Sustainability Science https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01111-4 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Scanning the solutions for the sustainable supply of forest ecosystem services in Europe M. Hernández‑Morcillo1 · M. Torralba2,3 · T. Baiges4 · A. Bernasconi5 · G. Bottaro6 · S. Brogaard7 · F. Bussola8 · E. Díaz‑Varela9 · D. Geneletti10 · C. M. Grossmann11 · J. Kister12 · M. Klingler13 · L. Loft14 · M. Lovric15 · C. Mann1 · N. Pipart16 · J. V. Roces‑Díaz17 · S. Sorge1 · M. Tiebel18 · L. Tyrväinen19 · E. Varela20 · G. Winkel21 · T. Plieninger2,3 Received: 20 August 2021 / Accepted: 8 February 2022 © The Author(s) 2022 Abstract Forests are key components of European multifunctional landscapes and supply numerous forest ecosystem services (FES) fundamental to human well-being. The sustainable provision of FES has the potential to provide responses to major societal challenges, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, or rural development. To identify suitable strategies for the future sustenance of FES, we performed a solution scanning exercise with a group of transdisciplinary forest and FES experts from different European regions. We identified and prioritized fifteen major challenges hindering the balanced provision of multiple FES and identified a series of potential solutions to tackle each of them. The most prominent challenges referred to the increased frequency and impacts of extreme weather events and the normative mindset regarding forest management. The respective solutions pointed to the promotion of forest resilience via climate-smart forestry and mainstreaming FES-oriented management through a threefold strategy focusing on education, awareness raising, and networking. In a subsequent survey, most solutions were assessed as highly effective, transferable, monitorable, and with potential for being economically effi- cient. The implementation of the solutions could have synergistic effects when applying the notion of leverage points. Seven emerging pathways towards the sustainable supply of FES have been identified. These pathways build on each other and are organized based on their potential for transformation: (1) shifting forest management paradigms towards pluralistic ecosys- tem valuation; (2) using integrated landscape approaches; (3) increasing forest resilience; (4) coordinating actions between forest-related actors; (5) increasing participation in forest planning and management; (6) continuous, open, and transparent knowledge integration; and (7) using incentive-based instruments to support regulating and cultural FES. These pathways can contribute to the implementation of the new EU Forestry Strategy to support the balanced supply of multiple FES. Handled by Kanako Morita, Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Japan. M. Hernández-Morcillo and M. Torralba share first author position. Extended author information available on the last page of the article 13 Vol.:(0123456789) Sustainability Science Graphical abstract Keywords European forests · Ecosystem services · Sustainability · Solution scanning · Leverage points · EU Forestry Strategy Introduction 2005), include for example carbon sequestration, protection of soils and water basins, provision income opportunities, European forests are ecosystems that deliver manifold ben- physical and mental health benefits, and contribution to the efits to society via so-called Forest Ecosystem Services general well-being of rural and urban inhabitants. Further- (FES) (Orsi et al. 2020). The benefits that people obtain more, forests provide renewable resources that offer alter- from the forests, so-called Forest Ecosystem (FES) (MEA natives to fossil fuel-based products, thus contributing to 13 Sustainability Science climate change mitigation (Forest Europe 2020). However, information exists about the measures needed to ensure the at the same time, numerous direct and indirect drivers of provision of specific services such as wood or biomass, no change increasingly challenge the resilience of forests and comprehensive effort has been made to identify potential the provision of FES. These include, for example, climate solutions to overcome the impediments in the supply of mul- change, which threatens almost 60% of European forests by tiple FES including cultural and regulating services. increasing their vulnerability to windstorms, fires, and pest To shed light on this issue, we conducted a solution scan- infestations (Forzieri et al. 2021), and diverging societal ning exercise with experts working in different fields of sci- demands ranging from an increased production of wood or ence, policy, and practice in the European forestry sector. biofuel to the promotion of wilderness for recreational pur- Three specific research questions were addressed in this poses (EEA 2016). study: To navigate these challenges, it is imperative that forests are sustainably managed so they can continue being part of – What are the most pressing challenges hindering the sus- the solution to mitigate climate change, biodiversity loss, tainable provision of multiple FES in Europe? or to control epidemic outbreaks (Swaddle and Calos 2008; – Which are the most effective solutions to overcome those Khalil et al. 2016), while maintaining a crucial role in the challenges? efforts towards a more sustainable society and economy in – How can the solutions be logically implemented so their Europe (Wolfslehner et al. 2020). Sustainable management transformational potential is maximized? is at the core of the European Union’s (EU) forest policy (EC 2013). The previous EU Forest Strategy already highlighted the importance of “balancing various forest functions, meet- Materials and methods ing demands, and delivering vital ecosystem services”. It called for supporting protection and management efforts In this study, we applied an extended version of the solution aimed at maintaining, enhancing, and restoring the resil- scanning method. Solution scanning has been increasingly ience and multi-functionality of forest ecosystems for both used to identify specific solutions for a particular problem urban and rural areas (EC 2013). Various studies have high- (Sutherland et al. 2014). Solution scanning follows a step- lighted the importance of multifunctional management for wise methodology to identify a set of actions, interven- safeguarding different forest functions (Wolf and Primmer tions, or approaches that respond to a specific challenge. 2006; Gustafsson et al. 2012; Benz et al. 2020). In addition, This can be useful to point out potential policy interventions forest products and services are increasingly an inherent and in decision-making processes but also for setting research integrated element of many other policy sectors, ranging agendas (Dicks et al. 2017). First, an objective is defined. from energy to food production, conservation and public In most cases, it emerges from specific societal demands health (Aznar-Sánchez et al. 2018). (Pullin et al. 2013). Then, a group of experts is asked to Yet, there is a mismatch between the supply of FES and identify courses of action from their own experience that their recognition in policies across Europe inducing a bias can leverage the system towards the stated goal. Finally, the towards timber provision (Primmer et al. 2021). proposed solutions are listed and distributed to the same Strategies for a broad supply of FES often entail compet- experts for assessment and prioritization according to given ing objectives (Lazdinis et al. 2019). Besides, the dispro- criteria (Hernández-Morcillo et al. 2018). portionate focus on biomass production, especially in large Our solution scanning exercise included three phases parts of central and northern Europe, hinder the potential (Fig. 1). The first phase consisted of the identification of the development of other FES. The conflicting demands can be challenges that hamper the sustainable provision of FES in due to the fact that most actions affecting forest landscapes Europe. To that end, an exploratory survey was distributed in are primarily associated with policy areas and interests out- November 2020 to all expert participants of the study (S1). side the forest sector. As a result, some forest objectives The survey was structured along a series of open questions, are torn between different sectoral interests whenever new which inquired about the most pressing challenges affect- targets evolve outside the forest sector (Sotirov et al. 2016). ing the sustainable provision of FES in Europe across five To address the current sustainability challenges, Euro- thematic areas: economy, environment, socio-culture, man- pean forests demand innovative solutions for which the new agement, and governance. Additionally, the survey assessed EU policy frameworks, such as the EU Green Deal and key knowledge gaps hindering progress towards addressing Forestry Strategy, offer emerging opportunities. To support these challenges. The proposed challenges were structured the development and implementation of the new European and bundled according to thematic areas, resulting in a list Forest Strategy, it is fundamental to have clarity on the of 36 challenges, which was shared among all participants challenges hindering the sustainable provision of multiple to identify additional uncovered challenges prior the next FES and to look for effective solutions. While a plethora of phase in the process. 13 Sustainability Science Fig. 1  Workflow of the solution scanning exercise In the second phase, a two-day participatory solution strategic solutions for each of the three selected challenges. scanning workshop was organized in December 2020. The The characterization consisted of a description of the solu- aim of the workshop was to prioritize the challenges identi- tion, the feasibility of implementation, a time frame, and the fied in the first phase and develop strategic solutions for the resources needed for application. A detailed account of the most relevant ones. Based on their expertise, participants whole process, including the definition, framing and prioriti- were divided into smaller groups of four–five individuals, zation of the challenges (first day of the workshop); and the and distributed across five thematic areas (economy, envi- identification and characterization of the strategic solutions ronment, socio-culture, management, and governance). On (second day of the workshop) can be found in S3. the first day, each thematic group prioritized and character- During the third phase, the identified solutions were ized the respective subsets of thematic challenges resulting evaluated in an online survey distributed to all participants from the exploratory survey. The prioritization included, for in January 2021 (S2). The respondents rated each solution each challenge, a general assessment of the urgency (how according to five different criteria of optimal solutions, immediately this challenge needs to be tackled), their impact adapted from the concept report on climate policy-mix (degree to which solving this challenge would contribute to optimality (Gorlach 2013) (see Box 1). Finally, the notion the sustainable supply of multiple FES in Europe), the types of leverage points understood as areas of a system where of FES affected, scale, and the inter-relations between each actions can be implemented to induce trasnformational of these challenges and all the thematic areas. Accordingly, changes (Abson et al. 2017; Dorninger et al. 2020) was used each thematic group reduced the list of challenges to the to organize the strategic solutions into pathways of interven- five most relevant. At the end of the first day, the number tion according to their potential to transform the forestry of challenges was reduced through a series of anonymous sector. majority voting rounds in plenary to the three most pressing challenges for each thematic area. During the second day, the thematic groups reconvened to formulate and characterize 13 Sustainability Science BOX 1. Criteria for solution assessment - Social-ecological effectiveness: the degree to which the solution respects the natural and social environment and/or improves it. - Economic efficiency: the degree to which the resources needed for implementing the solution are allocated to their most valuable uses and waste is avo ided. - Readiness: the degree to which the solution can be implemented in the shortest period of time. - Feasibility: the degree to which the solution can be successfully implemented. - Transferability potential: the degree to which the solution can be transferred to other European contexts. The participants in the solution scanning process were 24 before and after each workshop through two surveys (S1 experts from academia, policy, and practice working directly and S2), and the presentation of the state of the work at on FES in Europe. Most participants (90%) were related to the beginning of each phase of the solution scanning ses- the EU Horizon 2020 funded projects SINCERE and Inn- sion. However, we must emphasize that the results highly oForESt, both dealing with the promotion of FES-related depend on the participant contributions and the specific tim- innovations. A team of three facilitators selected from both ing of the survey and workshops, which is a limitation of projects supported the implementation of the solution scan- our approach. ning exercise. About expert participants, particular atten- tion was paid to balance backgrounds between academia and practice, disciplines, geographic foci, seniority level, and Results gender (S4). Most of the selected experts worked at research organiza- The most pressing challenges for the sustainable tions at the interface between science, policy, and practice provision of FES (41%). The covered areas of knowledge of the forestry sector were broad, including experts on forest ecosystem services After the prioritization process, 15 challenges were selected, governance and innovation, urban forestry and European three per thematic area, based on their urgency and impact forest policy. Partly because the coordination of both of the (Table 1). Horizon 2020 projects is based in Germany, most of the par- Figure 2 displays the prioritization of these 15 most ticipants worked at German organizations (41%). However, important challenges based on the expert group perceptions seven other European countries were also represented in the of their urgency and impact. Most of the prioritized chal- exercise, namely Spain, Italy, Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, lenges were classified as being urgent and having a high Finland, and Sweden. A balanced gender representation was impact. The increasing areal expansion, frequency, and achieved and consciously maintained along the process. impacts of pests and diseases (Ch. 2), the tensions and mis- This solution scanning exercise synthesizes the currently matching expectations among the roles of public forests (Ch. fragmented views on forest challenges and targets suitable 12), and the homogenization of perceptions of forest values solutions to foster the sustainable provision of FES. The by society (Ch. 13) were the challenges perceived by the organization of the exercise into three well-defined phases experts as those that should be most immediately tackled. allows a clear and transparent communication among the The resolution of these challenges would have the maximum coordinators and experts, facilitating a smooth iterative pro- potential to contribute to the sustainable supply of multiple cess. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the participatory pro- FES in Europe. Challenges referring to the fragmentation cess was conducted entirely online. Two important aspects of forest habitats (Ch. 3), lack of efficient economic instru- of this sequential participatory method have been the regular ments (Ch. 9), and lack of coordination among policy sectors communication with the group to ensure a shared under- (Ch. 10) were considered as having a medium impact due to standing of the process, the use of preparatory materials the fact that solving these challenges would contribute to the 13 Sustainability Science Table 1  Definition of the final selected challenges for each sustainability area Area Challenge Definition Environment Challenge 1. Increasing frequency and intensity of extreme Climate change results in an increase of extreme weather events weather events regarding the frequency and intensity (e.g., storms, droughts, and rainfall) affecting the resilience of forest. It affects the susceptibility to wildfires as well as forest health, functional- ity, and FES provision all around Europe. Despite the inherent resilience of European forests, the resulted changes in forest structure, composition, and thus ecological functioning could be irreversible Challenge 2. Increasing extent, frequency, and impacts of pests Due to climate change, forests are increasingly vulnerable to and diseases in forest habitats pests and diseases, as seen in the extent of recent bark beetle infestations. Especially vulnerable are forest dominated by single species stands with a higher density of trees, resulting in a lower provision of all FES at a European scale Challenge 3. Fragmentation of forest habitats Land use change results in fragmented forest structures, habitat quality decline, and negative impacts on biodiversity. The lack of connectivity especially affects forest-dependent and endemic species. Moreover, the lack of spatial continuity could hinder the sustainable provision of FES Management Challenge 4. Narrow focus and normative mindset on forest Traditional and often normative mindsets on forest management management are focused on timber and biomass production especially in central and north European regions. Biodiversity and FES such as cultural or regulating services could be affected by this challenge. Integrating all forest functions and socio-cultural dimensions is key for preserving healthy ecosystems, local cultures, knowledge, and values Challenge 5. Lack of adaptive forest management practices Forests are undergoing continuous changes that demand an adaptive approach. The lack of adapted management decreases forest resilience to rapid changes affecting people and forests in specific contexts. Continuous monitoring and flexible forest management practices are challenging to implement, due to strict administrative conditions, and lack of resources and knowledge among other factors Challenge 6. Unknown demand and supply of FES There is a lack of information on the biophysical supply and societal demand of regulating or cultural FES across European countries. Information about the FES flows, synergies, trade- offs, and bundles is missing. As a result, some services are often absent in policy discussions and decisions (e.g., cultural FES). Barriers inducing social inequality can affect the acces- sibility of specific FES Economy Challenge 7. Insufficient financial support for adapting to Support to cover losses from- and adaptation towards natural changing conditions hazards are deficient to non-existent. This challenge par- ticularly affects forest owners’ capacities to risk investing in innovations, especially when there is no guarantee of receiving sufficient revenue or at least mitigating losses. Facing periodic natural hazards without financial support often exposes forest owners to unbearable risky financial conditions Challenge 8 Economic power asymmetries among actors in Power asymmetries are generally influenced by a reduced the European forestry sector number of actors, who take decisions, control, and direct the markets. On many occasions, those actors can operate regard- less of the negative externalities of intensive wood/timber production Challenge 9. Lack of efficient economic instruments and busi- Efficient economic instruments and business models capable of ness models for regulating and cultural FES recognizing and promoting regulating and cultural FES are scarce to non-existent in Europe. This also affects non-wood forest products, particularly those of public good character. Many forest owners are motivated to provide those services, but there is a lack of economic incentives 13 Sustainability Science Table 1  (continued) Area Challenge Definition Governance Challenge 10. Lack of coordination and competition among This challenge occurs across all administrative levels and policy different policy sectors sectors, especially those with contradicting goals affecting forest owners. As a result, making simple decisions on plan- ning and management activities often becomes an ordeal. Depending on the policies conflicting, the process could lead to irreversible changes in the provision of specific FES Challenge 11. Lack of representation of diverse key stakehold- Forest planning and management decisions are often made with- ers in forest management decision out considering the effects that they can have on actors beyond forest owners, managers, or policy makers. There is almost no space (vertically or horizontally) for participation of other members of the wider community of potential beneficiaries (e.g., local communities) in the decision-making process on the provision and use of FES Challenge 12. Tensions and mismatching expectations about Planning and management decisions in public forests are par- the role of public forests ticularly complex. Mismatching expectations about the role of public forests might emerge, seeing them as a strategic profit- able resource and/or as public goods with the public mandate to provide FES Socio-culture Challenge 13. Homogenization of perceptions of forest values This challenge focuses on the multiplicity of social–cultural by society values associated with FES as well as the difficulties in their identification, prioritization, and integration in forest planning and management. This is particularly true for the marginalized indigenous peoples, traditional communities and the associ- ated risk with the vanishing forest-related forms of knowledge and livelihoods Challenge 14. Conflicts between FES providers and beneficiar- The conflicts between FES providers and beneficiaries may arise ies due to diverging interests, demands and rights. On occasions, private owners are expected to supply a series of public goods without any incentive. This incentive is not necessarily an economic reward for the provision of FES. In occasions, the incentive is an acknowledgment or recognition. It is to some extent a communication and conceptual conflict related to the understanding of public–private relationships, power struc- tures, and interests that regulate the use, provision, and access to forests and forest resources Challenge 15. Rural migration and impacts on rural areas European rural areas are increasingly experiencing migratory flows to cities leading to a lack of generational turnover in the forest sector and/or abandonment of forested lands. The trend of urban dwellers moving to the countryside has not stopped the process, as less and less people engages with forest-related economic activities sustainable supply of multiple FES although over a longer readiness, feasibility, and transferability potential (Box 1). period of time. The increasing frequency and intensity of Table 2 shows the prioritized challenges per thematic area extreme weather events (Ch.1) was considered as the least with the respective solutions and the final ranking (More urgent challenge, meaning that it would be occurring during detailed results on these calculations in S6). The social–eco- a longer period, although having the biggest impact. logical effectiveness, respecting the diverse contexts, and the transferability potential were the strongest traits shared The most suitable solutions to improve by the proposed solutions. In contrast, the readiness, or the the sustainable provision of FES short-term implementation potential and the feasibility, understood as the potential for its successful implementa- To address the 15 challenges, 24 solutions were identified tion, were generally the weakest traits. After summing up by the team of experts (see S5 for a detailed description of the rankings of all the different criteria for all solutions, the all the solutions). The suitability of each solution was subse- top ten solutions were obtained. These 10 solutions are pre- quently assessed and ranked based on the following six cri- sented in detail in the next section. teria: social–ecological effectiveness, economic efficiency, 13 Sustainability Science The top ten solutions for the sustainable provision of FES ing Sustainability Area: Management; Challenge 4—Nar- in Europe row focus and normative mindset on forest management This solution invites broadening the often-narrow per- Top 1. Promote climate‑smart forestry management Sus- spective of forest management focused on the timber and tainability Area: Environment; Challenge 1—Increasing biomass production of highly productive stands (Jönsson frequency and intensity of extreme weather events and Snäll 2020), with the help of education and informa- Climate-smart forestry is a targeted approach to man- tion strategies. In particular, this could be done by diversi- age forests in response to climate change (Bowditch et al. fying education at the administration and university level 2020). It aims to increase the climate regulation benefits (Nair 2004), fostering knowledge transfer to forest opera- from forests and the forest sector, in a way that creates syner- tors (Perera et al. 2006), starting and reinforcing social gies addressing other societal needs related to forests while campaigns to make visible the multiple services of forest, increases forest resilience. It is a large-scale strategy, which and developing and enabling long-lasting cross-sectorial includes three main lines of action: the enhancement of networks (Guerrero and Hansen 2021). Although this solu- natural regeneration and avoidance of deforestation; active tion requires long-term commitment and significant attitu- forest management; and adaptive forest management to dinal change within and beyond the forestry sector (shifting build resilient forests (Nabuurs et al. 2018; Verkerk et al. management goals, seeking long-term instead of short-term 2020). For example, a recent analysis along a climate gra- benefits, or changing contractual arrangements) before its dient across Europe showed that mixed forest, particularly effects become apparent, this solution has the potential to those forest mixing conifer and broadleaved stands, are more largely generate synergistic and long-lasting effects over for- resilient and resistant to drought events than monospecific est management in Europe. To tackle complex challenges forests (Pardos et al. 2021). Here, forest resilience refers to and developing opportunities for innovation at EU level, the maintenance of regimes and the adaptive capacity of collaboration can be enhanced through existing European forests as a coupled human–natural system in the face of Innovations Partnership (EIP) operational groups on forest drivers of change (Nikinmaa et al. 2020). As such, climate- and EU projects through multi-actor approaches. Moreover, smart forestry strives beyond storing carbon to mitigate cli- in the light of the new EU CAP, Agricultural Knowledge, mate change and generate synergies with multiple FES and and Innovation Systems (AKIS) are key to support more biodiversity. The implementation of this solution needs to intensely the sharing of knowledge and innovation. carefully consider the different regional contexts in Europe to identify the most cost-effective management options. It Top 3. Foster investments into FES‑oriented forest man‑ would also require sustained commitment as the benefits agement to increase resilience (prevention and adaptation from this solution would only emerge in a mid-long term. measures) towards natural hazards. Sustainability Area: Economy; Challenge 7—Insufficient financial support to Top 2. Mainstream FES‑oriented management in a three‑ changing conditions fold strategy: education, awareness raising, and network‑ Investing in increasing forest resilience (Nikinmaa et al. 2020) is key for ensuring the prevention of and adaptation to natural hazards and ensuring the sustainable provision of FES (Keenan 2015; Lecina‐Diaz et al. 2021). A first step would be to assess and correct redundancies and ambiguities of forest-related investments. Then, local to regional forestry and nature conservation administrations should oversee the articulation and implementation of those investments. This should be implemented and monitored in a short–medium term to ensure that each forest-related investment fosters sustainable solutions with regard to multiple forest func- tions. Every economic support needs to be continuous and outcome-oriented by designing policies that consider spatial targeting to FES density, threats and cost levels, payment differentiation, and improved conditionality (Wunder et al. 2020). This solution requires an integrated forest policy that Fig. 2  Prioritization of challenges based on urgency and addresses various system dimensions in terms of policy impact. The colors correspond to five different areas of sustain- ability (green = environment, brown = socio-culture, gray = economy, sectors and administrative levels, including both local and blue = management, orange = governance); the numbers correspond to landscape-level land uses with indicators oriented towards the challenges identified (Table 1) 13 Sustainability Science Table 2  Solutions to foster sustainable FES provision in European forests Socio- Fe asibility Ecological Economic Asce rtain. Transfe r. Challe nge Re adine ss Rank e fficie ncy Monitoring pote ntial Area Solution Effe ctive ne ss Solution 1 - Promote climate-smart forestry 1 Challenge 1. Increasing frequency management and intensity of extreme weather events Solution 2 - Improve integration of regulating forest 8 Envi e cosystem services in local and regional planning ron Challenge 2. Increasing extent, Solution 3 - Coordinate strategic regional forestry stakeholders to join forces against biological and 9 men frequency, and impacts of events in forest habitats e nvironmental threats t Solution 4 - Implementation of systematic and Challenge 3: Fragmentation of forest comprehensive environmental assessments considering 16 habitats multiple scales and cumulative effects of forest fragmentation on FES at landscape level Man Challenge 4. Narrow focus and Solution 5 - Mainstream FES-oriented management in a normative mindset on forest thre efold strategy: education, awareness raising, and 2 age management networking men Challenge 4. Narrow focus and Solution 5 – Mainstream FES-oriented management in normative mindset on forest a thre efold strategy: e ducation, awareness raising, and t management ne tworking Solution 6 - Develop adaptive strategies to sustain multiple 13 FES based on regional scenarios Challenge 5. Lack of adaptive forest management practices Solution 7 - Ensure diversity at different levels (genetic, 18 species, and forest) Challenge 6. Unknown demand and Solution 8 - Establish regional observatories for capturing 23 supply of FES societal FES demand and supply Solution 9 - Foster investments into FES oriented forest management to increase resilience (prevention and 3 adaptation) towards natural hazards Challenge 7. Insufficient financial support to changing conditions Solution 10 - Increase availability, volume, and acce ssibility of financial instruments to cover losses 10 from natural hazards Eco Solution 11 - Support economic instruments and business models promoting regulating and cultural FES 3,55 4 nom Challenge 8. Economic power with consistent policies y asymmetries in the forestry sector Solution 12 - Align finance and administration of different 2,36 22 sectors Solution 13 – Improve adaptation of business models to Challenge 9. Lack of efficient 11 particular contexts of implementation economic instruments and business models for regulating and cultural Solution 14 - Monitor systematically the socio-ecological FES 15 impact of economic instruments minimizing socio-ecological damages and losses (Moreira Effective economic instruments as well as business mod- et al. 2020). els that contribute to the sustainable provision of FES (par- ticularly for regulating and cultural FES) should be con- Top 4. Support economic instruments and business mod‑ sistently supported by cross-scale European and national els promoting regulating and cultural FES with consistent policies similar to those in place for timber and biomass policies Sustainability Area: Economy; Challenge 8—Eco- production (Wunder et al. 2019). This could be achieved nomic power asymmetries in the forestry sector through, on the one hand, nested multi-scale policies 13 Sustainability Science Table 2  (continued) Solution.15 - Promote vertical and horizontal coherence in 2,36 19 Challenge 10. Lack of coordination administration and competition among different policy sectors Solution 16 - Delineate clear and stable power and 21 responsibilities Challenge 11. Lack of representation Solution 17 - Generate spaces for stakeholders’ of diverse key stakeholders in forest engagement and representation in decision making 14 management decision processes in cooperative and participative approaches Gov erna Solution 18 - Engage the community in participatory nce decision-making in management approaches in public 5 fore sts, while embracing innovations towards efficient use of forest resources Challenge 12. Tensions and mismatching expectations about the Solution 19 - Integrate all actors in participatory decision 20 role of public forests making about management goals of public forest lands Solution 20 - Streamline public forest management organization and administration following the principles of 24 the private forest sector Solution 21 - Implement practices for (re)connecting 6 pe ople with forests Challenge 13. Homogenization of Soci perceptions of forest values by Solution 22 - Strengthen the recognition, identification, and o- society 12 integration of social-cultural values in forest management, cult governance, and research ure Solution 23 - Promote new forms of communication and Challenge 14. Conflicts between interaction between society and FES providers with a 7 FES providers and beneficiaries focus on public forests Solution 24 - Build capacities as a tool to prevent Challenge 15. Rural migration and abandonment and promote generational turnover in the 17 impacts on rural areas forest sector The colors indicate the degree to which each solution fulfills the implementation criteria. More detailed results on these calculations are in S6 (white = very low; light gray = low; gray = normal; dark gray = high; black = very high). Bold font indicates the ten highest ranked solutions (Ostrom 1990) and, on the other hand, a strategy of advertis- social–ecological challenges (such as biodiversity loss or ing and making available successful business models (along climate change). These strategies are often coupled with a with the key features leading to their success). The specific philosophy of embracing innovations towards improved for- purpose would be to stimulate their replication elsewhere. est management for the provision of FES bundles, especially In relation to incentive-based and result-based payments for for regulating and cultural FES, for the promotion of eco- ecosystem services (PES) schemes, it is important to target logical and societal transformation, and for the sustainable forest owners of those forest areas that show a) high levels use of public goods. Public forests would be used as niches of FES supply (e.g., high carbon stocks/ha or endemic biodi- of innovation (Geels 2005) of, for example, public–private versity hotspots), and b) areas with high potential risks (e.g., partnerships or novel actor alliances to improve the provi- high threat of deforestation and degradation). This strategy sion of regulating and cultural FES or enhance non-wood would focus PES in areas where they can realistically make forest product (NWFP) value chains. Public forests would a difference (Börner et al. 2020; Wunder et al. 2020). act as ‘incubation rooms’ for radical novelties, providing locations for learning, and spaces to build social networks Top 5. Engage the community in participatory deci‑ which support innovation. Initiatives and innovations would sion‑making in management approaches in public forests, be carefully addressed so that public resources do not end while embracing innovations towards efficient use of for‑ up creating exclusively private benefits, but rather improv- est resources. Sustainability Area: Governance; Challenge ing local economies with a share of benefits re-invested in 12—Tensions and mismatching expectations about the role improved forest management. of public forests This solution strategy promotes participatory forest man- Top 6. Implement practices for (re)connecting people agement to overcome outdated management approaches with forests Sustainability Area: Socio-culture; Challenge that do not respond to current societal demands and larger 13 Sustainability Science 13—Homogenization of perceptions of forest values by soci- This solution proposes that forest planning authorities ety consider to a larger extent those specific strategies that Understanding forests as a mean to solve economic prob- have been proven to enhance regulating services such as lems is a reductionist standpoint. In the pursuit of sustainable watershed protection, erosion prevention, or flood control, forest management, increased identification and inclusion of for example by promoting mixed forest stands of uneven cultural bonds is crucial. To achieve a deeper understanding ages (Bravo-Oviedo 2018; Felipe-Lucia et al. 2018). These of the mutual constitution of the society–forest relation, it should be economically supported to cover the opportunity is also necessary to recognize the multi-layered spectrum costs needed to restructure forests. Such measures, like of forests’ contributions (Ritter and Dauksta 2013). Main- PES, already exist in some settings worldwide with differ- streaming forest models that (re)connect people and forests ent degrees of success (Wunder et al. 2020). The implemen- (like forest kindergartens and forest schools) is crucial. tation of PES has been polarized between pro-market and Increasingly, studies show the perceived linkages of people anti-neoliberal arguments. A political–cultural reconceptu- to spiritual and cultural values in forests that are not neces- alization should be achieved to attain their potential while sarily related to livelihoods (Rodríguez-Morales et al. 2020; ensuring an improved environmental governance, (Van Torralba et al. 2020). In parallel, there is a need to strengthen Hecken et al. 2015). Moreover, PES implementation may the social and cultural sciences in FES assessments with a encounter obstacles hampering the promotion of regulating clearer representation of non-material values (Jacobs et al. FES and impeding the improvement of the socio-economic 2016) and more-than-human thinking (Whatmore 2006). situation of forest-dependent communities and stakeholders. Some of these obstacles are on the social side, the lack of Top 7. Promote new forms of communication and interac‑ know how, insecure property rights, and problematic ben- tion between society and FES providers with a focus on pub‑ efits distribution, on the market side, the adverse PES self- lic goods Sustainability Area: Socio-culture; Challenge selection, inadequate administrative targeting, and enforced 14—Conflicts between FES providers and beneficiaries conditionality (Pagiola et al. 2005; Wunder et al. 2020). When forests provide more regulating or cultural services There is a large potential for the adaptation of these experi- than provisioning services, governance mechanisms are key ences to the European context. to maintaining the supply of FES, especially in privately owned forests. To overcome the lack of markets to deal Top 9. Coordinate strategic regional forestry stakehold‑ with public goods and services, social support is needed to ers to join forces against biological and environmental finance the expenses that keep the sustainable forest man- threats Sustainability Area: Environment; Challenge 2— agement ongoing. This is especially important in situations Increasing extent, frequency and impacts of events in forest where management is key to guarantee the provision flow habitats of these goods and services, but where these are under high This solution proposes the regional-level implementa- threat (e.g., wildfire risk in the Mediterranean region that tion of coordinated actions and monitoring strategies. Risk increases with the lack of active forest management). Euro- can be assessed using analytical techniques that account pean studies of public perception (Rametsteiner et al. 2009) for threats both spatially and temporally. Subsequently, have revealed that forestry issues are not well understood risk-management strategies need to account more fully for outside the forestry community and have suggested that multi-level responses that act to balance conflicting inter- improving communication to the general public is essen- ests between stakeholder organizations concerned within the tial. Management goals and objectives must be identified managed and natural environments (Mills et al. 2011). These and communicated on the short as well as long term, a wide strategies would integrate private and public forest owners variety of channels should be used, messages should be together with the regional–national administration and other simple and clear, and collaboration with other organizations sectors depending on the context (e.g., nature conservation, (agriculture, wood construction, etc.) should be enhanced. local communities), and be backed with national support. A joint effort with media professionals would lead to results The objective would be to share knowledge about affected that are more successful. In parallel, further research into areas and to join forces for specific forest interventions, the public perception of forests and forestry is needed to increasing the readiness, monitoring capacity, and hence define targeted communication strategies (Fabra-Crespo and increasing the resilience of the system to these perturbations. Rojas-Briales 2015). An example comes from some regions in the Mediterranean, where civil society engages in wildfires extinction through Top 8. Improve integration of regulating forest ecosystem volunteer groups (Górriz-Mifsud et al. 2019). Coordination services in local and regional planning Sustainability Area: strategies would need to be specifically adapted to each con- Environment; Challenge 1—Increasing frequency and text. Transferability can be hampered by the heterogeneous intensity of extreme weather events systems of management and governance in Europe. 13 Sustainability Science Top 10. Increase availability, volume, and accessibility among vertical and horizontal levels of actors (e.g., solu- of financial instruments to cover losses from natural haz‑ tions 5 and 21). These types of solutions would normally ards Sustainability Area: Economy; Challenge 7—Insuf- require long-term commitment, institutional changes, and ficient financial support to changing conditions socio- political will (e.g., solutions 18, 24). Furthermore, The current natural hazards require planning and manage- they directly or indirectly interfere with long-established ment strategies that increase forests capacity for adaptive cultural elements or strong economic interests (e.g., solu- transformation. This could provide an opportunity to steer tion 12). These solutions can be considered as aiming for the objectives of forest management towards a more sustain- or being dependent on larger, perhaps even fundamental able and less production-oriented model. To be efficient, system changes which require the alteration of existing financial instruments need to be conditional upon sustainable paradigms, institutions (such as policies but also mind- practices that ensure a diverse FES provision, while being sets), and actors’ behaviors. adapted to the different realities existing in the European A closer look at the solutions’ definitions and prioritiza- forestry sector. This could be achieved by dedicating part tion suggests a possible sequence of implementation. Inspired of existing economic support (e.g., EU rural development on the notion of leverage points, where solutions can induce fund, common agricultural policy, and other regional/local shallow or deep changes (Abson et al. 2017; Dorninger et al. funds) for business model implementation to strengthen 2020), we could arrange the prioritized solutions according their adaptation to each specific context. For example, by to their potential to solve the challenges for the sustainable refocusing on forest protection measures (Alliance Environ- provision of FES. While there are some low-hanging fruits, ment EEIG 2017) and encouraging the use of result-based which could be easily implemented, some of the proposed schemes to increase the impact of the funding, while linking solutions require a longer and more sustained effort due to the business model with a positive and measurable impact their profound transformative potential and respective resist- on the FES provision (ECA 2020). Within such a scheme, ance. Advances towards the implementation of the former, a requirement for eligibility to receive funds would be the which could be seen as encompassing fundamentally para- direct link between the business model and a positive impact digm change solutions, would smooth the way for the later, FES provision (Wunder et al. 2018; Ovando et al. 2019). which could be seen as managerial solutions. This is best illustrated with the highest ranked solutions. The strategic solution of “mainstreaming FES-oriented management in a Discussion—Strategic pathways threefold strategy: education, awareness, and networking” towards the sustainable supply of FES is focused on changing mindsets towards an integrated mul- in Europe tiple FES thinking and has the potential to shift the classic market-oriented economic rationale that reinforces a timber European forests are exposed to fundamental and inter- production-oriented paradigm. Similarly, the solution of the connected threats that put many forest ecosystem services “promotion of climate-smart and resilient forest” is funda- that are vital for human well-being at risk. At the same mental to ensure the adaptation of existing forests to the con- time, various national and EU-wide policies are rapidly ditions and disturbance regimes associated to climate change emerging in Europe, which try to solve pressing societal so that they can continue to provide FES. This solution is the challenges with a forward-looking view on FES potential precondition for targeting several economic, socio-cultural, (Primmer et al. 2021). A diagnosis of FES provision, inte- and environmental challenges. grating different perspectives from science, policy, and Due to the complexity inherent to the forestry sector and practice is crucial to understand where the flaws of forest the entangled character of the challenges, the proposed solu- socio-economic systems are so that solutions can be stra- tions are highly interconnected, which pledges for a need tegically designed and implemented. for system change across all sectors, levels, and actors. A paradigm shift affecting institutions, academia, and forestry Deep and shallow leverage solutions administrations is needed to go beyond forest biomass pro- duction and leverage the costs induced by investing into Most of the proposed solutions were considered as highly regulating and cultural FES. effective, transferable, and susceptible of being monitored over time. while none of them was evaluated as economi- The seven pathways towards sustainable FES supply cally inefficient by the team of experts. However, more than half of the proposed solutions were considered not Many of the solutions have synergistic effects if they are com- to be yet ready for implementation or currently feasible. bined and implemented in an orchestrated manner according This is particularly relevant for those solutions that imply to their capacity to enable transformation. For example, the a multi-level governance component and/or coordination integration of social–ecological values proposed in solution 13 Sustainability Science 21, could support and benefit from the regional observatories forest policies. It is fundamental to increase European forest proposed in solution 8. By looking into the elements that are at resilience by lessening intensive management to ensure adap- the core of each individual solution, we propose seven emerg- tation to fluctuating climatic conditions. As recently observed ing pathways on which European forest policies should focus by Pohjanmise et al. (2021) in boreal forests, - is substantially in the mid- and long-term to ensure the sustainable supply diminished under intensive forestry and recovers slower, the of multiple FES. These strategic pathways could collectively longer intensive forestry has been implemented. build the backbone of European forest policy implementation. Although all of them are relevant, they can be distinguished Coordinating actions between forest‑related actors by their capacity to leverage change in European forests and (Core element of solutions 4, 5, 12, 15 and 16; relevant to secure the supply of multiple FES in relation to future dis- for challenges 3, 4, 8 and 10) turbances and social–ecological changes (Fig. 3). Collectively, the seven identified strategic pathways can be organized in The lack of coordination across forestry stakeholders and a hierarchical order, where deep forestry system transforma- among different administrative levels can currently be con- tion would be in the basis, followed in the middle and top by sidered an entrenched problem in the European forestry con- system-based management strategies and concrete measures. text (Winkel and Sotirov 2016). However, its disentangle- ment is a requirement for the successful implementation of Changing production focused forest management any forest policy. Once a multifunctional view on forests is paradigm towards pluralistic ecosystem valuation (Core emerging and impregnated through educational programs element of solutions 6, 11, 22, 23, and 24; relevant and policies, the forest institutional and social fabric would for challenges 5, 8, 13, 14 and 15) be better disposed to implement coordinated actions. Decision-making processes affecting FES provision need to Increasing participation from a larger diversity embrace broader views, preferences, and values from a multi- of stakeholders during forest planning and management, actor perspective. Expanding the focus towards regulating, cul- with a focus on public forests (Core element of solutions tural, and supporting FES and understanding their valuation 5, 7, 17, 18, 20 and 22; relevant for challenges 4, 5, 11, 12 from a pluralistic and integrative point of view would advance and 13) the (re)connection between people and nature. Forestry edu- cation at all levels, forest management, and policies need to Greater levels of participation from the public into forest pursue a shift from the consideration of instrumental values, management decision-making is at the essence of several to increasingly considering intrinsic and especially relational solutions. To do so, forest policies should increasingly pro- value dimensions (Chan et al. 2016; Jacobs et al. 2016). mote participation in coordinated multi-level governance models (Muradian and Rival 2013) by using for example Using integrated landscape approaches to adapt collaborative digital tools, and capitalize from ongoing and the solutions to local–regional contexts (Core element former initiatives engaged in the provision of FES and nature of solutions 1, 2, 5, 7 and 10; relevant for challenges 1, 4, 5 models that have proved successful in ecosystem manage- and 7) ment and conservation (Armitage et al. 2020). Due to the inherent heterogeneity of European forests, future policies need to embrace the context-specificity of forest Continuing, open and transparent knowledge integration social–ecological dynamics, and use the landscape scale as from different stakeholders, disciplines, and policy the most appropriate one to address the multi-scalar pressures sectors (Core element of solutions 5, 6, 9 and 21; relevant on forests (Opdam et al. 2018). A landscape scale provides for challenges 4, 5, 8 and 13) the framework to orchestrate problems related to improving coordination and transparency in decision-making processes Translating sustainable management policy objectives into (Termorshuizen and Opdam 2009; Sayer et al. 2013). action on the ground has been described as a “wicked prob- lem” (Duckett et al. 2016). This leverage area is fundamental Increasing forest resilience to boost forest to establish a fluid dialog to value and to integrate perspec- multi‑functionality (Core element of solutions 3, 8, 13, 14 tives from “outsiders” disciplines and sectors affecting for- and 23; relevant for challenges 2, 6, 9 and 14) ests. To do so, several solutions point towards the use of inter- and transdisciplinary approaches as a way to integrate Integrated landscape solutions promoting forest resilience and available knowledge and to create ownership for problems multi-functionality should, therefore, be at the forefront of and solution options (Lang et al. 2012). 13 Sustainability Science Fig. 3  Seven strategic pathways for the sustainable supply of FES in Europe Using incentive‑based instruments to support regulating Conclusions and cultural FES (Core element of solutions 2, 8, 11, 13 and 14; relevant for challenges 1, 6, 8 and 9) EU policy frameworks such as the New Green Deal and the Forestry Strategy offer a unique opportunity to serve as PES and PES-like schemes are currently scarce in Europe. catalysts for solving the challenges hindering the sustainable An increased role for PES could manifest itself through supply of FES. To support this endeavor, the scanning exer- government-financed PES (e.g., through flexible reforms of cise presented here not only disentangles the most pressing the Common Agricultural Policy), or through user-financed challenges in all sustainability areas but also offers a set of PES in those areas where there is sufficient willingness to prioritized solutions to each of those challenges. Just as the pay for a specific FES (Wunder et al. 2020). assessed hindrances affect each other, similarly the strategic 13 Sustainability Science solutions can be used synergistically. This way, like concen- biodiversity framework. Conserv Sci Pract 2:e160. https://​doi.​ tric levels of mutually supportive implementation (Fig. 3), a org/​10.​1111/​csp2.​160 Aznar-Sánchez JA, Belmonte-Ureña LJ, López-Serrano MJ, Velasco- paradigm shift to better integrate pluralistic values of forests Muñoz JF (2018) Forest ecosystem services: an analysis of world- in a more balanced way would sustain the rest of the stra- wide research. Forests 9:453. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​f9080​453 tegic solutions. Next, increasing forest resilience through Benz JP, Chen S, Dang S et al (2020) Multifunctionality of forests: a integrated landscape approaches should be prioritized fol- white paper on challenges and opportunities in China and Ger- many. Forests 11:266. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​f1103​0266 lowed by strategies promoting coordinated, inclusive, and Börner J, Schulz D, Wunder S, Pfaff A (2020) The effective- transparent decision processes. The next strategies would ness of forest conservation policies and programs. Annu Rev focus on enabling forest's biophysical conditions to support Resour Econ 12:45–64. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1146/​annur​ev-​resou​ the balanced supply of FES, while reinforcing the social fab- rce-​110119-​025703 Bowditch E, Santopuoli G, Binder F et al (2020) What is climate-smart ric of forest governance to make it more cohesive. Finally, forestry? A definition from a multinational collaborative process incentive-based mechanisms could, depending on the local focused on mountain regions of Europe. Ecosyst Serv 43:101113. context, promote a management that strengthens the sustain- https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ecoser.​2020.​101113 able supply of multiple FES. Bravo-Oviedo A (2018) The role of mixed forests in a changing social- ecological world. Dynamics, silviculture and management of mixed forests. Managing forest ecosystems. Springer, Cham, pp Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen- 1–25 tary material available at https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/s​ 11625-0​ 22-0​ 1111-4. Chan KMA, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K et al (2016) Why protect nature? Rethinking Values Environ 113:1462–1465. https://​doi.​ Acknowledgements The research leading to these results has received org/​10.​1073/​pnas.​15250​02113 funding from the European Union Horizon 2020 under the SINCERE Dicks L, Haddaway N, Hernández-Morcillo M, et al (2017) Knowledge (GA ID: 776609) and InnoForESt (GA ID: 763899) projects. The synthesis for environmental decisions: an evaluation of existing graphical abstract has been developed in collaboration with Infographic methods, and guidance for their selection, use and development. ©Judith Traudes. We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers that A report from the EKLIPSE project commented on an earlier version of the manuscript. Dorninger C, Abson DJ, Apetrei CI et al (2020) Leverage points for sustainability transformation: a review on interventions in food Author contributions MHM, MT, TP and CM conceived the original and energy systems. Ecol Econ 171:106570 idea. MT and MHM led the coordination team, performed the survey, Duckett D, Feliciano D, Martin-Ortega J, Munoz-Rojas J (2016) Tack- workshop, analysis of the results and led the writing of the manuscript. ling wicked environmental problems: the discourse and its influ- NP, SS and MT supported the coordination of the workshop, guid- ence on praxis in Scotland. Landsc Urban Plan 154:44–56. https://​ ing and reporting the information from the focus groups. All authors doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​landu​rbplan.​2016.​03.​015 discussed the interpretation of the results and contributed to the final EC (2013) A new EU Forest Strategy: for forests and the forest-based manuscript. sector ECA (2020) Special Report Biodiversity on farmland: CAP contribu- Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt tion has not halted the decline DEAL. EEA (2016) European forest ecosystems— - State and trends Forest Europe (2020) State of Europe’s Forests 2020 Fabra-Crespo M, Rojas-Briales E (2015) Comparative analysis on the Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- communication strategies of the forest owners’ associations in bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- Europe. For Policy Econ 50:20–30. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​for- tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long pol.​2014.​06.​004 as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, Felipe-Lucia MR, Soliveres S, Penone C et al (2018) Multiple forest provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes attributes underpin the supply of multiple ecosystem services. Nat were made. The images or other third party material in this article are Commun 9:1–11. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s41467-​018-​07082-4 included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated Forzieri G, Girardello M, Ceccherini G et al (2021) Emergent vulner- otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in ability to climate-driven disturbances in European forests. Nat the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not Commun 12:1–12. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s41467-​021-​21399-7 permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will Geels FW (2005) Processes and patterns in transitions and system need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a innovations: refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspec- copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/. tive. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 72:681–696. https://​doi.​org/​ 10.​1016/j.​techf​ore.​2004.​08.​014 Gorlach B (2013) What constitutes an optimal climate policy mix? References Defining the concept of optimality, including political and legal framework conditions. CECILIA2050. Deliverable 1 Górriz-Mifsud E, Burns M, Marini Govigli V (2019) Civil society Abson DJ, Fischer J, Leventon J et al (2017) Leverage points for sus- engaged in wildfires: Mediterranean forest fire volunteer group- tainability transformation. Ambio 46:30–39. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ ings. For Policy Econ 102:119–129. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ 1007/​s13280-​016-​0800-y forpol.​2019.​03.​007 Alliance Environment EEIG (2017) Evaluation study of the forestry Guerrero JE, Hansen E (2021) Company-level cross-sector collabo- measures under Rural Development. European Commission rations in transition to the bioeconomy: a multi-case study. For Armitage D, Mbatha P, Muhl E et al (2020) Governance principles Policy Econ 123:102355. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​forpol.​2020.​ for community-centered conservation in the post-2020 global 102355 13 Sustainability Science Gustafsson L, Baker SC, Bauhus J et al (2012) Retention forestry to Pardos M, del Río M, Pretzsch H et al (2021) The greater resilience of maintain multifunctional forests: a world perspective. Bioscience mixed forests to drought mainly depends on their composition: 62:633–645. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1525/​bio.​2012.​62.7.6 analysis along a climate gradient across Europe. For Ecol Manage Hernández-Morcillo M, Burgess P, Mirck J et al (2018) Scanning 481:118687. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​foreco.​2020.​118687 agroforestry-based solutions for climate change mitigation and Perera AH, Buse LJ, Crow TR (2006) Knowledge transfer in forest adaptation in Europe. Environ Sci Policy 80:44–52 landscape ecology: a primer. Springer, New York Jacobs S, Dendoncker N, Martín-López B et al (2016) A new valuation Pohjanmies T, Eyvindson K, Triviño M et al (2021) Forest multi- school: integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land functionality is not resilient to intensive forestry. Eur J for Res use decisions. Ecosyst Serv 22:213–220. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/J.​ 140:537–549. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10342-​020-​01348-7 ECOSER.​2016.​11.​007 Primmer E, Varumo L, Krause T et al (2021) Mapping Europe’s insti- Jönsson M, Snäll T (2020) Ecosystem service multifunctionality of tutional landscape for forest ecosystem service provision, innova- low-productivity forests and implications for conservation and tions and governance. Ecosyst Serv 47:101225. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.​ management. J Appl Ecol 57:695–706. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​ 1016/j.​ecoser.​2020.​101225 1365-​2664.​13569 Pullin AS, Sutherland W, Gardner T et al (2013) Conservation priori- Keenan RJ (2015) Climate change impacts and adaptation in forest ties: identifying need, taking action and evaluating success. In: management: a review. Ann for Sci 72:145–167. https://​doi.​org/​ Macdonald DW, Willis KJ (eds) Key topics in conservation biol- 10.​1007/​s13595-​014-​0446-5 ogy. John Wiley and Sons, pp 1–22 Khalil H, Ecke F, Evander M et al (2016) Declining ecosystem health Rametsteiner E, Eichler L, Berg J (2009) Shaping forest communi- and the dilution effect. Sci Rep 6:1–11. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​ cation in the European union: public perceptions of forests and srep3​1314 forestry. ECORYS. Final Report Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M et al (2012) Transdisciplinary research Ritter E, Dauksta D (2013) Human-forest relationships: ancient values in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sus- in modern perspectives. Environ Dev Sustain 15:645–662. https://​ tain Sci 7:25–43. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11625-​011-​0149-x doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10668-​012-​9398-9 Lazdinis M, Angelstam P, Pülzl H (2019) Towards sustainable forest Rodríguez-Morales B, Roces-Díaz JV, Kelemen E et al (2020) Per- management in the European Union through polycentric forest ception of ecosystem services and disservices on a peri-urban governance and an integrated landscape approach. Landsc Ecol communal forest: are landowners’ and visitors’ perspectives dis- 34:1737–1749. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10980-​019-​00864-1 similar? Ecosyst Serv 43:101089. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.e​ coser.​ Lecina-Diaz J, Martínez-Vilalta J, Alvarez A et al (2021) Character- 2020.​101089 izing forest vulnerability and risk to climate-change hazards. Front Sayer J, Sunderland T, Ghazoul J et al (2013) Ten principles for a land- Ecol Environ 19:126–133. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​fee.​2278 scape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other Mills P, Dehnen-Schmutz K, Ilbery B et al (2011) Integrating natural competing land uses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:8349–8356. and social science perspectives on plant disease risk, management https://​doi.​org/​10.​1073/​pnas.​12105​95110 and policy formulation. Philos Trans R Soc B 366:2035–2044. Sotirov M, Storch S, Aggestam F, et al (2016) Forest policy integration https://​doi.​org/​10.​1098/​rstb.​2010.​0411 in europe: lessons learnt, challenges ahead, and strategies to sup- Moreira F, Ascoli D, Safford H et al (2020) Wildfire management in port sustainable forest management and multifunctional forestry Mediterranean-type regions: paradigm change needed. Environ in the future. Project INTEGRAL Res Lett 15:011001 Sutherland WJ, Gardner T, Bogich TL et al (2014) Solution scanning Muradian R, Rival L (2013) Ecosystem services and environmental as a key policy tool: identifying management interventions to help governance: some concluding remarks. In: Rival L (ed) Governing maintain and enhance regulating ecosystem services. Ecol Soc. the provision of ecosystem services. studies in ecological econom- https://​doi.​org/​10.​5751/​ES-​06082-​190203 ics. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 465–471 Swaddle JP, Calos SE (2008) Increased avian diversity is associated Nabuurs G-J, Verkerk PJ, Schelhaas M-J, et al (2018) Climate-Smart with lower incidence of human West Nile infection: observation Forestry: mitigation impacts in three European regions. European of the dilution effect. PLoS ONE 3:e2488. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 371/​ Forest Institute journ​al.​pone.​00024​88 Nair CTS (2004) What does the future hold for forestry education? Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge Unasylva 55:216 between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landsc Nikinmaa L, Lindner M, Cantarello E et al (2020) Reviewing the use of Ecol 24:1037–1052. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10980-​008-​9314-8 resilience concepts in forest sciences. Curr Rep 6:61–80. https://​ Torralba M, Lovrić M, Roux JL et al (2020) Examining the relevance doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40725-​020-​00110-x of cultural ecosystem services in forest management in Europe. Opdam P, Luque S, Nassauer J et al (2018) How can landscape ecology Ecol Soc 25:2. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5751/​ES-​11587-​250302 contribute to sustainability science? Landsc Ecol 33:1–7. https://​ Van Hecken G, Bastiaensen J, Windey C (2015) Towards a power- doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10980-​018-​0610-7 sensitive and socially-informed analysis of payments for ecosys- Orsi F, Ciolli M, Primmer E et al (2020) Mapping hotspots and bundles tem services (PES): addressing the gaps in the current debate. of forest ecosystem services across the European Union. Land Ecol Econ 120:117–125. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.e​ colec​ on.2​ 015.​ Use Policy 99:104840. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.l​ andus​ epol.2​ 020.​ 10.​012 104840 Verkerk PJ, Costanza R, Hetemäki L et al (2020) Climate-smart for- Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons. Cambridge University estry: the missing link. For Policy Econ 115:102164 Press, Cambridge Whatmore S (2006) Materialist returns: Practising cultural geography Ovando P, Beguería S, Campos P (2019) Carbon sequestration or water in and for a more-than-human world. Cult Geogr 13:600–609. yield? The effect of payments for ecosystem services on forest https://​doi.​org/​10.​1191/​14744​74006​cgj37​7oa management decisions in Mediterranean forests. Water Resour Winkel G, Sotirov M (2016) Whose integration is this? European forest Econ 28:100119. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​wre.​2018.​04.​002 policy between the gospel of coordination, institutional competi- Pagiola S, Arcenas A, Platais G (2005) Can payments for environmen- tion, and a new spirit of integration. Environ Plan C Gov Policy tal services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and 34:496–514. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1068/​c1356j the evidence to date from Latin America. World Dev 33:237–253. Wolf SA, Primmer E (2006) Between incentives and action: a https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​world​dev.​2004.​07.​011 pilot study of biodiversity conservation competencies for 13 Sustainability Science multifunctional forest management in Finland. Soc Nat Resour implementation of PES and other IM in the European context. 19:845–861. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​08941​92060​08356​01 Sincere Project Deliv 1:4 Wolfslehner B, Pülzl H, Kleinschmit D, et al (2020) European forest Wunder S, Börner J, Ezzine-de-Blas D et al (2020) Payments for envi- governance post-2020. Sci Policy 10 ronmental services: past performance and pending potentials. Wunder S, Brouwer R, Engel S et al (2018) From principles to practice Annu Rev Resour Econ 12:209–234. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1146/​ in paying for nature’s services. Nat Sustain 1:145–150. https://d​ oi.​ annur​ev-​resou​rce-​100518-​094206 org/​10.​1038/​s41893-​018-​0036-x Wunder S, Feder S, Pettenella D et al (2019) “What works?” State- Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to of-the-art synthesis report about best-practice design and jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Authors and Affiliations M. Hernández‑Morcillo1 · M. Torralba2,3 · T. Baiges4 · A. Bernasconi5 · G. Bottaro6 · S. Brogaard7 · F. Bussola8 · E. Díaz‑Varela9 · D. Geneletti10 · C. M. Grossmann11 · J. Kister12 · M. Klingler13 · L. Loft14 · M. Lovric15 · C. Mann1 · N. Pipart16 · J. V. Roces‑Díaz17 · S. Sorge1 · M. Tiebel18 · L. Tyrväinen19 · E. Varela20 · G. Winkel21 · T. Plieninger2,3 11 * M. Torralba Forest Research Institute Baden-Wuerttemberg (FVA), mario.torralba@uni-kassel.de Wonnhaldestrasse 4, 79100 Freiburg, Germany 12 M. Hernández‑Morcillo Department of Geography, University of Innsbruck, Innrain mhernandez@hnee.de 52f, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria 13 1 University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development, Vienna, Institute for Sustainable Economic Development, Sustainable Forest Resource Economics, Schicklerstrasse 5, Feistmantelstraße 4, 1180 Vienna, Austria 16225 Eberswalde, Germany 14 2 Working Group Governance of Ecosystem Services, Leibniz Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences, University Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), of Kassel, Steinstraße 19, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany Eberswalder Str. 84, 15374 Müncheberg, Germany 3 Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural 15 European Forest Institute Yliopistokatu 6B, 80100 Joensuu, Development, University of Göttingen, Platz der Göttinger Finland Sieben 5, 37073 Göttingen, Germany 16 4 KU Leuven, Department of Earth and Environmental Centre de Propietat Forestal (CPF), Santa Perpètua de Sciences Celestijnenlaan 200E, 3001 Leuven, Belgium Mogoda, 08130 Barcelona, Spain 17 5 Centre for Ecological Research and Forestry Applications Pan Bern AG, Hirschengraben 24, 3001, Bern, Switzerland (CREAF), 08193 Cerdanyola del Valles, Spain 6 Land Environment Agriculture and Forestry Department 18 Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural (TeSAF), University of Padova, Viale dell’Università 16, Development, University of Göttingen, Platz der Göttinger Legnaro, 35020 Padova, Italy Sieben 5, 37073 Göttingen, Germany 7 Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies Lund 19 Natural Resources Institute Finland, Latokartanonkaari 9, University, Box 170, 221 00 Lund, Sweden 00790 Helsinki, Finland 8 Forest Service of the Autonomous Province of Trento, via 20 Forest Science and Technology Centre of Catalonia, Trener 3, 38121 Trento, Italy Ctra. St. Llorenç de Morunys, 25280 Solsona, Spain 9 Research Group COMPASSES-Planning and Management 21 Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Wageningen in Social-Ecological Complex Adaptive Systems University University, Droevendaalsesteeg 3, 6700 AA Wageningen, of Santiago de Compostela. Campus Universitario, s/n The Netherlands 27002, Lugo, Spain 10 Department of Civil, Environmental and Mechanical Engineering, University of Trento, via Mesiano 77, Trento, Italy 13