Abstract
Established frameworks such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) and the Total Economic Value (TEV) recognize how forest ecosystems have extrinsic and intrinsic value to society. We critically discuss the appropriateness of attempting to adapt a service-dominant logic (S-D logic) framework to meet the unique characteristics of forest ecosystems by incorporating elements from the MEA and TEV. This chapter enriches the current discussion related to S-D logic and forests by including inherent values in-neglect, no-use and no-trade. These categories highlight how the value of forests can be created or destroyed when forest owners neglect values to their wellbeing or when absence of transactions fail to clearly define beneficiaries. Within an overview of Services in Family Forestry we argue and illustrate how the process of participation in public policy programs can influence individual and collective value co-creation and co-destruction. Moreover, institutions can play a critical role in the value creation process as brokers between beneficiaries.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aguilar, F. X., & Kelly, M. (2019). US family forest management coupling human and natural systems: Role of public policy and markets instruments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 188, 43–53.
Aguilar, F. X., & Saunders, A. (2011). Attitudes toward policy instruments promoting wood-for-energy uses in the United States. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 35(2), 73–79.
Aguilar, F. X., Cai, Z., & Butler, B. (2017). Proximal association of land management preferences: Evidence from family forest owners. PLoS ONE, 12(1), e0169667.
Banzhaf, H., & Boyd, J. (2012). The architecture and measurement of an ecosystem services index. Sustainability, 4, 430–461.
Bengston, D. N., Asah, S. T., & Butler, B. J. (2011). The diverse values and motivations of family forest owners in the United States: An analysis of an open-ended question in the National Woodland Owner Survey. Small-Scale Forestry, 10(3), 339–355.
Butler, B. J. (2008). Family forest owners of the United States, 2006. General Technical Report NRS-27. Newtown Square, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 73.
Butler, B. J., Leatherberry, E. C., & Williams, M. S. (2005). Design, implementation, and analysis methods for the National Woodland Owner Survey (43 pp.). General Technical Report NE-336. Newtown Square, PA: USDA, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station.
Butler, B., Catanzaro, P., Greene, J., Hewes, J., Kilgore, M., Kittredge, D., et al. (2012). Taxing family forest owners: Implications of federal and state policies in the United States. Journal of Forestry, 110(7), 371–380.
Butler, B., Hewes, J., Dickinson, B., Andrejczyk, K., Butler, S., & Markowski-Lindsay, M. (2016). Family forest ownerships of the United States, 2013: Findings from the USDA forest service’s national woodland owner survey. Journal of Forestry, 114(6), 638–647.
Cubbage, F. W., & Newman, D. H. (2006). Forest policy reformed: A United States perspective. Forest Policy and Economics, 9, 261–271.
Cubbage, F., Harou, P., & Sills, E. (2007). Policy instruments to enhance multi-functional forest management. Forest Policy and Economics, 9(7), 833–851.
Danley, B. (2018). Skepticism of state action in forest certification and voluntary set-asides: A Swedish example with two environmental offsetting options. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 33, 695–707.
D’Amato, A. W., Catanzaro, P., Damery, D., Kittredge, D., & Ferrare, K. (2010). Are family forest owners facing a future in which forest management is not enough? Journal of Forestry, 108, 32–38.
Ekberg, K. (2017). Habitat protection areas and nature conservation agreements on forest land in 2017 (Biotopskyddsområden och naturvårdsavtal på skogsmark 2017). Swedish Forest Agency, Jönköping.
Finnish Ministry of the Environment. (2013). Saving nature for people: National action plan for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in Finland 2013–2020. Retrieved June 30, 2019, from https://www.ym.fi/en-US/Nature/Biodiversity/Strategy_and_action_plan_for_biodiversity.
Forest in the School. (2011). Skogen i skolan. Föreningen Skogen. Retrieved August 9, 2018, from https://www.skogeniskolan.se/om-oss.
Häggqvist, P., Lejon, S. J., & Lidestav, G. (2014). Look at what they do—A revised approach to communication strategy towards private forest owners. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29(7), 697–706.
Harden, C., Chin, A., English, M., Fu, R., Galvin, K., Gerlak, A., et al. (2014). Understanding human-landscape interactions in the ‘Anthropocene’. Environmental Management, 53(1), 4–13.
Kelly, M. C., Germain, R. H., & Stehman, S. V. (2015). Family forest owner preferences for forest conservation programs: A New York case study. Forest Science, 61(3), 597–603.
Kelly, M. C., Germain, R. H., & Mack, S. A. (2016). Forest conservation programs and the landowners who prefer them: Profiling family forest owners in the New York City watershed. Land Use Policy, 50, 17–28.
Korhonen, K., Hujala, T., & Kurttila, M. (2013). Diffusion of voluntary protection among family forest owners: Decision process and success factors. Forest Policy and Economics, 26, 82–90.
Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E., et al. (2007). Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science, 317, 1513–1516.
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). Service-dominant logic: Premises, perspectives, possibilities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ma, Z., Butler, B. J., Kittredge, D. B., & Catanzaro, P. (2012). Factors associated with landowner involvement in forest conservation programs in the U.S.: Implications for policy design and outreach. Land Use Policy, 29, 53–61.
Markowski-Lindsay, M., Stevens, T., Kittredge, D. B., Butler, B. J., Catanzaro, P., & Dickinson, B. J. (2011). Barriers to Massachusetts forest landowner participation in carbon markets. Ecological Economics, 71, 180–190.
Matthies, B., D’Amato, D., Berghäll, S., Ekholm, T., Hoen, H., et al. (2016). An ecosystem service-dominant logic?—Integrating the ecosystem service approach and the service-dominant logic. Journal of Cleaner Production, 124, 51–64.
McCann, L., Colby, B., Easter, K., Kasterine, A., & Kuperan, K. (2005). Transaction cost measurement for evaluating environmental policies. Ecological Economics, 52, 527–542.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA]. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis (155 pp.). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Obeng, E., Aguilar, F. X., & McCann, E. (2018). Payments for forest ecosystem services: A look at neglected existence values, the free-rider problem and beneficiaries’ willingness to pay. International Forestry Review, 20(2), 206–219.
Pearce, D. W. (2001). The economic value of forest ecosystems. Ecosystem Health, 7(4), 284–296.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Rouleau, M. D., Lind-Riehl, J. F., Smith, M. N., & Mayer, A. L. (2016). Failure to communicate: Inefficiencies in voluntary incentive programs for private forest owners in Michigan. Forests, 7(9), 199.
Seppälä, J., & Schildt, V. (2016). A snapshot to Forest Biodiversity Programme for Southern Finland (METSO) in 2015. Retrieved August 10, 2018, from https://www.metsonpolku.fi/en-US/News/A_snapshot_to_Forest_Biodiversity_Progra(38361).
Song, N., Aguilar, F. X., & Butler, B. J. (2014). Conservation easements and management by family forest owners: A propensity score matching approach with multi-imputations of survey data. Forest Science, 60(2), 298–307.
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. (2017). Nature conservation agreements (Naturvårdsavtal). Retrieved August 3, 2018, from https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Stod-i-miljoarbetet/Vagledningar/Skyddad-natur/Naturvardsavtal/.
Swedish Forest Agency. (2014). Nature conservation agreements for areas with high social value (Naturvårdsavtal för områden med höga sociala värden). Jönköping. Retrieved June 20, 2019, from https://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/stod-i-miljoarbetet/vagledning/skyddade-omraden/naturvardsavtal/naturvardsavtal-omr-hoga-sociala-varden-pm-skogsstyr-naturvardsverket.pdf.
Widman, U. (2015). Shared responsibility for forest protection? Forest Policy and Economics, 50, 220–227.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge valuable insights offered by Jani Laturi at Natural Resource Institute Finland (Luke) to earlier versions of the chapter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Aguilar, F.X., Kelly, M.C., Danley, B. (2019). Total Economic Value, Ecosystem Services and the Role of Public Policy Instruments in the Creation and Destruction of Forest Values. In: Hujala, T., Toppinen, A., J. Butler, B. (eds) Services in Family Forestry. World Forests, vol 24. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28999-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28999-7_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28998-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-28999-7
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)