Valuing multiple forest outputs

Lantz, Van

doi:10.5558/tfc84511-4

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This could be achieved by a larger survey than the one conducted for this study, accompanied by factor analyses to reduce the number of items for use in subsequent surveys. Revision of the items to produce variables amenable to quantitative measurement (Lantz 2008) is another potential development. Additionally to investigating expectations, Tindall (2003) and Ford et al (2009) recommend investigating the underlying human beliefs.…”

Section: Natural Environment Values (Nev)mentioning

confidence: 99%

An exploratory study of community expectations regarding public forests in Western Australia

Williamson

Rodger

Moore

et al. 2012

Australian Forestry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryFor much of the 20th century the management of public forests in Western Australia focused on timber production and economic outputs. Shifts in environmental attitudes over the last four decades have contributed to a much broader set of community expectations. This paper analysed these expectations regarding public forests in south-western Australia at the start of the 21st century. A two-stage survey approach included a face-to-face interview followed by a questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of a comprehensive list of 176 items that forests potentially provide, such as conservation, scenery, bushwalking and timber products, and respondents were asked to indicate the extent of their support for each. Those surveyed covered a range of ages and affiliations including academia, conservation, forestry, primary production, Indigenous interests and young people. Clearly evident was strong support for the aesthetic values of these forests and their natural environment, with weaker but still notable support for using forest resources. The comprehensive list of items in the questionnaire provides a novel, rapid means of assessing community expectations, with potential benefits for forestry planning and policy development.

show abstract

Section: Natural Environment Values (Nev)mentioning

confidence: 99%

An exploratory study of community expectations regarding public forests in Western Australia

Williamson

Rodger

Moore

et al. 2012

Australian Forestry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The majority of samples that are non-compliant are technical violations of the 0.1 μg/g default MRL for commodity/pesticide combinations for which Health Canada has not yet established an MRL (CFIA, 2015; 2017). Of particular concern to consumers are the twelve commodities, termed the dirty dozen, that are most often found to have multiple detectable pesticide residues on their surface (Lantz, 2015). Apples are found at the top of the dirty dozen list and regulatory testing has shown that 73% of Canadian domestic and 88% of imported apples test positive for multiple surface residues on their way to market (it is important to note the distinction that these are detected residues, not residues exceeding the MRL) (CFIA, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Degradation ofboscalid, pyraclostrobin, fenbuconazole, andglyphosateresidues by an advanced oxidative process utilizing ultraviolet light and hydrogen peroxide

Skanes

Ho²,

Warriner³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently an advanced oxidative process (AOP) combining H2O2 and UV-C light was observed to be effective at controlling Listeria monocytogens (Murray et al., 2018) and Escherichia coli O157:H7 and degrading chlorpyrifos residues on the surface of apples (Ho et al., 2020). Little is known about the application of AOP for the degradation of other pesticide residues. This study examined degradation of boscalid, pyraclostrobin, fenbuconazole and glyphosate by 3% (w/v) H2O2, UV-C (254 nm) irradiation and their combination on apple skin and glass. The extent of degradation was not significantly different between the AOP and optimal individual treatment. However, treatment susceptibility was different with glyphosate most effectively degraded by H2O2 exposure (up to 98% on apple, 3% (w/v) H2O2 at 30□C for 15 min) while boscalid, pyraclostrobin and fenbuconazole were more effectively degraded by UV-C (up to 88%, 100% and 70% degradation after ~11,000 mJ/cm2). Suggestions for possible causes of degradation are proposed.

show abstract

“…As we discussed this dichotomy, we realized that a key source of conflict was the multiple values that people hold for forests. Much has been written about forest values (e.g., Tindall 2003, Kant 2007, Lantz 2008, Moyer at al. 2008) but among us we had rather different ideas on what the term "forest value" meant.…”

Section: Terms Concepts and Clarificationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protected areas and sustainable forest management: What are we talking about?

Duinker¹,

Wiersma²,

Haider³

et al. 2010

The Forestry Chronicle

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research investigating the relationship between protected areas and sustainable forest management has revealed the need for clarity of language if cooperation is to move forward. Here, we develop a parallel framework to compare the concepts of protected areas and sustainable forest management. We address the challenge inherent in the concept of protected areas as places and sustainable forest management as a process or paradigm. Our framework outlines dominant values, management paradigms, and terms for the places managed under each paradigm. innovative approaches, within different knowledge systems, toward understanding the relationships between protected areas and sustainable forest management.To this end, our project team met several times with various representatives of the protected area and sustainable forest management sectors across Canada during 2008. It soon became clear that we could not talk effectively about issues in the relationship until we could agree on what we were actually talking about. That is, we could only make conceptual progress if we took a step back to clarify what we mean when we use terms such as "protected areas" (which usually refers to a place) and "sustainable forest management" (which usually refers to a process). It was one thing to have SFMN partners articulate a need for this clarification; it was quite another to delve deeply into these domains and be able to understand what people meant when they used these and related terms in workshops, meetings and documents. It became clear that it was even important for the five of us, coming from different academic and professional-practice backgrounds, to discipline our own language as we wrestled with difficult concepts and the even more complicated relationships among them.

show abstract

Valuing multiple forest outputs

Cited by 4 publications

References 15 publications

An exploratory study of community expectations regarding public forests in Western Australia

An exploratory study of community expectations regarding public forests in Western Australia

Degradation ofboscalid, pyraclostrobin, fenbuconazole, andglyphosateresidues by an advanced oxidative process utilizing ultraviolet light and hydrogen peroxide

Protected areas and sustainable forest management: What are we talking about?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About