United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-537

May 2002

Social Acceptability of

Forest Conditions and

Management Practices:

A Problem Analysis

Bruce A. Shindler, Mark Brunson, and George H. Stankey
Authors Bruce A. Shindler is an associate professor of forest resources, Department of

Forest Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331; Mark Brunson

is an associate professor of forest and rangeland resources, Department of Forest

Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322; and George H. Stankey is 

a research social scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 SW Jefferson Way,

Corvallis, OR 97331. Final report on cooperative agreement 97-8021-2JVA PNW

between the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, People and Natural

Resources Program, Oregon State University, and Utah State University.
Shindler, Bruce A.; Brunson, Mark; Stankey, George H. 2002. Social acceptability

of forest conditions and management practices: a problem analysis. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PNW-GTR-537. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 68 p.

The purpose of this report is to improve understanding of the complex sociopolitical

processes related to resource management and to help structure management

response to conflict and contentiousness, misunderstanding among participants, and

failed citizen-agency interactions. Public acceptance is essential to every resource

management decision public agencies must make. Regardless of the issue—forest

health, fuels management, riparian restoration, recreation impacts, or threatened and

endangered species—the political environment surrounding most decisions is never

about just single questions, nor is it about just ecological questions. Social acceptability involves many diverse factors that are only now beginning to be understood

and given credence by resource professionals. In this analysis, we describe the social

acceptability concept and identify 10 key problem areas needing indepth consideration for durable decisions to be made about forest conditions and practices on federal

lands. A central conclusion is that public judgments are always provisional, never

absolute or final. Each situation, each context, produces a unique set of circumstances affecting the formation of public acceptance. By its nature, social acceptability is a process rather than an end product. We conclude by presenting five basic

strategies to help guide resource professionals and citizens toward more integrated

solutions.

Keywords: Social acceptability, forest management, decisionmaking, public 

participation, strategic planning.

Abstract
1 Introduction

2 Research Goals, Concepts, and Frameworks for Social Acceptability

3 What is Social Acceptability? 

4 Why Be Concerned with Social Acceptability?

6 Disciplinary Origins

9 Aesthetics and Social Acceptability

10 Frameworks for Judging Acceptability

12 Problem Identification and Analysis

12 Problem 1

16 Problem 2 

20 Problem 3

24 Problem 4

26 Problem 5

28 Problem 6

31 Problem 7

34 Problem 8

36 Problem 9

40 Problem 10

42 What Now? Five Basic Strategies

53 Conclusion

53 Acknowledgments

54 Literature Cited

Contents
1

The issue of social acceptability, in one form or another, has long been of interest 

to social scientists. It has gained particular attention in the area of natural resource

management as a result of growing incidences of political protest and intervention.

For federal forest management, the debate and uncertainty over adaptive and

ecosystem-based management approaches, and the conditions resulting from such

practices, have raised to new prominence concerns about public acceptance. To meet

the objectives of ecosystem management (or any other management strategy), however problematic the definition, forestry professionals need to understand how natural

systems function and are sustained; however, they also need to understand how people interpret and respond to changes in forest settings, policy decisions, and management institutions.

The concept of social acceptability of natural resource management can be traced to

the work of rural sociologist Firey (1960), who was interested in understanding why

certain resource practices and prescriptions in different societies persisted, whereas 

others did not. He concluded that the adoption and retention of any particular

resource program or action depends on the extent to which that activity satisfies 

three key requisites:

• Physically possible: practices are consistent with ecological processes.

• Economically feasible: practices generate revenue in excess of costs.

• Culturally adoptable: practices are consistent with prevailing social customs 

and norms.

Clawson (1975) introduced a similar premise focused more directly on forest 

environments but provided a more detailed set of criteria than Firey by arguing that

successful policies must meet five conditions: (1) biological and physical feasibility, (2)

economic efficiency, (3) economic welfare or equity, (4) social or cultural acceptability,

and (5) operational or administrative practicality. Both frameworks acknowledge and

agree on one fundamental notion: policies and practices lacking societal acceptance

and approval will ultimately fail. This will occur even if these decisions and actions are

supported by sound science (physically possible) and are profitable (economically

feasible). Indeed, Stankey (1996) notes that Firey’s three criteria are mutually constraining; each is a necessary but not sufficient quality for sustainable ecosystembased forest management.

Although considerable effort has been made to define and measure biological 

feasibility and economic efficiency, relatively little effort has been made toward understanding social acceptability; i.e., how judgments are made, what they are based on,

and what factors affect the durability of such judgments. There is an inherent instability to resource policies that do not adequately integrate the concerns of citizens.

Adverse public judgments can postpone, modify, or prevent implementation of any

management strategy, irrespective of the rigor of the underlying science or its costbenefit ratio. Rather than accept unpopular decisions, citizens can use many methods

to influence policy decisions. They can, for example, invoke the courts, lobby federal

legislators, attract media attention for their cause, or at the statewide level, develop

ballot initiatives to change a state’s forest practice laws. When citizens seek forums

that better reflect their values, these methods often circumvent traditional agency

authority (Shindler et al. 1993). There is abundant evidence from the 1990s that 

the citizenry is able and willing to use these measures.

Introduction
To address social acceptability, and the relative inattention the topic has received 

by the forest research community, the People and Natural Resources Program of the

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, initiated a problem analysis to

focus specifically on the issue. Building from the current state of knowledge, both conceptual and empirical, this analysis draws on relevant research, much of it conducted

in response to federal ecosystem management initiatives of the 1990s, and examines

current understanding of the meaning and implication of socially acceptable forestry.

This report begins by describing research goals and the concept of social acceptability, including discussions of its origins and the challenge of establishing frameworks

for decisionmaking. This first section also examines why social acceptability is critical

to effective resource management, or conversely, how an absence of attention will

ultimately impede the best intentioned management plans and programs. The second

section outlines 10 fundamental problems derived from an assessment of management experience and the research literature. An analysis of each problem and the

interconnectivity between problems helps focus on future integrated ecosystem-based

research. The final section offers concluding comments and priorities for research 

initiatives.

Public land managers are under increasing pressure to manage forest ecosystems

with sustainable approaches that include adaptive management strategies.

Considerable federal resources have been directed at determining what ecosystembased, landscape-level management means and how it should be accomplished. For

example, major regional assessments have been completed in the Pacific Northwest

(FEMAT 1993), the interior Columbia River basin (USDA 1996), and the southern

Appalachians (SAMAB 1996). Although each report acknowledges the importance of

social concerns and influences, the dominant focus of each is primarily on biophysical

features and ecological processes of environmental systems. This approach is not 

an uncommon feature of public lands assessment. From a citizen’s perspective, however, uncertainties about the future of the social systems related to natural resources

(e.g., rural communities, unique places, employment opportunities, recreational

opportunities) are just as important as those pertaining to the future of the biophysical

systems (Shindler and Brunson 1999). Thus, the failure of ecosystem-based assessments to consider fully the social risks and desired conditions of alternative management strategies hinders an agency’s ability to achieve broad acceptance of forest 

policies.

Our research goals in this analysis are threefold. The first is to strengthen the 

conceptual foundation of social acceptability through an improved understanding 

of the complex sociopolitical processes involved in public resource management.

Second, through problem identification and analysis, we endeavor to structure the

management response to problems involving conflict and contentiousness, misunderstanding among participants, and failed citizen-agency interactions. Third, we intend

for this analysis to provide a basis for integrative research among programs and 

disciplines. In this era of distributed knowledge and shared decisionmaking, inclusive,

integrated approaches are essential to produce credible alternatives that result 

in public acceptance of forest conditions and practices. Over the long term, we 

anticipate this research will help (1) reduce the level and nature of conflict between

resource management and various stakeholders, (2) increase the effectiveness and

efficiency of policy processes, and (3) contribute to our ability to reach more durable,

lasting decisions, or as Wondolleck (1988: 105) describes, “decisions that are more

decisive.”

2

Research Goals,

Concepts, and

Frameworks for

Social

Acceptability
This analysis is rooted in a multidisciplinary workshop convened by Brunson in 1992

(Brunson et al. 1996a). The purpose of the workshop was to respond to Stankey and

Clark's (1992) call to broaden understanding of acceptability as it relates to the Forest

Service's new perspectives initiative, or what has now evolved into ecosystem management. As a result, this small group of social scientists and humanists compiled a

preliminary assessment (Brunson et al. 1996a) that defined the acceptability concept

and brought to light many of the problems surrounding this issue. Implicit in this work

is the belief that numerous influences contribute to public acceptance of ecosystem

management and that many questions about the nature of acceptability still need to

be addressed.

Research indicates that many citizens do not readily support new (or different) forest

initiatives because they do not have much experience by which to judge them

(Shindler et al. 1996, Wright 2000). People need balanced information to make rational judgments about policy issues. In one case, Ehrenhaldt (1994) examined people’s

voting preferences for public policy alternatives and recognized not only a general

lack of understanding about the alternatives but also a lack of real choices being

offered by institutions. Public participation in decision processes seems to be most

useful when people have an understanding of the consequences of available choices

(Yankelovich 1991). It follows that public acceptability of ecosystem management

relies on the ability of resource professionals to frame choices about management

systems in clear and meaningful ways. From a practical standpoint, the durability of

decisions involving acceptable tradeoffs will depend on how relevant the outcomes

are to public concerns.

Thus, in this analysis, we examine how judgments of forest conditions, and the 

practices used to produce and manage them, are established, sustained, and affected. From an investigative standpoint, the primary dependent variable is the judgments

held by people (recognizing that varying degrees of acceptability likely exist); the

independent variables are the various influences on those judgments. Considerable

attention has been given, for example, to the role of scientific knowledge in acceptance of forest practices (e.g., Jacobsen and Marynowski 1997, Pierce et al. 1992),

with one simplistic interpretation being that managers just need to explain ecological

processes to “educate” the public and gain their support (Bell 2000, Stankey and

Shindler 1997). However, as managers focus on objectives, strategies, and outcomes,

the differences in the way various stakeholders understand these issues often are

overlooked (Kearney et al. 1998). Even when facts are agreed on, different conceptions of causation or ethics often lead to widely differing interpretations, with consequences for judgments of acceptability. The role of knowledge is just one factor, however, and various other influences exist, such as social norms, personal experience,

degree of salience, and information exchange. It is this range of factors that we 

examine here and for which we attempt to provide an organizing framework to make

sense of their contributory roles.

In their exploration of the social acceptability construct, Stankey and Clark (1992: 23)

argue for research to explain its underlying dimensions and improve its utility for management. They encourage studies that could “identify specific characteristics of stand

and landscape level treatments and general social processes which enhance positive

effects and mitigate negative effects on people and places” (p. 23). Subsequently,

Brunson (1993, 1996a) and Shindler (1997, 1998b) as well as other social scientists,

undertook investigations of the acceptability concept, which continue with the current

analysis.

3

What is Social

Acceptability?
Although the term “social acceptability” is used widely in the resource management

literature, it nonetheless lacks the rigorous definition that comes from extended 

use as a variable in social sciences, such as “attitudes” or “values.” Adding to the 

fuzziness of acceptability, the natural resources field of study is strewn with various

derivatives of the term. References to resource management can be found that are

appropriate, preferred, desirable, supported, tolerated, adequate, and so on. Most

often, these terms are associated with applied research questions, such as peoples’

preferences for a specific management practice in a particular setting. Based on 

interactions with other scientists at the multidisciplinary workshop described earlier,

Brunson (1996a: 9) saw the need to provide a common terminology. He defines social

acceptability as

a condition that results from a judgmental process by which individuals 

(1) compare the perceived reality with its known alternatives; and (2) decide

whether the “real” condition is superior, or sufficiently similar, to the most

favorable alternative condition . . .

Brunson also notes that, in the long run, it may be more useful to refer to this 

individual social-psychological process as leading to judgments of acceptability.

He reasons that judgments are made at the individual level but evolve in response 

to a host of factors; e.g., a person’s evaluation is susceptible to the influence of 

others around him or her, which in turn also provides an impetus for group behaviors.

Thus, the term “social acceptability” could be reserved for references to some aggregate form of public consent whereby judgments are shared and articulated by an 

identifiable and politically relevant segment of the citizenry. As we discuss later, this 

distinction also is important for assessing the merits of individual evaluations (the type

most associated with personal interests) versus sociopolitical processes for developing a broader shared agreement about what should occur for the larger community 

of interest. Most researchers and resource professionals (e.g., Cialdini et al. 1990,

Ehrenhaldt 1994, Sagoff 1988) would agree that adopting a conceptual framework

based on civic responsibility is preferable to one based on individual benefit. We 

also agree with the efficacy of this approach: It is important to understand individual 

judgments, but putting the focus on individual values and preferences ignores the

benefits of deliberative processes and mutual learning that seems pertinent to the

issue of social acceptability. Thus, paying attention to the sociopolitical processes 

for developing shared agreement seems highly useful and certainly speaks to the

“social” in social acceptability.

Earlier, we suggested that practices or conditions lacking social acceptance are 

vulnerable to public rejection and an inability to be implemented. Yet, the view often

persists among institutions that compared to decisions based on “sound science”

or "good economics," public judgments are largely a nuisance and can be overcome

with more facts, logic, and rational explanations. Such judgments are often greeted

with "trust us” (we’re the experts) or "let's be rational about this." Why, the argument

goes, should organizations let public opinion get in the way of doing what is right,

what is profitable, or what is scientifically correct? A closely related argument 

contends that such opinions can be ignored because they are superficial and wrong

(e.g., “if they only understood the facts” or “people are only concerned with aesthetics”), are just about cosmetics (e.g., “clearcutting is opposed simply because 

it's ugly”), or are simply selfish (e.g., “just another NIMBY [not in my back yard]

response”). Opinions from citizens easily can be rationalized as having no regard 

for the greater public good or the potential inequities they might create.

4

Why Be Concerned

with Social

Acceptability?
There are at least four important reasons, however, why attention should be paid to

the concept of social acceptability. First, few resource management decisions are

simply a matter of objective science about a specific practice or condition. Concerns

about incorporating the "best" biological knowledge or "good" economics into 

decisions are important, but such information seldom defines what is best, right, or

correct. Technical information is critical in describing the alternatives, consequences,

and implications of decisions; but ultimately, such decisions express a prescriptive

judgment reflecting the values of the responsible agency decisionmaker. The extent to

which these values are reflective or representative of wider public sentiment is problematic. To garner support, decisions need to account for public concerns, values,

and interests as important and relevant input to the entire decisionmaking process.

An apparent failure to heed sociopolitical interests was a key factor in the shift by the

USDA Forest Service to an ecosystem management philosophy (Brunson and

Kennedy 1995).

Second, taking public judgments into account reflects a normative perspective. Simply

put, and especially in the case of public resource management, the public has a right

of access to decisions about the resources of which they are the ultimate owners.

Early in the scholarly debate about the role of public participation, political scientist

Norman Wengert (1976: 25) observed that "increasing citizen participation is simply 

a matter of sound and desirable policy. . . this is a normative conclusion. . . (e.g.) the

person on whose land manmade rain falls has a right to be consulted." Wengert

acknowledges that although the idea of a "right" of consultation in decisions is a common theme in the literature, much less attention has been given to issues such as the

nature of the involvement or its relation to decisionmaking responsibilities. As we shall

discuss later, such challenges persist, specifically with regard to the issue of social

acceptability.

Third, concern with social acceptability derives from a simple, political perspective.

In a democracy, the absence of public understanding and support makes it difficult, if

not impossible, to implement any decision; i.e., "people will not support what they do

not understand and cannot understand that in which they are not involved" (FEMAT

1993: VII-113). In our political system, ultimate political power rests in the body politic;

this means that the public holds veto power (which they might or might not realize

and might or might not exercise). And even though it is true that the authority held 

by an agency such as the Forest Service constitutes a form of power, it is a form 

delegated through the political process. In other words, what has been delegated 

can be withdrawn. This can occur irrespective of the validity of public concerns; the 

perception that a practice or condition is detrimental or inappropriate is the reality.

Thus, the ability to successfully implement resource management practices or 

conditions that fail to achieve social acceptance is questionable, even if the action 

is generally judged as economically sound and needed.

Having made this argument, the fact remains that poor choices can be (and are)

made by the public. The complexity of the issues demands that scientific rigor and

objectivity be present to help define the alternatives, consequences, and rationale.

But ultimately, decisions about the means and ends (e.g., practices and conditions) of

forest management are subject to public scrutiny and approval or disapproval. In the

U.S. democratic system, the public possesses the ability to withhold an acknowledgment of jurisdictional legitimacy and authority that can affect both actions taken and

5
conditions produced. Moreover, the basis for withholding judgments of legitimacy can

be rooted in misunderstanding or confusion—purposeful or inadvertent, strategic or

incidental; but in the final analysis, it makes little difference.

The political perspective then begs the question, “Who is the public?” Or the closely

related question, “What is the public interest?” We often talk about “the public” as if 

it were some homogeneous unit. But to talk about “the public” is pointless; there is 

no such thing. Instead ours is a highly pluralistic society differentiated by regional

populations, ethnic groups, demographic and ideological groups, and so on. Although

there are concerns and values all Americans share, society is a complex, highly differentiated collective. It is also dynamic; change is inevitable and the only constant.

Thus, we acknowledge that there are multiple “publics,” and in agency interaction with

them, an awareness is needed of what is shared, what is not, and what is important

to the respective interests. Although such understanding adds a new dimension of

complexity for resource professionals, its purpose is critical, and the reason is simple:

public support is essential to the successful implementation of any resource management practice. The argument that a public’s judgment is not well founded is rational,

but to reiterate what we mentioned above, it really makes little difference. If an agency

operates with little or no understanding of public concerns, knowledge, and beliefs, 

it is less likely to receive public acceptance of its management decisions.

The preceding three points pose social acceptability as a constraint; they focus 

on how it could limit or constrain decisions and actions. A fourth point offers a more

positive illustration of why social acceptability is important; simply, that judgments of

social acceptability are subject to change. Although the dynamics of this change

process are unclear, it is apparent that learning is a key element of the acceptability

process—learning about alternatives, about contrasting perspectives and values,

about scientific bases, and about risks and costs. Social acceptability in relation to

management and decisionmaking can be seen as an opportunity for discussion,

debate, and learning about the complex dimensions of the issues at hand, be they

harvesting practices, road construction, fuels reduction, disease and insect management, and so on. Engaging the issue of social acceptability can provide an important

opportunity for an informed discussion of issues, one based on mutual learning and

mutual recognition of participant interests.

The conceptualization of social acceptability as an aggregate expression of shared

judgments among an identifiable and relevant segment of society (Brunson 1996a)

draws on ideas from sociology, psychology, and political science; it is a common 

multidisciplinary approach to describe the human dimensions of natural resources.

Each academic discipline considers different variables and research questions, any 

of which can address acceptability-related issues in a natural resource context. For

example, social psychologists study environmental attitudes as a determinant of individual behavior, and research on environmental activism, the link between attitudes

and collective behavior, occurs largely within political science or political sociology.

6

Disciplinary Origins
Until now, acceptability itself has not appeared as a rigorously defined concept in

basic social science. Instead, social scientists speak of values, norms, preferences,

and so on. Even so, various disciplines frequently study individual or aggregate 

judgments about the "rightness" or "wrongness" of observed phenomena. Political 

scientists study the development and progress of political movements intended to 

halt a particular activity, and anthropologists study why some cultures engage in

behaviors that other cultures find repugnant.

A relevant sociological concept is that of norms, or shared beliefs, about the 

appropriateness of behaviors that often are accompanied by sanctions against those

who violate commonly held standards. Cialdini et al. (1990) distinguish two kinds 

of norms: (1) descriptive norms, which define what is typical ("normal") or simply 

preferred; and (2) injunctive norms, which refer to what "ought to be" and carry 

sanctions for violations. Descriptive norms can foster acceptance of conditions in 

a deteriorated state—a frequent situation involving recreational use of public lands

(Shindler and Shelby 1995)—and injunctive norms serve to direct resource conditions

toward the optimal by encouraging remediation when they become impacted or 

overused. These ideas have direct application to problems confronting foresters, for

example, as they attempt to restore fire or other ecological processes to landscapes

that science tells us are in an unsustainable condition but which the public has come

to consider “normal.” Although a more difficult proposition, Sagoff (1988) reasons that

in the long term, we are better off focusing on injunctive norms and values rather than

on individual preferences (or what people think is the normal state of conditions), 

particularly because people likely will fall back on descriptive norms in the absence 

of injunctive ones. Like Cialdini et al. (1990), he based this view on the assertion 

that values are organized beliefs held by a community about what is right to do, and 

preferences are simply the desires of individual members and, as such, may not

serve the larger society very well.

One of the first uses of the term “acceptability” in the natural resource literature was

in the limits of acceptable change (LAC) planning system (Stankey et al. 1985), a 

participant-oriented model developed originally for Forest Service wildernesses but

now widely applied across various settings (Stankey 1997). The authors do not 

explicitly define what they mean by "acceptable" but seem to use the word in two

senses: to describe what is legally permissible under the Wilderness Act of 1964, 

and to describe what wilderness users agree is desirable (frequently determined via 

a consensus-creating planning process). Thus an "unacceptable" occurrence could

imply circumstances of differing severity, depending on whether one referred to a 

violation of federal law or to an occurrence of change in forest conditions beyond that

preferred by users. The consequences of "unacceptability" would likewise differ, as

failure to obey the law is likely to carry more severe sanctions than failure to achieve

a desired future condition. From a functional standpoint, this more adverse terminology has substantial relevance—most people can readily identify when unacceptable

conditions exist. Agreeing on what constitutes acceptable conditions is usually more

difficult.

Fears about accepting suboptimal conditions once they become descriptive norms

historically have affected many debates over forest allocation and management. The

LAC process (Stankey et al. 1985), while acknowledging that change is inevitable in

human-influenced systems, was specifically designed to prevent creeping incrementalism by setting minimum thresholds for resource conditions. It did so by identifying

7
what was socially acceptable. But as Shindler (1992) warns, lack of diligence in 

managing for these thresholds may, over time, create a diminishing standards 

phenomena, with substantial evidence from popular wildland sites to support this 

view (Shelby et al. 1992). Additionally, polarized attitudes in environmental politics 

are reinforced by fears that a "weakened" position (e.g., assenting to partial harvests

instead of clearcuts) will become the new baseline from which future policy compromises will be built (McCloskey 1991). Stankey (1996) took these ideas a step further

by arguing that all management decisions, including the so-called “no decision,” carry

with them a need for agency action. He notes that the status quo does not sustain

itself and change will occur regardless. The premise is that acceptable situations

require that managers take steps to maintain the condition, whereas unacceptable

ones require action to improve them. The ramifications are important because 

revisions to many national forest plans address fixing “what is broken” rather than

maintaining “what is best.”

To address social acceptability on a broad scale, forest management and research

efforts historically have focused largely on maintaining visual quality. The British

Columbia Ministry of Forests (1981: 7), for example, defines its visual resource 

management challenge "to maintain acceptable forest landscapes and, at the same

time, ensure that optimum economic and social benefits accrue to the people of the

province." In the United States, the Forest Service assumed people were sensitive 

to harvest treatments and developed a visual management system establishing five

visual quality objectives to guide modification of natural landscapes (McCool et al.

1986). From these early concerns, scenic quality research typically has employed a

measure of scenic beauty as a surrogate for social acceptability: if most people think

a forest looks reasonably scenic, then the conditions and practices that produced the

forest are taken as prima facie evidence of being socially acceptable, a situation so

prominent in forestry that we discuss the issue of aesthetics in the following section.

But the problem with this assumption, as Gobster (1996) points out, is that the 

concept of scenic beauty is artificially constrained; e.g., if the public were to judge

forests solely by scenic beauty, acceptance could be influenced by neither conscious

thought nor the other senses (sound or smell). Furthermore, the scenic quality 

argument largely ignores natural ecological processes, such as wildfire, landslides, 

or windthrow. Nash (1982) recognized that forests—even wildernesses—are not 

uniformly and permanently beautiful. In a world of human presence, use, and 

habitation, management is a necessity. If the path of ecosystem management is 

to be followed, there will be periods and places of ugliness in an aesthetic sense.

From a sociopolitical perspective, forestry professionals will need to find ways to help 

people understand and accept these changes.

The social acceptability concept is linked not only to the outcome of decisions (the

results people see) but also to the process (the dynamics) of arriving at particular

decisions. Outcomes are certainly important; everyone cares about results and how

things look in the forest landscape. But most everything else boils down to social

process: how it was planned, who was involved, who got to be heard (or not), how

people got information (and which sources were taken as relevant), if other resource

uses were considered, how contextual elements were addressed, and so on (Shindler

and Aldred-Cheek 1999, Stankey and Clark 1992). It is evident that social acceptability involves several factors, not all relevant for every situation, and it is important to

have systems to account for them.

8
As long as there has been a forestry profession, some individuals have been concerned about socially acceptable timber practices and their visual effects. In a 1925

Journal of Forestry article, for example, Bob Marshall (1925: 175), later chief of 

recreation in the Forest Service, complained about clearcutting saying, “A young 

plantation may be beautiful to look at from the road, but no person who goes to the

woods for recreation gets the real benefit of the forest if it consists mostly of small

poles.” Later in the 1960s, the rise of citizen protests against such practices as

clearcut logging can be traced to the impact of large rectangular harvests that were 

in plain view and affronted the visual sensibilities of many who looked at them. Bitter

controversy over national forest clearcutting led to passage of the National Forest

Management Act of 1976, which required the Forest Service to complete comprehensive forest plans that considered public concerns when choosing management

actions. Many constituencies felt the resulting plans did not adequately reflect those

public concerns, as evidenced by the 811 forest plan appeals filed at 96 different

national forests by 1989 (Gericke et al. 1992).

As a result of the above concerns, most early social acceptability research examined

aesthetics and visual quality. Studies by Wagar (1974) and McGee (1970) call 

attention to the need for improved scenic management as a means of mitigating 

the adverse aesthetic impacts of timber harvests. Other pioneering work to develop 

more systematic tools for assessing effects and prescribing appropriate management

strategies was undertaken by Litton (1968) beginning in the late 1960s and eventually

resulted in a formal procedural system establishing site-specific management 

prescriptions for areas based on their scenic value and user sensitivity. An indepth

review of the burgeoning literature on the topic was assembled and published by 

Ribe (1989) and includes nearly 90 research papers and monographs exploring the 

complex bases for, and implications of, public preferences for forest landscapes and

associated practices. Since that time, research on scenic quality has continued, often

with visual imaging technology to determine public preferences among various silvicultural treatments (e.g., Chenoweth 1991, Ribe 1999, Schroeder and Orland 1994).

Although the visual appearance of forest conditions and practices is significant, this

body of research indicates that the formation of scenic preferences is far more complex than simply a matter of describing something as "ugly." Public protests often

were just a precursor to subsequent expressions of citizen concern over a host of

other issues, such as the impact of harvests on long-term site productivity, wildlife

habitat, and stream and water quality. Zube et al. (1982), for example, report that

landscape assessments are influenced by perceptions of how the land is used and

the ways those uses relate to the observer's value orientations and personal utility

functions. Judgments about scenery differ across a host of variables and conditions;

these include specific forest attributes (e.g., age, density, structure, and composition),

different observer populations (e.g., gender and profession), cultures (urban vs. rural),

and the situational context.

Shindler et al. (1994) also studied the effects of various silvicultural treatments on

visual perceptions. Among residents near the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, they

found that acceptability is linked to peoples’ need to see how specific practices will

look on the land once they are implemented. They suggested four key criteria on

which acceptability judgments could be based: (1) an understanding of effects on natural characteristics of the surrounding forest, (2) a belief in the information provided,

9

Aesthetics and Social

Acceptability
(3) a sense that the practice would benefit the local community, and (4) an opportunity for a meaningful role in the planning process. Their work and that of others (e.g.,

Brunson and Reiter 1996) indicate that aesthetic judgments derive not only from an

affective component (e.g., how the individual feels) but also from a cognitive one

(e.g., what someone believes to be true about the need for a practice and how the

decision for implementation was made). Subsequently Brunson (1996a), citing work

by environmental psychologists, suggested that the acceptability of a forest condition

or practice cannot be considered apart from its context because the interaction

between the environment and the human behavior involves a transactional paradigm;

i.e., the two elements are said to be mutually defined and not explainable apart from

their context.

A challenge confronting resource managers concerned with the issue of social

acceptability centers on the need for frameworks within which decisions about

acceptability can be made. Social scientists have long wrestled with this idea, usually

for management of recreational settings; e.g., Clark and Stankey (1979b) and Driver

and Brown (1978) initiated a series of papers based on the concept of the recreation

opportunity spectrum (ROS). The ROS was founded on a basic premise that 

recreationists sought diversity in recreation opportunities, ranging from the "paved to

the primeval." These papers suggest that it is possible to distinguish different types of

opportunities from one another in terms of the various conditions characterizing each.

For instance, Clark and Stankey (1979b) identify six management-relevant criteria

that could be used to characterize different recreational settings: access, other nonrecreational resource uses, onsite management, levels of social interaction, levels 

of visitor impacts, and levels of management control. By varying the specific characteristics of each of these, they argue, managers could create different types of 

settings that would provide diversity, and therefore increased quality, of recreational

experiences.

What remains problematic in this framework, however, are the specific conditions

judged acceptable and appropriate for each opportunity type. It was acknowledged in

this work that the conditions needed to be grounded, at least in part, in the judgments

of recreationists. This implicitly acknowledged that it was necessary to have a measure of social acceptability imbedded in the specification of conditions for each type of

setting; i.e., What is the acceptability of different levels of biophysical impact on the

setting, on the type and level of management control exercised, or the level of use

one might expect to encounter?

Clark and Stankey (1979a) provide an illustration of how such a framework might 

be used to manage noise levels in campgrounds. They argue that two distinct yet 

related concepts need to be taken into account in making judgments about acceptable levels. First, it is necessary to measure the magnitude of the phenomenon; in

this case, the basic phenomenon of sound. Magnitude can be measured objectively;

e.g., one can assess the level of decibels that occur, the specific type and source of

the sound (e.g., natural background sounds, mechanical), and the periodicity and 

timing. Second, it also is necessary to assess the importance associated with a 

particular magnitude. Even though the presence of various of sounds might be

acceptable, there are norms or standards regarding duration, frequency, and timing 

of such sounds. Judgments by automobile campers about the sounds emanating from

a chain saw, for example, likely would differ depending on whether they occurred in

10

Frameworks for

Judging Acceptability
midafternoon or at midnight; in the first case, the sound might hardly be acknowledged, and in the second, it is unacceptable noise. If wilderness campers were 

making the evaluation, even the faintest hint of the sound of a chainsaw motor 

running could be considered unacceptable noise, irrespective of the decibel level. In

short, the concepts of magnitude and importance indicate there is a set of contextual

conditions that needs to be considered in any judgment about acceptability (Shindler

et al. 1999).

A related framework emerged from this work to deal with the specific issue of managing use in wilderness and related natural settings. The LAC (Stankey et al. 1985) 

was designed to help establish acceptable and appropriate conditions in wilderness;

it also addresses the question of the management actions that might be undertaken 

to achieve, maintain, or restore such conditions. To accomplish this, the LAC established a series of explicit steps through which such judgments could be made.

Although not a specific element of the original framework, early applications incorporated the views of users in addition to those of managers and scientists in establishing the relevant measures and standards, again acknowledging the prescriptive

nature of these decisions.

The LAC, as well as derivative versions that emerged subsequently (e.g., Graefe 

et al. 1990 [visitor impact management or VIM]; National Park Service 1997 [visitor

experience and resource protection or VERP]) highlighted the role of standards as 

a specific means of establishing explicit and measurable indices of acceptability 

judgments. Shelby et al. (1992) organized a workshop to explore the usefulness 

and liabilities of standards as a means of codifying acceptability judgments. On the 

positive side, standards help articulate the underlying management philosophy, they

provide explicit means for dealing with change, they help inform visitors, and they

help clarify and articulate what it is that management seeks to provide. But standards

also can create a mechanistic approach to management. A continuing debate is

whether standards represent the minimum condition to be provided (i.e., what is 

minimally acceptable and what society is willing to live with), or if they should 

represent a more acceptable, more desirable level.

In recent years, researchers have attempted to develop computer-based models

incorporating social variables along with ecological data into decision-support 

systems. Some success has been achieved regarding the applicability of certain

social data, notably economic conditions (Christensen et al. 2000), population shifts

(Christensen et al. 2000), and recreational use patterns (Wing and Shelby 1999).

But the compatibility of data representing social values, attitudes, preferences, and

human interactions is considerably less reliable and has serious drawbacks. It is

much more difficult to standardize these variables across settings and quantify them

with any relevant precision (see Kakoyannis et al. 2001 for an indepth discussion of

the challenges and pitfalls in computer modeling of social acceptability).

Even given legitimate questions about implementation, the ROS, LAC, and similar

systems represent efforts to provide an explicit, transparent, and systematic approach

to dealing with what ultimately are value judgments about acceptability. Frameworks

can be an important tool for managers; they provide systematic, traceable procedures, offer a method to use the best available knowledge, provide a basis for adapting to changing conditions, and help define a sense of the relations and links affecting

11
the decisions at hand. In short, they provide a way to think about and organize problems (Stankey and Clark 1998). But without substantive information and adequate

reflection, such frameworks are of limited value. Despite the fact that more research

is needed, there is a significant body of information with which social acceptability

judgments in decisions can be more effectively and accurately represented. This work

is organized and discussed in the following problem analysis.

This section identifies 10 problem areas, each deriving from an examination of 

management experience and the research literature. The analysis quickly revealed

that an overriding difficulty in characterizing social acceptability is the issue of scale;

local, regional, and national publics often have differing perspectives about natural

resource problems (Brunson and Steel 1996). When a forest practice occurs “somewhere else,” it may be a nonissue or at least have little impact on peoples’ lives.

For many citizens, however, changes in forest conditions are often place-based or 

situationally specific; acceptance depends on variables such as the particular setting

or the identity of those who benefit and those who are harmed (or even those who

are unaffected) by potential outcomes (Brandenburg and Carroll 1995). An initial

implication is that those directly affected by any forest plan or proposed action will 

be the first to judge it, usually by how it impacts themselves (e.g., their families, their

communities) and the setting itself. The extent to which a practice will affect personal

property, alter traditional community economies, or change special recreational

places will hold considerable contextual importance for those directly involved. This

description is most reflective of the NIMBY syndrome, yet this involvement also can

trigger awareness of wider resource concerns. Collectively, these often are the reasons why individuals join interest groups or become active in the political process (of

decisionmaking). Because a basic premise of ecosystem management is to address

forest resources at local and regional scales, our problem analysis examined the 

factors and influences most relevant at these levels.

Achieving socially accepted conditions and practices is hampered by a focus on 

decisions rather than decisionmaking processes.

Too often decisionmakers focus on acceptance of a decision by the public without

fully considering that an agency’s attempt to implement socially acceptable resource

policies is inherently a question of process instead of outcomes (Kakoyannis et al.

2001). A growing body of evaluative research throughout the last decade has shown

that the public’s idea of fairness and legitimacy involves the quality of the decisionmaking procedures. Of particular importance are opportunities for citizen participation

(e.g., Lauber and Knuth 1997, Shindler and Neburka 1997, Tuler and Webler 1999);

e.g., interactions between agencies and citizens in forest communities are closely

linked with public acceptance because management decisions are made and 

implemented in settings important to those communities. It is not only opinions about

procedural fairness that influence acceptance of and compliance with resulting 

policies but also how people feel about the decisionmakers (Lawrence et al. 1997).

How well citizens are incorporated into decisions affecting their livelihood and quality

of life is critical to their judgments; thus, no forest management decision occurs in 

isolation from other factors. Agency relations with constituents, and therefore the

acceptability of resulting plans and actions, are shaped by the cumulative nature 

of multiple interactions over time (Shindler and Aldred-Cheek 1999).

12

Problem

Identification 

and Analysis

Problem 1
Wondolleck (1988) discusses how decisionmakers often begin with the wrong 

emphasis by first asking, What decision should we make? or What is the proper 

allocation of resources in this situation? Instead, they would be better off asking

questions such as, How should we make such a complex and controversial decision?

or Who should be involved, what roles will they play, and what information is needed?

This second approach reflects a more thoughtful planning strategy that can help

structure the public involvement process in advance. Only after agency staff first

deliberate and agree on planning objectives, how decisions will be made, and who

the public is for a given issue, should a particular process be initiated (Delli Priscoli

and Homenuck 1990). Using this deliberative planning model helps to avoid costly

problems later on. Not only does it make it easier to engage the public but it also

forces the planning team to discuss their expectations about the public’s role, 

determines which individuals are best suited for a public contact role, and helps 

team members develop ownership in the eventual process.

Because so little attention is given to these upfront activities, problems do occur later

on. Figure 1 depicts the process gap existing in many agency decisions. Forest agencies typically are good at meeting procedural requirements (the formal steps in box 1)

associated with policy decisions. Staff have become particularly adept at National

13

AGENCY ACTIONS

• Management plan

• EA or EIS

• Scoping

• Internal consultation

• Decision notice

PROCESS GAP

• Public places to discuss and learn

• Examination of risks and alternatives

• Experimentation and evaluation

• Trust building

• Progress toward social acceptance

OUTCOMES

• Policy directives

• Appeals, litigation

• Delays, nonaction

• Congressional intervention

• Prescriptive legislation

• Implementation

▼

▼

Figure 1—Forest policy process gap.
Environmental Policy Act (1969) procedures such as writing environmental analyses

and environmental impact statements and drafting formal plans; however, the public

has indicated that these formats are poor methods for communicating information

(Shindler and Wright 2000). From a mechanistic standpoint, agency staff also have

mastered the traditional scoping process by which the public can provide input on 

a plan or project, but these sessions frequently are sterile, rule bound, one-way

exchanges (Cortner et al. 1996); they represent what has become known in some

western communities as the “three i’s” of federal public involvement: i.e., inform the

public, solicit their input, and then ignore it (Shindler and Neburka 1997).

Most often missing from these processes are the components found in box 2, which

creates the gap in the policy process. These are the in-between steps of legitimate

public process—ways and places to deliberate, forums for examining risks and 

consequences of various choices, methods for working out acceptable strategies—all

with the likelihood that trust will build among constituents. These are largely informal

steps and the ones most often undervalued, ignored, or simply bungled.

Consequently, what we often end up with is in box 3: formal policy directives from

agencies and frequent attempts by citizens to override unpopular decisions. The 

latter may take the form of appeals and litigation, which usually result in lengthy

delays. For some citizens or groups, delays are preferred, but others view this as the

agency’s inability to act. In time, congressional action or other intervention may occur,

and some form of the plan may finally be implemented, but little of this activity is 

conducive to socially acceptable decisionmaking. More legitimate processes through

which judgments are formed and sustained involve what Yankelovich (1991) calls

“forums for working through.” Given the nature of the complex, multivalue decisions

with which natural resource managers are concerned (e.g., species restoration, 

reintroduction of fire to landscapes, riparian system management), there is a great

need to understand how ordinary citizens respond to this complexity, including the

social dynamics of reaching acceptable solutions. This will likely involve not only the

provision of factual material but also the legitimization of alternative values and world

views, and development of trust among participants.

Recent applied research has uncovered many cases where agency personnel have

successfully engaged their publics and reached decisions that enjoy consensus (see

Yaffee and Wondolleck 1997). One is far more likely to find, however, that institutional

barriers contribute to procedural problems; Cortner et al. (1996) provide an insightful

discussion about how these relate to implementing ecosystem management. Specific

examples at the interface level demonstrate the need for improved staff selection and

proper training for more successful interactions to occur (Stankey and Shindler 1997).

In acknowledging the importance of decision processes, we also must underscore

that social values are at the core of public judgments, particularly those involving

questions about desirability and fairness of practices. Desirability is usually easy 

to assess; anyone can tell you what they want most (i.e., old growth, jobs, wildlife 

habitat, more off-road vehicle trails). However, judgments depend not only on one's

preference for those alternatives, or the likelihood that they could be implemented,

but also on their beliefs about whether those alternatives should occur. The imagined

range of alternatives is a product of personal knowledge, including an awareness of

how one affects the others, with the choice coming down to personal values.

14
Managers may be able to influence the number of alternatives a person considers

through various forms of information provision. But influencing value decisions is 

a far more complex task; e.g., people who were equally knowledgeable about fire 

ecology differed in their beliefs about the acceptability of the 1988 Yellowstone fires.

Judgments depended on beliefs about preserving national park values for future 

generations (Sellars 1990), the National Park Service's ability to have foreseen and

prevented the fires, or the government's responsibility to safeguard the interests of

private tourist businesses that suffered during the fires (Buck 1989).

Self-interest alone cannot explain the lack of social acceptance for some management practices. Natural resource situations are complicated because decisions go

beyond accounting for personal values to include broader questions about fairness.

Examples across resource settings are illustrative. Steelman and Carmin (1998)

examined opposition to a mining project and found that although individual concerns

about local property rights and personal health did influence public opposition, 

there also was strong motivation to protect common property objectives, such as 

stewardship of water, habitat protection, quality of life, and the short- and long-term

distributive impacts of the mine on economic well-being. Lober (1996) reports similar

findings in a study of opposition to siting of waste facilities, and Lauber and Knuth

(1998) found common property concerns raised in debates over moose (Alces alces)

reintroduction in New York. Beliefs about the fairness of a management strategy for

various constituencies (including those not yet born) is not new; it represents the

higher ground that has always been a core Forest Service legacy from the days of

Roosevelt and Pinchot: “the greatest good for the greatest number for the longest

time.” Although subject to interpretation, the fairness position is also subject to a

measure of objectivity and better able to withstand scrutiny by others (Sagoff 1988).

Choosing to base resource policy on either individual preferences or community 

values has considerable implications for how we structure public processes (Lauber

and Knuth 1998). The latter involves methods to determine what people think is right 

and not merely what they prefer. Policy based on shared community values about 

fairness requires engaging all relevant parties in discourse about what is best for a

particular setting (Sagoff 1988, Stankey 1995). Indeed, the public’s idea of fairness

includes the quality of decisionmaking procedures and opportunities for their participation (e.g., Lauber and Knuth 1997, Tuler and Webler 1999). In a well-documented

assessment of citizen involvement, Lawrence et al. (1997) argue that judgments

about procedural fairness influence not only the acceptability of and compliance with

resulting policies but also how citizens feel about the decisionmakers. They concluded

that regardless of the outcomes, inattention to norms about fairness will result in public disaffection. Overall, the fundamental principles of ecosystem management (i.e.,

integration of economic, ecological, and social imperatives; developing a shared

vision; emphasis on ends and means) seem well suited to reducing the tension over

fairness (Healy and Hennessey 1999). As a cooperative model, it has the potential to

break down adversarial divisions among citizens as well as between managers and

citizens.

15
Many citizens do not trust natural resource agencies and therefore do not support

their decisions or the way those decisions are made.

There is little doubt that the overall acceptability of forest policies is strongly linked 

to how citizens view the sincerity and credibility of resource professionals and the 

agencies that use them. In evaluating public reaction to government initiatives,

Ehrenhaldt (1994: 6) puts the problem bluntly: “Nobody can fail to notice, in this

decade, voters all over the country are looking for ways to inject themselves back into

a government process that they feel the professional politicians have screwed up.”

It is really no surprise that governments are not widely regarded as credible or trustworthy these days. In a society that deeply distrusts experts and institutions, people

are likely to regard their friends or important associates as more reliable sources of

information, even if these sources have no particular expertise in the area being 

discussed (Jamieson 1994). Yaffee (1994), for example, attributes the failure to find a

solution to the growing spotted owl controversy in the late 1980s to the pervasive lack

of trust in the Forest Service's willingness or ability to implement policy in accord with

the interests of stakeholders. Other researchers have observed that this failure to provide for an open and inclusive public consultation is a primary reason for distrust of

agencies and has led to most court challenges of forest management plans (Brunson

1996a, Shindler 1998a). Over time, barriers have been built between the public and

resource institutions that center on issues of trust, communication, and a general

frustration with the bureaucracy, so much so that the Nation has become suspicious

of institutions and politically driven processes (Cortner et al. 1996, Yaffee and

Wondolleck 1997).

To complicate the relation between resource professionals and citizens, forest 

management has become not only complex but also “wicked” (Allen and Gould 

1986). Wicked problems involve both environmental risk and value-based priorities, 

a combination requiring new ways of thinking. In these situations, trust and credibility

in resource agencies are associated with perceptions of knowledge and expertise,

openness and honesty, and concern and care (Peters et al. 1997). If acceptance 

of innovations in forest management is to be enhanced through public interaction,

forestry professionals must be able to engage citizens through means seen as genuine and trustworthy. Trust is the central ingredient of working together effectively.

Alternatively, mistrust is the dark heart of wicked problems (King 1993).

Research from forest and range communities (where most ecosystem management

decisions are implemented) confirms the importance of a genuine participation

process in building trustworthy relations. In comparing cases from the United States

and Australia, Moore (1995) notes the importance of trust in both personnel and

organizations. She found that trust in individuals most often derives from interpersonal attributes, such as honesty and reciprocity, that foster productive planning 

environments. Organizational trust stems from decision processes the participants

perceive as fair. Subsequently, Shindler and Aldred-Cheek (1999) conducted an

extensive examination of citizen-agency interactions and concluded that effective,

trustworthy relations could be organized around six common factors: (1) inclusiveness, (2) sincere leadership, (3) innovative and flexible methods, (4) early commitment and continuity, (5) sound organizational and planning skills, and (6) efforts that

result in action. In one example, the authors illustrate how having good scientific data

is not a new idea; but when managers invited citizens to help analyze information to

16

Problem 2
form new alternatives, new knowledge, and new solutions, outcomes were more credible and relations were strengthened. Across all cases, interactions between even 

the most strongly opposed groups tended to soften as people, over time, got to know 

others around the table and realized their personal concerns were often common

concerns. The key to finding acceptable solutions is in this genuine dialogue and 

real listening that occurs when people begin to discuss problems, lay out the range 

of options, and eventually see patterns in their interactions (King 1993). Stakeholders

repeatedly say that developing trust is more likely when resource professionals articulate their reasons for involving the public and then make good on their commitments

(Shindler and Aldred-Cheek 1999).

Across the United States, researchers consistently have found high levels of public

distrust of federal forest and rangeland managers, which has led citizens to become

leery of participation in agency ecosystem-based management programs (e.g.,

Hoover et al. 1997, Jacobson et al. 1996). Examples of specific concerns range from

the adaptive management areas in the Pacific Northwest (places where forest agencies test new approaches for integration of ecological and social objectives, but where

stakeholders believe managers have not lived up to the promise of more inclusive

and more meaningful forms of public involvement1) to the Greater Yellowstone region

where Freemuth and Cawley (1997) contend that the paradigm of favoring technical

factors over public deliberation has caused resource managers to pay lip service to

social concerns.

Sorting out where pockets of trust and support exist is a more difficult task. From

analysis of a series of opinion surveys, Steel et al. (1998) found that rural residents

(particularly those who derive their income from timber) have a substantial degree of

confidence in the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM); however, these same individuals demonstrate little support for ecosystem management.

Alternatively, people most likely to hold positive opinions about ecosystem management (urban residents, more highly educated, younger cohorts) are least likely to trust

the land management agency (Forest Service, BLM) most closely responsible for

implementing it.

Confounding the problem is that different stakeholders place greater trust in different

parties in a controversy. This is reflected in differences between personal trust and

institutional trust. Shindler (2000), for example, found that many citizens have a 

personal relation with local resource managers (“I trust Joe to do the right thing”), 

but they are skeptical of the larger organization’s motives (“I don’t trust the agency to

let Joe do his job”). Similarly, local people also are skeptical of frequent personnel

changes in an agency; residents in forest communities report frustration over the

“revolving door” and with having to “break in” yet another district ranger or management specialist (Shindler et al. 1994). Moreover, local and national perspectives are

sometimes in apparent conflict. National organizations (e.g., Sierra Club) frequently

opt out of local discussions and even have attempted to squash community-based

planning (sometimes when the local chapter favors involvement) because it is viewed

as a threat to the group’s national agenda (McClosky 1991). Individuals who view

nature as fragile, and therefore focus their attention on environmental risks, tend to

17

1Stankey, G.H.; Bormann, B.T.; Ryan, C. [et al.]. 2002. Learning to

learn: adaptive management and the Northwest Forest Plan.

Unpublished report. On file with: G.H. Stankey.
trust traditional institutions less than they trust citizen groups (Dake and Wildavsky

1991, Steel et al. 1998). Environmentalists are less likely than other groups to 

accept information from forestry agencies, particularly when it is intended to promote 

manipulative approaches to restoring natural conditions (i.e., through prescribed fire

or mechanical thinning rather than “letting nature heal itself”). Achieving broad-scale

trust across groups for agency actions may mean major organizational changes 

at the national level. In the meantime, building trustworthy relations may be most 

realistic at the forest or ranger district level, essentially “places where the war won’t

be won or lost” (Shindler and Neburka 1997).

Collaborative planning and management processes often are espoused as ways to

improve information flow, and to engender trust, because stakeholders no longer can

depersonalize those with whom they disagree. We recognize that assessments of 

collaborative processes for environmental issues are not definitive; e.g., Kenney

(2000: 11) argues that the case in favor of collaboration often is based on a 

negative assertion (“traditional means of management and problem-solving do not

work”) rather than on a reasoned endorsement of the merits of such approaches.

Regardless, collaborative efforts generally are viewed as stimulating a greater atmosphere of trust because decision processes theoretically become more transparent 

to citizen observers. This view is consistent with theories of procedural justice

(Lawrence et al. 1997, Tyler 1989) whereby people who participate in rule making 

are more likely to accept unfavorable outcomes based on those rules. In the United

States, the issue may not necessarily be whether all groups are represented, but

rather whether those affected by or interested in the outcome of a decision are given

the opportunity to participate. For example, citizens report that they do not have to

have as much say as others (who may claim a larger stake in the outcomes), so long

as they feel they have had a legitimate chance to participate (Richardson 1998).

Deliberations in 1998-99 of a committee of scientists, appointed by the Forest Service

to assess the agency’s planning processes, placed much heavier emphasis than

before on collaboration with constituency groups (Johnson et al. 1999). Because 

the agency has had little experience with collaboration—and indeed has been actively

discouraged from doing so through judicial interpretations of laws such as the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (1972)—it lacks the institutional structures, interpersonal

skills, and reward systems needed to make collaboration most effective (Cortner et al.

1996, Stankey and Shindler 1997). Brunson (1998) argues that cross-jurisdictional

stewardship requires institutions that can balance needs of all participants to achieve

common goals while protecting territorial self-interest. It is unclear what those 

institutional structures will be, but the research discussed here provides some basic

components.

One overriding factor is the organizational capacity of the forest management agencies. Cortner et al. (1996) undertook a critical review of these institutions and their

ability to respond to ecosystem-based management in the face of growing public dissatisfaction with resource policies. The authors’ central premise was that to maintain

productive ecological systems, the agencies need to be complex and adaptive rather

than hierarchical and rigid. Danter et al. (2000) also argue that agencies need to

adopt internal activities that support organizational change; e.g., improved communication strategies that reflect leadership capacity instead of management function will

be essential. There is general recognition among social scientists and practitioners

18
that more meaningful, more open public dialogue is integral to achieving social and

political acceptance of forest practices (Bengston 1994, Clark and Stankey 1991). But

merely saying that your organization has a commitment to people is not enough: governments make such promises all the time, and citizens rarely believe any of it. Most

of the time, people will dismiss a new initiative as simply another platitude. In these

cases, Behn (1997) argues, bureaucratic leaders first have to convince their own

employees that the organization is serious—a tall order, given the institutional barriers

of working within federal natural resource agencies (Cortner et al. 1996).

From their studies of citizen-agency interactions, Shindler and Neburka (1997: 19)

found a common message for managers about trust building: “Basic organizational

skills, attention to detail, commitment to constituents, and good leadership—all things

people normally expect from our forest resource agencies—often mean the difference

between success and frustration.” In the long term, building trust with stakeholders

most often will come through the interaction process, particularly when people are

able to see their own ideas and concerns given consideration. As Shands (1992: 364)

observed:

For public agencies, the real product of planning is not the plan, but an enduring

relationship with the agency’s constituents, clients, and customers. Properly done,

the benefits of public involvement will continue long after a plan is complete or the

decision is made.

Legitimizing citizen's interactions with agencies seems essential in building trusting

relations, but people also expect that managers can actually produce once information is generated and recommendations are made. In evaluating the prospects for

overcoming such barriers for national forest management, Jamieson (1994: 27-28)

characterized the problem:

Competence needs to be developed both within the Forest Service and in the

communities with which the Forest Service enters into dialogue. In the bad 

old days there was a tendency for government agencies to dictate policy to 

citizens. These days there is a tendency for citizens to try to dictate policy to

government agencies. There is an admission price for engaging in a public 

dialogue. Part of the price is purely formal: to treat others with respect, to be

sympathetic to alternative points of view, to strive for impartiality, and so on.

Part of the admission price also involves knowing something substantive about

the issues: the relevant science, the economics, the values and interests that

are at stake, and so on. People do not come with a ready-made ability to

engage in a constructive, deliberative dialogue. The Forest Service should 

do what it can to develop its own competence, but it also should contribute to

developing the competence of those with whom it engages. Only then will the

turn towards public participation be mutually educational.

Behn (1997) may have best summed up the competency issue: “In this age of citizen

cynicism, having a reputation for knowing how to run the place is a prerequisite for

actually doing it. To accomplish anything, public agencies first need a reputation for

competence.” Finally, this collective research also suggests a fundamental premise

about social acceptability: it is not a static concept that simply embodies enduring,

monolithic stances but reflects perspectives that can change in response to a host 

of variables.

19
Adequate attention has not been given to all contextual aspects—spatial, temporal,

and social—when evaluating acceptability practices and resource conditions. For

example, the uniqueness of a place and its meaning is particularly important for citizens, but prescriptive one-size-fits-all policies ignore most contextual circumstances.

In one form or another, every problem discussed in this analysis involves “context.” In

the lexicon of resource professionals, particularly those with a biological or technical

background, the term “scale” is used more frequently—as in how ecosystem management is about planning at the landscape scale—and usually includes only a spatial or

temporal orientation. However, social scientists frequently use the term “context,” not

only because it is more inclusive and perhaps a more intuitive term for the broader

public, but also because it conveys that there is meaning in each set of spatial, temporal, or social conditions. It is this contextual meaning that often goes unexamined 

in attempts to design ecosystem-based strategies.

The importance of contextual considerations is in acknowledging that practices and

conditions acceptable in one situation will not necessarily be acceptable in another.

We usually examine context because it illuminates a particular set of circumstances,

as well as associated opportunities or constraints. Even when a management 

problem is the same as that encountered elsewhere, the circumstances under which

a particular event occurs, or a decision is made, can greatly influence acceptance

locally. Recognition of context may help managers address the tension that exists

between uniformity and idiosyncrasy. This reflects the notion that there is stability 

in doing the things we know “work” vs. trying new approaches or experimentation.

A second reason to pay attention to context is that additional factors may be revealed

that at first did not seem relevant or important. For example, no agency planning

process starts with a clean slate; without adequate reflection, it is easy to overlook

that every Forest Service management unit has a history linked to its own particular

pattern of forest practices, to surrounding communities, and to a legacy of decisions.

We also examine contextual conditions from one setting to another because this adds

to a body of knowledge that can help provide a frame of reference for new problems.

Our understanding of context is a cumulative process most often built on previous 

situations (Magnuson 1990). Finally, because context is about an identifiable place,

event, or action, paying attention to these features helps us understand peoples’

motivations and the relevance of agency activities.

Spatial context—From the problem statement, we recognize at least three types of

context are important. The first, spatial context (often the primary focus of landscape

management), is usually about large areas (e.g., watersheds) where management

programs such as sustainable forestry or restoration ecology are imposed. Difficulties

arise from operating within this landscape-scale context when agencies attempt to

address problems with one-size-fits-all policies. Swanson and Sparks (1990) argue

that unless a site’s spatial context (e.g., its location within a region, its function within

the larger natural system) is taken into account, the significance of management 

programs and scientific findings within the ecosystem can be difficult to interpret. As

geomorphologists, their perspective was a biophysical one, but the same can be said

from the sociopolitical perspective. Citizens often have difficulty identifying with large

landscape designations; their orientation is usually to particular places that have

meaning for their family or their community (Stankey and Shindler 1997).

20

Problem 3
From a social acceptability standpoint, the central problem with spatial context is that

natural resource management agencies have adopted regulatory and legal processes

for assigning intangible meanings to landscapes, an approach that frequently ignores

the uniqueness of places within these designations and the affected groups (Williams

and Patterson 1996). Agnew (1989) argues that place-based decisionmaking is a vital

part of the social fabric but believes that the meaning of geographic characteristics is

treated as if independent (or even nonexistent) from the social order. In terms of

human geography, places are relational devices for enabling and embedding people’s

experiences within the context of their physical surroundings. Places are centers of

meaning and affect how people (groups, communities) determine what objectives and

actions are appropriate in that place (Williams and Patterson 1996). As such, constructing a “sense of place” offers resource professionals a way to anticipate, identify,

and respond to the attachments people form with specific places (Williams and

Stewart 1998). This view recognizes that society values natural resources in ways not

easily or necessarily captured by more traditional measures, such as “yield” or “use.”

Contextual, place-specific interactions generate their own set of shared meanings 

for citizens and agencies that may be distinctly different from the broad “placeless”

planning efforts that people often see in today’s landscape-level approaches.

We acknowledge that there has been much emphasis recently in the social science

literature on the importance of place. A potential shortcoming of using place meanings, however, is that they can be equated with whether a setting is special. We cannot discount the notion that many places are special to someone or some community

for some reason, but Williams and Stewart (1998) argue that the feelings about

uniqueness of places are what should be characterized; i.e., what gives places 

specialness is that they are unique in context: each has its own history, each has its

own pattern of occupation and use, and each carries with it expectations about future

uses. Treating a forest as merely a collection of trees, or even an ecosystem as a

“functioning unit,” denies its contextual relevance to others. Knowledge about the spatial characteristics of unique places, and of the people who tend to form such attachments, can be useful for managers hoping to identify where ecosystem management

practices may be considered unacceptable (Williams and Stewart 1998, Williams et

al. 1992). We also recognize, however, that it can be difficult for managers to identify

which places carry a special meaning for local residents (Jakes et al. 1998) and

which biological, geophysical, and social elements are most essential (Geyer and

Shindler 1994).

Another potential constraint in giving credence to contextual considerations of place

is the NIMBY syndrome. There is no denying that citizens take notice, with many

becoming activists for the first time, when their personal uses of place are at stake.

Managers often think of NIMBY as local carping about decisions that did not go

someone’s way (Williams and Stewart 1998); however, negative reactions also may

reflect unhappiness with a planning process that was essentially placeless because it

did not take into account particular locations, and thus largely precluded local involvement in the decision (Williams and Matheny 1995). Local communities usually are not

involved in federal policies about toxic waste siting, for example, but these decisions

eventually play out in real locations.

21
Other examples point out that the public’s approval in principle of “environmentally

friendly” practices does not necessarily translate to blanket approval of their application at any location. Although education about the beneficial effects of fire produces

more favorable attitudes overall, it has not led to acceptability of prescribed fire in

many recreation areas (Taylor and Daniel 1984). Similarly, citizens are less likely to

support timber harvesting on public than on private lands (e.g., Bliss et al. 1994,

Tarrant et al. 1997). Additionally, the spatial context is not simply a matter of NIMBY

self-interest. How people feel about the distribution of conditions within a specific area

can affect acceptability. Citizens may be generally receptive of a sustainable forestry

practice, such as a thinning treatment, but be against it in locations that they feel are

already too heavily harvested (Stankey 1995). Many opponents of forest decisions

are individuals with no backyard or who have no personal stake in the outcome

beyond its lack of consonance with their ideals. Unless acknowledged, such reactions

may contribute to the growing pattern of NIABY (not in anyone’s backyard) 

responses.

Temporal context—A second contextual influence is the temporal dimension of 

natural resource decisions. For most of the 20th century, the temporal context of decisions was not of much concern to the public. Although forests have more recently

begun to be viewed as finite, it is still difficult for most citizens to understand ecological processes (i.e., succession, natural disturbance) and sort through what management practices may mean for the long term. Similarly, Magnuson (1990) argues that

because most research is not longitudinal in nature, it simply produces “snapshots” in

time of resource conditions. He describes what currently is known about ecosystems

as being in the “invisible present,” where there is a tendency to think of the world as

static and thus underestimate the degree of change occurring. When resource professionals are unable directly to sense slow ecological changes and in turn are unable to

interpret their cause-and-effect relations, serious misjudgments can occur in attempts

to manage environment. The Forest Service, in particular, has come under fire for a

lack of monitoring and institutional memory about the systems it manages (Cortner et

al. 1998).

Temporal context frequently is incorporated into discussions of the biophysical dimension of ecosystem management (e.g., Brunson et al. 1996c, McCarter et al. 1998) 

but is less frequently part of discussions of the social dimension. Do acceptability 

judgments differ depending on how gradual the intended changes in condition might

be? Do they differ with the length of time needed to recover if a planned intervention

doesn’t work? Answers to such questions can be valuable in analyzing tradeoffs

among ecosystem management alternatives. This may be particularly important as

fire managers attempt to implement a range of fuels reduction treatments in fireprone communities. Some of these treatments are more risk-free than others (understory mowing vs. prescribed fire) and some probably are less controversial, but their

effectiveness over time is not well documented.

Social context—A third category of contextual influence is the social environment,

particularly the social processes described in problem 1. The sociopolitical environment surrounding any natural resource problem is complex, meaning that any 

decision will not be made in a contextual vacuum. Instead, it will be made among 

a community of players that includes agency personnel (often at the ranger district 

or forest level), interest groups, and concerned individuals, many of whom have a 

22
history together. This contextual culture, formed by many interactions, will strongly

influence the alternatives considered and the acceptability of the outcomes. Over

time, these interactions also determine how people feel about the ability of decisionmakers to seriously consider the full range of contextual consequences and, ultimately, how much they trust the decisionmakers.

The reality of resource managers having to consult with industry, environmental,

woodsworker, and homeowner groups makes the task of gaining acceptance more

complicated. The sociopolitical context of forestry decisions is now so polarized that

any new initiative, such as ecosystem management, will be viewed with suspicion and

likely will elicit predictable responses from groups on all sides of the debate. This is

particularly evident in the often stiff, controlled Forest Service meetings with citizens,

such as issue-scoping or information-sharing sessions, where traditional reactions to

bureaucratic proposals tend to be reinforced (Cortner et al. 1998). Not only do people

align with their reference group in these settings, but the agency also represents a

single, easy target for all groups; these situations frequently evolve into “us vs. them.”

Carroll (1989), for example, suggests that a negative view of the Forest Service is an

important unifying theme at meetings for groups like loggers. Discussions of forest

management are invariably on Forest Service turf, at least in the Western United

States, and the dynamics of reference group behavior may result in less acceptance

by loggers (or environmental activists, for that matter).

Formal Forest Service meetings also can reinforce traditional reactions to government

proposals, because planning participants are asked to publicly voice their opinions in

front of others who are often the most vocal advocates of partisan positions on forest

management issues. In such situations, the social cost of going against a "correct"

opinion may be too great; e.g., Brandenburg and Carroll (1995) found that people

voice different judgments in a public setting than they do in a private one. Brunson

(1996a) notes that acceptability often is characterized as a product of individual 

judgments, but it is susceptible to group influences and provides an impetus for group

behaviors. An individual may rationally decide that a practice or condition is acceptable, yet behave publicly as though it were unacceptable, because to do so reflects

the image he or she wants to project to important others. Alternatively, a person may

have no opinion but simply side with the views of an influential group (which also

points out a weakness of traditional opinion research).

Another difficulty in understanding social context is that judgments are affected by the

intended purpose or objective. Brunson and Shelby (1992), for example, found that

the evaluations of alternative silvicultural treatments differed depending on whether

the evaluators worked from an aesthetic perspective or a recreationist one. In other

words, those attributes that contributed to scenic quality were not necessarily the

same as those that contributed to the site's potential for a direct recreational use,

such as hiking or camping. This is consistent with research by Shindler and Collson

(1998), who found that negative assessments of harvested sites are not absolute; for

some recreationists, such as hunters and berry pickers, harvested areas often are

conducive to their chosen activity. The research on social acceptability is characterized by a recurrent finding that points to the site or activity-dependent nature of the

evaluation. This "dependency" dimension of social context can confound any effort 

to find similarities and patterns, yet ways must be found to account for it in decision

processes. Given the polarization characterizing many contemporary debates about

natural resource decisions, it may be much more efficient to target reference groups

(and use neutral meeting sites) to influence judgments of acceptable practices.

23
We tend to agree with Cortner et al. (1996: 26) who argue that “ecosystem management as a practice cannot be a blanket prescription levied only from the top down or

the bottom up. Variation in biophysical, social, and economic characteristics of geographic areas must be respected.” Each agency unit (forest or ranger district) must be

able to conduct experiments and develop management programs that reflect local

concerns and conditions. Not only do one-size-fits-all policies ignore most contextual

circumstances, they are becoming a source of frustration (and a reason for loss of

credibility) in many forest communities (Shindler and Aldred-Cheek 1999). But this

does not mean that it is simply a matter of managing ecosystems by applying more

spatially and temporally sensitive practices. It is likely that the debate over the appropriateness of these decisions will continue. Another shortcoming of this approach is

that it promotes a descriptive understanding of ecosystem management rather than a

normative one. It needs to be recognized that ecosystem management is a process

for reaching agreement on the importance of ecological functions and healthy forests.

It is a process for analyzing contextual circumstances and clarifying normative commitments to managing forest resources.

The promise of ecosystem management suggests some balance can be reached

among multiple (and often competing) resource objectives. But attempting to achieve

multiple objectives increases the difficulty of finding acceptable strategies.

Although few people can define what a sustainable ecosystem is, most believe

achieving these conditions is desirable. Many also believe it is possible to supply 

forest products and maintain the integrity of U.S. forests at the same time, particularly

because forest agencies and industry have been extolling the virtues of sustainable,

ecosystem-based management. Public expectations that managers can produce on

the multiple benefits promise are real. People know what they want: clean water,

clean air, a constant supply of affordable wood products, decent jobs, recreation sites,

scenic vistas, and so on. The problem, of course, is that neither resource professionals nor politicians have done a good job of framing the choices, associated consequences, and tradeoffs required to achieve multiple benefits (Shindler and Brunson

1999). Too often, policy decisions are presented as single choices involving only yes

or no answers that do not adequately reflect the costs involved: Shall we preserve

wildlife habitat? protect old growth and salmon? reduce hazardous fuels? increase

riparian buffers? And if we choose one or more of these options, How will it affect

other values? Public acceptance of a balanced ecosystem-based approach is more

likely when the multiple objectives philosophy can be spelled out and demonstrated

across landscapes. Until then, citizens might be receptive to the idea of ecosystem

management but will be waiting to see how well it works before making final judgments (Shindler et al. 1996).

Regardless, federal forest managers have been charged with the task of achieving

multiple values through ecosystem management. But, as we mentioned previously,

many of the problems in multiple resource forestry are considered "wicked," not just

because they are complex but because, by their nature, they include moral and social

issues that are decided on in the political arena (King 1993, Rittel and Webber 1973).

Thus far, public stakeholders have had little input in this discussion, and they do not

have much understanding of ecosystem management or what constitutes sustainable

levels of forests under any set of objectives (Beckley 1998). Wicked problems will

require reexamination of approaches to forest management that is likely to push

24

Problem 4
resource professionals beyond traditional (and comfortable) problem-solving strategies (Shindler and Cramer 1999); e.g., consideration of citizens’ experiential, or “local”

knowledge, as opposed to data-based knowledge, which has been the basis for 

scientific forestry, will not only be important for the quality of decisions but also for

acceptance of those decisions.

Like public discussions thus far, the limited research in this area is not particularly

focused. Findings continually indicate the general public's preferred forest management option is that middle ground, however problematic it may be to find, where 

multiple objectives can be achieved. In broad-based studies throughout the

Northwest, Brunson et al. (1997) and Shindler et al. (1993, 1996) have asked people

about the value of the environment vs. the importance of the economy. In every case, 

citizens overwhelmingly supported a balanced, ecologically responsible approach to

forest management, with a majority siding slightly with the environment. Similar studies conducted in rural Alaska (Shindler and Collson 1998), Oregon,2 and Tennessee

(Bliss et al. 1994), areas traditionally timber-dependent, reveal that citizens continue

to support sustainable timber harvesting but often believe that nontimber uses of

forests are just as important as producing wood.

Public acceptance of conditions is likely to hinge on questions about feasible alternatives. Typically, agency decision systems have produced limited either-or choices.

Ecosystem management, however, has been touted as embracing collaborative

processes that seek compromise solutions based on a range of reasonable options

and ultimately can be crafted into a plan for achieving multiple objectives. Public

acceptance of this approach likely will depend on the ability of managers to identify

and articulate compatible alternatives. Although citizens living near adaptive management areas (AMAs) in the United States and model forests in Canada initially 

supported proposed ecosystem–based concepts in general (including scientific 

experimentation with forest systems [Robinson et al. 1997, Shindler et al. 1996]),

many were skeptical about the approach because of a lack of experience with these

ideas. Four years later, the skepticism surrounding the AMAs has only increased

because forest agencies have failed to demonstrate alternative practices and have

not effectively engaged citizens in a discussion of such treatments (see footnote 1).

There may be times when multipurpose strategies can be a detriment to public

acceptance; e.g., if a practice also improves profitability, some will applaud while 

others will claim that the measure was adopted solely to make money. Additional 

purposes can increase the chances of opposition because each new objective can

have its naysayers. Similarly, problems arise when attempts are made to manage for

multiple benefits in every location. Not every site can support the full range of forest

values and this does not make sense to people who are familiar with the history and

contextual capabilities of each setting.

National forests are not the only place where managing for multiple resources is 

considered legitimate. Brunson et al. (1996b) examined attitudes of nonindustrial 

private forest landowners in 11 states. A majority of respondents supported use of

25

2 Davis and Hibbits. 1999. Oregonians discuss forest values, 

management goals, and related issues: executive summary of a

public opinion research project for the Oregon Forest Resource

Institute, Portland, OR. On file with: G.H. Stankey.
ecosystem management principles on both public and private lands, though they

were more likely to say these practices should always be used in public forests than

in private forests. When asked about different principles of ecosystem management,

respondents were most likely to support greater attention to multiple spatial and 

temporal scales, formation of landscape-scale/multiagency partnerships, and a shift

from single-species to ecosystem-level strategies to maintain biodiversity. This group

was more ambivalent toward increased consideration of public opinion in resource

management decisions, and this aspect of ecosystem management was felt to be

inappropriate for private lands.

Although it would be easy to conclude that there is growing opposition to harvesting

activities on public forests, it would be a mistake to think this is a blanket response 

of public acceptance of new management approaches. Timber production in some 

form is generally viewed as a legitimate use of forest land by all but the most extreme

groups (Shindler and Collson 1998); however, it is clear that there is a desire for a 

different balance between commodity uses and noncommodity values in forests (see

footnote 2). This view is shared by many scientists who have observed a shift in public values from the dominant (extraction based) paradigm to a new (more holistic) natural resource paradigm (e.g., Brown and Harris 1992, Dunlap 1992, Inglehart 1990).

Now that it is known that a balanced approach is important to people, the problem

becomes one of achieving multiple resource objectives. Solutions will not only be

about which values to protect but also the process of how the alternatives are understood and decisions about implementing them are made (Shindler 2000). The trend

toward multipurpose management is likely to continue unless such strategies prove

entirely unworkable. And the nature of collaborative planning—assuming that it, too,

continues to grow in importance—lends itself to the development of multipurpose

strategies, because compromise is likely only if all participants are able to find some

benefit in the outcomes of a proposed action.

The rational, technical-scientific decision model does not adequately incorporate 

public concerns; thus it is difficult to reach decisions that are acceptable to citizens.

Since the time of Gifford Pinchot and his emphasis on the use of science to guide 

forest management, most natural resource management problems have been considered as solvable through the use of science and technology. This reliance on what is

often described as the “rational, technical-scientific” model of decisionmaking (e.g.,

see Wondolleck 1988) generally has served resource professionals well; it is what

made systematic, informed management of our forests possible. Consistent with this

model, forest agencies have adopted a value system that emphasizes technical

expertise in managing natural resources; e.g., this value system is deeply ingrained in

the types of educational programs supporting forestry and other natural resource programs (Brunson 1993). But even though application of this model, with its emphasis

on technical and scientific knowledge, to resource management decisions is required,

its capacity to address the value-based concerns that exist among a broad public is

limited (Stankey and Shindler 1997). Several inherent flaws in this model account for

the limited ability of the rational, technical-scientific model to address the “wicked

problems” (Allen and Gould 1986) confronting natural resource management today.

26

Problem 5
Because the results of science are imbued with multiple meanings by decisionmakers, rational explanations of environmental events are both central to and contested in management decisions. Various sources of ambiguity contribute to the conflict

and confusion when both resource professionals and members of the public look to

science for definitive, unequivocal answers. One source of such ambiguity is the very

rhetoric of science that can convey the impression, especially to nonscientists, that

research is objective, unbiased, and the source of ultimate truth (Wynne 1987). Such

rhetoric reinforces popular myths that science is the source of “usable nuggets” of

solid, undisputed facts (Ravetz 1987). This also implies only one answer for any 

question and if it isn’t known now, it will be eventually. Experts, so this myth claims,

can agree on what is true and what is not. The resolution to confounding natural

resource management problems is to be found in the facts themselves; when “scientists disagree, then one of them must have lied or made a mistake” (Mazur 1981: 10).

Another limiting factor is the “criterion of adequacy” (Clark and Majone 1985: 12),

which argues that science as it is currently practiced is simply unable to provide

answers to urgent problems. Often “better” (or more) science is called for by 

decisionmakers based on the belief that objective science will produce the truth;

moreover, this truth will unequivocally inform everyone on the appropriate political

solutions. These beliefs often are constrained by the reality that the needed information is unavailable or cannot be produced in time to meet decision deadlines.

Wienberg (1972) describes such issues as transcientific; i.e., problems that can be

stated in scientific terms but cannot be resolved scientifically. Such problems are, at

their core, questions of competing values and conflicting social and political choices.

Earlier, in our discussion of problem 2, we mentioned the role that trust (or more 

correctly, the lack of trust) plays in the process of achieving socially acceptable 

decisions. This factor also influences the extent to which scientific and expert judgments about ecosystem management are taken into account by the public. When

people hear experts provide different answers to the same question, it is not surprising that many will disbelieve them all (Brunson 1993). This situation is exacerbated

when citizens see politicians use science to defend and rationalize any decision that

furthers their particular interest (Caplan et al. 1975, Lindbloom 1990). Newspaper

accounts of natural resource issues are replete with passages decrying the influence

of “junk science” and the lack of “sound science,” which are often code words for 

dismissing science that refutes, or fails to support, a particular self-interest.

There is a particularly detrimental, even insidious, form of distrust that challenges 

the dominance of and reliance on the technical-rational model; as Earman (1996: 18)

describes it, “Many people hold views that run counter to scientific belief, and often,

due to their lack of scientific knowledge, or the belief that many environmental atrocities have been the direct result of science, they tend not to trust scientists, whom 

they believe have damaged their world.” The role of science and scientists, from the 

creation of the atom bomb to the emerging technology of genetic engineering, is 

perceived to confirm the image of a 1950s grade B science fiction movie, with the

unconstrained pursuit of scientific accomplishment irrespective of its consequences

for people and society.

27
Today, the stakes of natural resource management are sufficiently high to focus

intense public scrutiny and criticism on all aspects of scientific efforts. Collingridge

and Reeve (1986) argue that policy decisions based primarily on a scientific model

are doomed, because the culture of science is uniquely unsuited to the policy and

management arenas, especially in contentious value-based debates. Improved 

models that lead to informed decisions and, ultimately, improved resource conditions

will require an increased sensitivity to the social, normative nature of the underlying

questions (Stankey and Shindler 1997).

We must recognize that knowledge about particular places and systems is held by

many individuals, not just managers and scientists (Lang 1990). This knowledge 

is acquired not only through scientific inquiry but also from the various interactions

between people and the places in which they live, work, and recreate. Even though

this personal, experiential knowledge can add rich insight and understanding about

natural resources (Friedmann 1987), incorporating it into formalized organized 

models, including those governing scientific inquiry, often is difficult. Such knowledge

typically is discounted, demeaned, or rejected outright, in large part because it 

neither conforms to the conventional models of scientific analysis (e.g., quantitative

models) nor fits the conventional molds of scientific investigation (e.g., hypothesis

testing). The irony here is that by rejecting such knowledge, scientists can unwittingly

jeopardize the very conditions they seek; i.e., incorporation of the best state of knowledge into the decisionmaking process. They do this in two ways: first, by ignoring

important sources of knowledge and information held by others, and second, by 

exacerbating suspicions and distrust about the scientific process (e.g., feeding 

suspicions about the “black box” approach to decisionmaking), thereby reducing the

social acceptability of their information, irrespective of its inherent validity or reliability.

As Westley (1995) argues, an inability to pick up on stimuli signaling fundamental

environmental changes (whatever the source or nature) reduces the capacity of an

organization to respond effectively to new demands on the system. Alternatively,

when we unburden ourselves from the narrow focus on technical information, we are

more likely to identify shifts in resource uses, changes, and responses. One benefit of

assigning credibility to a wider spectrum of experience and knowledge would appear

to be an enhanced social acceptability of decisions based on such knowledge

(Mackinson and Nottesad 1998).

Efforts to maintain or achieve natural conditions are confounded by a wide range of

perceptions about what “natural conditions” might be.

Ours is a culture in which “natural” is desirable, or at least acts deriving from nature

are forgivable. One reason why natural conditions or causes may be acceptable, even

to those who do not believe that nature knows best, is that natural forces are generally thought to be unforeseeable, unpreventable, and largely inevitable. No option to

accept or reject is offered, thus the consequences lie outside the realm of judgments.

But even this point of view has become arguable. Floods, for example, are no longer

always seen as “acts of God,” but instead as the possible result of mismanagement 

or even global warming. Regardless, the quest for natural forest conditions is at the

forefront of U.S. public land management policies.

28

Problem 6
After nearly 300 years of manipulation, what is perceived to be natural about U.S.

forests is not necessarily what is natural, and a lack of scientific consensus about

what constitutes natural conditions only contributes to the problem. Further, different

world views, particularly “myths of nature,” underlie debates about how natural settings might be managed. Schwarz and Thompson (1990) point out that people see

nature in fundamentally different ways; some see nature as perilously fragile (humans

should impact Earth as little as possible) and others view it as perpetually resistant

(Earth will “fix” itself) and therefore what individuals do does not matter. More moderate viewpoints suggest nature is resilient but only to a point. The diversity and validity

of these plural perspectives only reinforce the necessity to act collaboratively

(Stankey and Shindler 1997).

Approaches that attempt to pinpoint one historical era (e.g., presettlement or turn-ofthe-20th-century forests) on which to base or standardize ecosystem management

practices seem fruitless. Surely today’s forests are not the same ones that Native

Americans once knew, and scholars cannot agree on the extent to which conditions

immediately prior to Euro-American settlement were natural as opposed to human

caused (Kay 1997). In any case, such thinking tends to discount human ecology; e.g.,

perceptions of forest conditions have been altered by long-held Forest Service policies, such as the 100-year-old view about extinguishing all fires. Fire suppression has

affected forests in all Western States, thereby causing severe consequences for forest

health, and scientists are just beginning to determine how people feel about these

types of “natural” conditions. The real issue here is the extent of agreement and

understanding of differing standards of naturalness and not their use as definitive

truth. Williams and Stewart (1998) argue that an ecosystem is simply a social 

construct and thus ecosystem management is also a social construct. If we accept

this as true, the problem then becomes one of agreeing on what our “natural” forests

should look like—what the Forest Service calls desired future conditions—and which

essential ecological components their management should be based on.

Research has shown that what is perceived to be natural is not necessarily what is

natural. Forest settings people believe to be most natural tend to be those having the

greatest amount of vegetative diversity and thus are the most attractive (Lamb and

Purcell 1990). The natural condition may not be acceptable. Examples can be found

in residential subdivisions at the urban fringe where reintroduction of low-intensity

fires to reduce fuel loads by managers of adjacent public lands typically meets with

public resistance. Brunson (1995) suggests that, in such cases, managers could

choose to maintain a condition outside the range of natural variation in the short term

and use environmental education strategies to increase the likelihood that efforts to

reduce understory densities will become acceptable to most residents. One mechanism for introducing these ideas to the public is through demonstration projects as in

Oregon, Washington, and other Western States. Coupling information with exposure

of community members to prescribed fire demonstration sites close to populated

areas has proven useful (Reed 1998). The Deschutes National Forest (Oregon) and 

a private industrial timber firm have jointly conducted citizen tours on the company’s

forest land to demonstrate the application of alternative silvicultural treatments for

similar purposes.

29
Because Americans often believe that natural is better, ecosystem management

seeks to bring existing conditions full circle. Forest managers now are attempting to

mimic natural conditions, sometimes with techniques from restoration ecology, by

reintroducing fire or using silviculture treatments that look like small, natural disturbances (e.g., Mutch et al. 1993). Preliminary research suggests that public reaction 

to such treatments is generally favorable (Brunson and Shelby 1992); however, not

everyone accepts this approach. In their evaluation of adaptive management in the

Northwest, Stankey and Shindler (1997) note that some groups see these strategies

not as mimicry but as “business as usual” by federal forest agencies and a contrived

rationale for continuing the harvest agenda. Thus, the issue is not merely one of visual quality. In any case, the natural-is-better argument has been confounded by historical management activity in forests and, more recently, by public scrutiny of agency

intentions. Although natural forests are more acceptable, how those conditions are

achieved is subject to debate.

Restoration ecology practices may produce individual stands that are judged more or

less attractive than other areas where timber harvesting takes place, but overall the

results are meant to be judged at the landscape rather than the stand level. Asking

the public to evaluate conditions at this scale presents additional problems; for most

people, it does not represent an intuitive or familiar frame of reference (Geyer and

Shindler 1994). An additional problem is that “natural disturbances” come in shades of

gray; e.g., recent mudslides in the Pacific Northwest (one resulting in multiple deaths)

are controversial because their origin is being debated. Public acceptance of what

once was considered naturally occurring phenomena will no doubt hinge on whether

they are perceived as human induced (e.g., from clearcutting) or as random acts of

nature (Brunson 1996a).

Another twist on the natural-is-better idea has occurred in some areas of the West

where people are reacting to overstocked, deteriorating forest stands created by

human exclusion of natural fire. For generations, Smokey Bear decreed that suppressing any forest fire was “normal”; now foresters tell people such stands are not

“natural” and that managers need to intervene to return the balance in nature. As with

other practices, information about the ecological basis for such practices seems to

increase the acceptability of stands managed in this way (Brunson and Reiter 1996,

Ribe 1989). Public reactions to increased amounts of smoke and diminished air quality from more aggressive use of prescribed fire are yet to be accounted for, however.

Overall acceptance of a condition may depend on judgments about both the practice

that created it and how people feel about the management objective behind it.

Additional research can help improve understanding of the complexities of managing

for natural conditions. Factors leading to judgments that a condition is “natural” need

further exploration. To what extent are judgments based on aesthetic criteria rather

than those that can be influenced by further knowledge about forest ecology? When

this is known, it then may be possible, as Gobster (1996) suggests, to promote widespread adoption of an “ecological aesthetic” that would be more reflective of North

American ecotypes than the naturalistic, human-influenced “scenic aesthetic” predominating in American culture today. Under what conditions can citizens accept that

active manipulation by humans (ecosystem-based management) can restore conditions that are more “natural” than those occurring without human intervention? No

doubt part of the answer lies in the problems discussed in this analysis. Resolving

30
issues of public trust in agencies, questions about risk, knowledge of alternative 

treatments, attention to context, and an inclusive process for discussing options, 

all will contribute to reaching an acceptable desired future condition. Ways must be

found to discuss the options with a public uneasy about new or different approaches

to forest management.

Natural resource management involves much uncertainty about how systems work as

well as a degree of risk in their implementation. Few places exist where discussions

can occur to help people understand the risks, allow them to weigh the tradeoffs, and

thus increase the acceptability of management approaches.

Because ecosystem management implies uncertainty and unpredictability, public 

perceptions invoke questions about the risks involved. Logically, the greater the risk

(or the greater the uncertainty about risk potential), the less acceptable a practice will

be. We noted earlier that judgments about acceptable conditions are the result of

some comparative process. Risk often is related to questions about the feasibility of

practices and the equitability of outcomes (Brunson 1996a). With ecosystem management, the feasibility of many practices is not yet known; the condition a treatment will

produce in 40 or 50 years might be predictable, but there is little experimental 

evidence. The equity issue can be equally far reaching—consequences will be borne

by generations who had no opportunity to help determine (or prevent) the outcome.

Problems involving risk and uncertainty are complicated by ambiguities. From the

public viewpoint, mere uncertainty about an issue often turns into worry over the risk

of outcomes. For forest ecosystems, fear over uncertainty is aggravated by an equal

level of concern about the potential for and the consequences of mistakes (Clark et

al. 1999). The worry is that mistakes may not only be costly but also irreversible.

Treating all uncertainty as risk is problematic. Conversely, some scientists do not

acknowledge uncertainty; they maintain the pervasive notion that every problem in

society has an answer, and thus, there is no risk that cannot be explained. Fischhoff

et al. (1981) describe this dilemma as the values of the evaluators intertwined with

the facts of each alternative. By not treating all uncertainty as risk, however, the ambiguities can begin to be sorted out; e.g., resource professionals often struggle over

how to define an ecosystem problem: which facts are most relevant, whose values

are to be represented (and how to elicit them), and how to account for the inevitable

fallibility of (science) experts. Such an approach helps to come to terms with the idea

that resource professionals do not know all the answers and that we need methods

for reaching agreement on “acceptable risk.”

Among factors Fischhoff et al. (1981) cite as affecting perceptions of risk are (1) the

nature and consequences of making an error, (2) the extent to which consequences

are localized, (3) the length of time before consequences are known, (4) the length of

time required to recover from error, and (5) the irreversibility of erroneous decisions.

One view is that evaluations of risk are made at the individual level, the community

level, and even the generational level (Steelman and Carmin 1998); e.g., if we do 

not know the risks involved, many would prefer not to obligate our children or grandchildren to find out the hard way (Brunson 1996d). Alternatively, the public’s attention

to problems may simply be a matter of how serious, certain, and soon the risk will be.

31

Problem 7
Public perceptions and a basic level of understanding seem essential to addressing

risk. This will involve having alternatives to compare, being sure that people possess

adequate knowledge of these alternatives, and because agencies have a role in

shaping assessments, having a mechanism to govern the evaluation process. If 

natural resources are to be managed through a system of informed governance, 

public opinion must be acknowledged to be most meaningful and useful when people

have some insight into more than one side of the question (Ehrenhaldt 1994). Merely

asking people if they want wildfires suppressed (or fewer timber sales or clean drinking water) does not bring agencies much closer to solving resource concerns; one

could easily predict the response to such questions. And the problem is not that opinion pollsters are wrong or that people are stupid. Public responses lack meaning

because no real choice was offered or considered; people are missing pieces of the

puzzle. Yankelovich (1991) warns of the tendency to use mass public opinion, a term

he uses to describe poor-quality opinion research where, in part, people fail to or 

are not given the opportunity to take the consequences of their views into account.

Instead, he argues for content-based public opinion in which an effort is made to truly

understand public judgments formed when people think about and struggle with an

issue, an “approach that presents people with the consequences of their views and

then measures their reactions” (Yankelovich 1991: 43). Collectively, these ideas

underscore the importance of building a scientific literacy among a lay public that

influences forest policy decisions.

Research from forest communities has shown the role of improved information.

A well-known example involves the use of fire in managed forests. The tradition of fire

suppression on public lands in the United States has enjoyed broad-scale public 

support for generations, largely from messages by Smokey Bear. Analyses of 

attitude surveys since 1976 have shown, however, steady support for the use of 

manager-ignited fires (e.g., Bliss et al. 1994, Brunson 1996b, Shelby and Speaker

1990, Shindler and Reed 1996) and for letting natural fires burn (Brunson 1996b,

Manfredo et al. 1990). A central theme in these studies is that the more people understand about the use of fire and the diminished risk from using prescribed fire versus

the high risk of catastrophic wildfire, the more acceptable these practices become.

Attitude change about managed fire has been well documented, but other practices

have begun to be studied as well. Evidence comes from Bliss et al. (1994), who found

that support for clearcutting doubles when respondents are simply assured by managers that trees will grow back in the harvest units. Similarly, Ribe’s (1999) studies of

public responses to new ecosystem-based harvests vs. more traditional ones showed

that detailed descriptions of the Forest Service’s ecosystem strategies made the 

former more acceptable to people.

Even with the wholesale move to ecosystem management on national forests, 

people still are reticent to express support for new or different management practices

(Shindler et al. 1996). Each individual practice carries with it uncertainty and 

embodies a different type of risk. Introducing fire into a system is probably a shortterm (although potentially high-level) risk because outcomes become evident rather

quickly; the fire is out, risk to private property is gone, smoke dissipates, even "green

up" occurs within a year or two. But harvest treatments probably are longer term risks

because they require considerably more time to evaluate; many years can pass

between a decision to thin a stand, some level of recovery, and full recognition of the

consequences. Other, less intensive treatments currently being introduced to help

32
reduce public concern over forest fire risks (e.g., mowing, crushing, grazing, restoration planting) may be more palatable, but their long-term effectiveness is debatable.

One additional and important risk factor is the degree to which citizens trust resource

professionals to actually implement the described practices successfully. This has

been compounded recently by the growing dichotomy of credibility among large 

agencies and their locally based management units. Citizens are now frequently

expressing trust in their local forest managers (i.e., at the district or forest level) but

are worried that the larger, politically driven agency (based in Washington, DC) will

not allow those managers to do their jobs (Shindler and O’Brian 1998).

Some of the uncertainty problems might be mitigated by forest agencies making more

serious attempts at adaptive management approaches. They could begin by organizing serious multidisciplinary discussions; i.e., ongoing events for exploring all aspects

of ecosystem management, including risks and failures. Brunson (1996d: 121) argues

that “a critical element in addressing all these uncertainty-related issues will be communication between managers who are practicing ecosystem management, scientists

who are evaluating its effects, and publics whose values and benefits are dependent

on continued health of forest ecosystems.” One caveat, however, is the danger of providing information without proper context. The Environmental Protection Agency, for

example, has taken “the public’s right to know” as sacred doctrine and has begun

flooding the electronic airwaves with data and information about toxic chemicals. It

does not matter if extremely small emissions of a compound do not really threaten

public health, just listing it as toxic “is the regulatory equivalent of giving the chemical

a scarlet letter” (Arrandale 1999). An analogous issue in forestry might be smoke

management. The issue is so contentious today that the tendency is to trigger a

media inquisition or prompt politicians to overreact about public fears over a “problem”

without adequate attention to the contextual perspective. Such scenarios only reinforce the need for forums to openly discuss and interpret forest information, practices,

and conditions.

This will mean that agencies must be more forthcoming about difficult decisions and

the choices involved. Traditionally, managers have been susceptible to risk aversion,

an inability to admit failure, and the perceived threats of existing interests (Walters

1997). They usually have preferred one-way means of communication that have

allowed them to control the flow and content of information. Instead, more open, interactive exchanges among managers, scientists, and the public may be useful for evaluating potential scenarios prior to policy changes. Any such approach must consider

that much of current society is poorly equipped to contribute to long-term decisions.

Even ecosystem language (particularly agency jargon) is without context for most

individuals (Brunson 1992). Any interactive approach will need to help people sort

through the ambiguities surrounding ecosystem-based problems (Geyer and Shindler

1994). Natural resource conditions and policies are more meaningful when people

can equate them to local problems such as a familiar tree or fish species and place

them at recognizable rangelands or forest recreation sites. These problems then will

become genuine social concerns because of the affect on peoples’ livelihood and

quality of life.

33
Confusing the provision of information with increased public understanding, and 

ultimately with public acceptance, is a mistake. Information alone is rarely sufficient to

produce change. Public understanding is based on various factors wrapped in the

context of personal experience.

Natural resource agencies often think their job is to develop information and deliver 

it to the public. And too often these days, we hear the lament of frustrated forestry 

professionals who say, “If we could just educate people and inform them about what

we do, then they would understand and support us.” Confusing information provision

with understanding, and ultimately acceptance, is a mistake, however. There is much

rhetoric about the need for improved information; although good knowledge is essential to any public communication strategy, it is not sufficient.

Brunson (1993) notes that public education programs must be tailored to specific,

desired audiences. Although resource professionals recently have expanded their outreach efforts to include more public meetings, newsletters, brochures, field trips, and

so on, most efforts continue to be unidirectional communication devices where the

attempt is to "educate" people about agency programs (Brunson 1992, Cortner 

et al. 1998, Shindler and Neburka 1997). It is unlikely that people's judgments will

change solely on the basis of technical enlightenment (Stankey 1996), because 

judgments are formed from many factors in addition to scientific information. People

initially are likely to rely on visual references obtained through personal experience

and interpreted through previous experience. This is not to suggest that scientific

input is not necessary or useful in an individual’s decisionmaking process, but that

how and why information is presented is just as important. Substantial research (e.g.,

Shindler et al. 1994, Yaffee and Wondolleck 1997) indicates that any new practice is

more likely to be accepted if the public understands the rationale for it, if they have

been genuinely engaged in a questioning process (preferably before implementation),

and if they recognize the potential outcomes. Jamieson (1994: 26) saw the need 

for more meaningful forms of communication as a way to truly understand people's 

concerns and to positively alter behavior patterns:

Generally programs that provide information are not very successful in

improving understanding or changing behavior. Serious thought must be

given to what it means to educate both the public and the policymaking 

community, as opposed to delivering brochures or reports. People tend 

to respond to stories, analogies, examples, and so on. Education is more 

likely to occur in the context of a personal relationship than in anonymous 

information-provision.

There is general consensus that people possess two types of knowledge: scientific

and experiential (Wright 2000). Scientific knowledge, also called expert or technical

knowledge, is generally learned and passed on through scientific research and formal

education settings (DeWalt 1994, Kloppenburg 1991). Experiential knowledge, also

known as local, tacit, traditional, or indigenous knowledge, is a more indepth form

based on personal observations and experiences (DeWalt 1994, Saint-Onge 1996).

Dissanayake (1986) refers to this as “value knowledge”; it reflects beliefs and worldviews and allows for choice among alternatives. Dissanayake (1986) articulates a

third form, normative knowledge, which enables further evaluation of alternatives 

and helps provide a “standardizing function” (Buttolph and Doak 2000). Thus, 

34

Problem 8
public judgments about any worldly condition or action will have various antecedents:

personal experiences, social influences from childhood onward (including education,

parental guidance, and other normative pressures), affective responses to a particular

event, cognitive beliefs that may be based in fact or hearsay (or propaganda), and so

on. We see no logical reason why acceptability judgments about forests would not be

influenced by the same factors.

Researchers investigating natural resource problems report that people use 

both scientific information (Bitgood and Cleghorn 1995) and experiential learning

(Kloppenburg 1991) in forming judgments. But even though adequate measures can

be developed of how much scientific knowledge people possess, this may not tell 

us much about how the information is processed or connects with people's value 

systems. Consequently, a better understanding is needed of how all types of information are used and interpreted. Information delivery also seems to be important. In

studies of citizen-agency interactions, Cortner et al. (1998) and Shindler and Neburka

(1997) found that people do not respond well to traditional agency information-sharing

or scoping meetings, which are common components of the National Environmental

Policy Act process. In the urban-rural dichotomy, rural publics in general are more

accepting of information delivered by forest managers, and urban residents prefer

information from research scientists (Steel et al. 1998). Providing an opportunity for

citizens to evaluate the range of related information, instead of selected bits of information, is also important (Brunson and Reiter 1996). People are capable of responding to information about tradeoffs, including the positive and negative consequences,

and often welcome the chance to do so. These examples suggest that a poor fit

between an audience and a message can be detrimental to public acceptance of

management policies. When given a rational set of choices, even limited or imperfect

choices, citizens often will choose the lesser of two evils and accept it (Ehrenhaldt

1994). The ability of resource professionals to specify the situational context and communicate the nature of the options is just as essential as the provision of objective,

unbiased information.

Knowledge that emerges from personal experience has become increasingly valuable

for addressing complex issues within natural resource decisions; for instance, members of affected interests will respect new scientific knowledge, but they want forestry

decisions to be based on local experiences as well as good science (Shindler and

Collson 1998). In a regional (Oregon and Washington) assessment on the interface 

of scientific information and its source, Shindler and Reed (1996) found a high correlation between support for ecosystem management practices (prescribed fire and

thinning treatments) and people’s belief that the Forest Service presents credible 

and reliable technical information.

There is a conventional view that social acceptability is primarily a function of the

knowledge and understanding that one holds about a given phenomenon; i.e., it is

primarily a cognitive dimension. Knowledge is a key notion; e.g., in their research 

on citizen involvement in watershed management, Shindler and Wright (2000) found 

that although most respondents claimed an interest in and concern about watershed 

management, few were well informed about the technical or scientific aspects specific

to the issue. The researchers also note that respondents held many information

providers in high trust and that this trust level was associated with the perception that

35
the information provided by these organizations was useful. This suggests that the

judgment process also has an affective component; i.e., how people feel (or how

emotional they are) about the information, the providers, and the processes influences the specific judgments they hold. The open hostilities in the forestry debate

bear this out; people respond based on their feelings for things that are important 

to them, such as the impacts from timber harvests on aesthetics or recreational 

experiences.

In forest communities, managers can choose how they provide information and what

type of experiences will be created for citizens. Poorly communicated management

plans are certain routes to frustration and disapproval. The most positive public

responses come from situations where resource professionals are able to articulate in

clear terms the purpose of a particular practice or treatment, including the ecological

basis for it (Shindler and Neburka 1997). Identifiable objectives, openly expressed 

by agency personnel, provide a common focus for solving problems and reaching 

agreement. Widespread public acceptance is more likely to emerge from a common

(and jointly gained) understanding of environmental complexities; Delli Priscoli and

Homenuck (1990) found that when a body of information results from a public 

consultation process, it is viewed as more credible and reliable. Public deliberation

also should be understood as a process for generating alternatives, not just evaluating them. In sum, it is not the information by itself that leads to understanding;

scientific facts do not speak for themselves, they must be appreciated and interpreted

(Jamieson 1994).

The initial basis for personal judgments of forest landscapes is often visual, but it is

clear that a more comprehensive, holistic form of public evaluation of conditions is

needed.

There is little dispute that the overall visual appearance of forest conditions provides

an important initial basis for public judgments of acceptability. Over the last 25 years,

much visual quality research has attempted to identify the components of scenic

beauty and also quantify their acceptability. But from a social science standpoint, 

this approach seems limiting, largely because many other contextual factors are not

accounted for in these assessments, and socially acceptable forestry of the future 

will not be about single-issue management. Our premise is that judgments about 

acceptable conditions go well beyond perceptions of scenery to include a broader

range of observable outcomes. Sometimes management practices are “ugly” (certainly for a while), but if the long view of ecosystem stewardship is to be promoted, it will

mean instilling a different (expanded) set of factors for evaluation, one that encourages people to look beyond the scenic to an ecological perspective.

First, it is important to recognize that over the past three decades, considerable

research has examined how forest management affects scenic perceptions (see Ribe

1989, 1999). Methods usually have involved asking people to evaluate photos or

slides of forest scenes and, most often, silvicultural treatments. Visual quality studies

can be done at either the landscape or stand level, although the latter approach often

is preferred because it allows researchers to examine the effects of individual stand

components (large trees, stumps, understory shrubs) on aesthetic perceptions.

Results of studies conducted in most forest zones of the United States and Europe

show that high scenic beauty is associated with presence of large mature trees, 

36

Problem 9
moderate tree densities, grass and herb cover, color variation, and species diversity

(Brunson 1996b). Low scenic beauty is associated with presence of numerous smalldiameter trees, dense shrub cover, bare ground, large amounts of woody debris,

insect outbreaks, evidence of fire, and the presence of mechanical disturbance. Over

the years, scientists have tended to focus social acceptability research on visual management practices. Although researchers realize that many other factors are relevant,

and many have argued for their inclusion in an acceptability framework (e.g., Brunson

1993, Shindler and Collson 1998), there is no denying the importance of what people

see. Visual knowledge is powerful because it is based on direct, immediate, and

observable experience.

Given that acceptability is strongly influenced by visual appearance, discourse and

information alone cannot offset the aesthetic costs of disturbance-based management. Irrespective of suggestions made in problem 8, conceptions of the "scenic 

aesthetic" (that which is dramatic and visual) will not easily be cast aside as an 

evaluative tool in favor of the much more subtle "ecological aesthetic," which depends

on an appreciation of biologically diverse and dynamic environments created through

ecosystem management practices (Gobster 1996). When Reed (1998) provided management objectives to participants who were making onsite evaluations of ecosystem

management practices (prescribed fire and mechanized thinning), the most important

consideration for people was still the visual impact on the landscape (from slash,

down wood, tree spacing) and not information about the treatment. Likewise, Ribe

(1999) found the best predictor of acceptability of forest landscapes, when comparing

citizen's ratings either with or without information, was the extent of the harvest disturbing the forest cover. Visual images are what visitors remember most as opposed

to other environmental messages (Bitgood and Cleghorn 1995). Ecosystem management can produce disturbances that contribute to "messy, cluttered" forests, and

changing the public's mind about what they observe will be difficult.

Confounding influences—Thus far, most research on public judgments about

forests and forestry has focused on timber harvesting and its associated impacts, no

doubt because harvesting is the predominant management activity and public controversy surrounds its many forms of implementation. Public opposition to clearcutting,

for example, has become especially strong, a sentiment found so consistently across

the United States (e.g., Bliss et al. 1994, Bourke and Luloff 1994, Shindler et al.

1993) that federal land managers are required to use alternative practices. Similar

research in Canada indicates citizens there also have strong views about this form of

forest management. In a national study (Robinson et al. 1997), three quarters of the

Canadians polled agreed that clearcutting has negative environmental effects and 

will lead to overcutting. Other connections exist between aesthetic and ecological 

conditions. Both Schuh (1995) and Bliss et al. (1994) report that visual impacts 

are associated with judgments about ecological impacts, and in turn, these led to 

questions about the motives of foresters. Each notes that when a clearcut dominates

a view, the public suspects environmental damage is occurring. In Schuh’s (1995)

study, many participants assumed erosion and stream sedimentation were occurring

whenever they were shown clearcuts on steep terrain; Bliss et al. (1994) found 

that residents who oppose intensive harvesting believe these practices lead to soil 

erosion, aesthetic damage, and loss of resources. Consequently, as people observe

these practices, many also come to believe that federal forest agencies and the 

timber industry have been exploitive and unresponsive to concerns about other

37
resources (e.g., Shindler et al. 1996, Willhite et al. 1973). This exposes a bigger 

problem: if citizens view these actions as irresponsible, they may lack trust in the

entire (agency) system.

One of the first studies to examine public responses to ecosystem-based forestry was

by Brunson and Shelby (1992), who studied silvicultural practices in the Northwest.

Their dependent variable was not an estimator of beauty, but a judgment of the

"acceptability" of stands in a timber-production forest as locations for scenic viewing,

hiking, and camping. The authors believed that cognitive evaluations (about purpose

and use) and nonvisual sensory inputs would influence acceptability as well as visual

assessments of scenic beauty. Their research showed that acceptability judgments

are linked to auditory, olfactory, and tactile stimuli (Brunson 1996c), and a followup

study showed judgments to be influenced by information that evaluators received

about the ecological basis for the silvicultural systems used (Brunson and Reiter

1996).

In other studies, researchers have focused on attitudes about alternative approaches,

such as selective logging or shelterwood systems intended to address public 

concerns and uses of forests (e.g., Brunson and Shelby 1992, Ribe 1999), the 

application of herbicides and pesticides to meet community objectives (e.g., Bliss 

et al. 1994, Brunson 1996b, Buse et al. 1995, Carrow 1991), and the use of salvage

operations and prescribed fire to reduce forest health concerns (Shindler 1997,

Tarrant et al. 1997). In such cases, citizens certainly react to aesthetic impacts, 

but their responses also are rooted in knowledge of forest practices (Hansis 1995).

Many positive judgments are associated with information about the scientific basis for 

(unfamiliar) practices intended to achieve ecosystem management objectives (e.g.,

Brunson and Reiter 1996, Ribe 1999).

Researchers also have examined whether there is more to peoples’ assessments of

forest settings than the visibility of clearcuts or messy landscapes. Recent studies

have begun to examine public support for why certain practices are undertaken.

Research by Shindler and Collson (1998) is representative of the view that the

acceptability question goes well beyond visual perspectives. In several qualitative

assessments, they found that a much wider range of factors contributes to people’s

observations and eventually to judgments about relevant outcomes. Citizens were

concerned whether decisions promoted a balance between the economy and the

environment, traditional uses (hunting, hiking, travel) were protected, the opinions of

local citizens were included in forest plans, and practices reflected objective and 

credible information rather than interest group politics or wholesale decisions made 

in Washington, DC.

In short, peoples’ judgments depend not only on a particular forest scene or what a

specific treatment looks like, but also on their observations of the broader surrounding

circumstances. McQuillan (1998) argues that forest patterns exist at different scales.

Large-scale patterns (particularly harvest patterns) set the context for the smaller

scale; without the larger view, people may erroneously judge individual sites as

acceptable. People are not necessarily conditioned to making assessments at the

large landscape level (Shindler 2000), however. As Gobster (1996) argues, the most

reliable measures of acceptability may be those made onsite, where people can

observe with all five senses engaged and can consider the place context of the 

38
management practice. Brunson (1991) collected empirical evidence for these ideas

and found that acceptance of alternative silvicultural approaches intended to meet

ecosystem objectives is greater when people are able to visit and evaluate the stands

in person rather than simply view slides of them. Similarly, Reed (1998) found reinforced support for forest management treatments when people were able to see first

hand how they were implemented. The things we “see” in the landscape can change

as we begin to look beyond the scenic to an ecological perspective (Brunson 1996c).

Understanding why—In today’s environment where agencies are promoting new

forms of management (or at least programs with new sounding names; e.g., restoration ecology), people will likely reserve final judgment about any of them until they

can see how these practices turn out. Thus, there is a need for management outcomes to be observable (van Es et al. 1996). Providing opportunities to raise people's

awareness of management objectives and show them what resulting treatments look

like (e.g., demonstration sites, interpretive trails, guided field visits) may be critical 

to wide-scale acceptance. One unintended consequence of tourism promotion in

Oregon may be the opportunity to test some of these ideas. In 1997, the state’s transportation department designated 11 new scenic byways through Oregon’s outback to

boost visitation and economic activity in rural communities (Corvallis Gazette-Times

1997). By encouraging people (primarily urban residents) to take a drive and see “the

real Oregon,” promoters also may be increasing citizen interest in how these recreational and scenic landscapes are being managed. These scenic routes also may

invite criticism of past forest practices. It seems essential, then, to help people understand and make informed judgments about what they observe.

One approach is to help people judge forest settings not only by what is there but

also why it is there. And with growing public concern for keeping natural ecosystems

and biodiversity intact, citizens are asking “why” with much greater frequency.

Whether the concern is over the long-term impacts of certain practices or about the

trustworthiness of decisionmakers, the need to know is prevalent and legitimate.

Research (e.g., Shindler et al. 1996, Yaffee and Wondolleck 1997) shows that any

new or “different” practice has a much better chance of acceptance if the public

understands the rationale behind it and recognizes the potential outcomes. Accordingly, the ability to adequately discuss the reasons for management practices is now

an essential element in gaining public support for them.

Putting these concepts to use beyond models that include only visual assessment 

criteria is currently an important focus for researchers. Geographic information 

systems (GIS) and other data visualization models are targeted as potentially useful

tools as a result of their success in biophysical research. Sociopolitical applications of

these technologies have been slow to develop. They often oversimplify the complex

nature of the assessment problem (McQuillan 1998), and because of the transient

qualities of the data (e.g., many variables that matter are not spatially dependent),

GIS-based technology may never reach the level of usefulness for social science that

many scientists have hoped for. At the same time, decision-support systems are

under development that attempt to integrate sources of information and peoples’

understanding about the compatibility of harvest alternatives with other resource 

39
values (e.g., McCarter et al. 1998, Reynolds3

). Most are fledgling efforts, but they 

recognize the importance of accounting for the role of information and knowledge in

public acceptance of management practices. More important may be that they legitimize the interdependency of various forms of information, its provision, and the 

context in which it is applied.

Because visual perceptions are such a strong influence on public judgments, it 

is likely that more personalized mechanisms will be needed to relate information 

about management practices (and options) to what people see in practice. Several 

techniques that have made a difference with citizens include manager-stakeholder

field tours (Shindler 2000); information teams in the Oconee National Forest, Georgia,

that visit landowners to explain an upcoming prescribed burn; partnerships with 

citizen groups for monitoring treatment effects (Johnson 1996); and onsite interpretive

messages that describe practices and management objectives (Veverka 1996, Yaffee

and Wondolleck 1997). In the future, forestry professionals will need to use these 

creative approaches and be more open in their attempts to educate the public.

People respond to unacceptable conditions in both thought and action. Their 

behavior is important because it is more easily observed and is how salience is

measured. But an early warning system is needed, one that helps in understanding

which factors push someone from thoughtful inaction to a behavioral response.

Acceptability or, more likely, lack of acceptance is best reflected in human behaviors

rather than in peoples’ attitudes about a forest practice or policy. Certainly behavior 

is important because it warrants attention from people in authority (i.e., managers, 

politicians); typically, it is how salience is measured. Of course, behaviors can differ

widely from simple avoidance of a problem to attending a meeting, writing a letter, 

or even outright demonstration in protest. Sometimes simple verbal expressions do 

not necessarily reflect an individual’s real strength of feeling about a forest policy

because he or she may not have to pay the cost of a new initiative or of derailing an

old one. When people put forth much effort to get what they want, however, they

demonstrate not only what matters to them but also just how important it is to them.

These behavioral responses usually occur in outward demonstrations; people are

motivated to react, either in support or more likely opposition, to a practice or 

condition. Frequently, these are the loud voices that resource professionals are 

compelled to answer. Apolitical behaviors also can be the results, such as rejecting 

a potential recreation site because nearby timber harvesting is judged unattractive

(Daniel et al. 1989). The problem then becomes a measurement issue: How do managers know when people find things acceptable? The old adage "silence is acceptance" is not likely to be very useful. People simply may not be fully aware of any selfinterest in an issue, or they may be aware but choose to focus their energies on other

priorities (Creighton 1983).

40

3 Reynolds, K.; Stankey, G.: Clark, R.; Kruger, L. 1998. Research

proposal: knowledge-based integrated assessment of compatibility

of wood production with other resource values. Unpublished data.

On file with: People and Natural Resources Program, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 4043 Roosevelt Way

NE, Seattle, WA 98105-6497.

Problem 10
Cognitive responses to management actions come in several forms, which contribute

to the complexity of the acceptability issue. Aside from simple agreement, there 

also is acquiescence, tolerance, apathy, or even feelings of powerlessness. In most

cases, these reactions are undetectable because people choose to not become

engaged. Or they may choose to rely on other mechanisms or institutions to do it for

them, particularly when they have too many other priorities in their lives; e.g., some

people give money to organizations that they feel can defend their interests and carry

a message they agree with. Alternatively, people may simply give over responsibility

(and support) to the agency professionals whose job it is to deal with environmental

problems and decisions. Problems may be less intractable when responses are 

primarily cognitive, but problems also can go unobserved until they intensify to a point

that they elicit various behavioral responses (Brunson 1996a). Often that behavior

occurs through participation in political activities of an interest group seeking a

change in policy or management or in individual protest behaviors, such as the deliberate disobedience of unpopular rules governing natural resource use (Margavio et

al. 1993, Muth and Bowe 1998).

Most of the research examining public judgments about natural resource settings,

policies, or management actions has not examined social acceptability per se, 

but instead it has assessed public attitudes. Studies of attitude typically measure 

orientations of survey respondents toward an object by analyzing their levels of

agreement or disagreement with a series of statements about the object. Such

research can mask the differences between cognitive and behavioral responses

because there is little or no cost to the survey respondent to claim that a behavioral

response would be made. Moreover, as Bright and Manfredo (1995) point out, 

attitudes expressed in public surveys may be formed on the spot by people having 

little interest in the topic. As such, they can be poor predictors of behavioral 

responses that might be made to certain practices or conditions. Telephone surveys,

in particular, can produce results that reflect transitory responses to questions about

issues for which no strong attitude has formed (Lauber and Knuth 1998). Bright and

Manfredo (1995) argue that strength of attitude (how much someone cares about an

issue), which has not consistently been measured in studies of attitudes toward 

natural resources, is a better predictor of behaviors than the attitudes themselves.

Although opinion and attitude surveys may show generally how people feel about 

forest management actions and associated conditions, care needs to be taken with

how those results are used as indicators of public support for specific practices in

particular locations.

The recreation behavior literature, where researchers discuss peoples’ reactions 

to forest conditions over many years, suggests how small actions often can be 

indicators of growing dissatisfaction. Hoss and Brunson (1999), for example, found

that when recreationists believe wilderness conditions are less than optimal, they

gradually shift from cognitive responses to minor behavioral responses and later to

more costly behaviors. For instance, if a popular area were becoming crowded, a

visitor’s first response might be to engage in some sort of rationalization (“there 

are more people here than I’d like, but I can still enjoy myself”). The next step, if 

conditions continued to worsen, might be to make a minor behavioral change; e.g.,

choosing a slightly earlier departure time or a different route. Only if the latter 

behavioral response is ineffective is one likely to choose a more drastic response

such as visiting a different wilderness, because there is a high cost to foregoing 

41
future visits to a favorite place or adding to an area’s decline through some form 

of depreciative behavior. For managers, it is important to identify problems before 

high-cost behavioral responses occur.

Saying that a good early warning system is needed acknowledges that small 

problems are easier to address than big ones. Social science techniques can help

identify the kinds of minor behavioral responses that can serve as early indicators 

of nonacceptance. Because contextual significance is important to people, early 

detection of potential problems must include involvement of affected parties when 

discussion is still useful and the stakes are not too high. This is also the time to determine what is important to people. As discussed in previous problems, any one of

many factors (failure to provide a credible decision process, mistrust among parties,

lack of attention to local conditions, the degree of risk in implementing a plan) can

trigger a negative public response. But there are also issues of trust (Would people

trust the agencies more if they felt that managers wanted to know about problems

before they caused much damage?) and fairness (Why do I have to suffer before

you’ll listen to me?). These ideas suggest logical connections to adaptive management principles. If social acceptability is not monitored regularly, just as ecological

conditions are, how can agencies claim to be responding quickly when their strategies go down unanticipated paths? Understanding attitudes is a critical part of

responsive management, partly because the act of asking shows an interest in what

citizens think, and partly because attitude measurement, if strength of attitude is considered, can be part of an effective early warning system about potentially unacceptable conditions.

Because there is a multiplicity of potential factors, managers can easily be blindsided. There is no single solution, however, in all this; there is no do-this-and-you-willget-this resolution. History has shown, however, that if agencies fail to pay attention 

to these factors, they are ultimately condemned to responding to the public’s negative

reactions. As in the medical field, investing in preventative measures is much cheaper

(and less painful) than having to find a cure.

Social acceptability is an essential element in virtually every resource management

issue facing public agencies today. Regardless of the problem (forest health, fire suppression and fuels management, riparian restoration, recreation impacts, threatened

and endangered species), the political environment surrounding most decisions is

never just about single questions, and it is not just about ecological questions. At the

same time, the inclusion of various stakeholder points of view has been difficult for

many in the resource professions. In any case, the need to attend to social processes

has been integrated into public forestry.

In light of this critical role of social acceptability, we have identified 10 key problem

areas. We believe that attention to these problems will help organize thinking about

this critical concept and improve the ability to more effectively integrate it into forest

management. Conceiving of social acceptability as a fundamental element of

resource management, decisionmaking will facilitate the creation of structures and

processes responsive to public conflict. It also will help promote research on the 

factors that constrain and facilitate informed public judgments about management 

policy and programs and the integration of these judgments into the decisionmaking

process.

42

What Now? Five

Basic Strategies
A central conclusion emerging from our analysis is that social acceptability judgments

always are provisional. Public judgments about the acceptability or unacceptability 

of forest management practices, policies, and conditions are never absolute or final.

They depend on many influences; e.g., institutional factors such as conflicting legislation, a reliance on expert-driven planning models, confusion over agency and stakeholder roles, ideology, a lack of organizational will and capacity. As a result, it is

unlikely that any simple “index of acceptability” can be (or should be) created. Moreover, although it is possible to address social acceptability in a rigorous, formal, and

systematic way (e.g., Kakoyannis et al. 2001), it is unlikely that estimates of social

acceptance of some action can be generated through a mechanized, routine planning

procedure. Each situation, each context, produces a unique set of circumstances

affecting the creation of public acceptability judgments.

The provisional, idiosyncratic nature of social acceptability judgments does not mean

that they are without structure or are not subject to critical thinking. Our analysis 

has revealed some of the consistent and predictable aspects of the concept; e.g., 

acceptability judgments reflect a political perspective—i.e., they are the product of the

interactions between citizens and management organizations over time and reflect

the trust, beliefs, and confidence that citizens hold about those responsible for the

stewardship of the nation’s resources.

Social acceptability is also crucial because the management of natural resources is

always faced with choices and consequences: biophysical, social, economic, and

political. Some of these costs and consequences are well-known, measurable, and

immediate; others are highly uncertain, difficult to capture, and displaced in both

space and time. These latter factors help explain, as noted above, why acceptability

judgments are always provisional; as costs and consequences become apparent,

what seemed eminently reasonable at one time becomes intolerable at another. But

the key point here is that choices about management cannot be avoided; there is no

such thing as doing nothing. To choose to do nothing is still a choice, with impacts,

consequences, and implications for both society and the environment. As management organizations give increased attention to the issue of social acceptability, this

fundamental reality needs increased attention.

Finally, our analysis clearly reaffirms the idea that judgments about what is good or

bad, acceptable or unacceptable, are not simply a product of some single external

force (experts, the media, colleagues) but rather derive from complex forces that

come from within individuals themselves and from the social context within which they

participate. Both the nature of the judgments held by people and the strength with

which these judgments are held are shaped by the personal relevance of the 

issue and situation. Judgments are particularly strong when the issue is salient or 

personalized by proximity, the likelihood it will affect a valued place or a strongly held

belief. These judgments are formed at two levels: those that involve personal interests

or benefit a single group, and those that develop from a broader shared agreement

about what should or could occur for the larger community of citizens.

Although we have pointed out specific problem areas to help focus management and

research efforts, we recognize these are integrated problems frequently embedded

within one another. Greater public acceptance will come from being aware of, and

responsive to, various related circumstances. Thus, our concluding comments involve

43
themes expressed as five basic strategies that emerged from our analysis. These are

intended to help guide resource professionals and citizens toward more integrated

solutions:

• Treat social acceptability as a process.

• Develop the capacity within organizations to respond to public concerns.

• Approach trust-building as the central, long-term goal of effective public process.

• Provide leadership to develop a shared understanding of forest conditions and

practices.

• Focus on the contextual conditions of forest landscapes and communities.

Treat social acceptability as a process—There is substantial justification for 

conceptualizing social acceptability as a process rather than an end product or 

reaction to a particular decision. In the past, public acceptance usually has been

viewed in a stimulus-response sense; i.e., managers act (plan, treat) and people

judge (evaluate, respond). But such an approach provides for little participation 

on the part of the public and thus little commitment, either in the action itself or in 

the process by which it was developed. An alternative strategy is to treat social 

acceptability as a process, one that cultivates understanding through the creation,

dissemination, and evaluation of knowledge as well as a method for generating and

using alternatives. This approach recognizes that social acceptability is always in a

provisional state: conditions that are acceptable now can become unacceptable in

due time. In a sense, the pot is continuously boiling with volatility always a possibility;

thus, the process needs continual “care and feeding.”

Also inherent to social process is the notion that acceptability is not something an

agency can directly control; instead, it is more likely to evolve from an informed public. Ideally the acceptability process, if taken as a method for sharing knowledge and

evaluating alternatives, is one in which people truly come to form “public judgments”

and differentiate these judgments from mere individual preferences. Yankelovich

(1991) uses the term “public judgments” to depict good-quality public opinion that is

stable, consistent, and responsible. It reflects understanding of issues and their 

implications. His rationale is not that citizens comprehend all the facts surrounding 

an issue or that they always agree with those in decisionmaking authority; instead, 

citizens give thoughtful consideration to a problem, even struggle with it, and reach a

judgment to which they are committed. More importantly, if leaders understand the

nature of this high-quality public opinion, they have “a stable context to work in—

either to offer solutions that fit within the public’s tolerances, or if they disagree with

the public’s judgment, to take their case forcefully to the public with full awareness

that the public’s view will not change easily” (Yankelovich 1991: 42). In giving 

credence to the notion of process, resource agencies acknowledge the constant 

tension between citizens’ desire for substantively “correct” decisions made by 

technical experts and for democratic decisions made through public participation

(Wenner 1990).

44
Because of the increased emphasis on collaborative approaches for making 

decisions, it is important to be realistic about how to evaluate these processes.

Everyone would like measures of success that are immediate, are easily identified,

and result in substantial payoffs. In practical terms, this requires some specific and

observable on-the-ground achievement, such as a significant reduction in forest fuels,

increased salmon runs, or fewer landslides; in other words, decisions that achieve

management objectives. In most cases today, immediate and identifiable ecological

outcomes are unrealistic. As Kenney (1999) argues, many resource impacts have

accumulated over decades, and measuring “success” by fixing these problems cannot

reasonably be expected for years. Certainly there are examples where plans or 

projects have provided timely results; however, one of the most frequent frustrations

heard from collaborative groups is that, in the end, the agency did not accomplish

much that people could actually see in their local forests (Shindler and Neburka

1997). This is particularly true in the Pacific Northwest where prescriptive legislation

prevails and gridlock seems to have set in. Relying on measurable ecosystem

response as the sole indicator of success can be a burdensome proposition for 

collaborative groups.

Instead, according to Kenney (2000: 9), there is a second, much more forgiving 

definition, one stating “that success can be measured by ‘organizational’ criteria, such

as changes in the level of trust (and/or satisfaction) among stakeholders and resource

managers, the degree to which management efforts better recognize systemic and

transboundary qualities of natural resources, and the enhanced involvement of local

actors in decision-making.” Within this definition is an assumption that an organization’s ability to publicly articulate objectives and lead its stakeholders through a decision process are prerequisites to achieving the more fundamental, tangible on-theground results. Although the values found in participatory processes may be more 

difficult to see than applied outcomes, they should not be underestimated (Lawrence

et al. 1997). Sometimes these values are the only measurable benefits that accrue,

and they often mean the difference between success and frustration (Shindler and

Neburka 1997). The process is iterative. Discussion of problems results in more

stakeholders surfacing, who then enrich the problem definition (Westley 1995)

Develop the capacity within agencies to respond to public concerns—Much was

made in the 1990s about the limitations of natural resource agencies and the deeprooted barriers to reaching durable, lasting policy decisions (e.g., Cortner et al. 1996,

Wondolleck 1988). For years the Forest Service was viewed as the federal superstar

(Clarke and McCool 1985), with motivated employees who possessed a can-do spirit

and got things done. Now the organization seems hamstrung; many citizens, politicians, and employees of the agency are skeptical of its ability to manage effectively

(Cortner et al. 1998, see footnote 1). A recent National Research Council (1996)

study describes the agency as lacking an institutional stability and organizational 

culture that enables experimentation and learning.

Adequately responding to public concerns is difficult when the current situation is

hostile and calls for immediate results. In this climate, a responsible course of action

must include four basic components. First, efforts to develop capacity among personnel also must be supported by an agencywide commitment for implementation. It is

not enough to refer to citizens as stakeholders, provide staff with training programs 

in public involvement, and rely on the traditional National Environmental Policy Act

process. There must be an organizational plan with conviction at the national and

regional levels for conducting business in this era of multipartner management.

45
Part of the problem is the tension between setting policies at the national level and

creating strategies for managing forests at the community level. The problem is not

new; community-based governance approaches have been around for two centuries,

and with ecosystem management as our current model, we are now in the midst of

the most recent cycle. To be successful, any plan will require visible administrative

leadership to structure the organizational approach for improving citizen-agency interactions. Recently, bureaucratic priorities and oppressive oversight have severely limited the ability of managers to achieve success locally. To help legitimize the role of

field personnel, an immediate priority should be on discovering how agencies acting

at the national level can support a workforce that must function at the forest and community level. The agency needs to recognize that local managers need better tools for

engaging the public; by any standard, the existing “tool kit” is antiquated. At the same

time, field personnel need to be given adequate authority to lead at the forest and

community level. This commitment will require staying power to convince all parties

just how serious the agency is about building effective multipartner relations.

The second component involves recognition of the skills necessary to do the public

outreach job. Forestry personnel operate in a world of high expectations, but they

often have a low level of understanding of constituent concerns, possess inadequate

communication skills, and work in a climate of diminishing public trust (Blanha and

Yonts-Shepard 1989). In assessing Forest Service outreach, Yaffee and Wondolleck

(1997) recognized two key factors in addressing the implementation problem.

These involve internal arrangements that (1) enable motivated personnel to develop

effective strategies and (2) encourage them to experiment with public bridge-building

techniques.

Enabling activities include developing staff capabilities through hiring and training 

programs and developing policies that reinforce external relations. The idea is to

match talented people with outreach positions and supply them with the resources 

to conduct public partnerships. Westley (1995) notes how difficult it can be to institutionalize this kind of leadership. The most effective public processes historically have

involved one or two agency members with genuine interpersonal skills who also were

willing to take a risk. “Enabling” means providing administrative flexibility that allows

these individuals the freedom to implement good ideas.

“Encouraging” requires establishing a climate and a context for outreach efforts.

Influencing attitudes internally is as important as the outreach activities themselves.

Because opinions among personnel are widely scattered as to the necessity for such

programs, many staffers in the public contact role often proceed with a hesitancy 

that is not particularly reassuring to the participants. Staff may feel insecure about 

the ground they stand on, they may be afraid to fail, or they may be afraid to open 

the door and let the public in because they do not have answers yet to all the 

questions that might be asked. These staff members need encouragement from an 

organization committed to both their efforts and the public’s role in resource planning.

The third component involves the clarification of roles. Today, the roles that agency

personnel are being asked to play are much different than in the past, when citizen

participation was minimal and technical expertise was foremost. These individuals

need assurances that a broader scope of public contact is essential and that any 

reasonable program will be a long-term endeavor. The agencies also must define

their relation with the public as well as the role they are willing to let citizens play.

46
Too often people are asked to participate in planning exercises without a clear understanding of planning objectives or how decisions will be made. As one frustrated participant voiced in a letter to the BLM, “I am not interested in attending a never-ending

series of meetings if they are just supposed to make me feel better because I was

involved.”

Clarification of roles and agency commitments is particularly important to the frontline

personnel in outreach positions. They cannot make important decisions on their own

and the public will not believe them anyway. If agencies do not accept the role-setting

responsibility, someone else is likely to do it for them: when the Forest Service convened a public forum in Seattle to ask citizens how the agency might better serve

them as customers, the response was, “We are not your customers . . . we are your

owners” (Cushman 1994). Effective leaders have long known the two fundamental

organizing strategies for public discourse are defining roles and setting good objectives (Shindler and Aldred-Cheek 1999).

Fourth, there is a need to allow greater flexibility for personnel to take risks and

experiment with new ideas. These actions must play out publicly and collectively, in

places where people can come together to learn about the uncertainties of forest

management, to understand the risks involved, and weigh the tradeoffs. One method

is to create several (pilot) centers for developing the capacity within the agencies for

more effective collaborations. These should not be replicas of the largely failed 

adaptive management areas, places that received far too little agency direction, 

funding, and latitude to try new things (see footnote 1). And they should not be offsite

training workshops, where employees attend short courses on public involvement

skills and then report back to their work station. Instead, this will require designated,

widely sanctioned forest-size units that function first as places where all personnel

are engaged in building attitudes and skills for community-based ecosystem management. Under such an arrangement, the surrounding forest communities then become

experimental sites for consultative planning and implementation, with agency members providing leadership and establishing a common ground for learning “how to do”

ecosystem management.

Research has a substantial role here as well—to help provide the planning and 

organizational tools for effective process and then to monitor and evaluate the outcomes. Scientists also can capture the learning that occurs; they can identify common

elements across settings and assess the management context in which unique findings occur. Frameworks for monitoring and evaluating these interactions have begun

to emerge (see Selin and Chavez 1995, Shindler and Aldred-Cheek 1999), but they

need refinement and to be given a legitimate status among the responsibilities of

resource agencies. Although the focus for these centers will be on building internal

capacity for effective agency-public interactions, these activities may run into some

initial barriers, or even resistance, given the recent history of downsizing, budget 

cutbacks, and the age structure of the organization. But most personnel are likely to

support this shift (Shindler and Cramer 1999), particularly if their efforts help provide

an early warning system that allows managers to recognize problems before they

intensify and thereby become intractable.

47
Approach trust building as the central, long-term goal of effective public

process—The common thread that runs through all aspects of ecosystem management is the importance of trustworthy relations among parties. No matter how meritorious a plan may be, nothing is validated unless the people involved trust one another. But in this era of wicked problems, where ecosystems are admittedly complex and

people’s basic values are at stake, building trust is difficult. It takes great patience,

requires many opportunities for parties to interact, and is a product of various factors

that all contribute to the endurance of relations. As Westley (1995) notes, achieving a

balance point among parties is a continual process of adjustment.

Given the need for more trustworthy collaborative arrangements, it is important to

consider the context in which this call is being made. Many scholarly observers have

noted that the case for collaboration is more of an attack on traditional natural

resource management programs than a reasoned endorsement of alternative

approaches to decisionmaking (e.g., Amy 1987, Rosenbaum 1995). The distinction 

is noteworthy because (at least) two separate outcomes can result when participatory

methods are attempted in response to public frustration with existing institutional 

programs (Berman 1997). If the management organization is perceived as weak and

ineffectual, then little satisfaction is achieved and citizens will continue to seek other

remedies to their frustration. This usually undermines the intent of the collaborative

action and deepens the rift between the public and the agency. If, on the other 

hand, the agency is capable of a focused and effective dialogue that gives people a 

legitimate place to be heard, then civic process becomes a meaningful activity and

restoring confidence among parties is a realistic outcome.

Similar to the preceding discussion about capacity building, the first requirement for

building trust is in fully understanding the nature of managing public resources and

making an organizational commitment to multipartner relations. The importance of

agencies taking long-term responsibility plays out on the two levels where trust is

most commonly achieved. At the organizational level, it boils down to whether an

agency is serious about genuine involvement of stakeholders and how its actions

reflect this philosophy, meaning the extent to which citizens have meaningful 

participation in decisionmaking (e.g., simply expanding the number of informational

meetings vs. providing opportunities for people to express ideas and consider the

range of alternatives). National studies of successful public partnerships show that

trust among the Forest Service constituency is more likely to occur where there is 

visible evidence of agencywide commitment; such conditions are demonstrated, 

for example, by a continuity in personnel and philosophy and with mechanisms to 

maintain communication among parties (Yaffee and Wondolleck 1997). Within this

atmosphere, more innovative methods that go beyond “one-size-fits-all” policies

become possible. Because of agency instability and lack of any clear mandate 

for public outreach, we also have concern about how these partnerships might be 

sustained in any meaningful way.

At the local level, a demonstrated organizational commitment can have far-reaching

effects for staff and community participants. Currently, the trust-building process

remains largely the job of personnel at lower rungs of the organization. Much of 

the existing public trust is at this interpersonal level, often within a particular ranger 

district or national forest, where relations have been established with individuals over

time (see footnote 1). These are the places where good interpersonal skills and 

48
face-to-face leadership can make a difference for citizens and their communities.

Coglianese (1997) argues that the informal give-and-take that occurs between

agency personnel and citizens is perhaps the most productive form of relation 

building. Yet this can occur in any large measure only in an organization that 

understands and promotes these ideas as the long-term goal of public interactions.

With sufficient administrative commitment to building multipartner relations, midlevel

managers in particular will have a key role, as will social scientists. Middle managers

are in a position to interpret organizational decisions and bridge the gap between 

top-down policies and bottom-up implementation. They should be encouraged to act

as integrators between the strategic levels of the agency and personnel operating at

the public interface (Westley 1995). They can be supported by methods designed to

facilitate conversations between internal functions as well as across partnerships.

This requirement for effective learning is essential (Michael 1995). This is a place

where research can support management efforts. Social scientists can help identify

already well-developed techniques for facilitating group actions and assist in training

activities. The most useful role for research, however, is in monitoring collaborative

efforts, evaluating factors that contribute most (or least) to trust among participants,

and bringing these ideas back into the management arena. Unfortunately, the difficulty thus far has been to get those in management to implement interaction strategies

that can be tested and measured. There are many substantive reasons for this (a

number have been discussed in this report), but the fact remains there are too few

long-term efforts underway and far fewer funded studies that allow for longitudinal

analysis of contributory factors.

When we approach trust building as encompassing a set of attributes—a set that will

not necessarily produce a quick fix, but rather be a normal and continuing process for

conducting business—then the goal of trustworthy, long-term relations is realistic. The

more that agency strategies at the top can be influenced by the learning that occurs

at the bottom, the more responsive the organization is likely to become (Westley

1995). The freedom to try new ideas and monitor and evaluate the outcomes requires

a shift in management culture. Agencies will need to install an adequate support system, encourage risk taking, and provide a professional reward system for those who

are being asked to take their place on the front lines (Cortner et al. 1996). They also

will need to accept the enduring nature of such a commitment.

Provide leadership to develop a shared understanding of forest conditions and 

practices—Stable leadership is essential for developing shared understanding

among the forest constituency. Even with the recent rise in citizen groups for community action (e.g., watershed councils and grassroots conservation organizations), 

current studies indicate that the public still views the Forest Service as an important

and credible force (e.g., Shindler 1997, Shindler and Brunson 1999). A majority are

looking for the agency to play a stronger leadership role and to set a strategy for 

collaborative efforts. Stankey and Shindler (1997) outline ideas for more effective

management strategies as greater experimentation occurs in federal forests. Three

ideas stand out as critical to greater understanding of conditions, and central to each

is genuine leadership by resource professionals to promote mutual learning among

participants.

49
First, a common definition is needed of the problems that ecosystem management 

is intended to solve. Naturally this includes the fundamental principles of ecological

function and ecosystem health, but one must be careful about the tendency to jump

too quickly to “scientific” responses for treating forests. This concern comes from the

traditional view that problems can be fixed by applying science and finding technical

solutions. This approach often ignores what the collective group of stakeholders

(managers, researchers, citizens) may want from forests. The real issue, initially, 

is the extent of agreement about the goals of ecosystem management and the 

problems to which forest managers might legitimately respond; effective leadership

can facilitate the problem-framing process.

It must be understood that interactions with the public will be strongly influenced by

what citizens “know” about forests. Judgments, particularly critical ones, often derive

from what people believe to be "true" about various choices (Boulding 1956) and

largely reflect differences in how people understand the "facts" (Kearney et al. 1998).

But opinions of resource professionals are normative as well; definitions of “naturalness” from biologists or ecologists also are human constructions and can be just as

artificial as the public’s interpretations. A current example is the attempts to reach

agreement on defining forest health. A healthy forest can be both a value judgment

and a measurable condition (O’Laughlin et al. 1994); thus, good leadership is needed

to structure the conversation and allow a common understanding of environmental

complexities, one including known causes and effects, consequences of choices, and

resulting long-term ramifications (Stankey 1995). To be relevant to the public, these

ideas need to be placed in a context that is important to them. In other words, to the

extent possible, managers and researchers will need to provide scenarios depicting

what the changes in forest conditions will look like, how soon they could occur, 

and what the consequences of such changes are for the forest environment and 

surrounding communities.

The second step involves legitimizing the range of concerns identified and the 

knowledge revealed. Once the foundation for most natural resource management

decisions, local or experiential knowledge lost credibility as society became more 

scientifically oriented (Kloppenburg 1991). Information from experts became the standard for doing business. But frequently, such information is presented apart from the

social process that produced it, which also tends to separate the providers from the

consumer-evaluators. Managers need to leave behind the idea of “educating” the public to gain agreement. Given that both concerns and knowledge derive from people

with long histories of living and working on the landscapes being managed, it is critical that their opinions be given a level of legitimacy that ensures serious and thoughtful consideration. This approach reflects the more desirable and interactive view of

social acceptability that comes through mutual learning, or what people working

together come to understand. With such relations comes an additional benefit.

Because natural resource problems are complex and technical, and people have difficulty judging the accuracy of information, they often base their judgments on the level

of trust they hold for the information provider (Steel et al. 1992-93). An atmosphere 

of meaningful, interactive disclosure greatly contributes to public perceptions of 

openness and honesty.

50
Third, for citizens and communities to have a real ability to participate in and 

influence management decisions, they must possess a capacity for participation.

This requires a mutual respect for the knowledge and beliefs of others as well as 

appropriate venues for learning about the issues. As mentioned previously, a 

foremost concern in any public dialogue is that management agencies possess a 

certain level of competence to do the job; however, as Jamieson (1994) argues,

resource professionals also should do what they can to contribute to the competence

of those with whom they engage. There is a need for places where people can come

together to observe, discuss, and deliberate over potential options, because people

do not come with a ready-made ability to participate in a constructive, deliberative

dialogue. The discussion is much more useful when they understand something 

substantive about the relevant science, the economics, and the interests that are 

at stake. Perhaps the best-known example that has led to a misunderstanding of 

ecological processes and consequences is the lesson every child has learned from

Smokey Bear: that only you can prevent forest fires. Part of the problem is that for

years this message was the only thing many people knew about fire. Only recently, as

people have come to understand existing forest conditions and how they evolved, has

there been broader public acceptance of more liberal fire management policies.

As competency is built among institutions and publics, an organizational atmosphere

is created in which learning can occur, and methods are developed to reach agreement on the conditions that are acceptable for various settings. In support of these

efforts, social science research should specifically target the factors within citizenagency interactions that are most likely to contribute to increased competence; e.g.,

How are attitudes and resulting behaviors influenced by different approaches taken to

help stakeholders understand ecological complexities? Should methods be sought

that allow people to assess tradeoffs among alternatives and evaluate the short- vs.

long-term impacts? Are there places where citizens can view for themselves and 

discuss the practices and outcomes of ecosystem management? Which outreach

activities and simulation techniques are most effective in improving people’s understanding of changes in forest conditions over time? How are responses to ecosystem

management strategies affected by the forum in which new information is presented

and how do group dynamics influence the discussion? These situations will create

further opportunities for citizens to ask questions of managers and scientists, an

opportunity essential to informed public participation. They also will help ensure that

decisions reflect the knowledge and concerns of citizens.

Focus on the contextual conditions of forest landscapes and communities—

Context involves many ideas, but the most important for citizens is the sociopolitical

context of what forest settings represent and in which decisions are made (Stankey

and Clark 1992). For resource professionals, the importance of contextual concerns is 

amplified because practices and conditions acceptable to the public in one setting will

not necessarily be acceptable in another; e.g., how management initiatives affect 

specific places or community uses greatly influences public acceptance. Thus, a better understanding of the range of contextual factors needs to be developed, including

the uncertainty and risk of various alternatives and how the public responds to them.

51
Recent experience with the Northwest Forest Plan has shown that policies cannot

stem strictly from ecological interpretations or be blanket plans for large regions

imposed from the top down (Stankey and Shindler 1997). Differences in biological,

social, and economic characteristics also need to be respected. From a jurisdictional

standpoint, each management unit must be able to conduct experiments and develop

management strategies that reflect local concerns and conditions. This will require a

range of options for assessment and management, a lot to ask in an era when federal

forests are increasingly subject to prescriptive legislation. And yet, it is this same political climate that calls for an improved understanding of the scope of an issue and its 

relation to different geographic, temporal, and normative contexts (Clark et al. 1999).

Contextual considerations naturally include the uncertainties and risks of any 

proposed management plan. For the most part, it is the uncertainty of actions that

gets people excited. Citizens and politicians alike are frustrated because they are not

getting simple and consistent answers to natural resource questions. Holling (1995)

recognized that answers are not simple and consistent largely because concepts and

methods to deal with the nature of environmental problems are only beginning to be

developed. But people still want to know what will happen and when, where it will

happen, who will be affected, and how uncertain the outcomes are. They are afraid of

possible unknown “dangers” (Wildavsky 1988) that might result from actions or nonactions. Unfortunately, under the current agency system, environmental risks are not

easily assessed, even though doing so is a central tenet of ecosystem management.

As Stankey et al. (see footnote 1) argue in a recent agency evaluation of adaptive

management, we are living with a “Catch-22 phenomenon: experimentation is not

permitted until sufficient evidence is available to predict confidently that the treatment

will not have an adverse impact, but until such experiments can be undertaken, it is

not possible to generate such knowledge.”

In the haste to prevent harm to forest ecosystems, it seems that practices now have

to be foolproof. Consequently, the Forest Service has assumed a position where it

insulates itself from risk, or at least it thinks it does. Of course, this issue goes well

beyond the agency; the United States has become a risk-averse society where many

actions are dictated by conservative public policies in which “no fault” can be identified (Wildavsky 1988) and, consequently, there is less chance of litigation. In any

case, the reaction on the part of the Forest Service is not difficult to understand, 

but the result is that little experimentation occurs and thus little learning as well.

Wildavsky (1988) describes this situation as choosing trial without error over trial and

error. The trial-without-error option is useful only when all potential consequences are 

understood—difficult if not impossible in the kinds of complex, uncertain situations

that typify most natural resource debates—and is much less useful for learning how

the system works. Methods for overcoming the uncertainty-risk conundrum, and thus

enhancing the ability to achieve broader acceptance of management policies, lie 

in actions discussed throughout this problem analysis; e.g., research to improve 

knowledge of forest conditions, more effective information flow among parties, 

and processes for creating shared understanding all contribute to a more socially 

acceptable forestry in which the public believes forest agencies can be trusted to 

handle the risks associated with ecosystem management.

52
The research community has a significant role in creating a more socially acceptable

brand of forest management. Not that there is an insufficient amount of either 

theoretical or applied research already to draw from. What is in short supply, however, is (1) well-defined, manager-friendly frameworks for conducting more socially

acceptable processes, and (2) the institutional will (i.e., commitment, time, and

resources) for experimentation and implementation. On the first point, several 

strategies have emerged from recent research; however, these typically have resulted

from studies focusing on narrow topics such as public involvement (e.g., Daniels and

Walker 1996, Shindler and Aldred-Cheek 1999) or on particular locations with specific

problems. This problem analysis, along with the initial 1992 workshop on defining

social acceptability (Brunson et al. 1996a), represents the most comprehensive effort

to examine the implications and consequences of social acceptability as a process.

The next level of research should include a thorough critique of these ideas by a

national panel of social scientists. One goal might be to refine these ideas and 

suggestions based on this broader representation of the social research community.

Another would be to craft an implementation plan, one that includes ongoing, 

longitudinally evaluative research, and advocate for its use by management agencies.

The second point identifies a much more ambitious undertaking that will require 

the conviction of agencywide commitment discussed earlier. In the last decade, 

committees of scientists (e.g., Johnson et al. 1999) have determined what the 

problems and alternatives are for serious, large-scale (national) resource issues.

The problem of socially acceptable forestry needs similar action, perhaps an advisory

panel of social scientists who come together to craft a rigorous national research 

and management strategy to help agencies structure their public interactions and 

capacity-building efforts. One method to ease the burden of implementation is to

establish formal, continuing research and management partnerships. Given the 

latitude to experiment and to try different approaches, managers are good about 

finding ways to make things work. The job becomes much more manageable with

guidance and design support from social scientists.

Researchers also can attend to the important task of monitoring and evaluation; they

are particularly well suited to capturing the learning from events as they occur and

making sense of the outcomes. With appropriate political will, setting up cooperative

partnerships is not much of a stretch. Many social scientists already have worked with

agency personnel in key settings on short-term applied projects; consequently, they

are familiar with community issues and interests. In some cases, data sets already

exist and can be used to conduct longitudinal research. By its nature, social acceptability is a continuing long-term concern that, like every other ecological problem,

requires long-term arrangements for research and experimentation. Over time, these

efforts will contribute to the collective knowledge base and influence the values of

both citizens and resource professionals (Yaffee and Wondolleck 1997); they also may

lead to political agreement on agency direction.

The authors thank Steve McCool at the University of Montana, Dan Williams with the

USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, and John Bliss at Oregon

State University for their thoughtful comments on a draft of this report.

53

Conclusion

Acknowledgments
Agnew, J.A. 1989. The devaluation of place in social science. In: Agnew, J.A.;

Duncan, J.S., eds. The power of place: bringing together geographical and 

sociological imaginations. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman: 9-29.

Allen, G.M.; Gould, E.M. 1986. Complexity, wickedness, and public forests. Journal 

of Forestry. 84(4): 20-23.

Amy, D.J. 1987. The politics of environmental mediation. New York: Columbia

University Press. [Pages unknown].

Arrandale, T. 1999. The right-to-know trap. Governing. 12(8): 56.

Beckley, T. 1998. The (f)utility of “community sustainability” in an interdependent

world. Ecoforestry. May: 34-40.

Behn, R.D. 1997. The money-back guarantee. Governing. 10(12): 74.

Bell, S. 2000. Ensuring the social acceptability of ecosystem management. In:

D’Eon, R.; Johnson, J.; Ferguson, E., eds. Ecosystem management in forested 

landscapes: directions and implementation. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press: 69-84.

Bengston, D. 1994. Changing forest values and ecosystem management. Society

and Natural Resources. 7: 515-533.

Berman, S. 1997. Civil society and political institutionalization. American Behavioral

Scientist. 40(5): 562-574.

Bitgood, S.; Cleghorn, A. 1995. Measuring the impact of interpretation: close

encounters with different kinds of knowledge. InterpEdge. 2(1): 37-38.

Blanha, D.J.; Yonts-Shepard, S. 1989. Public involvement in resource planning:

toward bridging the gap between policy and implementation. Society and Natural

Resources. 2: 209-227.

Bliss, J.C.; Nepal, S.K.; Brooks, R.T., Jr.; Larsen, M.D. 1994. Forestry community 

or granfalloon? Journal of Forestry. 92(9): 6-10.

Boulding, K. 1956. The image. Binghamton, NY: Vail-Ballou Press. [Pages unknown].

Bourke, L.; Luloff, A.E. 1994. Attitudes toward the management of nonindustrial 

private forest land. Society and Natural Resources. 7: 445-457.

Brandenburg, A.M.; Carroll, M.S. 1995. Your place or mine? the effect of place 

creation on environmental values and landscape meanings. Society and Natural

Resources. 8: 381-398.

Bright, A.D.; Manfredo, M.J. 1995. The quality of attitudinal information regarding

natural resource issues: the role of attitude-strength, importance, and information.

Society and Natural Resources. 8: 399-414.

54

Literature Cited
British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 1981. Forest landscape handbook. Victoria,

BC: Information Services Branch. [Pages unknown].

Brown, G.; Harris, C. 1992. The U.S. Forest Service: toward the new resource 

management paradigm? Society and Natural Resources. 5: 231-245.

Brunson, M.W. 1993. "Socially acceptable" forestry: What does it imply for ecosystem

management? Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 8(4): 116-119.

Brunson, M.W. 1995. The changing role of wilderness in ecosystem management.

International Journal of Wilderness. 1(1): 9-13.

Brunson, M.W. 1996a. A definition of “social acceptability” in ecosystem management. In: Brunson, M.W.; Kruger, L.E.; Tyler, C.B.; Schroeder, S.A., tech. eds.

Defining social acceptability in ecosystem management: a workshop proceedings.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-369. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 7-16.

Brunson, M.W. 1996b. Human dimensions in silviculture. In: Ewert, A.W., ed. Natural

resource management: the human dimension. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 91-

108.

Brunson, M.W. 1996c. Integrating “human habitat” requirements into ecosystem

management strategies: a case study. Natural Areas Journal. 16(2): 100-107.

Brunson, M.W. 1996d. The social context of ecosystem management: unanswered

questions and unresolve issues. In: Brunson, M.W.; Kruger, L.E.; Tyler, C.B.;

Schroeder, S.A., tech. eds. Defining social acceptability in ecosystem management: a workshop proceedings. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-369. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station: 7-16.

Brunson, M.W. 1998. Social dimensions of boundaries: balancing cooperation 

and self-interest. In: Landres, P.; Knight, R., eds. Stewardship across boundaries.

Washington, DC: Island Press. Chapter 3.

Brunson, M.W.; Kennedy, J.J. 1995. Redefining "multiple use": agency responses 

to changing social values. In: Knight, R.L.; Bates, S., eds. A new century for natural resources management. [Place of publication unknown]: Island Press: 143-158.

Brunson, M.W.; Kruger, L.E.; Tyler, C.B.; Schroeder, S.A., tech. eds. 1996a.

Defining social acceptability in ecosystem management: a workshop proceedings.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-369. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Brunson, M.W.; Reiter, D.K. 1996. Effects of ecological information on judgments

about scenic impacts of timber harvest. Journal of Environmental Management.

46: 31-41.

Brunson, M.W; Shelby, B. 1992. Assessing recreational and scenic quality: How

does "new forestry" rate? Journal of Forestry. 90(7): 37-41.

55
Brunson, M.W.; Shindler, B.; Steel, B.S. 1997. Consensus and dissension among

rural and urban publics concerning federal forest management in the Northwest.

In: Steel, B.S., ed. Public lands management in the West: citizens, interest groups

and values. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press: 83-94.

Brunson, M.W.; Steel, B.S. 1996. Sources in variation in attitudes and beliefs about

federal rangeland management. Journal of Range Management. 49: 69-75.

Brunson, M.W.; Yarrow, D.T.; Roberts, S.D. [et al.]. 1996b. Nonindustrial private 

forest owners and ecosystem management: Can they work together? Journal of

Forestry. 94(6): 14-21.

Buck, W. 1989. A Yellowstone critique: something did go wrong. Journal of Forestry.

87(12): 38-40.

Buttolph, L.P.; Doak. S.C. 2000. The integration of knowledge in place-based

ecosystem management. Portland, OR: Ecotrust. [Pages unknown].

Caplan, N.; Morrison, A.; Stambaugh, R. 1975. The use of social science 

knowledge in policy decisions at the national level. Ann Arbor: University of

Michigan Institute for Social Research.

Carroll, M.S. 1989. Taming the lumberjack revisited. Society and Natural Resources.

2: 91-106.

Carrow, J.R. 1991. Future trends in forest pest management. The Forestry Chronicle.

67: 468-472.

Chenoweth, R.E. 1991. Seeing the future: aesthetic policy implications of visual 

technology. Journal of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association.

3(1): 6-13.

Christensen, H.H.; McGinnis, W.J.; Raettig, T.L.; Donoghue, E. 2000. Atlas of

human adaptation to environmental change, challenge, and opportunity: northern

California, western Oregon, and western Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR478. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 66 p.

Cialdini, R.B.; Reno, R.R.; Kallgren, C.A. 1990. A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology. 58: 1015-1026.

Clark, R.N.; Stankey, G.H. 1979a. Determining the acceptability of recreational

impacts: an application of the outdoor recreation opportunity spectrum. In: Ittner,

R.; Potter, D.R.; Agee, J.K.; Anschell, S., eds. Recreational impact on wildlands. R6-001-1979. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Region: 32-42.

Clark, R.N.; Stankey, G.H. 1979b. The recreation opportunity spectrum: a framework

for planning, management, and research. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-98. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and

Range Experiment Station. 32 p.

56
Clark, R.N.; Stankey, G.H. 1991. New forestry or new perspectives: the importance

of asking the right questions. Forest Perspectives. 1(1): 9-13.

Clark, R.N.; Stankey, G.H.; Brown, P.J. [et al.]. 1999. Toward an ecological

approach: integrating social, economic, cultural, biological, and physical considerations: In: Johnson, N.C.; Malk, A.J.; Sexton, W.T.; Szaro, R., eds., Ecological stewardship: a common reference for ecosystem management. Oxford: Elsevier

Science LTD: 297-318.

Clark, W.; Majone, G. 1985. The critical appraisal of scientific inquiries with policy

implications. Science Technology and Human Values. 10(3): 6-19.

Clarke, J.N.; McCool, D. 1985. Staking out the terrain. Albany, NY: State University 

of New York Press. [Pages unknown].

Clawson, M. 1975. Forest for whom and for what? Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins

University Press. [Pages unknown].

Coglianese, C. 1997. Assessing consensus: the promise and performance of 

negotiated rulemaking. Duke Law Journal. 46: 1225-1348.

Collingridge, D.; Reeve, C. 1986. Science speaks to power: the role of experts in

policymaking. New York: St. Martin’s Press. [Pages unknown].

Cortner, H.J.; Shannon, M.; Wallace, M. [et al.]. 1996. Institutional barriers and

incentives for ecosystem management: a problem analysis. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-354. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 35 p.

Cortner, H.J.; Wallace, M.; Burke, S.; Moote, M.A. 1998. Institutions matter: the

need to address the institutional challenges of ecosystem management.

Landscape and Urban Planning. 40: 159-166.

Corvallis (OR) Gazette-Times. 1997. State names 11 scenic byways. March 29;

Sect. B: 1.

Creighton, J.L. 1983. An overview to the research conference on public involvement

and social impact assessment. In: Garcia, M.W.; Priscoli, J.D., eds. Public involvement and social impact assessment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 1-10.

Cushman, J.H. 1994. Forest Service is rethinking its mission. New York Times. April

24; Sect. 1: 22.

Dake, K.; Wildavksy, A. 1991. Individual differences in risk perception and risk-taking

preferences. In: Garrick, B.J.; Gekler, W.C., eds., The analysis, communication,

and perception of risk. New York: Plenum Press: 15-24.

Daniel, T.C.; Brown, T.C.; King, D.A. [et al.]. 1989. Perceived scenic beauty and the

contingent valuation of forest campgrounds. Forest Science. 35: 76-90.

57
Daniels, S.E.; Walker, G.B. 1996. Collaborative learning: improving public deliberation in ecosystem-based management. Environmental Impact Assessment.

16: 71-102.

Danter, K.J.; Greist, D.L.; Mullins, G.W.; Norland, E. 2000. Organizational change

as a component of ecosystem management. Society and Natural Resources.

13: 537-547.

Delli Priscoli, J.; Homenuck, P. 1990. Consulting the publics. In: Lang, R., ed.

Integrated approaches to resource planning and management. [Banff], AB: The

Banff Centre School of Management: 67-79.

DeWalt, B.R. 1994. Using indigenous knowledge to improve agriculture and natural

resource management. Human Organization. 53: 123-131.

Dissanayake, W. 1986. Communication models and knowledge generation, 

dissemination, and utilization activities: a historical perspective. In: Beal, G.M.;

Dissanayake, W.; Konoshima, S., eds. Knowledge generation, exchange, and 

utilization. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 61-75.

Driver, B.L.; Brown, P.J. 1978. The opportunity spectrum concept in outdoor 

recreation supply inventories; a rationale. In: Proceedings of the integrated renewable resource inventory workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-55. Ogden, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station:

24-31.

Dunlap, R.G. 1992. Trends in public opinion toward the environment: 1965-90. In:

Dunlap, R.; Mertig, A., eds. American environmentalism: the U.S. movement 1970-

1990. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis: 89-116.

Earman, S. 1996. The intersection of science and law: Who has the right-of-way? 

In: Soden, D., ed. At the nexus: science policy. New York: Nova Science

Publishers: 13-28.

Ehrenhaldt, A. 1994. Let the people decide between spinach and broccoli.

Governing. 7(10): 6-7.

Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 [FACA]. 5. U.S.C. app. 1-15.

Firey, W. 1960. Man, mind, and land. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. 256 p.

Fischhoff, B.; Lichtenstein, S.; Slovic, P. [et al.]. 1981. Acceptable risk. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press. 185 p.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest

ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior 

[et al.]. [Irregular pagination].

Freemuth, J.; Cawley, M.R. 1997. Science, expertise and the public: the politics of

ecosystem management in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Landscape and

Urban Planning. 40(1): 211-220.

58
Friedmann, J. 1987. Planning in the public domain: from knowledge to action.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Pages unknown].

Gericke, K.; Sullivan, J.; Wellman, J.D. 1992. Public participation in national forest

planning: perspectives, procedures and costs. Journal of Forestry. 90(2): 35-38.

Geyer, K.; Shindler, B. 1994. Breaking the mold: global change, social responsibility,

and natural resources policy: a workshop summary. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State

University. 36 p.

Gobster, P.H. 1996. Forest aesthetics, biodiversity, and the perceived appropriateness of ecosystem management practices. In: Brunson, M.W.; Kruger, L.E.; Tyler,

C.B.; Schroeder, S.A., tech. eds. Defining social acceptability in ecosystem management: a workshop proceedings. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-369. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station: 77-97.

Graefe, A.; Kuss, F.; Vaske, J. 1990. Visitor impact management: the planning framework. Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association. [Pages

unknown].

Hansis, R. 1995. The social acceptability of clearcutting in the Pacific Northwest.

Human Organization. 54: 95-101.

Healy, M.; Hennessey, T.M. 1999. The fairness paradox, Ludwig’s ratchet, and the

“problem” of fisheries management in the United States and Canada. In: Soden,

D.L.; Steel, B.S., eds. Handbook of global environmental policy and administration.

New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.: 597-608

Holling, C.S. 1995. What barriers? What bridges? In: Gunderson, L.H.; Holling, C.S.;

Light, S.S., eds. Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. New York: Columbia University Press: 3-36

Hoover, W.L.; Mills, W.L., Jr.; Vasan, S. 1997. Nonindustrial private forest landowners

in Indiana: Are their objectives and attitudes consistent with ecosystems management? In: Cordell, H.K., ed. Integrating social science and ecosystem management: a national challenge: proceedings of the conference on integrating social

sciences and ecosystem management. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-17. Asheville, NC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station:

150-155.

Hoss, A.F.; Brunson, M.W. 1999. Meanings and implications of acceptability judgments for wilderness use impacts. In: Cole, D.N.; McCool, S.F., eds. Wilderness

science in a time of change. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. [Pages unknown].

Inglehart, R. 1990. Culture shift in advanced society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press. 484 p.

59
Jacobson, M.; Jones, E.; Abt, B. 1996. Landowner attitudes toward landscape-level

management: challenges and policy implications: Proceedings of the 6th international symposium on society and resource management. University Park, PA:

Pennsylvania State University. [Pages unknown].

Jacobson, S.K.; Marynowsk, S.B. 1997. Public attitudes and knowledge about

ecosystem management on Department of Defense land in Florida. Conservation

Biology. 11: 770-781.

Jakes, P.; Fish, T.; Carr, D.; Blahna, D. 1998. Functional communities: a tool for

national forest planning. Journal of Forestry. 96(3): 33-36.

Jamieson, D. 1994. Problems and prospects for a Forest Service program in the

human dimensions of global change. In: Geyer, K.; Shindler, B., eds. Breaking the

mold: global change, social responsibility, and natural resource management.

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University: 23-28.

Johnson, K.N.; Agee, J.; Beschta, R. [et al.]. 1999. Sustaining the people’s lands:

recommendations for stewardship of the national forests and grasslands into the

next century. Rangelands. 21(4): 25-28.

Johnson, P.W. 1996. The Natural Resources Conservation Service: changing to meet

the future. Journal of Forestry. 94(1): 12-16.

Kakoyannis, C.; Shindler, B.; Stankey, G.H. 2001. Understanding the social 

acceptability of natural resource decisionmaking process by using a knowledge

base modeling approach. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-518. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

40 p.

Kay, C.E. 1997. Is aspen doomed? Journal of Forestry. 95(5): 4-11.

Kearney, A.; Bradley, G.; Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S. 1998. Stakeholder perspectives 

of appropriate forest management in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Science. 45(1):

62-72.

Kenney, D.S. 1999. Are community-based watershed groups really effective? 

confronting the thorny issue of measuring success. Chronicle of Community.

3(2): 33-38.

Kenney, D.S. 2000. Arguing about consensus. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado

School of Law. [Pages unknown].

King, J. 1993. Learning to solve the right problems: the case of nuclear power in

America. Journal of Business Ethics. 13: 105-116.

Kloppenburg, J. 1991. Social theory and the de/reconstruction of agricultural science: local knowledge for an alternative agriculture. Rural Sociology. 56(4): 519-

548.

Lamb, R.J.; Purcell, A.T. 1990. Perception of naturalness in landscape and its 

relationship to vegetation structure. Landscape and Urban Planning. 19: 333-352.

60
Lang, R. 1990. Achieving integration in resource planning. In: Lang, R., ed.

Integrated approaches to planning and management. Banff, AB: Banff School 

of Management: 27-50.

Lauber, T.B.; Knuth, B.A. 1997. Fairness in moose management decision-making:

the citizens’ perspective. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 25(4): 776-787.

Lauber, T.B.; Knuth, B.A. 1998. Refining our vision of citizen participation: lessons

from a moose reintroduction proposal. Society and Natural Resources. 11: 411-

424.

Lawrence, R.; Daniels, S.E.; Stankey, G. 1997. Procedural justice and public

involvement in natural resources decision making. Society and Natural Resources.

10(6): 577-589.

Lindbloom, C. 1990. Inquiry and change: the troubled attempt to understand and

shape society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. [Pages unknown].

Litton, R.B. 1968. Forest landscape description and inventories: a basis for land planning and design. Res. Pap. PSW-49. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. [Pages

unknown].

Lober, D.J. 1996. Why not here? the importance of context, process, and outcome 

on public attitudes toward siting of waste facilities. Society and Natural Resources.

9: 375-394.

Mackinson, S.; Nottestad, L. 1998. Combining local and scientific knowledge.

Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. 8: 491-490.

Magnuson, J.J. 1990. Long-term ecological research and the invisible present.

BioScience. 40(7): 495-502.

Manfredo, M.J.; Fishbein, M.; Haas, G.E.; Watson, A.E. 1990. Attitudes toward 

prescribed fire policies. Journal of Forestry. 88(7): 19-23.

Margavio, A.V.; Lasko, S.; Mason, J.; Forsyth, C. 1993. Captives of conflict: the

TEDs case. Society and Natural Resources. 6: 273-290.

Marshall, R. 1925. Recreational limitations to silviculture in the Adirondacks. Journal

of Forestry. 23: 173-178.

Mazur, A. 1981. The dynamics of technical controversy. Washington, DC:

Communications Press. [Pages unknown].

McCarter, J.B.; Wilson, J.S.; Baker, P.J. [et al.]. 1998. Landscape management

through integration of existing tools and emerging technologies. Journal of

Forestry. 96(6): 17-23.

McCloskey, M. 1991. Twenty years of change in the environmental movement: an

insider’s view. Society and Natural Resources. 4: 273-284.

61
McCool, S.F.; Benson, R.E.; Ashor, J.L. 1986. How the public perceives the 

visual effects of timber harvesting: an evaluation of interest group preferences.

Environmental Management. 10(3): 385-391.

McGee, C.E. 1970. Clearcutting and aesthetics in the southern Appalachians. Journal

of Forestry. 68: 540-544.

McQuillan, A.G. 1998. Honesty and foresight in computer visualizations. Journal of

Forestry. 96(6): 15-16.

Michael, D.N. 1995. Barriers and bridges to learning in a turbulent human ecology. In:

Gunderson, L.H.; Holling, C.S.; Light, S.S., eds. Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. New York: Columbia University Press: 461-488.

Moore, S.A. 1995. The role of trust in social networks: formation, function, and 

fragility. In: Craig, J.; Mattiske, E.M.; Saunders, D.A., eds. Nature conservation 4:

The role of networks. Chipping Norton, New South Wales, Australia: Surrey Beatty

and Sons: 148-154.

Mutch, R.W.; Arno, S.F.; Brown, J.K. [et al.]. 1993. Forest health in the Blue

Mountains: a management strategy for fire-adapted ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-GTR-310. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 14 p. (Thomas M. Quigley, ed.; Forest health

in the Blue Mountains: science perspectives).

Muth, R.M.; Bowe, J.F., Jr. 1998. Illegal harvest of renewable natural resources in

North America: toward a typology of the motivations for poaching. Society and

Natural Resources. 11: 9-24.

Nash, R. 1982. Wilderness and the American mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University

Press. [Pages unknown].

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [NEPA]; 42 U.S.C. 43 21 et seq.

National Forest Management Act of 1976 [NFMA]; Act of October 22, 1976; 16

U.S.C. 1600.

National Park Service. 1997. VERP: the visitor experience and resource protection

(VERP) framework—a handbook for planners and managers. Denver, CO: Denver

Service Center. [Pages unknown].

National Research Council. 1996. Ecological knowledge and environmental 

problem-solving. Report to the Committee on the Applications of Ecological

Theory to Environmental Problems. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

[Pages unknown].

62
O’Laughlin, J.; Livingston, R.L. [et al.]. 1994. Defining and measuring forest health.

In: Adams, D.L.; Sampson, R.N., eds. Assessing forest ecosystem health in the

inland West. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press: 109-124.

Peters, R.G.; Covello, V.T.; McCallum, D.B. 1997. The determinants of trust and

credibility in environmental risk communication: an empirical study. Risk Analysis.

17: 43-54.

Pierce, J.C.; Steger, M.A.; Steel, B.S.; Lovrich, N.P. 1992. Citizens, political communication, and interest groups: a study of environmental organizations in Canada

and the United States. New York: Praeger Press. 225 p.

Ravetz, J. 1987. Uncertainty, ignorance, and policy. In: Brooks, [initials unknown];

Cooper, [initials unknown], eds. Science for public policy. New York: Pergamon

Press: 77-94.

Ribe, R.G. 1989. The aesthetics of forestry: What has empirical preference research

taught us? Environmental Management. 13: 55-74.

Ribe, R.G. 1999. Regeneration harvests versus clearcuts: public views of the 

acceptability and aesthetics of Northwest Forest Plan harvests. Northwest

Science. 73: 102-117.

Rittel, H.W.; Webber, M.M. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy

Sciences. 4: 155-169.

Robinson, D.W.; Hawley, A.W.L.; Robson, M. 1997. Social indicators and management implications derived from the Canadian forest survey 1996. Prince George,

BC: McGregor Model Forest Association. [Pages unknown].

Rosenbaum, W.A. 1995. Environmental politics and policy. Washington, DC: CQ

Press. [Pages unknown].

Sagoff, M. 1988. The economy of the earth: philosophy, law, and the environment.

Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. [Pages unknown].

Saint-Onge, H. 1996. Tacit knowledge: the key to the strategic alignment of intellectual capital. Strategy and Leadership. 24: 110-113.

Schroeder, H.W.; Orland, B. 1994. Viewer preference for a spatial arrangement of

park trees: an application of video-imaging technology. Environmental

Management. 18(1): 119-128.

Schuh, D. 1995. Managing esthetic values. Journal of Forestry. 93(2): 20-25.

Schwarz, M.; Thompson, M. 1990. Divided we stand: redefining politics, technology,

and social choice. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 176 p.

Selin, S.; Chavez, D. 1995. Developing a collaborative model for environmental 

planning and management. Environmental Management 19:189-195.

63
Sellars, R.W. 1990. Yellowstone, part II: not just another pretty façade. Journal of

Forestry. 88: 40-43.

Shands, W.E. 1992. Public involvement, forest planning, and leadership in a 

community of interests. In: Proceedings of American forestry: an evolving tradition.

Richmond, VA: Society of American Foresters: 360-367.

Shelby, B.; Speaker, R.W. 1990. Public attitudes and perceptions about prescribed

burning. In: Walstad, J.D.; Radosevich, S.R.; Sandberg, D.V., eds. Natural and 

prescribed fire in Pacific Northwest forests. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University:

253-260.

Shelby, B.; Stankey, G.H.; Shindler, B. 1992. Defining wilderness quality: the role of

standards in wilderness management—a workshop proceedings. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-GTR-305. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 114 p.

Shindler, B. 1992. Countering the law of diminishing standards. In: Shelby, B.;

Stankey, G.H.; Shindler, B., eds. Defining wilderness quality: the role of standards 

in wilderness management—a workshop proceedings. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-305. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station: 53-60.

Shindler, B. 1997. Public perspectives on prescribed fire and mechanical thinning.

Tech. Note BMNRI-TN-9. La Grande, OR: Blue Mountains Natural Resources

Institute. 4 p.

Shindler, B. 1998. Does the public have a role in forest management? Canadian and

U.S. perspectives. The Forestry Chronicle. 74(5): 700-702.

Shindler, B. 2000. Landscape-level management: it’s all about context. Journal of

Forestry. 98(12): 10-14.

Shindler, B.; Aldred-Cheek, K. 1999. Integrating citizens in adaptive management:

a propositional analysis. Journal of Conservation Ecology. 3(1): 13.

Shindler, B.; Brunson, M.W. 1999. Changing natural resource paradigms in the

United States: finding political reality in academic theory. In: Soden, D.L.; Steel,

B.S., eds. Handbook of global environmental policy and administration. New York:

Marcel Dekker, Inc.: 459-474.

Shindler, B.; Cheek, K.A.; Stankey, G.H. 1998. Monitoring and evaluating citizenagency interactions: a framework developed for adaptive management. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PNW-GTR-452. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 38 p.

Shindler, B.; Collson, P. 1998. Assessing public preferences for ecosystem management practices. In: Soden, D.; Lamb, B.; Tennert, J., eds., Ecosystem management: a social science perspective. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. [Pages unknown].

64
Shindler, B.; Cramer, L. 1999. Shifting public values for forest management: making

sense of wicked problems. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 14(1): 71-78.

Shindler, B.; List, P.; Steel, B.S. 1993. Managing federal forests: public attitudes in

Oregon and nationwide. Journal of Forestry. 91(7): 36-42.

Shindler, B.; Neburka, J. 1997. Public participation in forest planning: eight attributes

of success. Journal of Forestry. 91(7): 17-19.

Shindler, B.; O’Brian, K. 1998. Citizen survey of public involvement in federal forest

management. Research Summary. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. [Pages

unknown].

Shindler, B.; Peters, J.; Kruger, L. 1994. Social values and acceptability of alternative harvest practices on the Tongass National Forest. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State

University. 95 p.

Shindler, B.; Reed. M. 1996. Forest management in the Blue Mountains: public 

perspectives on prescribed fire and mechanical thinning. Corvallis, OR: Oregon

State University. 57 p.

Shindler, B.; Shelby, B. 1995. Product shift in recreation settings: findings and 

implications from panel research. Leisure Sciences. 17: 91-107.

Shindler, B.; Steel, B.; List, P. 1996. Public judgments of adaptive management:

a response from forest communities. Journal of Forestry. 94(6): 4-12.

Shindler, B.; Wright, A. 2000. Watershed management in the central Cascades:

a study of citizen knowledge and the value of information sources. Corvallis, OR:

Oregon State University. [Pages unknown].

Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Cooperative [SAMAB]. 1996.

Southern Appalachian assessment: social/cultural/economic technical report.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Communications.

[Pages unknown].

Stankey, G.H. 1995. The pursuit of sustainability: joining science and public choice.

The George Wright Forum. 12(3): 11-18.

Stankey, G.H. 1996. Defining the social acceptability of forest management practices

and conditions: integrating science and social choice. In: Brunson, M.W.; Kruger,

L.E.; Tyler, C.B.; Schroeder, S.A., eds. Defining social acceptability in ecosystem

management: a workshop proceedings. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-369. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station: 99-112.

Stankey, G.H. 1997. Institutional barriers and opportunities in application of the limits

of acceptable change. In: Proceedings—Limits of acceptable change and related

planning processes: progress and future direction. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-371.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 10-15.

65
Stankey, G.H.; Clark, R.N. 1992. Social aspects of new perspectives in forestry:

a problem analysis. Milford, PA: Grey Towers Press. 33 p.

Stankey, G.H.; Clark, R.N. 1998. Frameworks for decisionmaking in management.

In: Miller, M.L.; Auyong, J., eds. Proceedings of the 1996 world congress on

coastal and marine tourism. Seattle, WA: Washington Sea Grant Program; School

of Marine Affairs, University of Washington; Oregon Sea Grant Program, Oregon

State University: 55-59.

Stankey, G.H.; Cole, D.N.; Lucas, R.C. [et al.]. 1985. The limits of acceptable

change (LAC) system for wilderness planning. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-176. Ogden,

UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station.

Stankey, G.H.; Shindler, B. 1997. Adaptive management areas: achieving the 

promise, avoiding the peril. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-394. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

21 p.

Steel, B.S.; Lovrich, N.P.; Pierce, J.C. 1992-93. Trust in natural resource information

sources and postmaterialist values: a comparative study of U.S. and Canadian 

citizens in the Great Lakes area. Journal of Environmental Systems. 22(2):

123-136.

Steel, B.S.; Shindler, B.; Brunson, M. 1998. Social acceptability of ecosystem 

management in the Pacific Northwest. In: Lamb, B.; Soden, D.; Tennert, J., eds.

Ecosystem management: a social science perspective. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.

[Pages unknown].

Steelman, T.A.; Carmin, J. 1998. Common property, collective interests, and 

community opposition to locally unwanted land uses. Society and Natural

Resources. 11: 485-504.

Swanson F.J.; Sparks, R.E. 1990. Long-term ecological research and the invisible

place. BioScience. 40(7): 502-508.

Tarrant, M.A.; Overdevest, C.; Bright, A.D. [et al.]. 1997. Public knowledge, 

attitudes, and support of ecosystem management. In: Cordell, H.K., ed. Integrating

social science and ecosystem management: a national challenge: Proceedings of

the conference on integrating social sciences and ecosystem management. Gen.

Tech. Rep. SRS-17. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southern Research Station: 127-130.

Taylor, J.G.; Daniel, T.C. 1984. Prescribed fire: public education and perception.

Journal of Forestry. 82: 361-365.

Tuler S.; Webler, T. 1999. Voices from the forest: what participants expect of a public

participation process. Society and Natural Resources. 12: 437-453.

Tyler, T.R. 1989. The psychology of procedural justice: a test of the group-value

model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 57(5): 830-838.

66
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1996. Status of the interior

Columbia basin: summary of scientific findings. Gen.Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-385.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

144 p.

van Es, J.C.; Lorence, D.P.; Morgan, G.W.; Church, J.A. 1996. Don't know 

responses in environmental surveys. Environmental Education. 27(4): 13-18.

Veverka, J. 1996. Interpretation as a management tool. Interp Edge. 3(1): 22-23.

Wagar, J.A. 1974. Recreational carrying capacity reconsidered. Journal of Forestry.

72: 274-278.

Walters, C.J. 1997. Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal

ecosystems. Conservation Ecology. 1(2): 1.

Wengert, N. 1976. Citizen participation: practice in search of a theory. Natural

Resources Journal. 16(1): 23-40.

Wenner, L.M. 1990. Environmental policy in the courts. In: Kraft, M.E.; Vig, N.J., eds.

Environmental policy in the 1990’s: toward a new agenda. Washington, DC: CQ

Press: 189-210.

Westley, F. 1995. Governing design: the management of social systems in ecosystem

management. In: Gunderson, L.H.; Holling, C.S.; Light, S.S., eds. Barriers and

bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. New York: Columbia

University Press: 391-427.

Wienberg, A. 1972. Science and trans-science. Minerva. 10: 209-222.

Wildavsky, A. 1988. Searching for safety. New Brunswick, ON: Transaction

Publishers. [Pages unknown].

Wilderness Act of 1964; 16 U.S.C. 1121 (note), 1131-1136.

Willhite, R.G.; Bowlus, D.R.; Tarbet, D. 1973. An approach for resolution of attitude

differences over forest management. Environment and Behavior. 5: 351-366.

Williams, B.A.; Matheny, A.R. 1995. Democracy, dialogue and environmental 

disputes: the contested language of social regulation. New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press. [Pages unknown].

Williams, D.R.; Patterson, M.E. 1996. Environmental meaning and ecosystem 

management: perspectives from environmental psychology and human geography.

Society and Natural Resources. 9(5): 507-521.

Williams, D.R.; Patterson, M.E.; Roggenbuck, J.W.; Watson, A.E. 1992. Beyond the

commodity metaphor: examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place.

Leisure Sciences. 14: 29-46.

67
Williams, D.R.; Stewart, S.I. 1998. Sense of place: an elusive concept that is finding

a home in ecosystem management. Journal of Forestry. 96(5): 16-23.

Wing, M.; Shelby, B. 1999. Using GIS to integrate information on forest recreation.

Journal of Forestry. 97(1): 12-16.

Wondolleck, J.M. 1988. Public lands conflict and resolution. New York: Plenum.

Wright, A.S. 2000. Citizen knowledge and opinions about watershed management 

in the south Santiam basin in Oregon. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University.

[Pages unknown]. M.S. thesis.

Wynne, B. 1987. Uncertainty—technical and social. In: Brooks, B.; Cooper, D., eds.

Science for public policy. New York: Pergamon Press: 95-111.

Yaffee, S.L. 1994. The wisdom of the spotted owl. Washington, DC: Island Press.

[Pages unknown].

Yaffee, S.L.; Wondolleck, J.M. 1997. Building bridges across agency boundaries. In:

Franklin, J.F.; Kohm, K.A. eds. Creating a forestry for the 21st century. Washington,

DC: Island Press: 381-396.

Yankelovich, D. 1991. Coming to public judgment: making democracy work in a 

complex world. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. 290 p.

Zube, E.H.; Sell, J.L.; Taylor, J.G. 1982. Landscape perception: research, 

application, and theory. Landscape Planning. 9: 1-33.

68
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle

of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of

wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation

with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests

and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly

greater service to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room

326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC

20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity

provider and employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Website http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890