Payments for forest-based ecosystem services in the United States, 2005-2019

Frey, Gregory E.; Kallayanamitra, Chalisa; Wilkens, Philadelphia; James, Natasha A.

doi:10.2737/rds-2021-0076

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent efforts have identified key concepts within these frameworks and sought to develop datasets and indices to measure and compare communities, counties, or other areas, particularly the topics of social vulnerability [39][40][41] and community capitals [42,43]. These approaches dovetail nicely with the data-driven approach to identifying forestdependent communities described in this manuscript [24].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Therefore, identifying forest-dependent communities is the first step towards measuring potential positive and negative impacts on those communities. Past research has explored various interrelated topics in those regards, including community well-being, vulnerability, stability, adaptability, capacity, resilience, and capital [5][6][7]16,22,24]. Together, these frameworks focus on communities' ability to respond to change by enhancing positive outcomes and mitigating negative ones, or conversely, their inability to respond to changes positively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All data described in this section were compiled and published in an online, public database [1]. This public database provides data on several variables from public sources, including the information described below, as well as other indicators of community resilience [24]. The process for identifying data sources and variables to compile, in terms of the identification of forest dependence, is given below.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The process for identifying data sources and variables to compile, in terms of the identification of forest dependence, is given below. A brief summary and some implications are included in the MP indicator report, "6.38: Resilience of forest-dependent communities" [24]. The unit of analysis selected for this research is the county or equivalent, the administrative subdivision of the state.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Defining and Measuring Forest Dependence in the United States: Operationalization and Sensitivity Analysis

Frey

Kallayanamitra²,

Wilkens³

et al. 2022

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This manuscript helps bridge a gap between theoretical work that advocates for a broad view of forest dependence, and empirical work that has focused narrowly on economic measures. Background: Forest dependence has been widely recognized as a valuable concept for understanding human communities’ well-being and vulnerability to shocks and changes. Past theoretical literature has highlighted the importance of recognizing various types of dependence—environmental, economic, and social—yet past empirical literature on the topic in the United States has almost exclusively relied on measures of economic dependence such as employment and earnings from the traditional forest products sector. Objective and Methods: As a first step to bridge the gap between the theoretical and empirical, we reviewed the existing, publicly available, reliable, wall-to-wall data sources to identify alternate proxy measures for forest dependence. Data availability made the analysis feasible only at the county level—the administrative subdivisions of the state—or higher. Results and Conclusions: We created environmental, economic, and social criteria based on threshold levels of the following proxy variables: forest area, earnings, employment, and indigenous population. Using these criteria, we identified 524 counties to be potentially forest-dependent of 3140 total counties in the United States. The largest concentration was in the Pacific Northwest and Southeast regions, and a higher proportion were non-metro counties than metro. Varying the threshold levels significantly changes the number of counties identified but does not alter the overall geographic trends.

show abstract