Alternatives to Clearcutting Discussion and Literature Review With Emphasis on Southeast Al

PNW-GTR-594January 2004

Social Acceptability of

Alternatives to Clearcutting:Discussion and LiteratureReview With Emphasis onSoutheast Alaska

Compilers

Social Acceptability of

Alternatives to Clearcutting:Discussion and LiteratureReview With Emphasis onSoutheast Alaska

Debra L.Clausen and Robert F.Schroeder, Compilers

Debra L.Clausenis a habitat biologist, Sundberg and Clausen, P.O.Box 1949,Seward, AK 996;and Robert F.Schroederwas a research scientist, U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Juneau, AK.He is currently the regional subsistencecoordinator, U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Regional Office, P.O.Box21628, Juneau, AK 99801-1807.

Abstract

Clausen,Debra L.;Schroeder,Robert F.,comps.2004.Social acceptability of alternatives to clearcutting:discussion and literature review with emphasis on

southeast Alaska.Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-GTR-594.Portland, OR:U.S.Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.37 p.Changing social contexts have necessitated a new approach to forest management.Growing dissatisfaction with clearcutting has made the USDA Forest Service thefocus of criticism by various public interest groups.We discuss and provide a comprehensive annotated list of published and unpublished references on the

subject of socially acceptable alternatives to clearcutting, with emphasis on southeastAlaska.The literature reveals that social acceptability is a complex synthesis of multi-ple opinions, values, and attitudes, and indicates that both qualitative and quantitativesocial science research are required to identify socially acceptable alternatives toclearcutting in southeast Alaska.

Keywords:Acceptability, Alaska, alternatives to clearcutting, clearcutting, forest management, Forest Service, forest values, public attitudes, social acceptability,social values, southeast Alaska, Tongass National Forest, values.

Contents

11334678

IntroductionContextMethods

Determining Social AcceptabilityAssessing Public ResponseConclusionsAcknowledgmentsAnnotated References

35Bibliographic Search Terms

Introduction

Context

Changing social contexts have necessitated a new approach to forest manage-ment.Growing dissatisfaction with clearcutting has made the U.S.Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service the focus of extreme criticism by various public interestgroups.This paper discusses the scope and complexity of social alternatives toclearcutting.

We also have provided a comprehensive annotated list of published references on socially acceptable alternatives to clearcutting.This report is intended to be aresource and aid in designing additional social science research in this emergingfield.Our emphasis is on literature pertinent to the issue as it exists in southeastAlaska, with the understanding that research needs to be designed for social andenvironmental conditions unique to the area.Literature on the subject reveals thatsocial acceptability is a complex synthesis of multiple opinions, values, and attitudes.It also indicates that both qualitative and quantitative social science research arerequired to identify socially acceptable alternatives to clearcutting in southeastAlaska.

Currently in the United States, natural resource managers are grappling with the need for public approval of management decisions and with the public’s involvementin making these decisions (Brunson and Kennedy 1995).There has been a rapidchange in forest values, types of value relations, and relative values assigned to forest-related objects (Bengston 1994).As a result, the USDA Forest Service hasfound itself the focus of extreme criticism by various public interest groups.Growingdissatisfaction with clearcutting is attributed to societal changes such as more urbanpopulations, less direct dependence on commodity production, and a value shift fromeconomic incentives toward aesthetic, recreational, and spiritual values (Fiedler 1992,Rogers 1996).Additionally, the concurrent growth of the environmental movement has created awareness of the forest ecosystem and concern for its health.Thus, the social context for forestry has changed, which in turn has necessitated a newapproach to forest management.

The Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) of the Forest

Service pioneered the discussion of social assessment in forest management (Clarkand Stankey 1994).Out of this effort came the understanding that forest managementis both a social problem and a global problem, and solutions lie in inclusive, ongoingprocesses.Historically, the dominant social paradigm under which forest lands weremanaged emphasized economic growth, control of nature, faith in science and technology, an abundance of natural resources, substitutability of resources, andexpert decisionmaking.Changes in the social context of forestry have resulted in theevolution of a new environmental paradigm that features sustainable development,harmony with nature, skepticism of scientific and technological fixes, finite naturalresources, limits to substitution, and public involvement in decisionmaking (Bengston1994).

The advent of “New Forestry,”ecosystem management, and adaptive management inthe Forest Service is the result of this paradigmatic shift (Behan 1990).The conceptof New Forestry encompasses a philosophical perspective, a set of practices, and anew way of doing business.It is still evolving, with implications for educational institu-tions (what is taught), forestry research programs (what is studied), forest managers(management goals and decisions), and the public (their role and influence) (Clark

1

2

and Stankey 1991, Clark et al.1999).The new ecosystem management paradigmenvisions social science research integrated into forest management decisions.A“common language”for the social and biological sciences, however, is currently lack-ing (Brunson 1996a).Furthermore, the social-human aspects of ecosystem manage-ment will likely be as complex as the physical-biological system interactions (Williams,n.d.).For example, the context in which specific forest management activities occur issignificant, and individually held values, level of knowledge, and group influence maybe as important as the actual effect of forest management activities in determiningtheir acceptability (Hansis 1996).

Recent sociological research on forest valuation indicates public values are shiftingfrom an emphasis on economic values toward aesthetic values.The FEMAT (1993)explains the contemporary concept of social acceptability in forest management asderived from multiple factors including knowledge of the forest, held values, the site-specific context, perceived risk of harvesting, perceived agency motives, and the spatial context of the proposed action.Explicitly recognized forest values now encompass commodity, amenity, environmental quality, ecological, public use, andspiritual values (Stankey and Clark 1992).Issues that will affect future generationsalso are discussed when allocating forest resources and making forest managementdecisions.

The discipline of environmental sociology, emphasizing interactive reciprocal relationswith the environment, is a young field with conceptual methodological difficulties inconducting research (Dunlap and Catton 1983).The meaning and values of forestschange over time and space.There is a need to better understand specific attributesthat contribute to acceptability and changes in perception through time and space.Public preferences for forest practices and forest conditions need to be better

researched.Methods for measuring public acceptability need to be improved (Stankeyand Clark 1992).Some researchers have begun to address this challenge.For example, Bormann et al.(1994a) suggest a “lacing model”of management that would integrate societal values and ecological capacity.But much more conceptualand modeling work remains to be done.

In southeast Alaska, long-term contracts with two pulp mills in the region required the Forest Service to provide large timber volumes from the Tongass National Forest.Other large-scale logging using clearcutting occurred on Native corporation land

after 1980.During this time, corporations logged their most profitable timber holdings.Harvest in the region peaked at over 1 billion board feet per year in those early daysof clearcutting.However, the level of production could not be sustained over time.Moreover, high levels of clearcut logging conflicted with existing subsistence andrecreational use of forest resources and worked against the growth of large-scaletourism in the area.As a result, timber management in the Tongass National Forestbecame highly controversial.Now, the pulp mills are closed and current interest in theregion focuses on smaller scale, value-added, sustainable timber management withfewer adverse effects on subsistence, recreational, and tourist uses of the forest.Selective harvesting and other alternatives to clearcutting will be part of this newapproach to timber management.Examining public opinion and the social accept-ability of different management regimes will be essential in developing a forest management policy that has widespread public support.

Methods

DeterminingSocial

Acceptability

Most of the timber harvesting in the Tongass National Forest over the past 30 yearshas been done by using clearcut logging.In recent years, exclusive reliance on thismethod of timber harvesting has come into question because of its effects on otheruses of the forest and on wildlife and fish habitat, and because the social accept-ability of clearcutting has been waning.Forest management techniques need to be socially acceptable if they are to be implemented.Recognizing this, the Forest

Service has examined different forest management regimes during the past decadein the Tongass National Forest through the alternatives-to-clearcutting project.The project has focused on measuring and evaluating the biophysical effects of differenttimber harvest alternatives.This bibliography contributes to that project by providing a guide to current thought on social acceptability.

Initially, a comprehensive literature search was undertaken to locate published

material on socially acceptable alternatives to clearcutting and its component issues.Forest Service publications, professional journal articles, books on forest manage-ment and relevant social science issues, and conference and workshop proceedingswere reviewed.

An iterative search process was used for both the Western Library Network andForest Service databases by using keyword lists, literature cited lists from key refer-ences, and professional journal indexes.All reviewed references are annotated andfollowed by any keywords originally provided in the referenced document.In addition,a cumulative list of all keywords can be found at the end of this report.

The social acceptability of alternative timber harvest practices is now understood tobe the result of several factors including visual preferences, consideration of amenityuse, evidence of ecosystem management, sustainable cost effective timber harvest,and community-based management strategies (Shindler et al., n.d.).A definition ofsocial acceptability in forest management is provided by Brunson (1996c):

Social acceptability in forest management results from a judgment process bywhich individuals (1) compare the perceived reality with its known alternativesand (2) decide whether the “real”condition is superior or sufficiently similar tothe most favorable alternative condition.If the existing condition is not judged to be sufficient, the individual will initiate behavior—often, but not always, withina constituency group—that is believed likely to shift conditions toward a morefavorable alternative.

A determination of social acceptability is based on conditions, but it is a function ofcauses (Brunson 1993).Brunson (1993) has identified additional characteristics ofsocially acceptable forestry as follows:

•Conditions that arise as a result of “natural”causes are virtually always acceptable.•Acceptability of a condition can only be questioned if there are feasible alternativesto that condition.

•In the presence of feasible alternatives, acceptability is a function of the perceiveddesirability, equitability, and feasibility of those alternatives.

3

Assessing PublicResponse

4

•Acceptability is a function of the perceived risk associated with a condition or practice.

•Acceptability is judged within a geographic context.

Stankey (1996) suggests that acceptability is based on a choice of tolerance of whatsociety accepts as environmental conditions and practices undertaken to maintain orrestore conditions.Identifying socially acceptable alternatives to clearcutting involvesa process of (1) identifying specific situational attributes influencing judgments;(2)determining the appropriate community of affected interests including nontraditional,nonlocal, intergenerational, and the unborn;and (3) understanding cost/benefit distribution relative to determinations of acceptability.

Determinations of social acceptability reflect technical knowledge, biophysical conse-quences, economic constraints, and political interests (Shindler et al., n.d.).Given thehighly situational context of social acceptability determinations, Shindler et al.(n.d.)conclude that discovering socially acceptable alternative forest harvest practices maybe primarily a matter of “working through”complex issues with individual communitiesto find durable solutions.

In southeast Alaska, socially acceptable forest management will need to reflect thescope of public interest in multiple forest uses.Area residents make extensive use ofthe forest for subsistence hunting and fishing and for recreation;forested lands alsoprovide the wilderness environment that is the central attraction of the growingtourism industry in the region.Tribal governments closely scrutinize all activities

occurring in traditional tribal territories.Many of the communities in the area are sur-rounded by national forest land, and the residents recognize that forest managementinfluences the character and potential development of their community.Both nationaland local interests include a desire to maintain and enhance the area’s wildlife andfishery resources and to protect the ecosystems of the last temperate rain forest.

The history of social science research on the acceptability of alternatives to clear-cutting is relatively recent.Much of the earliest work, beginning in the 1970s and continuing through the 1980s, was concerned with visual impacts and investigationsof scenic beauty.Research designed to address the issue of scenic beauty includesArthur (1977);Axelsson-Lindgren and Sorte (1987);Becker (1983);Benson andUllrich (1981);Benson et al.(1985);Brown and Daniel (1986);Brunson (1991);

Brunson and Shelby (1992);Magill (1992);McCool et al.(1986);Ribe (1982, 19);Williams, (n.d.);and Wood (1988).In 1974, the Forest Service developed the visualmanagement system and the scenic beauty estimation method (Benson and Ullrich1981) to address visual resource issues.Other researchers identified the forest visualopportunity spectrum (Axelsson-Lindgren and Sorte 1987).Forest management wasaimed at achieving a visual, stylized ideal nature rather than dynamic change.Vegetative and topographic screens were used to hide or reduce visual impacts

and sustain an illusion that the natural forest is mature, tidy, and unchanging.Walters(1990) developed a handbook of forest management techniques that illustrates visualquality objectives specified in national forest management plans for use in researchand planning.These efforts were not without their critics.For example, Wood (1988)criticized the visual resource management system for confusing appearance with substance and substituting a scene for an ecosystem.

As it became clear that citizens wanted more than an aesthetic view of their managedforests, concerns expanded to include evaluation of recreational preferences.Forestusers wanted a forest in which they could hike, camp, ski, and hunt in aestheticallypleasant surroundings.Research into perceived adequacy of recreational values inmanaged forests included the work of Axelsson-Lindgren and Sorte (1987);Becker(1983);Brunson (1991, 1996a);Brunson and Shelby (1992);and Levine andLangenau (1979).

Economic issues, always a factor in communities affected by forest management,have been the subject of social research over the past three decades as well.Earliersocial science inquiry focused on jobs, timber products, and market economies.Makiet al.(1985) developed a dynamic simulation model for analyzing the importance offorest resources in Alaska and the consequences of alternative forest managementpolicies on timber and tourism.Allen et al.(1998) looked at the economies of southeast Alaska in addressing the issue of timber industry economy.Recently,socioeconomic research has documented the role of subsistence economies in timber-dependent communities (Muth 1990) and the integration of market and sub-sistence forest resource use in mixed economies (Pinkerton 1998).Estimation of theeconomic value of environmental improvements and damages through variations in the contingent valuation method was proposed in Gregory et al.(1993).Severalauthors, including Rogers (1996), observe that attaching monetary values to non-market values is highly controversial.Iverson and Alston (1993) examine the broad-ening role for economics in forest management but caution against inappropriate relative valuation assessments of utilitarian and nonutilitarian forest values.Community stability is about more than local forest management policies, how-ever, because external events such as technological change can affect communityeconomies (Schallau 19).Stability itself is a dynamic, not static, condition, andsocially acceptable timber harvest will differ through time and space.

The aesthetic forest experience for many depends largely on a scenic aesthetic (Ribe1999).The social acceptability of forest management is subject to effects of informa-tion and attitudes and can become complex.McBeth and Foster (1994) discoveredthat environmental concerns find support in rural communities when the message isconsistent with rural values and concerns.Shindler et al.(1993) discovered dramaticsupport for ecosystem-based forest management policies that used an environ-mentally oriented, multiple-valued, public-influenced, holistic approach.Additionalresearch by Steel et al.(1994) revealed support for an ecologically sensitive, holistic,multivalue, forest management approach in Oregon and national publics.

Gobster (1996) has observed that the social acceptability of ecosystem managementdepends on perception and meaning of the forest environment.Because appreciationof ecosystem management is an acquired cognitive attitude dependent on an under-standing of dynamic environment, rather than an immediate, affective visual aestheticlike scenic value, it is unlikely that society will immediately adopt an ecological aesthetic.To aid in the transition to an ecological aesthetic, Gobster advocates theconcept of “appropriateness”to bridge conflicts between aesthetic and biodiversityvalues in the short term and focus on the question of “what belongs where”until suchtime as an ecological aesthetic becomes widely held.

5

Conclusions

6

The acceptability of ecosystem management is subject to such factors as agencyintent, scientific fallibility, and risk (Brunson 1996b).Because ecosystem managementis a developing field, the Forest Service’s strategy of adaptive management (learningand adjusting over time) will necessarily lead to the need for corrections and changesin forest management techniques.This in turn will affect public confidence and publicacceptance of forest management decisions.

Hansis (1995) investigated the social acceptability of clearcutting in the Pacific

Northwest.He concluded that social science research needs to be both quantitativeand qualitative for nuanced values and contexts of social acceptability to be under-stood.Indepth interviews and participant observation are two research techniquesrecommended to help illuminate public opinion on forest management issues.As Shindler et al.(n.d.) have indicated, the subject of acceptability is complex andmust be considered in the context in which a management practice is proposed.

Generalization is difficult because each situation is unique to the affected individuals,groups, communities, and cultures.However, preferences for mature forests overyoung ones, natural looking over managed stands, and partial cutting over clearcutsprevail.

In southeast Alaska, Shindler et al.(n.d.) have identified scenic values as important tovirtually all affected interests.Timber production and associated issues of economics,harvest level, and sustainability are also of great concern.Other issues factoring intoacceptability of forest practices in southeast Alaska include recreation, habitat, andwatershed protection;subsistence uses;cultural resources;educational value;andexistence or spiritual values.

Social management, including both value management and conflict management, isnow recognized as one of the three elements of forest management (Kennedy andThomas 1995).But investigation of the subject has only recently begun, and thesocial science needed to research socially acceptable forest management practices is undeveloped.The issue of social acceptability is complex, heavily dependent oncontext, and tied to specifics of time and space.It is a concept that attempts to integrate all the held values of a community in one forest management strategy.To accomplish this, an integrative approach is needed.

Zube (1987) explored the concept of landscape perception and concludes that patterns of individual land use activity differ among individuals and form the basis of an individual’s landscape perception.Moreover, human-landscape interactionresearch is fragmentary, and a general landscape perception theory is lacking.In pursuit of an integrative approach, Thorne and Huang (1991) advocate combiningissues of landscape ecological integrity with issues of aesthetic appeal to create alandscape ecological aesthetic.Wright (1992) suggests that the reductionistic meth-ods of the scientific method cannot adequately articulate ecological knowledge that is holistic in nature.He contends that only language, not quantitative science, caneffectively represent the social-natural rationality of ecosystems.

Adding further to the challenge, the concept of ecosystem management itself hascome under question.As a recent and still somewhat unproven approach, ecosystemmanagement on Forest Service lands is an evolving strategy influenced by its own

Acknowledgments

information feedback mechanism.Competing and conflicting values can further confuse the determination of socially acceptable forest management.For example,visual aesthetics can conflict with biodiversity values in a stylized ideal “tidy”naturewhere visually negative but biologically productive downed wood is left to decay.Literature on the social acceptability of alternatives to clearcutting indicates that bothqualitative and quantitative social science research will be required to identify sociallyacceptable alternatives to clearcutting in southeast Alaska.The research will need totarget specific communities and interest groups and elicit their opinions about specificforest lands and specific forest practices over specified periods.It will need to inquireabout process as well as effects because public opinion depends on perceptions ofthe decisionmaking process as well as the decision itself.It will need to investigatenonutilitarian as well as utilitarian values because aesthetic, existential, and futurevalues affect acceptability as do the use values of timber production, recreation,ecosystem sustainability, watershed protection, fish and wildlife harvest, culturalresources, and educational opportunities.This social science research needs to bestructured in such a way as to allow meaningful conclusions about the held values of a surveyed population and, where possible, offer predictive insight on the accept-ability of specific forest management proposals.

Research on the subject of socially acceptable forest management practices hasmany parallels with natural science ecosystem research.Both examine complex sub-jects composed of multiple interactive variables.Initially, what is required is an under-standing of the component parts.This requires basic quantifiable data collection.Inforest ecosystems, this is species research;for social acceptability, it is investigationand documentation of the various held values and attitudes about acceptable forestmanagement practices.Once a basic understanding of the variables has been

reached, it is necessary to learn how these variables interact and affect each other.Social science can provide descriptive, qualitative explanations of the dynamic rela-tion of held values and attitudes, and a model of these interactions can be construct-ed.This synthesis of information creates a concept of social acceptability.Social

acceptability, then, is an all-encompassing concept that tries to explain a community’smultitude of opinions.The task of social science is to identify the variables, reveal therelations between these variables, and present an explanation of acceptability for usein forest management.

We thank Lillian Petershoare (librarian) and Rebecca Wright (library technician) at theForestry Sciences Laboratory in Juneau for assistance in obtaining references for thisreport.

7

AnnotatedReferences

8

Allen,S.D.;Robertson,G.;Schaefers,J.1998.Economies in transition:an assess-ment of trends relevant to management of the Tongass National Forest.Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-GTR-417.Portland, OR:U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Pacific Northwest Research Station.101 p.This assessment does not directly address the issue of social acceptability of alterna-tives to clearcutting.However, it identifies the economic issues of primary concern tosoutheast Alaskans that are among the factors on which social acceptability of alter-natives to clearcutting is judged;thus it may be useful in designing social scienceresearch on the subject of acceptability.The abstract states the following:

This assessment focuses on the regional and community economies of south-east Alaska.A mixed economy composed of subsistence harvest and cashincome characterizes the economies of most of the region’s rural communities.Although the share of natural resource-based sectors relative to total employ-ment has remained fairly consistent over the past 10 years, the mix of industrieswithin that share is shifting, with substantial declines in the wood products sectorand substantial increases in the recreation-tourism sector.Regional trends arereflected very differently across boroughs, and even more so across the manysmall communities of southeast Alaska;analysis at diverse scales was neededto accurately portray economic and social conditions and trends.

Keywords:Tongass National Forest, southeast Alaska, economic trends, employment,subsistence, communities.

Arthur,L.M.1977.Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments:some empiricaltests.Forest Science.23:151-159.Demonstrates that effective prediction of scenic preferences is within the scope ofavailable technology and measurement.

This study tests the usefulness of three landscape description techniques—scalingof physical features, inventories of visual (design) features, and timber cruises—forpredicting scenic beauty of forested environments.Two criteria are used to test predictive usefulness:the effectiveness of each technique in explaining people’sevaluations of the scenic beauty of forested landscapes, and the ease of using thelandscape descriptions to manage for scenic beauty....

Three groups of respondents—landscape architects, university students, and ageneral public sample—provided scenic beauty ratings of Arizona ponderosa pinelandscapes, represented in color slides.Multiple regression techniques were usedto relate their preferences to three quantitative descriptions of landscapes,

obtained from practicing and student landscape architects and foresters.Designinventory and physical feature descriptors were then correlated with mensuration(timber cruise) descriptors.While all prediction models explained substantial portions of perceptual preferences, measures of manageable landscape featurestended to show stronger relationships to mensuration parameters than did designfeatures.

Keywords:Landscape management, scenic values, forest use.

Axelsson-Lindgren,C.;Sorte,G.1987.Public response to differences betweenvisually distinguishable forest stands in a recreation area.Landscape and UrbanPlanning.14:211-217.This study investigated user response to visual variation in forests, which the authorsrefer to as the forest visual opportunity spectrum.Two trails, each 2.5 kilometers longwere laid out in a forest.One trail traversed eight visually distinguishable foreststands;the other trail crossed three different forest stands.Sixteen subjects walkedthe two trails and then made assessments of trail length, time spent traversing thetrail, visual impressions, and suitability of the trail for typical open-air recreationalactivities.After walking the trails, participants assessed time and distance more

accurately in the more varied forest stands, and willingness to engage in recreationalactivities was higher in the more varied forest stands.

The questions asked by this study may be useful to pursue in addressing the aesthet-ic and scenic beauty elements of social acceptability of alternatives to clearcutting.Becker,R.H.1983.Opinions about clear-cutting and recognition of clear-cuts by forest recreation visitors.Journal of Environmental Management.17:171-177.Analyzes forest recreation visitor opinions about clearcutting in a central broad-leavedforest in the Savage River State Forest in Grantsville, Maryland, in 1974-75.Opinionswere determined through a questionnaire administered by field crew members to 249users in summer and 192 users in fall and early winter.Forest users were sortedbased on whether they knew or did not know they had encountered a clearcut.A chi-square test was then used to determine association with selected study variables.A Pearson’s contingency coefficient was used to determine the strength and directionof any association.The aggregate summer visitor sample was less aware of clearcutsand more antagonistic toward clearcutting as a forest management tool than fall visitors.

Conclusions of the study determined that many forest recreation visitors who held theopinion that clearcutting was undesirable did not recognize clearcuts, principally usedthe forest during summer, did not live near the forest, and had an enjoyable forestrecreation visit.The study concluded that the concept of clearcuts and clearcuttinghas little association with actual cut sites in the study area.The study further conclud-ed that negative opinions about clearcutting could be improved through education.Keywords:Clearcutting, forest recreation, attitudes, forest management.

Behan,R.W.1990.Multi-resource forest management:a paradigmatic challenge toprofessional forestry.Journal of Forestry.88(4):12-18.Explains the paradigmatic shift implicit in “New Forestry.”The author contends thatprevious sustained-yield multiple-use management of national forests was a market-oriented attempt to perpetuate the physical supply of specific substances and servic-es.Harvest of the resource was constrained by growth.Alternatively, new forestry,which the author refers to as multiresource forest management, is a land-orientedconcept, not a set of techniques that seeks simultaneous production of interdepend-ent substances and services.Maintenance of the forest system is the constraint.

9

According to statute, the multiple use of forest resources is supposed to be achievedsimultaneously, not adjacently.Because the forest is a single, interactive system ofplants, animals, soil, water, topography, and climate, simultaneous multiple use isaxiomatic;it is implicit in the concept.This integrated viewpoint (“touch a flower, disturb a star”), however, is not being achieved largely as a result of professional specialization, and multiple commitments to several use constituencies are absentamong Forest Service foresters.Coordinated team teaching is needed to address theforest resource system, rather than separate subsystems.Simulation models can beused to anticipate effects of management strategies.

Bengston,D.N.1994.Changing forest values and ecosystem management.Societyand Natural Resources.7:515-533.The author contends that there is substantial evidence of a rapid change in held forest values, in types of value relations, and in relative values assigned to forest-related objects as revealed in the new environmental paradigm.The social context forforestry has changed.The dominant social paradigm, which emphasized economicgrowth, control of nature, faith in science and technology, enough natural resources,substitutability of resources and expert decisionmaking, is giving way to the new environmental paradigm, which features sustainable development, harmony withnature, skepticism of scientific and technological fixes, finite natural resources, limitsto substitution, and public involvement in decisionmaking.

To address this change in forest values, the following questions need to be asked:(1) What is the nature of forest values? Can forest values be reduced to a singledimension or are they multidimensional and incommensurate? (2) What specific values are involved? (3) How are forest values related to other value systems? (4)How and why have forest values changed over time? (5) What do changing forest values imply for ecosystem management approaches?

Keywords:Ecosystem management, forest values, methodological pluralism, multi-dimensionality, new forestry.

Benson,R.E.;Ullrich,J.R.1981.Visual impacts of forest management activities:findings on public preferences.Res.Pap.INT-262.Ogden, UT:U.S.Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.14 p.The visual impact of various timber harvest and road construction alternatives wasmeasured by using the scenic beauty estimation method.Panels of viewers ratedcolor slides on a zero to 9 scale of “dislike”versus “like.”Numerous case studies have shown the method gives consistent and reliable measures of viewer prefer-ences.Rankings of different treatments were nearly identical among different viewersalthough they included such diverse interest groups as the wood industry and outdoorrecreation management students.Study areas included several forest types and avariety of harvest and road construction situations.

10

In general, partial harvesting is preferred to clearcutting;the less logging debris, thehigher the preference, and the less soils disturbance and more revegetation alongroads, the higher the preference.The findings can be used to estimate visual impactsin planning of activities and to compare the aesthetic gains or losses from alternativepractices.

Keywords:Aesthetics, landscape management, visual quality, logging, residues.Benson,R.E.;McCool,S.F.;Schlieter,J.A.1985.Attaining visual quality objectivesin timber harvest areas—landscape architect’s evaluation.Res.Note INT-348.Ogden, UT.U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forestand Range Experiment Station.8 p.Three groups of Forest Service landscape architects rated color slides of 25 timber-harvested areas in northern Rocky Mountain national forests for attainment of visualquality objectives and based on forest conditions, topography, and type of viewingassigned a scenic beauty estimate.Consensus was that objectives were usually

attained;beauty ratings generally dropped;and distinctions became more pronouncedwith increasing evidence of disturbance.The results support the idea of a system ofvisual quality objectives based on the degree of acceptable landscape modification.Keywords:Aesthetics, landscapes, timber harvesting, visual management.

Berkes,F.;Folke,C.,eds.1998.Linking social and ecological systems:manage-ment practices and social mechanisms for building resilience.Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.440 p.Examines opportunities for improving ecosystem resilience through application ofalternative social system management strategies.Although not directly addressingthe issue of social acceptability of alternatives to clearcutting, it does explore the integration of social and natural systems.

Bohman,J.1991.New philosophy of social science:problems of indeterminacy.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.273 p.Presents a philosophical argument on the validity of social science in the face of complexity, subjectivity, and imperfect knowledge.It does not discuss the role ofsocial science research in identifying socially acceptable alternatives to clearcutting.Bonnicksen,T.M.1991.Managing biosocial systems:a framework to organize society environment relationships.Journal of Forestry.(1):10-15.Explains the use of a biosocial model as a systems framework for understandingsociety and environment relations.This reciprocal adjustment theory is superior topreceding one-way adjustment theories (cultural determinism and environmentaldeterminism) and a purely ecosystem model in terms of addressing the relation ofindustrial societies to the natural environment.The biosocial system uses interactionbetween a management (social) subsystem and an ecological subsystem throughverbal, scenario, scenario-computer, or all-computer simulations.

11

Bormann,B.T.;Brookes,M.H.;Ford,E.D.[et al.].1994a.A framework for sustain-able-ecosystem management.Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-GTR-331.Portland, OR:U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.61 p.Sustainable ecosystem management is defined as the overlap between what peoplewant for themselves and future generations and what is biologically and physicallypossible in the long term.In this report, principles for sustainable ecosystem manage-ment are derived by integrating fundamental, societal, and scientific premises.Ecosystem science is applied in the design of a system of management focused on building overlap between what people collectively want and what is ecologicallypossible.The report concludes that to make better informed decisions and to learn by “managing as an experiment,”management must incorporate more science andsocietal processes in the system.The “lacing model”of management is proposed tointegrate societal values and ecological capacity.

Keywords:Sustainability, ecosystem management, sustainable development, futuregenerations, unexpected future options, management principles, managing as anexperiment, adaptive management, information as a resource, communities of inter-est, diversification, iterative decisionmaking, management system, lacing model.Bormann,B.T.;Cunningham,P.G.;Brookes,M.H.;Manning,V.W.;Collopy,M.W.1994b.Adaptive ecosystem management in the Pacific Northwest.Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-GTR-341.Portland, OR:U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Pacific Northwest Research Station.22 p.A systematic approach to adaptive management is proposed for simultaneously

managing federal lands in Washington, Oregon, and northern California at the region-al, provincial, and watershed scales.This approach attempts to reorganize agencyactivities to better support the concepts of adaptive management to make better deci-sions, improve public participation and develop science-based management throughthe following adjustment (expanded decisionmaking), linked actions, feedback andmonitoring, and information synthesis.Future adjustments are to be decided througha collaborative decisionmaking process, and integrated (linked) management andresearch efforts are designed to acquire the information needed to make proposedadjustments.Feedback and information synthesis can then inform future decisions.Keywords:Adaptive management, feedback, adjustment, future decisions, linkedactions, management experiments, information synthesis, decision support, science-based management, public participation, lacing model.

Brooks,D.J.;Grant,G.E.1992.New approaches to forest management:back-ground, science issues, and research agenda.Journal of Forestry.90(1):25-28;90(2):21-24.(2 parts).Part one examines the scientific, management, and social factors that have con-tributed to the need for rethinking some basic precepts of forest management.Parttwo outlines a framework for research and suggests some directions and approachesto be more fully developed including the need for social science research to identify

12

values assigned by the public to different forest states and scenarios, and economicresearch on the value of forest resources in economies and communities and thesocial benefits of nontimber forest attributes.

Brown,G.;Harris,C.C.1992.The U.S.Forest Service:Toward the new resourcemanagement paradigm? Society and Natural Resources.5:231-245.The attitudes and values of Forest Service employees toward resource managementissues are examined by applying general concepts and empirical observations onsocial change and resource sociology to the concept of a dominant and a new

forestry paradigm.Results of a survey of Forest Service employees suggested that the attitudes and values of employees in the Association of Forest Service Employeesfor Environmental Ethics (AFSEEE) represent an alternative (new) resource manage-ment paradigm that differs significantly from the dominant management paradigmheld by most Forest Service employees.The potential role of AFSEEE as an agent of change within the Forest Service is discussed relative to other changes that areoccurring concurrently in the Forest Service.

Keywords:Change, Forest Service, forestry, paradigm, resource management.Brown,T.C.;Daniel,T.C.1986.Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands.ForestScience.32(2):471-487.Presents the results of three studies on predicting the near-view scenic beauty ofponderosa pine timber stands in north-central Arizona.Psychophysical scenic beautymodels of ponderosa pine suggest scenic beauty increases with herbage and largepine, and decreases with downed wood and unattractive tree grouping.Using bothonsite evaluation and color slides, groups of typical forest visitors were asked to evaluate both site- and stand-level scenic beauty.It was determined that stand-levelscenic beauty judgments correlated closely with site-level scenic beauty judgmentsand color slides were a good substitute for onsite evaluation.The results suggestpotential for modeling the scenic beauty of conventionally delineated stands based on standard forest inventory information.

Keywords:Ponderosa pine, forest aesthetics, landscape assessment, scenic beauty.Brunckhorst,D.J.;Rollings,N.M.1999.Linking ecological and social functions oflandscapes.Influencing resource governance.Natural Areas Journal.19(1):57-.The thesis is as follows:

Society must make a fundamental shift in the way it views and uses natural

resources if it is to ensure an ecologically supportable future.Workable solutionsto the sustainable use of natural resources are constrained by many institutionalbarriers, narrowly focused scientific research, and compartmentalized systemsof natural resource management.Novel and radical approaches are needed ifhumanity is to find realistic solutions to social and environmental sustainabilityissues that the citizenry can adopt and then adapt with matching civic skills andknowledge.Consequently, future sustainability will depend on a system of

13

resource governance that mediates the relationship between the citizenry andthe economy, on the one hand, and continuance of ecosystem functionalprocesses, on the other.

Keywords:Government, natural resource use, resource governance, sustainability.Brunson,M.W.1991.Effects of traditional and “New Forestry”practices on recre-ational and scenic quality of managed forest.Corvallis, OR:Oregon StateUniversity.192 p.Ph.D.dissertation.Addresses the subject of aesthetic and recreational impacts of forest management.The author reviewed existing literature on the subject and conducted original researchon timber stands in which New Forestry and traditional prescriptions were used.Judgments of scenic, hiking, and camping quality were obtained in two phases, oneusing onsite raters at six sites and one with raters viewing slides of 12 silviculturaltreatments.Preferred stand attributes were examined, including effects of artificialsnag-creation methods and the ability of information to improve acceptability of non-traditional New Forestry practices.Results were as follows:

New Forestry practices were preferred over traditional methods when judgmentswere made on-site but traditional methods were rated more acceptable by slideviewers.....Judgments of scenic quality differed slightly from those of hikingquality, and were more divergent from those of camping quality....Attributesrelating to the evidence of human presence were the most influential on bothscenic and recreational judgments.Biodiversity also affected scenic beauty,whereas attraction places enhanced recreational quality.Artificial snag creationreduced the perceived quality of stands where a majority of trees had been harvested, but judgments improved after snag creation in stands where groupselection methods were employed.Information about New Forestry had a limitedmitigative effect on adverse scenic impacts of nontraditional silviculture.A concluding section of the dissertation discusses implications of this study on management of forests where new methods are tested, and suggests directions forfuture research.

Brunson,M.W.1993.“Socially acceptable”forestry:What does it imply for ecosystemmanagement? Western Journal of Applied Forestry.8(4):1-4.Presents findings of a study conducted by the Consortium for Social Values of NaturalResources of social acceptability.Discusses the implication of the study’s findings.A multidisciplinary, multimethod study design conducted in 1992 included a review ofliterature, a 3-day experts’workshop, and field tours with surveys to develop a seven-point definition of social acceptability as follows:

•Acceptability may apply to conditions, but it is a function of causes.

•Conditions that arise as a result of “natural”causes are virtually always acceptable.•Acceptability of a condition can only be questioned if there are feasible alternativesto that condition.

14

•In the presence of feasible alternatives, acceptability is a function of the perceiveddesirability, equitability, and feasibility of those alternatives.

•Acceptability is a function of the perceived risk associated with a condition or practice.

•Acceptability is judged within a geographic context.

•Acceptability is rarely defined rigorously—is it a norm, a preference, a desired condition, or a tolerance threshold?

Discusses the implications of using social acceptability as a forest managementobjective.

Brunson,M.W.1996a.Integrating human habitat requirements into ecosystem management strategies:a case study.Natural Areas Journal.16(2):100-107.Addresses the goal of integrating ecosystem management with socially acceptablelandscapes by proposing use of a common language for the social and biological sciences.He proposes that the concept “habitat”can be applied to human uses ofnatural areas and proposes a prototype “habitat suitability index”for three commonforest uses:hiking, camping, and scenic viewing.

Brunson,M.W.1996b.The social context of ecosystem management:unansweredquestions and unresolved issues.In:Brunson, M.W.;Kruger, L.E.;Tyler, C.B.;Schroeder, S.A., tech.eds.Defining social acceptability in ecosystem manage-ment:a workshop proceedings.Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-GTR-369.Portland, OR:U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest ResearchStation:113-126.Among the emerging problems associated with the social context of ecosystem management are questions about (1) ecosystem management as an idea, (2) itsimplementability, and (3) specific aspects of ecosystem management practices andconditions.This paper discusses several of these issues, including questions raisedby national forest stakeholders as well as those arising from the workshop that led tothis proceedings.The most fundamental question concerns the acceptability of theecosystem management concept itself—a question that largely has been ignored bythose who seek to adopt ecosystem management.Reasons are discussed for thisomission, as well as potential answers to the question.A key element of that discus-sion, and a theme that reverberates through this problem analysis, is the issue of scientific uncertainty and risk—the overriding public and professional concern identified during this research.

Keywords:Ecosystem management, acceptability, scientific uncertainty, risk percep-tion, biocentrism, public participation, values of knowledge.

Brunson,M.W.1996c.A definition of “social acceptability”in ecosystem manage-ment.In:Brunson, M.W.;Kruger, L.E.;Tyler, C.B.;Schroeder, S.A., tech.eds.

Defining social acceptability in ecosystem management:a workshop proceedings.Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-GTR-369.Portland, OR:U.S.Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station:7–16.

15

The paper’s abstract explains:

Social “acceptability”is one of three criteria that are supposed to guide ecosys-tem management decisions, yet a recent problem analysis found “there is aninadequate understanding of what constitutes ‘acceptability’with regard to[ecosystem management].”Based on research undertaken in response to thatanalysis, this paper offers a working definition of social acceptability.Subsequentdiscussion focuses on the implications for ecosystem managers of four aspectsof that definition:the social context of individual judgment, influences upon thecomparative process, behavioral expressions of acceptability judgments, andobservation/measurement issues.

Brunson defines social acceptability in forest management as resulting

from a judgmental process by which individuals (1) compare the perceived reality with its known alternatives;and (2) decide whether the “real”condition issuperior, or sufficiently similar, to the most favorable alternative condition.If theexisting condition is not judged to be sufficient, the individual will initiate behav-ior—often, but not always, within a constituency group—that is believed likely toshift conditions toward a more favorable alternative.

Keywords:Mixed scanning approach, attitudes, behaviors, ecosystem management,social acceptability.

Brunson,M.W.1998.Social dimensions of boundaries:balancing cooperation andself-interest.In:Knight, R.L.;Landres, P.B., eds.Stewardship across boundaries.Washington, DC:Island Press:65-86.Presents the idea that boundaries are social constructs marking human-perceived differences in nature and identity of places.Good stewards must safeguard the permeability of boundaries.Stewardship projects should acknowledge the existenceof territories and follow norms of procedural justice and sharing authority.The authordoes not discuss the social acceptability of alternatives to clearcutting.However,

some of the concepts presented in this chapter may help illuminate the issue of whatmakes alternatives to clearcutting socially acceptable.

Brunson,M.W.;Kennedy,J.J.1995.Redefining “multiple-use”:agency responses tochanging social values.In:Knight, R.L.;Bates, S.F., eds.A new century for naturalresource management.Washington, DC:Island Press:143-158.Reviews the response of federal agencies, including the Forest Service, to changes inthe relations between resources and society in the 1960s and 1970s.Fundamentalchanges in social values and demands have set the stage for a new managementparadigm based on ecosystem management and fundamental public involvement inplanning and decisionmaking processes.

Brunson,M.W.;Kruger,L.E.;Tyler,C.B.;Schroeder,S.A.,tech.eds.1996.

Defining social acceptability in ecosystem management:a workshop proceedings.Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-GTR-369.Portland, OR:U.S.Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.142 p.

16

Includes 10 papers developed in summary of a workshop held in 1992 to discusssocially acceptable forestry in an ecosystem-based forest management framework.The papers are authored by the leading experts on the subject of socially acceptableforestry and address a variety of topics from definition of the concept to the implica-tions of doing it and future directions of the concept’s development.

Keywords:Ecosystem management, social acceptability, environmental ethics, socialvalues, landscape aesthetics, public participation.

Brunson,M.;Shelby,B.1992.Assessing recreational and scenic quality:How doesNew Forestry rate? Journal of Forestry.90(7):37-41.Describes a pilot study of New Forestry scenic and recreational values conducted onthe Oregon State University research forest in September through October 1990.

Comparative judgments of recreational and scenic quality were obtained by surveying95 persons who visited an old-growth Douglas-fir stand and five nearby stands har-vested within the previous 2 years.Results produced a higher rating for New Forestrystands than for those harvested through the use of traditional practice.Recreationalacceptability judgments are based on psychological, social, physical, and managerialcontexts and recreational intent (e.g., hiking vs.camping).Scenic judgments support-ed preferences for “natural looking”stands, with old-growth stands judged mostattractive and slash volume negatively related to aesthetic quality.Preliminary findings suggest silvicultural prescriptions can address both biodiversity objectivesand scenic/recreational quality.

Burchfield,J.A.;Miller,J.M.;Allen,S.D.;Schroeder,R.F.2003.Social implicationsof alternatives to clearcutting on the Tongass National Forest:an exploratory studyof residents’responses to alternative silvicultural treatments at Hanus Bay, Alaska.Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-GTR-575.Portland, OR:U.S.Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.28 p.Summarizes results of a field study in southeast Alaska in which 27 respondentswere asked a series of questions concerning the social acceptability of different logging levels and logging patterns.The study used data from silvicultural researchconducted at Hanus Bay, Alaska.Respondents were shown pictures of different logging regimes and were told the expected effects of different logging patterns onwildlife and fish productivity, biological diversity and abundance, and timber yield anddamage to trees left standing.The study found that respondents made decisions onsocial acceptability based on shared community values, desire to sustain lifestyles,and sense of justice or fairness.Respondents sought to balance commercial use offorest resources with other values.

Chenoweth,R.E.;Gobster,P.H.1990.The nature and ecology of aesthetic experi-ences in the landscape.Landscape Journal.9(1):1-8.Reports on the results of an empirical study of the aesthetic experience of landscape.Twenty-five college students at the University of Wisconsin in Madison in springsemesters of 1983 and 1984 were given diaries consisting of structured and open-ended response formats in which to record their aesthetic experiences.Analysis ofthe resulting data revealed an ecology of aesthetic experiences in time and space

17

that were highly valued relative to other meaningful life experiences.Implications forresearch in landscape assessment and management of landscapes for aestheticexperiences are discussed in the paper.

