Alberdi I, Bender S, Riedel T, Avitable V, Boriaud O, Bosela M, Camia A, Cañellas I, Castro Rego F, Fischer C, Freudenschuß A, Fridman J, Gasparini P, Gschwantner T, Guerrero S, Kjartansson B T, Kucera M, Lanz A, Marin G, Mubareka S, Notarangelo M, Nunes L, Pesty B, Pikula T, Redmond J, Rizzo M, Seben V, Snorrason A, Tomter S, Hernández L
Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria, Ctra. La Coruña, 7.5 Km, 28040, Madrid, Spain.
Thünen Institute of Forest Ecosystems, Alfred-Möller-Straße 1, House 41/42, 16225, Eberswalde, Germany.
For Policy Econ. 2020 Feb;111:102032. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102032.
The quantification of forests available for wood supply (FAWS) is essential for decision-making with regard to the maintenance and enhancement of forest resources and their contribution to the global carbon cycle. The provision of harmonized forest statistics is necessary for the development of forest associated policies and to support decision-making. Based on the National Forest Inventory (NFI) data from 13 European countries, we quantify and compare the areas and aboveground dry biomass (AGB) of FAWS and forest not available for wood supply (FNAWS) according to national and reference definitions by determining the restrictions and associated thresholds considered at country level to classify forests as FAWS or FNAWS. FAWS represent between 75 and 95 % of forest area and AGB for most of the countries in this study. Economic restrictions are the main factor limiting the availability of forests for wood supply, accounting for 67 % of the total FNAWS area and 56 % of the total FNAWS AGB, followed by environmental restrictions. Profitability, slope and accessibility as economic restrictions, and protected areas as environmental restrictions are the factors most frequently considered to distinguish between FAWS and FNAWS. With respect to the area of FNAWS associated with each type of restriction, an overlap among the restrictions of 13.7 % was identified. For most countries, the differences in the FNAWS areas and AGB estimates between national and reference definitions ranged from 0 to 5 %. These results highlight the applicability and reliability of a FAWS reference definition for most of the European countries studied, thereby facilitating a consistent approach to assess forests available for supply for the purpose of international reporting.
对可用于木材供应的森林（FAWS）进行量化，对于维护和增加森林资源及其对全球碳循环的贡献的决策至关重要。提供统一的森林统计数据对于制定与森林相关的政策以及支持决策是必要的。基于13个欧洲国家的国家森林资源清查（NFI）数据，我们根据国家和参考定义，通过确定在国家层面考虑的将森林分类为FAWS或不可用于木材供应的森林（FNAWS）的限制条件和相关阈值，对FAWS和FNAWS的面积及地上干生物量（AGB）进行量化和比较。在本研究中的大多数国家，FAWS占森林面积和AGB的75%至95%。经济限制是限制森林用于木材供应的主要因素，占FNAWS总面积的67%和FNAWS总AGB的56%，其次是环境限制。作为经济限制的盈利能力、坡度和可达性，以及作为环境限制的保护区是区分FAWS和FNAWS最常考虑的因素。关于与每种限制类型相关的FNAWS面积，发现限制之间的重叠率为13.7%。对于大多数国家，国家定义和参考定义之间FNAWS面积和AGB估计值的差异在0%至5%之间。这些结果突出了FAWS参考定义对大多数所研究的欧洲国家的适用性和可靠性，从而便于采用一致的方法来评估可供国际报告用途的森林。
