Exploring the impacts of woodland management on ecosystem services – a deliberative method

Figures & data

Table 1. Description of the six woodland sites and summary of workshops.

Case study area	Site	Site description	Governance: Owned and managed by …	Workshop date	No. of participants
Cumbernauld, North Lanarkshire	Cumbernauld Glen 55°57′46″N, 3°57′42″W	Valley woodland in an urban area. Predominantly mature, non-native woodland. However, 65% designated as Ancient semi-natural woodland; includes smaller areas of heath and grassland. No official protected area status. Approx. 118.6 ha.	Scottish Wildlife Trust, a membership-based wildlife and conservation charity	June 2019	5
	Forest Wood 55°57′01″N, 3°56′38″W	Peri-urban woodland. Mostly oak, beech, birch, underplanted with conifers (larch, Sitka spruce, Scots pine, lodgepole pine, western hemlock) in the 1960s. Small areas of lowland peat bog, heath and grassland. Approx. 30% recorded on Ancient Woodland Inventory. Approx. 90 ha.	Scottish Wildlife Trust	June 2019	6
Glen Creran, Argyll and Bute	Glasdrum Wood 56°33′37″N, 5°15′40″W	Rural area. Upland sessile oak and ash woodland, part of a larger area designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Designated for upland oak woodland, bryophyte and lichen assemblages, Chequered Skipper and Pearl-bordered Fritillary butterflies). Special Area of Conservation (SAC) for mixed woodland on base-rich soils associated with rocky slopes and western acidic oak woodland. Mild, wet Atlantic rainforest. National Nature Reserve. Approx. 169 ha.	NatureScot, Scotland’s Nature Agency	January 2019	9
	Glen Creran Woods 56°35′27″N, 5°11′49″W	Rural area. Two areas designated as part of the Glen Creran Woods SSSI & SAC (approx. 368 ha). Mixed woodland, mostly native broadleaf. Some exotic conifer plantation (Sitka and Norway spruce). The areas designated as SSSI are notified for upland oak woodland, bryophyte and lichen assemblages, and Chequered Skipper and Pearl-bordered Fritillary butterflies. The SAC is designated for mixed woodland on base-rich soils and western acidic oak woodland. Glen Creran area is owned by Forestry and Land Scotland. Approx. 2482 ha.	Forestry and Land Scotland, a Scottish Government agency	April 2018	7
Loch Arkaig, Highlands	Clunes and Tom an Eireannaich woodland (56°57′10″N, 4°57′27″W)	Rural area. Ancient, mixed broad-leaved woodland containing patches of upland oakwood, upland birchwood and wet woodland. Small but good example of wet Atlantic rainforest. Approx. 6 ha.	Arkaig Community Forest, managed and owned by the local community since 2014	August 2021	9
	Loch Arkaig Pine Forest 56°57′12″N, 5°05′23″W	Rural area. Semi-natural Caledonian pinewood comprising mature Scots pine, upland birchwood and wet woodland. No formal conservation designations, but part of the Caledonian Pinewood Inventory woodlands. 1027 ha across two large woodland areas, with approx. 40% mature non-native conifers (Sitka spruce and lodgepole pine). Designated as Planted Ancient Woodland Site.	Woodland Trust Scotland, woodland conservation charity, (majority landowner) and Arkaig Community Forest (owns approx. 53 ha)	August 2021	8

Table 2. The six scenario archetypes used as a basis for site-specific scenarios in the six sites.

Scenario name	Description of scenario	Source
Past	Past state of the site reconstructed from existing data	Based on existing data, images, maps and other documents from 1980–1990s, with feedback from site managers
Present	Present state of the site	Based on existing data, with feedback from site managers
Management plan	Result of the current management approach	Based on existing management plans, set 10–15 years into the future, with feedback from site managers
Biodiversity Conservation	Focus on enhancing and restoring native species and habitats, including removing non-natives and reintroducing species if plausible	Hypothetical, set 10–15 years into the future, with feedback from site managers
People Engagement	Focus on public engagement and education, community development and improving access for a range of actors	Hypothetical, set 10–15 years into the future, with feedback from site managers
Austerity	Only activities to fulfil legal requirements, health and safety regulations and, if possible, income generation	Hypothetical, set 10–15 years into the future, with feedback from site managers

Table 3. Indicators of ecosystem benefits used in the local expert workshops to assess the impact of the 6 management scenarios.

	Indicator	Question to participants
1.	Employment and income	Overall, how well do you think each scenario delivers with regards to employment, i.e. the number of jobs directly or indirectly linked to the site?
2.	Target species – spring flowers	Overall, how well do you think the scenario encourages woodland spring flowers (bluebell, wood anemone, violets etc.)?
3.	Target species – brambles, bracken and rhododendron	Overall, how well do you think the scenario suppresses species such as bramble, bracken and rhododendron?
4.	Timber	Overall, how do you think each scenario will affect the actual extraction of different types of wood materials (i.e. construction timber, wood fuel, wood for pulp, craft woods) from the site?
5.	Carbon sequestration	Overall, how do you think each scenario will affect the amount of carbon stored at the site?
6.	Mental restoration	Overall, to what extent does each scenario promote people’s feelings of being relaxed and restored?
7.	Spirituality	Overall, how well do you think each scenario delivers on opportunities for spiritual experiences?
8.	Knowledge, education, skills and training	Overall, how well do you think each scenario delivers on opportunities for training, education and learning?
9.	Landscape quality and character	Overall, how well do you think the scenario delivers on perceived landscape quality and character?
10.	Place attachment	Overall, how well do you think each scenario supports local people/visitors in forming and/or maintaining a strong attachment to this place?
11.	Natural flood management	Overall, how well do you think each scenario provides protection from flooding, e.g. through natural flood management?

Figure 1. Participants (local experts) deliberating the perceived impact of management on ecosystem benefits.

Table 4. Median scores for the six scenarios across the 11 benefit indicators (darker shades denote higher scores).

	Past	Present	Management Plan	Biodiversity Conservation	People Engagement	Austerity
(1) Employment & Income	5.0	5.0	6.0	5.0	8.0	2.0
(2) Spring flowers	4.0	6.0	7.0	8.0	6.0	3.0
(3) Brambles, bracken & rhododendron (suppression)	3.0	6.0	7.0	8.0	7.0	2.0
(4) Timber extraction	5.0	5.0	4.0	4.0	6.0	2.0
(5) Carbon sequestration	5.0	6.0	6.5	7.0	6.0	4.0
(6) Mental restoration	5.0	7.0	8.0	7.0	7.0	3.0
(7) Spirituality	4.0	6.0	7.0	7.0	6.0	3.0
(8) Knowledge, education & skills	4.0	6.0	8.0	6.0	9.0	2.0
(9) Landscape quality & character	5.0	7.0	8.0	8.0	7.0	3.0
(10) Place attachment	4.0	7.0	8.0	7.0	8.0	3.0
(11) Natural flood management	5.5	6.0	7.0	7.0	6.0	4.0
Median of medians	5.0	6.0	7.0	7.0	7.0	3.0