Incorporating Cultural Ecosystem Services into Forest Management ...

For. Sci. 60(6):1172–1179 http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/forsci.13-710 Copyright © 2014 Society of American Foresters

APPLIED RESEARCH

silviculture

Incorporating Cultural Ecosystem Services into Forest Management Strategies for Private Landowners: An Illinois Case Study Jake T. Hendee and Courtney G. Flint As foresters struggle to engage private forest landowners with sustainable forestry practices, research highlights the value of amenities and nontimber goods and services to landowners. With the value landowners place on this range of “cultural ecosystem services” (CES) and the demonstrated ability of CES to drive individual forest management decisions, we use a participant observation approach in east-central Illinois to examine practitioner opportunities to better address landowners’ CES goals. Results illustrate the bundle of CES that landowners enjoy and illustrate a range of compatibility and conflict landowners perceive between active forest management and enjoyment of CES. Based on a preliminary framework derived from the literature to make forestry more compatible with landowners’ CES values, we identify practitioner uncertainties and research avenues to better address four specific CES considerations: aesthetics management, natural resource interpretation, recreation considerations, and land legacy. Keywords: private forest landowners, cultural ecosystem services, ecosystem services, Illinois, Central Hardwoods Region

T

he relative importance of forests for solidwood products is growing at a time when their contributions to Man’s enjoyment and spiritual needs are also increasing. Wood as a material product is abundant, but well-managed wooded, unspoiled, countryside, and mountains suitable for the enjoyment of the millions is becoming scarce indeed…A population that is affluent, highly mobile, and increasing at an alarming rate will require new services from our forests and the best efforts of our foresters” (Illinois Technical Forestry Association 1965, p. 34). While the Illinois Technical Forestry Association’s musings about the “forestry in the future” in a long-forgotten silvicultural manual may have overinflated the expected market impact of forest products from Illinois woodlands, these technical silviculturists certainly understood the importance of aesthetic, recreational, cultural, and spiritual values of private forestland— or cultural ecosystem services (CES)—well before the greater forestry community recognized this imperative. They further predicted: “The practicing forester unable to meet the new challenges will soon be discredited and with him will be lost a segment of professional prestige slowly established over the decades” (p. 34). Nearly five decades later, a number of calls for change (e.g., Luckert 2006, Hull 2011) support the idea that the professional “

forester has indeed lost significant influence at the expense of the forest resource. Despite many calls for change over the decades, forest landowner surveys (e.g., Butler 2008) continue to show astonishingly low rates of engagement between foresters and the private landowners who make the decisions that shape the forest landscape. In this paper, we review the concept of CES and examine relevant literature that demonstrates the importance of CES to forest landowner decisions. Once we establish the critical importance of CES to forest landowner decisions, we also highlight the underemphasized status of CES by practitioners, scientists, and policymakers. Approaching full consideration of CES as a means to both engage landowners with forest management and incentivize landowners to protect dwindling private forest resources, we review the literature for strategies to more fully incorporate the range of CES into the practitioner toolbox. One challenge we seek to overcome is the conflict between managing for CES and managing for the range of other ecosystem services provided by private forestlands. We then present a case from east-central Illinois. To complement the range of methodologies used to study the low engagement of forest landowners with natural resource professionals, we employ participant observation methodology developed and implemented

Manuscript received April 7, 2013; accepted January 20, 2014; published online February 13, 2014. Affiliations: Jake T. Hendee ([email protected]), National Great Rivers Research and Education Center, East Alton, IL. Courtney G. Flint ([email protected]), Utah State University. Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge and thank USDA McIntire–Stennis funding for making this research possible, the Illinois Department of Resources—Forest Resources Division for a fruitful partnership, and the many landowners who agreed to participate in our work. 1172

Forest Science • December 2014

in close coordination with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources’ Division of Forest Resources. The lead author and participant observer conducted this research as part of his duties as a field forestry intern with the agency. We present landowner participants’ perceptions of CES and how landowners perceive forest management affects those CES. Then, we discuss avenues to better incorporate CES considerations into practitioner management strategies.

Literature Review CES Introduced

In 2005, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) popularized a new conceptual framework describing human well-being as critically dependent on a range of services produced by ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Carpenter et al. 2009). The assessment categorized these ecosystem services into four types: CES, provisioning ecosystem services, regulating ecosystem services, and supporting ecosystem services. Since the MA, this popular framework has proven especially promising to conceptually incorporate consideration of nonmarket good and services into environmental decisionmaking (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007). Policy that fails to recognize the value of these nonmarket services—services that nonetheless benefit human well-being—leads to output levels inconsistent with demand for these services (Costanza et al. 1997, Boyd and Banzhaf 2007). For example, production of provisioning ecosystems services for human consumption such as food and water occurs at the expense of the other types of ecosystem services if nonmarket effects are not appropriately considered by policymakers (Carpenter et al. 2009). The MA defined CES as “nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experience” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, p. 40). Due to the ambiguous and difficult-to-quantify nature of CES, CES oftentimes fall within the domain of nonmarket ecosystem services and are frequently neglected or the least well-integrated component in ecosystem assessments and policy decisions (Schaich et al. 2010, Daniel et al. 2012). Despite the difficulty of identifying CES and quantifying their value to society as a whole, an important footnote to the CES literature is the ability of CES to drive individual actions. Schaich et al. (2010) best articulate the potential of CES and hint at the benefit of better incorporating CES into policy and practice: “… cultural ecosystem services represent one of the strong incentives for people in developed countries to become involved in environmental conservation” (Philips 1998, p. 270). Daniel et al. (2012) agree CES have also “played an important role in motivating public support for the protection of ecosystems” (p. 6). In the next section, we introduce private forest landowners as an example of individuals whose actions, or inaction, are influenced strongly by CES they enjoy from their forestlands. Private Forest Landowners and CES

Despite the recent popularization of the ecosystem services framework, decades of private forest landowner research outside of this new framework have nonetheless increasingly indicated that landowners value intangible benefits of beauty, scenery, nature, and privacy (e.g., Mignery 1956, Butler 2008). A growing long-term body of evidence indicates that these “nontimber goods and services” are a key variable in changing demographics of forest landowners and rapid changes in private forest parcel characteristics and

land use (Zhang et al. 2005). These landowners increasingly have adopted passive management strategies focused on CES (Zhang et al. 2005), despite policy initiatives to actively manage forestlands for an array of other objectives or ecosystem services. For example, small parcel purchasers— oftentimes second homeowners—are willing to pay substantially more to purchase a fragment of solitude to enjoy than a working landowner is willing to pay to purchase and hold an intact tract of working forestland or farmland to be managed for multiple uses. Recent literature has identified negative impacts to wildlife habitat, water quality, timber production, and a range of other services from this trend (e.g., Stein et al. 2005). These noncultural ecosystem services that benefit the greater public beyond parcel boundaries appear to be directly competing with the CES within parcel boundaries that drive individual forest landowner decisions to cease active forest management, parcelize property, and develop exurban residential parcels. Forestry researchers and practitioners have not entirely ignored the influence of CES on landowner decisions. Research has demonstrated the multidimensional goals and objectives of forest landowners, including landowners’ emphasis on nontimber goals and objectives (Egan 1997). In a call for foresters to integrate a wider variety of goods and services in forestry practice, Jones et al. (1995) advocated that foresters “reexamine both our audiences and our messages” (p. 44). In a call to incorporate a wider range of forestry considerations, Bliss (2000) stated “forest practices will not be acceptable unless they are compatible with prevailing beliefs and values–and until public trust in forestry is restored.” More recent arguments have sought to emphasize the importance of listening to the concerns of stakeholders as opposed to dictating forest management goals (Luckert 2006). Listening to concerns of stakeholders and private landowners would likely place more emphasis on CES, perhaps at the expense of other ecosystem services. Since the Illinois Technical Forestry Association highlighted the challenge in 1965, finding forestry strategies that balance the enjoyment of CES with the production and enjoyment of other ecosystem services is shaping up to be the grand challenge to wide-scale practice of sustainable forestry on private lands in Illinois and the rest of United States. CES in Forestry Practice

Our review of the literature highlighted four avenues in which forestry practice currently incorporates CES considerations into management of private forestland. These same four avenues also provide opportunities for practitioners to provide more value to forest landowners by better addressing CES considerations and outputs. We review these four general considerations: (1) better integrating research findings on forest aesthetics into practice, (2) applying literature and principles on natural interpretation to serving private forest landowners, (3) utilizing family forest planning, intergenerational land transfer mechanisms, and land protection tools, and (4) focusing on managing for compatibility with recreational uses of private forested parcels. Aesthetic Management Techniques

Extensive literature addresses incorporating aesthetics-related techniques into multiple-use forest management. Ribe (1989) summarized decades of empirical work on maintaining forest scenery in a few lines: … big trees are attractive, moderately stocked more open stands are preferred, ground slash and other evidence of harvests are disliked, Forest Science • December 2014

1173

ground vegetation enhances forest scenes, evidence of fire detracts from beauty, and species variety can enhance the same (p. 70)

Ribe suggested these findings are not unpredictable, given some expected variability among individuals and among populations. These summary guidelines nonetheless provide a few ways to make active forest management and CES more compatible. The guidelines imply that uneven-aged management, thinning, a focus on diversity, and forest slash treatments would be more frequently perceived positively while fire and more intensive treatments would be received with less enthusiasm. The application of additional aesthetics management techniques is possible. Techniques to assess landowner perceptions with visual examples of forest management treatments are becoming more accessible, beginning with early experimental techniques such as Daniel and Boster’s (1976) Scenic Beauty Estimation Method. More recently, computer-based forest visualization techniques are advancing very quickly although a number of hurdles remain to widespread field deployment of these techniques (Wang et al. 2006). Forest visualization software presents the possibility of previewing a management plan before it happens (Sheppard and Harshaw 2001). Stoltman et al. (2004) predicted the adoption of these techniques will be analogous to the earlier adoption of geographic information systems (GIS) techniques. Natural Resources Interpretation

In studying the effect of financial incentive programs, Kilgore et al. (2007) found landowners highly value something as basic as access to a forestry practitioner to “walk the land” (p. 184) with them. This desire puts the practitioner in as much of a natural resource interpreter role as a traditional forestry assistance role. Natural resource interpretation seeks to increase appreciation of values of natural resources by catering to the public’s desire for educational, recreational, and inspirational individual benefits (Knudson et al. 1995). Curricula have been developed to educate natural resource professionals about natural resource interpretation (e.g., Knudson et al. 1995, Tilden and Craig 2007). Despite being a well-established field, the natural resource interpretation literature focuses within the bounds of public land management and does not specifically address interpretation aspects of working with private landowners. As private landowners continue to focus on CES, translating interpretation principles into the private land context may provide avenues for landowners to enjoy additional values from their woodlands. It may pay dividends to rethink established frameworks such as Tilden and Craig’s (2007) six principles of effective interpretation to include private landowners as consumers of this natural resource information, seeking and appreciating new educational and inspirational values of their woodlands. For example, an effective interpretation of a private landowner’s woodland may increase that landowner’s appreciation of ecological, historical, and cultural values associated with that woodland or woodland type. In concert with the need identified by Kilgore et al. (2007) for practitioners to just “walk the land” to address landowner concerns and objectives, the interpretation literature suggests effective interpretation of unique values would likely serve to drive actions through increased understanding and appreciation of additional values and services. Connecting Land, Legacy, and Heritage

In their MA chapter on CES, De Groot and Ramakrishnan (2005) highlighted the strong connections between cultural heritage 1174


values and ecosystem function in cultural landscapes. Further, they discussed various policy mechanisms used across the world to protect these cultural landscapes from degradation (De Groot and Ramakrishnan 2005). One recent focus of forestry researchers, and likewise a focus of early adopters among forestry practitioners, has been avenues to tie land, landowner legacy, and heritage. The role of intergenerational planning mechanisms, including land protection mechanisms, to conserve the cultural and ecological value of the private forest landscape in the United States has been increasingly studied (e.g., Broderick et al. 1994, Tyson and Broderick 1999, Majumbar et al. 2009). Practitioners have followed suit with efforts such as Oregon State University’s Ties to the Land initiative and publications such as the USDA Forest Service’s Preserving the Family Woods (2009) publication. These focused efforts have incorporated aspects such as estate planning, tax planning, conservation easements, and other land protection mechanisms into traditional forestry practice to keep to keep family forestlands and family legacies intact. Forest Recreation

Like natural resource interpretation, the literature about forest recreation (e.g., Douglass 2000) focuses on public recreation and visitor management and leaves a gap as to how recreation considerations can be best incorporated into practice on private forestlands. One approach has been to consider the spatially explicit impacts of forest management on recreation values. Pukkala et al. (1995) developed a model to maximize overall utility when considering timber, aesthetic, and recreational outputs together. Using recreational values that were empirically determined from a sample of users (Pukkala et al. 1988), they were able to examine the effect of three different management scenarios to maximize the recreational and amenity outputs and, thus, overall utility derived from that piece of woodland. Case Study: East-Central Illinois

For this inquiry, we focused our case study on a 13-county region of east-central Illinois. Forestlands in east-central Illinois produce high-value hardwoods but are sparsely distributed because of flat topography and prime agricultural soils in the region. Working forestlands are pressured by the demand for wooded residential lots and small recreational parcels. In this region, oak-hickory-dominated forests of central Illinois transition to include more mesic species along the Indiana border to the east. Much like the rest of Illinois (Crocker 2009), the oak resource is dwindling as lack of forest management and lack of disturbance shift the region’s forests to more maple-dominated forests. This shift is accompanied by changes to ecosystem services: loss of wildlife habitat, loss of biological diversity, loss of timber values, but oftentimes a gain in CES values enjoyed from these undisturbed and passively managed disturbance-dependent forests. Forest landowners in east-central Illinois experience a favorable tax situation to keep forestlands intact; many receive Illinois Forestry Development Act current use property tax rates or agricultural current use property tax rates. Needs of forest landowners—including forest management planning required by the Illinois Forestry Development Act for favorable property tax rates—are met by limited technical assistance from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and private consulting foresters. We present the participant observation methodology of our case study focused on two sets of landowners: (1) previously engaged

landowners familiar with forest management through the Illinois Forestry Development Act and (2) previously unengaged landowners recruited from watershed-level outreach. Then, we present the results of our forester-landowner interactions, with a general focus on landowners’ CES considerations. Finally, we discuss these results within the context of the specific opportunities to incorporate CES into private forest management, with the goal of more effectively integrating landowner goals with practitioner tool sets.

Methods Participant observation methodology is employed to immerse the researcher in “everyday life situations and settings” from an insider’s perspective (Jorgensen 1989, p. 23). This allows a unique perspective into everyday interaction and the meaning attached to that interaction that more positivistic methodologies struggle to comprehend (Jorgensen 1989). The participant observation methodology was used in this case study to provide insider access to forester-landowner interactions. During a 6-month forestry internship developed specifically to meet the objectives of this research and to assist with the IDNR’s goal of addressing forestry assistance needs of private forest landowners, the lead author conducted this research in his duties as field forester providing assistance to private landowners. The partnership established with the IDNR Division of Forest Resources provided the opportunity to work with landowners in a 13-county district in east-central Illinois, providing general forestry technical assistance with private landowners, including initial site visits with landowners, developing forest management plans, timber sale administration, timber stand improvement support, and USDA conservation programs assistance. Forestry assistance was provided in the field by the lead author with an IDNR district forester or independently by the lead author in close coordination with that IDNR district forester. Consenting landowners were initially informed that field observations of the technical assistance experience would be documented; data collection was otherwise not noticeable during site visits. A standardized protocol was used to document these interactions. After the site visit, this research protocol document was completed for each participating landowner. The results are descriptive field notes produced from interactions and observations of forest landowners’ decisionmaking. Interactions between the lead author and private landowners were not audio-recorded. Because results described are descriptive and because all subjectivity cannot be disassociated from the research results in participant observation, further empirical testing of the results and interpretation may be a necessary avenue for further research. Participants were recruited in one of two primary ways. The first set of participants was the set of traditional IDNR clients, with most assistance initiated as a result of these landowners contacting IDNR to request forestry assistance. These 15 landowners were assisted in the course of daily IDNR activities and were asked if they would consent to participate in research related to the site visits. IDNR forestry assistance to these landowners was provided within the framework of the division’s mandate to administer the Illinois Forestry Development Act (IFDA). This act provides current-use taxation and cost-share incentives for enrolled landowners to produce timber. IFDA requires landowners to have a written forest management plan and a primary goal of timber production to qualify for IFDA benefits. Some of these landowners already had a forest management plan and had already worked with a forester; some were new to working with IDNR.

The second set of participants was recruited specifically for the purposes of this study. Private forest landowners in Piatt, Champaign, and Vermilion counties in east-central Illinois were contacted via US mail with the opportunity to receive forestry assistance and to participate in this research project. Seventy-eight private forest landowners with greater than 10 acres of forestland were identified in the following four US Geological Survey (USGS)designated hydrologic unit code (HUC) 12 watersheds: Lake of the Woods–Sangamon River, Spring Lake–Sangamon River, Archie Creek–Little Vermilion River, and Fairview Drain–Little Vermilion River. All 78 landowners were contacted via US mail, and 17 elected to participate in the project. Site visits were conducted with each participating landowner, and formal forest management plans were prepared for 11 of these 17 landowners. A third set of landowners whose characteristics and objectives may not be fully reflected in research results are the landowners who did not participate in our project, despite our outreach to targeted areas. A few of the many reasons these landowners did not participate may include being an absentee landowner, otherwise unavailable, already practicing forestry with a consulting forester, unwilling to participate in work perceived to be from a traditional forestry agency, or simply unconvinced of the value in meeting with a forester. Despite this limitation, the first two sets of landowners—those already engaged with forestry and those willing to meet with a forester after targeted outreach—reached a broader swath of landowners than is currently actively practicing forestry or working with qualified forestry practitioners in Illinois.

Results Forest landowner participants in this study typically owned relatively small acreages. Nine of the 32 (28%) owned more than 50 acres; none owned more than 100 acres. Twenty (63%) landowners lived on their forested parcel. Twenty (63%) landowners were estimated to be over the age of 50, 11 (34%) were estimated to be under the age of 50, and one was not estimated. Of those not living on their parcel, very few resided more than a 1-hour drive from their forestland. Twenty-five (78%) landowners received agricultural income from their properties, but only three (9%) were full-time agricultural producers. The remaining 22 agricultural landowners relied on part-time agricultural employment or land rent income, including Conservation Reserve Program income. Participating landowners assisted were primarily males (25 of 32, 78%), but four couples and three females participated. There were noticeable differences in forestland objectives among landowners who contacted IDNR for forestry assistance and those who were contacted purposely to recruit participation in this study. Those engaged with IDNR were more likely to be timber oriented, but only three of 15 IDNR-engaged participants described timber as the top goal of practicing forestry. The vast majority of landowners identified one or more CES as a primary use or a primary goal of owning forested property. The CES of aesthetics, solitude, wildlife, generational and heritage values, experiencing nature, and hunting and other recreation were frequently cited and highly valued. In many cases, landowners could not specifically tease apart the specific CES they enjoyed about owning forestland and instead referred to forestland ownership as an overall experience that provided value to them. Field notes from four different landowners illustrate the appreciation of a bundle of CES—the woodland ownership experience—rather than strongly singling out one CES above the others. Forest Science • December 2014

1175

The “what does your land provide” question, as always, provoked the telltale response of what they appreciated about their woods: “a barrier,” “full of wildlife,” “it’s priceless.” (Field Notes) When asked what the land provides to them, (the landowner) mentioned “protects from wind” and “shade.” His wife chimed in with more basic and to-the-point ecosystem services: “quiet” and “green.” When asked goals for the future, they agreed on “just privacy.” (Field Notes) He identified his goal very simply: Maintain nature. Don’t try to disturb it any more than he needs to. When asked what his management activities were, he replied: “take care of it ‘til I die.” (Field Notes) … (the landowner’s) goals for the woods now, conservatory for wildlife, refuge, “beyond my generation,” “better trees, better species, commercial value” … (Field Notes) Managing these small woodlands in central Illinois brought up a range of landowners’ perceptions about the conflict and compatibility of practicing active forestry, introducing disturbance, yet enjoying CES. Landowners frequently deliberated, verbally and nonverbally, about whether forestry disturbance would “trash” the woods. It was perceived that forestry ought to be low impact, but in practice, forestry was not seen as low impact at all. Field notes taken about one landowner reflect this internal dialogue about the tradeoffs between active management and CES. When talking about timber, he referenced a harvest down the road from him where the timber company told him they were an ecologically sound outfit (no clearcutting), but he wasn’t impressed. He said that “conservative” is the way he acts in timber management … After going on for a bit longer, he said: “No timbering as long as I’m alive.” (Field Notes) A few landowners, especially among those already working with IDNR prior to this project, viewed their trees as a crop. There was a strong caution expressed, however, when referring to trees as a crop. The owners of this large, intensive agricultural operation had amassed an impressive volume per acre of white oak timber with patience and caution: (The landowners) were farmers—farmers concerned in maintaining a sustainable resource through very conservative management. (Field Notes) These landowners were not particularly enthusiastic about introducing the forest disturbance of a commercial timber harvest, despite the financial incentive to do so and their real and perceived need to thin the timber. This was not unique. Most landowners expressed significant hesitation at the idea of harvesting timber because of the risk of negative impacts: When I asked goals for the property, they zoomed right in on timber. Not that they wanted to harvest timber, rather it was something that they don’t want to do but realize that they should. To paraphrase (the landowner): “I don’t want there to be a lot of removal, but I realize that we should.” They really enjoyed owning the property, and any sort of financial benefit from anything but the farm was the last thing on their minds. (Field Notes) In the disturbance-dependent, oak-dominated forests of Illinois, restoring or maintaining oak regeneration was difficult unless financial motivations factored into management decisions: (The landowner) and (wife) were the typical antidisturbance landowners. When talking about the property, they owned for pleasure and wildlife (and firewood), they talked about management in terms of “maintaining” it. When walking the upland part of the property, it was apparent the oaks would eventually die and be gone forever, but I could not bring myself to suggest (practices aimed at) bringing back the oaks. 1176


Only after this did (the landowner) mention that somebody had been trying to buy his walnut—which I would later find a few MASSIVE veneer quality walnuts along the bottom. He said his main concern with harvest was tearing up his steep road (sic). Plus, he said money was not a huge issue. (Field Notes) This elderly landowner and his wife would likely watch highquality oak-dominated timber succeed to its less desirable shade-tolerant competitors in their lifetime, thereby slowly losing a range of ecosystem services. However, they would also continue to passively enjoy the benefits of multiple CES from their back porch overlooking their piece of woodlands along the Sangamon River. Many landowners did not perceive value in engaging a forester, even though they were receptive to forest management practices. The following field notes describe a typical landowner who had never engaged a forester on his property. (The landowner) and his wife were historically underserved forest landowners. They were affluent, white, and interested in enjoying their land but were either (1) not convinced that a forester was necessary for their management style or (2) not aware of services available through the state to walk the land with them. (Field Notes) This landowner went on to complete a cost-share contract to treat invasive species and initiate landscape-level discussions about invasive species seed sources along the Sangamon River corridor. Despite having willing landowners to work with, it was not always easy to identify the benefit of engaging private landowners with forestry or to identify opportunities to provide valuable, relevant technical assistance. Small properties were especially difficult to manage for anything but the passive enjoyment of CES: They were going to use goats to clear the understory—and this really made sense for their goals: no timber, nice-looking forest. Did this take away from ecosystem services of the property? Not much, if at all. Could a forester help them? Not much, if at all. (Field Notes) The future of most of these properties was uncertain, but discussions tended to reflect many of the landowners had put some thought into the intergenerational aspects of ownership. Of the 32, at least four mentioned some sort of permanent land protection option, such as donation to a public entity. Children were often part of their parents’ plans, but the parents’ land was not always in the children’s plans: When talking about the future, he stated that he planted for the grandkids. He said his son who lives (out of town) is interested, but (the landowner) seemed to accept that that was a distant possibility. He said his alternative plan was to leave it to Department of Conservation. The state of forest mesophication on this property near the Indiana border meant its primary use would be this landowner enjoying CES for the near future. Restoration of the character of this formerly oak-dominated woodland did not seem to be in this site’s future, even if the intergenerational transfer issues were resolved.

Discussion Our participant observation case study in east-central Illinois provided access to two cross sections of forest landowners at the epicenter of decisionmaking. First, we were able to access landowners who had traditionally known and worked with IDNR and its timber-centric IFDA program. Second, we were able to access a more general cross section of forest landowners who were interested in learning more about options for their land but who had not necessarily thought about traditional forest management. These two sets of landowners held very different perspectives on forest management but largely agreed about the importance of CES.

Preference for CES

As with most previous research of forest landowner decisionmaking, our results highlighted and confirmed that the vast majority of landowners owned land for one or many CES. They enjoyed at least one type of CES on their land and often viewed CES as a bundle of values they enjoyed. Forest landowners with a history of forest management and familiarity with IDNR’s IFDA program were more likely to interpret CES as compatible with timber production and other types of active management. Still, they were also very cautious in applying forest management actions on their land because of the potential to impact the range of CES values. The cross section of landowners who did not have experience with IDNR and active forest management largely perceived active management and disturbance as a threat to the CES values they already enjoyed. Many of these landowners lived on smaller, residential parcels with high CES values and lower potential to produce forest products or environmental services. Opportunities to Incorporate CES in Forest Management

A top priority for many of our landowner participants, as well as a top priority commonly identified in mail surveys of forest landowners, has been enjoying CES, whether landowners practiced forest management or not. Despite landowner sentiment that inaction and passive enjoyment of CES was the best land stewardship approach, policy interventions and strategies (e.g., IDNR 2010) have identified passive management or lack of management as a statewide problem negatively affecting Illinois forests. The IDNR identified “decline of oak dominance” as the top threat to the Illinois forest resource, implicating lack of disturbance and management as a driver of the loss of biological diversity, wildlife habitat, and timber production (IDNR 2010). Since Illinois landowners’ actions appear to be defined by CES, the oak problem illustrates the tradeoffs of solely enjoying CES at the expense of other ecosystem services. Based on this study of forest landowners in east-central Illinois and our literature review of opportunities to incorporate CES considerations into private forest management, we briefly synthesize how landowners in our case study responded to each of these considerations, what uncertainties practitioners face in responding to CES considerations, and research gaps to better address continued enjoyment of CES by landowners. We also illustrate the challenge of CES with an example from our case study: aesthetic considerations in managing disturbance-dependent, oak-dominated forestlands. Forest Management for Aesthetics

Aesthetics was the most important consideration across our samples of Illinois forest landowners. Practitioner uncertainties included the ability to illustrate management before it happens and understand how landowners perceive actual aesthetic impacts of forest management. Research that may improve forest management for aesthetics includes improvement of visualization software and other visualization techniques, development of more detailed and regionally specific perceptions of aesthetics, and examination of outreach techniques that better address aesthetic concerns and values of landowners. Aesthetics in Oak Silviculture: A Regionally Specific Example

One issue of concern in Illinois has been the transition of disturbance-dependent, oak-dominated forests to forests dominated by less desired mesic species (Groninger and Long 2008, IDNR 2010). As referenced in the field notes, managing for the historically oak-

dominated forest type was an omnipresent dilemma when working with landowners in east-central Illinois. Woodlands of landowners hesitant to introduce forest management disturbance were experiencing state changes from oak dominance to dominance by mesic invaders. Consequently, the suite of ecosystem services provided by these forests was being degraded over time, despite maintaining CES enjoyed by landowners. Oak management poses an interesting ethical dilemma as foresters find themselves contributing to this problem as they most commonly employ the use of low impact forestry, such as the single-tree selection system (Jenkins and Parker 1998) to meet the aesthetic needs of clients. Ozier et al. (2006) predicted this selection system will eventually result in “landscapewide loss of keystone species” (p. 267). Jacobs and Wray (1992) attempt to address the challenge of jointly managing for oak and aesthetics by listing five aesthetics principles for the intensive nature of managing for oak: (1)

Minimize evidence of logging.

(2)

(Visually) screen clearcuts.

(3)

Avoid straight borders.

(4)

Leave snags and scattered trees.

(5)

Deliberately create vistas.

These unexceptional solutions for this example illustrate an important step toward addressing aesthetics challenges in this case of requisite intensive forest management to address an ecological problem, but a great deal of work must be done by researchers and practitioners to improve the effectiveness of low impact techniques or find a way to more effectively work with landowners to implement more intensive solutions. Interpretation in Private Forest Management

Landowners in our case study demonstrated that they valued the chance to be in the woods with a practitioner, and they valued new knowledge about the aspects of their forestland. Because of a simple transaction of useful and engaging new information, it is feasible to expect these landowners may have become more invested in their respective forestlands. Practitioner uncertainties included the types of information landowners most valued from an interpretative and educational perspective. A CES research agenda could assess the interpretation needs of landowners and identify commonalties among landowners’ educational desires. Long-Term Planning as Forest Stewardship

Landowners in this case study generally relied on children continuing their legacy, while a few considered allowing ownership of a public agency to continue their legacy. References to long-term legacy of the forestland were more frequent than we expected beforehand. Landowners were also largely unaware of the suite of long-term forestland planning options. Practitioner uncertainties included understanding all land planning options and best ways to present these options to landowners. CES research gaps include identifying better information about how landowners make intergenerational decisions for their forestland and better social science information about the acceptability of options that practitioners might introduce. Forest Science • December 2014

1177

Recreation Considerations for Private Forest Management

Most of the landowners we worked with the Illinois were actively using their property for some type of recreation—most often hunting. Of all CES, recreation seemed to be the least in conflict with forest management, yet practitioner planning could have been improved by introducing strategies to complement recreation activities with forest management. In the case of negative forest management impacts, it may have helped to understand how landowners were using their properties spatially and temporally for recreation to adjust forest management disturbance. Research gaps to address might include developing more information about how landowners perceive how common recreation types are impacted by forest management and inventorying best practices to avoid these recreational impacts.

Conclusion Despite the recent advent and popularization of the ecosystem services framework, a century of forest landowner research is clear on two points. First, landowners enjoy bundles of CES. Second, many landowners perceive risks to CES from forest management, even if this forest management may lead to a wider range of ecosystem services that individuals and society can enjoy. Makeshift adaptation, such as our example of the implementation of a low impact single-tree selection silvicultural system in a landscape where more intensive management is necessary to address the issue of oak loss, is commonplace within forestry practice and recognizes the intricate dance between maintaining CES values for private landowners and producing other ecosystem services such as forest products, water quality, and wildlife habitat. Our case study provides a situated analysis of landowners’ decisionmaking processes and illustrates potential avenues to more systematically incorporate CES enjoyment and forestry practice to better engage forest landowners with forestry practice and policy initiatives. Utilizing and building on our preliminary framework developed from existing literature, resolution of practitioner uncertainties and exploration of identified research questions will better meet the needs of the private landowners who control the forested landscape in the United States.

Literature Cited BLISS, J.C. 2000. Public Perceptions of Clearcutting. J. For. 98(12):4 –9. BOYD, J., AND S. BANZHAF. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol. Econ. 63(2–3): 616 – 626. BRODERICK, S.H., K.P. HADDEN, AND B. HENINGER. 1994. The next generation’s forest: Woodland owners’ attitudes toward estate planning and land preservation in Connecticut. North. J. Appl. For. 11(2):47–52. BUTLER, B.J. 2008. Family forest owners of the United States, 2006. USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR NRS-27, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. 72 p. CARPENTER, S.R., H.A. MOONEY, J. AGARD, D. CAPISTRANO, R.S. DEFRIES, S. DIAZ, T. DIETZ, ET AL. 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106(5):1305–1312. COSTANZA, R., R. D’ARGE, R. DEGROOT, S. FARBER, M. GRASSO, B. HANNON, K. LIMBURG, ET AL. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(6630):253–260. CROCKER, S.J. 2009. Illinois’ forest resources, 2007. USDA, For. Serv., Res. Note NRS-35, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. 4 p. DANIEL, T.C., AND R.S. BOSTER. 1976. Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method. USDA For. Serv., Res. Pap. RM-167, 1178


Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 66 p. DANIEL, T.C., A. MUHAR, A. ARNBERGER, O. AZNAR, J.W. BOYD, K.M.A. CHAN, R. COSTANZA, ET AL. 2012. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109(23): 8812– 8819. DE GROOT, R., AND P.S. RAMAKRISHNAN. 2005. Cultural and amenity services. P. 455– 476 in Ecosystems and human well-being: Current state and trends, Volume 1, Hassan, R., R. Scholes, and N. Ash (eds.). Island Press, Washington, DC. DOUGLASS, R.W. 2000. Forest recreation. Waveland Press, Long Grove, IL. 392 p. EGAN, A.F. 1997. From timber to forests and people: A view of nonindustrial private forest research. North. J. Appl. For. 14(4):189 –193. GRONINGER, J.W., AND M.A. LONG. 2008. Oak ecosystem management considerations for central hardwoods stands arising from silvicultural clearcutting. North. J. Appl. For. 25(4):173–179. HULL, R.B. 2011. Forestry’s conundrum: High value, low relevance. J. For. 109(1):50 –56. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (IDNR). 2010. Illinois statewide forest resource assessments and strategies. IL Dept. of Natural Resources, Carbondale, IL. 42 p. ILLINOIS TECHNICAL FORESTRY ASSOCIATION, INC. 1965. Recommended silviculture and management practices for Illinois hardwood forest types. IL Tech. For. Assoc., Springfield, IL. 46 p. JACOBS, R.D., AND R.D. WRAY. 1992. Managing oak in the driftless area. Minnesota Extension Service, NR-BU-5900-S, St. Paul, MN. 32 p. JENKINS, M.A., AND G.R. PARKER. 1998. Composition and diversity of woody vegetation in silvicultural openings of southern Indiana forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 109(1–3):57–74. JONES, S.B., A.E. LULOFF, AND J.C. FINLEY. 1995. Another look at NIPFs: Facing our “myths.” J. For. 93(9):41– 44. JORGENSEN, D.L. 1989. Participant observation: A method for human studies. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA. 133 p. KILGORE, M.A., J.L. GREENE, M.G. JACOBSON, T.J. STRAKA, AND S.E. DANIELS. 2007. The influence of financial incentive programs in promoting sustainable forestry on the nation’s family forests. J. For. 105(4):184 –191. KNUDSON, D.M., T.T. CABLE, AND L. BECK. 1995. Interpretation of cultural and natural resources. Venture Publishing, Inc., State College, PA. 509 p. LUCKERT, M.K. 2006. Has the myth of the omnipotent forester become the reality of the impotent forester? J. For. 104(6):299 –306. MAJUMBAR, I., D. LABAND, L. TEETER, AND B. BUTLER. 2009. Motivations and land-use intentions of private forest landowners: Comparing inheritors to noninheritors. For. Sci. 55(5):23– 432. MIGNERY, A.L. 1956. Factors affecting small woodland management in Nacogdoches County, Texas. J. For. 54(2):224 –225. MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT. 2005. Ecosystems and human wellbeing: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. 160 p. OZIER, T.B., J.W. GRONINGER, AND C.M. RUFFNER. 2006. Community composition and structural changes in a managed Illinois Ozark Hills forest. Am. Midl. Natur. 155:253–269. PHILIPS, G. 1998. The nature of cultural landscapes—A nature conservation perspective. Landscape Res. 23(1):21–38. PUKKALA, T., S. KELLOMAKI, AND E. MUSTONEN. 1988. Prediction of the amenity of a tree stand. Scand. J. For. Res. 3(1):533–544. PUKKALA, T., T. NUUTINEN, AND J. KANGAS. 1995. Integrating scenic and recreational amenities into numerical forest planning. Landscape Urban Plan. 32(3):185–195. RIBE, R.G. 1989. The aesthetics of forestry: What has empirical preference research taught us? Environ. Manage. 13(1):55–74. SCHAICH, H., C. BIELING, AND T. PLIENINGER. 2010. Linking ecosystem services with cultural landscape research. GAIA 19(4):269 –277.

SHEPPARD, S.R.J., AND H.W. HARSHAW. 2001. Linking ecology, sustainability, and aesthetics. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. 294 p. STEIN, S.M., R.E. MCROBERTS, R.J. ALIG, M.D. NELSON, D.M. THEOBALD, M. ELEY, M. DECHTER, AND M. CARR. 2005. Forests on the edge: Housing development on America’s private forests. USDA For. Serv., GTR-PNW-636, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 16 p. STOLTMAN, A.M., V.C. RADELOFF, AND D.J. MLADENOFF. 2004. Forest visualization for management and planning in Wisconsin. J. For. 102(4):7–13. TILDEN, F., AND R.B. CRAIG. 2007. Interpreting our heritage. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 212 p. TYSON, C.B., AND S.H. BRODERICK. 1999. A strategic approach to pro-

moting estate conservation planning for combatting land fragmentation. Soc. Nat. Res. 12(7):693–702. USDA FOREST SERVICE. 2009. Preserving the family woods: Tools to help guide transfer to the next generation of landowners. State and Private Forestry, Northeastern Area, NA-IN-04 – 08, Newtown Square, PA. 180 p. WANG, X., B. SONG, J. CHEN, T.R. CROW, AND J.J. LACROIX. 2006. Challenges in visualizing forests and landscapes. J. For. 104(6): 316 –319. ZHANG, Y., D. ZHANG, AND J. SCHELHAS. 2005. Small-scale non-industrial private forest ownership in the United States: Rationale and implications for forest management. Silva Fennica 39(3): 443– 454.


1179