Clark,R.N.;Stankey,G.H.1991.New Forestry or New Perspectives? The impor-tance of asking the right questions.Forest Perspectives.1(1):9-13.This essay on defining New Forestry and New Perspectives discusses the results of a problem analysis conducted by the Consortium for the Social Values of NaturalResources.By means of a Delphi process, 90 elements were identified in the defini-tion of new perspectives that were grouped into six general categories as follows:•An ecologically founded approach to forest management.

•The need for greater integration of different forest uses and values.•The need to focus on changing public values and uses of forest resources.•The need for different approaches to making decisions about forest management.•Application of better management tools and improved knowledge of managementconsequences.

•Questioning agency and professional motives.

The results suggest that the concepts of New Perspectives and New Forestry

encompass a philosophical perspective, a set of practices, and a new way of doing business and are still evolving with implications for educational institutions, forestryresearch programs, forest managers, and the public.

Clark,R.N.;Stankey,G.H.1994.FEMAT’s social assessment framework, key concepts and lessons learned.Journal of Forestry.92(4):32-35.Discusses the work of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team’s socialassessment group, describing the framework, key concepts and lessons learned fromthe assessment.Key assumptions of the social assessment were that forest manage-ment is a social problem, it is part of a global problem, and solutions lie in inclusive,ongoing processes.Key concepts include perception of all forest values as social values and the importance of considering risk and the capacity of communities toaccommodate risk when evaluating consequences of forest management.Lessonslearned include a legacy of failures with distrust a symptom of the problems, a recognition that information on social values is inadequate, and the need for publiceducation on forest management issues and public processes in forest managementdecisionmaking.

Clark,R.N.;Stankey,G.H.;Kruger,L.E.1999.From new perspectives to ecosystemmanagement:a social science perspective on forest management.In:Aley, J.;Burch, W.R.;Conover, B.;Field, D., eds.Ecosystem management:adaptive strate-gies for natural resource organizations in the twenty-first century.Philadelphia, PA:Taylor and Francis:73-84.

18

Reviews the history of the New Perspectives program and ecosystem managementwithin the context of evolving and changing social values.The authors review the find-ings from their 1991 Delphi study, which found that New Perspectives was seen as a philosophical concept, a set of specific practices and prescriptions, and as a newapproach to doing business.They discuss problems associated with incorporating asocial component in forest management and address the implications for manage-ment, education, and research.Keywords:New Perspectives.

Cordell,H.K.;Caldwell,L.;Mou,S.,eds.and comps.1997.Integrating social science and ecosystem management:a national challenge.Proceedings of a conference on integrating social sciences and ecosystem management.Gen.

Tech.Rep.SRS-17.Asheville, NC:U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Southern Research Station.213 p.These proceedings include papers and panel presentations from a 1995 workshop onintegrating social sciences and ecosystem management.Papers were organized intofive subject categories and reflect the regional focus (USDA Forest Service, SouthernRegion) of the participants.The concept of social acceptability of forest managementpractices is not addressed per se;however, many of the component issues that areencompassed in the concept of socially acceptable forestry are examined.

Crowfoot,J.E.;Wondolleck,J.M.1990.Environmental disputes:community involve-ment in conflict resolution.Washington, DC:Island Press.278 p.Presents an indepth look at citizen group involvement in various environmental dis-pute settlement processes.It does not discuss the role of social science research inidentifying socially acceptable alternatives to clearcutting.

Daniels,S.E.;Walker,G.B.;Boeder,J.;Means,J.E.1993.Managing ecosystemsand social conflict.In:Jensen, M.E.;Bourgeron, P.S., tech.eds.1994.Ecosystemmanagement:principles and applications.Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-GTR-318.

Portland, OR:U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific NorthwestResearch Station:327-339.Vol.2:(Everett, R.L., assessment team leader;EastsideForest Ecosystem Health Assessment).Reviews some of the challenges to decisionmaking institutions presented by ecosys-tem management in the face of social conflict.It presents basic assumptions aboutsocial conflict and ecosystem management and discusses ways that traditional publicparticipation techniques used by land management agencies may not be adequate.Collaborative negotiation based on integration of social and political considerations as well as biological values is presented as a potential forum for ecosystem manage-ment.A series of operational experiments, actual attempts at collaborative decision-making, is suggested as a research area of potential benefit.

Dunlap,R.E.;Catton,W.R.1983.What environmental sociologists have in common(whether concerned with “built”or “natural”environments).Sociological Inquiry.53(2/3):113-135.

19

20

Environmental sociology, study of the relation between societal and environmentalphenomena, is still a young field owing to conceptual and methodological difficulties in conducting studies.Environmental sociology emphasizes interactive reciprocal bidirectional relations with the environment.Environmental sociology differs frommainstream sociology in considering the relevance of the physical environment.This paper presents an ecological framework called the “Ecological Complex”forexamining societal and environmental interactions and describing the interaction ofenvironment, population, organization, and technology.

Eckhardt,C.,comp.1998.The human factor in ecological research:an annotatedbibliography.Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-GTR-429.Portland, OR:U.S.Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.45 p.This annotated bibliography includes references addressing a broad spectrum of literature in the fields of culture, environmental law, public policy, environmental

valuation strategies, philosophy, interdisciplinary research, landscape theory, design,and management.

Keywords:Human ecology, interdisciplinary research methods, ecosystem research,interdisciplinary bibliography, environmental policy, landscape design, landscape management.

Fiedler,C.1992.New Forestry:concepts and applications.Western Wildlife.17(4):2-7.Reviews the history of forest management in the United States and explains the

advent of New Forestry.The author attributes dissatisfaction with clearcutting to socie-tal changes including more urban populations, less direct dependence on commodityproduction, and a value shift toward aesthetic, recreational, and spiritual values.TheNew Forestry objective is to manage stands and landscapes to integrate commodityproduction, social values, and ecosystem sustainability.New Forestry may not be ableto resolve the preservation versus ecosystem management versus intensive manage-ment debate about values rather than ecology.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT].1993.Forest ecosys-tem management:an ecological, economic and social assessment.Portland, OR:U.S.Department of Agriculture;U.S.Department of the Interior [and others].[Irregular pagination].Develops the concept of social acceptability in forest management based on

knowledge, values (scenic, biodiversity, species survival, long-term site productivity), context of proposal (site specific), perceived risk of harvesting associated with

uncertainty and imperfect knowledge, perceived agency motives, and spatial context.Also discusses acceptable versus desirable conditions and the optimum state versusminimum allowable conditions.

Gobster,P.1996.Forest aesthetics, biodiversity, and the perceived appropriatenessof forest management practices.In:Brunson, M.W.;Kruger, L.E.;Tyler, C.B.;

Schroeder, S.A., tech.eds.Defining social acceptability in ecosystem management:

a workshop proceedings.Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-GTR-369.Portland, OR:U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station:77-97.

The abstract is as follows:

The social acceptability of “ecosystem management”and related new forestryprograms hinges on how people view the forest environment and what it meansto them.For many, these conceptions are based on a “scenic aesthetic”that isdramatic and visual, where both human and natural changes are perceived negatively.In contrast, appreciation of biologically diverse forests created

through ecosystem management practices depends on experience of the subtle,multimodal characteristics of a dynamic environment, an aesthetic attitude thatis acquired and cognitive rather than immediate and affective.Society is unlikelyto quickly adopt this “ecological aesthetic”as espoused by Aldo Leopold andothers.However, the concept of appropriateness could serve as a short-termalternative for resolving perceived conflicts between aesthetic and biodiversityvalues.Unlike scenic assessments, assessments of appropriateness addressthe question “What belongs where?”and work to integrate aesthetic and biodi-versity goals rather than to seek absolutes.This concept also ties aestheticstogether with land ethics by seeking a harmonious “fit”between human activityand the natural world.Approaches are outlined that suggest how perceptions of appropriateness might be studied and used in the context of ecosystem management practices.Additional thought is given to how researchers andmanagers can begin to broaden ideas of forest aesthetics over the long term.Keywords:Scenic beauty, biodiversity, ecological aesthetic, visual management practices, ecosystem management, landscape aesthetic, appropriateness, human-landscape interactions.

Gregory,R.;Lichenstein,S.;Slovic,P.1993.Valuing environmental resources:a constructive approach.Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.7:177-197.Examines the use of contingent valuation (CV) methods for estimating the economicvalue of environmental improvements and damages and argues that a principal constraint on the validity of CV methods is the imposition of unrealistic cognitivedemands on respondents.Recent behavioral decision research questions environ-mental preferences and values for unfamiliar and complex objects as being

constructed rather than revealed.The authors propose a new CV approach, based on multiattribute utility theory and decision analysis to better accommodate multi-dimensionality of value, minimize response refusals, and exclude irrelevancies.Hansis,R.1995.The social acceptability of clearcutting in the Pacific Northwest.Human Organization.54(1):95-101.A survey of several northwest Oregon and southwest Washington populations wasconducted by using mailed questionnaires and indepth interviews to determine theacceptability of clearcutting.Analysis of the responses indicated that acceptability ofclearcutting differs according to underlying values, partly determined by direct eco-nomic interests.Acceptability of clearcutting is a reflection of values held and spatial

21

22

and temporal, biophysical, and historical contexts.Responses were more nuancedthan the questionnaire could probe, and it was concluded that social scienceresearch needs to be both quantitative and qualitative to understand nuanced values and contexts of social acceptability.

Clearcutting may be more socially acceptable through innovative harvest patterns,improved equipment maintenance, better site cleanup, site recovery, and public education.

Keywords:Clearcutting, forest, participation, social acceptability.

Hansis,R.1996.Social acceptability in anthropology and geography.In:Brunson,M.W.;Kruger, L.E.;Tyler, C.B.;Schroeder, S.A., tech.eds.Defining social accept-ability in ecosystem management, a workshop proceedings.Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-GTR-369.Portland, OR:U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Pacific Northwest Research Station:37-47.Synthesizes literature from anthropology and geography in its examination of valuesand their relation to acceptability.It goes on to provide

frameworks and examples of how anthropologists can contribute to the under-standing of social acceptability.Context is shown to be an important factor indetermining acceptability, particularly when considered in light of the meaningsconstrued by the people involved.

Keywords:Values, acceptability, meanings, context, qualitative methods, emicapproach.

Holgén,P.;Mattsson,L.;Li,C.Z.2000.Recreation values of boreal forest standtypes and landscapes resulting from different silviculture systems:an economicanalysis.Journal of Environmental Management.60:173-180.A contingent valuation survey was used to estimate the recreation value of standtypes produced by four different silvicultural systems in Swedish boreal forests.A random sample of residents of a county containing typical boreal forests was askedtheir annual willingness to pay for forest recreation.They were shown four differentphoto series, each of which included four photos showing a forest stand at a specificphase of the rotation period (mature, newly cut/regenerated, young, and middleaged).Each series reflected a particular silvicultural system:natural regenerationusing seed trees that are retained for 15 years;single tree selection where all age,height, and diameter classes are always present;artificial regeneration after clear-cutting;and a shelterwood system with natural regeneration from seedlings growingunder the old trees.Respondents were asked which landscape and stand resembledthe one they use the most for recreation and which one they preferred for recreation.The value estimates, expressed in Swedish crowns, were highest for the maturestand in the silvicultural system “natural regeneration using seed trees”and the low-est for the newly cut/planting phase in the “artificial regeneration after clearcutting”system.The authors demonstrate how recreation values of forested landscapes canbe increased by modifying the shares of different stand types.For example, pruning

can make a young stand appear more like a middle-aged stand, or fertilizer can make a middle-aged stand more similar to a mature stand.Less than 5 percent of the regenerated forested area in Sweden is the shelterwood system, which is valuedmost highly for recreation.

Iverson,D.C.;Alston,R.M.1993.Ecosystem-based forestry requires a broader economic focus.Journal of Sustainable Forestry.1(2):97-106.Economic analysis can be used to evaluate monetized tradeoffs and identify marginaland nonmarginal changes and associated nonmonetary costs.But economists haveno expertise in identifying relative valuation of utilitarian and nonutilitarian goals andshould not attempt “efficiency”and net value assessments.This article discusses the broadening role for economics in national forest planning in such capacity asaccounting for public expenditure but cautions against inappropriate use of such economic tools as efficiency analysis in arriving at forest plan alternatives.Jones,R.E.;Dunlap,R.E.1992.The social bases of environmental concern:Havethey changed over time? Rural Sociology.57(1):28-47.Using data obtained from National Opinion Research Centers General Social Surveys(1973-90), this paper tests two hypotheses concerning possible changes in thesociopolitical correlates of environmental concern.Analyses of the data refute boththe “broadening base”and the “economic contingency”theories.Results indicate astable social base for environmental concern despite fluctuating economic, political,and environmental conditions.Survey results show environmental protection receivingthe most support from younger adults, the well educated, political liberals, Democrats,the urban, and those employed outside of primary industries.

Kennedy,J.J.;Thomas,J.W.1995.Managing natural resources as social value.In:Knight, R.L.;Bates, S.F., eds.A new century for natural resources management.Washington, DC:Island Press:311-321.Addresses the issue of social acceptability in forest management and concludes that because the public, including future public, is a major stockholder of naturalresources, the public must be served and, therefore, managing natural resources is, at least in part, a social science.This means that social value management andsocial conflict management are part of current and future forest management.Kessler,W.B.;Salwasser,H.1995.Natural resource agencies:transforming fromwithin.In:Knight, R.L.;Bates, S.F., eds.A new century for natural resources management.Washington, DC:Island Press:171-187.Explains the 2-year “New Perspectives”effort launched by the Forest Service in 1990.It was not a specific program of work or prescribed management practices but ratheran exercise to develop a set of principles addressing sustaining healthy ecosystems,involving people as partners, strengthening the scientific basis for management, andcollaborative problem-solving.

Koch,N.E.;Kennedy,J.J.1991.Multiple-use forestry for social values.Ambio.20(7):330-333.

23

24

Examines how forest values originate in society and are communicated to forest

managers.It reviews historical changes in forest management that have evolved froma multiple-product forestry to single-use forestry to multiple-use forestry in a post-industrial service society.The increased importance of the social values of forestrecreation, landscape amenity, biological diversity, cultural heritage, and environ-mental protection require foresters to manage forest social values as well as forestresources and therefore become conflict managers.The authors suggest a new definition of forestry to address management of forest resources to provide a mix ofmultiple-use social values for the public while protecting forest values and use optionsfor future generations.

Kuentzel,W.F.1996.Socially acceptable forestry:Mediating a compromise or orches-trating the agenda? In:Brunson, M.W.;Kruger, L.E.;Tyler, C.B.;Schroeder, S.A.,tech.eds.Defining social acceptability in ecosystem management:a workshop proceedings.Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-GTR-369.Portland, OR:U.S.Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station:49-63.Natural resource policy is shaped by continuous conflict, with players characterizedby different levels of power and influence.Instead of being a neutral consensus build-ing mediator in the midst of this arena of conflict, the Forest Service tends to influ-ence popular definitions about forest management, thereby maintaining its ownpower.Sociological theories, such as consensus conflict and theories of state andpower, are examined as a way to understand such imbalances of power and theirresultant influence on forest policy.

Keywords:Ecosystem management, resource policy, social values, stakeholders, consensus-conflict framework, social structure, public discourse.

Levine,R.L.;Langenau,E.E.,Jr.1979.Attitudes toward clearcutting and their relationships to the patterning and diversity of forest recreation activities.ForestScience.25:317-327.As a relatively early research attempt to assess attitudes toward clearcutting, thisstudy is perhaps most useful for its historical perspective.The study used question-naires mailed to landowners in Michigan in 1974 and 1976 to investigate attitudestoward clearcutting as correlated to demographic variables.Attitudes were correlatedby age, occupation, length of property ownership, education, and type of residence(seasonal and permanent).Findings included the fact that women landowners wereless supportive of clearcutting than men and the respondents’type of recreational useof harvest areas was more predictive than demographics regarding attitudes towardclearcutting.Among the study’s conclusions is the fact that experience in clearcutsresults in more positive opinions of clearcuts.

Keywords:Aspen, white-tailed deer, social costs, social benefits, multivariate analysis.List,P.1996.Leopoldian forestry and the ethical acceptability of forest practices.In:Brunson, M.W.;Kruger, L.E.;Taylor, C.B.;Schroeder, S.A., tech.eds.Definingsocial acceptability in ecosystem management:a workshop proceedings.Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-GTR-369.Portland, OR:U.S.Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Pacific Northwest Research Station:25-36.

The article’s abstract states the following:

A wide variety of environmental and ethical frameworks exists within which

foresters operate.These frequently competing systems reveal the complexity ofhuman-environment relations.Given the disparate nature of ethical considera-tions facing foresters, this paper seeks to develop coherent ways to view ethicalacceptability and apply them to understanding forestry issues.Four concepts incontemporary ethics are discussed, with special focus on the land ethic of AldoLeopold and its role in substantiating ethical acceptability and shaping publicopinion about environmental issues.

Keywords:Environmental ethics, multiple values, Leopoldian forestry, ecophilosophy,ethical acceptability.

Madden,R.B.1990.The forestry challenge of the nineties:it is time foresters redefined their professional mission.Journal of Forestry.88(1):36-39.The author contends that the needs of society have changed;foresters need to bescientists, technicians, sociologists, and politicians.The forestry profession must dealwith controversy over forest land management.Economics, science, social, political,philosophical, and aesthetic values need to be taken into consideration.The authorsuggests that most Americans want a balance of uses in the forest.

Magill,A.W.1992.Managed and natural landscapes:What do people like? Res.Pap.PSW-RP-213.Albany, CA:U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, PacificSouthwest Research Station.28 p.Presents research undertaken to determine visual sensitivity to managed and naturallandscapes as judged by verbal responses to photography (slides).The purpose ofthe research was to provide managers with a better understanding of public concernover visual effects of alternative landscape management scenarios.Responses werediscussed in terms of favorable and unfavorable responses and interpreted in a discussion of acceptable and unacceptable management.Questionnaire responsesindicated forest stands were the most frequently reported object and were well liked.Clearcuts were disliked 30 percent more often than roads.The report concluded that a significant amount of misinterpretation of what was seen suggests a need for interpretive programs to improve public understanding of management.Keywords:Environmental perception, landscape management, public concern,resource management, verbal responses, visual sensitivity.

Maki,W.R.;Olson,D.;Schallau,C.H.1985.A dynamic simulation model for analyz-ing the importance of forest resources in Alaska.Res.Note PNW-432.Portland,OR:U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest andRange Experiment Station.12 p.Presents a dynamic simulation model for examining the economic consequences in the pulp/paper and tourism industries of alternative forest resource managementpolicies in Alaska.It is concluded that $105 million in final demand for goods and

25

26

services in the tourism industry would compensate for employment and earnings oftwo pulp mills.It is suggested that the model could be adapted for use elsewhere withthe use of interindustry transaction tables.

Keywords:Economic importance (forests), models, simulation, Alaska, managementplanning (forest).

McBeth,M.K.;Foster,R.H.1994.Rural environmental attitudes.EnvironmentalManagement.18(3):401-411.Examines rural environmental concerns of wealthy community newcomers and long-time rural residents.Survey data were collected from five rural Idaho communities,and responses were analyzed by gender, income, age, education, years in communi-ty, and occupation.Results provide a relatively more complex picture of rural environ-mental attitudes than initially assumed and indicate the cross-sectional nature of ruralenvironmental concern.It is concluded that environmental issues will find support inrural communities provided the message is consistent with rural attitudes and values.McCool,S.F.;Benson,R.E.;Ashor,J.L.1986.How the public perceives the visualeffects of timber harvesting:an evaluation of interest group preferences.Environmental Management.10:385-391.Reports on a study conducted to compare how landscape architects and professionalforest management groups rate 25 scenes showing five visual quality objectives inthe Forest Service visual management system.Results show similar rank orderings of visual preference produced by all groups, but absolute value ratings differed amonggroups.Most groups were unable to differentiate scenic quality of areas of preserva-tion from retention of visual quality objectives.

Keywords:Landscape preference, scenic values, visual resources.

Muth,R.M.1990.Community stability as social structure:the role of subsistenceuses of natural resources in southeast Alaska.In:Lee, R.G.;Field, D.R.;Burch,W.R., Jr., eds.Community and forestry:continuities in the sociology of naturalresources.Boulder, CO:Westview Press:211-227.Suggests that structural sociology applied to natural resource development issuesmay illuminate questions of community stability.The stability of forest-dependent com-munities is the aim of sustained-yield harvest and other forest management policies.The author contends that subsistence resource use as a social institution has devel-oped as a mechanism for stability in southeast Alaska.Subsistence provides a way to deal with uncertainty and the production, allocation, and consumption of scarceresources.Subsistence harvest, distribution and exchange, and consumption lendstability and social cohesion to southeast communities in the face of timber and fish-ing industry fluctuations.The institutional importance of subsistence in southeastAlaska is persistent, adaptable, and stable but maintenance of subsistence traditionrequires resource availability, specialized (social) knowledge, and favorable harvestregulations.Forest management decisions need to be sensitive to importance of subsistence to the community.

Pinkerton,E.1998.Integrated management of a temperate forest ecosystem throughholistic forestry:a British Columbia example.In:Berkes, F.;Folke, C., eds.Linkingsocial and ecological systems—management practices and social mechanisms forbuilding resilience.Cambridge, NY:Cambridge University Press:363-3.Describes a creative response to controversial clearcutting in British Columbia.TheEagle Clan of the Gitksan people in northern British Columbia uses traditional knowl-edge and Western landscape ecology to develop a sustainable logging plan for a portion of their traditional territory.This smaller scale, community-based, more sociallyand environmentally sound approach holds the promise of more adaptive and sustainable holistic forestry for the future.

Ribe,R.G.1982.On the possibility of quantifying scenic beauty:a response.Landscape Planning.9:61-79.

Explains and defends the empirical assessment and quantification of scenic beautythrough the use of aesthetic landscape assessments.The author contends that identi-fying and using a variety of research methods to understand a range of qualities andrelations can provide a basis for defensible and practical assessments for protectingaesthetic quality in the environment.

Ribe,R.G.19.The aesthetics of forestry:What has empirical preference researchtaught us? Environmental Management.13(1):55-74.Addresses what is known about forest aesthetics through empirical preference

research.A review of scientific research relating to public preferences for forest land-scapes includes findings regarding the perception of forest conditions, scenic effectsof forest treatments, and the effects of time on forest beauty and forest experience.Itis concluded that forest preference prediction models show little general validity, thatsimple rules do not singularly or consistently determine scenic perceptions, and thatan understanding of nonscenic aesthetic influences also is needed.

Although aesthetic perception research has progressed from intuitive criticism to scientific analysis, a general perceptual-aesthetic theory needs to be developed andmore social science research is needed.

Ribe,R.G.1999.Regeneration harvests versus clearcuts:public views of the accept-ability and aesthetics of Northwest Forest Plan harvests.Northwest Science.73(Special issue):102-117.The social acceptability of forest management is complex, nuanced, and subject toeffects of information and attitudes.Visual perceptions derive from reactions to aes-thetics especially among less interested observers.More interested observers mayform more cognitive opinions based on conceptual understanding of forest practices,ecology, etc.To date, little research has considered perceptions of New Forestry harvests or regeneration harvests prescribed by the Northwest Forest Plan.Thisstudy investigated prospects for the potential resolution of long-standing adverse perceptions of clearcut logging through these regeneration harvests as a prelude tomore detailed findings from a larger social perceptions study in progress.A diversesample of adults in western Oregon and Washington assigned ratings of acceptability

27

28

and scenic beauty to depictions of timber harvest with aggregated and dispersed patterns of approximately 15 percent green-tree retention both with and without information about their New Forestry attributes and intentions.

Respondents rated actual photographs and simulated scenes showing the two

retention patterns as well as clearcuts and uncut forests shown in the same scenes.Comparisons of the average ratings suggest that 15 percent dispersed green-treeretention harvests can be perceived much the same as clearcuts, and aggregatedgreen-tree retention patterns within harvests may produce more favorable perceptionsof scenic beauty.

Rogers,K.1996.The public, the forest, and the U.S.Forest Service:understandingattitudes towards ecosystem management.In:Brunson, M.W;Kruger, L.E.;Tyler,C.B.;Schroeder, S.A., tech.eds.Defining social acceptability in ecosystem

management:a workshop proceedings.Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-GTR-369.Portland,OR:U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest ResearchStation:65-76.The abstract is as follows:

An examination of past attitudes towards forests and forestry reveals the com-plexity and depth of emotive valuation that is a part of American political culture.This evaluation of forests can be seen in today’s highly emotional public debate.With the historical perspective established, a discussion of some methods thathave been used to determine how the public values the nonuse or intrinsic qual-ities of various elements in nature is useful and appropriate.Finally, a discussionis undertaken of methodologies and instruments that might be used to conducta formal assessment of public attitudes toward ecosystem management prac-tices.With this information, public resource managers will be better prepared to (1) determine the acceptability of ecosystem management practices toAmerican Society, (2) develop appropriate public education and awareness programs, (3) improve overall communications among interested and involvedparties, (4) gather more input into their own decision making process, and 5) anticipate whatever public response may greet their management decisions.Keywords:Ecosystem management, public attitudes, values, contingent valuation,historical attitudes, acceptability.

Salwasser,H.1990.Gaining perspective:forestry for the future.Journal of Forestry.88(11):32-38.A 1990 presentation to the Society of American Foresters by the Forest Servicedirector of the New Perspectives program.It represents an early exploration of the initiative for ecosystem management and calls for broadening the concept of multipleuse to include multiple values.

Sample,V.A.1991.Land stewardship in the next era of conservation.Milford, PA:Grey Towers Press.43 p.

Presents and discusses the Grey Towers Protocol, which was developed by 30 professionals in a workshop conducted by the Pinchot Institute for Conservation in1990.It includes four guiding land stewardship conservation principles for resourcemanagers.

1.Management activities must be within the physical and biological capabilities of theland, based on comprehensive, up-to-date resource information and a thoroughscientific understanding of the ecosystem’s functioning and response.

2.The intent of management, as well as monitoring and reporting, should be makingprogress toward desired future resource conditions, not on achieving specific near-term resource output targets.

3.Stewardship means passing the land and resources—including intact, functioningforest ecosystems—to the next generation in better condition than they were found.4.Land stewardship must be more than good “scientific management”;it must be amoral imperative.Schallau,C.H.19.Sustained yield versus community stability.Journal of Forestry.87(9):16-23.Presents a case study of the community of Shelton, Washington, and the SustainedYield Forest Management Act, which was intended to ensure community stability byensuring that timber from national and private forest lands remains at stable levelsand thus provides for a stable timber community.The case study concluded thatnational forests must address socioeconomic consequences of timber harvestingwhen addressing community stability.Because communities do not exist in isolationfrom the larger socioeconomic forces around them, sustained yield alone cannotensure community stability.For example, technological change can erode jobs, requiring new export-producing employment or other initiatives to sustain the work-force.Community stability should imply orderly change, not a static fixed condition.Shindler,B.1995.Timber harvesting on the Tongass:What’s important to local citizens? Challenges facing resource management and research.No.11.Seattle,WA:U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest ResearchStation.3 p.Reports on research conducted on the Tongass National Forest on opinions in the Stikine area about alternative harvesting and underlying concerns by using

focus groups, individual interviews, questions, and photographs.Conclusions includethe fact that social acceptability is more than a visual aesthetic;it is complex anddepends on the ability of individuals to visualize and understand the effects, believethe information presented, have meaningful participation in the decisionmakingprocess, and recognize local benefits.Response to the study indicated concern forimpacts on scenic quality, subsistence, recreation, tourism, and risks associated withproposed timber harvest.In general, the multiple-objective middle ground is the mostpreferred alternative.Whereas industry-associated respondents wanted to maintaintimber harvest volume, citizens generally opposed highgrading, felt small is better, didnot want to increase the timber harvest land base, and supported alternative methodsif the rationale, research questions, and outcomes were understood.

29

30

Shindler,B.;List,P.;Steel,B.S.1993.Managing federal forests:public attitudes inOregon and nationwide.Journal of Forestry.91(7):36-42.Reviews research to assess public preferences for federal forest policy and opinionson public involvement in decisionmaking.Questionnaires were mailed to a randomsample of Oregon and national publics in fall 1991.Analysis of the responses showeddramatic support for ecosystem-based policies.Most approved of managing multiplevalues and did not support commodity-based policies.Near majorities favored a holis-tic approach with balance between environmental and economic components.Surveyresults demonstrate broad support for a more environmentally oriented, multiple valued, publicly influenced approach to federal forest management.It was concludedthat noncommodity forest values need to be more significantly incorporated into federal forest management.

Shindler,B.;Peters,J.;Kruger,L.[N.d.].Social values and acceptability of alterna-tive harvest practices on the Tongass National Forest.97 p.On file at:JuneauForestry Sciences Laboratory, Library, 2770 Sherwood Lane, Juneau, Alaska,99801-8545.Presents an exploratory study of social values and acceptability of alternative forestharvesting practices in the Stikine Area of the Tongass National Forest.The studyexamines public preferences for forest management practices and suggests ways inwhich knowledge of local publics can be used as a forest management tool.Researchobjectives included examination of how people use the forest, opinions on alternativeharvest practices, underlying meanings, interest group preferences, and socialassessment techniques.Focus groups and personal interview techniques were used to collect qualitative data for insights, perceptions, and explanations for thisexploratory research.

Results of the study support the understanding that social acceptability of alternativeharvest practices is based on many factors, not any single factor, including visualpreferences, amenity use, ecosystem management, sustainable cost-effective timberharvest, and community-based management.Social acceptability reflects technicalknowledge, biophysical consequences, economic constraints, and political interests.Discovering socially acceptable alternative forest harvest practices may be primarily a matter of “working through”complex issues with communities to find durable solutions.

Stankey,G.H.1996.Defining the social acceptability of forest management practicesand conditions:integrating science and social choice.In:Brunson, M.W.;Kruger,L.E.;Tyler, C.B.;Schroeder, S.A., tech.eds.Defining social acceptability in eco-system management:a workshop proceedings.Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-GTR-369.Portland, OR:U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific NorthwestResearch Station:99-111.The abstract is as follows:

At the 1993 Forest Conference in Portland, Oregon, Ted Strong, representingNative American interests remarked, “We must understand that status quo man-agement is completely unacceptable.”His remark embraces the central feature

of the forest management crisis facing the Pacific Northwest as well as else-where:the current situation, characterized by uncertainty, acrimony, and distrust,leaves few, if any satisfied.And it implies the need for a search for an alternativethat is characterized as “acceptable.”

What is there about the current situation that makes it unacceptable? To whom?What would characterize an acceptable alternative? Is an acceptable alternativeone that is supported by a majority;if so, what is the relationship between sucha judgment and long-term ecological sustainability?

Such questions are central to defining an acceptable forest management pro-gram.In this paper I first focus on the acceptability concept and its underlyingrationale and role in forest management.I then turn to a framework proposed bysociologist Walter Firey defining the relationship between social acceptabilityand other decision factors.I conclude by outlining four basic questions thatrequire attention if the potential of the acceptability concept is to be fulfilled.Keywords:Social values, acceptability, decisionmaking, informed discourse, role ofknowledge, cultural adaptability.

Stankey,G.H.;Brown,P.J.;Clark,R.N.1992.Allocating and managing for diversevalues of forests:the market place and beyond.In:Koch, N., comp.Integrated sus-tainable multiple-use forest management under the market system:Proceedings ofan International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) internationalconference;Pushkino, Moscow Region, Russia:257-271.Discusses evolution of the new paradigm and the role of values in the new paradigm.It is concluded that the new paradigm represents a broadened concept of sustainabil-ity including human as well as biological and ecological considerations, a decision-making process that includes the full community of interests, and improved publicinformation process.The paper identifies needs for research on social values offorestry and improved integrative research strategies.

Stankey,G.H.;Clark,R.N.1992.Social aspects of new perspectives in forestry.Milford, PA:Grey Towers Press.33 p.Through several assessment initiatives to outline the nature of forest values anddevelop a social values problem analysis, forest values identified are commodity,amenity, environmental quality, ecological, public use, and spiritual.Six general problems were defined, and many approaches to solving them were identified.Themeaning and value of forests change over time and space.There is a need to betterunderstand specific attributes that contribute to acceptability and changes in percep-tion in time and space.Public preferences relating to forest practices as well as forestconditions need to be better researched.Methods for measuring public acceptabilityneed to be improved.To achieve these aims, an adaptive, collaborative, multiorgani-zational, interdisciplinary approach is needed.

Stankey,G.H.;Cole,D.;Lucas,R.;Petersen,M.;Frissell,S.1985.The limits ofacceptable change (LAC) system for wilderness planning.Gen.Tech.Rep.INT-176.Ogden, UT:U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forestand Range Experiment Station.37 p.

31

32

Presents a framework for establishing an effective recreation management programby identifying acceptable and appropriate resource and social conditions in recreationsettings.The authors call this framework the limits of acceptable change (LAC) sys-tem.The LAC is a reformulation of the recreational carrying capacity concept withfocus on desired conditions.The LAC system identifies a nine-step process to followin developing an effective recreation management program.This general technicalreport is an often-referenced resource in the developing field of social acceptabilitymanagement.

Steel,B.;List,P.;Shindler,B.1994.Conflicting values about federal forests:a comparison of national and Oregon publics.Society and Natural Resources.7(2):137-153.Presents research conducted to identify changing value orientations toward forestsand to determine forest management preferences of Oregon and national publics.Thepaper compares the results between the two groups.Findings include the fact thatboth Oregon and national publics were more biocentric than anthropocentric, and thenational public was more biocentric than the Oregon public.Response suggests agrowing resistance to clearcutting and support for an ecologically sensitive, holistic,multivalues forest management approach.Variation in value orientation to the forestwas positively correlated to sociodemographic characteristics, self and group interest,sociopolitical value orientations, and geographic location.

Keywords:Anthropocentric orientations, biocentric orientations, environmental values,federal forest, forest management, public opinion.

Super,G.;Bacon,W.;Carr,D.[et al.].1993.The human dimensions of national for-est ecosystem management:an issue paper.In:Lund, H.G., ed.Proceedings of thenational workshop on integrated ecological and resource inventories.Washington,DC:U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service:[Pages unknown].Reviews the concept of ecosystem management in the Forest Service and discusseshuman dimension data.Because of its broad scope, this presentation is necessarilygeneral in its discussion.Human dimension inventory and analysis content and

methods are explained.Conclusions are presented about management and researchneeds, which will be required before the human dimension receives full considerationin ecosystem management.

Thorne,J.F.;Huang,C.S.1991.Toward a landscape ecological aesthetic:method-ologies for designers and planners.Landscape and Urban Planning.21:61-79.Advocates combining issues of landscape ecological integrity with issues of aestheticappeal to create the landscape ecological aesthetic, which is defined as the overallhealth of the landscape measured in terms of air quality, availability of high-qualitywater from minimally disrupted hydrologic cycles, the conservation of soils, thepreservation of minimally disrupted plant and animal habitat configurations, and self-motivated cultural continuity.Although no simple formula for aesthetic value canbe found, aesthetic appeal is the result of sensory (vision, hearing, smell, touch,taste), symbolic, and positive feeling (emotion), and ecological integrity is based onthe physical environment, and biological and cultural diversity and continuity.The

potential is explored for fusion of landscape ecology methods and their emphasis onspatial and temporal effects with aesthetic considerations’appeal to sense and sensi-bilities to achieve a landscape ecological aesthetic.

Voth,D.E.;Fendley,K.;Farmer,F.L.1994.A diagnosis of the Forest Service’s “socialcontext.”Journal of Forestry.92(9):17-20.Addresses the Forest Service’s New Perspectives/Ecosystem Management initiativerecognition that the desired future condition of the forest is to have three components:(1) forest as a provider, (2) forest as ecosystem, and (3) forest with social context;todate, the forest’s social context has not received serious attention.The authors con-clude that the Forest Service needs to incorporate the public into the decisionmakingprocess to a greater extent and more research is needed on public participation.It isrecommended that the Forest Service’s extensive experience in public involvementshould be analyzed as a starting point.

Walters,R.,ed.1990.Visual quality objectives in Douglas-fir forests.R6-REC-TP-016-90.Portland, OR:U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, PacificNorthwest Region.[Pages unknown].Illustrates visual quality objectives specified in national forest management plans withphotographs and an information profile for each photograph.It is intended to be usedas a tool for communicating forest management techniques and their visual conditions among planners, managers, and the public.

Wenner,L.N.1987.The practice and promise of social science in the U.S.ForestService.In:Miller, M.L.;Gale, R.P.;Brown, P.J., eds.Social science in naturalresource management systems.Boulder, CO:Westview Press:63-81.Examines the role of applied social science in public participation, social impact

analysis, and coordination of social impact analysis in management of Forest Servicelands.It concludes that the current role of social science in the Forest Service is limit-ed, constrained by inadequate staffing, tentative guidance, uncertain responsibility,controversy and complexity, low-priority status, and other institutional limitations.Theauthor concludes with a call for increased effective use of social science analysis inthe Forest Service to identify affected populations, determine agency impacts, anddevelop mitigation for unwanted effects.

Williams,G.W.[N.d.].Social science research in the Forest Service:an increasingemphasis.Durham, NC:Forest History Society;U.S.Department of Agriculture,Forest Service.[Pages unknown].Reviews the history of social science research in the Forest Service.Social scienceresearch is the scientific investigation of the physical, biological, sociological, psycho-logical, cultural, and economic aspects of communities and individuals in relation tothe use and appreciation of natural resources.Recent sociological research on forestvaluation indicates public values are shifting, moving away from economic and towardaesthetic definitions.These studies also reveal differing perspectives between

foresters and environmentalists, with the general public holding yet another view.Thesocial-human aspects of ecosystem management promise to prove as complex as

33

34

the physical-biological ecosystem interactions themselves.Ecosystem managementintends social science research to be integrated into management decisions, butthere is currently a lack of effective leadership and coordination for social scienceresearch in the Forest Service and ambiguity regarding social science basic theory,policy development, and decisionmaking.

Wondolleck,J.1988.Public lands conflict and resolution:managing national forestdisputes.New York:Plenum Press.263 p.Explains the issue of public land management conflict, its historical context within theU.S.Forest Service, and proposes steps and processes to resolve land managementdisputes over Forest Service land.The author does not address the role of social science research in identifying socially acceptable alternatives to clearcutting.Wood,D.1988.Unnatural illusions:some words about visual resource management.Landscape Journal.7(2):192-205.Critiques the visual resource management system used by federal agencies to man-age landscape values.The author argues that visual resource management confusesappearance with substance and attempts to produce a “Garden of Eden”illusion

while enjoying continuous increases in forest products, goods, and services.A sceneis not an ecosystem, and nature cannot be managed without becoming artificial andunnatural.

Wright,W.1992.Wild knowledge:science, language, and social life in a fragile environment.Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota Press.236 p.The author contends that science can validate only technological, not ecological,knowledge.Only language can effectively articulate knowledge of the social-naturalrationality embodied in ecosystems.This is to say that knowledge of wild (nature) is holistic, not reductionist.The book does not discuss the role of social scienceresearch in identifying socially acceptable alternatives to clearcutting.However, theauthor’s arguments may provide insight into useful approaches of inquiry and analysisof the subject of social acceptability.

Zube,E.H.1987.Perceived land use patterns and landscape values.LandscapeEcology.1(1):37–45.Addresses the implications of individuals’patterns of use of the land and their land-scape values, and land management decisions.A transactional model of the relationbetween humans and landscapes is presented and applied to findings from threestudies conducted in Arizona over an 8-year period.Conclusions include the sugges-tion that patterns of an individual’s land use activity form the basis of that individual’slandscape perceptions, and perceptions differ among individuals.Furthermore, per-ceptions, influenced by personal utility function (needs and desires) and social andcultural context define value orientation and ultimately landscape response.Finally,land use changes consonant with personal utility functions and values are supported.Zube,E.H.;Sell,J.L.;Taylor,J.G.1982.Landscape perception:research, application,and theory.Landscape Planning.9:1-33.

Analyzes perceived landscape values and landscape perception paradigms.Over 160articles from 20 journals published between 1965 and 1980 are reviewed, and fourparadigms (expert, psychophysical, cognitive, and experiential) are identified with discussion of their contribution to landscape planning and management and a generalBibliographicSearch Terms

theory of landscape perception.It is concluded that human-landscape interactionresearch is fragmentary, and a general landscape perception theory needs to bedeveloped.A proposed framework based on an interactive perception process is presented.

acceptability

adaptive managementadjustmentaestheticsAlaska

anthropocentric orientationsappropriatenessattitudesbehaviors

biocentric orientationsbiocentrismbiodiversitychangeclearcuttingcommunities

communities of interest

consensus-conflict frameworkcontext

contingent valuationcultural adaptabilitydecisionmakingdecision supportdiversification

ecological aesthetic

economic importance (forests)economic trendsecophilosophy

ecosystem managementecosystem researchemic approachemployment

environmental ethics

environmental perceptionenvironmental policyenvironmental valuesethical acceptabilityfederal forestfeedbackforest

forest aestheticsforest management

35

36

forest recreationForest Serviceforest useforest valuesforestry

future decisionsfuture generationsgovernment

historical attitudeshuman ecology

human-landscape interactionsinformation as a resourceinformation synthesisinformed discourse

interdisciplinary bibliography

interdisciplinary research methodsiterative decisionmakinglandscape aestheticslandscape assessmentlandscape design

landscape managementlandscape preferencelandscapes

Leopoldian forestrylinked actionslogging

management experimentsmanagement planning (forest)management principlesmanagement system

managing as an experimentmeanings

methodological pluralismmixed scanning approachmodels

multidimensionalitymultiple values

multivariate analysisnatural resource usenew forestry

new perspectivesparadigmparticipationponderosa pinepublic attitudespublic concernpublic discoursepublic opinion

public participationqualitative methods

residues

resource governanceresource managementresource policyrisk perceptionrole of knowledgescenic beautyscenic values

science-based managementscientific uncertaintysimulation

social acceptabilitysocial benefitssocial costssocial structuresocial valuessoutheast Alaskastakeholderssubsistencesustainability

sustainable development(the) lacing modeltimber harvesting

Tongass National Forestunexpected future optionsvalues

values of knowledgeverbal responsesvisual management

visual management practicesvisual qualityvisual resourcesvisual sensitivitywhite-tailed deer

37

The Forest Serviceof the U.S.Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principleof multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields ofwood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation.Through forestry research, cooperationwith the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forestsand National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasinglygreater service to a growing Nation.

The U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programsand activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disabili-ty, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status.(Not all prohibitedbases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative meansfor communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) shouldcontact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room326-W, Whitten Building, 14thand Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-59 (voice and TDD).USDA is an equal opportunity providerand employer.

Pacific Northwest Research StationWebsiteTelephonePublication requestsFAXE-mailMailing addresshttp://www.fs.fed.us/pnw(503) 808-2592(503) 808-2138(503) 808-2130pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.usPublications DistributionPacific Northwest Research StationP.O.Box 30Portland, OR 97208-30