IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public perceptions of county, state, and national forest management in Wisconsin, USA


  • Floress, Kristin
  • Vokoun, Melinda
  • Huff, Emily Silver
  • Baker, Melissa


Attitudes toward public forest management actions can be sources of conflict among and between public stakeholders and managers. Understanding these forest stakeholders can help managers engage in planning processes more effectively. Residents of fifteen counties in Wisconsin were surveyed in summer 2013 to understand how management attitudes impacted respondents' acceptance of management at three levels of publicly managed forest: county, state, and national. Results from regression models reveal that similar attitudes consistently impacted stakeholders' acceptance of fire, timber, wildlife, and recreation management for county and state forests, but only the timber and wildlife management models were significant for the national forest. Forest managers can use these results to understand public perceptions of forest management, identify opportunities for outreach to stakeholders, and for alternative or complementary methods of public involvement in planning. There is increasing social pressure on forest managers that arises from public perceptions and can directly influence U.S. forest policy. Policymakers and managers can use this attitudinal information as one method of public involvement and to develop additional engagement tools.

Suggested Citation

  • Floress, Kristin & Vokoun, Melinda & Huff, Emily Silver & Baker, Melissa, 2019. "Public perceptions of county, state, and national forest management in Wisconsin, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 110-120.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:104:y:2019:i:c:p:110-120
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.04.008

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. David N. Bengston & Trevor J. Webb & David P. Fan, 2004. "Shifting Forest Value Orientations in the United States, 1980-2001: A Computer Content Analysis," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 13(3), pages 373-392, August.
    2. Buchy, M. & Hoverman, S., 2000. "Understanding public participation in forest planning: a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 15-25, May.
    3. Laakkonen, Anu & Zimmerer, Rebekah & Kähkönen, Tanja & Hujala, Teppo & Takala, Tuomo & Tikkanen, Jukka, 2018. "Forest owners' attitudes toward pro-climate and climate-responsive forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-10.
    4. Bartczak, Anna, 2015. "The role of social and environmental attitudes in non-market valuation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 357-365.
    5. Appelstrand, Marie, 2002. "Participation and societal values: the challenge for lawmakers and policy practitioners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 281-290, December.
    6. Broussard, Shorna R. & Whitaker, Bianca D., 2009. "The Magna Charta of Environmental Legislation: A historical look at 30Â years of NEPA-Forest Service Litigation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 148-154, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Mylek, Melinda R. & Schirmer, Jacki, 2020. "Understanding acceptability of fuel management to reduce wildfire risk: Informing communication through understanding complexity of thinking," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elsasser, Peter, 2007. "Do "stakeholders" represent citizen interests? An empirical inquiry into assessments of policy aims in the National Forest Programme for Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 1018-1030, May.
    2. Tyrvainen, Liisa & Gustavsson, Roland & Konijnendijk, Cecil & Ode, Asa, 2006. "Visualization and landscape laboratories in planning, design and management of urban woodlands," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(8), pages 811-823, November.
    3. Sugimura, Ken & Howard, Theodore E., 2008. "Incorporating social factors to improve the Japanese forest zoning process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 161-173, January.
    4. Kleinschmit, Daniela & Pülzl, Helga & Secco, Laura & Sergent, Arnaud & Wallin, Ida, 2018. "Orchestration in political processes: Involvement of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals in forest policy making," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 4-15.
    5. Hansmann, Ralf & Koellner, Thomas & Scholz, Roland W., 2006. "Influence of consumers' socioecological and economic orientations on preferences for wood products with sustainability labels," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 239-250, April.
    6. Wallin, Ida & Carlsson, Julia & Hansen, Hans Peter, 2016. "Envisioning future forested landscapes in Sweden – Revealing local-national discrepancies through participatory action research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 25-40.
    7. Kangas, A. & Saarinen, N. & Saarikoski, H. & Leskinen, L.A. & Hujala, T. & Tikkanen, J., 2010. "Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Programmes in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 213-222, March.
    8. Niemela, Jari & Young, Juliette & Alard, Didier & Askasibar, Miren & Henle, Klaus & Johnson, Richard & Kurttila, Mikko & Larsson, Tor-Bjorn & Matouch, Simone & Nowicki, Peter & Paiva, Rosa & Portoghes, 2005. "Identifying, managing and monitoring conflicts between forest biodiversity conservation and other human interests in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(6), pages 877-890, November.
    9. Teder, Meelis & Kaimre, Paavo, 2018. "The participation of stakeholders in the policy processes and their satisfaction with results: A case of Estonian forestry policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 54-62.
    10. Kumar, Sushil & Kant, Shashi, 2005. "Bureaucracy and new management paradigms: modeling foresters' perceptions regarding community-based forest management in India," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 651-669, May.
    11. Susana Martín-Fernández & Adrián Gómez-Serrano & Eugenio Martínez-Falero & Cristina Pascual, 2018. "Comparison of AHP and a Utility-Based Theory Method for Selected Vertical and Horizontal Forest Structure Indicators in the Sustainability Assessment of Forest Management in the Sierra de Guadarrama N," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.
    12. Massimo Filippini & Adán L. Martínez-Cruz, 2016. "Impact of environmental and social attitudes, and family concerns on willingness to pay for improved air quality: a contingent valuation application in Mexico City," Latin American Economic Review, Springer;Centro de Investigaciòn y Docencia Económica (CIDE), vol. 25(1), pages 1-18, December.
    13. Valkeapää, Annukka & Karppinen, Heimo, 2013. "Citizens' view of legitimacy in the context of Finnish forest policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 52-59.
    14. Bethmann, Stephanie & Simminger, Eva & Baldy, Jana & Schraml, Ulrich, 2018. "Forestry in interaction. Shedding light on dynamics of public opinion with a praxeological methodology," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 93-101.
    15. Handberg, Øyvind Nystad, 2018. "No sense of ownership in weak participation: a forest conservation experiment in Tanzania," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 434-451, August.
    16. Nilsson, Sten, 2005. "Experiences of policy reforms of the forest sector in transition and other countries," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(6), pages 831-847, November.
    17. Real, Alejandra & Hickey, Gordon M., 2013. "Publicly funded research: A participative experience from the Chilean Native Forest Research Fund," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 37-43.
    18. Germain, Rene H. & Floyd, Donald W. & Stehman, Stephen V., 2001. "Public perceptions of the USDA Forest Service public participation process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3-4), pages 113-124, November.
    19. Caixia Lu & Yuan Jiang & Xiaojun Zhao & Ping Fang, 2020. "Will Helping Others Also Benefit You? Chinese Adolescents’ Altruistic Personality Traits and Life Satisfaction," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1407-1425, April.
    20. Agimass, Fitalew & Lundhede, Thomas & Panduro, Toke Emil & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "The choice of forest site for recreation: A revealed preference analysis using spatial data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 445-454.


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:104:y:2019:i:c:p:110-120. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Nithya Sathishkumar). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.