FORPOL-01482; No of Pages 13

Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2016) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forest Policy and Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol

Analysing scenario approaches for forest management One decade of experiences

in Europe
Marjanke A. Hoogstra-Klein a,, Geerten M. Hengeveld a,b,c, Rutger de Jong a
a
Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Wageningen University & Research, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands
b
Wageningen Environmental Research (Alterra), Wageningen University & Research, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands
c
Biometris, Wageningen University & Research, P.O. Box 16, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In forest management, scenarios are often used to envision what the future might look like to account for uncer-
Received 22 September 2015 tainties associated with, for example, climate change, changing socio-economic conditions, and technological de-
Received in revised form 27 September 2016 velopments. There are, however, many different methodological approaches to scenario building. In order to be
Accepted 2 October 2016
able to make better use of the diversity of approaches at hand, a systematic overview of the scenario methodol-
Available online xxxx
ogies, which is currently missing in the forest sector, is needed. This paper analysed and reviewed 129 forest-
Keywords:
management-related scenario studies that have been carried out in Europe during the past decade. The studies
Climate change were classied by means of cluster analysis in four groups: (1) management scenarios, (2) environmental scenar-
Future studies ios, (3) optimization scenarios, and (4) participatory scenarios. Despite differences between the four groups, al-
Forest planning most all scenario studies can be characterized as rather quantitative, non-participatory, and single factor in
Scenario studies nature. The analysis also found a temporal trend reecting a broadening of the scenario methodology for forest
Typology management over time towards scenarios that incorporate longer time horizons, reecting issues on a larger
Uncertainty scale, including land-use considerations. Considering the complexity and urgency of the issues in forest manage-
ment that need to be addressed and the opportunities offered by the scenario methodologies not yet fully used,
we expect to see a further broadening of the scenario methodology with mixed-method, participatory, and com-
plex scenarios.
2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Thinking about the future is essential to dealing with the challenges
of today. As Shearer (2005, p. 67) wrote, the ultimate success of decisions
made today rests on the situation tomorrow. Unfortunately, the future is
in principle unknowable and therefore inherently uncertain (Weber,
2000), which forms an obstacle to effective decision-making. Although
this applies to almost every decision taken, it seems to be even more rel-
evant to forest management, where rotation periods span decades and
in some cases even generations (Hoogstra and Schanz, 2008). At best,
this far-off future is dimly seen, veiled in the manager's uncertainty, as
Duerr and Duerr (1975, p. 31) explained. Just imagine how much easier
it would be (e.g. to decide which tree to plant) if we would know the fu-
ture, and we could foresee chances and obstacles before they occur.
Fortunately, there are a variety of tools and methods available to the
forest sector to cope with the uncertainty arising from the long time ho-
rizons, from the concept of sustainable forest management to the Nor-
mal Forest model to forest growth models and many more. Some of
these have origins that can already be traced back as far as 17th and
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Marjanke.Hoogstra@wur.nl (M.A. Hoogstra-Klein).
18th century Central Europe (Convery, 1973; Hoogstra, 2008; Speidel,
1972). Relatively new to the sector is the use of scenarios. This has, how-
ever, over the past decade gained a strong foothold in the forest sector
as an approach that could help inform forest management decision-
making in the frame of future uncertainty. Examples include the Euro-
pean forest sector outlook studies (Schelhaas et al., 2006; Schelhaas et
al., 2009; UNECE/FAO, 2011), scenario studies analysing the impact of
climate change (e.g. Hanewinkel et al., 2013; Karjalainen et al., 2003),
scenario analyses for sustainable forest management (e.g. Biber et al.,
2015; Mohren, 2003), and scenarios for stakeholder communication
(e.g. Carlsson et al., 2015).
The scenario approach differs from most of the above-mentioned
traditional approaches in that it assumes the future to be inherently
uncertain, and therefore unpredictable. By envisioning different futures
that might happen, decisions can be evaluated, what if questions can
be explored, and strategies can be tested. Such an approach shifts
away from the rational idea to determine what is the best in the situa-
tion that is most likely to occur, towards an exploration of different cir-
cumstances in different possible futures (Duinker and Greig, 2007;
Varum and Melo, 2010). In the words of Martelli (2001), building sce-
narios means speculating about the uncertainty surrounding the future:
basically it means envisaging a few different possible future outcomes for

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.10.002
1389-9341/ 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Hoogstra-Klein, M.A., et al., Analysing scenario approaches for forest management One decade of experiences in
Europe, Forest Policy and Economics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.10.002
2 M.A. Hoogstra-Klein et al. / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2016) xxxxxx
the situation under scrutiny. In this way, scenario analysis facilitates bet-
ter knowledge among decision makers in terms of the future, and thus
possesses an important function in preparing and sensitizing the deci-
sion makers to possible developments that might evolve in the time to
come.
As several reviews (e.g. Amer et al., 2013; Bishop et al., 2007;
Chermack et al., 2001) on scenario studies have shown, many different
approaches to scenarios exist. Understanding the differences between
the various types of scenarios would better equip scientists and practi-
tioners to design scenario studies that effectively address the issues at
hand. Many scholars (Millett, 2003; Varum and Melo, 2010) therefore
agree that systematizing and organizing the existing literature is a neces-
sary step in developing the eld and bringing the value of scenarios to a
wider public (Varum and Melo, 2010, p. 356). Despite the popularity
of scenarios in the forest sector, so far such an overview is lacking. The
objective of this paper, therefore, is to systematically examine and eval-
uate the methodological approaches used in scenario studies in the for-
est sector. In order to limit ourselves, we decided to focus our analysis of
scenario studies on (1) forest management, (2) in Europe, and (3) in the
past decade. First, we provide an overview of the current state of the
scenario studies on forest management, based on different dimensions
that are considered to reect the main elements of a scenario approach
(as will be described in the theoretical and analytical frame). Second,
within the diversity of research approaches on scenario studies
analysed, we identify clusters of studies that address scenario studies
in similar ways. Third, based on our ndings, we highlight some impor-
tant challenges for the future of scenario studies.
2. Theoretical and analytical frame
Despite being a popular tool, scenarios are a topic of much debate in
the literature, and a eld full of conceptual and denitional confusion
(Mulvihill and Kramkowski, 2010, p. 2454). Mietzner and Reger
(2004, p. 50) even talk about scenario as a fuzzy concept that is used
and misused, with various shades of meaning. Table 1 presents a sample
of descriptions of a scenario we culled from the forestry literature
Table 1
Overview of different conceptualizations of the term scenario in the forestry literature
(19902015).
Author(s) Conceptualization
Valsta (1992) A scenario is here dened as one realization over time of the
stochastic processes. Even though there may be several
stochastic processes, they are all combined to a joint
realization, a scenario.
Wollenberg et al. Scenarios are stories of what might be. Unlike projections,
(2000) scenarios do not necessarily portray what we expect the
future actually look like.
Bishop et al. An alternative future created by some method even if not
(2010) presented in the form of a story.
Alonso-Ayuso et A scenario is a particular realization of uncertainty through
al. (2011) the whole time horizon.
McKenzie et al. Scenarios are storylines that describe possible futures. They
(2012) explore aspects of, and choices about, the future that are
uncertain.
Moore et al. Scenarios are plausible futures that allow you to envision and
(2013) evaluate the outcomes of means plausible to those engaged in
the scenario planning exercise
Den Herder et al. Scenarios are plausible descriptions of how the future may
(2014) develop, based on a coherent and internally consistent set of
assumptions about key relationships and driving forces (Van
der Heijden, 1996). A scenario can be regarded as a story or,
more precisely, a series of events leading to an end point
typically answering a what if? question.
IPCC (2015) A scenario is a coherent, internally consistent, and plausible
description of a possible future state of the world. It is not a
forecast; rather, each scenario is one alternative image of how
the future can unfold. A projection may serve as the raw
material for a scenario, but scenarios often require additional
information (e.g. about baseline conditions).
Please cite this article as: Hoogstra-Klein, M.A., et al., Analysing scenario approaches for forest management One decade of experiences in
Europe, Forest Policy and Economics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.10.002
between 1990 and 2015. Finding descriptions of what a scenario is,
was already a challenge; most of the authors use the term assuming
that everybody knows (and shares) what they are talking about. The
table, however, illustrates some of the conceptual confusion present
also in the forest sector. Wollenberg et al. (2000), for example, see pro-
jections and scenarios as two different approaches; the IPCC (2015) also
mentions that scenarios are no projections, but consider them as a pos-
sible way of building a scenario. Some authors explicitly describe a sce-
nario as a story or narrative of the future (e.g. McKenzie et al., 2012),
while others state that stories may be part of a scenario (e.g. Bishop et
al., 2010). It is not the intention of this paper to dwell upon what the
right denition is, but to explore what the authors of the reviewed arti-
cles see as a scenario. The denition used here therefore is the broadest
denition encompassing all different interpretations of a scenario, i.e. a
scenario is a description of a possible future.
Next to the conceptual confusion, there is also methodological chaos.
Methodological chaos can be indicated as there are almost as many
ways of developing scenarios as there are practitioners in the eld
(Bradeld et al., 2005, p. 800). Masini and Vazquez (2000, p. 49) even
state that scenario analysis has become a sort of Swiss pocket knife of
multiple uses, [] that supposedly makes it possible to rapidly visualize
the future, like a soup to be served up quickly at table. This is exactly
the reason that Kosow and Ganer (2008) write that the scenario meth-
od does not exist as such. Reasons listed for the canon of approaches are
manifold. Hughes (2009) mentions, for example, the conceptual confu-
sion, which gives room for different interpretations and, hence, different
approaches. Other reasons are the different kind of users applying sce-
narios in different contexts and with different goals and objectives
(Hughes, 2009; Kosow and Ganer, 2008), the different skills and re-
sources (such as time and money) users have (Hughes, 2009), the vary-
ing positions of importance of scenarios in projects, and the different
schools of thoughts and paradigms working with scenarios (Kosow
and Ganer, 2008).
In order to cut through the chaos, several studies have developed ty-
pologies of scenario studies (e.g. Brjeson et al., 2006; Ducot and
Lubben, 1980; Duncan and Wack, 1994; Godet and Roubelat, 1996;
Heugens and van Oosterhout, 2001; Kosow and Ganer, 2008; March
et al., 2012; Prez-Soba and Maas, 2015; Rounsevell and Metzger,
2010; Van Notten et al., 2003). These typologies, however, not only cre-
ate more order and understanding of the different approaches, they also
form important tools to communicate, to compare and to develop ap-
proaches (Brjeson et al., 2006). This research, therefore, also sets up a
classication of scenario studies in forest management. We decided
not to use an existing typology, but to develop our own classication
using our own framework based on insights from other scenario typol-
ogy studies. The reason for this is that typologies reect a eld's state of
play at a xed point of time and, consequently, become outdated as the
eld they address evolves (Van Notten et al., 2003, p. 423).
The framework we use in this research is based on the insights from
the typology as developed by Van Notten et al. (2003), who developed a
general typology for scenario studies, and the framework developed by
March et al. (2012), who specically characterized water management
scenario studies (March et al., 2012). The framework of Van Notten et
al. (2003) is based on three overarching themes (project goal, process
design, and scenario content) comprising, in their view, the key aspects
of scenario development. These three dimensions are each subdivided
in several characteristics, which together determine the score on the
theme. Based on these scores (which are binary), eight different types
of scenario studies can be distinguished: explorative-intuitive-simple;
explorative-intuitive-complex; explorative-formal-simple; explor-
ative-formal-complex; decision support-intuitive-simple; decision sup-
port-intuitive-complex; decision support-formal-simple; and decision
support-formal-complex.
The framework of March et al. (2012) is based on a review of theo-
retical and methodological literature on scenario analysis for environ-
mental issues and builds on previous typologies including (in part)
 M.A. Hoogstra-Klein et al. / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2016) xxxxxx 3

