Using stakeholder‐based fuzzy cognitive mapping to assess benefits of restoration in wildfire‐vulnerable forests

Understanding the benefits provided by restoring overstocked forests is crucial to guiding the choice of management actions, policy initiatives, and investments by beneficiaries, that is, monetizing ecosystem services. Using stakeholder‐based fuzzy cognitive mapping, collected through workshops with natural‐resource professionals, we mapped the interactions of ecosystem services and the perceived effects of management actions on them. In line with current concerns in the California study area, we found that fire protection was perceived as central (i.e., having a high degree of congruence with other ecosystem services) with improved fire protection providing important secondary effects on other ecosystem services, notably air‐quality protection, provision of habitat, and carbon storage. Forest restoration involves multiple fuels‐reduction actions, which were perceived as benefiting fire protection, with subsets also offering strong benefits to other ecosystem services. Prescribed burning, defensible‐space creation, understory thinning, and replanting showed particularly large differences in effects when accounting for interactions of ecosystem services. Resource managers and other nonmanager professionals prioritized similar ecosystem services, with the second group placing more importance on interactions between different ecosystem services. Ecosystem‐service valuation that includes interactions offers a salient, credible, and legitimate approach to inform multi‐benefit forest management, particularly where partnerships must monetize some of those benefits to finance critical landscape restoration.

[1]  Brian J. Harvey,et al.  Projected increases in western US forest fire despite growing fuel constraints , 2021, Communications Earth & Environment.

[2]  Frank K. Lake,et al.  Adapting western North American forests to climate change and wildfires: 10 common questions , 2021, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[3]  E. Knapp,et al.  Pyrosilviculture Needed for Landscape Resilience of Dry Western United States Forests , 2021, Journal of Forestry.

[4]  R. Fletcher.  Review of Partha Dasgupta. 2021. The economics of biodiversity: the Dasgupta review. , 2021 .

[5]  M. C. Kennedy,et al.  How climate change and fire exclusion drive wildfire regimes at actionable scales , 2021 .

[6]  R. Bales,et al.  Evapotranspiration Mapping for Forest Management in California's Sierra Nevada , 2020, Frontiers in Forests and Global Change.

[7]  N. Diffenbaugh,et al.  Climate change is increasing the likelihood of extreme autumn wildfire conditions across California , 2020, Environmental Research Letters.

[8]  Jonathan P. Sheppard,et al.  Sustainable Forest Management Beyond the Timber-Oriented Status Quo: Transitioning to Co-production of Timber and Non-wood Forest Products—a Global Perspective , 2020, Current Forestry Reports.

[9]  P. Roche,et al.  Are expert-based ecosystem services scores related to biophysical quantitative estimates? , 2019, Ecological Indicators.

[10]  S. Engel,et al.  Guest editorial special issue on payments for forest watershed services , 2019, Water Resources and Economics.

[11]  V. Radeloff,et al.  High wildfire damage in interface communities in California , 2019, International Journal of Wildland Fire.

[12]  M. Goulden,et al.  California forest die-off linked to multi-year deep soil drying in 2012–2015 drought , 2019, Nature Geoscience.

[13]  Z. Ouyang,et al.  Mapping ecosystem services bundles to detect high- and low-value ecosystem services areas for land use management , 2019, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[14]  Daniel E. Orenstein,et al.  Fire-Regulating Services and Disservices With an Application to the Haifa-Carmel Region in Israel , 2019, Front. Environ. Sci..

[15]  P. Fernandes,et al.  Farmland abandonment decreases the fire regulation capacity and the fire protection ecosystem service in mountain landscapes , 2019, Ecosystem Services.

[16]  G. Mace.  The ecology of natural capital accounting , 2019, Oxford Review of Economic Policy.

[17]  Michelle Coppoletta,et al.  Tamm Review: Reforestation for resilience in dry western U.S. forests , 2019, Forest Ecology and Management.

[18]  Karin Frank,et al.  Interregional flows of ecosystem services: Concepts, typology and four cases , 2018, Ecosystem Services.

[19]  N. Bennett,et al.  Adaptive social impact management for conservation and environmental management , 2018, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[20]  Alexandra D. Syphard,et al.  Rapid growth of the US wildland-urban interface raises wildfire risk , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  S. Wunder,et al.  From principles to practice in paying for nature’s services , 2018, Nature Sustainability.

[22]  R. Deal,et al.  Ecosystem services to enhance sustainable forest management in the US: moving from forest service national programmes to local projects in the Pacific Northwest , 2017 .

[23]  J. Mustajoki,et al.  When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning , 2017 .

[24]  L. Kueppers,et al.  Climate and landscape drive the pace and pattern of conifer encroachment into subalpine meadows. , 2017, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[25]  Isabelle Durance,et al.  The challenge of valuing ecosystem services that have no material benefits , 2017 .

[26]  E. Nielsen,et al.  Ecosystem Service Valuation through Wildfire Risk Mitigation: Design, Governance, and Outcomes of the Flagstaff Watershed Protection Project (FWPP) , 2017 .

[27]  C. Moritz,et al.  Erosion of refugia in the Sierra Nevada meadows network with climate change , 2017 .

[28]  Davide Geneletti,et al.  Ecosystem services classification: A systems ecology perspective of the cascade framework , 2017, Ecological indicators.

[29]  Stanley T. Asah,et al.  The IPBES Conceptual Framework - connecting nature and people , 2015 .

[30]  Rebecca Jordan,et al.  Using fuzzy cognitive mapping as a participatory approach to analyze change, preferred states, and perceived resilience of social-ecological systems , 2015 .

[31]  T. Spies,et al.  Mixed-conifer forests of central Oregon: effects of logging and fire exclusion vary with environment. , 2014, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[32]  Daniel J. Phaneuf,et al.  Combining expert elicitation and stated preference methods to value ecosystem services from improved lake water quality , 2014 .

[33]  Adrienne Grêt-Regamey,et al.  Integrating Expert Knowledge into Mapping Ecosystem Services Trade-offs for Sustainable Forest Management , 2013 .

[34]  Mark A. Burgman,et al.  Toward rigorous use of expert knowledge in ecological research , 2013 .

[35]  S. Polasky,et al.  Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social–ecological approach , 2013 .

[36]  Scott L. Stephens,et al.  An Ecosystem Management Strategy for Sierran Mixed-Conifer Forests , 2012 .

[37]  J. Farley.  Ecosystem services: The economics debate , 2012 .

[38]  T. Chermack,et al.  Effects of scenario planning on participant mental models , 2012 .

[39]  S. Stephens,et al.  The Effects of Forest Fuel-Reduction Treatments in the United States , 2012 .

[40]  P. Bartlein,et al.  Long-term perspective on wildfires in the western USA , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[41]  Asim Zia,et al.  Acknowledging Conservation Trade‐Offs and Embracing Complexity , 2010, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[42]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Untangling the Environmentalist's Paradox: Why is Human Well-Being Increasing as Ecosystem Services Degrade? , 2010, BioScience.

[43]  Stephen Polasky,et al.  Mapping and Valuing Ecosystem Services as an Approach for Conservation and Natural‐Resource Management , 2009, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[44]  S. Carpenter,et al.  Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[45]  Maggi Kelly,et al.  Interactions Among Wildland Fires in a Long-Established Sierra Nevada Natural Fire Area , 2009, Ecosystems.

[46]  D. Richardson,et al.  Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management , 2008 .

[47]  E. Sills,et al.  Policy instruments to enhance multi-functional forest management , 2007 .

[48]  T. Swetnam,et al.  Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity , 2006, Science.

[49]  Uygar Özesmi,et al.  Ecological models based on people’s knowledge: a multi-step fuzzy cognitive mapping approach , 2004 .

[50]  Benjamin F. Hobbs,et al.  FUZZY COGNITIVE MAPPING AS A TOOL TO DEFINE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES FOR COMPLEX ECOSYSTEMS , 2002 .

[51]  H. Salwasser,et al.  New Perspectives for Sustainable Natural Resources Management. , 1992, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[52]  O. Schweiger,et al.  Understanding cultural ecosystem services related to farmlands: Expert survey in Europe , 2021 .

[53]  Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure , 2017 .

[54]  Klaus Leidorf.  Environmental Governance, , 2007 .