Abstract
For years, public and private resource management organizations have sought to implement sustainable policies and programs that achieve various forest management goals; yet success has proven elusive. Although such efforts have been marked by significant investments in assessing the biophysical and economic aspects of proposals, public opposition often has stymied implementation. One example—and the focus of this book—is reflected in the search for forest management policies and programs that increase the compatibility between wood production and other forest uses and values. Efforts to use timber harvesting as part of a forest management strategy that incorporates commodity production with a host of other purposes, from fire control to biodiversity enhancment, have been engulfed in controversy. At their core, such conflicts reveal the importance of social acceptability, which implies a sufficient level of public understanding and accord to permit policy implementation. Such judgments ultimately affect all forestland management, irrespective of tenure, although they are particularly salient at present with regard to public lands.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Birch, T.A. 1996. Private forest-land owners of the United States, 1994. Resource Bulletin NE-134. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 183 p.
Blahna, D.J., and Yonts-Shepard, S. 1989. Public involvement in resource planning: toward bridging the gap between policy and implementation. Society and Natural Resources, 2: 209–227.
Bliss, J.C. 2000. Public perceptions of clearcutting. Journal of Forestry, 98(12): 4–10.
Bliss, J.C., Nepal, S.K., Brooks, R.T., Jr., and Larsen, M.D. 1994. Forestry community or granfalloon? Journal of Forestry, 92(9): 6–10.
Bliss, J.C., Nepal, S.K., Brooks, R.T., Jr., and Larsen, M.D. 1997. In the mainstream: environmental attitudes of mid-south NIPF owners. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 21(1): 37–42.
Bridges, W. 1991. Managing transitions: making the most of change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. 130 p.
Brown, P.J., Driver, B.L., and McConnell, C. 1978. The opportunity spectrum concept and behavioral information in outdoor recreation resource supply inventories: background and application. In: G.H. Lund, V.J. LaBau, P.F. Ffolliott, and D.W. Robinson (Tech. coords.), Integrated inventories of renewable natural resources: proceedings of the workshop (pp. 73–84). General Technical Report RM-55. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Brown, T.C., and Daniel, T.C 1986. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. Forest Science, 32: 471–487.
Brunson, M. 1993. “Socially acceptable” forestry: What does it imply for ecosystem management? Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 8(4): 116–119.
Brunson, M. 1996. A definition of “social acceptability” in ecosystem management. In: M.W. Brunson, L.E. Kruger, C.B. Tyler, and S.A. Schroeder (Eds.), Defining social acceptability in ecosystem management: workshop proceedings (pp. 7–16). General Technical Report PNW-GTR-369. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Brunson, M.W., and Reiter, D.K. 1996. Effects of ecological information on judgments about scenic impacts of timber harvest. Journal of Environmental Management, 46: 31–41.
Brunson, M.W., and Shelby, B. 1992. Assessing recreational and scenic quality: How does “new forestry” rate? Journal of Forestry, 90(7): 37–41.
Burchfield, J.A., Miller, J.M., Allen, S., Schroeder, R.F., and Miller, T. [In press]. Social implications of alternatives to clearcutting on the Tongass National Forest: an exploratory study of residents’ responses to alternative silvicultural treatments at Hanus Bay. General Technical Report. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 28 p.
Clark, R.N. 1987. Recreation management: a question of integration. Western Wildlands, 13(1): 20–23.
Clark, R.N. 1988. Enhancing recreation opportunities in silvicultural planning. In: W.C. Schmidt (Comp.), Proceedings, Future forests of the Mountain West: a stand culture symposium. (pp. 61–69). General Technical Report INT-243. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.
Clark, R.N., and Brown, P.J. 1990. The emerging web of integrated resource management. Proceedings of the 1990 IUFRO XIX World Congress, Montreal, Canada. 6: 24–33.
Clark, R.N., and Gibbons, D.R. 1991. Recreation. In: W.R. Meehan (Ed.), Influences of forest and rangeland on salmonid fishes and their habitat. (Chapter 13 pp. 459–481), Special Publication 19. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society.
Clark, R.N., Koch, R.W., Hogans, M.L., Christensen, H.H., and Hendee, J.C. 1984. The value of roaded, multiple-use areas as recreation sites in three national forests of the Pacific Northwest. Research Paper PNW-319. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 40 p.
Clark, R.N., and Stankey, G.H. 1979. The recreation opportunity spectrum: a framework for planning, management, and research. General Technical Report PNW-98. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 32 p.
Clarke, J.N., and McCool, D.C. 1996. Staking out the terrain: power and performance among natural resource agencies (2nd ed.). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 279 p.
Clawson, M. 1974. Conflicts, strategies, and possibilities for consensus in forest land use and management. In: M. Clawson (Ed.), Forest policy for the future: conflict, compromise, consensus (pp. 105–191). Papers and discussions from a forum on forest policy for the future. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. 360 p.
Cortner, H.J., Wallace, M., Burke, S., and Moote, M.A. 1998. Institutions matter: the need to address the institutional challenges of ecosystem management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 40: 159–166.
Edwards, K.K., and Bliss, J.C. 2003. It’s a neighborhood now: practicing forestry at the urban fringe. Journal of Forestry, 101(3): 6–11.
Ehrenhaldt, A. 1994. Let the people decide between spinach and broccoli. Governing, 7(10): 6–7.
Firey, W. 1960. Man, mind, and land: a theory of resource use. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press of Glencoe. 256 p.
Fischer, F. 2000. Citizens, experts, and the environment: the politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 336 p.
Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior [et al.]. [Irregular pagination].
Friedmann, J. 1987. Planning in the public domain: from knowledge to action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 501 p.
Gobster, P.H. 1996. Forest aesthetics, biodiversity, and the perceived appropriateness of ecosystem management activities. In: M.W. Brunson, L.E. Kruger, C.B. Tyler, and S.A. Schroeder (Eds.), Defining social acceptability in ecosystem management: workshop proceedings (pp. 77–97). General Technical Report PNW-GTR-369. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Hodgson, R.W., and Thayer, R.L., Jr. 1980. Implied human influence reduces landscape beauty. Landscape Planning, 7(2): 171–179.
Hoover, W.L., Mills, W.L., Jr., and Vasan, S. 1997. Nonindustrial private forest landowners in Indiana: are their objectives and attitudes consistent with ecosystem management? In: H.K. Cordell (Ed.), Integrating social science and ecosystem management: a national challenge: proceedings of the conference on integrating social sciences and ecosystem management (pp. 150–155). General Technical Report SRS-17. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station.
Hummel, S. 2003. Managing structural and compositional diversity with silviculture. Chapter 4. In: R.A. Monserud, R.W. Haynes, and A.C. Johnson (Eds.), Compatible forest management. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Jamieson, D. 1994. Problems and prospects for a Forest Service program in the human dimensions of global change. In: K. Geyer, and B. Shindler (Eds.), Breaking the mold: global change, social responsibility, and natural resource management (pp. 23–28). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University.
Jasanoff, S. 1990. The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 302 p.
Kakoyannis, C., Shindler, B., and Stankey, G. 2001. Understanding the social acceptability of natural resource decisionmaking processes by using a knowledge base modeling approach. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-518. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 40 p.
Kruger, L. 2001. What is essential is invisible to the eye: understanding the role of place and social learning in achieving sustainable landscapes. In: S.R.J. Sheppard, and H.W. Harshaw (Eds.), Forest and landscapes: linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics (pp. 173–187). Wallingford, Oxon, United Kingdom: CABI Publishing.
Lang, R. 1990. Achieving integration in resource planning. In: R. Lang (Ed.), Integrated approaches to planning and management (pp. 27–50). Banff, AB: Banff School of Management.
Lawrence, R., Daniels, S.E., and Stankey, G. 1997. Procedural justice and public involvement in natural resources decision making. Society and Natural Resources, 10(6): 577–589.
Lee, R.G., and Stankey, G.H. 1992. Evaluating institutional arrangements for regulating large watersheds and river basins. In: P.W. Adams, and W.A. Atkinson (Comps.), Watershed resources: balancing environmental, social, political and economic factors in large basins (pp. 30–37). Corvallis, OR: Forest Engineering Department, Oregon State University.
McCool, S.F., and Stankey, G.H. 1986. Visitor attitudes toward wilderness fire management policy—1971–84. Research Paper INT-357. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 7 p.
Michael, D.N. 1995. Barriers and bridges to learning in a turbulent human ecology. In: L.H. Gunderson, C.S. Holling, and S.S. Light (Eds.), Barriers & bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions (pp. 461–485). New York: Columbia University Press.
Moore, S.A. 1995. The role of trust in social networks: formation, function, and fragility. In: J. Craig, E.M. Mattiske, and D.A. Saunders (Eds.), Nature conservation 4: the role of networks (pp. 148–154). Chipping Norton, New South Wales, Australia: Surrey Beatty and Sons.
Pierce, J.C., Steger, M.A.E., Steel, B.S., and Lovrich, N.P. 1992. Citizens, political communication, and interest groups: environmental organizations in Canada and the United States. Westport, CT: Praeger. 225 p.
Plough, A., and Krimsky, S. 1987. The emergence of risk communication studies: social and political context. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 12(3–4): 4–10.
Ribe, R., and Silvaggio, T. 2002. National forest management in timber and spotted owl country: a survey of interested people in western Oregon and Washington. Eugene, OR: Institute for a Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon. 104 p.
Ribe, R.G. 1989. The aesthetics of forestry: What has empirical preference research taught us? Environmental Management, 13: 55–74.
Ribe, R.G. 2002. Is scenic beauty a proxy for acceptable management? The influence of environmental attitudes on landscape perceptions. Environment and Behavior, 34(6): 757–780.
Ribe, R.G. [In press]. Aesthetic perceptions of the retention of green trees and down wood in timber harvests. Review draft. 36 p. Ecological Applications.
Ribe, R.G., Armstrong, E.T., and Gobster, P.H. 2002. Scenic vistas and the changing policy landscape: visualizing and testing the role of visual resources in ecosystem management. Landscape Journal, 21: 42–66.
Schuh, D. 1995. Managing esthetic values. Journal of Forestry, 93(2): 20–25.
Shindler, B. 2000. Landscape-level management: it’s all about context. Journal of Forestry, 98(12): 10–14.
Shindler, B., Brunson, M., and Stankey, G.H. 2002. Social acceptability of forest conditions and management practices: a problem analysis. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-537. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 68 p.
Shindler, B., and Collson, P. 1998. Assessing public preferences for ecosystem management practices. In: D.L. Soden, B.L. Lamb, and J. Tennert (Eds.), Ecosystem management: a social science perspective (pp. 161–174). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.
Shindler, B., and Neburka, J. 1997. Public participation in forest planning: eight attributes of success. Journal of Forestry, 91(7): 17–19.
Shindler, B., Peters, J., and Kruger, L. 1994. Social values and acceptability of alternative harvest practices on the Tongass National Forest. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 95 p.
Shindler, B., and Toman, E. 2002. A longitudinal analysis of fuel reduction in the Blue Mountains: public perspectives on the use of prescribed fire and mechanized thinning. Corvallis, OR: Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State University. 76 p.
Shindler, B., and Wright, A. 2000. Watershed management in the central Cascades: a study of citizen knowledge and the value of information sources in the lower South Santiam basin. Corvallis, OR: Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State University. 90 p.
Stanfield, B.J., Bliss, J.C., and Spies, T.A. 2002. Land ownership and landscape structure: a spatial analysis of 66 Oregon Coast Range watersheds. Landscape Ecology, 17(8): 685–697.
Stankey, G.H. 1976. Wilderness fire policy: an investigation of visitor knowledge and beliefs. Research Paper INT-180. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 17 p.
Stankey, G.H. 1996. Defining the social acceptability of forest management practices and conditions: integrating science and social choice. In: M.W. Brunson, L.E. Kruger, C.B. Tyler, and S.A. Schroeder (Eds.), Defining social acceptability in ecosystem management: workshop proceedings (pp. 99–112). General Technical Report PNW-GTR-369. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Stankey, G.H., Bormann, B.T., Ryan, C., Shindler, B., Sturtevant, V., Clark, R.N., and Philpot, C. 2003. Adaptive management and the Northwest Forest Plan: rhetoric and reality. Journal of Forestry, 101(1): 40–46.
Stankey, G.H., and Clark, R.N. 1992. Social aspects of new perspectives in forestry: a problem analysis. Milford, PA: Grey Towers Press. 33 p.
Stankey, G.H., Cole, D.N., Lucas, R.C., Petersen, M.E., and Frissell, S.S. 1985. The limits of acceptable change (LAC) system for wilderness planning. General Technical Report INT-176. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 37 p.
Stankey, G.H., and Shindler B. 1997. Adaptive management areas: achieving the promise, avoiding the peril. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-394. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 21 p.
Swanson, F.J., and Sparks, R.E. 1990. Long-term ecological research and the invisible place. BioScience, 40(7): 502–508.
Taylor, J.G., and Daniel, T.C. 1984. Prescribed fire: public education and perception. Journal of Forestry, 82: 361–365.
Vining, J., and Ebreo, A. 1991. Are you thinking what I think you are? A study of actual and estimated goal priorities and decision preferences of resource managers. Society and Natural Resources, 4(2): 177–196.
Wengert, N. 1976. Citizen participation: practice in search of a theory. In: A.E. Utton, W.R.D. Sewell, and T. O’Riordan (Eds.), Natural resources for a democratic society: public participation in decision-making (pp. 23–40). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Williams, D.R., and Patterson, M.E. 1996. Environmental meaning and ecosystem management: perspectives from environmental psychology and human geography. Society and Natural Resources, 9(5): 507–521.
Wondolleck, J.M. 1988. Public lands conflict and resolution: managing national forest disputes. New York: Plenum Press. 263 p.
Wondolleck, J.M., and Yaffee, S.L. 2000. Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Washington, DC: Island Press. 277 p.
Yankelovich, D. 1991. Coming to public judgment: making democracy work in a complex world. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. 290 p.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stankey, G.H., Clark, R.N., Bliss, J. (2003). Fostering Compatible Forest Resource Management: The Conditional Nature of Social Acceptability. In: Monserud, R.A., Haynes, R.W., Johnson, A.C. (eds) Compatible Forest Management. Managing Forest Ecosystems, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0309-3_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0309-3_16
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6388-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0309-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive