Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Opinion Survey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Survey: Oregonians value wildlife, water and air and strongly support prescribed fire but express uncertainties about forest management
Summary
A survey presented to the Board of Forestry found wildlife habitat, clean air and clean water top residents' priorities; wildfire is viewed as the largest threat and 88% support prescribed fire. Presenters said public knowledge about ownership and legal requirements has declined, suggesting outreach needs.
A statewide values-and-beliefs survey presented at the Oregon Board of Forestry meeting on Jan. 7 found that Oregonians list wildlife habitat, clean air and clean water as their top forest values and identify wildfire as the most pressing threat.
Jim Paul, executive director of the Oregon Forest Resources Institute, and Michelle Neece of DHM Research described a hybrid survey of 800 adults (margin of error about 3.5%). Neece said the survey combined live phone interviews with online invitations to better reflect state demographics. “We had about an hour to present the values and beliefs survey,” Paul said, introducing methodology and results.
Key findings included broad support for steps to reduce wildfire risk — 88% supported prescribed fire and 82% supported logging of burned but economically valuable trees — while economic benefits such as jobs and wood products ranked lower on priority lists. Neece highlighted a decline in public knowledge about legal requirements and land ownership: “About 43% of Oregonians correctly know that most forest land in Oregon is owned by the federal government,” she said, and many respondents chose “don’t know” on related items.
Board members asked how to interpret rising “don’t know” responses about private forest management. Neece said open‑end comments show mixed reasons — some respondents believe forests are over‑harvested, others that they are under‑harvested — and recommended follow‑up focus groups and crosstab analyses to dig into causes.
Presenters also noted changes in outreach capacity. Jim Paul and other institute staff said budget constraints reduced advertising buys in recent years and may make it harder to sustain public awareness. Paul described the survey as a snapshot that can inform targeted communications and said the results show public receptiveness to messages about wildfire risk reduction.
Why it matters: The findings will inform public education and the Board of Forestry’s work on the draft Forest Management Plan and related performance measures. Board members indicated they will consider further analysis and potential coordination with other qualitative projects to understand shifting public views.
The presentation concluded with board questions about survey wording, the omission of some rotating questions (for example, herbicides in past surveys), and how to better reach younger or less-engaged cohorts. The presenters said they would follow up with written materials and cross‑tab analysis.
