Public perceptions of risk and acceptability of forest vegetation management alternatives in Ontario

Wagner, Robert G.; Flynn, James; Gregory, Robin

doi:10.5558/tfc74720-5

Cited by 49 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When managing public forests, the broader social context must also be considered. Based on surveys, the general public in Ontario deems herbicide use on publicly owned forests unacceptable (Buse et al 1995, Wagner et al 1998. Furthermore, in the province of Quebec, most pesticides have been banned (Reuters News Service 2002).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cutting versus herbicides: Tenth-year volume and release cost-effectiveness of sub-boreal conifer plantations

Dampier¹,

Bell²,

St-Amour³

et al. 2006

The Forestry Chronicle

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Few cost-effectiveness studies of vegetation management in conifer plantations are reported in the literature. This study provides follow-up cost-effectiveness analysis from research conducted at the Fallingsnow Ecosystem Project in northwestern Ontario, Canada with the objective of determining the relationship between release treatment costs and planted white spruce (Picea glauca [Moench] Voss) stem volume ($ m -3 ) ten years after alternative release treatments. Treatment cost estimates for 2003 were calculated by applying 1993 time-study data to estimated 2003 market costs for each treatment component. Untreated control plots had no treatment costs and were not included in the analysis. Including them will always suggest that doing nothing will be the most cost-effective, regardless how limited spruce volume is. The most cost-effective treatment was the aerial application of herbicide Vision ($12.16 m -3 ), followed by the aerial application of herbicide Release ($12.18 m -3 ), cutting with brushsaw ($38.38 m -3 ) and mechanical tending by Silvana Selective ($42.65 m -3 ). No cost differences were found between the herbicide treatments (p = 0.998) or between the cutting treatments (p = 0.559). The herbicide treatments were three-fold more cost-effective than the cutting treatments (p = 0.001). This analysis only considered the planted conifer component of these young stands. Les parcelles témoins non traitées ne se sont pas vu attribuer de coûts et non pas été incluses dans l'analyse. Leur inclusion laissera toujours entendre que ne rien faire sera le traitement le plus rentable, peu importe le volume des tiges d'épinette retrouvé. Le traitement le plus rentable a été la pulvérisation aérienne d'herbicide Vision (12.16$ m -3 ) suivi de la pulvérisation aérienne de l'herbicide Release (12.18$ m -3 ), de la coupe au moyen de débroussailleuse (38.88$ m -3 ) et le dégagement mécanique au moyen du Sylvana Selective (42.65$ m -3 ). Aucune différence de coût n'a été relevée entre les traitements herbicides (p = 0.998) ou entre les traitements de coupe (p = 0.559). Les traitements herbicides ont été trois fois plus rentables que les traitements de coupe (p = 0.001). Cette étude porte seulement sur la partie plantation de conifères de ces jeunes peuplements.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cutting versus herbicides: Tenth-year volume and release cost-effectiveness of sub-boreal conifer plantations

Dampier¹,

Bell²,

St-Amour³

et al. 2006

The Forestry Chronicle

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We did not address the broader issue of herbicide and non-herbicide use since, for First Nations communities, targeting participants with opposing views can give the impression of an attempt to divide their communities. Moreover, while we do recognize that there are multiple First Nation views on the use of herbicides, such views are not dissimilar to the views in mainstream society that have been extensively researched and discussed (Thompson et al 1991, Perrin et al 1993, Buse et al 1995, Decision Research 1995, Wagner et al 1998a, 1998bLautenshclager andSullivan 2002, Thompson andPitt 2011), and do not need repeating here. The focus group only addressed opposition to herbicide use, which is the perspective of the First Nations communities that are collaborating with Tembec on the HAP initiative.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…However, the use of chemical herbicides has been met with concerns by the public in North America and Europe over the perception of unacceptable human health and environmental risks (Wagner 1994, Buse et al 1995, Wagner et al 1998a, Ammer et al 2011, McCarthy et al 2011. Such concerns have led to requirements to reduce herbicide use on some certified forests (FSCCWG 2004) and in 2001, the ban of herbicides for managing forest vegetation For personal use only.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Kayahara

Armstrong

2015

The Forestry Chronicle

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides forestry professionals with an improved understanding of why First Nations are opposed to the use of chemical herbicides for silvicultural purposes on their traditional lands, based on a case study in northeastern Ontario. Results were generated using a modified form of a focus group approach. First Nations opposition to herbicide use involved not only concerns over human and environmental health (concerns common among the general public) but also spanned from treaty rights, mistrust, and respect issues to herbicide use being incongruent with traditional First Nations worldviews. The results illustrate that the science-education approach typically used to address public opposition to herbicides is neither adequate nor appropriate for addressing First Nations concerns. Instead, a more in-depth engagement and approach, centred on genuine respect for First Nations rights, culture and history, is needed to arrive at solutions that are consistent with each First Nation community's values and terms.Key words: First Nations, Aboriginal, Indigenous, traditional ecological knowledge, herbicides, forestry, perceptions, risk, worldviews, vegetation management, silviculture, boreal forest RÉSUMÉCet article permet aux forestiers professionnels de mieux comprendre pourquoi les Premières Nations s' opposent à l'utilisation des herbicides à des fins sylvicoles sur leurs terres ancestrales en s'appuyant sur une étude effectuée dans le nord-est de l'Ontario. Ces résultats ont été obtenus à l'aide d'une forme modifiée de groupes de discussion. L' opposition des Premières Nations à l'utilisation des herbicides ne résulte pas que de leur préoccupation pour la santé humaine et celle de l' environnement, qu'ils partagent d'ailleurs avec le public en général; elle repose aussi sur les droits définis par Traité, la méfiance, une question de respect et même sur le fait que l'utilisation d'herbicides va à l' encontre de la vision traditionnelle que les Premières Nations ont sur le monde. Les résultats montrent que l'approche par l' éducation scientifique que l' on adopte souvent pour contrer l' opposition publique aux herbicides n' est ni adéquate ni suffisante pour prendre en compte les préoccupations des Premières Nations. Il faut au contraire une démarche plus approfondie fondée sur un véritable respect des droits, de la culture et de l'histoire des Premières Nations pour trouver des solutions adaptées aux valeurs et aux conditions propres à chaque communauté des Premières Nations.

show abstract

“…However, there are widespread public concerns regarding the risk of herbicide use in forests as these lands often have high aesthetic, recreational, wildlife, fishery and water resource values (Wagner et al, 1998;United Nations, 2014). In addition, national legislative and policy requirements and forest certification schemes such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) promote the judicious use of herbicides in forests (Larson et al, 1997;Shepard et al, 2004;Forest Stewardship Council, 2005;Little et al, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aquatic Fate of Aerially Applied Hexazinone and Terbuthylazine in a New Zealand Planted Forest

Baillie¹,

Neary²,

Gous³

et al. 2017

JSWSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Herbicides are used to control competing vegetation during tree establishment, and are often critical to the productivity and economic viability of a planted forest crop. Despite increasing public concern over herbicide use in planted forests and potential impact on the environment, there is limited information on the aquatic fate of many of these herbicides when applied in forests according to standard operational procedures. Two herbicides commonly used in New Zealand’s planted forests, terbuthylazine and hexazinone, were aerially applied during two consecutive years at 7.4 kg and 1.1 kg ha-1 respectively, to a 12.5 ha catchment of newly planted Pinus radiata (Radiata pine) in the Bay of Plenty region of New Zealand. One hundred percent of the area was sprayed during Year 1 while 85% of the area was sprayed during Year 2. The highest concentrations of both herbicides were measured in stream water, sediment and algal samples on the day of herbicide application during Year 1 (September 2012 to June 2013), mainly as a result of spray drift, and in stream water during Year 2 (September 2013 to April 2014) at the time of a rainfall event seven days after herbicide application. Terbuthylazine concentrations exceeded New Zealand and World Health Organisation drinking water standards for <24 hours on both occasions. For the remainder of the trial period, concentrations of both herbicides were below safe drinking water standards. Herbicide concentrations in stream flow declined immediately below the trial site and were close to or below detection limits at the bottom of the catchment. The concentrations of terbuthylazine and hexazinone in stream flow during this trial, posed a short-term and low risk to algae. Peak concentrations of both herbicides were several orders of magnitude lower than Lethal Concentration (LC)50 concentrations for Daphnia and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). These results highlight the need to include data from both field and laboratory based trials when assessing the aquatic risk of these two herbicides when applied under operational conditions in planted forests.

show abstract

Public perceptions of risk and acceptability of forest vegetation management alternatives in Ontario

Cited by 49 publications

References 13 publications

Cutting versus herbicides: Tenth-year volume and release cost-effectiveness of sub-boreal conifer plantations

Cutting versus herbicides: Tenth-year volume and release cost-effectiveness of sub-boreal conifer plantations

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

Aquatic Fate of Aerially Applied Hexazinone and Terbuthylazine in a New Zealand Planted Forest

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About