Evaluating forest landscape management for ecosystem integrity

Figures & data

Table 1. Examples of proposed indicators of ecosystem integrity.

Criteria/indicators	Reference
Self-organisation, naturally self-regenerating, stability/resilience, adaptive capacity, framework species and characteristic biodiversity	(Rogers et al., 2022)
Land-use intensity, structural diversity, rareness, endangerment, species, structures	(Müller, Hoffmann-Kroll, & Wiggering, 2000)
Resilience, collaboration and auto-sufficiency	(Becker, 2005)
Structure, landscape structure, composition, function	(Tierney et al., 2009)
Fragmentation, representativeness, ecosystem sensitivity, landscape connectivity	(Reza & Abdullah, 2011)
Use intensity, structural diversity, rarity/threat	(Walz, 2011)
Surface temperature, stand structure, plant life history traits	(Norris et al., 2012)
Level of human modification	(Theobald, 2013)
Exergy capture, entropy production, storage capacity, cycling & nutrient loss reduction, biotic water flows, metabolic efficiency, heterogeneity, biotic diversity	(Kandziora et al., 2013)
Micro-climate, patch heterogeneity, biodiversity, territorialisation, seston (for riparian forested areas)	(Michez et al., 2013)
Composition, structure, function	(Wurtzebach & Schultz, 2016)
Ecosystem structure, composition, function, species composition, diversity, and functional organisation	(Brown & Williams, 2016)
Physical and chemical state characteristics, biotic composition, structure and function, landscape level characteristics	(United Nations Department of Economic & Social Affairs, 2021)
Rates of decline in ecosystem distribution; restricted distributions with continuing declines or threats; rates of environmental (abiotic) degradation; rates of disruption to biotic processes; and risk of ecosystem collapse	(D. A. Keith et al., 2013)

Figure 1. Comparative evaluation framework for forest landscape ecosystem integrity.

Figure 2. Hypothetical evaluation of different theoretical landscapes, as described in Table 2. Landscape 1 represents an intact forest landscape (i.e. extensive area >50,000 ha of primary forest) set in a developing tropical country where the forest retains a high level of ecosystem integrity and is managed under strong local, participatory governance and planning regimes underpinned by legalised customary land rights. Landscape 2 is set in a temperate forest in a developed country subject to a long history of legal industrial logging, and while this is subject to significant formal planning and governance, these are not participatory and the major stakeholder’s focus is on resource extraction. Landscape 3 represents a developing country with strong customary land rights but weaker centralised governance and more illegal logging.

Table 2. Illustrative assessment of three hypothetical forest landscape contexts using the three pillar framework.

Landscape	Context	Ecosystem Integrity	Effective Planning	Strong Governance	Priorities for solutions to address integrity shortfalls
1	Economically developing country Dominantly intact forest landscape (i.e. extensive areas of primary forest Traditional village-based communities Legally recognised customary land rights and well-organised local community organisations Growing populations, changing demographics, strong influence from outside Western communities, growing climate change impacts	High	Low	Medium-high	Developing planning to respond to future changes and identify key priorities for forest protection Formalise customary governance through application of a governance standard Recognise the benefits from primary ecosystem services Establish sustainable income generation through payments for ecosystems services
2	Economically developed country Some areas of remnant primary forest, but historical and ongoing logging Highly centralised government-led decision-making, with land use policies influenced by extractive industry vested interests Formal planning processes in place Illegal land use activities largely prevented	Low	Medium-high	Medium-low	Improving wider participation in governance and planning Advocating for planning to include ecosystem integrity considerations recognising values and benefits associated with primary forest protection and restoration
3	Economically developing country Extensive areas of primary forest plus large areas of heavy and ongoing logging Customary land rights and decision-making legally recognises Development pressure from external extractive economic interests Limited capacity of centralised government to prevent illegal logging and mining	Medium	Low	Medium	Building capacity of customary owners for participatory planning Strengthen governance to prevent illegal land uses Recognise the benefits from primary ecosystem services Establish sustainable income generation through payments for ecosystems services

Figure 3. Examples of flows of information between the three pillars can be used to improve forest landscape management.

Rogers, B. M., Mackey, B., Shestakova, T. A., Keith, H., Young, V., Kormos, C. F., … Moomaw, W. R. (2022). Using ecosystem integrity to maximize climate mitigation and minimize risk in international forest policy. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 5, 929281. doi:10.3389/ffgc.2022.929281

 Google Scholar

Müller, F., Hoffmann-Kroll, R., & Wiggering, H. (2000). Indicating ecosystem integrity—Theoretical concepts and environmental requirements. Ecological Modelling, 130(1-3), 13–23. doi:10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00210-6

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Becker, J. (2005). Measuring progress towards sustainable development: An ecological framework for selecting indicators. Local Environment, 10(1), 87–101. doi:10.1080/1354983042000309333

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tierney, G. L., Faber-Langendoen, D., Mitchell, B. R., Shriver, W. G., & Gibbs, J. P. (2009). Monitoring and evaluating the ecological integrity of forest ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(6), 308–316. doi:10.1890/070176

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Reza, M. I. H., & Abdullah, S. A. (2011). Regional Index of Ecological Integrity: A need for sustainable management of natural resources. Ecological Indicators, 11(2), 220–229. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.08.010

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Walz, U. (2011). Landscape Structure, Landscape Metrics and Biodiversity. Living Reviews in Landscape Research, 5, 1–35. doi:10.12942/lrlr-2011-3

 Google Scholar

Norris, C., Hobson, P., & Ibisch, P. L. (2012). Microclimate and vegetation function as indicators of forest thermodynamic efficiency. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49(3), 562–570. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02084.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Theobald, D. M. (2013). A general model to quantify ecological integrity for landscape assessments and US application. Landscape Ecology, 28(10), 1859–1874. doi:10.1007/s10980-013-9941-6

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kandziora, M., Burkhard, B., & Müller, F. (2013). Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators—A theoretical matrix exercise. Ecological Indicators, 28, 54–78. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.09.006

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Michez, A., Piégay, H., Toromanoff, F., Brogna, D., Bonnet, S., Lejeune, P., & Claessens, H. (2013). LiDAR derived ecological integrity indicators for riparian zones: Application to the Houille river in Southern Belgium/Northern France. Ecological Indicators, 34, 627–640. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.06.024

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wurtzebach, Z., & Schultz, C. (2016). Measuring Ecological Integrity: History, Practical Applications, and Research Opportunities. BioScience, 66(6), 446–457. doi:10.1093/biosci/biw037

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brown, E. D., & Williams, B. K. (2016). Ecological integrity assessment as a metric of biodiversity: Are we measuring what we say we are? Biodiversity and Conservation, 25(6), 1011–1035. doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1111-0

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting—Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA) [White cover publication]. United Nations. https://seea.un.org/ecosystem-accounting

 Google Scholar

Keith, D. A., Rodríguez, J. P., Rodríguez-Clark, K. M., Nicholson, E., Aapala, K., Alonso, A., … Zambrano-Martínez, S. (2013). Scientific Foundations for an IUCN Red List of Ecosystems. PLOS One, 8(5), e62111. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0062111

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar