Silviculture in a changing world
Socio-environmental Influences in British Forestry
UK Forestry Development
Throughout its history, the UK forestry sector has experienced various developments alongside fluctuating industrial and economic landscapes. Heavily deforested, industrial UK found itself overly reliant in imported timber in the early 20th century and a need to generate a strategic reserve in case of interruptions to overseas supply, largely resulting from war in Europe (Stewart, 1985), initiated the Forestry Act in 1919. Particularly through the latter half of the century, intensively managed stands of exotic coniferous species, often modelled on European silvicultural systems became a conspicuous addition to (mainly upland) landscapes of the British Isles (Pringle, 1994; Holmes, 1975; Tonbridge, 2007).
Today, even-aged conifer plantations occupy over half of the total forested area of the UK (Brown et al., 2015), the large majority of which are managed by patch clearfelling (removal of all trees within an area >0.25ha) and restocked by planting or natural regeneration (Mason et al., 1999). With optimal timber production the primary aim, such systems became, and still largely remain, an attractive option on exposed upland sites where windthrow risks are mitigated through the opportunity for harvesting prior to ‘terminal’ stand height being reached (Miller, 1985; Davies and Kerr, 2015). Furthermore, the efficiency and simplicity of tending and harvesting, particularly owing to advances in mechanisation favours an economy of scale (Puettmann et al., 2015).
Various coniferous species have proved productive on sites throughout the British Isles. Although growing poorly in wetter regions, Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) is the only native coniferous species of commercial interest (Davies and Kerr, 2015). Norway spruce (Picea abies), Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), European larch (Larix decidua) and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) are all demonstrably productive species on certain UK sites (Ramsay and MacDonald, 2013). However, Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) remains the most widely utilised of all species within UK forestry, making up 52% of coniferous trees in plantations (Ennos et al., 2019). Owing to climatic similarities of the species’ native range in coastal regions of western North America, Sitka spruce demonstrated high suitability and productivity on British sites (Mason, 2015) and relatively short rotations of 40 to 50 years (Moore, 2012) expediated returns on investments.
In 2018, 11.4 million tonnes of softwood were produced by the UK forestry industry (Forestry Commission, 2019). Although short rotation lengths mean construction grade timber is still largely imported (Moore, 2012), fencing and pallet production remain the main markets for UK grown softwood timber with biofuel, panel boards and pulp as the main non-sawn outputs (CTI, 2016). At present, a workforce of 16,000 people is employed in the forestry sector (Forestry Commission, 2019) which generated sales of £1.3 billion in 2014 (CTI, 2016).
Shifting Policies, Ecosystem Services and Socio-environmental Demands
The post-industrial landscape of the UK saw a gradual shift in rural economies from being primarily production-based to consumption and recreation orientated (Lee, 2005). Rural tourism emerged out of progressive mobility and increased expendable income and leisure time of metropolitan populations and demands for a more multifunctional countryside which facilitated greater public access ensued (Lee and Lee, 2012; MacLellan and Smith, 1998). Today, approximately 250 million visits are believed to be made to UK forests annually for recreational purposes (Forest Commission, 2017), vastly increasing the influence that the general public has as a stakeholder group and bringing themes of aesthetics, accessibility and wildlife to the fore (Edwards et al., 2004; Kardell, 1985).
At a policy level, recent decades have seen the concept of ecosystem services (ES) penetrating discourse surrounding sustainable natural resource management which has grown to incorporate considerations beyond utilitarian, market-based activity in an ever-changing and advancing society (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2011). Valuation of the non-market benefits of ecosystems is extremely complex but is becoming increasingly pertinent alongside growing awareness and widespread concerns over biodiversity loss, environmental degradation and human wellbeing (Raum, 2018; Quine et al., 2013; Slee, 2012).
With the intention of establishing criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management, the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCFPE) was initiated in 1990 with the aim of applying concepts of multi-functionality to European forest management practices (Slee, 2012). The re-sponsibility for formulating and applying UK forest policy fell on DEFRA and the Forestry Commission (Raum, 2018) and today, requirements for ES considera-tions are enshrined in the UK Forestry Standard (UKFS).
As stipulated in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, ES encompasses con-cepts of regulating (e.g. climate, flooding, pest and disease regulation, water quality) and cultural benefits (e.g. spiritual, education, aesthetic, recreational) alongside provisioning (e.g. fuel, food, fresh water, wood and fibre) as compo-nents of sustainable, multi-functional natural resource use (Millennium Eco-system Assessment, 2005).
This essay focuses in the cultural components of ES but also argues that con-siderations for biodiversity are to be factored into this service as natural and cultural heritage are closely linked. ‘Providing a place for wildlife to live’ was found to be the most popular benefit of forests and woodland for local communi-ties in a 2005 study by the Forestry Commission in Wales (Forestry Commis-sion, 2005). Certainly, experiencing and observing wildlife is often a recreational pursuit and sentimental connections to particular species can be intrinsic ele-ments of national identity; evidenced by the Canadian maple leaf, the Scottish thistle, the New Zealand silver fern, the cedar tree emblazed on the Lebanese flag or native birds adorning the pages of UK passports. Widespread public con-cern over wildlife decline is clearly amplified by the popular media heralding a collapse of UK biodiversity (see Howard, 2015 and Beaumont, 2019) and recent public unrest and environmental movements have centred on human-induced environmental degradation, displaying a collective sense of guilt and protesta-tion over a lack of ecological safeguards in neoliberal agendas, albeit sometimes incoherently articulated.
Perceptions of Silvicultural Systems
Forestry operations have become more vulnerable to criticism from both the public and conservation/environmental professionals not only due to perceptions of negative aesthetic impacts but also for negligent attitudes towards nature conservation (Bliss, 2000; Kardell, 1985; Nolet et al., 2018). Being one of the least forested countries in Europe, the UK has been particularly susceptible to such criticism and public authorities and forest managers have experienced growing pressures to incorporate wider ES considerations such as wildlife habitat and social needs for outdoor recreation into policy and practice (Mann et al., 2010).
Silvicultural practices that involve clear-cutting have been particularly decried as disregarding many ES, being overly utilitarian in focus and aesthetically offensive (Bliss, 2000; Pommerening, 2006). Arguably exacerbated by recent news reports of Amazonian clearances and other concerns over global deforestation, it is clearly apparent that the image of a clearfell may evoke perceptions of environmental destruction and unsustainability synonymous with exploitative logging, particularly in the minds of those outside the forestry industry (Kaiser, 2016).
Criticism due to negative ecological impacts of even-aged silviculture largely centre on commonly held views that such systems lack species diversity and are overly disruptive to ecological processes (Nolet et al., 2018). Whether such views can be backed up by empirical evidence is the motivation for much contemporary research and discussion and conclusions remain somewhat unresolved and conflicted. For example, lichen and bryophyte assemblages (Pailet et al., 2010) and mycorrhizal diversity (Kropp and Albee, 1996) have been shown to be negatively affected by even aged/clear-cut systems whilst tree and plant diversity has been observed increasing during some studies (Nolet et al., 2018).
Alongside clearfelling, one of the most widely disparaged systems in modern forestry is that of single species plantations, or monocultures. Pure stands conflict with many people’s notion of an attractive forest and may be perceived as ecologically sterile, devoid of diversity and balance. Of course, the validity of such judgements rests on context specific elements, namely the biodiversity harboured in the land use that a plantation replaced (Pawson et al., 2013). It would be difficult to argue that a pure Sitka spruce stand supports greater species diversity than a native, mixed deciduous woodland and arguably such unfair comparisons are what drive negative perceptions of the practice. Nevertheless, as the focus of numerous recent research efforts, comparisons of mixed-species plantations to pure stands largely favours the former in terms of providing ecological niches and increasing the diversity of associated species (Coll et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2018; Humphrey et al., 2003) and intensively managed Sitka spruce plantations have been shown to support greatly reduced species diversity and habitats when compared to more complex systems (Deal et al., 2012; Mason and Mencuccini, 2014).
Implications for Silvicultural Practice in the UK
The main policy development in UK forestry as a response to socio-environmental shifts has been aspirations and pledges to convert forest man-agement practices and sylvicultural systems to align with the concepts of Con-tinuous Cover Forestry (CCF) (MacDonald and Gardiner, 2005; Helliwell and Wilson, 2012; Hemström et al., 2014; Pommerening, 2006). In 2001, the Welsh Assembly took the lead in formulating policy to convert forests managed under even-aged, clear-cut silvicultural systems to CCF management by pledging to ‘convert at least half of the National Assembly woodlands to continuous cover over the next 20 years’ (Forestry Commission, 2001) and recent updates have proclaimed a need to ‘start again’ and ‘avoid clearfelling’ (Forest Commission, 2018). Although limited in technical guidance, the use of ‘low-impact silvicul-ture systems’ that diversify age, species and forest structure is advocated by the UK Woodland Assurance Scheme (UKWAS) as a general requirement for forest product certification schemes.
To adhere to international agreements and guidelines regarding ES and sus-tainable forest management, the UK Forestry Standard established require-ments for forestry professionals, with stand diversity and a necessity to adopt ‘low impact silvicultural systems’ being major themes of the document. Lack of diversity in many forests that were established in the last century are directly addressed and the opportunity to transform and convert many forests to more complex systems that promote biodiversity and avoid clearfelling are encouraged (Forestry Commission, 2017).
Attempts to define CCF have fallen short of reaching a clear conclusion. Pom-merening and Murphy (2004) identified 24 semi-synonyms which highlight cer-tain aspects of CCF, however the overriding idea is that of maintaining relative-ly perpetual tree cover by employing selective harvesting, permitting natural re-generation and avoiding large scale clear-cut operations. CCF therefor encom-passes a range of silvicultural systems and stresses a preference for hetero-genous forest structure (Helliwell, 2012; Mason, 2018; Pommerening, 2006; Seedre et al., 2018).
Forestry practices in several European countries have undergone paradigm shifts in recent decades in line with the concepts of CCF and major efforts to adopting uneven-aged and mixed-species silviculture have been made (Helliwell and Wilson, 2012; Vitokova and Dubhain, 2016). Clear-cut practices have been made illegal in Switzerland, Slovenia and some parts of Germany (McMohan et al., 2016) and in 2002 the Danish Nature and Forest Agency declared that all state owned forests shall managed under ‘close to nature’ systems (Larsen and Nielsen, 2007). Further afield, ‘managing for complexity’ has also become a key aspect of sustainable forest management in North America (Puettmann et al., 2008). Experience and knowledge of implementation and benefits of CCF has therefore advanced on an international level, however the UK has been slow to adopt such practices on a large scale. Today, between 10-20% of UK forests are managed using silvicultural practices adhering to CCF and >80% of production forests are still harvested with clear-cut systems (Mason, 2018).
Mason (2018) suggests the delays in adopting CCF are due to ‘prevailing forestry culture’ in the UK that still adheres to the heavily utilitarian teachings of 1960s literature and handbooks. A lack of experience and skills and the economic risks associated with transforming long-established and demonstrably efficient practices have also hindered the development of CCF (MacDonald et al., 2009). Reforming the purposes of forests to include non-market considerations in a way that drastically alters form and content is seen by many in the forestry pro-fession to be contrary to economic logic and lacking in coherent aims and tangi-ble outputs (Davies and Kerr, 2015; Puettmann et al., 2015; Tonbridge, 2003). The impact of widespread transformation and conversion on a well-established timber processing sector is also a concerning factor (MacDonald and Gardiner, 2005).
Nevertheless, numerous UK authors, academics and professionals advocate CCF (Callidine et al., 2015; Helliwell and Wilson, 2012; Mason, 2014, 2018) as having potential to provide sustained timber yields whilst improving biodiversity and landscape aesthetics. Ongoing test projects and trails (such as in Glentress in Scotland since 1952, Clocaenog in Wales since 2002 and Gisburn in England since 1955) are being carried out to address the lack of knowledge and experi-ence surrounding CCF management (Kerr and Macintosh, 2012; Mason and Connolly, 2014). In addition, The Continuous Cover Forestry Group (CCFG) was established in 1991 to promote a transformation of forests from even-aged struc-tures to CCF and work extensively alongside the Forestry Commission to provide workshops, share knowledge and offer guidance to practitioners (Mason and Kerr, 2004).
The aforementioned policy shifts, a growing list of proponents, ongoing research efforts, accessibility of knowledge from overseas and increasing industry experi-ence have made sure that the concept of CCF has firmly penetrated British for-estry and has the potential to profoundly influence future silvicultural practice.
Here you should make informed suggestions for silvicultural practices that could mitigate undesirable impacts or enhance the desired impacts of change, ideally suggesting a number of options and making a specific recommendation. You might want to consider alternative silvicultural systems; species/provenances; species composition; regeneration management; tending; harvesting.
To be continued…
Beaumont, E (2019) Biodiversity collapse in UK continues. The Ecologist. Accessed on 23/12/19 at https://theecologist.org/2019/oct/04/biodiversity-collapse-uk-continues
Bliss, J (2000) Public Perceptions of Clearcutting. Journal of Forestry 98.12: 4
Brown, Nick D, Tom Curtis, and Emily C Adams. “Effects of Clear-felling versus Gradual Removal of Conifer Trees on the Survival of Understorey Plants during the Restoration of Ancient Woodlands.” Forest Ecology and Management 348 (2015): 15-22.
Calladine, John, James Bray, Alice Broome, and Robert J Fuller. “Comparison of Breeding Bird Assemblages in Conifer Plantations Managed by Continuous Cover Forestry and Clearfelling.” Forest Ecology and Management 344 (2015): 20-29. Web.
CTI (2016) Mapping UK timber industries. Confederation of Timber Industries. Accessed on 20/12/19 at https://cti-timber.org/sites/default/files/CTI_Value_Growth_report.pdf
Coll, Lluís, Aitor Ameztegui, Catherine Collet, Magnus Löf, Bill Mason, Maciej Pach, Kris Verheyen, Ioan Abrudan, Anna Barbati, Susana Barreiro, Kamil Bielak, Andrés Bravo-Oviedo, Barbara Ferrari, Zoran Govedar, Jiri Kulhavy, Dagnija Lazdina, Marek Metslaid, Frits Mohren, Mário Pereira, Sanja Peric, Ervin Rasztovits, Ian Short, Peter Spathelf, Hubert Sterba, Dejan Stojanovic, Lauri Valsta, Tzvetan Zlatanov, and Quentin Ponette. “Knowledge Gaps about Mixed Forests: What Do European Forest Managers Want to Know and What Answers Can Science Provide?” Forest Ecology and Management 407 (2018): 106-15.
Davies, O. and Kerr, G (2015) Comparing the Costs and Revenues of Transformation to Continuous Cover Forestry for Sitka Spruce in Great Britain. Forests 6.7: 2424 -449.
Deal, Robert L., Paul Hennon, Richard O’Hanlon, and David D’Amore. “Lessons from Native Spruce Forests in Alaska: Managing Sitka Spruce Plantations Worldwide to Benefit Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.” Forestry 87.2 (2014): 193-208.
Edwards, David M., Marion Jay, Frank S. Jensen, Beatriz Lucas, Mariella Marzano, Claire Montagné, Andrew Peace, and Gerhard Weiss. “Public Preferences Across Europe for Different Forest Stand Types as Sites for Recreation.” Ecology and Society 17.1 (2012): 27. Web.
Ennos, Richard, Joan Cottrell, Jeanette Hall, and David O’Brien. “Is the Introduction of Novel Exotic Forest Tree Species a Rational Response to Rapid Environmental Change? – A British Perspective.” Forest Ecology and Management 432 (2019): 718-28. Web.
Forestry Commission (2001) Woodlands for Wales (Wales woodland strategy). Forestry Commission Wales, Aberystwyth.
Forestry Commission (2005) Public opinion of Forestry 2005: WALES. Results of the 2005 Welsh Survey of Public Opinion of Forestry carried out on behalf of the Forestry Commission. Forestry Commission. Edinburgh
Forestry Commission (2017) The UK Forestry Standard: The governments’ approach to sustainable forestry. Forestry Commission. Edinburgh
Forestry Commission (2018) Woodlands for Wales: The Welsh government’s strategy for woodlands and trees. Forestry Commission Wales. Aberystwyth.
Forestry Commission (2019) Forestry statistics 2019. Forestry Commission. Accessed on 19/12/19 at https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/forestry-statistics/forestry-statistics-2019/
Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, and Manuel Ruiz-Pérez. “Economic Valuation and the Commodification of Ecosystem Services.” Progress in Physical Geography 35.5 (2011): 613-28.
Helliwell, R. and Wilson, E. (2012) Continuous cover forestry in Britain: challenges and opportunities. Quarterly Journal of Forestry. 54 (3) 214-223
Howard, E (2015) Wildlife decline threatens UK biodiversity: study finds. The Guardian. Accessed on 23/12/19 at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/wildlife-decline-threatens-uks-biodiversity-study-finds
Hemström, Kerstin, Krushna Mahapatra, and Leif Gustavsson. “Public Perceptions and Acceptance of Intensive Forestry in Sweden.” Ambio 43.2 (2014): 196-206.
Holmes, G. D. (1975) History of Forestry and Forest Management. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences (1934-1990) 271.911: 69-80.
Humphrey, J.W.; Ferris, R.; Quine, C.P. Biodiversity in Britain’s Planted Forests; Forestry Commission: Edinburgh, UK, 2003; p. 117.
Kaiser, S. (2016) Breaking down the Wall. Forestry and Timber News. Accessed on 22/12/19 at http://www.confor.org.uk/media/246265/communications-feature-august-2016.pdf
Kardell, L (1985) “Recreation Forests: A New Silviculture Concept?” Ambio 14.3: 139-47.
Slee, R. W. (2005) From Countrysides of Production to Countrysides of Consumption? The Journal of Agricultural Science 143.4: 255-65.
Kerr, Gary, and Hamish Mackintosh. “Long-Term Survival of Saplings during the Transformation to Continuous Cover.” Forests 3.3 (2012): 787-98. Web.
Kropp, Bradley R, and Steve Albee. “The Effects of Silvicultural Treatments on Occurrence of Mycorrhizal Sporocarps in a Pinus Contorta Forest: A Preliminary Study.” Biological Conservation 78.3 (1996): 313-18. Web.
Larsen, J.B., and Nielsen, A.B. “Nature-based Forest Management–Where Are We Going? Elaborating Forest Development Types in and with Practice.” Forest Ecology and Management 238 (2007): 107-17. Web.
Lee, Ju-hyoung, and Lee, Duk-jae. “Nature Experience, Recreation Activity and Health Benefits of Visitors in Mountain and Urban Forests in Vienna, Zurich and Freiburg.” Journal of Mountain Science 12.6 (2015): 1551-561.
Liu, Corsa Lok Ching, Oleksandra Kuchma, and Konstantin V Krutovsky. “Mixed-species versus Monocultures in Plantation Forestry: Development, Benefits, Ecosystem Services and Perspectives for the Future.” Global Ecology and Conservation 15 (2018): E00419.
Mann, Carsten, Eija Pouta, Sandra Gentin, and Frank Jensen. “Outdoor Recreation in Forest Policy and Legislation: A European Comparison.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9.4 (2010): 303-12.
McMohan, P., Sarshar, D. and Purser, P (2016) Investing in continuous cover forestry. White Paper. SLM Partners. Accessed on 28/12/19 at http://slmpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/SLM-Partners-Investing-in-Continuous-Cover-Forestry-Sept-2016.pdf
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.
MacDonald, E. and Gardiner, B (2005) THE IMPLICATIONS OF TRANSFOR-MATION TO CONTINUOUS COVER FORESTRY SYSTEMS FOR CONIFER TIM-BER QUALITYAND LOG SUPPLY IN THE UK. Report for Forest Research. Forest Research. Edinburgh
MACLELLAN, R. & SMITH, R. (1998). Tourism in Scotland. London: International Thomson Business Press.
Malcolm, D.C. (1997) The silviculture of conifers in Great Britain. Forestry, 70, 293–307.
Mason, B., Kerr, G. and Simpson, J. (1999) What is continuous cover forestry? Forestry Commission Information Note 29. Forestry Commission. Edinburgh.
Mason, W. and Kerr, G (2004) Transforming eve-aged conifer stands to continuous cover management. Forest Research Information Note 40. Forestry Commission. Edinburgh
Mason, W. L., and T. Connolly. “Mixtures with Spruce Species Can Be More Productive than Monocultures: Evidence from the Gisburn Experiment in Britain.” Forestry 87.2 (2014): 209-17. Web.
Mason, Bill, and Maurizio Mencuccini. “Managing Forests for Ecosystem Services – Can Spruce Forests Show the Way?” Forestry 87.2 (2014): 189-91. Web.
Mason, W. (2015) Implementing Continuous Cover Forestry in Planted Forests: Experience with Sitka Spruce (Picea Sitchensis) in the British Isles. Forests 6.4 (2015): 879-902.
Mason, W (2018) Transforming British Forests through continuous cover forestry. (Powerpoint presentation). Continuous Cover Forestry Group. Accessed on 28/12/19 at https://bangor.cloud.panopto.eu/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=9a8828f4-717f-44e7-9927-aa08012c2f02
Miller, K.F. (1985) Windthrow Hazard Classification. In Forestry Commission Leaflet No. 85; HMSO: London, England
Moore, John, R. Lyon, and Andrew Lehneke. “Effects of Rotation Length on the Grade Recovery and Wood Properties of Sitka Spruce Structural Timber Grown in Great Britain.” Annals of Forest Science 69.3 (2012): 353-62. Web
Nolet, Philippe, Daniel Kneeshaw, Christian Messier, and Martin Béland. “Comparing the Effects of Even‐ and Uneven‐aged Silviculture on Ecological Diversity and Processes: A Review.” Ecology and Evolution 8.2 (2018): 1217-226.
Paillet, Bergès, Hjältén, Ódor, Avon, Bernhardt‐Römermann, Bijlsma, De Bruyn, Fuhr, Grandin, Kanka, Lundin, Luque, Magura, Matesanz, Mészáros, Sebastià, Schmidt, Standovár, Tóthmérész, Uotila, Valladares, Vellak, and Virtanen. “Biodiversity Differences between Managed and Unmanaged Forests: Meta‐Analysis of Species Richness in Europe.” Conservation Biology 24.1 (2010): 101-12. Web.
Pawson, S., M. Brin, A. Brockerhoff, E. Lamb, G. Payn, D. Paquette, and T. Parrotta. “Plantation Forests, Climate Change and Biodiversity.” Biodiversity and Conservation 22.5 (2013): 1203-227. Web.
Pommerening, A. and Murphy, St (2004) A review of the history, definitions and methods of continuous cover forestry with special attention to afforestation and restocking. Forestry, Vol.77(1), pp.27-44
Pommerening, A. (2006) Transformation to Continuous Cover Forestry in a Changing Environment. Forest Ecology and Management 224: 227-28.
Pringle, D. (1994) The First 75 Years : A Brief Account of the History of the Forestry Commission, 1919-1994. Edinburgh: Public Information Division, Forestry Commission.
Puettmann, K.J., Coates, K.D. and Messier, C. (2008) A critique of silviculture: managing for complexity. Island Press. Washington
Puettmann, Klaus, J. Wilson, Scott Baker, McG Donoso, Susan Drössler, C. Amente, Pablo Harvey, Lars Knoke, Girma Lu, Brian Nocentini, D. Putz, Thomas Yoshida, and Yuanchang Bauhus (2015) Silvicultural Alternatives to Conventional Even-aged Forest Management – What Limits Global Adoption? Forest Ecosystems 2.1: 1-16
Ramsay, J. and Macdonald, E. (2013) Timber Properties of Minor Conifer Species A report to the Forestry Commission. Forest Research. Edinburgh
Raum, Susanne. “Reasons for Adoption and Advocacy of the Ecosystem Services Concept in UK Forestry.” Ecological Economics 143.C (2018): 47-54. Web.
Seedre, Meelis, Adam Felton, and Matts Lindbladh. “What Is the Impact of Continuous Cover Forestry Compared to Clearcut Forestry on Stand-level Biodiversity in Boreal and Temperate Forests? A Systematic Review Protocol.” Environmental Evidence 7.1 (2018): 1-8. Web.
Slee, R.W. (2012) Present opportunities for sustainable and multifunctional forest management
for the development of rural areas. Italian Journal of Forest and Mountain Environments 67 (2): 147-160
Stewart, P. (1985) British Forestry Policy: Time for a Change? Land Use Policy 2.1. 16-29
“Silviculture – Poor Relation.” Forestry and British Timber [Tonbridge] 2007: 16. Web.
Quine, Christopher P., Sallie A. Bailey, and Kevin Watts. “PRACTITIONER’S PERSPECTIVE: Sustainable Forest Management in a Time of Ecosystem Services Frameworks: Common Ground and Consequences.” Journal of Applied Ecology 50.4 (2013): 863-67
Vitikova, L and Dubhain, A (2016) Transformation to continuous cover forestry: A review. Irish Forestry. 70: 119-137