Assignment 5
nayo0f033
afr_phase2_exec_summary_final_2.pdf
1 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Change in Public Perceptions of AFR and Forest Restoration
Summary and Data Tables from a Longitudinal Study of Ashland Residents
SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTER
January 10, 2014
Authored by: Mark A. Shibley, Ph.D. Sara Averbeck and Amy Lindgren, Research Assistants
Submitted to TNC; Contract #ORFO -11/02/11- db1; USFS ARRA AFR/Collins SW Oregon Fire Study
2 Southern Oregon University Research Center
(Intentionally blank)
3 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Research Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 4
Opinions about AFR Treatments ................................................................................................................... 5
Opinion Change from 2012 to 2013.............................................................................................................. 7
Appendix A: Online Survey Instrument ....................................................................................................... 9
Appendix B: Panel Demographics ........................................................................................................... 29
Appendix C: Frequency Distributions, Closed and Open-ended Questions ............................................... 32
Part 1: Visits to Forests in the Ashland Watershed ................................................................................ 32
Part 2: Forest Conditions and Responsible Management in the Ashland Watershed............................ 33
Part 3: Meaning of Forest Restoration ................................................................................................... 34
Part 4: Knowledge of AFR Project ........................................................................................................... 35
Part 5: Opinions about AFR Treatments ................................................................................................. 38
Appendix D: Paired Comparisons, April 2012 and September 2014 ......................................................... 46
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................ 53
4 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Introduction This report summarizes the results from a second public opinion survey measuring beliefs and
attitudes about forest conditions and management practices in the Ashland Creek watershed.
The survey was made possible by a grant from the Collins Trust Northwest Conservation Fund,
which supports work by The Nature Conservancy seeking to restore frequent-fire adapted
forests in southern Oregon, and funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009.
As part of the multiparty monitoring effort to measure public support for the Ashland Forest
Resiliency Stewardship Project (AFR), baseline data were gathered from a random sample of
Ashland residents in April 2012 (Shibley & Schultz, 2012). A sub-sample of those respondents
was re-surveyed in September 2013 to measure change in attitudes toward fuel-reduction and
forest restoration following the implementation of AFR treatments in the Ashland watershed.
Research Methodology This follow-up survey was designed to evaluate public awareness of and support for the AFR, a
key objective of the AFR Monitoring Plan 1 (Metlen & Borgias, 2013). By comparing these
results to baseline data from the 2012 survey, we can measure change in the level of public
support for fuel-reduction and forest restoration in response to the implementation of both
commercial and non-commercial treatments in the AFR project area.
An email survey, using Dillman’s (2007) Tailored Design Method, was administered by Southern
Oregon University Research Center between August 21, 2013 and September 20, 2013.
Subjects were contacted by email up to five times using Qualtrics, an online survey tool. The
questionnaire included both open and closed-ended questions (see Appendix A) exploring
beliefs about forests in the Ashland Creek watershed and attitudes towards AFR goals and
newly implemented treatments.
The study population was adult residents of Ashland, Oregon and the surrounding area. The
sampling frame was registered voters in October 2011. Our 2013 sample (n=289) was a sub-set
of respondents from the 2012 survey (n=597) who agreed to be contacted for follow-up
surveys. Of the 289 people contacted, 151 started and 124 completed the online survey, thus
generating a panel of respondents (n=124) who completed both surveys. A comparison of 2013
panel results to 2012 sample results and population parameters (see Appendix B) shows no
significant bias by gender and residence. However, our sample is biased toward middle age,
middle income and college educated respondents. The 2012 sample was biased in these same
ways, and the 2013 panel accentuates this bias.
1 Project monitoring plans are available on the AFR website at http://ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=15104.
5 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Opinions about AFR Treatments A descriptive summary of all results from the 2013 survey are reported in Appendix C.
Following is a summary of the key findings about public opinions toward AFR treatments.
1. A majority of panel respondents heard more about AFR since completing the 2012 survey,
but most still know only a little about specific project goals. The local newspaper is by far
the most common source of information about AFR.
2. Panel respondents favor maintaining late-seral, open forest conditions in the Ashland
Creek watershed by thinning smaller trees from dense forest stands. If the watershed
management goal is to balance fire safety, water quality, wildlife habitat, natural beauty
and recreation (see Appendix B: Q13), then respondents think higher proportions of forest
conditions 2 and 4 should be maintained across the landscape, compared to conditions 1
and 3 (see Appendix C: Figure 2) . 2 In open-ended comments, respondents explicitly
encouraged managers to thin forest conditions 1 and 3 (see Appendix C: Figures 3 and 5).
3. Panel respondents favor forests closer to historic than to current conditions in the Ashland
Creek watershed. 3 Respondents’ opinion about desired forest proportions can be
compared to current and historic reference proportions. Historically 45% the forested
landscape would have been in the late-seral condition of large old trees with openly spaced
canopies, represented in Condition Photo 2. This condition currently occurs on only 1% of
the forested landscape in and around the Ashland watershed, and respondents would
increase the proportion to 42%. Multilayered late-seral, closed-canopy forest, as in
Condition Photo 4, historically comprised 15% of the landscape, currently exists over 24% of
the landscape, and respondents desire 28%. Condition Photo 1 and 3 represent formerly
open stands in which many younger trees have grown in, creating a closed-canopy patch
which could be mistaken for late-seral closed forest shown in Condition Photo 4, but
respondents differentiated these and suggested that the desirable landscape proportions
for these encroached forests types should be relatively less at 16 and 7% respectively.
Condition Photo 3 could be interpreted as a mid-seral closed successional class which
historically would have only comprised 5% of the forest, but now comprises 33% of the
2 Darren Borgias provided the following description of condition photos (see Appendix B: Q13) as they relate to
seral stage from the LANDFIRE dataset (Wildland Fire Leadership Council, 2013). The comparison is most relevant at the watershed scale of Bear Creek, including Ashland Creek, a landscape predominantly made up of the Mediterranean California Dry-Mesic- and the Mesic- Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland Biophysical Settings, also mapped by LANDFIRE in the following groups: Ponderosa Pine-Incense Cedar, Douglas-fir-White Fir-Sugar Pine, and Ponderosa Pine-California Black Oak. Condition Photo 1: At-risk, formerly open, old, dry forest densely crowded by small, young trees. Condition Photo 2: Open old, dry forest not crowded by young trees. Condition Photo 3: At risk, formerly open, large, old, dry forest densely crowed by tall younger trees. Condition Photo 4: Dense, mixed species, moist, old growth forest (late seral closed). 3 This analysis was developed by Darren Borgias.
6 Southern Oregon University Research Center
landscape. Both photos 1 and 3 represent stands identified for thinning from below by
scientists and respondents alike.
4. Considering several pre- and post-treatment photo pairs, most panel respondents think
the cut “looks good”; AFR project managers shouldn’t remove more or fewer trees. While
there is substantial variation in this opinion, more respondents favor a slightly heavier cut
than favor a slightly lighter cut (see Appendix C, Figure 7). There is growing support for
removing enough large and small trees if science provides a historical basis for it.
5. According to written comments about treatment photos, many panel respondents said in
effect “the forest looks good.” Respondents were asked to provide comments about the
work being done in the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project, as represented by photos (see
Appendix C, Figure 8). The word cloud image below, where words are scaled to frequency
of use across all comments, suggests a positive view of AFR treatments.
6. Panel respondents are satisfied with AFR treatments. Based on post-treatment photos of
commercial thinning and brush removal, three-fourths of panel respondents indicated they
were satisfied with the work being done by AFR (see Appendix C, Table 13).
7 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Opinion Change from 2012 to 2013 Only panel responses are used to estimate opinion change. The tables and charts in Appendix D
report response proportions and highlight change between 2012 and 2013. Most change over
the eighteen month period between the two surveys is relatively small (less than 10%).
Whether the changes are statistically significant is determined by using one-sample t-tests
based on mean differences (i.e., the average change in raw scores) for each question.
Statistical significance is reported if the p-value is below .05. A lack of statistical significance
means that we can’t be sure our sample results reflect real opinion change in the population
even if there is some observable change in our sample data. The following summary
emphasizes change that is both substantial and statistically significant.
1. Respondents continued to visit the watershed during the AFR project. Panel
respondents reported a drop in visits to the watershed between 2012 and 2013, but
the change was not statistically significant. One-third of panel respondents made
more than 10 visits last year.
2. There is growing support for forest restoration on public land in southwest Oregon.
Nearly half of panel respondents believe that public forests in the region need large-
scale restoration (up 10 percent); and increasing numbers, nearly a third of
respondents, agree that forest restoration should remove trees, large and small, if
science suggests that is what the landscape used to look like (up 14 percent,
representing a doubling from 2012). Slightly more than half of respondents believe
that, prior to European settlement, forests were generally more open than they are
today (up 7 percent, though this change is not statistically significant).
3. There is growing support for commercial thinning as a fuel-reduction tool. There
was a big, statistically significant increase in support for commercial thinning as a
legitimate fuel-reduction tool that resources managers should use more often.
There also appears to be growing support for the use of controlled burning as a
legitimate fuel-reduction tool, though that change was not statistically significant.
4. Completing AFR is a high priority, despite a drop in the strength of support of AFR
goals. Based on photos of the work being done, almost all panel respondents agree
that completing AFR and maintaining AFR treatments should be a high priority even
though the strength of support for AFR goals among respondents eroded some
between 2012 and 2013, from “strongly approve” to “somewhat approve”.
8 Southern Oregon University Research Center
5. Among AFR partners, The Nature Conservancy continues to be the most trusted
group. With the exception of the Southern Oregon Forest Restoration Collaborative,
no changes in the level of trust in various groups to make good decisions about fuel
reduction and forest restoration are statistically significant, and the increased trust
in SOFRC may not be meaningful since the group’s name changed from the first to
the second survey.
6. In sum, there is ongoing support for AFR and growing support for forest restoration
in southwest Oregon more generally. This support includes the use of commercial
thinning as legitimate fuel-reduction tool, and there remains very little support for
simply leaving public forests alone. According to the 2012 survey, these attitudes
toward forest management rest on underlying forest values that are both eco-
centric (biodiversity, life sustaining) and anthropocentric (clean water and
recreation) (Shibley & Schultz, 2012). If the public comes to see fuel-reduction and
restoration efforts as undermining these basic values, support for future work can
be expected to erode quickly.
9 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Appendix A: Online Survey Instrument
10 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Q1
11 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Q2
Q4
Q3
12 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Q5
13 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Q6
14 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Q7
15 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Q8
16 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Q9
Q10
17 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Q12
Q11
18 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Q13
3
19 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Q14
20 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Q16
Q15
21 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Q18
Q17
22 Southern Oregon University Research Center
23 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Q19
24 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Q20
Q21
25 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Q22
26 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Q23
27 Southern Oregon University Research Center
28 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Q25
Q26
Q24
29 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Appendix B: Panel Demographics
0 %
10 %
20 %
30 %
40 %
50 %
60 %
Female Male
CHART B1: Panel result compared to initial sample and population, by Gender
Population Sample Panel
0 %
10 %
20 %
30 %
40 %
50 %
60 %
18-24 25-44 45-64 65 +
CHART B2: Panel result compared to initial sample and population, by Age Cohort
Population Sample Panel
30 Southern Oregon University Research Center
0 %
10 %
20 %
30 %
40 %
50 %
60 %
Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $100,000 More than $100,000
CHART B3: Panel result compared to initial sample and population, by Income
Population Sample Panel
0 %
10 %
20 %
30 %
40 %
50 %
60 %
70 %
80 %
90 %
Inside Ashland City Limits Surrounding Area
CHART B4: Panel result compared to initial sample and population, by Residence
Populatio Sample Panel
31 Southern Oregon University Research Center
0 %
5 %
10 %
15 %
20 %
25 %
30 %
35 %
40 %
45 %
50 %
High School or Less Associate Degree Bachelors Degree Graduate Degree
CHART B5: Panel result compared to initial sample and population, by Education (highest degree attained)
Population Sample Panel
32 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Appendix C: Frequency Distributions, Closed and Open-ended Questions
Part 1: Visits to Forests in the Ashland Watershed
TABLE 1: Visits to the Watershed About how many times during the last 12 months have you entered the forest in the Ashland watershed, beyond Lithia Park? (Q1)
Percent
Count
Greater than 10 34.7 43
6 to 10 10.5 13
3 to 5 15.3 19
1 or 2 17.7 22
None 21.8 27
Total 100% 124
FIGURE 1: What do you do, primarily, when you enter the forest in the Ashland watershed above town and beyond Lithia Park? (Q2)
The Wordle image above represents respondents’ word usage in open-ended questions, scaled to frequency across all comments. Illustrative comments from Q2: Case 2321: “Go for a hike to get away from it all” Case 3927: “ …hike and enjoy all the natural beauty of the area, the smell of the air, the natural sounds, the green of the trees and the topography, all of the it!”
33 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Part 2: Forest Conditions and Responsible Management in the Ashland Watershed
TABLE 2: Overall Health of the Watershed In general, how would you rate the overall condition of the forests in the Ashland Creek watershed? (Q3)
Percent
Count
Very healthy 29.8 37
Somewhat healthy 40.3 50
Don’t know 20.2 25
Somewhat unhealthy 9.7 12
Very unhealthy 0.0 0
Total 100% 124
TABLE 3: Chance of Fire in the Ashland Watershed In your opinion, what are the chances of a large-scale, high severity fire occurring in the Ashland watershed in the next five years? (Q4)
Percent
Count
Very Likely 22.6 28
Somewhat Likely 50.8 63
Don’t Know 14.5 18
Somewhat Unlikely 12.1 15
Very Unlikely 0.0 0
Total 100% 124
TABLE 4: Opinion about Wildfires in Southwest Oregon Forests Please respond to each statement to the best of your ability by indicating whether you believe it is generally false, generally true, or that you are not sure. (Q5) True False
Not Sure
Total (n=124)
Years of fire suppression has increased the risk of severe wildfire in our regions forest.
78.2 6.5 15.3 100%
Fires play an important role in controlling insect and disease outbreaks in forests.
89.5 2.4 8.1 100%
Fires are not important for maintaining wildlife habitat. 12.1 77.4 10.5 100%
Some trees, like ponderosa pine, grow better in open, sunny areas than in shaded ones.
74.2 1.6 24.2 100%
Many plants require occasional fires so that new seeds or seedlings can sprout.
89.5 4.0 6.5 100%
Fires in one year are not influenced by fires in previous years. 9.7 70.2 20.2 100%
Prior to European settlement, forests were generally more open than they are today.
52.4 9.7 37.9 100%
Climate change has directly affected the frequency and severity of forest fires.
62.9 14.5 22.6 100%
34 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Part 3: Meaning of Forest Restoration
TABLE 5: Attitudes to Forest Restoration Please tell us your level of agreement with the following statements. (Q6&7)
Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Total (n=124)
Restoration efforts should return forests to conditions more like those before European settlement.
8.9 31.7 38.2 17.1 4.1 100%
The main purpose of restoration should be to promote well-functioning forest ecosystems.
43.5 51.6 2.4 2.4 0.0 100%
Forest restoration should alter fire behavior by reducing the fuel that has accumulated in the forest due to fire suppression and past management.
29.8 55.6 12.9 1.6 0.0 100%
We should allow forests to evolve without any more human intervention.
0.0 6.5 21.8 50.0 21.8 100%
Forest restoration should remove enough trees, large and small, in a particular stand if scientific evidence suggests that is what the landscape used to look like.
10.6 19.5 39.0 23.6 7.3 100%
Forest restoration efforts should be used to help recover native plant and animal species that are rare and endangered in order to maintain biodiversity.
29.8 54.0 9.7 3.2 3.2 100%
The main purpose of forest restoration should be to protect humans from fire. 2.4 13.0 27.6 50.4 6.5 100%
Large trees should never be removed in forest restoration efforts.
7.3 23.6 25.2 30.1 13.8 100%
Public forest lands in southwest Oregon need large- scale restoration.
14.6 34.1 43.9 7.3 0.0 100%
Forest restoration efforts should focus only on the Wildland Urban Interface (i.e. the forest edge near town).
2.4 12.1 23.4 43.5 18.5 100%
TABLE 6: Mechanical Vegetation Removal
35 Southern Oregon University Research Center
In my opinion, mechanical vegetation removal in the Ashland watershed is… (Q8_1) Percent Count
A legitimate tool that resource managers should use more often. 58.5 72
Something that should be done only infrequently, in carefully selected areas. 26.0 32
I know too little to make a judgment about this topic. 13.8 17
A practice that should not be considered because it creates too many negative impacts.
1.6 2
An unnecessary practice 0.0 0
Total 100% 123
TABLE 7: Commercial Thinning and Density Management In my opinion, commercial thinning and density management in the Ashland watershed is… (Q8_2) Percent Count
A legitimate tool that resource managers should use more often. 74.0 91
Something that should be done only infrequently, in carefully selected areas. 17.9 22
I know too little to make a judgment about this topic. 6.5 8
A practice that should not be considered because it creates too many negative impacts.
0.8 1
An unnecessary practice 0.8 1
Total 100% 123
TABLE 8: Controlled Burning
In my opinion, controlled burning in the Ashland watershed is… (Q8_3) Percent Count
A legitimate tool that resource managers should use more often. 58.5 72
Something that should be done only infrequently, in carefully selected areas. 27.6 34
I know too little to make a judgment about this topic. 9.8 12
A practice that should not be considered because it creates too many negative impacts.
