Small-scale Forestry

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 321–333 | Cite as

Auctioning the Forest: A Qualitative Approach to Exploring Stakeholder Responses to Bidding on Forest Ecosystem Services

  • Gabrielle E. Roesch-McNally
  • Sergey Rabotyagov
  • John C. Tyndall
  • Gregory Ettl
  • Sándor F. Tóth
Research Paper

Abstract

The loss of private forestland diminishes ecosystems, including wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration and clean water. The emergence of new markets for forest ecosystem services offers one solution for private forestland financing while having the potential to increase the provision of forest ecosystem services. The general public’s willingness to participate in an auction mechanism for private forest ecosystem services was assessed for a regionally representative forest in Washington State using focus group methodology. The auction mechanism utilizes cost-effective management scenarios that stakeholders competitively bid on. Participants exhibited preferences for specific management plans while also making trade-offs in order to ensure that a plan would win. Participants expressed clear preferences for recreational access, mature forest habitat, aesthetic amenities, and improved water quality. Participants were receptive to the auction mechanism while maintaining concerns over viability, transparency, and local stakeholder involvement.

Keywords

Auction mechanism Ecosystem services markets Focus groups Recreation Water quality 

References

  1. Adamowicz W, Louviere J, Swait J (1998) Introduction to attribute based stated choice methods. Final Report for NOAA and the US Department of Commerce, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Batker D, Schmidt R, Harrison-Cox J, Lovell B (2010) The whole economy of the Snohomish: the essential economics of ecosystem services. Everett, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bishop J, Pagiola S (eds) (2012) Selling forest environmental services: market-based mechanisms for conservation and development. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  4. Boxall P, Adamowicz WL, Moon A (2009) Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 53(4):503–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradley GA, Erickson A, Robbins A, Smith G, Malone L, Rogers LW, Connor M (2007) Future of Washington’s forest and forest industries study. Study 4: land conversion. Seattle: Washington State Department of Natural Resources and School of Forest ResourcesGoogle Scholar
  6. Chee YE (2004) An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services. Biol Conserv 120(4):549–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cochran B, Logue C (2011) A watershed approach to improve water quality: case study of clean water services’ Tualatin River Program. J Am Water Res Assoc 47(1):29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis, Hibbitts and Midghall, INC (2010) Oregon forests values and beliefs study. A report prepared for or Forest Res Inst and OR Dept of For. Portland, OregonGoogle Scholar
  9. Deal RL, Cochran B, LaRocco G (2012) Bundling of ecosystem services to increase forestland value and enhance sustainable forest management. For Pol Econ 17:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garber-Yonts B, Kerkvliet J, Johnson R (2004) Public values for biodiversity conservation polices in the Oregon Coast Range. For Sci 50(2):589–602Google Scholar
  11. Greenhalgh SJ, Guiling M, Selman J, St John (2007) Paying for environmental performance: using reverse auctions to allocate funding for conservation. World Res Pol Notes 3:1–6. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Halsey K (2010) Ecosystem services—a framework for thinking about sustainability. Oregon State Bar-Sustainability Section. http://osbsustainablefuture.org/home/section-newsletter/20103fall1halsey/. Accessed 28 Mar 2014
  13. Institute for Natural Resources (2012) EWEB’s vision: payments for ecosystem services thru voluntary incentives program: an innovative, incentive based approach for preserving water quality in the McKenzie River Watershed. Oregon State University, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  14. Kenny A (2006) Ecosystem services in the New York City Watershed. Ecosystem marketplace: a forest trends initiative. http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/ecosystem-services-in-the-new-york-city-watershed-1969-12-31/. Accessed 20 Oct 2015
  15. Krieger DJ (2001) The economic value of forest ecosystem services: a review. Wilderness Society, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Krueger RA (1994) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  17. Mercer DE, Cooley DM, Hamilton K (2011) Taking stock: payments for forest ecosystem services in the United States. Report for Forest Trends and the U.S. Forest Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Montgomery CA, Helvoigt TL (2006) Changes in attitudes about importance and willingness to pay for salmon recovery in Oregon. J Environ Manag 78:330–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moore CC, Holmes TP, Bell KP (2010) An attribute-based approach to contingent valuation of forest protection programs. J For Econ 17(1):35–52Google Scholar
  20. Pearce DW (2001) The economic value of forest ecosystems. Ecosyst Health 7(4):284–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Powell RA, Single HM (1996) Focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 8(5):499–504CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Roesch-McNally GE, Rabotyagov S (2016) Are households willing-to-pay for forest ecosystem services in a private market? Environ Manag 57(3):585–600Google Scholar
  23. Ruseva TB, Fischer BC (2013) Public-private interactions in the conservation of private forests in the United States. In: Brondizio ES, Moran EF (eds) Human-environment interactions: current and future directions. Springer, New Jersey, pp 141–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Selman SJ, Greenhalgh MS, Taylor M, Guiling J (2007) Paying for environmental performance: potential cost savings using a reverse auction in program sign-up. World Res Pol Notes 3:1–6. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Shabman L, Rose B, Stephenson K (2011) Environmental services programs for the chesapeake bay. Choices, Quarter 3. http://choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/theme-articles/innovating-policy-for-chesapeake-bay-restoration/environmental-services-programs-for-the-chesapeake-bay-. Accessed 20 Oct 2015
  26. Shapansky B, Adamowicz W, Boxall P (2003) Measuring forest resource values: an assessment of choice experiments and preference construction methods as public involvement tools. In: Kissling M, Schmitz K, Schmitz PM, Wronka TC (eds) Pricing environmental services of agriculture. Proceedings of an International Workshop, Germany, pp 153–186Google Scholar
  27. Sheppard S (2005) Participatory decision support for sustainable forest management: a framework for planning with local communities at the landscape level in Canada. Can J For Res 35:1515–1526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stanton T, Echavarria M, Hamilton K, Ott C (2010) State of watershed payments: an emerging marketplace. Forest-Trends. http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_2438.pdf. Accessed 25 Mar 2014
  29. Tóth SF, Ettl GJ, Rabotyagov SS (2010) ECOSEL: an auction mechanism for forest ecosystem services. Math Comput For Nat Res Sci 2:99–116Google Scholar
  30. Tóth SF, Ettl GJ, Könnyű N, Rabotyagov SS, Rogers LW (2013) ECOSEL: multi-objective optimization to sell forest ecosystem services. For Pol Econ 35:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Xu W, Lippke BR, Perez-Garcia J (2003) Valuing biodiversity, aesthetics, and job losses associated with ecosystem management using stated preferences. For Sci 49(2):247–257Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Steve Harrison, John Herbohn 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabrielle E. Roesch-McNally
    • 1
  • Sergey Rabotyagov
    • 2
  • John C. Tyndall
    • 1
  • Gregory Ettl
    • 2
  • Sándor F. Tóth
    • 2
  1. 1.Natural Resource Ecology and ManagementIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  2. 2.School of Environmental and Forest SciencesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations