Ecological and economic benefits of cross-boundary coordination among private forest landowners
Tóm tắt
A significant challenge facing forestry today is managing private forests sustainably in the face of continued ownership fragmentation (i.e., parcelization). Cross-boundary coordination––where forest practices are coordinated across multiple properties––has been proposed as a mechanism by which landscape-level ecological and economic benefits may be accrued in privately-owned landscapes, but few tests of the concept exist. Using a case study approach, we quantify the extent to which ownership-centric forest management is constrained by economies of scale and misses opportunities to achieve ecological objectives in three landscapes in Wisconsin, USA. Methods are based on existing forest management plans and include spatial analysis of patch distributions and shapes, simulation of forest practices, and calculation of net present value over a 20-year horizon. Our results indicate substantial opportunity for cross-boundary coordination: between 62% and 88% of the managed properties within our study landscapes were adjacent to other properties with forest management plans. At a patch scale, coordination can result in ecological benefits that can be accrued into the future (e.g., maintenance of large patches and natural ecosystem boundaries). Because these landscapes are already highly parcelized, however, coordination offers little opportunity to impact the overall landscape-scale structure. Greater economies of scale can also be gained by coordinating forest practices, including increases in the size (16–99%) and volume of timber sales (16–94%), and a modest economic advantage (3–6%). As first steps, investment in data infrastructure and professional training are required to support cross-boundary multi-ownership forest management. More broadly is the need to shift from policies and practices that are largely ownership-centric to those that include and better incorporate landscape-centric perspectives.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Albert DA (1995) Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: a working map and classification. General Technical Report NC178. U.S. Forest Service North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN, USA, 250 pp
Baker WL, Cai Y (1992) The r.le programs for multiscale analysis of landscape structure using the GRASS geographical information system. Landsc Ecol 7:291–302
Birch TW (1996) Private forest-land owners of the United States, 1994. Res Bull NE-134. U.S. Forest Service Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA, 183 pp
Brunson MW, Yarrow D, Roberts S, Guynn D, Kuhns M (1996) Nonindustrial private forest owners and ecosystem management. J For 94:14–21
Bush RR, Brand G (1993) Lake States (LS) variant overview: forest vegetation simulator. USDA Forest Service. Published on internet server http://www.fs.fed.us/fmsc/ftp/fvs/docs/overviews/lsvar.pdf [last accessed January 13, 2008]
Butler BJ, Leatherberry EC (2004) America’s family forest owners. J For 102:4–9
Campbell SM, Kittredge DB (1996) Ecosystem-based management on multiple NIPF ownerships. J For 94:24–29
Christensen NL, Bartuska AM, Brown JH, Carpenter S, D’Antonio C, Francis R, Franklin JF, MacMahon JA, Noss RF, Parsons DJ, Peterson CH, Turner MG, Woodmansee RG (1996) The report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecol Appl 6:665–691
Cleland DT, Freeouf JA, Keys JE Jr, Nowacki GJ, Carpenter C, McNab WH (2007) Ecological subregions: sections and subsections of the conterminous United States [1:3,500,000] [CD-ROM]. Gen Tech Report WO-76. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, DC
Croke JC, Hairsine PB (2006) Sediment delivery in managed forests: a review. Environ Rev 14:59–87
Crow TR, Host GE, Mladenoff DJ (1999) Ownership and ecosystem as sources of spatial heterogeneity in a forested landscape, Wisconsin, USA. Landsc Ecol 14:449–463
Egan AF, Luloff AE (2000) The exurbanization of America’s forests—research in rural social science. J For 98:26–30
Finley A, Kittredge D, Stevens T, Schweik C, Dennis D (2006) Interest in cross-boundary cooperation: identification of distinct types of private forest owners. For Sci 52:10–22
Forman RTT, Alexander LE (1998) Roads and their major ecological effects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:207–231
Fralish JS (2004) The keystone role of oak and hickory in the central hardwood forest. In: Spetich MA (ed) Upland oak ecology symposium: history, current conditions, and sustainability, GTR SRS-73. USDA Forest Service, Asheville, NC, USA, pp 78–87
Fries C, Linden G, Nillius E (1998) The stream model for ecological landscape planning in non-industrial private forestry. Scand J For Res 13:370–378
Gass RJ, Rickenbach M, Schulte L (2006) Forest management on parcelized landscapes: private forest owners assessments of cross-boundary alternatives. In: Walls S (eds) Proceedings from the IUFRO 3.08 Small-scale Forestry and Rural Development Conference, Galway, Ireland, 18–23 June 2006, pp 93–102
Gobster PH, Rickenbach MG (2004) Private forestland parcelization and development in Wisconsin’s Northwoods: perceptions of resource-oriented stakeholders. Landsc Urban Plan 69:165–182
Greene JL, Blatner KA (1986) Identifying woodland owner characteristics associated with timber management. For Sci 32:135–146
Gustafson EJ, Lytle DE, Swaty R, Loehle C (2007) Simulating the cumulative effects of multiple forest management strategies on landscape measures of forest sustainability. Landsc Ecol 22:141–156
Hamel PB (2000) Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea). In: Poole A, Gill F (eds) The birds of North America, no. 511. The birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA, USA
Hansen AJ, Knight RL, Marzluff JM, Powell S, Brown K, Gude PH, Jones A (2005) Effects of exurban development on biodiversity: patterns, mechanisms, and research needs. Ecol Appl 15:1893–1905
Hunter LM, Boardman JD, Onge JMS (2005) The association between natural amenities, rural population growth, and long-term residents’ economic well-being. Rural Soc 70:452–469
Johnson PS, Shifley SR, Rogers R (2002) The ecology and silviculture of oaks. CABI Publishing, New York, NY, USA
Jumppanen J, Kurttila M, Pukkala T, Uuttera J (2003) Spatial harvest scheduling approach for areas involving multiple ownership. For Pol Econ 5:27–38
Kittredge DB (2005) The cooperation of private forest owners on scales larger than one individual property: international examples and potential application in the United States. For Pol Econ 7:671–688
Kittredge Jr DB, Parker M (1999) Massachusetts forestry best management practices manual. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Published on internet server http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/drinking/forstbmp.pdf [last accessed January 13, 2008]
Kurttila M, Pukkala T (2003) Combining holding-level economic goals with spatial landscape-level goals in the planning of multiple ownership forestry. Landsc Ecol 18:529–541
Leatherberry EC (2001) Wisconsin private timberland owners: 1997. Research Paper NC-339. USDA Forest Service North Central Research Station, St. Paul, MN, USA
Lee RG (1991) Four myths of interface communities. J For 89:35–38
Munn IA, Barlow SA, Evans DL, Cleaves D (2002) Urbanization’s impact on timber harvesting in the south central United States. J Environ Manage 64:65–76
Odell EA, Knight RL (2001) Songbird and medium-sized mammal communities associated with exurban development in Pitkin County, Colorado. Conserv Biol 15:1143–1150
Parkhurst GM, Shogren JF, Bastian C, Kivi P, Donner J, Smith RBW (2002) Agglomeration bonus: an incentive mechanism to reunite fragmented habitat for biodiversity conservation. Ecol Econ 41:305–328
Perry DA (1998) The scientific basis of forestry. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:435–466
Rickenbach M G, Reed AS (2002) Cross-boundary cooperation in a watershed context: the sentiments of private forest landowners. Environ Manage 30:584–594
Rickenbach MG, Gobster PH (2003) Stakeholders’ perceptions of parcelization in Wisconsin’s Northwoods. J For 101:18–23
Rickenbach M, Jahnke A (2006) Wisconsin private sector foresters’ involvement in nonindustrial private forestland cross-boundary forestry practices. North J Appl For 23:100–105
Rickenbach M, Zeuli K, Sturgess-Cleek E (2005) Despite failure: the emergence of “new’’ forest owners in private forest policy in Wisconsin, USA. Scand J For Res 20:503–513
Rickenbach MG, Guries RP, Schmoldt DL (2006) Membership matters: comparing members and non-members of NIPF owner organizations in southwest Wisconsin, USA. For Pol Econ 8:93–103
Sampson N, DeCoster L (2000) Forests fragmentation: implications for sustainable private forests. J For 98:4–8
Schulte LA, Mitchell RJ, Hunter Jr ML, Franklin JF, McIntyre RK, Palik BJ (2006) Evaluating the conceptual tools for forest biodiversity conservation. For Ecol Manage 232:1–11
Semlitsch RD, Ryan TJ, Hamed K, Chatfield M, Drehman B, Pekarek N, Spath M, Watland A (2007) Salamander abundance along road edges and within abandoned logging roads in Appalachian forests. Conserv Biol 21:159–167
Shannon MA (1991) Resource managers as policy entrepreneurs. J For 89:27–30
Shockley T, Martin AJ (2000) Estimating management plan implementation in northeast Wisconsin. North J Appl For 17:135–140
Skally C (2003) Recommended vision, goals, and strategies: Southeast landscape. Document #LP-0603. Minnesota Forest Resources Council, St. Paul, MN, USA
Smith MD, Krannich RS (2000) “Culture clash” revisited: newcomer and longer-term residents’ attitudes toward land use, development, and environmental issues in rural communities in the Rocky Mountain West. Rural Soc 65:396–421
Society of American Foresters [SAF] (1993) Sustaining long-term forest health and productivity. Publication 93–02. Society of American Foresters. Bethesda, MD, USA, 83 pp
Stevens TH, Dennis D, Kittredge D, Rickenbach M (1999) Attitiudes and preferences toward co-operative agreements for management of private forestlands in the North-eastern United States. J Environ Manage 55:81–90
Theobald DM, Miller JR, Hobbs NT (1997) Estimating the cumulative effects of development on wildlife habitat. Landsc Urban Plan 39:25–36
Turner MG, Wear DN, Flamm RO (1996) Land ownership and land-cover change in the southern Appalachian highlands and the Olympic peninsula. Ecol Appl 6:1150–1172
U.S. Forest Service (2006) Forest inventory and analysis national program. Published on internet server http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/ [last accessed January 13, 2008]
Ward BC, Mladenoff DJ, Scheller RM (2005) Simulating landscape-level effects of constraints to public forest regeneration harvests due to adjacent residential development in northern Wisconsin. For Sci 51:616–632
Wear DN, Turner MG, Flamm RO (1996) Ecosystem management with multiple owners: landscape dynamics in a southern Appalachian watershed. Ecol Appl 6:1173–1188
Wear DN, Turner MG, Naiman RJ (1999) Land cover along an urban-rural gradient: implications for water quality. Ecol Appl 8:619–630
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources [WI DNR] (2006a) Western coulee and ridges landscape—general management opportunities. Published on internet server http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/landscapes/index.asp?mode=detail&Landscape=11&Section=general [last accessed January 13, 2008]
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources [WI DNR] (2006b) Stumpage rate archives. Published on internet server http://dnr.wi.gov/forestry/Private/Harvest/archives.htm [last accessed October 8, 2007]
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources [WI DNR] (2007) Managed forest law. Published on internet server http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/forestry/ftax/mfl.htm [last accessed October 8, 2007]