Advertisement

Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 5–16 | Cite as

Human dimensions of forest management: an empirical study of stakeholder perspectives

  • Anne R. Kearney
  • Gordon Bradley
Article

Abstract

Although much has been written on the human dimensions of forest management, there has been little empirical investigation of how forest stakeholders themselves conceptualize this domain. We used a conceptual content cognitive mapping (3CM) task along with a short survey to explore the perspectives of 23 forest stakeholders in the Pacific Northwest on the human factors relevant to appropriate forest management. Study participants were chosen from three groups: employees of the U.S. Forest Service at the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie Forest, employees of a large timber company, and area environmentalists. Three distinct human dimensions emerged: Traditional intangible benefits (aesthetic concerns, recreation and cultural resources), Values and expectations (considering multiple values, maintaining public expectations, considering social acceptability and maintaining public confidence in forestry), and Process issues indecision making (public involvement, communication across boundaries, collaboration and taking an interdisciplinary approach). In this article, we discuss these three dimensions, the differences found among the stakeholder groups in the importance they placed on each of these dimensions, and the benefits of the 3CM method in this context.

human dimensions forest management ecosystem management cognitive mapping Pacific Northwest 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Austin, D. E. (1994) Incorporating cognitive theory into environmental policymaking. Environmental Professional 16, 262-74.Google Scholar
  2. Borgatti (1992) Anthropac 4.0.Analytic Technologies, Columbia.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, B. A. (1995) In Timber Country.Temple Univ. Press, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  4. Brunson, M.W., Kruger, L. E., Tyler, C. B. and Schroeder, S. A., eds (1996) Defining Social Acceptability in Ecosystem Management: A Workshop Proceedings.Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-369. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
  5. Clinton, W. J. (1993) Remarks at the conclusion of the forest conference in Portland, OR, April 2, dy1993. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 29(14), 529-31.Google Scholar
  6. FEMAT (1993) Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment.Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team.Google Scholar
  7. Fisher, R. and Ury, W. (1991) Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In.Penguin Books, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  8. Goode, W. J. and Hatt, P. K. (1952) Methods in Social Research.McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  9. Grumbine, R. E. (1994) What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology 8(1), 27-38.Google Scholar
  10. Johnson, S. (1967) Hierarchical clustering schemes. Psychometrika 38, 241-54.Google Scholar
  11. Jones, G. T. (1995) The careful timber harvest: a guide to logging esthetics. J. Forestry 93(2), 12-5.Google Scholar
  12. Kearney, A. R. and Bradley, G. (1996) Defining the dialogue around ecosystem management: an analysis of the recent literature. Report prepared for the USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  13. Kearney, A. R., Bradley, G., Kaplan, R., and Kaplan, S. (In Press) Stakeholder perspectives on appropriate forest management in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Science.Google Scholar
  14. Kearney, A. R. and Kaplan, S. (1997) Toward a methodology for the measurement of knowledge structures of ordinary people: the conceptual content cognitive map (3CM). Environment and Behavior 29(5), 579-617.Google Scholar
  15. Kerr, A. (1995) Ecosystem management must include the most human of factors. Bioscience 45(6), 378.Google Scholar
  16. Machlis, G. E., Force, J. E. and Burch, W. R. (1997) The human ecosystem Part 1: The human ecosystem as an organizing concept in ecosystem management. Society Natural Resources 10, 347-67.Google Scholar
  17. Moote, M. A., Burke, S., Cortner, H. J. and Wallace, M. G. (1994) Principles of Ecosystem Management. Water Resources Research Center, College of Agriculture, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  18. Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. 16 U.S.C.A. §528 et seq.Google Scholar
  19. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 42 U.S.C.A. §4331 et seq.Google Scholar
  20. National Forest Management Act of 1976. 16 U.S.C.A. §1600 et seq.Google Scholar
  21. Neale, M. A. and Bazerman, M. H. (1983) The role of perspective-taking ability in negotiating under different forms of arbitration. Industrial Labor Relations Rev. 36(3), 378-88.Google Scholar
  22. Regional Ecosystem Office, (1995) Ecosystem Analysis at theWatershed Scale: Federal Guide forWatershed Analysis, Version 2.2.Regional Ecosystem Office, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
  23. Robson, C. (1993) Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioners-Researchers. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.Google Scholar
  24. Sauley, K. S. and Bedeian, A. G. (1989). 05: a case of the tail wagging the distribution. J. Management 15(2), 335-44.Google Scholar
  25. Schuh, D. (1995) Managing esthetic values: Weyerhaeuser Company's approach. J. Forestry 93(2), 20-5.Google Scholar
  26. Stankey, G. H. and Clark, R. N. (1992) Social Aspects of New Perspectives in Forestry: A Problem Analysis. Grey Towers Press, Milford, PA.Google Scholar
  27. Systat for Windows, 1992. Version 5 Edition. Systat, Inc., Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
  28. USDA Forest Service National Human Dimensions of Ecosystem Management Task Team, (1994) Human dimensions in ecosystem management: a concept paper.Google Scholar
  29. Yaffee, S. L. (1994) TheWisdom of the Spotted Owl: Policy Lessons for a New Century.Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne R. Kearney
    • 1
  • Gordon Bradley
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Forest Resources, University of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations