CC BY
9
Марш Шжмк, д-р фтософи - Marnyñai 1нститут, Абердт, Шотландш; Анатолш Шiжнiк - ДовкЫьна мережа, ТзОВ, Хтлокс, Шотландiя
АНАЛ1З ПОГЛЯД1В НАСЕЛЕНИЯ ШОТЛАНДН НА СТАЛЕ
Л1СОГОСПОДАРЮВАННЯ
Дана робота спрямована на штегращю екологiчних, соцiально-економiчних та естетичних аспектiв у ландшафтному плануванш для досягнення сталого розвитку люового господарства. Основним об'ектом дослщження е вивчення iснуючих у сус-пiльствi поглядiв на збiльшення люово'1 площi у сiльськiй мiсцевостi та ощнка тих переваг, якi можуть бути отриманнi при цьому. Для вивчення емтричного суб'ектив-ного тдходу учасникiв опитування в щентифшацл найбшьш важливих критерпв ще'1 проблеми, а також ощнки основних чинникiв, яю впливають на рiзноманiття погля-дiв, у роботi використано Q-методологiю. Окремi iнновацiйнi перспективи, якi сто-суються консенсусу та конфлiкту мiж людьми стосовно сталого розвитку люового господарства допомагають зрозумiти: чому окремi аспекти люово'1 полiтики тдтри-муються одною частиною населення i не тдтримуються iншою. Через рiзницю у поглядах учасниюв стосовно штеграцп люово'1 площi у природнi ландшафти ми от-римуемо важливу iнформацiю про прюритети сустльно'1 думки, а також про чинни-ки, якi стримують подальший розвиток лiсового господарства. Результати дослщження дають змогу краще зрозум^и, яким чином рiзноманiття суспiльних поглядiв на змiни у землекористуваннi впливають на вибiр та оцiнку ршень у сталому розвитку люового господарства, а також яким чином шщювати соцiальну защкавле-нiсть та актившсть у вирiшеннi цих проблем.
Ключов1 слова: сталий розвиток люового господарства, ландшафти, суспiльна позицiя, Шотландiя.
Dr. Maria Nijnik1; Anatoliy Nijnik2
Analysing public attitudes toward sustainable forest management in Scotland
This paper focuses on a proper integration of ecological, socio-economic and aesthetic aspects in landscapes planning to attain sustainable forest management. The primary research objective is to assess existing opinions concerning the expansion of woodlands in rural landscape and to provide a sharper insight into values and preferences held by the public. The paper employs Q-method to examine empirically human subjectivity and to identify important criteria of the respondents' perspectives, as well as major factors influencing attitudinal diversity. The paper suggests some innovative perspectives on the areas of consensus and conflict between people and assists in realising why certain aspects of forest policies are unfavourably viewed by some people and favourably received by others. Through a different importance accorded by the respondents to the integration of woodlands in rural landscapes we become aware of the public priorities and of the factors that can hamper forest development. The research outcomes add to understanding how the diversity of opinions on land-use changes influence the selection and evaluation of forest management decisions, and how public participation can be facilitated.
Keywords: sustainable forest management, landscapes, public attitudes, Scotland
1. Introduction
Since the early 1990s, dominant attitudes to countryside have changed radically in many parts of the world, including Scotland. An increasing interest in mul-
1 Socio-Economic Research Programme, Human Dimensions. The Macaulay Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, AB15 8QH, Scotland, United Kingdom ([email protected]. Phone: 0044 1224 498200 (2360 ext.). Fax: 0044 1224 311556)
2 Environmental Network Ltd., The Hillocks, Tarland, Aboyne, AB34 4TJ, Scotland, United Kingdom ([email protected])
HiiyK'QBiiii bíchhk, 2005, BHn. 15.7
ti-functional forestry has been observed. Its transition to multiple objectives, particularly related to the environmental services necessitates operationalising social values into concrete management decisions, where the shift from a production-focused model to a people-focused concept is crucial (Nijnik, Mather and Hill, 2005). These changes in forestry development, amounting in effect to a paradigm shift toward "post-productivism" (PP) in the countryside (Mather, 2001), provide formidable challenges for practitioners: how can dominant attitudes concerning forestry be characterised, and how can they or should they be translated into policy? What is the future of forestry in Scotland? What are the linkages between the objectives of sustainable forest management (SFM) and the delivery mechanisms for multi-functional countryside development?
This paper examines public perceptions on the future of forestry in Scotland within the distinctive setting of woodlands expansion and in relation to rural policies formulated in recent years. The structure of the paper is as follows. Firstly, research methodology is presented. Then, the existing opinions concerning forestry development are defined and analysed. Finally, the results provide some indication of linkages between SFM and multiple (ecological, socio-economic and aesthetic) objectives of the delivery mechanisms of schemes for rural sustainability. 2. Methodology
2.1. General overview
Assessment of existing viewpoints and values has been a difficult task. Surveys, CVM, focus groups, and multi attribute utility analysis (MAUA) have been employed to communicate public perceptions among diverse objectives (Steelman and Maguire, 1999). However, surveys and CVM suffer from difficulties in designing, administering the questions, and interpreting the results. Focus groups are often unrepresentative, and no methodical guidelines exist to draw out a systematic understanding of their value-relevant information. MAUA is too difficult for understanding (Keeney and Eppel, 1990). In contrast, Q-method (Stephenson, 1963) provides a sharper insight into values and preferences held by the public. Q-met-hod helps researchers to outline the areas of consensus and conflict between people, to specify, select and evaluate policy options.
Q methodology can be used in all phases of the policy process: intelligence, promotion, prescription, invocation, application, termination and appraisal (Laas-well, 1971). This paper considers consultation with the people to receive knowledge on the diversity of existing perspectives, concerning rural changes with relation to forestry development in Scotland. When, as concerning a countryside change, input from local communities is important, this methodology is unique as its results are largely driven by the public, and all at once they are systematic and statistically rigorous (Barry and Proops, 1999). Although to empirically examine human values and beliefs is difficult, Q-method helps to elucidate the range of public perspectives that exist and the spectrum of sustainability to which they may relate. It makes possible a nuanced analysis of attitudes and of the elements of which they are composed (Nijnik, Mather and Hill, 2005).
Q-method is a quantitative tool for examining human subjectivity. It enables researchers to reveal and assess attitudes and perspectives from the standpoint
of the person (s) being observed (Brown, 1996). Q-method allows for a rather simple data set, and its factor analytical tool makes it possible to analyse interviews even when the respondents have not explicitly revealed their opinions.
The following basic features distinguish Q-method from standard survey analysis (R-analysis) (McKeown and Thomas, 1988; Barry and Proops, 1999):
• R-analysis deals with patterns across objective variables (e.g., gender, income) and yields statistically generalisable results. Q-analysis deals with subjective perspectives across individuals, and results in typologies of views that prevail in a given situation.
• With R-method, correlation summarizes the relationships among traits and then factor analysis denotes the clusters of traits. With Q-method, correlation summarises the views among people, and resulting factors represent points of view. The method does not define the number of people with certain beliefs, but denotes what beliefs people have and why.
• Q-method employs small number of respondents, because most of the data derives not from the number of participants, but from how much information is implicit in each participant's Q sort. As few as twelve respondents with diverse views generate statistically meaningful results in terms of the range of implicit discourses uncovered; and even single-person surveys are used in certain cases.
Though the body of literature on Q-method is growing, the subset of forestry related research employing it is rather small. The methodology has been used e.g. to define attitudes toward agrarian reform (Peritore and Peritore, 1990), to understand participant perspectives in national forest management (Steelman and Maguire, 1999), to measure attitudinal diversity of Siberian forest policy makers (Mashkina, 1998), and to conceptualise the perspectives of forest policy actors in Ukraine (Nijnik, 2002; Nijnik and Oskam, 2004).
2.2. The outline of Q-analysis
Existing attitudes towards land use changes were analysed through interviews. After pre-testing of the questionnaire within the Macaulay Institute, and then improving both the statements and the procedure, eighty six random respondents were asked to rank order the responses by placing the statements (Appendix 1) in the normal distribution chart (Appendix 2). Each respondent was asked to distribute the statements (their numbers) across boxes in the chart, according to his or her agreement/disagreement with each of the statements.
Naturalistic statements generated through concourse analysis were used in this study. The statements included various aspects that concern economic, environmental and social dimensions of countryside sustainability and rural management, and those that concern landscape components, first of all forests with a clear distinction between native woodlands and conifer plantations (Figure 1)1.
After the respondents had ranked the statements across the normal distribution, which encouraged them to consider the relationships among the statements more systematically, the output data were assessed, using the sequential application of multiple regression and factor analysis. Factor analysis reduced the dimensionality of the data by creating a few new uncorrelated choice variables (a set of factors or typical Q-sorts) which have captured the common essence of the several
1 Definitions of sustainability are explained in Appendix 3.
HiivKOBiiii BiCHHK, 2005, BHn. 15.7
individual Q-sorts. The research therefore provided identification of the groups of people with their views, according to the orientation of the blocks of statements (Appendix 4).
Figure 1. The logical framework to explore existing in Scotland attitudes toward the expansion of woodlands in rural landscapes
Then, the distinguishing statements across the factors were analysed and social discourses uncovered by the statistical analysis were given. Finally, factors influencing attitudinal diversity were defined and explained. Statistically analysed socio-economic background of the respondents (gender; age; education; occupation; income etc. revealed in course of the survey) was considered to elucidate its influences on the perceptions.
3. Results
In course of the survey, people living in different areas expressed their opinions on the problems of countryside sustainability (its economic, social and environmental components), and concerning rural changes and the development of forestry (natural woodlands expansion vs. forest plantations). The research objectives were, as follows:
• Distinguish possible alternatives for the development of forestry in Scotland;
• Analyse public attitudes toward countryside sustainability and to landscape changes, with a special focus on woodlands expansion;
• Define factors influencing existing attitudes;
• Explain these factors by analyzing the respondents' socio-economic background.
The results of the analysis1 provided evidence in support of the policy that
promotes tree-planting and expansion of woodlands in Scotland, as offering a wide
1 86 respondents have been asked, and 80 rigorous results have been obtained.
range of benefits to its people, economy, and to the environment. How do people substantiate the necessity of woodlands development (Figure 2)?
The creation of new jobs in remote rural areas and the provision of employment opportunities related to the prospects of woodlands expansion (also through the development of tourism and recreation) possess an important place in people's way of reasoning. The respondents, who belong to the so-called groups of Pragma-tists and Realists, consider social security and a balanced timber harvesting as the most important directions of SFM. They support the weak sustainability concept for rural development rather than that of a strong sustainability. Also, showing a clear emphasis on woodlands expansion, these people often reject strict nature conservation and consider the social aspects of forestry development crucial.
Figure 2. Attitudinal diversity of the public toward SFM in Scotland
Major difference between the most clearly defined groups of Pragmatists and Realists is that whilst the first group's vision is practical (socio-economic), as these people focus on the enlargement of wealth of rural communities, on the creation of new jobs and on the increase of investment in rural areas, the outlook of the second group is all at once ecological. It is oriented toward balancing of socioeconomic objectives of woodlands expansion with nature protection considerations, with a special emphasis of native woodlands conservation for the benefits of present and future generations.
The second major reason for public support of the policy of woodlands expansion in Scotland is that people recognize the role of forests for improving of rural landscapes, for nature protection and biodiversity conservation. The two groups of people supporting this vision (the so-called Idealistic and Utilitarian Visualists) are preoccupied primarily with aesthetic values of landscapes and with people's rights to enjoy landscape's beauty. In addition, Utilitarian Visualists are interested in economic and social aspects of landscape changes, e.g. in the attraction of tourists in remote rural areas.
The Environmentalists highly appreciate the intrinsic values of nature and are primarily ecologically oriented. Whilst all other groups do not have strong pre-
HiiyK'QBiiii BiCHHK, 2005, BHn. 15.7
judice against an enlargement of wooded area at the expense of non-native species, the Environmentalists support native woodlands conservation and their extended regeneration.
The research has also defined main factors influencing public attitudes and explained these factors by analyzing the respondents' socio-economic background:
• The majority of Pragmatists are highly educated people with high salaries, who have families with children and live in countryside.
• Realists include a wide variety of people who live both in urban and rural areas.
• Visualists are mainly scientists or highly educated civil servants of middle ages, women or men with children, who are well paid. They mainly work in towns and live both in urban and rural areas.
• Environmentalists are largely those who have a university/college education and moderate salaries. They often live in towns, but have strong connections with countryside (via relatives, through recreation activities, etc).
The results of the analysis have not distinguished differences between subjective perceptions of female and male respondents or people who live in different areas of Scotland. Yet the social perspective of the research has shown that the atti-tudinal diversity depends on age and living conditions of the people and still more on their competencies, such as work experience, occupation etc. The outcomes have provided insights for understanding why certain aspects of forest policies are unfavourably viewed by some people, and favourably received by others. Through a different importance accorded by the public to the integration of woodlands in rural landscapes, we become aware of existing priorities and of factors that could hamper reforesting of rural Scotland.
4. Conclusions
The research has provided insights into respondents' preferences, concerning the integration of ecological, socio-economic and aesthetic aspects in sustainable land use management in Scotland, with a particular focus on woodlands expansion. The developed preference models have distinguished public attitudes toward forest policy and provided some innovative perspectives on the areas of consensus and conflict between people, regarding the key directions of forestry development. The results of the Q-analysis enabled us to identify important criteria of the respondents' perspectives, and to explain major factors, influencing attitudinal diversity.
The use of Q-methodology in this setting has offered a potentially useful contribution to the formulation and refinement of forest policy. The research concluded that although some people in Scotland are in favour of native woodlands regeneration, whilst others have interests that come very close to the weak susta-inability ideas, there is a general consensus on the necessity of extensive/proper integration of woodlands in rural landscapes. There is a common understanding that sustainable countryside development is the right direction in which to go in order to multiply benefits to society and to the environment in Scotland. The major focus of SFM in this country must therefore be on the necessity of operationalising of social values into concrete forest management decisions, where the shifts from timber management to multiple resources management, and from a forest-focused concept to a people-focused concept, are crucial.
Acknowledgement. This research is supported by the SEERAD under the core project of the Macaulay Institute, as well as by the EU funding within the project "Visualisation tools for public participation in the management of landscape change". We are grateful to the respondents for their help with the survey. In collaboration with Alexander Mather, this conference paper has been developed further to a journal article.
Appendix 1: Some statements
I support the creation of large areas of woodlands, but any new planting would have to be in tune with the character of the landscape.
We should be more self-sufficient in timber and plant fast growing trees, making sure that our forests produce as much wood as possible.
I don't mind what type of trees gets planted or where trees get planted, as long as it doesn't cost the taxpayer money.
Native woodlands are an important part of our natural heritage and should be preserved whatever the cost.
Appendix 2: Normal Distribution Q-sort chart
Disagree
Gender: M
Age: under 30_
Education: School_ Occupation:__
Agree
_ 30-40_ _ College__; Universty_
.; 40-50_
; over 50_ ; PhD
Annual income: below ?15000
Partnership status:_
^ijfflber of children:_
_; ?15000-?25000_; 25000 or higher _
Appendix 3
Sustainability has several levels - week, sensible and strong - depending upon how strictly one elects to conform the concept of maintenance of non-declining capital.
Week Sustainability is maintaining total capital intact without regards to the composition of that capital between its different components (natural, man-made, social or human). This would imply that different kinds of capital are perfect substitutes at least within the boundaries of current levels of economic activity and resources endowment.
Sensible Sustainability would require that in addition to maintaining the total level of capital intact, some concern should be given to the composition of that capital between natural, man-made, human and social. Thus oil may be depleted as long as the receipts are invested in other capital (e.g. human capital development) elsewhere, but that, in addition, efforts should be made to define critical le-
HiiyKOBiiii BiCHHK, 2005, Bin. 15.7
vels of capital, beyond which concerns about sustainability could arise. Such critical levels should be monitored to ensure that the patterns of development do not promote a total decimation of one kind of capital, no matter what is being accumulated in the other forms of capital. This still assumes that man-made and natural capitals are to a large extent substitutable, but it is recognised that they are complementary too. The full functioning of the system requires at least a mix of different kinds of capital. Since we do not know exactly where the boundaries of these critical limits for each type of capital lie, it behoves the sensible person to err on the side of caution depleting resources (especially natural capital) at too fast a rate.
Strong Sustainability requires maintaining different kinds of capital intact separately. Thus for natural capital, receipts from depleting oil should be invested in sustainable energy production rather than in any other asset. This assumes that natural and man-made capitals are not really substitutes but complements in most production functions. A saw-mill (man-made capital) is worthless without the complementary natural capital of a forest. The same logic would argue that if there are to be reductions in one kind of educational investment they should be offset by other kinds of education, not e.g. by investment in roads.
Appendix 4: Factor loadings m whilst analysing Visualists' outlooklfl^^H
ill An individual's loading on a factor is a correlation coefficient that indicates the extent to which each Q-sort is similar or dissimilar to the composite factor array. A positive loading indicates that the person shares subjectivity with others on that factor, whilst negative is a sign of rejection of the factor's perspective. rzl Group 2 represents Idialistic Visualists; group 5 - Utilitarian Visualists. X indicates a defining sort. Dominating indicators are those with factor loadings ? 0.5 or ? - 0.5;
[3l % expl. var. means that the first factor explains 27% of the variation, the second factor explains 14% of the variation and so on, and this is when all 80 Q-sorts are considered.
Those who would demand that strong sustainability would never deplete anything are pushing the idea to absurd level. Non-renewable resources - absurdly - could not be used at all; for renewable, only net annual growth rates could be harvested, in the form of the overmature portion of the stock.
