In this study, the authors develop a model of the formation of public acceptability judgments. The model suggests that in judging environmental management, people apply their values for the natural environment through psychological processes involving beliefs, aesthetic experience, and trust. A key aim of the study was to explore relationships among these processes. Through a mail survey, 487 Australians judged the acceptability of forest landscape management in Southern Tasmania. Structural equation modeling with these data provided general support for the model, confirming that all of the psychological processes are significant in the formation of acceptability judgments. The most important factor was found to be beliefs about consequences for the natural environment. A new finding to emerge from exploration of the model is that aesthetic experience is informed by values, particularly use/intrinsic values for nature, and in turn influences acceptability judgments mainly by influencing beliefs about consequences for the natural environment.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2007). 2006 Census community profile series: Tasmania: basic community profile: Catalogue No. 2001.0. Retrieved from www.censusdata.abs.gov.au
3.
BaronJ.SprancaM. (1997). Protected values. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 70, 1-16.
4.
BengstonD. N. (1999). Roads on the U.S. National Forests an analysis of public attitudes, beliefs and values expressed in the news media. Environment and Behaviour, 31, 514-539.
5.
BentlerP. M. (2004). EQS 6.1 for Windows (Build 81). Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
6.
BerleantA. (2005). Aesthetics and environment: variations on a theme. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
7.
BrunsonM. W. (1996). A definition of “social acceptability” in ecosystem management. In BrunsonM.KrugerL.TylerC.SchroederS. (Eds.), Defining social acceptability in ecosystem management: A workshop proceedings (pp. 7-16). Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
8.
ByrneB. M. (1994). Structural equation modelling with EQS and EQS/Windows: basic concepts, applications, and programming. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
9.
CvetkovichG.WinterP. L. (2003). Trust and social representations of the management of threatened and endangered species. Environment and Behaviour, 35, 286-307.
10.
DanielT. C. (2001a). Aesthetic preference and ecological sustainability. In SheppardS. R. J.HarshawH. W. (Eds.), Forests and landscapes: linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics (IUFRO Research Series No. 6, pp. 15-29). Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing in association with the International Union of Forestry Research Organisations.
11.
DanielT. C. (2001b). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, 267-281.
12.
EarleT. C.SiegristM. (2008). On the relation between trust and fairness in environmental risk management. Risk Analysis, 28, 1395-1413.
13.
EinhornH. J.HogarthR. M. (1981). Behavioural decision theory: Processes of judgement and choice. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 53-88.
14.
FireyW. (1960). Man, mind and land. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
15.
FordR. M. (2006). Social acceptability of forest management systems (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
16.
FordR. M.O’ConnellA.WilliamsK. J.BishopI. D. (2007, June). Making sense of forest management: landscape cues and meanings. Paper presented at the 2007 Institute of Foresters of Australia and New Zealand Institute of Forestry conference, Opal Cove Resort, Pacific Highway, Coffs Harbour NSW.
17.
FordR. M.SmithE. L.WilliamsK. J. H.BishopI. D. (2009). Social acceptability of forest management options: Landscape visualisation and evaluation: Overview of the mail survey. Parkville, Australia: University of Melbourne.
18.
FordR. M.WilliamsK. J.BishopI. D.HickeyJ. E. (2009). Effects of information on the social acceptability of alternatives to clearfelling in Australian wet eucalypt forests. Environmental Management, 44, 1149-1162.
19.
FordR. M.WilliamsK. J.BishopI. D.WebbT. J. (2009). A value basis for the social acceptability of clearfelling in Tasmania, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning, 90, 196-206.
20.
GaleF. (2008). Tasmania’s Tamar Valley pulp mill: A comparison of planning processes using a good environmental governance framework. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67, 261-282.
21.
GobsterP. H. (1999). An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landscape Journal, 18, 54-64.
22.
GobsterP. H.NassauerJ. I.DanielT. C.FryG. (2007). The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology?Landscape Ecology, 22, 959-972.
23.
HairJ. F.AndersonR. E.TathamR. L.BlackW. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
24.
HansisR. (1995). The social acceptability of clearcutting in the Pacific Northwest. Human Organisation, 54, 95-101.
25.
HickeyJ. E.NeylandM. G.BassettO. D. (2001). Rationale and design for the Warra silvicultural systems trial in wet Eucalyptus obliqua forests in Tasmania. Tasforests, 13, 155-182.
26.
LaneM. B.McDonaldG. (2002). Towards a general model of forest management through time: Evidence from Australia, USA and Canada. Land Use Policy, 19, 193-206.
27.
LindenmayerD. (2003). Integrating wildlife conservation and wood production in Victorian montane ash Forests. In LindenmayerD.FranklinJ. F. (Eds.), Towards forest sustainability (pp. 47-72). Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO Publishing.
28.
O’NeillJ. (1992). The varieties of intrinsic value. Monist, 75, 119-137.
29.
ParsonsG.CarlsonA. (2004). New formalism and the aesthetic appreciation of nature. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 62, 363-376.
30.
ParsonsR.DanielT. C. (2002). Good looking: In defense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60, 43-56.
31.
ReserJ. P.BentrupperbaumerJ. M. (2001). Reframing the nature and scope of social impact assessment: Psychological and social (psychosocial) impacts. In DaleA.TaylorN.LaneM. (Eds.), Social assessment in natural resource management institutions (pp. 105-122). Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO Publishing.
32.
ReserJ. P.BentrupperbaumerJ. M. (2005). What and where are environmental values? Assessing impacts of current diversity of use of “environmental” and “World Heritage” values. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 125-146.
33.
Resource Planning and Development Commission. (2003). State of the environment Tasmania 2003. Hobart, Australia: Author.
34.
RibeR. (1989). The aesthetics of forestry: What has empirical preference research taught us?Environmental Management, 13, 55-74.
35.
RibeR. (2002). Is scenic beauty a proxy for acceptable management? The influence of environmental attitudes on landscape preferences. Environment and Behaviour, 34, 757-780.
36.
RibeR. (2005). Aesthetic perceptions of green-tree retention harvests in vista views: The interaction of cut level, retention pattern and harvest shape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 73, 277-293.
37.
RibeR. (2006). Perceptions of forestry alternatives in the US Pacific Northwest: Information effects and acceptability distribution analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 100-115.
38.
RibeR.ArmstrongE. T.GobsterP. H. (2002). Scenic vistas and the changing policy landscape: Visualising and testing the role of visual resources in ecosystem management. Landscape Journal, 21, 42-68.
39.
RokeachM. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: The Free Press.
40.
RolstonH. (2002). From beauty to duty: Aesthetics of nature and environmental ethics. In BerleantA. (Ed.), Environment and the arts: perspectives on environmental aesthetics (pp. 127-141). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
41.
SchulzP. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327-339.
42.
SchulzP. W.GouveiaV. V.CameronL. D.TankhaG.SchmuckP.FranekM. (2005). Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behaviour. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 457-475.
43.
SchwartzS. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 221-279.
44.
ShindlerB. A.BrunsonM. W.StankeyG. H. (2002). Social acceptability of forest conditions and management practices: a problem analysis. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
45.
SmithE. L.BishopI. D.WilliamsK. J. H.FordR. M. (2012). Scenario chooser: An interactive approach to eliciting public landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106, 230-243. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.03.013
46.
StankeyG. H.ShindlerB. (2006). Formation of social acceptability judgements and their implications for management of rare and little-known species. Conservation Biology, 20, 28-37.
47.
StegL.DreijerinkL.AbrahamseW. (2005). Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: A Test of VBN Theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 415-425.
48.
StephensonJ. (2008). The cultural values model: An integrated approach to values in landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 84, 127-139.
49.
SternP. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407-424.
50.
SternP. C.DietzT.KalofL.GuagnanoG. A. (1995). Values, beliefs and proenvironmental action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1611-1636.
51.
TarrantM. A.CordellH. K.GreenG. T. (2003). PVF: A scale to measure public values of forests. Journal of Forestry, 101, 24-30.
52.
VaskeJ. J.AbsherJ. D.BrightA. D. (2007). Salient value similarity, social trust and attitudes toward wildland fire management strategies. Human Ecology Review, 14, 223-232.
53.
VaskeJ. J.DonnellyM. P. (1999). A value-attitude-behaviour model predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Society and Natural Resources, 12, 523-537.
54.
VaskeJ. J.WilliamsD. R.JonkerS. (2001). Demographic influences on environmental value orientations and normative beliefs about national forest management. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 761-776.
55.
WilliamsK. (2011). Relative acceptance of traditional and non-traditional rural land uses: Views of residents in two regions, Southern Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning, 103, 55-63.
56.
WilliamsonD. N.ChalmersJ. A. (1982). Perceptions of forest scenic quality in Northeast Victoria: A technical report of research phases I and II. Melbourne, Australia: Forests Commission Victoria.
57.
WinterC. (2007). The intrinsic, instrumental and spiritual values of natural area visitors and the general public: A comparative study. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15, 599-614.
58.
WinterC.LockwoodM. (2004). The Natural Area Value Scale: A new instrument for measuring natural area values. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 11, 11-20.
59.
WinterG.VogtC. A.McCaffreyS. (2004). Examining social trust in fuels management strategies. Journal of Forestry, 102, 8-15.
60.
WustenhagenR.WolsinkM.BurerM. J. (2007). Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy, 35, 2683-2691.
61.
ZajoncR. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151-175.
62.
ZubeE. H.SellJ. L.TaylorJ. G. (1982). Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landscape Planning, 9, 1-33.
