Suchergebnisse

Ecosystem management strategies are said to redirect resource management efforts away from producing utilitarian outputs and toward maintaining desired conditions on the land. This shift in emphasis is intended to preserve the ecological integrity of managed landscapes by sustaining biophysical systems. It is equally crucial that management agencies maintain socially acceptable (i.e., politically sustainable) landscapes, as the former goal cannot be achieved without the latter. To achieve both goals simultaneously, social and ecological management objectives must be integrated. A barrier to integration has been the lack of a common language for the social and biological sciences. The concept "habitat" describes both social and biophysical aspects of ecosystems. The habitat concept can be applied to human uses of natural areas. Based on research conducted in western Oregon forests, a prototype "habitat suitability index" is proposed for each of three common forest uses: hiking, camping, and scenic viewing.

The Great Basin sagebrush steppe ecosystem is among the most imperiled in the U.S. Cheatgrass invasion, conifer encroachment, and catastrophic wildfires are considered to be primary catalysts of decline. Efforts are underway to restore and increase the resiliency of this damaged ecosystem through broad-scale applications of fuel reduction and restoration treatments involving mechanical removal, prescribed fire, and herbicide application. While research points to the potential benefits of these treatments, controversy and challenge often surface when treatments are proposed on public lands. Therefore it is critical for land managers to understand the views held by key stakeholder groups concerning management and restoration of public lands. We interviewed ranchers, environmental activists, Extension educators, multiple-use recreationists, and livestock industry representatives from throughout the Great Basin, as well as public land managers themselves, to gain a better understanding of the concerns citizens have about sagebrush-steppe management and restoration. While we found strong support for the concept of restoration in principle, citizen interviewees expressed concerns about agencies' capacity to make it happen. Among the issues raised by interviewees were concerns about: levels of available funding, ability to keep pace with increasing wildfire and invasion processes, emphasis on post-disturbance restoration rather than on prevention, interference from political forces both in constituency groups and in Washington, D.C., and agency willingness to incorporate local knowledge into restoration planning. Managers shared many concerns with citizens, but identified different local-level barriers to implementation.

Improving the sustainability of grazed rangelands requires that landowners adopt management innovations. We interviewed Utah ranchers to better understand innovation adoption among range livestock operators, and ultimately to suggest improvements in content and delivery of outreach activities. A 2-phase, qualitative social science research method was used to encourage discovery of information unlikely to be revealed via surveys and to expand the application of adoption theory to range livestock production. In line with previous research, innovation was related to full-time ranch operation, dependence on ranch income, anticipated future of the ranch, and extent of social networks. Barriers to innovation included inadequate time and resources, peer influences, and perceived drawbacks of potential innovations (e.g., difficulty of pilot-testing new grazing systems, or poor cost-benefit ratios of vegetation treatments). In contrast to previous studies, innovators were motivated by a desire to demonstrate stewardship to land managers and the public. Previously unidentified barriers included spatial characteristics of the ranch enterprise and perceptions about political/legal constraints.

Four characteristics of the Northern Rockies that are most important to ecosystem management are the large number of high-profile wildlife species, the diversity of ecological types, the rural socio-economic systems that are highly resource-based, and the fire-dependent natural systems. Potential constraints include the diversity of human values, insufficient knowledge about ecosystems, the tendency for political systems to produce solutions that are not ecologically optimal, and the prevalence of a utilitarian growth orientation coupled with anti-government sentiment. Characteristics most favorable for EM are the large amount of federal ownership, abundant research opportunities, a growing public recognition of the need to make environmental progress, and recognition among the agencies of the need for partnerships.

Successful managers of federal rangelands in the next century will have to implement politically supportable policies that address both forage and non-forage values. To do so will require an understanding of beliefs and attitudes across a wider spectrum of American society than the traditional range clientele. In 1993 a study was conducted to examine geographic variation in general public attitudes and beliefs about federal range management, and the linkage between general environmental values, attitudes toward federal range policiy and management, and beliefs about environmental conditions on federal rangelands. While there was some evidence of an East-West dichotomy on range issues, greater support was found for a dichotomy between urban areas throughout the U.S. and rural regions where rangelands are important to local economies. Attitudes and beliefs about rangelands were typically rooted in simplistic, value-based ideas about the goodness or badness of range practices and conditions.

The Utah prairie dog (Cynomys parvidens), a federally listed threatened species, causes damage to agricultural operations, yet little incentive exists for private landowners to conserve them. Therefore, we surveyed Utah residents to identify stakeholder attitudes regarding prairie dog management. We assessed how perceptions of wildlife damage affect respondent attitudes regarding conservation among agricultural producers, rural residents, and urban residents. Higher levels of perceived wildlife damage were reported for agriculture respondents (79%) than for urban (20%) or rural (45%) respondents. Compensation for damage caused by Utah prairie dogs was supported by those engaged in agricultural production but not by rural or urban respondents. Agricultural producers, rural residents and urban residents all stated a preference for private conservation organizations to fund damage compensation rather than a government agency. Most agricultural respondents (61%) and rural respondents (64%) believed that Utah prairie dogs should be only on public lands. Some agricultural respondents (23%) thought they should be on no land. Attitudes regarding the Utah prairie dog varied, with agricultural producers being the most negative and urban respondents the most positive. The negative attitude of rural residents and agricultural producers probably results from both the damage caused by Utah prairie dogs and land-use restrictions resulting from the species being listed as threatened. Acceptance of Utah prairie dogs by private landowners may be key to the recovery of the species, and our findings suggest that alleviation of damage issues may increase landowner acceptance of conservation measures to protect Utah prairie dogs.

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

Wildlife damage managers consider various factors when selecting an appropriate course of action to handle problem wildlife. One of those factors is how the public views both the damage and the government's role in managing that damage. We conducted a mail survey of randomly selected American households to assess general attitudes toward wildlife and specific concerns about wildlife damage management. Respondents strongly supported the federal government's role in ensuring public safety, engaging in public education, and continuing research of non-lethal control methods. Less support existed for lethal control of predators and crop depredators, whereas financial compensation for losses from wildlife activities was generally opposed. Lethal methods of control were generally considered to be inhumane and non-lethal methods humane. When asked to rank importance of factors to be considered when selecting management methods, human safety ranked highest, followed by animal suffering, effectiveness, environmental impacts, severity of problem, and ability to target the specific problem animal. The lowest ranked factor was public opinion. Collectively, our results suggest that United States citizens want a role in wildlife damage policy formation, but respect wildlife professionals' judgement in specific management situations.

Wildlife managers need current human dimensions information to develop outreach and management programs that address public concerns about predation and predator management. No human dimensions studies assessing public attitudes toward managing medium-sized predators have been conducted previously. We surveyed a random sample of United States households to assess public attitudes and beliefs about the management of medium-sized predators to enhance avian recruitment. Respondents expressed moderately knowledgeable, but somewhat idealized, beliefs about predator ecology. Although we found strong support for predators' right to exist, respondents did not support an outright ban on predator hunting or trapping. When given specific predator control scenarios, respondents supported control to enhance avian recruitment, except when controlling raptors to protect upland gamebirds. Support for control was greater when prey species were threatened and when the predator species were less charismatic. Respondent support for predator control to protect native versus introduced birds was similar. Our results suggest that the interested public may support predator control more readily when it is used "surgically" than when applied broadly. We discuss implications for political action regarding predator management.

We propose a framework for understanding the role that the social sciences should play in ecosystem management. Most of the ecosystem management literature assumes that scientific understanding of ecosystems is solely the purview of natural scientists. While the evolving principles of ecosystem management recognize that people play an important role, social considerations are usually limited to political and decision-making processes and to development of environmental education. This view is incomplete. The social science aspect of ecosystem management has two distinct components: one that concerns greater public involvement in the ecosystem management decision-making process, and one that concerns integrating social considerations into the science of understanding ecosystems. Ecosystem management decisions based primarily on biophysical factors can polarize people, making policy processes more divisive than usual. Ecological data must be supplemented with scientific analysis of the key social factors relevant to a particular ecosystem. Objective social science analysis should be included on an equal basis with ecological science inquiry and with data from public involvement. A conceptual framework is presented to communicate to ecological scientists the potential array of social science contributions to ecosystem management. http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/1051-0761%281998%29008%5B0891%3AAFFUSS%5D2.0.CO%3B2 http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/1051-0761%281998%29008%5B0891%3AAFFUSS%5D2.0.CO%3B2