

@mastersthesis {7072,
	title = {Linking forest restoration and watershed services: {Investigating} payment for watershed services in northern {Arizona}},
	year = {2012},
	note = {1511482},
	school = {Northern Arizona University},
	type = {phdM.{S}.},
	address = {Ann Arbor},
	abstract = {Poor forest health and the resultant threat of catastrophic wildfire threaten resources, local communities and ecosystem services. The Four Forests Restoration Initiative (4FRI) engages a broad base of stakeholders to address forest conditions at the landscape scale, yet is threatened by potential funding shortfalls. The hydrologic response following forest restoration will create tangible, non-market benefits for downstream water users. Payment for Watershed Services (PWS) has been proposed as a means of augmenting funding for forest restoration and management in critical watersheds. PWS are initiatives in which downstream water users (beneficiaries) make payments to upstream landowners/land mangers (providers) to adopt management practices that are linked to improvements in watershed services (Stanton et al. 2010) and have been employed on a limited basis in the western U.S. According to Wunder (2005), for PWS schemes to be feasible: (1) beneficiaries must be willing to pay, and (2) providers must have the institutional preconditions to supply the service. My study uses these criteria to determine the feasibility of PWS in Northern Arizona. In collaboration with my colleague, Dr. Julie Mueller, I estimated the willingness to pay (WTP) for improved watershed services for one group of downstream users, irrigators, following forest restoration activities. We found a positive and statistically significant WTP within our sample of \$183.50 per household, at an aggregated benefit of over \$400,000 annually for 2,181 irrigators. The benefit estimate we found provides evidence that downstream irrigators may be willing to invest in landscape-scale forest restoration to maintain watershed services. I examined the feasibility and design criteria for developing PWS programs in coordination with the USFS to support forest restoration. Using workshops, surveys, interviews and a literature review, I examined seven key components of PWS initiatives, including: governance, provider, watershed services, monitoring effectiveness, beneficiaries, payment mechanism, and financing mechanism. Key findings include: (1) policies are sufficient for PWS; (2) market based approaches are not appropriate; (3) intermediaries are critical in program facilitation; (4) different types of payment mechanisms may be appropriate; (5) USFS must remain impartial in PWS initiation; (6) different user groups are willing-to-pay for the protection and enhancement of watershed services. Our results suggest that PWS is one feasible means of augmenting funding for landscape scale restoration in Northern Arizona.},
	keywords = {0477:Environmental Studies, 0478:Forestry, Biological sciences, Contingent valuaation, Environmental Studies, Forestry, Forests, Health and environmental sciences, Institutional design, Payment for ecosystem services, water, Watershed services},
	url = {http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020130413?accountid=14270},
	author = {Swaffar, Wesley W.}
}
