Navigating the complexities of the forest land sharing vs sparing logging dilemma: analytical insights through the governance theory of social-ecological systems dynamics

Abstract

This study addresses the ongoing debate on forest land-sparing vs land-sharing, aiming to identify effective strategies for both species conservation and timber exploitation. Previous studies, guided by control theory, compared sharing and sparing by optimizing logging intensity along a presumed trade-off between timber yield and ecological outcomes. However, the realism of this trade-off assumption is questioned by ecological and governance theories. This article introduces a mathematical model of Social-Ecological System (SES) dynamics, distinguishing selective logging intensification between sharing and sparing, with associated governance requirements. The model assumes consistent rules for logging, replanting, conservation support, access regulation, socio-economic, soil and climate conditions. Actors, each specialized in sustainable logging and replanting of a single species, coexist with various tree species in the same space for land sharing, contrasting with separate actions on monospecific stands for sparing. In sharing scenarios, a gradient of intensification is created from 256 combinations of selective logging for a forest with eight coexisting tree species. This is compared with eight scenarios of monospecific stands adjacent to a spared eight-species forest area safeguarded from logging. Numerical projections over 100 years rank sparing and sharing options based on forest-level tree biodiversity, carbon storage, and timber yield. The findings underscore the context-specific nature of the problem but identify simple heuristics to optimize both sparing and sharing practices. Prioritizing the most productive tree species is effective when selecting sparing, especially when timber yield and biodiversity are benchmarks. Conversely, sharing consistently outperforms sparing when carbon storage and biodiversity are main criteria. Sharing excels across scenarios considering all three criteria, provided a greater diversity of actors access and coexist in the shared space under collective rules ensuring independence and sustainable logging and replanting. The present model addresses some limitations in existing sparing-sharing theory by aligning with established ecological theories exploring the intricate relationship between disturbance practices, productivity and ecological outcomes. The findings also support a governance hypothesis from the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics (E. Ostrom) regarding the positive impact on biodiversity and productivity of increasing polycentricity, i.e., expanding the number of independent species controllers’ channels (loggers/replanters/supporters/regulators). This hypothesis, rooted in Ashby’s law of requisite variety from control theory, suggests that resolving the sharing/sparing dilemma may depend on our ability to predict the yield-ecology performances of sparing (in heterogeneous landscapes) vs of sharing (in the same space) from their respective levels of “polycentric requisite variety”.