Bringing ecosystem services into forest planning - Can we optimize the composition of Chilean forests based on expert knowledge?

- Expert opinions are suitable information to form portfolios of forest stands.
- More diverse stand portfolios support multiple ecosystem services (ES).
- Portfolios built on financial indicators differ significantly from those addressing multiple ES.
- Uncertainty plays a greater role if portfolios are based on expert opinion than on quantitative indicators.

In the following paper, we use robust optimization to calculate portfolios of Chilean forest stands which minimize the greatest underperformance among all considered ecosystem services (ES) and biodiversity. Forest experts were asked to score the six most important ES indicators and biodiversity for forest stands with either exotic or native tree species. Average scores and their variation were used to form an optimal forest portfolio (proportions of the five stand types). Quantitative indicators of ES were used to calculate the reference portfolio. Portfolios based on expert opinions (49% Eucalyptus plus Pinus, 51% native Nothofagus and mixed Pseudotsuga) did not differ significantly from portfolios based on quantitative indicators (51% Eucalyptus plus Pinus, 49% Nothofagus, mixed Pseudotsuga and Acacia). Both portfolios offer good protection against low achievement levels and prevent the degradation of important ES and biodiversity, while pure stands showed low achievement levels for specific ES. We conclude that integrating expert knowledge into forest planning may well support considering ES and biodiversity. Forest owners in the Mediterranean region of Chile should be encouraged to integrate native Nothofagus species into their forest portfolios to better provide for multiple ES and the conservation of biodiversity.