Integrating economic trade-offs with ecological possibilities: Citizen preferences for ecological goods and services from two southeastern national forests

This dissertation combines conceptual models from economics and ecology with empirical findings of a forest benefits mail survey.; A mail survey was administered to a sample of 1350 North Carolina residents. Surveyed groups included a random control and three interest groups (environmentalist, timber industry, and hunting and fishing interest). Survey participants were asked to rate their preferences for benefits (identified from ecology and economics literature) available from the Nantahala and Pisgah Forests in North Carolina. They were also asked to select among goals for future forest management, express opinions about timber harvest, and express preferences among multiple-use forest management plans modeled on existing ecosystem management programs. The survey response rate was 68%.; Empirical results based on neoclassical economic models and conjoint analysis techniques include marginal utilities for each component of multiple-use forest plans offering (1) water quality, (2) forest recreation, (3) timber harvest, (4) native ecosystems, and (5) hunting and fishing as benefits. Ratings of preferences for market and nonmarket forest benefits, rankings of forest management goals, and timber harvest preferences are reported.; The conceptual model developed in this research integrates ecosystem dynamics and economic trade-off analysis. Benefits from ecological processes are explicitly considered within a utility framework. Surveyed benefits include a class of nonmarket ecological process goods (EPGs), hypothesized to provide utility through service and amenity values deriving from the continuity of ecological processes. Challenges of integrating neoclassical economic methods and ecological realities are considered from different disciplinary perspectives.; Preferences for EPGs (e.g., clean water, oxygen, maintenance of forest cycles) were dominant values for all four surveyed groups. The random control group preferred EPGs to market goods. The random control group reported substantial marginal utility gains from increases in levels of water quality and recreation benefits, and from decreases in levels of timber harvest. Marginal utility profiles of the surveyed interest groups were consistent with positions expressed by their associated advocacy organizations.