A Social Science Method for Public Engagement in the Context of Natural Resource Planning in the United States

Figures & data

Table 1. Overview of applications of the social vulnerability protocol.

Location and year	Planning context	Primary source
Shoshone National Forest (2012)	Forest plan revision	(Armatas 2013)
Frank Church—River of No Return Wilderness (2012)	Wilderness management	(Irey 2014)
Gila National Forest (2016)	Forest plan revision	(Armatas, Borrie, et al. 2017)
Flathead Wild and Scenic River system (2019–2020)	Comprehensive river management plan revision	(Armatas et al. 2020)

Table 2. List of ecosystem services identified for the Gila National Forest, New Mexico.

Provisioning services (extractive resources and uses)

1. Forest materials for personal use (e.g., firewood, Christmas trees, gems, food, traditional and medicinal plants)

2. Timber production

3. Oil and natural gas and minerals (e.g., gold, copper, gravel)

4. Woody biomass for energy (e.g., wood pellets, chip production)

5. Livestock grazing

6. Water for household and municipal use

7. Irrigation for agriculture

Cultural services (recreation, historical, scientific, community and cultural, and personal-enrichment benefits)

Recreation and leisure related cultural benefits

8. Outfitting and guiding (e.g., hunting and fishing)

9. Hunting and fishing (non-outfitted)

10. Non-motorized recreation (e.g., hiking, biking, horses, floating, bird watching)

11. Motorized recreation (e.g., Off-highway vehicles (OHVs), dirt bikes)

12. Driving for pleasure

13. Developed camping (areas with toilets, tent sites, and water)

14. Dispersed camping (areas without any services)

Other cultural benefits

15. Solitude, quiet, and a clear night sky

16. Native American cultural benefits (e.g., ceremonial sites and materials)

17. Traditional agricultural lifestyle (e.g., connection to ranching, and use of irrigation ditches (Acequias))

18. Education and interpretation of the area and ecosystems.

19. Research and science (e.g., ecology, forestry, and archeology)

20. Places where human influence is substantially unnoticeable.

21. Cultural and archeological sites

22. Public ownership and access to public land

23. Scenic beauty, esthetics, and inspiration

Regulating services (environmental benefits)

24. Flood and erosion control

25. Carbon absorption

26. Biodiversity and abundance of plants and animals (including threatened and endangered species)

27. Wildlife habitat and connectivity

28. Water quality

29. Air quality

30. Water quantity (water in rivers and streams)

*Note: Italicized categories and numbering of ecosystem services were not given to participants. That is, each card had only the ecosystem service (e.g., “Livestock grazing”).

Table 3. List of potential drivers of change on the Gila National Forest, New Mexico.

1. Invasive species

2. Uncharacteristic fire

3. Woody encroachment of grasslands

4. Declining Forest Service budgets

5. Extended drought

6. Extreme weather

7. Streamflow alterations

8. Roads and trails (conditions, access, amount)

9. Land use restrictions

10. Lack of land use restrictions

11. Predators, including wolves

12. Unmanaged grazing (wildlife or livestock)

Figure 1. Divergence and convergence of mean importance scores for ecosystem services across public respondents (n = 122) and agency employee respondents (n = 50) on the Gila National Forest, New Mexico. Notes: Dots represent mean importance for each ecosystem service. Bars represent standard deviations for each ecosystem service.

Figure 2. A comparison of interested public and agency employee perspectives. Note: Numbers in each perspective correspond to ecosystem services for the Gila National Forest, New Mexico (see Table 2).

Table 4. Correlations between the different interested public and agency employee perspectives.

	Public environmental	Public utilitarian	Public water	Public motorized	Employee environmental	Employee utilitarian	Employee water
Public environmental	1.0	−0.08	−0.13	−0.02	0.92***	0.16	0.12
Public utilitarian	–	1.0	0.40**	0.21	−0.07	0.65***	0.06
Public water	–	–	1.0	0.18	−0.16	0.47***	0.73***
Public motorized	–	–	–	1.0	0.16	0.54***	0.08
Employee environmental	–	–	–	–	1.0	0.26	0.09
Employee utilitarian	–	–	–	–	–	1.0	0.18
Employee water	–	–	–	–	–	–	1.0

Notes: Levels of statistical significance denoted as: *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.[AQ]

Those correlations highlighted with red correspond with the highly similar public and agency employee perspectives (e.g., Public Environmental and Employee Environmental).

Table 5. Percent of each sample selecting driver of change and the strength of associations with each of the public perspectives on Gila National Forest.

Drivers of change	Interested public (%)	Agency employee (%)	Regression coefficients
			Public environmental	Public utilitarian	Public water	Public motorized
Roads and trails (conditions, access, amount)	46	26	0.02	−0.06	0.07	0.10**
Streamflow alterations and diversions	36	26	0.23***	−0.14***	−0.02	−0.04
Declining forest service budgets	33	68	0.22***	−0.10*	0.07	−0.02
Land use restrictions	30	16	−0.31***	0.21***	0.10	−0.01
Lack of land use restrictions	28	8	0.08	0.04	−0.04	0.03
Predators, including wolves	22	8	−0.16**	0.06	0.15**	0.03
Unmanaged grazing (wildlife or livestock)	22	14	0.28***	−0.13**	0.01	−0.03
Uncharacteristic fire	20	34	0.06	0.12*	0.06	0.07
Woody encroachment of grasslands	11	12	−0.13	0.20***	0.16**	0.03
Extended drought	11	44	0.01	−0.10	0.21***	−0.04
Extreme weather	10	18	0.24**	−0.23***	0.08	−0.05
Invasive species	7	10	0.24*	−0.11	0.04	0.06

Notes: Levels of statistical significance denoted as: *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

Due to a small sample size and limited statistical findings, associations between particular drivers of change and particular perspectives are not presented for the employee sample.

There were 22 drivers of change written-in by public participants, and seven written-in by employees. Only four drivers of change were mentioned more than once: “public land transfer” (written-in twice by public and employees), “climate change” (written in-twice by public and employees), “inability of local managers to manage local forests and conflicts” (written-in twice by public), and “fuelwood collection” (written-in twice by public). While regression analysis of these drivers of change does not yield associations with particular perspectives, they can provide insights into the different concerns held by participants.

Armatas, C. A. 2013. The importance of water-based ecosystem services derived from the shoshone national forest. Masters thesis, Department of Forest Management. Missoula, MT: The University of Montana. http://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/1025/.

 Google Scholar

Irey, B. T. 2014. Stakeholder perspectives regarding the ecosystem services produced by the frank church - river of No return wilderness in Central Idaho. Master thesis, College of Forestry and Conservation. Missoula, Montana: University of Montana.

 Google Scholar

Armatas, C. A., W. T. Borrie, and A. E. Watson. 2017. Gila National Forest public planning meetings: Results of the ecosystem services station. Missoula, MT: The University of Montana. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd565609.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Armatas, C. A., A. E. Watson, and W. T. Borrie. 2020. The flathead wild and scenic river system: Results from public engagement asking about human-nature relationships, threats and contributors to such relationships, and opinions about planning and management. Prepared for the Flathead River Wild and Scenic Comprehensive River Management Planning Team. Missoula, MT: Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute.

 Google Scholar