Distinctions between rural and urban populations are well documented in environmental sociology literature. Rural and urban places may exert different influences on participation in environmentally supportive behavior (ESB) as well as on other forms of environmental concern (EC). The influence of these distinct geographies may be due to present circumstances or because of childhood socialization in these places. Using data from a national survey in Canada (n51 664), we use cognitive (basic values, environmental worldview, and environmental attitude) and behavioral indicators (public and private sphere) of EC to explore differences among rural and urban populations and we include analyses accounting for place of socialization. We extend the conventional private sphere category of ESB by including stewardship behaviors. Results showed few differences between rural and urban residents on indicators of EC. Rural residents, however, scored higher on altruistic values, placed a higher priority on the environment, and reported higher participation in recycling and stewardship behaviors. Analysis that included place of socialization showed differences on environmental worldview, basic values, and some ESB. In terms of ESB, we conclude that residence and place of socialization may be less of a factor than opportunity and highlight the importance of providing services and facilities. We recommend future research on residence and ESB include a variety of behaviors that reflect opportunities for both rural and urban residents.

Collectively, current resource‐development literature has given little attention to organizational features of ownership as important variables in community resilience. By drawing from six local buyout cases in Canada's forest sector, we reveal the complexity and numerous constraints on local ownership and expose a more nuanced context than most sociologists tend to consider. Our findings suggest that the meaning of local ownership and community resilience varies depending upon the composition (e.g., private vs. public; mill vs. forest license vs. coupled mill & forest license), type (social, cooperative, trust and/or direct‐share ownership), extent of ownership (percentage of local versus extra‐local shares), and the level of control (e.g., proportion of locally held seats on the Board of Directors) associated with ownership. Future research on local ownership should more carefully differentiate between the nature of local ownership and its associated outcomes.

Although public opinion and social issues have significant influence on policy-making, research on forest vegetation management (FVM) in Canada has a strong focus on biological aspects, with less attention being paid to social concerns. This paper reviews the social context in which FVM occurs. Individual views about FVM reflect a combination of values, beliefs, and attitude while also including differing perceptions of risks. Public views and the broader social acceptability of management decisions can be linked to five key factors: context, risk, aesthetics, trust, and knowledge. Judgements about acceptability will usually change over time and across specific situations and various segments of a population could make opposing judgements. We identify a variety of public concerns related to FVM in Canada, synthesizing research that can help resource managers consider the social impacts of their choices. We also note particular concerns related to Aboriginal peoples and the FVM workforce. Information about the benefits and disadvantages of FVM options can help resolve public concerns, but using technical information to convince the public is rarely successful. Forest management agencies and resource managers need access to reliable information about social values and concerns to make management decisions that will be socially acceptable.Key words: social acceptability, vegetation management, silviculture, forest policy, public participation, forest values, risk management, scenic values RÉSUMÉBien que l' opinion publique et les enjeux sociaux exercent une influence significative sur l' élaboration des politiques, la plupart des travaux de recherche sur le contrôle de la végétation en forêt au Canada ont été consacrés aux aspects biologiques et ont négligé les considérations sociales. Cet article fait la synthèse du contexte social dans lequel s'inscrit le contrôle de la végétation. Les perceptions individuelles du contrôle de la végétation sont le reflet d'une combinaison de valeurs, de croyances et d'attitudes et de perceptions différentes des risques encourus. Les perceptions publiques et, de manière plus large, l'acceptabilité sociale des choix d'aménagement, sont liées à cinq facteurs fondamentaux : le contexte, les risques, l' esthétique, la confiance et les connaissances. Les jugements sur l'acceptabilité vont généralement évoluer dans le temps en fonction des situations. De même, différents groupes dans la population pourront avoir des jugements opposés. Nous identifions une série de préoccupations sociales associées au contrôle de la végétation, sur la base d'une synthèse des travaux de recherche susceptibles d'aider les gestionnaires dans la prise en compte des impacts sociaux de leurs choix. Nous notons également des enjeux particuliers associés aux Premières Nations et à la main-d' oeuvre en contrôle de la végétation. L'information au sujet des bénéfices et des désavantages de différentes approches en contrôle de la végétation peut aider à répondre aux préoccupations du public. Cependant, le re...