dc.contributor.author |
Wagner, R.G. |
|
dc.contributor.author |
Flynn, J. |
|
dc.contributor.author |
Gregory, R. |
|
dc.date.accessioned |
2017-01-26T19:09:53Z |
|
dc.date.available |
2017-01-26T19:09:53Z |
|
dc.date.issued |
1998-09 |
|
dc.identifier.citation |
Wagner, R. G., Flynn, J., & Gregory, R. (1998). Public perceptions of risk and acceptability of forest vegetation management alternatives in Ontario. Forestry Chronicle, 74, 720-727. |
en_US |
dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/22081 |
|
dc.description |
8 pages |
en_US |
dc.description.abstract |
We examined public perceptions of risk and acceptability for
9 alternatives to controlling forest vegetation in Ontario (N = 2,301)
in the fall of 1994. The proportion of respondents indicating whether
an alternative was 1) difficult to control, 2) potentially catastrophic,
3) a problem for future generations, and 4) a personal
worry determined perceptions of risk for each vegetation management
alternative. Ranking of alternatives from highest to
lowest perceived risk was: aerially-applied herbicides> biological
control > ground-applied herbicides> mulches> prescribed
fire> heavy equipment> cover cropping> manual cutting> grazing
animals. Public acceptance was lowest for aerially-applied herbicides
(18%) followed by ground-applied herbicides (37%),
biological control (57% ), prescribed fire (57% ), mulches (65% ),
heavy equipment (72%), cover cropping (80%), grazing animals
(82% ), and manual cutting (89% ). Public acceptability of
various agents for biological control differed depending on the
proposed agent. Natural plant toxins were viewed as most acceptable
(73%) followed by microorganims (42%), genetically-engineered
organisms (39%), and viruses (21 %). We found a strong
correlation between a risk perception index and acceptability of
the alternatives for the general public (r2 = 0.84) and those in timber-
dependent communities (r2 = 0.89). Our results suggest that
stronger public support can probably be achieved for forest vegetation
management programs that include non-herbicide alternatives. |
en_US |
dc.language.iso |
en_US |
en_US |
dc.publisher |
Canadian Institute of Forestry |
en_US |
dc.rights |
Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0-US |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Forest vegetation management |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Public opposition |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Risk perception |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Herbicides |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Biological control |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Prescribe fire |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Mulches |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Heavy equipment |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Cover cropping |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Grazing animals |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Manual cutting |
en_US |
dc.title |
Public perceptions of risk and acceptability of forest vegetation management alternatives in Ontario |
en_US |
dc.type |
Article |
en_US |