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)
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.