lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management 135 (2014) 45e53

Contents lists avai

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jenvman

Stakeholder engagement in scenario developmentprocess e Bioenergy production and biodiversity conservation ineastern Finland

Anniina Haatanen a, Michael den Herder a,*, Pekka Leskinen b, Marcus Lindner a,Mikko Kurttila c, Olli Salminen d

a European Forest Institute, Yliopistokatu 6, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finlandb Finnish Environment Institute, FI-80100 Joensuu, P.O. Box 111 Joensuu, Finlandc Finnish Forest Research Institute, P.O. Box 68, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finlandd Finnish Forest Research Institute, P.O. Box 18, FI-01301 Vantaa, Finland

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 14 June 2013Received in revised form9 December 2013Accepted 2 January 2014Available online

Keywords:ScenariosBioenergyBiodiversityStakeholder engagementParticipatory approachesForest resource management

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ358 (0) 10 773 4343E-mail address: michael.denherder@efi.int (M. den

0301-4797/$ e see front matter � 2014 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.01.009

a b s t r a c t

In this study participatory approaches were used to develop alternative forest resource managementscenarios with particular respect to the effects on increased use of forest bioenergy and its effect onbiodiversity in Eastern Finland. As technical planning tools, we utilized a forest management planningsystem (MELA) and the Tool for Sustainability Impact Assessment (ToSIA) to visualize the impacts of thescenarios. We organized a stakeholder workshop where group discussions were used as a participatorymethod to get the stakeholder preferences and insights concerning forest resource use in the year 2030.Feedback from the workshop was then complemented with a questionnaire. Based on the results of theworkshop and a questionnaire we developed three alternative forest resource scenarios: (1) bioenergy2030 e in which energy production is more centralized and efficient; (2) biodiversity 2030 e in whichharvesting methods are more nature friendly and protected forests make up 10% of the total forest area;and (3) mixed bioenergy þ biodiversity 2030 scenario e in which wood production, recreation andnature protection are assigned to the most suitable areas. The study showed that stakeholder engage-ment combined with the MELA and ToSIA tools can be a useful approach in scenario development.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005) scenariosare described as “.plausible and often simplified descriptions ofhow the future may develop based on a coherent and internallyconsistent set of assumptions about key driving forces and re-lationships”. This definition implies that scenarios are not pre-dictions of the future, but are rather the tools for perceiving it in amore concessive manner. According to Rounsevell and Metzger(2010) scenario analysis characterizes the future in a structuredway that allows imaginative thinking. Evaluation of the future is byits very nature uncertain e uncertainties can be related to a varietyof factors such as demographic change, economic development,and technological change (Arets et al., 2008; Alcamo and Henrichs,2008); scenarios are nonetheless one way to provoke open policydiscussion (Van der Heijden, 2005; Chakraborty, 2011).

.Herder).

All rights reserved.

There are various definitions of the term ’scenarios’ and sce-narios have been used in various ways (see e.g. Bradfield et al.,2005; Van Notten et al., 2003); in this study scenarios are seen astools for future studies, and are to be used by policy makers todescribe the alternatives of future development paths that canoccur under certain situations determined by given factors anddrivers. Scenarios can be categorized, for example, in typology asexploratory scenarios (descriptive extrapolations of the future),normative scenarios (desirable or avoidable development path-ways) and business-as-usual scenarios (baseline of current trends)(Rounsevell and Metzger, 2010). Arets et al. (2008) also note thatbaseline scenarios are essential in the scenario development pro-cess and these baseline scenarios should be distinguished frompolicy scenarios. Scenarios can be used as bridges that connectscience and policy by visualizing aspects at different temporal andspatial scales within the context of particular certain environ-mental problems (EEA, 2001; Alcamo, 2008). Scenarios are usuallybuilt to meet either the environmental or the policy needs, not both(Alcamo, 2008). Nevertheless, Alcamo (2008) sees that scenarioscan provide a link between policy makers and scientists, since

A. Haatanen et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 135 (2014) 45e5346

science and policy are firmly tied to one another. In this study wetry to develop scenarios that can be utilized both in environmentalmanagement and in policy decision making.

Storylines are an essential part of scenario development. Theyare the qualitative and descriptive component of a scenario, andreflect the drivers of change or describe the outcomes (Rounsevelland Metzger, 2010). By using storylines it is possible to present amore precise view of the future by offering also qualitative infor-mation compared to views that presents solely quantitative data. Ingeneral, the aim of scenario storylines is to increase creativity, rigorand credibility, and provoke discussion (Rounsevell and Metzger,2010). Suspending disbelief is also seen as an essential attributein scenario analysis which can occur when participants fill narra-tive gaps and create causal relationships in the scenario develop-ment (Frittaion et al., 2010).

Scenario storylines were used, for example, in the work of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2000). Story-lines and model calculations form together a qualitative andquantitative approach that can have a significant role in environ-mental change assessment by functioning as a framework for thewhole process. The SAS (story-and-simulation) is an approach inwhich storylines describe the key events, and then models rein-force the storylines with numerical estimates of future environ-mental indicators (EEA, 2001). Although the SAS approach tends tobe costly and time consuming, the supplement of the methods andfirm stakeholder interaction enhances the acceptance of the sce-narios as credible and authoritative (EEA, 2001; Rounsevell andMetzger, 2010). This has also been called the mixed methodapproach (Burke Johnson et al., 2007). Chakraborty (2011) pointsout that qualitative methods generate alternative objectives whichcannot be reached solely by quantitative analysis.

Mendoza and Prabhu (2005) mention three benefits of partici-patory planning: (1) stakeholders are usually familiar with aparticular topic, and they can provide more detailed inputs to theprocess; (2) active participation increases the chance of successfuladaptation of the decisions; (3) participation can strengthen theintegrity and credibility of the work at hand and the decisions to bemade. Bell et al. (2012) add that the participatory approach is achance for different stakeholders to provide input into the researchprocess.

Blackstock et al. (2007) describe participation as a situationwhere new ideas and knowledge are allocated among the partici-pantse this is also called social learning. Hiltunen (2012) notes thatparticipants will learn and achieve a better understanding of thewhole issue during the planning process. Social learning is seen as away to interactively produce and collect individual and situationalfactors of human behavior (Maarleveld and Dangbégnon, 1999).Kok et al. (2006) point out, that the workshop setting can act as astimulus for social interaction and learning (see also Blackstocket al., 2007). According to Burns and Cheng (2005), understand-ing what and why decisions are made is one key outcome instakeholder interaction. Stakeholders are often used only for finalevaluation in the collaborative processes; hence Burns and Cheng(2005) believe that this can lead to a situation where stake-holders feel that the actual decisions are already made before theirinvolvement. If the stakeholders are engaged in the planning anddevelopment of the process, and not only in the final evaluation,wider acceptance might be achieved.

1.1. State-of-the-art of participatory scenario development inFinland

Participatory scenario development has been used in Finlandalready since a few decades. Seppälä et al. (1980) proposed that theFinnish forestry sector faces two limitations: wood as a raw

material is becoming a scarce factor of production, and the possi-bilities to increase production are rather limited. A wide-rangingand comprehensive scenario study of Finnish forest clusters waspublished by Seppälä in 2000. Calculation models, qualitativescenarios and expert views were used as building blocks in map-ping the future of the Finnish forest cluster. The aim of the studywas to present outlooks for forestry (carbon sinks, wood fuel,tourism, information technology, chemical industry, constructionindustry) until 2020. In addition, the Finnish Forest ResearchInstitute has released a report concerning the operational envi-ronment of Finnish forestry (Hetemäki et al., 2006) where thefuture views of the operational environment of forestry until 2015are presented. General, and also some detailed policy actions arepresented, even though the aim is rather to analyze different al-ternatives for the background of decision making. Speculations ofthe future of the forest sector and strategies for well-being arepresented and the report notes a shift towards a bioeconomy.

In summary, participatory and problem-oriented approachesare tools for integrating knowledge, illustrating the future and thehuman impacts on, for example, biodiversity (Spangenberg, 2007;Swart et al., 2004). Hiltunen (2012) considers participation in nat-ural resource planning (NRP) as guidance and facilitation for par-ticipants’ decision making by helping to focus on the mostimportant issues and also considering the personal preferences ofparticipants. Often in a participatory process (e.g. Hiltunen, 2012)scenario alternatives are fixed and stakeholders are involved inevaluating proposed scenarios only towards the end of the processrather than in creating their own scenarios. However, in this studythe focus was to develop new alternatives, focusing on future bio-energy production and biodiversity conservation.

1.2. Aims of the study

The utilization rate of woody biomass in eastern Finland is ex-pected to increase in the near future as set out in several regional,national and European policies and strategies (Ministry ofEconomic Affairs of Finland, 2008; European Commission, 2009;Regional Council of North Karelia, 2011). At the same time we arelosing our diversity of species at an unprecedented rate and mosthabitats are unsuitable to maintain biodiversity (Rassi et al., 2010).The EU target of halting biodiversity loss aims to improve the statusof European ecosystems and reverse the process of loss of impor-tant habitats and species (European Commission, 2011). However,it is not immediately obvious that targets for increasing the use ofbioenergy and biodiversity conservation can be achieved at thesame time, as they are often seen as conflicting issues in forestresource planning (Eggers et al., 2009; Verkerk et al., 2011; Pedrioliet al., 2012). Therefore, there is a need to analyze possible conflictsand trade-offs and to identify the most sustainable resource usealternatives. This study applied participatory methods to analyzethe question of whether it is possible to increase bioenergy pro-duction without harmful impacts on biodiversity. This study pre-sents a case of developing forest resource use scenarios in EasternFinland. By utilizing a participatory approach combined with aforest resource projection model we aim to describe a means toconduct a scenario building process. We explored whether it ispossible to improve existing scenarios by involving stakeholders inan early phase of the process during the development of newscenario alternatives for forest use.

2. Material and methods

The study area consisted of five Forestry Centre areas in easternFinland: Kainuu, North Savonia, South Savonia, North Karelia andSouth-East Finland. About 87% of the area is covered by boreal

A. Haatanen et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 135 (2014) 45e53 47

mixed coniferous forest and about 64% of the net annual growth isharvested each year (Finnish Forest Research Institute, 2011). Thescenario-creation process in this study included several steps pre-sented in Fig. 1. The process was iterative and it included the cre-ation of forest management alternatives applying the forestrydecision support system MELA (Siitonen et al., 1996) and the Toolfor Sustainability Impact Assessment (ToSIA) (Lindner et al., 2010;Päivinen et al., 2012) integrated with a stakeholder interactionprocesses. The process shows how the created scenarios wereelaborated and improved to better meet the expectations of thestakeholders which were collected both from the stakeholderworkshop and from a questionnaire.

2.1. ToSIA and MELA

ToSIA was used to measure sustainability impacts of existingscenarios by comparing environmental, economic and social in-dicators. The ToSIA Database Client program was used to create aforest wood chain (FWC) for each study area. The FWC from thisstudy was based on a similar chain constructed by den Herder et al.(2012) which was initially used in a forest resource use assessmentfor North Karelia. This chain was updated with more recent data(2009) on forest resources andwood extraction rates and expandedto cover the five forestry centres that make up the regional districtof Eastern Finland. In our assessment the whole value chains ofdifferent forest wood products (saw logs, pulpwood, energy wood,wood chips, firewood and wood pellets) were evaluated, fromplanting trees to the end use of products. ToSIA assesses sustain-ability impact by quantifying changes in the material flow whichare linked to processes of a production chain. These processes canbe linked to social, economic and environmental indicators. ToSIAcalculates the material flow through the processes of the produc-tion chain and combines these material flows process-by-processwith sustainability indicators reported per unit of the materialflow, for instance production costs in V/m3. Based on the selectedindicators, sustainability impact comparisons can be made ofchanges inside production chains, between different chains, andbetween a baseline and future scenarios. A more detaileddescription of the ToSIA tool, the methodology and possible ap-plications has been given by Lindner et al. (2012). More informationon the investigated FWC is provided by den Herder et al. (2012). Thematerial flows of the new FWCs covering all five forestry centreswere simulated with data from theMELA forest resource projectionmodel. Forest resource data were used as input data for the MELAsystem to make projections of four alternative scenarios for futureforest management. For each scenario, these simulated forest

Fig. 1. Description of the stakeh

resource data were used to initialize the material flow in ToSIA andanalyze the sustainability impacts.

The MELA system consists of a simulator and an optimizationpackage (Redsven et al., 2011). The simulator produces alternativefeasible management schedules for calculation units and showshow the forest develops if the suggested management takes place.In the simulator, the development of the growing stock (in-growth,growth andmortality of trees) is estimated using tree-level models.The optimization package (Lappi, 1992), which is based on linearprogramming, selects the management schedules that best meetsthe objective and constraints of the objective function. In this study,the input data for the development of scenarios in the first roundwas the Finnish national forest inventory (NFI) sample plot data forthe five forestry centre areas from the years 2006e2010.

2.2. Initial scenarios

Four scenarios were entered in ToSIA at the beginning of thisproject: business as usual (BAU), maximum sustainable cuttings(MaxSus), projected demand (H&H, after Hetemäki and Hänninen,2009), and a biodiversity scenario. These scenarios were presentedin the workshop to show the stakeholders some examples of forestdevelopment and to stimulate the discussion.

The outcome of scenarios was based on MELA calculations. Weimplemented the scenarios in MELA by maximizing discounted netpresent value with the 4% interest rate subject to the round woodand energywood removals (Table 1, Fig. 2a). In the BAU scenario theaverage realized round wood removals by timber assortments in2004e2008 were assumed to continue for the whole calculationperiod. In this scenario there was no explicit target level for energywood and thus the energy wood removal was a result of the opti-mization. In the sustainability scenario (MaxSus) there were noexplicit targets either but total round wood removal, saw-logremoval, energy wood removal and net incomes were defined asnon-declining between the subsequent periods. This alternativewas not based on analysis of future wood usage but it reflected thepotential wood supply of the study area and the cutting levels wereresults of the calculations.

The capacity of the Finnish paper and pulp industry has declinedin the recent years due to the reduced demand of wood basedproducts. This declining trend was applied by using the H&H sce-nario beyond the year 2016. The predictions of Hetemäki andHänninen (2009) extend only up to the year 2020 but weassumed that the removals will stay at the same level. WemodifiedHetemäki and Hänninen (total domestic roundwood demand49.5 Mm3/a) with greater import of round wood and thus with

older engagement process.

Table 1Objective functions and constraints of the initial scenarios.

Scenario Objective function Constraints

Business asusual (BAU)

Max net present valueusing 4% interest rate

In 2004e2008 realizedaverage round wood cuttingremovals by timberassortments for all periods.No explicit constraints forenergy wood.

Maximum sustainablecuttings (MaxSus)

Max net present valueusing 4% interest rate

Non-declining constraintsconcerning cutting removals(roundwood andenergy wood), andnet incomes between the subsequent periods.

Projecteddemand (H&H)

Max net present valueusing 4% interest rate

Roundwood cuttingremovals based on modifiedHetemäki and Hänninen(2009) and energy woodremovals based on the targetof forest chips usage in 2020by Finnish Climate and EnergyStrategy (2010) and to thecurrent fuel wood usage ofhouseholds.

A. Haatanen et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 135 (2014) 45e5348

lower domestic cuttings (43.5 Mm3/a) because the initial estimateswere made during the threat of Russian trade barriers. The FinnishClimate and Energy Strategy (2010) set a target to increase the useof wood chips up to the level of 13.5 Mm3/a by the year 2020. Inaddition 5.5 Mm3/a wood were used in 2004e2008 for heating inhouseholds and we assumed that this usage will remain. For thestudy area the share of predicted round wood removal was17.7 Mm3/a and of the energy wood removal 5.4 Mm3/a calculatedaccording to the current usage and future cutting possibilities.

The BAU, MaxSus and H&H scenarios are described in moredetail in Asikainen et al. (2012). The biodiversity scenario wascreated by the authors themselves and is based on the BAU sce-nario, but the forest area available for wood supply is reduced by10% and this area is set aside for nature conservation. Allocation ofnew protected areas is divided evenly among forest types and ageclasses.

The four initial scenarios were different in terms of resourceextraction and nature conservation and thus served as startingpoints for the discussions with the stakeholders. The MELA in-dicators were: growing stock, increment, cutting removal, energy

Fig. 2. a) Cutting removals (1000 m3) in forests available for wood supply, and b) Area of pro

wood removal, removals of stumps and roots, area of land withforest >120-years-old, volume of trees >120-years-old, protectedareas, and harvested mature forest. Fig. 2 presents a few selectedvariables and shows that there are some differences between sce-narios. The cutting removals will remain at a similar level comparedto the current levels in the H&H scenario while these will increasemarkedly in the maximum sustainable scenario (Fig. 2a). The areaof protected forest land is enlarged only in the biodiversity scenario(Fig. 2b). It should be noted that in the biodiversity scenario, theamount of forest land set aside for nature conservation (10% of thearea of forest land available for wood supply set aside for protec-tion) is an arbitrary figure, set by the authors themselves.

2.3. Stakeholder workshop and questionnaire

A workshop is one way to engage with stakeholders (Kok et al.,2006). This study used a workshop to collect new insights (factorsand measures), and based on these insights new scenarios weredeveloped. The workshop also provided an opportunity for sociallearning. The overall aim for the workshop was to develop threenew scenarios (storylines) by stakeholder interaction: (1) increaseduse of bioenergy (bioE); (2) improved biodiversity (bioD); and (3) acombination scenario of these two objectives (bioE-bioD).

2.3.1. Stakeholder identificationA balanced representation of different stakeholder groups is

essential for a proper participatory interaction in a workshop.When selecting the stakeholders, we gave priority to participantswho are experts or officials in bioenergy and biodiversity issues andare involved in policy and regional development work. It was alsoimportant to engage experts who are familiar with Eastern Finland.

Forest experts with diverse backgrounds (business, policy andacademia) from a variety of sectors (business, energy, nature con-servation, game management) were invited to participate in astakeholder workshop held in Joensuu in April 2012. A large part ofthe invitees were active in the evaluation of the regional forestprograms and this list was complemented with names of additionalexperts who are actively involved in bioenergy or biodiversityrelated issues, as part of their work or voluntary activities. In all 16experts gathered at the workshop to discuss key criteria and factorson the future of bioenergy production and use, and biodiversityconservation in eastern Finland in 2030. The stakeholders repre-sented four Forestry Centre areas: Kainuu, Northern Savonia,

tected forest land (1000 ha) in reference year 2007 and four scenarios for the year 2027.

Fig. 3. The facilitation procedure of the workshop.

A. Haatanen et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 135 (2014) 45e53 49

Southern Savonia and North Karelia. There were no representativesfrom South-East Finland, the most distant part of the case studyregion.

2.3.2. FacilitationThe outline of theworkshop is presented in Fig. 3. Theworkshop

started with presentations which aimed to give the participantsmore information and provoke the discussion. The group workconsisted of several World Café brainstorming sessions (see http://www.theworldcafe.com/) focusing on different aspects whichwould be important to reach the targets for increased bioenergyuse and biodiversity conservation. The methods were chosenbecause of their comprehensibility and feasibility to obtain resultsduring the available time frame (afternoon session of a 1-dayworkshop). During the brainstorming sessions, the participantswere encouraged to fill in a futures table. A futures table is a tool todefine the topic under investigation, illustrate possible future de-velopments and elaborate change factors which will affect thescenarios (Popper, 2008; Georghiou et al., 2008). The method aimsto identify the most important factors (phenomena, actors) andtheir possible alternative future states from the point of view of theproblem in question. The futures table was structured in the STEEPformat e i.e. the table had separate subheadings for Social, Tech-nological, Economic, Environmental and Political factors. A STEEPanalysis is a variation of the PEST analysis (see e.g. http://www.mindtools.com/) and brings also Environmental factors intoconsideration. Workshop participants were presented with an

empty STEEP futures table in order to steer the workshop discus-sion, but also to allow participants to use their creativity.

2.3.3. QuestionnaireShort narrative storylines were developed after the workshop

and sent to the stakeholders to be evaluated. However, for devel-oping the new scenarios in a quantitative manner, we needed exactvalues for certain factors affecting the biodiversity and bioenergytargets to be implemented by the MELA-calculations. Because theworkshop ended up in discussion of the objectives at a more gen-eral level, an online questionnaire, covering more specific optionsfor forest resource management, was sent to stakeholders after theworkshop in order to clarify the factors and measures in eachscenario and to have final approval from the stakeholders. Thequestionnaire was sent to 25 stakeholders; to all workshop par-ticipants and a few other stakeholders who could not attend butwere interested in the process. Stakeholders could submit theirreplies anonymously.

3. Results

3.1. Participatory method

The participatory approach was essential for this study as theaim was to receive stakeholder input to the scenario development.Theworkshop as a participatory technique was adopted rather wellby the stakeholders and we were able to identify their preferences

Table 2The perceived likelihood (% of the participants) of the storylines developed duringthe workshop.

Answer options Responsepercent (%)BioD

Responsepercent (%)BioE

Responsepercent (%)BioE-BioD

Very likely 0 33.3 0Likely 66.7 50 83.3Unlikely 33.3 8.3 16.7Very unlikely 0 8.3 0

A. Haatanen et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 135 (2014) 45e5350

concerning the scenarios. During theworkshop, timewas a limitingfactor, as the workshop lasted only one day, and therefore a follow-up online questionnaire was sent to participants. The quantitativedata output of the workshop alone was inadequate for setting upthe MELA calculations. However, in combination with the ques-tionnaire to get more specific and quantified parameters for thescenarios the participatory approach was successful in reaching thegoals of the study.

3.2. The final storylines

Three scenario storylines, which presents different alternativesfor future forest resource use management, were established asoutputs from the stakeholder workshop. The scenarios were:biodiversity 2030 (bioD), bioenergy 2030 (bioE), and a combinedbioE-bioD 2030. The storylines are written narratives which arepresented below.

3.2.1. BIODIVERSITY 2030In the year 2030 the forest owners form a more heterogeneous

group and require new ways of managing their forests. Forests aremanaged by taking the possibilities of multiple uses in account,which also enable possibilities for nature protection. Harvestingmethods are more nature friendly, cutting areas are smaller andthere are more dead trees and more deciduous trees left in theforest. The amount of dead wood increases due to more frequentstorms and damages. In the future 10% of the forest productionareas are protected. Protection actions are focused on the areaswhere the biodiversity is still rich. The old forest along the easternborder of Kainuu and North Karelia and old spruce mires which aresituated in the south are better protected. In forests important forgame management, the habitat requirements of the species areconsidered more carefully e for example, by handling the shrublayer carefully and stump harvesting is not practiced in these areas.

3.2.2. BIOENERGY 2030The structure of forest owners has clearly changed by the year

2030. Forest owners’ attitudes and visions play a key role inincreasing the use of bioenergy. Public opinion towards bioenergyis more favorable in the year 2030, and relatively more people areliving close to larger population centres. Energy solutions are morecentralized and the forest wood procurement chain is optimized ina more efficient way. However, the decrease of rural population andtherefore the lack of workforce cause problems. Instead of pro-moting bioenergy, the concept of bioeconomy development isaddressed more generally. All environmental impacts of the forest-based sector are still difficult to estimate at the regional level,which nonetheless should be better acknowledged in the future -for example, effects on soil carbon and hence increased [carbon]emissions. The production of biogas and the use of bio-refineryproducts are increased. The side streams of by-products from theforest sector are crucial factors. The policy of subsidies [for bio-energy production] is formulated at EU-level, although there arealso actions at the national level to promote bioenergy production.Production is more efficient due to technological development. Theglobal effects of environmental factors are recognized also ineastern Finland. The green economy is important in 2030. Theavailability of bioenergy is not a problem in 2030, but the consumerattitudes towards bioenergy production cause challenges in thefuture.

3.2.3. COMBINED bioE þ bioD 2030There are no major difficulties to combine bioenergy production

and biodiversity conservation in eastern Finland in the year 2030.The ecosystem is seen as the basis of all functions. The importance

of regional planning and local circumstances is even more high-lighted. Promotion of bioenergy and biodiversity can be achievedtogether, since zonation is emphasized as a policy in forest man-agement. Wood production, recreation and protection are priori-tized to the most suitable areas. More intensive energy woodharvesting is conducted nearby the energy generation plants toreduce transportation distance. In the forest areas which are situ-ated further away from the energy plants, the focus is on protectionof biodiversity. Recreational areas are also utilized for the need ofenergy production to some extent for maintaining an open land-scape for recreational use. Combining use of forests for recreationand biodiversity is important, especially near large populationcentres. The quality of the protection areas is important. Protectionoperations are focused on protecting the most valuable habitats(old forest, spruce mires and other smaller valuable areas). Kainuuand North Karelia e on the eastern border of Finland e are espe-cially important for nature conservation, although there are alsoimportant habitats in south-east Finland. Rotation periods are a bitlonger, which enables production of high quality wood. A healthyforest sector is one source of funds to finance nature conservation.In order to stay healthy, the forest sector focuses on producing highquality wood. The aim in bioenergy production is optimization ofby-products (bark, black liquor, sawdust, cutter shavings, harvestresidues, stumps).

3.3. The stakeholder evaluation

With the stakeholder questionnaire we wanted to verify thestorylines and ask for more quantitative information concerningthe scenarios. We received 12 replies (48%). The majority of therespondents were from North Karelia (11 out of 12). The re-spondents were working in research (4), decision making (3),business (2), nature conservation (2) and forest management (1).

We asked the stakeholders for their opinions about how likelythey thought the storylines would be to occur. We used a 4-pointscale to describe the likelihood of the scenarios (very likely,likely, unlikely, very unlikely). The results on the perceived likeli-hood of the scenarios are presented in Table 2. It can be seen that allthe scenarios are seen rather likely to occur in the future.

Even though the biodiversity scenario was seen as likely, it alsoreceived criticism. A variety of opinion was expressed concerningthe amount of production forest that should be set aside for natureprotection: 58% of the stakeholders disagreed with the amountbeing set at 10%. The lowest suggestion was 5% and highest was30%. The 10% protection level as described in the BioD scenario wasseen as appropriate by about 42% of the respondents. Since it wasnot possible to reach a consensus on the protection level, wedecided to keep the 10% protection level as described in the BioDscenario for the MELA-calculations. In the comments, stakeholderswondered about the economical sustainability of forestry, if thecutting areas were smaller. The decrease of viability of forestry andthe adequacy of governmental support to increase amount of pro-tection areas were seen as threats.

Table 3Roundwood harvesting levels: current level (2009), Maximum sustainable scenarioand harvesting levels as proposed by the stakeholders for the bioenergy scenario(bioE) (million m3).

Province Current levelyear 2009

Stakeholdersuggestion (bioE)

Maxsustainable

Kainuu 2.5 3.4 4.6North Karelia 3.6 4.6 6.2North Savonia 4 5.2 6.8South Savonia 4.2 5.5 7.1South-East Finland 3 4 4.8

A. Haatanen et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 135 (2014) 45e53 51

Over 80% of the stakeholders saw the bioenergy scenario to bevery likely or likely to occur. Some of the participants viewed thescenario as having contradictions. The basic idea behind thebioenergy scenario is that climate change is prevented bydecreasing emissions. However, the effects of intensive forestrymethods on soil can be wide and cause large emissions; in gen-eral these effects have not been recognized in bioenergy strate-gies/programmes.

The combined scenario was seen as likely (83% considering it tobe likely or very likely), although the scenario was criticized forbeing too optimistic. The stakeholders agreed that there are op-portunities to increase bioenergy production since there are un-utilized biomass resources, and therefore no trade-off between thebioenergy and biodiversity targets is necessary.

In the questionnairewe also asked about the appropriate cuttinglevels of roundwood in the bioenergy scenario (Table 3). The valuespresent the average amount of the stakeholders’ suggestions. Theexperts indicated that cutting levels could be raised by about 1million m3 in each forestry centre in Eastern Finland by the year2030.

The amount of energy wood needed for producing bio-refineryproducts is not included in the bioenergy programme of EasternFinland (ISBEO 2020, 2011), so in the questionnaire this was alsoacknowledged. The stakeholders were asked whether the amountsof harvested energy wood should be increased to fulfill the demandfor bio-refinery products, and if these should be increased, by howmuch. We decided to keep the target of the bioenergy programme.In the stakeholder workshop energy wood was seen more focusedon the by-products of round wood production (black liquor,sawdust, cutter shavings, bark). We asked participants to rank theimportance of different sources of bioenergy using the scale - veryimportant, important, not so important, and not important at all.Black liquor was seen as the most important (90% very important).Other by-products (bark, sawdust, cutter shavings) were also seenas important (80% very important), then small trees from thinnings(70% very important), harvesting residues (60% very important),and finally stumps (10% very important). In summary, wood pro-duction was seen as very important or important by 83.3% of thestakeholders.

Despite the lively discussions, no concrete orientation could bederived from the workshop concerning, for example, the rotationperiod and for that reason it was asked in the questionnaire. Mostof the answers supported the current level, although with a slightincrease. Some of the stakeholders even saw that the rotation

Table 4Shares (%) of the timber assortments in the year 2030 suggested by the stakeholdersand the situation in 2010.

Timber assortment Share (%) in 2010 Share (%) in 2030

Sawlogs 40.9 40Pulpwood 52.4 40Energy wood 6.7 20

periods could be shortened and still aim for high quality timber. Thelowest minimum rotation period was 45 years. Table 4 presents theaverage share of different timber assortments suggested by thestakeholders. For comparison, the current shares (Finnish ForestResearch Institute, 2011) are also presented in the table. As canbe noted, the stakeholders believe that energy wood will be moreimportant in the future.

4. Discussion/conclusions

We adopted a combination of a workshop and a consultation byquestionnaire for the participatory involvement of stakeholders inthe scenario development of this study. The participation methodwas rather successful and there was lively discussion by thestakeholders. The participants had the chance to freely presenttheir ideas and preferences about bioenergy and biodiversity con-cerns and the facilitated group work resulted in very insightfulreflections and offered several new and interesting ideas fordevelopment of the bioE-bioD scenarios. As outcomes of theworkshop the storylines were created.

As can be noted from the storylines presented in the Section 3,the workshop participants, both bioenergy and biodiversitygroups, had the opinion that in eastern Finland there are suffi-cient biomass resources which are currently not fully utilized andtherefore supplementary production areas are not needed. Thetwo groups also agreed that there should be a shift from plotspecific planning to a planning that considers all operationallevels, from the forest stand level to the regional level. Regionalplanning and paying attention to local circumstances should alsobe more strongly emphasized in the future forest management. Inthe future, the forest owners will form a more heterogeneousgroup who require alternative options for the management oftheir forests. Zonation and prioritizing of forest functions incertain areas will be emphasized. For example, wood production,recreation and nature conservation is focused on the most suit-able areas in the future. Since the rotation periods are longer in2030, higher quality timber is produced. This might also benefitbiodiversity. The protection areas will be situated along theborder of eastern Finland, mainly in the old forest in Kainuu andNorth Karelia. In bioenergy production, the role of by-productswas highlighted.

The stakeholders enthusiastically participated in the processduring and also after the workshop. The questionnaire, sent tothe stakeholders after the workshop, gave perhaps morefreedom to express personal opinions, and therefore morediverse opinions were received. It is noted that one problem ofworkshops is that there is no anonymity, and some participantsmay have been reluctant to express their opinions openly. Someparticipants may pressure the rest of the group to accept theiropinions and create schism, as Luyet et al. (2012) points out.With the questionnaire it was also possible to engage stake-holders who were not able to participate in the workshop andalso those who did not express their opinions at the workshop.In addition, quantitative data, which were not elicited at theworkshop, could be elicited via the questionnaire; quantitativedata were essential for the MELA calculations and furtherdevelopment of the scenarios.

The lesson learned from the workshop is that the selectedmethod (i.e. STEEP futures table) would have requiredmore time tocomplete. However, a longer workshop, for example two days,might have deterred some of the stakeholders from further awayfrom participating at all. With hindsight we also recognize that theparticipants found the STEEP futures tables a bit restricting as theparticipants were not inclined to think in pre-defined factors.Instead, the participants wished to discuss more freely and

A. Haatanen et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 135 (2014) 45e5352

therefore the group work ended up being more general and unre-stricted discussion about the factors and measures that needs to betaken in consideration in planning new scenarios. Perhaps moretime would have been needed for the participants to fully under-stand and be comfortable with the method. One additional feed-back was that more information beforehand was needed.

The participants in this study consisted of both bioenergy andbiodiversity experts, although there were more bioenergy experts.If the participants come from one sector or background, there willnot be enough variety of opinions, and therefore the outcome maybe questioned. Chakraborty (2011) mentions, that diversity withinstakeholders is essential for identifying distinct futures. On theother hand, it is not ideal if there is too much variation among thestakeholders. In this situation they might not find any commonground, or only in some marginal issues that are not important forthe issue under discussion. The stakeholder selection and workingmethods are crucial aspects and can create difficulties during thedevelopment process.

Regardless of the weaknesses and challenges in participatorymethods, there are ways to overcome them. As we have learned itis important to have enough time to inform the participantsabout the methods and the overall aims. Frittaion et al. (2010)notes, that if the participants consider the scenarios to beaffecting their lives directly in the future, they will be moremotivated to be creative and suspend disbelief. He mentions thatstorylines should be presented in terms of the current situation,so the participants can imagine them to really occur (see alsoSchoemaker, 1993; Wollenberg et al., 2000) as we have done inthis study.

The main target of this study was to create scenarios for biodi-versity, bioenergy and a combined biodiversity-bioenergy scenario.The target was successfully reached. Our interest was to createforest resource management alternatives concerning the area ofEastern Finland. The conclusion of this study is that that there areno significant difficulties in identifying solutions to create a com-bined scenario, since according to the stakeholders bioenergy andbiodiversity targets do not conflict with each other in EasternFinland. This contradicts the traditional view that targets cannot bereached simultaneously. For instance, Verkerk et al. (2011) haveexplored the effects of increasing biomass removals on the amountof dead wood in European forests. The results show that biodiver-sity (dead wood and dead wood-dependent species) will benegatively affected if removals of harvest residues are increased.According to Markevi�cius et al. (2010) increasing demand for bio-fuels causes significant losses in carbon pools and biodiversitywhen more land for biomass utilization is needed, especially intropical rain forests. There is a need for policy changes concerningindirect land use and its effects on biodiversity loss (Tilman et al.,2009). In other words, the results are different depending on thelocation. With regard to the current study, the explanation for theresults was that currently the utilization of forests was not limitedby the production possibilities measured by bioenergy and biodi-versity. The felling rate (fellings as percentage of net annualincrement) in this region is currently around 60%, which is quitelow compared to other regions in Europe and also compared to thesituation in 1990, when a felling ratio of more than 80% indicatedmore intensive forest resource exploitation (Finnish ForestResearch Institute, 2011). The current average felling rate inNorthern Europe is 70% and for the whole EU27 it is 64% (ForestEurope, UNECE & FAO, 2011). Because of the relatively low fellingrates in the region, which resulted in a build-up of forest resourcesover the last decades, workshop participants considered that itwould be possible to combine the target of increasing wood andbioenergy production and the target to increase conservationefforts.

The experiences gained in this study support the view thatparticipatory scenario development can be a very useful tool tosupport policy making. The participants were allowed to influencethe development of the scenarios by expressing their preferencesand providing quantitative data. In this manner the stakeholdersprovided input for the scenarios to validate the whole scenariodevelopment process. Scenarios, scenario storylines, and partici-patory approaches have complementary aims; they all seek trans-parency for the development process. In order to increasetransparency, it is important to build trust, confidence and integrityof the planning exercise to enable active participation from thestakeholders. In our scenario building approach we constructedstorylines of possible future developments together with thestakeholders. A set of compelling and coherent storylines can be aneffective way of triggering conversation among policy-makers andkey stakeholders (Volkery et al., 2008). In addition, supportingqualitative storylines with quantitative results can strengthen theoutcomes and provide additional input for the discussions. Theexercise brought together people of different backgrounds and bycreating a dialog between the participants, trust can be built.Transparency of the process can also built trust. When people un-derstand the process, they are more willing to accept it. In ourscenario building exercise, the stakeholders were able to developthe storylines themselves and supplement these with quantitativedata, which will not only enhance understanding but will also givethe people a sense of ownership. Trust is important not only withinthe participatory group process but also between the participants(Richards et al., 2004). Moreover, improving project design byutilizing local knowledge (Irvin and Stansbury, 2004; Habron,2003) is an important motivation with regard to participation.Science and policy are firmly related as science informs the policy-makers; scenario analysis goes even further and strengthens thistraditional linkage by providing legitimacy for the decisions (Swartet al., 2004) and enhancing trust by stakeholder engagement(Chakraborty, 2011).

Targets to reduce oil consumption, emissions and to replacefossil fuels with renewable energy were already set at the time ofthis study, without a careful consideration of the broader envi-ronmental and societal issues. Nevertheless, a sustainabilityimpact assessment can also be used to verify a decision. Bycreating new alternative scenarios for forest use, we can evaluatewith stakeholders if indeed it was a sensible choice to make ashift from fossil fuel based to wood-based energy production.With this participatory scenario development process we try tocontinue the discussion and offer a methodological frameworkwhich considers the broader societal and environmental issuesas well.

The obtained results can be utilized by policy and decisionmakers in the forest sector. In the future we will evaluate the sce-narios further with the stakeholders. Based on the contents of thestorylines, three new scenarios will be simulated with the MELAsystem. The aim is to evaluate sustainability impacts of the alter-native scenarios. In addition, the simulation results will verifywhether the stakeholder perception that there are no conflictsbetween increasing wood and bioenergy production and increasingconservation efforts indeed reflects the resource situation in theregion.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the participants of the workshop and ques-tionnaire whose contribution was essential for the success of thisstudy. We thank Tim Green for proofreading and giving valuableadvice which greatly improved the manuscript. The study was part

A. Haatanen et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 135 (2014) 45e53 53

of the bioE-bioD project which was funded by the Metsämiestensäätiö Foundation.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.01.009.

References

Alcamo, J. (Ed.), 2008. Environmental Futures: the Practice of Environmental Sce-nario Analysis. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p. 224.

Alcamo, J., Henrichs, T., 2008. Towards guidelines for environmental scenarioanalysis. In: Alcamo, J. (Ed.), Environmental Futures: the Practice of Environ-mental Scenario Analysis. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 13e35.

Arets, E., Palosuo, T., Moiseyev, A., Nabuurs, G.-J., Slimani, D., Olsmat, C.,Laurijssen, J., Mason, B., McGowan, D., Vötter, D., 2008. Reference Futures andScenarios for the European FWC. EFORWOOD. Alterra.

Asikainen, A., Ilvesniemi, H., Sievänen, R., Vapaavuori, E., Muhonen, T. (Eds.), 2012.Bioenergy, Climate Change and Forests of Finland (in Finnish: Bioenergia,ilmastonmuutos ja Suomen metsät.). Working Papers of the Finnish ForestResearch Institute 240, ISBN 978-951-40-2378-1, p. 211 (PDF). Available in theInternet: http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2012/mwp240.htm.

Bell, S., Morse, S., Shah, R.A., 2012. Understanding stakeholder participation inresearch as part of sustainable development. J. Environ. Manag. 101, 13e22.

Blackstock, K.L., Kelly, G.J., Horsey, B.L., 2007. Developing and applying a frameworkto evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 60, 726e742.

Burke Johnson, R., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Turner, L.A., 2007. Toward a definition ofmixed methods research. J. Mix. Meth. Res. 1, 112e133.

Burns, S., Cheng, A.S., 2005. The Utilization of Collaborative Processes in ForestPlanning. Office of Community Services, Fort Lewis College, Durango, CO.

Bradfield, R., Wright, G., Burt, G., Cairns, G., van der Heijden, K., 2005. The originsand evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning. Futures37, 795e812.

Chakraborty, A., 2011. Enhancing the role of participatory scenario planning pro-cess: lessons from reality check exercises. Futures 43, 387e399.

den Herder, M., Kolström, M., Lindner, M., Suominen, T., Tuomasjukka, D.,Pekkanen, M., 2012. Sustainability Impact Assessment on the production anduse of different wood and fossil fuels employed for energy production in NorthKarelia, Finland. Energies 5, 4870e4891.

EEA, 2001. Scenarios as Tools for International Environmental Assessment. Envi-ronmental issue report No. 24. European Environment Agency 31, Copenhagen.

Eggers, J., Tröltzsch, K., Falcucci, A., Maiorano, L., Verburg, P.H., Framstad, E.,Louette, G., Maes, D., Nagy, S., Ozinga, W., Delbaere, B., 2009. Is biofuel policyharming biodiversity in Europe? GCB Bioenergy 1, 18e34.

European Commission, 2009. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament andof the Council of 23 April 2009 on the Promotion of the Use of Energy fromRenewable Sources and Amending and Subsequently Repealing Directives2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. European Commission, Brussels, 5.6.2009.

European Commission, 2011. Our Life Insurance, Our Natural Capital: an EU Biodi-versity Strategy to 2020. COM(2011) 244 Final. European Commission, Brussels,3.5.2011.

Finnish Forest Research Institute, 2011. Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry 2011.Vantaa, p. 472. Available online: http://www.metla.fi.

Forest Europe, UNECE & FAO, 2011. State of Europe’s Forests 2011. Status and trendsin sustainable forest management in Europe. In: Ministerial Conference on theProtection of Forests in Europe, Oslo, p. 337.

Frittaion, C., Duinker, P., Grant, J., 2010. Narratives of the future: suspendingdisbelief in forest-sector scenarios. Futures 42, 1156e1165.

Georghiou, L., Cassingena, J., Keenan, M., Miles, I., Popper, R. (Eds.), 2008. TheHandbook of Technology Foresight. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p. 456.

Habron, G., 2003. Role of adaptive management for watershed councils. Environ.Manag. 31 (1), 29e41.

Hetemäki, L., Harstela, P., Hynynen, J., Ilvesniemi, H., Uusivuori, J., 2006. FinnishForest-based Welfare 2015. Review of the Finnish Forest Sector Developmentand Future Options (Suomen metsiin perustuva hyvinvointi 2015. KatsausSuomen metsäalan kehitykseen ja tulevaisuuden vaihtoehtoihin) (in Finnish).Finnish Forest Research Institute (Metla) working papers 26.

Hetemäki, L., Hänninen, R., 2009. Outlook for Finland’s Forest Industry Productionand Wood Consumption for 2015 and 2020. Finnish Forest Research Institute(Metla) Working paper. Available in the Internet. http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2009/mwp122.htm.

Hiltunen, V., 2012. Developing Decision Support in Participatory Strategic ForestPlanning in Metsähallitus. Dissertationes Forestales 141. School of Forest Sci-ences of the University of Eastern Finland.

ISBEO 2020, 2011. Regional Council of North Carelia. Programme available only inthe Internet (in Finnish). http://www.isbeo2020.fi/dman/Document.phx?documentId¼sk33911104629743&cmd¼download.

IPCC, 2000. IPCC Special Report in Emissions Scenarios (SRES). Based on a draftprepared by Naki�cenovi�c, N., et al.. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Irvin, R.A., Stansbury, J., 2004. Citizen participation in decision making: is it worththe effort? Public Adm. Rev. 64 (1), 55e65.

Kok, K., Patel, M., Rothman, Quaranta, G., 2006. Multi-scale narratives from an IAperspective: part II. Participatory local scenario development. Futures 38, 285e311.

Lappi, J., 1992. JLP: a Linear Programming Package for Management Planning.Research Papers 414. Finnish Forest Research Institute, ISBN 951-40-1218-6,p. 134. ISNN 0358e4283.

Lindner, M., Suominen, T., Palosuo, T., Garcia-Gonzales, J., Verweij, P., Zudin, S.,Päivinen, R., 2010. ToSIA e a tool for sustainability impact assessment of forest-wood-chains. Ecol. Model. 221, 2197e2205.

Lindner, M., Werhahn-Mees, W., Suominen, T., Vötter, D., Zudin, S., Pekkanen, M.,Päivinen, R., Roubalova, M., Kneblik, P., Brüchert, F., Valinger, E., Guinard, L.,Pizzirani, S., 2012. Conducting sustainability impact assessments of forestry-wood chains: examples of ToSIA applications. Eur. J. For. Res. 131, 21e34.

Luyet, V., Schlaepfer, R., Parlange, M.B., Buttler, A., 2012. A framework to implementstakeholder participation in environmental projects. J. Environ. Manag. 111,213e219.

Maarleveld, M., Dangbégnon, C., 1999. Managing natural resources: a social learningperspective. Agric. Hum. Values 16, 267e280.

Markevi�cius, A., Katinas, V., Perednis, E., Tamaauskien, M., 2010. Trends and sus-tainability criteria of the production and use of liquid biofuels. Renew. Sustain.Energy Rev. 14, 3226e3231.

MA, 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: findings of the scenarios workinggroup of the millennium ecosystem assessment. In: Carpenter, S.R., Pingali, P.L.,Bennett, E.M., Zurek, M.B. (Eds.), The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series,vol. 2Island Press, Washington DC.

Mendoza, G.A., Prabhu, R., 2005. Combining participatory modelling and multi-criteria analysis for community-based forest management. For. Ecol. Manag.207, 145e156.

Ministry of Economic Affairs of Finland, 2008. Finnish Long-term Climate and En-ergy Strategy (in Finnish). Ministry of Economic Affairs of Finland, Helsinki,Finland.

Päivinen, R., Lindner, M., Rosén, K., Lexer, M.J., 2012. A concept for assessing sus-tainability impacts of forestry-wood chains. Eur. J. For. Res. 131, 7e19.

Pedrioli, B., Elbersen, B., Frederiksen, P., Grandin, U., Heikkilä, R., Henning Krogh, P.,Izakovicova, Z., Johansen, A., Meiresonne, L., Spijker, J., 2012. Is energy croppingin Europe compatible with biodiversity? e opportunities and threats to biodi-versity from land-based production of biomass for energy purposes. BiomassBioenergy, 1e14.

Popper, R., 2008. Foresight methodology. In: Georghiou, L., Cassingena, J.,Keenan, M., Miles, I., Popper, R. (Eds.), The Handbook of Technology Foresight.Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 44e88.

Rassi, P., Hyvärinen, E., Juslén, A., Mannerkoski, I. (Eds.), 2010. The 2010 Red List ofFinnish Species. Ympäristöministeriö & Suomen ympäristökeskus, Helsinki,p. 685.

Redsven, V., Hirvelä, H., Härkönen, K., Salminen, O., Siitonen, M., 2011. MELA 2009Reference Manual, second ed. The Finnish Forest Research Institute, p. 664.

Regional Council of North Karelia, 2011. Bioenergy Programme for Eastern Finland2020 (In Finnish). Regional Council of North Karelia, Joensuu, Finland. Availableonline: http://www.isbeo2020.fi (accessed 01.12.11.).

Richards, C., Blackstock, K.L., Carter, C., 2004. Practical approaches to participation.In: SERG Policy Brief, vol. 1Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen.

Rounsevell, M., Metzger, M., 2010. Developing qualitative scenario storylines forenvironmental change assessment. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 1, 606e619.

Schoemaker, P.J.H., 1993. Multiple scenario development: its conceptual andbehavioural foundation. Strat. Manag. J. 14, 193e213.

Siitonen, M., Härkönen, K., Hirvelä, H., Jämsä, J., Kilpeläinen, H., Salminen, O.,Teuri, M., 1996. MELA Handbook 1996 Edition. In: The Finnish Forest ResearchInstitute. Research Papers 622, p. 452.

Seppälä, H., Kuuluvainen, J., Seppälä, R., 1980. Finnish forest sector at a crossroads:study of the development of Finland’s forest sector (Suomen metsäsektoritienhaarassa: tutkimus Suomen metsäsektorin kehityksestä) (in Finnish). FoliaFor. 434.

Seppälä, R., 2000. The Finnish Forest Cluster at a Cross Road. In: The Finnish ForestCluster Research Programme WOOD WISDOM, p. 138.

Spangenberg, J.H., 2007. Integrated scenarios for assessing biodiversity risks. Sus-tain. Dev. 15, 343e356.

Swart, R.J., Raskin, P., Robinson, J., 2004. The problem of the future: sustainabilityscience and scenario analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 14, 137e146.

Tilman, D., Socolow, R., Foley, J.A., Hill, J., Larson, E., Lynd, L., Pacala, S., Reilly, J.,Searchinger, T., Somerville, C., Williams, R., 2009. Beneficial biofuels e the food,energy, and environment Trilemma. Science 325, 270e271.

Van der Heijden, K., 2005. Scenarios: the Art of Strategic Conversation, second ed.Wiley, Chichester, UK.

Van Notten, P.W.F., Rotmas, J., Van Asselt, M.B.A., Rothman, D.S., 2003. An updatedscenario typology. Futures 35, 423e443.

Verkerk, P.J., Lindner, M., Zanchi, G., Zudin, S., 2011. Assessing impacts of intensifiedbiomass removal on deadwood in European forests. Ecol. Indic. 11, 27e35.

Volkery, A., Ribeiro, T., Henrichs, T., Hoogeveen, Y., 2008. Your vision or my model?Lessons from participatory land use scenario development on a European scale.Syst. Pract. Action Res. 21, 459e477.

Wollenberg, E., Edmunds, D., Buck, L., 2000. Using scenarios to make decisionsabout the future: anticipatory learning for the adaptive co-management ofcommunity forests. Landsc. Urban Plan. 47, 65e77.