Title: Private Owners, Public Values Citizen Participation in Designing Sustainable Forest Management
1Private Owners, Public ValuesCitizen
Participation in Designing Sustainable Forest
Management
- Jon D. Erickson, Caroline Hermans, and Paula
Zampieri - Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural
Resources, University of Vermont - Jon Bouton
- Forestry Division, Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources - Richard Howarth
- Environmental Studies Program, Dartmouth College
- Amy Sheldon
- White River Partnership
- Matthew Wilson
- Gund Institute for Ecological Economics,
University of Vermont
2Private Owners, Public Values
- White River watershed and partnership
- Forestry work group and UVM class on forest
resource values - Group preference elicitation
3White River Watershed
- 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
4White 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
5White River Partnership
- 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 . . .
www.whiteriverpartnership.org
6Forestry 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
7Sustainable Forest Management
- International Context
- National and Regional Application
- Stand-Level Implementation
8International 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.
9Montreal 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
10National 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.
11Regional Application
- Canada Model Forest Program (4 of 12 with
significant private forest lands) - Australia Regional Forest Agreements and
application of sub-national CI - United States Local Unit Criteria Indicators
Development Project (LUCID) - Vermont Forest Resource Advisory Council Work
Group on Sustainability
12Stand-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
13Charge to 1st Workshop
- What are your objectives for the forest lands of
the White River watershed? - How can these objectives be measured?
14In 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
15In 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
16A vision for the forests of the White River
Watershed
17Charge to UVM Class
- What is the current status and trend of each
indicator?
18Research DesignMulti-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 Criteria and Indicators Criteria and Indicators
Future 1
Future 2
Future 3
19- Within each criterion
- Maximize or minimize
- Absolute or relative preference
20- Within each criterion
- Degree of indifference threshold
21- Within each criterion
- Degree of indifference threshold
- Degree of preference threshold
22- Within each criterion
- Degree of indifference threshold, AND
- Degree of preference threshold
23w1 w2 w3 1
24Outcomes of the MCDA decision process
- Performance of each alternative by multiple
criteria
C1
1
C4
C6
0
C2
C5
-1
C3
C7
25Outcomes of the MCDA decision process
- Pairwise comparison of alternatives by multiple
criteria
Alt-1
Alt-2
26Outcomes of the MCDA decision process
- Preference ordering of alternatives for each
individual, and the group as a whole
A2
A3
A1
A5
Partial
A4
A3
A4
A2
A1
A5
Complete
27Outcomes of the MCDA decision process
- Simultaneous comparison of criteria and
alternatives (individual GAIA Plane)
28Outcomes of the MCDA decision process
- Simultaneous comparison of decision-makers and
alternatives (group GAIA Plane)
29Outcomes of the MCDA decision process
- Sensitivity analysis walking weights and
stability intervals
30Research 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
31Project 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.