Chapter 2: Socioeconomic conditions and trends for communities in the Northwest Forest Plan region, 1990 to 2000

USDA Forest Service - General Technical Report PNW

Volumn , Issue 649 III, 2006, Pages 7-35

  Donoghue, Ellen M ^a   Sutton, N Lynnae ^a  

^a PACIFIC NORTHWEST RESEARCH STATION   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMMUNITY COMPOSITION; DEMOGRAPHIC TREND; EDUCATION; HEALTH STATUS; HOUSEHOLD INCOME; SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS; SOCIOECONOMIC INDICATOR; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33747405567     PISSN: 08874840     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Beckley, T.M. 1995. Community stability and the relationship between economic and social well-being in forest-dependent communities. Society and Natural Resources. 8(3): 261-266.
2. Beckley, T.M.; Burkosky, T.M. 1999. Social indicator approaches to assessing and monitoring forest community sustainability. Information Rep. NOR-X-360. Edmonton, AB: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre. 13 p.
3. Carroll, M.S. 1995. Community and the Northwest logger: continuities and changes in the era of the spotted owl. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 177 p.
4. Christakopoulou, S.; Dawson, J.; Gari, A. 2001. The community well-being questionnaire: theoretical context and initial assessment of its reliability and validity. Social Indicators Research. 56: 321-351.
5. Diener, E.; Suh, E. 1997. Measuring quality of life: economic, social, and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research. 40: 189-216.
6. Doak, S.; Kusel, J. 1996. Well-being in forest-dependent communities. Part 2: A social assessment. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: final report to Congress - assessments and scientific basis for management options. Davis, CA: University of California, Center for Water and Wildland Resources: 375-402. Vol. 2.
7. Donoghue, E.M. 2003. Delimiting communities in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-570. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 51 p.
8. Force, J.E.; Machlis, G.E. 1997. The human ecosystem. Part II: Social indicators in ecosystem management. Society and Natural Resources. 10: 369-382.
9. Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior [and others]. [Irregular pagination].
10. Fortmann, L.; Kusel, J.; Fairfax, S. 1989. Community stability: the foresters' fig leaf. In: LeMaster, D.C.; Beuter, J.H., eds. Community stability in forest-based economies: proceedings of a conference. Portland, OR: Timber Press: 44-50.
11. Gusfield, J.R. 1975. Community: a critical response. New York: Harper and Row. 120 p.
12. Harris, C.C.; McLaughlin, W.; Brown, G.; Becker, D. 2000. Rural communities in the inland Northwest: an assessment of small communities in the interior and upper Columbia River basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-477. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 120 p.
13. Haynes, R.W. 2003. Assessing the viability and adaptability of forest-dependent communities in the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-567. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 33 p.
14. Haynes, R.W.; McCool, S.; Horne, A.; Birchfield, J. 1996. Natural resource management and community well-being. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 24(2): 222-226.
15. Hiss, T. 1990. The experience of place. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 233 p.
16. Horne, A.L.; Haynes, R.W. 1999. Developing measures of socioeconomic resiliency in the interior Columbia basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-453. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 41 p. (Quigley, T.M., ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment).
17. Kaufman, H. 1959. Towards an interactional conception of community. Social Forces. 38(1): 8-17.
18. Kusel, J. 1996. Well-being in forest dependent communities. Part 1: A new approach. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. Status of the Sierra Nevada: Final report to Congress. Davis, CA: University of California, Wildland Resources Center: 361-374. Vol. II.
19. Kusel, J.; Fortmann, L. 1991. Well-being in forest-dependent communities. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Forestry, Forest and Rangeland Protection Program. 245 p.
20. Lee, R.G. 1989. Community stability: Symbol or social reality? In: LeMaster, D.C.; Beuter, J.H., eds. Community stability in forest-based economies: proceedings of a conference. Portland, OR: Timber Press: 36-43.
21. Lee, R.G. 1990. Sustained yield and social order. In: Lee, R.G.; Field, D.R.; Burch, W.J., eds. Community and forestry: continuities in the sociology of natural resources. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 83-94.
22. Luloff, A.E. 1998. What makes a place a community? The fifth Sir John Quick Bendigo lecture. Bendigo, Australia: La Trobe University. 23 p.
23. Machlis, G.E.; Force, J.E. 1988. Community stability and timber-dependent communities. Rural Sociology. 53: 220-234.
24. Montréal Process Working Group. 1998. The Montréal Process. http://www.mpci.org. (January 9, 2002).
25. Parkins, J. 1999. Enhancing social indicators research in a forest-dependent community. The Forestry Chronicle. 75(5): 771-780.
26. Parkins, J.; Beckley, T. 2001. Monitoring community sustainability in the Foothills Model Forest: a social indicators approach. Information Rep. M-X-211E. Fredericton, New Brunswick: Atlantic Forestry Centre. 148 p.
27. Richardson, C.W. 1996. Stability and change in forest-based communities: a selected bibliography. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-366. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 36 p.
28. Richardson, C.W.; Christensen, H. 1997. From rhetoric to reality: research on the well-being of forest-based communities. In: Cordell, H.K., ed. Integrating social science and ecosystem management: a national challenge: proceedings of a conference on integrating social sciences and ecosystem management. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-SRS-17. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 195-201.
29. Schallau, C.H. 1989. Sustained yield versus community stability: An unfortunate wedding? Journal of Forestry. 87(9): 16-23.
30. Sen, A. 1985. Commodities and capabilities. New York: North Holland. 130 p.
31. Stedman, R.C. 2003. Sense of place and forest science: toward a program of quantitative research. Forest Science. 49(6): 822-829.
32. Tuan, Y. 1993. Passing strange and wonderful: aesthetics, nature, and culture. Covelo, CA: Island Press. 288 p.
33. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. [Place of publication unknown]. 74 p. [plus attachment A: standards and guidelines].
34. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2004. Census 2000: plans and rules for taking the census. http://www.census.gov/population/www/ censusdata/resid_rules.html. (April 22).
35. Wilkinson, K.P. 1979. Social well-being and community. Journal of the Community Development Society. 10(1): 5-16.
36. Wilkinson, K.P. 1991. The community in rural America. New York: Greenwood Press. 152 p.