Solange Nadeau

Rural-urban differences in environmental concern in Canada.

Distinctions between rural and urban populations are well documented in environmental sociology literature. Rural and urban places may exert different influences on participation in environmentally supportive behavior (ESB) as well as on other forms of environmental concern (EC). The influence of these distinct geographies may be due to present circumstances or because of childhood socialization in these places. Using data from a national survey in Canada (n51 664), we use cognitive (basic values, environmental worldview, and environmental attitude) and behavioral indicators (public and private sphere) of EC to explore differences among rural and urban populations and we include analyses accounting for place of socialization. We extend the conventional private sphere category of ESB by including stewardship behaviors. Results showed few differences between rural and urban residents on indicators of EC. Rural residents, however, scored higher on altruistic values, placed a higher priority on the environment, and reported higher participation in recycling and stewardship behaviors. Analysis that included place of socialization showed differences on environmental worldview, basic values, and some ESB. In terms of ESB, we conclude that residence and place of socialization may be less of a factor than opportunity and highlight the importance of providing services and facilities. We recommend future research on residence and ESB include a variety of behaviors that reflect opportunities for both rural and urban residents.

Critical Analysis of the Relationship between Local Ownership and Community Resiliency

Collectively, current resource-development literature has given little attention to organizational features of ownership as important variables in community resilience. By drawing from six local buyout cases in Canadas forest sector, we reveal the complexity and numerous constraints on local ownership and expose a more nuanced context than most sociologists tend to consider. Our findings suggest that the meaning of local ownership and community resilience varies depending upon the composition (e.g., private vs. public; mill vs. forest license vs. coupled mill & forest license), type (social, cooperative, trust and/or direct-share ownership), extent of ownership (percentage of local versus extra-local shares), and the level of control (e.g., proportion of locally held seats on the Board of Directors) associated with ownership. Future research on local ownership should more carefully differentiate between the nature of local ownership and its associated outcomes.

Impact of Changes in the Sociological Characteristics of Small-Scale Forest Owners on Timber Harvesting Behavior in Quebec, Canada

Owing to the economic, social and environmental impacts associated with timber harvesting by small-scale forest owners, a number of studies have characterized their profiles, motivations and activities at a given time. However, little research has focused on how timber production has been affected by changes in the prevalence of types of forest owners over time. A 2012 telephone survey of Quebec (Canada) small-scale forest owners reveals relationships between level of harvesting and socio-demographic factors, and an evolution of these factors by examining the results of surveys conducted in 1973 and 1985. Within the same population, property size, distance between owners’ forest and homes, possession of a forest management plan, gender, education level, the length of ownership are correlated with how likely respondents were to harvest timber on their forest. Furthermore, comparison with results from previous surveys of the same population show an increase in the prevalence of characteristics associated with owners who place less importance on timber harvesting in their management decisions. Overall, since the initial survey of forest owners conducted in 1973, the size of forest holdings in Quebec has decreased, respondents’ education level has improved and the proportion of forests owned by women have increased. However, these changes are occurring at a relatively slow rate, giving government authorities time to implement policies to encourage harvesting among the new generation of forest owners.

Participatory processes for public lands: Do provinces practice what they preach?

Here, we analyze the current spaces for public participation in Crown (public) land management through a comparative study that focuses on the Canadian provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. We define spaces for public participation as opportunities for meaningful public involvement in the decision-making arena of forest management. We examine the experiences of public participation in these provinces in an exploratory study comparing perceptions of participatory processes and outcomes of the processes in these two provinces based on 15 years (1999–2014) of informant experience. The objective is to understand more fully the barriers and bridges to meaningful public participation and relate these perceptions to on-the-ground implementation. A primary goal is to understand how, over time, processes with unsatisfying outcomes shape the perceptions of the participants. Rather than focusing on one particular participatory process, this comparative study assesses participation over time to identify the limitations in the participatory environments of these two provinces. We take a qualitative research approach using semistructured interviews with 42 forestry stakeholders, combined with participant observation and document analysis. This research reveals: (1) the importance of historical and cultural context as ongoing power imbalances shape the current dialogue and spaces for participation; (2) periods of robust and sound attempts at public participation in both provinces, with disappointments in implementation giving rise to a sense of futility, a closed system, and mistrust of government and industry over time; (3) a system of privileged access in opposition to the ideals of deliberative democracy and an equitable decision-making process; (4) in New Brunswick, public land policy implementation that is not reflective of participatory processes or of interests outside government and industry; (5) in Nova Scotia, recent efforts to incorporate values outside the government-industry policy realm, demonstrating an attempt to shift toward a more collaborative system for public land management.