|
|
Fact vs. Perception
By Dr. James L. Bowyer, Director Editor's Note: Test your knowledge of forests, timber harvesting and other natural resources. Take the test Dr. Bowyer gives to his students. Click on "Dr.Bowyer's Test". To see the answers, click on "Answers to Dr. Bowyer's Test".
Standing timber volume in U.S. Forests is increasing as net growth exceeds harvest year after year. Forests in the U.S. occupy an area over two-thirds the size of that covered by forests in the early 1600s and in recent years have been increasing in area coverage. Recovery of paper for recycling in the U.S. is increasing rapidly, with annual recovery now in excess of 40% of U.S. paper production. These are well documented facts, and they attest to the great success of forestry and forest products technology development efforts since the 1920s. But who is aware of these and other truths about domestic forests and the products derived from them, and what difference does it make anyway? Recent surveys of college students across the U.S. has indicated an appalling level of misinformation about forests among all survey groups. Respondents consistently indicated the environmental situation related to forests was worse than it really is (i.e. they significantly underestimated paper recycling activity, the area of domestic forests compared to historical, the growth/harvest ratio in domestic forests, wildlife population trends, and so on). The fact that many college students harbor significant misperceptions about forests and their management is certainly disturbing, but the results of subsequent surveys of employees of forest products firms are even more disturbing. Although this group appears to be better informed about forestry issues than the students who were surveyed, a surprising number of forest products industry employees were found to be substantially misinformed concerning U.S. forest conditions. In addition, knowledge of key aspects of the industry was found to be rather limited. For example, a survey of employees of a large paper mill revealed that only 15 percent accurately estimated the paper recycling rate nationally, and just under 50 percent estimated the recycling rate to be one-half or less of what it really is. Misperceptions are a problem for the industry in a number of ways, not the least of which has to do with formulation of public policy in regard to forests. What is true is of little importance in politics. It is, instead, what is perceived to be true that makes all the difference. Unfortunately, current perceptions appear to be highly unfavorable to the industry. Although the 1.4 million workers that comprise the U.S. forest products industry could be an effective force in countering mistaken beliefs about forests and their management, the fact that a significant percentage of workers themselves harbor substantial and unfavorable misperceptions about their industry and its source of raw material suggests a fundamental problem that will require aggressive and ongoing educational efforts to correct .
A Problem Revealed Teaching in a university setting provides an avenue by which it is possible to gain insight into the knowledge, thought processes, and perceptions of people representing a cross-section of society. College students today are remarkably frank, and classroom dynamics are such that very little is accepted as fact without questioning, comment, and discussion. This is particularly true when courses are specifically organized to encourage and facilitate discussion. And so it was in the winter of 1991 when, at the University of Minnesota, I began a discussion of forests, forestry, and forest harvesting with a group of environmentally-oriented but non-forestry students enrolled in a class entitled “Natural Resources As Raw Materials.” What happened, in short, was that questions from a large segment of the class quickly became not only extraordinarily challenging, but in some cases outright hostile - a situation that I had not encountered in over 20 years of teaching. Where were these students coming from? Why did the topic of forestry and forest harvesting trigger such strong emotions? Determined to find out, I devised a brief test designed to assess knowledge about forests and other environmentally related matters. What I found was a pervasive pessimism, revealed by the fact that the students consistently indicated the environmental situation to be worse than it really is, and a shocking level of misinformation regarding forests, and domestic forests in particular.
Evidence Of A Wider Problem Because of the unsettling results obtained from the test of that small group of University of Minnesota students, the matter was pursued further. A series of questions relating to U.S. and global forests, population growth, and raw materials consumption were administered to over 2,000 students at 11 major universities across the United States. Guidelines to cooperating faculty at these institutions specified that those completing questionnaires should have not been previously exposed to college-level courses dealing with either forestry or environmental issues. The survey did not employ scientific sampling. Some questionnaires were discarded after a review of prerequisites for courses in which the questionnaires were administered suggested that the guidelines had been violated; 1,982 questionnaires were tabulated. With the exception of one university, results were remarkably similar in all regions, and almost identical to those obtained in the original test of University of Minnesota students. Student perceptions of environmental conditions were consistently pessimistic and at wide variance with reality.
Consider the following:
True or False? Populations of elk, pronghorn antelope and wild turkey have declined significantly in the United States over the past 50 years. 72% of Dr. Bowyer's students, and 28% of forest industry employees believe this statement is true. It is false. Populations of thee species have increased more than 1000% over the last 50 years. Conservation groups like the Wild Turkey Federation, the Ruffled Grouse Society and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation have made significant contributions - as have companies and individuals who manage their timberlands in ways that create or maintain wildlife habitat. 94 percent underestimated the percent of annual U.S. paper production that is produced from recycled paper. Some 71%, in fact, estimated U.S. recycled paper production to be less than one-half of what it really is, and 45% of respondents estimated it to be one-fifth or less of actual. [Recovery of wastepaper for domestic recycling and export totaled more than 38.6 million tons in 1994, amounting to 40.3 percent of domestic production. Of the paper recovered, 30.0 million tons were recycled in U.S. paper mills and 8.6 million tons were exported. This translates to a U.S. wastepaper utilization rate of 32.9 percent(1)]. 80 percent indicated as True the following statement: “More extensive recycling of paper could reduce harvesting of forests in the United States by 60 percent or more.” [A recent study indicates that although recycling will help to significantly reduce future growth in demand for virgin fiber, there is little likelihood that recycling is likely to reduce virgin fiber demand below current levels (2)]. 50 percent indicated a belief that the United States is a net exporter of most raw materials used by industry today. [The United States is a net importer of every category of industrial raw material - metals, cements, petroleum (the basis for most plastics), and wood - and in many cases by a substantial margin]. 78 percent indicated agreement with the statement “The world is rapidly running out of many important minerals.” [Although the reserves of several important ingredients of high performance alloys appear to be in danger of depletion, it is generally not true that the world is running out of minerals. Because the earth’s crust is composed of a vast array of minerals, the world will likely never “run out” of most of them. Further, in recent decades known reserves of metallic ores have generally increased, and ore prices have, in general, declined]. 64 percent chose building materials other than wood when asked what building material can be produced with the least impact on the environment. The good news is that 33% - more than selected any other single material - chose wood. However, 27, 21, 8, 6, and 2 percent chose brick, concrete, aluminum, plastic, and steel, respectively. [Environmental life-cycle analyses to date have indicated that wood can be produced with significantly lower impacts on the environment than any other currently available material. Thus far, studies have focused on energy consumption and associated manufacturing discharges linked to extraction, conversion, and use of various materials]. How many more people share the views of the students who were surveyed? If these views are widely held, then this would seem to represent a significant problem for the forest products industry. These results, for example, clearly show why many of the students in my class were outwardly hostile to anyone talking about the harvesting of forests. A large segment of them believe that the forest products industry is in the process of deforesting the United States. If you believed that to be true would you favor the harvesting of forests? Probably not! Further, if you believed that little or no paper was being recycled at present and that an increase in paper recycling could dramatically reduce the need for forest harvesting, would you be likely to support legislative mandates requiring paper recycling? Probably so. Some might view the responses which indicate a perception that the world is on the brink of running out of metallic ores as positive for the forest products industry since it is competing products that utilize minerals. Viewed from another perspective, however, even these perceptions represent a problem. People who believe that the world is on the brink of running out of raw materials are likely to take positions that would otherwise be viewed as radical. Should the U.S. and the world take steps to drastically inhibit mining, drilling, and forest harvesting activity? It is not such a radical idea if you believe that next week is likely to mark the last shovelfull of ore. In short, inaccurate information is likely to benefit no one. Since completing the survey of college students across the nation I have continued to annually survey students in my own classes. Results from year to year are remarkably similar to the earlier findings. In addition, other misperceptions have come to light. An “ah-ha” moment occurred a little less than a year ago while discussing forest management with a group of non-forestry students. In response to a student’s question I innocently posed a question back to the class -- “how long, on average, does a tree live? The most answers ranged from several thousand years to “until the tree is cut down”! Since then, I have asked the same question of many others, collegians and non-students alike - with similar results. I am led to wonder whether it is possible to have a rational discussion about forests and their management with someone who believes that trees will live forever if not cut-down.
A Look Within The U.S. forest products industry employs in excess of 1.4 million people. These people, in turn, have immediate families that magnify the number above by a factor of two or more. The conclusion is inescapable that effective mobilization of even a portion of this group could provide an effective and ongoing vehicle for countering ignorance and misperception. With encouragement and even minimal support from employers, coupled with the self-confidence that knowledge can provide, it is likely that a number of those working in the industry would give freely of their time to help set the record straight; there are, in fact, numerous examples today of employers working very effectively with individual employees and dedicated employee organizations to do just that. Even those not involved in an organized way can and could play a role in combatting misperception - an informed comment to a neighbor or dinner guest, the right words to the truck driver at the loading dock, an appropriate response to the question of a retail customer - the little things that on a daily and continuing basis could make a significant difference. If employees are to be a positive force in combating ignorance and misperception it goes without saying that the employees themselves must, at a minimum, be well informed. With this in mind, beginning in 1993, and continuing through the summer of 1995, a number of the same questionnaires used with student groups were administered to employees of forest products firms. Those completing questionnaires have included people in manufacturing, sales, and distribution, and in industries ranging from wholesale and retail lumber and building products distribution yards, to lumber producers, to millwork and other secondary products producers, to paper manufacturers. To date, 1,121 employees of forest products manufacturing and distribution firms have completed questionnaires. The results are surprising. True or False? Forest harvest exceeds net growth by 8% or 3%? Growth exceeds harvest by 19% or 31%? Growth and harvest are roughly equal? 65% of Dr. Bowyer's students, and 21% of industry employees believe harvest exceeds growth. This is not true. Net growth for all forestland ownerships exceeds harvest by 31%. And on federal lands (National Forests) growth exceeds harvest by 55% - a fact that is contributing to increasing mortality in these forests. Minus implementation of a long-term thinning program designed to reduce tree density in overstresed forests, wildfires will become increasingly frequent and ferocious.
42 percent underestimated the area covered by U.S. forests compared to forest coverage in presettlement times, by one half or less of what it actually is (vs. 76% for students). 42 percent underestimated the area covered by U.S. forests compared to forest coverage in presettlement times, by one half or less of what it actually is (vs. 76% for students). 28 percent accepted as True the statement that “Populations of elk, pronghorn antelope, and wild turkey have declined significantly over the past 50 years” (vs. 72% for students). 88 percent underestimated the percentage of paper recycled in the U.S., and 56 percent estimated paper recycling to be one-half or less of what it actually is. (Of those employed in the paper industry 85% underestimated the percentage of paper recycled, and 49% underestimated the extent of recycling by one-half or more) (vs. 94% and 71% for students). 51 percent expressed a belief that more extensive recycling of paper could reduce harvesting of forests in the U.S. by 60 percent or more. (Of those employed in the paper manufacturing, 47% indicated agreement with this statement) (vs. 72% for students). 37 percent indicated a belief that the U.S. is a net exporter of most raw materials used by industry today (vs. 50% for students).. 57 percent agreed with the statement “the world is rapidly running out of many important minerals” (vs. 78% for students). 31 percent, when asked to select the material that can be produced with the least impact on the environment, selected materials other than wood. as with students, the good news associated with this question is that more people selected wood than any other material. of the almost one-third that indicated something other than wood, 10, 10, 2, 7, and 2% chose brick, concrete, aluminum, plastic, and steel respectively, (vs. students: 64% chose material other than wood; 27%, 21%, 8%, 6%, and 2% chose brick, concrete, aluminum, plastic, and steel, respectively). In other words, a sizeable percentage of those surveyed - people who get up and come to work everyday in the forest products industry - harbor gross misperceptions about the industry that they work for. At the very least, these people are not in a position to counter ignorance and misperception. In addition, at least some, and perhaps many of these employees must find it hard to come to work, believing that what they do for a living is leading to deforestation of the nation. Can these people market forest products with conviction? Might not such people themselves be a source of misinformation, both within and outside of the industry? Student and forest products industry employee responses are summarized in the following figure:
What To Do? Were this article being written as recently as 3 or 4 years ago the answer to a “what next” question would have warranted a desperate call to action. Fortunately, significant strides have been made in the interim in development of accurate, high quality educational materials and programs regarding forests, forestry, and the use of wood in society. A complete list of organizations involved would fill many pages, especially notable efforts on a nationwide scale to call public attention to accurate information regarding forests and to promote critical thinking regarding forests and forestry: the Temperate Forest Foundation, Evergreen Foundation, Western Wood Products Association, Southern Forest Products Association, North American Wholesale Lumber Association, Forest Products Society, Society of American Foresters, and the Project Learning Tree Program of the American Forest Council. (and Provider Pals, ed.) Several large, integrated firms have also mounted substantial advertising efforts focused on environmental issues. one of the most prolific national-scope organizations is the temperate forest foundation, a group that, more than any other, has acted to fill the need for accurate, attractively packaged information. over a period of only several years, the temperate forest foundation has developed an array of products including videos (several of which have earned prestigeous “telly” awards), an interactive c-d rom, exhibit, and a printed eco-link series which addresses critical issues. product efforts at tff have been linked with an aggressive and highly successful program to get these materials into the hands of those who can use them. At the regional and local level, a very great number of groups today operate public information/education programs related to forests and forestry. A premier example of a regional program is that of the Oregon Forest Resources Institute (OFRI). OFRI is engaged in a wide spectrum of activity and has extensively utilized feedback from focus groups in developing high quality informational materials: radio spots, television ads, and printed educational pieces. OFRI has also sponsored media tours and public presentations on various topics across the state of Oregon, and has worked cooperatively with the Evergreen foundation to produce follow-up literature. Many more examples of highly effective local and regional organizations could be given. Using just one state, Minnesota, as an example, players in forestry-oriented public education include the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Wood Promotion Council, Minnesota Forest Industries, Inc., Northwestern Lumbermen’s Association, University of Minnesota College of Natural Resources/Minnesota Extension Service, Minnesota Women In Timber, and a network of Minnesota Environmental Learning Centers. A number of individual companies, small and large, also are actively involved in public education programs, most notably Potlatch Corporation whose encouragement and support of employee initiatives has resulted in a substantial and highly effective educational effort on the part of employees. There are volunteer organizations of Potlatch employees in all of the states where Potlatch has operations. These employees sponsor internal education programs for other Potlatch employees so they have accurate, up-to-date information about forests and forest management. They also take the forest stewardship message to the schools by producing videos and other educational materials, and by visiting classrooms. They lead mill tours for students, develop and staff booths at county and state fairs, participate in parades and various civic events, and sponsor other outreach efforts aimed at the general public. The company provides support by funding a coordinator, providing a modest budget, and covering the salaries of employees who are involved in programs during work hours. Obviously, a great deal is going on today to bring scientifically based information about forests and forestry to the attention of the public.
But is it enough? Consider the following:
What is true and what is perceived to be true - in a perfect world these would be one in the same. In the real world, they are not. It is critical that the forest products community recognize this and develop a sustained commitment to support educational efforts that can close the gap between the facts and public perceptions regarding forests and their management.
Literature Cited 1. American Forest & Paper
Association. 1995. Recovered Paper Statistical Highlights - 1995 Edition. 5. U.S.D.A. - Forest Service. 1982. An Analysis Of The Timber Situation In The United States 1952-2030. Forest Resource Report No. 23.
Evergreen
Magazine |
