Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups

Forest Ecology and Management 207 (2005) 171–187 www.elsevier.com/locate/foreco

Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups Stephen R.J. Sheppard*, Michael Meitner Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning (CALP), Department of Forest Resources Management and Centre for Landscape Research, University of British Columbia, 2310 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, Canada, BC V6T 1Z4

Abstract While there is an increasing demand for active public involvement in forestry decision-making, there are as yet few successful models for achieving this in the new sustainable forest management (SFM) context. This paper describes the special needs of forest managers conducting participatory SFM planning in a sometimes-polarized public context, and outlines criteria for designing decision-support processes to meet these needs. These criteria were used to develop a new approach to public participation in British Columbia, by means of a pilot study using multi-criteria analysis of forest management scenarios while integrating public priorities. Researchers, working with stakeholder groups in the Arrow Forest District, obtained public weightings of criteria and indicators for SFM. Alternative forest management scenarios were presented using realistic 3D landscape visualisations. Modelling-based expert evaluations of the scenarios were weighted according to the priorities of the stakeholder groups, in order to test implications for scenario preferences. There was considerable commonality of results among groups, with general agreement between experts and stakeholder groups on scenario preferences. Based on the results and participant evaluations, techniques such as this appear effective as decision-support tools in conflict-prone areas. Pilot studies like these can play a vital role in developing a more comprehensive, engaging, open and accountable process to support informed and socially acceptable decision-making for sustainable forest management. # 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Criteria and indicators; Decision-support systems; Forest management plans; Multi-criteria analysis; Participatory decisionsupport; Public involvement; Sustainable forest management; Visualisation

1. Introduction Sustainable forest management (SFM) calls for balancing diverse ecological, social, and economic values over space and time, usually represented in the * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 604 822 6582; fax: +1 604 822 9106. E-mail address: [email protected] (Stephen R.J. Sheppard).

form of multiple criteria and indicators (Montreal Process, 1995; Varma et al., 2000) that express sometimes conflicting management objectives. While much effort in SFM has to date been focused on defining criteria and indicators (C&Is) for measuring sustainability, this has been accompanied by the call for increased inclusion of people’s values in the forest planning process (Carrow, 1999). SFM depends upon the support and input of a wide range of stakeholders

0378-1127/$ – see front matter # 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.032

172

S.R.J. Sheppard, M. Meitner / Forest Ecology and Management 207 (2005) 171–187

(Hamersley Chambers and Beckley, 2003; Raison et al., 2001). Certification guidelines (e.g., PEFC Council, 2003) require public participation in decision-making. Various benefits can potentially flow from this, such as accessing local knowledge and increasing public understanding and support for forest management (Hamersley Chambers and Beckley, 2003; Kruger, 2001; Sheppard and Achiam, 2004). However, in practice, public participation in natural resource management over the past decade has met with limited success (SFM Network, 1999), with low levels of public satisfaction and often unwillingness among stakeholders to participate in forest planning processes (Forest Practices Board, 2000). Often, decisions on forest management issues have been stymied by stand-offs between stakeholders at opposite ends of the environmental-timber production spectrum (Martin et al., 2000). Thus, while there is increasing demand for active public involvement in decision-making, successful models for achieving this in the new sustainable-forestry context have yet to emerge in practice. Public involvement needs more effective, defensible techniques usable by managers at the ‘‘sharp end’’ of decision-making and fitted to the specific needs of SFM, rather than just in scoping of public concerns and in setting broad strategies. Scientists have developed sophisticated decisionsupport systems with computer-modelling techniques (de Steiguer et al., 2003; Kangas et al., 2000), but these methods have typically not been designed for inclusion of lay-publics. Powerful new tools with potential for public participation, such as 3D landscape visualisation (Orland, 1997; Sheppard, 2000), have yet to be widely tested and adapted for public engagement and learning. Given this context, the exploration and testing of alternative public-participation approaches for sustainable forest planning are clearly needed. Practical but defensible programmes, required by forest managers for ‘operationalizing’ public involvement in sustainable-forestry decisions, need to be developed (Varma et al., 2000). This paper describes some of the special needs of SFM planning in collaboration with local communities, and then describes the testing of one such approach at the landscape-level, in the not uncommon context of polarized stakeholders. One of the international ‘‘hot-spots’’ for forestry conflict is British Columbia (BC), Canada, location of

numerous forestry blockades, media campaigns, and forest-products boycotts (Howlett et al., 2000). Within BC, the Slocan Valley of southeastern BC has long been known for its controversies over logging. This region therefore provides a challenging research environment in which to test a new approach to public involvement in forest planning. As part of a series of multi-disciplinary applied-research projects under the Arrow Forest District Innovative Forest Practices Agreement (IFPA), researchers developed and tested new models for public participation in sustainable forest planning (Sheppard, 2003). A pilot study was conducted using a version of multi-criteria analysis (MCA) with direct stakeholder involvement. Working at the landscape (i.e., large watershed) level, this approach, here termed ‘public MCA’, involved analysis of alternative forest management scenarios against sustainability C&Is and application of the priorities of local stakeholder groups to the results of experts’, scenario modelling and evaluations. In addition to evaluating the effectiveness of this overall approach, one of the study goals was to assess the effectiveness of new tools as part of the process, including geographic information system (GIS)-based forest modelling and realistic landscape visualisation. Section 2 of this paper briefly reviews the special needs of participatory SFM planning and outlines criteria for designing and testing new methods. Section 3 describes the specific planning approach and research methods followed in the pilot study. Section 4 highlights key findings from the initial phases of the pilot study, and implications for forest planning are discussed in Section 5.

2. The needs of participatory decision-support in sustainable forest management Based on a literature review, documented elsewhere, of public-participation processes, decisionsupport systems, and integrated, participatory, decision-aiding processes, this section outlines shortcomings of past approaches and some of the special needs of participatory SFM planning. Numerous authors have documented key failings and limitations of public involvement in natural resource management (e.g., De Marchi and Ravetz, 2001; Forest Practices Board, 2000; Hamersley Chambers and Beckley,

S.R.J. Sheppard, M. Meitner / Forest Ecology and Management 207 (2005) 171–187

2003). The public often seems unwilling to participate, due to various barriers (Sheppard and Achiam, 2004). The silent majority often does not get heard (Beierle and Cayford, 2002; FAO/ECE/ILO Joint Committee, undated). Consensus among stakeholders is often not achieved, and processes are often conflictridden, inefficient, and/or unsatisfactorily settled (Gregory, 2002). Experts are often too dominant in the planning process (Kakoyannis et al., 2001). The public is not given reasonable choices for comparison of, and deliberation on, alternative management actions (Gregory, 2002; Sheppard, 2003). There is often a lack of credibility or perceived equity in the decision-making process (Gregory, 2002; Kakoyannis et al., 2001). For forest managers, the public process and its outcomes are often too broad, early, informal, or inconclusive for them to relate to detailed SFM decisions they need to take as part of their routine responsibilities (Martin et al., 2000). As an alternative approach to decision-making, decision-support systems typically seeks to integrate the decision-maker’s own insights with the computer’s information-processing capabilities in order to improve decision-making (Varma et al., 2000). Typically, these are expert-driven modelling programmes, integrating data from various sources, with procedural rules devised by the modeller and/or other experts (de Steiguer et al., 2003). To the public, any use of such models can seem like a ‘‘black-box’’, and can cause or exacerbate distrust in the decisionmakers (de Steiguer et al., 2003; Gregory, 2002). What are needed, therefore, are participatory processes that overcome these problems while addressing the special needs of SFM. Based on the literature reviewed (in particular, Beierle and Cayford, 2002; De Marchi and Ravetz, 2001; Gregory, 2002; Hamersley Chambers and Beckley, 2003; Hislop and Twery, 2001; Sheppard and Achiam, 2004; Shindler and Neburka, 1997) and practical experience with SFM planning in BC, criteria for designing an effective process can be identified, as follows: (1) Broad representation of stakeholders – this is critical to fairness, credibility, and avoidance of surprises later in the process; (2) Open access to the process for the range of stakeholders, which means ensuring that less organised or experienced stakeholders can participate effectively and equitably, without domination by extreme views; (3) A clearly structured decision-

173

making process, with inclusion of stakeholders in the process design and transparency on how final decisions will be reached; (4) An engaging process, if stakeholders are to be attracted and encouraged to persevere; (5) Easily understandable and accurate information, using appropriate graphic formats to avoid overload or confusion; (6) Provision of information and products at the appropriate scale and level of detail for participants and resource managers to use; (7) Multi-attribute analysis methods structured around systems of sustainability criteria and indicators, but simple enough to be both explicable to the public and understood/coordinated by forest managers; (8) Spatially explicit and temporal forecasting of ecological, social and economic values over fairly long time periods, with varying degrees of uncertainty. These criteria, if met, should lead to outcomes such as credibility of the overall process, participant satisfaction, and some degree of mutual learning. The combination of certain types of participatory techniques, which encourage open dialogue with stakeholders, with certain types of decision-support systems, which offer comprehensive coverage of sustainability indicators, may result in improved methods of participatory decision-making to meet the above criteria. Hamersley Chambers and Beckley (2003) characterized the more direct and collaborative forms of public involvement as potentially providing better information for field-level operations and iterative dialogue on potential forest management decisions at the ‘sharp end’ of participation. The simpler forms of decision analysis, such as MCA and other related forms of integrated assessment, provide one possible approach to meeting these principles and criteria, while addressing complex problems involving trade-offs between multiple objectives (Mendoza et al., 1999). MCA typically involves the evaluation of alternative management scenarios across a range of different criteria and indicators, creating a matrix within which the performance of each scenario is assessed. Such methods have begun to incorporate stakeholder input into the evaluation process (Cohen, 1997; Brown et al., 2001), promising to deliver systematic, transparent, prescriptive, criteria-based information (Martin et al., 2000), without the complexity of more sophisticated mathematical-modelling systems.

174

S.R.J. Sheppard, M. Meitner / Forest Ecology and Management 207 (2005) 171–187

The public MCA approach, with stakeholder weightings of criteria or management objectives, provides a structured, collaborative process for combining multidisciplinary expert evaluations and stakeholder input. Under the MCA process described by Brown et al. (2001), stakeholders in focus groups participate in prioritizing various criteria/indicators by attaching weightings, which can then be used to aggregate scores for each scenario. The process may run through several iterations or cycles before converging on a preferred scenario. The process can accommodate both quantitative and qualitative criteria/indicators, making both ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ values commensurable (Gregory, 2002; Mendoza et al., 1999). Both expert and stakeholder opinions can be combined, while managing stakeholder influence over the process. Brown et al. (2001) demonstrated that a public MCA process can help to move stakeholders towards consent, by securing ‘‘buy-in’’ to criteria/weightings before results are developed, and identifying areas of commonality between stakeholder groups. Other studies, comparing the effectiveness of different multi-criteria analysis or weighting schemes (e.g., Hajkowicz et al., 2000; Martin et al., 2000), have shown that inconsistencies in results can occur, suggesting that caution be used in applying any one weighting scheme. While there have been a number of such studies which attempt to link multi-attribute analyses with public values (de Steiguer et al., 2003), many have not been applied to forestry (e.g., Brown et al., 2001; Costanza and Ruth, 1998; Hajkowicz et al., 2000), or, more specifically, do not assess forest sustainability over space and time (e.g., Kangas, 1994; Martin et al., 2000). Even fewer have been implemented in practice or tested with real multi-stakeholder communities (de Steiguer et al., 2003; Kangas, 1994). There are also promising developments with newer technologies such as community-based GIS (AlKodmany, 1999; Smith and Taylor, 2000), and realistic 3D visualisation of future landscape scenarios (Sheppard and Salter, 2004; Tress and Tress, 2002). Such tools may help to meet the expressed need for more engaging, informative, and innovative participatory methods (e.g., CORE, 1994; De Marchi and Ravetz, 2001). Early evidence from visualisation studies, tested with communities (e.g., Lewis, 2000; Meitner et al., in press; Tress and Tress, 2002), suggest

they can be highly effective in explaining plans and eliciting meaningful public comment, though questions on validity remain (Sheppard, 2001). However, very few studies, which apply landscape visualisation (e.g., Al-Kodmany, 1999; Tress and Tress, 2002), also integrate documented public interaction, multi-criteria analysis, and a focus on sustainable forestry. Overall, therefore, we clearly need more examples of systematic, participatory decision-support in a sustainable-forestry context, which integrate innovative tools, are applied to the working-forest with real communities, and are scientifically documented.

3. Pilot study approach and methods 3.1. Research objectives The main intent of the Arrow IFPA pilot study was to contribute to the evaluation of hybrid techniques potentially suited to participatory decision-support in SFM by testing a public MCA approach, integrated with forecasting/evaluative spatial models and realistic model-driven visualisation. The approach responds to many of the criteria identified above, and, we believe, represents one of the first attempts to apply and scientifically document such a comprehensive and integrated method, focused on sustainability assessment with a real community in a working-forest context. The study process incorporated several innovations that have not been widely tested in combination before: use of multiple, scientific predictive-models to help design scenarios and assess their performance against C&Is (Wells and Nelson, 2002); use of realistic landscape visualizations to convey scenarios and modelling results to the public (Sheppard, 2000); and incorporation of the temporal dimension in evaluation of scenarios. The primary research question was: does the public MCA process hold promise as an effective participatory-planning/decision-support tool for sustainable forest management (SFM) at the landscape level? Associated questions include:  Is the weighting of sustainability criteria useful?  How similar are the results from alternative components of the process, such as expert evaluations

S.R.J. Sheppard, M. Meitner / Forest Ecology and Management 207 (2005) 171–187

versus evaluations weighted by stakeholder groups versus direct preferences for scenarios?  Does the process deal effectively with polarized stakeholder situations, and does it help to narrow the gaps, real or perceived, between opposing stakeholder groups?  Does it deliver reasonable, supportable conclusions and provide clear results and implications for managers?  Are the innovative technology tools (i.e., spatial models and visualisation) effective and what impact do they have on the results? The research objectives addressed questions of substance as well as process, by providing information useful for local managers in the study area, though these are not the principle focus of the paper. Such questions included: what priorities do the local stakeholder groups have for various sustainability criteria?; how wide are the differences in sustainability priorities among stakeholder groups?; and what influences do the stakeholder group priorities have on the identification of a preferred forest management alternative? 3.2. Study methods A suite of linked decision-support methods was implemented, allowing comparison of results between expert-only evaluations of scenarios, various stakeholder weightings applied to expert evaluations (i.e., the main public MCA method), and direct stakeholder preferences for scenarios using visualisation. The public MCA method used was adapted from the tradeoff analysis process developed for participatory coastal zone decision-making by Brown et al. (2001), and involved the following steps (Fig. 1): 1. Stakeholder analysis: identifying and classifying stakeholder/interest groups in the Arrow Forest District. 2. Identification of management objectives and C&Is reflecting issues of concern to stakeholders and technical experts in forest management. 3. Stakeholder prioritization of C&Is (i.e., weightings). 4. Development of future alternative forest management scenarios for a selected Landscape Unit

175

within the Arrow Forest District, using spatiotemporal forecast (input) modelling of ecological and operational conditions. 5. Technical evaluation of the impacts of alternative scenarios on C&Is, based on output modelling and professional evaluation by experts. 6. Comparison of scenarios based on the expert evaluations and stakeholder weightings. This approach was adopted because of its success in other contentious areas, the need to provide scientific documentation of public processes to address social and other values in forest management planning, and its suitability for incorporating C&Is for SFM. Since the history of resource planning in the Slocan Valley has often been characterized by confrontational public sessions in multi-stakeholder, consensus-based processes, it was apparent that separate stakeholder groups might be the most effective way to obtain broad public input to the MCA process. A series of workshops was held in the Slocan Valley, BC, from November 2001 to January 2003. Only the process and results associated with the initial rounds of workshops in 2001 are presented in this paper. The stakeholder workshops were used to orientate participants within the focus groups, obtain their input, and feedback information from all groups as the process continued. In the case study, the results were presented back to the participants including government agencies, but have not to date been used in an official, decision-making process. The Lemon Landscape Unit (Fig. 2) was selected as the pilot geographic area on which to test the MCA process, as it represented many of the issues of importance in the Arrow Forest District and Slocan Valley. The Lemon Landscape Unit is also the only unit in the Arrow Forest District with detailed modelling and analysis data already available from the various disciplines represented on the University of British Columbia (UBC) team. It covers over 40,000 km2 of mountainous forest and alpine landscape, on primarily public land. 3.2.1. Stakeholder selection Stakeholder analysis ensures that all the interests in a defined area of forest are considered within the planning and decision-making process (IIED, 2002). For the Arrow Forest District, the resource values were

176

S.R.J. Sheppard, M. Meitner / Forest Ecology and Management 207 (2005) 171–187

Fig. 1. Planning process for the Lemon Landscape Unit pilot study, Slocan Valley, BC, conducted in 2001–2003. Credit: reproduced with permission from Forestry Chronicle, 79, 865–875.

first listed, and potential organizations and individuals who might have interests in these resources were identified. Contact lists were then gathered from a variety of sources, including forest companies, government agency consultation processes, listings of land-based tenures, and community listings. For the Lemon Landscape Unit study, participants were selected by the following criteria: resource interests (i.e., groups and individuals interested in or affected by planning decisions in the Lemon area); availability of contact information; history with planning

processes (i.e., those with and without previous history, varying levels of expertise, and varying levels of influence in previous processes). Nine stakeholder groups with shared interests in the Lemon Landscape Unit were formed, with a total of 47 participants. The groups consisted of property owners, water users, community development/local government, provincial government, recreation, environment, forestry, commercial tourism and other users (e.g., mining, trapping). Groups ranged in size from 4 to 8 members.

Fig. 2. The landscape context of the Lemon Landscape Unit, as seen from the Slocan Valley, BC. Credit: S. Sheppard, Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning (CALP), UBC.

3.2.2. Criteria selection and weighting The following definition of sustainability was used to ground the C&Is reviewed with the stakeholders: balanced and concurrent continuation of ecological, economic, and social values over a defined area over a defined time frame. A set of draft C&Is for sustainable forestry was presented to each stakeholder group, based on the C&Is developed by the Arrow IFPA project team (Robinson, 2001), and tailored to the local level. The C&Is used in the public process constituted a sub-set of the technical C&Is then under development by the project team. The stakeholder groups reviewed nine ‘‘Stakeholder Criteria’’ incorporating the key indicators: biological richness, forest/ soil productivity, timber economic values, non-timber economic values, water supply, recreation, visual

S.R.J. Sheppard, M. Meitner / Forest Ecology and Management 207 (2005) 171–187

quality, cultural resources and worker/visitor safety. As part of the larger Arrow IFPA research program, stakeholder comments were used to refine the definition of the technical C&Is, although the original ‘‘Stakeholder criteria’’ were used throughout the stakeholder group meetings for reasons of consistency in weightings. Participants were asked to weight the nine criteria in three different ways: (1) selection of the top priority criterion; (2) ranking of the criteria in order of importance; (3) unconstrained allocation of 30 points among the criteria, with more points to be given to more important criteria. A variety of statistical tests were conducted to gauge commonality and differences in weightings among groups and criteria. This included analysis of variance, conducted for each of the nine criteria separately, with the stakeholder group as the independent variable. Multi-comparison tests were performed to check for significant differences in overall weightings among the criteria, across all participants. Simple comparison tests, using Duncan’s multiple range test, were used to test for significant differences between groups on each sustainability criterion. 3.2.3. Scenario development and visualisation Given the short amount of time available for the public interactions, there was no choice but to focus the MCA on scenarios and analysis results already developed by the project team at that time. Two scenarios had been developed for the Lemon Unit. Scenario 1 was the base-case Forest Practices Code (FPC) scenario, representing forest management plans based on the then-existing rules and procedures of the BC Ministry of Forests (Fig. 3a). Scenario 2 was a ‘‘zoning’’ scenario, which does not necessarily conform to FPC regulations, but places emphasis on different resource values in different areas according to what is most suitable. This scenario applied the concept of zoning in a particular way that concentrated timber harvesting on a smaller land base of more productive and accessible areas, while reserving more backcountry and high elevation areas for wildlife, recreation, and other values (Fig. 3b). Members of the IFPA project management team developed assumptions for Scenario 2 during a workshop with licensees and certain local experts. The assumptions contained within the two scenarios were then modelled in ATLAS, a spatially explicit,

177

Fig. 3. Examples of realistic landscape visualisations of the Lemon Landscape Unit, shown to stakeholders in the pilot study and illustrating the two forest management scenarios at Year 25: (a) Scenario 1 based on rules from the BC Forest Practices Code, and (b) Scenario 2 based on a zoning proposal. Credit: Jon Salter and Duncan Cavens, CALP, UBC.

timber-harvest allocation model (Wells and Nelson, 2002), linked to FORECAST, a growth and ecological-prediction model (Kimmins et al., 1999), and projected out over one whole rotation. The outputs from this model were illustrated by means of a ‘‘time lapse’’ mapping sequence, predicting forest-age classes, as well as by generating semi-realistic landscape visualisations at future periods of time. These modeldriven landscape visualisations were created using software developed at the Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning (CALP) at UBC (Cavens, 2002), which links the modelled forest stand conditions, with growth curves, to a realistic rendering software programme such as World Construction Set1 (Fig. 3). The visualisations, together with the time-lapse maps, other inventory/constraint mapping, and supporting scenario descriptions, were presented to the stakeholder groups using hard copy prints and projected PowerPoint1 images on a large screen. Thevisualisations were presented in a time sequence from 0 years up to 215 years, accompanied by a script-based, verbal description of scenario features and differences. 3.2.4. Scenario evaluation Discipline experts on the UBC/IFPA team, using the technical C&Is from which the ‘‘stakeholder criteria’’ were derived, conducted modelling and expert evaluations of the scenarios. These technical

178

S.R.J. Sheppard, M. Meitner / Forest Ecology and Management 207 (2005) 171–187

Table 1 Technical expert scores (0–80) for nine sustainability criteria, applied to two pilot study forest management scenarios in the Lemon Landscape Unit, Slocan Valley, BC Stakeholder criteria

Expert evaluations sustainability index (0–80) Scenario 1 (FPC)

Scenario 2 (zoning)

Ecological Biological richness Forest/soil productivity

40 70

40 70

Economic Timber economic benefitsa Non-timber economic benefitsa

40 70

70 10

Social Water supplya Recreation resources Visual quality Cultural features/places Worker/visitor safety

50 10 10 40 70

10 10 10 40 70

Overall scenario sustainability score (averaged)

44.4

36.7

a

Criteria where expert evaluations differ considerably between scenarios.

evaluations were summarized and combined into ‘‘sustainability scores’’ for each criterion, on a scale of 0–80, representing a ‘‘Sustainability Index’’ from the least sustainable (i.e., clearly unsustainable and declining over the long term), to the most sustainable (i.e., clearly sustainable and improving over the long term). Scores were then averaged across the nine criteria and presented in a summary-effects table (Table 1) as a simple representation of the overall sustainability of the scenario as evaluated by the technical experts, assuming equal weighting of all scenarios. The individual criterion scores from the expert evaluations (Table 1) were then multiplied by the weightings of the different stakeholder groups, in order to derive new weighted overall scores for each scenario (here termed ‘‘derived preferences’’) and to test the role of different group priorities in favouring potential scenarios. The weights were derived from the 30-point weighting scheme, expressing the average number of points assigned to each criterion by each group, as a percentage of 30 (Table 2). The total weighted scores for both scenarios (Table 3) represent the interaction of individual stakeholder group weights and the experts’ scenario evaluations. In addition to the MCA component of the study, the participants were asked to give their direct overall preferences for the two scenarios, based on the

scenario information as described above, including visualisations. Participants at this stage had not seen the results of the technical evaluations of the scenarios. This allowed comparison of direct preferences for scenarios against the expert scores weighted by the stakeholder group priorities. Participants were also asked to give their feedback on the effectiveness of the public planning process undertaken in this pilot research project.

4. Results Unless otherwise stated, all results relating to stakeholder groups are based on the average results from each group, to account for differences in the group size. 4.1. Stakeholder criteria weightings Based on the aggregated results for all stakeholder groups, the three methods of weighting sustainability criteria gave a generally similar overall order of resource priorities: biological richness first, closely followed by water supply, then timber economy, forest/soil productivity, non-timber economy, recreation, visual quality, and cultural resources or safety last. Three criteria stand out as the most commonly

S.R.J. Sheppard, M. Meitner / Forest Ecology and Management 207 (2005) 171–187

179

Table 2 Stakeholder group weights (derived from the 30-point weighting exercise) for the nine sustainability criteria used in the pilot study for the Lemon Landscape Unit, BC Stakeholder criteria

Stakeholder group weightings (group average, expressed on a scale of 0–1) OU

CD

OR

CT

FR

WU

PG

EV

PO

AP

Ecological Biological richness Forest/soil productivity

0.16 0.09

0.16 0.17

0.17 0.12

0.18 0.12

0.15 0.11

0.17 0.10

0.19 0.13

0.29 0.12

0.17 0.13

0.18 0.12

Economic Timber economic benefits Non-timber economic benefits

0.25 0.12

0.10 0.13

0.15 0.11

0.18 0.20

0.20 0.11

0.11 0.08

0.14 0.12

0.05 0.10

0.13 0.11

0.15 0.12

Social Water supply Recreation resources Visual quality Cultural features/places Worker/visitor safety

0.24 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.02

0.14 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.04

0.17 0.07 0.09 0.05 0.06

0.11 0.09 0.06 0.02 0.06

0.09 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.10

0.30 0.08 0.04 0.07 0.06

0.23 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.02

0.21 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.04

0.17 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.04

0.17 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.05

Total

0.99

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.99

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

OU, other users; CD, community development/local government; OR, outdoor recreation; CT, commercial tourism; FR, forestry; WT, water users; PG, provincial government; EV, environment; PO, property owners; AP, all participants.

picked for the top priority: biological richness, water supply, and timber economy (Fig. 4). Recreation, visual quality, cultural and safety criteria were seldom if ever selected as the top priority by participants.

The overall sequence of ordinally ranked criteria appeared consistent with that of the top priority responses, with the same four criteria receiving the highest average rankings overall: biological richness,

Table 3 Weighted sustainability scores for the two pilot study scenarios (Sc1 and Sc2), derived from expert evaluations (Table 1) multiplied by stakeholder group average weights for sustainability criteria (Table 2) Stakeholder criteria

Weighted scenario scores OU

CD

OR

CT

FR

WU

PG

EV

PO

AP

Sc1 Sc2 Sc1 Sc2 Sc1 Sc2 Sc1 Sc2 Sc1 Sc2 Sc1 Sc2 Sc1 Sc2 Sc1 Sc2 Sc1 Sc2 Sc1 Sc2 Ecological Biological richness Forest/soil productivity

6.3 6.4

6.3 6.4 6.4 6.4 12.1 12.1

Economic Timber economic benefits 10.0 17.5 Non-timber economic 8.2 1.2 benefits

6.9 8.4

6.9 8.4

7.0 8.2

7.0 8.2

6.0 7.6

6.0 7.6

6.7 7.0

6.7 7.0

7.8 9.3

4.4 5.4

7.8 0.8

5.8 10.1 8.6 1.2

4.0 8.8

7.0 1.3

5.9 10.3 7.0 12.3 7.9 1.1 14.0 2.0

7.8 13.7 7.9 1.1

7.2 0.8 1.0 3.1 3.1

1.4 0.8 1.0 3.1 3.1

8.3 0.7 0.9 2.1 4.2

4.6 1.0 0.7 2.7 7.0

7.8 11.7 11.7 9.3 8.4 8.4

6.7 9.3

6.7 9.3

7.3 8.7

7.3 8.7

1.9 7.0

3.3 1.0

5.3 7.6

9.3 1.1

5.8 10.2 8.4 1.2

2.3 10.3 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.9 1.8 2.1 1.6 2.8

2.1 0.5 0.9 2.1 2.8

8.3 0.9 0.7 3.7 2.9

1.7 0.9 0.7 3.7 2.9

8.7 0.8 0.7 2.2 3.6

Social Water supply Recreation resources Visual quality Cultural features/places Worker/visitor safety

12.1 1.0 0.1 0.3 1.2

Total

45.6 36.4 46.5 36.2 45.5 36.4 47.8 36.8 45.2 40.6 46.3 33.0 47.3 35.2 45.7 32.8 45.4 36.3 46.1 36.4

2.4 1.0 0.1 0.3 1.2

1.7 0.7 0.9 2.1 4.2

5.4 0.9 0.6 0.7 4.1

1.1 0.9 0.6 0.7 4.1

0.9 15.0 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.4 2.7 2.7 7.0 3.9

3.0 11.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.5 2.7 1.8 3.9 1.6

1.7 0.8 0.7 2.2 3.6

OU, other users; CD, community development/local government; OR, outdoor recreation; CT, commercial tourism; FR, forestry; WT, water users; PG, provincial government; EV, environment; PO, property owners; AP, all participants.

180

S.R.J. Sheppard, M. Meitner / Forest Ecology and Management 207 (2005) 171–187

Fig. 4. Weights of top-priority criteria for sustainable forest management in the pilot study area, by stakeholder group (each stakeholder group’s individual ratings add up to a total of 1 on the y-axis).

water supply, timber economy, and forest/soil productivity. In multiple-comparison tests between pairs of ranked criteria, the majority of comparisons (67%) were significant at the <0.05% probability level,

indicating real differences in the aggregated, participants’ priorities. However, the biological richness ranking was not significantly different from the water supply or timber economy criteria, and nor were the

Fig. 5. Cumulative allocation of 30 points to sustainable forest management criteria, expressing their relative importance in the pilot study area by stakeholder group.

S.R.J. Sheppard, M. Meitner / Forest Ecology and Management 207 (2005) 171–187

timber economy and non-timber economy criteria ranked significant differently. The 30-point allocation led to a similar overall pattern of weightings (Fig. 5), but the order and relative weightings appear slightly different. Water supply comes out with the greatest number of points, closely followed by biological richness; the nontimber economy appears to be weighted more similarly to forest/soil productivity and not far behind timber economy. Assuming a ratio scale, these results allow for a form of quantified difference in weightings: water supply appears to be almost four times as important as safety. While the values of recreation, visual quality, cultural resources and safety consistently received lower weights, in combination they still received approximately 25% of the total number of points (Fig. 5). With this weighting method, fewer (58%) of the pairwise multiple comparison tests of criteria were significantly different, indicating less separation in priorities among the criteria using this more flexible and more sensitive method of ascertaining public priorities. Analysis of the different stakeholder group weightings demonstrated considerable commonality among groups. A separate analysis of variance conducted on the ordinal rankings for each of the nine criteria found that group membership was a significant source of variance only for the criteria of water supply and cultural resources. Commonality among groups appears most obvious with the 30-point weighting method (Fig. 5), where most stakeholder groups seemed to distribute their scores quite similarly across the criteria. For example, on average, the forestry, provincial government, property owners, and commercial tourism groups all allocated 4–6 points (13–20%) of their 30 points to the timber economy criterion. Simple comparison tests found no significant differences among groups on the criteria of biological richness, timber economy, and recreation. Some significant differences among groups occur with other criteria, but the differences appear to be among two or three particular groups at the opposite extremes of the spectrum for the criteria of forest/soil productivity, non-timber economy, and safety. The greatest range and greatest number of significant differences among groups occurred with the water supply criterion, where the water users group allocated, on average, nine points to water supply

181

while the forestry group at the opposite extreme allocated about three points on average (Fig. 5). Many participants expressed surprise when they saw how closely the priorities and rankings of the criteria matched across groups. Only the weighting method that asked for the top priority criterion (Fig. 4), led to substantial differences, primarily between environmental and forestry groups. With the other weighting methods, groups did not seem to allocate weights primarily to the criterion with which they were most closely associated. The two groups usually believed to be at opposite ends of the spectrum, the forestry and environmental groups, actually were only significantly different from each other in allocating their priorities for two of the nine criteria: forest/soil productivity and safety. 4.2. Scenario evaluation results The expert evaluations of Scenarios 1 and 2 against C&Is showed that timber supply would be improved under Scenario 2 (Zoning), but that Scenario 1 (Forest Practice Code) was somewhat more likely to sustain multiple values overall (Table 1). Potential gains in ecological and recreational values in Scenario 2, achieved from setting aside more land reserved from timber harvesting, are offset by impacts to underrepresented ecosystems and by reduced access to the backcountry, respectively. Scenario 2 also would pose substantial impacts or risks to non-timber users (e.g., miners and commercial outfitters dependent on forest roads for access) and water supplies in domestic and community watersheds. However, the two scenarios have similar sustainability scores on six of the nine criteria, and end up with fairly similar overall (average) sustainability scores (Table 1), with Scenario 1 slightly more sustainable. In both cases, these scores are in the middle of the 0–80 range (i.e., 44.4 for Scenario 1, 36.7 for Scenario 2), indicating marginal overall sustainability at best. More meaningfully, neither scenario would be considered to be sustainable overall, since they both lead to judgments of clearly unsustainable conditions (0–30 on the sustainability index) on some criteria: Recreation and visual for Scenario 1, and non-timber economy, water supply, recreation and visual for Scenario 2 (Table 1). When these sustainability scores are multiplied by the stakeholder group weights (Table 2), the overall

182

S.R.J. Sheppard, M. Meitner / Forest Ecology and Management 207 (2005) 171–187

stakeholder priorities tend to heighten the difference between the two scenarios slightly; the overall sustainability scores were 46.1 for Scenario 1, and 36.4 for Scenario 2 (Table 3). This is primarily due to the relatively high public weights accorded the nontimber economy and water supply criteria, where the technical evaluations heavily favoured Scenario 1 (Table 1). When individual stakeholder group weights are considered, the overall sustainability scores accorded to scenarios by several groups were similar to those generated by all the participants together (Table 3). However, the forestry group had the least overall difference between scenarios (45.2 and 40.6, respectively for Scenarios 1 and 2), and the water users had the greatest difference (46.3 and 33.0 for Scenarios 1 and 2, respectively), reflecting the very different priorities the two groups gave to water supply and the timber economy. Nonetheless, with the individual stakeholder group weights applied, all groups’ priorities (i.e., derived preferences) favoured Scenario 1 over Scenario 2, even though the expert scores for the two scenarios are not that far apart. In other words, this indicates consensus in the choices between scenarios in this instance. The direct stakeholder preferences for scenarios, expressed in response to the scenario descriptions, including visualizations over time, and independent of the expert evaluations and stakeholder group weightings, also indicated an overall preference for Scenario 1 over Scenario 2. Almost half (46%) of respondents preferred Scenario 1 while only 11% of respondents preferred Scenario 2, but 35% indicated that they thought both scenarios were about the same. 4.3. Stakeholder evaluations of process Most participants, approximately 86%, strongly or moderately agreed that the overall MCA-based process showed promise as a decision-support/public-involvement tool in forest management. Evaluations of the individual components of the process were also generally positive. Approximately 93% of participants felt that the focus group format was very or moderately helpful. A large majority found it helpful to have explicit C&Is against which to evaluate the scenarios, and also agreed that the weighting exercise was helpful. Approximately 50% of participants felt that the technical evaluations of scenarios by

the experts were helpful, suggesting that a better explanation of the technical assessments, including the supporting models, assumptions, and their scientific basis, would increase their perceived usefulness. Finally, over 90% of participants indicated that both the visualizations and the facilitator/ coordinator were helpful.

5. Discussion 5.1. Caveats and limitations of the pilot study A number of caveats and limitations must be acknowledged in interpreting the results from the initial stages of the pilot project in the Arrow Forest District. The small sample of stakeholders, though indicative of the numbers that can be expected in a real-life application in a small, rural community, poses the risk of bias and unrepresentativeness, and the results cannot necessarily be generalized to other stakeholders or communities. Relative to the regional population, small stakeholder groups may have been overly represented (e.g., trappers). It was not feasible to include representation from some important stakeholder groups, such as First Nations and seasonal visitors to the area, in this part of the research. The limitations of factors such as budget, time, and available modelling data also precluded more precise and controlled experiments. For example, it was not possible to test for bias in weightings due to an order effect of the presentation sequence of Stakeholder Criteria; that is, did the positioning of biological diversity as the first criterion, for example, or safety as the last criterion, influence their relative importance? Nonetheless, the criteria were presented in the order conventionally used in SFM planning in BC (i.e., ecological, economic, social). Differences in assumptions for using technical evaluations and methods of deriving sustainability scores/indices could also have influenced the results considerably. Where significant differences in weightings occur between particular groups, the use of different scenarios than the ones employed here could lead to greater differences in ‘derived preferences’ among groups, as pointed out by Hajkowicz et al. (2000). With different scenarios, it is also possible that greater conflicts may occur between direct preferences for scenarios and the derived

S.R.J. Sheppard, M. Meitner / Forest Ecology and Management 207 (2005) 171–187

preferences using weighted technical evaluations. The latter technique, if the expert modelling and assessment can be shown to be defensible, may provide a more scientific alternative to public ‘‘voting’’ on SFM alternatives, although it could also miss important holistic factors such as overall intensity of forest management activity or spatial factors critical to the community, which are more likely to be recognised in the direct-preference approach using maps and visualisations. The participants were aware that the pilot process was experimental and that there was no guarantee of implementation in actual decision-making for the Lemon Landscape Unit; this may have affected their views and behaviour in the process. The study approach was somewhat iterative, this paper reporting only on the first of several workshop phases; however, a real process would probably have many such phases, possibly requiring a wider set of participatory techniques. The IFPA research schedule also precluded much early stakeholder involvement in the design of the process itself. 5.2. Evaluation of the pilot study process Overall, the pilot process seemed to work well. In relation to other recent public involvement practices common in BC (Forest Practices Board, 2000), the public MCA process appears to compare favourably, as supported by various stakeholder comments. The effectiveness of the collaborative methods, structured process, and avoidance of seeking consensus as the end-goal, seems consistent with findings by Gregory (2002), Beierle and Cayford (2002), and others cited above. The pilot study mirrored its precedent in Brown et al.’s (2001) coastal zone study, in terms of the community support of the process and generally improved readiness to engage in further planning, although considerable scepticism about forestry impacts on the environment remained evident among some stakeholders. The process of using separate stakeholder groups proved highly successful, despite the polarized opinions and initial agency scepticism, and appears to be effective in conflict-prone areas such as many parts of BC. However, the process is demanding of human resources required to run the necessary separate workshops, and is probably best suited to

183

larger planning exercises at widely spaced time intervals, rather than continuous participation. The use of multiple stakeholder groups seemed to bring many more moderate views to the table than in the typical public ‘‘grandstanding’’ approach commonly used in BC. The documentation of stakeholder and expert evaluations, strengthened by obtaining generally consistent results though several parallel techniques (as found by Hajkowicz et al., 2000), should provide the decision-maker(s) with a more thorough and informed basis for final SFM decision-making. The overall sustainability ratings and expert assessments in the effects table (Table 1) also clearly identified improvements which needed to be incorporated into further scenario design. However, it is not clear whether the public response results were sufficiently detailed to be useful to managers at the end of the day. Spatial variation was expressed in the modelling used to derive scenarios, produce maps and visualisations, and assess impacts, but was not explicitly addressed in the stakeholder weights derived in this process or easily traced in the expert scores and stakeholders’ direct preferences for scenarios. Nevertheless, this method addresses spatial issues more directly than the techniques used by Brown et al. (2001) or Martin et al. (2000), which did not use spatially specific scenarios. The MCA process did not explicitly address certain factors recommended in the decision-support systems described by others (e.g., Gregory, 2002; Kangas, 1994; Varma et al., 2000), such as uncertainty, quantitative trade-off measures, and participant-constructed scales for technical ratings. As a result, it seems that explicit trade-offs may be hard to divine from this simpler, more universal method of ranking sustainability criteria. The use of sustainability criteria, and a constructed index of sustainability, appeared acceptable to the public, although the technical experts experienced considerable difficulties and some scepticism with the definition and use of this simple index. The requirement to ‘boil down’ their research findings into a simple overall scale was particularly vexing to some! This is an area requiring further development and collaborative testing. The temporal aspects of the scenarios, even though modelled and visualized in some detail, were not explicitly factored into the public weightings, and therefore do not shed much

184

S.R.J. Sheppard, M. Meitner / Forest Ecology and Management 207 (2005) 171–187

light on possible temporal trade-offs the public would consider. The use of models and professional evaluations to assess the sustainability of the scenarios over time was not as well received as other aspects of the process, perhaps reflecting our inability to provide opportunities for direct collaboration with the technical experts. This would be another priority for future testing of such methods. While the use of model-driven visualisations appears to be quite popular with stakeholders, there are many questions about their influence on the overall process of scenario evaluation, and on the role that various planned and unplanned features of the overall visualisation presentation may have played in influencing direct stakeholder preferences. It is possible, for example, that the emphasis on visual qualities facilitated by the realistic visualisations may have overly influenced participants in favouring Scenario 1 over the second scenario with the checker-board pattern of patch cuts in the foreground (Fig. 3b), although holistic information was also provided on many resource values affected by the scenarios. These issues are being investigated further in analysis of later phases in the pilot study. In this phase of this study, visualisation was used primarily in stakeholders’ direct preferences. Realistic or other visualisations could, however, be used more systematically in the expert technical assessments or in quantified stakeholder responses. 5.3. Interpretation of pilot study results The results suggest some fairly strong patterns of preference, social priorities for sustainability, and associated implications for guiding SFM planning. The overall prioritization of biodiversity and water supply/quality has been found in other studies in the region, notably a regional mail-survey of the public in the Arrow Forest District (Meitner et al., 2001), which increases confidence in the validity of the findings and process. Given the flexible method of allocating priorities across SFM criteria, the different stakeholder group priorities appear surprisingly similar, suggesting that there may be more hope for consent in forest management decision-making in contentious areas than is commonly believed (Howlett et al., 2000; Martin et al., 2000). This is consistent with other findings that effective collaborative processes often

lead to softening of initial stances and/or recognition of common values across groups and individuals (e.g., Brown et al., 2001; Shindler and Cramer, 1999). The study suggests that more agreement may occur if managers focus first on goals and sustainability objectives, with specific plans and actions being considered later. It is also possible that more commonality among stakeholders results from the focus on sustainability, rather than the conventional range of stakeholder interests, perhaps suggesting that sustainability assessment comes closer to evaluations of ‘the common good’ than other planning contexts. However, it is unclear whether the commonalties seen in the priorities among stakeholder groups would persist when more specific design decisions have to be made which affect particular stakeholder interests, such as risks of logging in small watersheds above an individual water user’s house. The overall similarity in results for scenario preferences, arising from expert evaluations, stakeholder group derived preferences, and overall stakeholders’ direct preferences, is encouraging. However, as noted, a different range of scenarios may not secure as much consensus, and other studies using this process may uncover less commonalities in stakeholder weightings. The differences between derived and direct stakeholder preferences for Scenario 2 call for further studies on the validity of these alternative methods, consistent with concerns raised by Martin et al. (2000) on inconsistencies between alternative evaluation techniques.

6. Conclusions If participatory decision-support is to be effective in sustainable forest management, we need integrated approaches designed for the unique needs of SFM, applying techniques such as public multi-criteria analysis and supporting tools to help bridge the gap between general participatory processes and complex decision-support systems. This paper outlines criteria for designing or evaluating such approaches in SFM at the landscape or local community-level, favouring transparent processes structured around C&Is for sustainability and emerging tools for spatio-temporal analysis and visualisation. In an early test of one such experimental process, the Arrow IFPA pilot study

S.R.J. Sheppard, M. Meitner / Forest Ecology and Management 207 (2005) 171–187

applied a public MCA process, which combines spatial modelling and realistic landscape visualisation of alternative forest management scenarios, with multi-stakeholder weighting of sustainability criteria. The pilot study resulted in clear distinctions in assessed sustainability and public preference for forest management scenarios. The MCA-based public process seems to have promise for addressing the complex, multi-criteria, multi-stakeholder interactions required in SFM decision-making. The pilot study participants were positive about the public process in an area where public involvement had been almost abandoned due to the politically charged atmosphere. Techniques that avoid between-group confrontation, allow each group an equal voice, and do not necessarily set out to achieve consensus, appear likely to be more effective than conventional approaches in areas where forestry stakeholders are polarized or forestry issues are contentious. Public processes, which present alternative future scenarios with defensible visualizations, can convey considerable information quickly and relatively simply. Continuing research on analyzing further phases of the pilot study, and refining, validating, and extending the techniques described here, is underway. Further longer-term studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of these methods in real decision-making situations, and to test their application more broadly. In particular, more research is needed on striking the balance between simple and intuitive methods that work for the public, and sophisticated forest modelling and decision-support systems, able to tackle the spatio-temporal complexities of sustainable forestry. Pilot studies such as that used in the Arrow IFPA project can play a vital role in developing a more comprehensive, engaging, open, and accountable process to support informed and effective decisionmaking for sustainable forest management.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the Arrow IFPA team members for supporting this research, including the licensees, various government agency staff, UBC collaborators, and other information providers. In particular, we would like to thank the stakeholder group participants who proved so willing to give their

185

time and enthusiasm on several occasions. This work was conducted with the invaluable assistance of researchers Cindy Pearce, Norma Wilson, Cornel Lencar, Caitlin Akai, Nicole Robinson, and Desiree Mou. Kokanee Forest Products and Slocan Forest Products provided logistical support for the workshops. Dr. Katrina Brown and Dr. Neal Adger from the University of East Anglia Centre for Socioeconomic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE) provided pivotal strategic guidance and peer review in the planning phases of the research. BC Forest Investment Account funding, made available by Slocan Forest Products, was used to support the preparation of this paper.

References Al-Kodmany, K., 1999. Using visualisation techniques for enhancing public participation in planning and design: process, implementation, and evaluation. Lands. Urban Plan. 45, 37–45. Beierle, T.C., Cayford, J., 2002. Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC. Brown, K., Adger, W.N., Tompkins, E., Bacon, P., Shim, D., Young, K., 2001. Trade-off analysis for marine protected area management. Ecol. Econ. 37, 417–434. Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, 1995. The Canadian Approach: Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management. CCFM, Hull, Quebec. Carrow, R., 1999. Canada’s model forest program: challenges for phase II. Forest. Chron. 75, 73–79. Cavens, D., 2002. A Design-based decision support system for forest design. M.Sc. Thesis. University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Cohen, S.J., 1997. Scientist-stakeholder Collaboration in integrated assessment of climate change: lessons from a case study of Northwest Canada. Environ. Model. Assess. 2, 281–293. Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE), 1994. Planning for Sustainability: Improving the Planning Delivery System for British Columbia. The Provincial Land Use Strategy, vol. 2. Victoria, British Columbia. Costanza, R., Ruth, M., 1998. Using dynamic modelling to scope environmental problems and build consensus. Environ. Manage. 22, 183–195. De Marchi, B., Ravetz, J.R., 2001. Participatory approaches to environmental policy. Environmental Evaluation in Europe, Policy Research Brief No. 10. Cambridge Research for the Environment, Cambridge, UK. de Steiguer, J.E., Liberti, L., Schuler, A., Hansen, B., 2003. Multicriteria Decision Models for Forestry and Natural Resource Management: An Annotated Bibliography. General Technical

186

S.R.J. Sheppard, M. Meitner / Forest Ecology and Management 207 (2005) 171–187

Report NE-307. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Delaware, OH. FAO/ECE/ILO Committee on Forest Technology, Management, and Training. Undated Public participation in forestry in Europe and North America. Report of the Team of Specialists on Participation in Forestry. Sectoral Activities Dept., International Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland. Forest Practices Board, 2000. A review of the Forest Development Planning Process in BC. FPB/SR/04. http://www.fpb.gov.bc.ca/ SPECIAL/reports/fdp/index.htm. Accessed December 15, 2003. Gregory, R., 2002. Incorporating value trade-offs into communitybased environmental risk decisions. Environ. Value 11, 461–488. Hajkowicz, S.A., McDonald, G.T., Smith, P.N., 2000. An evaluation of multiple objective decision support weighting techniques in natural resource management. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 43, 505–518. Hamersley Chambers, F., Beckley, T., 2003. Public involvement in sustainable boreal forest management. In: Burton, P.J., Messier, C., Smith, D.W., Adamowicz, W.L. (Eds.), Towards Sustainable Management of the Boreal Forest. NRC Research Press, Ottawa, Canada, pp. 113–154. Hislop, M., Twery, M., 2001. A Decision Framework for Public Involvement in Forest Design Planning. Final Report. Policy and Practice Division, Forestry Commission, Roslin, Scotland. Howlett, M., Wilson, J., Cashore, B., Hoberg, G., Rayner, J., 2000. Search of Sustainability: British Columbia Forest Policy in the 1990s. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. International Institute for Environmental and Development (IIED), 2002. Taking a systematic and strategic approach to sustainability: a resource book of sustainable development strategies, 2nd Draft. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development/UN Development Programme. http://www.nssd.net/ working/resource/. Accessed December 21, 2003. Kakoyannis, C., Shindler, B., Stankey, G., 2001. Understanding the Social Acceptability of Natural Resource Decision Making Processes by Using a Knowledge Base Modelling Approach. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-518. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. Kangas, J., 1994. An approach to public participation in strategic forest management planning. For. Ecol. Manage. 70, 75–88. Kangas, J., Store, R., Leskinen, P., Mehtatalo, L., 2000. Improving the quality of landscape ecological forest planning by utilizing advanced decision-support tools. For. Ecol. Manage. 132, 157– 171. Kimmins, J.P., Mailly, D., Seely, B., 1999. Modeling forest ecosystem net primary production: the hybrid simulation approach used in FORECAST. Ecol. Model 122, 195–224. Kruger, L.E., 2001. What is essential may be invisible to the eye: understanding the role of place and social learning in achieving sustainable landscapes. In: Sheppard, S.R.J., Harshaw, H.W. (Eds.), Forests and Landscapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainability, and Aesthetics, IUFRO Research Series No. 6.. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp. 173–187. Lewis, J.L., 2000. Ancient values, new technology: emerging methods for integrating cultural values in forest management. MSc. Thesis. Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Martin, W.E., Wise Bender, H., Shields, D.J., 2000. Stakeholder objectives for public lands: rankings of forest management alternatives. J. Environ. Manage. 58, 21–32. Meitner, M.J., Sheppard, S.R.J., Cavens, D., Gandy, R., Picard, P., Harshaw, H., Harrison, D., in press. The multiple roles of environmental/data visualization in evaluating alternative forest management strategies: lessons learned, errors uncovered and questions raised. Comp. Electron. Agric. Meitner, M.J., Sheppard, S.R.J., Harshaw, H.W., 2001. Arrow Forest District Public Values Survey: Putting Your Finger on the Pulse of the District. Final Technical Report. University of British Columbia Sustainability Project, Vancouver. Mendoza, G.A., Macoun, P., Prabhu, R., Sukadri, D., Purnomo, H., Hartanto, H., 1999. Guidelines for applying multi-criteria analysis to the assessment of criteria and indicators. C&I Tool No. 9 in The Criteria and Indicators Toolbox Series, Center for International Forestry Research (C&IFOR), Jakarta, Indonesia. Montreal Process, 1995. Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Natural Forests. Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, Canada. Orland, B., 1997. Forest virtual modelling for planners and managers. In: Proceeding of the American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS) Annual Convention/ RT’97, April 7–10, Seattle, Washington. Pan European Forest Certification Council (PEFC), 2003. Annex 6: Certification and Accreditation Procedures. Luxembourg: PEFC. http://www.pefc.org/internet/html/documentation/4_1311_400/ 4_1208_165/5_1177_454.htm. Accessed on January 26, 2004. Raison, R.J., Flinn, D.W., Brown, A.G., 2001. Application of criteria and indicators to support sustainable forest management: some key issues. In: Raison, R.J., Brown, A.G., Flinn, D.W. (Eds.), Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management, IUFRO Research Series No. 7. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp. 5–18. Robinson, N., 2001. Revised Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management for the Arrow TSA. Technical Report, APPENDIX 1. Prepared for the Arrow Innovative Forest Practices Agreement. UBC, Vancouver, BC. Sheppard, S.R.J., 2000. Visualization as a decision-support tool for managing forest ecosystems. Compiler 16, 25–40. Sheppard, S.R.J., 2001. Guidance for crystal ball gazers: developing a code of ethics for landscape visualization. Lands. Urban Plan. 54, 183–199. Sheppard, S.R.J., 2003. Knowing a socially sustainable forest when you see one: implications for results-based forestry. Forest. Chron. 79, 865–875. Sheppard, S.R.J., Achiam, C.M., 2004. Public participation in forest decision making. In: Encyclopedia of Forest Sciences, Academic Press/Elsevier, Oxford, UK, pp. 1173–1182. Sheppard, S.R.J., Salter, J., 2004. The role of visualization in forest planning. In: Burley, J. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Forest Sciences. Academic Press/Elsevier, Oxford, UK, pp. 486– 498. Shindler, B., Cramer, L.A., 1999. Shifting public values for forest management: making sense of wicked problems. West. J. Appl. For. 14, 28–34.

S.R.J. Sheppard, M. Meitner / Forest Ecology and Management 207 (2005) 171–187 Shindler, B., Neburka, J., 1997. Public participation in forest planning: 8 attributes of success. J. Forest 95, 17–19. Smith, G.R., Taylor, J.R., 2000. Achieving sustainability: exploring links between sustainability indicators and public involvement for rural communities. Lands J. 19, 179–190. Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) Network, 1999. Discussion summary of the Public Involvement Taskforce. Meeting held 23 August 1999. Grande Prairie, Alberta. SFM Network, Edmonton, Alberta.

187

Tress, B., Tress, G., 2002. Scenario visualisation for participatory landscape planning: a study from Denmark. Lands. Urban Plan. 982, 1–18. Varma, V.K., Ferguson, I., Wild, I., 2000. Decision support system for the sustainable forest management. For. Ecol. Manage. 128, 49–55. Wells, R.W., Nelson, J., 2002. SFM Basecase Analysis: The Lemon Landscape Unit Pilot. Technical Report, University of British Columbia Sustainability Project, Vancouver.