United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

Research Paper

PNW-RP-581

June 2009

Public Acceptance of 

Disturbance-Based Forest 

Management: A Study of the 

Blue River Landscape Strategy 

in the Central Cascades 

Adaptive Management Area

Bruce Shindler and Angela L. Mallon
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, age, disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic 

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income 

is derived from any public assistance program. (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, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 

20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.

Authors

Bruce Shindler is a professor and Angela L. Mallon is a faculty research assistant, 

Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, 

OR 97331. Project research was conducted under Agreement 05-CR-11061801-013 

between Oregon State University and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Willamette National Forest, with the cooperation of the Bureau of Land 

Management, Eugene (OR) District.
Abstract

Shindler, Bruce; Mallon, Angela L. 2009. Public acceptance of disturbance-based 

forest management: a study of the Blue River Landscape Strategy in the Central 

Cascades Adaptive Management Area. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-581. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 42 p.

This report examines public perspectives on disturbance-based management 

conducted in the central Cascade Range in Oregon as part of the Blue River 

Landscape Strategy. A mail survey to local residents was used to describe the 

public’s understanding of this form of management, identify perceived associated 

risks and potential barriers to implementation, and the overall level of support for 

disturbance-based practices. Findings suggest the public generally supports the 

disturbance-based concept, particularly ecological benefits, but many individuals 

are still uncertain about details and are withholding judgment until they see the 

outcomes of implementation. Support is highly correlated with citizens’ past 

interaction with local managers. Major concerns involve the amount of timber 

harvesting necessary to achieve objectives and the possibility that changing 

national politics may influence the consistency of agency policies toward 

disturbance-based management.

Keywords: Disturbance-based management, historical range of variability, 

social acceptability, citizen-agency interactions. 
Summary

Introduction and Study Objectives

This report provides a detailed summary of research conducted on public acceptability of disturbance-based forest management in the Central Cascades Adaptive 

Management Area (CCAMA). Growing emphasis on ecosystem and landscape-level 

forest management across North America has spurred an examination of alternative management strategies that focus on emulating dynamic natural disturbance 

processes, particularly those associated with forest fire regimes. This topic is the 

cornerstone of research in the Blue River Landscape Study (BRLS) taking place 

in the CCAMA, located in the McKenzie River watershed of western Oregon. 

Public acceptability plays a critical role in the success of ecosystem management 

practices. Although there is a substantial body of research on citizen support for 

the concept of ecosystem management, less is known about public perceptions 

and opinions about specific management practices. Within this context, this study 

examines the perceptions of disturbance-based management held by members of 

the attentive public in McKenzie River watershed communities and the cities of 

Eugene and Springfield. The attentive public is considered to be those individuals who pay attention to local forest issues and are often the first ones to respond 

to new plans and practices. Analysis is based upon responses to a mail survey 

conducted in 2005–06. Overall, 230 of 312 questionnaires were completed for a 

74-percent response rate.

The purposes of research with this highly relevant population of citizens are 

threefold: (1) to examine citizens’ understanding of and support for disturbancebased management and their perceptions of risk and uncertainty associated with it, 

(2) to gather information that will help federal agencies communicate and engage 

with the public about this topic while building literacy among citizens about the 

disturbance-based approach, and (3) to satisfy terms of a 2003 settlement agreement 

between the Bureau of Land Management and American Forest Resources Council 1 

that requires assessment of public acceptance of disturbance-based management.

1 U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior [USDA and USDI]. 

2003. Departments of Agriculture and Interior proposed settlement agreement with the 

American Forest Resource Council. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/settlement.php. 

(28 April 2009).
The specific objectives of this study focused on gathering information about 

the following:

• Citizen knowledge of general forest management practices and ecosystem 

processes.

• Interactions with and trust in forest management agencies in the area.

• Public perceptions of risk associated with disturbance-based management.

• Knowledge of key concepts and practices associated with disturbancebased management.

• Potential barriers to disturbance-based management.

• The overall level of support for this approach, including citizen-agency 

interactions and public trust in forest agencies to implement management 

practices.

Key Findings

Overall, findings from this study indicate that McKenzie watershed citizens are 

cautiously supportive of disturbance-based management, with a number of important qualifications. These include:

• More than half of study participants say they support disturbance-based 

management. However, a substantial segment (27 percent) is uncertain 

about this approach, indicating that citizens may not have a full understanding of disturbance-based management on which to base their judgments, or 

may be waiting to see the outcomes of implementation.

• Timber harvest associated with disturbance-based management is a primary concern, particularly the potential for excessive thinning, increased 

road building, and harvest in old-growth stands.

• Most respondents (85 percent) believe forest reserves (areas with no commercial timber harvest) are necessary for plant and animal conservation in 

the McKenzie watershed.

• Citizens displayed awareness and concern that changing national politics 

can influence the consistency of agency policies toward disturbance-based 

management. For example, although they may trust their local ranger district to implement projects, they have less confidence that the federal government will let local personnel make good on these decisions.

• Among the areas of least concern for study participants is the idea that a 

disturbance-based approach needs to pay for itself. These findings suggest 

that the citizens sampled are more interested in ecological benefits than in 

economic return from these practices. 
• Citizens’ past interactions with agency employees is the variable most 

highly correlated with support for disturbance-based management—the 

more favorable citizens’ opinions about past interactions are, the greater 

their support for disturbance-based management.

Other key findings include:

• In all areas of the survey, there were few significant differences between 

the opinions of Eugene-Springfield residents and their counterparts in 

upriver communities.

• McKenzie citizens possess high levels of formal education, and over 90 

percent pay a moderate to a great deal of attention to national forest issues.

• Perceptions of overall forest health in the McKenzie watershed are mixed. 

Over one-quarter of respondents view forests as unhealthy, and 61 percent 

see them as healthy.

• A substantial proportion of the study population places priority on environmental objectives over economic ones in forest management. 

• Although the attentive public in the McKenzie watershed has a high level of 

knowledge with respect to basic ecosystem management, they have a lower 

level of understanding about specific disturbance-based management techniques. Terminology associated with the latter approach is not intuitive for 

most citizens. 

• Citizens generally have high levels of confidence in scientists and scientific 

information, and approve of scientific experimentation on federal forest 

lands.

• Inability to identify with central focus points of disturbance-based management may be problematic in message communication. Currently, less than a 

quarter of the respondents know about the CCAMA or the BRLS.

• Face-to-face interactive forms of communication between agencies and 

citizens are rated as most useful for communicating about new management 

approaches. Citizens also rate newspapers and newsletters as useful for 

general dissemination of information.

• Public confidence in agencies and the information they provide appears to 

be relatively low, although McKenzie watershed citizens tend to trust local 

agency personnel more than those at the federal or regional levels. Many 

respondents indicated they trust local agency personnel to make management decisions, but are concerned that politics at the national level prevent 

them from implementing these decisions.
Based on these findings, several conclusions can be made. First, citizens in 

McKenzie communities can make important contributions to planning new management strategies. For example, these individuals could be engaged in meaningful 

ways from the very beginning in decisionmaking processes. Doing so will not only 

improve the quality of information used to make decisions, but can also serve to 

build support and acceptance for new approaches as these individuals help carry 

the message to the broader community. 

Second, clarification of objectives and rationale behind disturbance-based 

management approaches will better serve the public. Currently, terminology and 

techniques associated with this approach are not well understood among local 

citizens. To increase relevancy, the disturbance-based concept will need to be 

presented in a context that has meaning for citizens, such as addressing forest 

health or species conservation problems, particularly in places familiar to residents.

Third, agencies can capitalize on the existing high level of public knowledge 

about forests and ecosystem processes to cultivate further understanding of 

disturbance-emulating techniques. Interactive outreach settings—including conversations with agency personnel and scientists, field trips, and small workshops—can 

be successful in increasing knowledge of projects, and are also effective at building 

relationships between agencies and citizens.

Fourth, agencies can help citizens become more comfortable with this concept 

by addressing issues of risk and uncertainty associated with a disturbance-based 

management approach. These issues are often primary factors in the public’s 

willingness to accept forest management practices, particularly those that are new 

and largely untested. Citizen understanding of the potential for risk provides a 

context in which managers and scientists can discuss how mistakes or unintended 

consequences of disturbance-based management can be dealt with.

Finally, an emphasis on improving citizen-agency interactions, not just on 

a project basis but as a central long-term goal, is essential. Citizens respect and 

respond to agency personnel they view as trustworthy and credible. They make 

their judgments based on agency actions and followthrough, particularly those 

intended to include public perspectives. For this reason, positive interactions are 

most effectively initiated and maintained at the local community level. Improving 

citizen-agency interactions will involve treating trust-building as a central, longterm goal of an organized public outreach program.
Contents

1 Introduction

2 Research Setting

3 Management Context

4 Objectives

5 Methods

5 Interviews and Focus Groups

6 Mail Survey

7 Findings

7 Participant Profile, Public Awareness, and Knowledge

12 Opinions About Management Practices, Citizen-Agency Interactions, 

 and Use of Information Sources

19 Opinions About Disturbance-Based Management

22 Correlations Between Support and Respondent Characteristics

23 Summary of Key Findings

24 Participant Awareness and Orientation

24 Knowledge

26 Forest Management Preferences

27 Citizen-Agency Interactions

29 Information Sources

30 Acceptance and Support for Disturbance-Based Management

31 Conclusions

37 Metric Equivalent

37 Literature Cited
1

Public Acceptance of Disturbance-Based Forest Management

Introduction

In recent decades, federal forest management in the Pacific Northwest has shifted 

from a focus on sustained-yield timber harvest through dispersed and aggregated 

patch clearcutting to a system of management based on static land allocations laid 

out by the Northwest Forest Plan. However, growing emphasis on ecosystem and 

landscape management has spurred interest in alternative management strategies 

that focus on dynamic natural processes (Cissel et al. 1999, Parsons et al. 1998). 

One such method is the use of historical disturbance as a guide for ecosystem 

management, which involves applying information about past natural disturbances 

to inform practices such as timber harvest, prescribed burning, or wildfire suppression (Perera and Buse 2004). It is largely a coarse-filter approach with a primary 

objective of conserving native species.

As scientists and managers work to unravel the ecological and economic implications of disturbance-based management, they must also consider public acceptance for such an approach. Numerous studies have demonstrated the importance 

of understanding the role of citizen values and attitudes in ecosystem management 

(Clawson 1975, Firey 1960, Grumbine 1994, Shindler et al. 2002c). Decisions based 

solely on biological science can lead to policy failures; for this reason, ecological 

research must be supplemented with investigations into relevant social perspectives 

of forest management processes and practices (Endter-Wada et al. 1998). However, 

although the body of knowledge is large with respect to public perceptions of ecosystem management as a concept, much less is known about citizen attitudes toward 

and support for methods for achieving specific objectives, particularly options for 

relatively new ideas like disturbance-based management (Shindler 2000). 

This report summarizes research on stakeholder attitudes toward and support 

for the use of historical disturbance as a guide for future forest management in 

the Blue River Landscape Study (BRLS). The BRLS is one of several projects 

underway in the Central Cascades Adaptive Management Area (CCAMA), an 

area designated for joint experimentation by the Willamette National Forest and 

the Bureau of Land Management Eugene District in conjunction with the research 

community. Our research encompassed both Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

and Forest Service personnel in the CCAMA as well as members of the attentive 

public in the McKenzie River watershed and the cities of Eugene and Springfield. 

In this study, attentive public is defined as citizens who have demonstrated past 

interest in local forest issues through participation in field trips, attendance at 

planning meetings, submission of input during public comment periods, or putting 

their name on a mailing list for information. The attentive public is being targeted 

with the expectation that knowledge of and interest in ecosystem management will 
2

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-581

be higher in this cohort, an assumption supported by the research of Wright (2000) 

and Williams (2001). These individuals are often the first to be affected by new 

management programs on public lands and thus are the first to respond to these 

initiatives (Shindler 2003). They represent an important stakeholder group—as well 

as an important barometer of public opinion—with which forest agencies will need 

to interact for program implementation over the long term.

Exploratory in nature, the public component of this study focused on gathering 

information about (1) citizen knowledge of general forest management practices and 

ecosystem processes, (2) interaction with and trust in forest management agencies 

in the area, (3) perceptions of risk associated with disturbance-based management, 

(4) knowledge of key concepts and practices associated with disturbance-based 

management, (5) potential barriers to disturbance-based management, and (6) the 

overall level of support for this approach.

This research has three primary purposes. The first is to examine the nature 

of citizens’ attitudes and perceptions of disturbance-based management so that 

resource professionals in the CCAMA may weigh the feasibility of this management approach and discern how to better communicate with the public about it. 

In this respect, areas of particular interest are the level of understanding about 

disturbance-based management possessed by members of the attentive public, 

their support for this approach, and their perceptions of the associated risks or 

uncertainties.

The second purpose is to provide information that will enable agency personnel 

to more fully communicate and engage with the public in developing ecosystem 

management strategies while at the same time increasing citizen literacy about 

these techniques. Third, this research will satisfy conditions laid out in an August 

2003 settlement agreement between the American Forest Resources Council and 

the BLM stemming from a lawsuit concerning the legal status of reserves on some 

BLM lands. As part of this agreement, the CCAMA is charged with several tasks, 

including assessing public understanding and the acceptability of disturbance-based 

management. This report addresses this task. 

Research Setting

The CCAMA is located in the McKenzie River watershed, an area that extends 

from the crest of the Cascade Mountain Range to the Willamette River in westcentral Oregon. Within this watershed are located several small communities (e.g., 

McKenzie Bridge, Leaburg, and Vida) as well as many popular outdoor recreation 

sites along the McKenzie River and on upland forests. The nearest metropolitan 

area is Eugene/Springfield with a combined population of 206,000 people, located 
3

Public Acceptance of Disturbance-Based Forest Management

at the confluence of the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers (U.S. Census Bureau 

2007). The upriver population of the watershed generally comprises retirees, people 

employed in either recreation- or extraction-based natural resource economies, and 

residents who commute to jobs in the Eugene/Springfield area (Shindler et al. 1996). 

Area residents use Willamette National Forest lands and BLM lands frequently, 

and many of them claim to pay a moderate or great deal of attention to forest 

management issues (Shindler et al. 1996). Furthermore, several studies of citizen 

perspectives in the area have shown residents place great value on participation in 

forest management decisionmaking and planning processes (Shindler et al. 1996, 

Williams 2001, Wright 2000).

Management Context 

Research in ecosystem management has a long history in the McKenzie River 

watershed. In 1948, the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest was established in the 

Lookout Creek drainage, one of the tributaries to the McKenzie River. Research in 

forest and stream ecosystem dynamics has been underway there since the 1950s, 

and pioneering research on the structure and function of old-growth forest ecosystems began in the 1970s (Andrews Experimental Forest LTER 2002, FEMAT 

1993). In 1991, the Cascade Center for Ecosystem Management was established to 

facilitate integration of historical research at the H.J. Andrews with new research 

projects (CCEM 2001). One of these is the BRLS, which is designed to develop and 

evaluate disturbance-based management objectives for the 57,000-acre Blue River 

Watershed (Rapp 2003). The stated purpose of the BRLS is to use historical disturbance regimes as a model for management activities intended to achieve the objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan: late-successional habitat, aquatic ecosystems, 

and sustainable timber production (CCEM 2001).

The BRLS area and the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest are both contained 

within the boundaries of the CCAMA, one of 10 adaptive management areas 

(AMAs) established by the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan. The total area of the 

CCAMA is 158,000 acres, the majority of which is located in the McKenzie 

River watershed, although a small section extends into the South Santiam River 

watershed (Shindler et al. 1996). Experiments and projects at the CCAMA have 

benefited from collaborative efforts and good relationships between scientists 

and managers at the AMA, the Andrews Forest, and the nearby McKenzie River 

Ranger District.

Managers at the CCAMA, like those at most AMAs, confront many challenges 

in implementing adaptive management practices. These include coordination and 

cooperation across jurisdictional boundaries (Stankey and Shindler 1997), working 
4

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-581

within the context of a changing political climate (Shindler et al. 1999), and balancing the demands of managing adaptively on time and resources that must also be 

devoted to the day-to-day business (Stankey and Shindler 1997). Furthermore, 

managers in the CCAMA face questions about how to appropriately involve and 

communicate with the public in planning activities as well as how to determine the 

public’s expectations for successful outcomes (Shindler and Neburka 1995). Indeed, 

in a study of public judgments toward CCAMA managers conducted early in the 

AMA program, Shindler et al. (1996) found that just one-third of the participants 

believed the Forest Service and BLM were open to public input and use it in making 

decisions. This research, in addition to that conducted by Shindler, Williams, and 

Wright in 2002 with the attentive public, form the foundation for inquiries into the 

nature of interactions between agency personnel and McKenzie watershed citizens 

(Shindler et al. 2002a).

With regard to the specific objectives of the BRLS, managers must address 

questions such as how natural variability is defined and past conditions are 

described, both spatially and temporally, as well as the challenges presented by 

unexpected disturbance events occurring in the present (Landres et al. 1999). Public 

support for such research has been demonstrated in a previous CCAMA study 

(Shindler et al. 1996), where two-thirds of the participants agreed with scientific 

experimentation in forest ecosystems. However, resource professionals will need 

to navigate the transition between the theoretical phases of project planning and 

on-the-ground implementation. 

Objectives

In spite of substantial inquiry into citizen attitudes toward forest ecosystem 

management in general, research regarding perceptions and opinions of historical 

disturbance-based management in the United States is extremely limited. Thus, 

small case studies of places where these practices are underway are particularly 

useful. One study site includes communities in the McKenzie River watershed. The 

study objectives were to:

1. Assess stakeholder understanding of natural disturbance processes and 

disturbance-based management techniques.

2. Examine public acceptance for disturbance-based management and the 

forest agencies who will implement these practices.

3. Assess stakeholder concerns about the risk and uncertainty in this 

approach.

4. Explore potential barriers to future implementation of disturbance-based 

management.
5

Public Acceptance of Disturbance-Based Forest Management

Methods

This assessment of stakeholder attitudes toward disturbance-based management 

employed a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, which included 

focus group interviews during visits to selected field sites, individual interviews, 

and a mail questionnaire. Interviews and focus groups were primarily used in the 

initial phases of the research to inform the design of the mail questionnaire. They 

were used in a lesser degree to add insight to quantitative data analysis. The combination of both quantitative and qualitative methods enabled a broad inquiry into 

factors that influence public attitudes, which is not normally achieved by applying 

either method alone (Babbie 2001).

However, this report focuses directly on the quantitative survey data.

Interviews and Focus Groups

Prior to the focus group field trips, semistructured interviews were conducted with 

two researchers instrumental in initiating the BRLS and in constructing research 

objectives for the project. These interviews helped to identify themes and questions 

that could be covered in field trip discussions. 

Focus groups are frequently used in the first stages of research on new topics, 

with the purpose of identifying themes of interest and concern among stakeholder 

groups. Because disturbance-based management is a relatively new concept, focus 

groups were conducted in conjunction with two field trips to sites in the BRLS area. 

One trip involved agency managers and researchers; the other included both agency 

personnel and citizens. These field visits achieved three purposes: to familiarize 

participants with the concept of disturbance-based management, to view and discuss examples of implementation of the concept, and to lend context to discussions 

about the BRLS approach.

Field trips took place on two days during the spring of 2005. The first field trip 

included 19 personnel (15 managers, 4 researchers) from the Willamette National 

Forest, Eugene District BLM, and H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest. Participants 

visited three sites that had harvesting treatments designed to emulate various fire 

regimes. Discussion during the agency tour was primarily focused on the challenges of implementing disturbance-based management in the BRLS; the reasons 

for using this approach; risk and uncertainty surrounding it; and support for 

disturbance-based management, both internal to the agencies and externally among 

the public. The information obtained from this trip was used to identify issues for 

discussion on the public field tour and also to further inform questionnaire design 

for the mail survey. Information from the agency site visits is not otherwise a topic 

of this report.
6

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-581

The second field trip included nine members of the attentive public from 

McKenzie River communities, with eight agency personnel along to describe 

treatments of each site. Citizen participants were selected based on their status as 

leaders within their communities or as individuals interested in forest issues in the 

McKenzie River watershed. These individuals included business leaders, private 

landowners, and members of the McKenzie Watershed Council. Forest Service 

personnel who were familiar with communities in the McKenzie helped to identify and recruit participants for the tour. Participants on this trip visited two sites 

demonstrating the disturbance-based management approach. To initiate discussion, 

agency personnel described the specific treatments implemented at each site. Group 

discussion then focused on the appropriateness of disturbance-based management, 

concerns and uncertainty surrounding this approach, reactions to treatments, political realities of a long-term strategy, and confidence in agencies to implement this 

approach. Group interaction was generally informal with all participants joining in 

by expressing questions, answers, and opinions. This discussion also revealed the 

citizens’ level of understanding of the concept of disturbance-based management 

and the terms used to describe it. 

Mail Survey

An 8-page mail questionnaire was developed based on the themes identified during 

the focus group field trips, interviews, and a review of research literature. Survey 

questions addressed respondents’ knowledge of forest management in general and 

disturbance processes in particular, opinions about forest management practices, 

support for disturbance-based management, and interactions with federal agencies 

for implementation of this approach. Draft surveys were reviewed by research collaborators at Oregon State University. 

The survey was distributed to a sample of 312 individuals from the attentive 

public. This sample was drawn from three primary sources: an existing Forest 

Service list of individuals who requested information about management activities or attended public meetings or field trips; the newsletter mailing list for the 

McKenzie Watershed Council; and a mailing list developed by Oregon State 

University researchers studying public perceptions of the CCAMA. Only residents 

of the McKenzie Watershed and Eugene-Springfield were included in the sample. 

Questionnaires were mailed with a hand-signed cover letter and self-addressed, 

stamped return envelope according to a modified “total design method” (Dillman 

1978). Overall, 230 surveys were completed and returned resulting in a response 

rate of 74 percent. Market research analysis indicates this level of response to be 

sufficiently high to make inferences to the larger study population of the attentive 

public in the McKenzie River watershed (Lehman 1989).
7

Public Acceptance of Disturbance-Based Forest Management

Findings

Study findings are presented in written, graphical, and tabular format in the following sections: (1) participant profile, public awareness of forest issues, and 

knowledge of ecosystem processes; (2) opinions about forest management practices, 

citizen-agency interactions, and use of information sources; and (3) support for 

disturbance-based management. In some cases, categories have been collapsed for 

presentation purposes (i.e., “agree” and “strongly agree” combined into a single 

category, “agree”). Table footnotes indicate when responses between upriver and 

Eugene-Springfield participant groups were significantly different. All table values 

are in percentages unless otherwise indicated.

Participant Profile, Public Awareness, and Knowledge

The demographic characteristics shown in table 1 provide a context for 

understanding responses of survey participants. This information will be used 

to identify trends associated with different population segments. Findings are 

arranged so that differences between responses from upriver communities (rural) 

and the more urban area of Eugene-Springfield (E/S) can be identified. 

Table 1—Respondent characteristics

Overall	 Eugene/Springfield	 Upriver

Total sample size 230 133 97

Mean years of residence in Lane County 32 33 32

Gender:

Male (percent) 74 7 70

Female (percent) 27 24 30

Mean age 60 59 61

Education:a

Some high school (percent) 1 0 2

High school (percent) 5 4 7

Some college (percent) 23 17 33

Bachelor’s degree (percent) 25 29 20

Some graduate school (percent) 15 16 14

Graduate degree (percent) 30 35 25

a Eugene-Springfield respondents possessed significantly higher levels of education.

Overall, the sample is dominated by males, although a slightly greater proportion of rural females than urban females responded. This result is consistent with 

results from other forest management surveys. The mean age (60 years) is slightly 

greater than the mean age of respondents from past similar studies (Shindler et al. 

2002b, Williams 2001), perhaps reflecting an important characteristic of the attentive public–possession of free time to pay attention to natural resource issues.
8

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-581

Two findings are particularly noteworthy. One is the average length of residency in the McKenzie River watershed (32 years), which is related in part to the 

average age of survey respondents. Recent research suggests long-term residency 

corresponds to a high level of knowledge of and attention to forest issues (Shindler 

and Toman 2002). Also of interest is the high level of education indicated by survey 

respondents—70 percent of the total have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher. 

Eugene-Springfield respondents have significantly higher levels of education than 

upriver residents.

Public awareness—

To test the notion that our sample represented the “attentive public,” participants 

were first asked to indicate how much attention they pay to national forest issues 

or problems. Previous studies have linked self-rated awareness of forest-related 

issues to knowledge about forest management practices (Shindler and Toman 2002, 

Williams 2001). In this case, 94 percent of participants indicated they pay a moderate to a great deal of attention to national forest issues (fig. 1). 

Figure 1—How much attention do you pay to national forest issues or problems?
9

Public Acceptance of Disturbance-Based Forest Management

Policy orientation—

Respondents were next asked to rank their forest policy orientation on a seven-point 

continuum indicating preferences for environmental versus economic priorities (fig. 

2). Overall, more than half (55 percent) of the respondents were grouped left of the 

midpoint, indicating some preference for environmental over economic objectives. 

Another 25 percent favored a balancing of environmental and economic priorities. 

These results contrast with research by Shinder et al. (2002a) on the general population in the Pacific Northwest, which found responses more normally distributed 

along the continuum (i.e., a large majority favoring a balancing of priorities and 

fewer responses on either end).

Figure 2—Environmental/economic continuum. 
10

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-581

Perceptions of forest health—

Next, we looked at how respondents perceived the condition of federal forest lands 

in the McKenzie River area. Participants were asked to rank forest condition on 

a scale from one (very unhealthy) to four (very healthy), or to mark “don’t know.” 

Overall, about half of respondents believe federal forests in the McKenzie are 

healthy (fig. 3). Slightly over one-quarter judged forests to be unhealthy. 

Figure 3—Condition of federal forest lands in the McKenzie watershed.

Knowledge measures—ecosystem management terms and projects—

The purpose of this section of the survey was to assess participants’ understanding 

of the terminology used in forest management and their awareness of existing projects and plans. Respondents were asked whether they knew the meaning of a term, 

had heard the term but didn’t know the meaning, or if they had never heard it (table 

2). The first eight terms are general concepts related to ecosystem management, and 

knowledge levels are high for most. Of these terms, respondents were least familiar 

with “rotation age” and “uneven-age management.”
11

Public Acceptance of Disturbance-Based Forest Management

The second group of terms deals with concepts specific to disturbance-based 

management. This section was designed to gauge respondents’ baseline knowledge 

of basic terms related to the approach. At this point in the survey, respondents had 

received no introduction to the concept. Knowledge levels of specific concepts 

were much lower than for terms in the first section. In most cases, less than half of 

all respondents understood these concepts, and one-quarter to one-third had never 

heard of them. Only “fire-return interval” was recognized by the majority, which 

may reflect the influence of recent education efforts and media attention on the topic 

of forest fire ecology. 

The third section asked about familiarity with management projects or places 

located in the McKenzie River watershed. A majority of respondents were familiar 

with H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, not unexpected given its long history in 

the watershed and continuing efforts at public outreach and implementation of the 

Northwest Forest Plan. This plan is the only term with which urban residents displayed a significantly greater level of familiarity than upriver residents. Relatively 

few knew about the CCAMA or the BRLS. In each case, these levels are lower than 

those found by Williams in a similar survey from 2001.

Table 2—Knowledge of forest ecology terms and projects

Heard term, don’t Never

Know term know meaning heard term

Percent

Ecosystem management terms:

Watershed 96 2 1

Riparian area 95 3 2

Ecosystem management 91 8 2

Patch clearcut 81 14 5

Forest succession 71 18 11

Active management 71 20 9

Rotation age 66 17 17

Uneven-age management 60 16 25

Disturbance-based management terms: 

Fire-return interval 59 27 14

Adaptive management area 47 33 21

Disturbance-based management 41 31 29

Range of historical variability 40 30 31

Disturbance regime 32 30 38

Management projects/places:

H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest 64 22 14

Northwest Forest Plana 53 38 9

CCAMAb 25 39 36

Blue River Landscape Study 17 40 43

a Significantly more Eugene-Springfield respondents indicated familiarity with this term (p < 0.05).

b Central Cascades Adaptive Management Area.
12

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-581

Knowledge measures–ecosystem processes—

To further examine participants’ knowledge of forest systems, the next section of 

the survey provided a series of statements about ecosystem processes. Respondents 

rated them as generally true, generally false, or indicated if they were not sure (table 

3). Responses were then scored as correct, incorrect, or not sure. Overall, correct 

responses to these statements demonstrated high levels of knowledge about the 

general importance of disturbance processes in forest ecosystems (98 percent) and 

species survival (80 percent), the value of decadent material in healthy forests (100 

percent) and streams (90 percent), and ideal conditions for Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga 

menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) regeneration (71 percent). In contrast, there were relatively low levels of knowledge (and considerable uncertainty) about historical fire 

frequency in the McKenzie watershed as well as for a statement where we first 

brought up the idea of disturbance-based management. 

Table 3—Knowledge of forest processes

Correct Incorrect Not sure

Percent

Disturbance events (fires, flood, wind) have played a significant role in shaping 98 1 1

natural forests in the McKenzie River watershed for thousands of years. (True)a

Plant and animal species depend on disturbance events for survival. (True) 80 6 14

Some dead and dying trees are natural components of forest systems. (True) 100 0 0

Large trees and logs in streams are a barrier to fish and should be removed when 90 4 6

possible. (False)

Douglas-fir trees regenerate better in open, sunny areas, than shady ones. (True) 71 14 15

Historically, sites in the upper McKenzie River Watershed experienced fire 27 35 38

frequently (every 10 to 20 years).b (False)

Natural-disturbance-based forest management involves using harvesting 53 10 37

techniques and prescribed fire to emulate past events like floods, wildfires, 

windstorms, and landslides. (True)

a Correct answer is in parentheses.

b Eugene-Springfield respondents significantly more likely to answer correctly (39 percent) than upriver respondents (28 percent); 

X2 = 6.63, p = 0.036. 

Opinions About Management Practices, Citizen-Agency 

Interactions, and Use of Information Sources

The second section of the questionnaire focused on citizens’ opinions about 

different aspects of federal forest land management, including attitudes about 

certain forest management practices, opinions about information sources used 

to communicate with the public about natural resource issues, and experiences 

interacting with agency personnel.
13

Public Acceptance of Disturbance-Based Forest Management

Factors influencing judgments about management decisions—

Developing a better understanding of how people form judgments about management 

policies is an essential research question to these and other studies. Thus, we asked 

participants about factors that influence their ideas about current Forest Service or 

BLM management actions and decisions. In providing a list of important factors, we 

drew from the body of research on social acceptability (e.g., Shindler et al. 2002c, 

Shindler and Neburka 1997, Stankey and Shindler 2006). Respondents were asked to 

rate each factor as very important, important, slightly important, or not important. 

Figure 4 shows percentages for those respondents who rated these items as either 

important or very important. At least two-thirds believed all of these factors are 

important influences on their support for management decisions. The highest tier 

(important to 88 percent or more) included understanding management objectives, 

environmental consequences of management actions, the role of scientific information in decisionmaking, the place for which an action is planned, and understanding 

how a decision was made. Overall, these results are generally consistent with earlier 

findings of Williams (2001) in the McKenzie watershed. 

Figure 4—Importance of factors influencing support for forest management actions and decisions 

(percentages reflect important/very important responses). 
14

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-581

Participants were also given the opportunity to list additional factors that influence their ideas in an open-ended format. Of those who chose to respond to this 

item, many stressed the importance of knowing how politics affected the science 

used in making forest management decisions. Most viewed political influence 

negatively, as exemplified by the comments of one respondent, who stated that it 

was important to know “If an action or decision was heavily influenced by political 

considerations over objective scientific information...” Another respondent emphasized the need to know that, “...personal agendas and biases...are suppressed in 

favor of use of sound scientific and economic tools for making forest management 

decisions.”

Responses to this open-ended question were overwhelmingly characterized by 

a preference for projects that focus on management for multiple objectives over the 

long term. According to one participant, “I feel it is very important to take the long 

view, to manage for sustainability over centuries, to preserve species and diversity. 

I feel that ‘old growth’ is a vital repository of diversity and it is essential that no 

more old-growth stands be cut, ever!” Another stated that “Decisions [should be] 

based on sound ecosystem management, not simply on conifer production.”

Trust in natural resource institutions—

Next, we asked survey participants to rate their level of trust in local natural 

resource institutions on a four-point scale of “no trust” to “full trust” (table 4). 

Respondents displayed the greatest level of trust in Oregon State University scientists. Over two-thirds similarly indicated full or moderate trust in H.J. Andrews 

personnel and McKenzie Ranger District staff; however, respondents also had 

the least familiarity with these institutions. A majority felt the Forest Service was 

trustworthy; however, this was not the case with the BLM, and this was the only 

case in which any significant difference between Eugene-Springfield and upriver 

respondents existed. Trust levels in the Forest Service and BLM are both lower than 

those found by Williams (2001) in a similar survey of the attentive public. 

Table 4—Trust in natural resource institutions

Full or Limited or

moderate trust no trust Not sure

Percent

Oregon State University scientists 77 15 8

McKenzie Ranger District staff 71 17 12

H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest personnel 67 9 24

U.S. Forest Service 59 37 5

U.S. Bureau of Land Managementa 46 48 6

a Eugene-Springfield residents displayed significantly more trust in the agency.
15

Public Acceptance of Disturbance-Based Forest Management

Information sources—

To obtain further insight into how the attentive public gets and views information about natural resource issues, we next asked participants to rate the level of 

usefulness of various sources concerning the management of federal forest lands. 

We explained that “useful” meant sources they pay attention to and that provide 

good, credible information. First, we asked respondents to rate general information 

sources (e.g., newspapers, interest groups, university personnel) on a four-point 

usefulness scale (none, slight, moderate, and high), also providing a place for them 

to indicate if they had no experience with a particular source. Next, using the same 

criteria, we asked them to rate information formats often used by federal agencies. 

For presentation purposes these two groups have been condensed into the same 

table and arranged in descending order (table 5). The first two columns represent 

opinions only from those who had experience with a particular source. The percentage of respondents who indicated experience with a source is shown in the far 

right-hand column.

Table 5—Levels of usefulness of information sources

Level of usefulnessa

High/ Slight/ Respondents with

moderate none access to source

Percent

University researchers/educators 85 15 93

Watershed councils 81 19 96

Conversations with agency personnel 80 20 87

FS/BLM guided field trips to forest sites 77 23 84

Small, interactive workshops 69 31 79

Environmental impact statements 66 34 86

Newspapers 63 37 99

FS/BLM newsletters 62 38 90

Agency public meetings 60 40 87

Environmental groups 60 40 96

Visitor centers 55 45 93

FS/BLM brochures 49 51 94

Agency Web sitesb 44 56 77

Timber industry groups 44 56 95

Television 43 57 97

Internetb 41 59 84

Radio 39 61 93

Note: FS/BLM = Forest Service/Bureau of Land Management.

a Percentages reflect responses from those who had an opinion about a specific information source.

b Significantly more Eugene-Springfield respondents found this information source useful.
16

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-581

By sorting the results in this way, an interesting pattern emerges. First, the two 

most highly rated information sources are university researchers and educators, 

which corresponds to the high levels of trust in OSU scientists and researchers 

previously indicated. Second is watershed councils, which is likely the result of 

the study sample having been partly chosen from the local McKenzie Watershed 

Council mailing list, but also may reflect the outreach efforts of the local watershed 

council. Following are three interactive forms of information exchange attributable 

to agency personnel. Conversations, guided field trips, and small workshops were 

highly rated here as well as in other recent studies on communication strategies 

(McCaffrey 2004, Toman et al. 2006). In spite of being a relatively technical source 

of information compared to other formats, environmental impact statements (EISs) 

were also highly rated. Although EISs are typically rated low as a useful source 

(Toman et al. 2006), scores here probably reflect the attentive public’s greater attention to these documents and an interest in more specific details.

Two other noteworthy points include the rating of environmental groups as 

more useful than timber groups and the relatively low scores of visitor centers 

and brochures compared to previous studies (Toman et al. 2006). This latter item 

suggests members of the attentive public are apt to seek more specific sources of 

information on forest projects and plans, rather than the general information given 

by brochures and interpretive centers. Similar reasoning may be applied to the low 

ratings received by television and radio. 

Overall, these data show that this sample is an attentive group. These respondents use more information sources and formats than participants in a dozen similar 

surveys throughout the Western United States (Toman et al. 2006).

Forest management preferences—

Public opinion about forest management depends on factors that shape and sustain 

citizens’ judgments about policies and the agencies that will implement them 

(Shindler et al. 2002c). Thus, we explored participants’ preferences for various 

approaches to forest management. Participants rated their preferences on a fourpoint scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree,” with the option of 

indicating “no basis for opinion.” Responses are displayed in table 6. Interestingly, 

a majority of respondents (59 percent) agreed that following nature’s way is preferable to human intervention in management of forest ecosystems. However, even 

more respondents indicated that some active management is necessary to maintain 

healthy forests. Respondents were also largely supportive of forest thinning—only 

12 percent disagreed that thinning is a legitimate tool for forest management. 

Nevertheless, 43 percent of respondents also worry that thinning programs would 

lead to unnecessary harvesting.
17

Public Acceptance of Disturbance-Based Forest Management

Almost all respondents agreed scientific experimentation is acceptable on 

federal forest lands and that scientists should be more involved in making forest 

management decisions. About two-thirds said that timber production is an 

appropriate use of federal forests in the McKenzie watershed. Finally, 71 percent 

indicated that local priorities should take precedence over national priorities for 

forest management. 

Interactions with federal agencies—

Positive interactions with federal land management agencies can contribute greatly 

to public support for forest management plans and projects. Using a four-point 

scale (“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”) respondents rated a series of 

statements about citizen-agency interactions. As before, a “no basis for opinion” 

option was provided. Results are displayed in table 7 and for presentation purposes 

are grouped in two thematic areas: (1) communication and (2) openness and 

relationship building.

Overall, opinions about interactions in both categories were mostly unfavorable. 

Regarding communication, only about one-third of respondents agreed that agency 

personnel provide consistent messages on project plans, and 39 percent believe they 

do a good job of explaining management activities. Forty-three percent believe 

agency information is up to date or reliable. Nearly half viewed forest management information skeptically because of lack of trust in the agencies. In general, 

participants felt slightly more optimistic about agency explanation of options and 

consequences related to forest projects. 

Table 6—Forest management preferences

Strongly Disagree/

agree/ strongly No basis

agree disagree for opinion

Percent

Following nature’s way is preferable to human intervention in ecosystems. 59 34 7

Long-term active management (e.g., timber harvest, tree planting, thinning, 76 21 4

habitat restoration, prescribed fire) is necessary to sustain healthy forests.

Thinning forests is a legitimate method for sustaining long-term forest health. 83 12 6

I’m worried that thinning programs will lead to unnecessary harvesting. 43 51 6

Scientific experimentation is appropriate on selected forest lands. 94 2 4

Scientists should take a more active role in forest management decisions. 83 11 6

Timber production is an appropriate use of federal forests in the McKenzie 67 28 5

watershed.

Local priorities should have greater influence on management decisions 71 24 5

than national priorities.
18

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-581

In the area of openness and relationship building, just 34 percent agreed that 

forest managers effectively build trust and cooperation with the public, and 43 

percent believe agencies are open to public input and use it to shape management 

decisions. Over half agreed that the average citizen has no way to influence agency 

plans. The single statement garnering the most agreement (64 percent) reflected 

trust in local Forest Service personnel but the belief that national-level politics may 

inhibit their ability to do their job. 

Eugene-Springfield respondents reflected significantly more positive attitudes 

than their upriver counterparts for five of the statements. Note that a sizeable 

number of respondents chose “no basis for opinion” in all but one category. This 

suggests there is a substantial segment of the attentive public that is waiting to see 

how projects play out before making judgments. These cases represent an opportunity for the agencies to initiate a positive interaction.

To further understand these responses, we used an open-ended format to ask 

participants for suggestions on how forest agencies can improve their interactions 

with the public. Overwhelmingly, people who responded to this question expressed 

a desire for more information about forest management projects and more 

opportunities for public input. For example, one participant stated the need for 

“...public meetings (small and large) where forest managers listen to the public 

Table 7—Interactions with Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management

Strongly Disagree/

agree/ strongly No basis

agree disagree for opinion

Percent

Communication:

Agency personnel provide a consistent message on project plans.a 32 44 23

Federal forest managers do a good job of explaining their management activities.a 39 46 15

The information provided by forest agencies is up to date and reliable.a 43 34 23

I look at forest management information skeptically because I do not trust 47 42 11

 the agencies.

Agency information about forest projects usually provides a good explanation 51 36 13

 of options and consequences.

Openness and relationship building:

Forest managers effectively build trust and cooperation with local citizens.a 34 49 17

Federal forest managers are open to public input and use it to shape forest 43 39 18

 management decisions.a

I feel the average citizen has no way to influence the agency planning processes. 57 38 5

I trust local Willamette National Forest Service personnel, but I don’t trust 64 21 15

 government at the national level to let them do their job.

a Significantly more Eugene-Springfield respondents agreed with this statement.
19

Public Acceptance of Disturbance-Based Forest Management

rather than telling the public what the forest managers plan to do with the public’s 

forests.” Several others expressed a favorable opinion of field trips to forest sites, 

including one who said “I think the guided field trips are very effective and should 

be done more often!”

Opinions About Disturbance-Based Management

The last section of the survey sought to gauge participants’ support for disturbancebased management techniques. This section was prefaced by the following text 

explaining the objectives of the BRLS and some of the techniques used to emulate 

natural disturbance.

We need your opinion about management priorities for the McKenzie River 

Watershed. To provide some background, the Northwest Forest Plan identified adaptive management areas as places where federal land managers can 

develop and evaluate new approaches to forest management. The Central 

Cascades Adaptive Management Area lies in portions of the McKenzie 

Watershed and contains both the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest and 

the Blue River Landscape Study area (BRLS).

The BRLS proposes managing large forest areas (such as an entire watershed) by planning at a landscape level. Under this approach, managers base 

their plans on natural disturbance events like wildfire, landslides, wind, 

and floods that have occurred over time. The idea is to use harvesting 

techniques to create openings of various sizes similar to those created by 

historical events. One objective is to determine if this approach taken over 

the long-term will result in fewer risks to plants, animals, water quality 

and ecological processes than other management practices. On the next 

two pages, please tell us how you feel about using this type of historic, 

disturbance-based management approach on federal forests. 

The value of disturbance-based management—

To provide a basic measure of the value citizens place on disturbance-based management, respondents used a seven-point scale to rank the value of historical conditions in forest management (fig. 5). On the left end of the scale was the statement 

“Historical conditions are impossible to reproduce and are of no value in guiding 

future forest management.” On the right end was the statement “Historical conditions are the only ecologically responsible guide for managing federal forest land.” 

The midpoint statement said “Historical conditions are one of many guides that can 

be used in forest management.”
20

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-581

Overall, the majority of respondents favored using historical conditions as one 

of many useful tools in forest management (midpoint of scale). It is noteworthy 

that 40 percent of the respondents were grouped on the right side of the continuum, 

compared to just 9 percent who saw little value in this approach. With respect to 

the urban and rural subgroups, Eugene-Springfield respondents favored the use of 

historical disturbance in forest management more than their upriver counterparts.

Perceived risks and uncertainties associated with disturbance-based 

management—

We next asked participants about potential risks or concerns they might associate 

with the use of disturbance-based management in the McKenzie watershed. These 

findings are reported in descending order in table 8. Several findings are of interest. 

The first involves politics and public perceptions. The largest number of respondents (88 percent) expressed concern that national politics would continue to change 

forest management priorities, and 74 percent felt the public may not understand a 

disturbance-based approach. Also, trusting the agencies to make good decisions 

was perceived as a risk by more than two-thirds of respondents. 

Figure 5—Opinions about the value of historical conditions in forest management. Eugene-Springfield respondents 

were significantly more in favor of the use of historical disturbance (p < 0.05).
21

Public Acceptance of Disturbance-Based Forest Management

Table 8—Perceived risks or concerns associated with disturbance-based management

High/moderate Little/no risk

risk or concern or concern Not sure

Percent

National politics will keep changing the priorities. 88 7 4

The public may not understand this approach. 74 18 7

Potential for harvesting in old-growth stands. 70 25 5

Trusting the agencies to make good decisions. 69 28 3

Agencies will use this new language to justify excessive harvesting. 61 35 4

Too much harvesting overall. 60 32 8

Not enough science in decisions. 56 38 6

Will lead to additional road building in forests. 56 40 5

Not enough public involvement in decisions. 50 44 6

Visual impacts on forests. 45 51 4

The long-term nature of this strategy. 43 44 13

Too many areas being set aside and “locked up” from management. 35 59 6

Too little harvesting overall. 33 60 7

Too much public involvement in decisions. 32 64 5

This approach won’t pay for itself. 30 54 16

Additional risks centered on the issue of timber harvest in federal forests and 

decisionmaking. A substantial majority indicated concern that disturbance-based 

management might create potential for harvesting in old-growth stands, that it 

might be used as an excuse to justify more harvesting, that it would result in too 

much harvesting overall, or lead to more road building in forests. A majority also 

worried that not enough science would be incorporated into decisions, and that the 

public would not be adequately involved in decisionmaking processes. Other topics 

were considered to present much less risk. 

Using timber harvest to emulate disturbance—

The final question asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement with a 

series of statements about using harvesting methods to emulate historical disturbance over large blocks of federal forest land. These findings are shown in table 9. 

First, the greatest number (85 percent) agreed that forest reserves are still necessary for plant and animal conservation. Three-quarters agreed they would tend to 

support disturbance-based management plans that were adequately reviewed by 

scientists and that their support would hinge upon the type of harvesting techniques 

that were planned. 

These items were followed by the specific statement “I support the landscape 

level historical disturbance approach described above.” More than half (58 percent) 

indicated support. Notably, more than a quarter expressed uncertainty about this 

question. Meanwhile, slightly more than half expressed confidence that managers 

have sufficient knowledge of ecosystems to carry out this management approach.
22

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-581

Interestingly, 49 percent expressed concern that disturbance-based management 

would be used as an excuse to harvest timber at excessive levels, somewhat lower 

than those who rated this as a risk (table 8). Finally, the potential for economic 

losses generated fewer concerns.

Correlations Between Support and Respondent Characteristics

To further assess influences on public judgments about disturbance-based management, we conducted a bivariate correlation analysis to measure the relationship 

between citizen support for this approach and the following factors: (1) respondent 

knowledge of ecosystem project, terms, and processes; (2) trust in agencies; (3) past 

interactions with agencies; (4) perceptions of federal forest health in the McKenzie; 

(5) place of residency (Eugene-Springfield or upriver); and (6) education level. 

Additive scores were generated to represent support for disturbance-based 

management as well as each of the knowledge, agency trust, and past interactions 

variables. For knowledge of projects, terms, and processes, respondents who knew 

the meaning or answered correctly scored 1, and those who did not know the meaning or had not heard it scored 0. Responses to the other categorical variables (trust 

and past interactions) were organized on a scale from 1 to 4, where 1 corresponded 

to negative responses, and 4 to positive responses. Score ranges and bivariate correlation coefficients are shown in table 10.

Only two characteristics, residency and education, had no significant correlation with levels of support for disturbance-based management. Ecosystem knowledge, agency trust, and ratings of past interactions with agency personnel, were all 

positively correlated with support for disturbance-based management. Therefore, as 

Table 9—Opinions about using harvesting methods to emulate disturbance

Strongly Disagree/

agree/ strongly Not

agree disagree sure

Percent

Forest reserves (areas with no timber harvest) are still necessary for plant and 85 11 4

animal conservation.

I would support this approach if management plans are critically reviewed by scientists. 76 15 9

My support will be based on knowing the type of harvesting techniques planned. 75 16 8

I support the landscape-level historical disturbance approach described above. 58 15 27

I have confidence that agency managers know enough about forest and stream 53 33 14

ecosystems to carry out disturbance-based management.

I am concerned that plans based on historical disturbance will be used as an excuse 49 45 6

to cut too much timber.

I am concerned about economic losses from timber sales that leave live and dead trees. 31 62 7
23

Public Acceptance of Disturbance-Based Forest Management

Table 10—Bivariate correlations between 

support and respondent characteristics

Respondent Support 

characteristic Range: 7–28

Knowledge (projects)

Range: 0–4 0.382a

Knowledge (terms)

Range: 0–13 0.346a

Knowledge (processes)

Range: 0–7 0.356a

Agency trust

Range: 5–20 0.389a

Past interactions

Range: 9–36 0.460a

Perceptions of forest health -0.220a

Residency -0.080

Education 0.061

a Correlation is significant at p < 0.01.

knowledge of projects, places, and terms increased, so did support for disturbancebased management. Similarly, as opinions about trust and past interactions with 

agencies become more positive, support for a disturbance-based approach grows. 

Perceptions of forest health were negatively correlated with support, meaning that 

respondents who believed federal forests in the McKenzie to be less healthy showed 

greater support for disturbance-based management.

Summary of Key Findings

The purpose of this study was to examine understanding of and support for 

disturbance-emulating forest management techniques among an important group 

of stakeholders—the attentive public. These are the individuals who pay attention 

to local forest issues and are often the ones who first respond to new plans and 

practices. Our intent is to contribute to a greater understanding of the factors that 

influence citizen support for alternative management strategies on federal forest 

lands in the McKenzie River watershed. To better explore stakeholder characteristics, this study also compared the responses of two subgroups: residents of 

Eugene-Springfield and upriver communities. Research objectives were to assess 

(a) stakeholder understanding of natural disturbance processes and disturbancebased management techniques and the agencies that will implement these policies, 

(b) stakeholder acceptance for disturbance-based management, (c) stakeholder 
24

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-581

concerns pertaining to the risk and uncertainty inherent in this approach, and (d) 

potential barriers to future implementation of disturbance-based management. 

From the findings, we were able to identify a series of important points relevant to 

these objectives.

Participant Awareness and Orientation

The level of attention local citizens give to forest issues, the priority they place 

on environmental versus economically motivated management goals, and their 

perceptions of forest health all provide a context for understanding their ideas about 

disturbance-based management. Following are some key findings in these areas:

• McKenzie area residents tend to be well educated, and nearly all respondents in our survey pay a moderate to great deal of attention to forest management issues. This suggests we were successful in selecting members of 

the public considered to be most “attentive” to national forest issues. As 

such, they are among members of the public with whom resource managers are most likely to interact in formulation and implementation of forest 

plans.

• McKenzie citizens tend to give priority to environmental objectives over 

economic ones in forest management projects, suggesting area residents are 

not motivated to support projects by economic justifications alone.

• Perceptions about overall forest health in the McKenzie Basin were mixed. 

Measures of “forest health” can be subjective, but in the end, the rationale 

for using a historical range of variability model will be based on maintaining healthy forest conditions. This context seems to be most appropriate for 

communicating the historical disturbance message. Indeed, our analysis 

indicates that as citizens perceive forest health to be in peril, their support 

for disturbance-based management tends to increase. 

Knowledge

The measures of citizen knowledge of ecosystem management in our study are 

from self-reported scores of respondents. Although this is not an absolute measure, 

previous research indicates this method to be a fair assessment of citizen understanding of basic issues. Our inquiry into citizen understanding of the terms and 

concepts specific to disturbance-based management can help provide insight to the 

context in which the attentive public is likely to assess this approach. Key points are 

summarized here:
25

Public Acceptance of Disturbance-Based Forest Management

• Although past research has demonstrated that urban residents generally 

possess greater formal knowledge about natural resource issues (Arcury 

1990, Van Liere and Dunlap 1980), our research found few significant differences between Eugene-Springfield and upriver citizens. These results 

correspond to more recent studies, which suggest that differences between 

rural and urban environmental values and knowledge are becoming more 

muted, owing to shifts in rural natural resource dependency and exurbanmigration (Brunson et al. 1997, Fortmann and Kusel 1990, Jones et al. 1999, 

2003). Increasing numbers of retired residents and commuters to jobs in 

Eugene-Springfield, and declining dependence on timber income are trends 

that characterize upper McKenzie communities. Furthermore, education 

levels over the entire group were quite high, a factor commonly associated 

with greater environmental knowledge.

• Overall, respondents are knowledgeable about basic forest management 

terms and concepts. These findings are consistent with individuals who 

are mostly long-term residents in the McKenzie area, who claim to pay a 

moderate to great deal of attention to forest issues, and who are well educated. This level of knowledge also may reflect the effectiveness of efforts 

by Andrews Forest personnel, the forest agencies, and the local watershed 

council to increase public understanding of stream and river system health. 

Williams (2001) suggested familiarity with specific terms (e.g., riparian 

area, woody debris) may also be partially explained by their increasingly 

common usage among the media and relatively self-explanatory nature. 

Such knowledge, however, may also be attributed to the attentive public 

as individuals who consider these to be salient issues and who may exert 

some effort to become informed. As scientists and managers work to build 

literacy about and support for disturbance-based management, this heightened awareness may serve as a foundation for understanding more complex 

ideas associated with innovative approaches.

• Several findings suggest that some of the concepts specific to disturbancebased management are not intuitive for members of the public, even those 

who pay attention to management activities in the McKenzie. For example, 

the term historical range of variability (HRV), often used by managers to 

refer to disturbance-emulating management approaches, does not do much 

to describe the management technique they intend to use. Citizens may 

have difficulty visualizing what this approach might look like, adding to 

their uncertainty about it. This lack of clarity may cause citizens to doubt 

why disturbance-based management is appropriate or necessary. For this 
26

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-581

reason, scientists and managers will need to find more direct means to tell 

the story of disturbance-based management. Indeed, our analysis demonstrates that as knowledge of terms and processes increases, so does support.

• Similarly, citizens’ familiarity with specific projects and places in the 

McKenzie watershed is variable, suggesting that a majority of the attentive 

public has little awareness of current experimentation with disturbancebased management in the BRLS. It is also likely that few understand the 

purpose and objectives of the CCAMA, particularly its focus on experimentation. This assumption is supported by low familiarity with the Northwest 

Forest Plan, which likely translates into lack of understanding about specific land allocations associated with the plan (i.e., reserves, matrix, and 

AMAs) and the policy context in which experimentation with disturbancebased management takes place. Perhaps more importantly, this lack of 

exposure to local projects represents a missed opportunity for managers 

to engage the public in learning about alternative management strategies. 

Visits to these sites with scientists and managers also can help to establish 

more trusting relationships and improve communications with the public.

Forest Management Preferences

Many members of the public, particularly the attentive public, possess strongly 

held ideologies and value judgments regarding the use and management of natural 

resources (Bellah et al. 1985). Findings of note in this area of our study include:

• It is likely that citizens’ preference for following “nature’s way” to human 

intervention in ecosystem processes is related to their values for environmental concern over economic considerations. However, they also recognized that active management and forest thinning are necessary activities 

for sustaining forest health. Most citizens also believe timber production is 

appropriate on federal forest lands in the McKenzie, but many worry about 

the extent to which these activities will be carried out. These findings suggest a cautious support for management actions that involve some level of 

harvest, even to emulate disturbance. The process by which agencies solicit 

input from the public in such decisions will likely be a critical factor in 

building long-term acceptance for any approach that involves timber harvest. 

• Support for scientific experimentation and scientist involvement in federal 

forest management has grown since previous study in the region (Williams 

2001). Confidence in the information provided by scientists is also high. 

This is particularly encouraging for personnel on the CCAMA and BRLS, 
27

Public Acceptance of Disturbance-Based Forest Management

whose activities are largely focused on scientific experimentation. Indeed, 

researchers have suggested that demonstrated scientific involvement in 

management can help create and restore citizens’ trust in agencies (Stankey 

and Shindler 2006). 

Citizen-Agency Interactions

Given the perceived level of risk and uncertainty inherent to the disturbance-based 

management approach, positive public interactions and citizen trust in personnel 

will be central to overcoming barriers to future management plans. Our findings 

yielded several important conclusions about citizen-agency interactions in the 

McKenzie watershed:

• It is clear that trust between the public and agency personnel remains problematic. Of particular importance is that both the Forest Service and the 

BLM will need to consider their commitment to appropriately engaging 

citizens in planning activities. This usually involves treating trust-building 

as a central, long-term goal, not simply as an activity that is pursued on a 

per-project basis to smooth the way for controversial management objectives. 

• Confidence in agencies and the information they provide is also problematic. Nearly half of survey participants agreed with the statement “I look 

at forest management information skeptically because I do not trust the 

agencies.” Respondents also expressed skepticism about the openness of 

forest managers, use of public input, and their ability to provide reliable 

information to the public. This presents an obvious hurdle to scientists and 

managers working to build support for the use of disturbance-based and 

other ecosystem management strategies. Research has shown that the public’s lack of trust in agencies can lead to increased concerns about the risk 

associated with management activities (Brunson 1992, Kakoyannis et al. 

2001, Stankey et al. 2005) and can undermine efforts to increase knowledge 

about them. The low rankings overall in this study suggest the need for a 

more inclusive planning process. Certainly this is reflected in the additional 

handwritten comments from survey respondents, many of which suggested 

that agencies should not solicit public input if it is going to be ignored. 

• It is important to acknowledge that the McKenzie public’s responses about 

citizen-agency interactions are not universally negative. Many citizens 

make distinctions between the trustworthiness of local agency employees 

and agencies as institutions. These dichotomous views of agency credibility 

are not uncommon (Shindler 2000), nor are they limited to natural resource 
28

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-581

agencies. Citizen confidence in an institution however, may be shaken by 

a perception that local priorities will continually be trumped by regional 

or national ones or frustrations with seemingly impenetrable bureaucracy. 

Bearing this in mind, our findings suggest that support for alternative management strategies will most effectively be built at the local level, taking 

advantage of existing relationships between agency employees and citizens 

while working to build new ones. When discussing the context of project 

objectives it will be important to emphasize locally based benefits, priorities, and goals, rather than stressing the necessity of projects coming into 

compliance with regional (i.e., Northwest Forest Plan) or national agency 

directives. This will also mean listening to local citizens and addressing 

their concerns.

• It may be relevant that Eugene-Springfield residents held significantly 

more positive views about their interactions with federal forest agencies 

than upriver residents. Although past research has found rural residents are 

likely to have more trust in agencies than their urban counterparts (Steel 

et al. 1998), our findings concur with more recent studies that suggest this 

confidence is in decline (Brunson and Evans 2005, Shindler and Toman 

2003). For example, Brunson and Evans (2005) suggested that rural residents may be the first to be affected by declines in forest health, such as the 

incidence of large wildfires and unsuccessful attempts to prevent or control 

them. These residents may be more likely to perceive inaction on the part 

of federal agencies as incompetence or an inability to address such problems (Kelly 2005, Shindler and Toman 2003). Other research suggests that 

frequent transfers of agency personnel or downsizing practices have eroded 

relationships between rural residents and agency personnel who were once, 

but now are no longer, long-term members of the communities where they 

work (Wondolleck 1988).

• Although researchers from the H.J. Andrews Forest were rated particularly 

trustworthy, nearly one-quarter of respondents were not sure how to rate 

this group. A substantial segment of respondents also had no basis for opinion about interactions with agency personnel. These figures taken together 

suggest a lack of contact between citizens, even those who pay attention to 

forest issues, and important agency personnel in the area. This represents 

an opportunity for scientists and managers to increase outreach and educational activities at the experimental forest, particularly those related to the 

BRLS. The advantages for improved communication and trust building are 

apparent. 
29

Public Acceptance of Disturbance-Based Forest Management

Information Sources

Because most agencies have limited time and resources to devote to communicating 

with the public about forest management, it is important to know which outreach 

strategies are most effective among citizens. 

• The high ratings of conversations with agency personnel, guided field trips 

to forest sites, and small workshops demonstrate the efficacy of interactive 

forms of communication. On-the-ground, face-to-face forms of information 

exchange have met with positive results in numerous local settings, 

especially for influencing public judgments and behaviors (Shindler et 

al. 2004; Toman et al. 2004, 2006). Because McKenzie residents believe 

these activities are useful, agency personnel can move ahead with some 

assurance that such strategies will help increase citizen understanding 

and are likely to build support for disturbance-based management. 

• Newspapers and newsletters are still relevant forms of information 

dissemination. However, unlike more interactive exchanges, these mass 

media forms of communication are more useful for building awareness 

of programs than for changing citizen behavior (Toman et al. 2006). 

Numerous written comments on the surveys expressed the desire for more 

information in these formats. Our attempts to identify a study sample using 

agency mailing lists indicate a need for improvement in this area as well. 

We were unable to uncover any comprehensive contact list such as might be 

used for regular distribution of newsletters or other outreach materials. At 

present, the Willamette National Forest outreach by mail appears to exist 

primarily for distribution of Schedules of Proposed Action to a short list 

of interested parties, many of whom reside outside of the McKenzie River 

watershed. 

• The high ratings of watershed councils and other citizen groups as 

information sources suggest it may be prudent for agencies to more 

closely partner with these organizations as a conduit for dissemination 

of disturbance-based management information. Not only are these 

groups viewed as useful, credible sources, they also represent access to 

a network of citizens with which the agencies might not otherwise have 

regular contact. Agencies may be able to “piggyback” on communications 

distributed to members of these groups to provide important details about 

BRLS activities.
30

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-581

Acceptance and Support for Disturbance-Based Management

A primary finding from this study is the cautious support demonstrated for 

disturbance-based management among the McKenzie River attentive public. 

There are, however, a number of important qualifications to this support. 

Additional key findings include:

• Citizens were most concerned about how the influence of national politics 

will affect the consistency of agency policies toward disturbance-based 

management. This sentiment was echoed in a number of the written comments on survey forms. This reflects a growing awareness of, and frustration with, the political context in which forest management takes place, 

where changes in national administration have the potential to substantially 

alter management objectives and outcomes. Citizens’ concerns correspond 

with the common sentiment expressed by agency scientists and managers in 

preliminary interviews that it is difficult to manage forests for the long term 

when political priorities “change every 4 years.” Whereas citizens may trust 

their local ranger district to design plans and projects, they may have little 

confidence that the federal government will let personnel make good on 

these decisions (Shindler et al. 2002c).

• Timber harvesting practices associated with disturbance-based management (or any form of forest management) is a primary concern for citizens 

in the watershed, particularly the potential for excessive thinning, increased 

road building, and harvesting in old-growth stands. Because some disturbance-based practices in the BRLS were planned to occur in late-successional forest stands, these concerns will be difficult to overcome. Agency 

participants in our preliminary field tour recognized this as one of the 

most controversial aspects of the project for some groups in the watershed. 

Indeed, one member of a local group commented, “Historical disturbance is 

a very appropriate guide for forest management [and] a valuable tool in forest restoration. My heartburn stems from the way it is being implemented, 

in old-growth stands and not in second growth where I feel it is most necessary.” Although the agencies may debate the accuracy of characterizing 

stands in certain project areas as “old growth,” findings indicate a segment 

of the public perceives these places as threatened. They are not likely to 

support disturbance-based management projects on a larger scale without 

first having these concerns addressed.
31

Public Acceptance of Disturbance-Based Forest Management

• Among the areas of least concern for citizens was the idea that a disturbance-based approach would not pay for itself. This feeling was echoed 

during conversations on the public field trip to BRLS project sites, where 

some participants indicated they would hypothetically be willing to see the 

agency subsidize such projects if the revenue gained from timber extraction 

were not enough to cover costs. These findings may be important because 

they suggest that financial concerns are unlikely to represent a barrier to 

further implementation of disturbance-based management, at least from the 

local public’s viewpoint.

• Currently, most respondents believe forest reserves are still a necessary part 

of forest planning. Agency personnel must take this seriously—particularly those who believe that disturbance-based management may serve as 

an alternative to the late-successional reserves outlined by the Northwest 

Forest Plan. At this point, the informed citizenry has strong feelings that 

these areas are necessary for plant and animal conservation, and may not 

support plans that would alter them in a substantial way.

• With respect to citizens’ outright support for disturbance-based management, it is too soon to tell. Although more than half say they support the 

approach, a large segment also indicates they are not sure. These findings 

have several implications. First, citizens may not have a full understanding of the approach on which to base their judgments. Second, citizens 

may be waiting to see the outcomes of BRLS experiments before deciding. 

Third, participants may be hesitant to express support if they feel agencies 

cannot be trusted. It is clear a substantial segment of the McKenzie public is unwilling to grant agencies carte blanche to implement this strategy 

without demonstrating their own credibility and the science that justifies 

disturbance-based management.

Conclusions

Citizens’ support for disturbance-based management in the McKenzie watershed 

will be the product of several factors. Although agency personnel may be tempted 

to believe that an increase in community understanding of this approach will 

be adequate to produce citizen support, providing additional information to 

stakeholders is just one piece of a multifaceted puzzle. Findings here indicate 

public opinion will also be influenced by the relevancy of planning and 

implementation of disturbance-based management within the context of 

local conditions as well as by the quality of agency interactions with citizens 

(Shindler et al. 2002c).
32

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-581

Results from this study are relevant to local Forest Service and BLM managers 

because they represent the opinions of residents in the McKenzie watershed communities who pay close attention to federal forest management. However, because 

the attributes of this group—higher education levels, more knowledge of forest 

issues, length of residency in the area—may be different from other communities, 

these results may not be generalized to other agency settings. Nevertheless, as the 

populations of forest communities throughout the Northwest continue to evolve, 

influenced by changes such as exurban migration patterns and shifts in local economies, it is likely these findings will ultimately be useful beyond the current study. 

The data show that citizens in the McKenzie watershed area may eventually 

support some form of disturbance-based management. This support is likely to be 

tied to two factors: (1) the ability of the agencies to provide a sound rationale for 

its use and (2) the degree to which citizens are genuinely engaged in the discussion. It is apparent the first factor will be better addressed by involving scientists 

in explanations of these practices, including assessments of potential risks as well 

as the desired outcomes. Currently the disturbance-based management concept is 

a nebulous idea for most citizens, and few places exist where the public can see for 

themselves the short- and long-term consequences of this approach to forest management. 

The second factor can be enhanced by the presence of scientists, but the responsibility for improving communications with the public is clearly on agency management personnel at all organizational levels. This task will not be an easy one. Our 

studies show that over the long term, at least in the last 10 years during which our 

research team has been conducting social research in the McKenzie watershed, 

little has been accomplished to improve citizen-agency interactions. Although gains 

have been made elsewhere in the region by focusing attention on public outreach 

and partnership arrangements (Shindler and Gordon 2005, Shindler et al. 2004), 

these typically have been within the context of the threat of wildfire and need for 

fuel reduction. Conditions are different in the McKenzie watershed, but attentive 

citizens in these communities perceive little positive change in agency efforts to 

foster a more open public planning process. 

Individual personnel working in the CCAMA are technically competent and 

well-meaning; however, over the years there appears to have been a shortage of 

agency commitment to building a meaningful relationship with the McKenzie 

community. Now, with downsizing and decreased funding affecting all operations, difficult decisions will need to be made about just how much to invest in 

outreach activities. In any case, for disturbance-based management to succeed, an 

atmosphere of learning together through face-to-face interaction with communities 
33

Public Acceptance of Disturbance-Based Forest Management

seems essential (Shindler et al. 2002a). This will necessarily include managers, 

researchers, and members of the attentive public who represent numerous points 

of view and will carry the message (positive or negative) to their wider group of 

constituents. 

Within this context, our research identifies several areas where agency personnel may focus their efforts to communicate more effectively with citizens about 

disturbance-based management. 

1. Acknowledge the reality of the McKenzie communities and the important 

role of citizens who are attentive to forest issues. There is little doubt, and 

certainly it is no surprise, that public attitudes in the McKenzie watershed lean 

toward environmentalist values. New management strategies, especially those 

involving harvesting, will be scrutinized here more so than most other places. 

Such interest in management activities could be viewed as an opportunity to craft 

programs that ensure informed public access to decision processes and to further 

build an ecological literacy among stakeholders (Orr 1992). Most important in this 

process will be a need to engage the attentive public in meaningful ways. They 

are already a highly relevant part of the community dynamic, paying attention to 

agency actions and interpreting what they see for their (general) public constituents. 

These individuals are the first to respond to any new action, and often do so 

through sophisticated means. Because they are articulate, this is a group most likely 

to respond to scientific rationale for alternative management strategies. Seeking 

out their ideas and experiences will improve the quality of the information factored 

into decisions (Fischer 2000). These activities also serve as an effective means for 

building community support and understanding of the disturbance-based approach. 

Additionally, engaging the attentive public can provide important feedback on 

public attitudes regarding the eventual implementation of management practices 

(Molina et al. 1997). As Jasanoff (1990) argued, 

Acknowledging the legitimate role of citizens and their concerns does not 

diminish the importance of scientific understanding. However, attempts to 

ignore or discount public judgments of local conditions could undermine 

consideration of science in political settings, where decisions occur. 

2. Clarify objectives of HRV and active disturbance-based management. The 

HRV concept is not an intuitive one for the public. Under these conditions, it would 

be easy for agency personnel to simply take the point of view, “Trust us, we know 

what we are doing.” However, the Forest Service and the BLM currently do not 

have sufficient credibility with citizens to find much success in this approach. There 

is a need for a more tangible message; for example, citizens will respond better 
34

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-581

to management actions they can directly attribute to objectives for forest health, 

wildfire fuels management, habitat protection, and other widely accepted goals. 

But neither HRV nor disturbance-based management is likely to be the catch 

phrase that will capture their support. 

The current approach may be acceptable on small plots within the Andrews 

Forest, but to expand this experimentation phase to other settings will require a 

better public dialogue. There simply are too many questions and concerns about 

the future of remaining old growth, the potential for excessive harvesting, levels 

of scientific review, political influence from outside the region, and a general lack 

of understanding of outcomes. 

Such discussion provides room for clarifying the terms and objectives of 

disturbance-based management. For example, many citizens support “active 

management” on federal forest lands in the McKenzie watershed. However, it is 

unlikely that everyone shares an understanding of this idea or buys into how it 

might play out on the ground. Now is an opportunity to discuss the specifics of a 

desired approach as well as the existing need for more assertive (active) management in local forests. 

This will mean articulating the disturbance-based message in clear and consistent terms. One challenge will be to objectify the concept for citizens by making 

it specific to their interests. It may be useful to cast the problem with forest health 

as the central focus and then link this concern to the role alternative management 

practices can play. Public attitudes and behavior are often tied to the specificity 

with which policies are presented (Stankey and Shindler 2006). In the abstract, 

people support good ideas (like biodiversity or species protection), but they tend 

to really sit up and take notice when these ideas begin to translate to treatments on 

the ground in familiar places. Five questions that can help clarify for citizens the 

necessary specifics of planned actions are adapted from Zinn et al. (1998):

1. What local site is involved? 

2. What issues drive the action? 

3. What actions are proposed? 

4. When will it happen? 

5. How long before we know the outcomes? 

Clear and consistent objectives allow citizens to become comfortable with 

specific practices and will better prepare them to reach agreement on an appropriate 

strategy (Shindler and Gordon 2005). Alternatively, failure to clearly convey the 

motives and details of disturbance-based management for the public is likely 

to engender distrust, misperceptions of agency intentions, and unwillingness to 

support management objectives. 
35

Public Acceptance of Disturbance-Based Forest Management

3. Take advantage of existing knowledge and concerns to increase understanding of disturbance-based management. The high level of basic knowledge about 

forests among McKenzie watershed residents is well documented (Shindler et al. 

1996, Williams 2001). The current study confirms that knowledge levels remain 

high, certainly with the area’s attentive public. This is also a particularly welleducated group. Findings indicate citizens are poised to receive and understand 

more specific information about disturbance-based management and the desired 

ecosystem characteristics of this approach.

The data show that the local attentive public access many sources of information. Overall, they value more interactive approaches, particularly those including 

key agency personnel, researchers, and local watershed councils. Such interactions 

on field visits, at demonstration sites, and in small interactive workshops have been 

shown to be the best methods for changing attitudes and altering citizen behavior 

toward resource issues such as forest health and fuel reduction activities (Shindler 

et al. 2002b, Toman et al. 2006). These formats of information exchange are also the 

most effective for building relationships among parties. This will be important as 

the attentive groups branch out and carry their informed message throughout their 

community networks.

An initial tendency among management agencies might be to shy away from 

outreach activities as they could serve to “stir the pot” of controversy about local 

practices. Although calling attention to specific projects and practices could mobilize action on the part of certain groups, it should not be seen as creating opposition 

where it did not exist. Such latent positions are inevitably present and are certain to 

become overt once project implementation begins (Stankey and Shindler 2006). By 

being more open and explicit about details during the planning phase, the opportunity is available for discussion, informed debate, and learning. Through these 

processes, the potential for building acceptance and support exists.

4. Address issues of uncertainty and risk. Uncertainty and risk are primary 

factors in the public’s willingness to accept forest management practices, 

particularly those that are unfamiliar or untested (Shindler and Beckley 2006). 

In risk-averse environments, public resistance to programs makes it tempting 

to overstate the confidence in the outcomes of policies and specific practices. 

Discussions of the disturbance-based approach will need to be frank about the 

challenges inherent to this type of management, the consequences associated 

with it, and the specific nature of the management techniques used to emulate 

disturbance. Because the ambiguities inherent to innovative types of management 

can translate into increased perceptions of risk (Kakoyannis et al. 2001), scientists 

and managers working in the BRLS will need to help citizens distinguish between 
36

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-581

the uncertainties (“we’re just not sure”) and the known risks associated with 

this approach. This will mean that agencies must be forthcoming about difficult 

decisions and the choices involved. 

Citizens’ understanding of uncertainty provides a context in which managers 

and scientists can discuss how mistakes or unintended consequences of experimental management will be dealt with or mitigated. This is best pursued through 

face-to-face discussion in terms the public can understand. It is important to be 

direct about the likelihood that something “bad” (e.g., an escaped burn, extensive 

smoke, altered viewshed) might actually occur and how managers intend to deal 

with it. If this is done on a demonstration site, it becomes easier to move the discussion to other places where future treatments are desired. People are more likely to 

accept management activities when they have had a chance to see them in action 

and become comfortable with the outcomes (Gregory 2002). More open, interactive 

exchanges among managers, scientists, and citizens will be useful for evaluating 

potential scenarios prior to policy changes. When given a range of options, citizens 

can help decide, and will accept, those that work best for local forests (Ehrenhaldt 

1994).

5. Focus on improving citizen-agency interactions. People respect and respond 

to individuals they view as trustworthy. As most everyone recognizes, building 

trust is a long-term proposition; alternatively, it can be lost in a single action. Thus, 

achieving a balance point is a continual process of adjustment and working together 

(Westley 1995). In the case of local forests, the public is looking for genuine leadership from agency personnel (Shindler and Beckley 2006). Citizens want to know 

that managers share their concerns for resources important to the local community. 

Agency actions and professional competence are the criteria by which most people 

will judge the sincerity of these efforts (Stankey and Shindler 2006). In the case of 

the McKenzie watershed, it is important to remember that trust is effectively built at 

the personal level. Local personnel can get projects accomplished regardless of how 

people feel about the larger bureaucracy. A key aspect of this approach is to choose 

the right leaders for the outreach job and then support them (Shindler and Gordon 

2005). The ability to make genuine connections with citizens is a special talent; not 

everyone is adept at this aspect of the job. Strategies will include creating opportunities to meet the local community in their setting. Be prepared to understand and 

learn from the public’s concerns about issues of local importance. 

Perhaps the most important element of building successful citizen-agency 

interactions will be creating realistic expectations among all parties (Shindler et al. 

2002c). This will include redefining the roles that citizens and agency personnel are 
37

Public Acceptance of Disturbance-Based Forest Management

expected to play in making decisions about federal forest management. McKenzie 

citizens expect to know more about management than what standard National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents can provide. They are concerned 

about ecosystem health, but are open to the idea of some level of timber harvest 

on federal forest lands. They are a complex group with complex perspectives, and 

many currently believe there are few effective places to share their perspectives 

about the BRLS and its objectives. Nor do they feel well informed as to what these 

objectives might be. Meanwhile, the operations surrounding the BRLS have been 

relatively insulated from citizen perceptions of disturbance-based management 

under the umbrella of science and experimentation. These circumstances represent 

an opportunity to employ the flexibility and experimentation of adaptive management and expand the role citizens can play in improving ecosystem health. 

It is clear that acceptance of disturbance-based management on the McKenzie 

watershed is contingent upon whether the public believes it has received credible 

information about projects and has had access to planning processes. Successfully 

involving citizens will mean creating a legitimate role for them before management 

objectives are set in stone and implementation begins. It is also clear that citizens 

would like to see evidence of scientific involvement and project review. In the end, 

public acceptance of management practices is not so much determined by the project outcomes as by the processes through which decisions were made (Kakoyannis 

et al. 2001, Wondolleck 1988). There is no denying this type of citizen participation 

consumes both time and resources, but there are many reasons to believe these 

investments will pay off over the long term.

Metric Equivalent

When you know:	 Multiply by:	 To find:

Acres 0.405 Hectares

Literature Cited

Andrews Experimental Forest LTER. 2002. H.J. Andrews Experimental 

Forest: Long Term Ecological Research. http://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/. 

(09 December 2008).

Arcury, T.A. 1990. Environmental attitude and environmental knowledge. 

Human Organization. 49: 300–304.

Babbie, E. 2001. The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth 

Publishing Company. 498 p.
38

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-581

Bellah, R.; Madison, R.; Sullivan, W. [and others]. 1985. Habits of the heart: 

individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley, CA: University of 

California Press. 376 p.

Brunson, M. 1992. Professional bias, public perspectives, and communication 

pitfalls for natural resource managers. Rangelands. 14: 292–295.

Brunson, M.; Shindler, B.; Steel, B. 1997. Consensus and dissension among 

rural and urban publics concerning federal forest management in the Pacific 

Northwest. In: Steel, B., ed. Public lands management in the West: citizens, 

interest groups, and values. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press: 83–94.

Brunson, M.W.; Evans, J. 2005. Badly burned? Effects of an escaped prescribed 

burn on social acceptability of wildland fuels treatments. Journal of Forestry. 

103: 134–138.

Cascade Center for Ecosystem Management [CCEM]. 2001. Blue River 

landscape study: testing an alternative approach. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 

University. http://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/research/related/ccem/pdf/brlp.

pdf. (09 December 2008).

Cissel, J.H.; Swanson, F.J.; Weisberg, P.J. 1999. Landscape management 

using historical fire regimes: Blue River, Oregon. Ecological Applications. 

9: 1217–1231.

Clawson, M. 1975. Forest for whom and for what? Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins 

University Press. 175 p.

Dillman, D.A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. New 

York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 325 p.

Ehrenhaldt, A. 1994. Let the people decide between spinach and broccoli. In: 

Governing: a monthly magazine whose primary audience is state and local 

government officials. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 7: 6–7.

Endter-Wada, J.; Blahna, D.; Krannich, R.; Brunson, M. 1998. A framework 

for understanding social science contributions to ecosystem management. 

Ecological Applications. 8: 891–904.

Firey, W. 1960. Man, mind and land: a theory of resource use. Glencoe, IL: The 

Free Press. 256 p.

Fischer, F. 2000. Citizens, experts, and the environment: the politics of local 

knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 352 p.
39

Public Acceptance of Disturbance-Based Forest Management

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 [and others]. [Irregular pagination].

Fortmann, L.; Kusel, J. 1990. New voices, old beliefs: forest environmentalism 

among new and long-standing rural residents. Rural Sociology. 55: 214–232.

Gregory, R.S. 2002. Incorporating value trade-offs into community-based 

environmental risk decisions. Environmental Values. 11: 461–488.

Grumbine, R.E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology. 

8: 27–38.

Jasanoff, S. 1990. The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, 

MA: Harvard University Press. 320 p.

Jones, R.E.; Fly, J.M.; Cordell, H.K. 1999. How green is my valley? Tracking 

rural and urban environmentalism in the southern Appalachian ecoregion. 

Rural Sociology. 64: 482–499.

Jones, R.E.; Fly, J.M.; Talley, J.; Cordell, H.K. 2003. Green migration into 

rural America: the new frontier of environmentalism. Society and Natural 

Resources. 16: 221–238.

Kakoyannis, C.; Shindler, B.; Stankey, G. 2001. Understanding the social 

acceptability of natural resource decisionmaking processes 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.

Kelly, E.C. 2005. People in the forests: interactions between community and forest 

health in Wallowa County. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 169 p. M.S. 

thesis.

Landres, P.B.; Morgan, P.; Swanson, F.J. 1999. Overview of the use of natural 

variability concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications. 

9: 1179–1188.

Lehman, D.R. 1989. Market research and analysis. Homewood, IL: Richard D. 

Irwin Publishing. 896 p.

McCaffrey, S.M. 2004. Fighting fire with education: What is the best way to reach 

out to homeowners? Journal of Forestry. 102: 12–19.
40

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-581

Molina, R.; Vance, N.; Weigand, J. [and others]. 1997. Special forest products: 

integrating social, economic, and biological considerations into ecosystem 

management. In: Franklin, J.F.; Kohm, K.A., eds. Creating a forestry for the 

21st century. Washington, DC: Island Press: 315–333.

Orr, D.W. 1992. Ecological literacy: education and the transition to a postmodern 

world. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 210 p.

Parsons, R.; Morgan, P.; Landres, P. 1998. Applying the natural variability 

concept: towards desired future conditions. In: D'Econ, R.G.; Johnson, J.F.; 

Ferguson, E.A., eds. Ecosystem management of forested landscapes: directions 

and implementations, Nelson. British Columbia, Canada: 222–237.

Perera, A.H.; Buse, L.J. 2004. Emulating natural disturbance in forest 

management: an overview. In: Perera, A.H.; Buse, L.J.; Weber, M.G., eds. 

Emulating natural forest landscape disturbance: concepts and applications. 

New York: Columbia University Press. 315 p.

Rapp, V. 2003. Dynamic landscape management. Science Update 3. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 12 p.

Shindler, B. 2000. Landscape-level management: it's all about context. Journal of 

Forestry. 98: 10–14.

Shindler, B. 2003. Implementing adaptive management: an evaluation of AMAs in 

the Pacific Northwest. In: Shindler, B.A.; Beckley, T.M.; Finley, M.C., eds. Two 

paths towards sustainable forests: public values in Canada and the United States. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 210–225.

Shindler, B.; Beckley, T. 2006. Local partnerships for sustainable forestry in 

Canada and the United States: guidelines for resource professionals. Canadian 

Embassy Research Report. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 32 p.

Shindler, B.; Cheek, K.A.; Stankey, G.H. 1999. Monitoring and evaluating 

citizen-agency 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.; Miller, K.; Toman, E.; Olsen, C. 2004. Citizen bus tour of the B&B 

Complex Fire: survey summary. Research report. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 

University. 8 p.
41

Public Acceptance of Disturbance-Based Forest Management

Shindler, B.; Neburka, J. 1995. “It was the most arduous experience of my life:” 

citizen participation on the Willamette National Forest 1989–1994. Corvallis, 

OR: Oregon State University, Department of Forest Resources. 32 p.

Shindler, B.; Neburka, J. 1997. Public participation in forest planning: eight 

attributes of success. Journal of Forestry. 95: 17–19.

Shindler, B.; Steel, B.; List, P. 1996. Public judgments of adaptive management: a 

response from forest communities. Journal of Forestry. 94: 4–12.

Shindler, B.; Toman, E. 2002. A longitudinal analysis of fuel reduction in the Blue 

Mountains: public perspectives on the use of prescribed fire and mechanical 

thinning. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 76 p.

Shindler, B.; Toman, E. 2003. Fuel reduction strategies in forest communities: a 

longitudinal analysis of public support. Journal of Forestry. 101: 8–14.

Shindler, B.; Williams, R.; Wright, A.S. 2002a. Public knowledge, preferences, 

and involvement in adaptive ecosystem management. Corvallis, OR: Department 

of Forest Resources, Oregon State University. 70 p.

Shindler, B.; Wilton, J.; Wright, A. 2002b. A social assessment of ecosystem 

health: public perspectives on Pacific Northwest forests. Corvallis, OR: Oregon 

State University. 110 p.

Shindler, B.A.; Brunson, M.; Stankey, G.H. 2002c. 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.

Shindler, B.A.; Gordon, R. 2005. Communication strategies for fire management: 

creating effective citizen-agency partnerships [DVD program]. Corvallis, OR: 

Oregon State University.

Stankey, G.H.; Clark, R.N.; Bormann, B.T. 2005. Adaptive management of 

natural resources: theory, concepts, and management institutions. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-654. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 73 p.

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.
42

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-581

Stankey, G.H.; Shindler, B. 2006. Formation of social acceptability judgments and 

their implications for management of rare and little-known species. Conservation 

Biology. 20: 28–37.

Steel, B.; Shindler, B.; Brunson, M. 1998. Social acceptability of ecosystem 

management in the Pacific Northwest. In: Soden, D.L.; Lamb, B.L.; Tennert, 

J.R., eds. Ecosystems management: a social science perspective. Dubuque, IA: 

Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company: 147–160.

Toman, E.; Shindler, B.; Brunson, M. 2006. Fire and fuel management 

communication strategies: citizen evaluations of agency outreach activities. 

Society and Natural Resources. 19: 321–336.

Toman, E.; Shindler, B.; Reed, M. 2004. Prescribed fire: the influence of site 

visits on citizen attitudes. The Journal of Environmental Education. 35: 13–17.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. Census data for the State of Oregon. http://www.

census.gov/census2007/states/or.html. (09 December 2008).

Van Liere, K.D.; Dunlap, R.E. 1980. The social bases of environmental concern: 

a review of hypotheses, explanations, and empirical evidence. The Public 

Opinion Quarterly. 44: 181–197.

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.

Williams, R.L. 2001. Public knowledge, preferences and involvement in 

adaptive ecosystem management. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 

137 p. M.S. thesis.

Wondolleck, J.M. 1988. Public lands conflict and resolution: managing national 

forest disputes. New York: Plenum Press. 263 p.

Wright, A.S. 2000. Citizen knowledge and opinions about watershed management 

in the South Santiam Basin in Oregon. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 

104 p. M.S. thesis.

Zinn, H.; Manfredo, M.; Vaske, J.; Wittman, K. 1998. Using normative beliefs 

to determine the acceptability of wildlife management actions. Society and 

Natural Resources. 11: 649–662.
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site 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
Agriculture

esearch Station

e

3890

se, $300