Knowing a socially sustainable forest when you see one: Implications for results-based forestry

Forestry Chronicle

Volumn 79, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 865-875

  Sheppard, Stephen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Forest stewardship; Public involvement; Public perceptions; Social criteria and indicators; Social sustainability; Visual quality; Visualization

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ECOLOGY; SOCIAL ASPECTS; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

SOCIAL OUTCOMES; SOCIALLY SUSTAINABLE;

FORESTRY;

FOREST MANAGEMENT; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; PERCEPTION; SUSTAINABILITY; VISUAL ANALYSIS;

BRITISH COLUMBIA; CANADA; NORTH AMERICA;

EID: 1342331828     PISSN: 00157546     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5558/tfc79865-5     Document Type: Review

References (55)

1. Achiam, C. and S.R.J. Sheppard. 2001. Socio-cultural Criteria and Indicators for the Arrow IFPA Sustainability Project. Draft report. Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning, UBC, Vancouver, BC.
2. Allen, K. and D. Frank. 1994. Community forests in British Columbia: Models that work. For. Chron. 70(6): 721-724.
3. Anon. 1995. Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of boreal and temperate forests: the Montreal Process. Canadian Forest Service, Hull, Quebec.
4. Apostol, D., M. Sinclair and B. Johnson. 2000. Design your own watershed: Top-down meets bottom-up in the Applegate Valley. In R.G. D'Eon, J.F. Johnson and E.A. Ferguson (eds.). Ecosystem Management of Forested Landscapes: Directions and Implementation. Proceedings of Conference on Ecosystem Management of Forested Landscapes, 26-28 October 1998, Nelson, BC. pp. 45-50. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC.
5. BC Ministry of Forests (BCMOF). 1998. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Inventory Procedures and Standards Manual Version 3.0. Resources Inventory Committee, BCMOF Forest Practices Branch, Victoria, BC. 41 p.
6. nd edition. BCMOF Forest Practices Branch, Victoria, BC. 64 p.
7. Bell, S. 2000. Ensuring the social acceptability of ecosystem management In R.G. D'Eon, J.F. Johnson and E.A. Ferguson (eds.). Ecosystem Management of Forested Landscapes: Directions and Implementation. Proceedings of Conference on Ecosystem Management of Forested Landscapes, 26-28 October 1998, Nelson, BC. pp. 69-84. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC.
8. Brand, D.G. 1997. Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of forests: progress to date and future directions. Biomass and Bioenergy 13 (4/5): 247-253.
9. Brown, K., E. Tompkins and W.N. Adger. 2001. Trade-off analysis for participatory coastal zone decision-making. University of East Anglia, Overseas Development Group, Norwich, UK. 109 p.
10. Brown, K., W.N. Adger, E. Tompkins, P. Bacon, D. Shim and K. Young. 2000. Trade-off analysis for marine protected area management. CSERGE Working Paper GRC 2000-02. University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. 32 p.
11. Burley, J. 2001. International initiatives for the sustainable management of forests. Chapter 7: In S.R.J. Sheppard and H.W. Harshaw (eds.). Forests and Landscapes Linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics. pp. 95-102 IUFRO Research Series, No. 6. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
12. Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning (CALP). 2001. Arrow Forest District Innovative Forest Practices Agreement: Socio-economic Technical Report. UBC, Vancouver, BC. 23 p.
13. Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM). 1995. The Canadian approach: Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management. Hull, Quebec.
14. Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE). 1995. The Provincial land use strategy. Vol. 3: Public Participation. Victoria, B.C. 153 p.
15. Daniel, T.C. and J. Vining. 1983. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In I. Altman and J.F. Wohlwill (eds.). Behaviour and the Natural Environment. pp. 39-84. Plenum, New York. NY.
16. De Marchi, B., S.O. Funtowicz, S. Lo Cascio and G. Munda. 2000. Combining participative and institutional approaches with multicriteria evaluation: an empirical study for water issues in Troina, Sicily. Ecological Economics 34 (special issue on social processes of environmental evaluation): 267-282.
17. Forestry Authority. 1998. The UK Forestry Standard - the Government's Approach to Sustainable Forestry. Prepared by the Forestry Commission and Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. The Forestry Commission, Edinburgh, UK.
18. Forest Management Institute of BC (FMIBC). 2001. Toward a Forest Management Diploma Program: Report on a survey of interest, topics, and delivery. Vancouver, BC. 23 p.
19. Forest Practices Board. 2000. A review of the Forest Development Planning process in BC. FPB/SR/04. 75 p. http://www.fpb.gov.bc.ca/reports/ special/fdp/index.htm.
20. Gobster, P.H. 1995. Aldo Leopold's ecological aesthetic: Integrating esthetic and biodiversity values. J. For. 93(2): 6-10.
21. Greenpeace. 2001. Retrieved February 28, 2001 from http://www.greenpeace. org.
22. Hislop, M. and M. Twery. 2001. A decision-framework for public involvement in forest design planning. Final Report for Policy and Practice Division of the Forestry Commission on a joint project between Forest Research and the USDA Forest Service Northeastern Research Station. Forest Research, UK Forestry Commission, Roslin, Scotland.
23. Hull, R.B., D. Robertson, G. Buyhyoff and A. Kendra. 2000. What are we hiding behind the visual buffer strips? Forest Aesthetics reconsidered. J. For. 98(7): 32-36.
24. Kaplan, R., S. Kaplan and R.L. Ryan. 1998. With People in Mind. Island Press, Washington, DC. 225 p.
25. Keene, R. 2000. Excerpts from a critique of Forestry Stewardship Council's Pacific Coast Regional Guidelines for Third Party Forest Product Certification. http://www.publicforestry.org/WritingsArchive/Reports/ FSCCritique.html.
26. Kimmins, J.P. 1999. Biodiversity, beauty and the Beast - are beautiful forests sustainable, are sustainable forests beautiful, and is "small" always ecologically desirable? For. Chron. 75: 955-960.
27. Kimmins, J.P. 2001. Visible and non-visible indicators of forest sustainability: Beauty, beholders, and belief systems. Chapter 4. In S.R.J. Sheppard and H.W. Harshaw (eds.). Forests and Landscapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainability, and Aesthetics. pp. 43-56. IUFRO Research Series, No. 6. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
28. Kruger, L.E. 2001. What is essential is invisible to the eye. Chapter 12. In S.R.J. Sheppard and H.W. Harshaw (eds.). Forests and Landscapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainability, and Aesthetics. pp. 173-187. IUFRO Research Series, No. 6. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
29. Leopold, A. 1981 (originally published 1949). A sand county almanac and sketches from here and there. Oxford University Press, NY.
30. Lewis, J.L. 2000. Ancient values, new technology: Emerging methods for integrating cultural values in forest management. Unpublished MSc. Thesis, Faculty of Forestry, UBC, Vancouver, BC.
31. Luymes, D. 2001. The rhetoric of visual simulation in forest design: some research directions. Chapter 13. In S.R.J. Sheppard and H.W. Harshaw (eds.). Forests and Landscapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainability, and Aesthetics. pp. 191-204. IUFRO Research Series, No. 6. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
32. McGaughey, R.J. 2001. Data-driven visualization of forest management alternatives using EnVision. In Compendium of the Visual Resource Management Conference, Seeing Beyond the Trees: Visual Stewardship of the Working Forest, April 17-19, 2001, Kamloops, BC. pp. 41-49.
33. Meitner, M. 2001. Visualization as a decision support tool. In Compendium of the Visual Resource Management Conference, Seeing Beyond the Trees: Visual Stewardship of the Working Forest, April 17-19, 2001, Kamloops, BC. pp. 191-192.
34. Meitner, M.J., S.R.J. Sheppard and H.W. Harshaw. 2001. Arrow Forest District Social Values Survey Final Report. Arrow IFPA Technical Report. Dept. of Forest Resources Management, UBC, Vancouver, BC.
35. Meitner, M.J., H.W. Harshaw, S.R.J. Sheppard and P. Picard. 2002. Criterion 9: Quality of life benefits. Arrow IFPA Sustainability project extension note series, No. 9 Draft. Dept. of Forest Resources Management, UBC, Vancouver, BC. 5 p.
36. Mendoza, G.A. and P. Macoun with R. Prabhu, D. Sukadri, H. Purnomo and H. Hartanto. 1999. Guidelines for applying Multi-Criteria Analysis to the assessment of criteria and indicators. C&I Tool No. 9 in The Criteria and Indicators Toolbox Series. Center for International Forestry Research, Jakarta, Indonesia.
