Public judgements of the social acceptability of silvicultural alternatives in Tasmanian wet eucalypt forests

Summary

This research compared individual's social acceptability ratings of six harvest and regeneration systems that could be applied in wet eucalypt forests: the clearfell, burn and sow system and five alternatives. A smaller calibration study also tested the effect of providing participants with a wider range of alternative systems including a no-harvest option and conversion to blue gum plantation. A survey method was complemented by qualitative follow-up interviews. About 300 Tasmanians with different affiliations in relation to forest harvesting were asked to judge the acceptability of the harvest systems. These were presented to them in two ways: as still images showing the forest in the first year after harvest and as animated sequences showing the forest regenerating over time. 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. Aggregated harvest patterns were more acceptable than dispersed. Follow-up interviews provided examples of aesthetic and more thought—based responses leading to these trends. The trend for large-scale timber-industry-affiliated participants was opposite: the more forest retained on the site, the less acceptable the result. In the calibration study, which included a wider range of systems and mostly non-affiliated participants, a no-harvest option was rated most acceptable and the selective-harvest system was rated significantly less acceptable than when the no-harvest option was not available. Viewing animated sequences led to higher ratings of the more intensive harvest systems and lower ratings of the selective harvest system than those based on still images. While significant, these differences were small.

Keywords:

• silvicultural systems
• landscape
• aesthetic value
• acceptability
• social values
• beliefs
• Tasmania