the typology of Van Notten et al. (2003). The authors added their own
dimensions to deal with the specicity of water management
issues, such as water-use and land-use considerations. It is this focus
on management issues that makes this framework of interest for our
study.
Table 2 shows the framework as we used it for this study. We com-
bined the two frameworks, but the following adaptations had to be
made to make the framework suitable for this research:
we deleted some of the dimensions (e.g. when too difcult to quan-
tify or to determine based on the information available), and
we adapted some of the dimensions to the topic of our analysis: for-
est (e.g. forest uses instead of water uses).
3. Methodology
3.1. Data collection
In order to create a workable output of relevant studies, a query was
conducted in the online catalogue Web of Science with the following
search criteria (query on the 25th of November 2014):
Field: scenario AND forest AND management
Years: 20042014
Web of Science categories: forestry, environmental sciences,
ecology
Document type: articles, other
Countries/territories: all European countries including Russia
Research areas: forestry
This query resulted in an output of 220 articles. This output was
subsequently checked and ltered to ensure that all the articles
were related to European forests and that, in all the studies, a
scenario study was conducted. From this selection, 129 relevant
articles remained (for a list of articles analysed, see Appendix 1).
About 50% of the selected articles were published in three of the
years: 2007, 2011, and 2012.
As regards the journals the selected articles were published in, in
total, 45 selected articles (35%) were published in Forest Ecology and For-
est Management. Annals of Forest Science, the European Journal of Forest
Research, the Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, and Forest Policy
and Economics together published 27% of the selected articles.
3.2. Data analysis
One researcher coded all the 129 articles according to the framework
described. In order to ensure that this coding expressed the dimensions
and categories from the framework, the rst ten articles were systemat-
ically analysed jointly by two researchers.
The scored articles were quantitatively analysed and complemented
by qualitative analysis to gain more detailed insights when needed. The
rst part of the quantitative analyses focused on the individual dimen-
sions. These were described and consequently analysed for temporal
trends. To test for signicant differences over time, the Fisher's exact
test was used, carried out in SPSS (SPSS version 23). This test explores
the independence of two nominal variables. It is similar to the chi-
square test, but is better equipped to handle smaller number of observa-
tions. The signicance threshold used was set at 0.05.
For the second part of the quantitative analysis, we run a Principal
Component Analysis (PCA) (method prcomp, R-package stats). This
was carried out in R (R version 2.13.1). In this paper, the PCA analysis
served as a rst exploration of the relevance of the different dimensions
analysed and the relations between the different dimensions, identify-
ing possible patterns in our dataset. PCA aims at detecting correlations
between variables (in our paper: the dimensions analysed) and com-
bines those correlated variables into a (smaller) number of so-called
principal components (articial variables) that are able to explain part
of the variance in the observed variables. Interpretation of the principal
components is based on nding the variables that correlate strongest,
but which number we consider to be strong or not is a subjective deci-
sion. We considered a correlation value of 0.4 and above as strong.
The third step was the clustering of the data using DIANA (DIvise
ANAlysis) cluster analysis (R-package cluster). A cluster analysis clas-
sies the data set (in our paper: the studies analysed) into groups or
clusters that share similar characteristics. This was also done in R (R ver-
sion 2.13.1). DIANA is a hierarchical clustering technique that works
from a top-down approach, starting with one cluster that consists of
all objects of the dataset. At each subsequent step, the most heteroge-
neous cluster is divided into two clusters, until nally all clusters com-
prise of one object. To carry out the cluster analysis, we normalized all
scores for all dimensions, using a 0 to 1 scale. As a cluster analysis
does not yield a straightforward measure to determine the optimum
number of clusters (Shalizi, 2009), the choice for the number of clusters
is always an arbitrary one (Nielsen et al., 2013). Several rules, however,

Table 2
Framework to categorize scenario studies for forest management, based on Van Notten et al. (2003) and March et al. (2012).

Theme Dimension Abbreviation Denition Categories Normalized

Project Temporal scale Time Timespan of the scenario analysis Long term (N25 yrs) (1); medium term (1124 yrs) (2); short Long (0) to short (1)
goal term (310 yrs) (1); none/other (4)
Spatial scale Space Geographical extent of the scenario European (1); European region (2); national (3); subnational Large (0) to small (1)
analysis (4); management unit (5); stand-level (6)
Vantage point Vantage Point of view from which the Forecasting (1); both forecasting and backcasting (2); Forecasting (0) to
point scenarios are developed backcasting (3) backcasting (1)
Inclusion of Norms Degree of normativeness related to descriptive (1); normative (2) Descriptive (0) to
norms forestry normative (1)
Process Nature of the Data Species the nature of input, process, Qualitative (1); both quantitative and qualitative (2); Qualitative (0) to
design data and output data quantitative (3) quantitative (1)
Method of data Method Method used to collect data Participatory (1); both participatory and desktop (2); desktop Participatory (0) to
collection (3) desktop (1)
Scenario Temporal Path Development path described to a Snapshot (1); chain (2) Snapshot (0) to chain
content nature given end state (1)
Nature of the Variables Topical extent of the scenarios Number of different factors considered in the development of Homogeneous (0) to
variables developed (input) the scenarios heterogeneous (1)
Level of Evaluation Extent of evaluation of the scenarios Number of different STEEPa categories evaluated in the Homogeneous (0) to
integration analysed (output) scenarios heterogeneous (1)
Forest uses Forest use Uses of forest that the scenario None (0); single-use (1); multiple-use (2) None (0) to multiple (1)
analysis includes
Land-use Land use Connections between land use and Yes (1); no (2) No (0) to yes (1)
considerations forest use are considered
a
STEEP: social, technological, economic, environmental, and political.

Please cite this article as: Hoogstra-Klein, M.A., et al., Analysing scenario approaches for forest management One decade of experiences in
Europe, Forest Policy and Economics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.10.002
4 M.A. Hoogstra-Klein et al. / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2016) xxxxxx
exist for selecting the number of groups, and ideally one should synthe-
size the results of several of these rules (Everitt et al., 2001). We used
the average silhouette value (Rousseeuw, 1987), a measure of clustering
quality based on tightness and separation of clusters, in combination
with a qualitative assessment of the cluster content. The reason for
this qualitative assessment is that we are also interested in other aspects
of the clustering (such as the size and compactness of the clusters),
which cannot be determined by the average silhouette value. Still, the
average silhouette value provides a good starting point for the selection.
The fourth and last step of the analysis included a comparison of the
clusters of scenario studies found in this study with the types of scenario
studies distinguished by Van Notten et al. (2003). This analysis should
give insight in the extent the scenario studies carried out for forest man-
agement in Europe span the diversity of possible scenario approaches
available. To do this, we calculated for each cluster the score on the
overall theme, based on the normalized individual scores on the differ-
ent dimensions, and determined the weighted summed score for each
theme.
4. Results
4.1. Dimensions of scenarios
4.1.1. Project goal
The temporal scale (i.e. the timespan the scenario covers) forms cru-
cial information for scenario exercises (March et al., 2012). Considering
that forest management is often about the long term, it is not surprising
that the vast majority (64%) of the scenario studies reviewed focus on
the longer term. Only a small number of studies focus on the shorter
and medium term (7% and 8%, respectively). An example that makes
use of a very short temporal scale is the study of Kong et al. (2012)
who model different raw materials in the forest with a planning horizon
of only one year. This is in sharp contrast to, for example, the studies of
Alam et al. (2008) and Bergseng et al. (2012) who carry out a simulation
of forest development covering 100 years. Interesting to note is that, in
20% of the cases, it was not possible to determine the temporal scale, for
example, when this was not explicitly mentioned in the article. March et
al. (2012) in their review on water scenarios observed something simi-
lar: in their review, several studies also did not specify the temporal ex-
tent of the scenarios used. We found signicant differences in time
horizons of the studies over time (i.e. the years of publication) (Fisher's
test, p b 0.05); however this reects a difference between years but no
trend in temporal focus over the course of the decade.
The scenario studies analysed in this paper ranged from the Europe-
an level to the level of the stand unit, but the levels were covered un-
equally. The larger spatial scale is covered only limitedly: only 6.5% of
the scenarios reviewed focus on the European scale or on a European re-
gion. The level of the management unit is represented the most with
38% of the studies, followed by the subnational level with 24%. The re-
maining studies are almost equally distributed over the national level
(17%) and the stand level (14.5%). The studies evaluated covered Europe
in an unequilibrated way: several of the studies relate to the Scandina-
vian countries (specically Finland, Sweden, and Norway), the South-
Western European countries (Spain, Portugal, and Italy), and Central
Europe (mostly Germany and Austria). Underrepresented are especially
the North-Western European countries (e.g. the Netherlands, Belgium,
UK, Ireland), which might be explained by forestry being only a minor
sector in these countries, and Eastern and South-Eastern European
countries (e.g. Bulgaria, Lithuania), which might be due to forestry re-
search in these countries being more traditional. No differences exist be-
tween the spatial levels studied and the publication years (Fisher's test,
p N 0.9).
The scenario studies included different degrees of inclusion of
norms, but most studies were normative in nature (78%). Interestingly
enough, there is a signicant relation between the inclusion of norms
and the year of publication (Fisher's test, p b 0.05): the studies carried
Please cite this article as: Hoogstra-Klein, M.A., et al., Analysing scenario approaches for forest management One decade of experiences in
Europe, Forest Policy and Economics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.10.002
out in the rst years of the decade analysed are almost all normative
in nature, whereas the second part of the decade (from 2009 on) in-
cludes more descriptive studies. Almost all these descriptive studies
focus on determining the effect of a certain factor (often climate
change) on another factor, such as wind throw (e.g. Blennow et al.,
2010), habitat suitability (e.g. Casalegno et al., 2010), or forest produc-
tivity (e.g. Reyer et al., 2014).
As regards the vantage point, 75% of the studies have a forecasting
focus, about 20% backcasting, and 5% of the studies combine forecasting
with backcasting. This result is not that surprising, as the traditional
forecasting studies are still dominant in future-oriented studies
(Dreborg, 1996). The content of the forecasting studies varies largely,
covering topics such as the inuence of harvesting on timber supply
and carbon stock (Antn-Fernndez and Astrup, 2012), the effect of har-
vesting on nutrients (Akselsson et al., 2007), and the inuence of oil
price on timber supply (Hrtl and Knoke, 2014). In contrast to the diver-
sity of the forecasting studies, the backcasting studies are rather limited
in scope, i.e. strongly focusing on determining the best forest-manage-
ment decisions (e.g. Cordonnier et al., 2008; Eriksson and Berg, 2007).
The vantage point does not differ in the years the studies were pub-
lished (Fisher's test, p N 0.85).
4.1.2. Process design
Quantitative data greatly dominated the scenario studies analysed;
93% of the studies were quantitative in nature, only 3% were qualitative.
This supports the conclusion of Hoogstra (2008) that scenario applica-
tions in forest management are mostly quantitative in nature. The stud-
ies analysed predominantly use quantitative simulation models, such as
the PBRAVO model that was used to simulate stand development in the
study of Alegria (2011) or the 4C forest model to simulate forest dynam-
ics in the study of Reyer et al. (2010). An example of a qualitative study
is the one of Dhar et al. (2008) who relied on qualitative assessments of
expert judgment to determine the effects of different management
strategies. The use of quantitative and qualitative approaches did not
differ signicantly in the different publication years (Fisher's test,
p N 0.07).
Despite the fact that several authors (e.g. Kok and Van Vliet, 2011;
Wollenberg et al., 2000) stressed the added value of participatory sce-
nario approaches, only a few of the studies we analysed were participa-
tory in nature (6%). One of the few examples is the study of Bizikova et
al. (2012) who rely on insights of stakeholders for their analysis of sus-
tainable forest management. Most studies made use of desktop ap-
proaches to collect data (88%). The rest of the studies (6%) combined
the two approaches, such as the study of Madureira et al. (2011). This
study made use of data from a discrete choice survey in combination
with a decision support model based on inventory and geographical
data, using growth and yield, to assess forest-management strategies.
We could not detect any trend in the way the data were collected
over the years (Fisher's test, p N 0.88).
4.1.3. Scenario content
Rothman (2008) argued that preferably a scenario should be a dy-
namic story and not a snapshot of the future at a certain moment in
time. The majority of our studies (65%) could indeed be classied as dy-
namic stories, although in some cases it was not always that easy to
clearly classify a study as either dynamic or as snapshot. The study of
Alam et al. (2008), for example, simulated forest growth over a 100-
year period in three tri-decadal periods with different climate condi-
tions, for several thinning regimes. A Fisher's test (p N 0.7) shows no
temporal trend in the temporal nature of the studies.
About half of the studies (53%) analysed included scenarios with
several drivers (two to four) to determine different scenarios. No tem-
poral trend could be found (Fisher's test, p N 0.7). Many studies com-
bined possible climate developments with different management
strategies (e.g. Alam et al., 2008; Loustau et al., 2005). The single-scale
scenarios mostly focused on either climate change (e.g. Albert and
 M.A. Hoogstra-Klein et al. / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2016) xxxxxx 5

Schmidt, 2010) or on management strategies (e.g. Bergseng et al.,
2012). March et al. (2012) found similar outcomes for water-manage-
ment scenarios; scenarios were often reduced to one key driver,
which was in many cases climate change. The fact that these two drivers
feature prominently in the studies is maybe not that surprising. The
focus of our analysis is forest management, hence the bias for the num-
ber of studies evaluating forest management. As regards climate change,
this is a major future uncertainty in forest management. Considering
that scenario studies are, par excellence, meant to cope with the uncer-
tainty, this might explain the strong focus on climate change scenario
studies.
In the majority of the cases (60%), the impact of scenarios was eval-
uated for only one variable. The nature of the variables varied widely be-
tween the studies, from the impact of different scenarios on the number
of tourists (Ahtikoski et al., 2011) and on re intensity and frequency
(Gonzlez-Olabarria et al., 2012), to effects on forest biodiversity
(Mnkknen et al., 2011) and on the economic efciency of manage-
ment (Alegria, 2011). In our view, this reects the wide applicability
of scenarios in forest management. No signicant effect of the year of
publication could be found (Fisher's test, p N 0.7).
As regards forest use, the analysis shows that the vast majority of the
studies incorporated this dimension (82%). In part of the studies, the
sole focus was on timber production (44%), such as the study of Albert
and Schmidt (2010) who analysed the inuence of climate change on
site productivity. Other studies focused on multiple use (37%). An exam-
ple of such a study is the one of Ahtikoski et al. (2011). In this study, dif-
ferent forest-use scenarios incorporating different levels of tourism and
timber production were evaluated. In the remaining cases (18%), forest
use was either not mentioned or not incorporated in the scenario. No
temporal trends were found (Fisher's test, p N 0.6).
In contrast to forest use, land-use considerations are integrated in
the minority of the studies (28%). This means that, in most studies
analysed, the focus is on forests only. The study of Rubio et al. (2012)
forms an excellent example of a study where different land uses were
incorporated: it evaluated landscape connectivity under different land
cover change scenarios. Also for this dimension, no trends over the
years of publications were detected (Fisher's test, p N 0.7).
4.2. PCA
The results of the PCA are shown in Table 3. This principal compo-
nent matrix shows the correlations between the original variable and
the component for the rst four principal components extracted from
the original dimensions. The reason is that these four components to-
gether explain 66% of the total variance of the data set, which is higher
than the minimum requirement of 60% that is often set (NIH, 2015). All
strong correlations (0.4) are in boldface in the table.
Table 3 shows that the rst principal component is strongly correlat-
ed with three of the original variables: method of data collection (neg-
ative); nature of the data (negative); and level of integration
(positive). This indicates that these three dimensions vary together. If
scenarios are qualitative in nature, they are more often collecting data
with participatory approaches, and include more levels of evaluation.
The other way around, quantitative scenarios involve more desktop re-
search and less levels of evaluation. The second principal component
varies also with three of the variables: inclusion of norms (negative);
forest uses (negative); and land-use considerations (positive). This de-
scribes that normative scenarios focus more on different forest uses,
but incorporate land-use considerations less often (and vice versa).
Principal component three clearly reects the link between temporal
scale and spatial scale: larger time horizons in scenario coincide with a
larger spatial scale. The fourth component shows the same relation as
the third component, but a third dimension is added, i.e. land use. This
implies that, in scenarios with longer time scale on a larger spatial
scale, more often land-use considerations are included.
4.3. Classication of scenario studies
Fig. 1 portrays the average silhouette values for a range of cluster
numbers. Maximum values are reached for one, two, and four clusters
(average value N 0.3). We decided to select the four clusters, as fewer
clusters would probably not discriminate enough. Appendix 1 provides
an overview of the studies analysed per cluster.
The groups were named based on a qualitative exploration of the dif-
ferent scenario studies classied within a certain cluster. Most studies
(75) are in the management scenarios group. The environmental sce-
narios include 29 studies, the optimisation scenarios include 18 stud-
ies, while the participatory scenarios consist of (only) seven studies.
To describe the differences between the four groups, we analysed the
cluster means of the variables used in the cluster analysis (see Fig. 2).
Fig. 2 clearly shows that the four clusters have rather similar scores for
several of the scores: temporal and spatial scales; further, the nature
of the variables are almost the same in all four clusters. In other dimen-
sions, differences between the clusters are larger or even extreme (e.g.
the dimension inclusion of norms).
More than half of the studies analysed (58%) belong to the cluster we
labelled management scenarios. This cluster describes a group of sce-
nario studies that analyse different forest-management approaches,

Table 3
Principal component matrix.

PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4

Time 0.14 0.09 0.57 0.57

Space 0.15 0.06 0.55 0.51
Norms 0.29 0.48 0.06 0.28
Vantage point 0.30 0.13 0.31 0.15
Data 0.41 0.28 0.06 0.18
Method 0.41 0.31 0.11 0.22
Path 0.28 0.35 0.26 0.05
Variables 0.29 0.20 0.38 0.09
Evaluation 0.40 0.03 0.07 0.22
Forest use 0.33 0.44 0.17 0.02
Land use 0.06 0.44 0.28 0.41
Standard deviation 1.80 1.32 1.13 1.03
Proportion of variance 0.30 0.16 0.12 0.10
Cumulative proportion 0.30 0.45 0.57 0.66
Fig. 1. Average silhouette value for the different number of clusters.

Please cite this article as: Hoogstra-Klein, M.A., et al., Analysing scenario approaches for forest management One decade of experiences in
Europe, Forest Policy and Economics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.10.002
6 M.A. Hoogstra-Klein et al. / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2016) xxxxxx

Fig. 2. Cluster mean values with spread for all dimensions for the three clusters (based on normalized scores).

i.e. silvicultural treatments, over time. In some cases, external factors land uses. An example of the participatory scenario studies is Bizikova
that inuence forest growth (e.g. climate change, storms) are included. et al. (2012).
These studies are almost all quantitative and normative in nature, ap- An interesting observation is that a signicant difference exists in
proach the future mostly from a forecasting perspective, and use desk- the use of the clusters over time (Fisher's test, p b 0.025). In the rst
top research to collect data. The scenarios are portraying mainly a years of the decade, most if not all scenarios were part of the man-
chain of events and include multiple uses of forests. An example of agement scenarios. In the later years, the other two clusters (environ-
this type of scenario studies is Mnkknen et al. (2011). mental scenarios and optimization scenarios) start to appear, and in
The second cluster we named environmental scenarios, and in- some years even dominate the scenario studies. The participatory sce-
cludes 23% of the studies analysed. The group incorporates scenario nario studies are so few that no temporal trends can be detected.
studies that focus on the inuence of different external (environmental)
factors on forests and forest management over time. In many (but not
all) of the cases, climate change is this external factor. This cluster has
many dimensions that are similar to that of the management scenarios
(e.g. strongly quantitative in nature, including chains of events, based
on desktop research). However, unlike the management scenarios, the
environmental scenarios are descriptive in nature (and not normative)
and do not include or only limitedly include forest use, but focus much
more on land-use considerations. The research of Vennetier and Ripert
(2009) forms an example of this type of scenario studies.
The third cluster (with 14% of the studies) describes scenario studies
that focus strongly on quantitative decision support through optimiza-
tion procedures. This cluster was termed optimization scenarios.
These scenario studies determine optimum decisions (e.g. from a nan-
cial or risk perspective) giving different possible constraints over time
with the support of quantitative models. With a clear optimisation
goal, these scenarios are normative, and they could be both forecasting
or backcasting. In contrast to the management and environmental sce-
nario studies, the optimisation scenario studies have a higher level of
participatory approaches, focus on a snapshot rather than on a chain
of events, and include multiple uses of the forest. An example is
Gutsch et al. (2011).
With only 6% of the studies in this review, the studies in the fourth
cluster are participatory and apply qualitative methods. Therefore, we
attached the term participatory scenarios to this cluster. These studies
are normative, using qualitative, participatory, backcasting methods to
focus on a snapshot in time. These qualitative methods are more apt Fig. 3. Scores of the four clusters on the three overarching themes (based on normalized
for heterogeneous evaluations that include multiple forest uses and scores).

Please cite this article as: Hoogstra-Klein, M.A., et al., Analysing scenario approaches for forest management One decade of experiences in
Europe, Forest Policy and Economics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.10.002
 M.A. Hoogstra-Klein et al. / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2016) xxxxxx
4.4. Diversity of the scenario clusters
Fig. 3 shows the scores of the four clusters on the three overarching
themes. As we can see in this gure, the management scenarios, envi-
ronmental scenarios, and optimisation scenarios clusters can be seen
as separated from the participatory scenarios cluster along the thematic
process design dimension, whereas the participatory scenarios and en-
vironmental scenarios clusters seem most separated along both the pro-
ject goal axis. The management scenarios and optimisation scenarios
clusters have a similar score on these overarching themes. All the clus-
ters can be rated as simple rather than complex, with the participatory
scenarios the most complex, but with overlapping ranges.
5. Discussion and conclusion
Through the quantitative cluster analysis we identied four groups
of scenario approaches applied in forest management in Europe over
the past decade. These groups we labelled as management scenarios,
environmental scenarios, optimization scenarios, and participatory sce-
narios. Management scenarios evaluate the impact of different forest-
management approaches over time whether or not within the frame
of possible external factors (such as climate change). Environmental
scenarios focus on this external factor, evaluating possible develop-
ments and the inuences on forests and forest management. Optimiza-
tion scenarios have as main goal to determine optimum strategies for
managing the forest, while the participatory scenarios rely on qualita-
tive and participatory approaches to sketch possible futures for the for-
est landscape.
As regards the clusters observed and the link to the three overarch-
ing themes, the clusters distinguished in this review cover only part of
the eight types of scenarios identied by Van Notten et al. (2003).
Some clusters seem to span different types, but especially the more in-
formal (intuitive) and complex scenarios are underrepresented in the
articles reviewed. As regards the intuitive aspect, the forest-manage-
ment scenario studies reviewed strongly depend on quantitative and
non-participatory methodology, something that has also been observed
by Hetemki (2014) in his review on future studies in the forest sector.
Wilkinson and Eidinow (2008, p. 6) dene this kind of scenario studies
as problem-focused scenarios: scenario studies that see the world as
an objective and quantiable entity, divorced from the values judgments
and impacts of actors or stakeholders. [] the future is comprehensible
and knowable. We did not nd, as Biggs et al. (2007) did, that scenarios
covering a wide spatial extent are mostly quantitative and expert driv-
en, while more local scenarios emphasize the engagement of stake-
holders. Most of the studies reviewed cover a smaller spatial scale
(most often the management unit). The complexity dimension is
more complex to unravel; in our implementation, it exists of ve di-
mensions and the scores on some of these dimensions are rather het-
erogeneous. It is clear that the nature of the variables and the level of
integration dimensions score very low in all three groups of scenarios.
This implicates that the scenario studies analysed focus strongly on ex-
ploring (developments of) a few or only one element in our environ-
ment, with climate change as dominant driver. Wagner et al. (2014, p.
32) explain this strong focus on climate change as follows: forest man-
agers have always been confronted with some degree of uncertainty be-
cause of the long time span of forest production (Hoogstra and Schanz,
2008; Lindner et al., 2010). [] However, the uncertainty associated with
climate change adds a whole new and unparalleled dimension to the chal-
lenge of dealing with it.
Despite the fact that overall the scenario approaches seem to be
rather quantitative, non-participatory, and single factor in nature, a
temporal trend was found reecting a broadening in the scenario ap-
proaches for forest management over time. In the beginning of the de-
cade, almost all scenarios of the cluster were management scenarios,
whereas in the last years more and more environmental scenarios and
optimization scenarios have appeared. The broadening of the scenario
Please cite this article as: Hoogstra-Klein, M.A., et al., Analysing scenario approaches for forest management One decade of experiences in
Europe, Forest Policy and Economics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.10.002
7
approach shows a trend towards scenarios that incorporate somewhat
longer time horizons, reecting issues at the larger scale, including
land-use considerations (in the form of the environmental scenarios).
One of the reasons for this trend might be that, over the past decades,
forest landscape modelling has changed rapidly, fuelled by technologi-
cal advances and theoretical insights, offering data at broad spatial and
temporal scales, that now can be investigated (He, 2008). The other ex-
planation might be, as referred to already earlier in this discussion, the
major and unfamiliar challenge posed by climate change in the last
years, which is inherently linked to all spatial and temporal scales.
Despite the broadening of the scenario approaches, the participatory
scenarios were rare. This is somewhat surprising considering the cur-
rent discourse of sustainable forest management, in which participation
and multi-stakeholder processes features prominently. By including
and engaging stakeholders in scenario development, one can not only
extend the knowledge that forms the basis for developing scenarios, it
also builds consensus, creates legitimacy (Appelstrand, 2002), and
forms a basis for shared strategies for the future (Bohunovsky et al.,
2011; Carlsson et al., 2015). This is something that has been acknowl-
edged in other sectors already for years and has given rise to a multitude
of scenario studies in which the participation of stakeholders formed a
central element (Bohunovsky et al., 2011; Kok and Van Vliet, 2011).
Closely linked to the discussion on stakeholder participation in sce-
nario building is the use of qualitative data. Our study shows that
most scenario approaches in forest management make use of quantita-
tive data; only the few participatory studies are more qualitative in na-
ture. Often, also in scenario studies, qualitative and quantitative
methodologies are presented as a dichotomy (Kemp-Benedict, 2004).
Quantitative scenario methodology, with a deterministic approach,
focusses strongly on what is known and what is knowable. Wilkinson
and Eidinow (2008) call this the known-knowns and known-un-
knowns. In contrast, qualitative scenario methodology has strong re-
course to narrative/literature techniques (Kosow and Ganer, 2008).
The two methodologies both have their strengths and limitations
(Wilkinson and Eidinow, 2008). In the last years, several scholars (e.g.
Van Notten et al., 2003) in scenario studies have called for a combina-
tion of the two approaches. As Van Notten et al. (2003, p. 432) stated,
A quantitative scenario can be enriched and its communicability enhanced
with the help of qualitative information. Likewise, a qualitative scenario can
be tested for plausibility and consistency through the quantication of in-
formation where possible. Swart et al. (2004) even argue that especially
scenario analysis, with its broad diversity of methodologies, offers a
large potential for integrating the two views as long as one can nd
the balance between the two.
It is difcult to judge if the limited number of participatory and qual-
itative scenarios in our analysis is inuenced by the selection of journals
analysed. To avoid possible biases in our review, we predened explicit
search strategies and inclusion/exclusion criteria. However, with the
search-term forestry in research area of Web of Science, several
journals with a broader focus than trees, forests and forestry but with
articles on forest scenario studies were ignored. Most of the forestry
journals included have a natural-sciences focus. It might be that the in-
clusion of other journals would have resulted a wider range of studies,
and possibly a stronger representation of participatory, qualitative stud-
ies [such as the study of Haatanen et al. (2014), using participatory sce-
nario development for forest bioenergy, published in the Journal of
Environmental Management].
This being the case or not, considering the complexity of forest man-
agement (Farcy and Devillez, 2005; De Bruin et al., 2015), the issues at
stake, and the urgency of some of these issues (such as climate change
and the role of timber in the upcoming bio-economy) in forest manage-
ment in Europe, we see the necessity of applying more mixed-method,
participatory, and complex scenarios in forest management in the years
to come. That is not to say that the simple, quantitative scenarios based
on desktop studies will not be valuable anymore. In the end, following
the words of Kosow and Ganer (2008, p. 93), it is always the case
8 M.A. Hoogstra-Klein et al. / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2016) xxxxxx
that selection of a specic, concrete scenario technique can make sense only
if carried out in each case specically within a concrete research or project
context.
Acknowledgements
This project has received funding from the European Union's Sev-
enth Program for research, technological development and demonstra-
tion under grant agreement No 282887 (INTEGRAL).
Appendix 1
Management scenario studies
1. Akselsson, C., Westling, O., Sverdrup, H., & Gundersen, P. (2007). Nu-
trient and carbon budgets in forest soils as decision support in sus-
tainable forest management. Forest Ecology and Management,
238(1), 167174.
2. Alam, A., Kilpelinen, A., & Kellomki, S. (2008). Impacts of thinning
on growth, timber production and carbon stocks in Finland under
changing climate. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 23(6),
501512.
3. Alegria, C. M. M. (2011). Simulation of silvicultural scenarios and
economic efciency for maritime pine (Pinus pinaster Aiton)
wood-oriented management in centre inland of Portugal. Forest
Systems, 20, 361378.
4. Alvarez, A., Gracia, M., Vayreda, J., & Retana, J. (2012). Patterns of fuel
types and crown re potential in Pinus halepensis forests in the West-
ern Mediterranean Basin. Forest Ecology and Management, 270, 282
290.
5. Antn-Fernndez, C., & Astrup, R. (2012). Empirical harvest models
and their use in regional business-as-usual scenarios of timber sup-
ply and carbon stock development. Scandinavian Journal of Forest
Research, 27(4), 379392.
6. Bergseng, E., Ask, J. A., Framstad, E., Gobakken, T., Solberg, B., &
Hoen, H. F. (2012). Biodiversity protection and economics in long
term boreal forest management A detailed case for the valuation
of protection measures. Forest Policy and Economics, 15, 1221.
7. Bravo, F., Bravo-Oviedo, A., & Diaz-Balteiro, L. (2008). Carbon se-
questration in Spanish Mediterranean forests under two manage-
ment alternatives: A modeling approach. European Journal of
Forest Research, 127(3), 225234.
8. Cailleret, M., Heurich, M., & Bugmann, H. (2014). Reduction in brows-
ing intensity may not compensate climate change effects on tree spe-
cies composition in the Bavarian Forest National Park. Forest Ecology
and Management, 328, 179192.
9. Campos, P., Daly-Hassen, H., & Ovando, P. (2007). Cork oak forest
management in Spain and Tunisia: two case studies of conicts be-
tween sustainability and private income. International Forestry Re-
view, 9(2), 610626.
10. avlovi, J., Antoni, O., Boi, M., & Teslak, K. (2012). Long-term and
country scale projection of even-aged forest management: a case
study for Fagus sylvatica in Croatia. Scandinavian Journal of Forest
Research, 27(1), 3645.
11. Cienciala, E., Exnerov, Z., & Schelhaas, M. J. (2008). Development of
forest carbon stock and wood production in the Czech Republic
until 2060. Annals of Forest Science, 65(6), 1.
12. Cordonnier, T., Courbaud, B., Berger, F., & Franc, A. (2008). Perma-
nence of resilience and protection efciency in mountain Norway
spruce forest stands: a simulation study. Forest Ecology and Man-
agement, 256(3), 347354.
13. Cucchi, V., Meredieu, C., Stokes, A., de Coligny, F., Suarez, J., & Gardi-
ner, B. A. (2005). Modelling the windthrow risk for simulated forest
stands of Maritime pine (Pinus pinaster Ait.). Forest Ecology and
Management, 213(1), 184196.
Please cite this article as: Hoogstra-Klein, M.A., et al., Analysing scenario approaches for forest management One decade of experiences in
Europe, Forest Policy and Economics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.10.002
14. De Schrijver, A., Geudens, G., Wuyts, K., Staelens, J., Gielis, L., &
Verheyen, K. (2009). Nutrient cycling in two continuous cover sce-
narios for forest conversion of pine plantations on sandy soil. I. Nu-
trient cycling via aboveground tree biomass. Canadian Journal of
Forest Research, 39(2), 441452.
15. De-Miguel, S., Bonet, J. A., Pukkala, T., & de Aragn, J. M. (2014).
Impact of forest management intensity on landscape-level
mushroom productivity: a regional model-based scenario analy-
sis. Forest Ecology and Management, 330, 218227.
16. Eriksson, E., & Berg, S. (2007). Implications of environmental
quality objectives on the potential of forestry to reduce net CO2
emissionsA case study in central Sweden. Forestry, 80(2), 99
111.
17. Eriksson, L. O., Sallns, O., & Sthl, G. (2007). Forest certication and
Swedish wood supply. Forest Policy and Economics, 9(5), 452463.
18. Fonseca, T. F., Cerveira, A., & Mota, A. (2012). An integer program-
ming model for a forest harvest problem in Pinus pinaster stands.
Forest Systems, 21(2), 272283.
19. Fortin, M., Ningre, F., Robert, N., & Mothe, F. (2012). Quantifying the
impact of forest management on the carbon balance of the forest-
wood product chain: A case study applied to even-aged oak stands
in France. Forest Ecology and Management, 279, 176188.
20. Garcia-Gonzalo, J., Borges, J. G., Palma, J. H. N., & Zubizarreta-
Gerendiain, A. (2014). A decision support system for management
planning of Eucalyptus plantations facing climate change. Annals of
Forest Science, 71(2), 187199.
21. Garcia-Gonzalo, J., Peltola, H., Gerendiain, A. Z., & Kellomki, S.
(2007). Impacts of forest landscape structure and management on
timber production and carbon stocks in the boreal forest ecosystem
under changing climate. Forest Ecology and Management, 241(1),
243257.
22. Ge, Z. M., Kellomki, S., Peltola, H., Zhou, X., Wang, K. Y., & Visnen, H.
(2011). Effects of varying thinning regimes on carbon uptake, total
stem wood growth, and timber production in Norway spruce (Picea
abies) stands in southern Finland under the changing climate. Annals
of Forest Science, 68(2), 371383.
23. Hrtl, F., & Knoke, T. (2014). The inuence of the oil price on timber
supply. Forest Policy and Economics, 39, 3242.
24. Krkkinen, L., Nuutinen, T., Hirvel, H., & Mkel, H. (2011). Effects
of administrative land-use and technical land-form constraints on
timber production at the landscape level. Scandinavian Journal of
Forest Research, 26(2), 120127.
25. Khanina, L., Bobrovsky, M., Komarov, A., & Mikhajlov, A. (2007).
Modeling dynamics of forest ground vegetation diversity under dif-
ferent forest management regimes. Forest Ecology and Manage-
ment, 248(1), 8094.
26. Kint, V., Lasch, P., Lindner, M., & Muys, B. (2009). Multipurpose con-
version management of Scots pine towards mixed oakbirch stands
A long-term simulation approach. Forest Ecology and Manage-
ment, 257(1), 199214.
27. Khl, M., Stmer, W., Kenter, B., & Riedel, T. (2008). Effect of the es-
timation of forest management and decay of dead woody material
on the reliability of carbon stock and carbon stock changes A sim-
ulation study. Forest Ecology and Management, 256(3), 229236.
28. Kong, J., Rnnqvist, M., & Frisk, M. (2012). Modeling an integrated
market for sawlogs, pulpwood, and forest bioenergy. Canadian Jour-
nal of Forest Research, 42(2), 315332.
29. Kostadinov, F., Holm, S., Steubing, B., Thees, O., & Lemm, R. (2014).
Simulation of a Swiss wood fuel and roundwood market: An explor-
ative study in agent-based modeling. Forest Policy and Economics,
38, 105118.
30. Kurbanov, E., Vorobyov, O., Gubayev, A., Moshkina, L., & Lezhnin, S.
(2007). Carbon sequestration after pine afforestation on marginal
lands in the Povolgie region of Russia: a case study of the potential
for a Joint Implementation activity. Scandinavian Journal of Forest
Research, 22(6), 488499.
 M.A. Hoogstra-Klein et al. / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2016) xxxxxx
31. Lasch, P., Badeck, F. W., Suckow, F., Lindner, M., & Mohr, P. (2005).
Model-based analysis of management alternatives at stand and re-
gional level in Brandenburg (Germany). Forest Ecology and Man-
agement, 207(1), 5974.
32. Lauren, A., Sikanen, L., Asikainen, A., Koivusalo, H., Palviainen, M.,
Kokkonen, T., ... & Finer, L. (2008). Impacts of logging residue and
stump removal on nitrogen export to a stream: A modelling ap-
proach. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 23(3), 227235.
33. Loustau, D., Bosc, A., Colin, A., Oge, J., Davi, H., Franois, C., ... & le
Bas, C. (2005). Modeling climate change effects on the potential
production of French plains forests at the sub-regional level. Tree
Physiology, 25(7), 813823.
34. Lucas, R. W., Holmstrm, H., & Lms, T. (2014). Intensive forest
harvesting and pools of base cations in forest ecosystems: a model-
ing study using the Heureka decision support system. Forest Ecolo-
gy and Management, 325, 2636.
35. Lundmark, T., Bergh, J., Hofer, P., Lundstrm, A., Nordin, A., Poudel, B.
C., ... & Werner, F. (2014). Potential roles of Swedish forestry in the
context of climate change mitigation. Forests, 5(4), 557578.
36. Mkel, H., Hirvel, H., Nuutinen, T., & Krkkinen, L. (2011). Esti-
mating forest data for analyses of forest production and utilization
possibilities at local level by means of multi-source National Forest
Inventory. Forest Ecology and Management, 262(8), 13451359.
37. Matala, J., Krkkinen, L., Hrknen, K., Kellomki, S., & Nuutinen, T.
(2009). Carbon sequestration in the growing stock of trees in Fin-
land under different cutting and climate scenarios. European Jour-
nal of Forest Research, 128(5), 493504.
38. Melin, Y., Petersson, H., & Egnell, G. (2010). Assessing carbon bal-
ance trade-offs between bioenergy and carbon sequestration of
stumps at varying time scales and harvest intensities. Forest Ecolo-
gy and Management, 260(4), 536542.
39. Merganiov, K., Pietsch, S. A., & Hasenauer, H. (2005). Testing
mechanistic modeling to assess impacts of biomass removal. Forest
Ecology and Management, 207(1), 3757.
40. Mnkknen, M., Reunanen, P., Kotiaho, J. S., Juutinen, A., Tikkanen,
O. P., & Kouki, J. (2011). Cost-effective strategies to conserve boreal
forest biodiversity and long-term landscape-level maintenance of
habitats. European Journal of Forest Research, 130(5), 717727.
41. Nabuurs, G. J., Pussinen, A., van Brusselen, J., & Schelhaas, M. J.
(2007). Future harvesting pressure on European forests. European
Journal of Forest Research, 126(3), 391400.
42. Nilsson, U., Fahlvik, N., Johansson, U., Lundstrm, A., & Rosvall, O.
(2011). Simulation of the effect of intensive forest management
on forest production in Sweden. Forests, 2(1), 373393.
43. Overbeck, M., & Schmidt, M. (2012). Modelling infestation risk of
Norway spruce by Ips typographus (L.) in the Lower Saxon Harz
Mountains (Germany). Forest Ecology and Management, 266,
115125.
44. Palenova, M., Korotkov, V., Chumachenko, S., Politov, D., Andrienko,
G., & Andrienko, N. (2007). The use of simulation model FORRUS S
in the ecological management in forestry: strategic and tactics plan-
ning. Scientia Forestalis, (73), 73.
45. Pasalodos-Tato, M., Pukkala, T., Rigueiro-Rodrguez, A., Fernndez-
Nez, E., & Mosquera-Losada, M. R. (2009). Optimal management
of Pinus radiata silvopastoral systems established on abandoned ag-
ricultural land in Galicia (north-western Spain). Silva Fennica 43(5),
831845.
46. Pauwels, D., Lejeune, P., & Rondeux, J. (2007). A decision support
system to simulate and compare silvicultural scenarios for pure
even-aged larch stands. Annals of Forest Science, 64(3), 345353.
47. Peltoniemi, M., Penttil, R., & Mkip, R. (2013). Temporal varia-
tion of polypore diversity based on modelled dead wood dynamics
in managed and natural Norway spruce forests. Forest Ecology and
Management, 310, 523530.
48. Prez-Cruzado, C., Mohren, G. M., Merino, A., & Rodrguez-Soalleiro,
R. (2012). Carbon balance for different management practices for
Please cite this article as: Hoogstra-Klein, M.A., et al., Analysing scenario approaches for forest management One decade of experiences in
Europe, Forest Policy and Economics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.10.002
9
fast growing tree species planted on former pastureland in southern
Europe: a case study using the CO2Fix model. European Journal of
Forest Research, 131(6), 16951716.
49. Peterson, L. K., Bergen, K. M., Brown, D. G., Vashchuk, L., & Blam, Y.
(2009). Forested land-cover patterns and trends over changing for-
est management eras in the Siberian Baikal region. Forest Ecology
and Management, 257(3), 911922.
50. Pique-Nicolau, M., del-Rio, M., Calama, R., & Montero, G. (2011).
Modelling silviculture alternatives for managing Pinus pinea L. for-
est in North-East Spain, 20(1), 320. Forest System (Espaa).
51. Pussinen, A., Nabuurs, G. J., Wieggers, H. J. J., Reinds, G. J., Wamelink,
G. W. W., Kros, J., ... & De Vries, W. (2009). Modelling long-term im-
pacts of environmental change on mid-and high-latitude European
forests and options for adaptive forest management. Forest Ecology
and Management, 258(8), 18061813.
52. Pyrl, P., Kellomki, S., & Peltola, H. (2012). Effects of manage-
ment on biomass production in Norway spruce stands and carbon
balance of bioenergy use. Forest Ecology and Management, 275,
8797.
53. Rammig, A., Fahse, L., Bebi, P., & Bugmann, H. (2007). Wind distur-
bance in mountain forests: Simulating the impact of management
strategies, seed supply, and ungulate browsing on forest succession.
Forest Ecology and Management, 242(2), 142154.
54. Roessiger, J., Griess, V. C., & Knoke, T. (2011). May risk aversion lead
to near-natural forestry? A simulation study. Forestry, 84(5), 527
537.
55. Routa, J., Kellomki, S., Peltola, H., & Asikainen, A. (2011). Impacts of
thinning and fertilization on timber and energy wood production in
Norway spruce and Scots pine: scenario analyses based on ecosys-
tem model simulations. Forestry, 111, doi:10.1093/forestry/
cpw043
56. Sngstuvall, L., Bergstrm, D., Lms, T., & Nordfjell, T. (2012). Sim-
ulation of harvester productivity in selective and boom-corridor
thinning of young forests. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research,
27(1), 5673.
57. Schmid, S., Thrig, E., Kaufmann, E., Lischke, H., & Bugmann, H.
(2006). Effect of forest management on future carbon pools and
uxes: A model comparison. Forest Ecology and Management,
237(1), 6582.
58. Schou, E., & Meilby, H. (2013). Transformation of even-aged Euro-
pean beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) to uneven-aged management
under changing growth conditions caused by climate change. Euro-
pean Journal of forest research, 132(56), 777789.
59. Seidl, R., Rammer, W., Jger, D., & Lexer, M. J. (2008). Impact of bark
beetle (Ips typographus L.) disturbance on timber production and
carbon sequestration in different management strategies under cli-
mate change. Forest Ecology and Management, 256(3), 209220.
60. Seidl, R., Rammer, W., Lasch, P., Badeck, F., & Lexer, M. J. (2008).
Does conversion of even-aged, secondary coniferous forests affect
carbon sequestration? A simulation study under changing environ-
mental conditions. Silva Fennica, 42(3), 369.
61. Seifert, T. (2007). Simulating the extent of decay caused by
Heterobasidion annosum sl in stems of Norway spruce. Forest Ecolo-
gy and Management, 248(1), 95106.
62. Sievnen, R., Salminen, O., Lehtonen, A., Ojanen, P., Liski, J.,
Ruosteenoja, K., & Tuomi, M. (2014). Carbon stock changes of forest
land in Finland under different levels of wood use and climate
change. Annals of Forest Science, 71(2), 255265.
63. Sjlie, H. K., Latta, G. S., & Solberg, B. (2014). Impacts of the Kyoto
Protocol on boreal forest climate change mitigation. Annals of For-
est Science, 71(2), 267277.
64. Staupendahl, K., & Mhring, B. (2011). Integrating natural risks into
silvicultural decision models: a survival function approach. Forest
Policy and Economics, 13(6), 496502.
65. Tatarinov, F. A., Cienciala, E., Vopenka, P., & Avilov, V. (2011). Effect
of climate change and nitrogen deposition on central-European
10 M.A. Hoogstra-Klein et al. / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2016) xxxxxx
forests: Regional-scale simulation for South Bohemia. Forest Ecolo-
gy and Management, 262(10), 19191927.
66. Thrig, E., & Kaufmann, E. (2010). Increasing carbon sinks through
forest management: a model-based comparison for Switzerland
with its Eastern Plateau and Eastern Alps. European Journal of For-
est Research, 129(4), 563572.
67. Thrig, E., Palosuo, T., Bucher, J., & Kaufmann, E. (2005). The impact
of windthrow on carbon sequestration in Switzerland: a model-
based assessment. Forest Ecology and Management, 210(1), 337
350.
68. Tullus, A., Lukason, O., Vares, A., Padari, A., Lutter, R., Tullus, T., ... &
Tullus, H. (2012). Economics of hybrid aspen (Populus tremula
L. P. tremuloides Michx.) and silver birch (Betula pendula Roth.)
plantations on abandoned agricultural lands in Estonia. Baltic For-
estry, 18(2), 288298.
69. Vallet, P., Meredieu, C., Seynave, I., Belouard, T., & Dhte, J. F. (2009).
Species substitution for carbon storage: Sessile oak versus Corsican
pine in France as a case study. Forest Ecology and Management,
257(4), 13141323.
70. Verkerk, P. J., Anttila, P., Eggers, J., Lindner, M., & Asikainen, A.
(2011). The realisable potential supply of woody biomass from for-
ests in the European Union. Forest Ecology and Management,
261(11), 20072015.
71. Vospernik, S., & Reimoser, S. (2008). Modelling changes in roe deer
habitat in response to forest management. Forest Ecology and Man-
agement, 255(3), 530545.
72. Wam, H. K., Hofstad, O., Nvdal, E., & Sankhayan, P. (2005). A bio-
economic model for optimal harvest of timber and moose. Forest
Ecology and Management, 206(1), 207219.
73. Weslien, J., Finer, L., Jonsson, J. A., Koivusalo, H., Lauren, A., Ranius, T.,
& Sigurdsson, B. D. (2009). Effects of increased forest productivity
and warmer climates on carbon sequestration, run-off water quality
and accumulation of dead wood in a boreal landscape: a modelling
study. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 24(4), 333347.
74. Wolfslehner, B., Brchert, F., Fischbach, J., Rammer, W., Becker, G.,
Lindner, M., & Lexer, M. J. (2012). Exploratory multi-criteria analysis
in sustainability impact assessment of forest-wood chains: the ex-
ample of a regional case study in BadenWrttemberg. European
Journal of Forest Research, 131(1), 4756.
75. Zirlewagen, D., & von Wilpert, K. (2004). Using model scenarios to
predict and evaluate forest-management impacts on soil base satu-
ration at landscape level. European Journal of Forest Research,
123(4), 269282.
Environmental scenario studies
1. Albert, M., & Schmidt, M. (2010). Climate-sensitive modelling of
site-productivity relationships for Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.)
Karst.) and common beech (Fagus sylvatica L.). Forest Ecology and
Management, 259(4), 739749.
2. Arnaldo, P. S., Oliveira, I., Santos, J., & Leite, S. (2011). Climate change
and forest plagues: the case of the pine. Forest Systems, 20(3), 508
515.
3. Attorre, F., Alfo, M., De Sanctis, M., Francesconi, F., Valenti, R.,
Vitale, M., & Bruno, F. (2011). Evaluating the effects of climate
change on tree species abundance and distribution in the Italian
peninsula. Applied Vegetation Science, 14(2), 242255.
4. Blennow, K., Andersson, M., Sallns, O., & Olofsson, E. (2010). Cli-
mate change and the probability of wind damage in two Swedish
forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(4), 818830.
5. Bravo-Oviedo, A., Gallardo-Andres, C., del Ro, M., & Montero, G.
(2010). Regional changes of Pinus pinaster site index in Spain
using a climate-based dominant height model. Canadian Journal
of Forest Research, 40(10), 20362048.
6. Brouwers, N. C., Newton, A. C., Watts, K., & Bailey, S. (2010). Evalu-
ation of buffer-radius modelling approaches used in forest conser-
vation and planning. Forestry, 83(4), 409421.
Please cite this article as: Hoogstra-Klein, M.A., et al., Analysing scenario approaches for forest management One decade of experiences in
Europe, Forest Policy and Economics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.10.002
7. Casalegno, S., Amatulli, G., Camia, A., Nelson, A., & Pekkarinen, A.
(2010). Vulnerability of Pinus cembra L. in the Alps and the
Carpathian mountains under present and future climates. Forest
Ecology and Management, 259(4), 750761.
8. Conds, S., & Garca-Robredo, F. (2012). An empirical mixed model
to quantify climate inuence on the growth of Pinus halepensis Mill.
stands in South-Eastern Spain. Forest Ecology and Management,
284, 5968.
9. De la Cueva, A. V., Quintana, J. R., & Caellas, I. (2012). Fire activity
projections in the SRES A2 and B2 climatic scenarios in peninsular
Spain. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 21(6), 653665.
10. Duguy, B., Alloza, J. A., Rder, A., Vallejo, R., & Pastor, F. (2007).
Modelling the effects of landscape fuel treatments on re growth
and behaviour in a Mediterranean landscape (eastern Spain). Inter-
national Journal of Wildland Fire, 16(5), 619632.
11. Eriksson, L. O., Gustavsson, L., Hnninen, R., Kallio, M., Lyhykinen,
H., Pingoud, K., ... & Valsta, L. (2012). Climate change mitigation
through increased wood use in the European construction sector
Towards an integrated modelling framework. European Journal of
Forest Research, 131(1), 131144.
12. Falk, W., & Mellert, K. H. (2011). Species distribution models as a
tool for forest management planning under climate change: risk
evaluation of Abies alba in Bavaria. Journal of Vegetation Science,
22(4), 621634.
13. Feng, L., de Reffye, P., Dreyfus, P., & Auclair, D. (2012). Connecting an
architectural plant model to a forest stand dynamics model Appli-
cation to Austrian black pine stand visualization. Annals of Forest
Science, 69(2), 245255.
14. Gonzlez-Olabarria, J. R., Rodrguez, F., Fernndez-Landa, A., &
Mola-Yudego, B. (2012). Mapping re risk in the Model Forest of
Urbin (Spain) based on airborne LiDAR measurements. Forest
Ecology and Management, 282, 149156.
15. Hanewinkel, M., Hummel, S., & Cullmann, D. A. (2010). Modelling
and economic evaluation of forest biome shifts under climate
change in Southwest Germany. Forest Ecology and Management,
259(4), 710719.
16. Hlsny, T., Barcza, Z., Barka, I., Merganiov, K., Sedmk, R., Kern, A.,
... & Churkina, G. (2014). Future carbon cycle in mountain spruce
forests of Central Europe: Modelling framework and ecological in-
ferences. Forest Ecology and Management, 328, 5568.
17. Jolivet, C., & Degen, B. (2011). Spatial genetic structure in wild cher-
ry (Prunus avium L.): II. Effect of density and clonal propagation on
spatial genetic structure based on simulation studies. Tree Genetics
and Genomes, 7(3), 541552.
18. Kapeller, S., Lexer, M. J., Geburek, T., Hiebl, J., & Schueler, S.
(2012). Intraspecic variation in climate response of Norway
spruce in the eastern Alpine range: Selecting appropriate prove-
nances for future climate. Forest Ecology and Management, 271,
4657.
19. Katunar, L., & Kobler, A. (2011). Prediction of forest vegetation shift
due to different climate-change scenarios in Slovenia. umarski List,
135(34), 113125.
20. Lutz, D. A., Shugart, H. H., Ershov, D. V., Shuman, J. K., & Isaev, A. S.
(2013). Boreal forest sensitivity to increased temperatures at multi-
ple successional stages. Annals of Forest Science, 70(3), 299308.
21. Manso, R., Pukkala, T., Pardos, M., Miina, J., & Calama, R. (2013).
Modelling Pinus pinea forest management to attain natural re-
generation under present and future climatic scenarios. Canadi-
an Journal of Forest Research, 44(3), 250262.
22. Peltola, H., Ikonen, V. P., Gregow, H., Strandman, H., Kilpelinen, A.,
Venlinen, A., & Kellomki, S. (2010). Impacts of climate change on
timber production and regional risks of wind-induced damage to
forests in Finland. Forest Ecology and Management, 260(5), 833
845.
23. Puerta-Piero, C., Brotons, L., Coll, L., & Gonzlez-Olabarra, J. R.
(2012). Valuing acorn dispersal and resprouting capacity ecological
 M.A. Hoogstra-Klein et al. / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2016) xxxxxx
functions to ensure Mediterranean forest resilience after re. Euro-
pean Journal of Forest Research, 131(3), 835844.
24. Reyer, C., Lasch, P., Mohren, G. M., & Sterck, F. J. (2010). Inter-specic
competition in mixed forests of Douglas-r (Pseudotsuga menziesii)
and common beech (Fagus sylvatica) under climate changea
model-based analysis. Annals of Forest Science, 67(8), 805.
25. Reyer, C., Lasch-Born, P., Suckow, F., Gutsch, M., Murawski, A., & Pilz,
T. (2014). Projections of regional changes in forest net primary pro-
ductivity for different tree species in Europe driven by climate
change and carbon dioxide. Annals of Forest Science, 71(2), 211
225.
26. Rubio, L., Rodrguez-Freire, M., Mateo-Snchez, M. C., Estreguil, C., &
Saura, S. (2012). Sustaining forest landscape connectivity under dif-
ferent land cover change scenarios. Forest Systems, 21(2), 223235.
27. Stojanovi, D. B., Kri, A., Matovi, B., Orlovi, S., Duputie, A.,
Djurdjevi, V., ... & Stojni, S. (2013). Prediction of the European
beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) xeric limit using a regional climate
model: an example from southeast Europe. Agricultural and Forest
Meteorology, 176, 94103.
28. Vanhanen, H., Veteli, T. O., Paivinen, S., Kellomaki, S., & Niemela, P.
(2007). Climate change and range shifts in two insect defoliators:
Gypsy moth and nun moth-A model study. Silva Fennica, 41(4),
621.
29. Vennetier, M., & Ripert, C. (2009). Forest ora turnover with climate
change in the Mediterranean region: a case study in Southeastern
France. Forest Ecology and Management, 258, S56-S63.
Optimization scenario studies
1. Ahtikoski, A., Tuulentie, S., Hallikainen, V., Nivala, V., Vatanen, E.,
Tyrvinen, L., & Salminen, H. (2011). Potential trade-offs between
nature-based tourism and forestry, a case study in Northern Fin-
land. Forests, 2(4), 894912.
2. Czajkowski, M., Bartczak, A., Giergiczny, M., Navrud, S., & ylicz, T.
(2014). Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem
service management. Forest Policy and Economics, 39, 112.
3. Eriksson, L. O., Backus, S., & Garcia, F. (2012). Implications of
growth uncertainties associated with climate change for stand
management. European Journal of Forest Research, 131(4), 1199
1209.
4. Ferreira, L., Constantino, M. F., Borges, J. G., & Garcia-Gonzalo, J.
(2012). A stochastic dynamic programming approach to optimize
short-rotation coppice systems management scheduling: an appli-
cation to eucalypt plantations under wildre risk in Portugal. Forest
Science, 58(4), 353365.
5. Gimnez, J. C., Bertomeu, M., Diaz-Balteiro, L., & Romero, C. (2013).
Optimal harvest scheduling in Eucalyptus plantations under a sus-
tainability perspective. Forest Ecology and Management, 291,
367376.
6. Gutsch, M., Lasch, P., Suckow, F., & Reyer, C. (2011). Management of
mixed oak-pine forests under climate. Forest Systems, 20(3), 453
463.
7. Jones, N., Gleridou, C., Dimitrakopoulos, P. G., & Evangelinos, K. I.
(2012). Investigating social acceptability for public forest manage-
ment policies as a function of social factors. Forest Policy and Eco-
nomics, 14(1), 148155.
8. Jonsson, M., Ranius, T., Ekvall, H., & Bostedt, G. (2010). Cost-effec-
tiveness of silvicultural measures to increase substrate availability
for wood-dwelling species: A comparison among boreal tree spe-
cies. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 25(1), 4660.
9. Khmaier, M., & Stampfer, K. (2010). Development of a multi-attri-
bute spatial decision support system in selecting timber harvesting
systems. Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering, 31(2), 7588.
10. Lafond, V., Lagarrigues, G., Cordonnier, T., & Courbaud, B. (2014).
Uneven-aged management options to promote forest resilience
for climate change adaptation: effects of group selection and har-
vesting intensity. Annals of Forest Science, 71(2), 173186.
Please cite this article as: Hoogstra-Klein, M.A., et al., Analysing scenario approaches for forest management One decade of experiences in
Europe, Forest Policy and Economics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.10.002
11
11. Laurn, A., Koivusalo, H., Ahtikoski, A., Kokkonen, T., & Finr, L.
(2007). Water protection and buffer zones: How much does it
cost to reduce nitrogen load in a forest cutting? Scandinavian Jour-
nal of Forest Research, 22(6), 537544.
12. Nordstrm, E. M., Holmstrm, H., & hman, K. (2013). Evaluating
continuous cover forestry based on the forest owner's objectives
by combining scenario analysis and multiple criteria decision anal-
ysis. Silva Fennica 47(4), article id 1046.
13. Pivinen, R., Lindner, M., Rosn, K., & Lexer, M. J. (2012). A concept
for assessing sustainability impacts of forestry-wood chains. Euro-
pean Journal of Forest Research, 131(1), 719.
14. Paletto, A., De Meo, I., Cantiani, M. G., & Cocciardi, D. (2014).
Balancing wood market demand and common property rights: a
case study of a community in the Italian Alps. Journal of Forest Re-
search, 19(5), 417426.
15. Sacchelli, S., Zambelli, P., Zatelli, P., & Ciolli, M. (2013). Biomasfor:
An open-source holistic model for the assessment of sustainable
forest bioenergy. iForestBiogeosciences and Forestry, 6(5), 285.
16. Seidl, R., Rammer, W., & Lexer, M. J. (2011). Adaptation options to
reduce climate change vulnerability of sustainable forest manage-
ment in the Austrian Alps. Canadian Journal of Forest Research,
41(4), 694706.
17. Vecchiato, D., & Tempesta, T. (2013). Valuing the benets of an af-
forestation project in a peri-urban area with choice experiments.
Forest Policy and Economics, 26, 111120.
18. Yates, C., Dorward, P., Hemery, G., & Cook, P. (2007). The economic
viability and potential of a novel poultry agroforestry system. Agro-
forestry Systems, 69(1), 1328.
Participatory scenario studies
1. Bizikova, L., Nijnik, M., & Kluvankov-Oravsk, T. (2012). Sustaining
multifunctional forestry through the developing of social capital
and promoting participation: a case of multiethnic mountain com-
munities. Small-Scale Forestry, 11(3), 301319.
2. Dhar, A., Ruprecht, H., & Vacik, H. (2008). Population viability risk
management (PVRM) for in situ management of endangered tree
species A case study on a Taxus baccata L. population. Forest Ecolo-
gy and Management, 255(7), 28352845.
3. Eyvindson, K., Hujala, T., Kangas, A., & Kurttila, M. (2012). Selecting a
forest plan among alternatives: Consistency of preferences within
decision support frameworks. Forest Policy and Economics, 15,
114122.
4. Frstenau, C., Badeck, F. W., Lasch, P., Lexer, M. J., Lindner, M., Mohr,
P., & Suckow, F. (2007). Multiple-use forest management in consider-
ation of climate change and the interests of stakeholder groups. Euro-
pean Journal of Forest Research, 126(2), 225239.
5. Horne, P., Boxall, P. C., & Adamowicz, W. L. (2005). Multiple-use man-
agement of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experi-
ment. Forest Ecology and Management, 207(1), 189199.
6. Larsen, J. B., & Nielsen, A. B. (2007). Nature-based forest management
Where are we going? Elaborating forest development types in and
with practice. Forest Ecology and Management, 238(1), 107117.
7. Madureira, L., Nunes, L. C., Borges, J. G., & Falco, A. O. (2011).
Assessing forest management strategies using a contingent valuation
approach and advanced visualisation techniques: A Portuguese case
study. Journal of Forest Economics, 17(4), 399414.
References
Ahtikoski, A., Tuulentie, S., Hallikainen, V., Nivala, V., Vatanen, E., Tyrvinen, L., Salminen,
H., 2011. Potential trade-offs between nature-based tourism and forestry, a case
study in Northern Finland. Forests 2 (4), 894912.
Alam, A., Kilpelinen, A., Kellomki, S., 2008. Impacts of thinning on growth, timber pro-
duction and carbon stocks in Finland under changing climate. Scand. J. For. Res. 23
(6), 501512.
Akselsson, C., Westling, O., Sverdrup, H., Gundersen, P., 2007. Nutrient and carbon bud-
gets in forest soils as decision support in sustainable forest management. For. Ecol.
Manag. 238 (1), 167174.
12 M.A. Hoogstra-Klein et al. / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2016) xxxxxx
Albert, M., Schmidt, M., 2010. Climate-sensitive modelling of site-productivity relation-
ships for Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) and common beech (Fagus sylvatica
L.). For. Ecol. Manag. 259 (4), 739749.
Alegria, C.M.M., 2011. Simulation of silvicultural scenarios and economic efciency for
maritime pine (Pinus pinaster Aiton) wood-oriented management in centre inland
of Portugal. Forest Systems 20, 361378.
Alonso-Ayuso, A., Escudero, L.F., Guignard, M., Quinteros, M., Weintraub, A., 2011. Forestry
management under uncertainty. Ann. Oper. Res. 190 (1), 1739.
Amer, M., Daim, T.U., Jetter, A., 2013. A review of scenario planning. Futures 46, 2340.
Antn-Fernndez, C., Astrup, R., 2012. Empirical harvest models and their use in regional
business-as-usual scenarios of timber supply and carbon stock development. Scand.
J. For. Res. 27 (4), 379392.
Appelstrand, M., 2002. Participation and societal values: the challenge for lawmakers and
policy practitioners. Forest Policy Econ. 4 (4), 281290.
Bergseng, E., Ask, J.A., Framstad, E., Gobakken, T., Solberg, B., Hoen, H.F., 2012. Biodiversity
protection and economics in long term boreal forest management a detailed case
for the valuation of protection measures. Forest Policy Econ. 15, 1221.
Biber, P., Borges, J.G., Moshammer, R., Barreiro, S., Botequim, B., Brodrechtov, Y., ...
Eriksson, L.O., 2015. How sensitive are ecosystem services in European forest land-
scapes to silvicultural treatment? Forests 6 (5), 16661695.
Biggs, R., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Atkinson-Palombo, C., Bohensky, E., Boyd, E., Cundill, G., ...
Zurek, M., 2007. Linking futures across scales: a dialog on multiscale scenarios. Ecol.
Soc. 12 (1), 17.
Bishop, P., Hines, A., Collins, T., 2007. The current state of scenario development: an over-
view of techniques. Foresight 9 (1), 525.
Bishop, I., Smith, E., Williams, K., Ford, R., 2010. Scenario based evaluation of landscape fu-
turesTools for development, communication and assessment. In: Buhmann, E.,
Pietsch, M., Kretzler, E. (Eds.), Digital Landscape Architecture. Wichmann Verlag, Of-
fenbach, Germany, pp. 296312.
Bizikova, L., Nijnik, M., Kluvankov-Oravsk, T., 2012. Sustaining multifunctional forestry
through the developing of social capital and promoting participation: a case of mul-
tiethnic mountain communities. Small-scale Forestry 11 (3), 301319.
Blennow, K., Andersson, M., Sallns, O., Olofsson, E., 2010. Climate change and the proba-
bility of wind damage in two Swedish forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 259 (4), 818830.
Bohunovsky, L., Jger, J., Omann, I., 2011. Participatory scenario development for integrat-
ed sustainability assessment. Reg. Environ. Chang. 11 (2), 271284.
Brjeson, L., Hjer, M., Dreborg, K.H., Ekvall, T., Finnveden, G., 2006. Scenario types and
techniques: towards a user's guide. Futures 38 (7), 723739.
Bradeld, R., Wright, G., Burt, G., Cairns, G., van Der Heijden, K., 2005. The origins and evo-
lution of scenario techniques in long range business planning. Futures 37 (8),
795812.
Carlsson, J., Eriksson, L.O., hman, K., Nordstrm, E.M., 2015. Combining scientic and
stakeholder knowledge in future scenario development a forest landscape case
study in northern Sweden. Forest Policy Econ. 61, 122134.
Casalegno, S., Amatulli, G., Camia, A., Nelson, A., Pekkarinen, A., 2010. Vulnerability of
Pinus cembra L. in the Alps and the Carpathian mountains under present and future
climates. For. Ecol. Manag. 259 (4), 750761.
Chermack, T., Lynham, S.A., Ruona, W.E., 2001. A review of scenario planning literature.
Futur. Res. Q. 17 (2), 731.
Convery, F.J., 1973. Forestry and long range planning. Long Range Plan. 6 (2), 2728.
Cordonnier, T., Courbaud, B., Berger, F., Franc, A., 2008. Permanence of resilience and pro-
tection efciency in mountain Norway spruce forest stands: a simulation study. For.
Ecol. Manag. 256 (3), 347354.
De Bruin, J.O., Hoogstra-Klein, M.A., Mohren, G.M., Arts, B.J., 2015. Complexity of forest
management: exploring perceptions of Dutch forest managers. Forests 6 (9),
32373255.
Den Herder, M., Khadka, C., Pelli, P., Wolfslehner, B., Sandker, M., Lindner, M., ... Palahi, P.,
2014. Scenario Development to Strengthen National Forest Policies and Programmes.
A Review of Future-oriented Tools and Approaches That Support Policy-making. FAO,
Rome.
Dhar, A., Ruprecht, H., Vacik, H., 2008. Population viability risk management (PVRM) for
in situ management of endangered tree species a case study on a Taxus baccata L.
population. For. Ecol. Manag. 255 (7), 28352845.
Dreborg, K.H., 1996. Essence of backcasting. Futures 28 (9), 813828.
Ducot, G., Lubben, G.J., 1980. A typology for scenarios. Futures 12 (1), 5157.
Duerr, W.A., Duerr, J.B., 1975. The role of faith in forest management. In: Ramsey, F., Duerr,
W.A. (Eds.), Social Sciences in Forestry: A Book of Readings. W.B. Saunders Company,
Philadelphia, PA, pp. 3041.
Duinker, P.N., Greig, L.A., 2007. Scenario analysis in environmental impact assessment:
improving explorations of the future. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 27 (3), 206219.
Duncan, N.E., Wack, P., 1994. Scenarios designed to improve decision making. Plan. Rev.
22 (4), 1825 46.
Eriksson, E., Berg, S., 2007. Implications of environmental quality objectives on the poten-
tial of forestry to reduce net CO2 emissionsa case study in central Sweden. Forestry
80 (2), 99111.
Everitt, B., Landau, S., Leese, M., 2001. Cluster Analysis. 4th. Arnold, London.
Farcy, C., Devillez, F., 2005. New orientations of forest management planning from an his-
torical perspective of the relations between man and nature. Forest Policy Econ. 7 (1),
8595.
Godet, M., Roubelat, F., 1996. Creating the future: the use and misuse of scenarios. Long
Range Plan. 29 (2), 164171.
Gonzlez-Olabarria, J.R., Rodrguez, F., Fernndez-Landa, A., Mola-Yudego, B., 2012. Map-
ping re risk in the Model Forest of Urbin (Spain) based on airborne LiDAR mea-
surements. For. Ecol. Manag. 282, 149156.
Gutsch, M., Lasch, P., Suckow, F., Reyer, C., 2011. Management of mixed oak-pine forests
under climate. Forest Systems 20 (3), 453463.
Please cite this article as: Hoogstra-Klein, M.A., et al., Analysing scenario approaches for forest management One decade of experiences in
Europe, Forest Policy and Economics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.10.002
Haatanen, A., den Herder, M., Leskinen, P., Lindner, M., Kurttila, M., Salminen, O., 2014.
Stakeholder engagement in scenario development processbioenergy production
and biodiversity conservation in eastern Finland. J. Environ. Manag. 135, 4553.
Hanewinkel, M., Cullmann, D.A., Schelhaas, M.J., Nabuurs, G.J., Zimmermann, N.E., 2013.
Climate change may cause severe loss in the economic value of European forest
land. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3 (3), 203207.
Hrtl, F., Knoke, T., 2014. The inuence of the oil price on timber supply. Forest Policy
Econ. 39, 3242.
He, H.S., 2008. Forest landscape models: denitions, characterization, and classication.
For. Ecol. Manag. 254 (3), 484498.
Hetemki, L., 2014. Linking global to local using multi-scale scenarios. In: Katila, P., Galloway,
G., De Jong, W., Pacheco, P., Mery, G. (Eds.), Forests Under Pressure: Local Responses to
Global IssuesIUFRO World Series Vol. 32. Vantaa, Finland, IUFRO, pp. 527538.
Heugens, P.P., van Oosterhout, J., 2001. To boldly go where no man has gone before: inte-
grating cognitive and physical features in scenario studies. Futures 33 (10), 861872.
Hoogstra, M.A., 2008. Coping With the Long Term: An Empirical Analysis of Time Perspec-
tives, Time Orientations, and Temporal Uncertainty in Forestry. Forest and Nature Con-
servation Policy Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands PhD thesis.
Hoogstra, M.A., Schanz, H., 2008. How (un)certain is the future in forestry? A comparative
assessment of uncertainty in the forest and agricultural sector. For. Sci. 54, 316327.
Hughes, N., 2009. A historical overview of strategic scenario planning, and lessons for un-
dertaking low carbon energy policy. EON/EPSRC Transition Pathways Project Scenar-
ios Working Paper, 1. UK Energy Research Centre.
IPCC (2015). Denitions of terms used within the DCC pages. http://www.ipcc-data.org/
guidelines/pages/denitions.html. Date of access: 17 September 2015.
Karjalainen, T., Pussinen, A., Liski, J., Nabuurs, G.J., Eggers, T., Lapvetelinen, T., Kaipainen,
T., 2003. Scenario analysis of the impacts of forest management and climate change
on the European forest sector carbon budget. Forest Policy Econ. 5 (2), 141155.
Kemp-Benedict, E., 2004. From Narrative to Number: A Role for Quantitative Models in
Scenario Analysis. Doctoral dissertation. International Environmental Modelling and
Software Society.
Kok, K., Van Vliet, M., 2011. Using a participatory scenario development toolbox: added
values and impact on quality of scenarios. Journal of Water and Climate Change 2
(23), 87105.
Kong, J., Rnnqvist, M., Frisk, M., 2012. Modeling an integrated market for sawlogs, pulp-
wood, and forest bioenergy. Can. J. For. Res. 42 (2), 315332.
Kosow, H., Ganer, R., 2008. Methods of Future and Scenario Analysis. Overview, Assess-
ment, and Selection Criteria. German Development Institute, Bonn, Germany.
Lindner, M., Maroschek, M., Netherer, S., Kremer, A., Barbati, A., Garcia-Gonzalo, J.,
Marchetti, M., 2010. Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of
European forest ecosystems. For. Ecol. Manag. 259, 698709.
Loustau, D., Bosc, A., Colin, A., Oge, J., Davi, H., Franois, C., ... le Bas, C., 2005. Modeling
climate change effects on the potential production of French plains forests at the
sub-regional level. Tree Physiol. 25 (7), 813823.
Madureira, L., Nunes, L.C., Borges, J.G., Falco, A.O., 2011. Assessing forest management
strategies using a contingent valuation approach and advanced visualisation tech-
niques: a Portuguese case study. J. For. Econ. 17 (4), 399414.
March, H., Therond, O., Leenhardt, D., 2012. Water futures: reviewing water-scenario
analyses through an original interpretative framework. Ecol. Econ. 82, 126137.
Martelli, A., 2001. Scenario building and scenario planning: state of the art and prospects
of evolution. Futur. Res. Q. 17 (2), 5774.
Masini, E.B., Vasquez, J.M., 2000. Scenarios as seen from a human and social perspective.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 65 (1), 4966.
McKenzie, E., Rosenthal, A., Bernhardt, J., Girvetz, E., Kovacs, K., Olwero, N., Toft, J., 2012.
Developing Scenarios to Assess Ecosystem Service Tradeoffs: Guidance and Case
Studies for InVEST Users. World Wildlife Fund, Washington DC.
Mietzner, D., Reger, G., 2004. Scenario approaches: history, differences, advantages and
disadvantages. EU-US Seminar: New Technology Foresight. Forecasting and Assess-
ment Methods, Seville, May, pp. 1314.
Millett, S.M., 2003. The future of scenarios: challenges and opportunities. Strategy and
Leadership 31 (2), 1624.
Mohren, G.M.J., 2003. Large-scale scenario analysis in forest ecology and forest manage-
ment. Forest Policy Econ. 5 (2), 103110.
Mnkknen, M., Reunanen, P., Kotiaho, J.S., Juutinen, A., Tikkanen, O.P., Kouki, J., 2011.
Cost-effective strategies to conserve boreal forest biodiversity and long-term land-
scape-level maintenance of habitats. Eur. J. For. Res. 130 (5), 717727.
Moore, S.S., Seavy, N.E., Gerhart, M., 2013. Scenario planning for Climate Change Adapta-
tion. A Guidance for Resource Managers. S.l., Point Blue Conservation Science and the
California Coastal Conservancy.
Mulvihill, P., Kramkowski, V., 2010. Extending the inuence of scenario development in
sustainability planning and strategy. Sustainability 2 (8), 24492466.
Nielsen, .J., Rayamajhi, S., Uberhuaga, P., Meilby, H., Smith-Hall, C., 2013. Quantifying
rural livelihood strategies in developing countries using an activity choice approach.
Agric. Econ. 44 (1), 5771.
NIH (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences), 2015,. Principal variance compo-
nent analysis. http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/software/biostatistics/
pvca/ Date of access: 14 June 2016.
Prez-Soba, M., Maas, R., 2015. Scenarios: tools for coping with complexity and future un-
certainty. The Tools of Policy Formulation: Actors, Capacities, Venues and Effects. Ed-
ward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 5257.
Reyer, C., Lasch, P., Mohren, G.M., Sterck, F.J., 2010. Inter-specic competition in mixed
forests of Douglas-r (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and common beech (Fagus sylvatica)
under climate changea model-based analysis. Ann. For. Sci. 67 (8), 805.
Reyer, C., Lasch-Born, P., Suckow, F., Gutsch, M., Murawski, A., Pilz, T., 2014. Projections of
regional changes in forest net primary productivity for different tree species in Eu-
rope driven by climate change and carbon dioxide. Ann. For. Sci. 71 (2), 211225.
 M.A. Hoogstra-Klein et al. / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2016) xxxxxx
Rothman, D.S., 2008. A survey of environmental scenarios. Environmental futures: the
practice of environmental scenario analysis. Developments in Integrated Environ-
mental Assessment 2, 3765.
Rounsevell, M.D., Metzger, M.J., 2010. Developing qualitative scenario storylines for envi-
ronmental change assessment. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 1 (4), 606619.
Rousseeuw, P.J., 1987. Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of
cluster analysis. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 20, 5365.
Rubio, L., Rodrguez-Freire, M., Mateo-Snchez, M.C., Estreguil, C., Saura, S., 2012. Sustain-
ing forest landscape connectivity under different land cover change scenarios. Forest
Systems 21 (2), 223235.
Schelhaas, M.J., van Brusselen, J., Pussinen, A., Pesonen, E., Schuck, A., Nabuurs, G.J., Sasse,
V., 2006. Outlook for the development of European forest resources. A study prepared
for the European Forest Sector Outlook Study (EFSOS). Geneva Timber and Forest
Discussion Paper. ECE/TIM/DP/41. UN-ECE, Geneva, Switzerland.
Schelhaas, M. J., Prins, K., Hirsch, F., Leader, T., & Alterra, W. U. (2009). A new European
Forest Sector Outlook Study (EFSOS II): Overall approach, scenarios, methods and
outlineBackground paper (1) for members of the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists
and outlook correspondentsSecond, extended team meeting, 2324 November
2009.
Shalizi, C., 2009. Distances between clustering, hierarchical clustering. In: Shalizi, C. (Ed.),
Data Mining. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 110.
Shearer, A.W., 2005. Approaching scenario-based studies: three perceptions about the fu-
ture and considerations for landscape planning. Environment and Planning B: Plan-
ning and Design 32 (1), 6787.
Speidel, G., 1972. Planung im Forstbetrieb: Grundlagen und Methoden der
Forsteinrichtung. Verlag Paul Parey, Hamburg, Germany.
Please cite this article as: Hoogstra-Klein, M.A., et al., Analysing scenario approaches for forest management One decade of experiences in
Europe, Forest Policy and Economics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.10.002
13
Swart, R.J., Raskin, P., Robinson, J., 2004. The problem of the future: sustainability science
and scenario analysis. Glob. Environ. Chang. 14 (2), 137146.
UNECE/FAO, 2011. The European Forest Sector Outlook Study II 20102030. Publishing
Service, United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland.
Valsta, L.T., 1992. A scenario approach to stochastic anticipatory optimization in stand
management. For. Sci. 38 (2), 430447.
Van der Heijden, K., 1996. Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation. Wiley, New York.
Van Notten, P.W., Rotmans, J., van Asselt, M.B., Rothman, D.S., 2003. An updated scenario
typology. Futures 35 (5), 423443.
Varum, C.A., Melo, C., 2010. Directions in scenario planning literature a review of the
past decades. Futures 42 (4), 355369.
Vennetier, M., Ripert, C., 2009. Forest ora turnover with climate change in the Mediter-
ranean region: a case study in Southeastern France. For. Ecol. Manag. 258, 5663.
Wagner, S., Nocentini, S., Huth, F., Hoogstra-Klein, M., 2014. Forest management ap-
proaches for coping with the uncertainty of climate change: trade-offs in service pro-
visioning and adaptability. Ecol. Soc. 19 (1), 32.
Weber, J.A., 2000. Uncertainty and strategic management. In: Rabin, J., Miller, G.J.,
Hildreth, W.B. (Eds.), Handbook of Strategic Management, 2nd ed Marcel Dekker,
Inc., New York, NY, pp. 203226.
Wilkinson, A., Eidinow, E., 2008. Evolving practices in environmental scenarios: a new
scenario typology. Environ. Res. Lett. 3 (4), 045017.
Wollenberg, E., Edmunds, D., Buck, L., 2000. Using scenarios to make decisions about the
future: anticipatory learning for the adaptive co-management of community forests.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 47 (1), 6577.