Non-market forest ecosystem services and decision support in Nordic countries

References

• Ananda J, Herath G. 2009. A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning. Ecol Econ. 68:2535–2548. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asante P, Armstrong GW, Adamowicz WL. 2011. Carbon sequestration and the optimal forest harvest decision: a dynamic programming approach considering biomass and dead organic matter. J For Econ. 17:3–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beery TH. 2013. Nordic in nature: friluftsliv and environmental connectedness. Environ Educ Res. 19:94–117. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2012.688799
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ. 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett. 12:1394–1404. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg A, Östlund L, Moen J, Olofsson J. 2008. A century of logging and forestry in a reindeer herding area in northern Sweden. For Ecol Manage. 256:1009–1020. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.06.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borges JG, Nordström E-M, Garcia-Gonzalo J, Hujala T, Trasobares A. 2014. Computer-based tools for supporting forest management. The experience and the expertise world-wide [Internet]. [cited 2015 Mar 13]. Available from: http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/11417/7/borges_jg_etal_140825.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bostedt G, Mattsson L. 1995. The value of forests for tourism in Sweden. Ann Tour Res. 22:671–680. doi: 10.1016/0160-7383(95)00007-S
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouget C, Lassauce A, Jonsell M. 2012. Effects of fuelwood harvesting on biodiversity — a review focused on the situation in Europe. Can J For Res. 42:1421–1432. doi: 10.1139/x2012-078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bujosa Bestard A, Riera Font A. 2010. Estimating the aggregate value of forest recreation in a regional context. J For Econ. 16:205–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burstein F, Holsapple CW, editors. 2008. Handbook on decision support systems 1. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, Defries RS, Díaz S, Dietz T, Duraiappah AK, Oteng-Yeboah A, Pereira HM, et al. 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 106:1305–1312. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0808772106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC. 2006. Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol. 4:2138–2152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen M, Emborg J. 1996. Biodiversity in natural versus managed forest in Denmark. For Ecol Manage. 85:47–51. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(96)03749-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper DJ. 1969. Looking forward timber forests versus amenity forests. Forestry Supp. 119–121.
   Google Scholar
• Cowling RM, Egoh B, Knight AT, O'Farrell PJ, Reyers B, Rouget M, Roux DJ, Welz A, Wilhelm-Rechman A. 2008. An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 105:9483–9488. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0706559105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daily GC, editor. 1997. Nature's services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Mooney Ha, Pejchar L, Ricketts TH, Salzman J, Shallenberger R. 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ. 7:21–28. doi: 10.1890/080025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L. 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex. 7:260–272. doi: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diaz-Balteiro L, Romero C. 2008. Making forestry decisions with multiple criteria: a review and an assessment. For Ecol Manage. 255:3222–3241. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.01.038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [DIVERSITAS] Integrating Biodiversity Science for Human Well-being. 2015. [cited 2015 Feb 24]. Available from: http://www.diversitas-international.org/
   Google Scholar
• Duncker PS, Raulund-Rasmussen K, Gundersen P, Katzensteiner K, De Jong J, Peter H. 2012. How forest management affects ecosystem services, including timber production and economic return: synergies and trade-offs. Ecol Soc. 17:50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards DM, Jay M, Jensen FS, Lucas B, Marzano M, Montagné C, Peace A, Weiss G. 2012. Public preferences across Europe for different forest stand types as sites for recreation. Ecol Soc. 17:27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Englin J. 1990. Backcountry hiking and optimal timber rotation. J Environ Manage. 31:97–105. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4797(05)80001-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [ESP] Ecosystem Services Partnership. 2015. [cited 2015 Mar 13]. Available from: http://www.es-partnership.org/esp
   Google Scholar
• Ezebilo EE, Boman M, Mattsson L, Lindhagen A, Mbongo W. 2015. Preferences and willingness to pay for close to home nature for outdoor recreation in Sweden. J Environ Plan Manag. 58:283–296. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2013.854196
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felton A, Lindbladh M, Brunet J, Fritz Ö. 2010. Replacing coniferous monocultures with mixed-species production stands: an assessment of the potential benefits for forest biodiversity in northern Europe. For Ecol Manage. 260:939–947. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2010.06.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P. 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ. 68:643–653. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foley JA, Defries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK, et al. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science. 309:570–574.
   Google Scholar
• Fossestøl KO, Sverdrup-Thygeson A. 2009. Saproxylic beetles in high stumps and residual downed wood on clear-cuts and in forest edges. Scand J For Res. 24:403–416. doi: 10.1080/02827580903143871
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Framstad E, de Wit H, Mäkipää R, Larjavaara M, Vesterdal L, Karltun E. 2013. Biodiversity, carbon storage and dynamics of old northern forests [Internet]. [cited 2013 Oct 25]. Available from: http://www.norden.org/en/publications/publikationer/2013-507
   Google Scholar
• Fredman P, Boman M, Lundmark L, Mattsson L. 2012. Research note: economic values in the Swedish nature-based recreation sector – a synthesis. Tour Econ. 18:903–910. doi: 10.5367/te.2012.0149
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fries C, Lindén G, Nillius E. 1998. The stream model for ecological landscape planning in non-industrial private forestry. Scand J For Res. 13:370–378. doi: 10.1080/02827589809382996
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gamfeldt L, Snäll T, Bagchi R, Jonsson M, Gustafsson L, Kjellander P, Ruiz-Jaen MC, Fröberg M, Stendahl J, Philipson CD, et al. 2013. Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are found in forests with more tree species. Nat Commun. 4:1340.
   Google Scholar
• Geijer E, Bostedt G, Brännlund R. 2011. Damned if you do, damned if you do not-reduced climate impact vs. sustainable forests in Sweden. Resour Energy Econ. 33:94–106. doi: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2010.01.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein JH, Caldarone G, Duarte TK, Ennaanay D, Hannahs N, Mendoza G, Polasky S, Wolny S, Daily GC. 2012. Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 109:7565–7570. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1201040109
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gossner MM, Lachat T, Brunet J, Isacsson G, Bouget C, Brustel H, Brandl R, Weisser WW, Müller J. 2013. Current near-to-nature forest management effects on functional trait composition of saproxylic beetles in beech forests. Conserv Biol. 27:605–614. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J. 2012. An introduction to systematic reviews. London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. 2012. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Rev. 1:28. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-28
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gundersen VS, Frivold LH. 2008. Public preferences for forest structures: a review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban For Urban Green. 7:241–258. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2008.05.001
   Google Scholar
• Gustafsson L, Kouki J, Sverdrup-Thygeson A. 2010. Tree retention as a conservation measure in clear-cut forests of northern Europe: a review of ecological consequences. Scand J For Res. 25:295–308. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2010.497495
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hakkarainen H, Korpimaki E, Koivunen V, Kurki S. 1997. Boreal owl responses to forest management: a review. J Raptor Res. 51:125–128.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison PA, Berry PM, Simpson G, Haslett JR, Blicharska M, Bucur M, Dunford R, Egoh B, Garcia-Llorente M, Geamănă N, et al. 2014. Linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: a systematic review. Ecosyst Serv. 9:191–203. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartman R. 1976. The harvesting decision when a standing forest has value. Econ Inq. 14:52–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7295.1976.tb00377.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holgén P, Bostedt G. 2004. Should planting of broad-leaved species be encouraged at the expense of spruce? An economic approach to a current southern Swedish forestry issue. J For Econ. 10:123–134.
   Google Scholar
• Holgén P, Mattsson L, Li C-Z. 2000. Recreation values of boreal forest stand types and landscapes resulting from different silvicultural systems: An economic analysis. J Environ Manage. 60:173–180. doi: 10.1006/jema.2000.0377
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hooper D, Chapin F, Ewel J. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr. 75:3–35. doi: 10.1890/04-0922
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hörnsten L, Fredman P. 2000. On the distance to recreational forests in Sweden. Landsc Urban Plan. 51:1–10. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00097-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hytönen M. 1995. Multiple-use forestry in the Nordic countries. Jyväskylä: Metla, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki Research Centre.
   Google Scholar
• ICSU, UNESCO, UNU. 2008. Ecosystem change and human well-being. Research and monitoring priorities based on the findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Paris: International Council for Science.
   Google Scholar
• [IPBES] Intergovernmental Plantform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. 2015. [cited 2014 Jun 13]. Available from: http://www.ipbes.net/
   Google Scholar
• Jensen FS, Skovsgaard JP. 2009. Precommercial thinning of pedunculate oak: recreational preferences of the population of Denmark for different thinning practices in young stands. Scand J For Res. 24:28–36. doi: 10.1080/02827580802592475
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansson P, Rydin H, Thor G. 2007. Tree age relationships with epiphytic lichen diversity and lichen life history traits on ash in southern Sweden. Ecoscience. 14:81–91. doi: 10.2980/1195-6860(2007)14[81:TARWEL]2.0.CO;2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juutinen A, Mäntymaa E, Mönkkönen M, Salmi J. 2004. A cost-efficient approach to selecting forest stands for conserving species: a case study from northern Fennoscandia. For Sci. 50:527–539.
   Google Scholar
• Kangas J, Store R, Kangas A. 2005. Socioecological landscape planning approach and multicriteria acceptability analysis in multiple-purpose forest management. For Policy Econ. 7:603–614. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2003.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kangas K, Luoto M, Ihantola A, Tomppo E, Siikamäki P. 2010. Recreation-induced changes in boreal bird communities in protected areas. Ecol Appl. 20:1775–1786. doi: 10.1890/09-0399.1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, Gregory RS. 2005. Selecting attributes to measure the achievement of objectives. Oper Res. 53:1–11. doi: 10.1287/opre.1040.0158
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kellomäki S, Savolainen R. 1984. The scenic value of the forest landscape as assessed in the field and the laboratory. Landsc Plan. 11:97–107. doi: 10.1016/0304-3924(84)90033-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kettunen M, Vihervaara P. 2013. Socio-economic importance of ecosystem services in the Nordic countries–Synthesis in the context of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) [Internet]. [cited 2013 Oct 8]. Available from: http://www.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/TEEB_Nordic_-_technical_summary.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kinell G, Soderqvist T, Hasselstrom L. 2010. Default monetary values for environmental change [Internet]. [cited 2014 Jun 13]. Available from: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/978-91-620-6323-8.pdf?pid=3630
   Google Scholar
• Koskela E, Ollikainen M, Pukkala T. 2007. Biodiversity conservation in commercial boreal forestry: the optimal rotation age and retention tree volume. For Sci. 53:443–452.
   Google Scholar
• Kuuluvainen T, Tahvonen O, Aakala T. 2012. Even-aged and uneven-aged forest management in boreal Fennoscandia: a review. Ambio. 41:720–737. doi: 10.1007/s13280-012-0289-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuusipalo J, Kangas J. 1994. Managing biodiversity in a forestry environment. Conserv Biol. 8:450–460. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08020450.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurans Y, Mermet L. 2014. Ecosystem services economic valuation, decision-support system or advocacy? Ecosyst Serv. 7:98–105. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurans Y, Rankovic A, Billé R, Pirard R, Mermet L. 2013. Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: questioning a literature blindspot. J Environ Manage. 119:208–219. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindgren. 1995. Forest aesthetics. In: Hytönen M, editor. Multiple-use forestry in the Nordic countries. Jyväskylä: Metla, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki Research Centre; p. 279–293.
   Google Scholar
• Lindhjem H. 2007. 20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: a meta-analysis. J For Econ. 12:1–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Löf M, Boman M, Brunet J, Hannerz M. 2010. Broadleaved forest management for multiple goals in southern Sweden–an overview including future research prospects. Ecol Bull. 53:235–245.
   Google Scholar
• Mace GM, Norris K, Fitter AH. 2012. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol Evol. 27:19–26. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maes J, Paracchini M, Zulian G. 2011. A European assessment of the provision of ecosystem services: towards an atlas of ecosystem services [Internet]. [cited 2014 Jul 4]. Available from: http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/111111111/16103
   Google Scholar
• Martikainen P, Siitonen J, Punttila P. 2000. Species richness of Coleoptera in mature managed and old-growth boreal forests in southern Finland. Biol Conserv. 94:199–209. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00175-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martín-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E, García-Llorente M, Montes C. 2014. Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecol Indic. 37:220–228. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matala J, Kärkkäinen L, Härkönen K, Kellomäki S, Nuutinen T. 2009. Carbon sequestration in the growing stock of trees in Finland under different cutting and climate scenarios. Eur J For Res. 128:493–504. doi: 10.1007/s10342-009-0299-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattsson L, Li C. 1993. The non-timber value of northern Swedish forests. An economic analysis. Scand J For Res. 8:426–434. doi: 10.1080/02827589309382789
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattsson L, Li C. 1994. How do different forest management practices affect the non-timber value of forests?—an economic analysis. J Environ Manage. 41:79–88. doi: 10.1006/jema.1994.1035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazza L, Bröckl M, Ahvenharju S, ten Brink P, Pursula T. 2013. Natural capital in a Nordic context. Status and challenges in the decade of biodiversity. A study prepared by Gaia consulting Oy and the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) for the Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen [Internet]. [cited 2014 Apr 24]. Available from: http://www.norden.org/en/publications/publikationer/2013-526
   Google Scholar
• McComb G, Lantz V, Nash K, Rittmaster R. 2006. International valuation databases: overview, methods and operational issues. Ecol Econ. 60:461–472. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [MEA] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. [cited 2013 Sep 24]. Available from: http://www.unep.org/maweb/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Melin Y, Petersson H, Egnell G. 2010. Assessing carbon balance trade-offs between bioenergy and carbon sequestration of stumps at varying time scales and harvest intensities. For Ecol Manage. 260:536–542. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2010.05.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendoza GA, Martins H. 2006. Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: a critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. For Ecol Manage. 230:1–22. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.03.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mielikäinen K, Hynynen J. 2003. Silvicultural management in maintaining biodiversity and resistance of forests in Europe–boreal zone: case Finland. J Environ Manage. 67:47–54. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00187-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller J, Bütler R. 2010. A review of habitat thresholds for dead wood: a baseline for management recommendations in European forests. Eur J For Res. 129:981–992. doi: 10.1007/s10342-010-0400-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mustajoki J, Saarikoski H, Marttunen M, Ahtikoski A, Hallikainen V, Helle T, Hyppönen M, Jokinen M, Naskali A, Tuulentie S, et al. 2011. Use of decision analysis interviews to support the sustainable use of the forests in Finnish Upper Lapland. J Environ Manage. 92:1550–1563. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.01.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Næsset E, Gobakken T, Hoen H. 1997. Economic analysis of timber management practices promoting preservation of biological diversity. Scand J For Res. 12:264–272. doi: 10.1080/02827589709355409
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron Dr, Chan KM, Daily GC, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, et al. 2009. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ. 7:4–11. doi: 10.1890/080023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen AB, Olsen SB, Lundhede T. 2007. An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landsc Urban Plan. 80:63–71. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.06.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niemelä J. 1997. Invertebrates and boreal forest management. Conserv Biol. 11:601–610. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.06008.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ninan KN, Inoue M. 2013. Valuing forest ecosystem services: what we know and what we don't. Ecol Econ. 93:137–149. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.05.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordström E, Eriksson LO, Öhman K. 2011. Multiple criteria decision analysis with consideration to place-specific values in participatory forest planning. Silva Fennica. 45:253–265. doi: 10.14214/sf.116
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Öhman K, Edenius L, Mikusiński G. 2011. Optimizing spatial habitat suitability and timber revenue in long-term forest planning. Can J For Res. 41:543–551. doi: 10.1139/X10-232
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostrom E. 2007. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 104:15181–15187. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702288104
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paillet Y, Bergès L, Hjältén J, Odor P, Avon C, Bernhardt-Römermann M, Bijlsma R-J, De Bruyn L, Fuhr M, Grandin U, et al. 2010. Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged forests: meta-analysis of species richness in Europe. Conserv Biol. 24:101–112. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01399.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearce D, Seccombe-Hett T. 2000. Economic valuation and environmental decision-making in Europe. Environ Sci Technol. 34:1419–1425. doi: 10.1021/es9906711
