Table 1. The different management regimes applied in our study area in central Finland (adapted from Mönkkönen et al. 2014). | ||

Management regime | Acronym | Description |

Business as usual | BAU | Current recommended management: 80 year rotation on average; site preparation, planting or seeding trees, 1−3 thinnings, final harvest with green tree retention level 5 trees ha^{–1} |

Set aside | SA | No management, no timber production |

Extended rotation (10 years) | EXT10 | BAU with postponed final harvesting by 10 years; lower timber NPV due to time discounting; represents a short term conservation strategy |

Extended rotation (30 years) | EXT30 | BAU with postponed final harvesting by >30 years; lower timber NPV due to time discounting; represents a long term conservation strategy |

Green tree retention | GTR30 | BAU with 30 green trees ha^{–1} left uncut at final harvest; reduced timber production; conservation oriented management used to increase structural diversity |

No thinnings long rotation (final harvest threshold criteria as in BAU) | NTLR | BAU with no thinnings; therefore forests grow more slowly, final harvest is delayed and timber NPV is lower; average rotation length 86 years |

No thinnings short rotation (minimum final harvest threshold criteria) | NTSR | BAU with no thinnings; final harvest criteria adjusted so that rotations do not prolong; average rotation length 77 years; lower timber NPV due to smaller size of trees at final harvest |

Table 2. Potential of the landscape (43 150 ha) in central Finland to provide annual yields of collectable goods, the combined economic value of collectable goods (NPV) across a 50 year planning horizon, and costs related to collectable goods provision. Max and Min values represent the largest and smallest possible yields or NPV of collectable goods among Pareto optimal solutions that can be achieved when applying combinations of the seven alternative management regimes. Timber NPV difference is the reduction in timber NPV in the Pareto optimal sets required to achieve maximum yields (max timber NPV is 250 M€ in all cases). | |||

Max | Min | Timber NPV difference | |

Collectable good | |||

Bilberry yield | 331 Mg | 257 Mg | 75 M€ |

Cowberry yield | 1522 Mg | 1452 Mg | 7 M€ |

Cep yield | 50 Mg | 44 Mg | 16 M€ |

Collectable goods NPV | 68 M€ | 66 M€ | 13 M€ |

Table 3. Annual yields of collectable goods on average and the economic value of collectable goods and timber (NPV) across 50 years for alternative management regimes (BAU business as usual, SA set aside, EXT10 extended rotation 10 years, EXT30 extended rotation 30 years, GTR30 green tree retention, NTSR no thinnings short rotation and NTLR no thinnings long rotation) if only one management regime is used in all stands of the study landscape in Central Finland. The largest value of alternative management regimes is given in bold. % of Max is the proportion of the values compared to the maximum value (Table 2). | |||||||

Management regime | |||||||

BAU | SA | EXT10 | EXT30 | GTR30 | NTSR | NTLR | |

Bilberry (Mg) % of Max | 266 80% | 277 84% | 285 86% | 30392% | 273 82% | 223 67% | 241 73% |

Cowberry (Mg) % of Max | 149198% | 1089 72% | 1416 93% | 1299 85% | 1381 91% | 1468 96% | 1365 90% |

Cep (Mg) % of Max | 42 85% | 35 70% | 43 85% | 36 71% | 4489% | 42 84% | 41 82% |

Collectable goods NPV (M€) % of Max | 6798% | 54 79% | 64 93% | 60 88% | 63 93% | 65 95% | 62 91% |

Timber NPV (M€) % of Max | 24698% | 0 0% | 230 92% | 186 74% | 240 96% | 242 97% | 238 95% |

Table 4. Changes in %-units in the share of different management regimes (BAU business as usual, SA set aside, EXT10 extended rotation 10 years, EXT30 extended rotation 30 years, GTR30 green tree retention, NTSR no thinnings short rotation and NTLR no thinnings long rotation) in the Pareto optimal set at the 5% level of collectable good costs (95% of the maximum timber revenues) for the different collectable goods in our study landscape in central Finland. The first row was used as the reference outcome and gives the share (in %-units) of forest area under each regime when the target is to maximize timber NPV. The following rows represent changes for each regime from the reference outcome at the 5% level of collectables costs. % of Max yield is the proportion of the yield in the Pareto optimal set at the 95% level of timber revenues compared to the potential maximum yield in the landscape (see Table 2). Impr. in yield is how large improvement in yields can be gained if timber NPV is reduced of 5% from the maximum in Pareto optimal set. In the case of cowberry, values are given at the level of 97% of the maximum timber NPV when cowberry yield was already maximized. | |||||||||

Management regime | % of Max yield | Impr. in yield | |||||||

BAU | SA | EXT10 | EXT30 | GTR30 | NTSR | NTLR | |||

44.1 | 0.1 | 8.6 | 0.3 | 6.9 | 36.1 | 3.9 | |||

Bilberry | 1.5 | 0.9 | 8.1 | 7.9 | 4.8 | –24.1 | 0.9 | 92% | 15% |

Cowberry | 15 | 0.0 | –5.8 | 0.9 | –6.6 | –5.5 | 1.6 | 100% | 5% |

Cep | –22 | 0.2 | 3.9 | 4.2 | 25.4 | –13.1 | 1.5 | 100% | 13% |

Collectable goods NPV | 16.7 | 0.9 | –5.3 | 2.9 | –6.8 | –5.4 | –2.9 | 100% | 4% |