## 4 Discussion
### Scenario Selection
#### 4.1.2 Best Scenario Analysis  
The final step of the protocol (Figure 3) involved the comparison of selected scenarios to look for the best industry scenario(s) for the region considering criteria such as wood mobilization in terms of volume and area, competition among industries and resource valorisation. This was done based on the objectives in Table 1 and indicators in Table 5, and, in addition, on a series of simple rates calculated as fractions of indicator values in each scenario with the same indicator in scenario 1 (second simulation), with the exception of the ratio relative to Id 8 (R 8), which was calculated as the ratio of Id 8 (volume loss due to competition) and Id 4 (volume harvested) (Table 6) due to the fact that Id 8 for scenario 1 is zero. Comparisons with scenario 1 are legitimated by the fact that this is an already existing scenario (the only among all), although it is insufficient to significantly increase forest mobilization in the region.  
Figure 10: Evaluation of model performance throughout the simulation period for scenarios 2 to 10 (simulation for FD1). Bars not reaching the simulation year 20 indicate that the model broke due to lack of demand.  
Comparisons with scenario 1 allow, therefore, for measuring the degree of change caused by industries relative to the current situation in terms of each of the indicators under consideration.  
All the selected scenarios are possible solutions to increase mobilization, each with advantages and disadvantages over the others. All affect standing volume in the region, but in all cases, the trend of standing volume in the region is positive in the entire (R 1) and in the last five years of the simulation period (R 2). When compared to scenario 1, all scenarios cause a reduction in volume growth over time which is expected due to the increasing demand and harvesting, although none of the scenarios, from the most demanding (scenario 8) to the least demanding (scenario 10), reduces available volume in the region over time. Scenario 8 is the only that includes an industry located in Vimioso (B3). However, the dimension of this industry is very small (up to 3000 m\({}^{3}\) per year). In terms of valorisation of forest biomass, most of the gain in prices was observed for telling prices in scenarios 9 and 10, which included the sawmill (S1). Here, price is 1.43 times higher than in scenario 1. Scenario 10 is the only scenario that increased area managed through thinning (accumulated managed area) in the 20 years of the simulation (R 7), slightly above the managed area in scenario 1. All other scenarios either managed the same (scenario 8) or a smaller area (scenarios 2 and 9). Although the dimension of industry in scenario 8 is small, this scenario presented the highest competition among industries (R 8). Nearly 3.5% of volume harvested corresponds to wood disputed in competition processes. Finally, there seems to be no relevant differences in burned area and volume lost due to fire in the selected scenarios in comparison to scenario 1 (R 9 and R 10). Small differences were, however, observed for volume, in particular in scenarios 2 and 9.