Understanding the concept of representation within the context of local forest management decision making

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 1-11

  Wellstead, Adam M ^a   Stedman, Richard C ^b   Parkins, John R ^a  

^a LAURENTIAN FORESTRY CENTRE   (Canada)

^b PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Descriptive representation; Forests; Objective interests; Public participation; Representation; Subjective interests

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037235186     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00031-X     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Beckley, T., 1999. Public Involvement in Natural Resource Management in the Foothills Model Forest. Foothills Model Forest Information Report, Hinton, Alberta.
2. Bentham, J., 1983. In: Rosen, F., Burns, J.H. (Eds.), Constitutional Code, Vol. I. Clarendon Press, New York.
3. Burke, E., 1949. In: Ross, J., Hoffman, S., Levack, P. (Eds.), Burke's politics: selected writings and speeches of Edmund Burke on reform, revolution and war. first ed. A.A. Knopf, New York.
4. Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, 1999. Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in Canada. Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa.
5. Duinker, P.N., 1998. Public participation = promising progress: advances in forest decision-making in Canada. Commonwealth Forestry Review 77, 107-112.
6. Government of Alberta, 1999. Alberta Forest Legacy: Implementation for Sustainable Forest Management. Alberta Environmental Protection, Edmontonhttp://www.gov.ab.ca/env/forests/fmd/legacy/legacy.html.
7. Gundry, K., Heberlein, T., 1984. Do public meetings represent the public. APA Journal Spring, 175-182.
8. Knopp, T, Caldbeck, E., 1990. The role of participatory democracy in forest management. Journal of Forestry May, 13-18.
9. Lawrence, R.L., Daniels, S.E., Papers in Forest policy, 1996. Public Involvement in Natural Resource Decision Making. 3., Forest Research Laboratory, College of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
10. Mansbridge, J., 1996. In Defence of Descriptive Representation. Paper prepared for delivery at the 1996 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, The San Francisco Hilton and Towers, August 29-September 1.
11. McComas, K., 2001. Public meetings about local waste management problems: comparing participants to nonparticipants. Environmental Management 27, 135-147.
12. Mill, J.S., 1861. Considerations on Representative Government. Parker, Son, and Bourn, London.
13. Parkins, J.R, Stedman, R.C., McFarlane, B.L., 2001. Public Involvement in Forest Management and Planning: Do Advisory Groups Represent the General Public? Northern Forestry Centre Information Report NOR-X-382. Canadian Forest Service, Edmonton, AB.
14. Pitkin, H., 1967. The Concept of Representation. The University of California Press, Berkeley.
15. Author, A., 1999. Proceedings from the Forest Resource Advisory Group Conference, Environmental Training Centre, Hinton, Alberta, September 24-26, hosted by Weldwood of Canada's Forest Resource Advisory Group.
16. Tanz, J., Howard, A., 1991. Meaningful public participation in the planning and management of publicly owned forests. The Forestry Chronicle 67, 125-130.
17. Shindler, B., Neburka, J., 1997. Public participation in forest planning: 8 attributes of success. Journal of Forestry 95, 17-19.
18. Shindler, B., List, P., Steel, B., 1993. Managing Federal forests: public attitudes in Oregon and nationwide. Journal of Forestry 91, 36-42.
19. Steelman, T., Ascher, W., 1997. Public involvement in natural resource policy making: advantages, disadvantages, and tradeoffs. Policy Sciences 30, 71-90.
20. United States. Constitutional Conventional, 1911. In: Farrand, M. (Ed.), The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.