2.4 3
An unnecessary practice 1.6 2
Total 100% 123
Part 4: Knowledge of AFR Project
36 Southern Oregon University Research Center
TABLE 9: Knowledge of AFR Since completing the initial survey in Spring 2012, have you heard or read more about the Ashland Forest Resiliency Stewardship Project (AFR)? (Q9)
Percent
Count
Yes, I’ve heard more about it and know a lot about the project goals. 8.9 11
Yes, I’ve heard more about it and know a little about the project goals. 36.3 45
Yes, I’ve heard more about it but don’t know what it involves. 15.3 19
No, I’ve nothing else about it. 39.5 49
Total 100% 124
TABLE 10: Where Respondent Heard of AFR
If you heard more about AFR , where did you hear about it? (Q10) (circle all that apply) Percent
Count (n=75)
I attended a public tour about AFR in the watershed. 2.7 2
I attended a public lecture or meeting that discussed AFR. 6.8 5
I read about AFR on the City of Ashland’s AFR website. 17.6 13
I read AFR newsletters circulated via email. 21.6 16
I heard about AFR from US Forest Service employees or media. 20.3 15
I heard about AFR from City of Ashland employees or media. 35.1 26
I heard about AFR from Nature Conservancy employees or media. 16.2 12
I heard about FR from Lomakatsi Restoration Project employees or media. 20.3 15
I read about AFR in the local newspaper. 83.8 62
I heard about AFR on the television. 14.9 11
I heard about AFR from friends or neighbors. 24.3 18
I heard about AFR from kids in school programs. 0.0 0
Other 8.1 6
37 Southern Oregon University Research Center
TABLE 11: Approval of AFR’s goals
Do you approve or disapprove of AFR’s goals? (Q11) Percent Count
Strongly Approve 50.0 62
Somewhat Approve 42.7 53
No Opinion 4.8 6
Somewhat Disapprove 0.8 1
Strongly Disapprove 1.6 2
Total 100% 124
TABLE 12: Trust in Organizations Please indicate your level of trust in the following groups to make good decisions about fuel reduction and forest restoration in the Ashland watershed. If you have no basis for judgment, please mark “no opinion”. (Q12)
Full Trust
Some Trust
No Trust
No Opinion
Total (n=124)
U.S. Forest Service 35.5 47.6 12.1 4.8 100%
City of Ashland 16.1 68.5 11.3 4.0 100%
The Nature Conservancy 56.5 34.7 1.6 7.3 100%
Lomakatsi Restoration Project 46.0 25.0 1.6 27.4 100%
Ashland Fire and Rescue 43.5 46.0 0.8 9.7 100%
Southern Oregon Timber Industry Association 6.5 34.7 39.5 19.4 100%
Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center 33.1 34.7 5.6 26.6 100%
Southern Oregon Forest Restoration Collaborative 18.5 27.4 1.6 52.4 100%
Geos Institute 12.1 14.5 3.2 70.2 100%
38 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Part 5: Opinions about AFR Treatments
FIGURE 2: The following four photographs represent three common forest conditions in the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project. How much of each forest condition should be maintained across that landscape if the management goals are to balance fire safety, water quality, wildlife habitat, natural beauty, and recreation? (Q14)
42.3
16.4
7.4
27.9
Mean S.D.
12.4
22.96
9.54
16.96
23.1
22.96
9.54
16.96
9.6
22.96
9.54
16.96
16.9
22.96
9.54
16.96
(N=124)
39 Southern Oregon University Research Center
FIGURE 3: Considering Condition 1, what if any forest treatments would you encourage managers to do to achieve a balance among management goals in the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project? (Q15)
The Wordle image above represents respondents’ word usage in open-ended questions, scaled to frequency across all comments. Illustrative comments from Q15: Case 2608: “Remove dead and dying trees and excess fuels from forest floor.” Case 2843: “Remove fallen trees, branches and debris off the forest floor. Possibly do some thinning of smaller bushes and trees.”
40 Southern Oregon University Research Center
FIGURE 4: Considering Condition 2, what if any forest treatments would you encourage managers to do to achieve a balance among management goals in the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project? (Q16)
The Wordle image above represents respondents’ word usage in open-ended questions, scaled to frequency across all comments. Illustrative comments from Q16: Case 2496: “This looks to me to be a pretty healthy section. There isn't a lot of undergrowth fuel and the trees seem to be pretty healthy.” Case 2684: “LOOKS GREAT.”
41 Southern Oregon University Research Center
FIGURE 5: Considering Condition 3, what if any forest treatments would you encourage managers to do to achieve a balance among management goals in the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project? (Q17)
The Wordle image above represents respondents’ word usage in open-ended questions, scaled to frequency across all comments. Illustrative comments from Q17: Case 2394: “Thin, thin, thin!!!” Case 2769: “Way too many trees. Serious thinning.”
42 Southern Oregon University Research Center
FIGURE 6: Considering Condition 4, what if any forest treatments would you encourage managers to do to achieve a balance among management goals in the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project? (Q18)
The Wordle image above represents respondents’ word usage in open-ended questions, scaled to frequency across all comments. Illustrative comments from Q18: Case 2818: “Thin small trees and shrubs.” Case 3099: “This needs a little clean up. I have a friend that lives up past the top of the park on the right and it scares me with all the brush.”
43 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Image 1 Image 2
Image 3
TABLE 13: Satisfaction with AFR Work Being Done Please indicate below each photo whether you are satisfied or dissatisfied with the work being done in the picture.
Very
satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
Total
Image 1 (Q19) 22.7 60.5 11.8 3.4 1.7 100%
Image 2 (Q20) 20.2 56.3 16.0 6.7 0.8 100%
Image 3 (Q21) 13.1 56.6 18.0 9.8 2.5 100%
44 Southern Oregon University Research Center
FIGURE 7: Displayed below are paired pre- and post-treatment photos of the same forest locations (or stands) in the AFR project. The top photo in each pair was taken prior to treatment, and the other was taken after cutting and piling. Based on this photo comparison, please indicate on the sliding scale below whether you think the AFR project managers should have removed more or fewer trees in treatments to reduce the risk of a mega-fire in the watershed. (Q21, Q22, & Q23)
Mean (n=97) S.D.
0.21 0.78
0.38 0.91
-0.04 0.56
Change in Public Perceptions of AFR and Forest Restoration 2013
45 Southern Oregon University Research Center
FIGURE 8: In the space below, please provide any comments you have regarding the work being done in the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project, as represented in the three photos above. (Q24; refer to photos in Figure 7)
The Wordle image above represents respondents’ word usage in open-ended questions, scaled to frequency across all comments. Illustrative comments from Q24: Case 2272: “Keep up the good work...when in doubt, cut it down! There is no tree shortage in this watershed. Case 3453: “I feel good about the work being done.”
TABLE 20: AFR and Forest Maintenance as Priorities
Having viewed post treatment photos, pre-
post pairs, and including everything you
know about AFR, please indicate whether
you agree or disagree that… (Q25) Strongly
Agree Agree Neither
Agree/Dis Disagree Strongly Disagree
Total (n=118)
completing AFR should be a high priority. 46.6 48.3 3.4 1.7 0.0 100%
maintaining the forests treated by AFR
should be a high priority. 44.9 44.9 6.8 3.4 0.0 100%
Change in Public Perceptions of AFR and Forest Restoration 2013
46 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Appendix D: Paired Comparisons, April 2012 and September 2014
Only panel responses (n=124) are used to estimate opinion change. The tables and charts below
report response proportions and highlight change between 2012 and 2013. Most change over
the eighteen month period between the two surveys is relatively small (less than 10%).
Whether the changes are statistically significant is determined by using one-sample t-tests
based on mean differences (i.e., the average change in raw scores) for each question. 4
Statistical significance is reported if the p-value is below .05. A lack of statistical significance
means that we can’t be sure our sample results reflect real opinion change in the population
even if there is some observable change in our sample data.
4 Raw scores on most questions range between 0 and 4 (strongly disagree to strongly agree). A change measure
was created for each question (X13 – X12=X∆). The one sample t-test evaluates whether the mean change for a given question across all panel cases is enough different from zero (no change) that we can be confident our sample results reflect real change in the population. Put formally,
H0: m∆ = 0 H1: m∆ ≠ 0
where m∆ is the mean change between 2012 and 2013 for a given question. The null hypothesis represents no opinion change, and the alternative hypothesis represents change, either up or down.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
None
1 to 2
3 to 5
6 to 10
More than 10
CHART D1: About how many times during the last 12 months have you entered the forest in the Ashland Creek watershed, beyond Lithia Park? (P1.2 & Q1)
2013
2012
_m∆ _t_ _Sig.
-.19 -1.97 n.s.
Change in Public Perceptions of AFR and Forest Restoration 2013
47 Southern Oregon University Research Center
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%
Very Unhealthy
Somewhat Unhealthy
Don't Know
Somewhat Healthy
Very Healthy
CHART D2: In general, how would you rate the overall condition of the forests in the Ashland Creek watershed? (P2.1 & Q3)
2013
2012
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%
Very Unlikely
Somewhat Unlikely
Don't Know
Somewhat Likely
Very Likely
CHART D3: In your opinion, what are the chances of a large-scale, high severity fire occurring in the Ashland Creek watershed in the next five years? (P2.2 & Q4)
2013
2012
m∆ _t Sig.
-. 03 -.31 n.s.
m∆ t_ Sig.
-.15 -1.67 n.s.
Change in Public Perceptions of AFR and Forest Restoration 2013
48 Southern Oregon University Research Center
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
an unnecessary practice
a practice that sould not be considered because it creates too many impacts.
I know too little to make a judgment about this topic.
something that should be done only infrequently, in carefully selected areas.
a legitimate tool that resource managers should use more often.
CHART D4: In my opinion, mechanical vegetation removal in the Ashland watershed is... (P2.6 & Q8_1)
2013
2012
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
an unnecessary practice
a practice that should not be considered because it creates too many impacts.
I know too little to make a judgment about this topic.
something that should be done only infrequently, in carefully selected areas.
a legitimate tool that resource managers should use more often.
CHART D5: In my opinion, commercial thinning and density management in the Ashland watershed is... (P2.7 & Q8_2)
2013
2012
m∆ t Sig.
-.07 -.82 n.s.
m∆ _t_ Sig.
.36 4.34 .000
Change in Public Perceptions of AFR and Forest Restoration 2013
49 Southern Oregon University Research Center
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
an unnecessary practice
a practice that should not be considered because it creates too many impacts.
I know too little to make a judgment about this topic.
something that should be done only infrequently, in carefully selected areas.
a legitimate tool that resource managers should use more often.
CHART D6: In my opinion, controlled burning in the Ashland watershed is... (P2.8 & Q8_3)
2013
2012
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Strongly Disapprove
Somewhat Disapprove
No Opinion
Somewhat Approve
Strongly Approve
CHART D7: Do you approve or disapprove of AFR's goals? (P3.4 & Q11)
2013
2012
m∆_ _t_ Sig.
.14 n.s. 1.96
m∆ _ t _Sig._
-.36 -4.90 .00
Change in Public Perceptions of AFR and Forest Restoration 2013
50 Southern Oregon University Research Center
TABLE D1 : Change in Fire Knowledge, Rank-ordered Please respond to each statement to the best of your ability by indicating whether you believe it is generally false, generally true, or that you are not sure. (P2.4 & Q5)
% answering correctly Sig. Test
2012 2013 Change m∆ t Sig. Prior to European settlement, forests were generally more open than they are today. (TRUE) Q5.7
45.1 52.4 7.3% .07 1.15 n.s.
Fires in one year are not influenced by fires in previous years. (FALSE) Q5.6
64.5 70.2 5.7% .07 .84 n.s.
Some trees, like ponderosa pine, grow better in open, sunny areas than in shaded ones. (TRUE) Q5.4
68.9 74.2 5.3% .05 .88 n.s.
Fires are not important for maintaining wildlife habitat. (FALSE) Q5.3
77.0 77.4 .4% -.04 -.57 n.s.
Fires play an important role in controlling insect and disease outbreaks in forests. (TRUE) Q5.2
89.2 89.5 .3% .00 .00 n.s.
Many plants require occasional fires so that new seeds or seedlings can sprout. (TRUE) Q5.5
91.8 89.5 -2.3% -.04 -.90 n.s.
Years of fire suppression has increased the risk of severe wildfire in our regions forest. (TRUE) Q5.1
82.8 78.2 -4.6% -.07 -1.22 n.s.
Change in Public Perceptions of AFR and Forest Restoration 2013
51 Southern Oregon University Research Center
TABLE D2: Change in Opinions about Forest Restoration, Rank-ordered
We would like to know your opinion about the broad goals of forest restoration on National Forest land in southwest Oregon. Please tell us your level of agreement with the following statements. (P4.2 & Q6-7)
% agreement with statement Sign. Test
2012 2013 Change m∆ t Sig.
Forest restoration should remove enough trees, large and small, in a particular stand if scientific evidence suggests that is what the landscape used to look like. Q6.5
16.6 30.1 13.5% .25 2.56 .01
Public forest lands in southwest Oregon need large- scale restoration Q7.4
38.6 48.7 10.1% .18 2.67 .01
Restoration efforts should focus only on the Wildland Urban Interface (i.e., the forest edge near town). Q7.5
10.0 14.5 4.5% .07 .76 n.s.
We should allow forests to evolve without any more human intervention. Q6.4
3.4 6.5 3.1% .03 .29 n.s.
Forest restoration efforts should be used to help recover native plant and animal species that are rare and endangered in order to maintain biodiversity. Q7.1
82.8 83.8 1.0% -.08 -1.20 n.s.
The main purpose of forest restoration should be to promote well-functioning ecosystems. Q6.2
98.3 95.1 -3.2% -.18 -2.93 .00
Restoration efforts should return forests to conditions more like those before European settlement. Q6.1
44.2 40.6 -3.6% -.12 -1.25 n.s.
Forest restoration should alter fire behavior by reducing the fuel that has accumulated in the forest as a result of fire suppression and past management. Q6.3
89.9 85.4 -4.5% -.07 -.89 n.s.
Large trees should never be removed in forest restoration efforts. Q7.3
35.4 30.9 -4.5% -.17 -1.81 n.s.
The main purpose of forest restoration should be to protect humans from fire. Q7.2
23.2 15.4 -7.8% .04 .45 n.s.
Change in Public Perceptions of AFR and Forest Restoration 2013
52 Southern Oregon University Research Center
TABLE D3: Change in Trust in AFR Partners, Rank-ordered
Please indicate your level of trust in the following groups to make good decisions about fuel reduction...(P3.6 & Q12)
% with full trust in… Sig. Test
2012 2013 Change m∆ t Sig.
2-tail
Southern Oregon Forest Restoration Collaborative 5.9 18.5 12.6% .45 5.56 .00
U.S. Forest Service 30.6 35.5 4.9% .03 .44 n.s.
Southern Oregon Timber Association 4.2 6.5 2.3% .08 .85 n.s.
Lomakatsi Restoration Project 47.5 46.0 -1.5% .09 1.33 n.s.
Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center 36.4 33.1 -3.3% .05 .63 n.s.
City of Ashland 21.5 16.1 -5.4% -.03 -.49 n.s.
The Nature Conservancy 64.7 56.5 -8.2% .03 .44 n.s.
Change in Public Perceptions of AFR and Forest Restoration 2013
53 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Bibliography Ansolabehere, S., & Hersh, E. (2010). The Quality of Voter Registration Records: A State-by-State
Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Quantitative Social Science, Harvard University.
Borgias, D., & Metlen, K. (2011). Restoring frequent-fire adapted forests in southern Oregon: Proposal to
the Priscilla Bullitt Collins Trust Northwest Conservation Fund. Medford, OR: The Nature
Conservancy.
Brown, G., & Reed, P. (2000). Validation of a Forest Values Typology for Use in National Forest Planning.
Forest Science, 240-247.
Clement, J. M., & Cheng, A. A. (2011). Using analyses of public value orientations, attitudes and
preferences to inform national forest planning in Colorado and Wyoming. Applied Geography,
393-400.
Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall. (2008). Rogue Valley Small Diameter Trees Survey. Medford, OR: Southern
Oregon Small Diameter Collaborative.
Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall. (2010). Oregon Forests Values and Beliefs Study. Portland, OR: Oregon Forest
Resources Institute and Oregon Department of Forestry.
Ecological Restoration Institute. (2006). Public perceptioins of forest restoration in the southwest: A
synthesis of selected literature and surveys. Flagstaff AZ: Northern Arizona University.
Metlen, K., & Borgias, D. (2013). Ashland Forest Resiliency Stewardship Project Monitoring Plan. Ashland,
OR: AFR Partnership.
Ostergren, D. M., Abrams, J. B., & Lowe, K. A. (2008). Fire in the Forest: Public Perceptions of Ecological
Restoration in North-central Arizona. Ecological Restoration, 51-60.
Ostergren, D. M., Lowe, K. A., Abrams, J. B., & Ruther, E. J. (2006). Public Perceptions of Forest
Management in North Central Arizon: The Paradox of Demanding More Involvement but
Allowing Limits to Legal Action. Journal of Forestry, 375-382.
Public Opinion Strategies. (2010). Key findings from a recent survey of statewide voters and second
congressional district voters in Oregon regarding forest issues. Eugene, OR: Oregon Wild.
Semken, S., & Freeman, C. B. (2008). Sense of Place in the Practice and Assessment of Place-Based
Science Teaching. Wiley InterScience, 1042-1049.
Shibley, M. A. (2009). Ashland Forest Resiliency Project Stakeholder Opinion Survey: An Assessment of
Multi-party Monitoring. Ashland, OR: Southern Oregon University Research Center.
Shibley, M. A., & Schultz, M. (2012). Public Perceptions of AFR and Forest Restoration: Results from an
Opinion Survey of Ashland Residents. Ashland, OR: Southern Oregon University Research Center.
Retrieved January 8, 2013, from http://www.ashlandwatershed.org
Change in Public Perceptions of AFR and Forest Restoration 2013
54 Southern Oregon University Research Center
Shindler, B. A., Toman, E., & McCaffrey, S. M. (2009). Public perspectives of fire, fuels and the Forest
Service in the Great Lakes Region: a survey of citizen-agency communication and trust.
International Journal of Wildland Fire, 157-164.
Toman, E., Stidham, M., Shindler, B., & Sarah, M. (2011). Reducing fuels in the wildland-urban interface:
community perceptions of agency fuels treatments. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 340-
349.
Wildland Fire Leadership Council. (2013, 12 5). Vegetation Dynamics Models. Retrieved from LANDFIRE:
http://www.landfire.gov/NationalProductDescriptions24.php
