Journal article

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

Rebecca M Ford, Kathryn JH Williams, Ian D Bishop, John E Hickey



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 firs..

View full abstract


Funding Acknowledgements

The research described in this paper was part of a larger project, Social Acceptability of Forest Management Systems, funded by the Australian Research Council with industry contributions from Forestry Tasmania and the Bureau of Rural Sciences. It was approved by the University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee, Arts and Humanities sub-committee. Thanks to the many people who contributed to this project, particularly Daniel Loiterton and Trevor Webb. The authors acknowledge two anonymous examiners for their helpful comments on the PhD thesis of Ford (2006) that formed part of this research.