Forest owners and managers deal with an increasing demand for forest ecosystem services (ES). In addition, a recent change can be observed from a governmental top-down approach to bottom-up initiatives, including efforts of the local population to have a say in forest management decisions. Matching supply and demand is seen as a basic condition for the sustainable utilization of forest ES. Against this background, we address the following research questions: (i) How can the preferences on the supply and demand side of forest ES be consistently determined? (ii) In how far do these preferences vary due to regional and societal differences? (iii) How can the supply and demand of forest ES be matched by forest management alternatives? We conducted a survey in Switzerland with foresters and the wider population to compare attitudes and preferences of the supply and demand side of forest ES. The core of the study is a choice experiment (CE) to elicit the population's willingness to pay (WTP) for specific forest management alternatives, and the respective willingness to accept (WTA) on the foresters' side. To address spatial and societal heterogeneity, we compare different geographic forest zones and settlement areas.

This paper aims at analyzing whether existing economic value estimates for forest ecosystem services (ES) might be transferred and used for valuation purposes elsewhere, and whether these data are appropriate for application in forest management. Many forest ES are public goods or positive externalities, and as a consequence they do not have a market price. The valuation of forest ES can provide important information for decision making in forest management and planning as well as in political processes, especially by allowing the comparison of different alternatives and helping set priorities for practical actions, as well as developing financial incentives or support mechanisms. We analyze whether an integrated economic valuation model for forest ES can be developed based on existing published data. To achieve this, we assess to which extent a benefit transfer could be expedient, and which challenges must be addressed. Based on a literature search, we compiled an extensive database of forest ES values. Given that these values vary substantially for the same ES, such a database alone does not seem useful to serve as a decision and management support tool. In addition, the available information mainly focuses on forests as such, and does not include desirable forest composition and management targets. If existing estimates should be transferred and used for forest management decisions, both the background conditions of the primary studies and the indicators used for valuation need to be specified in detail. The most expedient approach in this context seemed to be a valuation function transfer based on a broad set of indicators, offering the possibility to adapt the valuation function to changing background conditions.