understanding the discourse of forest restoration and biomass utilization to guide collaborative...
TRANSCRIPT
Understanding the discourse of forest restoration and biomass utilization to guide collaborative forest resource planning
Jessica Clement, Nathaniel Anderson, Pam Motley, and Tony Cheng
What’s ahead?
• Background• Goals and Objectives• Methods: The Q-study• Results• Discussion and Questions
Research Personnel
Colorado Forest Restoration Institute, CSU• Jessica Clement• Tony Cheng
Uncompahgre Partnership • Pam Motley (now with West Range
Reclamation)
Rocky Mountain Research Station• Nate Anderson
Partners
• Uncompahgre Partnership/GEO Grant• RMRS• CSU- CFRI• GMUG National Forests• Public Lands Partnership
Participants, advisors and stakeholders in the study
What themes characterize stakeholders’ subjective
perceptions and discourse about restoration treatments
and biomass utilization?
Goals
• Understand regional dialogue• Understand different perspectives• Guide communication, cooperation and
collaboration• Maximize benefits• Minimize conflict
Objectives
• Identify distinct themes that characterize different perspectives on this issue
• Examine nuances of those themes• Characterize patterns quantitatively • Identify places where frames overlap and
diverge
Methods
The “Q-Study”• Focus on “Frames”• Frame – “a representation of reality that
defines the key elements of a situation and its potential outcomes”
• Quantifying the subjective• Risk aversion versus risk taking
Methods
The “Q-Study”
1. Compile a database of statements
2. Sample the database to select 36 representative statements
Methods
Statement Categories• Aesthetic• Recreation• Ecological• Cultural/Historic• Process/Policy• Economic
Photo: Uncompahgre Partnership
Methods
Sample Statements• “Forest treatments should minimize visual
disturbances whenever possible.”• “I don’t think forest treatments have
negative impacts on recreationists.”• “It is important to me that forest treatments
pay for themselves.”• “I am concerned that biomass harvest will
lead to overharvesting and threaten forests.”
Methods
The “Q-Study”
1. Compile a database of statements
2. Sample the database to select 36 representative statements
3. Compile a “person sample”– NOT a simple random sample of individuals– NOT an opinion survey– Select participants to represent as many
perspectives as possible
Methods
Stakeholder Group
Participants
Recreation (motorized and non-motorized groups) 5Representatives of other collaboratives 4Grazing permittees 1Conservation groups 7Federal agency 5State agency 3Local government 5Energy utility industry 3Forest products industry 4Biomass utilization interests 2Landowners 3Total 42
Methods
The “Q-Study”
4. Data collection– Q-sorts of the 36 statements by participants– Followed by a structured interview
5. Multivariate statistical analysis– Concentrate relationships of many variables
into a few pairs of variables called “factors”
6. Interpret the statistical results thorough correlations with statements and people
Methods
The “Q-Sort”STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Results
FACTOR 1: Bio-centric Utilization• 20 of 41 participants• 34% of variation in the data• Generally supportive of biomass utilization
for ecological reasons, with an emphasis on accomplishing treatments to improve ecosystem health and avoid severe fires.
• “The Plateau contains important habitat for various species of wildlife. Treatment activities should not degrade habitat.”
Results
FACTOR 2: Industry-oriented Utilization• 10 of 41 participants• 19% of variation in the data• Supportive of biomass utilization to
generate economic benefits, including job creation in new and existing industries. Also aware of and supportive of other values.
• “It is critically important to industry to have a sustainable, predictable supply of material.”
Results
FACTOR 3: Industrialist• 3 of 41 participants• 6% of variation in the data• Highly correlated with statements
characterizing open burning of biomass as a wasteful activity. High emphasis on jobs. Low support for other values.
• “Using woody biomass instead of wasting it by burning or scattering on the ground has numerous benefits.”
Results
FACTOR 4: Access-oriented Utilization• 3 of 41 participants• 5% of variation in the data• Emphasis on access and motorized
recreation with support for industry.• “I love to explore the large network of Off
Highway Vehicle roads and trails that the Uncompahgre Plateau offers.”
Results
FACTOR 5: Risk-averse Eco-centric • 3 of 41 participants• 4% of variation in the data• Ecological emphasis generally skeptical of
utilization and disagreeing with statements supporting utilization for economic reasons.
• “Treatment emphasis should be on improving and maintaining ecosystem health.”
Results
• Loadings relate sorts to factors• Respondents load uniquely to one factor
Participant # Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 521 0.8310 4 0.8001 18 0.7826 34 0.7638 24 0.7589 7 0.7308 16 0.7105 33 0.6755 13 0.6713 40 0.6629 14 0.6585 8 0.6532 3 0.6420 15 0.5978 17 0.5892 41 0.5712 5 0.5405 32 0.5248 6 0.5021 12 0.4670
Participant # Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 528 0.7896 38 0.7860 30 0.7642 2 0.7516 10 0.7503 37 0.7275 11 0.6991 31 0.6522 29 0.6419 19 0.5151 23 0.7355 25 0.7012 1 0.6109 35 0.7479 26 0.7116 9 0.6639 27 0.6388 39 0.6172 36 0.6037 Q-sorts loaded on each factor at p < .01.
Take Home Messages
• The dominant perspectives tend to appreciate multiple values
• The dominant perspectives are not highly correlated with polarizing statements
• Is collaborative forest
planning the cause or the
effect? Or both?• How can we use this
information? Photo: Uncompahgre Partnership
Contact Information
Nate Anderson, Research Forester
Rocky Mountain Research Station
PO Box 7669, 200 East Broadway
Missoula, MT 59807
(406) 329-3398