Commoditization and the Origins of American Silviculture

Introduction

Forests and woodlands are complex living systems that provide a multitude of products and services, including structural timbers, paper products, wood-based chemicals, fuelwood, clean water, wild foods, livestock grazing, recreational opportunities, chemical and nutrient cycling, and spiritual and aesthetic satisfaction. Societies across the globe and throughout history have developed methods for influencing and managing forest conditions in order to derive a broad mix of desired values. Cultures as varied as medieval Europe (Wilson, 2004), Native American cultures (Charnley, Fischer, & Jones, 2008; Deneven, 1992), premodern China (Minghe & Ritchie, 1999), feudal Japan (Iwamoto, 2002), colonial North America (Kelty & D’Amato, 2005), and many traditional and developing communities around the globe today have depended and continue to depend on forests to provide food, timber, and fuelwood, as well as other products and services (DeFries & Pandey, 2010; Gautam & Watanabe, 2002; Kambewa, Mataya, Sichinga, & Johnson, 2007). Within these largely preindustrial cultures, forests have been traditionally viewed as holistic systems providing society with an entire suite of interconnected values.

In contrast, the primary (and sometimes exclusive) focus of forest management in the industrialized world has been the production of commercial wood products, such as structural timber, industrial pulp, and wood-based chemicals. Despite this continuing emphasis on wood products, the last several decades have seen a renewed emphasis in the United States and globally on owning and managing forests for objectives other than wood production (Butler et al., 2004; UN Economic and Social Council, 2007), including biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration, producing biomass for energy production, and maintenance of forest conditions resilient to natural disasters. In many ways, this focal shift can be seen as a return to a holistic view of forest management akin to that prevalent in many preindustrial periods and in modern nonindustrialized societies around the world.

In the United States, this change in perspective has been encapsulated in a series of laws that have widened the objectives of public land management beyond the production of timber to the provision and maintenance of many other products, benefits, and values (e.g., P.L. 86-517, P.L. 91-190, P.L. 94-588). Since the 1990s, there has also been an emphasis on managing public and some private forest lands according to the principles of ecosystem management (Kohm & Franklin, 1997; Predmore, Copenheaver, & Mortimer, 2008; Robertson, 1992), a management approach that seeks to optimize social values by maintaining the diversity, function, and resilience of entire ecosystems. This has included a strong emphasis on restoration of native ecosystems, particularly ecosystems that provide habitat for endangered species and those that are resistant to catastrophic wildfire. A related concept is the management of forest lands so as to maintain or increase flows of ecosystem services, defined broadly as any and all the “benefits people obtain from ecosystems” (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).

The techniques that comprise what we understand as modern, “scientific” forestry largely began to be systematically developed in Europe in the 18th century in response to real and perceived wood shortages (Fernow, 1913; Radkau, 1996) and were first brought to the United States in the late 19th century (Pinchot, 1947). One of the most important of these techniques is the science of silviculture. The Society of American Foresters defines silviculture as “the art and science of controlling the establishment, growth, composition, health, and quality of forests and woodlands to meet the diverse needs and values of landowners and society on a sustainable basis” (Helms, 1998). Through the careful scheduling and arrangement of planting, harvesting, thinning, chemical applications, and other forestry operations across the landscape, the silviculturist attempts to direct the growth and development of the forest. This is possible because stands of trees frequently develop along relatively predictable trajectories (Oliver & Larson, 1996). When successful, the silviculturist is able to bring about a forest with the species composition and structural characteristics that will best serve the management objectives. Structure refers to the spatial distribution of tree heights, ages, diameters, canopy layers, dead trees, downed woody material, and understory components found within a stand or forest (Helms, 1998).

Silviculture texts reinforce the idea that the successful use of silviculture is dependent on clearly identifying the objectives that underlie management (Nyland, 2007; Smith, 1997; Young & Giese, 1990). Many management objectives, however, do not necessarily depend on particular conditions of composition or structure. Many, such as some aesthetic values or water management objectives, may depend simply on whether or not land is maintained in a forested condition. In other cases, the effects of changing composition or structure may be masked by the effects of actually implementing the silvicultural treatments, particularly where there are significant negative impacts associated with road building and the use of heavy machinery. In still other cases, the effects of changing structure and composition on management goals are strongly variable across time and space. Where the realization of objectives does depend, at least in part, on species composition or stand structure, however, silviculture provides managers with a broad and flexible suite of techniques that can be adapted to address those objectives.

Silviculture is a valuable tool for managing forests according to the paradigm of ecosystem management, or for any forestry activities in which non-timber goods and services are important objectives of management. It is important to acknowledge, however, that the existing corpus of silvicultural knowledge has been developed, refined, and articulated with an almost exclusive focus on wood production. This is not to say that other silvicultural objectives have been entirely ignored. Concerns such as water quality and wildlife habitat have always had an important place within the field of forest management. Particularly during the last two decades, the idea that silvicultural prescriptions need to take into account multiple values and objectives has become widely, almost universally, accepted (Nyland, 2007). This is to say, however, that objectives other than timber have largely been seen and addressed as technical constraints requiring adjustments to preexisting silvicultural techniques or, at best, objectives to be pursued using ad hoc adaptations of a silviculture originally developed and articulated for timber production. In this article, I intend to show how commoditization theory can explain the development of a silviculture largely focused on wood production, to briefly summarize the state of knowledge pertaining to silviculture and the provision of noncommodity goods, and finally, to identify what might be done to foster silvicultural research aimed at both wood products and other important noncommodity goods.

Commoditization and Silviculture

Manno’s (2002, 2010) commoditization theory provides an interesting perspective through which we may begin to understand why silviculture in modern Western societies has been conceived of and developed almost exclusively for the purpose of wood production. Commoditization is described as a society-wide selection pressure that emphasizes the “economy of things (the sphere of the market)” at the expense of the “economy of relationships (the spheres of community and habitat)” (Manno, 2010). In other words, the process of commoditization directs an ever-greater proportion of society’s resources toward the production of discrete, tangible commodities at the expense of activities that yield value primarily as a result of the relationship they bear to particular locations, circumstances, or communities (both social and ecological). Goods with high commodity potential (HCP) share characteristics such as being alienable (rival), excludable, enclosable, patentable, standardized, autonomous, mobile, and transferable. HCP goods can be produced in large quantities, are easy to package and ship, and can be used in a standard fashion by a wide range of potential end-users, regardless of location or circumstances. Goods with low or medium commodity potential (LCP/MCP), on the other hand, are openly available, nonrival, particular to a particular culture or locality, immobile, and/or dependent on a nontransferable network of social or ecological relationships. Whereas wood products are an excellent example of HCP goods, many non-timber values derived from forests have only LCP/MCP, values such as biodiversity, recreational opportunities, aesthetic, and spiritual satisfaction, protection from natural disasters, and nutrient and waste cycling. They are primarily nonrival goods that cannot be transferred or divorced from the locations and circumstances where they are found. Even within the category of wood products, there can be found a gradient of commodity potential, with value-dense products such as veneer logs and furniture-grade hardwoods being more suitable for commoditization than less value-dense products. Especially low-value wood products such as fuelwood or wood chips may have the characteristics of MCP or even LCP goods. They are often used locally, are frequently bought and sold through local networks instead of larger business outlets, and may even be distributed freely or through barter instead of the official money economy. On the other hand, LCP goods can be transformed into HCP goods through the creation of transferable exchange instruments, such as hunting leases (McIntyre, Jack, McCall, & Mitchell, 2010), payments for ecosystem services (Farley & Constanza, 2010), conservation easements (Tesini, 2009), and carbon credits (Daniels, 2010). Thus, the commodity potential of a given good or service is not only dependent on its own characteristics, but also on the legal and regulatory environment in which it is located.

