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

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...

[1]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[2]  William Leiss,et al.  Mad Cows and Mother's Milk: The Perils of Poor Risk Communication , 1997 .

[3]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Health risk perception in Canada I: Rating hazards, sources of information and responsibility for health protection , 1995 .

[4]  Robert G. Wagner,et al.  Toward Integrated Forest Vegetation Management , 1994 .

[5]  M. Brunson "Socially Acceptable" Forestry: What Does It Imply for Ecosystem Management? , 1993 .

[6]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield , 1999 .

[7]  R. Wagner Research directions to advance forest vegetation management in North America , 1993 .

[8]  R. Metcalf An Increasing Public Concern , 1993 .

[9]  Vern R. Walker Direct Inference, Probability, and a Conceptual Gulf in Risk Communication , 1995 .

[10]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Decision-Pathway Surveys: A Tool for Resource Managers , 1997 .

[11]  Paul Slovic,et al.  The Nevada Initiative: A Risk Communication Fiasco , 1993 .

[12]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Trust as a Determinant of Opposition to a High‐Level Radioactive Waste Repository: Analysis of a Structural Model , 1992 .

[13]  G. Fiddler,et al.  Feasibility of alternatives to herbicides in young conifer plantations in California , 1993 .

[14]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Perceived risk, trust, and democracy , 1993 .

[15]  R. Wagner,et al.  Public attitudes towards forest herbicide use and the implications for public involvement , 1995 .

[16]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Reconciling environmental values and pragmatic choices , 1998 .

[17]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm , 1992 .

[18]  David A. Bella,et al.  Technocracy and trust: nuclear waste controversy , 1988 .

[19]  P. Slovic Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.