Total Economic Value, Ecosystem Services and the Role of Public Policy Instruments in the Creation and Destruction of Forest Values
Established frameworks such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) and the Total Economic Value (TEV) recognize how forest ecosystems have extrinsic and intrinsic value to society. We critically discuss the appropriateness of attempting to adapt a service-dominant logic (S-D logic) framework to meet the unique characteristics of forest ecosystems by incorporating elements from the MEA and TEV. This chapter enriches the current discussion related to S-D logic and forests by including inherent values in-neglect, no-use and no-trade. These categories highlight how the value of forests can be created or destroyed when forest owners neglect values to their wellbeing or when absence of transactions fail to clearly define beneficiaries. Within an overview of Services in Family Forestry we argue and illustrate how the process of participation in public policy programs can influence individual and collective value co-creation and co-destruction. Moreover, institutions can play a critical role in the value creation process as brokers between beneficiaries.
KeywordsFamily forests Ecosystem services Neglect Non-use No-trade
The authors acknowledge valuable insights offered by Jani Laturi at Natural Resource Institute Finland (Luke) to earlier versions of the chapter.
- Butler, B. J. (2008). Family forest owners of the United States, 2006. General Technical Report NRS-27. Newtown Square, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 73.Google Scholar
- Butler, B. J., Leatherberry, E. C., & Williams, M. S. (2005). Design, implementation, and analysis methods for the National Woodland Owner Survey (43 pp.). General Technical Report NE-336. Newtown Square, PA: USDA, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station.Google Scholar
- Butler, B., Catanzaro, P., Greene, J., Hewes, J., Kilgore, M., Kittredge, D., et al. (2012). Taxing family forest owners: Implications of federal and state policies in the United States. Journal of Forestry, 110(7), 371–380.Google Scholar
- Butler, B., Hewes, J., Dickinson, B., Andrejczyk, K., Butler, S., & Markowski-Lindsay, M. (2016). Family forest ownerships of the United States, 2013: Findings from the USDA forest service’s national woodland owner survey. Journal of Forestry, 114(6), 638–647.Google Scholar
- D’Amato, A. W., Catanzaro, P., Damery, D., Kittredge, D., & Ferrare, K. (2010). Are family forest owners facing a future in which forest management is not enough? Journal of Forestry, 108, 32–38.Google Scholar
- Ekberg, K. (2017). Habitat protection areas and nature conservation agreements on forest land in 2017 (Biotopskyddsområden och naturvårdsavtal på skogsmark 2017). Swedish Forest Agency, Jönköping.Google Scholar
- Finnish Ministry of the Environment. (2013). Saving nature for people: National action plan for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in Finland 2013–2020. Retrieved June 30, 2019, from https://www.ym.fi/en-US/Nature/Biodiversity/Strategy_and_action_plan_for_biodiversity.
- Forest in the School. (2011). Skogen i skolan. Föreningen Skogen. Retrieved August 9, 2018, from https://www.skogeniskolan.se/om-oss.
- Harden, C., Chin, A., English, M., Fu, R., Galvin, K., Gerlak, A., et al. (2014). Understanding human-landscape interactions in the ‘Anthropocene’. Environmental Management, 53(1), 4–13.Google Scholar
- Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). Service-dominant logic: Premises, perspectives, possibilities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA]. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis (155 pp.). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
- Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
- Seppälä, J., & Schildt, V. (2016). A snapshot to Forest Biodiversity Programme for Southern Finland (METSO) in 2015. Retrieved August 10, 2018, from https://www.metsonpolku.fi/en-US/News/A_snapshot_to_Forest_Biodiversity_Progra(38361).
- Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. (2017). Nature conservation agreements (Naturvårdsavtal). Retrieved August 3, 2018, from https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Stod-i-miljoarbetet/Vagledningar/Skyddad-natur/Naturvardsavtal/.
- Swedish Forest Agency. (2014). Nature conservation agreements for areas with high social value (Naturvårdsavtal för områden med höga sociala värden). Jönköping. Retrieved June 20, 2019, from https://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/stod-i-miljoarbetet/vagledning/skyddade-omraden/naturvardsavtal/naturvardsavtal-omr-hoga-sociala-varden-pm-skogsstyr-naturvardsverket.pdf.