Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social Values and Compatible Forest Management

  • Chapter
Compatible Forest Management

Part of the book series: Managing Forest Ecosystems ((MAFE,volume 8))

  • 189 Accesses

Abstract

Although compatible forest management is often described as the simultaneous production of wood and other goods and services from forests (Haynes et al. 2003), it is fundamentally about values. In particular, it is about assigning values to forest goods and services and making judgments about how management actions affect those values. Values related to forests and forest resources come in many forms, including commodity, amenity, environmental quality, ecological, public use, and spiritual values (Stankey and Clark 1992). Some values conflict and others are not well understood. This poses a dilemma for forest management strategies, such as compatible forest management, that are not intended to negatively impact other values for the sake of wood production. If we do not understand a value and its relation to other values, how do we know if management actions negatively affect it?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Adams, D.A. 1993. Renewable resource policy: the legal-institutional foundations. Washington, DC: Island Press. 557 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, R.N.L., and Waits, M.J. 1978. Environmental values in public decisions: a research agenda. Ann Arbor, MI: School of Natural Resources, University of Michigan. 90 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball-Rokeach, S.J., and Loges, W.E. 1992. Value theory and research. In: E.F. Borgatta, and M.L. Borgatta (Eds.), Encyclopedia of sociology. (Vol. 4, pp. 2222–2228). New York: MacMillan Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, I.G. 1980. Technology, environment, and human values. New York: Praeger. 331 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton, T., Borrini-Feyerabend, G., de Sherbinin, A., and Warren, P. 1997. Our people, our resources. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, World Conservation Union. [irregular pagination]. Retrieved December 19, 2002 from http://www.iucn.org/themes/spg/opor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bass, S. 2001. Working for forest stakeholders. In: J. Evans (Ed.), The forests handbook. (Vol. 2, pp. 221–232). Mailden, MA: Blackwell Science.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Beese, W.J., Duns worth, G., and Perry, J. 2001. The forest project: three-year review and update. Ecoforestry, 16(4): 10–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckley, T.M., Boxall, P.C., Just, L.K., and Wellstead, A.M. 1999. Forest stakeholder attitudes and values: selected social-science contributions. Information Report NOR-X-362. Edmonton, Alberta: Northern Forestry Centre. 24 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengston, D.N. 1994. Changing forest values and ecosystem management. Society and Natural Resources, 7(5): 515–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengston, D.N., and Xu, Z. 1996. Shifting and expanding forest values: the case of the U.S. national forests. George Wright Forum, 13(2): 10–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bright, A.D., and Barro, S.C. 2000. The mediating effects of values on the relationship between outdoor recreation participation and pro-environmental behavior. In: I.E. Schneider, D. Chavez, B. Borrie, and K. James (Eds.), Diverse challenges of our times: people, products, places: third symposium on social aspects and recreation research (pp. 39–42). Tucson, AZ: Arizona State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, D.J., and Grant, G.E. 1992. New approaches to forest management: background, science issues, and research agenda. Part 1 of 2 parts. Journal of Forestry, 90(1): 25–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G., and Harris, C.C. 1992. The USDA Forest Service: toward the new resource management paradigm? Society and Natural Resources, 5(3): 231–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P.J., and Manfredo, M.J. 1987. Social values defined. In: D.J. Decker, and G.R. Goff (Eds.), Valuing wildlife: economic and social perspectives (pp. 12–23). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T.C. 1984. The concept of value in resource allocation. Land Economics, 60(3): 231–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cernea, M.M. (Ed.). 1991. Putting people first: sociological variables in rural development. (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. 1983. Rural development: putting the last first. London: Longman House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. 1994. The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development, 22(7): 953–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clawson, M. 1983. The federal lands revisited. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 302 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culhane, P.J. 1981. Public lands policy: interest group influence on the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 398 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, R.G., Brookshire, D.S., and Schulze, W.D. 1986. Valuing public goods: an assessment of the contingent valuation methods. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld. 270 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, S.E., and Walker, G.B. 1999. Rethinking public participation in natural resource management: concepts from pluralism and five emerging approaches. In: J. Eldan, and J. Anderson (Eds.), Pluralism and sustainable forestry and rural development: proceedings of an international workshop (pp. 29–48). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLamater, J.D. 1992. Attitudes. In: E.F. Borgatta, and M.L. Borgatta (Eds.), Encyclopedia of sociology (Vol. 1, pp. 117–124). New York: MacMillan Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, R. 1992. Trends in public opinion toward environmental issues: 1965–1990. In: R. Dunlap, and M. Mertig (Eds.), American environmentalism: the U.S. environmental movement, 1970–1990 (pp. 89–116). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, R.E., and Catton, Jr., W.R. 1979. Environmental sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 5: 243–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, R.E., and Van Liere, K.D. 1984. Commitment to the dominant social paradigm and concern for environmental quality. Social Science Quarterly, 65(40): 1013–1027.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A.G., and Jones, R.E. 2000. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3): 425–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, P. (Ed.). 1967. The encyclopedia of philosophy. Vol. 8. New York: Macmillan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fight, R.D., Donoghue, E.M., and Christensen, H.H. 2002. Involving stakeholder communities in research on nontimber forest products. In: A.C. Johnson, R.W. Haynes, and R.A. Monserud (Eds.), Congruent management of multiple resources: proceedings from the wood compatibility initiative workshop (pp. 209–212). General Technical Report PNW-GTR-563. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink, A. 1995. The survey handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 129 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Force, J.E., and Fizzell, G. 2000. How social values have affected forest policy. In: Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters 1999 national convention (pp. 16–22). Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Found, W.C. 1995. Participatory research and development: an assessment of IDRC’s experience and prospects. A report to the International Development Research Centre. Toronto: York University. 63 p. Retrieved December 19, 2002 from http://www.iddrc.ca/evaluation/documents/participatory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, L.M., and Kerr, W. 1999. Spiritual values: Can they be incorporated into forest management and planning? In: H.G. Vogelsong (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1998 northeastern recreation research symposium (pp. 239–245). General Technical Report NE-255. Newton Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, T.E., and Bigler-Cole, H. 2001. Sociocultural factors and forest health management. Northwest Science, 75: 208–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansis, R. 1995. The social acceptability of clearcutting in the Pacific Northwest. Human Organization, 54: 95–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, R.W. (Tech. coord.). 2003. An analysis of the timber situation in the United States: 1952 to 2050. A technical document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA assessment. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-560. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 254 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, R.W., Monserud, R.A., and Johnson, A.C. 2003. Compatible forest management: background and context. Chapter 1. In: R.A. Monserud, R.W. Haynes, and A.C. Johnson (Eds.), Compatible forest management. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, R.W., and Weigand, J.F. 1997. The context for forest economics in the 21st century. In: K.A. Kohm, and J.F. Franklin (Eds.), Creating a forestry for the 21st century (pp. 285–301). Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heberlein, T.A. 1988. Economics and social psychology in amenity valuation. In: G.L. Peterson, B.L. Driver, and R. Gregory (Eds.), Amenity resource valuation: integrating economics with other disciplines (pp. 235–244). State College, PA: Venture.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, J.J., Dombeck, M.P., and Koch, N.E. 1998. Values, beliefs and management of public forest in the Western World at the close of the 20th century. In: P. Schmidt [and others] (Eds.), New requirements for university education in forestry: proceedings of a workshop (pp. 15–34). DEMETER Series No. 1. Korbeek-Dijle (Bertem), Belgium: Drukkerij de Weide.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Korten, D.C. 1980. Community organization and rural development: a learning process approach. Public Administration Review, 40: 480–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, L.E., and Sturtevant, V.E. 2003. Divergent paradigms for community inquiry: an argument for including participatory action research. In: L. Kruger (Tech. ed.), Understanding community-forest relations (pp. 23–42). General Technical Report PNW-GTR-566. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loureiro, M.L., McCluskey, J.J., and Mittelhammer, R.C. 2003. Are stated preferences good predictors of market behavior? Land Economics, 79(1): 44–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luzadis, V.A., Floyd, D.W., and Goergen, M.T. 1997. Values, institutions and ecosystem management: a research agenda for policy analysis. In: H.K. Cordell (Ed.), Integrating social science and ecosystem management: a national challenge. Proceedings: Conference on integrating social sciences and ecosystem management (pp. 177–183). General Technical Report SRS-17. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFarlane, B.L., and Boxall, P.C. 2000. Factors influencing forest values and attitudes of two stakeholder groups: the case of the Foothills Model Forest, Alberta, Canada. Society and Natural Resources, 13(7): 649–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montreal Process Working Group. 1998. The Montreal Process. Retrieved January 9, 2002 from http://www.mpci.org.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oregon Department of Forestry. 2003. Oregon Forest Practices Act. Retrieved March 29. 2003 from http://www.odf.state.or.us.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robson, M., Hawley, A., and Robinson, D. 2000. Comparing the social values of forest-dependent, provincial and national publics for socially sustainable forest management. The Forestry Chronicle, 76(4): 615–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rokeach, M. 1968. Beliefs, attitudes, and values: a theory of organization and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 214 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rokeach, M. 1973. The nature of human values. New York: Free Press. 438 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolston, H., and Coufal, J. 1991. A forest ethic and multivalue forest management. Journal of Forestry, 89(4): 35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shindler, B.A., Brunson, M., and Stankey, G.H. 2002. Social acceptability of forest conditions and management practices: a problem analysis. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-537. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 68 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shindler, B., and Cramer, L.A. 1999. Shifting public values for forest management: making sense of wicked problems. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 14(1): 28–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shindler, B., List, P., and Steel, B. 1993. Managing federal forests: public attitudes in Oregon and nationwide. Journal of Forestry, 94(6): 4–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, A.D., and Penman, R. 1994. Why study rangeland values? Some practices that scientists have much to answer for. Rangeland Journal, 16(2): 265–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stankey, G.H., Brown, P.J., and Clark, R.N. 1992. Allocating and managing for diverse values of forests: the market place and beyond. In: N.E. Koch, and N.A. Moiseev (Comps.), Proceedings IUFRO international conference integrated sustainable multiple-use forest management under the market system (pp. 257–271). Copenhagen: Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stankey, G.H., and Clark, R.N. 1992. Social aspects of new perspectives in forestry: a problem analysis. Milford, PA: Grey Towers Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stankey, G.H., Clark, R.N., and Bliss, J. 2003. Fostering compatible forest resource management: the conditional nature of social acceptability. Chapter 16. In: R.A. Monserud, R.W. Haynes, and A.C. Johnson (Eds.), Compatible forest management. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steel, B.S., List, P., and Shindler, B. 1994. Conflicting values about federal forests: a comparison of national and Oregon publics. Society and Natural Resources, 7: 137–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J.G., and Douglas, A.J. 1999. Diversifying natural resources value measurements: the Trinity River study. Society and Natural Resources, 12(4): 315–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky, A., and Dake, K. 1990. Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? Daedalus, 119(4): 41–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Z., Bengston, D.N., and Fan, D. 1997. Identifying changes in forest values: a computerized content analysis. In: H.K. Cordell (Ed.) Integrating social science and ecosystem management: a national challenge: Proceedings, Conference on integrating social sciences and ecosystem management (pp. 142–149). General Technical Report SRS-GTR-17. Athens, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yankelovich, D. 1991. Coming to public judgment: making democracy work in a complex world. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. 290 p.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 620 SW Main St., Suite 400, Portland, OR, 97205, USA

    Ellen M. Donoghue

Authors
  1. Ellen M. Donoghue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research, Portland, Oregon, USA

    Robert A. Monserud  & Richard W. Haynes  & 

  2. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research, Juneau, AK, USA

    Adelaide C. Johnson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Donoghue, E.M. (2003). Social Values and Compatible Forest Management. In: Monserud, R.A., Haynes, R.W., Johnson, A.C. (eds) Compatible Forest Management. Managing Forest Ecosystems, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0309-3_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0309-3_15

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6388-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0309-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation