MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409877765 · doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103497

Integrating cultural perspectives in pro-sustainable-forest-management behavior: Evidence from Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal groups in Ontario, Canada

2025· article· en· W4409877765 on OpenAlex
Yiwen Zhang, Ilan Vertinsky

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueForest Policy and Economics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Education and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSustainable forest managementForest managementGeographyCultural diversitySustainabilityEnvironmental resource managementSocioeconomicsEnvironmental planningSociologyForestryEcologyAnthropologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Incorporating stakeholders' forest values, a key to Sustainable Forest Management (SFM), requires an understanding of stakeholders' beliefs and values and their relationships to pro-SFM behavior. In a cross-cultural context, it is essential to understand cultural differences in these attributes and relationships, and use culture-sensitive data elicitation and interpretation methods. We proposed a pro-SFM behavior model, that integrates the key elements of selected models pro-environmental behavior proposed in the environmental psychology and resource economics literature, to examine the role of assigned forest values (AFVs) and beliefs in pro-SFM behavior. We tested the model in the context of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal forest stakeholders in Ontario, Canada, using the data collected through surveys and field experiments in three Aboriginal and three non-Aboriginal communities. Our key findings are: (i) the rankings of different domains of AFVs are different among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal groups; (ii) for Aboriginal people, their AFVs assigned from the community perspective have significantly higher mean scores than their AFVs assigned from their individual/household's perspective; (iii) the community AFVs and the individual/household AFVs were the better predictors of pro-SFM behaviors for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal groups, respectively; and (iv) AFVs have significant mediation effects between environmental worldviews and pro-SFM behavior for non-Aboriginal people, while environmental worldviews directly influence pro-SFM behavior of Aboriginal people with no mediation through AFVs. The paper concludes with the implications of these results to SFM theories and practices and calls for incorporating cultural differences in designing SFM policies and practices. • Incorporating stakeholders' values is key to Sustainable Forest Management (SFM). • Reveal cultural variation in domain-specific assigned forest values (AFVs). • AFVs significantly mediate the effect of beliefs on pro-SFM behavior for non-Aboriginals. • Environmental worldviews directly affect pro-SFM behavior (no mediation) for Aboriginals. • SFM theories and practices should incorporate cultural variations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it