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. Hardy, Derrylea J. & Patterson, Murray G., 2012. "Cross-cultural environmental research in New Zealand: Insights for ecological economics research practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 75-85.
    2. Kumar, Sushil & Kant, Shashi, 2005. "Bureaucracy and new management paradigms: modeling foresters' perceptions regarding community-based forest management in India," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 651-669, May.
    3. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Shuang Liu & David Cook, 2016. "Eradicate, contain, or live with it? Collaborating with stakeholders to evaluate responses to invasive species," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(1), pages 49-59, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Germain, Rene H. & Floyd, Donald W. & Stehman, Stephen V., 2001. "Public perceptions of the USDA Forest Service public participation process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3-4), pages 113-124, November.
    8. David Wittstruck & Frank Teuteberg, 2012. "Understanding the Success Factors of Sustainable Supply Chain Management: Empirical Evidence from the Electrics and Electronics Industry," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 141-158, May.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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).
    12. 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.
    13. Winkel, Georg & Lovrić, Marko & Muys, Bart & Katila, Pia & Lundhede, Thomas & Pecurul, Mireia & Pettenella, Davide & Pipart, Nathalie & Plieninger, Tobias & Prokofieva, Irina & Parra, Constanza & Pülz, 2022. "Governing Europe's forests for multiple ecosystem services: Opportunities, challenges, and policy options," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    14. Sajjad Ali & Dake Wang & Talib Hussain & Xiaocong Lu & Mohammad Nurunnabi, 2021. "Forest Resource Management: An Empirical Study in Northern Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-19, August.
    15. 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.
    16. Wallin, Ida & Carlsson, Julia & Hansen, Hans Peter, 2016. "Envisioning future forested landscapes in Sweden – Revealing local-national discrepancies through participatory action research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 25-40.
    17. 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.
    18. Robin Gregory & Doug Easterling & Nicole Kaechele & William Trousdale, 2016. "Values‐Based Measures of Impacts to Indigenous Health," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1581-1588, August.
    19. Khadka, Chiranjeewee & Hujala, Teppo & Wolfslehner, Bernhard & Vacik, Harald, 2013. "Problem structuring in participatory forest planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 1-11.
    20. 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.

    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.