Public judgements of the social acceptability of silvicultural alternatives in tasmanian wet eucalypt forests

Australian Forestry

Volumn 72, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 157-171

  Ford, Rebecca M ^a   Williams, Kathryn J H ^a   Bishop, Ian D ^a   Hickey, John E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b FORESTRY TASMANIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Acceptability; Aesthetic value; Beliefs; Landscape; Silvicultural systems; Social values; Tasmania

Indexed keywords

CALIBRATION; HARVESTING; RATING; REFORESTATION;

ACCEPTABILITY; AESTHETIC VALUE; BELIEFS; LANDSCAPE; SILVICULTURAL SYSTEM; SOCIAL VALUES; TASMANIA;

FORESTRY;

HARVESTING; LOGGING; REFORESTATION; SILVICULTURE; SOCIOLOGY; TASMANIA;

EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUS;

EID: 75149193211     PISSN: 00049158     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00049158.2009.10676298     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Abelson, R. P., 1988. Conviction. American Psychologist, 43:267–275.
2. Anderson, L. M., Levi, D. J., Daniel, T. C., and Dieterich, J. H., 1982. The Esthetic Effects of Prescribed Burning:A Case Study. USDA Forest Research Note RM-413 Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.
3. Arthur, L. M., 1977. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments:some empirical tests. Forest Science, 23:151–159.
4. Bishop, I. D., Fasken, G., Ford, R. M., Hickey, J. E., Loiterton, D., and Williams, K. J., 2003. “ Visual simulation of forest regrowth under different harvest options. ”. In Trends in Landscape Modelling. 46–55. H. Proceedings at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Dessau, Germany
5. Bishop, I. D., Ford, R. M., Loiterton, D., and Williams, K. J.H., 2005. “ Studying the acceptability of forest management practices using visual simulation of forest regrowth. ”. In Visualization in Landscape and Environmental Planning. Edited by:Bishop, I. D., and Lange, E., 112–119. London:Taylor and Francis.
6. Brunson, M., 1996. “ A definition of'Social Acceptability' in ecosystem management. ”. In Defining Social Acceptability in Ecosystem Management:A Workshop Proceedings. Edited by:Brunson, M., Kruger, L., Tyler, C., and Schroeder, S., 7–16. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Portland, Oregon
7. Brunson, M., and Kruger, L., 1996. “ Introduction:social acceptability in ecosystem management. ”. In Defining Social Acceptability in Ecosystem Management:A Workshop Proceedings. Edited by:Brunson, M., Kruger, L., Tyler, C., and Schroeder, S., 1–5. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Portland, Oregon
8. Brunson, M., and Reiter, D. K., 1996. Effects of ecological information on judgements about scenic impacts of timber harvest. Journal of Environmental Management, 46:31–42.
9. Brunson, M., and Shelby, B., 1992. Assessing recreational and scenic quality. Journal of Forestry, 90 (7):37–41.
10. Brush, R. O., 1979. The attractiveness of woodlands:perceptions of forest landowners in Massechusetts. Forest Science, 25:495–506.
11. Bryman, A., 2001. Social Research Methods. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
12. Burchfield, J. A., Miller, J. M., Allen, S., Schroeder, R. F., and 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. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PNW-GTR-575, Missoula, Montana.
13. Daniel, T. C., 2001a. “ Aesthetic preference and ecological sustainability. ”. In Forests and Landscapes:Linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics. IUFRO Research Series No. 6. Edited by:Sheppard, S., and Harshaw, H. W., 15–29. CABI Publishing in association with the International Union of Forestry Research Organisations:Wallingford, Oxon
14. Daniel, T. C., 2001b. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54:267–281.
15. Daniel, T. C., and Boster, R. S., 1976. Measuring Landscape Esthetics:The Scenic Beauty Estimation Method. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research Paper RM-167, Fort Collins, Colorado.
16. Dargavel, J., 1995. Fashioning Australia s Forests. Melbourne:Oxford University Press.
17. Endter-Wada, J., Blahna, D., Krannich, R., and Brunson, M., 1998. A framework for understanding social science contributions to ecosystem management. Ecological Applications, 8:891–904.
18. Ford, R. M., 2006. Social acceptability of forest management systems. PhD thesis, The University of Melbourne.
19. Ford, R. M., Williams, K. J., Bishop, I. D., and Webb, T. J., 2005. Social acceptability of forest management systems:Project overview. Parkville:University of Melbourne. The http://www.landfood.unimelb. edu.au/research/social/psychology/projects.html
20. Ford, R. M., Williams, K. J., Bishop, I. D., and Webb, T. J., 2009. A value basis for the social acceptability of clearfelling in Tasmania, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning, 90:196–206.
21. Ford, R. M., Williams, K. J., Bishop, I. D., and Hickey, J. E., “ (in press) Effects of information on the social acceptability of alternatives to clearfelling in Australian wet eucalypt forests. ”. In Environmental Management, DOI 10.1007/s00267–009–9392–7.
22. Forest Practices Board. 2000. Forest Practices Code. Forest Practices Board, Hobart, Tasmania.
23. Gobster, PH., 2001. “ Foreword. ”. In Forests and Landscapes:Linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics. IUFRO Research Series No. 6. CABI Publishing in association with the International Union of Forestry Research Organisations, Wallingford, Oxon, pp. xxi-xxviii. Edited by:Sheppard, S., and Harshaw, H. W.
24. Hickey, J. E., Neyland, M. G., and Bassett, O. D., 2001. Rationale and design for the Warra Silvicultural Systems Trial in wet Eucalyptus obliqua forests in Tasmania. Tasforests, 13:155–182.
25. Hocking, T., 2004. Forestry management—Enterprise Marketing and Research Services poll report card:room for improvement. The Sunday Examiner, Launceston, Australia, 21 March 2004, pp., 1:12–15.
26. Hull, R. B., and Buhyoff, G. J., 1986. The Scenic Beauty Temporal Distribution Method:an attempt to make scenic beauty assessments compatible with forest planning efforts. Forest Science, 32:271–286.
27. McCool, S. F., Benson, R. E., and Ashor, J. L., 1986. How the public perceives the visual effects of timber harvesting:an evaluation of interest group preferences. Environmental Management, 10:385–391.
28. Mertens, D. M., 1998. Research Methods in Education and Psychology:Integrating Diversity with Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, California:Sage Publications.
29. QSR International Pty Ltd. 2002. QSR NVIVO Version 2.0.161. QSR, http://www.qsrinternational.com/ (accessed 4 Nov 2009)
30. Ribe, R., 1989. The aesthetics of forestry:what has empirical preference research taught us?. Environmental Management, 13:55–74.
31. Ribe, R., 1999. Regeneration harvests versus clearcuts:public views of the acceptability and aesthetics of Northwest forest plan harvests. Northwest Science, 73:102–117. (Special Issue)
32. Ribe, R., 2002. Is scenic beauty a proxy for acceptable management? The influence of environmental attitudes on landscape perceptions. Environment and Behaviour, 34:757–780.
33. Ribe, R., 2005. Aesthetic perceptions of green-tree retention harvests in vista views:the interaction of cut level, retention pattern and harvest shape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 73:277–293.
34. Ribe, R., 2006. Perceptions of forestry alternatives in the US Pacific Northwest:information effects and acceptability distribution analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26:100–115.
35. Ribe, R. G., Armstrong, E. T., and Gobster, P. H., 2002. Scenic vistas and the changing policy landscape:visualising and testing the role of visual resources in ecosystem management. Landscape Journal, 21:42–68.
36. Routley, R., and Routley, V., 1974. The Fight for the Forests:The Takeover of Australian Forests for Pines, Woodchips and Intensive Forestry. Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University:Canberra.
37. Ruddell, E. J., Gramann, J. H., Rudis, V. A., and Westphal, J. M., 1989. The psychological utility of visual penetration in near-view forest scenic-beauty models. Environment and Behaviour, 21:393–412.
38. Schweitzer, H. W., Ullrich, J. R., and Benson, R. E., 1976. Esthetic Evaluation of Timber Harvesting in the Northern Rockies:A Progress Report. USDA Forest Research Note INT-203, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah.
39. Shelby, B., Thompson, J., Brunson, M., and Johnson, R., 2003. Changes in scenic quality after harvest:a decade of ratings for six silvicultural treatments. Journal of Forestry, 101:30–35.
40. Shindler, B. A., Brunson, M. W., and Stankey, G. H., 2002. Social Acceptability of Forest Conditions and Management Practices:A Problem Analysis. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, PNW-GTR-537, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
41. Tasmania Together Community Leaders Group. 2001. Tasmania Together. The Group, Hobart.
42. Tasmanian Public Land Use Commission. 1996. Tasmanian—Commonwealth Regional Forest Agreement, Social and Economic Report., 1 Background Report, The Commission, Hobart, Tasmania
43. Thorn, A. J., Daniel, T. C., Orland, B., and Brabyn, N., 1997. Managing forest aesthetics in production forests. New Zealand Journal of Forestry, 42 (2):21–29.
44. Tonnes, S., Kaijalainen, E., Lofstrom, I., and Neuvonen, M., 2004. Scenic impacts of retention trees in clear-cutting areas. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 19:348–357.
45. Vodak, M. C., Roberts, P. L., Wellman, J. D., and Buhyoff, G. J., 1985. Scenic impacts of eastern hardwood management. Forest Science, 31:289–302.
46. Williams, K. J., Ford, R. M., Bishop, I. D., Loiterton, D., and Hickey, J. E., 2007. Realism and selectivity in data-driven visualisations:a process for developing viewer-oriented landscape surrogates. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81:213–224.
47. Williamson, D. N., and Chalmers, J. A., 1982. Perceptions of Forest Scenic Quality in Northeast Victoria:A Technical Report of Research Phases I and II. Forests Commission Victoria, Melbourne.
48. Yeiser, J. L., and Shilling, C. L., 1978. Student responses to selected terms and scenes in natural resource management. Journal of Forestry, 76:497–498.