IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Comparing two sets of forest cover change knowledge used in forest landscape management planning

Listed author(s):
  • Michael Drescher
  • Ajith Perera
Registered author(s):

    Forecasts of future resource states are central to resource management planning. Many simulation models and planning tools are used to produce such forecasts and apply knowledge of resource change dynamics as key input. Consistency among knowledge sources is therefore important to avoid knowledge ambiguity and uncertainty in resource forecasts and management plan outcomes. Using Ontario's boreal forest landscape as a case study, this paper examined two knowledge sources of forest resource change, practitioner expertise and research studies, commonly applied in plans and policies for large forest landscapes. The two knowledge sources were quantitatively compared by constructing networks of forest cover change for both sources and determining their agreement in structure and transition times. Some networks agreed well, indicating little knowledge ambiguity and comparatively low uncertainty if they were used to forecast forest landscapes. Other networks showed low agreement, thus indicating higher knowledge ambiguity and a dilemma of choice for forest landscape planners who may have to select from these knowledge sets. It is suggested that knowledge disagreements may be widespread in knowledge-driven management planning of many natural resource types and their causes similar. These disagreements signal areas of knowledge uncertainty, where resource planners must address resulting uncertainty of management outcomes and research should focus on improving resource change knowledge.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Journal of Environmental Planning and Management.

    Volume (Year): 53 (2010)
    Issue (Month): 5 ()
    Pages: 591-613

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:53:y:2010:i:5:p:591-613
    DOI: 10.1080/09640561003727110
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Web:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:53:y:2010:i:5:p:591-613. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.