37. Orland, B. 1997. Forest virtual modelling for planners and managers. In Procs. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS) Annual Convention/RT'97, April 7-10, 1997. Seattle, Washington.
38. Picard, P. and S.R.J. Sheppard. 2002. Visual resource management in British Columbia-Part I: The effects of visual resource management on timber availability: A review of case studies and policy. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 1(2): 85-102.
39. Robson, M., A. Hawley and D. Robinson. 2000. Comparing the social values of forest-dependent, provincial and national publics for socially sustainable forest management. For. Chron. 76(4): 615-622.
40. Sheppard, S.R.J. 2000. Visualization as a decision-support tool for managing forest ecosystems. The Compiler 16(1): 25-40.
41. Sheppard, S.R.J. 2001a. Beyond visual resource management: emerging theories of an ecological aesthetic and visible stewardship. Chapter 11. In S.R.J. Sheppard and H.W. Harshaw (eds.). Forests and Landscapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainability, and Aesthetics. IUFRO Research Series, No. 6. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
42. Sheppard, S.R.J. 2001b. Multi-criteria accounting and trade-off analysis. Paper presented at Symposium on Sustainable and Performance-based Resource Management: Lessons and Predictions from the Working Forest, October 24-25, 2001, Richmond, BC.
43. Sheppard, S.R.J. 2001c. Guidance for crystal ball gazers: developing a code of ethics for landscape visualization. Landscape and Urban Planning 54: 183-199. Elsevier Science B.V.
44. Sheppard, S.R.J., M.J. Meitner, N. Wilson, H. Harshaw and C. Pearce. 2002. Public procession in sustainable forest management. Arrow IFPA Sustainability Project Extension Note Series, No. 3 Draft. Dept. of Forest Resources Management, UBC, Vancouver, BC. 5 p.
45. Sheppard, S.R.J. and C. Achiam. 2001. Forest certification and aesthetics: proposed criteria and indicators for visible stewardship. In Compendium of the Visual Resource Management Conference, Seeing Beyond the Trees: Visual Stewardship of the Working Forest, April 17-19, 2001, Kamloops, BC. pp. 107-118.
46. Shindler, B. and L.A. Cramer. 1999. Shifting public values for forest management: Making sense of wicked problems. Western Journal of Forestry 14(1): 1-7.
47. Stankey, G.H. 1996. Defining the social acceptability of forest management practices and conditions; Integrating science and social choice. In M.W. Brunson, L.E. Kruger, C.B. Tyler and S.A. Schroeder (eds.). Defining Social Acceptability in Ecosystem Management: A Workshop Proceedings; June 23-25, 1992, Kelso, WA. pp. 99-111. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-369. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.
48. Sustainable Forest Management Network. 2001. Research Program, 2001/2001. SFM Network, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. 97 p.
49. Tindall, D.B. 2001a. Why do you think that hillside is ugly? A sociological perspective on aesthetic values and public attitudes on forests. Chapter 5. In S.R.J. Sheppard and H.W. Harshaw (eds.). Forests and Landscapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainability, and Aesthetics. pp. 57-70. IUFRO Research Series, No. 6. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
50. Tindall, D.B. 2001b. Variation in public values and visual quality preferences. In Compendium of the Visual Resource Management Conference, Seeing Beyond the Trees: Visual Stewardship of the Working Forest, April 17-19, 2001, Kamloops, BC. pp. 215-234.
51. Tindall, D.B. 2001c. Social science and forestry curricula: Some survey results. For. Chron. 77(1): 121-126.
52. Tufte, E.R. 1990. Envisioning Information. Graphics Press. Cheshire, Conn. 126 p.
53. von Mirbach, M. 2000. A User's Guide to Local Level Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management: Experiences from the Canadian Model Forest Network. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Ottawa, ON. 265 p.
54. Webb, J. 2001. Building capacity through leading edge research. Tomorrow's Forests. The Sustainable Forest Management Network Newsletter, Summer 2001. p 1, 19.
55. White, W. 2001. Social and economic aspects of community sustainability: results from the Robson Valley Enhanced Forest Management Pilot Program (EFMPP). Paper presented at Symposium on Sustainable and Performance-based Resource Management: Lessons and Predictions from the Working Forest, October 24-25, 2001, Richmond, BC.