Download - Private Owners, Public Values Citizen Participation in Designing Sustainable Forest Management
Private Owners, Public ValuesCitizen Participation in Designing Sustainable Forest Management
Jon D. Erickson, Caroline Hermans, and Paula ZampieriRubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont
Jon BoutonForestry Division, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
Richard HowarthEnvironmental Studies Program, Dartmouth College
Amy SheldonWhite River Partnership
Matthew WilsonGund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont
Private Owners, Public Values
White River watershed and partnership Forestry work group and UVM class on forest
resource values Group preference elicitation
White River Watershed
WHITE
State of Vermont
Middle Branch
First Branch
Upper White River
Middle White RiverLower White River
Third Branch
• 454,000 acres (710 sq. miles)
• 56 mile main stem – longest free flowing river in Vermont – largest un-dammed tributary to the Connecticut River
• Over 100 miles with tributaries
• 21 towns
• 40,000 residents
White River Partnership
Mission:
to help local communities balance the long-term cultural, economic and environmental health of the White River Watershed through active citizen participation.
www.whiteriverpartnership.org
White River Partnership
www.whiteriverpartnership.org
Six functioning stream teams; Active 11 member board; 300 volunteers planting trees
in the spring; 30 volunteers collecting
weekly water quality samples; Two full time staff, 1 Summer
water quality intern, 2 Assessment Consultants (summer & computer);
Numerous river restoration projects;
Forestry work group . . .
Forestry Work Group
Formed in 2003 in response to recent large scale change
Partnered with UVM class in Spring 2004 March 2004 workshop on identifying criteria
and indicators of sustainable forest management
June 2004 workshop on reporting on the status and trend of criteria and indicators
Sustainable Forest Management
International Context National and Regional
Application Stand-Level
Implementation
International Context
UN Earth Summit, 1992 Statement of Forest Principles and Agenda 21 Working Group on Criteria and Indicators for the
Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests (Montreal Process)
Santiago Declaration, Feb. 1995.
Montreal Process Criteria & Indicators (www.mpci.org)
Criteria Ind.Conservation of biological diversity 9
Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystem 5
Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality 3
Conservation & maintenance of soil & water resources 8
Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon cycles 3
Maintenance & enhancement of long-term multiple socio-economic benefits to meet the needs of society
19
Legal, institutional & economic framework for forest conservation & sustainable management
20
National Application
Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, United States, Uruguay
U.S.: Roundtable on Sustainable Forests (www.sustainableforests.net)
USDA Forest Service, National Report on Sustainable Forests, Nov. 7, 2002.
Regional Application
Canada: Model Forest Program (4 of 12 with significant private forest lands)
Australia: Regional Forest Agreements and application of sub-national C&I
United States: Local Unit Criteria & Indicators Development Project (LUCID)
Vermont Forest Resource Advisory Council – Work Group on Sustainability
Stand-Level Implementation
Forest Stewardship Council (www.fscoax.org) Founded in 1993 Over 100 million acres certified worldwide Including 97 certificates in the U.S. across 9.4 million
acres of forestland Smart Wood (www.smartwood.org)
Founded in 1989, part of Rainforest Alliance Certified over 800 operations (20 in Vermont) and 24
million acres worldwide Vermont Family Forests (www.familyforests.com)
Founded in 1995 6,489 acres currently enrolled
Charge to 1st Workshop
What are your objectives for the forest lands of the White River watershed?
How can these objectives be measured?
In 30 years we hope for . . . More local harvesting of high quality marketable wood products that are
manufactured in the watershed with no waste. A local marketing cooperative Qualified, local forest practitioners and forest management that includes
ecology as well as silviculture All forests and forest products to be sustainably certified No clear cutting or to have size limits for clear cuts Incentives that lead to good stewardship An emphasis on comprehensive, community based, management Examine/manage previous logging issues – restoration? Maintained or increased hunting access Improved deer yards and herds A youth population that appreciates and participates in hunting and fishing Clean water Recognition of the role the forest plays in water quality Forests and logging roads that are managed to minimize soil erosion
In 30 years we hope for . . . A forest managed for biodiversity and sustainability Regulation/monitoring of recreational use (ATV, snowmobile, mtn. bikes) Large areas of pristine wilderness to be accessible for recreation (define
“pristine”) The same amount of private lands Landowners to have the right to harvest trees on their own land Maintain current balance between private and public land as well as
current wilderness designations An aesthetic watershed where no littering or dumping occurs Multiple use Forests to provide economic livelihood (pay taxes) A plan for emergencies (ice storms, disease, etc.) Management that takes into consideration possible residential
development (i.e. subdivisions) in planning and incorporates forested areas (wilderness) into any development plans
A state that has addressed the inequities in the market Increased quality/quantity of forestry education
A vision for the forests of the White River Watershed
Future 1 Future 2 Future 3
EconomicIndicators
EconomicIndicators
EconomicIndicators
EnvironmentalIndicators
EnvironmentalIndicators
EnvironmentalIndicators
Social/CulturalIndicators
Social/CulturalIndicators
Social/CulturalIndicators
Charge to UVM Class
What is the current status and trend of each indicator?
Research Design:Multi-Criteria Group Preference Elicitation
Formation of stakeholder group Structuring the decision problem Building the evaluation matrix Pre-elicitation of individual preferences from citizen
groups Group process; Negotiated group preference Post-elicitation of individual preferences from citizen
groups Guidance from and reports to stakeholder group Shared vision for forest management in the watershed
policy and management
Criteria and Indicators
Future 1
Future 2
Future 3
Within each criterion:Within each criterion:• Maximize or minimizeMaximize or minimize• Absolute or relative preferenceAbsolute or relative preference
Difference
0
1
Sco
re
Absolute
Difference
0
1
Sco
re
Relative
Linear
Non
-line
ar
Within each criterion:Within each criterion:• Degree of indifference thresholdDegree of indifference threshold
Difference
0
1
Sco
re
Indifference
Threshold
Within each criterion:Within each criterion:• Degree of indifference thresholdDegree of indifference threshold• Degree of preference thresholdDegree of preference threshold
Difference
0
1
Sco
re
Preference
Threshold
Within each criterion:Within each criterion:• Degree of indifference threshold, ANDDegree of indifference threshold, AND• Degree of preference thresholdDegree of preference threshold
0
1
Sco
re
Indifference
Threshold
Preference
Threshold
BetweenBetween criteria: criteria:• WeightsWeights
GOAL
Future 1 Future 2 Future 3
CEc CSc CEv CEc CSc CEv CEc CSc CEv
w1 + w2 + w3 = 1
Outcomes of the MCDA decision process Performance of each alternative by
multiple criteria
1
0
-1
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
Outcomes of the MCDA decision process Pairwise comparison of alternatives by
multiple criteria
Alt-1
Alt-2
Outcomes of the MCDA decision process
Preference ordering of alternatives for each individual, and the group as a whole
A3
A4
A2
A1 A5 Partial
A3 A4 A2 A1 A5 Complete
Outcomes of the MCDA decision process Simultaneous comparison of criteria and
alternatives (individual GAIA Plane)
CSc
CEv
CEc
Alt-1
Alt-3
Alt-2pi
Outcomes of the MCDA decision process Simultaneous comparison of decision-
makers and alternatives (group GAIA Plane)
DM-2
DM-1 DM-3
Alt-1
Alt-3
Alt-2
pi
Outcomes of the MCDA decision process Sensitivity analysis – walking weights and
stability intervals
CSc
CEv
CEc
Alt-1
Alt-3
Alt-2pi
Research on Preference Formation
Intra-criterion preferences Max/Min, Absolute/Relative, Thresholds
Inter-criteria preferences Weights of broad categories or specific
indicators Order and strength of rankings
Preference flows Partial or complete
Project Information
White River Partnership www.whiteriverpartnership.org
Project web site www.uvm.edu/~jdericks/
Concept paper on group valuation: Wilson, M.A. and R.B. Howarth, 2002. “Valuation
Techniques for Achieving Social Fairness in the Distribution of Ecosystem Services,” Ecological Economics 41, 431-443.