Perceptions of forestry alternatives in the US Pacific Northwest: Information effects and acceptability distribution analysis

Journal of Environmental Psychology

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 100-115

  Ribe, Robert G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

Author keywords

Forest management; Green tree retention; New Forestry; Public perceptions; Timber harvests

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750502014     PISSN: 02724944     EISSN: 15229610     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.05.004     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Althaus S.L. Information effects in collective preferences. American Political Science Review 92 (1998) 545-558
2. Anderson L.M. Land use designations effect perceptions of scenic beauty in forest landscapes. Forest Science 27 (1981) 392-400
3. Aubry K.B., Amaranthus M.P., Halpern C.B., White J.D., Woodard B.L., Peterson C.E., et al. Evaluating the effects of varying levels and patterns of green-tree retention: Experimental design of the DEMO study [Special issue]. Northwest Science 73 (1999) 12-26
4. Axelrod L.J. Balancing personal needs with environmental preservation: Identifying the values that guide decisions in ecological dilemmas. Journal of Social Issues 50 (1994) 85-104
5. Barnett H.G. Innovation: The basis of culture change (1953), McGraw-Hill, New York
6. Beggs, L. R., Puettmann, K. J., & Tucker, G. F. (2005). Vegetation response to alternative thinning treatments in young Douglas-fir stands. In C. E. Peterson, & D. A. Maguire (Eds.), Balancing ecosystem values: Innovative experiments for sustainable forestry. General technical report PNW-635 (pp. 243-248). USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR.
7. Bennett J.W. Human ecology as human behavior (1993), Transation, New Brunswick, NJ
8. Bishop G.F., Tuchfarber A.J., and Oldendick R.W. Opinions on fictitious issues: The pressure to answer survey questions. Public Opinion Quarterly 50 (1986) 240-250
9. Bliss J.C. Public perceptions of clearcutting. Journal of Forestry 98 12 (2000) 4-9
10. Bright A.D., and Manfredo M.J. The quality of attitudinal information regarding natural resource issues: The role of attitude-strength, importance and information. Society and Natural Resources 8 (1995) 399-414
11. Brunson M.W. "Socially acceptable" forestry: What does it imply for ecosystem management?. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 8 (1993) 116-119
12. Brunson M.W., and Reiter D.K. Effects of ecological information on judgments about scenic impacts of timber harvests. Journal of Environmental Management 46 (1996) 31-41
13. Brunson M.W., and Shelby B. Assessing recreational and scenic quality: How does New Forestry rate?. Journal of Forestry 90 7 (1992) 37-41
14. Brunson M.W., Shindler B., and Steel B.S. Consensus and dissension among rural and urban publics concerning forest management in the Pacific Northwest. In: Steel B. (Ed). Public lands management in the west: Citizens, interest groups, and values (1997), Praeger, Westport, CT 83-94
15. Buhyoff G.J., Leuschner W.A., and Wellman J.D. Aesthetic impacts of southern pine beetle damage. Journal of Environmental Management 8 (1979) 261-267
16. Burchfield, J. A., Miller, J. M., Allen, S., Schroeder, R. F., & Miller, T. (2003). Social implications of alternatives to clearcutting on the Tongass National Forest: An exploratory study of residents' responses to alternative silvicultural treatments at Hanus Bay, Alaska. General technical report PNW-575, USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR.
17. Carls E.G. The effects of people and man-induced conditions on preferences for outdoor recreation landscapes. Journal of Leisure Research 6 (1974) 113-124
18. Carroll M. Community and the northwestern logger: Communities and changes in the era of the spotted owl (1995), Westview Press, Boulder, CO
19. Charnley, S., Donoghue, E., Stuart, C., Dillingham, C., Buttolph, L., Kay, W., McLain, R., Moseley, C., & Phillips, R. (2006). Northwest forest plan the first ten years: Socioeconomic monitoring results, vol. 1: Key findings. General technical report PNW-649. USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR.
20. Clausen, D. L., & Schroeder, R. F. (2004). Social acceptability of alternatives to clearcutting: Discussion and literature review with emphasis on southeast Alaska. General technical report PNW-594, USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR.
21. Converse P. The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In: Apter D. (Ed). Ideology and discontent (1964), Free Press, New York 206-261
22. Davidson A.R., Yantis S., Norwood M., and Montano D.E. Amount of information about the attitude object and attitude-behavior consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49 (1985) 1184-1198
23. Davis O.A., Hinich M.J., and Ordeshook P.C. An expository development of a mathematical model of the electoral process. American Political Science Review 64 (1970) 426-448
24. Dearden, P. (1989). Societal landscape preferences: A pyramid of influences. In P. Dearden, & B. Sadler (Eds.), Landscape evaluation: Approaches and applications (pp. 41-63). Western geographical series: Vol. 25. Victoria, BC.
25. Dietrich W. The final forest: The battle for the last great trees of the Pacific Northwest (1992), Penguin, New York
26. Faulkenberry G.D., and Mason R. Characteristics of nonopinion and no opinion response groups. Public Opinion Quarterly 42 (1978) 533-543
27. Ford R., Williams K., Bishop I., and Webb T. Social acceptability of forest management systems: Project overview (2005), University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
28. Franklin J.F. Toward a new forestry. American Forests 95 11 (1989) 37-44
29. Franklin J.F., Berg D.R., Thornburgh D.A., and Tappeiner J.C. Alternative silvicultural approaches to timber harvesting: Variable retention harvest systems. In: Kohm K.A., and Franklin J.F. (Eds). Creating a forestry for the 21st century: The science of ecosystem management (1997), Island Press, Washington, DC 111-139
30. Gagnon-Thompson S.C., and Barton M.A. Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 14 (1994) 149-157
31. Gobster, P. H. (1996). Forest aesthetics, biodiversity, and the perceived appropriateness of ecosystem management practices. In M. W. Brunson, L. E. Kruger, C. B. Tyler, & S. A. Schroeder (Eds.), Defining social acceptability in ecosystem management: A workshop proceedings (pp. 77-97). General technical Report PNW-669, USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR.
32. Grant L.V., and Patterson J.W. Non-attitudes: The measurement problem and its consequences. Political Methodology 2 (1975) 455-481
33. Greider T., and Garkovich L. Landscapes: The social construction of nature and environment. Rural Sociology 59 (1994) 1-24
34. Hansis R. The social acceptability of clearcutting in the Pacific Northwest. Human Organization 54 (1995) 95-101
35. Hodgson R.W., and Thayer R.L. Implied human influence reduces landscape beauty. Landscape Planning 7 (1980) 171-179
36. Homann P.S., Bormann B.T., and Boyle J.R. Detecting treatment differences in soil carbon and nitrogen resulting from forest manipulations. Soil Science Society of America Journal 65 (2001) 463-469
37. Isen A.M. Positive affect and decision making. In: Lewis M., and Haviland J.M. (Eds). Handbook of emotions (1993), Guilford, New York 417-435
38. Kearney A.R. Effects of an informational intervention on public reactions to clear-cutting. Society and Natural Resources 14 (2001) 777-790
39. Kearney A.R., Bradley G., Kaplan R., and Kaplan S. Stakeholder perspectives on appropriate forest management in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Science 45 (1999) 62-73
40. Kimmins J.P. Biodiversity, beauty and the "beast": Are beautiful forests sustainable, are sustainable forests beautiful, and is "small" always ecologically desirable?. Forestry Chronicle 75 (1999) 955-958
41. Kluckhohn F.R., and Strodtbeck F.L. Variations in value orientations (1961), Greenwood Press, Westbrook, CO
42. Lakoff G., and Johnson M. Metaphors we live by (2003), University of Chicago Press, Chicago
43. Lovrich N.P., and Pierce J.C. The good guys and bad guys in natural resource politics: Content and structure of perceptions of interests among general and attentive publics. Social Science Journal 23 (1986) 309-326
44. Lyons E. Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environment and Behavior 15 (1983) 487-511
45. Manning R., Valliere W., and Minteer B. Values, ethics, and attitudes toward national forest management: An empirical study. Society and Natural Resources 12 (1999) 421-436
46. McBeth M.K., and Foster R.H. Rural environmental attitudes. Environmental Management 18 (1994) 401-411
47. McCool S.F., Benson R.E., and Ashor J.L. How the public perceives the visual effects of timber harvesting: An evaluation of interest group preferences. Environmental Management 10 (1986) 385-391
48. Miles M., and Huberman M. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (1994), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
49. Minsky M. The society of mind (1985), Simon & Schuster, New York
50. Nelson C.M., McDonough M.H., and Holecek D.F. Beliefs, attitude and political behavior of forest recreationists toward timber management in Michigan. In: Lee M., and Brown P. (Eds). Recreation and park management: Papers from the first national symposium on social science in resource management (1989), Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 135-149
51. Niemi, E., & Whitelaw, E. (1999). Assessing tradeoffs in forest management. General technical report PNW-403, USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR.
52. Norman R. Affective-cognitive consistency, attitudes, conformity, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32 (1975) 83-91
53. Petty R.E., and Cacioppo J.T. Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches (1981), William Brown, Dubuque, IA
54. Price V., and Neijens P. Deliberative polls: Toward improved measures of "informed" public opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 10 (1998) 145-176
55. Raphael R. More tree talk: The people, politics, and economics of timber (1994), Island Press, Washington, DC
56. Ribe R.G. The aesthetics of forestry: What has empirical preference research taught us?. Environmental Management 13 (1989) 55-74
57. Ribe R.G. Regeneration harvests versus clearcuts: Public views of the acceptability and aesthetics of Northwest Forest Plan harvests [Special issue]. Northwest Science 73 (1999) 102-117
58. Ribe R.G. Is scenic beauty a proxy for acceptable management? The influence of environmental attitudes on landscape perceptions. Environment and Behavior 34 (2002) 757-780
59. Ribe, R. G. (2005). Comparing changes in scenic beauty produced by green-tree retention harvests, thinnings and clearcuts: Evidence from three Pacific Northwest experiments. In C. E. Peterson, D. A. Maguire (Eds.), Balancing ecosystem values: Innovative experiments for sustainable forestry (pp. 137-145). General Technical Report PNW-635, USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR.
60. Robson M., Hawley A., and Robinson D. Comparing the social values of forest-dependent, provincial and national publics for socially sustainable forest management. Forestry Chronicle 76 (2000) 615-622
61. Schank R. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding (1977), Lawrence Erlbaum, New York
62. Schneider A.L., and Ingram H. Policy design for democracy (1997), University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, KS
63. Sheppard S.R.J., Harshaw H.W., and McBride J.R. Priorities for reconciling sustainability and aesthetics in forest landscape management. In: Sheppard S.R.J., and Harshaw H.W. (Eds). Forests and landscapes: Linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics (2001), CABI Publishing, New York 263-288
64. Shindler, B. A., Brunson, M., & Stankey, G. H. (2002). Social acceptability of forest conditions and management practices: A problem analysis. General Technical Report PNW-537, USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR.
65. Shindler B., and Cramer L.A. Shifting public values for forest management: Making sense of wicked problems. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 14 (1999) 28-34
66. Shindler B., List P., and Steel B.S. Managing federal forests: Public attitudes in Oregon and nationwide. Journal of Forestry 91 7 (1993) 36-42
67. Shindler B., Steel B.S., and List P. Public judgments of adaptive management: A response from forest communities. Journal of Forestry 94 6 (1996) 8-12
68. Silvennoinen H., Alho J., Kolehmainen O., and Pukkala T. Prediction models of landscape preferences at the forest stand level. Landscape and Urban Planning 56 (2001) 11-20
69. Simpson C.J., Rosenthal T.L., Daniel T.C., and White G.M. Social-influence variations in evaluating managed and unmanaged forest areas. Journal of Applied Psychology 61 (1976) 759-763
70. Slovic P., Finucane M., Peters E., and MacGregor D. The affect heuristic. In: Gilovich T., Griffin D., and Kahneman D. (Eds). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (2002), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK 397-420
71. Stern P.C., Dietz T., Kalof L., and Guagnano G.A. Values, beliefs and proenvironmental action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 25 (1995) 1611-1636
72. Swanson F.J., and Franklin J.F. New forestry principles from ecosystem analysis of Pacific Northwest forests. Ecological Applications 2 (1992) 262-274
73. Tindall D.B. Social values and the contingent nature of public opinion and attitudes about forests. Forestry Chronicle 79 (2003) 692-705
74. Tips W.E.J., and Savasdidara T. The influence of environmental background of subjects on their landscape preference evaluations. Landscape and Urban Planning 13 (1986) 125-133
75. Tye M. The imagery of debate (1991), MIT Press, Boston
76. Ulrich R.S. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In: Altman I., and Wohlwill J.F. (Eds). Human behavior and environment Vol. 6 (1983), Plenum Press, New York 85-125
77. US Department of Agriculture & US Department of Interior. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the Northern Spotted Owl: Standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the Northern Spotted Owl (1994), Interagency Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Team, Portland, OR
78. Vanha-Majamaa I., and Jalonen J. Green tree retention in Fennoscandian forestry. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research Supplement 3 (2001) 79-90
79. Vaske J.J., and Donnelly M.P. A value-attitude-behavior model predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Society and Natural Resources 12 (1999) 523-537
80. Vining J. Environmental emotions and decisions: A comparison of the responses and expectations of forest managers, an environmental group, and the public. Environment and Behavior 24 (1992) 3-34
81. Wondolleck J. Public lands conflict and resolution: Managing national forest disputes (1988), Plenum Press, New York
82. Yaffee S.L. The wisdom of the spotted owl: Policy lessons for a new century (1994), Island Press, Washington, DC
83. Zajonc R.B. Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist 35 (1980) 151-175