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penttilä R, Siitonen J, Kuusinen M. 2004. Polypore diversity in managed and old-growth boreal Picea abies forests in southern Finland. Biol Conserv. 117:271–283. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2003.12.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petticrew M, Roberts H. 2012. Systematic reviews in the social sciences. A practical guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Polasky S, Costello C, Solow A. 2005. Chapter 29 the economics of biodiversity. Handb Environ Econ. 3:1517–1560. doi: 10.1016/S1574-0099(05)03029-9
   Google Scholar
• Pullin AS, Knight TM. 2009. Doing more good than harm – building an evidence-base for conservation and environmental management. Biol Conserv. 142:931–934. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.01.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pullin AS, Stewart GB. 2006. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conserv Biol. 20:1647–1656. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00485.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM. 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 107:5242–5247. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0907284107
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reunanen P, Mönkkönen M, Nikula A. 2000. Managing boreal forest landscapes for flying squirrels. Conserv Biol. 14:218–226. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98387.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribe RG. 1989. The aesthetics of forestry: what has empirical preference research taught us? Environ Manage. 13:55–74. doi: 10.1007/BF01867587
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruckelshaus M, McKenzie E, Tallis H, Guerry A, Daily G, Kareiva P, Polasky S, Ricketts T, Bhagabati N, Wood SA, Bernhardt J. 2015. Notes from the field: lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecol Econ. 115:11–21. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudd MA, Beazley KF, Cooke SJ, Fleishman E, Lane DE, Mascia MB, Roth R, Tabor G, Bakker JA, Bellefontaine T, et al. 2011. Generation of priority research questions to inform conservation policy and management at a national level. Conserv Biol. 25:476–484. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01625.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scolozzi R, Morri E, Santolini R. 2012. Delphi-based change assessment in ecosystem service values to support strategic spatial planning in Italian landscapes. Ecol Indic. 21:134–144. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.07.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stern RC. 1985. Treatment of woodland for non-timber benefits in South East England. Forestry. 58:205–211. doi: 10.1093/forestry/58.2.205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart A, Edwards D, Lawrence A. 2013. Improving the science–policy–practice interface: decision support system uptake and use in the forestry sector in Great Britain. Scand J For Res. 29:144–153. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2013.849358
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [TEEB] The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. 2015. [cited 2014 Apr 24]. Available from: http://www.teebweb.org/
   Google Scholar
• Ten Brink P, Berghofer A, Schroter-Schlaack C, Sukhdev P, Vakrou A. 2011. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for national and international policy makers - summary: responding to the value of nature [Internet]. [cited 2013 Nov 18]. Available from: http://www.teebweb.org/publication/teeb-for-policy-makers-summary-responding-to-the-value-of-nature/
   Google Scholar
• Termansen M, Zandersen M, McClean CJ. 2008. Spatial substitution patterns in forest recreation. Reg Sci Urban Econ. 38:81–97. doi: 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2008.01.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Timonen J, Gustafsson L, Kotiaho JS, Mönkkönen M. 2011. Hotspots in cold climate: Conservation value of woodland key habitats in boreal forests. Biol Conserv. 144:2061–2067.
   Google Scholar
• Törn A, Tolvanen A, Norokorpi Y, Tervo R, Siikamäki P. 2009. Comparing the impacts of hiking, skiing and horse riding on trail and vegetation in different types of forest. J Environ Manage. 90:1427–1434. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.08.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner KG, Odgaard MV, Bøcher PK, Dalgaard T, Svenning JC. 2014. Bundling ecosystem services in Denmark: trade-offs and synergies in a cultural landscape. Landsc Urban Plan. 125:89–104. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.02.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uhde B, Andreas Hahn W, Griess VC, Knoke T. 2015. Hybrid MCDA methods to integrate multiple ecosystem services in forest management planning: a critical review. Environ Manage. 56:373–388. doi: 10.1007/s00267-015-0503-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vihervaara P, Rönkä M, Walls M. 2010. Trends in ecosystem service research: early steps and current drivers. Ambio. 39:314–324. doi: 10.1007/s13280-010-0048-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wikström P, Edenius L, Elfving B. 2011. The Heureka forestry decision support system: an overview. Math Computational For Nat Sci. 3:87–94.
   Google Scholar
• Wikström P, Eriksson L. 2000. Solving the stand management problem under biodiversity-related considerations. For Ecol Manage. 126:361–376. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00107-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willis KG, Benson JF. 1989. Recreational values of forests. Forestry. 62:93–110. doi: 10.1093/forestry/62.2.93-a
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zandersen M, Tol RSJ. 2009. A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe. J For Econ. 15:109–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar