Canadian Forest Service Publications

Public Perceptions of Mountain Pine Beetle Management Alternatives. 2008. Meitner, M.; Berheide, Daniel; Nelson, John; Sheppard, S. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, B.C. Mountain Pine Beetle Working Paper 2008-06. 66 p.

Year: 2008

Available from: Pacific Forestry Centre

Catalog ID: 28326

Language: English

Series: Mountain Pine Beetle Working Paper (PFC - Victoria)

CFS Availability: Order paper copy (free), PDF (download)

Abstract

Modern forest visualization techniques have proven invaluable to forest managers by making it possible to visually represent alternative management scenarios that are otherwise only represented by abstract statistics. In this project we have developed the technical capacity to extend current techniques used for the increasingly automated generation of near photo realistic imagery representing proposed landscape level change to the case of the current mountain pine beetle epidemic. These visualizations were then used in a series of structured perceptual experiments aimed at increasing our understanding of the social dimensions affecting the acceptability of management actions. Specifically, the following were investigated: issues of the public acceptability of possible management alternatives; public beliefs of the origins of this event and how those belief frame appropriate management goals post event; and perceptions of impacts and associated mitigation strategies on non-timber and non-market values including aesthetics and recreation potential. The major findings of this study, apart from the technical capacity that was built were: 1) respondents clearly support increased salvage logging; 2) little seems to be known about the specifics of what is being done to manage the effects of the mountain pine beetle; and 3) replanting harvested areas with mixed species is the most preferred alternative of those presented. While the Prince George and Kelowna samples responded similarly in most cases, Prince George participants felt that they were more at risk as a community whereas participants in Kelowna had a greater degree of optimism about their community's ability to weather the storm.

Date modified: