Table 1.
Features, targets, fraction of targets to be achieved across the two zones (non-use and partial use), and contribution (effectiveness) of the partial zone in meeting respective targets.
Figure 1.
Best solution of the reserve network for scenario 1 (a) and scenario 2 (b).
Scenario 1, considers biodiversity conservation criteria only; scenario 2, both biodiversity and ecosystem services criteria. Grey, areas available for forestry; blue, areas in the partial use zone and green, areas in the non-use zone. Current reserves are demarcated in dashed lines. Map inlay shows the location of Telemark within Norway (grey).
Figure 2.
Differences in selection frequency of sites for partial (a) and non-use (b) areas.
The maps show the difference of scenario 2 (biodiversity and ES features) versus scenario 1 (biodiversity only). A positive difference means higher selection frequency in scenario 2 than in scenario 1.
Table 2.
Summary statistics describing the difference between scenario 1 (considering biodiversity conservation criteria only) and 2 (considering biodiversity and ecosystem services) in terms of opportunity costs, area in the different zones and average conservation target achievement.
Figure 3.
Forest conservation-timber production possibility frontier (PPF).
Note that the x-axis (sum of timber production value) starts at 6.00 billion NOK. The maps indicate current reserve network (A) and selected (B–E) available, partial and non-use areas when current reserves are not locked-in. The spatially explicit solutions (policyscapes) are shown as maps on the trade-off between net revenues from timber production and average conservation target achievement, along a range of opportunity costs constraints.
Figure 4.
Forest conservation-timber production possibility frontier (PPF) for single, exemplary features.
Old-growth forest L, S, BN, TR = impediment and low productivity, spruce dominated, boreonemoral zone, oceanic-inland transition zone. Old-growth forest H, P, SMB, TR = high & very high productivity, pine dominated, South & Mid- boreal zone, oceanic-inland transition zone.
Table 3.
Absolute and relative conservation burden per municipality in the current situation, with a cost constraint of 60% and with no cost constraint.