The effects of place meanings and social capital on desired forest management outcomes: A stated preference experiment

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or

licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the

article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or

institutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are

encouraged to visit:

ContentslistsavailableatSciVerseScienceDirect

Landscape

and

Urban

Planning

j o ur na l ho me p ag e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / l a n d u r b p l a n

The

effects

of

place

meanings

and

social

capital

on

desired

forest

management

outcomes:

A

stated

preference

experiment

Jordan

W.

Smith

_,

_Christos

_Siderelis

_,

_Roger

_L.

_Moore

_,

_Dorothy

_H.

_Anderson

a_{PurdueUniversity,FORS201A,195MarstellerStreet,WestLafayette,IN47907,UnitedStates} b_{NorthCarolinaStateUniversity,Box8004,BiltmoreHall,Raleigh,NC27695-8004,UnitedStates}

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory:

Received21September2011

Receivedinrevisedform20March2012 Accepted27March2012

Available online 12 April 2012

Keywords:

Rankedlogit Randomutilitymodel Trust

Intra-communitysocialnetworks Publicchoice

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Plannersandmanagersresponsibleforpublic-trustresourcesareoftenfacedwithmakingdifficult value-ladendecisionsrequiringtradeoffsbetweenalternative,andoftencompeting,outcomes.Tomakemore informeddecisionswithinvolatilesocio-politicalclimates,resourcemanagersandplannersneedan understandingofthebenefitslocalcommunitymemberswouldliketheresourcetoproduce,andan understandingofthesocialandpsychologicalfactorsthatinfluencethosepreferences.Inthisresearch, wefocusedontwoincreasinglyimportantfactors–socialcapitalandplace-basedsocial–psychological attachments– thatinfluencepublicpreferencesformanagementoutcomes.Weconductedastated preferencefieldexperimentonresidentslivinginthreeforestrelatedcommunitieswithinSouthern AppalachiaintheSoutheasternUnitedStates.Theexperimentelucidatedresponsestohypothetical man-agementplansdesignedtoproducedistinctlydifferentoutcomes.Theresultsrevealecologicallyfocused managementplanswerethemostpreferred,muchmoresothanplansdesignedtoproduceaesthetic, recreational,oreconomicoutcomes.Thedataalsorevealbothindividuals’stocksofsocialcapitalaswellas theirplace-basedsocial–psychologicalattachmentsinfluenceevaluationofcompetingmanagement out-comes.Ourmethodologicalapproachandempiricalfindingsadvanceboththeanalyticalapproachesused tostudymultipleusepublicresourcesandexistingknowledgeregardinghowsocialandpsychological factorsinfluenceindividuals’decision-makingprocesses.

© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Plannersandmanagersresponsibleforpublic-trustresources areoftenfacedwithmakingdifficultvalue-ladendecisions requir-ingtradeoffsbetweenalternative,andoftencompeting,outcomes (Lachapelle,McCool,&Patterson,2003;McCool&Guthrie,2001).A growingbodyofliteraturenowsuggestthatforresourceplanners andmanagerstomakemore informeddecisionswithinvolatile socio-politicalclimates,theyneedanunderstandingofthe bene-fitslocalcommunitymemberswouldliketheresourcetoproduce, andanunderstandingofthesocialandpsychologicalfactorsthat influencethose preferences (e.g.,Armitage et al., 2009;Berkes, 2009;Carlsson&Berkes,2005).Equippedwithknowledgeabout howlocalcommunitymemberswouldlikepublic-trustresources managed,andhow those preferencesare formed,plannersand managerscanbemorepreparedtoproactivelyengage stakehold-ersinplanningandmanagementdecisions,buildconsensusamong

∗Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+14358306294.

E-mailaddresses:[email protected],[email protected](J.W.Smith),

[email protected](C.Siderelis),[email protected](R.L.Moore),

dorothy [email protected](D.H.Anderson).

thosestakeholders,and,ultimately,developstrongandreciprocal relationshipsthatfacilitatemoreefficientandsociallyacceptable futuremanagementdecisions.

Thisstudy hastwoprimary objectives.Thefirst isto exam-inethemanagementoutcomespreferredbycommunitymembers livingadjacenttopublicforests.Specifically,weexaminehow indi-vidualsmaketrade-offsbetweencompetingoutcomesproduced by hypotheticalforestmanagementplans.The secondobjective istoexaminethesocialandpsychologicalfactorsthatinfluence community members’ preferences for management outcomes. Explicitly,we examinehow twofactors –individuals’ stocksof socialcapitalandthemeaningstheyattachtotheforest–affect preferencesforforestmanagement.

2. Desiredoutcomesfromforestmanagement

Baseduponareviewofexistingliteratureconcerningthevalues individual’sascribetopublicforests(seeMoyer,Owen,&Duinker, 2008; Owen, Duinker, & Beckley, 2009) and recent research addressing preferences for non-forest public-trust resources (Anderson, Davenport, Leahy, & Stein, 2008; Smith, Davenport, Anderson,&Leahy,2011;Smith&Moore,2011;Wyman&Stein,

0169-2046/$–seefrontmatter© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

2010)wechoosetofocusonfouroutcomesproducedasaresultof nearlyallforestmanagementdecisions:

•Economic outcomes include all of the market-based benefits ascribedtoforestproductsandservices;theseincludebothdirect economic impacts such as the creation of local jobs and tax revenuesfromforest-relatedindustries,aswellasindirect eco-nomicimpactssuchastourismrevenuesandothercapitalflows attributabletotheexistenceoftheforest.

•Ecologicaloutcomesrefertothesuiteofbenefitsderivedfromthe functioningofforestecosystems.

•Recreationaloutcomes refertothesetofbenefitsderivedfrom individualsbeingabletorealizedesiredrecreationalexperiences fromforestrecreationsettings(Driver,2008;Moore&Driver, 2005).

•Aestheticoutcomesrefertothescenicqualityofforestlandscapes. Aestheticsareafundamentalcomponentintheinterpretationof forestedlandscapesandsettings(Ryanetal.,2010).

Ifpossible,publicforestuserswouldtypicallylikemanagersto producealloftheseoutcomes.However,givenplannersand man-agershaveonlyafiniteamountofresourcestoallocate,producing all desirable outcomes is not feasible. Moreover, some desired forestmanagementoutcomesarediscordantandcannotbe simul-taneouslyproduced. Resource users, as a result, have to make trade-offswhenpreferencesforforestmanagementoutcomesare elucidated.

Past researchcan offer insightson (1) whethercertain out-comestendtobepreferredoverothers,(2)howtrade-offsbetween competingoutcomesaremade,and(3)howsocial–psychological characteristicsinfluencethesetrade-offs.

Regarding thefirst point, previousstudies have suggested a decline inindividuals’ desire toseepublicforests managedfor economicoutcomesover thepastfourdecades(Cordell,Helton, Tarrant,& Redmond, 1996). Simultaneously,there has beenan increase in the desires for management tobe focused on pro-ducing non-economicoutcomes (Manning, Valliere, & Minteer, 1999).

Concerning thesecondpoint, previousresearchsuggeststhe presenceof apositive associationbetweenthetypesof experi-ences individuals desire from forest settings (e.g.,recreational, aesthetic,etc.)andtheirpreferencesformanagementactionsthat enabletheproduction ofthose experienceopportunities(Smith etal.,2011).Astothethirdpoint,thegeneralpublictendsto pre-ferforestmanagementstrategiesthatmaximizeaestheticquality, regardlessofwhetherthosemanagementstrategiesproducethe mostecologicallystableforests(Hunt&Haider,2004;Kearney,Tilt, &Bradley,2010;Ribe,2005).Gobster(1999)notesthetensions betweendesiredecologicalandaestheticoutcomesislargelydue tothegeneralpublic’sknowledge,orlackthereof,regardingbest forestmanagementpractices.However,recentresearchsuggests certainpopulations,suchasthosewithstrongpro-environmental attitudes(Ribe,2002)orsocio-economictiestothetimber indus-try(Ford,Williams,Bishop,&Hickey,2009)donotalwaysfavor forestmanagementdecisionsthatproducethemostaesthetically pleasingoutcomes.

3. Factorsinfluencingpreferencesfordesiredoutcomes

Public preferencesforforestmanagementarenot influenced solely by the particular attributes of competing management objectives.Rather, numerous social–psychological factors influ-ence preferences for desired outcomes. Here, we focus on individuals’ stocks of social capital as well as the meanings theyascribeto nearbypublically managedforests. Wesuggest

Fig.1.Trustandobjectiveties:thedualaxesofsocialcapital.

these social–psychological concepts play a functional and cog-nitiveroleinindividuals’ decision-makingbehavior (Kahneman, 2003a; Kahneman, 2003b). In a choice process where individ-uals are elicited to choose between a set of alternatives, the social–psychologicaltraitsofthedecisionmakerplayakeyrole inmakingthedecision(Louviere,Hensher,&Swait,2000).These social–psychologicaltraitsinfluencedecisionmakers’perceptions and evaluations of alternatives,theutility theyascribetoeach alternative,andconsequently,whichalternativetheyarelikelyto choose.

3.1. Socialcapital

The presenceof strong,reciprocaland trusting relationships betweenlocalcommunitymemberscaninfluencethesocial accept-abilityofresourcemanagementdecisions(Leahy&Anderson,2010; Stern, 2008; Wondolleck &Yaffee, 2000).The dissemination of informationandtheextenttowhichthatinformationistrusted,can bedescribedthroughthebroadconceptofsocialcapital.Social cap-italiscomprisedoftheinformation,trustandnormsofreciprocity inheringinanindividual’ssocialnetwork(Woolcock,1998).Social capitalisatheoreticallydiverseconceptthatisessentially com-prisedoftwocomponents–trustandobjectivesocialties(Paxton, 1999).Trustandobjectivetiesformtwodistinctaxesofsocial capi-tal(Fig.1).Thetrustaxisdistinguishesbetweensocialrelationships thatareeitherassociativeandexchangebased,definedbylow lev-elsoftrust,oraffectiveandreciprocitybased,definedbyhigher levelsoftrust.Theobjectivesocialtiesaxisdifferentiatesbetween

bondingandbridgingsocialties;therelativestrengthofassociation betweenindividualsinvolvedinsocialinteractions(Gittell&Vidal, 1998).Bondingtiesreferstorelationshipsbetweenfamily mem-bers,friendsandneighborsinclosed,tightlyconnectednetworks whilebridgingtiesarerelationsbetweenindividualsin“weakly connected”socialnetworks(Granovetter,1973).

Previousreviews ofsocialcapital theorysuggestindividuals’ preferencesforspecificmanagementoutcomesdependupontheir stocksof socialcapital (Bodin&Crona,2009).Explicitly,where individualsgettheirinformation,andhowmuchtheytrustthat information,willaffecttheirpreferencesandtheexpectedutility theybelievewillcomefromaparticularmanagementplan.

preferences and behavioral patterns (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). As a result, bonding social capital can impose strictsocial normsthat discouragechangeand foster increased homophily(Portes,1998).Individualsembeddedinhighlybonded socialnetworksarelikelytopreferpotentialforestmanagement outcomesthatenablethemtomaintaintheirclosetiestofriends, family and other frequent contacts. For example, management actionsthat produceor maintainrecreationalopportunitiesare likelytobesupportedbyhighlybondedindividualsifthe main-tenanceoftheirsocialtiesisdependentuponthoserecreational opportunities.Individualsin highlybonded social networksare alsolikelytoprefermanagementactionswhichconformto within-groupnorms,yielding anarrowersetofpreferredmanagement outcomes.

Bridgingsocialcapital,conversely,cangiveindividualsaccess toresourcesandinformationthatarenotreadilyavailableintheir immediatesocialnetworks.Bridgingtiesallowindividualsto over-comewithin-group social normsthrough support fromoutside theirlocalnetwork(Granovetter,1973;Pretty,2003).Asaresult, individualswithaccesstoinformationfromoutsidetheir immedi-atesocialnetworksaremorelikelytoconsiderandpreferabroader rangeofpotentialforestmanagementoutcomes.Bridgingsocial capitalislikely toyieldabroadersetofpreferredmanagement outcomes.

3.2. Placemeanings

Individuals’preferencesforforestmanagementoutcomesare influenced by the meaningsthey attachto thelandscapes and resourcesbeingmanaged(Cheng,Kruger,&Daniels,2003;Kruger, 2008;Kruger&Williams,2007).Researchconcerningperson/place relationshipshasbeendevelopedwithinnumerousrelated disci-plinaryfields(Trentelman,2009)makingitdifficulttodiscernboth arelativelydistinctsetofmeaningsthatindividualsascribeto for-estlandscapesandgeneraltrendsorpatternsinspecificmeanings’ influenceonparticularmanagementoutcomes.

While many scholars who address place meanings or the broaderconceptofplaceattachmentdonotdisentanglethese con-structs,wesuggestthereisaclearstructure.FollowingTuan(1977), wedefineplaceasphysicalspaceimbuedwithmeaning.Meanings relatedtoplacearethemostfundamentalconnectionsindividuals formwithspecificspaces.Placemeaningsarediscrete construc-tionsformedbyanindividualthatconveythepersonalsignificance ofa particular geographic location.Place meaningscaninvolve thepersonalsignificanceofaspacebaseduponnumerousfactors involvingthecharacteristicsoftheindividual,others,andthe phys-icalsettingitself(Gustafson,2001).Collectively,thesetofmeanings anindividualascribestoaparticularspaceformtheirattachment tothat place(i.e.,theirplaceattachment).Conceptualizingplace attachmentasabroadmultidimensionalandoverarchingconstruct isnotnovel,Kyle,Graefe,Manning,andBacon(2004)notethatthis approachisquitecommoninresearchfocusingonlocalresidents whohaveawell-establishedconnectiontoanarea.

In this study, we chooseto examine a setof seven distinct placemeanings–individual identity, familyidentity,self-efficacy,

self-expression,communityidentity,economicmeaning,and ecologi-calmeaning.Previousresearchindicatestheseplacemeaningsare empiricallyvalidandgeneralizabletomultipleresource manage-mentcontexts(Smithetal.,2011)andthattheseplacemeanings caninfluencepreferencesformanagementoutcomes(Davenport& Anderson,2005).Eachtypeofmeaningisarelativelydistinctway individualsascribeimportanceorsignificancetothelandscape.

Individualidentityrepresentstheextenttowhich individuals believetheforestinformstheirself-identity.Morebroadly, self-identityisasetofbeliefsaboutanindividual’spersonalappraisal ofhim/herselfaswellastheirappraisalsofhowothersviewthem

(Proshansky,Fabian,&Kaminoff,1995).Whenanindividual’s iden-tityis highly dependentuponspecificphysical settings,suchas publicforests, he/shecanbesaid toidentifystrongly withthat setting;theconversewouldalsoapply.

Familyidentityextendstheconceptofindividualplaceidentity; theconceptrepresentstheextenttowhichanindividualbelievesa specificphysicalsettingorlandscapehasdefinedtheirbeliefsabout who theirfamily is and howothers perceivethem (Davenport, Baker,Leahy,&Anderson,2010;Smithetal.,2011).Ifindividuals believetheirintra-familialsocialbondsrequirethepresenceofa particularphysicallandscapetobemaintained,theirfamily’s iden-tityishighlydependentuponthepresenceandmanagementofthat landscape.Often,individuals expressbeliefsabouttheirfamily’s identitythroughrecollectionsofpast-experiencesthatoccurredin particularlandscapes(Kruger&Shannon,2000).

Self-efficacy refers tothe meaningsassociated withrealizing desiredexperiencesinaparticularsettingorlandscape(Davenport etal.,2010;Smithetal.,2011).Theconceptrepresentsthe “behav-ioral”componentofanindividual’sattachmenttophysicalspace (Low&Altman,1992)andisboth theoretically andempirically relatedtotheconceptof“place-dependence”(seeMoore&Graefe, 1994;Williams,Patterson,Roggenbuck,&Watson,1992;Williams &Vaske,2003).Meaningsassociatedwithrecreationalor educa-tionalactivitiesthatcanonlyoccurinapublicforestarethebest exampleofself-efficacy.

Self-expressionreferstothemeaningsassociatedwithhowa par-ticularforestsettingorlandscapeenablesindividualstoexpress themselves(Davenportetal.,2010;Smithetal.,2011).Whilethe aforementionedconceptofself-identityrefers,inpart,topersonal appraisalsofself,self-expressioninvolvestheabilityofaphysical settingorlandscapetofacilitatethecommunicationofthat iden-tity.IntheSouthernAppalachianmountains,forexample,many residentsidentifystronglywiththeforestbecauseithasplayeda largepartoftheregion’sculturalhistory(Salstrom,1994).Inturn, thepreservationofmanySouthernAppalachianforestsenables res-identstoretellstoriesoftheregion’shistoryanddevelopment.The presenceoftheforest,inshort,enablesresidentstoexpress,and retain,aportionoftheirpersonalself-identity.

Justasthefamilyidentityconstructextendedtheboundsof indi-vidualidentitytofamily,thecommunityidentityconstructextends itfurthertoencompassindividualappraisalsofwhattheybelieve theirlocalcommunityisandhowitisviewedbyoutsiders.The communityidentityconstructencompassesmeaningsassociated withlocalcharacterandculture.Thebeliefthatpublic-trustnatural resourcesdefineacommunity’sidentityisoneofthemost consis-tentandsignificantpredictorsinshapingindividuals’preferences forspecificmanagementactions(Smithetal.,2011).Local com-munitymembers,byandlarge,preferresourcemanagerstomake decisionsthatpreservetheuniqueanddistinctivenature(identity) oftheircommunities(Kruger&Shannon,2000).

Economic meanings refer to individuals’ appraisals of how dependenttheirlocaleconomyisuponaparticularforestlandscape (Smithetal.,2011).

Ecological meanings refer to individuals’ beliefs about how dependenttheybelievetheirlocalecosystemisuponaparticular publicforestsettingorlandscape.

sevenaprioriplacemeaningdimensionswillsignificantlyinfluence individuals’preferenceformanagementoutcomes.

4. Materialsandmethods

Theprimaryobjectiveofthisstudyistoexaminehowboththe meaningsindividualsattachtoforestedlandscapesandthetype andstrengthoftheirsocialcapitalinfluencepreferencesfor for-estmanagementoutcomes.Thehypothesesbeingtestedinvolve thepresenceofarelationshipbetweensevenhypothesizedplace meanings,fourdistinctstocksofsocialcapital,andfourprimary objectivesofforestmanagement.

4.1. Measures

Toassessplacemeanings,weuseda21-itemscaleshownto bean empiricallyvalid measure of place meanings(Davenport etal., 2010; Smith et al.,2011).The scale is intended to mea-sure seven relatively distinct meanings that individuals attach tomanagedpublic-trustlandscapes.Theintendedmeaningsare:

individualidentity,familyidentity,self-efficacy,self-expression, com-munityidentity,economicmeanings,andecologicalmeanings;each meaningismeasuredwithbetweentwoandfourstatementitems. Respondentsareaskedtoindicatetheirlevelofagreementwith eachofthestatementitemsona5-pointagreementscalewiththe followingresponseoptions:(1)stronglydisagree,(2)disagree,(3) neutral,(4)agree,(5)stronglyagree.

To assess social capital, we askedrespondents about where theyobtainedinformationaboutlocalcommunityissues (associa-tionalties)andhowmuchtheytrusted(affective)theinformation receivedfromthosesources.Respondentsweregiven14potential sourcesoflocalcommunityinformationandaskedwhetherthey receivedinformationfromthatsource,andifso,theextenttowhich theytrustedthatinformation.

The bonding/associative form of social capital is assessed through a dichotomous measure assessed by respondents’ use (scored1)ornon-use(scored0)ofclosefriendsorimmediatefamily forinformationonlocalcommunityissues.Thebonding/affective formofsocial capitalisassessedthroughacontinuousmeasure correspondingtotheamount oftrust respondents place inthe informationtheyreceivefromclosefriendsandimmediatefamily. The bridging/associative form of social capital was assessed throughasinglemeasurecorrespondingtothenumberof infor-mationsources(besidesclosefriendsandimmediatefamily)an individualdrawsuponforinformationabouttheirlocal commu-nity.The bridging/affective formof social capital was assessed throughasinglemeasurethatcorrespondedtothemeanlevelof trustplacedinlocalcommunityinformationsources(asidefrom closefriendsandimmediatefamily).

4.2. Amodelofpreferencesfordesiredmanagementoutcomes

To examine individuals’ preferences for forest management outcomes,weutilizedasurvey-basedstatedpreferencefield exper-iment where participants were presented with multiple forest managementplansandaskedtoranktheminorderofpersonal preference. Our model began with the assumption that forest plannersandmanagerscouldproducefourdistinct outcomes– environmental, economic, recreational, and aesthetic. Manage-ment couldeither focus whollyon producing one outcome or, diversifytheireffortsandresourcestoproducemultipleoutcomes toa lesserdegree.Wedeveloped a seriesofhypothetical man-agementplansthat variedin theextenttowhich theyfocused onproducing eachofthefouroutcomes.Theexperimentasked respondentstoranktheseplansbasedontheirpreferences.

Accordingtorandomutilityframework(McFadden,1974),the utilityderivedfromanyparticularplanisspecifiedas:

Unj=Vnj+εnj=ˇxnj+znj+εnj

whereUnjistherandomlatentutilityofachosenmanagementplan

jforrespondentn,Vnjissystematic(explainable)componentof util-ityandεnjisrandomdisturbance.Moreover,Vnjisafunctionofa matrixofattributesandtheirlevelspertainingtothemanagement plan(xnj)andamatrixofothercovariatesznjpertainingtoother factorsthoughttoinfluencemanagementpreferences.Here,these othercovariatesarecomprisedofindependentvariables represent-ingthemeaningsindividualsascribetotheforestandtheirstocks ofsocialcapital.Finally,ˇ_{and arethevectorsofcoefficients}

associatedwithxnjandznj.

Abasicassumptionofallstatedpreferenceexperimentseliciting rankedresponsesisthatindividuals’rankingsofalternativeswithin achoicesetreflecttherelativeutilitytheyreceivefromeachofthe alternatives.Giventhis,theprobabilityofanyrankingof alterna-tivesfrombesttoworstcanbeexpressedastheproductoflogit formulas.Inthisexperiment,respondentsarepresentedwithfour managementalternativesA,B,C,andD.Forexample,the probabil-ityofarespondentrankingthealternativesB,A,C,Disexpressed asthelogitprobabilityofchoosingalternativeBfromthesetA,

B,C,DtimesthelogitprobabilityofchoosingalternativeAfrom theremainingsetofA,C,andD,timestheprobabilityofchoosing alternativeCfromtheremainingsetofCandD.Theprobabilityof rankingthealternativesB,A,C,Disexpressedas:

Prob(ranking B,A,C,D)= eˇ _x

nB

j=A,B,C,Deˇ _xnj ×

eˇ_x nA

j=A,C,Deˇ _xnj

× eˇ _x

nC

j=C,Deˇ _xnj

Since ranked data can be expressed as theproduct of logit formulas,theycanbeanalyzedasindependentchoices.A respon-dent’scompleterankingofallthealternatives(asingleobservation) is exploded into a seriesof pseudo-observations (Hanemann & Kanninen,1999).Eachpseudo-observationbeyondarespondent’s firstchoiceomitstheprobabilityoftherespondentchoosingthat alternativeagain.Toaccommodatethepseudo-observations,the dataaresetupinlongformatwhereJ−1pseudo-observationsfor eachrankingaretreatedasJ−1choicesforeachrespondentwith theomittedchoiceactingasthebasecomparisonchoice.

4.3. Attributes

In developing thefouroutcomes produced bypublicforests (attributes)underexaminationinthisstudy,wedrewuponthe literatureaddressingforestvalues(seeMoyeretal.,2008;Owen etal.,2009)andrecentresearchaddressingpreferencesfor non-forestpublic-trustresources(Andersonetal.,2008;Smithetal., 2011;Smith&Moore,2011;Wyman&Stein,2010).Fromthecited literature,weselectedfourcommonsetsofdesiredoutcomeswe believed couldbeeasilyinterpreted througha singlestatement includedin the experiment. Thefour commondesired benefits were:ecological,economic,recreational,andaesthetic.Basedupon psychometricscalesusedbySmithetal.(2011),weselectedone statementforeachofthefourdesiredoutcomes.Thesestatements were:

•Managementshouldfocusonconservingnaturalenvironments (ecological).

•Managementshouldfocusonimprovingrecreationalamenities onpubliclands(recreational).

•Managementshouldfocusonenhancingthevisualappealof for-estsettingsandlandscapes(aesthetic).

4.4. Experimentaldesignandsurveyinstrument

Theexperimentprovidedpotentialrespondentswithfour dis-crete hypothetical management plans. The management plans variedintheextenttowhichtheyfocusedonprovidingthefour outcomes outlined above. Each hypothetical managementplan summedtoa“100%managementeffort”.Respondentswereasked torankthefourhypotheticalmanagementplansbasedontheir personalpreferences.

Followingthevernacularofchoiceexperiments,thefour man-agementoutcomeselicitedineachchoicesetaretheexperiment’s “attributes”.Eachattributecouldvaryacrossthree“levels”.Given fourattributeswiththreelevelseach,ourexperimenthas34₌₈₁ potentialcombinationsofattributelevelsplusanopt-outattribute ofpreferringnoneoftheplans.Wedeemedthistobetoolargefor ourempiricalstudyandinsteadoptedforasmallerfractional fac-torialdesign.Wefollowedthefactorialdesignstrategiespresented byLouviereetal.(2000)andsettledonadesigncontaining36 dis-tincthypotheticalmanagementplansplustheopt-outchoice.To reducethenumberofmanagementplansthatrespondentshadto rank,weblockedthedesignintonineversionsoffourmanagement planseach.AtypicalblockofplansispresentedinFig.2.

4.5. Managementcontextanddatacollection

Thestudy populationsfor this experimentwere threesmall citieslocatednearpublicforestsinSouthernAppalachia.Thethree citieswereWaynesville,NorthCarolina;SprucePine,North Car-olina;andFranklin, NorthCarolina.Each ofthethreecities has transitioned fromextractive forest or mining based economies to beingprimarily dependent uponregional tourism; all three communitieshaveexperiencedlargeincreasesinthenumberof individualsbuyingsecondhomesandvacationproperties.

TheUSDAForestServicemanagesboththeNantahalaandthe PisgahNationalForests,whichcomprisenearlyallofthepublic for-estlandswithintheregion.TheNantahalaandthePisgahNational Forestsaremanagedundera1994ForestManagementPlan.The originalForestManagementPlan,passedin1987,waslegally chal-lengedbyseveralinterestgroupswhoarguedtheplanallowedfor excessivetimberharvesting(USDAForestService,1994a;USDA ForestService, 1994b).A subsequentre-analysisprocessby the agencygeneratedsubstantialinterestfromthepublic.Over2500 letterswerereceivedinresponsetothereviseddraftplan.After takingthepublic’scommentsintoconsideration,theForestService amendedtheForestManagementPlaninthespringof1994.The amendedplanallocatedmuchlessareafortimberharvesting(from 59,253acresto38,498acres)andmoreareaforaesthetic preser-vation and recreational opportunities with ‘backcountry’ areas increasingfrom79,587acrestonearly120,000acres.Thisshiftin resourceplansrepresentsa declineinthesocialacceptabilityof producingbenefitopportunitiestosupporttheforest’seconomic valueandasubsequentincreaseinproducingbenefitopportunities thatsupportrecreationalandaestheticvalues.

Arandomsampleof300full-timeresidenthomeownerswas drawn from tax records within each of the cities (900 total households sampled). During the summer of 2011, potential respondentsweresent mailquestionnaires.The questionnaires, whichincludedtheplacemeaningsscaleandthesocialcapital mea-surementinstrument,wereadministeredaccordingtotheTailored DesignMethod(Dillman,Smyth,&Christian,2008).Atotalof40

questionnaireswereundeliverable.Ofthesuccessfullydelivered questionnaires,420werereturnedcompleted(48.8%response).

4.6. Dataanalysis

Dataanalysisproceededthroughfourdistinctsteps:

1.Analysisoftheplacemeaningsscaleusingconfirmatoryfactor analysis(CFA).

2.Analysisofthesocialcapitalmeasurescreatingfourindexesto measureeachtypeofsocialcapital.

3.Analysisofindividuals’preferencesforforestmanagement out-comesthrougharankedlogitspecification.

4.Subsequentpost-estimationteststodetermineif,andhow,the varioussocial–psychologicalfactorsofinterestinfluenced man-agementpreferences.

4.6.1. Confirmatoryfactoranalysis

WebeganwithCFAoftheplacemeaningsscaletodetermineif amodelofthesevenaprioridimensionsofplacemeanings actu-allyfitthedatawell.Ourassessmentofmodelfitwasbasedon thefollowingfitindices:themaximumlikelihood2_,therelative 2₍2_{/df),therootmean-squareerrorofapproximation(RMSEA),} thecomparativefitindex(CFI),andtheTucker–Lewisindex(TLI). Themaximumlikelihood2_{isastatisticofdiscrepancybetween} thesampleandmodelcovariancematrices;largervaluesindicate greaterdiscrepanciesandthereforepoorermodelfit.Becausethe maximumlikelihood2_{issensitivetolargesamplesizes,the} rela-tive2_{isdividedbythemodel’stotalnumberofdegreesoffreedom.}

Kline(2011)suggestsarelative2_{valueofthreeorlessindicates} acceptablemodelfit.TheRMSEAassessesmodelfitwhile penaliz-ingmodelcomplexity(i.e.,largedf).RMSEAvaluesbetween0.06 and0.08areacceptableiftheupperboundoftheRMSEA’s confi-denceintervalisbelow0.10(Hu&Bentler,1999).BoththeCFIand theTLIindicesindicatetheextenttowhichthemodelfitsbetter thananullmodelwithuncorrelatedindicatorvariables.Thevalues oftheCFIandtheTLIrangefrom0to1withvaluesnearerto1 indicatingabetterfit;0.90isawidelyusedcut-offvalueoriginally proposedbyHuandBentler(1999).

4.6.2. Estimation

Whenfieldexperimentsaskrespondentstorankdistinct alter-natives,theresultingdatacanbemodeledwithastandardlogit, mixed logit, probit, or rank-ordered logit specification (Train, 2009).Wechoosetospecifyarank-orderedlogitmodelgivenit accountsfor correlationinunobserved factorsacrossindividual responsesandspecifiesclustersofrespondents.Therank-ordered logitregressionmodelacknowledgeseachrespondenthashis/her ownvaluationweightsasappliedtohis/herrankingofalternatives; subsequently,itaccountsforcorrelatedvaluationweightswithin eachchoicesetforeachrespondent(Train,2009).

Therank-orderedlogitmodelhasbeenusedinprevious nat-uralresourcemanagementresearchinseveraldifferentcontexts. ResearchersinCanadausedthemodeltoexaminehow various stakeholdergroupsrankedpotentialvalues(e.g.,“spiritual”, “envi-ronmental”, “recreational”, etc.)for forested landscapes(Kumar &Kant,2007).Themodel hasalsobeen usedtoexamine pref-erences for different invasive species control methods (Paudel, Dunn,Bhandari,Vlosky,&Guidry,2007)andpreferencesfor irri-gation waterallocation schemes(Speelman,Farolfi, Frija,&van Huylenbroeck,2010).

Fig.2.Typicalblockofhypotheticalmanagementplans.

functionsduetothedifferingsocial–psychologicalcharacteristics ofrespondentsinvolvedthefollowingsteps:

1.Includingeachsocial–psychologicalcharacteristicinthe rank-orderedlogitregressionmodel.

2. Estimatingallinteractions betweenthecharacteristicandthe attributesofthechoiceset.

3.ConductingaWald2_{postestimationtesttodetermineifthose} parameterestimatesarenotzero(Allison&Christakis,1994).

ThenullhypothesisoftheWald2 _{testisthatallinteraction} coefficientsare0,thusindicating noeffectofthatcharacteristic onvaluationfunction.Characteristicswithsignificantinfluenceon valuationfunctionsareretainedandtheirinteractionwithchoice setattributescanbeinterpretedaccordingly.

5. Results

5.1. Descriptivestatistics

Table1

Descriptivestatistics,internalconsistencies,andfactorloadingsforplacemeaningmeasurementitems.

PanelA:Descriptivestatistics,internalconsistenciesandfactorloadings

Dimensionandstatements M SD ˛ ˛

Individualidentity 0.92

Iamveryattachedtotheforest 4.01 1.11 0.91 0.85

Ifeelthisforestisapartofme 3.70 1.11 0.90 0.87

Iidentifystronglywiththeforest 3.89 1.11 0.86 0.92

Familyidentity 0.90

Ihaveprideinmyheritagebecauseoftheforest 3.86 1.15 0.89 0.79

Theforestisaspecialplaceformyfamily 3.89 1.12 0.84 0.87

Importantfamilymemoriesaretiedtotheforest 3.75 1.18 0.83 0.88

Selfefficacy 0.90

TheforestisbestfortheactivitiesIliketodo 3.60 1.12 0.86 0.88

IhavesatisfyingexperienceswhenIvisittheforest 4.05 1.05 0.88 0.83

Nootherplacecancomparetotheforest 3.78 1.13 0.89 0.77

Theforestismyfirstchoiceforoutdoorrecreation 3.60 1.16 0.87 0.84

Selfexpression 0.93

IfeelthatIcanreallybemyselfattheforest 3.87 1.07 0.91 0.87

Visitingtheforestallowsmetoexpressmyself 3.57 1.05 0.87 0.92

VisitingtheforestsaysalotaboutwhoIam 3.67 1.11 0.91 0.87

Communityidentity 0.93

Theforestcontributestothecommunity’scharacter 4.24 1.00 0.91 0.89

Thecommunity’shistoryisdefinedbytheforest 4.14 1.01 0.88 0.93

Theforesthashelpedputthecommunityonthemap 4.10 1.03 0.92 0.86

Economicmeanings 0.90

Thecommunity’seconomydependsontheforest 3.79 1.02 – 0.86

Appalachia’seconomydependsontheforest 3.95 1.02 – 0.86

Ecologicalmeanings 0.96

Theforestisimportantinconservingthelandscape 3.95 1.02 0.96 0.92

Theforestisimportantinprovidingwildlifehabitat 4.50 0.93 0.95 0.94

Theforestisimportantinprotectingwaterquality 4.62 0.92 0.93 0.96

PanelB:Confirmatoryfactoranalysisfitstatistics

2 _df 2_{/df RMSEA[90%CI] CFI IFI}

Multi-groupmeasurementmodel 1157.27 492 2.35 0.06[0.06,0.07] 0.92 0.92

(M=4.10–4.24).Thedataalsosuggestthatnotallrespondents con-sistentlyusepublicforestsforrecreationalpurposes,asindicated by the two activity-related scale-items (within the self efficacy dimension)withmeansof3.60.However,onaverage,respondents didreporthavingsatisfyingexperienceswhentheydidvisitpublic forests(M=4.05). The reliability of scale-itemsrelative totheir hypotheticaldimensionswasacceptable(˛≥0.90)andnosingle itemreducedtheinternalreliabilityofitsdimension(˛<˛).Also, eachstatementitemexhibitedanacceptable(>0.70)correlation withitslatentdimension.

Analysisofthesocialcapitalmeasuresindicatethemajorityof respondentsutilizeeither“closefriends” or“immediate family” (bonding/associativeties)toobtaininformationaboutlocalissues; 88.7% indicated using close friends and 85.4% indicated using immediatefamilymembers.Respondentsindicatedtheygenerally trusttheinformationobtainedfromclosefriends.Among respon-dentswhoobtaincommunityinformationfromclosefriends,28.5% reportalwaystrustingthatinformationwhileanother68.5%report sometimestrustingthatinformation(3.0%ofrespondentsindicate distrustinclosefriends).Similarly,respondentsindicatedthey gen-erallytrustinformationobtainedfromimmediatefamilymembers. Ofthoseusingfamilymembersasaninformationsource,45.5% indicatedalwaystrustingtheirinformationandanother51.8% indi-catesometimestrustingthatinformation(2.8%indicateddistrust). Furtheranalysisofthesocialcapitalmeasuresreveal individ-uals usea wide varietyof sources toobtaininformation about communityissues(Table2).Themajorityofrespondentsindicated usingall12informationalsourcesqueriedabout.Ofthese bridg-ingconnections,themosttrustedsourcewas“churches” (31.4% ofrespondentsindicatingalwaystrusting informationfromthis source), followed by “local newspapers or periodicals” (27.5%), “localtelevision news”(23.7%) and “localcivic groups”(22.1%).

Theleasttrustedinformationalsourceswere“otheronlinenews sources(e.g.,blogs,facebook,etc.)”,“electedofficials”and“national televisionnews”.

5.2. Confirmatoryfactoranalysis

Results fromtheconfirmatoryfactor analysisofthe21-item placemeaningsscalesupporttheuseofourhypothesized seven-factormodel.Thefitindices resultingfromacomparisonofour modelimpliedcovariancematrixandtheactualcovariancematrix arereportedinTable1,PanelB.Agoodfitisindicatedbythe rela-tive2_{valueof2.35,aRMSEAof0.06,andCFIandTLIvaluesabove} 0.90.

5.3. Managementpreferences

Resultsfromtherank-orderedlogitregressionmodelareshown in Table3.Environmental outcomeshad a positive and signifi-cantcoefficientestimate(ˇ=0.008,z=3.19,p≤0.001),indicating respondentshighlyfavoredmanagementplanswithalarger pro-portionofmanagementeffortsdirectedtoward“conservingnatural environments”.Foreachoftheotherthreepotentialmanagement outcomes,thedatayieldednegativeandsignificantcoefficient esti-mates, indicating respondentsdo not favor forestmanagement focusingtheireffortsinproducingthesetypesofoutcomes. Specif-ically,theeconomicoutcomeinvolvingofficials’effortsdesigned to “attract tourists to public lands” were the least preferred (ˇ=−0.026,z=−21.06,p≤0.001)followedbytheofficials’efforts to“improverecreationalamenitiesonpubliclands”(ˇ=−0.019,

z=−12.71,p≤0.001)and,finally,officials’effortsto“improvethe aesthetic or visualappeal of theforest” (_ˇ=₋0.017, z=₋12.98,

Table2

Percentagesofrespondentsindicatinguseofparticularsocialtiesandextentoftrustinthattie.

Associativeties Affectiveties

Respondentsindicatinguse(%) Alwaystrust(%) Sometimestrust(%) Alwaysdistrust(%)

Bonding

Closefriends 88.7 28.5 68.5 3.0

Immediatefamily 85.4 45.5 51.8 2.8

Bridging

Localnewspapersorperiodicals 91.1 27.5 65.4 7.2

Infrequentcontacts 81.3 15.4 70.3 14.3

Coworkers 73.8 13.4 75.7 10.9

Extendedfamily 80.7 19.9 70.5 9.6

Localtelevisionnews 91.7 23.7 59.7 16.6

Nationaltelevisionnews 89.3 19.3 55.3 25.3

Civicgroups 72.6 22.1 68.4 9.4

Educationgroups 75.6 19.0 71.2 9.9

Electedofficials 81.9 9.5 65.1 25.5

Churches 75.0 31.4 60.7 7.9

Onlinenews 77.1 12.4 70.7 16.7

Otheronlinenewssources 66.1 4.5 59.5 36.0

5.4. Socialcapital

TheWald2 _{postestimationtestsforthesocialcapital}

mea-suresareshowninTable4,PanelA.Allfourpostestimationtests weresignificantatthe0.001levelindicatingsignificantinfluences onthevaluationfunctionsappliedtochoosingforestmanagement alternatives.Bonding/affectivetieshadthemostsignificant influ-enceonrespondents’preferences(2_{=7089.71).Thesecondmost} significantinfluenceonrespondents’preferenceswasthestrength oftheirbonding/associativeties(2_{=134.39)followedby} bridg-ing/associativeties(2_{=82.19)andfinally,bridging/affectiveties} (2_=34.97).

The coefficient estimates for all interaction effects are also reportedinTable4,PanelA. For bonding/affectiveties, allfour coefficient estimates were significant and negative indicating greaterlevelsoftrustineither“closefriends”or“immediate fam-ilymembers”moderatedmanagementpreferences,reducingthe probabilitythatplansdesignedtoproducehighlevelsofanyone specificoutcomewillbemostpreferable.

In a similarfashion,greaterlevelsoftrust placedinbridged tieswasalsorelatedtomanagementplanpreferences.However, thestrengthofindividuals’bridging/affectivetieswasonlyrelated toonedesiredmanagementoutcome,environmentalbenefits.The moretrustanindividualplacesinbridgingties,themorelikelythey aretoprefermanagementplanswhichfocusthemajorityoftheir effortsonconservingnaturallandscapes(ˇ=5.539e−4_).

Thedataalsorevealthequantityofsocialties(associative) sig-nificantlyinfluenced individuals’managementplanpreferences. The more bridging ties an individual utilized, the more likely they were to prefer management plans designed to produce economic(ˇ=0.001)andrecreationaloutcomes(ˇ=0.001). Con-versely,individuals whoutilized bondingtiesweresignificantly

lesslikelytopreferplansfocusedonproducingeconomicoutcomes (ˇ=−0.002).

5.5. Placemeanings

TheWald2_{postestimationtestsfortheplacemeanings} mea-suresarereportedinTable4,PanelB.Allsevendistinctmeanings exhibitedasignificantinfluenceonrespondents’valuationweights. Theplacemeaningsinorderoftheirgreatestinfluenceon respon-dents’preferencesforthemanagementplanswere:

•Self-expression(2_{=626.09).Individualswhobelievedtheforest} enabled them to express themselves tended to prefer man-agement plans focused on producing recreational outcomes (_ˇ=0.006).

•Economicmeanings(2_{=592.17).Individualswhobelievedthe} forestwasimportantforeconomicreasonstendingnotto pre-fermanagementplansfocused onproducing environmentally focusedoutcomes(ˇ=−0.012)oraestheticallyfocusedoutcomes (ˇ=−0.006).Agreaterbeliefintheeconomicimportance, how-ever,wasassociatedwithstrongerpreferencesformanagement toproducerecreationaloutcomes(ˇ=0.006)andeconomic out-comes(ˇ=0.007).

•The belief that the forest defined arespondents’ familyidentity

(2_{=497.97).Managementplansfocusedoneconomicoutcomes} (ˇ=−0.009) and recreational outcomes (ˇ=−0.007) were all givenlessweightbyrespondentswhoheldstrongerbeliefsabout theforestdefiningtheirfamily’sidentity.

•Ecologicalmeanings(2_{=295.38).Respondentswhoheldstrong} beliefsabouttheforest’simportanceinmaintainingtheir com-munity’secologicalintegritypreferredmanagementplans focus-ingonproducingthoseenvironmentaloutcomes(ˇ=0.005).

Table3

Rankedlogitresults:determinantsofmanagementplanpreferences.

Attribute Coef. RobustSE z p≤z 95%conf.interval

LB UB

Managementfocus

Environmentaloutcomes 0.008 0.003 3.19 0.001 0.003 0.131

Economicoutcomes −0.026 0.001 −21.06 0.000 −0.029 −0.024

Recreationaloutcomes −0.019 0.002 −12.71 0.000 −0.022 −0.016

Aestheticoutcomes −0.017 0.001 −12.98 0.000 −0.020 −0.014

Modelfitstatistics

Logpseudolikelihood −686.070

AIC 1378.139

Table4

Wald-testsofconstantvaluationweights.

PanelA:Socialcapitalfactorsaffectingvaluationweights

Bridging/affectiveties Bonding/affectiveties Bridging/associativeties Bonding/associativeties

Managementfocus

Environmentaloutcomes 5.539e−4* _−0.002* _3.653e−4 _0.008

Economicoutcomes −4.710e−5 _−0.006*** _0.001*** _−0.002*** Recreationaloutcomes 3.680e−5 _−0.004*** _0.001** _0.002

Aestheticoutcomes 1.717e−4 _−0.003* _{0.001 0.011}

Wald-test

2 _{34.97 7089.71 82.19 134.39}

p <0.001 <0.001 <0.000 <0.000

PanelB:Placemeaningfactorsaffectingvaluationweights

Individual identity

Family identity

Self efficacy

Self expression

Community identity

Economic meaning

Ecological meaning

Managementfocus

Environmentaloutcomes 0.001 −0.005 −0.002 −0.001 0.000 −0.012*** _0.005* Economicoutcomes −0.004 −0.009* _−0.006* _{−0.004 −0.004 0.007}* _−0.003 Recreationaloutcomes 0.005* _−0.007* _0.005** _0.006*** _−0.004* _0.006** _−0.003 Aestheticoutcomes −0.003 −0.006 −0.004 −0.003 −0.004 −0.006*** _0.000 Wald-test

2 _{32.24 479.97 130.67 626.09 282.84 592.17 295.38}

p <0.000 <0.000 <0.000 <0.000 <0.000 <0.000 <0.000

Note.TieshandledviatheEfronmethod.

*_p<0.050. **_p<0.010. ***_p<0.001.

•Meaningsofself-efficacy(2_{=130.67).Individualswithagreater} dependenceupontheforesttoengageindesiredactivitiesplaced greater emphasis onplansfocused onproducing recreational benefits(ˇ=0.005);theyalsoplacedlessemphasisoneconomic outcomes(ˇ=−0.006),namelyattractingmoretouriststopublic landswithinthearea.

•Meanings of individual identity(2_{=32.24). Explicitly,} respon-dentswhoheldhigherlevelsofplace-basedindividualidentity placeda greater importance on plans focusing on producing recreationalbenefits(ˇ=0.005).

6. Discussion

6.1. Summary

Forest plannersand managerscontinue tofacethe problem of having to make value-laden decisions in the face of scien-tificuncertainty,reducedfiscalresources,andincreaseddemands toacknowledgeand accommodatepublicdesires regarding the outcomes of their decisions. To aid forest planners in making thesedecisions,wehavesuggestedtheyneedanunderstanding oftheoutcomeslocalcommunitymemberswouldlike manage-mentactionstoproduceandaclearerunderstandingofhowvarious socialandpsychologicalfactorsinfluencethosepreferences.

Wehave attempted to make both methodological advances in how natural resource social scientists studythese questions andtheoreticaladvancesthatdeepenthescientific understand-ingofhowsocialandpsychologicalfactorsinfluenceindividuals’ managementpreferences.Methodologically,thedecision-making frameworkofdiscretechoicemodelsenabledustodesignafield experimentwherebylocalcommunitymembersexpressedtheir preferences for management plans that produced distinct out-comes to varying degrees. The key to our experiment is that respondentsmustmaketrade-offsbetweenthevariousoutcomes they would like management to produce. Preferences are not boundedsolelybythedesiresoftherespondent,butalsobythe realitythatmanagementcanonlyallocatesomanyresourcesto theproductionofanyoneoutcomebeforetheabilitytoproduce

otheroutcomesdiminishes.Theoretically,wecoupledourdiscrete choiceexperimentwithseveralwell-knownandfrequently dis-cussed conceptswithin natural resource social science –social capital and place meanings– in aneffortto deepenthe scien-tificunderstandingofhowtheseconceptsinfluencepreferences formanagementoutcomes.

Wefoundrespondentsliving nearpublicforestsin Southern Appalachiapreferredmanagementplansthatproduced environ-mentaloutcomesmoresothaneconomic,recreational,oraesthetic outcomes.Respondentsbelievetheconservationofnatural envi-ronments (environmental outcome)should bethe number one priorityforpublicforestmanagersneartheircommunity.The sec-ondpriorityshouldbepreservingtheaestheticorvisualappealof theforest(aestheticoutcome)followedcloselybyimproving recre-ationalamenitiesinpublicforests(recreationaloutcome).Finally, respondentsbelieveattractingtouriststopublicforests(economic outcome)shouldbetheleastimportantpriorityfor forest man-agers.Forforestmanagerswithintheregion,thesefindingsarean expressionofpublicchoiceandcanbeusedtoproduceforestplans thatnotonlymeetagencymandates,butalsothestandardsofsocial acceptabilitywell(Brunson,1996;Stankey&Shindler,2006).

andlocalcivicgroups.Thedisseminationofinformationthrough thesesourcesislikelytohavethegreatestinfluenceonindividuals’ evaluation,andpotentialacceptance,ofmanagementactions.

Our data also indicate that themeanings individuals attach topublicforestsinfluencetheirpreferencesfor potentialforest managementoutcomes.Thisfindingisconsistentwithprevious empiricalevidenceconductedwithinnon-forestsettings (Smith et al., 2011). The finding alsoprovides furthersupport for the acknowledgementandintegrationofplacemeaningsintoformal forestmanagementframeworks(Chengetal.,2003).

Regardingspecificplacemeanings,wefoundmeaningsof self-efficacy,self-expression,andindividualidentityhavesimilareffects onindividuals’preferenceformanagementoutcomes.Specifically, all three types of place meanings had a positive influence on appraisalsofmanagementplansdesignedtoproducerecreational outcomes.Thisfindingislogicalandintuitive.Themoreindividuals dependupontheforestasasettingfordesiredrecreational expe-riencesthatallowsthemtoexpressthemselves,themorelikely theyaretodesiremanagementplansfocusedonmaintainingthose opportunities.Collectivelythesefindingsextendpreviousresearch, primarilyfocusedonrecreationists(e.g.,Kyle,Absher,&Graefe, 2003,Vogt&Williams,1999),linkingindividuals’placeidentity withstrongerpreferencesformanagementoutcomes.Ourfindings revealamorefinelytunedconceptualizationandmeasurementof theplaceidentityconstruct,parsingitintocomponentsof individ-ualidentity(relatedtoamoregeneralizedappraisaloftheextentto whichtheforestdefinesone’sidentity)aswellasself-efficacyand self-expression(morespecificbehaviorallyfocusedconstructs).

6.2. Limitations

One limitation of this research was our sole focus on the managementplanpreferencesamongresidentslivingnear pub-lic forests. Forest management decisions are also required to considerthepreferencesofindividuals whodonot livedirectly adjacenttotheresource. Thisisparticularlytrue intheUnited States where accommodating all public concerns in National Forest decision-making is a fundamental principle of resource governance.Consideringandrespondingtopubliccommentsare explicitlymandatedundertheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct and theNational ForestManagement Act.The consideration of preferencesheldbybothproximateand distantforestusersare important.However,wehavechosentofocussolelyonproximate resourceusersgiventheincreasedlikelihoodtheywillbeimpacted bymanagementdecisionsandmoredirectlyinvolvedin collabora-tiveplanningprocesses(Selin&Chavez,1995;Steelman,2001). Subsequentresearchneedstomoreacutelyaddress howforest managementpreferencesdiffer betweenproximate and distant populations.

Another limitation of this research is the use of individual statementitemstorepresentbroadsetsofdesiredmanagement outcomes.Alloftheoutcomes fromanyparticularplan cannot whollyberepresentedwithasinglestatementitem.However,we drewupontheuniqueforestplanningcontextofWesternNorth Carolinatodevelopstatementitemswhichaccuratelyreflectpast and ongoing forestplanning efforts.This limitationis largely a productofthebreadthoftheresearchfoci(ForestManagement Plans)coupledwiththerequirementsofaccepted methodologi-calprotocolsofstatedpreference research.Afruitfulavenuefor futureresearchmightfocusondistinctmanagementdecisions(e.g., whethertoconductprescribedburnsornot)andmorefiniteand separablesets ofdesired managementoutcomes.Despite these limitations,thisresearchmovesthestudyofpreferencesfor for-estmanagementoutcomesintonewmethodologicaldirectionsand contributestotheknowledgeconcerningsocialandpsychological factorsinfluencingindividuals’preferences.

Thefinallimitationofthisresearchisthatourmethodological designwasdevelopedtogaugeintra-communitysocialcapitaland notexisting stocksof socialcapitalheld betweenlocal commu-nitymembersandresourcemanagementagencies.Asevidenced by the findings of this research and the existing literature on agency/communitysocialcapital(e.g.,Smithetal.,inpress),both measurescaninfluencepublicpreferencesand,ultimately, influ-encetheacceptability ofa managementagency’sdecisionsand plans.Futureresearch,focusedmoredirectlyonthestocksofsocial capitalheldbetweenlocalcommunitiesandmanagementagencies, isneededtoestablishabetterunderstandingofwhereindividuals acquireinformationaboutresourceplanningandhowtheirtrust inthatinformationinfluencespersonalpreferences.

6.3. Conclusion

Most,ifnotall,stateandfederalforestmanagementagencies aremandatedtoproducemultiplebenefitsfromtheforestlands undertheircontrol.Morefrequentlythannot,theproductionofone typeofbenefitcomesattheexpenseoftheproductionofothers. Asaresult,forestplannersarefacedwithmakingdifficult trade-offsbetweenalternativedesiredmanagementoutcomes.Inmaking thesedifficulttrade-offs,forestplannersoftenhavelittleguidance astowhichoutcomesarepreferredbylocalcommunitymembers. Throughthisstudy,wehavesuggestedindividuals’management preferencescanbeinfluencedbytheirstocksofsocialcapitalaswell asthemeaningswhichtheyascribetotheforest.Inanovelchoice experiment, wehave produced a scenariowhere local commu-nitymembers,similartoforestmanagers,mustbalancethecosts andbenefitsassociatedwiththeproductionofeconomic, ecologi-cal,recreationalandaestheticmanagementoutcomes.Theresults ofourexperimenthaveproducedaclearerunderstandingofhow placemeaningsandindividuals’stocksofsocialcapitalaffecttheir appraisalsofdifferentforestmanagementoutcomes.Ourfindings, ultimately,canprovideforestmanagerswithusefulinformationto producingsociallyacceptablemanagementoutcomes.

Acknowledgements

Thisresearchwassupportedbyadoctoraldissertation improve-ment grant from the National Science Foundation (Award No. 1030395)andaHoffmannFellowshipfromtheCollegeofNatural ResourcesatNorthCarolinaStateUniversity.Theauthorswould liketothankDr.EdKick,Dr.HughDevine,andHollieSmithfor theircommentsandsuggestions.

References

Allison,P.D.,&Christakis,N.A.(1994).Logitmodelsforsetsofrankeditems. Socio-logicalMethodology,24,199–228.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/270983

Anderson,D.H.,Davenport,M.A.,Leahy,J.E.,&Stein,T.V.(2008).OFMand commu-nitybenefits.InB.L.Driver(Ed.),Managingtooptimizethebeneficialoutcomesof recreation(pp.311–334).StateCollege,PA:Venture.

Armitage,D.R.,Plummer,R.,Berkes,F.,Arthur,R.I.,Charles,A.T., Davidson-Hunt, I. J., et al. (2009). Adaptive co-management for social–ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 95–102.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/070089

Berkes,F.(2009).Evolutionofco-management:Roleofknowledgegeneration, bridgingorganizationsandsociallearning.JournalofEnvironmental Manage-ment,90,1692–1702.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001

Bodin,O.,&Crona,B.I.(2009).Theroleofsocialnetworksinnaturalresource governance:Whatrelationalpatternsmakeadifference?GlobalEnvironmental Change,19,366–374.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.05.002

Brunson,M.(1996).Adefinitionof“socialacceptability”inecosystemmanagement. InM.W.Brunson,L.E.Kruger,C.B.Tyler,&S.A.Schroeder(Eds.),Definingsocial acceptabilityinecosystemmanagement:Workshopproceedings.Gen.Tech.Rep. PNW-GTR-369(pp.1–6).Portland,OR:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,Forest Service,PacificNorthwestResearchStation.

Carlsson, L., & Berkes, F. (2005). Co-management: Concepts and method-ological implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 75, 65–76.

Cheng,A.S.,Kruger,L.E.,&Daniels,S.E.(2003).“Place”asanintegratingconceptin naturalresourcepolitics:Propositionsforasocialscienceresearchagenda. Soci-ety&NaturalResources,16,87–104.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920309199

Cordell,H.K.,Helton,G.,Tarrant,M.A.,&Redmond,C.(1996).Communitiesand humaninfluencesinsouthernAppalachianecosystems:Thehuman dimen-sions.InSouthernAppalachianManandtheBiosphere:TheSouthernAppalachian AssessmentSocial/Cultural/EconomicTechnicalReport,Report4.Atlanta,GA:USDA ForestService,SouthernRegion.,pp.17–86.

Davenport,M. A., &Anderson, D. H.(2005).Getting from sense of place to placebasedmanagement:Aninterpretiveinvestigationofplacemeaningsand perceptionsoflandscapechange.Society&NaturalResources,18,625–641.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920590959613

Davenport,M.A.,Baker,M.L.,Leahy,J.E.,&Anderson,D.H.(2010).Expanding multiplemeaningsatanIllinoisStatePark.JournalofParkandRecreation Admin-istration,28,52–69.

Dillman,D.A.,Smyth,J.D.,&Christian,L.M.(2008).Internet,mail,andmixed-mode surveys:Thetailoreddesignmethod(3rded.).Hoboken,NJ:Wiley.

Driver,B.L.(2008).Managingtooptimizethebeneficialoutcomesofrecreation.State College,PA:Venture.

Ford,R.M.,Williams,K.J.H.,Bishop,I.D.,&Hickey,J.E.(2009).Publicjudgmentsof thesocialacceptabilityinTasmanianweteucalyptforests.AustralianForestry,

72,157–171.

Gittell,R.,&Vidal,A.(1998).Communityorganizing:Buildingsocialcapitalasa devel-opmentstrategy.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Gobster,P.H.(1999).Anecologicalaestheticforforestlandscapemanagement.

LandscapeJournal,18,54–64.

Granovetter,M.S.(1973).Thestrengthofweakties.AmericanJournalofSociology,

78,1360–1380.

Gustafson,P.E.R. (2001).Meaningsofplace:Everyday experienceand theo-reticalconceptualizations.JournalofEnvironmentalPsychology, 21(1),5–16.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2000.0185

Hanemann,W.M.,&Kanninen,B.(1999).Statisticalanalysisofdiscrete-response data. InI. J. Bateman, &K. G. Willis(Eds.),Valuing environmental prefer-ences:TheoryandpracticeofthecontingentvaluationmethodintheUS,EU anddevelopingcountries (pp.302–441). New York,NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

Hu,L.,&Bentler,P.M.(1999).Cutoffcriteriaforfitindexesincovariance struc-tureanalysis:Conventionalcriteriaversusnewalternatives.StructuralEquation Modeling,6,1–55.

Hunt,L.M.,&Haider,W.(2004).Aestheticimpactsofdisturbancesonselectedboreal forestedshorelines.ForestScience,50,729–738.

Kahneman,D.(2003a).Aperspectiveonjudgementandchoice:Mappingbounded rationality.AmericanPsychologist,58,697–720. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697

Kahneman,D.(2003b).Mapsofboundedrationality:Psychologyforbehavioral eco-nomics.TheAmericanEconomicReview,93,1449–1475.

Kearney,A.R.,Tilt,J.R.,&Bradley,G.R.(2010).Theeffectsofforestregenerationon preferencesforforesttreatmentsamongforesters,environmentalists,andthe generalpublic.JournalofForestry,108,215–229.

Kline,R.B.(2011).Principlesandpracticesofstructuralequationmodeling(3rded.). NewYork:Guilford.

Kruger,L.E.(2008).Anintroductiontoplace-basedplanning.InJ.O.Farnum,&L.E. Kruger(Eds.),Place-basedplanning:Innovationandapplicationsfromfour west-ernforests.Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-GTR-741(pp.1–6).Portland,OR:USDAForest Service,PacificNorthwestResearchStation.

Kruger,L.E.,&Shannon,M.A.(2000).Gettingtoknowourselvesandourplaces throughparticipationincivicsocialassessment.Society&NaturalResources,13, 461–478.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/089419200403866

Kruger,L.E.,&Williams,D.R.(2007).Placeandplace-basedplanning.InL.E.Kruger, R.Mazza,&K.Lawrence(Eds.),Proceedings:Nationalworkshoponrecreation researchandmanagement.Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-GTR-698(pp.83–88).Portland, OR:USDAForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation.

Kumar,S.,&Kant,S.(2007).Explodedlogitmodeling ofstakeholders’ prefer-encesfor multipleforest values.Forest Policy andEconomics, 9, 516–526.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/jforpol.2006.03.001

Kyle, G. T., Absher, J. D., & Graefe, A. R. (2003). The moderating role of place attachmenton therelationship between attitudestoward fees and spendingpreferences.LeisureSciences,25,33–50.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 01490400390153957

Kyle, G. T.,Graefe, A. R.,Manning, R. E., &Bacon, J. (2004).Effects ofplace attachmenton users’perceptions of social and environmentalconditions in a natural setting. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 213–225.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2003.12.006

Lachapelle,P.R.,McCool,S.F.,&Patterson,M.E.(2003).Barrierstoeffectivenatural resourceplanningina“messy”world.Society&NaturalResources,16,473–490.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920390199439

Leahy,J.E.,&Anderson,D.H.(2010).Cooperationgetsitdone”:Socialcapitalin natu-ralresourcemanagementalongtheKaskaskiaRiver.Society&NaturalResources,

23,224–239.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920802378897

Louviere,J.J.,Hensher,D.A.,&Swait,J.D.(2000).Statedchoicemethods:Analysisand application.Cambridge,UK:Cambridge.

Low,S.M.,&Altman,I.(1992).Placeattachment:Aconceptualinquiry.InI.Altman, &S.M.Low(Eds.),Placeattachment.NewYork:PlenumPress.

Manning,R.,Valliere,W.,&Minteer,B.(1999).Values,ethics,andattitudestoward nationalforestmanagement:Anempiricalstudy.Society&NaturalResources,

12,421–436.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/089419299279515

McCool,S.F.,&Guthrie,K.(2001).Mappingthedimensionsofsuccessfulpublic par-ticipationinmessynaturalresourcesmanagementsituations.Society&Natural Resources,14,309–323.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920151080255

McFadden,D.(1974).Conditionallogitanalysisofqualitativechoicebehaviour. In P. Zarembka(Ed.), Frontiersin econometrics(pp. 105–142). New York: Academic.

McPherson,M.,Smith-Lovin,L.,&Cook,J.M.(2001).Birdsofafeather:Homophily insocialnetworks.AnnualReviewofSociology,27,415–444.

Moore,R.L.,&Driver,B.(2005).Introductiontooutdoorrecreation:Providingand managingnaturalresourcebasedopportunities.StateCollege,PA:Venture. Moore,R.L.,&Graefe,A.R.(1994).Attachmentstorecreationsettings:Thecaseof

rail-trailusers.LeisureSciences,16,17–31.

Moyer,J.M.,Owen,R.J.,&Duinker,P.N.(2008).Forestvalues:Aframeworkfor old-growthforestswithimplicationsforotherforestconditions.TheOpenForest ScienceJournal,1,27–36.

Owen,R. J.,Duinker,P.N.,&Beckley,T.M.(2009).Capturingold-growth val-ues for forest decision-making. Environmental Management, 43, 237–248.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9133-3

Paudel,K.P.,Dunn,M.A.,Bhandari,D.,Vlosky,R.P.,&Guidry,K.M.(2007). Alterna-tivemethodstoanalyzerankordereddata:Acaseofinvasivespeciescontrol.

Natural Resource Modeling, 20, 451–471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-7445.2007.tb00216.x

Paxton, P. (1999). Is social capital declining in the United States? A mul-tiple indicator assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 88–127.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/210268

Portes,A.(1998).Socialcapital:Itsoriginsandapplicationstomodernsociology.

AnnualReviewofSociology,24,1–24.

Pretty,J.(2003).Socialcapitalandthecollectivemanagementofresources.Science,

302,1912–1914.http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1090847

Proshansky,H.M.,Fabian,A.K.,&Kaminoff,R.(1995).Placeidentity:Physicalworld socializationoftheself.InL.Groat(Ed.),Givingplacesmeaning:Readingsin environmentalpsychology(pp.87–113).London,UK:Academic.

Ribe,R.G.(2002).Isscenicbeautyaproxyforacceptablemanagement?Theinfluence ofenvironmentalattitudesonlandscapepreferences.EnvironmentandBehavior,

34,757–780.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001391602237245

Ribe, R. G. (2005). Aestheticperceptions of green-tree retentionharvests in vista views: The interaction of cut level, retention pattern and harvest shape.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning,73,277–293.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.landurbplan.2004.07.003

Ryan,R.M.,Weinstein,N.,Bernstein,J.,Brown,K.W.,Mistretta,L.,&Gagné,M. (2010).Vitalizingeffectsofbeingoutdoorsandinnature.Journalof Environmen-talPsychology,30,159–168.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.009

Salstrom,P.(1994).Appalachia’spathtodependency:Rethinkingaregion’seconomic history,1730–1940.Lexington,KY:UniversityPressofKentucky.

Selin, S.,&Chavez, D. (1995).Developing acollaborativemodel for environ-mentalplanningandmanagement.EnvironmentalManagement,19,189–195.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02471990

Smith,J.W.,Davenport,M.A.,Anderson,D.H.,&Leahy,J.E.(2011).Place mean-ingsanddesiredmanagementoutcomes.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning,101, 359–370.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.03.002

Smith,J.W.,Leahy,J.E.,Anderson,D.H.,&Davenport,M.A.Community/agency trustandpublicinvolvementinresourceplanning.Society&NaturalResources,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.678465,inpress.

Smith,J. W., &Moore, R. L.(2011). Perceptionsofcommunity benefitsfrom two Wild and Scenic Rivers. Environmental Management, 47, 814–827.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9671-y

Speelman,S.,Farolfi,S.,Frija,A.,&vanHuylenbroeck,G.(2010).Valuing improve-ments in thewater rightssystem inSouth Africa: Acontingent ranking approach.JournaloftheAmericanWaterResourcesAssociation,46,1133–1144.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2010.00480.x

Stankey,G.H.,&Shindler,B.(2006).Formulationofsocialacceptabilityjudgments andtheirimplicationsformanagementofrareandlittle-knownspecies. Conser-vationBiology,20,28–37.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00298.x

Steelman, T. A. (2001). Elite and participatory policymaking: Finding a bal-anceinacaseofnationalforestplanning.PolicyStudiesJournal,29,71–89.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2001.tb02075.x

Stern,M.J. (2008). Thepower oftrust: Towarda theory oflocalopposition to neighboringprotected areas. Society &NaturalResources, 21, 859–875.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920801973763

Train,K.E.(2009).Discretechoicemethodswithsimulation(2nded.).Cambridge,UK: Cambridge.

Trentelman,C.K.(2009).Placeattachmentandcommunityattachment:Aprimer groundedinthelivedexperienceofacommunitysociologist.Society&Natural Resources,22,191–210.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920802191712

Tuan,Y.F.(1977).Experienceandappreciation.InChildren,nature,andtheurban environment.Gen.Tech.Rep.NE-30.UpperDarby,PA:USDAForestService, North-easternExperimentStation.,pp.26–32.

USDAForestService.(1994a).Landandresourcemanagementplan:Amendment5. Ashville,NC:USDAForestService,SouthernRegion,NationalForestsinNorth Carolina.

USDAForestService.(1994b).Highlightsofthelandandresourcemanagementplan: Amendment5.Ashville,NC:USDAForestService,SouthernRegion,National ForestsinNorthCarolina.

Williams,D.R.,Patterson,M.E.,Roggenbuck,J.W.,&Watson,A.E.(1992).Beyond thecommoditymetaphor:Examiningemotionalandsymbolicattachmentto place.LeisureSciences,14,29–46.

Williams,D.R.,&Vaske,J.J.(2003).Themeasurementofplaceattachment:Validity andgeneralizabilityofapsychometricapproach.ForestScience,49,830–840. Wondolleck,J.M.,&Yaffee,S.L.(2000).Makingcollaborationwork:Lessonsfrom

innovationinnaturalresourcemanagement.Washington,DC:IslandPress.

Woolcock,M.(1998).Socialcapitalandeconomicdevelopment:Towarda theoret-icalsynthesisandpolicyframework.TheoryandSociety,27,151–208. Wyman,M.,&Stein,T.(2010).Examiningthelinkagesbetweencommunity