Drivers of social acceptance of natural-resource management: A comparison of the public and professionals in California

Abstract

The social impacts of natural resource management are challenging to evaluate because their perceived benefits and costs vary across stakeholder groups. Nevertheless, ensuring social acceptance is essential to building public support for adaptive measures required for the sustainable management of ecosystems in a warming climate. Based on surveys with both members of the public and natural-resource professionals in California, we applied structural-equation modeling to examine how psychological factors impact individuals' attitudes toward management's capacity to reduce the impacts of disturbance events, including wildfires, smoke from wildfires, drought, water shortages, tree mortality, and utility failure. We found the members of the public more optimistic than natural-resource professionals, perceiving management capacity to be on average 3.04 points higher (of 10) and displaying higher levels of trust of the government on both the state (Δ = 11%) and federal levels (Δ = 19%). Personal experience with natural-resource events had a positive effect on perceived management in both the public (1.26) and the professional samples (5.05), whereas perceived future risk had a negative effect within both samples (professional = -0.91, public = -0.45). In addition, higher trust and perceived management effectiveness were also linked with higher perceptions of management capacity in the public sample (1.81 versus 1.24), which could affect the acceptance of management actions. Continued social acceptance in a period of increasing risk may depend on managers sharing personal experiences and risk perception when communicating with the public. The contemporary shift toward multibenefit aims is an important part of that message.

Keywords: Attitude differences; Forest management; Multiple benefits; Natural resource management; Public trust; Social perceptions.