Comparing urban and rural perceptions of and familiarity with the management of forest ecosystems

Society and Natural Resources

Volumn 19, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 479-495

  Racevskis, Laila A ^a   Lupi, Frank ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Focus groups; Forest management; Public perceptions; Timber dependence; Urban rural

Indexed keywords

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT; FOREST ECOSYSTEM; FOREST MANAGEMENT; PERCEPTION; RURAL AREA; TIMBER MARKET; URBAN FORESTRY;

MICHIGAN; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33646822120     PISSN: 08941920     EISSN: 15210723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08941920600663862     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Bailey, C. 2004. Resource dependency and rural development in Alabama. Available from http://www.ag.auburn.edu/~cbailey/dependency.htm, accessed November 10, 2004.
2. Bandara, R. and C. Tisdell. 2003. Comparison of rural and urban attitudes to the conservation of Asian elephants in Sri Lanka: Empirical evidence. Biol. Conserv. 110:327-342. [CSA]
3. Bingham, G., R. Bishop, M. Brody, D. Bromley, E. Clark, W. Cooper, R. Costanza, T. Hale, G. Hayden, S. Kellert, R. Norgaard, B. Norton, J. Payne, C. Russell, and G. Suter. 1995. Issues in ecosystem valuation: Improving information for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 14:73-90. [CSA] [CROSSREF]
4. Bourke, L. and A. E. Luloff. 1994. Attitudes toward the management of nonindustrial private forest land. Society Nat. Resources 7:445-457. [CSA]
5. Boxall, P. C. and B. Macnab. 2000. Exploring the preferences of wildlife recreationists for features of boreal forest management: A choice experiment approach. Can. J. For. Res. 30:1931-1941. [CSA] [CROSSREF]
6. Brunson, M. W., B. Shindler, and B. S. Steel. 1997. Consensus and dissention among rural and urban publics concerning forest management in the Pacific Northwest. In Public lands management in the West: Citizens, interest groups, and values, ed. B.Steel, 83-94. Westport, CT: Praeger.
7. Cordell, H. and M. Tarrant. 2002. Changing demographics, values, and attitudes. J. For. 100(7):28-33. [CSA]
8. DeCalesta, D. S. 1997. Deer, ecosystem damage, and sustaining forest resources. Available from http://www.arec.umd.edu/policy/Deer-Management-in-Maryland/decalesta.htm, accessed October 31, 2000.
9. Dennis, D. F. 1998. Analyzing public inputs to multiple objective decisions on national forests using conjoint analysis. For. Sci. 44(3):421-429. [CSA]
10. Dietz, T., P. C. Stern, and G. A. Guagnano. 1998. Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environ. Behav. 30:450-471. [CSA]
11. Gobster, P. H. 2001. Human dimensions of early successional landscapes in the eastern United States. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 29(2):474-482. [CSA]
12. Goldman, A. E. and S. S. McDonald. 1987. The group depth interview: Principles and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
13. Howe, R. W., G. Niemi, and J. R. Probst. 1995. Management of western Great Lakes forests for the conservation of neotropical migratory birds. In Management of Midwestern landscapes for the conservation of neotropical migratory birds, ed. F. R.ThompsonIII, 144-167. Detroit, MI: USDA Forest Service North Central Forest Experiment Station.
14. Hull, B. P., D. Robertson, and A. Kendra. 2001. Public understandings of nature: A case study of local knowledge about "natural" forest conditions. Society Nat. Resources 14:325-340. [CSA]
15. Jacobson, S. K. and S. B. Marynowski. 1997. Public attitudes and knowledge about ecosystem management on Department of Defense land in Florida. Conserv. Biol. 011(3):770-81. [CSA] [CROSSREF]
16. Kaplowitz, M. D. 2000. Statistical analysis of sensitive topics in group and individual interviews. Qual. Quant. 34:419-431. [CSA] [CROSSREF]
17. Kaplowitz, M. D. and J. P. Hoehn. 2001. Do focus-groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation? Ecol. Econ. 36:237-247. [CSA] [CROSSREF]
18. Kearney, A. R. 2001. Effects of an informational intervention on public reactions to clear-cutting. Society Nat. Resources 14:777-790. [CSA] [CROSSREF]
19. Kreuger, R. A. and M. A. Casey. 2000. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20. Laurent, E. J., J. P. LeBouton, D. Gatzioli, M. B. Walters, and J. Liu. 2003. Evaluating the effects of land cover classification indices used to investigate wildlife-habitat relationships. Presentation, Ecological Society of America, Savannah, GA, August 3.
21. LeBouton, J. P., E. J. Laurent, M. B. Walters, and J. Liu. 2003. Regional vs local effects of white-tailed deer herbivory on vegetation structure and composition in northern hardwood forests. Ecological Society of America 88th annual meeting, Savannah, Georgia. August3-8.
22. Machlis, G. E. and J. E. Force. 1988. Community stability and timber-dependent communities. Rural Sociol. 53:220-234. [CSA]
23. McDonough, M., J. Fried, K. Potter-Witter, J. Stevens, and D. Stynes. 1999. The role of natural resources in community and regional economic stability in the Eastern Upper Peninsula. East Lansing: Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, Research Report 568.
24. McFarlane, B. L. and P. C. Boxall. 2000. Factors influencing forest values and attitudes of two stakeholder groups: The case of the Foothills Model Forest, Alberta, Canada. Society Nat. Resources 13:649-661. [CSA] [CROSSREF]
25. Michigan Township Association. 2000. Michigan township maps. Available from http://www.michigantownships.org/twpmaps.asp, accessed October 27, 2004.
26. Miller, R.1997. Northern white-cedar regeneration: Promise and problems. Escanaba: Upper Peninsula Tree Improvement Center, Michigan State University.
27. Miller, R. O., D. Elsing, M. Lanasa, and M. Zuidema. 1990. Northern white-cedar: Stand assessment and management options. Presented at Northern White-Cedar in Michigan Workshop, Sault Sainte Marie, February 21-22.
28. Minnis, D. L., R. H. Holsman, L. Grice, and R. B. Payton. 1997. Focus groups as a human dimensions research tool: Three illustrations of their use. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2(4):40-49. [CSA]
29. Mitra, A. 1994. Use of focus-groups in the design of recreation needs assessment questionnaires. Eval. Program Plan. 17(2):133-140. [CSA] [CROSSREF]
30. Morgan, D. L. 1997. Focus groups as qualitative research, 2nd ed. Qualitative Research Methods Series, vol. 16, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31. Noss, A. and R. Cuellar. 2001. Community attitudes towards wildlife management in the Bolivian Chaco. Oryx 35(4):292-300. [CSA] [CROSSREF]
32. Obiri, J. and M. Lawes. 2002. Attitudes of coastal-forest users in Eastern Cape Province to management options arising from new South African forest policies. Environ. Conserv. 29(4):519-529. [CSA] [CROSSREF]
33. Pomeroy, C. and J. Beck. 1999. An experiment in fishery comanagement: Evidence from Big Creek. Society Nat. Resources 12:719-739. [CSA] [CROSSREF]
34. Potter-Witter, K. 1995. Timber and timberland resources. East Lansing: Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, Special Report 71.
35. Pugh, S. A., D. D. Reed, and K. S. Pregitzer. 2001. FIAMODEL user's guide version 3.0. Houghton, MI, and St. Paul, MN: School of Forestry and Wood Products, Michigan Technical University, and USDA Forest Service North Central Research Station.
36. Reading, R. P., T. W. Clark, and S. R. Kellert. 1994. Attitiudes and knowledge of people living in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Society Nat. Resources 7(4):349-365. [CSA]
37. Ribe, R. and M. Matteson. 2002. Views of old forestry and new among reference groups in the Pacific Northwest. Western J. Appl. For. 17(4):173-182. [CSA]
38. Shindler, B. A., M. Brunson, and G. H. Stankey. 2002. Social acceptability of forest conditions and management practices: A problem analysis. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report PNW-GTR-537.
39. Shively, J. 1992. Cowboys and Indians: Perceptions of Western films among American Indians and Anglos. Am. Sociol. Rev. 557(6):725-734. [CSA] [CROSSREF]
40. Smith, P. D. and M. H. McDonough. 2001. Beyond public participation: Fairness in natural resource decision making. Society Nat. Resources 14(3):239-249. [CSA]
41. Solecki, W. D. 1998. Local attitudes on regional ecosystem management: A study of New Jersey Pinelands residents. Society Nat. Resources 11(5):441-463. [CSA]
42. Steel, B., P. List, and B. Shindler. 1994. Conflicting values about federal forests: A comparison of national and Oregon publics. Society Nat. Resources 7:137-153. [CSA]
43. Stein, T. V., D. H. Anderson, and T. Kelly. 1999. Using stakeholders' values to apply ecosystem management in an upper midwest landscape. Environ. Manage. 24(3):399-413. [INFOTRIEVE] [CSA] [CROSSREF]
44. Tahvanainen, L., L. Tyrvainen, M. Ihalainen, N. Vuorela, and O. Kolehmainen. 2001. Forest management and public perceptions - Visual versus verbal information. Landscape Urban Plan. 53:53-70. [CSA] [CROSSREF]
45. Tarrant, M. and H. Cordell. 2002. Amenity values of public and private forests: Examining the value-attitude relationship. Environ. Manage. 30(5):692-703. [INFOTRIEVE] [CSA] [CROSSREF]
46. Tremblay, K. R. and R. Dunlap. 1978. Rural-urban residence and concern with environmental quality. Rural Sociol. 43:474-491. [CSA]
47. U.S. Census Bureau. 1995. Urban and rural definitions. Available at http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata.urdef.txt, accessed October 7, 2004.
48. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000a. Census 2000 urban and rural population for Michigan, Counties and county subdivisions. Available at http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua_2k.html, accessed June 25, 2004.
49. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000b. ZIP code business patterns (NAICS) 2001. Available at http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/zbpnaic/zbpsect.pl, accessed September 14, 2004.
50. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000b. American fact finder. Available at http://factfinder.census.gov, accessed October 20, 2004.
51. Winter, G. and J. S. Fried. 2000. Homeowner perspectives on fire hazard, responsibility, and management strategies at the wildland-urban interface. Society Nat. Resources 13:33-49. [CSA] [CROSSREF]
52. Xu, W., B. R. Lippke, and J. Perez-Garcia. 2003. Valuing biodiversity, aesthetics, and job losses associated with ecosystem management using stated preferences. For. Sci. 49(2):247-257. [CSA]
53. Zinkhan, F. C, T. P. Holmes, and D. E. Mercer. 1997. Conjoint analysis: A preference-based approach for the accounting of multiple benefits in Southern forest management. Southern J. Appl. For. 21(4):180-186. [CSA]