IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/f4pgy_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A computational approach for characterizing social and ecological values in public comments

Author

Listed:
  • Chase, Sarah K.
  • Sachdeva, Sonya
  • Wood, Spencer A

    (University of Washington)

  • Lawler, Joshua J

Abstract

1. Addressing social and ecological values is a central aim of democratic environmental management and policymaking, especially during deliberative and participatory processes. Agencies responsible for managing public lands would benefit from a deepened understanding of how various publics’ value those lands. 2. Federal land management agencies receive millions of written comments from the public on proposed management actions annually, providing a unique source of insights into how the public assigns value to public lands. To date, little attention has been directed towards methods for analyzing the public’s comments to understand their expressed values, in part because the volume of comments often makes manual analysis unworkable. 3. This study introduces and applies a novel computational approach to inferring values in written text by using natural language processing and a method that combines a lexicon with semantic embedding models. We developed embedding models for four types of values that are expressed in public comments. We then fit models to 409,241 public comments on actions proposed by the United States Forest Service from 2011 to 2020 and regulated by the Natural Environmental Policy Act. 4. The embedding model generally outperformed the lexicon word-count, particularly for value types with shorter lexicons, and, like human evaluators, the embedding models performed better for more evident values and were less reliable for more abstract or latent values. 5. By applying the resulting model, we furthered our understanding of how the public values National Forest lands in the United States. We observed that aesthetic and moral values were expressed more often in comments for projects that received more public interest, as gauged by the number of comments a project received and in comments for projects addressing recreational management.

Suggested Citation

  • Chase, Sarah K. & Sachdeva, Sonya & Wood, Spencer A & Lawler, Joshua J, 2025. "A computational approach for characterizing social and ecological values in public comments," SocArXiv f4pgy_v1, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:f4pgy_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/f4pgy_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/67b8d5c98e449c318d313dd6/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/f4pgy_v1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Germain, Rene H. & Floyd, Donald W. & Stehman, Stephen V., 2001. "Public perceptions of the USDA Forest Service public participation process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3-4), pages 113-124, November.
    2. Katie Hoover & Marc J. Stern, 2014. "Constraints to public influence in US Forest Service NEPA processes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(2), pages 173-189, February.
    3. Laura K. Nelson, 2020. "Computational Grounded Theory: A Methodological Framework," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 49(1), pages 3-42, February.
    4. Gugulica, Madalina & Burghardt, Dirk, 2023. "Mapping indicators of cultural ecosystem services use in urban green spaces based on text classification of geosocial media data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    5. Okhumode H. Yakubu, 2018. "Delivering Environmental Justice through Environmental Impact Assessment in the United States: The Challenge of Public Participation," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Artur José Sitoe & Seunghoo Lim, 2024. "Understanding citizens' perception of channels for participating in administration based on their motivation in an authoritarian regime: The case of Gaza Province, Mozambique," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(1), pages 606-625, January.
    2. Abramson, Corey & Li, Zhuofan, 2024. "Ethnography and Machine Learning: Synergies and New Directions," OSF Preprints jvpbw_v1, Center for Open Science.
    3. Lei Mu & Lijun Xing & Ying Jing & Qinjiang Hu, 2023. "Spatial Optimization of Park Green Spaces by an Improved Two-Step Optimization Model from the Perspective of Maximizing Accessibility Equity," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-20, April.
    4. Alex Luscombe & Kevin Dick & Kevin Walby, 2022. "Algorithmic thinking in the public interest: navigating technical, legal, and ethical hurdles to web scraping in the social sciences," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1023-1044, June.
    5. You Zuo & Lin Zhang, 2023. "Research on Local Ecosystem Cultural Services in the Jiangnan Water Network Rural Areas: A Case Study of the Ecological Green Integration Demonstration Zone in the Yangtze River Delta, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-21, July.
    6. Stijn Daenekindt & Julian Schaap, 2022. "Using word embedding models to capture changing media discourses: a study on the role of legitimacy, gender and genre in 24,000 music reviews, 1999–2021," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 1615-1636, November.
    7. Özgür Özvatan & Bastian Neuhauser & Gökçe Yurdakul, 2023. "The ‘Arab Clans’ Discourse: Narrating Racialization, Kinship, and Crime in the German Media," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, February.
    8. Kangas, Annika & Heikkilä, Juuso & Malmivaara-Lämsä, Minna & Löfström, Irja, 2014. "Case Puijo—Evaluation of a participatory urban forest planning process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 13-23.
    9. Scholdra, Thomas P. & Wichmann, Julian R.K. & Reinartz, Werner J., 2023. "Reimagining personalization in the physical store," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 99(4), pages 563-579.
    10. Christof Brandtner & Parham Ashur & Bhargav Srinivasa-Desikan, 2025. "Dynamic persistence of institutions : Modeling the historical endurance of Red Vienna’s public housing utopia," Post-Print hal-04907529, HAL.
    11. van Loon, Austin, 2022. "Three Families of Automated Text Analysis," SocArXiv htnej, Center for Open Science.
    12. Foster, Michaela & Peterson, M. Nils & Cubbage, Frederick & McMahon, Gerard, 2019. "Evaluating natural resource planning for longleaf pine ecosystems in the Southeast United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 142-153.
    13. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2003. "Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 75-90, April.
    14. Bethmann, Stephanie & Simminger, Eva & Baldy, Jana & Schraml, Ulrich, 2018. "Forestry in interaction. Shedding light on dynamics of public opinion with a praxeological methodology," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 93-101.
    15. Sminia, Harry & Bohn, Stephan & Sydow, Jörg, 2024. "Path release among practices in the process of path constitution: How the MP3-path appeared in the field of recorded music," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(8).
    16. Nathaniel Poor, 2020. "Open-Source’s Inspirations for Computational Social Science: Lessons from a Failed Analysis," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(3), pages 231-238.
    17. Wang, Yan & Luo, Ting, 2023. "Politicizing for the idol: China’s idol fandom nationalism in pandemic," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 117741, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Yunfei Xing & Justin Z. Zhang & Yuming He & Yueqi Li, 2025. "Toward an ecosystem of non-fungible tokens from mapping public opinions on social media," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 11(1), pages 1-24, December.
    19. Nordström, Eva-Maria & Eriksson, Ljusk Ola & Öhman, Karin, 2010. "Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis in participatory forest planning: Experience from a case study in northern Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(8), pages 562-574, October.
    20. Scardina, Anthony V. & Mortimer, Michael J. & Dudley, Larkin, 2007. "Getting past the who and how many to the how and why in USDA Forest Service public involvement processes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 883-902, May.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:f4pgy_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.