Biodiversity conservation incentive programs for privately owned forests

Environmental Science and Policy

Volumn 9, Issue 7-8, 2006, Pages 614-625

  Mayer, Audrey L ^a   Tikka, Päivi M ^b  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

Biodiversity; Conservation efficiency; Incentives; Non industrial private forests (NIPF); Voluntary participation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSERVATION BIOLOGY; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; EUROPE; FORESTRY; LEGAL ASPECT; NORTH AMERICA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOCIAL ASPECT; SPECIES HABITAT;

EID: 33750797815     PISSN: 14629011     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2006.07.004     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Alig, R.J., Zheng, D., Spies, T.A., Butler, B.J., 2000. Forest cover dynamics in the Pacific Northwest west side: regional trends and projections. Research Paper PNW-RP-522. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.
2. Austrian Federal Office and Research Centre for Forests, 2003. The Austrian Forest Reserves Programme. (Online) URL: http://www.bfw.ac.at/100/1306.html (Accessed 8 March 2006).
3. Bennett J., McElfish J., and Bale A. Indiana's Biological Diversity: Strategies and Tools for Conservation (1995), Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC
4. Best C., and Wayburn L.A. America's Private Forests: Status and Stewardship (2001), Island Press, Washington, DC
5. Bundesamt für Wald, 2004a. Ergebnisse der Österreichischen Waldinventur 1992-1996. (Online) URL: http://www.bfw.ac.at/i7/oewi.oefi9296 (Accessed 8 March 2006).
6. Bundesamt für Wald, 2004b. Ergebnisse der Österreichischen Waldinventur 2000-2002. (Online) URL: http://www.web.bfw.ac.at/i7/Oewi.oewi0002 (Accessed 8 March 2006).
7. Cathcart J.F. Carbon sequestration. J. Forest. 98 (2000) 32-37
8. Defenders of Wildlife, 2002. Conservation in America. State government incentives for habitat conservation. A status report. Available at http://www.biodiversitypartners.org/pubs/CinAReport/Intro.shtml (Accessed 8 March 2006).
9. Dirzo R., and Raven P.H. Global state of biodiversity and loss. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 28 (2003) 137-167
10. Doremus H. A policy portfolio approach to biodiversity protection on private lands. Environ. Sci. Policy 6 (2003) 217-232
11. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). State of the World's Forests (2003), FAO, Rome, Italy
12. Finnish Forest Research Institute. Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry (2005), Finnish Forest Research Institute, Vammala, Finland (in Finnish with English abstract, figures and tables)
13. Finnish Government, 2002. Government decision in principle on an action programme to protect biodiversity in forests in Southern Finland, the western parts of the province of Oulu, and the south-western region of the province of Lapland 2002. (Online) URL: http://wwwb.mmm.fi/metso/international/METSO-programme_GOVERNMENT_DECISI ON_Oct_2002.pdf (Accessed 4 July 2006).
14. Flaspohler, D., 2004. Sustainable forest management criteria and indicators fact sheets of the upper Missippi river forest partnership, 2004. Criterion one: conservation of biological diversity. (Online) URL: http://www.lsfa.org/forum_files/Criterion/Criterion%20One.pdf (Accessed 8 March 2006).
15. Frank G., and Müller F. Voluntary approaches in protection of forests in Austria. Environ. Sci. Policy 6 (2003) 261-269
16. Frank G., Steiner H., and Schweinzer K.-M. The Austrian natural forest reserves network. In: Commarmot B., and Hamor F.D. (Eds). Proceedings of the Conference on Natural Forests in the Temperate Zone of Europe-Values and Utilisation. Mukachevo, Ukraine, 13-17 October 2003 (2005), Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Birmensdorf, Switzerland 385-404
17. FSC-Sweden, 2005. Swedish FSC standard for forest certification. (Online) URL: http://www.fsc-sweden.org/Portals/0/Documents/Swedish%20FSC%20standard_0 50907.pdf (Accessed 8 March 2006).
18. Gustafsson, L., Nummi, T., 2003. Luonnonarvokauppa vuonna 2003. Luonnonarvokaupan kokeilun vuosiraportti. (Online "Raportti 2003") URL: http://www.kase.fi/metsakeskukset/lounais/palvelut/luonnonarvokauppa (Accessed 8 March 2006).
19. Gustafsson, L., Nummi, T., 2004. Luonnonarvokauppa vuonna 2004. Luonnonarvokaupan kokeilun vuosiraportti. (Online "Raportti 2004") URL: http://www.kase.fi/metsakeskukset/lounais/palvelut/luonnonarvokauppa (Accessed 8 March 2006).
20. Gustafsson, L., Uimonen, J., Nummi, T., 2005. Luonnonarvokauppa vuonna 2005. Luonnonarvokaupan kokeilun vuosiraportti. (Online "Raportti 2005") URL: http://www.kase.fi/metsakeskukset/lounais/palvelut/luonnonarvokauppa (Accessed 8 March 2006).
21. Hanski I. An ecological assessment of the need for forest protection in northern and central Europe. In: Hanski I., and Walsh M. (Eds). How Much, How to?-Practical Tools for Forest Conservation (2004), BirdLife European Forest Task Force, Latvia 10-24
22. Hämäläinen, T., 2006. Luonnonarvokaupan ekologinen tehokkuus Satakunnan metsien monimuotoisuuden suojelussa. Ympäristönsuojelutieteen pro gradu -työ. Bio- ja ympäristötieteiden laitos, Helsingin yliopisto. (Available online) URL: http://www.ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/bio/bioja/pg/hamalainen/luonnon a.pdf.
23. Hiedanpää J. European-wide conservation versus local well-being: the reception of the Natura 2000 Reserve Network in Karvia, SW-Finland. Landscape Urban Plan. 61 (2002) 113-123
24. Juutinen, A., Horne, P., Koskela, T., Matinaho, S., Mäntymaa, E., Mönkkönen, M., 2005. Metsänomistajien näkemyksiä luonnonarvokaupasta: kyselytutkimus luonnonarvokaupan kokeiluhankkeeseen osallistuneille. Metlan työraportteja/Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 18. (Online) URL: http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2005/mwp018.htm (Accessed 17 March 2006).
25. Kline J.D., Alig R.J., and Johnson R.L. Forest owner incentives to protect riparian habitat. Ecol. Econ. 33 (2000) 29-43
26. Mather A. Society and the services of forests. In: Palo M., and Uusivuori J. (Eds). World Forests, Society and Environment (1999), Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands 86-92
27. Mayer A.L., Kauppi P.E., Tikka P.M., and Angelstam P.K. Conservation implications of exporting domestic wood harvest to neighboring countries. Environ. Sci. Policy 9 (2006) 228-236
28. MCPFE (Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Liaison Unit Vienna), 2003. State of Europe's forests 2003. MCPFE Liaison Unit Vienna, Horn, Austria. (Available online) URL: http://www.unece.org/trade/timber/docs/sfm/europe-2003.pdf (Accessed 8 March 2006).
29. Merenlender A.M., Huntsinger L., Guthey G., and Fairfax S.K. Land trusts and conservation easements: who is conserving what for whom?. Conserv. Biol. 18 (2004) 65-75
30. Michael J.A. Efficient habitat protection with diverse landowners and fragmented landscapes. Environ. Sci. Policy 6 (2003) 243-251
31. Michie B., Chandrasekharan C., and Wardle P. Production and trade in forest goods. In: Palo M., and Uusivuori J. (Eds). World Forests, Society and Environment (1999), Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands 78-85
32. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis (2005), World Resources Institute, Washington, DC
33. Miller A. Transferable development rights in the constitutional landscape: has Penn Central failed to weather the storm?. Nat. Resour. J. 39 (1999) 459-516
34. Ministry of the Environment, 2003. Conservation biological criteria for forest protection in southern Finland. The Finnish Environment Working Paper 634, Working group on the conservation biological criteria for forest protection in southern Finland, Helsinki, Finland (in Finnish with English summary).
35. Mönkkönen M., and Welsh D.A. A biogeographical hypothesis on the effects of human caused landscape changes on the forest bird communities of Europe and North America. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 31 (1994) 61-70
36. Myers N. The world's forests and their ecosystem services. In: Daily G.C. (Ed). Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems (1997), Island Press, Washington, DC 215-236
37. Myers N., Mittermeier R.A., Mittermeier C.G., Da Fonseca G.A.B., and Kent J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403 (2000) 853-858
38. National Board of Forestry. Statistical Yearbook of Forestry 2000 (2000), National Board of Forestry, Jönköping, Sweden (in Swedish with English Summary, tables and figures)
39. National Board of Forestry. Statistical Yearbook of Forestry 2005 (2005), National Board of Forestry, Jönköping, Sweden (in Swedish with English Summary, tables and figures)
40. Naturvårdsverket, 2003. Natura 2000 i Sverige. Handbook med allmänna råd. (Online) URL: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/bokhandeln/pdf/620-0131-0.pdf (Accessed 8 March 2006).
41. Naturvårdsverket, 2004. Regeringsuppdrag. Strategi för formellt skydd av värdefulla naturområden på skogmark. (Online) URL: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/dokument/natur/naturres/Strategi_natursky dd_skogsomr.pdf (Accessed 8 March 2006).
42. Noah, E., Zhang, Y., 2001. Compendium of state landowner incentive programs for the conservation of biological diversity. Report prepared for Environmental Defense. Yale University Environmental Protection Clinic, November 2001. (Online) URL: http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/2341_stateIncCompendium.pd f (Accessed 8 March 2006).
43. Oregon Department of Forestry, 2005a. Forest resource trust accomplishments. (Online) URL: http://www.odf.state.or.us/pcf/trust/frtaccomp.asp?id=401010207 (Accessed 8 March 2006).
44. Oregon Department of Forestry, 2005b. Oregon Forests Report 2005. (Online) URL: http://www.egov.oregon.gov/ODF/PUBS/docs/Oregon_Forests_Reports/05OFR.pd f (Accessed 8 March 2006).
45. Parkhurst G.M., Shogren J.F., Bastian C., Kivi P., Donner J., and Smith R.B.W. Agglomeration bonus: an incentive mechanism to reunite fragmented habitat for biodiversity conservation. Ecol. Econ. 41 (2002) 305-328
46. Pearce D.W. The economic value of forest ecosystems. Ecosyst. Health 7 (2001) 284-296
47. Saterson K.A., Christensen N.L., Jackson R.B., Kramer R.A., Pimm S.L., Smith M.D., and Wiener J.B. Disconnects in evaluating the relative effectiveness of conservation strategies. Conserv. Biol. 18 (2004) 597-599
48. Scheffer M., Vickerman S., Casey F., Dewey R., Watchman L., Snape III W., Senatore M., and Ferris R. A Proactive, State-based, Incentive-driven Policy for Habitat Conservation (2001), Defenders of Wildlife, West Linn, OR
49. Shogren J.F., Parkhurst G.M., and Settle C. Integrating economics and ecology to protect nature on private lands: models, methods and mindsets. Environ. Sci. Policy 6 (2003) 233-242
50. Siitonen J., Penttilä R., and Kotiranta H. Coarse woody debris, polyporous fungi and saproxylic insects in an old-growth spruce forest in Vodlozero National Park, Russian Karelia. Ecol. Bull. 49 (2001) 231-242
51. Singh A., Shi H., Foresman T., and Fosnight E.A. Status of the world's remaining closed forests: an assessment using satellite data and policy options. Ambio 30 (2001) 67-69
52. Singh, S., Volonte, C., 2001. Biodiversity program study. Global Environment Facility, Washington, DC, USA. (Online) URL: http://www.gefweb.org/Biodiv_Program_Study.pdf (Accessed 8 March 2006).
53. Siry J.P., Cubbage F.W., and Ahmed M.R. Sustainable forest management: global trends and opportunities. For. Policy Econ. 7 (2005) 551-561
54. Skogsstyrelsen, 2006. Naturvårdsavtal. (Online) URL: http://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/minskog/templates/Page.asp?id=13532 (Accessed 17 March 2006).
55. Smith, W.B., Miles, P.D., Vissage, J.S., Pugh, S.A., 2002. Forest resources of the United States, 2002. Gen. Tech. Report GTR-NC241, North Central Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
56. Sullivan K.A., and Napier T.L. Anticipated socio-environmental impacts of the proposed Little Darby National Wildlife Refuge in Ohio. J. Environ. Manage. 74 (2005) 53-64
57. The Environmental Objectives Council, 2004. Sweden's environmental objectives-are we getting there? De Facto 2004. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Falköping, Sweden. (Available online) URL: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/bokhandeln/pdf/620-1238-X.pdf (Accessed 8 March 2006).
58. Trexler Climate + Energy Services Inc., 2004. Klamath Cogeneration Project five-year report to EFSC. Portland, OR.
59. van der Horst D., and Gimona A. Where new farm woodlands support biodiversity action plans: a spatial multi-criteria analysis. Biol. Conserv. 123 (2005) 421-432
60. van Kooten G.C., Wilson B., and Vertinsky I. Sweden. In: Wilson B., van Kooten G.C., Vertinsky I., and Arthur L. (Eds). Forest Policy: International Case Studies (1999), CABI Publishing, Oxon, UK 155-185
61. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, 1999. The Vermont Forest Resources Plan 1999-2008. (Online) URL: http://www.vtfpr.org/forplan/ (Accessed 8 March 2006).
62. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, 2005. Use Value Appraisal Program Manual, Revision March 14, 2005. (Online) URL: http://www.vtfpr.org/resource/uvarev05.pdf (Accessed 8 March 2006).
63. Vickerman S. Stewardship Incentives: Conservation Strategies for Oregon's Working Landscape (1998), Defenders of Wildlife, West Linn, OR
64. Wätzold F., and Schwerdtner K. Why be wasteful when preserving a valuable resource? A review article on the cost-effectiveness of European biodiversity conservation policy. Biol. Conserv. 123 (2005) 327-338
65. Wilcove D.S., and Lee J. Using economic and regulatory incentives to restore endangered species: lessons learned from three new programs. Conserv. Biol. 18 (2003) 639-645
66. York A.M., Janssen M.A., and Carlson L.A. Diversity of incentives for private forest landowners: an assessment of programs in Indiana. USA. Land Use Policy 23 (2006) 542-550