Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Mediated giants : giant tree frames and social movements in British Columbia media, 1986-92 Deckant, Devon 2014

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2014_spring_deckant_devon.pdf [ 554.06kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0103413.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0103413-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0103413-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0103413-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0103413-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0103413-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0103413-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0103413-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0103413.ris

Full Text

MEDIATED GIANTS: GIANT TREE FRAMES AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS IN  BRITISH COLUMBIA MEDIA, 1986-92  by Devon Deckant  B.A., The Ohio State University, 2010  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Sociology)   THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)  April 2014  © Devon Deckant, 2014 ii Abstract  Research shows how appeals to save charismatic megafauna have been used effectively as tools in campaigns for larger conservation-oriented projects.  However, analysis over parallel efforts with ‘charismatic megaflora’ – specifically giant trees – has largely been neglected.  During the contentious period of land use debates in British Columbia of the late 1980s and early 1990s, Wilderness Preservation Movement (WPM) activists mobilized for collective action against monolithic forestry corporations.  A rallying point for activists was spurred in part by the discovery of the largest Sitka Spruce trees in Canada, which were slated for clear-cut logging.  In a concerted effort to prevent this harvest and mobilize public support for broader preservation efforts, WPM actors engaged in media outlets to shape the debate – often through giant tree frames.  This research evaluates the framing of this land use debate around giant trees as an effective media outreach strategy for expanding support for preservation efforts, as well as exploring their underlying supportive frameworks.  Content and network analyses of sample news media articles spanning the period 1986-92 assess the construction, salience, and relationships of giant tree frames in coverage of WPM.  Analyses of a singular framing strategy reveal the efficacy of striking imagery as well as the repertoire of discursive tools underpinning efforts to communicate social movement ideals to larger audiences.  Results suggest that the construction of environmental problems is largely reliant upon scientific rationale, whereas economic and emotional appeals either contest or reinforce scientific claims.  Even with the ambivalent nature of science in constructing environmentalist claims, scientific framing successfully communicates environmental problem salience, potentially of import for contemporary collective action strategies.  iii Preface  The data used in this thesis was collected and analyzed for a separate research publication in collaboration with Dr. D.B. Tindall. Cormier, Jeffrey and David B. Tindall. 2005. “Wood Frames: Framing the Forests in British Columbia.” Sociological Focus 38: 1-24.  This preliminary analysis guided my own research project; I conducted subsequent coding and interpretation based off of the initial findings. iv Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii Preface ........................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vi List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. vii List of Symbols ........................................................................................................................... viii Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... ix Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... x Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 British Columbia Wilderness Preservation Case Study ................................................ 3 1.2 Symbolic Interaction and Social Construction of Nature ............................................. 6 1.2.1 Environmentalism and Science ....................................................................................... 7 1.3 Framing ............................................................................................................................ 10 1.3.1 Media and Framing ....................................................................................................... 12 1.3.2 Social Movements and Framing ................................................................................... 15 Chapter 2: Giant Trees in Mediated Contexts ......................................................................... 18 2.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 18 2.2 Results .............................................................................................................................. 20 2.2.1 Use of Science............................................................................................................... 22 2.2.2 Myth of Endless Forest ................................................................................................. 23 2.2.3 Ecosystems .................................................................................................................... 25 v 2.2.4 Risk Perception & Uncertainty ..................................................................................... 26 2.2.5 Science in Production ................................................................................................... 27 2.2.6 Economy & Instrumental Value ................................................................................... 28 2.2.7 Jobs & Worth ................................................................................................................ 30 2.2.8 Emotional & Descriptive Appeals ................................................................................ 31 2.2.9 Conflict ......................................................................................................................... 32 2.3 Giant Tree Frame Network ............................................................................................ 34 2.4 Discussion......................................................................................................................... 36 Chapter 3: Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 39 References .................................................................................................................................... 42   vi List of Tables Table 2.1 Summary of statistical associations between frames…………………………………21 vii List of Figures Figure 2.1 Network of frames……………………………………………………………………34  viii List of Symbols χ² ix Acknowledgements I gratefully acknowledge Dr. David Tindall for the opportunity to further contribute to his work on social-environmental issues, as well as his direction during this experience.  I am especially grateful to Dr. Rima Wilkes for her invaluably precise insights and her timely sensibilities.  Special thanks go to my graduate student cohort, family, and friends for putting up with me during these years. x Dedication    To the Point Grey Five     1 Chapter 1: Introduction Giant trees have long held a spotlight in the human imagination.  More recently, regional and international efforts to document, preserve, and experience giant trees have become prominent (c.f. BC Big Tree Registry 2011; Carder 2005).  While foresters, ecologists, and dendrologists have a history of studying giant trees and arguing for their importance (whether economic, ecological, or academic), social scientists have only more recently begun to identify them as an area of inquiry.  Interestingly, charismatic megafauna (large animals with large public appeal) have a history of analysis in environmental literature as not only capturing public attention and conjuring fascination, but also for the ways in which conservationists and ecotourist managers have utilized the public gaze to achieve other goals.  Indeed, appeals to save lions, pandas, or elephants masquerade the actual underpinnings of their campaigns, which are based in “saving” ecosystems, whether for continuation of biodiversity or of potential profits (Skibins, Powell, and Hallo 2013; Walpole and Leader-Williams 2002).  By framing ecological issues around captivating animals, conservation actors are able to shape both public discourse and potential outcomes.  Parallels with large, captivating plant life may seem intuitive; yet outside of the natural sciences, ‘charismatic megaflora’ are vastly understudied as ‘tools’ for other purposes, and more often are the subjects of arts, rather than social science, literature.  However, this process of framing – the selection of information and its salience (Entman 1993) – of giant trees requires further investigation. In the Pacific Northwest, the politics and economics of forests (and the giant trees therein) have been well documented in both media and academic circles (Wilkes and Ibrahim 2013; Stoddart 2005; Satterfield 2002; Tindall 2002; Stefanick 2001; Wilson 1998; Willems-Braun 1996).  With diverse stakeholders at play, it is perhaps unsurprising that achieving 2 compromise and common understanding has often been elusive in determining forest policy.  Myriad and heterogeneous interest groups are involved in land use policy dynamics, including the culturally sacred claims of First Nations, to dire economic arguments made by foresters and sawyers, to ecological assessments and models by researchers, and leisure pursuits of outdoor enthusiasts.  Even community-preferred aesthetics of forest management practices in British Columbia have been analyzed (Meitner 2008; Sheppard and Meitner 2005).  As with appeals around megafauna, these forest interest groups also participate in framing forest discourses with certain ends in mind.  Environmental activists have been particularly active in framing giant trees as endangered and worth saving, and so serve as a worthy case study in examining how frames serve larger communication functions.  Therefore these activists, specifically those promoting wilderness preservation through their framing of giant trees, have played a visible and critical role in shaping debates around (and outcomes for) forests in British Columbia.   Beginning in the 1970s and continuing through the end of the twentieth century, debates between environmentalists and members of the forestry industry over land use policies have involved often vitriolic confrontation in media outlets, rural extractive communities, and public lands themselves - including the largest act of civil disobedience in Canadian history (Stefanick 2001).  Knowing that diverse stakeholders contest forest management policy, it is critical to understand the motivations and action repertoires stemming from the ideologies of the actors involved - principally, environmentalists arguing for changes in land uses.  Perhaps the group with greatest internal dissensus around forest policy and values has been environmentalists, with divergent ethos and distinctions growing over time (Blühdorn 2000; Hannigan 1995).  It is likely that a singular ‘environmental framework’ draws more from analysts’ simplifications than actual 3 unity (Kirkman 2002). While the exploration of varieties within environmentalism is outside the purview of this paper, it is worth noting that activists (and members of most social groups) are often heterogeneous, even when referred to singularly (Rootes 2004; Carroll and Ratner 1996).  However, one common uniting goal of the movement within British Columbia during the 1980s and 1990s was in ‘protecting’ old growth forests in the province, largely through public outreach in media outlets.   Textual and network analyses of this concerted effort will explore this framing communication strategy.  This project analyzes frames as within a repertoire of tools and the relationship between claims-making devices that support the framing of giant trees. Further, this research analyzes how these frames exist within a discourse network, the practice of which is emerging in studies of media and social movements (c.f. Stoddart, Ramos and Tindall 2013; Mische 2003) and will illuminate aspects of the debate that are under analyzed. 1.1 British Columbia Wilderness Preservation Case Study The complex social, biological, and political dimensions of old growth forests arise from values and experiences in them, prompting a variety of ideological displays, including protest. Divergent forest values are at times theoretical or intellectual in nature, but they also have the potential to become hotly contested sites of physicality.  Conflicts over nature and appropriate land uses often stem from differential experiences and the resultant construction of differential values (Joubert and Davidson 2010).  Debates over forests have been waged with not only rhetoric but also angry and agitated bodies.  British Columbia, home to large forested areas (and particularly old growth temperate rainforest), has been the site of such heated confrontation (Tindall and Begoray 1993).  The western province derives much value from its natural resources, touting itself as the ‘best place on earth,’ and reaping the benefits from ecotourist, leisure sports, filming, agricultural and extractive industries.  With such vast wealth in its 4 boundaries and a relatively low population, BC enjoys the fruits of development (such as high quality of life and social services) while simultaneously maintaining natural areas (Wilson 1998).  However, the province has not been spared fierce debates over which areas to protect, how to properly manage and harvest resources on public lands, and whose claims to land access and rights are valid.   The 1980s saw the locus of environmental activism in British Columbia crystalize around land use issues involving wilderness preservation and forest tenure, prompted in part by stark visual imagery and experiences of clear-cut logging.  Specifically, giant Sitka Spruce (Picea sitchensis) trees discovered during the lead-up to proposed logging by MacMillan Bloedel, a major forestry corporation, in the Carmanah Valley on Vancouver Island became a rallying point for environmental activists (Wilson 1998), who denounced clear-cutting logging practices as irreparably denuding.  Conceptions of inexhaustible resources long proffered by industry and government policy were confronted by reports of diminished old-growth forests, setting the stage for greater conflict (Stefanick 2001).  While the proposed logging in Carmanah was quotidian by standards at the time, the grandeur of the site’s spruce stands triggered new levels of collective action and fomentation more generally.   Environmental activists discussed these spruces as “the tallest trees in Canada” and “taller than the Peace Tower” (among other things) in media outlets across the province and beyond, triggering a shift in conceptions of the forest as a resource base towards a threatened sanctuary in need of protection.  These striking images of giant trees promoted by environmental movement actors highlight a process called framing, a construction of meaning wherein values and ideologies are communicated to audiences (Snow and Benford 1988).  Through media outlets, movement actors constructed a discourse away from forest industry’s dominant, 5 rationalized views of old growth forest as “decadent” and “ready for harvest” towards “magical” and “ecologically vital” (Satterfield 2000).  While these old growth forests had typically represented the complex, precarious web of ecosystems to environmentalists, a deliberate effort was made to extend this paradigm to a broader audience through the use of frames.   In order to successfully garner public support, frames must resonate with public audiences, especially when challenging hegemonic ideas.  For the giant tree frame to be successful, movement actors needed to link it to audiences’ extant values (such as old growth forests as being ancient, spiritual places that are not easily replicated, or ecology being inherently complex and thus requiring a precautionary principle in intervention), a process referred to as frame amplification (Johnston and Noakes 2005).   This connection is vital in not only gaining rhetorical support, but also in motivating further action (Andrews and Caren 2010).  Environmental collective actors sought not only the protection of key landscapes (such as the Carmanah Valley and Clayoquot Sound), but also the phase out of clear-cut logging practices on public lands throughout the province (Wilson 1998). In the sense that environmental problems are constructed and not naturally occurring (Hannigan 1995), the wilderness preservation movement (WPM) successfully shifted the discourse on forestry issues and mobilized previously disengaged members of the public.  By elevating the value of giant trees and the clear-cutting threatening them, media coverage of movement members can be linked to support for shifts in provincial forestry practices and in recruiting new WPM adherents.  Due to these achievements and in the context of current environmental problem constructions in Canada, the practices of media and WPM actors retain significance for understanding current social movement strategies and the efficacy of using striking, singular imagery.  Therefore this project analyzes the role of giant tree frames in constructing environmental problems during the land use controversies in 6 British Columbia during the late 20th century.  In order to examine this topic, the following questions guide this research project:  1) How are giant tree frames discursively constructed in mobilizing environmental collective action? a) What rationales or rhetoric underpin this discourse? 2) How salient is the association between giant tree frames and other supportive frames in the larger discourse? The following sections outline the theoretical underpinnings of the research proposal, including (1) the social construction of nature stemming from symbolic interaction and (2) the role of science in environmental discourse.  Following this is a discussion of framing in social science literature, as well as how these processes function in the larger arenas of mass media and social movements.    1.2 Symbolic Interaction and Social Construction of Nature Before frame analysis and movement participation can be examined in this case study, it is important to understand how framing processes work within the larger construction of nature.  Discussion of social construction is couched within the larger theoretical framework of symbolic interaction.  Drawing on the works of Blumer, Mead, Berger and Luckmann and other theorists, symbolic interaction involves action based in the assumption that objects are meaningful, which arises out of a shared interaction with other holders of our assumptions (Weigert 1997).  Thus, meanings are sustained and emergent within our interactions with others (both selves and objects) through a process of continuous construction.  In the case of 7 environmental interaction, this process of construction begins with the distinction of humans as being separate from nature, rather than as derivative from it.   Drawing from Enlightenment period distinctions, “symbol-using humans selectively construct their environments through cognitive and emotional processes that guide action on the natural world by transforming it into cultural categories” (Weigert 1997: 22).  Recent documentation of environmental social construction in Canada includes the framing of farmed fish as products rather than naturally occurring species (Schreiber, Matthews and Elliot 2003) and the role of wildlife in constructing wilderness consumption recreation (Stoddart 2011).  Thus interactions with nature and others who experience it within similar cultural constructs give rise to meaningful interpretations of the ‘world out there,’ rather than stemming from individual assessments. Meanings as constructs does not necessarily imply that nothing exists outside of social production, but rather that our understandings are shaped by factors other than simply those inherent in objects (Yearly 2005; Hannigan 1995).  This framework for constructing nature extends to the construction of problems within it, such that environmental problems are also derived through collective social processes (Taylor 2000).  Within this cultural construction, values are attributed to symbols that people collectively perceive and interact with, further shaping their future interactions and interpretations.     1.2.1 Environmentalism and Science Forests have long elicited values in human societies, which have in turn evaluated them along varying metrics (i.e., science, economics, risk, wilderness, exclusion, retreat).  These valuations have followed somewhat definable trajectories, but are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  However, values regarding forests and the natural resources that comprise them are 8 more divergent than coherent by their nature.  These conflicting viewpoints stem from the diversity of ecosystems themselves, as well as that found among human populations.  Indeed, the context of forest values inheres in the social production of meaning and symbols that shapes the way humans interpret the world.  These processes of production are not simply limited to lay understandings or cultural models, but also are inclusive of scientific and economic valuations.  Since science is one dominant framework for organizing environmentalist (as well as government and industry) constructions, it is important to understand how science is constructed as well. A social constructionist perspective suggests that all meanings are socially produced and shared among social actors (Berger and Luckmann 1967), including the construction of scientific ‘facts’ (Hannigan 1995).   Studies of science as a social construction focus on processes underpinning scientists’ interpretations of observations (Latour and Woolgar 1979).    These productions impact not only our understandings and valuations of ecological settings, but also are determinants of ecological health and function to the extent that they inform policy or management decisions and trigger environmental reactions (Weigert 1997).  Scientific constructions are further used to underpin lay claims about forest health, management, and function; indeed, both environmentalists and forestry workers draw on scientific evaluations in support of their rhetoric (Yearley 2005; Satterfield 2002).  The scientific method of evaluation is focused and systemic, but it is still comprised of social constructions of real events and organisms (Hannigan 1995). In this way, understanding the salience of science as a basis of social forest values can help to illuminate the resultant status of forests while highlighting knowledge diffusion processes.  However, science is sometimes an unruly ally for environmentalists hoping to claim its authority, since the scientific reliance on evidence and empiricism can give leverage to skeptics hoping to undermine scientific claims (Kirkman 9 2002).  Drawing on Weber’s observations, science has supported an increasingly rationalized view of nature over time (Kalberg 1980), such that resources come to be viewed for their potential use by humans in efficient production.  Often scientific claims concerning forestry and sustainable management are looked upon for proof of environmentalists’ claims or as the basis of a firm’s ethical practices; however, science is not the arbiter of truth, nor can it be (Oresekes 2004).   Even when environmental concerns are given precedence, sustainability is still an essentially contextual and contested concept (Thompson 2011).   The use of science is ambivalent then for environmentalists who rely on it for support while also drawing on affect and other emotional appeals, such that: “the necessity of filling in scientific versions of the human situation is rooted in the realization that all descriptions, explanations, and interpretations of the natural environment and its relationships to human fate are themselves social constructions from institutional science and organizational policy” (Weigert 1997: 156). Emotional and other extra-scientific appeals serve to bridge the gaps of support science leaves open for environmentalists. With many intervening variables tied into forests, priorities and preferences among public stakeholders can be hard to determine - allowing a space for conflict to arise.  The interests of community members in long-term employment stability for their neighbors, partners, or themselves can often bristle with environmentalist sentiment.  During the controversy over wilderness preservation in British Columbia, logging held massive sway over local and provincial economies, largely informing positive public viewpoints on the issue (Stefanick 2001).  As Weigart (1997) argues, people are often not wantonly destroying their environments, nor are they totally apathetic about their negative contributions.  It is more likely the case that many environmentally degrading processes are inhered in complex socio-economic systems 10 which construe society, such as the logging and forest products industries in the Pacific Northwest.  Even when appeals to scientific facts provide stability for environmental arguments against these denuding systems, science cannot provide other legitimation to claims based in emotion or justice, such that “even if it is possible to have reliable knowledge of nature and of the human relationship with nature, it doesn't necessarily follow that we can derive moral obligations from that knowledge” (Kirkman 2002: 126).  It is often the case that environmental activists must make broader cultural appeals to connect to moral frameworks which potential supporters might align with in order to drum up popular support for policy change. Cultural meanings have vast implications for the environment then, wherein fluctuations among economic or moral valuations of the natural environment have largely been determined by the cultural context in which they are evaluated (Fourcade 2011). Efforts to convince public audiences of the value (scientific or otherwise) of natural resources have often been accomplished successfully through engagement with media outlets.  This engagement in discourse is certainly an active and nuanced process, such as the strategic use of giant tree frames by environmentalists in British Columbia during the period of clear-cutting controversy.  1.3 Framing Frames are meaning-making constructions, not static ends (Benford 1997), which are used as complex interpretive schema for encoding one’s experiences and environment (Jonhston and Noakes 2005).  In this way, frames can be thought of as representing their physical analogues, highlighting certain aspects of a phenomenon or idea while obscuring others.  As Entman (1993) notes, “Most frames are defined by what they omit as well as include, and the omissions of potential problem definitions, explanations, evaluations, and recommendations may 11 be as critical as the inclusions in guiding the audience” (54).  In the WPM era, framing strategies were utilized by actors from both wilderness and production land use standpoints, such that constructions of either ‘preserve’ or ‘working forest’ shaped media discourse.  The engagement between wilderness and production frames was hotly contested in public debates.   Frames, or specific interpretations of the world, are not constructed sui generis, but rather serve as a proxy for pre-existing values (Snow, Rochford, Worden, and Benford 1986), stem from larger ideologies (Johnston and Noakes 2005; Benford and Snow 2000) and must connect to extant audience dispositions while acknowledging contextual barriers (Johnston and Noakes 2005).  Frame analysis is useful for studying the ways in which social movement actors construct meaning by elucidating internal cognitive processes in media texts for engaging in public discourse (Benford and Snow 2000; Entman 1993). Resonant frames as those which are successfully produced in public outlets with mass access or appeal.  Due to this accessibility, frames serve to shape audience perceptions and “in operating in this fashion, these punctuated issues, beliefs, and events may function much like synecdoches, bringing sharp relief and symbolizing the larger frame or movement of which it is a part” (Benford and Snow 2000, 623).  By focusing the scope for public audiences, frames influence public perceptions through issue selection and salience (Entman 1993); in the case of WPM, activists and their antagonists shared their particular conceptions of forests through mass media.  Essentially, framing allows movement actors to expound their values to a larger audience in order to garner support. Facing extant political and cultural barriers, WPM actors dealt with opponents’ reactionary strategies (Benford and Snow 2000), including counterframes of rational production and control of nature proffered by logging industry representatives and the Ministry of Forests (Wilson 1998). As Schreiber, Matthews and Elliott (2003) note, the rational control of nature 12 frame functions to shape “actions on nature [so that they] are not only viewed as means to an end, but their consequences can be anticipated and carefully taken into account” (156).  This construction of meaning obfuscates the inherent uncertainty of intervening in (natural) systems such that industry, government, or other actors can exercise authority over otherwise precarious scenarios.  As has been highlighted by opponents of the counterframe, this rationality is antithetical to ecological and environmentalist sensibilities.  Opponents’ reactionary strategies are not the only factors influencing movement framing efforts, as media outlets contribute significantly in message construction.  1.3.1 Media and Framing Mass media is an important institution in reality construction, including understandings of the environment.  Which phenomena come to be understood as problematic is often defined by major institutions (Wilkes and Ricard 2007), since the public largely relies on mass media as a source of new information, particularly relating to scientific news and issues (Suleski and Ibaraki 2010).  Further, lay evaluations of the environment typically overlook underpinning issues, underscoring the need for ‘officiating’ institutions.  However, environmental issues are also social issues, even if the connections between the two are less often articulated (Holling 2001).  Even as other channels of communication proliferate, media remain dominant sources of influence for public perception and information (Pew 2006).  During the WPM period, debates over problem definition occurred primarily in mass media as many movement organizations did not disseminate their own forms of media.  While some WPM groups (i.e., Western Canada Wilderness Committee) did publish and distribute newsletters and other media, the audience potential is much lower, such that “the modern mass media have become central to the life and 13 death of social movements” (Johnston and Noakes 2005: 116).  However, relying solely on mass media for information about social and environmental issues is problematic.  The importance or urgency of socio-environmental issues is not accurately reported in the media since factors other than salience influence reporting (Herman and Chomsky 1988) and media outlet differences can vastly affect types of coverage (Fahmy 2010).  Further, mass media frames are affected by journalistic practice and the logics of the press cycle (Scheufele 1999), including publication pressures, word limits, and editorial input.  During the BC land use controversy of the 1980s-90s, media coverage played a central role in forming and disseminating viewpoints of commentators on both sides of the issue.  However, mass media are not merely message conveyors, but influential in framing strategies of their own (Corrigall-Brown and Wilkes 2012; Wilkes, Corrigall-Brown and Ricard 2010).  A critical constructionist perspective incorporates the role of elites in informing social problem construction, highlighting how institutions such as media influence how and when collectivities define situations as problematic (Heiner 2002).  The influential role of forestry in the BC economy arguably also influenced the presence of productive forest frames seen as countering WPM media outreach.  These processes highlight the power dynamics at play in reality construction, wherein media coverage of events outlines the political dimensions of the phenomenon covered (Entman 1993).  Since many media audiences were physically removed from contested forest sites in BC, a mediated reality was their only gaze into the forest debate, elevating the importance of how the situation was defined. Given these limiting influences, the influential role of media in shaping public opinion is recognized by those seeking to shape it; namely, environmental activists purposely engage with media outlets to garner support for their causes (Malinick, Tindall and Diani 2013; Stoddart, 14 Ramos and Tindall 2013; Cormier and Tindall 2005; Stoddart 2005; Satterfield 2002; Wilson 1998).  Specifically, WPM activists framed giant trees in old growth forests in terms which served to prevent logging companies from accessing lands legally entitled to them.  This process aligns with Johnston and Noakes’ (2005) observation that “[m]edia exposure is an external resource for social movement mobilization, and media outlets tend to be more open to some aspects of collective action frames, such as charges of injustice” (19). In BC land use debates, WPM actors’ outrage over ‘business as usual’ clear-cutting of the tallest trees identified in Canada was framed as an imminent act of injustice.  These activist framing efforts are purposeful in that they are engaged in active processes of meaning construction with certain ends in mind (Benford and Snow 2000). In the context of this research, activists’ efforts were aimed at mobilizing movement support urgently to prevent the permanent loss of these perceived symbolic national treasures.   Further, modification of frames often hinges on target audiences to the extent that movements’ intended audiences help to shape the contexts in which they are constructed.   This locates media as an arena where frame contests occur between movement actors and countermovement forces (Benford 1997), highlighting the utility of analyzing media sources in understanding how the battle is waged.   While the ability of environmental frames in spurring protection was arguably successful, most documented victories occurred primarily in the legal-political realm. For example, clear-cutting practices have declined dramatically since the 1990s, areas of significant value (cultural, ecological, or aesthetic) have been preserved, and government policy has incorporated greater ecological principles (Wilson 1998).  However, environmental frames ostensibly influenced individuals at a more personal level, which can be viewed as a further success for movement actors in the project of embellishing identities of 15 collaboration (Benford and Snow 2000), laying the ideological groundwork for future social movement issues.   1.3.2 Social Movements and Framing Social movement scholars (c.f. MacAdam, McCarthy, and Zald 1996; Diani 1996) have used frame analysis to analyze myriad movements since Goffman (1974) first discussed the approach.  Drawing on Swidler’s (1986) concept of culture as a toolkit, framing functions within social movements as one of many tools which people use in constructing meaning, especially during times of contest or conflict.  The wilderness preservation movement was certainly shaped by the larger political and institutional cultures within which it operated.  However, the rather anemic (if not hostile) political environment, as well as the modest organizational resources available during the time period (Wilson 1998), highlight the impact of cognitive-cultural efforts (including framing) exerted in movement activities.   Building upon political process and resource mobilization models, cognitive-cultural framing perspectives of social movements emphasize the importance of symbolic and constructivist employs of movement actors (Benford and Snow 2000).   As Oliver and Johnston (in Johnston and Noakes 2005) note, “frames have been treated as both fixed and emergent” (188) in studies of social movements, wherein scholars either analyzed frames as snapshots in time or as processes of definition construction. While both perspectives have proven useful, this research views frames as part of an ongoing process of negotiation and discursive engagement with various audiences; the multi-year time frame of sample media articles enables capturing of emergent meanings.  Given this context, this research explores social movement co-construction and dissemination of giant tree frames, rather than analyzing forest policy or WPM resource flows.   16 Communication of social movement values and ideologies in media occurs through frame bridging (Snow et al. 1986), wherein actors seek to tie into symbols that resonate with intended audiences.  The Pacific Northwest is a place where many enjoy the outdoors and share a concern for environmental issues,  such that frame amplification during the WPM attempted to link ecocentric values to symbolism about logging corporations as evil or monolithic and nature as being worthy of protection from their greed.  Satterfield (2002) observes that similar land use contests in Oregon are based in and expressed through “imagined ideal worlds, with the creative manipulation of political discourse, the assertion of moral priorities and identities, and with how activists on both sides appropriate linguistic and symbolic tools in order to promote a cultural world that reflects their quests for change” (4).  These mediated battles highlight the very constructed, or ‘imagined,’ natural world in which they seemingly took place, in which symbols work as powerful tools to achieve desired ends.  The interplay between actors seeking to define the situation as either problematic or inflated highlights the continuous, discursive practices that constitute our understandings of the environment (Blühdorn 2000; Doyle, Elliott and Tindall 1997; MacAdam et al. 1996) as well as the arena media provides for public debate with institutional opponents (Gamson 2007). The utility of frame analysis within social movements is in highlighting how these tools are used in media texts to resonate with public audiences, and trigger further collective action (Benford 1993).  The symbolic appeals to public audiences amount to a type performance by movement actors, hoping such activities will trigger reactions among larger populations (MacAdam et al. 1996) with frames shaping interpretations of reality, and “meaning [being] prefatory to action” (Benford 1997, 410) – a necessary stage for initiating mobilization (Klandermans and Oegema 1987).  The collective aspect of this construction is important for 17 actors to realize common goals – since a shared understanding of the situation as a problem is necessary in order to advocate action (Benford and Snow 2000).  Further, these commonalities shape not only definitions of the situation as problematic and fixable, but also serve to change individuals’ self-perceptions and identities.  This latter effect points to the ability of movement actors to recruit potential allies, and ultimately greater membership in environmental causes or organizations.  In other words, collective action movements have both individual and structural implications, not only for identity but also political activity through social movements and activism.  Given the constructed nature of environment, and the roles of media and social movement actors in shaping it, what can an analysis of giant tree frames in media coverage of WPM highlight about framing strategies and outcomes?     18 Chapter 2: Giant Trees in Mediated Contexts 2.1 Methodology In order to analyze the discursive construction and salience of giant tree frames, this project uses a mixed methods approach (Cresswell 2003) to explore the association patterns between frames and interpret the meanings of these relationships. To address the research questions, mixed methodologies are utilized since quantitative measurements of frame frequency expose their prevalence, but insufficiently expound on how or why the frame might be used, underscoring the importance of a contextual reading.  Since the environmental movement is a complex interplay of individual and organizational ideologies, as well as being mediated through journalism and politics, mixed methodologies expand upon the phenomenon with the strengths of both domains (Cresswell 2003).  This mixed approach incorporated content analyses (Krippendorf 2004) of context and frequency as well as network analysis of frame ties and centrality, allowing for a broader understanding of media portrayals of land use debates through the giant trees.   Network analysis draws on insights of other scholars utilizing the approach to understand structural patterns in culture (Mische 2003; Mohr and Duquenne 1997; Breiger 1974). Sample articles (N=957) were published in national and regional newspapers and magazines during the period of logging controversy, between 1986 and 1992.  Publication outlets include B.C. Report, The Globe and Mail, Maclean’s, Monday Magazine, Victoria Times Colonist, and Vancouver Sun; outlets were selected due to their scope of coverage and representation of varying editorial leanings.  In order to generate a sample for analysis, news articles were queried by searching keywords, with locations and topics serving as search criteria including: “Carmanah,” “Walbran,” “Clayoquot,” “Logging and BC,” “Forestry and BC,” 19 “Timber and BC,” “Environment$ and BC,” “Conservation and BC,” “Park$ and BC” ($ is a wildcard character) (c.f. Cormier and Tindall 2005).  Keywords served the function of not only culling sample articles, but also in structuring preliminary content analysis. This resulted in a subset (N=61) with occurrence of either ‘giant tree’ or ‘tallest tree’ frames.  This subset serves as a slice of the larger mediated wilderness preservation debate, focusing specifically on instances where giant tree frames are utilized to various ends.  Sample news articles were coded and resultant data were input into Access software for initial analysis; later, the articles were uploaded into Nvivo software for further coding. Preliminary coding was performed by prior researchers, whose established keywords structured subsequent coding rounds.  A set of articles was coded by four researchers to establish inter-coder reliability (Lombard, Snyder-Dutch and Bracken 2004). For example, a 75% reliability score means three coders agreed on how a selection of text was coded.  In terms of inter-coder reliability, at the 75% level, the reliability coefficient is .81 for “world’s largest spruce tree” and 1 for “giants”. At the 100% inter-coder reliability level, the reliability coefficient is .63 for “world’s largest spruce tree” and .89 for “giants.”   The latent, contextual coding process was iterative, building upon extant keywords and involving concurrent memo writing as themes developed.  The thematic coding process involved initial use of broader categories with subsequent secondary (or more nuanced) categories; in some cases, extant keywords were reconceptualized as a smaller part of a broader category.  These thematic coding categories involved rhetorical uses of rationalization, types of experiences in wilderness settings, and frameworks for structuring the debate. For example, a broader top-level category such as use of science (coded initially for any scientific iteration) was subdivided 20 into second level categories myth of endless forest (a specific use of science) and risk perception & uncertainty (originally coded as unknowns or need to protect for scientific study).   Content analysis (Krippendorf 2004) continued with measurements of relationships between frames generated through SPSS analyses.  Crosstabulation and Pearson’s chi-square (χ²) tests measured associations between frames identified as important in the giant tree repertoire.  Chi-square tests are used to determine association between two categorical variables; significant associations between variables indicates the likelihood of variables (which in this study are frames) being related more often.  In this sense, a significant association (measured with an alpha of .05) indicates that two frames are significantly patterned, such that the frequency of joint occurrence in articles is purposeful to some end in communication and less likely a product of chance.  Lastly, the network of frames was also analyzed with Ucinet software to visualize relationships between them in the larger mediated land use debate.  Frames are represented as nodes, with size indicating centrality within sample media and shape indicating which rationale the frame relies upon.  Ties, or the connections between nodes, indicate frequency of connections between frames through thickness.  2.2 Results Giant tree frames exist within a larger repertoire of framing strategies conveying appropriate land uses, the crux of which is based in a preservation-production dialectic.  In this construction of environmental problems, scientific framings are the most prominent.  However scientific frames form a subset of a larger repertoire of framing strategies, including economic, emotional, and conflictual - altogether framing the discourse around wilderness land uses.  Below, analyses of these frames are separated according to coding categories with the objective 21 to present the patterned relationship of frames and then discuss the meanings of these relationships.  To achieve this, the strategy for analysis presents first a summary of statistical associations between frames, followed by more in-depth interpretation highlighted by examples from media texts (articles are indicated by coding labels, notated as Year-#). Network analysis of this framing discourse concludes this section.  Table 2.1 Summary of statistical associations between frames Summary of Statistical Associations Between Frames1       Giant Trees Frame Present? χ2  No Yes When below  frame is present: f % f % Use of science 12 41.4 17 58.6 148.08**** Myth of endless forest 163 90.6 17 9.4 4.82* Ecosystems 33 66 17 34 74.07**** Risk perception & uncertainty 66 79.5 17 20.5 34.24**** Science in production 216 90.4 23 9.6 7.65** Economy & instrumental value 18 66.7 9 33.3 37.18**** Jobs & worth 130 87.8 18 12.2 12.04**** Emotional & descriptive appeals 16 76.2 5 23.8 12.22**** Conflict 23 74.2 8 25.8 22.54**** Civil disobedience 22 95.7 1 4.3 .11 Notes: 1. For communication reasons the table does not include cells where frame is not present, but the χ2 take this into consideration.          * ≤ .05 ** ≤.01 *** ≤ .005 **** ≤.001 22 2.2.1 Use of Science The use of science frame emerged from coding any mention of a scientific process, terminology, or rationale.  When use of science frames are present, giant trees frames are present (59%) more often than absent (41%); this frequency of association is higher (f=17) than expected (f=1.7) within the marginal distribution, indicating that these frames are statistically associated. When measured quantitatively, the association between use of science and giant trees is statistically significant with χ² = 148.083, and p. ≤ .001.  Science is used as the major supportive frame for wilderness promotion, although production-side uses are found as well.  Much of science’s credence in these articles owes to its seemingly objective stance; commonly indicators of loss (i.e., species diversity, watershed health) or measurements of length (i.e., time for forest maturation) given by biologists or other scientists are used in rebuttal to industry or forester claims over licensing rights or jobs.  For example, in discussions over a new committee charged with overseeing wilderness designation for giant tree ecosystems, a non-science expert committee is debased by a wilderness NGO director: “I’m sure everyone on that committee has good intentions, but they won’t have the scientific information at their fingertips to make a rational decision” (1991-30). Another variant of this includes “waiting for science” to determine proper land use (1990-63).   In this way, science is used as a rational framework for constructing the wilderness preservation debate by providing ‘factual’ groundings through measurements or expertise; it is also used as a counter argument against market logics driving logging practices.  This top-level frame further links giant trees to global social-environmental interactions.  For example, calls for sustainable forestry practices like those practiced in Austria are made (1990-45), as well as vivid imagery warning of potential deforestation like that experienced in Ethiopia (1990-16); and 23 further comparisons to similarly high levels of biomass and biodiversity in Brazil (1990-26).  These reports frame science as a universally respected evaluative framework, such that a scientific standpoint connects disparate places, and this empirical evidence suggests a need for changes in BC.    2.2.2 Myth of Endless Forest                  A second-level code stemming from use of science, the ‘myth’ of inexhaustible resources long proffered by industry and government policy is confronted in reports of diminishing old-growth forests.  When myth of endless forest frames are present, giant trees frames are present (9.4%) less often than absent (90.6%); but this frequency of association is higher (f=17) than expected (f=10.7) within the marginal distribution, providing evidence of a statistical association. The relationship between myth of endless forest and giant trees is statistically significant with χ² = 4.816 and p. ≤ .05. Classifying this code as myth draws upon others’ critical viewpoints of growth-based capitalist economies (Wessels 2006), which view natural resources as plentiful enough to always meet human wants and needs and is tightly coupled with ideas about human innovation and rational planning.  This mythology still largely informs mainstream economic assumptions, while ecologists view earth systems as linear (and thus capable of collapse) and paradoxically threatened by technological advancement (Polimeni, Mayumi, Giampeitro and Alcott 2008).  This viewpoint is typically shared by WPM proponents, promoting giant trees as rare and threatened by over-consumption.  Often dramatic descriptive language is used to convey the message of this myth: “British Columbia’s virgin forests are entering the final phase of liquidation. According to the government, the province will have harvested its last wild forest in about 70 years” (1988-13). Phrasing giant trees as meeting their 24 ‘final’ or exhausted state through ‘liquidation’ emphasizes the mythic aspect of industry plans for continued harvest, which one Haida leader described as struggling through an “ecological crisis” (1990-26).   The myth frame is also an area of contestation, wherein commentators question the ideology and subsequent ‘facts’ stemming from beliefs about inexhaustible resources, with an ethnobotanist (and former forester) commenting: “Sixty per cent have been cut in B.C. . . . almost all of that in my lifetime,” he said. “In 20 years, the environmentalists say, the old-growth forests of B.C. will be no more. The government counters: ‘No, you’re wrong. We’ll have them for another 60 years’” (1990-26).  Further contests are evidenced in proposals to change forest management funding, emphasizing a need to shift away from plans based in economics rather than ecology. Forestry practices based on profit resulted in a large stock of old giant trees with rapidly declining value while unharvested, increasing the pressure to log without adequate middle-aged trees for replacement. This situation is referred to as a “straightjacket” scenario due to overestimating forest loads based on the myth frame (1986-04).  Differential timber estimates are blamed on government and industry metrics in several other articles (1987-10; 1987-05), and concern is voiced from loggers over declining tree counts and the devastating effect a shortfall would cause on local forest resource bases (1986-05; 1986-06; 1986-08).  Some criticism is targeted at the ways in which the myth had been codified into the structure of tree farm licenses, which require certain cuts to be made regardless of ecological evidence (1986-09).  Overall, this frame contests dominant economic arguments of rational control, discussed further below.    25 2.2.3 Ecosystems Ecosystems, a second-level frame connected to use of science, links the impacts of clear-cutting on interdependent species and processes, such as habitat and watershed losses.  When ecosystems frames are present, giant trees frames are present (34%) less often than absent (66%); but this frequency of association is higher (f=17) than expected (f=3) within the marginal distribution, providing evidence of a statistical association. The relationship between ecosystems and giant trees is statistically significant, with χ² = 74.073 and p. ≤  .001.  Frequent use of ecological terms include descriptions of forests as being in climax, the role of decomposition, virginal status (i.e., never logged), old-growth status and measurements of biomass.  More detailed explorations of ecosystems emphasize the connections between giant trees and other life forms, specifically using giant trees as leverage to shift discussion to the whole forest resource base, such as calling for gathering data on impacts of harvesting, fire, and insects (1994-14).  Ecosystems frames are used extensively for wilderness preservation advocates.  For example, the forest ecosystem containing giant trees is discussed in terms of sensitivity and species interconnectivity, thus ‘requiring’ large areas of preservation for their continued survival (1987-11).   Media coverage of giant tree discovery in a relatively unknown forest plot increased their public visibility, resulting in high rates of visitation. Highlighting giant tree frames served to increase not only willingness to save the trees but also to see them, with the ironic consequence of trampling their root systems, thereby endangering them: “Today, two years after it was discovered and named the tallest tree in Canada, it is in danger of being killed by human curiosity” (1990-63). Here and in other reports (1990-62, 1990-68), the fragility of ecosystems based in human impacts is emphasized.  Preservation goals are rationalized through the larger 26 detrimental effects of human intervention, thus expanding the debate beyond the giant trees themselves.    2.2.4 Risk Perception & Uncertainty  Another second level scientific framing strategy involves ideas around uncertainty and the unknowns of intervening in old-growth forest systems.  These ideas resonate with perceptions of risk and how individuals and institutions differentially evaluate potential outcomes.  When uncertainty frames are present, giant trees frames are present (20.5%) less often than absent (79.5%); but this frequency of association is higher (f=17) than expected (f=4.9) within the marginal distribution, providing evidence of a statistical association. The relationship between uncertainty and giant trees is significant with χ² = 34.235 and p. ≤  .001.  These supportive frames are linked to other scientific subsets, including the need for larger areas of preservation to prevent losing giant trees through processes of erosion or windfall (1988-24).  Further, industry harvest plans codified in licensing are criticized for lacking “flexibility,” or being able to accommodate an uncertain future and therefore threatening the resource base (1986-04). A former forester is quoted as being “disillusioned” with the forestry industry compared to his educational background in ecology, observing a sharp disconnect between the practices of the former and the ideas of the latter (1988-13).  Proponents of wilderness preservation attempted to address this gap with a plan that involves a “rational, structured method for removing a great deal of fear and uncertainty from …both wilderness advocates & forestry industry” (1986-02), since science is ‘reliable.’   Of particular emphasis within the uncertainty category is the unknown species and processes inherent to old growth forests, including assertions from an entomologist that “The 27 basic questions haven’t been answered, but we’re losing these forests at a rapid rate” (1990-16) and further that “We don’t even know about all the inhabitants in the valley and yet we’re willing to destroy it without looking. That’s wrong” (1991-17).  This moral evaluation is linked to activist determination “that the secrets of the ancient forest won’t vanish with his generation” (1988-13) if wilderness preservation is achieved.  Scientific expertise is used to reinforce this evaluation of risk involved in clear-cutting, such that the chief biologist and ethnologist of the Royal British Columbia Museum assures “find[ing] new (insect) species for Canada. I’m not saying Carmanah is special, it’s just that old growth forests on the coast are so poorly known. The whole forest from the ground right up to the top is not well known . . . I can’t believe we won’t find a number of new things” (1990-60).  Overall, these ideas of preservation are rooted in ideas about protection for scientific study and precaution over unintended futures.    2.2.5 Science in Production Use of science within industry and production frameworks is also found; here, science is used to describe controversial forestry methods.  When science in production frames are present, giant trees frames are present (9.6%) less often than absent (90.4%); but this frequency of association is higher (f=23) than expected (f=14.2) within the marginal distribution, providing evidence of a statistical association. The relationship between science in production and giant trees is significant with χ² = 7.649 and p. ≤ .01.  The predominant method during the study period, clear-cutting is presented by one journalist as “an appropriate method of logging” with reference to avoiding “a degraded genetic reservoir” stemming from alternative selective harvesting methods (1990-09).  Further, local ecologies are discussed as benefitting from the practice, since “some species, such as Douglas fir, do not regenerate well after selective logging, 28 because they cannot grow in deep shade” (1990-09). The scientific rationale provided for clear-cutting, especially given the regional varieties of trees, juxtaposes the more common economic construction of the practice.  Scientific claims of deep-rootedness and selective clear-cutting near the giants so as to protect them for viewing also underpins industry promotion (1988-15) and counteracts typical uses of science in decrying the practice.   Further, industry rebuts accusations of pure economics-based plans, stating that resource management will incorporate identification of “how much old growth will be preserved; determine the effects of logging on soil stability and watershed quality; show how the integrity of the areas to be reserved from logging would be preserved; and indicate how the logging will proceed” (1988-20).  Audiences are to be reassured that going forward, science will inform industry action.  In coverage two years later, industry executives criticize government preservation proposals, accusing the decision as being “based on politics, not on good forest management or sustainable development” (1990-61).  These scientific production claims directly contest the myth of endless resources frame offered by wilderness proponents, offering insight into the ambivalent nature of science in environmental problem construction.  However, science is not the only rationale utilized by industry, with economic rhetoric rounding out the production repertoire.  2.2.6 Economy & Instrumental Value  Counterbalancing science frames, economy is a major supportive frame under production-side discourse.  Here, giant trees are framed almost exclusively in terms of their instrumental value, or how much worth they possess according to economic metrics.  When economy & instrumental value frames are present, giant trees frames are present (33.3%) less 29 often than absent (66.7%); but this frequency of association is higher (f=9) than expected (f=1.6) within the marginal distribution, providing evidence of a statistical association. The relationship between instrumental value and giant trees is significant with χ² = 37.177 and p. ≤ .001.  Unlike other nuanced approaches, the economy frame simplifies giant trees along a solely monetary plane: “For taxpayers, saving these special trees will mean spending millions of dollars to compensate MB, which has legal rights to timber on the publicly- owned lands” or “the park would mean a $600,000-a-year loss in timber revenues for government coffers”(1990-61).  In these instances, land use designation for preserving the giant trees results in losses for the public rather than forestry corporations or their employees; mentions of potential gains are excluded. This focus on economic losses shifts discourse rather than addressing scientific or other disputes.   Numerous examples of per-log monetary evaluations of giant trees exist; these are often connected to larger economic structures. For example, reports of giant trees along Carmanah Creek are almost identically framed: “Any one of them is worth $40,000 on the ground. Processed through a mill their value more than doubles” (1990-60) and “MacMillan Bloedel says a single big spruce here could be worth $40,000 merely as a log on the ground. Hauled out and processed its value would rise dramatically” (1988-13). In this way, giant trees are framed as commodities, furthered by industry’s efforts to construct the forest as “a kind of farmland for growing trees” (1989-17).  Commodification of the forest rationalizes ‘nature’ along Weberian lines, and removes other human value inherent in their protection or harvest, and thus logging them is the best possible use.    30 2.2.7 Jobs & Worth  Beyond individual valuations, connections between giant trees and the larger economy of jobs and worth structure this discourse. When jobs & worth frames are present, giant trees frames are present (12.2%) less often than absent (87.8%); but this frequency of association is higher (f=18) than expected (f=8.8) within the marginal distribution, providing evidence of a statistical association. The relationship between jobs and worth and giant trees is significant with χ² = 12.04 and p. ≤ .001.  For example, connections to employment and subsequent income are made: “MacMillan Bloedel argues that harvesting trees in the valley will sustain about 300 jobs and contribute $12.8-million annually to the economy” (1989-17). This framing commonly positions jobs as being more important (i.e., valuable) than trees – and rarer given that tree farming practices ‘renew’ resources in a way that cannot be done with jobs. Even grander projections of forestry’s impacts are used: “For decades, the giant Sitka spruce, red cedar, cypress and hemlock trees in the coastal rain forest have been the foundation of the B.C. economy, pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into Government coffers and providing thousands of jobs” (1987-10).   The debate over Carmanah Valley and its giants is further connected to larger economic structures with broader appeal, in what may be seen as attempts to instill public support: “Industry argues logging the valley is too valuable an option to pass up, worth $12.8 million to the Canadian economy” (1990-60).  The production side of the discourse can directly impugn its wilderness opposites, such as forests being “more than just gymnasiums for the soul,” with their removal from the market risking “more than $12-billion worth of products last year, […] 85,000 jobs in the forest industry itself, thousands of jobs in the service industry and countless other jobs that depend on the prosperity those workers bring to their communities” (1989-16).  This 31 phrasing of preservation as a profligate pursuit further underpins the rational claims of job and profit creation stemming from forest industries, epitomizing the instrumental value frame.    