## 3 Results  
### Initialization Model  
According to the protocol followed in this study (Figure 3), the first simulation of the model for 10 industry scenarios over a period of 20 years considering forest biomass initialization based on a stochastic distribution (Appendix A) and broad initial volume limits (maximum goals) within each industry (Appendix C) and a set of objectives (Table 1), produced useful information regarding the dimensioning, sustainability and viability of tested scenarios. Since the possible dimensioning of B2, B3 and S1 units were unknown in advance, we stablished maximum volume goals to understand the effects of activity of these industries on supply and demand (objectives 1 and 2) which allowed the definition of informed minimum and maximum goals in a second simulation. Model assessment of the first simulation based on the variation in standing wood in the region (Id 1) indicated that scenarios 2 and 3 led to overexploitation (Figure 7, Table 4), i.e., harvested a volume of wood that exceeded growth, therefore reducing standing volume in the region, which was considered unsustainable. In the remaining scenarios, there is an increment in standing volume in the area over time. Id 2 showed always positive volume variations in the last 5 years of simulations. The results of this first simulation with respect to demand showed that, in many scenarios, the maximum harvest goals established for the industries involved have been too optimistic and that the simulations allowed initial harvesting corresponding to the maximum volume goals, then decreasing when demand is reduced by operations and competition (see Figure 8 for scenario 3, Table 4 and Supplementary Materials for the remaining scenarios). Scenarios 2 and 3 presented the highest demand of wood (Id 4), near 1.5 and 1.6 million m\({}^{3}\), respectively. For the supply-demand interaction indicators (Id 7, Id 9 and Id 10), these same scenarios showed the lowest thinned area and the lowest area/volume affected by forest fires. Wood lost due to competition among the industry is the highest in scenarios 7 and 8 (Id 8). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Obj. 1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Obj. 2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Obj. 3**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Obj. 4**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Obj. 5**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Obj. 6**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Obj. 7**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Scenario**} & **Id 1** & **Id 2** & **Id 3** & **Id 4** & **Id 5** & **Id 6** & **Id 7** & **Id 8** & **Id 9** & **Id 10** \\  & **(m3/yr)** & **(m3/yr)** & **(m3/yr)** & **(m3/yr)** & **(m3/yr)** & **(f/m3)** & **(f/m3)** & **(ha)** & **(m3)** & **(ha)** & **(m3)** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{1} & 32,170 & 50,485 & Yes & 730,686 & 8.42 & 16.40 & 2647 & 0 & 5040 & 358,792 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{2} & \(-\)9635 & 1157 & Yes & 1,548,762 & 9.81 & 16.87 & 1815 & 497 & 4921 & 261,518 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{3} & \(-\)16,587 & 22,114 & Yes & 1,604,465 & 9.02 & 17.42 & 1650 & 91,071 & 4976 & 246,817 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{4} & 21,355 & 43,034 & Yes & 1,412,117 & 8.26 & 17.16 & 2765 & 11,029 & 5130 & 346,312 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{5} & 24,792 & 22,173 & Yes & 1,000,087 & 10.41 & 30.82 & 4194 & 151,260 & 5136 & 354,205 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{6} & 12,973 & 7729 & Yes & 1,208,860 & 10.41 & 21.80 & 2685 & 166,175 & 5068 & 324,538 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{7} & 25,408 & 22,980 & Yes & 1,011,611 & 10.34 & 30.75 & 4338 & 225,035 & 4996 & 338,116 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{8} & 13,018 & 6495 & Yes & 1,227,226 & 9.99 & 21.25 & 2811 & 251,117 & 5024 & 316,945 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{9} & 29,147 & 26,521 & Yes & 873,077 & 8.42 & 23.78 & 2476 & 2382 & 5063 & 365,358 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{10} & 27,857 & 27,002 & Yes & 898,211 & 10.28 & 23.70 & 2959 & 25,730 & 4957 & 357,653 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Forest biomass assessment indicators outputs for the first simulation using initial volume goals in each industry/scenario (Table A4, Appendix C).