Source: UNIV OF WISCONSIN submitted to NRP
AN EXPLORATION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN STAKEHOLDER VALUE ORIENTATIONS AND ATTITUDES TOWARD PUBLIC FOREST MANAGEMENT IN WISCONSIN
Sponsoring Institution
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Project Status
COMPLETE
Funding Source
Reporting Frequency
Annual
Accession No.
0227373
Grant No.
(N/A)
Cumulative Award Amt.
(N/A)
Proposal No.
(N/A)
Multistate No.
(N/A)
Project Start Date
Oct 1, 2011
Project End Date
Sep 30, 2013
Grant Year
(N/A)
Program Code
[(N/A)]- (N/A)
Recipient Organization
UNIV OF WISCONSIN
21 N PARK ST STE 6401
MADISON,WI 53715-1218
Performing Department
UWSP College of Natural Resources
Non Technical Summary
The state of Wisconsin has a wealth of forested lands with 46 percent of its 34.7 million acres being forested. Thirty percent of the forested land are managed by public agencies (CLUE, 2005). These publicly managed forest lands provide a wide range of benefits to a variety of stakeholders. These benefits include economic, ecosystem, and social outcomes of forest management (Hartter, 2010; Manning, Leung, & Budruk, 2005; Moore & Driver, 2005; Nelson, 2000). In fact, many of these benefits are accounted for in multiple use statutes regarding management of county, state, and national forests ("Generally Accepted Forestry Management Practices; Multiple Use Sustained Yeild Act," 1960). In an effort to maximize the many benefits and minimize the negative outcomes of public land management while acknowledging the many trade-offs that must occur when managing public lands for multiple uses, many agencies are turning to a Benefits Based Management (BBM) Framework (also referred to as Outcomes Focused Management ? OFM) (Jaten, 2008; Lewis, 2008; Overbough & Bruns, 2008). While much of the use of BBM has focused on recreation management on public lands, the interdisciplinary nature of natural resource management requires managers to consider the effects of providing for one type of benefit on the many other management objectives with which they are charged. While these benefits provide justification and purpose to public land management, they can also be the source of conflict when stakeholders of different value orientations come into contact with management strategies that, on the surface, appear to conflict with their perceived value and purpose of the resource. In other words, what one stakeholder perceives as a benefit, another might perceive as a negative outcome of management. These subjective evaluations of management practices are important to forest managers who spend a significant amount of time managing conflict (Driver, 2008). By understanding the roots of these subjective evaluations of management outcomes, forest managers can better anticipate where conflict might occur and plan appropriate communications for minimizing that conflict. The purpose of the research proposed here is to compare stakeholder perceptions of county, state, and federal forests in an effort to understand the roots of stakeholder value orientations toward management outcomes. Using multiple focus groups, the researchers will collect information on stakeholders values and perceptions of public forests. Results of this research can be used by forest managers to better anticipate where conflict might occur and plan appropriate communications for minimizing that conflict.
Animal Health Component
(N/A)
Research Effort Categories
Basic
(N/A)
Applied
(N/A)
Developmental
(N/A)
Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)Subject of Investigation (SOI)Field of Science (FOS)Percent
1346010307020%
1316010307040%
1316010301040%
Goals / Objectives
Since natural resource management is interdisciplinary in nature, it is no surprise that many studies have focused on identifying and quantifying the many outcomes of natural resource and forest management (Hartter, 2010; Nelson, 2000; Stein, Anderson, & Thompson, 1999). Some of these studies have focused on benefits of resource management in general (Hartter, 2010; Nelson, 2000) while others have focused on the benefits of managing specific resources, such as Minnesota State Parks, for specific purposes such as recreation (Stein, et al., 1999). Few studies, however, have focused on comparisons of stakeholder value orientations and attitudes toward management outcomes regarding resources that, to a layperson, may appear closely related, but which are, in fact, distinct in both purpose and management capacity. The abundance of publicly managed forest lands in Wisconsin provides a unique opportunity to conduct this type of research, comparing stakeholder perceptions of county, state, and federal forests. To this end, the project proposed here is focused on answering the following research questions over a two-year period: 1. How do stakeholders describe the purpose of public forests in the state of Wisconsin 2. What values do stakeholders and forest managers ascribe to public forests (county, state and federal) in Wisconsin 3. What is stakeholder willingness to pay for the most valued services of public forests in Wisconsin and do these values differ dependent on management level (e.g. county, state, and federal) 4. What perceptions do stakeholders have of potential outcomes of public forest management in county, state, and federal forests in Wisconsin 5. What perceptions do managers have of potential outcomes of public forest management in County, State, and Federal forests in Wisconsin The results of this research will add to the scientific understanding of visitor value orientations toward natural resource management and the relationship of these value orientations to attitudes toward specific management outcomes. Furthermore, this research will also be beneficial to forest managers. Studies have shown that attitude accessibility is strongly related to how people assign meaning to their surroundings and their behaviors relative to that meaning (Vincent & Fazio, 1992). By understanding stakeholder attitudes toward management outcomes, and the underlying value orientations that inform those attitudes, managers can design communications that stakeholders are both motivated and able to process (Petty, McMichael, & Brannon, 1992). The results of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal articles and professional conferences that will focus on a comparison of values attributed by stakeholders to county, state, and federal forests.
Project Methods
To address the research questions for the first phase of the study, the PI will employ a Hermeneutic approach to qualitative research in which focus groups will be conducted using a pre-designed interview script which will guide participants in a discussion of certain themes (in this case the values orientations of forests and the benefits of forest management) with the interviewer clarifying responses and guiding respondents to express specific meanings (Patterson, Watson, Williams, & Roggenbuck, 1998). A series of focus groups will be conducted with forest managers and stakeholders (separately). Participants for focus groups will be chosen using a combination of purposive and snowball sampling. Participants for the managers' focus group will be chosen from forest managers and administrators of county, state, and national forests. Stakeholders will be identified using a two-step process. First, managers of county, state, and national forests will be asked for a list of active stakeholders (those who have visited the resource, attended public meetings, or come to managers with specific concerns). A subset of these stakeholders will be contacted and asked to participate in the focus group. These stakeholders will also be asked to suggest other stakeholders who could provide valuable information. If needed, additional stakeholders may be chosen from local residents, businesses, or community groups to ensure that a wide range of stakeholders are included. The number of focus groups conducted will be determined by data saturation (i.e. focus groups will be conducted until no new themes emerge). Each focus group will be recorded and transcribed verbatim. Upon completion, transcripts will be analyzed using a combination of open and axial coding to assign codes to emergent words, phrases, and themes which will be organized into broad categories and sub-categories reflective of the multi-dimensional nature of human perceptions. Peer review (conducted by appropriate colleagues) will be employed to ensure inter-coder reliability thus reducing inconsistencies in analysis.

Progress 10/01/11 to 09/30/13

Outputs
Target Audience: Results included in natural resources communication courses to assist students in understanding their stakeholders. We have been invited to present to state forestry officials this spring. Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? In addition to the educational resources described under "Other Products", a workshop for public forest managers is being developed. The data will also be presented at SAF in October, 2014, to reach a broad audience. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? They are currently being incorporated into course work for forestry and natural resource students in Wisconsin. Papers and presentations have been developed for dissemination, in addition to a workshop for forest managers. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Nothing Reported

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Goals 1-5: Major Activities: Focus groups and interviews were conducted with forest managers and users to identify perceptions of forest management, and a hybrid mail survey was conducted of residents in 15 Wisconsin counties with at least two types of public forest. Objectives, results, and outcomes for each goal are described below. Goals 1, 4, and 5: How do stakeholders describe the purpose of public forests in the state of Wisconsin?and What perceptions do stakeholders have of potential outcomes of public forest management in Wisconsin Forests? Specific objectives met: This research question was intended to identify whether people viewed the purpose of the three types of public forests differently. Interviews and focus groups were used for the purpose description, and the most mentioned purposeswere included them in the hybrid mail/internet survey to assess in the population. From the survey data, we identified the activities most commonly supported for each type of forest. Major Findings: County forests: The overwhelming majority of respondents agreed (22%) or strongly agreed (46.5%) that county forests should be managed for environmental quality. The next most common activity identified was recreation, with 24.5% of respondents agreeing and 35% strongly agreeing that county forests should be managed for recreation. Far fewer respondents indicated they should be managed for fish and wildlife (18.5% agreeing and 15.5% strongly agreeing), for human benefit (16.2% agreeing and 13.3% strongly agreeing) or for tourism (22.5% agreeing and 10.6 % strongly agreeing). Key Outcomes: People view the purposes of each type of forest differently. This will help managers identify potential sources of conflict among stakeholder groups. Goal 2: What values do stakeholders and forest managers ascribe to public forests in Wisconsin? Specific objectives met: We developed an understanding of how stakeholders value the three types of forests differently. Major findings: National forests are valued much differently than either state or county forests. County forests and state forests had few significant differences in values, while both county and state were significantly different on all 13 measured values. Key Outcomes: The differences in values is signifcant for forest managers to understand. Currently, county and national forests have similar multiple use policies, and thus communication is often similar for each type of forest. Given the higher values people have for county forest, it is clear national forest managers need to be proactive about increasing the perceived values associated with national forests in the region. Goal 3: What is stakeholder willingness to pay for the most valued services Specific objectives met: We asked stakeholders to allocate $100 on improvements for each management levels across 7 main categories (healthy & sustainable ecosystems, recreation opportunities, scenic values, wilderness viewing, hunting and fishing, production of forest commodities, and protection of water quality). Overall, the most valued service in terms of money spent towards improvement was hunting and fishing, followed by healthy and sustainable ecosystems and protection of water quality, which all had means above $20 across management levels (county, state, and national forest). Key outcomes: The allocation of dollars toward improvement on the forest is important for managers to understand. Results from t-tests indicate quite a deal of agreement across all three forest management levels when comparing the mean amount spent by category. The exceptions are significant differences (at the 10% level) amongst county forests and national forests for production of forest commodities (a = 0.075) and recreation (a = 0.094). The former could be a result of some of the attention in the media around the time of the survey toward lack of forest harvesting activities occurring on the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. The latter could also be the result of increased emphasis on recreational activities and resolving actual and potential conflicts on the County forests.

Publications

  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Other Year Published: 2014 Citation: Exploring Attitudes Toward Public Forest Management in the Northwoods of Wisconsin., In preparation for submission to Journal of Forestry.


Progress 01/01/12 to 12/31/12

Outputs
OUTPUTS: A literature review of public forest values, perceptions, and management acceptability was conducted. A total of 11 focus groups and interviews were conducted with managers and stakeholders from county, state, and federal forest in counties with at least two types of forest (county, state, and federal). All focus groups and interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed to reveal information about management preferences, forest values, and attitudes toward management on different land types. A follow-up web survey was conducted with forest managers to further refine the themes from the transcripts to develop survey questions. A draft survey instrument was developed using the results of the focus groups, interviews, and literature review. The survey will be conducted in Spring 2013. A sampling plan has been developed. PARTICIPANTS: Melinda Vokoun - Co-PI - provided information and insight for the development of the survey instrument. Kristin Floress - PI- oversaw graduate student work and overall project management, conducted literature searches, led data analysis, and provided information and insight for the development of the survey instrument. Anthony Sharp - graduate research assistant - transcribed and analyzed transcripts, developed web survey, conducted literature searches. Valerie Johnson - graduate research assistant - conducted focus groups and interviews, assisted with development of survey instrument. TARGET AUDIENCES: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Due to the the original PI resigning from the university and transferring the project to Floress, there were major delays in accomplishing the year one tasks. As a result, instead of simply conducting focus groups, individual interviews were also conducted with forest managers. The project is now back on target in terms of time frame for completion.

Impacts
At this stage, the major outcome is the survey instrument, developed with the results from the interviews and focus groups and with items revised from other published surveys to be appropriate for Wisconsin audiences.

Publications

  • No publications reported this period