The social context of ecosystem management: Unanswered questions and unresolved issues

USDA Forest Service - General Technical Report PNW

Volumn PNW_GTR, Issue 369, 1996, Pages 113-126

  Brunson, Mark W ^a  

^a UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Acceptability; Biocentrism; Ecosystem management; Public participation; Risk perception; Scientific uncertainty; Values of knowledge

Indexed keywords

EID: 4243182760     PISSN: 08874840     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Atkinson, William A. 1992. Silvicultural correctness: the politicization of forest science. Western Wildlands. 17(4): 8-12.
2. Birch, Kevin R.; Johnson, K. Norman. 1992. Stand-level wood-production costs of leaving live, mature trees at regeneration harvest in coastal Douglas-fir stands. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 7(3): 65-68.
3. Brown, Greg; Harris, Charles C. 1992. The U.S. Forest Service: Toward the new resource management paradigm? Society and Natural Resources. 5(3): 231-246.
4. Brunson, Mark W. 1991. Effects of traditional and "new forestry" practices on recreational and scenic quality of managed forests. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 192 p. Ph.D. dissertation.
5. Brunson, Mark W. 1992. Social acceptability of New Perspectives practices and conditions. Final project report prepared for the Cascade Center for Ecosystem Management, Consortium for the Social Values of Natural Resources, Olympic Natural Resources Center, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
6. Brunson, Mark W.; Shelby, Bo. 1992. Assessing recreational and scenic quality: how does "new forestry" rate? Journal of Forestry. 90(7): 37-41.
7. Brunson, Mark W.; Steel, Brent S. 1994. National public attitudes toward federal rangeland management. Rangelands. 16(2): 77-81.
8. Catton, William R.; Dunlap, Riley E. 1980. A new ecological paradigm for post-exuberant sociology. American Behavioral Scientist. 24: 15-47.
9. Craig, Ray. 1992. Land ethic canon proposal: a report for the task force. Journal of Forestry. 90(8): 40-41.
10. Devall, Bill; Sessions, George. 1985. Deep ecology: living as if nature mattered. Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith. 266 p.
11. Fiedler, Carl. 1992. New forestry: concepts and applications. Western Wildlands. 17(4): 2-7.
12. Fischoff, Baruch; Lichtenstein, Sarah; Slovic, Paul; [and others]. 1981. Acceptable risk. New York: Cambridge University Press. 185 p.
13. Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1005 p.
14. Franklin, Jerry F. 1989. Toward a new forestry. American Forests. (Nov./Dec.): 37-44.
15. Freudenberg, Nicholas. 1984. Citizen action for environmental health: report on a survey of community organizations. American Journal of Public Health. 74: 444-448.
16. Freudenburg, William R. 1993. Risk and recreancy: Weber, the division of labor, and the rationality of risk perceptions. Social Forces. 71(4): 909-932.
17. Frisell, Christopher A.; Nawa, Richard K.; Noss, Reed. 1992. Is there any conservation biology in "New Perspectives"? A response to Salwasser. Conservation Biology 6(3): 461-464.
18. Iverson, David C.; Alston, Richard M. 1993. Ecosystem-based forestry requires a broader economic focus. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 1(2): 97-106.
19. Kerr, Andy. 1990. New (age) perspectives: glossy dogma to hide old habits. Forest Watch. October: 22-25.
20. Leopold, Aldo. 1966. A Sand County almanac, with essays on conservation from Round River. New York: Oxford University Press. 269 p.
21. Long, James N.; Roberts, Scott D. 1992. Growth and yield implications of a "new forestry" silvicultural system. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 7(1): 6-9.
22. McCool, Stephen F.; Benson, Robert E.; Ashor, Joseph L. 1986. How the public perceives the visual effects of timber harvesting: an evaluation of interest group preferences. Environmental Management. 10(3): 385-391.
23. Rolston, Holmes III; Coufal, James. 1991. A forest ethic and multivalue forest management. Journal of Forestry. 89(4): 35-40.
24. Shindler, Bruce; List, Peter; Steel, Brent S. 1993. Managing federal forests: public attitudes in Oregon and nationwide. Journal of Forestry. 91(7): 36-42.
25. Stankey, George H.; Clark, Roger N. 1991. Social aspects of New Perspectives in Forestry: a problem analysis. Milford, PA: Grey Towers Press. 33 p.
26. Steel, Brent S.; List, Peter; Shindler, Bruce. 1994. Conflicting values about federal forests: a comparison of national and Oregon publics. Society and Natural Resources. 7(2): 137-153.
27. Strauss, Anselm; Corbin, Juliet. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Publications. 270 p.
28. Swanson, Frederick J.; Franklin, Jerry F. 1992. New forestry principles from ecosystem analysis of Pacific Northwest forests. Ecological Applications. 2: 262-274.
29. Weigand, James F.; Burditt, A. Lynn. 1992. Economic implications for management of structural retention on harvest units at the Blue River Ranger District, Willamette National Forest, Oregon. Res. Note PNW-510. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 17 p.
30. Zuckerman, Seth. 1992. New forestry? New hype... Sierra. 77(2): 40-45,67.