončič & Andrej Bončina

  2. USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station, 3200 Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR, 97331, USA

    Thomas A. Spies

  3. USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station, 620 SW Main Street, Portland, OR, 97205, USA

    Robert L. Deal

Authors
  1. Tina Simončič
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas A. Spies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert L. Deal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrej Bončina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tina Simončič.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 4.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Simončič, T., Spies, T.A., Deal, R.L. et al. A Conceptual Framework for Characterizing Forest Areas with High Societal Values: Experiences from the Pacific Northwest of USA and Central Europe. Environmental Management 56, 127–143 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0482-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0482-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation