J. For. Sci., 2026, 72(6):308-321 | DOI: 10.17221/43/2026-JFS

Evaluation of selected forest ecosystem services in forest management planning using multi-criteria decision analysis: A pilot study in the Czech RepublicOriginal Paper

Jan Kašpar ORCID..., Zohreh Mohammadi ORCID..., Meryem Tahri ORCID...
Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

Forest ecosystems provide multiple ecosystem services (ES), including timber production, carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, soil protection, and cultural functions. Integrating these often conflicting objectives into forest management planning represents a complex multi-criteria decision-making (MCDA) problem. This study proposes a practical MCDA framework for evaluating selected ecosystem services within the Czech forest management planning system (LHP/LHO). The framework integrates forest growth simulation, ecosystem service indicators, GIS data, and MCDA methods. Five indicators were evaluated: wood production, carbon stock, erosion risk, biodiversity, and cultural ecosystem value. Criteria weights were derived using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP), while management scenarios were ranked using TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) and PROMETHEE methods. A pilot simulation over a 100-year horizon compared four forest management scenarios: clear-cutting, shelterwood, selective, and non-intervention management. Selective management achieved the highest multifunctional sustainability [composite sustainability index (CSI) = 0.855], combining relatively high production with strong ecological and cultural performance. Clear-cutting management maximised short-term production but showed higher erosion risk and lower biodiversity. The study demonstrates the potential of MCDA to support transparent multifunctional forest management under Central European conditions.

Keywords: Czech Republic forests; non-productive forest functions; strategic planning; sustainability assessment

Received: May 18, 2026; Revised: May 26, 2026; Accepted: May 27, 2026; Published: June 29, 2026  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Kašpar J, Mohammadi Z, Tahri M. Evaluation of selected forest ecosystem services in forest management planning using multi-criteria decision analysis: A pilot study in the Czech Republic. Journal of Forest Science. 2026;72(6):308-321. doi: 10.17221/43/2026-JFS.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Ananda J., Herath G. (2009): A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning. Ecological Economics, 68: 2535-2548. Go to original source...
    2. Başkent E.Z. (2018): A review of the development of the multiple use forest management planning concept. International Forestry Review, 20: 296-313. Go to original source...
    3. Başkent E.Z. (2020): A framework for characterizing and regulating ecosystem services in a management planning context. Forests, 11: 102. Go to original source...
    4. Holušová K., Holuša O. (2025): Assessing the provision of ecosystem services using forest site classification as a basis for the forest bioeconomy in the Czech Republic. Forests, 16: 1242. Go to original source...
    5. IPCC (2006): 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Hayama, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 21.
    6. IPCC (2019): 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Kyoto, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 3050.
    7. Kangas J., Kangas A. (2005): Multiple criteria decision support in forest management - The approach, methods applied, experiences gained. Forest Ecology and Management, 207: 133-143. Go to original source...
    8. Kpadé C.P., Tamini L.D., Pepin S., Khasa D.P., Abbas Y., Lamhamedi M.S. (2024): Evaluating multi-criteria decision-making methods for sustainable management of forest ecosystems: A systematic review. Forests, 15: 1728. Go to original source...
    9. Lorenz K., Lal R. (2010): Carbon Sequestration in Forest Ecosystems. Springer. Go to original source...
    10. Marques M., Reynolds K.M., Marques S., Marto M., Paplanus S., Borges J.G. (2021): A participatory and spatial multicriteria decision approach to prioritize the allocation of ecosystem services to management units. Land, 10: 747. Go to original source...
    11. McElhinny C., Gibbons P., Brack C., Bauhus J. (2005): Forest and woodland stand structural complexity: Its definition and measurement. Forest Ecology and Management, 218: 1-24. Go to original source...
    12. Mendoza G.A., Martins H. (2006): Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: A critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. Forest Ecology and Management, 230: 1-22. Go to original source...
    13. Mori A.S., Lertzman K.P., Gustafsson L. (2017): Biodiversity and ecosystem services in forest ecosystems: A research agenda for applied forest ecology. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54: 12-27. Go to original source...
    14. Nilsson H., Nordström E.M., Öhman K. (2016): Decision support for participatory forest planning using AHP and TOPSIS. Forests, 7: 100. Go to original source...
    15. Paletto A., Pieratti E., De Meo I., Agnelli A.E., Cantiani P., Chiavetta U., Mazza G., Lagomarsino A. (2021): A multi-criteria analysis of forest restoration strategies to improve the ecosystem services supply: An application in Central Italy. Annals of Forest Science, 78: 7. Go to original source...
    16. Panagos P., Borrelli P., Poesen J., Ballabio C., Lugato E., Meusburger K., Montanarella L., Alewell C. (2015): The new assessment of soil loss by water erosion in Europe. Environmental Science & Policy, 54: 438-447. Go to original source...
    17. Pretzsch H. (2009): Forest Dynamics, Growth, and Yield: From Measurement to Model. Berlin, Springer: 664. Go to original source...
    18. Saaty T.L. (1980): The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. New York, McGraw-Hill: 287.
    19. Uhde B., Hahn W.A., Griess V.C., Knoke T. (2015): Hybrid MCDA methods to integrate multiple ecosystem services in forest management planning: a critical review. Environmental Management, 56: 373-388. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content