IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v11y2009i2p140-147.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of presenting forest simulation results on the forest values and attitudes of forestry professionals and other forest users in Central Labrador

Author

Listed:
  • Berninger, Kati
  • Kneeshaw, Daniel
  • Messier, Christian

Abstract

This research tested whether demonstration of the long term effect of different forest management scenarios in a large forested area changes people's forest values and attitudes. Forestry professionals and other forest users in Central Labrador were shown simulation results of three alternative forest management scenarios illustrating possible long term effects on various indicators. Forest values and attitudes towards forestry were measured before and after the presentation. Our conception of values and attitudes is based on the cognitive hierarchy model of human behaviour which states that values are more enduring and more difficult to change than attitudes. It was thus hypothesized that attitudes would change but not values and that change in forestry professionals would be less than in other forest users since foresters are trained to think about long-term effects and large-scale processes of forest management scenarios. We also hypothesized that a greater number of people would have an opinion on forest management after the presentation. All three hypotheses were partially supported by the results. The results indicated that some attitude change occurred, but that values also changed somewhat. Most of the significant changes occurred when persons with no clear opinion on several forest-related questions formed an opinion. Long-term, landscape simulation results provide valuable information and enhance understanding of both forestry professionals and other forest users. However, being provided the same information, the two groups learned different things. While forest users gained more confidence in the current forest management plan and were motivated to further participate, professionals learned more specific things. This reflects differences between technical and local knowledge.

Suggested Citation

  • Berninger, Kati & Kneeshaw, Daniel & Messier, Christian, 2009. "Effects of presenting forest simulation results on the forest values and attitudes of forestry professionals and other forest users in Central Labrador," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 140-147, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:11:y:2009:i:2:p:140-147
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389-9341(08)00107-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Buchy, M. & Hoverman, S., 2000. "Understanding public participation in forest planning: a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 15-25, May.
    2. Failing, L. & Gregory, R. & Harstone, M., 2007. "Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: A decision-focused approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 47-60, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bakhtiyari, Ziba & Yazdanpanah, Masoud & Forouzani, Masoumeh & Kazemi, Navab, 2017. "Intention of agricultural professionals toward biofuels in Iran: Implications for energy security, society, and policy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 341-349.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tyrvainen, Liisa & Gustavsson, Roland & Konijnendijk, Cecil & Ode, Asa, 2006. "Visualization and landscape laboratories in planning, design and management of urban woodlands," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(8), pages 811-823, November.
    2. Alessandro Paletto & Claudia Becagli & Francesco Geri & Sandro Sacchelli & Isabella De Meo, 2022. "Use of Participatory Processes in Wood Residue Management from a Circular Bioeconomy Perspective: An Approach Adopted in Italy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-17, January.
    3. Jessica L. Needham & Karen F. Beazley & Victoria P. Papuga, 2020. "Accessing Local Tacit Knowledge as a Means of Knowledge Co-Production for Effective Wildlife Corridor Planning in the Chignecto Isthmus, Canada," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-38, September.
    4. Floress, Kristin & Vokoun, Melinda & Huff, Emily Silver & Baker, Melissa, 2019. "Public perceptions of county, state, and national forest management in Wisconsin, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 110-120.
    5. Lawrence, Anna & Deuffic, Philippe & Hujala, Teppo & Nichiforel, Liviu & Feliciano, Diana & Jodlowski, Krzysztof & Lind, Torgny & Marchal, Didier & Talkkari, Ari & Teder, Meelis & Vilkriste, Lelde & W, 2020. "Extension, advice and knowledge systems for private forestry: Understanding diversity and change across Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    6. Lo, Alex Y. & Spash, Clive L., 2011. "Articulation of Plural Values in Deliberative Monetary Valuation: Beyond Preference Economisation and Moralisation," MPRA Paper 30002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Michael B. Wironen & Robert V. Bartlett & Jon D. Erickson, 2019. "Deliberation and the Promise of a Deeply Democratic Sustainability Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, February.
    8. Silva Larson & Thomas G Measham & Liana J Williams, 2009. "Remotely Engaged? A Framework for Monitoring the Success of Stakeholder Engagement in Remote Regions," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-11, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    9. Hatsue Koizumi & Hiromi Yamashita, 2021. "Deficit Lay or Deficit Expert: How Do “Experts†in Environmental Projects Perceive Lay People and Lay Knowledge?," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, July.
    10. Loureiro, Maria L. & Dominguez Arcos, Fernando, 2012. "Applying Best–Worst Scaling in a stated preference analysis of forest management programs," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 381-394.
    11. Liu, Shuang & Proctor, Wendy & Cook, David, 2010. "Using an integrated fuzzy set and deliberative multi-criteria evaluation approach to facilitate decision-making in invasive species management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2374-2382, October.
    12. Kangas, A. & Saarinen, N. & Saarikoski, H. & Leskinen, L.A. & Hujala, T. & Tikkanen, J., 2010. "Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Programmes in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 213-222, March.
    13. Kangas, Annika & Heikkilä, Juuso & Malmivaara-Lämsä, Minna & Löfström, Irja, 2014. "Case Puijo—Evaluation of a participatory urban forest planning process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 13-23.
    14. Hiltunen, Veikko & Kurttila, Mikko & Leskinen, Pekka & Pasanen, Karri & Pykäläinen, Jouni, 2009. "Mesta: An internet-based decision-support application for participatory strategic-level natural resources planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, January.
    15. Sarmiento Barletti, Juan Pablo & Larson, Anne M. & Hewlett, Christopher & Delgado, Deborah, 2020. "Designing for engagement: A Realist Synthesis Review of how context affects the outcomes of multi-stakeholder forums on land use and/or land-use change," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    16. Singer, Benjamin & Giessen, Lukas, 2017. "Towards a donut regime? Domestic actors, climatization, and the hollowing-out of the international forests regime in the Anthropocene," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 69-79.
    17. Saverio Miccoli & Fabrizio Finucci & Rocco Murro, 2014. "Social Evaluation Approaches in Landscape Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(11), pages 1-15, November.
    18. Roumane, Adil, 2013. "Droits de propriété en économie pastorale. Le raisonnement hardinien est-il crédible ?," Économie rurale, French Society of Rural Economics (SFER Société Française d'Economie Rurale), vol. 335(May-June).
    19. Cote, Marc-Andre & Bouthillier, Luc, 2002. "Assessing the effect of public involvement processes in forest management in Quebec," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 213-225, July.
    20. Dovie, Delali B. K., 2003. "Whose involvement?--can hierarchical valuation scheme intercede for participatory methods for evaluating secondary forest resource use?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 265-283, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:11:y:2009:i:2:p:140-147. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.