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

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.

[1]  V. Ovaskainen,et al.  Consumer Versus Citizen Preferences in Contingent Valuation: Evidence on the Role of Question Framing , 2005 .

[2]  J. Louviere,et al.  Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation , 1998 .

[3]  L. Tyrväinen,et al.  Forest management and public perceptions — visual versus verbal information , 2001 .

[4]  E. Pouta,et al.  Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland , 2003 .

[5]  Annika Kangas,et al.  Socioecological landscape planning approach and multicriteria acceptability analysis in multiple-purpose forest management , 2005 .

[6]  P. Horne.  Forest owners' acceptance of incentive based policy instruments in forest biodiversity conservation - A choice experiment based approach , 2004 .

[7]  P. Boxall,et al.  Assessing information provision and respondent involvement effects on preferences , 2008 .

[8]  C. Fletcher.  A Way of Life That Does Not Exist: Canada and the Extinguishment of the Innu , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  Gregory Brown,et al.  Validation of a Forest Values Typology for Use in National Forest Planning , 2000, Forest Science.

[10]  D. Humphreys.  Redefining the Issues: NGO Influence on International Forest Negotiations , 2004, Global Environmental Politics.

[11]  Shashi Kant,et al.  A social choice approach to sustainable forest management: an analysis of multiple forest values in Northwestern Ontario , 2004 .

[12]  William Samuelson,et al.  Status quo bias in decision making , 1988 .

[13]  J. Louviere,et al.  The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models , 1993 .

[14]  D. Tindall.  Social values and the contingent nature of public opinion and attitudes about forests , 2003 .

[15]  Marcus B. Lane,et al.  Forest Management Systems Evaluation: Using ISO14000 , 2002 .

[16]  P. Leskinen,et al.  Assessing objectives of regional forest policy in northern Finland , 2004 .

[17]  A. Tversky,et al.  Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model , 1991 .

[18]  Henrik Lindhjem,et al.  20 Years of Stated Preference Valuation of Non-Timber Benefits from Fennoscandian Forests: A Meta-Analysis , 2007 .

[19]  S. Sheppard,et al.  Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups , 2005 .

[20]  Tapani Tasanen.  Läksi puut ylenemähän. Metsien hoidon historia Suomessa keskiajalta metsäteollisuuden läpimurtoon 1870-luvulla. , 2004 .

[21]  Karine Nyborg,et al.  Homo Economicus and Homo Politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values , 2000 .

[22]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer , 2005 .

[23]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation , 1997 .

[24]  R. Ribe.  Perceptions of forestry alternatives in the US Pacific Northwest: Information effects and acceptability distribution analysis $ , 2006 .

[25]  Ismo Pölönen,et al.  Quality control and the substantive influence of environmental impact assessment in Finland , 2006 .

[26]  Andrew Fall,et al.  Insight, part of a Special Feature on Crossing Scales and Disciplines to Achieve Forest Sustainability A Toolkit Modeling Approach for Sustainable Forest Management Planning: Achieving Balance between Science and Local Needs , 2007 .

[27]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: List of tables , 2005 .

[28]  Jon C. Lovett,et al.  Preferences and multiple use forest management , 2002 .

[29]  S. Sheppard,et al.  The application of a hierarchical, decision-support system to evaluate multi-objective forest management strategies: a case study in northeastern British Columbia, Canada , 2004 .

[30]  S. Kant,et al.  Exploded logit modeling of stakeholders' preferences for multiple forest values , 2007 .

[31]  Annika Kangas,et al.  MCDM methods in strategic planning of forestry on state‐owned lands in Finland: applications and experiences , 2001 .

[32]  W. Adamowicz,et al.  In search of forest resource values of indigenous peoples: Are nonmarket valuation techniques applicable? , 1998 .

[33]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: List of tables , 2005 .

[34]  Andrew F. Howard,et al.  Meaningful public participation in the planning and management of publicly owned forests , 1991 .

[35]  Christian Messier,et al.  Thinking and acting differently for sustainable management of the boreal forest , 1999 .

[36]  L. Tyrväinen,et al.  Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management , 2003 .

[37]  Eija Pouta,et al.  Using Choice Experiments to Value the Natura 2000 Nature Conservation Programs in Finland , 2004 .

[38]  Wiktor L. Adamowicz,et al.  Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment , 2005 .

[39]  D. Tindall,et al.  Social Structure, Identities, and Values: A Network Approach to Understanding People's Relationships to Forests , 2005 .

[40]  R. Quentin Grafton,et al.  The economics of the environment and natural resources , 2004 .

[41]  Sen Wang,et al.  One hundred faces of sustainable forest management , 2004 .

[42]  Jayanath Ananda,et al.  Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach , 2003 .

[43]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation , 1996 .

[45]  The role of cultural models in local perceptions of SFM--differences and similarities of interest groups from three boreal regions. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[46]  Paul B. Paulus,et al.  Psychology of Group Influence , 1981 .

[47]  Richard D. Margerum,et al.  Integrated Environmental Management: Moving from Theory to Practice , 1995 .

[48]  Peter C. Boxall,et al.  Exploring the preferences of wildlife recreationists for features of boreal forest management: a choice experiment approach. , 2000 .

[49]  Forest value orientations of interest groups in three regions varying in importance of commercial forestry , 2009 .

[50]  Andrew Fall,et al.  Consequences of various landscape-scale ecosystem management strategies and fire cycles on age-class structure and harvest in boreal forests , 2004 .

[51]  John C. Turner,et al.  Self-categorization theory and social influence. , 1989 .