Integrating beneficiaries into assessment of ecosystem services from managed forests at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, USA

Forest Ecosystems

Table 2 Forest ecosystem service preference weights (i.e. importance values), derived from a survey of residents in Grafton County, NH, USA

Service	Level of higher education
Service	All	No degree	Bachelor’s or associate’s degree	Graduate degree
Flow regulation	0.85	0.67	0.77	0.93
Flood prevention	0.74	0.67	0.70	0.78
Drought mitigation	0.87	0.83	0.85	0.92
Water quality regulation	0.90	0.77	0.87	0.95
Safety of drinking water	0.95	0.83	0.93	1.00
Smell/taste of drinking water	0.87	0.77	0.88	0.89
Scenic beauty	0.89	0.80	0.88	0.91
GHG regulation	0.84	0.60	0.76	0.95
Timber provision	0.67	0.40	0.64	0.75
Fiber provision (energy)	0.68	0.53	0.63	0.73

Importance values are calculated for the entire pool of respondents, as well as disaggregated by beneficiaries’ level of higher education. A value of 0 corresponds to a service or metric being perceived by beneficiaries as ‘NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL’; a value of 1 corresponds to the service being perceived as being ‘EXTREMELY IMPORTANT’