Social Concerns, Risk and The Acceptability of Forest Vegetation Management Alternatives: Insights for Managers

Abstract

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...

Understanding First Nations rights and perspectives on the use of herbicides in forestry: A case study from northeastern Ontario

“…Many First Nations communities feel that their unique relationship and attachment to wild plants for food, medicine, and ceremonial purposes are insufficiently recognized and protected (Mitchell 1998, Wyatt et al 2011. As well, for some communities, herbicides may also be seen to limit their opportunities for developing non-timber forest products (e.g., mushrooms, blueberries) in culturally appropriate and sustainable ways (Mitchell 1998).…”

“…A substantial number of First Nations people still rely on the land for food stuffs obtained through hunting, fishing, and gathering, and these staples are often shared within their communities (LeBlanc et al 2011, Wyatt et al 2011. Land also provides people with a place of reference to remind them who they are and provides substance to life's experiences and how to relate to all things (Fixico 2009); specific places, locations, and the ancestral stories associated with them are viewed as integral to the present and future (McLeod 2007).…”

“…Such engagement with First Nations is needed to provide a parallel understanding to the general public's reasons for opposing the use of herbicides (Perrin et al 1993, Beckley and Korber 1995, Buse et al 1995, Decision Research 1995, Wagner et al 1998a,1998b. However, besides preliminary survey work (Perrin et al 1993, Decision Research 1995 and generalized discussion (Wyatt et al 2011, Mihajlovich et al 2012 aimed at understanding First Nations' views, an in-depth engagement of First Nations over the use of herbicides in forestry has yet to be done.…”

Growing together: A principle-based approach to building collaborative Indigenous partnerships in Canada’s forest sector

“…In light of these insights, it becomes clear that groups must work to build strong relationships and use them to develop management strategies that meet the objectives of all parties, rather than imposing systems and practices that the dominant group finds acceptable and expedient (Kayahara and Armstrong 2015). Using the example of vegetation management, Wyatt et al (2011b) reinforce this notion by asserting that, since no universal Indigenous perspective exists, forest managers must consider how their values and perceptions compare to the broader public's and begin to work more collaboratively with communities to develop mutually-acceptable strategies that meet each party's objectives and concerns. Studying working group effectiveness in forest co-management, Natcher et al (2005) add that success in partnerships often lies in a group's ability to embrace differences in knowledge and cultural experience and value the contributions of others.…”

Forested habitat preferences by Chilean citizens: Implications for biodiversity conservation in Pinus radiata plantations

“…However, in order to promote more environmentally-friendly practices, structurally complex plantations ought to be adopted by forest companies. Generally, these companies focus their forest management plans on economical and biological issues (like endangered species), without considering social aspects (Wyatt et al 2011). However, social support will be relevant, accepting the wildlife-friendly habitat and being willing to pay for eventual increased prices in forest products in case the allowing understor y growth is a managerial practices implying additional operating costs or reduced productivity.…”