Search

Key message: National Forest Inventories (NFIs) hold promise for monitoring and valuing of non-productive forest functions, including social and recreational services. European countries use a range of methods to collect social and recreational information within their NFI methodologies. Data collected frequently included general and recreation-specific infrastructure, but innovative approaches are also used to monitor recreational use and social abuse. Context: Social and recreational indicators are increasingly valued in efforts to measure the non-productive value of forests in Europe. National Forest Inventories (NFIs) can be used to estimate recreational and social usage of forest land at a national level and relate this use to other biophysical, spatial and topographical features. Nonetheless, there is little information concerning the extent. Aims: The study aims to identify the coverage of social and recreational data present in European NFIs including the types of data recorded as part of the NFI methodologies across European countries. It also aims to examine contrasting methods used to record social and recreational data and present recommendations for ways forward for countries to integrate these into NFI practice. Methods: A pan-European questionnaire was designed and distributed to 35 counties as part of the EU-funded project Distributed, Integrated and Harmonised Forest Information for Bioeconomy Outlooks (DIABOLO). The questionnaire probed countries on all social and recreational data that was included within NFIs. Qualitative response data was analysed and recoded to measure the extent of social and recreational data recoded in European NFIs both as a function of the number of variable categories per country and the number of countries recording particular variables. Results: Thirty-one countries reported at least one social or recreational variable over 12 categories of data. The most frequently recorded variables included ownership, general transport infrastructure and recreation-specific infrastructure. Countries collecting data over many different categories included Switzerland, Great Britain, Czech Republic, Luxemburg and Denmark. Conclusion: The study proposes a specific set of indicators, based upon countries with well-developed social and recreational data in their NFIs, which could be used by other countries, and report on the extent to which these are currently collected across Europe. It discusses results and makes a series of recommendations concerning priorities for the inclusion of social and recreational data in European NFIs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Deer (Cervidae) populations are increasing across the temperate zone, threatening forest biodiversity and ecosystem services. However, the fundamental question of what factors make a forest susceptible to deer damage remains unanswered, hampering efforts to mitigate against damage. Previous research has assumed that deer density consistently increases forest damage. However, the effect of deer density is likely to be contingent on a range of other drivers, such as climate and landscape structure. Mitigation measures are expensive, so a sound understanding of these contingencies is required to inform the targeting of appropriate management to forests most at risk of damage.Using records of forest damage from Britain's National Forest Inventory, which comprises over 15,000 plots spanning environmental gradients, we applied a multiscale approach to identify the drivers of forest susceptibility to damage by deer.Damage likelihood was dependent on drivers operating at multiple spatial scales and their interactions. Broadleaved stands with low tree densities and old trees were consistently found to be at high risk across Britain. The statistical influence of surrounding forest cover within 500 m of a site was modified by regional deer density and climate, in addition to landscape‐level perennial cover. The effect of deer density on damage was therefore not straightforward, but context dependent.Synthesis and applications. We predict the likely outcome of afforestation initiatives on the likelihood that a forest site will be damaged by deer, with important implications for management and landscape planning in Britain. The complex interactive effects uncovered are difficult to interpret. We therefore provide an interactive Deer Damage Tool (R Shiny application; https://spake.shinyapps.io/DEERDAMAGETOOL/) for practitioners to visualize how afforestation is likely to influence the probability of deer damage in different forests and regions across Britain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This correction stands to correct the listed errors in the original article: [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]