Mapping Tradeoffs and Synergies in Ecosystem Services as a Function of Forest Management

Hazhir Karimi (), Christina L. Staudhammer, Matthew D. Therrell, William J. Kleindl, Leah M. Mungai, Amobichukwu C. Amanambu and C. Nathan Jones
Additional contact information
Hazhir Karimi: Department of Geography and the Environment, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA
Christina L. Staudhammer: Department of Biological Sciences, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA
Matthew D. Therrell: Department of Geography and the Environment, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA
William J. Kleindl: Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA
Leah M. Mungai: Department of Geography and the Environment, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA
Amobichukwu C. Amanambu: Department of Geography and the Environment, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA
C. Nathan Jones: Department of Biological Sciences, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA

Land, 2025, vol. 14, issue 8, 1-26

Abstract: The spatial variation of forest ecosystem services at regional scales remains poorly understood, and few studies have explicitly analyzed how ecosystem services are distributed across different forest management types. This study assessed the spatial overlap between forest management types and ecosystem service hotspots in the Southeastern United States (SEUS) and the Pacific Northwest (PNW) forests. We used the InVEST suite of tools and GIS to quantify carbon storage and water yield. Carbon storage was estimated, stratified by forest group and age class, and literature-based biomass pool values were applied. Average annual water yield and its temporal changes (2001–2020) were modeled using the annual water yield model, incorporating precipitation, potential evapotranspiration, vegetation type, and soil characteristics. Ecosystem service outputs were classified to identify hotspot zones (top 20%) and to evaluate the synergies and tradeoffs between these services. Hotspots were then overlaid with forest management maps to examine their distribution across management types. We found that only 2% of the SEUS and 11% of the PNW region were simultaneous hotspots for both services. In the SEUS, ecological and preservation forest management types showed higher efficiency in hotspot allocation, while in PNW, production forestry contributed relatively more to hotspot areas. These findings offer valuable insights for decision-makers and forest managers seeking to preserve the multiple benefits that forests provide at regional scales.

Keywords: U.S. forests; hotspot analysis; carbon storage; water yield; InVEST model (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q15 Q2 Q24 Q28 Q5 R14 R52 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/8/1591/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/8/1591/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jlands:v:14:y:2025:i:8:p:1591-:d:1717424

Access Statistics for this article

Land is currently edited by Ms. Carol Ma

More articles in Land from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().