Private Owners, Public Values Citizen Participation in Designing Sustainable Forest Management - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Private Owners, Public Values Citizen Participation in Designing Sustainable Forest Management

Description:

Private Owners, Public Values Citizen Participation in Designing Sustainable Forest Management Jon D. Erickson, Caroline Hermans, and Paula Zampieri – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:176
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 32
Provided by: JonDEr2
Learn more at: https://www.uvm.edu
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Private Owners, Public Values Citizen Participation in Designing Sustainable Forest Management


1
Private 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

2
Private Owners, Public Values
  • White River watershed and partnership
  • Forestry work group and UVM class on forest
    resource values
  • Group preference elicitation

3
White 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

4
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
5
White 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
6
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

7
Sustainable Forest Management
  • International Context
  • National and Regional Application
  • Stand-Level Implementation

8
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.

9
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
10
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.

11
Regional 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

12
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

13
Charge to 1st Workshop
  • What are your objectives for the forest lands of
    the White River watershed?
  • How can these objectives be measured?

14
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

15
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

16
A vision for the forests of the White River
Watershed
17
Charge to UVM Class
  • What is the current status and trend of each
    indicator?

18
Research 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

23
  • Between criteria
  • Weights

w1 w2 w3 1
24
Outcomes of the MCDA decision process
  • Performance of each alternative by multiple
    criteria

C1
1
C4
C6
0
C2
C5
-1
C3
C7
25
Outcomes of the MCDA decision process
  • Pairwise comparison of alternatives by multiple
    criteria

Alt-1
Alt-2
26
Outcomes 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
27
Outcomes of the MCDA decision process
  • Simultaneous comparison of criteria and
    alternatives (individual GAIA Plane)

28
Outcomes of the MCDA decision process
  • Simultaneous comparison of decision-makers and
    alternatives (group GAIA Plane)

29
Outcomes of the MCDA decision process
  • Sensitivity analysis walking weights and
    stability intervals

30
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

31
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.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com