Author
Listed:
- Jesse Abrams
(Northern Arizona University, Ecological Restoration Institute)
- Erin Kelly
(Oregon State University, Department of Forest Resources)
- Bruce Shindler
(Oregon State University, Department of Forest Resources)
- James Wilton
(College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana , Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research)
Abstract
Among both forest practitioners and the general public, “forest health” has become an issue of contention. Whereas the debate over which treatments will best achieve healthy forests has been framed largely by the popular media and politicians as a struggle between industry and environmentalists, the views of the general public remain unexplored. Survey results from Oregon and Washington residents were used to assess the relationships between respondents’ self-described environmental or economic priorities and the following two variables: (1) acceptability of forest management practices and (2) perceived threats to forest health. Findings indicate that active management was generally accepted by a majority of respondents regardless of their environmental or economic orientation. Disagreement emerged, however, when the appropriateness of specific management practices within specific forest conditions was examined. Additionally, strong evidence was found for a relationship between self-described environmental or economic orientation and perceived threats to forest health. Those with an environmentally oriented viewpoint tended to perceive human-caused factors as the largest threats, whereas those with an economic orientation saw naturally occurring processes as the greatest threats. These findings suggest that the issue of contention is not active management per se. Rather, the major divisions in the forest health debate are defined by specific contexts and circumstances, as well as the management practices used.
Suggested Citation
Jesse Abrams & Erin Kelly & Bruce Shindler & James Wilton, 2005.
"Value Orientation and Forest Management: The Forest Health Debate,"
Environmental Management, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 495-505, October.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:envman:v:36:y:2005:i:4:d:10.1007_s00267-004-7256-8
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-004-7256-8
Download full text from publisher
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:spr:envman:v:36:y:2005:i:4:d:10.1007_s00267-004-7256-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.