Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 117–133 | Cite as

Sustainable Forest Management Preferences of Interest Groups in Three Regions with Different Levels of Industrial Forestry: An Exploratory Attribute-Based Choice Experiment

  • Kati Berninger
  • Wiktor Adamowicz
  • Daniel Kneeshaw
  • Christian Messier
Article

Abstract

The challenge of sustainable forest management is to integrate diverse and sometimes conflicting management objectives. In order to achieve this goal, we need a better understanding of the aspects influencing the preferences of diverse groups and how these groups make trade-offs between different attributes of SFM. We compare the SFM preferences of interest groups in regions with different forest use histories based on the reasoning that the condition of the forest reflects the forest use history of the area. The condition of the forest also shapes an individual’s forest values and attitudes. These held values and attitudes are thought to influence SFM preferences. We tested whether the SFM preferences vary amongst the different interest groups within and across regions. We collected data from 252 persons using a choice experiment approach, where participants chose multiple times among different options described by a combination of attributes that are assigned different levels. The novelty of our approach was the use of choice experiments in the assessment of regional preference differences. Given the complexity of inter-regional comparison and the small sample size, this was an exploratory study based on a purposive rather than random sample. Nevertheless, our results suggest that the aggregation of preferences of all individuals within a region does not reveal all information necessary for forest management planning since opposing viewpoints could cancel each other out and lead to an interpretation that does not reflect possibly polarised views. Although based on a small sample size, the preferences of interest groups within a region are generally statistically significantly different from each other; however preferences of interest groups across regions are also significantly different. This illustrates the potential importance of assessing heterogeneity by region and by group.

Keywords

Sustainable forest management Environmental economics Preference elicitation Stated preference Trade offs Heterogeneity of preferences 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank all participants and the persons who made this research possible: Timo Weckroth from the Regional Forestry Centre of Southeastern Finland; Nadyre Beaulieu from AbitibiBowater in Shawinigan Quebec; Neal Simon and Frank Phillips from the NL Department of Natural Resources; Valerie Courtois from the Innu Nation and Bryn Wood from the Labrador Metis Nation. We thank the anonymous reviewers for valuable comments and Mélanie Desrochers for her help with maps. We also thank the Sustainable Forest Management Network, the Finnish Helsingin Sanomat Fund and the Finnish Cultural Foundation for funding.

References

  1. Adamowicz WL, Swait J, Boxall PC, Louviere J, Williams M (1997) Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32:65–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adamowicz WL, Boxall P, Williams M, Louviere M (1998a) Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(1):64–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adamowicz W, Beckley T, MacDonald DH, Just L, Luckert M, Murray E, Phillips W (1998b) In search of forest resource values of indigenous peoples. Society and Natural Resources 11:51–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ananda J, Herath G (2003) Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach. Ecological Economics 45(1):75–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berninger K (2006) Millaisia teemoja ja painotuksia sisältyy kaakkoissuomalaisten mielestä kestävään metsätalouteen? Neljän intressiryhmän ajatuksia. Metsätieteen aikakauskirja 3:399–410 (Which themes and rankings do forest users in Southeastern Finland include in SFM? Thoughts of four interest groups, in Finnish)Google Scholar
  6. Berninger K (2007a) Neljän intressiryhmän näkemyksiä Kaakkois-Suomen metsien hoidosta. Alue ja ympäristö 36(1):45–50 (Views of four interest groups on forest management in Southeastern Finland, in Finnish)Google Scholar
  7. Berninger K (2007b) Attitudes des trois groupes d’intérêt sur les forêts et la foresterie en Mauricie. Rapport pour le projet TRIADE. http://www.projettriade.ca/recherche_doc.php. Accessed November 27, 2008
  8. Berninger K (2007c) Attitudes towards forests and forestry of five interest groups in Central Labrador. Report for the Labrador Forest Management Model Integration Project. http://www.lfmi.uqam.ca/report/report/Forest_attitudes_and_preferences.pdf. Accessed August 13, 2007
  9. Berninger K, Kneeshaw D (2009) Forest value orientations and attitudes towards forestry of interest groups in three regions varying in importance of commercial forestry. International Journal of Sustainable Society 1(4):391–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berninger K, Kneeshaw D, Messier C (2009) The role of cultural models in local perceptions of SFM—differences and similarities of interest groups from three boreal regions. Journal of Environmental Management 90:740–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boxall PC, Macnab B (2000) Exploring the preferences of wildlife recreationists for features of boreal forest management: a choice experiment approach. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30:1931–1941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL, Swait J, Williams M, Louviere JJ (1996) A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecological Economics 18:243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown G, Reed P (2000) Validation of a forest values typology for use in national forest planning. Forest Science 46:240–247Google Scholar
  14. Fall A, Fortin M-J, Kneeshaw D, Yamasaki S, Messier C, Bouthillier L, Smyth S (2004) Consequences of various landscape-scale ecosystem management strategies and fire cycles on age-class structure and harvest in boreal forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 34:310–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Finnish statistical yearbook of forestry (2006) SVT agriculture, forestry and fishery 2006. Finnish Forest Research Institute, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  16. Forsyth J, Innes L, Deering K, Moores L (2003) Forest ecosystem strategy plan for forest management district 19 Labrador/Nitassinan. Innu Nation and Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, Northwest RiverGoogle Scholar
  17. Government of Quebec (2008) Forests: building a future for Québec, green paper. Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune (MRNF), Quebec CityGoogle Scholar
  18. Grafton RQ, Adamowicz W, Dupont D, Nelson H, Hill RJ, Renzetti S (2004) The economics of the environment and natural resources. Blackwell Publishing, MaldenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greene W (2007) LIMDEP 9.0 reference guide. Econometric Software Inc, PlainviewGoogle Scholar
  20. Halifax Global (2006) Strategic plan to develop Labrador secondary manufacturing and value added wood products industry. http://www.nr.gov.nl.ca/forestry/publications/labrador_wood_products_report_1.pdf. Accessed May 29, 2006
  21. Hallikainen V (1998) The Finnish wilderness experience. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Research Papers 711, RovaniemiGoogle Scholar
  22. Harshaw HW, Tindall DB (2005) Social structure, identities, and values: a network approach to understanding people’s relationship to forests. Journal of Leisure Research 37(4):426–449Google Scholar
  23. Hensher DA, Rose J-M, Greene WH (2005) Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Horne P (2006) Forest owners’ acceptance of incentive based policy instruments in forest biodiversity conservation—a choice experiment based approach. Silva Fennica 40:169–178Google Scholar
  25. Horne P, Karppinen H, Ylinen E (2004) Kansalaisten mielipiteet metsien monimuotoisuuden turvaamisesta. In: Horne P, Koskela T, Ovaskainen V (eds) Metsänomistajien ja kansalaisten näkemykset metsäluonnon monimuotoisuuden turvaamisesta. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja 933, pp 25–46 (in Finnish)Google Scholar
  26. Horne P, Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL (2005) Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment. Forest Ecology and Management 207:189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Humphreys D (2004) Redefining the issues: NGO influence on international forest negotiations. Global Environmental Politics 4:51–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaakkois-Suomen metsäkeskus (2005a) Metsäohjelma 2006–2010. Kouvola, 37 ppGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaakkois-Suomen metsäkeskus (2005b) Metsä- ja ympäristökertomus 2005. Kouvola, 36 ppGoogle Scholar
  30. Kangas J, Kangas A, Leskinen P, Pykäläinen J (2001) MCDM methods in strategic planning of forestry on state-owned lands in Finland: applications and experiences. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 10:257–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kangas J, Store R, Kangas A (2005) Socioecological landscape planning approach and multicriteria acceptability analysis in multiple-purpose forest management. Forest Policy and Economics 7:603–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kant S, Lee S (2004) A social choice approach to sustainable forest management. Forest Policy and Economics 6:215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kumar S, Kant S (2007) Exploded logit modeling of stakeholders’ preferences for multiple forest values. Forest Policy and Economics 9:516–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lehtonen E, Kuuluvainen J, Pouta E, Rekola M, Li C-Z (2006) Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland. Environmental Science & Policy 6:195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leskinen P, Leskinen L, Tikkanen J (2004) Assessing objectives of regional forest policy in northern Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 19:180–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Li C-Z, Kuuluvainen J, Pouta E, Rekola M, Tahvonen O (2004) Using choice experiments to value the Natura 2000 nature conservation programs in Finland. Environmental & Resource Economics 29:361–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lindhjem H (2007) 20 Years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: a meta-analysis. Journal of Forest Economics 12:251–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mailhot J (1997) The people of Sheshatshit: in the land of the Innu. Institute of Social and economic Research, Memorial University, St. John’sGoogle Scholar
  39. Margerum RD (1995) Integrated environmental management: moving from theory to practice. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 38:371–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McDonald GT, Lane MB (2002) Forest management systems evaluation: using ISO14000. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 45:633–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McFarlane B, Boxall P (2000) Forest values and attitudes of the public, environmentalists, professional foresters, and members of public advisory groups in Alberta. Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forest Centre, Information Report NOR-X-374Google Scholar
  42. Messier C, Kneeshaw D (1999) Thinking and acting differently for sustainable management of the boreal forest. Forestry Chronicle 75(6):929–938Google Scholar
  43. Nyborg K (2000) Homo economicus and Homo politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental value. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization 42(3):305–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ovaskainen V, Kniivilä M (2005) Consumer versus citizen preferences in contingent valuation: evidence on the role of question framing. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 49:379–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pâquet J, Bélanger L (1997) Public acceptability thresholds of clearcutting to maintain visual quality of boreal balsam fir landscapes. Forest Science 43:46–55Google Scholar
  46. Pölönen I (2006) Quality control and the substitutive influence of environmental impact assessment in Finland. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26:481–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ribe RG (2006) Perceptions of forestry alternatives in the US Pacific Northwest: information effects and acceptability distribution analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology 26:100–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Samson C (2003) A way of life that does not exist, Canada and the extinguishment of the Innu. Social and economic studies 67. Institute of Social and Economic Research, Memorial University, St. John’sGoogle Scholar
  49. Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R (1988) Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1:7–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. SAS Institute (2001) Documentation for the 8.2 release of the MDC procedure. http://support.sas.com/rnd/app/doc.html. Accessed May 11, 2007
  51. Seely B, Nelson J, Wells R, Peter B, Meitner M, Anderson A, Harshaw H, Sheppard S, Bunnell RL, Kimmins H, Harrison D (2004) The application of a hierarchical, decision-support system to evaluate multi-objective forest management strategies: a case study in northeastern British Columbia, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 199:283–305Google Scholar
  52. Shapansky B, Adamowicz WL, Boxall P (2008) Assessing information provision and respondent involvement effects on preferences. Ecological Economics 65:626–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sheppard S, Meitner M (2005) Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups. Forest Ecology and Management 207:171–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sloane NJA (2006) Www pages. A library of orthogonal arrays. http://www.research.att.com/~njas/oadir/. Accessed April 18, 2006
  55. Sturtevant B, Fall A, Kneeshaw D, Simon N, Papaik M, Berninger K, Doyon F, Morgan D, Messier C (2007) A toolkit modeling approach for sustainable forest management planning: achieving balance between science and local needs. Ecology and Society 12(2):7. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art7/
  56. Swait J, Louviere J (1993) The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. Journal of Marketing Research 30(3):305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tahvanainen L, Tyrväinen L, Ihalainen M, Vuorela N, Kolehmainen O (2001) Forest management and public perceptions—visual versus verbal information. Landscape and Urban Planning 53:53–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tanz JS, Howard AF (1991) Meaningful public participation in the planning and management of publicly owned forests. Forestry Chronicle 67(2):125–130Google Scholar
  59. Tasanen T (2004) Läksi puut ylenemähän. Metsien hoidon historia Suomessa keskiajalta metsäteollisuuden läpimurtoon 1870 –luvulla [Summary: The history of silviculture in Finland from the Medieval to the breakthrough of forest industry in 1870s]. Finnish Forest Research Institute Report 920, VammalaGoogle Scholar
  60. Tindall DB (2003) Social values and the contingent nature of public opinion and attitudes about forests. Forestry Chronicle 79:692–705Google Scholar
  61. Turner JC, Oakes PJ (1989) Self-categorization theory and social influence. In: Paulus SB (ed) Psychology of group influence. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 233–275Google Scholar
  62. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics 106:1039–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tyrväinen L, Silvennoinen H, Kolehmainen O (2003) Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 1:135–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Van Rensburg T, Mill G, Common M, Lovett J (2002) Preferences and multiple use forest management. Ecological Economics 43(2–3):231–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wang S (2004) One hundred faces of sustainable forest management. Forest Policy and Economics 6:205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Xu W, Lippke BR, Perez-Garcia J (2003) Valuing biodiversity, aesthetics, and job losses associated with ecosystem management using stated preferences. Forest Science 49:247–257Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kati Berninger
    • 1
  • Wiktor Adamowicz
    • 2
  • Daniel Kneeshaw
    • 1
  • Christian Messier
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre d’Étude de la ForêtMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of Rural EconomyUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations