Energy wood from forests—stakeholder perceptions in five European countries

Table 3 Perceived trade-offs and synergies between energy wood production and use and other ES

	Finland	Germany	Norway	Slovenia	Spain
Trade-offs and synergies relating to provisioning ES
Roundwood production	+/−	+/−	+/−	+/−	+/0
Competition between material and energy use	+/−	+/−	+/0	−	+/−
Cascade use^a	0	+/−	n.a.	+	+
Marketability of wood, employment, rural development	+	+	+	+	+
Trade-offs and synergies relating to regulating ES
Carbon dioxide (CO₂)-fixation/greenhouse gas emissions/climate change mitigation	+/−	+/−	+/−	+/−	+/−
Soil and hydrology (water quantity and quality)	+/−	+/−	-	-	+/−
Fire prevention	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	+
Air quality	−	−	−	−	−
Trade-offs and synergies relating to supporting ES
Biodiversity and nature conservation	−	+/−	−	−	+/−
Trade-offs and synergies relating to cultural ES
Recreation	+/−	+/−	+/−	+/−	+/−

n.a. aspects not mentioned, 0 aspect mentioned (not valued as synergy or trade-off), + aspects mentioned as synergy, − aspects mentioned as trade-off, +/- aspects mentioned as trade-off and synergy (mentioned: at least by one interviewee)
^aAccording to Haberl and Geissler [80], cascade use is “a strategy of integrated optimisation of material and energy uses of biomass” and “the rationale behind this strategy is that if biomass is used that had been previously used for some other purpose, then this biomass use will not contribute to an increase of NPP [net primary production] appropriation”

ISSN: 2192-0567