*Both authors would like to thank the organizations and individuals who were interviewed and provided information as part of this project, the USFS Southern Experiment Station for providing funding to Lynn Maguire, and Bob Healy, Randy Kramer and Curt Richardson for reviews of earlier drafts of this paper.
 

Conflicting values forests are at the heart of many forest management disputes; controversies over forested wetlands are no exception. We used value focused thinking and objective hierarchies to structure interviews with 27 stakeholders from state and federal agencies, industries and nonprofit organizations concerned with the management of forested wetlands in the eastern coastal plain of North Carolina. We asked them about the values, criteria and predictive frameworks that guide their management decisions. We found widespread agreement on the importance of forested wetlands for habitat, water quality, and biodiversity. Despite confusion about nomenclature, most respondents identified pocosins, bottomland hardwoods, pine savannas, and Atlantic white cedar as foci of concern. Regulatory organizations were most likely to use systematic predictive frameworks to analyze management options, rather than relying on expert judgment. Common values can provide a foundation for consensus on wetlands management, given thoughtful attention to differing emphases among multiple values and different methods of predicting management outcomes.

Key Words: Values, stakeholders, forested wetlands, forest management, value focused thinking, objective hierarchies

Forested Wetland Loss in the United States and the Southeast

As forested wetlands have grown increasingly scarce in the United States, the debate over their management, and the values reflected in their management, has also grown. From 1780 to 1980 the contiguous United States lost more than half of its wetlands (Dahl 1990). Wetland loss over the past several decades can be attributed to many sources, and these have changed over time (Johnson 1994).

The Southeast, and North Carolina in particular, is significant in the context of wetland loss. Nearly 50% (46.5 million acres) of the United States’ wetlands are found in the Southeast, and wetland losses in the Southeast accounted for 84% of the total losses nationwide from the 1950s to the mid-1970s (Hefner and Brown 1985). Southeastern states incurred the largest losses of forested wetlands between the 1970s and 1980s (Johnson 1994), and the forested wetlands in eastern North Carolina have been identified as one of the areas suffering the most severe wetland losses (Hefner and Brown 1985). Wetland conversion in the North Carolina coastal plain between 1950 and 1980 was due largely to forestry (52.8% of total area altered), followed by agriculture (42.2%) and other types of development, such as urbanization and military construction (5%) (Cashin et al. 1992). Given this historical pattern in wetland loss, it is little wonder that the debate over appropriate uses for the remaining forested wetlands has become so heated.

Conflicting values for forests are at the heart of many forest management disputes, and the debate over forested wetlands in the Southeast has mirrored the more general debates over forest management throughout the United States and worldwide. Industrial and non-industrial private owners of forested wetlands, environmental organizations, public land management agencies, and state and federal regulatory agencies have different objectives for forested wetland areas and different opinions about what management practices are best suited to achieve those objectives. Differences in societal expectations and values for forested wetlands are often expressed in the form of litigation, as has been demonstrated by several court cases (Cubbage et al. 1992). This contentious atmosphere has made it difficult for any of these parties to achieve their goals, whether they favor protection or use of forested wetlands, as the following case study illustrates.

Controversy in the Management of Forested Wetlands in the Southeast: The Environmental Defense Fund versus Weyerhaeuser Corporation

In 1989 the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) joined forces with several other environmental organizations to sue the Weyerhaeuser Corporation for the illegal conversion of forested wetlands in the eastern coastal plain of North Carolina. By using intensive silvicultural practices, including ditching and draining, Weyerhaeuser had begun converting natural pine stands into loblolly pine plantations on an 11,000-acre site in the East Dismal Swamp known as the Parker Tract. For years EDF had been concerned with the conversion of North Carolina’s wetlands, especially those in the Dismal Swamp area, due to their ecological significance. The legal battle, which revolved around definitions of wetlands, values derived from wetlands, and appropriate management practices in wetlands, lasted six years and was resolved in December 1995, in part with a memorandum from the Environmental Protection Agency. The memorandum detailed the silvicultural practices that would require permits under the Clean Water Act, given the specific types of wetlands under consideration, and outlined an agreement between Weyerhaeuser and EDF to develop jointly a management plan for the Parker Tract.

On the surface, the controversy over the Parker Tract seems straightforward. An environmental nonprofit organization clashes with a timber company over the management of a parcel of land. However, underneath this rather typical resource controversy lurked several specific conflicts. For instance, different types of wetlands existed on the Parker Tract. Although EDF and Weyerhaeuser had different management goals and objectives for some of these wetland types, for others their management goals and objectives were similar. Weyerhaeuser had little interest in transforming the wettest of the wetlands, such as swamps and riparian forests, into loblolly pine plantations because it was infeasible financially. These wettest wetlands were of the greatest concern to EDF, so there was actually no conflict over these wetlands. However, teasing apart the various threads to determine where the two organizations actually had conflict and agreement was a daunting task.

In cases like the EDF/Weyerhaeuser controversy, developing a more specific understanding of the disputing parties’ values, their priorities among those values, their concerns about different types of wetlands, and their capacities for measuring progress in achieving their values could have helped identify areas of agreement and disagreement and facilitated a faster and less litigious outcome. However, there are several challenges to dealing with stakeholder values in a wetlands setting. First, it is important to clarify the role values play in understanding the given dispute. Second, it is important to understand how values can be measured to facilitate a systematic and empirically grounded exercise.

The Role of Values in Understanding Forested Wetland Controversies

The word "value" has many definitions and uses (Rokeach 1973; Brown 1984; Andrews and Waits 1980; Sagoff 1988; Bengston 1994; Hetherington et al. 1994). A broad spectrum of values is reflected in the debate over wetlands management. Wetlands mean different things to different groups of people, and these differences are reflected in the terminology stakeholders use to describe why and how they value these complex and multifaceted resources. Ecologists, economists and foresters dominate the academic literature on wetland values. Ecologists tend to focus on the functional aspects of wetlands, such as nutrient removal (Richardson 1994; Wigley and Roberts 1994; Walbridge and Lockaby 1994; Richardson and McCarty 1994). Economists, on the other hand, emphasize preference relationships and attempt to place a monetary value on the services associated with wetlands systems (Whitehead 1990; Farber and Costanza 1987; Shabman and Bertelson 1979). Foresters often favor the timber production value of wetland areas (Dubensky et al. 1993).

The multiple meanings and disciplinary perspectives of values complicate the task of deciding what is meant when values are studied and applied to policy issues. Although values questions are often posed as dichotomous extremes (Dunlap and Van Liere 1978; Catton and Dunlap 1978), such as "jobs vs. the environment" or "utilitarian values vs. aesthetic values," evidence indicates that people hold and assign values on a more sophisticated continuum (Brown 1984; Andrews and Waits 1980).

The Challenge of Measuring Values

Measurements and empirical indicators for forest values have been the objects of debate for many years (Hetherington et al. 1994). Hetherington et al. (1994:538) argue that only preference-related concepts of value are relevant to the task of forest ecosystem management. Preference-based value relationships originate from the revealed preferences individuals have for objects, and these individual preferences are often expressed in monetary terms. In contrast, Bengston (1994) states that the multidimensionality of values that are associated with forests should be considered explicitly, including those values that do not lend themselves easily to measurement in monetary terms. Rooted in neoclassical economics, the unidimensional approach of preference-based definitions of value seeks to find a common denominator in which to express all values. In contrast, Bengston advocates multiple-value frameworks and indicators, since not all forest values will be commensurate. Although there is no agreement on a universal way to express forest values, there does seem to be agreement that "public values relevant to forest management policy can and must be articulated through a comparable scientific methodology" (Hetherington et al. 1994: 537) and that values "must be characterized through empirical indicators" (Andrews and Waits 1980: 71).

Using Value Focused Thinking and Objective Hierarchies to Resolve Forested Wetlands Disputes

One scientifically based, empirically grounded means of measuring values is value focused thinking (VFT) (Keeney 1992; Clemen 1996). VFT is explicitly multidimensional in its approach to understanding the values that are important to stakeholders. An initial step of VFT is to elicit a hierarchy of ever more specific objectives, and criteria for measuring achievement of those objectives, from the participants in the analysis. Objectives and criteria hierarchies provide an orderly way of characterizing the multiplicity of values that may be present among diverse stakeholders. The technique encourages people to be specific about their objectives and the criteria for attaining them. It also makes the discussion about values concrete, since stakeholders express their concerns as something that is observable.

To improve the management of both private and public forested wetlands, user groups need to move toward a greater degree of consensus regarding the regulation of management activities. Following the resolution of the dispute between EDF and Weyerhaeuser, we decided to investigate the values of the many stakeholders who had an interest in the wetlands in the eastern coastal plain of North Carolina. Our goal was to characterize the suites of values held by the stakeholders to determine if consensus-based management solutions were a possibility. Ultimately, the objective was to determine how to avoid litigious situations like the EDF-Weyerhaeuser controversy in the future.

Our research project employed the principles of value focused thinking and objective hierarchies to reveal systematically the values, criteria, and predictive frameworks used by 27 stakeholders who were concerned about wetlands management in the eastern coastal plain of North Carolina. The project shed light on the points of agreement and disagreement among the stakeholders and identified the values that were important to the user groups who had a stake in the management of forested wetlands. In addition to identifying the values of the stakeholders, we characterized the criteria used to measure these values, as well as the explicit and implicit frameworks stakeholders used to project the consequences of different management practices for their preferred values and criteria.

For the purposes of this study, values were defined as fundamental objectives (Keeney 1992; Clemen, 1996) that mattered to the stakeholder. In this case, values usually referred to the habitat, water quality, natural heritage, fiber production and water storage functions that were associated with wetlands. Criteria were defined as measures of achievement for a fundamental objective (Keeney 1992; Clemen, 1996). For example, an abundance of threatened and endangered species, song birds, game fish and game animals would be criteria used to measure whether habitat values were being met.

Methods Used

Stakeholders representing organizations and agencies concerned about forested wetlands in the eastern coastal plain of North Carolina were asked structured questions, based on the principles of value focused thinking, to elicit their objective and criteria hierarchies (Keeney 1992; Clemen 1996). An emphasis was placed on the qualitative structuring of values and criteria, rather than on the quantitative description of relative preferences. Structured questions were administered to discover (1) the hierarchy of objectives being pursued by the stakeholders; (2) the suite of measurable attributes or criteria they would use to indicate how well their objectives were being met; (3) their relative preferences for various levels of achievement of these objectives; and (4) their priorities among the various objectives. The data for this research were collected during the spring and summer of 1996. The questions used as an interview guide may be found in Appendix A. We used a snowball sampling technique (Goodman 1961). Snowball sampling uses a set of respondents to suggest additional names to be interviewed for the project in question. Thus, a "snowball" of respondents emerges. Adequacy can be determined by the closure of the network of suggested respondents. Fewer and fewer new names will be recommended as the number of possible contacts becomes saturated.

Respondents were organized into four stakeholder groups—forest/industry, non-profits, state agencies and federal agencies. Seven of these were from forest (6) or agricultural (1) industry (Georgia Pacific, Weyerhaeuser, Champion International, John Hancock, NC Forestry Association, NC Farm Bureau); seven were environmental (6) or community development (1) nonprofits (NC Wildlife Federation, NC Environmental Defense Fund, NC Nature Conservancy, NC Coastal Federation, Sierra Club, Ducks Unlimited, Carteret County Economic Development Authority); seven were state agencies (NC Division of Coastal Management, NC Division of Water Quality, NC Department of Agriculture Plant Conservation Program, NC Division of Forest Resources, NC Division of Wildlife Resources, NC Natural Heritage Program); and six were federal agencies (US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service [Croatan NF], US Marine Corps [Camp Le Jeune], US Army Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Resource Conservation Service). Twenty-seven interviews were conducted with representatives of 25 of these organizations. Separate interviews were conducted with two employees from the NC Division of Wildlife Resources and two from the NC Division of Forestry because their areas of responsibility within each agency were quite distinct. Two interviews were conducted by phone and the rest in person. The authors conducted all interviews. Written material was requested from the organizations. Twenty-five organizations supplied us with written material. The intent of collecting the written material was to determine the extent to which information collected in the interviews corresponded with written material published by the agency or organization. Two organizations (Ducks Unlimited and NC Farm Bureau) provided only written material.

Values Articulated by Stakeholders

A diverse range of values emerged from the interviews and written material collected from the stakeholders. The universe of values elicited from the stakeholders included habitat, water quality, natural heritage/biodiversity, fiber production, water storage, recreational activities, economic benefits, military training and private property rights. The values mentioned most often by the interviewees were habitat, water quality and natural heritage/biodiversity, as detailed in Table 1. Habitat was mentioned as an important value by 82% of the interviewees and in 88% of the organizations’ written materials. Water quality was articulated verbally by 70% of the interviewees and mentioned in 76% of the organizations’ publications. Natural heritage/biodiversity was important to 48% of those interviewed, but mentioned in only 20% of the organizations’ printed materials. The biggest discrepancies between the interview data and the written material were in natural heritage and water storage. Water storage was mentioned by only 22% of the interviewees, but in 64% of the written literature. Water storage was less prevalent as a value in the minds of stakeholders, with the exception of non-profits. Natural heritage and biodiversity appeared to be more at the forefront of the interviewees’ minds.

Although one-fourth of stakeholders were reluctant to state a most important value, habitat, water quality and fiber production were mentioned most frequently as the most important values in the interviews (Table 2). Many stakeholders stated that the values that were most important were context-dependent and would shift depending on the site under consideration. For example, an industry landowner might assign highest priority to fiber production on upland sites and to wildlife habitat in riparian corridors. Written materials were less likely to cite a most important value, with the exception of fiber production in the forest/industry group.

Wetland Types of Concern

Many different types of wetlands were of concern to the stakeholders (Table 3). There was no universally accepted language for describing wetlands and sometimes the same types of wetlands were referred to by different stakeholders using different names. In an attempt to avoid misunderstandings rooted in different names for the same wetland type, we asked respondents to use names from one of two standardized wetlands nomenclatures, Shafale and Weakley's Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina 1990) and a modification of that system used by the North Carolina Division of Forest Resources (North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources 1996). In general, stakeholders in the forest industry and other timber producers tended to use the N.C. Division of Forest Resources names. Environmentalists and natural heritage groups tended to use the Shafale and Weakley system. Although the type of wetland of concern might depend on the management objective in a given area, pocosins, bottomland hardwoods, marshes, wet pine flats, savannas, swamp hardwoods and Atlantic white cedar were cited by all stakeholder groups as important (Table 3). Pocosins were mentioned by 59% of the individuals interviewed and mentioned in 40% of the written material. Bottomland hardwoods were mentioned by 44% of the individuals and in 44% of the written literature. Wet pine flats were identified by 26% of the individuals and in 24% of the written materials. Riparian wetlands, cypress gum swamps, cypress domes, sand hill seeps, savannas, pine savannas and bogs were valued by at least three of the four stakeholder groups. The concerns expressed for the various wetlands types were remarkably consistent between the interview and written data, with the exception of marshes, which were mentioned by only 7% of the individuals interviewed, but were identified in 40% of the written materials.

Measures/Criteria Used by Stakeholders

The stakeholders were asked what criteria or measurements they used to indicate whether their values for wetlands were being realized. The criteria for measuring habitat, water quality, and natural heritage/biodiversity were most extensive, as indicated by Table 4. Table 5 lists the criteria cited by the stakeholders for fiber production, recreation, economic benefits, and military training. The multiple values and criteria articulated by the stakeholders indicate the multidimensionality of wetlands. Many of the criteria are non-commensurate, meaning there is no one metric adequate to measure the diverse values.

The number of criteria mentioned in some of the categories may reflect that some values, like habitat, are catch-alls for subsets of concerns. The diverse criteria listed under habitat indicate that different species are important to different stakeholders. For instance, state and federal wildlife agencies are more interested in game species habitat, whereas the state plant conservation agency, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, United States Marine Corps and the Army Corps of Engineers are interested in non-game species habitat. The diversity of criteria listed under habitat suggests that the degree of consensus about concern for habitat overall may mask differences at a greater level of detail.

Frameworks Used by Stakeholders

Interviewees were asked what kinds of informal or formal frameworks they used to predict how well their values would be realized under different management regimes. The stakeholders mentioned a variety of frameworks that depended on both qualitative and quantitative information, as illustrated in Table 6. (A more complete list appears in Appendix B). Some of the more formal frameworks mentioned were HGM (Hydrogeomorphic Model, Brinson 1993); WET (Wetland Evaluation Technique, Adamus et al. 1991); HEP (Habitat Evaluation Procedure, US Fish and Wildlife Service 1980); DRAINMOD (Amatya et al. 1997); GIS-based systems such as the NC-CREWS (North Carolina Coastal Region Evaluation of Wetland Significance), and Information Forest Management System, timber value models that project growth, yield, age and class; flood flow response and hydrology models. Informal frameworks, such as expert judgment, consisted of staff members using their best professional judgment and their technical expertise to perform qualitative evaluations of wetlands. A middle category of systematic, qualitative frameworks included tools such as maps; aerial surveys and remotely sensed data of existing conditions; flowcharts; the Biodiversity Conservation Database co-managed by The Nature Conservancy and the Natural Heritage Program; reforestation rates; wildlife habitat data; Best Management Practices (BMP) monitoring forms; numerical rating systems; informal, in-house guidelines and checklists; wetland hydrology studies; the National Wetland Inventory; and wetland delineation criteria. These qualitative, but systematic, frameworks differed from informal, expert judgement frameworks in that they prescribed methods for projecting wetlands values that could be applied consistently by a variety of users.

Systematic, qualitative frameworks were employed more frequently than informal or formal frameworks by all categories of stakeholders. Maps, including techniques such as aerial surveys, remotely sensed data and GIS, were the most prevalent single systematic, qualitative technique. HGM was the most popular formal model. Informal frameworks were used least frequently by all the stakeholder groups. State and federal government agencies tended to use all types of frameworks more than the forestry industry or non-profit organizations and to use them more frequently. Agencies with regulatory and permitting responsibilities, such as the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, which administers wetland permits under the Clean Water Act, were especially likely to use formal or at least qualitative, systematic frameworks. The types of frameworks used by the stakeholders often were not addressed in their written literature. State government written materials tended to mention the frameworks they used to predict whether their values were being realized more frequently than the other stakeholders did.

Management Implications

Values Articulated by Stakeholders

This research indicates that private, public and non-profit stakeholders share a cross-section of wetland values. For instance, habitat, water quality, natural heritage, water storage and recreation values were mentioned by all the stakeholder groups (i.e., forestry/industry, state government, federal government and nonprofits). At some level all of the stakeholder groups recognized and acknowledged the importance of these values. Not only are these values present among all stakeholder groups, but some values were very prevalent on an individual basis. For instance, habitat was important to 82% of the individuals interviewed. Water quality was important to 70% of those interviewed, and natural heritage values were important to almost 50% of the stakeholders. These findings suggest that this broad group of stakeholders have a common degree of appreciation for many of the values related to wetlands and high level of individual appreciation for habitat and water quality values.

Values that were shared less widely included property rights, training marines, economic benefits and, to some extent, fiber production. In contrast to the more widely shared values mentioned above, the less frequently shared values can be seen as serving more narrowly defined interests. These findings indicate that there may be greater recognition of the broad array of wetland values than conventional wisdom would suggest. Consequently, the opportunities for exploring mutually acceptable management solutions may be underexploited.

Not only are wetland values recognized broadly among stakeholders, but all of the stakeholders acknowledge that multiple values exist within wetlands. All of the stakeholder groups cited at least seven different values in their interview and written material. Since forested wetlands are valued along multiple dimensions, management dialogues should incorporate this complexity into more appropriate management solutions.

Even though stakeholders recognized a broad array of wetlands values, many of them placed a priority on one or two values. Three-fourths of the stakeholders identified a most important value. Not surprisingly, four of the forestry groups cited fiber production as their most important value. The most important values identified by the non-profit organizations reflected the range of their interests, including habitat, water quality, natural heritage, property rights and economic benefits. For instance, the Carteret County Economic Development Authority prioritized economic benefits, whereas The Nature Conservancy emphasized natural heritage. State agencies identified habitat and water quality as most important. Federal agencies indicated that habitat was most significant. That state and federal agencies identified habitat as their most important value is not surprising in the context of the Endangered Species Act. Federal law mandates that threatened and endangered species and their habitats be protected; thus agencies are forced to place an emphasis on habitat. Likewise, water quality is regulated under a variety of federal and state laws, so agencies may have little choice but to emphasize those values.

One-quarter of the stakeholders were reluctant to identify a specific value that was most important to them. Among those who did identify a most important value, several qualified their statements by stipulating that the values they identified did not always hold under all conditions. This indicated that stakeholders view values contextually and that value relationships are fluid to some degree. For a significant subset of stakeholders, values and preferences are not fixed. Management solutions can take advantage of this flexibility and should craft management dialogues that do not artificially constrain preferences of the stakeholders or the options for wetlands management. Again, there may be more room for compromise than conventional wisdom suggests.

Types of Wetlands of Concern

There is no universal language that is used when stakeholders talk about wetlands. Different stakeholders assigned different names to the same wetlands. These differences in language hindered communication about where specific wetland conflicts occurred. These findings suggest a need to work toward more universally accepted names for the many types of wetlands. A convergence on one set of names seems to be occurring in North Carolina. When the North Carolina Division of Forestry Resources revised its Wetlands Best Management Practices, it adopted a simplification of the Shafale and Weakley (1990) community classification. Similarly, under some prodding from United States Army Corps of Engineers, the North Carolina Department of Transportation is gradually replacing its hybrid system with a simplification of Shafale and Weakley (1990), although not necessarily the same one as the Division of Forestry. Most of the natural heritage and non-game oriented organizations use the Shafale and Weakley (1990) system already.

There is less controversy over the management of certain types of wetlands than others, and there may be agreement on how some general, as well as specific, types of wetlands should be managed. For instance, 59% of all the stakeholders identified pocosins as wetlands of concern. Of the wetland types cited most frequently, several are broad categories (e.g., bottomland hardwoods, swamp). However, three quite specific wetlands types (pocosins, wet pine flats, and Atlantic white cedar) were mentioned often. Pocosins are unique to the Carolina coastal plain. They were once viewed as wasteland, but more recently they have received a great deal of attention as wildlife habitat (Richardson 1983). Wet pine flats have been among the most controversial forested wetland types because they are only seasonally wet and have been a target for intensive pine silviculture. Atlantic white cedar, although still highly valued as timber, has become so scarce it is now the target of special conservation efforts (Phillips et al. 1998).

The management of riparian wetlands tended to be less controversial than the management of nonriparian wetlands, perhaps because of a perceived closer connection to water quality. In general, the wetter the wetland, the less controversial the management options. The further one moved into the headwaters of riparian systems, the greater the variation in water level, and the greater the controversy. For instance, areas that were seasonally wet prompted greater conflict than areas that were consistently wet.

The management implications from these findings indicate that when wetland conflicts arise, a greater effort needs to be made to understand the exact nature of the conflict. This means re-examining some of the basic assumptions about the controversy, reviewing the names used for the wetland to determine that stakeholders are actually talking about the same wetland, and identifying where the wetlands are located and their degree of "wetness."

Criteria and Measures Used by Stakeholders

Although Hetherington et al. (1994) argued that only preference-related concepts of value were subject to scientific understanding, the findings from this research suggest that function-related concepts of value should also be included. In fact, the lists of criteria used by the stakeholders to measure function values, such as habitat, water quality, natural heritage and water storage, are more extensive than the lists that emerged for the preference-related concepts of fiber production, recreation and economic benefits.

Andrews and Waits (1980) indicated that empirical indicators are needed to characterize values, and this research compiles a list of such indicators for measuring forested wetland values. These measurable criteria can provide benchmarks for management goals and can be used as a common standard among stakeholders to evaluate whether certain values are being realized in specific areas. We would caution, however, that the criteria should be verified with all the stakeholders to ensure that the criteria mean the same things to all involved.

These criteria are only a starting point for developing dialogue among stakeholders about the measurement of values in forested wetlands. Different stakeholders will prefer different criteria depending on their management goals. For instance, habitat was a widely shared value, but more specific aspects of habitat may differ among stakeholders, e.g., criteria to measure game species habitat versus non-game species habitat were significantly different.

Frameworks Used by Stakeholders

Frameworks can help predict the consequences of certain courses of action. If agencies or organizations wish to realize specific values for forested wetlands, frameworks can help them predict whether those goals will be met under a particular management plan. Three types of predictive frameworks were explored in this project. Formal frameworks, such as HGM, WET, age-class distribution models and flood-flow response models, were characterized by strictly defined algorithms. Often these frameworks were formal computer models. Systematic, qualitative frameworks relied less on formal computer algorithms and more on a systematic procedure that could be replicated with valid results by different users. Informal frameworks relied on best professional judgment and qualitative evaluation that did not lend itself to easy replication. Our research revealed that not all organizations used formal frameworks, although certain agencies have used these formal frameworks very effectively. For example, DRAINMOD (Amatya et al. 1997) is used by the N.C. Department of Transportation and the Environmental Defense Fund to predict and simulate the performance of water table management systems.

State and federal agencies involved with permitting, particularly under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, appeared to have the most formal and structured approaches to evaluating the worth of wetlands under proposed management alternatives. Organizations with a dominant goal, such as timber companies, use formal and systematic, qualitative frameworks to predict yields of products under different management schemes. This suggests that formal and systematic, qualitative frameworks can be more easily employed by those organizations that have unidimensional values or a single, high priority goal. More often, the multidimensionality of wetlands values predisposes organizations and agencies to rely on less formal frameworks.

The perceived ‘objective’ nature of more formal frameworks has become increasingly important in the litigious atmosphere in which forested wetlands management has taken place in recent years. Those organizations whose missions and goals are less well suited to employ more formal frameworks may find themselves at a disadvantage in conflict-ridden situations that are mediated by an outside party. The capacity of state and federal agencies to use formal and systematic qualitative frameworks means that they may find themselves at an advantage. However, in some cases state agencies concerned with wetlands appear to rely very little on structured, written protocols for defining objectives or for predicting values of wetlands, depending instead on the expert judgment of experienced field biologists, as in the N.C. Natural Heritage Program. Reliance on personal experience and best professional judgment may leave these programs vulnerable to changes in personnel, scrutiny by the public and legal challenges.

A problem with formal and systematic, qualitative frameworks is that they simplify reality in order to predict outcomes. The fewer values or goals that organizations have for wetlands, the more easily they can rely on such frameworks to defend and predict those values. However, as our research revealed, wetlands were valued along multiple dimensions. This complicates the task of modeling. Therefore, a tension arises between trying to use frameworks to legitimize findings and appraising a site based on its unique, multidimensional, and perhaps unquantifiable qualities.

Resolving Wetlands Disputes

Disputes over forested wetlands can be seen as a microcosm of the broader debates over forest and natural resource management in the United States. Value questions are often at the heart of controversies about natural resource management, and forested wetlands are no exception. Value focused thinking and objective hierarchies provide a systematic, empirical method to investigate value-based issues.

The interview and written data collected in this project revealed that the suites of values possessed by various stakeholders were similar in many respects. All stakeholders valued forested wetlands for the water quality, habitat, natural heritage, water storage and recreation functions they provided. However, stakeholders differed in how they prioritized some values over others. Utilizing the principles of VFT and objective hierarchies, we encouraged the stakeholders to be specific in relating the criteria they would use to assessing how well their values were being realized. In this way, we catalogued observable criteria for each stakeholder and disaggregated stakeholder perspectives with respect to forested wetlands management into more manageable components.

Several broad lessons emerge from this research that could be helpful in avoiding situations like the EDF-Weyerhaeuser controversy in the future or in resolving such controversies more quickly and less litigiously. (1) A standardization of wetland terms would facilitate better communication among forested wetland stakeholders. Stakeholders use different terms to refer to the same type of wetland, causing unproductive confusion. A systematic and uniform nomenclature would remove one source of conflict. (2) Not all wetland types provoke conflict: the less wet, the more controversial. Revealing to the stakeholders that some agreement may exist about management options in one area may allow the stakeholders to explore alternatives that were previously off the table. For instance, if EDF cares about the wettest wetlands, and Weyerhaeuser has no plans to harvest timber in those areas, then both parties can agree the area is off limits. This may engender good will between the parties and encourage compromise on alternative management scenarios. (3) The management of wetlands demands a multidimensional approach. Even the most focused stakeholders, such as timber industries, pursue multiple objectives through wetlands management. Stakeholders view wetlands as multidimensional resources, value different types of wetlands differently, and use multiple criteria to measure how their values are being realized. Management solutions should embody the same complexity.

Two additional lessons emerge from this research and point to areas that could be the source of potential conflict among stakeholders. (1) Although there is widespread agreement among stakeholders on some of the broad goals for management of forested wetlands (e.g., wildlife habitat, water quality), more detailed examination of objectives, criteria and management alternatives may reveal different emphases that can lead to conflicting recommendations. For instance, if facilitators fail to move beyond the most broad definition of the values held in common by the stakeholders, they could be setting themselves up for failure. It is imperative to move beyond the discussion of wildlife habitat and investigate which specific habitats (e.g., game vs. non-game) are important to each stakeholder. Exploring goals at this detailed level is essential for finding management plans that enjoy broad support, as has been done by Weyerhaeuser and EDF in the East Dismal Swamp. (2) There is little consistency among stakeholders in the use of predictive frameworks to aid management planning. Stakeholders with regulatory responsibilities are more likely to use systematic, qualitative methods of analysis, but some rely heavily on expert judgment alone, perhaps creating vulnerability to legal challenges. This means that some stakeholder groups will have at their disposal more quantitatively rigorous tools to help advocate their suites of values. Managers and facilitators need to be aware that most stakeholder groups rely on some form of predictive frameworks and that these range from quantitatively to qualitatively rigorous techniques. The frameworks utilized by the stakeholders will vary depending on the type of values that are important to the stakeholder. This does not mean that one technique is better than another.

In conclusion, we feel that value focused thinking and objective hierarchies are useful tools to uncover the values that may lie at the heart of conflicts over wetland management, and perhaps other natural resource management, disputes. Clarifying and measuring the values among the stakeholders revealed that there are more options for consensus and perhaps compromise than suggested by conventional wisdom. While some values divides may be too deep to overcome, VFT and objective hierarchies can shed light on the substance of conflict and potential for consensus.

Adamus, P.R., L.T. Stockwell, E.J. Clairain, Jr., M.E. Morrow, P.R. Lawrence, and R.D. Smith. 1991. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET). Vol. 1, Literature review and evaluation rationale. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-2. 287 pp.

Amatya, D.M., R.W. Skaggs, and J.D. Gregory. 1997. Evaluation of a watershed scale forest hydrologic model. Agricultural Water Management 32:239-258.

Andrews, R. N. L. and M. J. Waits. 1980. Theory and methods of environmental value research. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 5:71-78.

Bengston, D. N. 1994. Changing forest values and ecosystem management. Society and Natural Resources, Vol 7:515-533.

Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Technical Report WRP-DE-4.

Brown, T. C. 1984. The concept of value in resource allocation. Land Economics 60:231-246.

Cashin, G. E., J. R. Dorney, and C. J. Richardson. 1992. Wetland alteration trends on the North Carolina coastal plain. Wetlands 12: 63-71.

Catton, W. R. Jr., and R. E. Dunlap. 1978. Environmental sociology: A new paradigm. American Sociologist 13:14-49.

Clemen, R. T. 1996. Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis. Duxbury Press: Albany, NY.

Cubbage, F. W., W. C. Siegel, and C. H. Flather. 1992. Forested wetlands in the United States: geographic distribution, federal regulation, and management implications. In: Proceedings, Forestry and the Environment, an Economic Perspective. Jasper, Alberta, Canada.

Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetlands Losses in the United States 1780’s to 1980’s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 21 pp.

Dubensky, M. M., R. S. Berg, and W. S. Berry. 1993. Forested wetland area and distribution. Journal of Forestry 9:15-20.

Dunlap, R. and K. D.Van Liere. 1978. The ‘new environmental paradigm’. Journal of Environmental Education 9:10-19.

Farber, S. and R. Costanza. 1987. The economic value of wetlands systems. Journal of Environmental Management 24:41-51.

Goodman, L. A. 1961. Snowball sampling. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32: 148-170.

Gregory, R. and R. L. Keeney. 1994. Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values. Management Science 40:1035-1048.

Hefner, J. M. and J. D. Brown. 1985. Wetland trends in the southeastern United States. Wetlands 4:1-12.

Hetherington, J., T. C. Daniel and T. C. Brown. 1994. Anything goes means everything stays: the perils of uncritical pluralism in the study of ecosystem values. Society and Natural Resources, Vol. 7: 535-546.

Johnston, C. A. 1994. Cumulative impacts to wetlands. Wetlands 14:49-55.

Keeney, R. L. 1992. Value Focused Thinking. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

McDaniels, T. L. 1995. Using judgement in resource management: a multiple objective analysis of a fisheries management decision. Operations Research 43:415-426.

North Carolina Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources, 1996. Best Management Practices for Forestry in North Carolina's Wetlands. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Phillips, R. W., J. H. Huges, M. A. Buford, W. E. Gardner, F. M. White and C. G. Williams. 1998. Atlantic white cedar in North Carolina, USA. Pp 156-170 in Coastally Restricted Forests. A.D. Laderman, ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.

Richardson, C. J. and E. J. McCarthy. 1994. Effect of land development and forest management on hydrologic response in southeastern coastal wetlands: a review. Wetlands 14:56-71.

Richardson, C. J. 1994. Ecological functions and human values in wetlands: a framework for assessing forestry impacts. Wetlands 14:1-9.

Richardson, C. J. 1983. Pocosins: Vanishing wastelands or valuable wetlands. Bioscience 33: 626-633.

Rokeach, M. 1973. The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.

Sagoff, M. 1988. The Economy of the Earth: Philosophy, Law, and the Environment. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Shabman, L. and M. K. Bertelson. 1979. Use of developmental value estimates for coastal wetland permit decisions. Land Economics 55:213-222.

Shafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment. Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat Evaluation Procedures. Fish and Wildlife Services Manual. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, NETC Publications Unit, Washington, D.C.

Walbridge, M. R. and B. G. Lockaby. 1994. Effects of forest management on biogeochemical functions in southern forested wetlands. Wetlands 14:10-17.

Whitehead, J. C. 1990. Measuring willingness-to-pay for wetlands preservation with the contingent valuation method. Wetlands 10:187-201.

Wigley, T. B. and T. H. Roberts. 1994. Review of wildlife changes in southern bottomland hardwoods due to forest management practices. Wetlands 14:41-48.

Appendix A. Questions used to guide interviews with forested wetlands stakeholders.
 

1.    How would you describe your organization's goals for management of forested wetlands? What products, services, functions of forested wetlands does your organization value? [Note that we do not need to know numerical targets, such as a particular rate of return, just that high financial return is a goal.]
 

2.    Do these goals differ for different types of forested wetlands? If so, how would you characterize these different types of forested wetlands in terms of soils, hydrology, vegetation, or any other features you consider important? What are the goals for each type? [Note that we are leaving it to the respondent to decide what is a wetland and what features differentiate various types of wetlands.]
 

3.    What are your organization's priorities among goals? Do the priorities differ among different forested wetland types? If so, how?

4.    Does your organization perceive some of its goals to be in conflict with others in some situations? What would be some typical situations, and how would the conflicts typically be resolved?

5.    What measures do you use to evaluate how well each goal is being met?

6.    What formal or informal models, or sources of information, does your organization use to predict how well each goal will be met under different management scenarios? What are the dependent variables, or measures of output? What are the independent variables, or determining factors? What are the important assumptions underlying your models? [Note that we do not need to know details about parameter values, such as yield functions or financial functions, just the basic structure of those functions in terms of what variables and assumptions are incorporated in the models.]

7.    What other organizations do you consider to be major players in management of forested wetlands in coastal North Carolina? (Please include those with interests different, as well as similar, to yours.) Can you suggest particular organizations and/or contact persons we should interview in order to become informed about the full spectrum of goals for forested wetlands?

Appendix B: Frameworks used by stakeholders, from interviews and written data (in parentheses).
 

Formal Frameworks	FORESTRY/ INDUSTRY	STATE GOVERN-MENT	FEDERAL GOVERN-MENT	NON PROFIT ORGANI- ZATIONS	TOTALS
Hydrogeomorphic (HGM)		2 (1)	3 (2)		5 (3)
Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET)		1	1		2
Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP)		3	2		5
DRAINMOD				1	1
NC-CREWS		1 (1)			1 (1)
Information Forest Management Systems (IFMS)	1				1
Fire Modeling			1		1
Age/class Distribution Frameworks			1		1
Flood Flow Response Model				1 (1)	1 (1)
Hydrology Models	2			(1)	2 (1)
Systematic Qualitative Frameworks
Maps/Aerial Surveys/Remote Sensed Data/GIS		2 (2)	2	1	5 (2)
Flowcharts		1 (1)		(1)	1 (2)
Biodiversity Conservation Database (TNC/NHP)		2		1	3
Reforestation Rates	1				1
Pre-Settlement Fire Conditions		1 (1)			1 (1)
Wildlife Habitat Data	1	1			2
BMP Monitoring Forms	1	1 (1)			2 (1)
Numerical Rating Systems		(1)	1 (1)		1 (2)
Informal In-House Guidelines/Checklists		1 (1)	2		3 (1)
Wetland Hydrology Studies		1	2	1	4
National Wetland Inventory/Delineation Regs		1 (1)	1		2 (1)
Land Classification System	(1)				(1)
Informal Frameworks
Best Professional Judgment		3 (2)	3		6 (2)
Qualitative Evaluation		1			1
Using Other Conservation Groups (EDF/NHP)		1	2		3
TOTALS	6 (1)	23 (12)	21 (3)	5 (2)