Multiple use represents not only a philosophy of resource management, but more importantly, represents a practical means of achieving watershed management benefits while diversifying and increasing the level of income for watershed inhabitants. Shifting cultivation and agroforestry are multiple resource systems that have been practiced for centuries by farmers in developing countries. Thus, the concept is not a new one. The challenge, in a planning and management context, is to develop multiple resource management alternatives that provide needed resources to local people but that also achieve soil conservation goals and protect downstream communities against unwanted sediment and streamflow damages. Different forms of multiple use and the means of evaluating multiple resource alternatives are presented in this paper. Pilot projects of multiple use planning and implementation are needed in developing countries to demonstrate the viability of this approach to achieve environmentally sound and sustainable resource management.
A multiple use or multiple resource management perspective is needed to achieve sustained, integrated watershed management. This is particularly true in developing countries where large rural populations depend upon a variety of resources that are produced in upland watersheds. It is also true that much of the intensive farming, grazing, and wood harvesting that takes place is leading to watershed degradation and adverse downstream impacts.
Projects and programs that are aimed at increasing the productivity of watersheds cannot ignore the need to implement sound watershed management practices. On the other hand, watershed rehabilitation/management actions aimed at reducing erosion-sedimentation and other water related problems cannot ignore the importance of upland watersheds for producing needed goods and services. The key is to design, under conditions that promote soil conservation and water resource objectives, upland management strategies that diversify and increase income generation through the production of agricultural and natural resources. To the extent that decision makers can incorporate a "multiple use" management philosophy into their planning, both the level of income generated by a tract of land, and the sustained benefits downstream should be enhanced.
Multiple use can be considered in terms of areas of land (e.g., watersheds)
or particular natural or agricultural resource products. We will concentrate
on the management of land areas or watersheds to produce various resources,
although multiple uses of any given resource would be considered in evaluating
management alternatives. In either context, most watershed inhabitants in developing
countries practice multiple use. Their application of multiple use involves
the production of goods that they need, i.e., food, fiber, fuel, and fodder.
Even though their emphasis may be, for example, to grow rice or corn, they usually
have some system of management or off-farm harvesting to provide fuelwood, construction
wood, etc. In addition, most resource development activities are also closely
tied to the development and/or distribution of water supplies. Thus, multiple
use is being practiced in most upland watersheds, but whether such multiple
use is being properly managed for upland and downstream inhabitants alike is
a point of concern.
1 An example of multiple use of a natural resource product would be the use of
wood for fuel, construction, and pulp.
Multiple use needs to be treated explicitly in the planning and implementation of integrated resource development projects and programs. Using a watershed as the basic planning unit allows one to better account for the multiple products and amenities that are derived for both upland and downstream inhabitants. The objectives of a project/ program then include the development of appropriate and acceptable measures that produce needed goods and services in uplands, but that are compatible with downstream communities. The welfare of watershed inhabitants can be better planned with a multiple use perspective which, in turn, leads to sustained projects and programs.
This paper discusses the concept of multiple use and its importance to the development of sustainable, integrated watershed management. Specifically, we will describe a general framework and application of multiple use:
i) as a strategy for diversifying and increasing the level of income that can be generated through the management of natural and agricultural resources, and
ii) as a practical means of achieving watershed management objectives for upland and downstream communities alike.
An understanding of the multiple use concept is prequisite to the planning and implementation of integrated land management systems to diversify and increase the level of income. Herein, an emphasis has been placed on "forest management systems," but the overall orientation is equally adapted to other land management themes. Multiple use strategies, rather than the application of multiple use methodologies, are stressed. An initial step in planning for the implementation of multiple use, in most instances, is to devise an appropriate strategy, after which managerial tactics are formulated and implemented in operational programs.
The basic objective of multiple use is to manage the natural and agricultural resource complex for the most beneficial combination of present and future uses. The idea of maximizing income from a given resource base is not new, but it has become more important as competition for limited and interrelated resource products increases. These increased pressures have forced many countries, both developing and developed, to enact legislation establishing multiple use as a policy of resource management. The multiple use concept, as often described by law, does not necessarily demand that every land management unit be utilized for all possible uses and resource products simultaneously. Instead, most lands are to be utilized for a wide array of uses, as dictated by productivity and demand.
Multiple use management may be accomplished by any one or combination of the following three options (Ridd, 1965):
i) Concurrent and continuous use of several natural and agricultural resources obtainable on a land management unit, requiring the production of several goods-and services from the same area;
ii) Alternating or rotating the uses of various resources or resource product combinations on a unit; or
iii) Geographic separation of uses or use combinations so that multiple use is accomplished across a mosaic of units, with any particular land management unit being put to the single use to which it is most suited.
All of these options are legitimate multiple use practices and should be applied in the
most appropriate combinations.
From society's point of view, multiple use involves a broader set of parameters than
concerns the private investor (Harou, 1980; Lloyd, 1969; Worley, 1966). In general,
society is more interested in preserving benefits for future generations, requiring
investments beyond the dictates of limited business economics. Setting aside areas to
protect threatened wildlife species or to preserve natural plant communities are examples
of a geographical separation of uses from society's perspective. In such cases, adjacent
areas may be designated for cultivation or forest management. On the other hand, the
private investor makes decisions based upon relatively short-term profit motives commonly
related to limited resource product uses. Often, food and fuelwood needs of subsistence
farmers dictate the types and extent of resource development in watersheds. Effective
multiple use should accommodate the full spectrum of today's needs and provide for
tomorrow's requirements.
There are two fundamental types of multiple use: resource-oriented and area-oriented (Ridd, 1965). Multiple use of natural and agricultural resources can be directed toward one or both types, depending upon the immediate objectives.
Resource-oriented multiple use is dependent upon knowledge of interrelationships describing how the management of one resource affects the production of others , or how one use of a particular resource affects other uses of the same resource. Essentially, substitution between resource products or uses and the associated benefit-cost comparison of alternative production combinations are taken into account. Resource-oriented management can deal with a single resource with alternative uses, or with two or more resources with alternative uses for each.
When applied to a particular natural or agricultural resource, multiple use refers to the utilization of the resource for various purposes. Wood can be used for construction lumber, pulp, or fuel. Agriculture may involve cereal grains for human or livestock consumption. Forage can have value as feed for livestock or for soil stabilization. Water can be utilized for drinking, downstream irrigation, industry, or recreation.
Area-oriented multiple use refers to the production of a mix of products and amenities from a given land area. The relation of several resources on the land management unit to one another may be competitive, complementary, or supplementary. A competitive relation exists between resources when one must be sacrificed to gain more of another, as can occur between forest and agricultural products, or between wood and forage. In a complementary relation, both resources increase together, as can occur between agriculture and forage, once the forest overstory is removed. A supplementary relation ' is one in which changes in one resource have no influence on another, as can occur with livestock numbers over limited changes in forage production.
Within a watershed boundary, many land use systems can be spatially represented, including protection forestry, production forestry, agricultural cropping, grazing, and agroforestry. In developing countries, we often see a mosaic of these and other land uses in upland watersheds. Area-oriented multiple use is widely practiced in most developing countries, although multiple use management is not being practiced, in most instances.
Some of the best opportunities to match appropriate land uses within watersheds to achieve both upland productivity and downstream protection involve the integration of agroforestry systems into land management. These practices, as defined by Vergara (1985) and discussed by Nair in these proceedings, represent area-oriented multiple use in the purest sense of the word, but have a distinctive focus on the welfare of upland inhabitants. In the tropics, swiddening, taungya, border tree-planting, alternate rows and strips, and random mixes (all defined by Vargara, 1985), represent viable land use options. The key for managers and planners is to adopt appropriate agroforestry practices and to achieve watershed management objectives simultaneously. In critical areas, protection forests may be the only answer. But, with a multiple use objective and agroforestry practices as tools, a mix of goods and services may be obtained that meet management objectives and are accepted by upland inhabitants.
Many agroforestry practices are attractive means of integrating multiple-resource management with watershed management. Several reasons can be given and include:
i) Agroforestry practices have been used for centuries by indigenous forest dwelling communities in countries like the Philippines, Taiwan, Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia and are, therefore, largely accepted by local people,
ii) In areas where people have occupied the land for a sufficient time to observe the impacts of proper and improper swidden practices, the tendency has been to practice sustainable technologies (Rice, 1984), and
iii) A wide array of practices are available that can be adapted to different soils, topography and climate that achieve productivity goals without sacrificing soil and water conservation.
A detailed description of agroforestry practices that represent area-oriented multiple use is beyond the scope of this paper. We will, therefore, discuss a general approach for performing multiple resource analysis and use only a few selected examples.
In practice, multiple use involves both the multiple use of land areas and of resource products (Biesterfeldt and Boyce, 1978; Gregory, 1972; Hewlett and Douglass, 1968; Lloyd, 1969; Miller, 1969). Demands on particular resources (e.g., timber) for specific uses (e.g., fuelwood), in turn, place demands on the land areas where resources are produced (e.g., forested watersheds).
Resource-oriented multiple use requires an understanding of resource production capacities. The production of multiple resources must be related to each other and to the needs and wants of people. Area-oriented multiple use must consider the physical, biological, economic, and social factors relating to resource product development in a particular place. This approach provides a framework in which information concerning the management of land units can be arranged, analyzed, and evaluated for making sound management decisions. To a large extent, area-oriented management draws that information needed to describe resource potentials from resource-oriented multiple use, and then relates this to the dynamics of local, regional, and national demands (Ridd, 1965). Area-oriented multiple use is not necessarily intended to replace other forms of management, rather, to complement them, particularly in closing the gap between natural and agricultural resource management.
The problems of integrating forest management and the multiple use concept are not always realized by decision makers. While these problems can often be structured in resource-oriented management objectives during initial phases of implementation, decision makers must be aware of area-oriented management implications, especially when considering large areas. A number of land management considerations, policy formulations, and institutional conflicts are confronted in attempting to integrate the components of multiple use for enhanced income generation.
Land Management Considerations
In general, multiple use management involves the development, application, and evaluation of land management systems that alter natural or agricultural resource production. However, the impact of a forest management system may extend to other products and amenities. Many resources, in addition to wood and agricultural products, are usually in demand, and these products must be allocated in an efficient manner to maximize total benefits to society. Likewise, we should minimize impacts on other resources that have adverse effects on society, e.g., water pollution, sedimentation, etc.
Forest management systems designed to alter the production of commodity goods and amenities are commonly recommended by various interest groups. Furthermore, the implementation of these systems often requires sweeping modifications of vegetation on lands where the potential to alter production is the greatest. Also, some of these systems could jeopardize other land values and associated incomes; and some are irrevocable, at least in the short-run, in that they can easily be implemented but cannot be undone if they turn out to be mistakes.
To effectively incorporate multiple use into watershed management as a means of diversifying and increasing the generation of income, decision makers should possess:
i) On-site measurements of the yields of natural and agricultural resource products for the alternative multiple use management systems under consideration;
ii) Knowledge of the benefits and costs associated with each alternative; and
iii) A recognition of the externalities, or the off-site impacts, that are related to each alternative.
From this information, decision makers may undertake economic evaluations of alternative multiple use systems to select the best course of action. Importantly, these economic evaluations must be "tempered" to satisfy the goals of multiple use, as stated by the societal groups that will benefit and also pay for the implementation of the plan.
Estimates of Natural and Agricultural Resource Production
On-site measurements of natural and agricultural resource product yields are required to determine their response to alternative management systems. These products may include fuelwood, lumber, agricultural crops, forage for livestock and wildlife, and water. Consequently, estimates of wood production and agricultural crop production before and after a land management system has been imposed are desirable. Predictions of forage production and utilization can subsequently be translated into meat gains and wildlife habitat potential. Water yield and quality measurements should be estimated to represent the conditions before and after the land management system is put in place. On-site inventory programs aimed at providing adequate measurements of resource products and trade-offs among products are, necessarily, of high priority.
Measurements of natural and agricultural resource products can be represented as a product mix (Table 1). All resource products derived from a particular area: or class of land can be quantitatively described in such a table. A product mix representing the existing situation (M0) can be compared to alternative multiple use practices (M1 and M2 This comparison will show what is gained and sacrificed in multiple use terms , assuming that the response to management can be estimated. A set of comparisons form a basis for choosing a multiple use management system from a range of alternatives by appraising the impacts of the management redirections upon upland (on-site) productivity and externalities (downstream, etc.) as well.
The product mix representation in Table 1 can be used to select the best course of action to meet an objective of management by assigning values and performing an economic analysis comparing the existing condition with various multiple use alternatives. Such an analysis should consider the changes in products and amenities over time. For example, under the existing condition (M0 in Table 1), soil erosion may result in a decline in productivity over time. Alternatives that include soil conservation practices may show an increase in productivity over time as well as increases in usable downstream water yield. The true benefits of each alternative, compared to the existing condition, are thus represented by differences in on-site productivity and externalities over time.
| Item (Annual Production) |
Management Alternatives |
||
M0 |
M1 |
M2 |
|
| Wood cut | |||
| Fuelwood (m³) Construction (m³) |
X01 X02 |
X11 X12 |
X21 X22 |
| Wood growth | |||
| Fuelwood (m³) Construction (m³) |
X03 | X13 | X23 |
| Agricultural crops Maize (Kg) Potatoes (Kg) etc. |
: : |
: : |
: : |
| Livestock Meat (Kg) Milk (Kg) Wool (Kg) |
: : : |
: : : |
: : : |
| Wildlife (number) | |||
| Water Yield (m³) | |||
| Downstream Irrigation Storage (m³) |
X0n | X1n | X2n |
Benefits
Determining the benefits and costs of implementing and maintaining an effective multiple use system is prerequisite to selecting the best alternative (Gregory, 1955; Harou, 1980; Lloyd, 1969; Muhlenberg, 1964; etc.). Quantifying and valuing multiple goods and services in developing countries represents a real challenge to the analyst. Often, estimates by experienced professionals are needed to offset the lack of quantitative data.
Direct benefits may be dependent on the sale of products removed in the initial establishment of a management system and on the increase in "lumber-only" market can become obsolete if a pulpwood mill were installed. The presence of additional outlets could alter the expected monetary returns by making previously unmerchantable wood material saleable. Since market conditions can change quickly and affect returns so significantly, the wood resource should be described in terms of multi-product potentials (fuelwood, construction lumber, etc.) and provide timber quality and yield information for management and utilization decisions on a continuing basis.
In terms of an increase in on-site agricultural production, direct benefits will
require a level of production in excess of the subsistence level. The commodity surplus,
when available, can be sold locally or transported to regional markets. In the latter
instance, revenues may flow into the local economy that, in all likelihood, would not
otherwise be available. As with the sale of wood, market conditions for agricultural
products can change through time. Consequently, direct benefits that are derived from
increased agricultural production should be evaluated over a range of alternative cropping
strategies.
Benefits derived from a change in the production of other resource products (e.g., water
for downstream irrigation, forage for livestock and wildife, etc.), conceivably, could be
determined by comparable objective analyses, although these markets are generally more
poorly defined than those for timber resources and agricultural products (Gregory, 1972;
Lloyd, 1969; Seckler, 1966; Worley, 1966).
Direct benefits from combined production systems (agroforestry) are evaluated in terms of the sale of agricultural crops, domestic livestock, and primary wood products. However, changes in the levels of output in combined production systems, frequently, are difficult to assess, because of the "linkages" among products. Nevertheless, a measure of these changes is necessary to quantify direct benefits in a multiple use evaluation. Analytical techniques for obtaining these measures are not always adequate, however, and investigations to develop new methodologies are needed. Flexibility is important, as many of the benefits derived from agroforestry are utilized and not necessarily sold in a marketplace.
costs
A relatively large body of information on the costs of forest-watershed management is available in the literature. Unfortunately, these data normally reflect a particular economic situation and time, and cannot easily be adjusted to local conditions. To overcome this problem, the collection of "gross job time" cost data, in terms of physical input/output variables characterizing the management system and land area, frequently, are prescribed (Barraclough and Gould, 1955; Gregory, 1972; Worley et al., 1965).
As an illustration, inputs collected may include labor time, equipment time, direct supervision time, and materials. Outputs specify total production as units harvested, planted, etc. Costs are then determined by multiplying inputs by current wage rates, machine times, and material costs. The sum of costs divided by the number of production units accomplished gives an estimate of the average unit costs for a forest management practice. Of course, other approaches can be followed, although once again, information on costs should not be site or date specific.
The flexibility derived from the collection of objective benefit-cost data will allow multiple use management systems to be reevaluated as economic conditions change through time. Consequently, a system initially considered economically impractical, because of depressed market conditions or high implementation costs, could become operational with increased market outlets, or a change in wage or machine rates.
Externalities
Of great importance in integrating multiple use into watershed management is the ability to diversify and increase income and to properly assess externalities. In fact, consideration of externalities is the "essence" of integrating multiple use into a watershed management framework. In general, externalities are the effects of decisions made by one party on the gains or losses of other parties. However, these gains or losses do not necessarily enter into the decisions of the first party.
Two classes of externalities may be considered: technical and pecuniary. Technical externalities affect third parties through changes in production functions, while pecuniary externalities impact third parties through the market place. Furthermore, technical externalities are concerned with efficiencies of a system, and pecuniary externalities affect the distribution of income.
Serial technical externalities are those that trigger a chain reaction in a one-way
direction. A classic illustration of a serial technical externality is when people on an
upstream watershed impede the delivery of downstream irrigation water supplies, due to
their use of the land. Here, the upstream users of a watershed affect the downstream
users, but the actions of downstream users cannot impact those upstream. Reciprocal
technical externalities are presented by a complex web of spatial and temporal effects and
interactions among parties, both forward and backward. An example of a reciprocal
technical externality is one which occurs when a user of a "community" pasture
increases the number of animals that are grazed beyond the carrying capacity of the land.
Not only is less forage available for the other users of the pasture, but less forage will
eventually become available to the first party.
In making economic evaluations of multiple use management systems that are characterized by recognizable externalities, it becomes necessary to "internalize" these externalities as part of the decision making process. Models are needed to perform such evaluations, particularly under circumstances of limited data and information. Therefore, research to assist in alleviating this deficiency is paramount to planning and evaluating multiple use management.
Economic Evaluations
To make an economic evaluation of multiple use management systems, decision makers may select one or more of the following economic objectives:
i) Maximize benefits;
ii) Maximize the returns on an investment; or
iii) Achieve a specified production goal at least cost.
Source data required to satisfy the first two objectives include estimates of natural and agricultural resource product values and physical responses resulting from the management redirection, and costs of implementing the proposed forest management system. To satisfy the third objective, goals, which are often derived through the political process, must be established for various levels of production. In all instances, outputs of multiple use of natural and agricultural resources play an important role.
Economic evaluations frequently consist of an array of pertinent economic analyses designed to help make a better decision. individual analysis may yield a one-answer solution to the problem of selecting a land management system that maximizes the returns to a watershed. A group of such analyses, based on different criteria, will result in an array of items for decision makers. For example, such an array may include:
i) Estimates of multiple use production associated with the alternative forest management systems;
ii) Estimates of costs that are associated with the alternatives;
iii) Least cost solutions for different goals of multiple use production;
iv) Gross and net benefits associated with a range of multiple use management alternatives; and
v) investment returns and benefit-cost ratios associated with different multiple use management systems.
The above array is simply illustrative and, therefore, must be modified according to local, regional, and national economic philosophies and institutions. In fact, the selection of the appropriate criteria in the array is the "key" to meaningful economic evaluations of multiple use.
Policy Formulations and Institutional Conflicts
Given the above array of economic relationships, decision makers should be able to choose the best course of action. However, it should also be anticipated that there may be a number of policy issues and institutional conflicts that must be resolved before a multiple forest management system becomes operational.
The question of who will pay for the establishment of a new management system specifically designed to alter, for example, timber or agricultural production, must be answered. The group of people that implements the system may not derive direct benefits from all of the multiple uses affected. Undoubtedly, the role, regarding costs, of societal groups benefiting from altered timber or agricultural production will have to be established.
The benefits and costs of a multiple use management system designed to alter resource production to better meet societal needs must also be ascertained. Various viewpoints will need to be adopted so people can determine how a system is going to affect them individually and collectively.
Local groups on or near the area directly affected by a particular management system will want to know how a program may affect them personally. Their viewpoint can be developed by the valuation of "raw" products on-site, or by the value added through manufacturing stages in the economic stream from resource to consumer within the local area. A single economic solution may not be suitable, but analyses reflecting the various viewpoints may yield the required answer.
Regional interests will probably bear a large portion of the investment in a multiple use management system, and they will also want to know how a program will affect them. A determination of the effects of a forest management system on a region's economy seems appropriate. Finally, the national viewpoint must be the basis for some evaluation, because in many instances, much of the land subjected to multiple use management is administered by the central government.
One of the greatest problems confronting decision makers pursuing multiple use management is that of developing an efficient and responsive institutional framework through which land areas subjected to multiple use can be managed. A realistic management plan production, must either work within the existing institutional structure or modify it to be effective. An evaluation of the political and social organizations through which natural and agricultural resources are currently administered could suggest the necessity for institutional reform.
Through this paper, it is hoped that decision makers, land use managers, and the public will achieve a better appreciation of the application of multiple use in diversifying and increasing the level of income from integrated land management systems. The basic purpose of multiple use is to take advantage of the interrelationships between and among natural and agricultural resources on a land unit so that, by the manipulation of one or a few of the resources, additional benefits may be derived from many of the related resources. In recognizing these multiple use potentials, and incorporating them into comprehensive, integrated land management planning, more efficient utilization can be made of the resource base on the unit of land. In addition, and from a watershed management perspective, a multiple use approach directs planners and decision makers away from viewing watershed management as solely "rehabilitation" work. Planning can proceed with more of a sustainable approach to achieve both upstream and downstream objectives. Good demonstration or pilot projects illustrating the multiple use approach in planning and implementing integrated watershed management are sorely needed in developing countries. Quantitative data and sound economic analyses of such projects would significantly help achieve environmentally sound and sustainable resource management.
The emphasis here has been placed on "forest management systems," as much of the land on which the multiple use concept may be applied is forested. However, the orientation is adapted to a wide variety of land management considerations. Of particular interest is the application of multiple use forest management systems in integrated watershed management programs. This application will become increasingly important in the future, as rural and urban development proceeds on the more fragile watershed lands throughout the world.
Barraclough, S. L. and E. M. Gould, Jr. 1955. Economic analysis of farm forest operating units. Harvard Forest Bulletin No. 26, 145 pp.
Biesterfeldt, R. C. and S. G. Boyce. 1978. Systematic approach to multiple use management. Journal of Forestry 76:342-345.
Gregory, G. R. 1955. An economic approach to multiple use. Forest Science 1:6-13.
Gregory, G. R. 1972. Forest resources economics. The Ronald Press Co., New York, 548 pp.
Harou, P. 1980. Monitoring the use of multiple use forestry projects. In: IUFRO/MAB Conference: research on multiple use of forest resources. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report WO-25, pp. 125-131.
Hewlett, J. D. and J. E. Douglass. 1968. Blending forest uses. USDA Forest Service, Research Paper SE-37, 15 pp.
Lloyd, R. D. 1969. Economics of multiple use. Proceedings of the Conference on Multiple Use of Southern Forests, Pine Mountain, Georgia, pp. 45-54.
Miller, R. L. 1969. Progress in developing multiple use forest watershed production models. Annals of Regional Science 3:135-142.
Muhlenberg, N. 1964. A method for approximating forest multiple use optima. Forest Science 10:209-212.
Rice, D. 1984. The Ikalahan experience. Tropical Forests (Jan.-Mar.) pp. 18-29.
Ridd, M. K. 1965. Area-oriented multiple use analysis. USDA Forest Service, Research Paper INT-21, 14 pp.
Seckler, D. W. 1966. On the uses and abuses of economic science in evaluating public outdoor recreation. Land Economics 42:494.
Vergara, N. T. 1985. Agroforestry systems, a primer. UNASYLVA 37:22-28.
Worley, D. P. 1966. Economic evaluations of watershed management alternaties - the Beaver Creek watersheds. New Mexico Water Conference 11:58-65.
Worley, D. P., G. L. Mundell and R. M. Williamson. 1965. Gross job time studies - an efficient method for analyzing forestry costs. USDA Forest Service, Research Note RM-54, 8 pp.
