Clearfell controversies and alternative timber harvest designs: How acceptability perceptions vary between Tasmania and the U.S. Pacific Northwest

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 114, Issue , 2013, Pages 46-62

  Ribe, Robert G ^a   Ford, Rebecca M ^b   Williams, Kathryn J H ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Cross regional analysis; Forest conflict; Landscape perception; Social acceptability; Timber harvest design; Variable retention

Indexed keywords

ECOLOGY; REFORESTATION; REGIONAL PLANNING; RISK PERCEPTION; TIMBER;

CROSS REGIONAL ANALYSE; FOREST CONFLICTS; LANDSCAPE PERCEPTIONS; PACIFIC NORTHWEST; REGIONAL ANALYSIS; REGIONAL DIFFERENCES; SOCIAL ACCEPTABILITY; TIMBER HARVEST DESIGN; TIMBER HARVESTS; VARIABLE RETENTIONS;

HARVESTING;

ATTITUDINAL SURVEY; CLEARCUTTING; COMMERCIAL SPECIES; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; ESTHETICS; PRIORITIZATION; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; REGENERATION; RISK PERCEPTION; SILVICULTURE; TIMBER HARVESTING; TIMBER INDUSTRY; WILDFIRE;

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; ESTHETICS; FORESTRY; HABITAT; HARVEST; HUMAN; SAFETY; SOCIAL ATTITUDE; TIMBER HARVEST DESIGN; TREE; UNITED STATES;

AUSTRALIA; OREGON; PACIFIC NORTHWEST; TASMANIA; UNITED STATES;

OREGONIA;

