Public awareness of aesthetic and other forest values associated with sustainable forest management: A cross-cultural comparison among the public in four countries

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 150, Issue , 2015, Pages 243-249

  Lim, Sang Seop ^a   Innes, John L ^b   Meitner, Michael ^b  

^a Korea Forest Service   (South Korea)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cross cultural comparison; Forest aesthetic indicator; Public awareness; Social forest value; Sustainable forest management

Indexed keywords

FORESTRY; MULTIVARIANT ANALYSIS; OFFICE BUILDINGS; STUDENTS;

AESTHETIC VALUE; CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISONS; FOREST AESTHETICS; FOREST ESTHETIC INDICATOR; MONTREAL PROCESS; PUBLIC AWARENESS; SOCIAL FOREST VALUE; STUDENT GROUPS; SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT; UNIVERSITY STUDENTS;

CLIMATE CHANGE;

ATTITUDINAL SURVEY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ESTHETICS; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FOREST RESOURCE; PERCEPTION; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; STUDENT; SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY;

AIR QUALITY; ARTICLE; AWARENESS; CANADA; CHINA; CLIMATE CHANGE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; CULTURAL FACTOR; CULTURAL VALUE; ESTHETICS; FOREST MANAGEMENT; GRADUATE STUDENT; HUMAN; JAPAN; KOREA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PUBLIC OPINION; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT; UNIVERSITY STUDENT; ADULT; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FEMALE; FOREST; MALE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SOUTH KOREA;

CANADA; CHINA; JAPAN; KOREA;

ADULT; CANADA; CHINA; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON; FEMALE; FORESTS; HUMANS; JAPAN; MALE; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPUBLIC OF KOREA;

EID: 84916918789     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.11.026     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Arthur L.M. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments: some empirical tests. For. Sci. 1997, 23:151-160.
2. Balling J.D., Falk J.H. Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environ. Behav. 1982, 14:5-28.
3. Bengston D.N. Changing forest values and ecosystem management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 1994, 7:515-533.
4. Daniel T.C., Boster R.S. Measuring landscape aesthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-167 1976, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
5. Dillman D.A., Smyth J.D., Christian L.M. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-mode Surveys: the Tailored Design Method 2009, Wiley Publishing, New York. third ed.
6. Dramstad W.E., Tveit M.S., Fjellstad W.J., Fry G.L.A. Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2006, 78:465-474.
7. Ferretti M. Forest health assessment and monitoring-issues for consideration. Environ. Monit. Assess. 1997, 48:45-72.
8. Gough A.D., Innes J.L., Allen S.D. Development of common indicators of sustainable forest management. Ecol. Ind. 2008, 8:425-430.
9. Harshaw H.W., Sheppard S.R.J., Jeakins P. Public attitudes toward sustainable forest management: opinions from forest-dependent communities in British Columbia, BC. J.Ecosyst. Manag. 2009, 10:81-103.
10. Harshaw H.W., Sheppard S.R.J., Kozak R.A., Maness T.C. Canfor Sustainable Forest Management Public Opinion Survey 2005/2006: Results for the Community of Quesnel 2006, http://www.harfolk.ca/Publications/Quesnel-SFM-POS_FINAL_v2.pdf.
11. Hull R.B., Reveli G.R.B. Cross-cultural comparison of landscape scenic beauty evaluations: a case study in Bali,. J.Environ. Psychol. 1989, 9:177-191.
12. Hunt L., Haider W. Fair and effective decision making in forest management planning. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2001, 14:873-887.
13. Kaplan R., Herbert E.J. Cultural and sub-cultural comparisons in preferences for natural settings. Landsc. Urban Plann. 1987, 14:281-293.
14. Korea forest Service (KFS) AReport of the Public Perception on Forest 2006, Department of Forest Policy of Korea Forest Service, Daejeon, Korea.
15. Kozak R.A., Spetic W.C., Harshaw H.W., Maness T.C., Sheppard S.R.J. Public priorities for sustainable forest management in six forest dependent communities of British Columbia. Can. J. For. Res. 2008, 38:3071-3084.
16. Lewis J.L. Challenges of interdisciplinarity for forest management and landscape perception research. From Landscape Research to Landscape Planning: Aspects of Integration 2005, 83-94. Springer, New York. G. Tress, B. Tress, G. Fry, P. Opdam (Eds.).
17. Mander U., Mueller F., Wrbka T. Functional and structural landscape indicators: upscaling and downscaling problems. Ecol. Ind. 2005, 5:267-272.
18. Manning R., Valliere W., Minteer B. Values, ethics, and attitudes toward national forest management: an empirical study. Soc. Nat. Resour. 1999, 12:421-436.
19. McDonald G.T., Lane M.B. Converging global indicators for sustainable forest management. For. Policy Econ. 2004, 6:63-70.
20. Meitner M., Sheppard S.R.J., Harshaw H.W. Arrow Forest District Public Values Survey Final Report: Putting Your Finger on the Pulse of the District, Arrow Forest District, IFPA Sustainability Project 2001, Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.
21. Meitner M.J., Harshaw H.W., Sheppard S.R.J., Picard P. Criterion 9: quality-of-life indicators, arrow innovative forest practices agreement series: extension note 8 of 8, BC. J.Ecosyst. Manag. 2006, 8:99-105.
22. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis 2005, Island Press, Washington D.C.
23. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) Improved Pan-European Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management, Fourth Ministerial Conference on the Protection of ForestS in Europe 2003, (Vienna, Austria).
24. Montreal Process (MP) Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests, Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests 2009, http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/mpci/2009p_4.pdf.
25. Mrosek T., Balsillie D. Criteria and Indicators for the Sustainability of Non-timber Forest Products and Services at the Local Level: a Case Study at the Haliburton Wild Life Reserve Ltd., Ontario 2004, 53-68. Canadian Forest Service, Victoria, BC. J.L. Innes, G.M. Hickey, B. Wilson (Eds.).
26. Mrosek T., Balsillie D., Schleifenbaum P. Field testing of a criteria and indicators system for sustainable forest management at the local level. Case study results concerning the sustainability of the private forest Haliburton Forest and Wild Life Reserve in Ontario, Canada. For. Policy Econ. 2006, 8:593-609.
27. Nasar J.L. Visual preferences in urban street scenes. J.Cross. Cult. Psychol. 1984, 15:79-93.
28. Owen R.J., Duinker P.N., Beckley T.M. Capturing old-growth values for use in forest decision-making. Environ. Manage. 2009, 43:237-248.
29. Parsons R., Daniel T.C. Good looking: in defense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2002, 60:43-56.
30. Purcell A.T., Lamb R.J., Mainardi Peron E., Falchero S. Preference or preferences for landscape. J.Environ. Psychol. 1994, 14:195-209.
31. Robson M., Hawley A., Robson D. Comparing the social values of forest-dependent, provincial and national publics for socially sustainable forest management. For. Chron. 2000, 76:615-622.
32. Schroeder H., Daniel T.C. Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes. For. Sci. 1981, 27(1):71-80.
33. Sheppard S.R.J. Knowing a socially sustainable forest when you see one: Implications for results-based forestry. For. Chron. 2003, 79:865-875.
34. Sheppard S.R.J., Achiam C., DEon R.G. Aesthetics: are we neglecting a critical issue in certification for sustainable forest management. J.For. 2004, 102:6-11.
35. Sheppard S.R.J., Achiam C.M. Public participation in forest decision making. Encyclopedia of Forest Sciences Encyclopedia of Forest Sciences 2004, 1173-1182. Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford. J. Burley (Ed.).
36. Sheppard S.R.J., Meitner M.J., Harshaw H.W., Wilson N., Pearce C. Public processes in sustainable forest management for the arrow forest district, #3 in the sustainability project extension note series, BC. J.Ecosyst. Manag. 2006, 7:57-66.
37. Spetic W., Kozak R., Cohen D. Willingness to pay and preferences for healthy home attributes in Canada. For. Prod. J. 2005, 55:19-24.
38. Toman M.A., Ashton P.M.S. Sustainable forest ecosystems and management: a review article. For. Sci. 1996, 42:366-377.
39. Tveit M.S. Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups. J.Environ. Manage. 2009, 90:2882-2888.
40. Yang B.E., Brown T.J. Across-cultural comparison of preferences for landscape styles and landscape elements. Environ. Behav. 1992, 24:471-507.
41. Yang B.E., Kaplan R. The perception of landscape style: a cross-cultural comparison,. Landsc. Urban Plann. 1990, 19:251-262.
42. Yu K. Cultural variations in landscape preference: comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and Western design experts. Landsc. Urban Plann. 1995, 32:107-126.
43. Zube E.H., Pitt D.G. Cross-cultural perceptions of scenic and heritage landscapes. Landsc. Plann. 1981, 8:69-87.