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

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

Forest Policy and Economics, 2025, vol. 172, issue C

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.

Keywords: Montane forests; Recreation infrastructure; Best worst scaling; Fuel treatments; Southern California (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934125000243
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:forpol:v:172:y:2025:i:c:s1389934125000243

DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103445

Access Statistics for this article

Forest Policy and Economics is currently edited by M. Krott

More articles in Forest Policy and Economics from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().