Advertisement

Total Economic Value, Ecosystem Services and the Role of Public Policy Instruments in the Creation and Destruction of Forest Values

  • Francisco X. AguilarEmail author
  • Matthew C. Kelly
  • Brian Danley
Chapter
Part of the World Forests book series (WFSE, volume 24)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Family forests Ecosystem services Neglect Non-use No-trade 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge valuable insights offered by Jani Laturi at Natural Resource Institute Finland (Luke) to earlier versions of the chapter.

References

  1. Aguilar, F. X., & Kelly, M. (2019). US family forest management coupling human and natural systems: Role of public policy and markets instruments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 188, 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguilar, F. X., & Saunders, A. (2011). Attitudes toward policy instruments promoting wood-for-energy uses in the United States. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 35(2), 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aguilar, F. X., Cai, Z., & Butler, B. (2017). Proximal association of land management preferences: Evidence from family forest owners. PLoS ONE, 12(1), e0169667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banzhaf, H., & Boyd, J. (2012). The architecture and measurement of an ecosystem services index. Sustainability, 4, 430–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bengston, D. N., Asah, S. T., & Butler, B. J. (2011). The diverse values and motivations of family forest owners in the United States: An analysis of an open-ended question in the National Woodland Owner Survey. Small-Scale Forestry, 10(3), 339–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Cubbage, F. W., & Newman, D. H. (2006). Forest policy reformed: A United States perspective. Forest Policy and Economics, 9, 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cubbage, F., Harou, P., & Sills, E. (2007). Policy instruments to enhance multi-functional forest management. Forest Policy and Economics, 9(7), 833–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Danley, B. (2018). Skepticism of state action in forest certification and voluntary set-asides: A Swedish example with two environmental offsetting options. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 33, 695–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Finnish Ministry of the Environment. (2013). Saving nature for people: National action plan for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in Finland 20132020. Retrieved June 30, 2019, from https://www.ym.fi/en-US/Nature/Biodiversity/Strategy_and_action_plan_for_biodiversity.
  16. Forest in the School. (2011). Skogen i skolan. Föreningen Skogen. Retrieved August 9, 2018, from https://www.skogeniskolan.se/om-oss.
  17. Häggqvist, P., Lejon, S. J., & Lidestav, G. (2014). Look at what they do—A revised approach to communication strategy towards private forest owners. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29(7), 697–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Kelly, M. C., Germain, R. H., & Stehman, S. V. (2015). Family forest owner preferences for forest conservation programs: A New York case study. Forest Science, 61(3), 597–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kelly, M. C., Germain, R. H., & Mack, S. A. (2016). Forest conservation programs and the landowners who prefer them: Profiling family forest owners in the New York City watershed. Land Use Policy, 50, 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Korhonen, K., Hujala, T., & Kurttila, M. (2013). Diffusion of voluntary protection among family forest owners: Decision process and success factors. Forest Policy and Economics, 26, 82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E., et al. (2007). Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science, 317, 1513–1516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). Service-dominant logic: Premises, perspectives, possibilities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Ma, Z., Butler, B. J., Kittredge, D. B., & Catanzaro, P. (2012). Factors associated with landowner involvement in forest conservation programs in the U.S.: Implications for policy design and outreach. Land Use Policy, 29, 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Markowski-Lindsay, M., Stevens, T., Kittredge, D. B., Butler, B. J., Catanzaro, P., & Dickinson, B. J. (2011). Barriers to Massachusetts forest landowner participation in carbon markets. Ecological Economics, 71, 180–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Matthies, B., D’Amato, D., Berghäll, S., Ekholm, T., Hoen, H., et al. (2016). An ecosystem service-dominant logic?—Integrating the ecosystem service approach and the service-dominant logic. Journal of Cleaner Production, 124, 51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCann, L., Colby, B., Easter, K., Kasterine, A., & Kuperan, K. (2005). Transaction cost measurement for evaluating environmental policies. Ecological Economics, 52, 527–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA]. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis (155 pp.). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  29. Obeng, E., Aguilar, F. X., & McCann, E. (2018). Payments for forest ecosystem services: A look at neglected existence values, the free-rider problem and beneficiaries’ willingness to pay. International Forestry Review, 20(2), 206–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pearce, D. W. (2001). The economic value of forest ecosystems. Ecosystem Health, 7(4), 284–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  32. Rouleau, M. D., Lind-Riehl, J. F., Smith, M. N., & Mayer, A. L. (2016). Failure to communicate: Inefficiencies in voluntary incentive programs for private forest owners in Michigan. Forests, 7(9), 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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).
  34. Song, N., Aguilar, F. X., & Butler, B. J. (2014). Conservation easements and management by family forest owners: A propensity score matching approach with multi-imputations of survey data. Forest Science, 60(2), 298–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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/.
  36. 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.
  37. Widman, U. (2015). Shared responsibility for forest protection? Forest Policy and Economics, 50, 220–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francisco X. Aguilar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Matthew C. Kelly
    • 2
  • Brian Danley
    • 1
  1. 1.Swedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden
  2. 2.Michigan Technological UniversityHoughtonUSA

Personalised recommendations