policy

Escaping the National Forest PlanningQuagmire: Using Public Participation GIS toAssess Acceptable National Forest UseGregory G. Brown and Shannon Donovan

The appropriate role of the “public” in the planning and management of national forests in the United Statesis both statutorily vague and socially dynamic. Should forest management be consistent with public values andpreferences for these lands? And, how should “consistency” be defined and evaluated? In 2012, a publicparticipation geographic information systems (PPGIS) study was completed for the Chugach National Forest (CNF)in Alaska (United States) that measured public values and preferences to assist future forest plan revision.Place-based public preferences were assessed for consistency with existing CNF national forest plan (2002)prescriptions and to identify areas of potential conflict over forest management direction. Public use preferenceswere largely consistent with forest plan prescriptions but with some exceptions. Larger-scale analysis of PPGISpreference data provides more detailed information about potential forest conflict and indicates that large-areaforest management prescriptions may be too general to guide place-specific forest planning needs. We discussthe use of PPGIS methods for future forest plans, given the release of a new regulatory planning rule for theUSDA Forest Service in 2012.

Keywords: public participation GIS (PPGIS), forest planning, spatial analysis

T he right of the public to be informedabout significant decisions involv-ing national forests in the United

States is a well-established principle underthe National Environmental Policy Act of1969 (NEPA). Less clear is the appropriaterole and influence of the “public” in the ac-tual planning and management of nationalforests. Lurking behind the legal and regula-tory requirements for public consultation isthe vexing question about whether and howfar participatory democracy principlesshould extend to the planning and manage-ment of national forests. Should national

forest management be consistent with pub-lic values and preferences, and, if so, how canthis principle be achieved in practice?

The USDA Forest Service is the federalagency responsible for developing and im-plementing forest plans (called Land andResource Management Plans) under the Na-tional Forest Management Act of 1976(NFMA). The national forest planning pro-cess prescribed by NFMA and its associatedcode of federal regulations (CFR) has beencontroversial from the beginning, leading toearly calls for reform or even repeal (Behan1981). In the absence of congressional inter-

vention to revise national forest manage-ment statutes, the Forest Service has at-tempted on multiple occasions to revise theregulations that guide the national forestplanning process. Substantive changes toforest planning regulations (originally codi-fied at 36 CFR 219 in 1982) were publishedby the agency in 2000, 2002, 2005, and2008 (USDA Forest Service 2012a). Con-troversy and litigation surrounded each pro-posed revision of the planning rule. In 2009,a US District Court decision forced anagency retreat from the 2008 planning ruleback to the 2000 rule. In April 2012, theagency published its latest planning rule inthe Federal Register (US Department of Ag-riculture 2012).

The Behan (1981) prophecy predict-ing that national forest planning and man-agement would become a legal battle-ground largely materialized over time(Malmsheimer et al. 2004). Litigation orthe threat of litigation continues to be adominant theme of national forest planningoutcomes. For example, every one of the 96national forest plans completed through1996 had been administratively appealed(Kaiser 2006), the first step toward a lawsuit.However, the Behan (1981) alternative of

Received October 4, 2012; accepted January 30, 2013; published online February 21, 2013.

Affiliations: Gregory G. Brown (greg.brown@uq.edu.au), University of Queensland, School of Geography Planning and Environmental Management, Brisbane,QLD, Australia. Shannon Donovan (smdonovan@uaa.alaska.edu), University of Alaska Anchorage, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies.

Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska Anchorage for providing funding to support thedata collection for this project and thank Dr. Pat Reed for his insightful and constructive comments in the preparation of this article.

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Journal of Forestry • March 2013 115

J. For. 111(2):115–125http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/jof.12-087

Copyright © 2013 Society of American Foresters

relying “on the willingness of Forest Serviceto listen to opinions from the public, wherelocal land managers should resolve conflictslocally, through bargaining, compromise,and negotiation” (p. 802) also appears prob-lematic. The agency may lack the tools andorganizational capacity to work in these“wicked” and “messy” planning contextsthat are characterized by multiple and com-peting goals, little scientific agreement oncause-effect relationships, limited time andresources, lack of information, and struc-tural inequities in access to information andpolitical power (Lachapelle et al. 2003). Thedifficult external forest planning environ-ment confronting the Forest Service is fur-ther compounded by internal organizationalchallenges of low employee morale resultingfrom a reduction in workforce, an exodus ofemployee technical expertise, declining re-source budgets, reorganization initiatives,and the ascendancy of fire management(Brown et al. 2010). Further, the capacity ofthe agency to learn and adapt as an organi-zation is significantly less in the division ofthe agency responsible for national forestplanning (Brown and Squirrell 2010).

With these formidable external and in-ternal barriers to effective national forestplanning, is there a path forward for theagency? The existing public participationprocess for forest planning required underNEPA that accompanies the development offorest plans has been insufficient to mediatethe conflict over diverse preferences for thenational forest system. Observers of the na-tional forest planning process have suggesteda goal wherein knowledge from technical ex-perts (the agency) can inform the citizen par-ticipants, whereas knowledge from citizenparticipants informs the technical experts(Steelman 2001). However, it is arguablehow truly bidirectional the flow of nationalforest planning information has been, withexpert knowledge appearing to dominatenational forest participatory processes.

Public Participation (PPGIS) forForest Planning

In response to the perceived imbalancebetween technical and citizen participationin forest planning, researchers have evalu-ated the potential for PPGIS to assist na-tional forest planning (Clement-Potter2006, Brown and Reed 2009). PPGIS is afield of GIS that seeks to enhance public par-ticipation and empower nongovernmentorganizations, grassroots groups, and local

communities (for a review of PPGIS appli-cations, see Sieber 2006). Although the for-mal definition of PPGIS remains “nebu-lous” and inconsistent across applications(Tulloch 2007), PPGIS generally describesthe practice of having nonexperts or the laypublic identify spatial information to aug-ment expert information. PPGIS methodshave been pilot-tested by academic research-ers on national forests in Alaska, Arizona,Oregon, California, and Colorado, as well asCanadian forestlands (Beverly et al. 2008).

The historical focus of PPGIS for na-tional forest planning has centered on themapping of landscape values that identifythe spatial location of important public val-ues on national forestlands. Landscape val-ues are an operationalized form of placevalue used for natural resource and environ-mental planning (Brown 2005), whichevolved from a typology of forest values de-veloped by Rolston and Coufal (1991).These place-based values can be used in adecision support system called values com-patibility analysis (VCA) that evaluates thecompatibility of different forest manage-ment activities with the values identified bythe public (Reed and Brown 2003, Brownand Reed 2012a). In VCA analysis, the com-patibility of a particular national forest use,such as motorized recreation with place-based values such as aesthetic, biological, orspiritual values, is determined by an analystor the Forest Service interdisciplinary plan-ning team (IDT) responsible for the forestplanning process.

The most critical step in VCA is thedetermination of which particular nationalforest uses or activities are compatible withparticular forest values recognized by the

public. This often involves subjective judg-ments by the IDT. For example, for someindividuals, motorized recreation may beconsistent with aesthetic value because itpermits them to get to scenic areas. For oth-ers, the opposite conclusion may be reachedbecause the use of motorized vehicles may beperceived as reducing forest aesthetics. Still,others might not see any relationship be-tween this forest use and value. Conse-quently, the IDT must assess multiple value/use relationships for compatibility, whichcan lead to spirited differences within theIDT (often mirroring the same public de-bate). These judgments must ultimately bedefended by the agency when forest planprescriptions are identified and mapped innational forest plans. Prescriptions providedirection on the forest uses allowed, not al-lowed, or allowed subject to specific condi-tions. In the case of the Chugach NationalForest Plan (2002), each prescription has atheme (major purpose), a management in-tent (desired future conditions), activitiestable (allowable/nonallowable activitieswithin the prescription), and standards andguidelines (specific management directionfor activities that are conditionally allowedin the prescription). A map of forest pre-scriptions was published with the final 2002Chugach National Forest Plan (USDA For-est Service 2012b).

The collection and use of landscapevalue attributes in PPGIS provides the IDTwith information to assist in the determina-tion of forest value/use compatibilities andthe forest areas to be assigned to various for-est management prescriptions. However,forest value/use relationships can be ambig-uous, resulting in IDT uncertainty and lack

Management and Policy Implications

In 2012, the USDA Forest Service revised its national forest planning rule. The new rule encourages butdoes not require the agency to be proactive and use contemporary tools such as the Internet to engagethe public in forest planning. We evaluated the use of public participation geographic information systems(PPGIS) to assist forest planning under the new rule. Although not a panacea for future national forestlitigation, PPGIS engages the silent majority of national forest stakeholders, locates place-specific publicvalues and forest use preferences to inform forest management direction, and identifies areas in whichconflict over multiple uses is likely to be most intense. Mapping potential forest conflict using PPGIS haspractical implications for national forest planning: agency resources can be directed toward areas wherethey are most needed; the agency can show the location, nature, and intensity of potential conflict to seekplace-specific solutions from the public and stakeholders; and special management areas may bedesignated in forest plans to manage the conflict. To achieve these benefits, the Forest Service will needa constructive, precedent-setting ruling from the Office of Management and Budget, which reviews andapproves information collection requests such as PPGIS under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

116 Journal of Forestry • March 2013

of confidence in the conclusions and planimplications. Because PPGIS systems areflexible in their design and implementation,it is possible to collect spatial attributes fromthe public that directly identify the spatiallocations of preferred (and nonpreferred)forest uses within a national forest. Identify-ing the spatial locations of acceptable (andunacceptable) forest uses provides a directmeasure of forest plan compatibility withpublic preferences. The purpose of this arti-cle is two-fold: demonstrate how public for-est values and use preferences collected withPPGIS methods can augment national for-est planning using the Chugach NationalForest (CNF) as a case study; and discuss thecontent of the 2012 USDA Forest Serviceplanning rule relative to its support for newparticipatory forest planning methods suchas PPGIS.

Case Study: The ChugachNational Forest Plan (Alaska)

Under the NFMA, the Forest Service isrequired to revise individual national forestplans every 10–15 years. The agency beganto revise its 1984 CNF plan in 1997. As partof the public participation process accompa-nying plan revision, the CNF was the first toexperiment with PPGIS. In 1998, academicresearchers collaborated with CNF staff toimplement a PPGIS process wherein ran-domly sampled households in 12 communi-ties proximate to the CNF, as well as a state-wide sample of Alaska residents, identifiedthe location of CNF forest values. The 1998study design was a self-administered surveyfor which individuals placed mnemonicallycoded sticker dots on a color map of theCNF provided in a mail packet with a coverletter. The study resulted in the identifica-tion of more than 16,839 landscape valuepoints for analysis (for details of the 1998PPGIS study, see Brown and Reed 2000,Crone et al. 2002, Reed and Brown 2003).The PPGIS data were available to the IDTfor the development of the revised forestplan but had little direct influence on deci-sions allocating areas to management pre-scriptions in the final plan. The use ofPPGIS data for forest planning was per-ceived as too novel to be trusted by the IDTfor place-based decisions. The Forest Servicereleased an environmental impact statementand draft CNF plan in September 2000. Af-ter an extended public comment period, theagency released its final environmental im-

pact statement, record of decision, and finalCNF forest plan in 2002.

After a decade, the CNF will begin re-vising its national forest plan again as re-quired by the NFMA. The CNF was identi-fied as one of eight national forests that willbe the first to revise their forest plans usingthe new national forest planning rule(USDA Forest Service 2012c). The pro-posed planning rule (USDA Forest Service2012d) does not specifically indicate thatPPGIS methods be used in public involve-ment and collaboration but does encouragethe agency to be “proactive and use contem-porary tools, such as the Internet, to engagethe public….” (§219.4), while continuingto require that the agency identify the pres-ence and consider the importance of variousphysical, biological, social, cultural, and his-toric resources on the plan area (§219.7) inthe plan revision. The announcement thatthe CNF would be one of the first to reviseits forest plan under the new planning ruleprovided an opportunity for academic re-searchers to apply PPGIS methods for twobroad purposes: to identify how landscapevalues have changed since the last PPGISstudy in 1998 and to provide more currentspatial data for the forthcoming CNF planrevision. The results of longitudinal changesin CNF forest values are reported elsewhere(Brown and Donovan 2013).

This article presents an analysis of the2012 PPGIS data that included national for-est use preferences for the first time, in addi-tion to forest values. The CNF plan (2002)prescriptions are used as a baseline to iden-tify how PPGIS can provide spatial decisionsupport to the IDT. Specifically, we soughtanswers to the following three research ques-tions: How are acceptable/unacceptable for-est uses spatially distributed within theChugach National Forest Plan (2002) pre-scriptions and is the distribution consistentwith the management intent of these pre-scriptions? Can public mapping of forest usepreferences in PPGIS help identify potentialforest planning conflicts? How can the map-ping of acceptable/unacceptable forest usescontribute to more effective forest planningunder the new forest planning rule?

Methods

Study LocationThe CNF is located in southcentral

Alaska and covers approximately 5.4 millionacres (23,000 km2), making it the secondlargest national forest in the United States.

The forest covers the mountains surround-ing Prince William Sound and includes theeastern Kenai Peninsula and the CopperRiver Delta. Approximately one-third of thearea of the forest is rock and ice with strips oftemperate rainforest occupying the zonesbetween the ocean and alpine regions. Thelargest population centers proximate toCNF include Valdez (population 3,976)and Cordova (population 2,239) in the eastand the Kenai Peninsula communities ofSoldotna (population 4,163) and Seward(population 2,693) in the west. Other smallcommunities (populations less than 1,000)proximate to CNF include Cooper Landing,Hope, Moose Pass, Whittier, and the Alaskanative villages of Tatitlek and Chenega Bay.The largest city in Alaska, Anchorage (pop-ulation 291,826), is approximately 80 kmfrom the national forest. Although the CNFis largely wild, with only 90 miles (140 km)of Forest Service roads, none of it is cur-rently designated as legal wilderness (al-though a significant portion is designated asWilderness Study Area and is managed so asto protect its wild character for potential for-mal designation in the future as legal wilder-ness).

Data Collection ProcessTo conduct the 2012 PPGIS study, we

sampled two groups of participants. Thefirst group was individuals who participatedin the 1998 PPGIS study. By consulting In-ternet address databases, we were able toidentify n � 512 individuals still living inAlaska who participated in the 1998 study.This group was the longitudinal panel of ourstudy. The second group of participantswere randomly selected individuals living incommunities proximate to the CNF. Thenames and addresses were provided by acommercial vendor based on zip codesmatching desired communities. In the 1998study, we had randomly sampled individualsfrom 12 communities in close proximity tothe CNF (Anchorage, Cooper Landing,Cordova, Girdwood, Hope, Kenai, MoosePass, Seward, Soldotna, Sterling, Valdez,and Whittier). In 2012, we sampled thesame communities from the 1998 study andinvited n � 2,335 individuals to participate.This sampling group represented the 2012cross-section group.

We mailed letters of invitation toboth the panel and cross-section groupsinviting them to the PPGIS study web-site.1 Each letter of invitation contained aunique access code to be entered by the

Journal of Forestry • March 2013 117

participant on the website that allowed usto track responses as well as minimize thepotential of any single respondent frommaking multiple responses. The studywebsite consisted of an opening screen forthe participant to enter his or her accesscode, followed by an informed consentscreen for participation, and then aGoogle maps interface that allowed theparticipant to drag and drop different dig-ital markers representing 13 landscape val-ues, 13 acceptable forest uses, and 13 par-allel unacceptable forest uses onto a digitalmap of the CNF. The choice of forest usesto include in the PPGIS application wasmade in consultation with CNF staff andconsisted of the most common and con-troversial potential uses of the CNF.

The instructions requested the partic-ipant to “use the map markers on the leftto identify the places you value and yourforest use preferences. Place as many (orfew) markers on the map as you like….”The different types of markers placed andtheir spatial locations were recorded for

each participant on the Web server in adatabase, along with other information in-cluding a timestamp of when the markerwas placed, the Google map view at timeof placement, and the Google map zoomlevel (scale) at which the marker wasplaced. Participants could place as few oras many markers as they deemed necessaryto express their forest value and use pref-erences. The forest use markers and defi-nitions, the primary focus of this study,appear in Table 1.

After completion of the mapping activ-ity (placing markers), participants were di-rected to a new screen and provided with aset of text-based survey questions to assessnonspatial forest management preferencesand to measure respondent sociodemo-graphic characteristics. Study participantshad the option to return to the PPGIS web-site later to use their access code to add newmarkers or adjust previously placed markers.To increase participation, two additionalmail reminders were sent to nonrespondentsafter the initial mail invitation.

AnalysesRespondent Characteristics. For this

study, we combined the panel and cross-sec-tion responses to provide the largest data set foranalysis. There were no significant differencesin the responses of the two groups that wouldmaterially affect the aggregated results (Brownand Donovan 2013). We provide descriptivecharacteristics of the respondents below on thevariables of age, gender, level of formal educa-tion, and number of visits to the CNF. The2012 study also included 18 variables thatmeasured nonspatial attitudes toward variousforest management uses such as “commerciallogging” and “motorized recreation.” Theseitems were measured on a 5-point Likert scaleranging from “strongly favor” to “strongly op-pose.” We report these nonspatial use prefer-ences to triangulate the spatial preference re-sults.

Distribution of Acceptable/Unaccept-able Forest Uses by Management Prescrip-tion. A total of 9,324 locations were mappedinside in the CNF administrative boundaryby study participants, of which 3,501 loca-

Table 1. Operational definitions for acceptable/unacceptable uses in the 2012 Chugach National Forest PPGIS study.

Acceptable use Operational definition Nonacceptable use Operational definition

Timber harvest This area is acceptable for timber harvest. No timber harvest This area is NOT acceptable for timber harvest.Forest gathering This area is acceptable for gathering forest

products such as berry picking,mushroom hunting, and firewoodgathering.

No forest gathering This area is NOT acceptable for gatheringforest products such as berry picking,mushroom hunting, and firewood gathering.

Mining This area is acceptable for commercialmining activity.

No mining This area is NOT acceptable for commercialmining activity.

Marine facilities This area is acceptable for building boatramps, docks, and other marine supportfacilities.

No marine facilities This area is NOT acceptable for building boatramps, docks, and other marine supportfacilities.

Subsistence hunting/fishing This area is acceptable for subsistencehunting or fishing use.

No subsistence hunting/fishing This area is NOT acceptable for subsistencehunting or fishing use.

Roads This area is acceptable for building newroads.

No roads This area is NOT acceptable for building newroads.

Motorized recreation This area is acceptable for motorizedrecreational use (e.g., snowmachines,all-terrain vehicles, and motorboats).

No motorized recreation This area is NOT acceptable for motorizedrecreational use (e.g., snowmachines, all-terrain vehicles, and motorboats).

Recreation facilities This area is acceptable for developedrecreation facilities (e.g., campgrounds,cabins, toilets, parking areas, trails,trailheads, and whistle-stop sites).

No recreation facilities This area is NOT acceptable for developedrecreation facilities (e.g., campgrounds,cabins, toilets, parking areas, trails,trailheads, and whistle-stop sites).

Commercial tourism This area is acceptable for commercialtourism activity (e.g., helicopter skiingand dog sledding) or development (e.g.,tourism lodges).

No commercial tourism This area is NOT acceptable for commercialtourism activity (e.g., helicopter skiing anddog sledding) or development (e.g., tourismlodges).

Wilderness/wild and scenic river This area is acceptable for designation asWilderness or a Wild and Scenic River.

No wilderness/wild and scenic river This area is NOT acceptable for designation asWilderness or a Wild and Scenic River.

Vegetation management This area is acceptable for vegetationmanagement to reduce risk from fire orwind through fuels treatment (e.g., treethinning and controlled burns).

No vegetation management This area is NOT acceptable for vegetationmanagement to reduce risk from fire or windthrough fuels treatment (e.g., tree thinningand controlled burns).

Energy development This area is acceptable for energydevelopment either fossil or nonfossilfuel-based.

No energy development This area is NOT acceptable for energydevelopment either fossil or nonfossil fuel-based.

Other development Please indicate what use or developmentwould be acceptable here.

No development any type This area is NOT acceptable for ANY newdevelopment.

118 Journal of Forestry • March 2013

tions were acceptable/unacceptable forestuse markers. We intersected the marker lo-cations with 2002 forest management pre-scription boundaries to generate counts andproportions of preferred uses by prescrip-tion. The most frequent preference (eitheracceptable or unacceptable) was then as-sessed against the 2002 plan prescriptions todetermine whether current public prefer-ences were consistent with the forest planprescriptions.

Social Landscape Metrics by Pre-scription. We calculated several boundarysocial landscape metrics for prescriptions de-scribed by Brown and Reed (2012b) includ-ing the dominant value metric (D), the valuediversity index (D3), and a conflict potentialindex (C).

Boundary metrics are calculated byquantifying the distribution of mappedPPGIS attributes that fall within bounded,spatial areas of interest such as watersheds,administrative areas, recreation sites, or, inthis case, prescription areas. The dominantvalue metric is the spatial attribute with thelargest point count (most frequent) within aprescription area whereas the diversity indexmetric is the Shannon diversity index com-monly used in ecological studies. The Shan-non diversity index accounts for both theabundance and evenness of different types ofpoints mapped within the prescription area.As calculated, Shannon index values typi-cally fall within the range of 1.5–3.5 withhigher index values indicating greater diver-sity of spatial attributes. To assist interpreta-tion, the diversity index value was normal-ized to a scale ranging between 0 and 1 forwhich higher index values indicate greaterdiversity. The conflict potential index wascalculated by summing the ratios of accept-able/unacceptable use pairs (e.g., acceptabletimber harvest and unacceptable timber har-vest) within each prescription area andmultiplying this sum by the number oflandscape values in the area. Numerically,the index increases with greater publicdisagreement over potential forest useswithin a prescription; this quantitativedisagreement is weighted and amplified bythe intensity or number of values the pub-lic identified in the prescription. Largerindex numbers represent greater potentialconflict within the prescription. A mapwas generated to display potential conflictby prescription.

For the CNF, some prescriptions coverlarge areas of the National Forest wherethere were few mapped PPGIS data. Imput-

ing preferred uses and conflict potential byprescription area can be misleading at thisscale. We adjusted the spatial analysis by dis-playing the potential for conflict in areasin which spatial attributes were actuallymapped by PPGIS participants. We did thisby overlaying a 2-km grid over the CNF andthen calculating the difference between ac-ceptable/unacceptable uses within each gridcell. We normalized these differences on ascale ranging from �3 (most acceptableuses) to �3 (most unacceptable uses). Thistype of analysis reveals areas of public con-sensus or disagreement that may be maskedby whole prescription area analysis. We gen-erated individual maps for nine forest uses,displaying areas of acceptable or unaccept-able forest uses at the larger 2K resolutionthat may be more useful for future manage-ment prescriptions.

Results

Response Rate and RespondentCharacteristics

Of the 2,335 letters of invitation mailedto the cross-section sample, there were 215full or partial responses. A full response is anindividual who maps one or more point lo-cations and completes the survey questionsat the end; a partial response is an individualwho maps one or more locations but doesnot answer the survey questions after themapping activity. After accounting forknown nondeliverable letters, the 2012 In-ternet-based PPGIS cross-sectional responserate was 10.1%. For the panel group, of the

512 invitations mailed, there were 80 re-sponses, yielding a response rate of 19.1%after accounting for known nondeliverableletters. The combined response rate for thecross-section and panel groups was 11.6%.This response rate is less than desirable bysurvey research standards but is empiricallyconsistent with other Internet-based PPGISmethods involving general public randomsamples that averaged 13% across five stud-ies (Pocewicz et al. 2012).

The 2012 respondents had an averageage of 48.1 years and were 58% male; 67%had a bachelor’s degree or higher. Partici-pants were very familiar with the CNF with84% reporting more than five visits to thenational forest. In a question that asked par-ticipants’ self-assessed knowledge of placesin the Chugach National Forest, almost60% rated their knowledge as “good” or“excellent.” Only 2% of participants ratedtheir knowledge of CNF places as “poor.”About 32% of PPGIS participants werefrom Anchorage with the remainder fromrural communities proximate to the CNF.

Nonspatial Attitudes Toward PotentialNational Forest Uses

The mean responses to 18 replicatedsurvey items measuring attitudes towardpotential CNF use are presented in Table2. Respondents oppose resource develop-ment activities in the CNF including tim-ber, mining, and energy but favor a varietyof uses, especially sightseeing, wildlifeviewing, gathering forest products, and

Table 2. Mean attitudinal responses to forest management preference survey itemsranked from most to least favorable.

Survey item 1998 (n � 834) 2012 (n � 244) Public position

Fish and wildlife habitat 1.44 1.43 FavorableCamping and picnicking 1.62 1.55 FavorableWildlife viewing/observing 1.69 1.57 FavorableNonmotorized recreation 1.69 1.60 FavorableGathering forest products 1.74 1.68 FavorableProviding fresh water 1.81 1.72 FavorableSport fishing 1.88 1.90 FavorableSightseeing 1.93 1.79 FavorableWilderness areas 2.10 1.84 FavorableSport hunting 2.15 2.29 FavorableSubsistence hunting/fishing 2.16 2.14 FavorableHelicopter skiing/hiking 2.78 2.62 FavorableCommunication sites and utility easements 2.82 2.66 FavorableCommercial outfitting/guiding 2.84 2.70 FavorableMotorized recreation 2.84 2.79 FavorableCommercial logging 3.26 3.54 OppositionOil/gas drilling 3.40 3.62 OppositionCommercial mining 3.46 3.78 Opposition

Scale: 1, strongly favor; 2, favor; 3, neither favor or oppose; 4, oppose; 5, strongly oppose.

Journal of Forestry • March 2013 119

nonmotorized recreation. Items with amean value close to the scale midpoint of3.0 such as commercial outfitting/guiding(2.70) and motorized recreation (2.79) in-dicate greater public ambivalence aboutthe prospective forest use.

Distribution of Acceptable/UnacceptableForest Uses by ManagementPrescription Area

We generated counts and proportionsof acceptable/unacceptable uses by areaprescription in the 2002 CNF plan. En-ergy development and mining uses were

perceived as unacceptable on the CNF inall management prescriptions. Energy de-velopment was not directly addressed inthe forest plan as a separate activity, butthe public unacceptability of mining con-tradicts four 2002 CNF forest plan pre-scriptions that nominally allow commer-cial mining in the following areas: Fish,Wildlife & Recreation, Forest Restora-tion, Recreation River, and Alaska Na-tional Interest Lands Conservation Act of1980 (ANILCA)2 501(b)-2 (see Table 3for prescription themes).

Commercial timber management wasperceived as unacceptable in all CNF pre-scriptions except for the Forest Restorationprescription, for which acceptable timbermanagement use markers exceeded unac-ceptable use. This result is interesting as For-est Restoration occupies a relatively smallarea of the CNF but suggests participantawareness of forest vegetative conditionsthat would support active timber manage-ment. Most of the CNF, by area, does notcontain sufficient forest resources for com-mercial activity.

Table 3. Consistency of public values and use preferences (2012) with Chugach National Forest Plan (2002) prescriptions.

Prescription name Theme

Results from PPGIS

Dominantvalue(s)

Dominantacceptable use

Dominantunacceptable use

ANILCA 501(b)-1 Emphasize the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitatsand provide a variety of recreational opportunities forbackcountry activities. The areas with this prescription will bemanaged to retain their wild and natural character.

Economic1 Subsistence No roads

ANILCA 501(b)-2 Emphasize the conservation of fish and wildlife and theirhabitats, while providing opportunities for backcountryrecreational activities in a natural appearing landscape.

Recreation Motorized No mining2

Backcountry Emphasize a variety of recreational opportunities for backcountryactivities in natural appearing landscapes. This managementarea prescription was developed to address the “nonmotorizedaccess” and “recreation opportunities” interests.

Recreation Motorized No timber

Brown Bear Core Area Manage selected landscapes and their associated habitats to meetpopulation objectives for brown bears and to reduce dangerousencounters between humans and brown bears.

Recreation Motorized No commercial tourismNo developmentNo timber

Research Natural Area Emphasize nonmanipulative research, monitoring, education,and the maintenance of natural diversity, allowing natural,physical, and biological processes to prevail without humanintervention.

Biological Insufficientdata

Insufficient data

EVOS fee Maintain the land in perpetuity for the maintenance ofconservation values while restoring or enhancing injuredresources from the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

Recreation Subsistence No timber

Fish & Wildlife Conservation Area Emphasize the conservation of specific fish and wildlife habitats. Recreation Subsistence No timberFish, Wildlife & Recreation Manage to provide a variety of habitats for fish and wildlife

species and year-round recreational opportunities in bothdeveloped and dispersed settings.

Recreation Motorized No mining3

Forest Restoration Manage for multiple-use with an emphasis on managing and/orrestoring plant communities.

Recreation Forestgathering

No mining3

Primitive Emphasize natural ecological processes while providing primitiverecreational opportunities in natural, unmodified landscapes.

Recreation Insufficientdata

Insufficient data

Recreation River Managed to maintain, enhance, and protect the free-flowingcharacter and outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational,geological, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similarvalues for the benefit and enjoyment of present and futuregenerations.

AestheticRecreation

Insufficientdata

No energyNo mining

Scenic River Maintain, enhance, and protect the free-flowing character andoutstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geological, fishand wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values for thebenefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.

Recreation Motorized No timber

Wild River Maintain, enhance, and protect the free-flowing character andoutstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geological, fishand wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar river-relatedvalues for the benefit and enjoyment of present and futuregenerations.

Recreation Forestgathering

No development

Wilderness Study Area Maintain presently existing wilderness character and potential forinclusion into the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Recreation Recreationfacilities4

No timber

Regular font indicates consistency with theme and allowed uses; bold font indicates potential inconsistency.1 Many economic uses are allowed (e.g., minerals, fisheries, and tourism) but commercial timber harvest is not allowed.2 Mining activities are conditionally allowed.3 Mining activities are allowed.4 Recreational cabins are conditionally allowed, but developed recreation sites such as campgrounds, day-use facilities, and viewing sites are not allowed.

120 Journal of Forestry • March 2013

Motorized recreation is an activity thathas generated management controversy onthe CNF, in part, because it is associatedwith forest access. The expanded use of mo-torized recreation in the summer (all-terrainvehicles/off-highway vehicles) and winter(snowmobiles) is perceived by some individ-uals and groups as having a negative impacton fish and wildlife while being anathema toquiet recreation. The nonspatial, attitudinalresults confirm this public polarization. Thespatial results indicate that motorized recre-ation was more acceptable than unaccept-able in seven of the nine prescription areas,the exception being the Wild River and For-est Restoration prescriptions. The resultsmay also explain why the management ofmotorized access on the CNF has been his-torically controversial. The prescription cat-egories of Fish, Wildlife & Recreation, Fish& Wildlife Conservation Area, and Back-country had relatively large proportions ofboth acceptable and unacceptable markers,highlighting public perceptions of potentialnegative impact to fish and wildlife and thepotential incursion on quiet recreational ex-periences in the backcountry. All the forestplan prescriptions allow or conditionally al-low administrative and permitted motorizedaccess with the exception of the Primitiveprescription. There was insufficient markerdata in this Primitive prescription to know

whether public preferences were consistentwith the prohibition.

Social Landscape Metrics byPrescription

The dominant (D) landscape value inthe majority of CNF prescriptions was rec-reation value, whereas economic value wasdominant in the ANILCA 501(b)-1 pre-scription and biological value in the ResearchNatural Area prescription (Table 4). Thetwo ANILCA prescriptions contained thegreatest diversity (D3) of forest values.

The boundary metrics for forest usepreferences were more variable than thosefor forest values. For acceptable forest uses,five prescriptions were dominated by motor-ized use, three were dominated by subsistenceuse, and forest gathering was dominant intwo forest prescriptions. The dominant ac-ceptable use in the Wilderness Study Areaprescription was recreation facilities, a resultthat is potentially inconsistent with thestated purpose of the prescription. However,it is likely that many respondents associatedrecreation facilities with public recreationcabins, which are popular and acceptableuses within wilderness study areas in Alaska.The greatest diversity (D3) of acceptableuses was located in the Backcountry andFish, Wildlife & Recreation prescriptions,

whereas the least diverse was the Wild Riverprescription.

The boundary metrics for unaccept-able forest uses indicate that mining andtimber management were least acceptablein most CNF forest prescriptions. The un-acceptability of new roads in the ANILCA501(b)-1 prescription is an interestingoutcome because the dominant value forthis prescription was economic value. Eco-nomic activities are often associated withroad-building to achieve access, but, inthis case, the results suggest that economicdevelopment not requiring the addition ofnew roads would be a preferred outcomefor this prescription.

Arguably, the most important bound-ary metric is the conflict potential metric.This metric is an index calculated by sum-ming the ratios of acceptable and unaccept-able use pairs within each prescription andthen multiplying this sum by the number oflandscape values in the area. This indexmathematically increases when there isgreater public ambivalence over the accept-ability of various forest uses and when thereis greater perceived value for the area. Ac-cording to the calculated index values, thegreatest potential for controversy over futureforest management exists in the Backcoun-try, Fish, Wildlife & Recreation, and Wil-derness Study Area prescriptions; the study

Table 4. Forest values and boundary metrics by management prescription.

Prescription nameValuecount1

Dominantvalue (D)

Valuediversity(D3)2

Acceptableuse counts

Dominantacceptable use

(D)

Acceptableuse

diversity(D3)

Unacceptableuse counts

Dominantunacceptable use

(D)

Unacceptableuse diversity

(D3)

Conflictpotential

index(C)3

ANILCA 501(b)-1 33 Economic 0.86 28 Subsistence 0.73 25 No roads 0.62 19ANILCA 501(b)-2 269 Recreation 0.88 71 Motorized 0.79 14 No mining 0.78 719Backcountry 1,159 Recreation 0.75 596 Motorized 0.92 378 No timber 0.82 5676Brown Bear Core Area 157 Recreation 0.71 78 Motorized 0.74 61 No commercial

tourismNo developmentNo timber

0.82 236

Research Natural Area 5 Biological 0.54 4 Multiple 0.56 2 Multiple 0.28 5EVOS fee 87 Recreation 0.78 43 Subsistence 0.76 42 No timber 0.74 328Fish & Wildlife Conservation

Area192 Recreation 0.77 94 Subsistence 0.84 79 No timber 0.80 710

Fish, Wildlife & Recreation 1,013 Recreation 0.79 450 Motorized 0.95 173 No mining 0.84 4458Forest Restoration 248 Recreation 0.78 112 Gathering 0.85 41 No mining 0.64 590Primitive 4 Recreation 0.42 3 Multiple 0.44 4 Multiple 0.56 4Recreation River 22 Aesthetic

Recreation0.66 2 Multiple 0.28 8 No energy

No mining0.70 22

Scenic River 40 Recreation 0.70 27 Motorized 0.79 7 No timber 0.59 50Wild River 55 Recreation 0.83 24 Gathering 0.66 16 No develop 0.60 44Wilderness Study Area 461 Recreation 0.87 154 Recreation

facilities0.80 128 No timber 0.78 1948

1 The total number of “value” points placed inside the prescription.2 The diversity index is calculated using Shannon’s diversity index normalized to a scale ranging between 0 and 1 for which higher index values indicate greater value diversity.3 The conflict index is calculated by summing the ratios of acceptable/unacceptable use pairs within each prescription and multiplying this result by the number of values in the zone. Larger numbersrepresent greater potential conflict within the prescription.

Journal of Forestry • March 2013 121

participants expressed greater net ambiva-lence over use of these areas. Prescriptionsthat appear least controversial based on atleast 30 observations include the Wild River,Scenic River, and ANILCA 501(b)-1 pre-scriptions.

The conflict potential for the CNF isdisplayed visually in Figure 1 for each forestmanagement prescription. Geographically,the greatest potential conflict exists on theKenai Peninsula (western reach of the CNF)and in eastern Prince William Sound nearthe community of Cordova. The examina-tion of potential conflict by prescription,however, can mask important areas of con-sensus or disagreement for specific forestuses in specific locations. Figure 2 displaysmaps for nine forest uses that indicate areasof acceptable or unacceptable use by 2K gridcells that may be more useful for future for-est plan allocations. Although commercialtimber management is generally not accept-able forestwide, there are corridors on theKenai Peninsula where this use may not con-flict with place-specific public preferences.Motorized recreation appears as a mosaic ofapparent low and high conflict areas, sug-gesting the need for even larger scale (moreplace-specific) planning analysis of accept-able areas for motorized use. The potential

for conflict in commercial tourism activity isquite high in the central Kenai Peninsula(western reach of the CNF) and may reflectcompetition over national forest use be-tween Alaska “locals” and commercial tour-ism operators that are perceived to representnon-Alaskans.

The list of prospective forest usesacross the CNF with relatively low poten-tial for conflict include forest gathering,vegetation management, recreation facili-ties, and the designation of Wild River orScenic River and Wilderness Study Area.The low conflict potential with vegetationmanagement but opposition to commer-cial timber management is consistent withpublic survey results from national forestsin Colorado and Wyoming (Clement andCheng 2011). Subsistence use of the CNFalso appears to have relatively low conflictpotential with two noteworthy exceptions:areas of the forest located nearest the cityof Anchorage in the west and the area nearthe community of Cordova in the east.These spatial results reflect the historicalconflict over subsistence resources be-tween urban Alaskans seeking sporting op-portunities and rural communities andAlaska Native populations that receivesubsistence preference for fish and wildlife

under federal laws. These areas of theCNF are mixing zones between urban andrural resident lifestyles and forest use.

DiscussionThe results from participatory mapping

of CNF values and preferences in 2012 in-dicate general consistency between publicspatial preferences and forest managementdirection identified as forest prescriptions bythe IDT in the 2002 CNF plan. However, areview of administrative appeals for the2002 CNF plan indicates discontent withthe participatory process in developing theforest plan; concerns included the plan’s po-tential impact on wildlife, soil, and air qual-ity, recommendations for Wild River andScenic River and Wilderness Study Area,and access and travel management involvingmotorized use (USDA Forest Service2012e). Some of these citizen appeals are re-lated to the spatial delineation of forest planprescriptions for which PPGIS may be use-ful in adjusting these areas in the future. Ouranalysis of the 2012 PPGIS data indicatesthat forest prescription areas may be so largethat they mask potential conflict in moreplace-specific forest locations.

