Survey Summary

This preliminary report summarizes responses to a survey taken by participants at the Intensive Plantation Forestry Symposium in Portland, Oregon.  The intent of this project was to capture the initial opinions and attitudes of participants about plantation forestry and then gauge the influence of the symposium presentations on the audience. An identical nine-item questionnaire was administered at the beginning and at the end of the symposium. Also recorded was the participants’ organizational affiliation.

The first questionnaire (pre-test) was completed by 203 participants. Due to workshop attrition, the final questionnaire (post-test) was completed by 113 respondents. However, only 80 of these individuals recorded the ID number assigned to them so that questionnaires could be matched statistically for analytical purposes. In the data summary that follows the following labels are used to delineate groups: 

Pre and Post:   the 80 respondents who completed both questionnaires
Pre aggregate:  the 203 respondents who completed the first questionnaire
Post aggregate:  the 113 respondents who completed the second questionnaire

Data for each group are reported to show there were no significant differences in responses across the three groups for any item. This suggests that the Pre and Post group is fairly representative of the entire sample. Data for the Pre and Post group were analyzed and significant differences among responses are reported.

For additional information about this survey contact:

Dr. Thomas Adams         
Dr. Stephen Hobbs
Department of Forest Science, Oregon State University
Dr. Bruce Shindler
Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State University

Intensive Plantation Forestry Symposium Questionnaire

Definitions

For the purposes of the following questionnaire, intensive plantation management refers to growing trees under high input culture to rapidly produce timber products with a desired range of wood properties.  By “high input culture,” we mean intensive site preparation, planting with genetically improved stock, active control of weedy competition, fertilization and thinning (if needed), and clear cutting.  Furthermore, the statements refer to conifer plantations in the coastal Douglas-fire zone where current rotations are 30-50 years.

Please check below the affiliation that is the closest match to yours: (post survey)

In surveys of this type, delineating responses by participant affiliation and comparing scores across groups can sometimes be useful.  However, for the pre and post survey the sample participant group (n=80) was not large enough to merit such comparisons; that is, statistical analysis was not possible.

Please check all sessions you attended at this conference (post survey):

1) Merchantable wood yields are greater in intensively managed plantations than under less-intensive silvicultural regimes that are used to grow trees primarily for timber production.

For both the pre and post survey there is strong agreement—the most for any single survey item—that merchantable yields are greater in intensively managed plantations.When such high levels of agreement are present initially, it is unlikely that opinions will be altered with additional information.

2) Merchantable wood yield can be maximized in intensively managed plantations without sacrificing the quality of wood produced.

Considerable disparity exists over the issue of maximizing wood yield without sacrificing quality.  There was no majority of opinion (agreement or disagreement) in either the pre or post surveys; however, significantly fewer respondents agreed with the statement at the conclusion of the symposium.  More individuals shifted to the neutral response. 

There is substantial agreement overall that economic value is greater in intensively managed plantations.  Even so, significantly more respondents were in strong agreement at the end of the symposium.         

4) The practice of intensive plantation management on private lands is necessary if the Pacific Northwest is to be competitive on the world wood market.

Again, strong agreement exists regarding the necessity of intensive plantation management on private lands.  Fewer respondents disagreed with this statement than any other in the survey.  Opinions remained the same over the term of the symposium. 

5) The practice of intensive plantation management on public lands is necessary if the Pacific Northwest is to be competitive on the world wood market.

Much disparity exists over the need for intensive plantation management on public lands.  Overall, respondents lean toward disagreement with the statement, particularly at the end of the symposium when a full 50% registered this view.  Substantially high numbers of individuals were neutral about the statement suggesting uncertainty about the efficacy of these practices on public lands. 

6) Small woodland owners are likely to utilize intensive plantation management in the future.

Respondents were split in their assessment that small woodland owners are likely to engage in intensive plantation management in the future.  Only in the post survey did a majority (51%) agree with this statement; however, responses did not differ significantly over the survey period.    

7) When considered regionally, and to supply the same amount of wood, practicing intensive plantation management on fewer acres causes less environmental impact than practicing less intensive forestry on more acres.

There is general agreement overall that practicing intensive plantation management causes less environmental impact.  Symposium presentations seemed to reinforce respondents’ original opinions.

8) The practice of intensive plantation management in the Pacific Northwest will have a net positive environmental impact on forest ecosystems globally.

Substantial numbers agree that intensive plantation management locally will provide a net environmental benefit for global forest systems.  Again, no difference in opinion emerged at the close of the symposium.

9) Private forest landowners in the Pacific Northwestwill have the social, legal and regulatory license to practice intensive plantation management in the future.

This political question generated a high degree of disparity among responses.  There simply is no agreement whether private forest landowners will have the social, legal, and regulatory license to practice intensive plantation management.  In the post survey significantly more people moved away from agreement and disagreement into the neutral and not sure categories.  It appears that symposium sessions on this topic did little to show that policies for intensive plantation forestry will be clearly or easily mandated in the future.      

Summary

If we were to hypothesize about how opinions would be altered by information presented at this symposium, it is likely that participants would move to a position of greater understanding and agreement about each of the nine statements. However, many people came with opinions and left with the same ones. For two statements (#1 regarding greater level of wood yields on plantations and #4 about necessity of plantations on private lands) opinions were already so strong that generating greater agreement was unlikely, regardless of the amount of information presented. Other cases ran counter to the hypothesis as well. For example, the number of individuals selecting the “neutral” and “not sure” responses did not decrease in the post survey; and for two statements (#2 about maximizing yield without sacrificing quality and #9 regarding private landowners having social and legal license) responses in these categories actually increased. Only in the case of forestland value (#3) did more post survey respondents agree that economic returns are greater on intensively managed plantations.

In public opinion research, the use of both “neutral” and “not sure” response categories usually helps differentiate between those who truly are neutral about an issue and those who simply don’t know. However, in this survey this may not be the case. From the high number of neutral responses (and low levels of not sure), it appears that many respondents chose neutrality rather than the response suggesting they were uncertain about an appropriate response. When a good deal of uncertainty exists, we usually consider this as an opportunity to present information to help people make up their minds. It appears that some topics need further clarification.

The findings seem to suggest that while the symposium addressed important issues of concern in the Pacific Northwest—and the sessions were well attended and well received—many questions about plantation forestry still persist. For example, questions remain about the quality of wood produced from intensively managed plantations. More important may be the efficacy of this form of management on public lands. And even for private forest landowners, much needs to be done to fully secure their right to practice intensive plantation forestry in the future. Until these questions are explored in more detail—and resource professionals can come to agreement on the components of plantation forestry as well greater consensus on appropriate uses—it is unlikely that policy makers or the public will understand these concepts. This will slow wide spread support for intensive plantation forestry. This symposium provided a starting place to explore the level of understanding and agreement among resource professionals and practitioners. On balance, the symposium was a valuable forum in that it initiated discussion and uncovered areas of uncertainty that need additional examination and debate.