DOC

A Forestry Program for Oregon

By Roger Edwards,2014-07-09 08:25
13 views 0
A Forestry Program for Oregon

A Forestry Program for Oregon:

    Public Opinion About Forests

    & Forest Management

    in Oregon

    A Literature Review

    June, 2001

    Prepared for:

    Oregon Department of Forestry

    Prepared by:

    1100 NW Glisan, Suite 300-B, Portland, OR 97209 Phone 503-220-0575, Fax 503-220-0576 E-Mail DHM@DHM-INC.COM

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

    Davis, Hibbitts & McCaig, Inc. is especially grateful for the contributions of the Oregon Department of Forestry staff and the committee of planners and advisors outside the Department chosen to direct this project. In addition to the Department, a special thank you to the following for their assistance and cooperation with this literature review: Oregon Forest Industries Council, Oregon Forest Resources Institute, Oregon State University College of Forestry, PacifiCorp, Weyerhaeuser Company, and Willamette Industries.

    Despite this assistance, Davis, Hibbitts & McCaig, Inc. remains responsible not only for the accuracy of the data reported, but also for any comments that go beyond the data into interpretation or prescription. The views contained in this report are those of Davis, Hibbitts & McCaig, Inc. and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oregon Board of Forestry or the Department.

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 1 I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 3 II. SYNTHESIS OF SELECTED ACADEMIC PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH OF

    FORESTRY AND RELATED TOPICS. ................................................................. 4

    A. National surveys/national forests and range management ............................ 4

    B. Forest management/clearcutting, ecosystem management, and range

    management .................................................................................................. 4

    C. Forest health .................................................................................................. 5

    D. Forest types and recreation ........................................................................... 5

    E. Public opinion and forest management .......................................................... 6

    F. Summary ........................................................................................................ 6 III. PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH AND THE CRITERIA FOR FOREST

    SUSTAINABILITY ................................................................................................. 8

    A. Criterion 1: Conservation of biological diversity ............................................. 9

    B. Criterion 2: Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems ........ 13

    C. Criterion 3: Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality ................ 17

    D. Criterion 4: Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources .... 19

    E. Criterion 5: Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon cycles ...... 22

    F. Criterion 6: Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple

    socioeconomic benefits to meet the needs of society .................................. 24

    G. Criterion 7: Legal, institutional and economic framework for forest

    conservation and sustainable management ................................................. 27 IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 31 APPENDIX / BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................. 32

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    Overview

    This literature review of public opinion about forests and forest management is part of a larger study to assist the Oregon Board of Forestry with revision of The Forestry

    Program for Oregon. The review examines current and past attitudes primarily in Oregon, selecting those studies and questions most directly relevant to the seven criteria for forest sustainability (CFS), the organizing framework for the Board’s current strategic planning effort.

    Selected academic research

    The review first looks at selected academic public opinion research, which covered topics like clearcutting, economic and recreational value of forests, and fire and wildlife management. The research generally indicated Oregonians want a balance between wildlife protection and jobs, with regional differences in public attitudes toward issues like clearcutting, logging old growth, and range management. Although aspects of the CFS were touched on by the academic research, it was limited.

    Public opinion research

    The report next examines private survey and focus group public opinion research over the last decade and more, with the findings organized around the Criteria for Forest Sustainability (CFS). The findings are organized by each criterion for forest sustainability, with selected questions being the most directly relevant to each and its

    indicators.

    ; Criterion 1: Conservation of biological diversity. Oregonians think that fish and

    wildlife habitat and wildlife diversity protection still need improving, although

    there was a slight decrease over the last 15 years in the belief that harvesting

    trees was harmful to fish habitat. Salmon habitat has become a bigger issue over

    the last decade. The public seems to relate more to ―wildlife habitat‖ than

    ―biological diversity.‖

    ; Criterion 2: Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems.

    Oregonians have had a continuing view that forest management should focus on

    reforestation. They also have been concerned about clearcut land and harvesting

    at sustainable levels. Varying responses indicate Oregonians may be unsure

    about reforestation requirements. Support for protecting old growth in national

    forests from harvest has increased notably in the last decade. They also care

    about protecting forest land from urban development.

    ; Criterion 3: Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality. Over the last

    15 years, there was a decrease in sentiment that harvesting trees was good for

    forest health. In 1986, the public said the second most important task for the

    Board of Forestry was minimizing damage from insects and disease, but more

    recent surveys have not tracked the relationship between these factors and forest

    health.

    A Forestry Program for OregonJune, 2001 1

    DHM Literature Review

; Criterion 4: Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources. Positive

    public opinion may be decreasing about management of soil erosion and water

    quality. However, the research does not clearly reveal how much the public

    knows about how things have changed. For example, Oregonians like buffer

    zones along streams and think they are adequate to protect water resources, but

    know very little about specific existing requirements.

    ; Criterion 5: Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon cycles. The

    biggest change over the review period is that researchers are asking about global

    warming in Oregon, although most of the focus has been on the effects of air

    pollution and emissions rather than any relationship to forests and forest products. ; Criterion 6: Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple

    socioeconomic benefits to meet the needs of society. The role of the forest as an

    economic force is well documented, with a consistent strong positive belief

    among Oregonians in the importance of the forest products industry to Oregon’s

    economy over time while at the same time believing the forest industry will not

    continue to be a major employer in the state. Few questions have been asked

    about the public’s cultural, social, and spiritual values related to forests.

    ; Criterion 7: Legal, institutional and economic framework for forest conservation

    and sustainable management. Government and state forestry officials seem to

    have gained favor as forest managers and forestry officials and the forest

    products industry seem to have gained trust from 1986 to 1997. In the last six

    years, positive ratings of forest protection laws increased, in large part to a

    decrease in those who did not know. There also is a continuing interest among

    Oregonians to support forest research and education. The vast scope of this

    criterion offers ample opportunities to further explore public opinion, including

    public participation in policy and decision making, investment and tax policies,

    and allocating resources for monitoring indicators.

    Conclusion

    This review showed that existing public opinion research has covered many topics that are encompassed within the seven criteria for sustainability. However, the completeness varies considerably depending on the criterion.

    Certain issues, such as clearcutting and old growth, were well documented in the studies. Other issues such as forest health and carbon stores are newer and not as well documented. Recommendations for future research will be used as part of the development of phases two and three of this project, which are focus group and survey research. When the project is complete, the body of research on public opinion in Oregon will be more complete and provide a good foundation of social information for future sustainable forest management planning.

    A Forestry Program for OregonJune, 2001 2

    DHM Literature Review

    I. INTRODUCTION

    The following report is part of a larger study to assist the Oregon Board of Forestry

    with its strategic planning process The Forestry Program for Oregon that will

    frame policy initiatives and guide the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), the

    forest community, and the public as they seek to attain the goal of sustainable forest

    management. The purpose of this report is to review literature on social assessment