Understanding the discourse of
forest restoration and biomass
utilization to guide collaborative
forest resource planning
Jessica Clement, Nathaniel Anderson,
Pam Motley, and Tony Cheng
What’s ahead?
•
•
•
•
•
Background
Goals and Objectives
Methods: The Q-study
Results
Discussion and Questions
Research Personnel
Colorado Forest Restoration Institute, CSU
• Jessica Clement
• Tony Cheng
Uncompahgre Partnership
• Pam Motley (now with West Range
Reclamation)
Rocky Mountain Research Station
• Nate Anderson
Partners
•
•
•
•
•
Uncompahgre Partnership/GEO Grant
RMRS
CSU- CFRI
GMUG National Forests
Public Lands Partnership
Participants, advisors and
stakeholders in the study
What themes characterize
stakeholders’ subjective
perceptions and discourse
about restoration treatments
and biomass utilization?
Goals
• Understand regional dialogue
• Understand different perspectives
• Guide communication, cooperation and
collaboration
• Maximize benefits
• Minimize conflict
Objectives
• Identify distinct themes that characterize
different perspectives on this issue
• Examine nuances of those themes
• Characterize patterns quantitatively
• Identify places where frames overlap and
diverge
Methods
The “Q-Study”
• Focus on “Frames”
• Frame – “a representation of reality that
defines the key elements of a situation and
its potential outcomes”
• Quantifying the subjective
• Risk aversion versus risk taking
Methods
The “Q-Study”
1. Compile a database of statements
2. Sample the database to select 36
representative statements
Methods
Statement Categories
• Aesthetic
• Recreation
• Ecological
• Cultural/Historic
• Process/Policy
• Economic
Photo: Uncompahgre Partnership
Methods
Sample Statements
• “Forest treatments should minimize visual
disturbances whenever possible.”
• “I don’t think forest treatments have
negative impacts on recreationists.”
• “It is important to me that forest treatments
pay for themselves.”
• “I am concerned that biomass harvest will
lead to overharvesting and threaten
forests.”
Methods
The “Q-Study”
1. Compile a database of statements
2. Sample the database to select 36
representative statements
3. Compile a “person sample”
– NOT a simple random sample of individuals
– NOT an opinion survey
– Select participants to represent as many
perspectives as possible
Methods
Stakeholder Group
Recreation (motorized and non-motorized groups)
Representatives of other collaboratives
Grazing permittees
Conservation groups
Federal agency
State agency
Local government
Energy utility industry
Forest products industry
Biomass utilization interests
Landowners
Total
Participants
5
4
1
7
5
3
5
3
4
2
3
42
Methods
The “Q-Study”
4. Data collection
– Q-sorts of the 36 statements by participants
– Followed by a structured interview
5. Multivariate statistical analysis
– Concentrate relationships of many variables
into a few pairs of variables called “factors”
6. Interpret the statistical results thorough
correlations with statements and people
Methods
The “Q-Sort”
STRONGLY DISAGREE
-5
-4
-3
STRONGLY AGREE
-2
-1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
0
+1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
+2
+3
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+4
+5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~
Results
FACTOR 1: Bio-centric Utilization
• 20 of 41 participants
• 34% of variation in the data
• Generally supportive of biomass utilization
for ecological reasons, with an emphasis on
accomplishing treatments to improve
ecosystem health and avoid severe fires.
• “The Plateau contains important habitat for
various species of wildlife. Treatment
activities should not degrade habitat.”
Results
FACTOR 2: Industry-oriented Utilization
• 10 of 41 participants
• 19% of variation in the data
• Supportive of biomass utilization to
generate economic benefits, including job
creation in new and existing industries. Also
aware of and supportive of other values.
• “It is critically important to industry to have a
sustainable, predictable supply of material.”
Results
FACTOR 3: Industrialist
• 3 of 41 participants
• 6% of variation in the data
• Highly correlated with statements
characterizing open burning of biomass as
a wasteful activity. High emphasis on jobs.
Low support for other values.
• “Using woody biomass instead of wasting it
by burning or scattering on the ground has
numerous benefits.”
Results
FACTOR 4: Access-oriented Utilization
• 3 of 41 participants
• 5% of variation in the data
• Emphasis on access and motorized
recreation with support for industry.
• “I love to explore the large network of Off
Highway Vehicle roads and trails that the
Uncompahgre Plateau offers.”
Results
FACTOR 5: Risk-averse Eco-centric
• 3 of 41 participants
• 4% of variation in the data
• Ecological emphasis generally skeptical of
utilization and disagreeing with statements
supporting utilization for economic reasons.
• “Treatment emphasis should be on
improving and maintaining ecosystem
health.”
Results
• Loadings relate sorts to factors
• Respondents load uniquely to one factor
Participant #
21
4
18
34
24
7
16
33
13
40
14
8
3
15
17
41
5
32
6
12
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5
0.8310
0.8001
0.7826
0.7638
0.7589
0.7308
0.7105
0.6755
0.6713
0.6629
0.6585
0.6532
0.6420
0.5978
0.5892
0.5712
0.5405
0.5248
0.5021
0.4670
Participant #
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5
28
0.7896
38
0.7860
30
0.7642
2
0.7516
10
0.7503
37
0.7275
11
0.6991
31
0.6522
29
0.6419
19
0.5151
23
0.7355
25
0.7012
1
0.6109
35
0.7479
26
0.7116
9
0.6639
27
0.6388
39
0.6172
36
0.6037
Q-sorts loaded on each factor at p < .01.
Take Home Messages
• The dominant perspectives tend to
appreciate multiple values
• The dominant perspectives are not highly
correlated with polarizing statements
• Is collaborative forest
planning the cause or the
effect? Or both?
• How can we use this
information?
Photo: Uncompahgre Partnership
Contact Information
Nate Anderson, Research Forester
Rocky Mountain Research Station
PO Box 7669, 200 East Broadway
Missoula, MT 59807
nathanielmanderson@fs.fed.us
(406) 329-3398