Effects of ecological information on judgments about scenic impacts of timber harvest

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 46, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 31-41

  Brunson, Mark W ^a   Reiter, Douglas K ^a  

^a UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Ecosystem management; Information; Public acceptability; Scenic quality; Timber harvest

Indexed keywords

FORESTRY; HARVESTING; HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; OFFICE BUILDINGS; STUDENTS; TIMBER;

CONTROL GROUPS; ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS; ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION; ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT; INFORMATION; OFFICE WORKERS; PUBLIC ACCEPTABILITIES; SCENIC QUALITY; STUDENT WORKERS; TIMBER HARVESTS;

ECOSYSTEMS;

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CONTROLLED STUDY; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; FEMALE; FORESTRY; HUMAN; INFORMATION SYSTEM; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; OFFICE WORKER; PHOTOGRAPHY; PUBLIC OPINION; UNITED STATES;

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT; FOREST MANAGEMENT; INFORMATION PROVISION; PERCEPTION; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; SCENIC QUALITY;

EID: 0029667898     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jema.1996.0004     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Anderson, L. M. (1981). Land use designations affect perception of scenic beauty in forest landscapes. Forest Science 27, 392-400.
2. Benson, R. E. and Ullrich, J. R. (1981). Visual Impacts of Forest Management Activities: Findings on Public Preferences. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-262. Ogden, Utah: Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
3. Blocker, T. J. and Eckberg, D. L. (1989). Environmental issues as women's issues: general concerns and local hazards. Social Science Quarterly 70, 586-593.
4. Brown, T. C. and Daniel, T. C. (1986). Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. Forest Science 32, 471-487.
5. Brunson, M. W. (1991). Effects of traditional and "new forestry" practices on recreational and scenic quality of managed forests. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Oregon State University, Corvallis.
6. Brunson, M. W. (1993). "Socially acceptable" forestry: what does it imply for ecosystem management? Western Journal of Applied Forestry 8, 116-119.
7. Brunson, M. W. and Shelby, B. (1992). Assessing recreational and scenic quality: how does "new forestry" rate? Journal of Forestry 90, 37-41.
8. Buhyoff, G. J., Wellman, J. D. and Daniel, T. C. (1982). Predicting scenic quality for mountain pine beetle and western spruce budworm damaged forest vistas. Forest Science 28, 827-838.
9. Catton, W. R. Jr., and Dunlap, R. E. (1980). A new paradigm for post-exuberant society. American Behavioral Scientist 24, 15-47.
10. Craik, K. H. (1981). Comment on "The psychological representation of molar physical environments" by Ward and Russell. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 110, 158-162.
11. Dana, S. T., and Fairfax, S. K. (1980). Forest and Range Policy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
12. Devall, B., ed. (1993). Clearcut: the Tragedy of Industrial Forestry. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books/Earth Island Press.
13. Franklin, J. F. (1989). Toward a new forestry. American Forests 12(Nov/Dec), 37-44.
14. Gerlach, L. P., and Bengston, D. N. (1994). If ecosystem management is the solution, what's the problem? Journal of Forestry 92, 18-21.
15. Hodgson, R. W. and Thayer, R. L. Jr. (1980). Implied human influence reduces landscape beauty. Landscape Planning 7, 171-179.
16. Irland, L. C. (1994). Getting from here to there: implementing ecosystem management on the ground. Journal of Forestry 92, 12-17.
17. Johnson, R. L., Brunson, M. W. and Kimura, T. (1994). Using image-capture technology to assess scenic value at the urban/forest interface: a case study. Journal of Environmental Management 40, 183-195.
18. Manning, R. E. (1986). Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and Research for Satisfaction. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University Press.
19. McCool, S. F., Benson, R. E. and Ashor, J. L. (1986). How the public perceives the visual effects of timber harvesting: an evaluation of interest group preferences. Environmental Management 10, 385-391.
20. McComb, W. C., Spies, T. A. and Emmingham, W. H. (1993). Douglas-fir forests: managing for timber and mature-forest habitat. Journal of Forestry 91, 31-42.
21. Mohai, P. (1992). Men, women, and the environment: an examination of the gender gap in environmental concern and activism. Society and Natural Resources 5, 1-19.
22. Noe, F. P., and Hammitt, W. E. (1992). Environmental attitudes and the personal relevance of management actions in a park setting. Journal of Environmental Management 35, 205-216.
23. Ribe, R. G. (1989). The aesthetics of forestry: what has empirical preference research taught us? Environmental Management 13, 55-74.
24. Russell, J. A., Ward, L. M. and Pratt, G. (1981). Affective quality attributed to environments: A factor-analytic study. Environment and Behavior 13, 259-288.
25. Shindler, B., List, P. and Steel, B. S. (1993). Managing federal forests: public attitudes in Oregon and nationwide. Journal of Forestry 91, 36-42.
26. Simpson, C. J., Rosenthal, T. L., Daniel, T. C. and White, G. M. (1976). Social-influence variations in evaluating managed and unmanaged forest areas. Journal of Applied Psychology 61, 759-763.
27. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T. and Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior 25, 322-348.
28. Taylor, J. G. and Daniel, T. C. (1984). Prescribed fire: public education and perception. Journal of Forestry 82, 361-365.
29. Vodak, M. C., Roberts, P. L., Wellman, J. D. and Buhyoff, G. J. (1985). Scenic impacts of eastern hardwood management. Forest Science 31, 289-302.