IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v78y2017icp141-150.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Psychological values and cues as a basis for developing socially relevant criteria and indicators for forest management

Author

Listed:
  • Ford, R.M.
  • Anderson, N.M.
  • Nitschke, C.
  • Bennett, L.T.
  • Williams, K.J.H.

Abstract

Criteria and indicators (C & I) have proven an essential tool for managers implementing sustainable forest management, but have been less effective for communication with the wider community. We demonstrate a new bottom-up approach to developing socially relevant C & I using social analysis and psychology-based concepts and methods. Our conceptual framework links the concepts of valued attributes and environmental cues with, respectively, criteria and indicators. We illustrate our approach using thirty-six semi-structured interviews of individual members of the general public and of stakeholder groups in Victoria, southern Australia. The interviews included a modified cognitive mapping task to identify attributes of forests valued by the interviewees, as well as cues used by them to know if a valued attribute was present or had changed. Seven broad valued attributes of forests were identified: Natural; Experiential; Productive; Setting; Social/Economic; Learning; and Cultural. Four broad categories of cues were identified: Biophysical; Social/Psychological; Economic; and Management/Planning. Cues were translated into a set of measurable ‘socially relevant’ indicators of forest management. Comparison with existing frameworks revealed some similarities, but that an important component of public evaluations, Experiential and Setting valued attributes, was largely absent from C & I used in Victoria, which are based on the Montreal Process framework. Some socially relevant indicators aligned with existing indicators, but others were poorly represented, particularly sensory indicators that are concerned with subjective experiences of forests. Our approach demonstrates a new way of developing C & I and has a strong conceptual basis that enables more explicit consideration and communication of a comprehensive range of social values and cues in environmental management systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Ford, R.M. & Anderson, N.M. & Nitschke, C. & Bennett, L.T. & Williams, K.J.H., 2017. "Psychological values and cues as a basis for developing socially relevant criteria and indicators for forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 141-150.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:78:y:2017:i:c:p:141-150
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934116301472
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.018?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Wolsink, Maarten, 2007. "Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of 'backyard motives'," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 11(6), pages 1188-1207, August.
    2. Tikkanen, Jukka & Isokaanta, Tarja & Pykalainen, Jouni & Leskinen, Pekka, 2006. "Applying cognitive mapping approach to explore the objective-structure of forest owners in a Northern Finnish case area," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 139-152, November.
    3. Thomas C. Brown, 1984. "The Concept of Value in Resource Allocation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 60(3), pages 231-246.
    4. McDonald, G. T. & Lane, M. B., 2004. "Converging global indicators for sustainable forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 63-70, January.
    5. Kant, Shashi & Lee, Susan, 2004. "A social choice approach to sustainable forest management: an analysis of multiple forest values in Northwestern Ontario," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 215-227, June.
    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. Ford, Rebecca M. & Rawluk, Andrea & Williams, Kathryn J.H., 2019. "Managing values in disaster planning: Current strategies, challenges and opportunities for incorporating values of the public," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 131-142.
    2. Jafari, Ali & Sadeghi Kaji, Hamdollah & Azadi, Hossein & Gebrehiwot, Kindeya & Aghamir, Fateme & Van Passel, Steven, 2018. "Assessing the sustainability of community forest management: A case study from Iran," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 1-8.

    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. Sell, Joachim & Koellner, Thomas & Weber, Olaf & Proctor, Wendy & Pedroni, Lucio & Scholz, Roland W., 2007. "Ecosystem services from tropical forestry projects - The choice of international market actors," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(5), pages 496-515, January.
    2. Hogan, Jessica L. & Warren, Charles R. & Simpson, Michael & McCauley, Darren, 2022. "What makes local energy projects acceptable? Probing the connection between ownership structures and community acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    3. Songsore, Emmanuel & Buzzelli, Michael, 2014. "Social responses to wind energy development in Ontario: The influence of health risk perceptions and associated concerns," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 285-296.
    4. Kaveh Madani & Laura Read & Laleh Shalikarian, 2014. "Voting Under Uncertainty: A Stochastic Framework for Analyzing Group Decision Making Problems," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(7), pages 1839-1856, May.
    5. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    6. Kumar, Sushil & Kant, Shashi, 2007. "Exploded logit modeling of stakeholders' preferences for multiple forest values," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(5), pages 516-526, January.
    7. Borch, Kristian & Munk, Anders K. & Dahlgaard, Vibeke, 2020. "Mapping wind-power controversies on social media: Facebook as a powerful mobilizer of local resistance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    8. Chapman, Mollie & Satterfield, Terre & Chan, Kai M.A., 2019. "When value conflicts are barriers: Can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive programs?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 464-475.
    9. Russell, Aaron & Bingaman, Samantha & Garcia, Hannah-Marie, 2021. "Threading a moving needle: The spatial dimensions characterizing US offshore wind policy drivers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    10. Baxter, Jamie & Morzaria, Rakhee & Hirsch, Rachel, 2013. "A case-control study of support/opposition to wind turbines: Perceptions of health risk, economic benefits, and community conflict," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 931-943.
    11. Haggett, Claire, 2011. "Understanding public responses to offshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 503-510, February.
    12. Shahriyar Nasirov & Carlos Silva & Claudio A. Agostini, 2015. "Investors’ Perspectives on Barriers to the Deployment of Renewable Energy Sources in Chile," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-21, April.
    13. Cousse, Julia, 2021. "Still in love with solar energy? Installation size, affect, and the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    14. Krekel, Christian & Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Does the presence of wind turbines have negative externalities for people in their surroundings? Evidence from well-being data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 221-238.
    15. Vanwindekens, Frédéric M. & Stilmant, Didier & Baret, Philippe V., 2013. "Development of a broadened cognitive mapping approach for analysing systems of practices in social–ecological systems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 250(C), pages 352-362.
    16. Zerrahn, Alexander & Krekel, Christian, 2015. "Sowing the Wind and Reaping the Whirlwind? The Effect of Wind Turbines on Residential Well-Being," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 112956, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    17. Pepermans, Yves & Loots, Ilse, 2013. "Wind farm struggles in Flanders fields: A sociological perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 321-328.
    18. Frate, Cláudio Albuquerque & Brannstrom, Christian & de Morais, Marcus Vinícius Girão & Caldeira-Pires, Armando de Azevedo, 2019. "Procedural and distributive justice inform subjectivity regarding wind power: A case from Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 185-195.
    19. Kijazi, Martin Herbert & Kant, Shashi, 2010. "Forest stakeholders' value preferences in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 357-369, June.
    20. Serena Y. Kim & Koushik Ganesan & Princess Dickens & Soumya Panda, 2021. "Public Sentiment toward Solar Energy—Opinion Mining of Twitter Using a Transformer-Based Language Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, March.

    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:78:y:2017:i:c:p:141-150. 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.