IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/cposxx/v25y2004i2p103-120.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

US national forest policies regarding logging

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth A. Corley

Abstract

This article explores how differences in scientist and citizen mental models regarding logging in a US national forest can lead the two groups to support divergent policies, although they agree about the goals that logging policies should achieve in the forest. A case-study methodology of logging in the Chattahoochee National Forest in the United States is used. The case study is informed by two methods: in-depth interviews and a written questionnaire. The in-depth interviews were conducted with both scientists and citizens to elicit their mental models regarding logging in the Chattahoochee National Forest. Upon completion of the in-depth interviews, respondents were asked to complete a written questionnaire that elicited demographic information, as well as information regarding management goals for the forest. We conclude that scientists and citizens agree about the management goals for the Chattahoochee National Forest, but differences in the mental models of the two groups regarding the scientific effects of logging cause disagreement about the optimal logging policy option required to achieve those goals. The article considers the implications of the case study findings for risk communication and public involvement in environmental decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth A. Corley, 2004. "US national forest policies regarding logging," Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 103-120.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:cposxx:v:25:y:2004:i:2:p:103-120
    DOI: 10.1080/0144287042000262198
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/0144287042000262198
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/0144287042000262198?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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:cposxx:v:25:y:2004:i:2:p:103-120. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cpos .

    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.