The Economic Value of Forest Park Ecosystem Services: Results of Five Focus Groups Conducted in Spring 2016

Objective: This initial phase of research lays the foundation for a survey using contingent valuation (CV) and choice experiment (CE) methods. We asked select Portland residents what they care about most in Forest Park, their willingness to pay (WTP) for improving ecosystem services and how they generally think about the value of those goods and services. These results will help us narrow the experimental design of the forthcoming CV/CE study. Approach: We conducted a focus group in each of Portland’s 5 “quadrants.” We chose each location - Skyline, St. John’s, Cully, Foster-Powell and Hillsdale - based on either its proximity to Forest Park or its centrality within each respective quadrant. All but one focus group (Cully) session consisted of two portions: a broad conversation about what participants value in Forest Park and a group appraisal of a “dummy” CE survey that we presented to each group. We had to rely on translators in Cully, because most of the participants were not conversant in English, which precluded us from discussing the survey. (For more see METHODS). Results: Perspectives on the “most important” services differed across focus groups. Participants consistently identified top benefits were ecosystem health and recreational experiences, while prioritizing park access and educational opportunities less often. Our “dummy” survey drew questions about current ecological conditions, management goals and funding levels, which we use to inform our experimental design. While many participants were comfortable with an annual tax, almost every focus group considered the merits of alternative financing mechanisms. With the exception of Skyline participants, some of whom expressed higher values, most of the participants who shared their maximum WTP stayed within the range of values we presented - between $20 and$40 dollars. (For more, see NARRATIVE SYNTHESIS and FOCUS GROUP SUMMARIES.) Next Steps: Assuming that respondents to our future CV/CE study share some of the views expressed in these focus groups, our next step must be to construct our CE and CV scenario so that it provides a cogent and comprehensive narrative. This should consist of a serviceable baseline (including ecological condition, management context and funding streams) and attribute/outcome descriptions that adequately describe the following: The proposed set of interventions The impact of those activities How those impacts might affect visitors or residents in general. Acquiring this information will likely require additional consultation with managers and experts. More consultation and research may also be required in narrowing the range of tested WTP values. Due to the relatively limited number of possible outcomes that we can test in the CV/CE, it may worthwhile to construct internal narratives that help researchers and possibly participants clearly understand underlying tradeoffs. (For more see CONCLUSION.

Assessments of Biodiversity, Carbon, and Their Relationships in Nepalese Forest Commons: Implications for Global Climate Initiatives

Assessments of forest carbon, biodiversity, and their relationships have become important, particularly to devise effective approaches to forest policy and management, particularly in the context of emerging carbon-forestry. We measured forest data and estimated biodiversity and carbon from 620 plots across Nepal and found an average of 3.67 ± 0.09 effective numbers of plant tree species (eH’) per plot (250m2) and 98.30 ± 4.19 Mg ha−1 Above Ground Tree and Sapling Carbon (AGBC). Our results indicated highly variable biodiversity and carbon across plots, indicating the potential for additional biodiversity and carbon storage. For instance, the plots in the upper quartile of eH’ had 5 times greater mean eH’ (6.89 ± 0.30) compared to the plots in the lowest quartile (1.21 ± 0.08). Similarly, the plots in the top quartile of the AGBC had 18 times higher mean AGBC (244.19 ± 16.45 Mg ha−1) compared to the plots in the lowest quartile (11.09 ± 1.25 Mg ha−1). We found \u3e 80% carbon occurs in 10 dominant species. Our results reflect the complex and varied relationships of carbon and biodiversity across different forest categories. We found weak positive correlations between biodiversity and carbon storage (P \u3c 0.27) and small significant coefficients of biodiversity indices with AGBC, indicating the absence of tradeoff or weak possibility for synergy between carbon-forestry and biodiversity conservation. Our results reinforce the need of biodiversity safeguards in carbon-forestry

An Assessment of Collective Action Drivers of Carbon Storage in Nepalese Forest Commons

Decentralized forestry has evolved as a strategy for the management of forests in many developing countries and key institutional factors driving forest collective action have also been identified. We analyzed 130 Nepalese forest commons to determine how key forest collective action variables are associated with carbon storage. As expected, we find household participation in forest management and public audit have favorable implications for carbon storage. However, we also find conservation duration, communities\u27 ability to modify rules and existence of penalty system have constraining, and mutual trust have no or neutral implications for carbon storage. These findings indicate that better collective action does not necessarily store additional carbon. If forest commons in developing countries are to contribute to global climate change initiatives, such as the United Nation\u27s program on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD +), our findings suggest the need for dedicated policies and programs to create additional incentives