Identifying key components for multiobjective forest management decisions: A case study of state-owned Finnish forests

Finland’s state-owned forests provide multiple public values, including timber production, biodiversity conservation, and recreational use, often leading to trade-offs between conflicting objectives. The use of multiobjective optimization (MOO) helps navigate these trade-offs, but its effectiveness depends on how well the problem is formulated. While MOO studies in forest management typically focus on solving optimization models, they often overlook the crucial problem structuring phase. This study addresses that gap by identifying the key components required to formulate an MOO problem, based on perspectives from stakeholders and decision makers involved in Finnish state-owned forest management. Using semi-structured interviews with 20 participants, we identified six essential themes for MOO formulation: objective functions, decision options, constraints, available data, evaluation of objective functions, as well as uncertainty and risks. These themes reflect both commonly modeled components, such as timber production and economic returns, and less frequently integrated considerations, including biodiversity, recreational values, and risks associated with climate change and forest disturbances. Our findings contribute a replicable participatory approach for eliciting MOO components through the engagement of stakeholders and decision makers. By highlighting the importance of problem structuring, the study supports the development of more transparent, context-sensitive, and acceptable MOO models. Engaging participants in this early phase reveals a broader range of forest management priorities than typically represented in conventional MOO models, offering opportunities for improved decision support in public forest governance. • Findings show how differing viewpoints shape forest management problem formulation. • Stakeholder input at an early stage makes forest optimization models more realistic. • Findings stress links between stand level actions and state level planning. • The approach enhances transparency, relevance, and legitimacy in forest governance.