Public Values Have Changed
Dr. Paul Adams

Forestry must change because public values have changed. This refrain has become common among foresters and others. Often these words justify reductions in the use of traditional forest practices like clearcutting. Often the statement goes unchallenged. But as a scientist trained to scrutinize technical assumptions and research data, I have wondered what information supports it. To me, this is much more than a minor detail, because I believe strong justification should accompany any major, and perhaps costly, changes in forest management.

So what is really behind the statement that “public values have changed?” From what I have seen and heard, I would conclude “not too much.” Public hearings and opinion surveys seem to be the primary foundation for this proclamation. Let’s look closer at the nature of these information sources.

Open hearings have been widely used to assess how the public feels about forest management plans and policies. Invitations for written comments often supplement such meetings. On the positive side, these events clearly provide an opportunity for the public to speak up and express their values. On the other hand, the values expressed are possibly not representative of the much larger number of people who have been unable or unwilling to speak up or write. In hearing and reading public comments, I have seen how interest groups can dominate the input, and I am left wondering about the countless other people who have not been heard from.

Public opinion surveys are now a regular part of American life and also have been used to gauge attitudes about forestry. When carefully designed, they can give a quick and accurate view of what many people think about important issues. When poorly written or administered, surveys can produce a biased or distorted picture of public attitudes. Similar problems occur when public opinion is informally assessed by “a show of hands” or “lots of letters to the editor.”

A more subtle but perhaps more serious danger lies in using public opinions to make conclusions about trends in public values. These words are often used interchangeably, but their differences should be carefully assessed when considering major changes in forest management. I would argue that public opinion is best reflected in what people say while public values are best reflected in what people do, and the two may differ for some important reasons.

For example, if a poll of Americans reveals that a majority would like to see a ban on clearcutting, does this mean that their values regarding forests have changed and that such a ban is justified? Maybe, but more questions would have to be pursued before such conclusions could be drawn. Questions such as, “What is the basis for these public opinions about clearcutting?” Because most Americans live in urban areas, newspapers and televisions are their primary sources of information. Do these sources normally present information about clearcutting in a positive, negative, or neutral light? Is the information complete enough to make informed judgements about the practice? And perhaps most importantly, do people understand the connection between clearcutting and their own actions (and values), such as home ownership?

If people were asked what they want from the forest, they would probably say that they want beauty, wildlife, water, fish, and yes, wood. But there is little evidence that our largely urban public knows enough about forest management to develop informed opinions about how to “have it all,” including the tough choices that may be involved. What has changed the most is the public awareness of natural resource issues.

On a flight back from the East Coast last year, for example, I sat next to a woman who noticed me reading some forestry literature. Demonstrating her awareness of the issues, she mentioned her concern about whether our forests are being managed “sustainably.” I asked what business she was in, and she said the computer industry. I then pointed out that foresters were among the first to study and apply sustainability concepts. I went on to ask her whether she had thought about the sustainability of the computer industry which consumes nonrenewable resources like plastics and metals. She replied that she hadn’t and didn’t say too much after that.

Is this woman one whose values have changed? Maybe, but her knowledge of a currently popular term raises another concern. Because of the power of mass media, I wonder about who and what receive “front page” attention (e.g., interest groups, vocal scientists, divisive issues) and about who decides (e.g., editors, reporters and TV producers) what merits such attention. Perhaps it is the people and organizations most capable of influencing public attitudes rather than the public whose values have changed significantly.

Until we better understand the nature of public values, and the public itself better understands the consequences of any major changes in these values, I will continue to ask questions when I hear that “forestry must change because public values have changed.” Editor’s Note: Dr. Paul Adams is professor and forest watershed extension specialist, Forest Engineering Department, Oregon State University. This article is reprinted from the Journal of Forestry (vol. 93, No. 6, p. 60) published by the Society of American Foresters, 5400 Grosvenor Lane, Bethesda, MD 20814-2198. Not for further publication.