Social acceptability of forest conditions and management practices: a problem analysis.

Abstract

The purpose of this report is to improve understanding of the complex sociopolitical processes related to resource management and to help structure management response to conflict and contentiousness, misunderstanding among participants, and failed citizen-agency interactions. Public acceptance is essential to every resource management decision public agencies must make. Regardless of the issue-forest health, fuels management, riparian restoration, recreation impacts, or threatened and endangered species-the political environment surrounding most decisions is never about just single questions, nor is it about just ecological questions. Social acceptability involves many diverse factors that are only now beginning to be understood and given credence by resource professionals. In this analysis, we describe the social acceptability concept and identify 10 key problem areas needing indepth consideration for durable decisions to be made about forest conditions and practices on federal lands. A central conclusion is that public judgments are always provisional, never absolute or final. Each situation, each context, produces a unique set of circumstances affecting the formation of public acceptance. By its nature, social acceptability is a process rather than an end product. We conclude by presenting five basic strategies to help guide resource professionals and citizens toward more integrated solutions.

Public Perceptions of Sagebrush Ecosystem Management in the Great Basin

“…The process used to make management decisions strongly influences how people view outcomes of those decisions and the agencies responsible for implementing them (Shindler et al 2002). Judgments can change when the decision process is transparent, so that affected parties understand the rationale for implementation of a practice and the tradeoffs among potential outcomes (Gregory 2002;Allspaw 2004).…”

“…Practices such as prescribed burning, mowing, mastication, and herbicide application create visible impacts and potential environmental changes that may be viewed unfavorably by some citizens (Shindler et al 2002). To gain public support for such activities, land managers with the BLM, Forest Service, and other agencies have sought to persuade citizens of the need for restoration, and that active manipulation of rangelands is the best way to achieve it.…”

“…''Acceptability'' is an attribute of a management practice or landscape condition; ''acceptance'' is a psychological judgment by an individual that can be aggregated to produce a measure of acceptability (Shindler et al 2002). Social acceptability is multidimensional, depending on factors such as personal experience, relationships with organizations or individuals, values associated with a specific place, perceptions of risk, and even aesthetics (Stankey and Shindler 2006).…”

“…The values and expectations of urban residents are often in conflict with those of traditional resource-based users in range and forest landscapes (Shindler et al 2011). Thus, land managers face a complex and interrelated set of ecological, economic, and social challenges while working to create land management strategies that are both ecologically sound and socially acceptable (Kaufmann et al 1994;Loomis 2002;Shindler et al 2002).…”

The Multidimensionality of Trust: Applications in Collaborative Natural Resource Management

“…However, she may not feel able to act upon that trust based on her accountability to the nonparticipating constituents she represents. In these cases, competing reference groups form a conundrum for the individual (Schindler et al 2002). Representation also poses challenges with regard to mismatches of scale.…”