SS004
Ecological Forestry in Western Oregon: A Critical Analysis from Andrews Forest LTER Research, 2014-2015

CREATOR(S): Chelsea Batavia, Michael P. Nelson

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(S): Michael P. Nelson

ORIGINATOR(S): Chelsea Batavia

MOST RECENT METADATA REVIEW DATE:

17 Feb 2020

KEYWORDS:

attitudes and perceptions, environmental ethics, public assessments, public values, surveys, resource management, forest management, ecosystems

METHODS:

Experimental Design - SS004:

Description: Arguments about ecological forestry were selected, formulated, and analyzed in a four step process. 1) Argument selection, 2) Argument formulation, 3) Argument review, and 4) Argument analysis.

Field Methods - SS004:

Description: Argument analysis. Arguments about ecological forestry were selected, formulated, and analyzed in a four step process. 1) Argument selection. Researchers reviewed literature related to ecological forestry and developed a list of reasons why proponents and opponents are saying it should or should not be used. Two broad classes of reasons were identified: theoretical and applied. Theoretical reasons are context-independent, and only pro-ecological forestry theoretical reasons were considered in this project. Applied reasons pertain specifically to ecological forestry as proposed for the O&C lands in western Oregon, and both pro- and anti-ecological forestry applied reasons were considered in this project. Reasons were sent in a mixed-methods survey to a group of nine experts in forestry, forest ecology, and forest management. Experts rated each reason for centrality in the current discourse surrounding ecological forestry, and suggested revised wording or alternative reasons. Survey and quantitative results are linked on this website. Qualitative results available upon request. 2) Argument formulation. Researchers used expert feedback from the survey described in 1) to select a small set of arguments for analysis. Arguments selected for analysis were formulated formally as a series of premises leading to conclusions. 3) Argument review. Formulated arguments were returned to the same expert panel for review. Each expert received an individualized survey with three particular arguments, selected according to his/her area of expertise. Experts were asked first whether argument as formulated was accurate overall. If he/she answered "no," he/she was prompted to offer general commentary and suggestions. If he/she answered "yes," he/she was asked to suggest any changes in wording for premises and conclusions. He/she then commented on whether and the extent to which each premise, both as originally written and as the expert may have revised it, was true and controversial. Survey and results (all qualitative) are linked on this website. 4) Argument analysis. Researchers revised arguments based on results of second survey described in 3) above. Arguments were then systematically assessed for soundness according to the formal rules of logic.

Citation: Nelson, M.P., and Vucetich, J.A. 2012. The Handbook for Conservation and Sustainability Ethics. CEG Occasional Paper Series. Issue #1.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:

See related files for surveys.

TAXONOMIC SYSTEM:

None

GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT:

western Oregon

PROGRESS DESCRIPTION:

Complete

UPDATE FREQUENCY DESCRIPTION:

notPlanned

CURRENTNESS REFERENCE:

Observed