What do we want future landscapes to look like?
What forests do we want? Understanding agreement and conflict between forest restoration visions
Marc Metzger Vanessa Burton, Louise Sing, Katja SchmidtThe University of Edinburgh
What forests do we want?
Providesclimate regulation
climate change adaptation
biodiversity
renewable materials and energy
clean water
healthy food
cultural heritage
sense of place
Avoidssocial conflict
biodiversity loss
pollution
negative teleconnections
Different forests provide different benefits
Sing et al., 2018. Forestry 91: 151-164
European temperate forests
Different stakeholders want different forests
Visions – positive scenarios of desired future
Stimulate dialogue
Remove present-day constraints
Stimulate creativity
High saliency
Rounsevell and Metzger 2010 WIRC 1: 606-619Peres-Soba et al. 2018. Regional Environmental Change 18: 775-787
Visions a first step to FLR planning
ParticipationAvoid conflict
Common ground and divergence in Scottish land use visions
Valluri-Nitsch et al. 2018. Regional Environmental Change 18: 808-816
Planning tool: how can we reach visions?
Metzger et al. 2018. Regional Environmental Change 18: 707-713.
How to elicit visions?
Document analysis
Stakeholder workshops
Visitor surveys
Semi-structure interviews
Crowd sourcing
Marketing surveys
Choice experiments
A wet desert – Frank Fraser Darling
100,000 hectares of new woodland creation 2012-2022 – from 18% to
25% woodland cover by 2050
Figure 3.6: Mechanical ploughing at Glenbranter in the early 1970s.
Photo: Norman Davidson, from http://forestry-memories.org.uk
Learn from the past!
Workshop &
Interviews
VisionsContent
analysis
53
documents
Burton et al. 2018. Landscape Ecology, pending final revisions
Burton et al. 2018. Landscape Ecology, pending final revisions
Burton et al. 2018. Landscape Ecology, pending final revisions
Land sparing
Land sharing
ConservationUtility
Green Goldutility – land sparing
Burton et al. 2018. Landscape Ecology, pending final revisions
Wild Woodlandsconservation – land sparing
Burton et al. 2018. Landscape Ecology, pending final revisions
Native Networksconservation – land sharing
Burton et al. 2018. Landscape Ecology, pending final revisions
Woodland Cultureutility – land sharing
Burton et al. 2018. Landscape Ecology, pending final revisions
Multiple benefitsbalance
Burton et al. 2018. Landscape Ecology, pending final revisions
Common
groundDivergence
Carbon, biodiversity, water
Regional taskforceExtent of land reform and
community empowerment
Facilitation/mediation Cultural shift
Tailored communicationTreatment of agriculture,
sporting, subsidies
Investment/payment for
Natural Capital or ES
Burton et al. 2018. Landscape Ecology, pending final revisions
Next: Agent Based Modelling
Explore the effects of
land manager decision making
governance strategies on achieving visions
visions on ecosystem services
Lochaber
© Craig Aitchison
Grassland44%
Heathland20%
Montane habitats >600m
14%
Woodland13%
Bog6%
Rock3%
Other<1%
Lochaber
n = 226
4 clusters
Hierarchical clustering
Sing et al. in prep
Public preferences
• Stronger preference for native woodland than commercial forestry
• Importance of managing habitat for wildlife and recreation
LandPref tool
• Positive responses
• Accessible
• Encourages dialogue
• Explores land use issues
Gender
Women tended to prefer more open landscapes
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
cluster 1
cluster 2
cluster 3
cluster 4
male
female
Sing et al. in prep
• Designated Regional Park since 1986
• Covers area of approx. 10,000 ha
• Comprises various landscape
features, land uses and land owners
The Pentland Hills Regional Park
n=73
Traditionalists
Schmidt et al. 2016. Mountain Research and Development Journal 36.4.
n=88n=73
Multi-functionalistsTraditionalists
Schmidt et al. 2016. Mountain Research and Development Journal 36.4.
n=88 n=269n=73
Multi-functionalists Nature enthusiastsTraditionalists
Schmidt et al. 2016. Mountain Research and Development Journal 36.4.
n=88 n=269 n=82n=73
Multi-functionalists Nature enthusiastsRecreation seekersTraditionalists
Schmidt et al. 2016. Mountain Research and Development Journal 36.4.
n=88 n=269 n=82 n=51n=73
Multi-functionalists Nature enthusiastsRecreation seekersWoodland enthusiastsTraditionalists
Schmidt et al. 2016. Mountain Research and Development Journal 36.4.
SNH funded follow-up to work withConsultative Forum and land owners tosupport next 10 year management plan
For FLR we need to:
accept diverging visions
agree transparency guidelines to make agreement, divergence and trade-offs explicit
adopt a diversity of visioning approaches, based on agreed sustainability principles
share best practice
[email protected] ; @mj_metzger
