Abstract
Ecosystem services consistently group together both spatially and cognitively into “bundles”. Understanding socio-economic predictors of these bundles is essential to informing a management approach that emphasizes equitable distribution of ecosystem services. We received 1796 completed surveys from stakeholders of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (WA, USA) using both in-person workshops and an online platform. Survey respondents rated the importance of 26 ecosystem services. Subsequent analysis revealed six distinct preference bundles of these services: environmental quality, utilitarian values, heritage values, two types of recreational values, and access and roads. Results suggest that the conceptualizations of these bundles are consistent across socio-demographic groups. Resource agencies that seek to frame dialogue around critical values may want to consider these broadly representative bundle sets as a meaningful organizing framework that would resonate with diverse constituents.
Highlights
Our findings demonstrate that aggregate analyses of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (MBSNF) stakeholder population provide interesting information for how ecosystem services (ES) preferences bundle into six categories, and that the conceptualization of these bundles varies little by residential classification or other demographics
The fact that we found only weak, if any, socio-demographic correlates to the perceived relationships of ES within preference bundles is in contrast to our qualitative experiences with planning in the region, where vocal rural residents often associate “human-powered recreation” with urban conservationists, who have to escape the city to enjoy nature’s benefits
We suggest that the value differences between urban and rural dwellers identified by the social forestry literature [25,26,28] may still be present, but they are certainly not dominant across all residents of those residential classifications
Summary
The ecosystem services (ES) framework has increasingly been adopted for managing natural resources on state lands, such as national parks, forests, reserves, or refuges. As conceptualized in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), ES provide a classification system for forest managers to consider a breadth of ecosystem benefits as well as a framework for discussing tradeoffs among benefits [1]. ES can serve as a useful tool to help forest managers define and evaluate progress toward both social and ecological objectives [2,3]. The U.S Forest Service (USFS) is responsible for overseeing 154 national forests and 20 national grasslands throughout the United States and its territories [4]. Originally established as forest reserves to supply timber in support of US military efforts and national emergency needs, the Multiple
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