Source: Serageldin, 1995
QSORT 1 2 3 4 5 6
4 0.0939 0.0218 0.2364 0.4030 0.5295X 0.3374
18 0.3140 0.1362 0.0161 -0.1313 -0.5438X -0.1370
19 -0.1088 0.6592X 0.1567 -0.3501 0.3556 0.0473
21 0. 0771 0.6380X 0.3514 0.1228 -0.0503 0.4068
22 -0.3668 0.5107X -0.0542 0.3301 0.1796 0.4389
27 -0.5363 0.7206X 0.0231 0.0254 0.1854 0.0349
28 -0.0100 0.7540X 0.0026 -0.0523 0.3468 0.1412
29 -0.0424 0.5319X -0.0453 0.6254 0.0209 0.1502
30 -0.4273 0.5714X -0.2308 0.0734 0.2459 -0.0301
31 -0.2516 0.6918X 0.0603 0.1509 0.3636 0.0292
32 -0.4882 0.6571X 0.0404 -0.3186 0.0416 -0.0484
33 -0.0799 0.7062X 0.0999 0.3507 -0.0129 0.1789
34 -0.3155 0.7507X -0.2552 0.2752 -0.2595 -0.0506
35 -0.6386 0.5004X 0.0838 -0.3384 0.1117 0.1613
36 -0.4823 0.6988X 0.2856 0.1475 0.0685 0.0456
37 -0.5130 0.5978X 0.2290 0.2083 0.0002 0.2231
39 -0.3726 0.5778X 0. 41 96 -0.0786 0.0269 0.2283
40 -0.0934 0.5856X 0.2135 0.1058 0.2149 0.3004
47 0.0811 0.3408 - 0.1226 0.3862 -0.5530X 0.3198
49 0.1001 0.4336X -0.0004 -0.2117 0.2816 0.0053
52 -0.2405 0.1851 0.4000 -0.0810 0.5213X 0.1632
54 -0.1135 0.7025X -0.1781 0.3496 -0.1546 0.1359
61 -0.3613 0.0477 0.0431 -0.0649 0.8515X 0.1981
62 -0.2739 0.1463 0.1410 0.2399 0.8458X 0.0731
63 -0.5370 0.0704 0.1115 -0.1059 0.7780X -0.0880
64 -0.3690 0.1099 0.1429 -0.0404 0.8299X -0.0090
65 -0.3660 0.1969 0.1534 -0.1992 0.7759X 0.0591
% expl.Var. 27 14 7 8 10 7
References
1. Brown, S., 1996. Q methodology and qualitative research. Journal Qualitative Health Research 6, 561-567.
2. Barry, J. and Proops, J., 1999. Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecological Economics 28, 337-345.
3. Keeney, R., Eppel, T., 1990. Eliciting public values for complex policy decisions. Journal of Management Science 36 (9), 1011-1030.
4. Laaswell, H., 1971. A Pre-view of the Policy Sciences. New York: American Elsevier.
5. Mashkina, O., 1998. Measuring attitudinal diversity through Q-analysis - an illustration of a Research Approach. In: Initial Analysis of the Institutional Framework of the Russian Forestry Sector, Carlsson, L. and Olsson, M. (eds.), Interim Report IR-98-027, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria.
6. Mather, A., 2001. Forests of consumption: postproductivism, postmaterialism, and the postindustrial forest. Environment and Planning C 19(2), 249-268.
7. McKeown, B., Thomas, D., 1988. Q Methodology, Sage Publ., California.
8. Nijnik, M., 2002. To Sustainability in Forestry: the Ukraine case. Proefschrift, Wageningen University.
9. Nijnik, M., Mather, A. and Hill, G., 2005. From multifunctional forestry to post-producti-vism. Padova University Press, 1-10.
10. Nijnik, M., Oskam, A., 2004. Governance in Ukrainian forestry: trends, impacts and remedies. Int. J. Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 3 (1-2), 116-133.
11. Peritore, N., Peritore, A., 1990. Brazilian attitudes toward agrarian reform: A Q-methodo-logy opinion study of a conflictual issue. Journal of Developing Areas 24(3), 377-405.
12. Serageldin, I, 1995, Sustainability and the wealth of nations: first steps in an ongoing journey. Washington, Environmentally Sustainable Development, The World Bank.
13. Steelman, T., Maguire, L., 1999. Understanding participants perspectives: Q-methodo-logy in national forest management. J. of Policy Analysis and Management 18(3), 361-388.
14. Stephenson, W., 1963. Independency and operationism in Q-sorting. Psychological Record 13, 269-272. _
ЛШя Заднiк-Штiрн - Ушверситет в Люблянах
П1ДХ1Д БАГАТОКРИТЕР1АЛЬНО1 ОПТИМ1ЗАЦ11 ДО МЕНЕДЖМЕНТУ Л1СОВОГО ГОСПОДАРСТВА З УРАХУВАННЯМ БАГАТОЦ1ЛЬОВОГО ВИКОРИСТАННЯ
Враховуючи, що менеджмент люового господарства дуже важливий для забез-печення рiвноваги в економiчних, еколопчних i сощальних цшей, ми представляемо багатокритерiальну i багатовимiрну модель тдтримки прийняття ршень. Вона дае змогу визначити оптимальне управлшське ршення з урахуванням вимог сталого розвитку i рiзноманiтного використання лiсiв. Запропонована модель тдтримки прийняття ршень розглядае процес менеджменту люового господарства з урахуванням стану, ршень, цшьових функцш та зважених вартостей. Оскiльки стан люу опи-сують з допомогою суб'ективних i недостовiрних змiнних, ми використали апарат неч^ко! логiки. Вщтак лiнiйна функцiя корисностi, багатовимiрний аналiз та аналiз iерархiчних процесiв використано для ощнки конфлiктуючих цiлей землевласника-ми, експертами i громадою, а також для схвалення оптимального ршення, тобто рь шення, яке мае найвищу компромiсну оцiнку.
Ключов1 слова: менеджмент люового господарства, багатоцiльового використання лiсiв, модель пiдтримки прийняття ршень, багатокритерiальна i багатовимiрна модель, методи неч^ко! логiки.
