Abstract
We compare and contrast survey responses to statements about 1) environmental values, 2) agreement with forest management goals and approaches, 3) perceptions of risk, 4) trust in science and government, and 5) acceptability of forestry practices between the public and three groups of forestry professionals (government biologists, government foresters, and industry foresters) in Ontario. The survey emphasized issues surrounding forest vegetation management due to the contentious nature of herbicide use. Responses were gathered from a 140-question telephone survey administered from September and November 1994 to 1,500 members of the general public and 201 forestry professionals across the province. Forestry professionals tended to be less supportive of some environmental values and forest management goals, perceive everyday and forestry activities to be less risky, be more trusting of science and government, and be more accepting of forestry activities than the general public. Among the three groups of forestry professionals, industry foresters tended to be most different from the public, followed by government foresters, and government biologists. These differences reveal potential sources of conflict and miscommunication between the public and forest managers. Recognizing these differences can help improve communications with the public about forest management plans.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barke, R., Jenkins-Smith, H. and Slovic, P. 1997. Risk perceptions of men and women scientists. Social Sci. Quart. 78(1): 167-176.
Beckley, T.M. and Korber. D. 1995. Sociology’s potential to improve forest management and inform forest policy. For. Chron. 71: 712-719.
Brunson, M. W. 1993. “Socially acceptable” forestry: what does it imply for ecosystem management? West. J. Appl. For. 8(4): 116-119.
Buse, L. J., Wagner, R. G. and Perrin, B. 1995. Public attitudes towards forest herbicide use and the implications for public involvement. For. Chron. 71: 596-600.
Decision Research 1995. Vegetation Management in Ontario’s Forests: Attitudes and Perceptions of the Public and Forestry Professionals. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Forest Research Institute, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. VMAP Technical Report 95-02. 84 pp.
Dunlap, R. 1992. Trends in public opinion toward environmental issues: 1965-1990.pp. 89-116. In: Dunlap, R. and Metig, A. (Eds) American Environmentalism: The U.S. Environmental Movement 1970-1990. Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, PA.
Flynn, J., Burns, W., Mertz, C. K. and Slovic, P. 1992. Trust as a determinant of opposition to a high-level radioactive waste repository: analysis of a structural model. Risk Anal. 12: 417-430.
Flynn, J., Slovic, P. and Mertz, C. K. 1993a. Decidedly different: expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Anal. 13: 643-648.
Flynn, J., Slovic, P. and Mertz, C. K. 1993b. The Nevada Initiative: A risk communication fiasco. Risk Anal. 13: 497-502.
Flynn, J., Slovic, P. and Mertz, C. K. 1994. Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal. 14: 1101-1108.
Gregory, R., Brown, T. and Kuetsch, J. 1996. Valuing risks to the environment. In: The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (Special Issue: Challenges in Risk Assessment and Risk Management) 545: 54-63.
Kasperson, R., Golding, D. and Tuler, S. 1992. Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks (Individual and collective responses to risk). J. Soc. Issues 48(4): 161-188.
Kraus, N., Malmfors, T. and Slovic, P. 1992. Intuitive toxicology: expert and lay judgements of chemical risks. Risk Anal. 12: 215-232.
Krewski, D., Slovic, P., Bartlett, S., Flynn, J. and Mertz, C. K. 1995. Health risk perception in Canada I: Rating hazards, sources of information and responsibility for health protection.Human and Ecological Risk Assess. 1(3): 231-248.
Limoges, C., Cambrosio, A. and Davignon, L. 1995. Plurality of worlds, plurality of risks. Risk Anal. 15: 699-707.
Luloff, A. E. 1995. Regaining vitality in the forestry profession: A sociologist’s perspective. J. For. 93(11): 6-9.
Marcin, T. C. 1995. Integrating the social sciences into forest ecosystem management research. J. For. 93(11): 29-33.
Metcalf, R. 1993. An increasing public concern. pp. 426-430. In: Pimentel, D. and Lehman, N. (Eds) The pesticide question: environment, economics, and ethics. Chapman and Hall, New York.
National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences. 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. National Academy Press, Wash., D.C.
Niemi, E., Mendelson, R. and Whitelaw, E. 1991. New conflicts stir managers of U.S. Forests. pp. 5-12. In: Forum for Appl. Res. and Public Policy (Fall issue).
O’Riordan, T. 1995. Framework for choice: Core beliefs and the environment. Environ. (October): 4-9, 25-29.
Sachs, C. 1993. Growing public concern over pesticides in food and water. pp. 380-389. In: Pimentel, D. and Lehman, N. (Eds) The Pesticide Question: Environment, Economics, and Ethics. Chapman and Hall, New York.
Salwasser, H. 1994. Ecosystem management: can it sustain diversity and productivity? J. For. 92(8): 6-10.
Satterfield, T. and Gregory, R. 1998. Reconciling environmental values and pragmatic choices. Soc. & Nat. Resour. (in press)
Shands, W. E. 1991. Reaching consensus on national forest use. pp. 18-23. In: Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy (Fall issue).
Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Sci. 236: 280-285.
Slovic, P., Malmfors, T., Krewski, D., Mertz, C. K., Neil, N. and Bartlett, S. 1995. Intuitive toxicology. II. expert and lay judgements of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Anal. 15: 661-675.
Wagner, R. G. 1994. Toward integrated forest vegetation management. J. For. 92(11): 26-30.
Walker, V. R. 1995. Direct inference, probability, and a conceptual gulf in risk communication.Risk Anal. 15: 603-609.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wagner, R.G., Flynn, J., Mertz, C. et al. Acceptable practices in Ontario's forests: Differences between the public and forestry professionals. New Forests 16, 139–154 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006577019706
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006577019706