Résumé
Landscape-scale forest management is widely recognized as a means to sustain and enhance multiple forest ecosystem services. Recent policy frameworks, such as the EU2030 Forest and Biodiversity Strategies, and approaches including sustainable forest management, closer-to-nature silviculture and rewilding, point towards contrasting management pathways: some encourage active interventions through silvicultural practices, whereas others promote strict non-intervention. Yet the spatial distribution of these different approaches at the regional level and their potential to provide ecosystem services remain poorly understood. In this study, we investigated how diverging management approaches influence ecosystem services across the entire forested area of the Piedmont region (Italy). Based on data from regional forest management plans, we reclassified intended management strategies into Active forest management (including silvicultural practices of varying intensity) and Passive forest management (no intervention), and quantified the distribution of both management types. Using principal component analysis (PCA) and generalised linear models (GLM), we explored relationships between management type and three ecosystem services: carbon stock, fire hazard mitigation, and biodiversity (diversity of tree species). We also examined how Protected Areas are associated with the different types of management and whether they can mediate their effect on ecosystem services. Our results show that 60 % of Piedmont’s forests are planned for Active management, though implementation is hindered by increasing forest land abandonment. Active forest management was associated with higher levels of the three ecosystem services. Protected Areas seem to promote Passive management, while their influence in ecosystem services provision appears scarcely significant. Based on our findings, we advocate: (i) promoting active forest management in abandoned forests, (ii) prioritizing active management approaches to enhance ecosystem services provision, and (iii) leverage unprotected passively managed forests when expanding the Protected Area network, a priority set out in the EU2030 Forest and Biodiversity Strategies.
•Active forest management is associated with enhanced ecosystem services provision•Protected Areas weakly influence how management type affects ecosystem services•The expansion of Protected Areas should prioritise passively managed forests•Active management should be prioritised in forests under current land abandonment