Social acceptability of forest management systems

© 2006 Dr. Rebecca May Ford.Clearfelling followed by burning and sowing is considered by the large-scale timber industry in Tasmania to be an effective method of regenerating wet eucalypt forests, but the impacts of this practice concern many people. This research compared the social acceptability of six harvest systems: the clearfell system and five alternatives. General theories in psychology were used to investigate the underlying basis for acceptability judgements. Also investigated were the effects of information about the consequences of these harvest systems on their acceptability. A complex survey method was complemented by qualitative follow-up interviews. Approximately 560 Tasmanians with different affiliations in relation to forest harvesting were shown simulated images of the harvest systems and asked to judge their acceptability. On average, non-affiliated and conservation-affiliated people rated the clearfell system least acceptable and a selective logging system most acceptable. For these two groups, as a general trend, acceptability increased with the proportion of forest retained at the first harvest. The trend for industry-affiliated participants was opposite: the more forest retained on the site, the less acceptable the result. Cognitive hierarchy theories predict that attitudes, such as judgements about clearfelling, will be based on stable parts of the personality. Drawing on the Theory of Reasoned Action and Value Belief Norm Theory, it was predicted that in judging harvest systems people would draw on their deeply held value orientations toward the natural environment. This would lead them to value objects in the forest and to develop beliefs about the consequences of harvesting for those objects, which would in turn lead to acceptability judgements. Participants responded to questions that measured these four levels on a cognitive hierarchy. Structural equation modelling was used to test whether the data collected was consistent with the cognitive hierarchy model. No evidence was found to reject the model. Social acceptability is not entirely determined by values. In addition to viewing simulated images, half the participants were shown information about the consequences of the harvest systems for fauna, forest products and other valued objects. Viewing this information led non-affiliated and conservation-affiliated participants to rate a 30% aggregated retention system higher than those who did not view the information. A selective harvesting system was rated lower, on average, with the information The simulated images shown to participants included still images representing the first year after harvest and animated sequences showing the same harvest systems regenerating over time. For non-affiliated and conservation-affiliated participants, viewing animated sequences of forests regenerating led to small increases in acceptance of the more intensive harvest systems and a decrease in acceptability of the selective harvest system. From these findings it can be concluded that alternatives to clearfelling are more acceptable to the general community than clearfelling. Values and beliefs are important underlying factors that help to explain the divergent views in the community. Implementation of an aggregated retention or selective harvesting system may be more consistent with the mix of values found in the general community, however, further research into social acceptability judgements in context is needed to confirm this