2.2.8 Emotional & Descriptive Appeals Emotional appeals are broadly resonant to audiences since emotions are universally experienced (albeit in different ways); arguably this is more so the case than scientific or economic appeals, with technicalities appealing to smaller audiences (despite those larger forces having universal impacts).  When emotional & descriptive appeals frames are present, giant trees frames are present (23.8%) less often than absent (76.2%); but this frequency of association is higher (f=5) than expected (f=1.3) within the marginal distribution, providing evidence of a statistical association. The relationship between emotional & descriptive appeals and giant trees is significant with χ² = 12.22 and p. ≤ .001.  In one iteration of this frame, audiences are told by an environmentalist that “Nobody has to take any more pictures or measure any more trees to prove what a very special area it is” (1988-13).  Descriptive emotive language connected to giant tree fates includes being saddened (1990-63), feelings of desperation (1991-17), fear (1991-30), being threatened (1990-61) or in danger (1990-63), and resulting in emotional fighting (1989-17).    Expounding beyond their instrumental value, giant trees are promoted by a professional forester critical of the industry as: “much more than wood . . . The impressions are what count esthetically, majesty, beauty of color and form, texture of bark and foliage, age. We need in B.C. to preserve more samples of our giant trees such as those in Carmanah Valley and elsewhere” (1990-60).  These descriptive emotional appeals became crystallized in cultural venues, including a children’s book denigrating loggers (1990-63) and launching remote valleys as tourist attractions and a “cause celebre among Canadian environmentalists” (1990-9).  The 32 physically overwhelming presence of giant trees likely contributed to their close association with emotional and descriptive appeals, many of which tap into ecocentric values, espousing the centrality of nature and peripheral importance of humans, and the overall value of wilderness experiences as sacred and worthy of protection.    2.2.9 Conflict Conflict is framed through legal, social, and violent arenas.  When conflict frames are present, giant trees frames are present (25.8%) less often than absent (74.2%); but this frequency of association is higher (f=8) than expected (f=1.8) within the marginal distribution, providing evidence of a statistical association.  When civil disobedience frames are present, giant trees frames are present (4.3%) less often than absent (95.7%); this frequency of association is lower (f=1) than expected (f=1.4) within the marginal distribution, indicating weak association. The relationship between conflict of interest and giant trees is significant (with χ² = 22.537 and p. ≤ .001), while the relationship with civil disobedience is not significant (with χ² = .109 and p. > .741). Martial descriptive terminology is common in reporting, including: battleground, fronts, triggers, heavy-handed, passionate debate, emotional fight, violence erupting, storms blowing up and disagreement.  More flippant verbiage includes WPM actors dismissing “the MB plan as “completely inadequate” representing a “token” gesture (1988-24). Aggrandizing phrasing is exemplified in several cases, including: “the mother of all environmental battles” (1991-17) and biblical reference of “The B.C. government played Solomon with a disputed expanse of old-growth forest yesterday, splitting it half-and-half into park and “working forest,” but satisfying few combatants” (1990-2).  Much of the headline-grabbing reports of illegal activity to prevent logging occurred principally because MacMillan Bloedel and other forestry companies had legal 33 standing through tree farm licenses to harvest the giants, such that “after conservationists discovered record-sized trees and a new logging road into the Carmanah, a national campaign turned the watershed into one of B.C.’s most prominent land-use conflicts” (1990-61).   Acts of civil disobedience are perhaps the hallmark events in WPM analyses, including the oft-cited largest case in Canadian history.  Within this giant tree frame sample, references are fewer than expected, however blockades by protesters and their adamant nature is highlighted by one WPM participant: ‘“I’m not prepared to sacrifice my future […] These are forests that cannot be cut down. We’re sacrificing our future”’ (1991-42).  However, much of the “battle in the woods” occurred in courthouses and office buildings and not in the forest, exemplified by the “threatened legal action of the kind that halted logging on Meares Island” (1990-61).  This conflict is often described in temporal terms, including representing the end of “several centuries of peace and quiet” (1990-63) and triggering “a 10-year battle whose echoes continue to punctuate political debate down to this day” (1989-46).  This conflict partially stems from the various groups invested in the outcome over appropriate land use decisions, with “Voices as disparate as the Truckloggers Association, the Sierra Club of Western Canada, the woodworkers’ union IWA Canada, churches and Indian bands have all recently demanded a public inquiry into the management of the province’s most important resource” (1989-16).  With stakeholders across ideological and political spectrums engaged, the resultant conflict of interest is perhaps unsurprising; however, giant tree frames were not significant in constructing this aspect of the debate.     34 2.3 Giant Tree Frame Network Figure 2.1 Network of frames  Figure 2.1 is a network diagram depicting the land use framing repertoire connected to the giant tree frame.  Frames are depicted as nodes with size relative to centrality; node shapes indicate the larger framework the node is categorized by, with diamonds for wilderness promotion, triangles for production, and circles for emotional and conflict (giant trees is depicted neutrally as a square).  The largest (and thus most central) nodes represent frames of myth of endless forest, science in production, jobs & worth, and risk perception & uncertainty; of these four frames, three rely on scientific bases for their arguments while one relies on economics.  35 Frame frequency alone neglects how frames interact in the larger land use debate, which ties (lines) between nodes illustrate.  The thickness of ties between nodes indicates level of co-occurrence, such that a heavy line indicates a strong association.  Six ties of medium thickness (indicating a stronger than average relationship) are connected to giant trees, corroborating the findings from chi-squared analyses of frame relationships.  Together these results suggest the significance of relying on singular, striking imagery frames in conveying larger environmentalist messages.  As the occurrence of thick ties in the center-right of the diagram depicts, giant tree frames are significantly related to several frames identified through content analysis. Other more tertiary frames (such as civil disobedience) were not found to be closely coupled with giant trees, highlighting the ways in which framing constructs issue salience through selection processes.  However, the thickest tie (and thus strongest relationship) in the network exists between myth of endless forest and science in production. This thickness indicates common iterations of these frames in similar articles, which serve as counterpoints in arguments over the appropriateness of forestry decisions and the related issue of how best to designate land use.  This tie thickness corroborates the conception of preservation-production dialectic, wherein two opposing viewpoints provide structure to the debate as well as other tertiary frames.  The network diagram enables the framing repertoire to be visualized singularly, which allows for understanding frame inter-relationships more easily than a summary table.  In this case, the diagram confirms the statistical patterning of giant trees, but further locates the crux of the narrative in preservation-production.  36 2.4 Discussion Findings presented above indicate that giant tree frames are significantly patterned within media coverage of WPM.  This patterning suggests that giant trees serve as one frame within a larger repertoire in discourse construction, largely supported by economic and environmental rhetoric. While this rough binary is perhaps unsurprising, the overlap and composite of frames adds nuance to an often overly simplified reduction (i.e., that industry relies solely on economics, but in reality also science). In terms of problem construction, preservationists locate human relationships to nature as problematic, while industry reframing arguments locate interference with the economy as such.  Even given the smaller frequency of giant tree frames within the probability sample, these findings suggest that they served a noticeable role in the larger land use discussion.  Nearly all frames were statistically significantly associated with giant trees, underscoring the way in which giant tree frames were effective in constructing environmental problems in media coverage of the debate.  These patterns suggest that giant tree frames have greater utility in generalized reporting on WPM, rather than coverage of specific incidents, such as acts of civil disobedience.  Giant trees were useful in constructing arguments on both sides of the wilderness preservation debate.  From a critical constructionist perspective, forestry production claims are stated more as ‘facts’ (i.e., reporting of numbers of losses from the journalist rather than quoting industry representatives), whereas wilderness promotion claims are often quotes from either experts (typically scientists) or WPM actors. This distinction serves (whether purposely or not) to ‘subjectify’ pro-wilderness arguments, and therefore requires the use of scientific expertise or empirical evidence in supporting these claims. For example, science is used broadly to reinforce claims for wilderness preservation officiated through evaluations by biologists on ecosystem 37 status – an application of scientific principles.  Through measurements, estimates, and theoretical applications, science is the most common way of framing debates over land use and constructing decisions as problematic.  However, findings also corroborate the ambivalent role of science in environmentalist discourse (Weigert 1997), with the same scientific grounding logics utilized by production-side rebuttals around clear-cutting.  While science is used most broadly for legitimacy, economic arguments undergird industry’s meaning-making framework for production.  Economics serves to frame preservation strategies as problematic, resulting in loss and hardship for corporations, people, and the province at large.  