Commoditization occurs within societies that emphasize the development and practice of commerce, in which mobility and individuality are highly prized, and in which centralized production requires goods that can be easily distributed. It reaches its greatest intensity, perhaps, in industrial or proto-industrial economies in which large quantities of uniform goods are produced and marketed widely. These conditions define the social environment developing in Europe, and in particular, the free cities of the German Confederacy, between the 16th and 18th centuries, the time and location where traditional forms of forest management began to be systematically developed into modern “scientific” silviculture (Fernow, 1913; Puettmann, Coates, & Messier, 2009). Here the emphasis was on the production of structural timbers and fuelwood, to support a rapid expansion of the craftworks and small industries of the new bourgeois middle class. Although forests continued to be used and managed for a wide variety of products and services, including hunting opportunities and aesthetics (Radkau, 1996), the focus within the developing field of silviculture was on manipulation of the forest to bring about the structure and composition most conducive to wood production.

Forestry science, including silviculture, was brought to the United States at the tail end of the 19th century, when the rapid rate of forest clearing in some locations was contributing to a mounting public fear of a future wood shortage (Pinchot, 1947). Early American texts reinforced the primacy of wood production in an economic context. Fernow (1916) said, “Silviculture, the production of wood crops, is the pivot of the whole forestry business.” “It’s aim,” according to Toumey and Korstian (1947), “is the continuous production of wood.” Emphasis was on managing the structure and composition of forest stands to meet wood product specifications (Toumey, 1916) in order to “secure the highest returns, financially, in a given time” (Hawley, 1935). Despite this strong emphasis on producing timber for the marketplace, objectives other than timber, especially protection of water resources and wildlife habitat, were clearly recognized in these early texts. They are rarely presented, however, as direct objectives of silvicultural manipulations, but as important secondary concerns that could warrant the modification of silvicultural treatments aimed at the production of wood. “Timber production is the primary objective of the silvicultural measures that are recommended. . . . In general, however, measures that favor timber production are not inimical to other land uses” (p.7, Westveld, 1949).

The emphasis placed on timber production in these early texts, as well as the clear secondary position granted to non-timber values, is a clear sign of the influence of commoditization on the early development of silviculture in America. Less obvious, perhaps, but more pervasive has been its influence on the development of American silvicultural research. A collection of social drivers—greater availability of research dollars for commodity-oriented research, the existence of private research labs owned and operated by timber companies, disproportionate publication of articles in journals emphasizing commodity production, a cultural idea that the most importance and most respectable research was focused on timber production, and so on—have led to a highly disproportionate amount of research effort being placed on commodity-oriented silviculture. In describing the effects of commoditization on agriculture and agricultural research, Manno (2002) highlighted the trend toward greater and greater emphasis on fewer crop species, increased emphasis on proprietary crop varieties, less emphasis on local varieties, and increased use of intensive culturing practices, including application of commercial chemicals. Although to a lesser extent, the same trends can be seen in the silvicultural literature. A greater amount of emphasis has been given to a relatively small number of fast-growing species, mostly a few conifers such as Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) and the southern pines (Pinus spp.). Furthermore, there has been increased emphasis on intensive production of these species, using plantations instead of natural regeneration, commercial fertilizers and herbicides, and greater use of genetically modified varieties (Charnley et al., 2008; Fox, Jokela, & Allen, 2007; Jokela, Martin, & Vogel, 2010; Vance, Maguire, & Zalesny, 2010). In comparison, a much smaller research effort has been spent on the silviculture of mixed-species stands, niche species of purely local or regional importance, and slow growing species less suitable for industrial timber production. So deeply ingrained is the emphasis on fast growing trees that McKenney, Beke, Fox, and Groot (1997) felt it prudent to ask, “Does it pay to do silvicultural research on a slow growing species?” and proceeded to answer the question using a net present value analysis of the assumed increase in production of wood products resulting from research efforts. The authors acknowledged that silvicultural research could also pay public dividends in the form of aesthetics, wildlife habitat, and other unpriced LCP goods and services, but they cautioned that the methods and data necessary to assess research investment on these grounds were not yet available.

The influence of commoditization on silviculture can be seen not only in the research questions that have been emphasized but also in the most basic silvicultural techniques and on the key measures and criteria that silviculturists have created to articulate those techniques. These include the following: definitions of “defect” and “cull” trees based on wood quality and future growth trajectory, log “grades” based on desirable wood product characteristics, and criteria for determining the “maturity” of individual trees based entirely on indicators of economic performance (Nyland, 2007; O’Hara, Youngblood, & Warring, 2010; Rast, Sonderman, & Gammon, 1973; Schuler & McGill, 2007). Thinning schedules and stocking guides have been built on the idea that the optimum level of stocking is that which uses all available growing space and maximizes value growth among trees of the most value product classes (Arbogast, 1957; Crow, Jacobs, Oberg, & Tubbs, 1981; Gingrich, 1971; Marquis, Ernst, & Stout, 1992; Roach, 1977). Similarly, optimum rotation length in even-aged stands has traditionally been determined by maximizing the mean annual increment (MAI) ¹ of volume or value production (Nyland, 2007; Smith, 1997). Even more fundamentally, Puettmann et al. (2009) describe how basic assumptions are built into the very language used to describe silvicultural systems, assumptions that may or may not come across in translation. Of course, all these tools, terms, and measures can be and have been modified to accommodate objectives other than timber production, mostly in an ad hoc fashion. In doing so, however, the silviculturist finds himself in the position of working from within a framework and lexicon oriented toward another purpose. This “built-in” relationship between the most basic articulations of silvicultural technique and the goal of wood production is one of the clearest and most important legacies of the powerful influence of commoditization on the early development of silviculture.

One particularly insidious form of commoditization is that which manifests itself in the form of education, in which knowledge itself becomes the commodity. Like is true of other goods and services, the amount of social investment spent in the development and dissemination of knowledge is often strongly associated with the commodity potential of that knowledge. HCP knowledge is easily standardized, purportedly “universal,” and transmitted via tangible forms of media that are themselves HCP goods (e.g., printed documents, electronic media). In contrast, LCP knowledge is nonstandardized, local, applicable only within a particular culture or social-ecological network, and transmitted orally or through LCP forms of media (i.e., handwritten documents, local publications, etc.). Furthermore, LCP knowledge is often associated with technique or artisanship that cannot be adequately transferred through physical media alone and instead must be learned through doing or through studying in the presence of a master practitioner.

The first American foresters, such as Bernard Fernow and Gifford Pinchot, received a traditional forestry education in Europe and imported a refined body of silvicultural knowledge to the United States. Pinchot (1947), the first chief of the U.S. Forest Service, was fully aware that many aspects of European forestry would not be relevant under the very different economic, ecological, and social conditions found in the United States and would need to be adapted to native conditions. Nonetheless, he adopted and advocated a body of silvicultural knowledge that was essentially similar to the one he learned in the forestry academies of Western Europe, a silviculture that used the same distinctions between activities and the same broad approaches to meeting the same broad ends. This form of silviculture came to replace the management techniques practiced by both Native Americans as well as those that were developed in situ by American settlers (Charnley et al., 2008), both forms of LCP knowledge. More than a century later, the fundamentals of silviculture are still taught in nearly every forestry program in the country as a more or less standardized and universal body of knowledge. That is not to say that regional differences are entirely ignored or that silviculture itself has not evolved considerably, but it is to say that many of the most basic approaches have not changed significantly and are still taught the same way (usually using one of only a very few current textbooks) across the nation.

As the example of silviculture illustrates, commoditization can affect the development of the sciences of natural resource management on many levels. The basic social and economic forces that give birth to commoditization create an environment in which natural resources are inherently valued more as commodities than for their value as part of an integrated, dynamic social-ecological network. Consequently, a management philosophy and overall management strategy predicated primarily on the production of commodities is adopted by society, and resources for research and development are made available in proportion to the extent to which that R&D is directed toward greater production of commodities. Tools, techniques, terminology, and assessment metrics geared toward commodity production are devised, refined, and ‘built-into’ the basic management strategy. Finally, the knowledge comprising the new management science is standardized and exported to the larger community, where it acts as an HCP product in its own right. In this way, the cycle is perpetuated and extended to a larger and larger sphere. This hierarchical nature also helps explain why commoditization is so pervasive and so difficult to address on any one level in isolation.

Silviculture and the Provision of LCP Goods and Services

Despite the fact that the existing silvicultural techniques framework is inherently oriented toward wood production, there has been a considerable amount of research directly or indirectly linking the provision of low commodity potential goods and services (LCPGSs) to silvicultural activities. This research falls within two broad categories. The first is research investigating the dependence of LCPGSs on particular configurations of stand structure and composition. Since silvicultural activities are intended to change the structure and composition of forest stands in a predictable fashion, this information can be used to predict the likely effects of particular silvicultural activities on LCPGSs. The second category includes research investigating the direct relationship between particular silvicultural activities and the provision of non-timber values and services. This type of research is less common than the first type. A third category is research that investigates the impacts (usually hypothesized to be negative) of forest management on some value of interest. This type of investigation often compares treated (or “logged”) stands to untreated stands without explicitly assessing the changes in structure or composition resulting from the treatment. As such, these studies are not necessarily relevant to understanding how particular silvicultural prescriptions impact LCPGSs. Studies investigating the difference in soil erosion rates between a logged forest stand and an unlogged control are of this type.

Wildlife habitat is one LCPGS whose relationship to particular configurations of structure and composition has been extensively investigated. A great deal of effort has been expended in determining the particular habitat elements necessary for the survival of a wide variety of species, particularly game species, endangered species, and other characteristic species of special concern to society (DeGraaf & Yamasaki, 2001; Hunter, 1999; McComb, 2008; Urban & Swihart, 2011). Many forest-dwelling species are dependent on the presence of snags, downed logs, and/or both fine and coarse woody debris (Janowiak & Webster, 2010; Jones, Hanberry, & Demarais, 2009; Tremblay, Ibarzabal, & Savard, 2010; Vanderwel, Malcolm, Caspersen, & Newman, 2010). Other species are dependent on the availability of particular tree species or the presence of a minimum number of trees of a certain diameter (e.g., Thompson et al., 2008). Many forest species rely on the existence of mast-producing trees and shrubs. All these elements can be created or managed in a predictable fashion using silviculture. Habitat Suitability Indices (HSIs) and other predictive models have been created that estimate the value of a forested parcel as habitat for a particular species based on its structure and composition (e.g., Cade & Sousa, 1985; Schroeder, 1985). By coordinating habitat requirements and stand-level conditions across a forested landscape, a forest manager can use silviculture to provide habitat for a portfolio of species or even for the broader objective of increasing or conserving biodiversity (Hunter, 1999).

Clean water is another LCPGS with relevance to silviculture. Although the effects of forest management on water quality are well-studied, the vast majority of these studies investigate the negative impacts of harvesting activities (especially road building and the use of heavy machinery) on soil erosion, water pollution, or other indicators of water quality (Brooks, Ffolliot, Gregersen, & DeBano, 2003; Grigal, 2000; Janowiak & Webster, 2010). Studies that investigate the effects of altering structure and composition on water quality are relatively rare. In contrast, there have been a much larger number of studies looking at the effect of silvicultural activities on water quantity. These studies often use large-scale treatments, often in the form of large clearcuts or whole watershed clearing (Brooks et al., 2003; Douglass, 1983; Ffolliot, Gottfried, & Baker, 1989; Hornbeck, Adams, Corbett, Verry, & Lynch, 1993; Stednick, 1996). Treatments are often classified according to the total percentage of land treated or land cleared (Stednick, 1996), without taking into account potential differences due to the spatial or temporal patterns of silvicultural activities. A smaller number of studies have looked at the effects of thinnings, partial cuttings, changes in species composition, and other more specific silvicultural activities on snowpack dynamics, streamflow quantity and timing, and other indicators of water availability (e.g., Johnson & Kovner, 1956; Rogerson, 1985; Swank & Douglass, 1974; Troendle & King, 1985, 1987; Woods, Ahl, Sappington, & McCaughey, 2006).

The maintenance of ecosystem function and resilience is an important non-timber objective on many public and some private forest lands. It is a cornerstone of ecosystem management (Kohm & Franklin, 1997) and an important objective within the field of ecosystem restoration. The commonly expressed goal of forest “health,” although difficult to define precisely (Kolb, Wagner, & Covington, 1995), is closely connected to ideas of ecosystem function and resilience. Management paradigms that seek to maximize flows of ecosystem services depend on the maintenance of key ecological functions, such as carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, primary productivity, soil fertility, and waste reception capacity. Silvicultural techniques have traditionally been thought to closely mirror the effects of natural disturbances and, as such, to complement, or at least not to affect, ecosystem function. There is some evidence, however, that natural disturbances and their silvicultural counterparts can affect ecosystem function quite differently (e.g., Foster & Orwig, 2006). A number of studies have sought to determine the exact impacts of silvicultural treatments or changes in stand structure and composition on many of these functions, including nitrogen cycling (e.g., Thiel & Perakis, 2009), primary productivity, and wildfire dynamics (e.g., Agee & Skinner, 2005; Kalabokidis & Omi, 1998; Pollet & Omi, 2002). Individual ecosystem functions, however, are not usually considered management objectives in their own right; assessment tools are needed for modeling (and monitoring) the consequences of alternative silvicultural activities on an integrated suite of ecosystem functions and other values (Alvarez & Field, 2009; Long, Smith, & Roberts, 2010). Tierney, Faber-Langendoen, Mitchell, Shriver, and Gibbs (2009) proposed the idea of “ecosystem integrity” as a measure of an ecosystem’s composition, structure, and function relative to its historical baseline, as well as a framework for assessing and monitoring ecosystem integrity based on a suite of biophysical criteria, such as stocking, diameter distribution, snag abundance, and tree species diversity. Ecosystem integrity may be a useful concept, particularly as it encapsulates many of the more nuanced elements underlying concepts such as ecosystem management, ecosystem health, and management for ecosystem services. The associated monitoring framework could be a useful platform for measuring and assessing the impacts of silvicultural treatments on ecosystem function and resilience.

Carbon sequestration is one ecosystem function that is quickly becoming an important objective in its own right, as a result of increased interest in using the carbon storage capacity of forests as a low-cost means of mitigating global climate change. As a consequence, a lot of research has looked at the changes in carbon storage resulting from silvicultural treatments or changes in stand structure and composition (Gonzalez-Benecke, Maxim, Cropper, & Bracho, 2010; Hoover & Stout, 2007; Huang & Sorensen, 2011; Malmsheimer et al., 2009; Ryan et al., 2010). As mentioned earlier, standardized procedures are being developed to monitor forest carbon pools and to issue carbon credits to individuals who increase carbon sequestration on their lands (Daniels, 2010). Such procedures have the potential to convert local carbon sequestration to an HCP service.

There are a number of additional values that society derives from forests that are quite independent of any utilitarian objectives, values such as aesthetics, spiritual connection, and recreational opportunities. These are important values to many members of society, although they are not easy to assess or quantify. They are closely related to one another and to other values and objectives. Several studies have examined how stand structure and composition, as well as silvicultural treatments, influence perceptions of scenic beauty, visual aesthetics, or landscape preference (Enck & Odato, 2008; Hoffman, 1997; Hoffman & Palmer, 1996; Kearney, Tilt, & Bradley, 2010). Results can be difficult to interpret, differ significantly between modes of assessment (Hoffman, 1997), and vary widely depending on time, location, and audience (Kearney et al., 2010). The recreational value of a forest is closely related to its scenic or visual qualities, as well as biophysical characteristics such as biodiversity and ecosystem structure. A number of studies have examined the influence of silvicultural treatments and changes in structure and composition on recreational activity (Shelby, Thompson, Brunson, & Johnson, 2005).

Conclusions

The processes of commoditization have had a defining influence on the development of the art and science of silviculture, from its earliest beginnings in early modern Europe through to its application and continued development in the United States in the 19th and 20th centuries. Despite the fact that society derives a multitude of products, values, and services from forest systems, the core techniques and practices of silviculture have been developed and refined almost solely for the objective of producing HCP wood products. Where objectives other than timber production (especially LCP goods and services) have been important, these have largely been treated as technical constraints on the production of wood or else managed for using ad hoc modifications of existing techniques. What has been largely absent from the history of silviculture is a deliberate development of refined silvicultural techniques, principles, and language directed toward the production of those non-timber goods and services that depend in part on stand composition and structure.

In the absence of any systematic attempt at developing a non-timber silviculture, a number of researchers have explored the relationships between LCPGSs and particular configurations of forest structure and composition, configurations that can be modified predictably using existing silvicultural techniques. To a lesser extent, there have also been studies on the direct effects of specific silvicultural activities on the provision of LCPGSs. Projects such as the Turkey Lakes Watershed Study, which is systematically exploring the long-term consequences of standard silvicultural methods on a suite of ecosystem services and functions, will shed light on how we might use existing wood-based silviculture to manage for a variety of values (Morrison, Cameron, Foster, & Groot, 1999).

To realize the vision of developing a body of silvicultural knowledge aimed first and foremost at the production of an entire suite of goods and services (including LCPGSs), it will be necessary to look beyond the language, terminology, and techniques of today’s wood-based silviculture. That is not to say that silviculture as it is currently known will or should be abandoned; timber production is and will likely remain an important objective of forest management. Furthermore, many current silvicultural practices are undoubtedly of value in managing for other goods and services. It does mean, however, we will need to develop new ways of thinking about and practicing the art and science of silviculture. In particular, we will need to allocate a larger share of research dollars and effort toward understanding how silviculture affects the provision of LCPGSs; we will need to be creative in deriving new techniques, terminology, and assessment metrics relevant for both HCP and LCP goods; and finally, we will need to foster dynamic, local, and nonstandardized forms of silvicultural knowledge. This last item is particularly important; a silviculture aimed at LCPGSs must grow and develop within a particular social-ecological network and must be responsive to changing conditions within that network. Such a silviculture will serve as an offshoot and articulation of an ongoing relationship between a local community and its forest resources. Such a relationship between a community, its resources, and its knowledge base was of course a basic fact of life for preindustrial societies, and has much in common with a number of modern ideas regarding environmental management, such as Norgaard’s (1994) idea of coevolving discursive communities and Cary’s (2006) idea of Active Intentional Management.

Creating a new role for silviculture will not be inexpensive. Some of the resources for this endeavor might come from the marketplace, especially where transferable exchange instruments can be created for LCP goods. On the other hand, one of the principal consequences of commoditization has been the lack of resources for research and development of LCP goods and services (Manno, 2010). For this reason, it is likely that any successful attempt at financing research of this type will depend largely on the availability of public funds, on citizens being willing to make a deliberate commitment to counteract for deficiencies in a marketplace concerned primarily with commodities.