Chaos theory and assessment of forest stakeholder attitudes towards Australian forest policy

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2006.09.001Get rights and content

Abstract

The Regional Forest Agreement process has dominated Australian forest policy for the past decade. The RFA process set in place a mechanism by which benchmark conservation values were established for forest ecosystems, whilst addressing the needs of the timber industry. The outcomes of a number of RFA's have been fraught with controversy. Key stakeholder groups have shown disagreement with processes and outcomes of methods employed by government both in establishing conservation reserves and areas allocated to timber harvesting. This research uses non-linear techniques to examine the dynamical behavior in stakeholder responses and to identify patterns of behavior that may lead to prediction of stakeholder responses. The method developed in this research provides a bridge between social sciences and Chaos theory.1

Introduction

Forest management policy decisions in Australia have caused considerable conflict during the last five decades. Inadequate participation of stakeholders in policy decisions, lack of knowledge of stakeholders' values, attitudes and preferences and difficulties in quantifying economic, environmental and recreational values of forests have been at the centre of most forest conflicts. Commonwealth–State conflicts have figured prominently in Australia's forest management debates. The Lake Pedder and Franklin River issues involving the damming of rivers in pristine Tasmanian wilderness are two prominent forest conflicts in Australia involving State–Commonwealth disagreements (Kellow, 1989).

In 1992, the Commonwealth and State governments entered into Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) to minimize some of these problems (Dargavel, 1995, Dargavel, 1998, Kanowski, 1997). The RFA process is one of the most comprehensive and expensive forest planning exercises ever undertaken in Australia (Dargavel et al., 2000). The RFA process has dominated Australian forest policy for the past decade (Commonwealth of Australia, 1992). The RFA process involves the formulation of agreements between the Commonwealth and State governments for the future management of specific forest areas (Coakes, 1998). RFAs were designed to resolve disputes over forest resources, provide future certainty to all stakeholders and to improve community participation and conserve the pristine old-growth forest (Mercer, 2000, Lane, 1999). The RFA process set in place a mechanism by which benchmark conservation values were established for forest ecosystems, whilst addressing the needs of the timber industry (JANIS, 1997). The main objectives of the RFA are to:

  • (a)

    protect environmental values in a Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative (CAR) reserve system2 based on nationally agreed criteria3;

  • (b)

    encourage job creation and growth in forest-based industries, including wood products, tourism and minerals; and

  • (c)

    manage all native forests in an ecologically sustainable manner (Commonwealth of Australia, 1999).

The States in Australia have been divided into eleven RFA regions, each having a separate agreement. Twelve RFA's have been signed between the Commonwealth and four Australian States. These regions have unique characteristics such as population levels, demographics, industry development, plantation sector, and levels of native vegetation clearing.

Recent assessments indicate that the RFAs have not completely reconciled the various conflicts and that State–Commonwealth differences still thwart efforts in implementing RFAs (Bartlett, 1999, Lane, 1999, Brunet, 2000). Forest stakeholder values and attitudes towards Australian forest policy are described as incompatible, with entrenched opposing points of view (Mobbs, 2001). Numerous other problems such as tree clearing in Queensland have continued unabated (Brunet, 2000, Sherwin, 2000, Bartlett, 1999, Forsyth, 1998). Several commentators have highlighted the inadequacy of public participation in the RFA process (Lane, 1999, Kirkpatrick, 1998, Mercer, 2000, Mobbs, 2001). They argue that stakeholders had little role in identifying issues, developing alternative management options and prioritizing choices (Dargavel et al., 2000). Edwards and von Winterfeldt (1987) highlight the importance of stakeholder participation in clarifying and communicating issues, developing management options acceptable to stakeholders. Key stakeholder groups have shown disagreement with processes and outcomes of methods employed by government both in establishing conservation reserves and areas allocated to timber harvesting (Slee, 2001).

Inadequate understanding of stakeholder attitudes, responses and behaviours is a serious constraint to developing policies acceptable to stakeholders. A thorough understanding of the dynamics of forest policy making and adoption by stakeholders can help develop policy scenarios that have a greater degree of success. Uncertainty of forest policy outcomes has further exacerbated the complexity of forest policy decision environment.

Uncertainty and complexity have been successfully modelled in ecology and biophysics using non-linear dynamic theories although this is new to social sciences. Developments in non-linear dynamics have opened the door to better understand the dynamics involved in forest policy implementation and their adoption by stakeholders. Non-linear approaches can help identify the existence of patterns in stakeholder behavior, attitudes and values (Dent, 1994). This approach can assist in predicting the behaviour of stakeholders and help identify policy scenarios that may be acceptable to the majority of stakeholders.

The objective of this study is to use Chaos theory concepts to identify the dynamics of stakeholder attitudes in accepting forest management strategies developed under the RFA process in Australia. The specific objectives are to:

  • (a)

    identify stakeholder attitudes towards the objectives and outcomes of RFAs;

  • (b)

    determine if key stakeholder responses exhibit non-linear dynamic behavior; and

  • (c)

    identify implications for policy makers of such behavior for the Australian RFA Process.

The paper is organized as follows. The next section outlines the theoretical framework (Chaos theory) and the key concepts. Section 3 describes an empirical application of Chaos theory to the Northeast Victorian RFA Process. The final part of the analysis involves Chaos theory testing of key stakeholder group attitudes by determining dominant frequencies, bifurcations, and fractal dimensions (Sprott and Rowlands, 1992). Then the results are presented with some concluding comments in Section 5.

Section snippets

Chaos theory

Popularized in the 1980's by the work of James, Chaos theory has grown into a collection of non-linear analytical tools that can be applied across all sciences (Gleick, 1988). Chaos modeling and testing has found considerable success in physics and related fields. Chaos theory is based on the notion that simple and seemingly unrelated events can affect actions. In Chaos theory small changes in initial conditions can have larger effects on final outcomes and variables are connected in a dynamic

Empirical application of Chaos theory to RFA in Australia

The North East Victorian forest region was chosen as a representative region for this study. The region retains significant native forest cover with a number of National and State parks, established softwoods plantations, hardwoods and softwoods timber industries, diversity of large regional centres and smaller communities reliant on the timber industry.

The total population of the North East Victoria RFA region was 174,378 in 1996 with an annual growth rate of 1.31% (Commonwealth and Victorian

Non-linear analysis of stakeholder responses

This part of the analysis involves using a number of techniques to describe the relationships and behavior associated with responses by key stakeholders. Three types of analyses are reported namely, (a) frequency analysis, (b) iconographic analysis and (c) tests for chaos.

Concluding remarks and implications

Chaos theory has important implications for managers. A manager should be responsive to small changes and that order and structure are not always present. Adaptability and flexibility is essential under chaotic or rapidly varying circumstances. Understanding chaos in organisations can be used to their advantage. He can create minor changes knowing that it will make greater positive change. Chaos theory implies that precise planning is not beneficial but keeping sight of goals and allowing

References (49)

  • A. Cerny

    Introduction to fast Fourier transforms in finance

    The Journal of Derivatives

    (fall 2004)
  • S. Coakes

    Valuing the social dimension: social assessment in the Regional Forest Agreement process

    Australian Journal of Environmental Management

    (1998)
  • North East Victoria Comprehensive Regional Assessment

    Social assessment

    (1998)
  • Commonwealth of Australia

    National Forest Policy Statement: A New Focus for Australia's Forests. Advance Press, Perth

    (1992)
  • Commonwealth of Australia

    Northeast Victoria Regional Forest Agreement: Directions Report, Joint Commonwealth and Victorian RFA Steering Committee, Canberra

    (1999)
  • J. Dargavel

    Fashioning Australia's Forests

    (1995)
  • J. Dargavel

    Regional Forest Agreements and the public interest

    Australian Journal of Environmental Management

    (1998)
  • J. Dargavel et al.

    Conflict and agreement in Australian forests

  • E.B. Dent

    A chaos theory analysis of a government agency 1993 employee opinion survey data

  • J. Dong

    Chaos in an emerging capital market? The case of the Shanghai stock exchange

    Journal of Emerging Markets

    (2002)
  • Edmonds, N.A., 1996. Time Series using supervised learning and tools from chaos theory, PhD thesis, University of...
  • W. Edwards et al.

    Public values in risk debates

    Risk Analysis

    (1987)
  • J. Forsyth
  • M. Frank

    Chaotic dynamics in economic time-series

    Journal of Economic Surveys

    (1998)
  • Cited by (0)

    1

    The method, analysis and results described in this paper are based on the doctoral thesis entitled A Chaos theory interpretation of community attitudes towards Australian forest policy (Musselwhite, 2003).

    View full text