Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Held values can be described as “emotionally charged beliefs about what is desirable, right and appropriate” (Tindall 2003).

  2. We also estimated mixed logit models by group (that account for the replication of choices by individuals—panel data) and compared them with the conditional logit models. The results show that although there is some heterogeneity within the groups, the mixed logit results are qualitatively similar to conditional logit in terms of our research questions. Thus the mixed logit results are not reported here, but are available from the authors upon request.

  3. The parameter estimates for household costs for the Metis and Innu groups form an exception explained in the next section and are not included in the comparison.

References

  • 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 32:65–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):64–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 11:51–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ananda J, Herath G (2003) Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach. Ecological Economics 45(1):75–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • 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)

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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):391–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 90:740–751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 30:1931–1941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL, Swait J, Williams M, Louviere JJ (1996) A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecological Economics 18:243–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown G, Reed P (2000) Validation of a forest values typology for use in national forest planning. Forest Science 46:240–247

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 34:310–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnish statistical yearbook of forestry (2006) SVT agriculture, forestry and fishery 2006. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 River

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of Quebec (2008) Forests: building a future for Québec, green paper. Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune (MRNF), Quebec City

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafton RQ, Adamowicz W, Dupont D, Nelson H, Hill RJ, Renzetti S (2004) The economics of the environment and natural resources. Blackwell Publishing, Malden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Greene W (2007) LIMDEP 9.0 reference guide. Econometric Software Inc, Plainview

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Hallikainen V (1998) The Finnish wilderness experience. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Research Papers 711, Rovaniemi

  • 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):426–449

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA, Rose J-M, Greene WH (2005) Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Horne P (2006) Forest owners’ acceptance of incentive based policy instruments in forest biodiversity conservation—a choice experiment based approach. Silva Fennica 40:169–178

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • Horne P, Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL (2005) Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment. Forest Ecology and Management 207:189–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys D (2004) Redefining the issues: NGO influence on international forest negotiations. Global Environmental Politics 4:51–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaakkois-Suomen metsäkeskus (2005a) Metsäohjelma 2006–2010. Kouvola, 37 pp

  • Kaakkois-Suomen metsäkeskus (2005b) Metsä- ja ympäristökertomus 2005. Kouvola, 36 pp

  • 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 10:257–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kangas J, Store R, Kangas A (2005) Socioecological landscape planning approach and multicriteria acceptability analysis in multiple-purpose forest management. Forest Policy and Economics 7:603–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kant S, Lee S (2004) A social choice approach to sustainable forest management. Forest Policy and Economics 6:215–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar S, Kant S (2007) Exploded logit modeling of stakeholders’ preferences for multiple forest values. Forest Policy and Economics 9:516–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehtonen E, Kuuluvainen J, Pouta E, Rekola M, Li C-Z (2006) Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland. Environmental Science & Policy 6:195–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leskinen P, Leskinen L, Tikkanen J (2004) Assessing objectives of regional forest policy in northern Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 19:180–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 29:361–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindhjem H (2007) 20 Years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: a meta-analysis. Journal of Forest Economics 12:251–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mailhot J (1997) The people of Sheshatshit: in the land of the Innu. Institute of Social and economic Research, Memorial University, St. John’s

    Google Scholar 

  • Margerum RD (1995) Integrated environmental management: moving from theory to practice. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 38:371–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald GT, Lane MB (2002) Forest management systems evaluation: using ISO14000. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 45:633–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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-374

  • Messier C, Kneeshaw D (1999) Thinking and acting differently for sustainable management of the boreal forest. Forestry Chronicle 75(6):929–938

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyborg K (2000) Homo economicus and Homo politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental value. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization 42(3):305–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 49:379–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pâquet J, Bélanger L (1997) Public acceptability thresholds of clearcutting to maintain visual quality of boreal balsam fir landscapes. Forest Science 43:46–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Pölönen I (2006) Quality control and the substitutive influence of environmental impact assessment in Finland. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26:481–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribe RG (2006) Perceptions of forestry alternatives in the US Pacific Northwest: information effects and acceptability distribution analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology 26:100–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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’s

  • Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R (1988) Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1:7–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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 199:283–305

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapansky B, Adamowicz WL, Boxall P (2008) Assessing information provision and respondent involvement effects on preferences. Ecological Economics 65:626–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard S, Meitner M (2005) Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups. Forest Ecology and Management 207:171–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloane NJA (2006) Www pages. A library of orthogonal arrays. http://www.research.att.com/~njas/oadir/. Accessed April 18, 2006

  • 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/

  • 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):305–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tahvanainen L, Tyrväinen L, Ihalainen M, Vuorela N, Kolehmainen O (2001) Forest management and public perceptions—visual versus verbal information. Landscape and Urban Planning 53:53–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanz JS, Howard AF (1991) Meaningful public participation in the planning and management of publicly owned forests. Forestry Chronicle 67(2):125–130

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Vammala

  • Tindall DB (2003) Social values and the contingent nature of public opinion and attitudes about forests. Forestry Chronicle 79:692–705

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner JC, Oakes PJ (1989) Self-categorization theory and social influence. In: Paulus SB (ed) Psychology of group influence. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 233–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics 106:1039–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyrväinen L, Silvennoinen H, Kolehmainen O (2003) Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 1:135–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Rensburg T, Mill G, Common M, Lovett J (2002) Preferences and multiple use forest management. Ecological Economics 43(2–3):231–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang S (2004) One hundred faces of sustainable forest management. Forest Policy and Economics 6:205–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu W, Lippke BR, Perez-Garcia J (2003) Valuing biodiversity, aesthetics, and job losses associated with ecosystem management using stated preferences. Forest Science 49:247–257

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre d’Étude de la Forêt, Case postale 8888, succursale Centre-ville, Montreal, QC, H3C 3P8, Canada

    Kati Berninger, Daniel Kneeshaw & Christian Messier

  2. Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

    Wiktor Adamowicz

Authors
  1. Kati Berninger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wiktor Adamowicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel Kneeshaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christian Messier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kati Berninger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Berninger, K., Adamowicz, W., Kneeshaw, D. et al. Sustainable Forest Management Preferences of Interest Groups in Three Regions with Different Levels of Industrial Forestry: An Exploratory Attribute-Based Choice Experiment. Environmental Management 46, 117–133 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9507-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9507-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation