Cognition and Evaluation of the Public Regarding Final Cutting Methods

DOI JASI Web Site Web Site 28 References
  • Takayama Norimasa
    Administration Bureau, Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Forest Research and Management Organization
  • Sanai Sato
    Graduate School of Systems and Information Engineering, University of Tsukuba
  • Yamaura Yuichi
    Shikoku Research Center, Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Forest Research and Management Organization Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University

Bibliographic Information

Other Title
  • 主伐方法に対する非専門家の認知・評価傾向
  • シュバツホウホウ ニ タイスル ヒセンモンカ ノ ニンチ ・ ヒョウカ ケイコウ

Search this article

Abstract

<p>To promote domestic forestry smoothly in the future, understanding nonexperts' views on forestry and cutting methods is necessary. In the present study, we investigated an aesthetic (cognitive/evaluative) value of the nonexperts for the six types of cutting methods (clear-cutting, group cutting, old tree residual cutting, extensive residual cutting (100 pieces/ha), medium residual cutting (50 pieces/ha), small residual cutting (10 pieces/ha)) and before cutting. Then, we compared the aesthetic perspectives of the nonexperts regarding the methods and their application with those of the experts to evaluate their potential impacts on biodiversity conservation and rationality as forestry. According to the results, 1) nonexperts tended to rate clear-cutting and old tree residual cutting positively whereas group cutting with viewed with negative impacts. Besides, 2) because nonexperts are more likely to resist tree cutting, they should be furnished with information about the role of logging activities, and the need to take into account ecosystem functions and tree planting activities for final cutting. 3) There was a considerable gap between experts and nonexperts based on their perspectives on the roles of different final cutting methods, which implies that further efforts should be made to understand the perspectives of nonexperts to facilitate their education.</p>

Journal

References(28)*help

See more

Related Projects

See more

Keywords

Details 詳細情報について

Report a problem

Back to top