EID: 84870328169     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.09.029     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Alcorn P.J., Dingle J.K., Hickey J.E. Age and stand structure in a multi- aged wet eucalypt forest at the Warra silvicultural systems trial. Tasforests 2001, 13:245-259.
2. Aubry K.B., Halpern C.B., Peterson C.E. Variable-retention harvests in the Pacific Northwest: a review of short-term findings from the DEMO study. Forest Ecology and Management 2009, 258:398-408.
3. Australian Bureau of Statistics Census of Population and Housing Data, Based on Place of Usual Residence 2006.
4. Barnes T.J., Hayter R. No " Greek-letter writing" : local models of resource economies. Growth and Change 2005, 36:453-470.
5. Beckwith J.A., Moore S.A., Clement S.E., Curnow B.D., Admiraal R. The impact of forest thinning on perceptions of recreational value and forest health. A Technical Report Prepared as Part of the Wungong Catchment Research Trial 2010, Beckwith Environmental Planning and Murdoch University, Perth, AU.
6. Behan R.W. Multi-resource forest management: a paradigmatic challenge to professional forestry. Journal of Forestry 1990, 88(4):12-18.
7. British Columbia Ministry of Forests Partial Cutting Safety Handbook 1997, Forest Renewal British Columbia and British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Forest Practices Branch. ISBN 0-7726-3369-X.
8. Bishop I.D., Fasken G., Ford R.M., Hicky J.E., Loiterton D., Williams K.J.H. Visual simulation of forest regrowth under different harvest options. Trends in landscape modelling. Proceedings at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Dessau, Germany, May 15-16 2003, 46-55.
9. Bishop I.D., Ford R.M., Loiterton D., Williams K.J.H. Studying the acceptability of forest management practices using visual simulation of forest regrowth. Visualization in Landscape and Environmental Planning 2005, 112-119. Taylor and Francis, London. I.D. Bishop, E. Lange (Eds.).
10. Bliss J.C. Public perceptions of clearcutting. Journal of Forestry 2000, 98(12):4-9.
11. Bloch, A., and Murphy, S., 1994. Safety of Forest Harvesting Under Alternative Silvicultural Systems in a Lower Sclerophyll Eucalypt Forest in East Gippsland. VSP Technical Report Number 23, Native Forest Research, Victoria Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Forest Research and Development Branch, Value Adding and Silvicultural Systems Program, Melbourne.
12. Brunson M. " Socially acceptable" forestry: what does it imply for ecosystem management?. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 1993, 8:116-119.
13. Brunson M.W., Reiter D.K. Effects of ecological information on judgments about scenic impacts of timber harvests. Journal of Environmental Management 1996, 46:31-41.
14. Buijs A.E., Elands B.H.M., Langers F. No wilderness for immigrants: cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning 2009, 91:113-123.
15. Burchfield J.A., Miller J.M., Allen S., Schroeder R.F., Miller T. 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 2003, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-575, USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR.
16. Butula S. Landscape evaluation and public preferences: is there room for optimisation?. Agriculturae Conspectus Scientificus 2008, 73:109-114.
17. Carroll M. Community and the Northwestern Logger: Communities and Changes in the Era of the Spotted Owl 1995, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 177 pp.
18. Castro P. Applying social psychology to the study of environmental concern and environmental worldviews: contributions from the social representations approach. Journal of Communication and Applied Social Psychology 2006, 16:247-266.
19. Clausen D.L., Schroeder R.F. Social Acceptability of Alternatives to Clearcutting: Discussion and Literature Review with Emphasis on Southeast Alaska 2004, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-594, USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR.
20. Dargavel J. Fashioning Australia's Forests 1995, Oxford University Press, Auckland, NZ, 312 pp.
21. Davis K.P. Forest Management 1966, McGraw-Hill, New York, 519 pp. second ed.
22. Donoghue E.M., Sutton N.L. Socioeconomic change in planning provinces of the Northwest Forest Plan region. Northwest Science 2006, 80:73-85.
23. Dreyfuss H. Symbol Sourcebook: an Authoritative Guide to International Graphic Symbols 1984, McGraw-Hill, New York, 288 pp.
24. Ford, R.M., 2006. Social acceptability of forest management systems. PhD thesis, The University of Melbourne.
25. Ford R.M., Williams K.J.H., Bishop I.D., Webb T. A value basis for the social acceptability of clearfelling in Tasmania, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning 2009, 90:196-206.
26. Ford R.M., Williams K., Bishop I., Hickey J.E. Public judgments of the social acceptability of silvicultural alternatives in Tasmanian wet Eucalypt forests. Australian Forestry 2009, 72:157-171.
27. Forgy E.W. Cluster analysis of multivariate data: efficiency versus interpretability of classifications. Biometrika 1965, 21:768.
28. Franklin J.F., Dyrness C.T. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington 1973, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-008, USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR, 427 pp.
29. Franklin J.F., Perry D.A., Schowalter T.D., Harmon M.E., Mckee A., Spies T.A. Importance of ecological diversity in maintaining long-term site productivity. Maintaining the Long-term Productivity of Pacific Northwest Forest Ecosystems 1989, 82-97. Timber Press, Portland, OR. D.A. Perry, R. Meurisse, B. Thomas, R. Miller, J. Boyle, J. Means, C.R. Perry, R.F. Power (Eds.).
30. Franklin J.F., Berg D.R., Thornburgh D.A., Tappeiner J.C. Alternative silvicultural approaches to timber harvesting: variable retention harvest systems. Creating a Forestry for the 21st Century: the Science of Ecosystem Management 1997, 111-139. Island Press, Washington, DC. K.A. Kohm, J.F. Franklin (Eds.).
31. Gagnon-Thompson S.C., Barton M.A. Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1994, 14:149-157.
32. Gamborg C. The acceptability of forest management practices: an analysis of ethical accounting and the ethical matrix. Forest Policy and Economics 2002, 4:175-186.
33. Groombridge B., Jenkins M.D. World Atlas of Biodiversity: Earth's Living Resources in the 21st Century 2002, University of California Press, London, 352 pp.
34. Halpern C.B., Mckenzie D., Evans S.A., Maguire D.A. Initial responses of forest understories to varying levels and patterns of green-tree retention. Ecological Applications 2005, 15:175-195.
35. Hansis R. The social acceptability of clearcutting in the Pacific Northwest. Human Organization 1995, 54:95-101.
36. Herzog T.R., Herbert E.J., Kaplan R., Crooks C.L. Cultural and developmental comparisons of landscape perceptions and preferences. Environment and Behavior 2000, 32:323-346.
37. Hickey J.E., Neyland M.G., Bassett O.D. Rationale and design for the Warra Silvicultural systems trial in wet Eucalyptus obliqua forests in Tasmania. Tasforests 2001, 13:155-182.
38. Hickey J.E., Brown M.J. Towards ecological forestry in Tasmania. Towards Forest Sustainability 2003, 31-46. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Collingwood, VC, Australia. J.F. Franklin, D.B. Lindenmayer (Eds.).
39. Homann P.S., Bormann B.T., Boyle J.R. Detecting treatment differences in soil carbon and nitrogen resulting from forest manipulations. Soil Science Society of America Journal 2001, 65:463-469.
40. Hull R.B., Revell G.R.B. Cross-cultural comparison of landscape scenic beauty evaluations: a case study in Bali. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1989, 9:177-191.
41. Inglehart R., Welzel C. Changing mass priorities: the link between modernization and democracy. Perspectives on Politics 2010, 8:551-567.
42. Kaplan R., Herbert E.J. Cultural and sub-cultural comparisons in preferences for natural settings. Landscape and Urban Planning 1987, 14:281-293.
43. Kearney A.R. Effects of an informational intervention on public reactions to clear-cutting. Society and Natural Resources 2001, 14:777-790.
44. Kearney A.R., Bradley G.A. The effects of viewer attributes on preference for forest scenes: contributions of attitudes, knowledge, demographic factors, and stakeholder group membership. Environment and Behaviour 2011, 43:147-181.
45. Klenner W., Arsenault A., Brockerhoff E.G., Vyse A. Biodiversity in forest ecosystems and landscapes: a conference to discuss future directions in biodiversity management for sustainable forestry. Forest Ecology and Management 2009, 258(Suppl. 1).
46. LeMaster D.C. Decade of Change: the Remaking of Forest Service Statutory Authority During the 1970's 1984, Contributions in Political Science Number 113, Greenwood Press, Westport, CN.
47. Lewis J.L. Interethnic preferences for landscape change: a comparison of First Nations and Euro-Canadian residents. Landscape Journal 2010, 29:215-231.
48. Towards Forest Sustainability 2003, Island Press, Washington, DC, (Co-published with CSIRO Publishing). D.B. Lindenmayer, J.F. Franklin (Eds.).
49. Manning R., Valliere W., Minteer B. Values, ethics and attitudes toward national forest management: an empirical study. Society and Natural Resources 1999, 12:421-436.
50. Meitner M.J., Gandy R., D'Eon R.G. Human perceptions of forest fragmentation: implications for natural disturbance management. Forestry Chronicle 2005, 81:256-264.
51. McCormack R. Safety and occupational health in forestry operations in Australia - changes in approach through time. Applying Reduced Impact Logging to Advanced Sustainable Forest Management: International Conference Proceedings, 26 February to 1 March 2001, Kuching, Malaysia 2002, Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission and United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand, Section 20. T. Enters, P.B. Durst, G.B. Applegate, P.C.S. Kho, G. Man (Eds.).
52. Olsen C.S., Mallon A.L., Shindler B.A. Public acceptance of disturbance-based forest management: factors influencing support. International Scholarly Research Network ISRN Forestry 2012, 2012. Article ID 594067, 10 pp.
53. Palmer J.F. A multi-national study of the perception of visual impacts. Landscape Review 2004, 9:184-187.
54. Palmer J.F., Hoffman R.E. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001, 54:149-161.
55. Ribe R.G. Is scenic beauty a proxy for acceptable management? The influence of environmental attitudes on landscape perceptions. Environment and Behaviour 2002, 34:757-780.
56. Ribe R.G. Perceptions of forestry alternatives in the U.S. Pacific Northwest: information effects and acceptability distribution analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2006, 26:100-115.
57. Ribe R.G. In-stand scenic beauty of variable retention harvests and mature forests in the U.S. Pacific Northwest: the effects of basal area, density, retention pattern and down wood. Journal of Environmental Management 2009, 91:245-260.
58. Ribe R.G., Matteson M.Y. Views of old forestry and new among reference groups in the Pacific Northwest. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 2002, 17:173-182.
59. Robertson B. How to Draw Charts and Diagrams 1988, North Light Books, Cincinnati, OH.
60. Sheppard S. Knowing a socially sustainable forest when you see one: implications for results-based forestry. The Forestry Chronicle 2003, 79:865-875.
61. Sheppard S. Guidance for crystal ball gazers: developing a code of ethics for landscape visualization. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004, 54:183-199.
62. Shindler B., Cramer L.A. Shifting public values for forest management: making sense of wicked problems. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 1999, 14:28-34.
63. Shindler B., Steel B.S., List P. Public judgments of adaptive management: a response from forest communities. Journal of Forestry 1996, 94(6):8-12.
64. Shindler B.A., Brunson M., Stankey G.H. Social Acceptability of Forest Conditions and Management Practices: a Problem Analysis 2002, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-537, USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR.
65. Sousa D.J. The resilience of the Northwest forest plan: green drift?. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 2011, 1:114-125.
66. St.Clair J. Cutting it down the middle: Clinton's forest plan. Forest Watch 1993, 14(1):4-14.
67. State of Tasmania Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement Between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Tasmania: November 1997 1997, State of Tasmania and Commonwealth of Australia, Hobart, Tasmania.
68. State of Tasmania Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement: Sustainability Indicators for the First Review in 2002 2000, State of Tasmania and Commonwealth of Australia, Hobart, Tasmania.
69. State of Tasmania A Way Forward for Tasmania's Forests: The Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement 2005, State of Tasmania and Commonwealth of Australia, Hobart, Tasmania.
70. State of Tasmania Tasmanian Government Policy for Maintaining a Permanent Native Forest Estate, December 2009 2009, State of Tasmania and Commonwealth of Australia, Hobart, Tasmania.
71. Steinley D. K-means clustering: a half-century synthesis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 2006, 59:1-34.
72. Swanson F.J., Franklin J.F. New forestry principles from ecosystem analysis of Pacific Northwest forests. Ecological Applications 1992, 2:262-274.
73. Tindall D.B. Social values and the contingent nature of public opinion and attitudes about forests. Forestry Chronicle 2003, 79:692-705.
74. Tips W.E.J., Savasdisara T. The influence of the environmental background of subjects on their landscape preference evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning 1986, 13:125-133.
75. US Census Bureau American Community Survey, 5-year Estimate for 2005-2009 2011.
76. USDA, USDI 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 SEIS Team, Portland, OR.
77. Van den Berg A., Vlek C. The influence of planned-change context on the evaluation of natural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 1998, 43:1-10.
78. Wain A., Mills G., McCaw L., Brown T. Managing smoke from wildfires and prescribed burning in southern Australia. Developments in Environmental Science 2009, vol. 8:535-550. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
79. Williams K.J., Ford R.M., Bishop I.D., Loiterton D., Hickey J.E. Realism and selectivity in data-driven visualisations: a process for developing viewer-oriented landscape surrogates. Landscape and Urban Planning 2007, 81:213-224.
80. Yaffee S.L. The Wisdom of the Spotted Owl: Policy Lessons for a New Century 1994, Island Press, Washington, DC.
81. Zube E.H., Pitt D.G. Cross-cultural perceptions of scenic and heritage landscapes. Landscape Planning 1981, 8:69-87.