This 2012 PPGIS study, althoughmore limited in response than the 1998

Figure 1. Map of conflict potential indices for Chugach National Forest Plan (2002) prescriptions. Conflict potential is a combinationof public forest use preferences weighted by the intensity of public values within the prescriptions. The index was calculated bysumming the acceptable/unacceptable use ratios within each prescription area and multiplying by the number of values mapped inthe area.

122 Journal of Forestry • March 2013

study, suggests the potential utility ofPPGIS to assist forest planners under thenew planning rule in identifying areas suit-able for various forest uses. Suitability anal-ysis, as described in the new planning rule, isintended to ensure that future forest uses arecompatible with the desired condition of theland. Suitability analysis also allows consid-eration of social criteria wherein “suitabilityidentifications may be made after consider-ation of historic uses and of issues that havearisen in the planning process” [36 CFR§219.7(e)(1)(v)]. The use of PPGIS can pro-vide a more systematic approach to identify-ing the social suitability of various forest usesto augment traditional biophysical suitabil-ity analyses. PPGIS provides the opportu-nity to spatially overlay biophysical suitabil-ity results, obtained by experts, with social/cultural suitability data provided through aPPGIS process. Spatially explicit social/cul-tural suitability mapping has been histori-cally lacking in national forest planning.

This study was necessarily limited in itssampling effort because of budgetary con-straints as well as the lack of Office of Man-

agement and Budget approval, which pre-cluded official Forest Service involvement.Therefore, the study could not follow thePPGIS protocol described by Brown andReed (2009) for national forest planning,which provides options for nondigital map-ping by participants, sampling of diversestakeholder groups, and voluntary nationalparticipation through notice in the FederalRegister. The purpose of this study was toreplicate the 1998 Chugach study to moni-tor changes in forest values over time(Brown and Donovan 2013) and to performa trial of the mapping of forest use prefer-ences as a new component of PPGIS datacollection. The exclusive Internet-basedPPGIS method used in 2012 was probablythe most important reason that participationrates significantly lagged behind the 1998paper-based PPGIS response rate. Althoughthe digital divide is closing, a gap still exists.Furthermore, PPGIS studies of the generalpublic, as reported in the literature, havebeen biased toward older, male participantswith more formal education, with under-representation of minority groups. Brown

et al. (2013) provided a more detailed ac-count of PPGIS participant characteristics,and Brown and Reed (2009) analyzed po-tential demographic effects on PPGIS re-sponses. As a longitudinal monitoring study,the response reported herein was not opti-mal but sufficient for analysis. If PPGIS is tobe used in earnest for future forest planning,the expanded PPGIS protocol described byBrown and Reed (2009) should be followed.

The use of PPGIS in a national forestplan revision process will not resolve inher-ent social conflict over the purposes for na-tional forests. However, PPGIS can addressan important requirement that is likely tomanifest in virtually any national forestplanning process: the allocation of specificareas of the national forest to broad classes ofacceptable and nonacceptable uses. Theidentification of spatially explicit accept-able/nonacceptable uses in PPGIS shouldnot be used as a public referendum on forestplan allocation but rather to identify areaswith high potential for conflict.

What are the implications of usingPPGIS in future forest planning, given the

Figure 2. Preferred public forest uses determined by net point counts within 2K grid cells. Green colors indicate acceptable uses (i.e., acceptablepoints exceed unacceptable points within each cell) and red colors indicate unacceptable uses (unacceptable points exceed acceptable points). Thenet differences in point counts are normalized and color-coded on a scale ranging from �3 (acceptable) to �3 (unacceptable).

Journal of Forestry • March 2013 123

new forest planning rule? Under the newplanning rule, the term “prescription” is nolonger used, but the idea of spatial allocationof forest lands for particular purposes re-mains intact. The Forest Service is requiredto include management areas or geographicareas [36 CFR §219.7(d)] and provide forthe identification of new designated areasdefined as “an area or feature identified andmanaged to maintain its unique specialcharacter or purpose” (36 CFR §219.19).The new planning rule also requires thatspecific lands within the forest plan be iden-tified as suitable or not suitable for multipleuses or activities based on the desired condi-tions applicable to those lands, althoughsuitability need not be identified for everyuse or activity [36 CFR §219.7(e)(1)(v)].The suitability analysis of national forestlands is where PPGIS can assist the agency indetermining whether particular activities oruses are consistent with desired conditions.Desired conditions explicitly allow for the“description of specific social, economic,and/or ecological characteristics of the planarea, or a portion of the plan area…” [36CFR §219.7(e)(1)(i)].

In the new planning rule, participationis defined as “…a wide range of public in-volvement tools and processes, such as col-laboration, public meetings, open houses,workshops, and comment periods” (36 CFR§219.19). This discretionary, ad hoc ap-proach to public participation arguably con-tradicts the planning rule requirement to“…use the best available scientific informa-tion to inform the planning process…” (36CFR §219.3). There is evidence that volun-tary public participation in forest planning,in contrast with scientific public sampling,will be different and potentially biased(Brown et al. 2013). If the best available sci-ence is to be applied in forest planning, thisprinciple should also extend to the partici-pation process wherein scientifically repre-sentative samples of the “public” are col-lected to determine the extent of voluntaryparticipation bias.

The failure of the new planning rule toadvocate best practice in public participa-tion, whether such participation includesPPGIS or not, represents the status quo andleaves the Forest Service vulnerable to chal-lenge about the adequacy of public involve-ment. The vagueness of the participationstandard that relies on public notice and vol-untary comments will not provide theagency with defensible information aboutpublic values and preferences. The contin-

ued participation focus on nonspatial, non-representative comments in the forest plan-ning process will not help the agency escapethe forest planning quagmire. The use ofPPGIS methods in national forest planningwould represent a step forward in collectingmore useful information for forest planners.And yet, we harbor no illusions about theability of participatory spatial planningmethods such as PPGIS to fundamentallyalter the historical challenges of national for-est planning. In a review of reasons whyPPGIS has failed to breach the walls of aca-demia to find a place in agency planningpractices, Brown (2012) cited the followingagency barriers to adoption: (1) lack of spe-cific directives or incentives for agencies toengage the public; (2) fear of the generalpublic, which can and does express doubtabout agency capacity and leadership; (3)lack of experience implementing effective pub-lic participation methods; (4) expert/lay dividein knowledge systems that manifest in the par-ticipation process; and (5) regulatory barrierssuch as OMB approval. For PPGIS to improvethe forest planning process, the Forest Servicemust meaningfully encourage and involve thepublic in forest planning irrespective of theGIS component. Layering geospatial technol-ogy on top of a participatory process that lacksgenuine agency commitment to public en-gagement will not alter the status quo in na-tional forest planning. In short, the most crit-ical element to future forest planningeffectiveness is the PP, not the GIS.

Endnotes1. The PPGIS application interface may be

viewed at www.landscapemap2.org/chugach(use access code 101-0101).

2. ANILCA is the acronym for the Alaska Na-tive Claims Settlement Act, a law passed byCongress in 1980 that designated over 100million acres (400,000 km2) of public landsin Alaska. ANILCA 501(b)-2 refers to theclause in the Act specifying that lands in theCopper River Delta be managed for fish andwildlife conservation as the primary goal.

Literature CitedBEHAN, R.W. 1981. RPA/NFMA—Time to

punt. J. For. 79(12):802–805.BEVERLY, J., K. UTO, J. WILKES, AND P. BOTH-

WELL. 2008. Assessing spatial attributes of for-est landscape values: An Internet-based partic-ipatory mapping approach. Can. J. For. Res.38(2):289–303.

BROWN, G. 2005. Mapping spatial attributes insurvey research for natural resource manage-ment: Methods and applications. Soc. Nat. Re-sourc. 18(1):1–23.

BROWN, G. 2012. Public participation GIS(PPGIS) for regional and environmental plan-ning: Reflections on a decade of empirical re-search. URISA J. 25(2):5–16.

BROWN, G., AND S. DONOVAN. 2013. Measuringchange in place values for environmental andnatural resource planning using public participa-tion GIS (PPGIS): Results and challenges forlongitudinal research. Soc. Natur. Resourc. Inpress.

BROWN, G., AND P. REED. 2000. Validation of aforest values typology for use in national forestplanning. For. Sci. 46(2):240–247.

BROWN, G., AND P. REED. 2009. Public partici-pation GIS: A new method for national forestplanning. For. Sci. 55(2):166–182.

BROWN, G., AND P. REED. 2012a. Values compat-ibility analysis: Integrating public values in aforest planning decision support system. Appl.Spatial Anal. Policy 5(4):317–332.

BROWN, G., AND P. REED. 2012b. Social land-scape metrics: Measures for understandingplace values from public participation geo-graphic information systems (PPGIS). Landsc.Res. 37(1):73–90.

BROWN, G., M. KELLY, AND D. WHITALL. 2013.Which “public”? Sampling effects in public par-ticipation GIS (PPGIS) and volunteered geo-graphic information (VGI) systems for publiclands management. J. Environ. Plann. Manage.doi: 10.1080/09640568.2012.741045.

BROWN, G., AND T. SQUIRRELL. 2010. Organiza-tional learning and the fate of adaptive man-agement in the US Forest Service. J. For.108(8):379–388.

BROWN, G., T. SQUIRRELL, AND C. HARRIS. 2010.Growing organizational challenges for the USForest Service: Results of a longitudinal studyin a period of major environmental change.J. For. 108(2):77–85.

CLEMENT, J.M., AND A.S. CHENG. 2011. Usinganalyses of public value orientations, attitudesand preferences to inform national forest plan-ning in Colorado and Wyoming. Appl. Geogr.31(2):393–400.

CLEMENT-POTTER, J. 2006. Spatially explicit val-ues on the Pike and San Isabel National Forestsin Colorado. Doctoral dissertation, ColoradoState University, Fort Collins, CO. 193 p.

CRONE, L., P. REED, AND J. SCHAEFERS. 2002.Social and economic assessment of the ChugachNational Forest Area. USDA For. Serv., Gen.Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-561, Pacific North-west Research Station. 108 p.

KAISER, B.A. 2006. The national environmentalpolicy act’s influence on USDA Forest Servicedecision-making, 1974–1996. J. For. Econ.12(2):109–130.

LACHAPELLE, P.R., S.F. MCCOOL, AND M.E.PATTERSON. 2003. Barriers to effective naturalresource planning in a “messy” world. Soc.Nat. Resourc. 16(6):473–490.

MALMSHEIMER, R.W., D. KEELE, AND D.W.FLOYD. 2004. National forest litigation in theUS Courts of Appeals. J. For. 102(2):20–25.

POCEWICZ, A., M. NIELSEN-PINCUS, G. BROWN,AND R. SCHNITZER. 2012. An evaluation of In-ternet versus paper-based methods for public

124 Journal of Forestry • March 2013

participation geographic information systems(PPGIS). Trans. GIS 16(1):39–53.

REED, P., AND G. BROWN. 2003. Values suitabil-ity analysis: A methodology for identifying andintegrating public perceptions of forest ecosys-tem values in national forest planning. J. Envi-ron. Plann. Manage. 46(5):643–658.

ROLSTON, H., AND J. COUFAL. 1991. A forestethic and multivalue forest management. J.For. 89(4):35– 40.

SIEBER, R. 2006. Public participation geographicinformation systems: A literature review andframework. Ann. Assoc. Amer. Geograph. 96(3):491–507.

STEELMAN, T. 2001. Elite and participatory policy-making: Finding balance in a case of nationalforest planning. Policy Stud. J. 29(1):71–89.

TULLOCH, D. 2007. Public participation GIS(PPGIS). In Encyclopedia of geographic infor-

mation science, Kemp, K.K. (ed.). SAGE Pub-lications, Los Angeles, CA. Available online atwww.sage-ereference.com/geoinfoscience/Article_n165.html; last accessed Feb. 13,2013.

US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 2012. Na-tional Forest System land management plan-ning. Fed. Regis. 77(68):21161–21265. Avail-able online at www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5362536.pdf; lastaccessed Feb. 13, 2013.

USDA FOREST SERVICE. 2012a. History of forestplanning. Available online at www.fs.usda.gov/main/planningrule/history; last accessed Feb.13, 2013.

USDA FOREST SERVICE. 2012b. Map of ChugachLand and resource management plan. Availableonline at www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_

DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5377425.pdf; lastaccessed Feb. 13, 2013.

USDA FOREST SERVICE. 2012c. New forest plan-ning rule seeks to restore the nation’s foreststhrough science and collaboration. News releaseno. 1158. Available online at www.fs.fed.us/news/2012/releases/01/planning-rule.shtml;last accessed Feb. 13, 2013.

USDA FOREST SERVICE. 2012d. U.S. Forest Ser-vice planning rule revision. Available online atwww.fs.usda.gov/planningrule; last accessedFeb. 13, 2013.

USDA FOREST SERVICE. 2012e. Consolidated de-cision for appeals of the Chugach National Forestrevised land and resource management plan.Available online at www.fs.fed.us/emc/applit/includes/woappdec/040621_chugach_decision.pdf; last accessed Feb. 13, 2013.

Journal of Forestry • March 2013 125

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited withoutpermission.