A Delphi survey involving experts in forest preference research was carried out to derive scores for the recreational value of 240 forest stand types across Europe. The survey was organized around four regional panels: Great Britain, Nordic Region, Central Europe, and Iberia. In each region, 60 forest stand types were defined according to five forest management alternatives (FMAs) on a continuum of management intensity, four phases of development (establishment, young, medium, and adult), and three tree species types (conifer, broadleaved, and mixed stands of conifer and broadleaved). The resulting scores were examined using conjoint analysis to determine the relative importance of the three structural attributes (FMA, phase of development, and tree species type), and each level or component of the attributes. The findings quantify the extent to which forest visitors prefer a degree of management to unmanaged forest nature reserves across the four regions. Phase of development was shown to make the highest contribution to the recreational value of forests while the contribution of tree species type was shown to be relatively unimportant. While the results are indicative, they provide evidence to support long-term retention and low-impact silviculture in forests where recreation is a primary objective of management

European ash (Fraxinus excelsior L.) is a highly valued native species in the UK and elsewhere. The rapid spread and predicted impact of ash dieback (caused by Hymenoscyphus fraxineus), has led researchers to explore a range of responses from introducing non-native ash to use of Genetic Modification (GM) technologies to develop disease resistance. To support decisions over which approaches should receive further investment to encourage adoption, it is necessary to understand what is acceptable to forest practitioners. Interviews with 22 forest advisors and managers revealed ash is highly valued for the multiple benefits it provides but past experiences with pest and diseases have encouraged a more cautious (‘wait and see’) attitude to approaches for dealing with ash dieback. These practitioners showed a strong interest in the concept of resistant ash but emphasized that any ‘new’ varieties should have similar characteristics, retain genetic diversity and be able to withstand future pests. There was limited support for planting non-native ash and use of GM methods and greater support for traditional breeding, though views varied dependent upon objectives and could evolve with experience countering the disease. There were concerns about the time required to produce resistant varieties and more information was needed about the costs, benefits and impacts of the different approaches. These findings point to the need for continued communication and engagement with stakeholders in the refinement of responses to dieback and any development of resistant ash.