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.