Effects of Information on the Social Acceptability of Alternatives to Clearfelling in Australian Wet Eucalypt Forests

Abstract

The effects of viewing different types of information were investigated in people judging the social acceptability of alternative forest harvest systems. Approximately 500 Tasmanians were shown still-simulated images of four harvest systems (a clearfell system, two aggregated retention systems, and a selective system) and were asked to judge their acceptability. Individual interviews were conducted with 12 of the participants. It was anticipated that people holding different beliefs about the consequences of harvesting would have different responses to information. Cluster analysis was used to group participants according to these beliefs. Responses to still images were compared with responses to two other types of information: information about consequences of the harvest systems in the form of indicator symbols, and information about regeneration over time, presented as visual animations. The effects of information differed across both harvest system and belief cluster groups of participants. The largest effects of information occurred in people who held a mix of beliefs about consequences. Within this group, participants who viewed the indicators rated a 30% aggregated retention system higher and selective harvesting lower, than those who did not view the indicators. Viewing animated sequences led to slightly higher ratings of the more intensive harvest systems and significantly lower ratings of the selective harvest system than those based on the still images. The interview data provided examples of interviewees viewing information critically against their own values and beliefs. Only some interviewees appeared to use it in judging social acceptability.

Public Perceptions of Sagebrush Ecosystem Management in the Great Basin

“…Siegrist and Cvetkovich (2000) argue that trust in authorities has greater influence on acceptance when an individual lacks knowledge about a potential hazard, but other studies have shown that knowledge, while sometimes influential, may be less important than more subjective or emotional responses (Brunson and Shindler 2004). The latter study found no relationship between acceptability judgments for fuels reduction and general environmental concern, but other researchers have found such a relationship when measuring acceptability of timber harvest practices (Ribe 2002;Ford et al 2009). Beliefs about natural resource management often differ between urban and rural residents (e.g., Kleiven et al 2004;Racevskis and Lupi 2006); we have seen such differences in our survey as well (Shindler et al 2011).…”

Designing Policy Mixes for Resource Efficiency: The Role of Public Acceptability

“…Instead, individuals tend to test new information against a framework of their own existing knowledge, values and beliefs [30]. Individuals then accept, reject or adapt the new information and/or their views [31].…”

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

“…However, they also found that information increased public tolerance and understanding of fire; a finding supported by Kakoyannis et al (2001). Ford et al (2009b) found that information about the consequences of forest management activities changed the relative acceptability of alternative harvesting treatments. Knowledge can also influence environmental activism, and as concluded by McFarlane and Hunt (2006: 283) "managers may be surprised that individuals with more factual knowledge of forests engage more often in environmental activism".…”