United States Department of Agriculture Social Acceptability of Forest Service Alternatives to Clearcutting: Pacific Northwest Research Station Discussion and Literature General Technical Report PNW-GTR-594 Review With Emphasis on January 2004 Southeast Alaska Social Acceptability of Alternatives to Clearcutting: Discussion and Literature Review With Emphasis on Southeast Alaska Debra L. Clausen and Robert F. Schroeder, Compilers Compilers Debra L. Clausen is a habitat biologist, Sundberg and Clausen, P.O. Box 1949, Seward, AK 99664; and Robert F. Schroeder was a research scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Juneau, AK. He is currently the regional subsistence coordinator, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Regional Office, P.O. Box 21628, Juneau, AK 99801-1807. Abstract Clausen, Debra L.; Schroeder, Robert F., comps. 2004. Social acceptability of alternatives to clearcutting: discussion and literature review with emphasis on southeast Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-594. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 37 p. Changing social contexts have necessitated a new approach to forest management. Growing dissatisfaction with clearcutting has made the USDA Forest Service the focus of criticism by various public interest groups. We discuss and provide a comprehensive annotated list of published and unpublished references on the subject of socially acceptable alternatives to clearcutting, with emphasis on southeast Alaska. The literature reveals that social acceptability is a complex synthesis of multi- ple opinions, values, and attitudes, and indicates that both qualitative and quantitative social science research are required to identify socially acceptable alternatives to clearcutting in southeast Alaska. Keywords: Acceptability, Alaska, alternatives to clearcutting, clearcutting, forest management, Forest Service, forest values, public attitudes, social acceptability, social values, southeast Alaska, Tongass National Forest, values. Contents 1 Introduction 1 Context 3 Methods 3 Determining Social Acceptability 4 Assessing Public Response 6 Conclusions 7Acknowledgments 8 Annotated References 35 Bibliographic Search Terms Introduction Changing social contexts have necessitated a new approach to forest manage- ment. Growing dissatisfaction with clearcutting has made the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service the focus of extreme criticism by various public interest groups. This paper discusses the scope and complexity of social alternatives to clearcutting. We also have provided a comprehensive annotated list of published references on socially acceptable alternatives to clearcutting. This report is intended to be a resource and aid in designing additional social science research in this emerging field. Our emphasis is on literature pertinent to the issue as it exists in southeast Alaska, with the understanding that research needs to be designed for social and environmental conditions unique to the area. Literature on the subject reveals that social acceptability is a complex synthesis of multiple opinions, values, and attitudes. It also indicates that both qualitative and quantitative social science research are required to identify socially acceptable alternatives to clearcutting in southeast Alaska. Context Currently in the United States, natural resource managers are grappling with the need for public approval of management decisions and with the public’s involvement in making these decisions (Brunson and Kennedy 1995). There has been a rapid change in forest values, types of value relations, and relative values assigned to forest-related objects (Bengston 1994). As a result, the USDA Forest Service has found itself the focus of extreme criticism by various public interest groups. Growing dissatisfaction with clearcutting is attributed to societal changes such as more urban populations, less direct dependence on commodity production, and a value shift from economic incentives toward aesthetic, recreational, and spiritual values (Fiedler 1992, Rogers 1996). Additionally, the concurrent growth of the environmental movement has created awareness of the forest ecosystem and concern for its health. Thus, the social context for forestry has changed, which in turn has necessitated a new approach to forest management. The Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) of the Forest Service pioneered the discussion of social assessment in forest management (Clark and Stankey 1994). Out of this effort came the understanding that forest management is both a social problem and a global problem, and solutions lie in inclusive, ongoing processes. Historically, the dominant social paradigm under which forest lands were managed emphasized economic growth, control of nature, faith in science and technology, an abundance of natural resources, substitutability of resources, and expert decisionmaking. Changes in the social context of forestry have resulted in the evolution of a new environmental paradigm that features sustainable development, harmony with nature, skepticism of scientific and technological fixes, finite natural resources, limits to substitution, and public involvement in decisionmaking (Bengston 1994). The advent of “New Forestry,” ecosystem management, and adaptive management in the Forest Service is the result of this paradigmatic shift (Behan 1990). The concept of New Forestry encompasses a philosophical perspective, a set of practices, and a new way of doing business. It is still evolving, with implications for educational institu- tions (what is taught), forestry research programs (what is studied), forest managers (management goals and decisions), and the public (their role and influence) (Clark 1 and Stankey 1991, Clark et al. 1999). The new ecosystem management paradigm envisions social science research integrated into forest management decisions. A “common language” for the social and biological sciences, however, is currently lack- ing (Brunson 1996a). Furthermore, the social-human aspects of ecosystem manage- ment will likely be as complex as the physical-biological system interactions (Williams, n.d.). For example, the context in which specific forest management activities occur is significant, and individually held values, level of knowledge, and group influence may be as important as the actual effect of forest management activities in determining their acceptability (Hansis 1996). Recent sociological research on forest valuation indicates public values are shifting from an emphasis on economic values toward aesthetic values. The FEMAT (1993) explains the contemporary concept of social acceptability in forest management as derived from multiple factors including knowledge of the forest, held values, the site- specific context, perceived risk of harvesting, perceived agency motives, and the spatial context of the proposed action. Explicitly recognized forest values now encompass commodity, amenity, environmental quality, ecological, public use, and spiritual values (Stankey and Clark 1992). Issues that will affect future generations also are discussed when allocating forest resources and making forest management decisions. The discipline of environmental sociology, emphasizing interactive reciprocal relations with the environment, is a young field with conceptual methodological difficulties in conducting research (Dunlap and Catton 1983). The meaning and values of forests change over time and space. There is a need to better understand specific attributes that contribute to acceptability and changes in perception through time and space. Public preferences for forest practices and forest conditions need to be better researched. Methods for measuring public acceptability need to be improved (Stankey and Clark 1992). Some researchers have begun to address this challenge. For example, Bormann et al. (1994a) suggest a “lacing model” of management that would integrate societal values and ecological capacity. But much more conceptual and modeling work remains to be done. In southeast Alaska, long-term contracts with two pulp mills in the region required the Forest Service to provide large timber volumes from the Tongass National Forest. Other large-scale logging using clearcutting occurred on Native corporation land after 1980. During this time, corporations logged their most profitable timber holdings. Harvest in the region peaked at over 1 billion board feet per year in those early days of clearcutting. However, the level of production could not be sustained over time. Moreover, high levels of clearcut logging conflicted with existing subsistence and recreational use of forest resources and worked against the growth of large-scale tourism in the area. As a result, timber management in the Tongass National Forest became highly controversial. Now, the pulp mills are closed and current interest in the region focuses on smaller scale, value-added, sustainable timber management with fewer adverse effects on subsistence, recreational, and tourist uses of the forest. Selective harvesting and other alternatives to clearcutting will be part of this new approach to timber management. Examining public opinion and the social accept- ability of different management regimes will be essential in developing a forest management policy that has widespread public support. 2 Methods Most of the timber harvesting in the Tongass National Forest over the past 30 years