Rural Sociology E Toward Multifunctional Landscapes: Cross … in the... · Applied to forest...

Toward Multifunctional Landscapes: Cross-SectionalAnalysis of Management Priorities in New York’sNorthern Forest*

Jeffrey A. KleinDepartment of Natural ResourcesCornell University

Steven A. WolfDepartment of Natural ResourcesCornell University

ABSTRACT Globalization and shifting societal relations with nature generatechange and conflicting politics in rural areas of industrialized nations. In thiscontext, multifunctionality has emerged as an important policy logic tostabilize commodity production while encouraging amenity-based develop-ment and the production of ecological services. We argue that the conceptof multifunctionality, while originally derived from agricultural tradenegotiations, is applicable to integrated rural development challenges inforested landscapes. To understand and realize a progressive form ofmultifunctionality, information is needed on local actors’ land use prioritiesand the factors that shape their interests. Based on data from a 2004 mailsurvey (183 valid responses; 61% response rate) in two northern NYcommunities, one amenity-oriented and the other timber-dependent, weconducted an empirical analysis of actors’ forest management priorities.Factor analysis allowed us to identify four distinct orientations to manage-ment: ecological orientation, recreation orientation, large-scale timberorientation, and small-scale industry orientation. GLM regression allows usto assess how economic context, professional roles, and personal lifestyleconsiderations affect individuals’ adherence to these distinct orientations.The commonalities and differences we observe among sets of actors engagedin forest policy and management point to constraints to realization ofmultifunctionality and to opportunities to develop richer conceptual tools toprobe contemporary transitions.

The socioeconomic and environmental functions of forests in de-veloped nations are changing. Areas traditionally oriented towardintensive wood and pulp production have witnessed declines intraditional forms of employment, rising poverty, and increasingdemands from urban and peri-urban populations for a range of

* We acknowledge helpful input from Karen Grace-Martin, Cecilia Danks, KarenFligger, Bruce Lauber, James McCarthy, Jeff Milder, and Jim Lassoie and the financialsupport of the Northern States Research Consortium and Cornell University AgriculturalExperiment Station (award #147-3306). Direct correspondence to: Steven Wolf,Department of Natural Resources, 118 Fernow Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY14853, [email protected], (607)-255-7778.

Rural Sociology 72(3), 2007, pp. 391–417Copyright E 2007 by the Rural Sociological Society

environmental and ecological services (Brown and Swanson 2003; Che2003; McGranahan 2003). Displacement of people, degradation ofecosystems, and lack of clarity regarding how collective resourcesshould be allocated to enhance security foster contentious local andregional politics.

In seeking to understand and adapt to these pressures, analysts andpolicymakers are interested in alternative rural development modelsincluding multifunctionality (McCarthy 2005) and territorial develop-ment (Ray 1998). In contrast to a commodity or sectoral orientation todevelopment in which competitiveness rests on economies of scale andspecialization, these approaches focus on a set of complementaryenterprise strategies whose competitiveness is premised, in part, onsynergies derived from diversity among people and economic activities,sustainable environmental quality, and valorization of local resources.Of course, the pursuit and realization of this ideal is uneven within andacross regions.

Departure from a sectoral model of development (i.e., regionalspecialization) and realization of multifunctionality (i.e., territorialintegration) is perceived to be premised on institutional arrangementsthat incorporate the diverse interests and capabilities of a range ofcommercial actors, advocacy groups, civic organizations, scientists, andrepresentatives of state and local government.1 The general logic hereis that creation of social space in which actors articulate their respectiveinterests and engage one another’s perspectives can lead to collectiveaction and identification of new management options within a frame-work of adaptive management (e.g., Lee 1993).

Such a deliberative approach to managing socioeconomic andenvironmental processes must be supported by a basic understandingof various actors’ interests and preferences (Hajer and Wagenaar 2003).Yet, as McCarthy (2005:5) has noted with regard to multifunctionalityand shifting environmental values, ‘‘relatively little is known about howmost people actually weight or rank these often conflicting demands.’’Applied to the particular challenges of forested landscapes in which themajority of land is privately owned, as is the case in the eastern UnitedStates, research has been focused narrowly on attitudes and interests(i.e., value orientations) of non-industrial private forest landowners(NIPF) (Birch 1996; Karppinen 1998). While providing useful de-scriptive information about a large and diverse population, such an

1 In addition to emphasizing cross-sectoral linkages, contemporary governance logicexplicitly addresses the need for multi-level (i.e., international, regional, and local)connectivity.

392 Rural Sociology, Vol. 72, No. 3, September 2007

approach views land management and future landscape conditions asthe aggregated outcome of thousands of atomized individual land-owners and gives insufficient treatment to the variety of public, privateand collective actors that populate the institutional field of forestmanagement and rural land use (Wolf and Hufnagl-Eichiner 2007).

This study seeks to address these potential conflicts and cooperationby empirically studying the land use priorities of a broad set of localactors that structure the management of New York’s Northern Forest.In areas such as the Northern Forest—a 26 million acre tract ofnorthern hardwood and boreal forestland stretching from Maine tonorthern New York—where the vast majority of land (85%) is privatelyowned and metropolitan interests exert both development andpreservation pressures, the natural resource management priorities ofmultiple actors shape the political, environmental, and economicoutcomes of interest. In such a setting, improved understanding ofa broad range of actors’ interests in forest management can supportpolicy formulation and longer-term efforts to advance a deliberativedialogue leading to institutional, behavioral, and landscape change.Further, in terms of social science, there is a need to better understandhow environmental politics are mediated by community-level socioeco-nomic, demographic, and cultural variables.

In the next sections, we identify the relevance of multifunctionality tocontemporary forest management and discuss the lack of empiricalinformation as a constraint for both policy and social science. We thenderive a set of hypotheses regarding the effects of locational,occupational, and lifestyle considerations on individuals’ forestmanagement priorities—a set of contingent factors Novotny (2000)and Petrzelka (2004) have summarized through reference to where we‘‘live, work, and play.’’ Following a discussion of the economic andenvironmental significance of these issues applied to the specific case ofNew York’s portion of the Northern Forest, we present the methodsand results of a statistical analysis of data from a 2004 mail survey. Weconclude the paper with a discussion of research and policy implica-tions.

Multifunctionality

The 1990s saw continuation of a pattern of change in rural areas in theUnited States, particularly in forested landscapes. Increasing propertyvalues resulting from in-migration to rural communities (Brehm,Eisenhauer, and Krannich 2004; McGranahan 1999), combined withglobalization of the forest products industry, created a cost-price

Toward Multifunctional Landscapes — Klein and Wolf 393

squeeze for private forest owners (Best and Wayburn 2001). Contem-porary conceptions of environment combined with these demographicand economic factors underlie a transition in which many rural areasare shifting from centers of commodity production (e.g., food andfiber) ‘‘towards a place of consumption of recreation and environmentby a largely urban population’’ (Mather 2001:249; see also Green 2001;Marsden 1999). While pronouncements of the death of ruralcommodity trade are clearly overstated (Evans, Morris, and Winter2002), timber has become increasingly marginalized. Indeed, consol-idation of the wood products industry has resulted in poverty and highunemployment in some regions of industrialized nations.

Some forest owners are forced into unsustainable harvest practices tocombat the cost-price squeeze (Smallidge and Greason 2004). On a farlarger percentage of non-industrial private timber lands, lack ofmanagement planning and short planning horizons lead to economicand ecological degradation of forests (Best and Wayburn 2001).Economic and ecological impacts of an increasingly fragmented,parcelized (i.e., subdivided) and degraded forest have been welldocumented (e.g., Sampson and Decoster 2000). In this context,conflicts arise over resource access, real estate development, displace-ment of traditional land uses by recreation and preservation interestsand public policy strategies.

The concept of multifunctionality has emerged as a potential way ofunderstanding contemporary rural transitions and harmonizing con-flicting demands for commodity (e.g., wood) and non-commodity (e.g.,water quality, biodiversity, and aesthetics) goods and services (seeMcCarthy 2005 for authoritative review). Multifunctionality explicitlyacknowledges that landscapes can simultaneously provide multiplesocioeconomic and ecological goods and services, potentially bridgingthe complex demands of an increasingly diverse set of interests andclaims. While largely applied within the contemporary agriculturalpolicy debate, the concept of multifunctionality can be directly appliedto debates regarding forested landscapes (Sample, Kavanaugh, andSnieckus 2006). Through valorization of production of public goods,private firms (and territories) can maintain their competitiveness,thereby keeping rural land in production and sustaining ‘‘workinglandscapes,’’ as opposed to letting it be converted to suburbandevelopment or nature parks (see Wolf and Klein [2007] for criticalanalysis of this line of thinking).

Applied to forest policy, this tendency is exemplified throughresearch on valuation of non-market services of forests (presumablyto support marketization) and the establishment of ‘‘working forest


conservation easements.’’ In New York State, working forest conserva-tion easements allow the state to purchase development rights offorestland at risk of conversion, thus ensuring the land remains intimber production. In addition to stabilizing timber markets, theeasement provides for public recreational access and requires in-corporation of environmental best management practices into theforest management plan (Klein 2005; NYDEC 2006). While multi-functionality remains linked to protectionism and maintenance of ruralentitlements in the context of WTO debates on liberalization ofagricultural trade, this New York example illustrates that the concept isalso implicated in domestic integrated rural development initiatives.

Like ecosystem management and its predecessor multiple useforestry, multifunctionality is in no small part a political strategy. Whilewe are not positioned here to offer a thorough review of the ways inwhich multifunctionality builds on or departs from earlier policy logicsand previous political compromises, we note that multifunctionality isin large part a response to globalization of trade and to externallygenerated threats to domestic primary commodity production. Thisproblem definition stands in contrast to the previous policy logics wereference, which were focused on diffusing domestic, and often highly,localized disputes over access to forestland and forest resources.

While at an abstract level, multifunctionality draws our attention toglobal interdependencies, policies aimed at conserving working forestsand enhancing multifunctionality of forested landscapes must balancecompeting claims among sets of actors. Assessment tools such as theMontreal Working Group Criteria & Indicators have been developed tosupport and structure such deliberative processes (Montreal Process2005; Wright et al. 2002).2 By treating the various commodity and non-commodity outputs of forests symmetrically, the Montreal C&I high-lights potential trade-offs and complementarities among forest outputs.Such initiatives and planning tools have been criticized as abstract (i.e.,divorced from local context), as they fail to integrate local people’sinterests into management (Cox 2003).

More generally, support for the concept of multifunctionality leavesthe practical question of scale unanswered. Accommodating timber

2 Mandated by the Earth Summit of Rio 1992, the Montreal Working Group convenedin 1994 to define a series of Criteria & Indicators (C&I) for sustainable forestmanagement. A criterion is ‘‘a category of conditions or processes by which sustainableforest management may be assessed,’’ and an indicator is ‘‘a measure (measurement) ofan aspect of the criterion’’ (Montreal Process 2005). Seven criteria and 67 indicators weredeveloped by the Montreal Working Group, a set of twelve nations that control 90 percentof the world’s temperate and boreal forests.


extraction, recreational access, and biodiversity conservation on everyacre is likely to be undesirable and infeasible. Yet, it is not clear how tointegrate these distinct land uses at a regional scale, or at whatgeographic scale or social level of organization we should pursuemultifunctionality. Given the complexity inherent in multifunctional-ity—multiple outputs, multiple interests and multiple scales—analysisof local actors’ interests and priorities is required.

Factors Shaping Actors’ Forest Management Priorities

Drawing on relevant literature, we focus on the ways in whichindividuals’ forest management priorities are shaped by how they ‘‘live,work, and play.’’

Live. McGranahan (2003) has documented a shift away fromtraditional extractive industries and toward amenity-based developmentin many rural communities. As defined by Parker, Wulfhorst, andKamm (2002:22), amenity-based development is organized around‘‘tourism and/or recreation-based activities, growth in retirementpopulations, telecommuting populations, and business location dueto quality of life in an area.’’ Expanded opportunities for profitableproduction of amenity-based services, coupled with pro-environmentalvalues of in-migrants, can create economic and political support forenvironmental conservation (Che 2003; Krannich and Petrzelka 2003).Research has indicated that residents in wealthier, amenity-based areasgenerally hold stronger pro-environmental values (McFarlane andBoxall 2000; Solecki, Mason and Martin 2004). In seeking to highlightthat amenity-oriented development strategies carry risks and can breedconflict, Krannich and Petrzelka (2003) note that fixation on amenitiescan proceed to the point where pathologies emerge that are similar tothe problems of natural resource dependent communities (Stedman,Parkins, and Beckley 2004).

Despite broad trends in industrialized economies toward amenity-based development, timber dependent communities may continue toprivilege commodity production at the expense of non-commoditygoods and services (Parker et al. 2002). Drawing on a much longeracademic tradition, Freudenburg (1992) has outlined economic andsociocultural factors that may explain communities’ ‘‘addiction’’ tonatural resource extraction. Such economic development pursuits canbe understood as rational, as commodity production is not expectedto disappear from rural landscapes altogether (i.e., claims of post-productivism are widely acknowledged as failing to recognize that theamenity turn is generally not accompanied by wholesale disappearance


of extractive industry [Evans et al. 2002]). And, as Stedman et al. (2004)and Overdevest and Green (1995) have demonstrated empirically,timber and timber-processing dependence are not necessarily a recipefor community decline.

In the context of rural economic change, there are significant unknownsregarding the ways in which differently situated communities perceivecommodity production and environmental amenities. Our research asksthe question, does the functional role of forests in the economicorientation of a community affect residents’ forest management priorities?

Work. Natural resource management is a question of resourceallocation: who gets access and the conditions of such access. Becauseevery land use cannot be accommodated on every acre or in everyregion, access claims are inevitably contested. There will be localwinners and losers resulting from changes in land prices, tax codes,forest management guidelines, and subsidies. For example, Shelby,Tokarczyk, and Johnson. (2004) note that urban sprawl results ingreater scrutiny of extractive industries by neighboring developments.Since 1970, over 450 communities have passed local ordinancesrestricting logging, predominantly in areas experiencing high popula-tion growth (Hickman 1993). The exercise of economic and politicalpower by interest groups—in these examples, amenity seekers attempt-ing to reign in extractive interests—has potentially significant implica-tions for people’s livelihoods.

Changes in access to forest resources affect the social status andeconomic security of timber industry employees, foresters, forestlandowners, and tourism/recreation service providers. At the sametime, these tensions are mediated by the daily practice of publicofficials, extension agents, and leaders of civic groups such as theChambers of Commerce, forest products trade associations, andenvironmental advocacy organizations. We hypothesize that the pro-fessional roles people occupy shape their identities, their politics, andtheir conception of what constitutes sound resource management.Given changes in the economics and politics of land use planning andmanagement in forested settings, we seek to understand the effect of anindividuals’ professional role on their forest management priorities.

Play. Apart from professional roles, people relate to forests throughrecreation, aesthetics, ecological values, spiritual values, and craftproduction (e.g., firewood, maple syrup, and arts and crafts materials).Accordingly, we expect individuals’ uses of forests to manifestthemselves in their management priorities. Dunlap and Heffernan(1975) found strong support for the claim that ‘‘appreciative’’recreational activities lead to greater environmental concern relative


to ‘‘consumptive’’ recreational activities. Theodori, Luloff, and Willits’(1998) analysis of recreation and pro-environment behaviors (ratherthan values) also supports this claim. Hunt et al. (2000) found that non-consumptive forest-based activities were not well suited to areas withintensive logging, while motorized or consumptive recreation could becompatible. This corroborates the work of Jackson (1986), who foundthat motorized recreationists held more ‘‘anthropocentric views’’ ofnature than those who engage regularly in non-consumptive recrea-tional activities.

These research findings again highlight how concerns regardingsecure access shape individuals’ forest management priorities. In thefinite space of the forest, an individual often perceives his or her ownforest uses as endangered by competing interests. Thus, ensuring accessto high quality forest-based experiences may require curtailing others’access to the forest. Our study seeks to evaluate how individuals’recreational (and craft production) uses of forests shape their forestmanagement priorities. While we treat firewood production, maplesugaring, and other ‘minor’ economic activities here under the generallabel ‘play’ as a matter of convenience, we recognize that craftproduction is an important income and risk management strategy insome households and that such activity is not usefully categorized asrecreation in such households. See Hinrichs’ (1998) arguments as towhy we might want to privilege lifestyle considerations and the culturalsignificance of these activities, as opposed to their economicsignificance. In the empirical analysis reported below, we clearlydifferentiate between recreational and craft production activities.

Hypotheses

Based on interest in how locational, occupational and lifestyle factorsexplain normative positions regarding forest management, we identifya set of hypotheses to structure our empirical analysis.

Live. 1a) Residents of amenity-oriented communities will prioritizeproduction of non-commodity goods and services (e.g., aesthetics,ecosystem functions, recreational services) more highly than willresidents of timber-oriented communities.

1b) Residents of timber-oriented communities will prioritize resourceextraction more highly than will residents of amenity-orientedcommunities.

Work. 2) Actors’ professional roles will structure their forestmanagement priorities so as to enhance their social status andeconomic security.


Play. 3) Individuals’ forest uses will structure their forest manage-ment priorities in line with strategies of securing access to qualityrecreational and craft production opportunities.

The Northern Forest

Our research is set in New York State’s portion of the Northern Forest.While the ecosystems of the Northern Forest—composed of bothnorthern hardwoods and boreal forests—extend well east into NewBrunswick and Ontario and west through Minnesota, its politicaldesignation ties it to 26 million acres in the United States stretchingfrom Maine to northeastern New York (Figure 1). The recent attachmentof a name to this territory and a Congressional appropriation to fundwork aimed at charting a future development course reflect heightenedtensions over land use, the regional economy, and environmental quality.

Significant anxiety has arisen from shifting patterns of land owner-ship and regional demographics. Forty-nine percent of land in theNorthern Forest is owned by non-industrial private forestland (NIPF)owners, those who have no mill or processing facilities. Thirty-sixpercent is industrial timberland, and the remaining 15 percent ispublicly owned (state forest and national forest) (Irland 1999).3 In New

Figure 1. The Northern Forest. Source: Northern Forest Center, 2003

3 Seventy-eight percent of the 9.4 million acres of industrial timberland lies in the stateof Maine.


York State, where our study is situated, 85 percent of the land is ownedby NIPF. The presence of almost a half million private property ownersholding diverse orientations to management makes planning andcoordination of economic and conservation programs very challenging.Additionally, the Northern Forest’s proximity to major urban centers—70 million people (over 20% of the U.S. population) live within a day’sdrive—creates high demand for recreational access and ecologicalservices.

In the past two decades, the region has undergone extensive change,both economic and ecological. Globalization and timber industryconsolidation have led to a decline in timber and paper industryemployment from 1969 to 1999 in the Northern Forest: Vermont(217%), New York (252%), New Hampshire (233%), and Maine(224%) (Northern Forest Alliance 2002). Ecologically, forest stands arefragmented and degraded leading to lower value wood and lessecologically productive landscapes (Best and Wayburn 2001; Smallidgeand Greason 2004). A series of major land sales and corporatedivestitures has fueled concern regarding the future among residentsand policymakers.

Prompted by Diamond International’s divestiture of 970,000 acres ofindustrial forestland in 1988 and other large land sales, statepolicymakers and the U.S. Congress intervened. The outcome wascreation of the Northern Forest Lands Council (NFLC), whose goal wasto assess ‘‘alternative strategies to protect the long term integrity andtraditional use of the land.’’ The mission, composition, and actions ofthe NFLC reflect the ecological, economic, and social stakes in questionand the relevance of multifunctionality discourse.

Research Approach and Methodology

Data were collected through a 2004 mail survey administered in twodistinct communities within New York’s Northern Forest. Within eachcommunity, surveys were administered to nine categories of forestactors. The survey was executed following the Tailored Design Method(Dillman 2000). Survey data were entered into SPSS 13.0 and analyzedusing factor analysis and multivariate statistics.

Site Selection

To study the effect of community economic orientation on forestmanagement priorities, we identified two archetypal communities; oneto represent timber dependence and the other to represent an amenity-based socioeconomic orientation (see Jonas and Gibbs 2003). Through


criterion-based selection (LeCompte and Preissle 1993) we identifieda pair of communities that were (1) spatially distinct (greater than100 miles apart), (2) similar in population and (3) representative of thedivergent economic paths outlined above. Through analysis of censusdata (unemployment, household income, housing value, and popula-tion statistics for 1970–2000), regional maps, and on-site interviews, wenarrowed the field and identified the municipalities of Boonville andSaranac Lake. These communities are comparable in terms of presentday population and land area, while they have diverged in recentdecades in terms of income, housing values, and rates of unemploy-ment. Both are geographically and economically linked to theNorthern Forest, albeit in seemingly distinct ways as discussed below.

Boonville. Boonville (population of 4626 in 2005) is situated on theedge of the Tug Hill plateau in the Mohawk Valley, just south of theAdirondack Park. It is located in Oneida County approximately30 miles north of Utica, 70 miles northeast of Syracuse, and 120northwest of Albany. The forest products industry dominated Boon-ville’s economy through the latter part of the twentieth century, whentimber markets in the Northeast began to suffer. The 2001 closure ofthe Lyons Falls Pulp and Paper Mill, an employer of 192 workers10 miles north of Boonville, is emblematic of decline in the area(Northern Forest Alliance 2002). Perhaps the largest economic shockto the region occurred in the weeks following our survey with the June2004 closure of the Ethan Allen furniture plant. Two hundred and sixty-six jobs were lost, over 10 percent of the town’s population. Despitethese setbacks, Boonville continues to support a timber industry and isthe home of the New York State Woodsmen’s Field Days, an annualfestival celebrating the state’s timber industry.

Saranac Lake. Saranac Lake (population of 4923 in 2005) is locatedin the High Peaks region of the Adirondack State Park. The communitylies on the boundary of Essex and Franklin counties between severallarge areas of State Forest Preserve, 150 miles north of Albany and50 miles southwest of Plattsburgh. Extensive private forestland lies tothe west and north of the village, and major wilderness areas lie east andsouth. Essex County is classified as a ‘‘recreation county’’ by Beale andJohnson (1998), meaning that extensive revenue and employmentcome from recreation enterprises. Franklin County is not designateda recreation county, leaving Saranac Lake at the junction ofa manufacturing-based and amenity-based economy. Though thetimber industry was historically central and still exists in the area, mostindustrial activity has moved 20 miles west to the town of Tupper Lake.Saranac Lake now hosts a ten day annual Winter Carnival, and as


described by the local Chamber of Commerce, Saranac Lake haschosen over the past few decades to focus resources on ‘‘the village’sdevelopment as a family resort destination,’’ and business retreat.According to the Chamber, ‘‘The Village of Saranac Lake features allthe amenities needed for your next meeting or conference.’’

Sample Frame and Response Rate

In each of our two study sites, we sampled nine categories of actorsengaged in forest management or regional development: (1) NIPFlandowners with 10 or more acres of forestland, (2) foresters, (3)owners/managers in the forest products industry, (4) commercialtourism and recreation providers, (5) real estate brokers, (6)environmental group representatives, (7) local civic group representa-tives, (8) chairs of regional economic development organizations, and(9) public land managers. Because forest land lies largely outside themunicipal boundaries, we included NIPF owners in our sample basedon proximity to our study sites.4 See Table 1 for additional details ofour sampling protocol.

A total of 299 surveys were mailed out. One hundred and eighty threesurveys were returned in usable format, yielding a response rate of 61percent. There were no significant differences in the response rates forBoonville and Saranac Lake.

Statistical Analysis

To assess actors’ management priorities, we asked respondents to ratethe importance of 22 possible management priorities for forests in theirarea on a five-point scale ranging from ‘‘very important’’ to ‘‘notappropriate for forests.’’ The list of management priorities was derivedfrom the Montreal Process (2005) Criteria and Indicators, a widely-accepted framework for capturing the range of goods and servicestemperate forests can provide including timber-based employment,recreational opportunities, ecosystem functions, and spiritual renewal.These data were reduced through factor analysis and varimax rotation.We then used the general linear model (GLM) to assess the effects of

4 The Office of Real Properties provided addresses for each parcel of greater than 10acres owned by NIPF in and around each site. In Boonville, we sampled the closestlandowners to the community and moved outward until the sample reached 100.However, because of the large public landownership to the east of Saranac Lake, only 70landowners were identified in this community.


community economic trajectory (0/1 for Boonville and Saranac Lake),professional roles (the nine categories of forest actors), and individualforest uses on the resulting factor scores.

Findings

Forest Management Orientations

Analysis of the 22 variables representing individuals’ forest manage-ment priorities identified four underlying orientations (factors) andexplained 60 percent of the total variance. The 0.77 score on the Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin test of sampling adequacy indicates that the commonvariance explained by underlying factors is adequate for conductinga factor analysis.

Table 2 presents the factor loadings for 20 variables included in theanalysis and the Cronbach’s alpha score for each (note that twovariables were excluded because they did not load high on any of thefour factors). Priorities were identified as part of a factor if they loadedhigher than 0.4. Studying the component variables, we identified theunderlying factors to be an ecological orientation, a recreationorientation, a large-scale timber orientation, and a small-scale pro-duction orientation.

The ecological orientation represented 21 percent of the totalvariance, and corresponded to ecosystem functions of the forest.Protecting water quality, minimizing soil erosion, providing habitat forendangered species, and several other related priorities loaded highly

Table 1. Composition of Original Sample and Disaggregated SurveyResponse Rates.

Categories of Actors

Number of SurveysMailed

Response Rate (Percent)S. L. Boonville

Landowner (NIPF)*** 70 100 53Public Land Manager* 9 11 75Private Forester* 7 7 86Environmental Organizations* 8 9 88Civic Organizations** 10 8 72Tourism/Recreation Sector** 10 11 62Forest Products** 10 13 57Real Estate Broker* 6 3 67Regional Organizations* 7 86

Response Rate (Percent) 62 59 61

* Full census of the relevant population (no sampling)** Random sample from comprehensive sample frame*** 100% of NIPF owners closest to communities (Office of Real Properties)


on this factor. This ecological orientation contained the highestnumber of variables and explained the most variance, suggestingthat these functions are closely linked in the eyes of manyrespondents.

The recreation orientation, representing 20 percent of the variance,corresponds to recreational and tourism-based priorities includingemployment in tourism and provision of opportunities for motorizedand non-motorized recreation in various forms. This factor identifiedboth social and economic dimensions of recreational access in theforest. Snowmobile and ATV access were included as part of this factorbecause of their high loadings and obvious recreational value. Because

Table 2. Factors and Loadings for Four Management Priorities

Potential Valuesof the Forest

Component Factor Loadings

Ecologicala 5 0.797

Recreationa 5 0.807

Large-scaletimber a 5 0.819

Small-scaletimber a 5 0.802

Minimizefragmentation

0.699 20.058 0.043 20.111

Habitat for species 0.740 0.006 20.063 20.093Protect aesthetic

values0.548 0.183 20.226 0.342

Alternative to landclearing

0.472 0.119 0.028 0.235

Vital ecosystemcomponents

0.815 0.049 20.187 0.050

Minimize soilerosion

0.785 0.003 0.010 20.014

Protect water quality 0.736 0.098 0.018 20.004Absorb carbon 0.478 0.139 0.015 0.162Employment in

tourism0.167 0.732 0.161 0.055

Local recreation 0.116 0.786 0.068 0.216Tourist recreation 0.148 0.851 20.034 0.100X-country, hiking,

biking0.112 0.815 20.165 0.060

Snowmobile use 20.264 0.597 0.486 20.204ATV use 20.295 0.516 0.501 20.269Employment in

timber0.099 0.121 0.727 0.267

National/Int’l forestproducts

20.054 20.036 0.753 0.194

Industrial timbermarkets

20.087 0.022 0.829 0.083

Local/regionalforest products

0.053 20.016 0.627 0.568

Small-scale timber 20.019 0.052 0.190 0.685Personal forest

products0.084 0.148 0.229 0.739


these variables also loaded high on the large-scale timber factor, theyare included in both factors.5

The large-scale timber orientation represents 12 percent of thevariance and corresponds to priorities including managing timber onindustrial scale for national and international markets, and provision ofemployment in the timber industry. Inclusion of snowmobiles andATVs in the factor may be due in part to work-related demands ofloggers and foresters, but may also simply suggest overlapping interests.

The final orientation to forest management priorities, the small-scaletimber orientation, represented 6 percent of the variance. Threevariables loaded highly in this factor: supplying forest products forpersonal use (e.g., home heating), providing timber for small-scalecommercial use (e.g., craft production), and supplying timber for localand regional markets.

Forest Usage Orientations

In order to analyze individuals’ uses of the forest, we again employedfactor analysis to reduce 17 variables into underlying factors. Theanalysis yielded four orientations to forest use, explaining 58 percentof the variance for this question. A Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin measure ofsampling adequacy yielded a test statistic of 0.78, well within theappropriate range. The component matrix was created using varimaxrotation. Table 3 shows the component factor loadings and reliabilityanalyses for the 17 variables. To address several instances where specificforest uses loaded on multiple factors, the threshold value for inclusionin a factor was increased from 0.4 to 0.5, allowing us to define a clearerset of orientations (Hair et al. 1998). Based on these factor loadings, weidentified four distinct sets of activities: low-impact recreation, high-impact recreation, middle-impact recreation, and craft production (i.e.,small-scale forest resource extraction).

The factor explaining the most variance (24%) corresponded to low-impact forms of recreation such as bird watching, walking, hiking, andusing the forest as a place of reflection. Forest uses including motorizedrecreation, hunting/fishing, and creating a vacation camp wereidentified as high impact recreation, a factor that explained 17 percentof the variance. Middle-impact recreation, explaining 10 percent of the

5 Darlington (1997) explains loading on multiple factors is reasonable if parallelhypotheses are identified: ‘‘For instance, a test of ability to deal with arithmetic wordproblems might well load highly on both verbal and mathematical factors. This is actuallyone of the advantages of factor analysis over cluster analysis, since you cannot put thesame variable in two different clusters.’’


variance, included bicycling, canoeing, non-motorized winter sports,and downhill skiing. Finally, a fourth factor, representing 7 percent ofthe variance, corresponded to small-scale extractive uses of the forest(such as collecting berries and mushrooms, producing maple syrup,cutting firewood), and timber management. As stated above, Hinrichs(1998) points out that these activities may represent supplementalhousehold income sources, but are often more usefully thought of asoutgrowths of cultural identity or lifestyle considerations. These fourorientations to how people use or ‘‘play’’ in the forest served asindependent variables in regression analysis aimed at explainingvariance in respondents’ forest management priorities.

Explaining variance in forest management priorities

To test our hypotheses regarding forest management priorities, we firstcreated comparable indices for the four management orientations. Theindividual ratings of the variables in each factor were summed for eachrespondent and then divided by the total possible score for that factor,yielding a re-scaled score between zero and one, where one representsthe highest orientation possible and zero the lowest on that particularfactor.

Table 3. Factor Loadings for Four Forest Uses

Forest Use

Component Factor Loading

Low-impactrecreationa 5 0.748

High-impactrecreationa 5 0.686

Middle-impactrecreationa 5 0.723

Small-scaleindustrya 5 0.703

Walking or hiking 0.600 20.021 0.307 0.259Bird watching 0.831 0.080 0.000 0.091Place of reflection 0.813 20.119 0.121 0.059ATV use 20.123 0.738 20.094 0.264Snowmobiling 20.290 0.716 0.078 0.151Hunting or fishing 0.157 0.633 20.051 0.324Vacation camp 0.407 0.596 0.005 20.116Camping with facilities 0.120 0.541 0.450 20.082Canoeing 0.442 0.043 0.588 20.010Biking or horseback

riding0.056 20.096 0.815 0.135

Snowshoeing 0.423 0.120 0.568 0.163Downhill skiing 20.041 20.004 0.794 20.130Timber management 20.129 0.336 20.202 0.678Cutting firewood 0.187 0.409 20.119 0.664Gathering crafts 0.326 0.077 0.173 0.505Pick berries or

mushrooms0.396 0.218 0.113 0.548

Maple sugaring 0.009 20.070 0.073 0.628


Figure 2 presents the frequency distributions for the four orienta-tions to forest management. Respondents scored a mean of 0.83 on theecological factor, suggesting broad support. Recreation and large-scaletimber scores were more evenly distributed (means 0.66 and 0.65,respectively), while the small-scale timber priorities received fairlystrong support (mean 0.78).

Re-scaled factor scores served as dependent variables in four separateregressions using the GLM. The independent variables in each modelwere community economic trajectory (represented by Boonville orSaranac Lake), professional roles (the nine roles that compose oursample), and personal forest use (composite indices for the four factorsdiscussed above). Table 4 summarizes the results of the four regressionmodels.

Ecological orientation. Variables in all three groups of predictors(community economic trajectory, roles of forest actors, and uses of theforest) proved to be significant factors in explaining strength ofrespondents’ ecological orientation. Living in Saranac Lake, ouramenity-oriented community, significantly increased respondents’scores. Additionally, low-impact recreation (i.e., aesthetic and spiritualuses of the forest) predicted a stronger ecological orientation. Thoughnot quite significant (0.05 , p , 0.10), we note that increases in high-impact recreation decreased the ecological orientation as well (b 5

Figure 2. Distribution of Scores for Four Forest Management Orientations (re-scaledbetween 0 and 1)


Tab

le4.

GL

MR

egre

ssio

no

fF

ou

rF

ore

stM

anag

emen

tO

rien

tati

on

s

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

le:

Eco

logi

cal

Rec

reat

ion

Lar

ge-S

cale

Tim

ber

Smal

l-Sca

leT

imb

er

Par

amet

er(p

arti

alre

gres

sio

nco

effi

cien

ts)

bb

bb

Inte

rcep

t0.

620

0.69

30.

792

0.78

2F

rom

Sara

nac

Lak

e0.

049*

0.05

90.

015

0.02

2U

se:

low

imp

act

rec

0.17

6***

0.00

72

0.14

4*0.

009

Use

:h

igh

imp

act

rec

20.

089

0.19

0*0.

157*

20.

080

Use

:m

idd

leim

pac

tre

c0.

022

0.03

62

0.02

00.

050

Use

:sm

all-s

cale

extr

acti

on

20.

108*

20.

112

0.12

70.

231*

**R

oles

offo

rest

acto

rsL

and

ow

ner

0.15

2**

20.

177*

20.

190*

**2

0.08

4P

ub

lic

lan

dm

anag

er0.

118*

20.

109

20.

144*

20.

169*

*F

ore

ster

0.06

62

0.16

82

0.11

12

0.11

2E

nvi

ron

men

tal

gro

up

0.17

6**

20.

099

20.

168*

20.

175*

*C

ivic

gro

up

0.14

2*2

0.01

4B

ase

Cas

eB

ase

Cas

eT

ou

rism

and

rec.

sect

or

0.16

4**

20.

039

20.

170*

*2

0.09

6F

ore

stp

rod

uct

s0.

103

20.

078

20.

116

20.

098

Reg

ion

alo

rgan

izat

ion

s0.

189*

20.

216

20.

229*

20.

030

Rea

les

tate

bro

ker

Bas

eC

ase

Bas

eC

ase

20.

101

20.

058

Ad

just

edR

20.

313

0.13

10.

195

0.06

6

*p,

0.05

,**

p,

0.01

,**

*p,

0.00

1


20.089). In relation to real estate brokers (the reference case), six of theremaining eight professional categories had significantly higher scoreson the ecological factor. Interestingly, priority placed on ecologicalservices by foresters and representatives of the forest products industrywere not significantly different from real estate brokers, the professionalsscoring lowest on this factor. Working in either environmental (p , 0.01)or regional (p , 0.05) organizations predicted the highest ecologicalorientation, while landowners, public land managers, civic groups, andthe tourism sector also held significantly higher ecological orientationthan real estate brokers. The high score for landowners is consistent withstudies linking NIPF with strong environmental attitudes (Best andWayburne 2001). Clearly, a broad range of actors favor placing emphasison ecological functions of forests in management planning. Theindependent variables used in this model predict 31 percent of thevariance in the ecological composite index for forest managementpriorities (adjusted R2 5 0.313).

Recreational orientation. Actors’ professional roles and individuals’uses of the forest proved significant in this model. Communityeconomic trajectory was not quite significant (0.05 , p , 0.10), withrespondents from Saranac Lake having a higher recreation index scorethan Boonville. Engaging in high-impact recreation significantlyincreased respondents’ support for recreation as a managementpriority, while engaging in middle- and low-impact recreation did not.Being in the NIPF category lowered respondents’ recreation scoresignificantly (b 5 20.177). The model had only moderate predictivepower (adjusted R2 5 0.131), suggesting that our approach has limitedvalue in explaining the priorities individuals assign to forest recreation.

Large-scale timber orientation. Individuals’ uses of forest and pro-fessional roles proved to be significant in this model. Communitytrajectory did not play a significant role in the large-scale timber index,suggesting that timber dependent communities do not necessarilyprivilege timber as a management priority more than amenity-basedcommunities. Stated differently, the amenity-oriented community wasnot anti-timber. Engaging in aesthetic or spiritual use of the forest wasnegatively related to the large-scale timber priority index, possiblycorroborating our hypothesis that these activities compete for space inthe finite forest. In relation to civic groups (identified as the referencecase because they prioritized industrial-scale timber development mosthighly as a group), five other classes of actors attached significantlylower priority to large scale timber development. Working in a regionalorganization substantially decreased a respondent’s timber orientationrelative to representatives of civic groups (b 5 20.229). Being


a landowner, a public land manager, a tourism service provider, ora representative of an environmental organization also predictedsignificantly lower scores as compared to civic groups. The explanatorypower of the model was moderate (adjusted R2 5 0.195).

Small-scale production orientation. While forest use and professionalroles explain a portion of the variance in priority attached to small-scaleforest industry development, this model had low predictive power(adjusted R2 5 0.066). This suggests that the index is partly predictedby variables not included in the model. Small-scale extractive use of theforest is a significant predictor (p , 0.001) of the small-scale timberorientation, and substantially increases this score (b 5 0.231). Inrelation to civic groups, only two professional categories weresignificant predictors of this score. Participation in environmentalorganizations decreased (b 5 20.175) a respondent’s small-scaletimber orientation (p , 0.01), as did being a public land manager (b5 20.169, p , 0.01).

Discussion

Differentiated Demands on Forests

Our assessment of forest management priorities highlights thedifferentiated demands that confront managers, policy makers, andothers engaged in the future of the Northern Forest. Whereas thepopular press, and indeed some scholarly research, has tended tocharacterize conflicts in the forest as between timber (i.e., jobs) and theenvironment (see Goodstein 1999 for full treatment of this phenom-enon), our results suggest a more complex differentiation of interests.Factor analysis identified four distinct sets of forest managementpriorities: ecological integrity, recreation, large-scale timber, and small-scale production.

While natural resource conservation and recreation are often viewedas complementary elements of a non-consumptive orientation thatstands in opposition to timber exploitation, we show ecological andrecreational priorities to be substantially independent of one another.By disaggregating recreation into low, middle, and high impact modes,our analysis shows engagement in low impact recreation to be positivelyrelated to ecological conservation, while those engaging in high impactrecreation award higher status to large-scale timber management.

Beyond the analytical value of disaggregating recreation enthusiastsas an interest group, our analysis of management priorities highlightsdivergence between those who favor large-scale forest exploitation (i.e.,seek to attract outside investment and capture economies of scale in


order to compete in global wood and pulp markets) and those whofavor small-scale forest exploitation (i.e., seek to service regional timbermarkets, produce value added products, and artisanal and craftproduction). To the extent that this last orientation stems fromenthusiasm for development of a diversified regional economy focusedaround interests of the community, Krannich and Petrzelka’s (2003)rural development recommendations are directly relevant.

Personal Use of Forests

Factor analysis of data on actors’ use of forests identified fourorientations: low-, high-, and middle- impact recreation, as well assmall-scale production. Our identification of a distinct class ofrecreational activities as ‘‘middle-impact’’ on a continuum of environ-mental and ecological disruption and the correlations discussed above,support Theodori et al.’s (1998) claim that the generally acceptedtypology of recreational activities as ‘‘appreciative’’ or ‘‘consumptive’’ isan oversimplification. As recreational demands on forests increase andrecreational options proliferate, there is a need to develop a moredetailed understanding of recreation and the associated ecological andpolitical implications.

Theodori et al. (1998) noted that most research, including their own,tends to categorize what we call craft- or small-scale production—harvesting non-timber forest products such as berries, mushrooms, andmaple syrup, and cutting firewood—as either consumptive or appre-ciative forest uses. Our data shows this type of activity to be a distinctorientation to personal forest use in the Northern Forest of NewYork.

Explaining Management Priorities

Results of our assessment of how community economic orientationaffects the forest management priorities of local actors were consistentwith expectations to some extent, but not entirely. The community weselected to represent an amenity-oriented location (Saranac Lake)awarded significantly higher priority to ecological considerations (p ,

0.05) than did respondents from our timber-dependent research site(Boonville). This finding supports the notion that people living ina community committed to amenity-based development supportnatural resource conservation (hypothesis 1a). Alternatively, this resultcould be interpreted as support for the notion that people in resource-dependent communities award lower status to conservation. In eithercase, residents’ commitment to conservation appears to be affected by


the status of the forest in their community’s economic developmentstrategy.

Boonville did not favor timber exploitation more strongly than didSaranac Lake residents (hypothesis 1b). Delegitimization of timberexploitation, what Humphrey (1995) refers to as a process of moralexclusion based on redefinition of community norms relative to theenvironment, is not demonstrated. And, Boonville does not appear tobe ‘‘addicted’’ to logging and wood processing. Community economicorientation did not strongly predict priorities attached to managementorientations other than ecological services. It is worth noting, however,Saranac Lake respondents awarded higher priority to recreation thanBoonville respondents at the 90 percent confidence interval (p 5

0.067).These results suggest that the logic of multifunctionality has more

traction in a location such as Saranac Lake, an area of dramaticlandscapes, mountain streams, and proximity to a regional culturalcapital (Lake Placid). Boonville respondents did not, however, privilegetimber as a singularly appropriate goal of forest management. The areadoes not have dramatic natural features, but it has developed itself asa regional snowmobiling center, consistent with a strategy of economicdiversification. In line with our discussion, the socioeconomic status oftimber has changed in the Northern Forest, but timber remainsrelevant in both of our study sites. Respondents from both communitiesexpress support for a diversified forest-based economy, albeit indifferent forms. Amenity-based development organized around secondhomes and quiet sports (e.g., bird watching, cross-country skiing andnature photography) has different environmental and politicalimplications and requirements than a strategy organized aroundsnowmobiling and maintenance of timber-based employment.

We demonstrate that professional roles inform individuals’ forestmanagement priorities in clear and important ways (hypothesis 2). Realestate brokers, consulting foresters, and representatives of woodproducts firms attached higher priority to large scale timber de-velopment and attached lower priority to ecological services than NIPFlandowners, public land managers, representatives of environmentalorganizations, tourism and recreation providers, and representatives ofregional economic development organizations. Clearly, there areimportant differences in the economic and political interests of thesetwo sets of actors. We would expect that these differences are focusedaround questions of the ecological and socioeconomic implications oflogging, as well as questions regarding the distributive implications ofresource conservation. While a broad coalition of actors privileged


ecological concerns, support for industrial scale logging is foundedupon a narrower political base. Representatives of civic groups (e.g.,local Chambers of Commerce) awarded the highest priority of any setof actors to large scale logging, but we note that this group wasextraordinarily supportive of all four management orientations, fully inline with their role as civic boosters.

We find strong support for the hypothesis that individuals’ personaluses of forests affect their forest management priorities (hypothesis 3).In all four regressions, recreational and craft production activitiesmapped onto management priorities in consistent fashion. Those whopursue low-impact recreational activities are clearly pro-environmentand anti-timber, while the converse is true of those who engage in high-impact recreation (p 5 0.069). Those engaged in craft productionstrongly advocate small-scale development of forest resources. This lastset of results fits with the generally observed pattern; respondentsawarded high priority to management objectives that protect andenhance their individual and collective interests. Individuals’ personaluses of the forest (e.g., recreation) consistently aligned with their forestpolicy positions. Economic interests and professional status alsoexhibited a readily observable effect. The effect of communityeconomic orientation was somewhat less clear, but there was asignificant signal.

Implications

Joining McCarthy (2005) and Bills and Gross (2005), we find that‘‘much of the literature on multifunctionality operates at a highlyabstract level.’’ In empirically evaluating contemporary demands onrural landscapes in the Northern Forest of New York State, we find thatmaintenance of ecological integrity, recreational access, and small-scaleforest-based economic development emerge as distinct orientations toforest management, along with support for industrial-scale logging.Recognition of the broad range of benefits forests can provide suggeststhe applicability of the logic of multifunctionality—logic, to date, thathas principally been applied to farming and farm policy. Beyondhighlighting the privileged status people assign to environmentalvalues, our results highlight the varied interests engaged in forest policyand management processes and the associated potential for conflict.

Too often, in our view, research on forest management and politicsin the eastern United States takes the form of polls of forestlandowners’ value orientations. It is quite clear that actors other thanlandowners have political and legal standing and exercise influence


(Breckenridge 1995). Accordingly, our research design focused ona broad array of actors including landowners. In trying to make sense ofvariance in individuals’ forest management priorities and how personaland political economic factors shape the relative value individuals placeon various goods and services from forests, we analyzed the effects ofcommunity economic orientation, professional roles, and personal usesof forests. In keeping with our expectations, we found that the kinds ofplaces in which people live, the kinds of work they do, and ways inwhich the forest plays a part in people’s lives shape their viewsregarding forest policy and management. Actors’ political positions areapparently informed by self-interest and, simultaneously, processes ofacculturation lead individuals to adopt the norms of communities ofplace, communities of practice, and communities of interest. Theseresults do not, however, provide a clear structural explanation ofindividuals’ policy positions, as our models demonstrate only moderatepredictive power. More theoretical and empirical research is clearlyrequired if we are to understand the contemporary basis of conflictregarding land use and development policy in such settings.

This empirical study highlights two opportunities to develop moreprecise conceptual categories potentially useful for future research andpolicy. First, while expectations were for sharp contrasts, our amenity-oriented and timber-oriented study sites did not differ from oneanother along several forest management dimensions, most notablytimber exploitation. This finding points to communities as internallydifferentiated, as is well-recognized (e.g., Agrawal and Gibson 1999),and suggests that traditional commodity-based forms of economicactivity have not been displaced, wholesale, by amenity-based economicdevelopment (see also critiques of post-productivism). With theimportant exception of the level of emphasis placed on managingforests for ecological integrity, our ‘‘archetypal’’ communities did notarticulate divergent views regarding how forests should be managed.Similar levels of support for logging, recreation, and small-scale forest-based enterprises in both amenity and resource-dependent settingssuggests that these categories and labels obscure important informationand draw attention away from within-community tensions, whichdominate in this empirical study.

Secondly, amenity-oriented development, particularly recreation-based economic activity, is not necessarily compatible with an ecologicalorientation to forest management. Our analysis identified a segmentedhierarchy of recreational activities differentiated according to environ-mental costs and their compatibility with industrially-scaled logging. Asamenity-based development expands, the valuable resources drawing


people and capital to such areas are potentially at risk. Attention to theeffects of motorized recreation and development are imperative incommunities banking on certain forms of amenity-based economicdevelopment. Diversification away from resource extraction andcommodity production takes many forms, and we will need to learnmore about strategies and implications from social and ecologicalperspectives.

Our analysis offers detailed, localized insights into a generic, over-arching conflict regarding land use. We show that forest access isregarded as rivalrous or subtractable (i.e., your pursuit of your interestsdiminishes my opportunities). Addressing this problem, and, wherenecessary, policing and segregating land uses, will require a deliberativeapproach. Interaction, participation, accommodation, and innovationare needed, and each of these objectives can be advanced throughdialogue supported by data and understanding of priorities andunderlying interests of individuals and groups.

References

Agrawal, A. and C. Gibson. 1999. ‘‘Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role ofCommunity in Natural Resource Conservation.’’ World Development 27:629–49.

Beale, C.L. and K.M. Johnson. 1998. ‘‘The Identification of Recreational Counties inNonmetropolitan Areas of the U.S.’’ Population Research and Policy Review 17:37–53.

Best, C. and L. Wayburn. 2001. America’s Private Forests: Status and Stewardship. WashingtonD.C.: Island Press.

Bills, N. and D. Gross. 2005. ‘‘Sustaining Multifunctional Agricultural Landscapes:Comparing Stakeholder Perspectives in New York (US) and England (UK).’’ LandUse Policy 22:313–21.

Birch, T.W. 1996. Private Forest-Land Owners of the United States. 1994 Res. Bull. NE-134.Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern ForestExperiment Station.

Breckenridge, L. 1995. ‘‘Reweaving the Landscape: The Institutional Challenges ofEcosystem Management for Land in Private Ownership.’’ Vermont Law Review19:363–422.

Brehm, J.M., B.W. Eisenhauer, and R.S. Krannich. 2004. ‘‘Dimensions of CommunityAttachment and Their Relationship to Well-Being in the Amenity-Rich Rural West.’’Rural Sociology 69:405–29.

Brown, D.L. and L.E. Swanson. 2003. ‘‘Introduction: Rural America Enters the NewMillennium.’’ Pp. 1–18 in Challenges for Rural America in the Twenty-First Century, editedby D.L. Brown and L.E. Swanson. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press.

Che, D. 2003. ‘‘The New Economy and the Forest: Rural Development in the Post-Industrial Spaces of the Rural Alleghenies.’’ Social Science Quarterly 84:963–78.

Cox, G.L. 2003. ‘‘Applying Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Participatory Planning forSustainable Management.’’ Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Economics, RensselaerPolytechnic Institute. Troy, NY.

Darlington, R.B. 1997. ‘‘Factor Analysis.’’ Technical Report, Cornell University. RetrievedApril 3, 2005 (http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/Darlington/factor.htm).

Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York:Wiley.


Dunlap, R.E. and R.B. Heffernan. 1975. ‘‘Outdoor Recreation and EnvironmentalConcern: An Empirical Examination.’’ Rural Sociology 40:18–30.

Evans, N., C. Morris, and M. Winter. 2002. ‘‘Conceptualizing Agriculture: A Critique ofPost-Productivsim as the New Orthodoxy.’’ Progress in Human Geography 26:313–32.

Freudenburg, W.R. 1992. ‘‘Addictive Economies: Extractive Industries and VulnerableLocalities in a Changing World Economy.’’ Rural Sociology 57:305–22.

Goodstein, E. 1999. The Trade-off Myth: Fact and Fiction about Jobs and the Environment.Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Green, G.P. 2001. ‘‘Amenities and Community Economic Development: Strategies forSustainability.’’ Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy 31:61–75.

Hair, J.F., R. Anderson, R. Tatham, and W. Black. 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.,Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hajer, M. and H. Wagenaar. 2003. ‘‘Introduction.’’ Pp. 1–32 in Deliberative Policy Analysis:Understanding Governance in the Network Society, edited by M. Hajer and H. Wagenaar.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hickman, C. 1993. ‘‘Local Regulation of Private Forestry.’’ Forest Farmer 52:19–21.Hinrichs, C. 1998. ‘‘Sideline and Lifeline: The Cultural Economy of Maple Syrup

Production.’’ Rural Sociology 63:507–32.Humphrey, C. 1995. ‘‘Natural Resource Dependent Communities and Persistent Rural

Poverty in the U.S.: Part IV.’’ Society and Natural Resources 8:93–6.Hunt, L., D. Twynam, W. Haider, and D. Robinson. 2000. ‘‘Examining the Desirability for

Recreating in Logged Settings.’’ Society and Natural Resources 13:717–34.Irland, L. 1999. The Northeast’s Changing Forests. Petersham, MA: Harvard University Press.Jackson, E.L. 1986. ‘‘Outdoor Recreation Participation and Attitudes to the Environ-

ment.’’ Leisure Studies 5:1–23.Jonas, A.E. and D.C. Gibbs. 2003. ‘‘Changing Local Modes of Economic and

Environmental Governance in England: A Tale of Two Areas.’’ Social Science Quarterly84:1018–37.

Karppinen, H. 1998. ‘‘Values and Objectives of Non-Industrial Private Forest Owners inFinland.’’ Silva Fennica 32:43–59.

Klein, J. 2005. ‘‘The Politics, Management Priorities, and Discourse in the NorthernForest.’’ M.S. Thesis, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University. Ithaca,NY.

Krannich, R.S. and P. Petrzelka. 2003. ‘‘Tourism and Natural Amenity Development: RealOpportunities.’’ Pp. 190–99 in Challenges for Rural America in the Twenty-First Century,edited by D.L. Brown and L.E. Swanson. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press.

LeCompte, M.D. and J. Preissle. 1993. Ethnography and Qualitative Design in EducationalResearch (2d. ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Lee, K.N. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment.Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

McFarlane, B.L. and P.C. Boxall. 2000. ‘‘Factors Influencing Forest Values and Attitudesof Two Stakeholder Groups: The Case of The Foothills Model Forest, Alberta,Canada.’’ Society & Natural Resources 13:649–61.

Marsden, T. 1999. ‘‘Rural Futures: The Consumption Countryside and its Regulation.’’Sociologia Ruralis 39:501–26.

Mather, A.S. 2001. ‘‘Forests of Consumption: Postproductivism, Postmaterialism, and thePostindustrial Forest.’’ Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 19:249–68.

McCarthy, J. 2005. ‘‘Multifunctional Rural Geographies: Reactionary or Radical.’’ Progressin Human Geography 6:1–10.

McGranahan, D.A. 2003. ‘‘How People Make a Living in Rural America.’’ Pp. 135–51 inChallenges for Rural America in the Twenty-First Century, edited by D.L. Brown and L.E.Swanson. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

———. 1999. Natural Amenities Drive Rural Population Change. Agricultural EconomicReport No. 781. Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service,U.S. Department of Agriculture.


Montreal Process. 2005. ‘‘The Montreal Process for Sustainable Development ofBoreal and Temperate Forests.’’ Retrieved May 5, 2006 (http://www.mpci.org/evolution_e.html).

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC). 2006, Officialwebsite. Retrieved June 1, 2006 (http://www.dec.state.ny.us).

Northern Forest Alliance. 2002. The Northern Forest: A Region at Risk. Montpelier, VT:Northern Forest Alliance. Retrieved May 1, 2005 (http://www.northernforestalliance.org/newspubs/pdfs/RegionAtRisk.pdf ).

Novotny, P. 2000. Where We Live, Work and Play: The Environmental Justice Movement and TheStruggle for a New Environmentalism. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Overdevest, C. and G.P. Green. 1995. ‘‘Forest Dependent Community Well-Being: ASegmented Market Approach.’’ Society and Natural Resources 8:111–31.

Parker, J., J.D. Wulfhorst, and J. Kamm. 2002. Social Assessment for the Idaho PanhandleNational Forests. University of Idaho, College of Natural Resources.

Petrzelka, P. 2004. ‘‘The New Landform’s Here! The New Landform’s Here! We’reSomebody Now!! The Role of Discursive Practices on Place Identity.’’ Rural Sociology69:386–404.

Ray, C. 1998. ‘‘Culture, Intellectual Property and Territorial Rural Development.’’Sociologia Ruralis 38:3–20.

Sample, A., S. Kavanaugh, and M. Snieckus. 2006. ‘‘Advancing Sustainable ForestManagement in the United States.’’ Pichot Institute for Conservation. Retrieved July1, 2006 (http://pinchot.org/pdf/AdvancingSFM.text.pdf ).

Sampson, N. and L. Decoster. 2000. ‘‘Forest Fragmentation.’’ Journal of Forestry 98:4–8.Shelby, B., J.A. Tokarczyk, and R.L. Johnson. 2004. ‘‘Timber Harvests and Forest

Neighbors: The Urban Fringe Research Project at Oregon State University.’’ Journal ofForestry 102:8–13.

Smallidge, P. and M. Greason. 2004. ‘‘Forestry Practices to Avoid: Just Say No to High-Grading’’ Forest Matters 7(2). Retrieved July 1, 2006 (http://na.fs.fed.us/stewardship/newsltr/newsletter/04fall_stewardship.pdf ).

Solecki, W.D., R.J. Mason, and S. Martin. 2004. ‘‘Voter Support for New Jersey’s OpenSpace Preservation Referendum.’’ Social Science Quarterly 85:624–39.

Stedman, R., J. Parkins, and T. Beckley. 2004. ‘‘Resource Dependence and CommunityWell-Being in Rural Canada.’’ Rural Sociology 69:213–31.

Theodori, G.L., A.E. Luloff, and F.K. Willits. 1998. ‘‘The Association of OutdoorRecreation and Environmental Concern: Reexamining the Dunlap-HeffernanThesis.’’ Rural Sociology 63:94–108.

Wolf, S. and S. Hufangl-Eichiner. 2007. ‘‘External Resources and Development of ForestLandowner Collaboratives.’’ Society and Natural Resources (in press).

Wolf, S. and J. Klein. 2007. ‘‘Enter the Working Forest: Discourse Analysis in the NorthernForest.’’ Geoforum (in press).

Wright, P., G. Alward, M. Turner, and B. Tegler. 2002. Monitoring for Forest ManagementUnit Scale Sustainability: The Local Unity Criteria and Indicators Development (LUCID) Test.USDA FS IMI Report No. 4. Retrieved June 12, 2006 (http://www.fs.fed.us/institute/lucid/final_report/LUCID_Management_Edition.pdf ).


Rural Sociology E Toward Multifunctional Landscapes: Cross … in the... · Applied to forest...

Documents

Transcript of Rural Sociology E Toward Multifunctional Landscapes: Cross … in the... · Applied to forest...