Like their environmental counterparts, production frames utilize ‘evidence,’ such as revenue generated and jobs sustained by logging operations, to rationalize the larger argument.  The generalized science-economy binary comprises most of the land use discourse, further supplemented by emotional and conflict-based framing.  Even with statistically significant relationships, emotional and conflict frames are less central to the narrative; however, they serve to fill gaps left open by more institutional frameworks.  Contextual content analyses reveal the ways in which mediated discourse often results in opposing sides talking past each other, since each bases its arguments on different grounds. While preservation frames relied largely upon scientific rationale (such as biodiversity loss) as an outreach strategy, environmental issues are indeed social ones as well (Holling 2001).  Even while emotional frames of human loss, such as the ability to experience wilderness, are given credence, less attention is given by preservation advocates to other human impacts.  Given the trajectory of division between human and natural systems, this logic is rooted historical bases.  However, the WPM campaign largely neglected to incorporate human interests (including the very real factors of employment and community stability) in debates over appropriate resource and land use 38 decisions.  Framing strategies promoting productive forests were successful in this regard, countering wilderness rhetoric with people-focused messages.   While WPM actors worked to communicate a broader preservation argument, industry rebuttals and media framing further utilized giant trees to underscore the greater nuances of land use decisions, such that the types of value in giant trees depends on whom is measuring.  These opposing valuations reflect divergent emphases on different forms of capital (i.e., economic, natural, and emotional).  While economic capital is widely understood and applied, natural capital is a less common metric which “views the environment as a collection of assets that provide environmental goods and services” (Statistics Canada 2013).  Results indicate that WPM efforts extended an environmental capital evaluation through this framing strategy.  Further, evidence of emotional appeals in construing wilderness arguments underscores the necessity of filling in scientific and economic gaps (Kirkman 2002), such that an ‘emotional capital’ completes the repertoire of cultural tools in communicating differing types of valuation (Fourcade 2011).  This interpretation moves beyond static frame analysis by expanding beyond simple frequency counts or literal readings of frames to understand them more as meaning-making constructs.   39 Chapter 3: Conclusion Like their charismatic megafauna counterparts, giant trees are used in media framing as part of a broader appeal for preservation efforts.  The focus on a single frame somewhat obscures the larger repertoire of rhetorical or rational frameworks which actually construe environmental problem construction.  By contrast, interpreting the context around giant trees indicates their effective communication of larger ideals through striking imagery. Giant tree frames are analytically useful, since they serve as a window into rhetorical underpinnings and connections, as well as expose the larger goals and ideologies of groups promoting them (Benford and Snow 2000).  Network visualization unveiled particular aspects in this case study; namely, that giant tree frames are significantly patterned within the WPM discourse but other related frames are more central to the debate.  The framing processes constructed and utilized by environmental movement actors were useful in shifting the focus of debate in BC forestry towards values outside of the actual on-the-ground reality (clear-cutting at all costs) and back to part of Ministry of Forests’ mandates in preserving biodiversity and  forest health.  Giant tree frames were effectively linked to broader WPM appeals in succinct, memorable fashion, attaining broader audience appeal while linking to broader ideologies.  While economic and technological shifts also affected forestry practices, cultural-cognitive efforts by activists furthered WPM sentiments.  For practical research implications, framing strategies are useful in social movement communication because their more simplified – yet catchy – imagery is easy to implant into media texts and resonates well with public audiences. This latter point is not lost on movement actors, evidenced in contemporary practices still relying on this process. Striking frame imagery is still useful today, as seen in recent media coverage of the discovery of ‘Big Lonely Doug,’ a giant old growth tree claimed to be the second largest Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesiitree) in 40 Canada (Talmazan 2014).  Big Lonely Doug was discovered by conservationists associated with the Ancient Forest Alliance (an environmental organization), who are attempting to catapult this sole remaining seed tree in a clear-cut area to promote further preservation legislation.  Thus the framing strategies utilized during the height of WPM maintain significance today, given that as much as contemporary practices have changed, the relationship between social-environmental problem construction and media institutions retains importance. This case study is limited by the use of secondary data analysis, bounding the potential scope of research questions as well as the larger research design.  By focusing on media texts, other potentially important data sources remain obscured, in areas such as policy and economy.  Further, a singular data source lacks the power of triangulation in social scientific research.  However, this study is strengthened by building on earlier research efforts, which served to lay analytic groundwork.  Taken together, these research projects help to more fully elaborate the WPM case study.  Further, the use of a probability sample of texts, as well as mixed methods, provides greater insight than other data collection and analytic methods.  Analysis of historical events enables covering the full scope of WPM activity – an impossibility in ongoing collective actions.   In terms of laying ideological groundwork for future social movement participation and activism, contemporary contests surrounding oil extraction and distribution in the province have drawn public protest, or at least antipathy towards such proposals.  Potential exists then for future research to examine longitudinal effects of environmentalist outreach on subsequent land use and resource debates, especially given the growing magnitude of contemporary socio-environmental problems.  Other potential areas of inquiry could utilize interviews of movement activists on their own media outreach strategies, as well as those activities outside the realm of 41 media work (such as grassroots building, inter-organization outreach, etc.).  Outside of mass media production, other texts circulated by movement organizations –  in the form of posters, coffee table books (c.f. George’s (2006) Big Trees Not Big Stumps), and presentations – could provide fruitful data for content analyzing.  Further, audience uptake of movement communication could provide insight into collective action outcomes (such as participation rates, ideological or behavioral shifts), the measurement of which is somewhat lacking in research.  Such studies could also explore the impact of digital technologies on collective action culture.   Environmental movement actors’ framing of giant trees helped contribute to somewhat of a paradigm shift in forest policy in British Columbia.  Historically, the Ministry of Forests and forest industry corporations shared a utilitarian, harvest-focused, rationalized framework which ostensibly favored industry interests over all others (Wilson 1998).  While this research excludes other effects under way during the period of study (such as political and economic shifts, non-movement action, etc.), it is certainly the case that the efforts of WPM were effective in engaging in public and institutional discourse.  Namely, part of the movement’s success in media campaigns was in shifting discussions around policy to include priorities outside of extraction.  The polity governing forest lands oscillated considerably over the decades, and at times contained ecological language and priorities, at least in writing if not in practice (Wilson 1998).  However, after the movement efforts of the 1980s and 1990s, industry became subject to standards more in line with the underpinnings of ecology and sustainability.  These frameworks (rooted in uncertainty, interconnectivity/systems theory, and contextuality), as well as the preservation of key landscapes, owe much of their presence to the efforts of movement actors during the period of study.   42 References Andrews, Kenneth and Neal Caren. 2010. “Making the News: Movement Organizations, Media Attention, and the Public Agenda.” American Sociological Review 75: 841-866.  Benford, Robert D. 1993. “You Could Be the Hundredth Monkey: Collective Action Frames and Vocabularies of Motive within the Nuclear Disarmament Movement.” The Sociological Quarterly 34: 195-216.  Benford, Robert D. 1997. “An Insider's Critique of the Social Movement Framing Perspective.” Sociological Inquiry 67: 409-30.  Benford, Robert D. and David Snow. 2000. “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611-39.  Berger, Peter and Thomas Luckmann. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.  Blühdorn, Ingolfur. 2000. Post-ecologist Politics: Social Theory and the Abdication of the Ecologist Paradigm. London: Routledge.  Breiger, Ronald L. 1974. “The Duality of Persons and Groups.” Social Forces 53: 181-90.  Carder, Al. 2005. Giant Trees of Western America and the World. Madeira Park, BC: Harbour.  Carroll, William K. and R.S. Ratner. 1996. “Master Framing and Cross-Movement Networking in Contemporary Social Movements.” The Sociological Quarterly 37: 601-25.  Cormier, Jeffrey and David B. Tindall. 2005. “Wood Frames: Framing the Forests in British Columbia.” Sociological Focus 38: 1-24.  Corrigall-Brown, Catherine and Rima Wilkes. 2012. “Picturing Protest: The Visual Framing of Indigenous Collective Action by First Nations in Canada.” American Behavioral Scientist 56: 223-245.  Creswell, John W. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.  Diani, Mario. 1996.  “Linking Mobilization Frames and Political Opportunities: Insights from Regional Populism in Italy.” American Sociological Review, 61(6): 1053-69.  Doyle, Aaron, Brian Elliott, and David Tindall. 1997. “Framing the Forests: Corporations, The B.C. Forest Alliance and the Media.” Pp. 240-268 in Organizing Dissent. