IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v172y2025ics1389934125000243.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding how urban communities make trade-offs between forest management and ecosystem service objectives

Author

Listed:
  • Cheng, Haotian
  • Escobedo, Francisco J.
  • Thomas, Alyssa S.
  • Reyes, Jesus Felix De Los
  • Ng'ombe, John N.
  • Soto, José R.

Abstract

Urban populations adjacent to forested areas value water-related ecosystem services and recreational opportunities. However, maintaining these benefits requires active forest management through thinning and prescribed burns, infrastructure development as well as issues of equity. These activities can also lead to public concerns over access fees, smoke emissions, and perceived negative impacts on forest health. This study aims to understand the tradeoffs between public preferences and forest management objectives in Wildland-Urban Interface montane forests. We employed an online survey using the Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) method to assess importance rankings and tradeoffs among forest management and ecosystem services attributes. The study focused on urban communities near the San Bernardino and Angeles National Forests in southern California, USA. Results reveal that residents' preferences between frequent visitors group and infrequent visitors group were inconsistent. Residents prioritized mechanical tree removal over prescribed fire as the most important forest management objective. Lakes emerged as the most valued ecosystem service attribute, surpassing rivers and waterfalls. Among recreational infrastructure, public restrooms ranked highest, followed by garbage bins and public grills. These findings provide insights for forest managers and policymakers by offering a framework that balances ecological needs with public preferences. The results are particularly relevant for implementing policies such as the Wildfire Crisis Strategy and forest management plans, by identifying potential conflicts and enhancing public support for forest management decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Cheng, Haotian & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Thomas, Alyssa S. & Reyes, Jesus Felix De Los & Ng'ombe, John N. & Soto, José R., 2025. "Understanding how urban communities make trade-offs between forest management and ecosystem service objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:172:y:2025:i:c:s1389934125000243
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103445
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934125000243
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103445?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lorenzo Cappellari & Stephen P. Jenkins, 2006. "Calculation of multivariate normal probabilities by simulation, with applications to maximum simulated likelihood estimation," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 6(2), pages 156-189, June.
    2. Loomis, John B. & Le, Hung Trong & Gonzales-Caban, Armando, 2005. "Testing transferability of willingness to pay for forest fire prevention among three states of California, Florida and Montana," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 125-140, December.
    3. repec:plo:pone00:0243344 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Lusk, Jayson L. & Parker, Natalie, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Amount and Type of Fat in Ground Beef," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(1), pages 75-90, April.
    5. Underwood, Emma C. & Hollander, Allan D. & Safford, Hugh D. & Kim, John B. & Srivastava, Lorie & Drapek, Ray J., 2019. "The impacts of climate change on ecosystem services in southern California," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    6. Chen, Bixia & Nakama, Yuei & Zhang, Yaoqi, 2017. "Traditional village forest landscapes: Tourists' attitudes and preferences for conservation," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 652-662.
    7. Aizaki, Hideo & Fogarty, James, 2019. "An R package and tutorial for case 2 best–worst scaling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    8. Cheng, Haotian & Ng'ombe, John N. & Lambert, Dayton M., 2024. "A Bayesian generalized rank ordered logit model," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    9. Rebecca K. Miller & Christopher B. Field & Katharine J. Mach, 2020. "Barriers and enablers for prescribed burns for wildfire management in California," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 3(2), pages 101-109, February.
    10. Olschewski, Roland & Bebi, Peter & Teich, Michaela & Wissen Hayek, Ulrike & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne, 2012. "Avalanche protection by forests — A choice experiment in the Swiss Alps," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 19-24.
    11. Cheng, Haotian & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Thomas, Alyssa S. & Felix De Los Reyes, Jesus & Soto, José R., 2024. "Comparing individual and collective valuation of ecosystem service tradeoffs: A case study from montane forests in southern California, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    12. Cheng, Haotian & Zhang, Tong & Lambert, Dayton M. & Feuz, Ryan, 2023. "An empirical comparison of conjoint and best-worst scaling case III methods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cheng, Haotian & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Thomas, Alyssa S. & Felix De Los Reyes, Jesus & Soto, José R., 2024. "Comparing individual and collective valuation of ecosystem service tradeoffs: A case study from montane forests in southern California, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    2. Ayala-Cantu, Luciano & Morando, Bruno, 2020. "Rental markets, gender, and land certificates: Evidence from Vietnam," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    3. Cheng, Haotian & Zhang, Tong & Lambert, Dayton M. & Feuz, Ryan, 2023. "An empirical comparison of conjoint and best-worst scaling case III methods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    4. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    5. Campbell, Robert M. & Venn, Tyron J. & Anderson, Nathaniel M., 2016. "Social preferences toward energy generation with woody biomass from public forests in Montana, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 58-67.
    6. Reynolds-Allie, Kenesha & Fields, Deacue, 2011. "Alabama Restaurant Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Local Food: A Choice Based Approach," 2011 Annual Meeting, February 5-8, 2011, Corpus Christi, Texas 98822, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    7. Bronwyn H. Hall & Francesca Lotti & Jacques Mairesse, 2013. "Evidence on the impact of R&D and ICT investments on innovation and productivity in Italian firms," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(3), pages 300-328, April.
    8. Anikó Bíró, 2014. "Supplementary private health insurance and health care utilization of people aged 50+," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 501-524, March.
    9. Meyer, Andrew G., 2015. "The impacts of elicitation mechanism and reward size on estimated rates of time preference," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 132-148.
    10. Beata Fornal-Pieniak & Agnieszka Mandziuk & Dagmara Stangierska & Stanisław Parzych & Pedro Miguel Ramos Arsénio, 2023. "Preferences of Young Adult Visitors to Manor Parks in South Poland: A Study on Ecosystem Services and Scenic Quality," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-12, January.
    11. Fabian Gouret & Guillaume Hollard & Stéphane Rossignol, 2011. "An empirical analysis of valence in electoral competition," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(2), pages 309-340, July.
    12. Varela, Elsa & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Soliño, Mario, 2014. "Understanding the heterogeneity of social preferences for fire prevention management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 91-104.
    13. Wong, Jonathan & Raghunathan, Uthra & Escalante, Cesar & Wolfe, Kent, 2010. "Consumer Premiums for Environmentally Friendly Grass-Fed and Organic Milk in the Southeast," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 28(01).
    14. Niels Vermeer & Maarten Rooij & Daniel Vuuren, 2019. "Retirement Age Preferences: The Role of Social Interactions and Anchoring at the Statutory Retirement Age," De Economist, Springer, vol. 167(4), pages 307-345, December.
    15. Adalja, Aaron & Hanson, James & Towe, Charles & Tselepidakis, Elina, 2015. "An Examination of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Local Products," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(3), pages 253-274, December.
    16. Céline Bignebat & Fabian Gouret, 2008. "Determinants and consequences of soft budget constraints. An empirical analysis using enterprise-level data in transition countries," Post-Print halshs-00308719, HAL.
    17. Grilli, Gianluca & Fratini, Roberto & Marone, Enrico & Sacchelli, Sandro, 2020. "A spatial-based tool for the analysis of payments for forest ecosystem services related to hydrogeological protection," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    18. Valente, Marieta & Fernandes, Maria Eduarda & Pinto, Lígia Maria Costa, 2024. "Crowdfunding or crowdsourcing time: Exploring the willingness of private citizens to help prevent forest fires," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    19. Ángela Triguero & María C. Cuerva & Francisco J. Sáez‐Martínez, 2022. "Closing the loop through eco‐innovation by European firms: Circular economy for sustainable development," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(5), pages 2337-2350, July.
    20. Dang,Hai-Anh H. & Lanjouw,Peter F., 2013. "Measuring poverty dynamics with synthetic panels based on cross-sections," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6504, The World Bank.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:172:y:2025:i:c:s1389934125000243. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.