ContentslistsavailableatSciVerseScienceDirect
Landscape and Urban Planning
j o ur na l ho me p ag e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / l a n d u r b p l a n
The effects of place meanings and social capital on desired forest management outcomes: A stated preference experiment
Jordan W. Smith
a,∗, Christos Siderelis
b, Roger L. Moore
b, Dorothy H. Anderson
baPurdueUniversity,FORS201A,195MarstellerStreet,WestLafayette,IN47907,UnitedStates
bNorthCarolinaStateUniversity,Box8004,BiltmoreHall,Raleigh,NC27695-8004,UnitedStates
a r t i c l e i n f o
Articlehistory:
Received21September2011
Receivedinrevisedform20March2012 Accepted27March2012
Available online 12 April 2012
Keywords:
Rankedlogit Randomutilitymodel Trust
Intra-communitysocialnetworks Publicchoice
a b s t r a c t
Plannersandmanagersresponsibleforpublic-trustresourcesareoftenfacedwithmakingdifficultvalue- ladendecisionsrequiringtradeoffsbetweenalternative,andoftencompeting,outcomes.Tomakemore informeddecisionswithinvolatilesocio-politicalclimates,resourcemanagersandplannersneedan understandingofthebenefitslocalcommunitymemberswouldliketheresourcetoproduce,andan understandingofthesocialandpsychologicalfactorsthatinfluencethosepreferences.Inthisresearch, wefocusedontwoincreasinglyimportantfactors–socialcapitalandplace-basedsocial–psychological attachments– thatinfluencepublicpreferencesformanagementoutcomes.Weconductedastated preferencefieldexperimentonresidentslivinginthreeforestrelatedcommunitieswithinSouthern AppalachiaintheSoutheasternUnitedStates.Theexperimentelucidatedresponsestohypotheticalman- agementplansdesignedtoproducedistinctlydifferentoutcomes.Theresultsrevealecologicallyfocused managementplanswerethemostpreferred,muchmoresothanplansdesignedtoproduceaesthetic, recreational,oreconomicoutcomes.Thedataalsorevealbothindividuals’stocksofsocialcapitalaswellas theirplace-basedsocial–psychologicalattachmentsinfluenceevaluationofcompetingmanagementout- comes.Ourmethodologicalapproachandempiricalfindingsadvanceboththeanalyticalapproachesused tostudymultipleusepublicresourcesandexistingknowledgeregardinghowsocialandpsychological factorsinfluenceindividuals’decision-makingprocesses.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Plannersandmanagersresponsibleforpublic-trustresources areoftenfacedwithmakingdifficultvalue-ladendecisionsrequir- ingtradeoffsbetweenalternative,andoftencompeting,outcomes (Lachapelle,McCool,&Patterson,2003;McCool&Guthrie,2001).A growingbodyofliteraturenowsuggestthatforresourceplanners andmanagerstomakemore informeddecisionswithinvolatile socio-politicalclimates,theyneedanunderstandingofthebene- fitslocalcommunitymemberswouldliketheresourcetoproduce, andanunderstandingofthesocialandpsychologicalfactorsthat influencethose preferences (e.g.,Armitage et al.,2009; Berkes, 2009;Carlsson&Berkes,2005).Equippedwithknowledgeabout howlocalcommunitymemberswouldlikepublic-trustresources managed,andhow those preferencesare formed,plannersand managerscanbemorepreparedtoproactivelyengagestakehold- ersinplanningandmanagementdecisions,buildconsensusamong
∗Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+14358306294.
E-mailaddresses:[email protected],[email protected](J.W.Smith), chris[email protected](C.Siderelis),roger[email protected](R.L.Moore), dorothy [email protected](D.H.Anderson).
thosestakeholders,and,ultimately,developstrongandreciprocal relationshipsthatfacilitatemoreefficientandsociallyacceptable futuremanagementdecisions.
Thisstudyhastwo primaryobjectives.The firstis toexam- inethemanagementoutcomespreferredbycommunitymembers livingadjacenttopublicforests.Specifically,weexaminehowindi- vidualsmaketrade-offsbetweencompetingoutcomesproduced byhypotheticalforest managementplans.Thesecondobjective istoexaminethesocialandpsychologicalfactorsthatinfluence community members’ preferences for management outcomes.
Explicitly,weexamine howtwo factors– individuals’stocksof socialcapitalandthemeaningstheyattachtotheforest–affect preferencesforforestmanagement.
2. Desiredoutcomesfromforestmanagement
Baseduponareviewofexistingliteratureconcerningthevalues individual’sascribetopublicforests(seeMoyer,Owen,&Duinker, 2008; Owen, Duinker, & Beckley, 2009) and recent research addressing preferences for non-forest public-trust resources (Anderson,Davenport, Leahy, & Stein,2008; Smith, Davenport, Anderson,&Leahy,2011;Smith&Moore,2011;Wyman&Stein, 0169-2046/$–seefrontmatter© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.03.009
2010)wechoosetofocusonfouroutcomesproducedasaresultof nearlyallforestmanagementdecisions:
•Economic outcomes include all of the market-based benefits ascribedtoforestproductsandservices;theseincludebothdirect economic impacts such as the creation of local jobs and tax revenuesfromforest-relatedindustries,aswellasindirecteco- nomicimpactssuchastourismrevenuesandothercapitalflows attributabletotheexistenceoftheforest.
•Ecologicaloutcomesrefertothesuiteofbenefitsderivedfromthe functioningofforestecosystems.
•Recreationaloutcomesrefertothesetofbenefitsderivedfrom individualsbeingabletorealizedesiredrecreationalexperiences fromforestrecreationsettings(Driver,2008;Moore&Driver, 2005).
•Aestheticoutcomesrefertothescenicqualityofforestlandscapes.
Aestheticsareafundamentalcomponentintheinterpretationof forestedlandscapesandsettings(Ryanetal.,2010).
Ifpossible,publicforestuserswouldtypicallylikemanagersto producealloftheseoutcomes.However,givenplannersandman- agershaveonlyafiniteamountofresourcestoallocate,producing all desirable outcomes is not feasible. Moreover, some desired forestmanagementoutcomesarediscordantandcannotbesimul- taneouslyproduced. Resource users, as a result, have to make trade-offswhenpreferencesforforestmanagementoutcomesare elucidated.
Pastresearchcan offer insightson (1) whethercertain out- comestendtobepreferredoverothers,(2)howtrade-offsbetween competingoutcomesaremade,and(3)howsocial–psychological characteristicsinfluencethesetrade-offs.
Regardingthefirst point, previousstudies have suggested a decline inindividuals’ desire toseepublicforestsmanaged for economicoutcomesover thepastfourdecades(Cordell,Helton, Tarrant,& Redmond, 1996). Simultaneously,there hasbeen an increase in the desires for management tobe focused onpro- ducing non-economicoutcomes (Manning, Valliere, & Minteer, 1999).
Concerningthesecondpoint, previousresearchsuggeststhe presenceof apositive associationbetweenthetypesof experi- ences individuals desire from forest settings (e.g.,recreational, aesthetic,etc.)andtheirpreferencesformanagementactionsthat enabletheproduction ofthose experienceopportunities(Smith etal.,2011).Astothethirdpoint,thegeneralpublictendstopre- ferforestmanagementstrategiesthatmaximizeaestheticquality, regardlessofwhetherthosemanagementstrategiesproducethe mostecologicallystableforests(Hunt&Haider,2004;Kearney,Tilt,
&Bradley,2010;Ribe,2005).Gobster(1999)notesthetensions betweendesiredecologicalandaestheticoutcomesislargelydue tothegeneralpublic’sknowledge,orlackthereof,regardingbest forestmanagementpractices.However,recentresearchsuggests certainpopulations,suchasthosewithstrongpro-environmental attitudes(Ribe,2002)orsocio-economictiestothetimberindus- try(Ford,Williams,Bishop,&Hickey,2009)donotalwaysfavor forestmanagementdecisionsthatproducethemostaesthetically pleasingoutcomes.
3. Factorsinfluencingpreferencesfordesiredoutcomes
Publicpreferencesforforestmanagementarenot influenced solely by the particular attributes of competing management objectives.Rather, numerous social–psychological factorsinflu- ence preferences for desired outcomes. Here, we focus on individuals’ stocks of social capital as well as the meanings theyascribeto nearbypublically managedforests. We suggest
Fig.1. Trustandobjectiveties:thedualaxesofsocialcapital.
these social–psychological concepts play a functional and cog- nitiveroleinindividuals’decision-making behavior(Kahneman, 2003a; Kahneman, 2003b). In a choice process where individ- uals are elicited to choose between a set of alternatives, the social–psychologicaltraitsofthedecisionmakerplayakeyrole inmakingthedecision(Louviere,Hensher,&Swait,2000).These social–psychologicaltraitsinfluencedecisionmakers’perceptions and evaluationsof alternatives,the utilitytheyascribeto each alternative,andconsequently,whichalternativetheyarelikelyto choose.
3.1. Socialcapital
Thepresence of strong,reciprocaland trusting relationships betweenlocalcommunitymemberscaninfluencethesocialaccept- abilityofresourcemanagementdecisions(Leahy&Anderson,2010;
Stern, 2008; Wondolleck& Yaffee, 2000). Thedissemination of informationandtheextenttowhichthatinformationistrusted,can bedescribedthroughthebroadconceptofsocialcapital.Socialcap- italiscomprisedoftheinformation,trustandnormsofreciprocity inheringinanindividual’ssocialnetwork(Woolcock,1998).Social capitalisatheoreticallydiverseconceptthatisessentiallycom- prisedoftwocomponents–trustandobjectivesocialties(Paxton, 1999).Trustandobjectivetiesformtwodistinctaxesofsocialcapi- tal(Fig.1).Thetrustaxisdistinguishesbetweensocialrelationships thatareeitherassociativeandexchangebased,definedbylowlev- elsoftrust,oraffectiveandreciprocitybased,definedbyhigher levelsoftrust.Theobjectivesocialtiesaxisdifferentiatesbetween bondingandbridgingsocialties;therelativestrengthofassociation betweenindividualsinvolvedinsocialinteractions(Gittell&Vidal, 1998).Bondingtiesreferstorelationshipsbetweenfamilymem- bers,friendsandneighborsinclosed,tightlyconnectednetworks whilebridgingtiesarerelationsbetweenindividualsin“weakly connected”socialnetworks(Granovetter,1973).
Previousreviewsof socialcapital theorysuggest individuals’
preferencesforspecificmanagementoutcomesdependupontheir stocksofsocial capital (Bodin &Crona,2009).Explicitly,where individualsgettheirinformation,andhowmuchtheytrustthat information,willaffecttheirpreferencesandtheexpectedutility theybelievewillcomefromaparticularmanagementplan.
Bondingsocialcapitalcancreatedensesocialnetworksdefined byhigh,localizedlevelsoftrust.Individualsintightlyknit,highly trusting social networkstend tosharesimilarvalues, attitudes,
preferences and behavioral patterns (McPherson, Smith-Lovin,
& Cook, 2001). As a result, bonding social capital can impose strictsocial normsthat discouragechangeand fosterincreased homophily(Portes,1998).Individualsembeddedinhighlybonded socialnetworksarelikelytopreferpotentialforestmanagement outcomesthatenablethemtomaintaintheirclosetiestofriends, family and other frequent contacts. For example, management actionsthat produceor maintainrecreationalopportunitiesare likelytobesupportedbyhighlybondedindividualsifthemain- tenanceoftheirsocialtiesisdependentuponthoserecreational opportunities.Individualsin highlybonded social networksare alsolikelytoprefermanagementactionswhichconformtowithin- groupnorms,yielding anarrowersetofpreferredmanagement outcomes.
Bridgingsocialcapital,conversely,cangiveindividualsaccess toresourcesandinformationthatarenotreadilyavailableintheir immediatesocialnetworks.Bridgingtiesallowindividualstoover- come within-groupsocial normsthrough supportfrom outside theirlocalnetwork(Granovetter,1973;Pretty,2003).Asaresult, individualswithaccesstoinformationfromoutsidetheirimmedi- atesocialnetworksaremorelikelytoconsiderandpreferabroader rangeofpotentialforestmanagementoutcomes.Bridging social capitalislikely toyieldabroadersetofpreferredmanagement outcomes.
3.2. Placemeanings
Individuals’preferencesforforestmanagementoutcomesare influenced by the meaningsthey attachto thelandscapes and resourcesbeingmanaged(Cheng,Kruger,&Daniels,2003;Kruger, 2008;Kruger&Williams,2007).Researchconcerningperson/place relationshipshasbeendevelopedwithinnumerousrelateddisci- plinaryfields(Trentelman,2009)makingitdifficulttodiscernboth arelativelydistinctsetofmeaningsthatindividualsascribetofor- estlandscapesandgeneraltrendsorpatternsinspecificmeanings’
influenceonparticularmanagementoutcomes.
While many scholars who address place meanings or the broaderconceptofplaceattachmentdonotdisentanglethesecon- structs,wesuggestthereisaclearstructure.FollowingTuan(1977), wedefineplaceasphysicalspaceimbuedwithmeaning.Meanings relatedtoplacearethemostfundamentalconnectionsindividuals formwithspecificspaces.Placemeaningsarediscreteconstruc- tionsformedbyanindividualthatconveythepersonalsignificance of a particulargeographic location.Place meaningscaninvolve thepersonalsignificanceofaspacebaseduponnumerousfactors involvingthecharacteristicsoftheindividual,others,andthephys- icalsettingitself(Gustafson,2001).Collectively,thesetofmeanings anindividualascribestoaparticularspaceformtheirattachment tothatplace(i.e.,theirplaceattachment).Conceptualizingplace attachmentasabroadmultidimensionalandoverarchingconstruct isnotnovel,Kyle,Graefe,Manning,andBacon(2004)notethatthis approachisquitecommoninresearchfocusingonlocalresidents whohaveawell-establishedconnectiontoanarea.
In this study, we chooseto examine a setof seven distinct placemeanings–individual identity,familyidentity,self-efficacy, self-expression,communityidentity,economicmeaning,andecologi- calmeaning.Previousresearchindicatestheseplacemeaningsare empiricallyvalidandgeneralizabletomultipleresourcemanage- mentcontexts(Smithetal.,2011)andthattheseplacemeanings caninfluencepreferencesformanagementoutcomes(Davenport&
Anderson,2005).Eachtypeofmeaningisarelativelydistinctway individualsascribeimportanceorsignificancetothelandscape.
Individualidentity representstheextenttowhich individuals believetheforestinformstheirself-identity.Morebroadly,self- identityisasetofbeliefsaboutanindividual’spersonalappraisal ofhim/herselfaswellastheirappraisalsofhowothersviewthem
(Proshansky,Fabian,&Kaminoff,1995).Whenanindividual’siden- tityis highlydependentupon specificphysicalsettings, suchas publicforests, he/shecanbesaidtoidentifystronglywiththat setting;theconversewouldalsoapply.
Familyidentityextendstheconceptofindividualplaceidentity;
theconceptrepresentstheextenttowhichanindividualbelievesa specificphysicalsettingorlandscapehasdefinedtheirbeliefsabout who theirfamily isand how others perceivethem(Davenport, Baker,Leahy,&Anderson,2010;Smithetal.,2011).Ifindividuals believetheirintra-familialsocialbondsrequirethepresenceofa particularphysicallandscapetobemaintained,theirfamily’siden- tityishighlydependentuponthepresenceandmanagementofthat landscape.Often,individualsexpressbeliefsabouttheirfamily’s identitythroughrecollectionsofpast-experiencesthatoccurredin particularlandscapes(Kruger&Shannon,2000).
Self-efficacy refers tothemeanings associatedwith realizing desiredexperiencesinaparticularsettingorlandscape(Davenport etal.,2010;Smithetal.,2011).Theconceptrepresentsthe“behav- ioral”componentofanindividual’sattachmenttophysicalspace (Low&Altman,1992)and isboth theoreticallyand empirically relatedtotheconceptof“place-dependence”(seeMoore&Graefe, 1994;Williams,Patterson,Roggenbuck,&Watson,1992;Williams
&Vaske,2003).Meaningsassociatedwithrecreationaloreduca- tionalactivitiesthatcanonlyoccurinapublicforestarethebest exampleofself-efficacy.
Self-expressionreferstothemeaningsassociatedwithhowapar- ticularforestsettingorlandscapeenablesindividualstoexpress themselves(Davenportetal.,2010;Smithetal.,2011).Whilethe aforementionedconceptofself-identityrefers,inpart,topersonal appraisalsofself,self-expressioninvolvestheabilityofaphysical settingorlandscapetofacilitatethecommunicationofthatiden- tity.IntheSouthernAppalachianmountains,forexample,many residentsidentifystronglywiththeforestbecauseithasplayeda largepartoftheregion’sculturalhistory(Salstrom,1994).Inturn, thepreservationofmanySouthernAppalachianforestsenablesres- identstoretellstoriesoftheregion’shistoryanddevelopment.The presenceoftheforest,inshort,enablesresidentstoexpress,and retain,aportionoftheirpersonalself-identity.
Justasthefamilyidentityconstructextendedtheboundsofindi- vidualidentitytofamily,thecommunityidentityconstructextends itfurthertoencompassindividualappraisalsofwhattheybelieve theirlocalcommunityisandhowitisviewedbyoutsiders.The communityidentityconstructencompassesmeaningsassociated withlocalcharacterandculture.Thebeliefthatpublic-trustnatural resourcesdefineacommunity’sidentityisoneofthemostconsis- tentandsignificantpredictorsinshapingindividuals’preferences forspecificmanagementactions(Smithetal.,2011).Localcom- munitymembers,byandlarge,preferresourcemanagerstomake decisionsthatpreservetheuniqueanddistinctivenature(identity) oftheircommunities(Kruger&Shannon,2000).
Economic meanings refer to individuals’ appraisals of how dependenttheirlocaleconomyisuponaparticularforestlandscape (Smithetal.,2011).
Ecological meanings refer to individuals’ beliefs about how dependenttheybelievetheirlocalecosystemisuponaparticular publicforestsettingorlandscape.
Basedonthereviewoftheliteratureabove,weproposetoexam- inetherelationshipsbetweenthemeaningsindividualsascribeto publicforests,theirstocksofsocialcapitalandtheirpreferencesfor outcomesproducedbyalternativeforestmanagementplans.Based onexistingsocialcapitaltheoryandempiricalevidence,weexpect bothbondingandbridgingsocialcapitalwillsignificantlyinfluence individuals’preferencesformanagementoutcomes.Concurrently, basedonevidencefrompreviousstudiesexaminingtheconnec- tionsbetweenplacemeaningsanddesiredmanagementoutcomes (Davenport&Anderson,2005;Smithetal.,2011),weexpectall
sevenaprioriplacemeaningdimensionswillsignificantlyinfluence individuals’preferenceformanagementoutcomes.
4. Materialsandmethods
Theprimaryobjectiveofthisstudyistoexaminehowboththe meaningsindividualsattachtoforestedlandscapesandthetype andstrengthoftheirsocialcapitalinfluencepreferencesforfor- estmanagementoutcomes.Thehypothesesbeingtestedinvolve thepresenceofarelationshipbetweensevenhypothesizedplace meanings,fourdistinctstocksofsocialcapital,andfourprimary objectivesofforestmanagement.
4.1. Measures
Toassessplacemeanings,weuseda21-itemscaleshownto bean empiricallyvalid measure of place meanings(Davenport et al.,2010; Smith et al.,2011).The scale is intended tomea- sure seven relatively distinct meanings that individuals attach tomanagedpublic-trustlandscapes.Theintendedmeaningsare:
individualidentity,familyidentity,self-efficacy,self-expression,com- munityidentity,economicmeanings,andecologicalmeanings;each meaningismeasuredwithbetweentwoandfourstatementitems.
Respondentsareaskedtoindicatetheirlevelofagreementwith eachofthestatementitemsona5-pointagreementscalewiththe followingresponseoptions:(1)stronglydisagree,(2)disagree,(3) neutral,(4)agree,(5)stronglyagree.
Toassess social capital, we askedrespondents about where theyobtainedinformationaboutlocalcommunityissues(associa- tionalties)andhowmuchtheytrusted(affective)theinformation receivedfromthosesources.Respondentsweregiven14potential sourcesoflocalcommunityinformationandaskedwhetherthey receivedinformationfromthatsource,andifso,theextenttowhich theytrustedthatinformation.
The bonding/associative form of social capital is assessed through a dichotomous measure assessed by respondents’ use (scored1)ornon-use(scored0)ofclosefriendsorimmediatefamily forinformationonlocalcommunityissues.Thebonding/affective formofsocial capitalisassessedthroughacontinuousmeasure correspondingtotheamount oftrust respondents placein the informationtheyreceivefromclosefriendsandimmediatefamily.
The bridging/associativeform of social capital was assessed throughasinglemeasurecorrespondingtothenumberofinfor- mationsources(besidesclosefriendsandimmediatefamily)an individualdrawsuponforinformationabouttheirlocalcommu- nity.The bridging/affective formof social capital was assessed throughasinglemeasurethatcorrespondedtothemeanlevelof trustplacedinlocalcommunityinformationsources(asidefrom closefriendsandimmediatefamily).
4.2. Amodelofpreferencesfordesiredmanagementoutcomes
To examine individuals’ preferences for forest management outcomes,weutilizedasurvey-basedstatedpreferencefieldexper- iment where participantswere presented with multiple forest managementplansandaskedtoranktheminorderofpersonal preference. Our model began with the assumption that forest plannersandmanagerscouldproducefourdistinct outcomes– environmental, economic, recreational, and aesthetic. Manage- ment couldeither focus whollyon producing one outcome or, diversifytheireffortsandresourcestoproducemultipleoutcomes toalesserdegree.We developed aseries ofhypotheticalman- agementplansthat variedin theextenttowhich theyfocused onproducing eachofthefouroutcomes.Theexperimentasked respondentstoranktheseplansbasedontheirpreferences.
Accordingtorandomutilityframework(McFadden,1974),the utilityderivedfromanyparticularplanisspecifiedas:
Unj=Vnj+εnj=ˇxnj+znj+εnj
whereUnjistherandomlatentutilityofachosenmanagementplan jforrespondentn,Vnjissystematic(explainable)componentofutil- ityandεnjisrandomdisturbance.Moreover,Vnjisafunctionofa matrixofattributesandtheirlevelspertainingtothemanagement plan(xnj)andamatrixofothercovariatesznjpertainingtoother factorsthoughttoinfluencemanagementpreferences.Here,these othercovariatesarecomprisedofindependentvariablesrepresent- ingthemeaningsindividualsascribetotheforestandtheirstocks ofsocialcapital.Finally,ˇ and arethevectorsofcoefficients associatedwithxnjandznj.
Abasicassumptionofallstatedpreferenceexperimentseliciting rankedresponsesisthatindividuals’rankingsofalternativeswithin achoicesetreflecttherelativeutilitytheyreceivefromeachofthe alternatives.Giventhis,theprobabilityofanyrankingofalterna- tivesfrombesttoworstcanbeexpressedastheproductoflogit formulas.Inthisexperiment,respondentsarepresentedwithfour managementalternativesA,B,C,andD.Forexample,theprobabil- ityofarespondentrankingthealternativesB,A,C,Disexpressed asthelogitprobabilityofchoosingalternativeBfromthesetA, B,C,DtimesthelogitprobabilityofchoosingalternativeAfrom theremainingsetofA,C,andD,timestheprobabilityofchoosing alternativeCfromtheremainingsetofCandD.Theprobabilityof rankingthealternativesB,A,C,Disexpressedas:
Prob(ranking B,A,C,D)=
eˇxnBj=A,B,C,Deˇxnj ×
eˇxnAj=A,C,Deˇxnj
×
eˇxnCj=C,Deˇxnj
Since ranked data can be expressedas the product of logit formulas,theycanbeanalyzedasindependentchoices.Arespon- dent’scompleterankingofallthealternatives(asingleobservation) is exploded intoa series of pseudo-observations(Hanemann &
Kanninen,1999).Eachpseudo-observationbeyondarespondent’s firstchoiceomitstheprobabilityoftherespondentchoosingthat alternativeagain.Toaccommodatethepseudo-observations,the dataaresetupinlongformatwhereJ−1pseudo-observationsfor eachrankingaretreatedasJ−1choicesforeachrespondentwith theomittedchoiceactingasthebasecomparisonchoice.
4.3. Attributes
In developing thefouroutcomesproduced by publicforests (attributes)underexaminationinthisstudy,wedrewuponthe literatureaddressingforestvalues(seeMoyeretal.,2008;Owen etal.,2009)andrecentresearchaddressingpreferencesfornon- forestpublic-trustresources(Andersonetal.,2008;Smithetal., 2011;Smith&Moore,2011;Wyman&Stein,2010).Fromthecited literature,weselectedfourcommonsetsofdesiredoutcomeswe believedcouldbeeasilyinterpretedthrough asinglestatement includedin theexperiment. The fourcommon desiredbenefits were:ecological,economic,recreational,andaesthetic.Basedupon psychometricscalesusedbySmithetal.(2011),weselectedone statementforeachofthefourdesiredoutcomes.Thesestatements were:
•Managementshouldfocusonconservingnaturalenvironments (ecological).
•Managementshouldfocusonattractingtouriststopubliclands (economic).
•Managementshouldfocusonimprovingrecreationalamenities onpubliclands(recreational).
•Managementshouldfocusonenhancingthevisualappealoffor- estsettingsandlandscapes(aesthetic).
4.4. Experimentaldesignandsurveyinstrument
Theexperimentprovidedpotentialrespondentswithfourdis- crete hypothetical management plans. The management plans variedintheextenttowhichtheyfocusedonprovidingthefour outcomes outlined above. Each hypothetical management plan summedtoa“100%managementeffort”.Respondentswereasked torankthefourhypotheticalmanagement plansbasedontheir personalpreferences.
Followingthevernacularofchoiceexperiments,thefourman- agementoutcomeselicitedineachchoicesetaretheexperiment’s
“attributes”.Eachattributecouldvaryacrossthree“levels”.Given fourattributeswiththreelevelseach,ourexperimenthas34=81 potentialcombinationsofattributelevelsplusanopt-outattribute ofpreferringnoneoftheplans.Wedeemedthistobetoolargefor ourempiricalstudyandinsteadoptedforasmallerfractionalfac- torialdesign.Wefollowedthefactorialdesignstrategiespresented byLouviereetal.(2000)andsettledonadesigncontaining36dis- tincthypotheticalmanagementplansplustheopt-outchoice.To reducethenumberofmanagementplansthatrespondentshadto rank,weblockedthedesignintonineversionsoffourmanagement planseach.AtypicalblockofplansispresentedinFig.2.
4.5. Managementcontextanddatacollection
Thestudy populationsfor this experiment werethree small citieslocatednearpublicforestsinSouthernAppalachia.Thethree citieswereWaynesville,NorthCarolina;SprucePine,NorthCar- olina;and Franklin,North Carolina.Eachof thethreecities has transitioned fromextractive forest or mining based economies to beingprimarily dependent upon regional tourism; all three communitieshaveexperiencedlargeincreasesinthenumberof individualsbuyingsecondhomesandvacationproperties.
TheUSDAForestServicemanagesboththeNantahalaandthe PisgahNationalForests,whichcomprisenearlyallofthepublicfor- estlandswithintheregion.TheNantahalaandthePisgahNational Forestsaremanagedundera1994ForestManagementPlan.The originalForestManagementPlan,passedin1987,waslegallychal- lengedbyseveralinterestgroupswhoarguedtheplanallowedfor excessivetimberharvesting(USDAForestService,1994a;USDA ForestService, 1994b).A subsequentre-analysisprocessbythe agencygeneratedsubstantialinterestfromthepublic.Over2500 letterswerereceivedinresponsetothereviseddraftplan.After takingthepublic’scommentsintoconsideration,theForestService amendedtheForestManagementPlaninthespringof1994.The amendedplanallocatedmuchlessareafortimberharvesting(from 59,253acresto38,498acres)andmoreareaforaestheticpreser- vation and recreational opportunities with ‘backcountry’ areas increasingfrom79,587acrestonearly120,000acres.Thisshiftin resourceplansrepresentsadecline inthesocialacceptabilityof producingbenefitopportunitiestosupporttheforest’seconomic valueandasubsequentincreaseinproducingbenefitopportunities thatsupportrecreationalandaestheticvalues.
Arandomsampleof300full-timeresidenthomeownerswas drawn from tax records within each of the cities (900 total households sampled). During the summer of 2011, potential respondentsweresent mailquestionnaires.The questionnaires, whichincludedtheplacemeaningsscaleandthesocialcapitalmea- surementinstrument,wereadministeredaccordingtotheTailored DesignMethod(Dillman,Smyth,&Christian,2008).Atotalof40
questionnaireswereundeliverable.Ofthesuccessfullydelivered questionnaires,420werereturnedcompleted(48.8%response).
4.6. Dataanalysis
Dataanalysisproceededthroughfourdistinctsteps:
1.Analysisoftheplacemeaningsscaleusingconfirmatoryfactor analysis(CFA).
2.Analysisofthesocialcapitalmeasurescreatingfourindexesto measureeachtypeofsocialcapital.
3.Analysisofindividuals’preferencesforforestmanagementout- comesthrougharankedlogitspecification.
4.Subsequentpost-estimationteststodetermineif,andhow,the varioussocial–psychologicalfactorsofinterestinfluencedman- agementpreferences.
4.6.1. Confirmatoryfactoranalysis
WebeganwithCFAoftheplacemeaningsscaletodetermineif amodelofthesevenaprioridimensionsofplacemeaningsactu- allyfitthedatawell.Ourassessmentofmodelfitwasbasedon thefollowingfitindices:themaximumlikelihood2,therelative 2(2/df),therootmean-squareerrorofapproximation(RMSEA), thecomparativefitindex(CFI),andtheTucker–Lewisindex(TLI).
Themaximumlikelihood2isastatisticofdiscrepancybetween thesampleandmodelcovariancematrices;largervaluesindicate greaterdiscrepanciesandthereforepoorermodelfit.Becausethe maximumlikelihood2issensitivetolargesamplesizes,therela- tive2isdividedbythemodel’stotalnumberofdegreesoffreedom.
Kline(2011)suggestsarelative2valueofthreeorlessindicates acceptablemodelfit.TheRMSEAassessesmodelfitwhilepenaliz- ingmodelcomplexity(i.e.,largedf).RMSEAvaluesbetween0.06 and0.08areacceptableiftheupperboundoftheRMSEA’sconfi- denceintervalisbelow0.10(Hu&Bentler,1999).BoththeCFIand theTLIindicesindicatetheextenttowhichthemodelfitsbetter thananullmodelwithuncorrelatedindicatorvariables.Thevalues oftheCFIandtheTLIrangefrom0to1withvaluesnearerto1 indicatingabetterfit;0.90isawidelyusedcut-offvalueoriginally proposedbyHuandBentler(1999).
4.6.2. Estimation
Whenfieldexperimentsaskrespondentstorankdistinctalter- natives,theresultingdatacanbemodeledwithastandardlogit, mixed logit, probit, or rank-ordered logit specification (Train, 2009).Wechoosetospecifyarank-orderedlogitmodelgivenit accountsforcorrelation inunobservedfactors acrossindividual responsesandspecifiesclustersofrespondents.Therank-ordered logitregressionmodelacknowledgeseachrespondenthashis/her ownvaluationweightsasappliedtohis/herrankingofalternatives;
subsequently,itaccountsforcorrelatedvaluationweightswithin eachchoicesetforeachrespondent(Train,2009).
Therank-orderedlogitmodelhasbeenusedinpreviousnat- uralresourcemanagementresearchinseveraldifferentcontexts.
ResearchersinCanadausedthemodeltoexaminehowvarious stakeholdergroupsrankedpotentialvalues(e.g.,“spiritual”,“envi- ronmental”, “recreational”, etc.)for forestedlandscapes(Kumar
&Kant,2007).Themodel hasalsobeenusedtoexamine pref- erences for different invasive species control methods (Paudel, Dunn,Bhandari,Vlosky,&Guidry,2007)andpreferencesforirri- gationwater allocationschemes (Speelman, Farolfi,Frija, &van Huylenbroeck,2010).
Therank-ordered logitmodel assumesthat respondentsuse uniquevaluationfunctions(i.e.,decisionweights)whendeciding betweenpossiblealternatives.Testingforvariationsinvaluation
Fig.2.Typicalblockofhypotheticalmanagementplans.
functionsduetothedifferingsocial–psychologicalcharacteristics ofrespondentsinvolvedthefollowingsteps:
1.Includingeachsocial–psychologicalcharacteristicintherank- orderedlogitregressionmodel.
2. Estimatingallinteractions betweenthecharacteristicandthe attributesofthechoiceset.
3.ConductingaWald2postestimationtesttodetermineifthose parameterestimatesarenotzero(Allison&Christakis,1994).
ThenullhypothesisoftheWald2 testisthatallinteraction coefficientsare0,thusindicating noeffectofthatcharacteristic onvaluationfunction.Characteristicswithsignificantinfluenceon valuationfunctionsareretainedandtheirinteractionwithchoice setattributescanbeinterpretedaccordingly.
5. Results
5.1. Descriptivestatistics
Descriptivestatistics for the placemeanings scaleitems are showninTable1,PanelA.Initialchecksforskewnessorkurtosis, which would indicate a non-normal distribution of responses totheplacemeaning items,revealednoabnormal values (±2).
Subsequentanalysisofthemeansandstandarddeviationsreveal localresidentsattacha diversearrayofmeaningstothepublic foreststhatsurroundtheircommunities,asallscale-itemmeans wereabovetheneutralvalueof3.Thestrongestmeaningsrelated tothe forests’ ecological importance (M=3.95–4.62). Ecological meanings were also the most consistently ranked scale-items (SD=0.92–1.02).Respondents alsotendedtobelieve theforests contributed to the uniqueness of their community’s identity
Table1
Descriptivestatistics,internalconsistencies,andfactorloadingsforplacemeaningmeasurementitems.
PanelA:Descriptivestatistics,internalconsistenciesandfactorloadings
Dimensionandstatements M SD ˛ ˛
Individualidentity 0.92
Iamveryattachedtotheforest 4.01 1.11 0.91 0.85
Ifeelthisforestisapartofme 3.70 1.11 0.90 0.87
Iidentifystronglywiththeforest 3.89 1.11 0.86 0.92
Familyidentity 0.90
Ihaveprideinmyheritagebecauseoftheforest 3.86 1.15 0.89 0.79
Theforestisaspecialplaceformyfamily 3.89 1.12 0.84 0.87
Importantfamilymemoriesaretiedtotheforest 3.75 1.18 0.83 0.88
Selfefficacy 0.90
TheforestisbestfortheactivitiesIliketodo 3.60 1.12 0.86 0.88
IhavesatisfyingexperienceswhenIvisittheforest 4.05 1.05 0.88 0.83
Nootherplacecancomparetotheforest 3.78 1.13 0.89 0.77
Theforestismyfirstchoiceforoutdoorrecreation 3.60 1.16 0.87 0.84
Selfexpression 0.93
IfeelthatIcanreallybemyselfattheforest 3.87 1.07 0.91 0.87
Visitingtheforestallowsmetoexpressmyself 3.57 1.05 0.87 0.92
VisitingtheforestsaysalotaboutwhoIam 3.67 1.11 0.91 0.87
Communityidentity 0.93
Theforestcontributestothecommunity’scharacter 4.24 1.00 0.91 0.89
Thecommunity’shistoryisdefinedbytheforest 4.14 1.01 0.88 0.93
Theforesthashelpedputthecommunityonthemap 4.10 1.03 0.92 0.86
Economicmeanings 0.90
Thecommunity’seconomydependsontheforest 3.79 1.02 – 0.86
Appalachia’seconomydependsontheforest 3.95 1.02 – 0.86
Ecologicalmeanings 0.96
Theforestisimportantinconservingthelandscape 3.95 1.02 0.96 0.92
Theforestisimportantinprovidingwildlifehabitat 4.50 0.93 0.95 0.94
Theforestisimportantinprotectingwaterquality 4.62 0.92 0.93 0.96
PanelB:Confirmatoryfactoranalysisfitstatistics
2 df 2/df RMSEA[90%CI] CFI IFI
Multi-groupmeasurementmodel 1157.27 492 2.35 0.06[0.06,0.07] 0.92 0.92
(M=4.10–4.24).Thedataalsosuggestthatnotallrespondentscon- sistentlyusepublicforestsforrecreationalpurposes,asindicated by the two activity-related scale-items (within the self efficacy dimension)withmeansof3.60.However,onaverage,respondents didreporthavingsatisfyingexperienceswhentheydidvisitpublic forests(M=4.05). The reliability ofscale-items relative to their hypotheticaldimensionswasacceptable(˛≥0.90)andnosingle itemreducedtheinternalreliabilityofitsdimension(˛<˛).Also, eachstatementitemexhibitedanacceptable(>0.70)correlation withitslatentdimension.
Analysisofthesocialcapitalmeasuresindicatethemajorityof respondentsutilizeeither“closefriends” or“immediatefamily”
(bonding/associativeties)toobtaininformationaboutlocalissues;
88.7% indicated using close friends and 85.4% indicated using immediatefamilymembers.Respondentsindicatedtheygenerally trusttheinformationobtainedfromclosefriends.Amongrespon- dentswhoobtaincommunityinformationfromclosefriends,28.5%
reportalwaystrustingthatinformationwhileanother68.5%report sometimestrustingthatinformation(3.0%ofrespondentsindicate distrustinclosefriends).Similarly,respondentsindicatedtheygen- erallytrustinformationobtainedfromimmediatefamilymembers.
Ofthoseusingfamilymembersasaninformationsource,45.5%
indicatedalwaystrustingtheirinformationandanother51.8%indi- catesometimestrustingthatinformation(2.8%indicateddistrust).
Furtheranalysisofthesocialcapitalmeasuresrevealindivid- uals usea wide varietyof sources toobtaininformation about communityissues(Table2).Themajorityofrespondentsindicated usingall12informationalsourcesqueriedabout.Ofthesebridg- ingconnections,themosttrustedsourcewas“churches”(31.4%
ofrespondentsindicatingalwaystrustinginformation fromthis source), followed by “local newspapers or periodicals” (27.5%),
“localtelevision news”(23.7%) and“local civic groups”(22.1%).
Theleasttrustedinformationalsourceswere“otheronlinenews sources(e.g.,blogs,facebook,etc.)”,“electedofficials”and“national televisionnews”.
5.2. Confirmatoryfactoranalysis
Resultsfromtheconfirmatory factoranalysisof the21-item placemeaningsscalesupporttheuseofourhypothesizedseven- factormodel.Thefitindicesresultingfromacomparisonofour modelimpliedcovariancematrixandtheactualcovariancematrix arereportedinTable1,PanelB.Agoodfitisindicatedbytherela- tive2valueof2.35,aRMSEAof0.06,andCFIandTLIvaluesabove 0.90.
5.3. Managementpreferences
Resultsfromtherank-orderedlogitregressionmodelareshown in Table3. Environmentaloutcomes had apositive and signifi- cantcoefficientestimate(ˇ=0.008,z=3.19,p≤0.001),indicating respondentshighlyfavoredmanagementplanswithalargerpro- portionofmanagementeffortsdirectedtoward“conservingnatural environments”.Foreachoftheotherthreepotentialmanagement outcomes,thedatayieldednegativeandsignificantcoefficientesti- mates,indicating respondents do not favor forest management focusingtheireffortsinproducingthesetypesofoutcomes.Specif- ically,theeconomicoutcomeinvolvingofficials’effortsdesigned to “attract tourists to public lands” were the least preferred (ˇ=−0.026,z=−21.06,p≤0.001)followedbytheofficials’efforts to“improverecreationalamenitiesonpubliclands”(ˇ=−0.019, z=−12.71,p≤0.001)and,finally,officials’effortsto“improvethe aestheticor visual appealof the forest” (ˇ=−0.017,z=−12.98, p≤0.001).
Table2
Percentagesofrespondentsindicatinguseofparticularsocialtiesandextentoftrustinthattie.
Associativeties Affectiveties
Respondentsindicatinguse(%) Alwaystrust(%) Sometimestrust(%) Alwaysdistrust(%) Bonding
Closefriends 88.7 28.5 68.5 3.0
Immediatefamily 85.4 45.5 51.8 2.8
Bridging
Localnewspapersorperiodicals 91.1 27.5 65.4 7.2
Infrequentcontacts 81.3 15.4 70.3 14.3
Coworkers 73.8 13.4 75.7 10.9
Extendedfamily 80.7 19.9 70.5 9.6
Localtelevisionnews 91.7 23.7 59.7 16.6
Nationaltelevisionnews 89.3 19.3 55.3 25.3
Civicgroups 72.6 22.1 68.4 9.4
Educationgroups 75.6 19.0 71.2 9.9
Electedofficials 81.9 9.5 65.1 25.5
Churches 75.0 31.4 60.7 7.9
Onlinenews 77.1 12.4 70.7 16.7
Otheronlinenewssources 66.1 4.5 59.5 36.0
5.4. Socialcapital
TheWald2 postestimationtestsforthesocialcapitalmea- suresareshowninTable4,PanelA.Allfourpostestimationtests weresignificantatthe0.001levelindicatingsignificantinfluences onthevaluationfunctionsappliedtochoosingforestmanagement alternatives.Bonding/affectivetieshadthemostsignificantinflu- enceonrespondents’preferences(2=7089.71).Thesecondmost significantinfluenceonrespondents’preferenceswasthestrength oftheirbonding/associativeties(2=134.39)followedbybridg- ing/associativeties(2=82.19)andfinally,bridging/affectiveties (2=34.97).
The coefficient estimates for all interaction effects are also reportedinTable4,PanelA. For bonding/affectiveties, allfour coefficient estimates were significant and negative indicating greaterlevelsoftrustineither“closefriends”or“immediatefam- ilymembers”moderatedmanagementpreferences,reducingthe probabilitythatplansdesignedtoproducehighlevelsofanyone specificoutcomewillbemostpreferable.
Ina similarfashion,greaterlevelsoftrust placedin bridged tieswasalsorelatedtomanagementplanpreferences.However, thestrengthofindividuals’bridging/affectivetieswasonlyrelated toonedesiredmanagementoutcome,environmentalbenefits.The moretrustanindividualplacesinbridgingties,themorelikelythey aretoprefermanagementplanswhichfocusthemajorityoftheir effortsonconservingnaturallandscapes(ˇ=5.539e−4).
Thedataalsorevealthequantityofsocialties(associative)sig- nificantlyinfluenced individuals’management planpreferences.
The more bridging ties an individual utilized, the more likely they were to prefer management plans designed to produce economic(ˇ=0.001)andrecreationaloutcomes(ˇ=0.001).Con- versely,individuals whoutilizedbonding tiesweresignificantly
lesslikelytopreferplansfocusedonproducingeconomicoutcomes (ˇ=−0.002).
5.5. Placemeanings
TheWald2postestimationtestsfortheplacemeaningsmea- suresarereportedinTable4,PanelB.Allsevendistinctmeanings exhibitedasignificantinfluenceonrespondents’valuationweights.
Theplacemeaningsinorderoftheirgreatestinfluenceonrespon- dents’preferencesforthemanagementplanswere:
•Self-expression(2=626.09).Individualswhobelievedtheforest enabled them to express themselves tended to prefer man- agement plans focused on producing recreational outcomes (ˇ=0.006).
•Economicmeanings(2=592.17).Individualswhobelievedthe forestwasimportantforeconomicreasonstendingnottopre- fermanagement plansfocusedonproducing environmentally focusedoutcomes(ˇ=−0.012)oraestheticallyfocusedoutcomes (ˇ=−0.006).Agreaterbeliefintheeconomicimportance,how- ever,wasassociatedwithstrongerpreferencesformanagement toproducerecreationaloutcomes(ˇ=0.006)andeconomicout- comes(ˇ=0.007).
•The belief that the forestdefined a respondents’ family identity (2=497.97).Managementplansfocusedoneconomicoutcomes (ˇ=−0.009) and recreational outcomes (ˇ=−0.007) were all givenlessweightbyrespondentswhoheldstrongerbeliefsabout theforestdefiningtheirfamily’sidentity.
•Ecologicalmeanings(2=295.38).Respondentswhoheldstrong beliefsabouttheforest’simportanceinmaintainingtheircom- munity’secologicalintegritypreferredmanagementplansfocus- ingonproducingthoseenvironmentaloutcomes(ˇ=0.005).
Table3
Rankedlogitresults:determinantsofmanagementplanpreferences.
Attribute Coef. RobustSE z p≤z 95%conf.interval
LB UB
Managementfocus
Environmentaloutcomes 0.008 0.003 3.19 0.001 0.003 0.131
Economicoutcomes −0.026 0.001 −21.06 0.000 −0.029 −0.024
Recreationaloutcomes −0.019 0.002 −12.71 0.000 −0.022 −0.016
Aestheticoutcomes −0.017 0.001 −12.98 0.000 −0.020 −0.014
Modelfitstatistics
Logpseudolikelihood −686.070
AIC 1378.139
Note.TieshandledviatheEfronmethod.
Table4
Wald-testsofconstantvaluationweights.
PanelA:Socialcapitalfactorsaffectingvaluationweights
Bridging/affectiveties Bonding/affectiveties Bridging/associativeties Bonding/associativeties Managementfocus
Environmentaloutcomes 5.539e−4* −0.002* 3.653e−4 0.008
Economicoutcomes −4.710e−5 −0.006*** 0.001*** −0.002***
Recreationaloutcomes 3.680e−5 −0.004*** 0.001** 0.002
Aestheticoutcomes 1.717e−4 −0.003* 0.001 0.011
Wald-test
2 34.97 7089.71 82.19 134.39
p <0.001 <0.001 <0.000 <0.000
PanelB:Placemeaningfactorsaffectingvaluationweights Individual
identity
Family identity
Self efficacy
Self expression
Community identity
Economic meaning
Ecological meaning Managementfocus
Environmentaloutcomes 0.001 −0.005 −0.002 −0.001 0.000 −0.012*** 0.005*
Economicoutcomes −0.004 −0.009* −0.006* −0.004 −0.004 0.007* −0.003
Recreationaloutcomes 0.005* −0.007* 0.005** 0.006*** −0.004* 0.006** −0.003
Aestheticoutcomes −0.003 −0.006 −0.004 −0.003 −0.004 −0.006*** 0.000
Wald-test
2 32.24 479.97 130.67 626.09 282.84 592.17 295.38
p <0.000 <0.000 <0.000 <0.000 <0.000 <0.000 <0.000
Note.TieshandledviatheEfronmethod.
*p<0.050.
**p<0.010.
***p<0.001.
•Meaningsofself-efficacy(2=130.67).Individualswithagreater dependenceupontheforesttoengageindesiredactivitiesplaced greater emphasis onplansfocused onproducing recreational benefits(ˇ=0.005);theyalsoplacedlessemphasisoneconomic outcomes(ˇ=−0.006),namelyattractingmoretouriststopublic landswithinthearea.
•Meanings of individual identity (2=32.24). Explicitly, respon- dentswhoheldhigherlevelsofplace-basedindividualidentity placed a greater importance on plans focusing on producing recreationalbenefits(ˇ=0.005).
6. Discussion 6.1. Summary
Forest plannersand managerscontinue to facethe problem of having to make value-laden decisions in the face of scien- tificuncertainty,reducedfiscalresources,andincreaseddemands toacknowledgeand accommodatepublicdesires regardingthe outcomes of their decisions. To aid forest planners in making thesedecisions,wehavesuggestedtheyneedanunderstanding oftheoutcomeslocalcommunitymemberswouldlikemanage- mentactionstoproduceandaclearerunderstandingofhowvarious socialandpsychologicalfactorsinfluencethosepreferences.
We have attempted to make both methodological advances in how natural resource social scientists studythese questions andtheoreticaladvancesthatdeepenthescientificunderstand- ingofhowsocialandpsychologicalfactorsinfluenceindividuals’
managementpreferences.Methodologically,thedecision-making frameworkofdiscretechoicemodelsenabledustodesignafield experimentwherebylocalcommunitymembersexpressedtheir preferences for management plans that produced distinct out- comes to varying degrees. The key to our experiment is that respondentsmustmaketrade-offsbetweenthevariousoutcomes they would like management to produce. Preferences are not boundedsolelybythedesiresoftherespondent,butalsobythe realitythatmanagementcanonlyallocatesomanyresourcesto theproductionofanyoneoutcomebeforetheabilitytoproduce
otheroutcomesdiminishes.Theoretically,wecoupledourdiscrete choiceexperimentwithseveralwell-known andfrequentlydis- cussed concepts withinnatural resource social science – social capital and place meanings–in an efforttodeepen thescien- tificunderstandingofhow theseconceptsinfluencepreferences formanagementoutcomes.
We foundrespondentslivingnearpublicforestsinSouthern Appalachiapreferredmanagementplansthatproducedenviron- mentaloutcomesmoresothaneconomic,recreational,oraesthetic outcomes.Respondentsbelievetheconservationofnaturalenvi- ronments (environmental outcome) shouldbe thenumber one priorityforpublicforestmanagersneartheircommunity.Thesec- ondpriorityshouldbepreservingtheaestheticorvisualappealof theforest(aestheticoutcome)followedcloselybyimprovingrecre- ationalamenitiesinpublicforests(recreationaloutcome).Finally, respondentsbelieveattractingtouriststopublicforests(economic outcome)shouldbetheleastimportantpriorityforforestman- agers.Forforestmanagerswithintheregion,thesefindingsarean expressionofpublicchoiceandcanbeusedtoproduceforestplans thatnotonlymeetagencymandates,butalsothestandardsofsocial acceptabilitywell(Brunson,1996;Stankey&Shindler,2006).
Ourdatasuggestindividuals’stockofsocialcapitalinfluences theirvaluationofpotentialforestmanagementoutcomes.Theanal- ysesrevealbothindividuals’bridgingtiesaswellastheirbonding ties can influence theirevaluation of management preferences (Table4).Whileexistingsocialcapitaltheorydoesnotprovideus withevidenceforwhichformoftiesarestrongerpredictorsofindi- viduals’preferences,ourdatasuggestitisthequalityofthetie(i.e., affectiveorreciprocitybased)asopposedtothequantity(i.e.,asso- ciativeorexchangebased)thatcarriessubstantiallymoreweight inindividuals’decision-makingprocesses.Forforestplanners,this findinghasdirectimplicationsforthedisseminationofforestman- agementrelatedinformation(e.g.,currentissues,climatechange education,etc.).Asthedatasuggest information obtainedfrom specifichighlytrustedsourcesinfluencestheevaluationofman- agementalternatives,plannersshouldfocusthedisseminationof forestmanagementrelatedinformationtohighlytrustedinforma- tionaloutletssuchaschurches,localnewspapersorperiodicals,
andlocalcivicgroups.Thedisseminationofinformationthrough thesesourcesislikelytohavethegreatestinfluenceonindividuals’
evaluation,andpotentialacceptance,ofmanagementactions.
Our data also indicatethat themeanings individuals attach topublicforestsinfluencetheirpreferencesfor potentialforest managementoutcomes.Thisfindingisconsistentwithprevious empiricalevidenceconductedwithinnon-forestsettings(Smith et al., 2011).The finding alsoprovides furthersupport for the acknowledgementandintegrationofplacemeaningsintoformal forestmanagementframeworks(Chengetal.,2003).
Regardingspecificplacemeanings,wefoundmeaningsofself- efficacy,self-expression,andindividualidentityhavesimilareffects onindividuals’preferenceformanagementoutcomes.Specifically, all three types of place meanings had a positive influence on appraisalsofmanagementplansdesignedtoproducerecreational outcomes.Thisfindingislogicalandintuitive.Themoreindividuals dependupontheforestasasettingfordesiredrecreationalexpe- riencesthatallowsthemtoexpressthemselves,themorelikely theyaretodesiremanagementplansfocusedonmaintainingthose opportunities.Collectivelythesefindingsextendpreviousresearch, primarilyfocusedonrecreationists(e.g.,Kyle,Absher,&Graefe, 2003,Vogt&Williams,1999),linkingindividuals’placeidentity withstrongerpreferencesformanagementoutcomes.Ourfindings revealamorefinelytunedconceptualizationandmeasurementof theplaceidentityconstruct,parsingitintocomponentsofindivid- ualidentity(relatedtoamoregeneralizedappraisaloftheextentto whichtheforestdefinesone’sidentity)aswellasself-efficacyand self-expression(morespecificbehaviorallyfocusedconstructs).
6.2. Limitations
One limitation of this research was our sole focus on the managementplanpreferencesamongresidentslivingnearpub- lic forests. Forest management decisions are also required to considerthepreferencesofindividuals whodonotlivedirectly adjacenttotheresource. Thisisparticularlytruein theUnited States where accommodating all public concerns in National Forest decision-making is a fundamental principle of resource governance.Consideringandrespondingtopubliccommentsare explicitlymandatedundertheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct and theNational ForestManagement Act.The consideration of preferencesheldbybothproximateanddistantforestusersare important.However,wehavechosentofocussolelyonproximate resourceusersgiventheincreasedlikelihoodtheywillbeimpacted bymanagementdecisionsandmoredirectlyinvolvedincollabora- tiveplanningprocesses(Selin&Chavez,1995;Steelman, 2001).
Subsequentresearchneedstomoreacutelyaddresshow forest management preferencesdiffer betweenproximate and distant populations.
Another limitation of this research is the use of individual statementitemstorepresentbroadsetsofdesiredmanagement outcomes.Alloftheoutcomes fromanyparticularplan cannot whollyberepresentedwithasinglestatementitem.However,we drewupontheuniqueforestplanningcontextofWesternNorth Carolinatodevelopstatementitemswhichaccuratelyreflectpast and ongoing forestplanning efforts.This limitationis largely a productofthebreadthoftheresearchfoci(ForestManagement Plans)coupledwiththerequirementsofacceptedmethodologi- calprotocolsofstatedpreferenceresearch.Afruitfulavenuefor futureresearchmightfocusondistinctmanagementdecisions(e.g., whethertoconductprescribedburnsornot)andmorefiniteand separablesets ofdesired management outcomes.Despite these limitations,thisresearchmovesthestudyofpreferencesforfor- estmanagementoutcomesintonewmethodologicaldirectionsand contributestotheknowledgeconcerningsocialandpsychological factorsinfluencingindividuals’preferences.
Thefinallimitationofthisresearchisthatourmethodological designwasdevelopedtogaugeintra-communitysocialcapitaland notexistingstocksofsocial capitalheldbetweenlocalcommu- nitymembersandresourcemanagementagencies.Asevidenced by the findings of this research and the existing literature on agency/communitysocialcapital(e.g.,Smithetal.,inpress),both measurescaninfluencepublicpreferencesand,ultimately,influ- encetheacceptabilityof a management agency’sdecisions and plans.Futureresearch,focusedmoredirectlyonthestocksofsocial capitalheldbetweenlocalcommunitiesandmanagementagencies, isneededtoestablishabetterunderstandingofwhereindividuals acquireinformationaboutresourceplanningandhowtheirtrust inthatinformationinfluencespersonalpreferences.
6.3. Conclusion
Most,ifnotall,stateandfederalforestmanagementagencies aremandatedtoproducemultiplebenefitsfromtheforestlands undertheircontrol.Morefrequentlythannot,theproductionofone typeofbenefitcomesattheexpenseoftheproductionofothers.
Asaresult,forestplannersarefacedwithmakingdifficulttrade- offsbetweenalternativedesiredmanagementoutcomes.Inmaking thesedifficulttrade-offs,forestplannersoftenhavelittleguidance astowhichoutcomesarepreferredbylocalcommunitymembers.
Throughthisstudy,wehavesuggestedindividuals’management preferencescanbeinfluencedbytheirstocksofsocialcapitalaswell asthemeaningswhichtheyascribetotheforest.Inanovelchoice experiment, wehave produced ascenario wherelocal commu- nitymembers,similartoforestmanagers,mustbalancethecosts andbenefitsassociatedwiththeproductionofeconomic,ecologi- cal,recreationalandaestheticmanagementoutcomes.Theresults ofourexperimenthaveproducedaclearerunderstandingofhow placemeaningsandindividuals’stocksofsocialcapitalaffecttheir appraisalsofdifferentforestmanagementoutcomes.Ourfindings, ultimately,canprovideforestmanagerswithusefulinformationto producingsociallyacceptablemanagementoutcomes.
Acknowledgements
Thisresearchwassupportedbyadoctoraldissertationimprove- ment grant from the National Science Foundation (Award No.
1030395)andaHoffmannFellowshipfromtheCollegeofNatural ResourcesatNorthCarolinaStateUniversity.Theauthorswould liketothankDr.EdKick,Dr.HughDevine,and HollieSmithfor theircommentsandsuggestions.
References
Allison,P.D.,&Christakis,N.A.(1994).Logitmodelsforsetsofrankeditems.Socio- logicalMethodology,24,199–228.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/270983
Anderson,D.H.,Davenport,M.A.,Leahy,J.E.,&Stein,T.V.(2008).OFMandcommu- nitybenefits.InB.L.Driver(Ed.),Managingtooptimizethebeneficialoutcomesof recreation(pp.311–334).StateCollege,PA:Venture.
Armitage,D. R.,Plummer,R.,Berkes,F.,Arthur,R.I.,Charles, A.T.,Davidson- Hunt, I. J., et al. (2009). Adaptive co-management for social–ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 95–102.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/070089
Berkes,F.(2009).Evolutionofco-management:Roleofknowledgegeneration, bridgingorganizationsandsociallearning.JournalofEnvironmentalManage- ment,90,1692–1702.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001 Bodin,O.,&Crona,B.I.(2009).Theroleofsocialnetworksinnaturalresource
governance:Whatrelationalpatternsmakeadifference?GlobalEnvironmental Change,19,366–374.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.05.002 Brunson,M.(1996).Adefinitionof“socialacceptability”inecosystemmanagement.
InM.W.Brunson,L.E.Kruger,C.B.Tyler,&S.A.Schroeder(Eds.),Definingsocial acceptabilityinecosystemmanagement:Workshopproceedings.Gen.Tech.Rep.
PNW-GTR-369(pp.1–6).Portland,OR:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,Forest Service,PacificNorthwestResearchStation.
Carlsson, L., & Berkes, F. (2005). Co-management: Concepts and method- ological implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 75, 65–76.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.11.008
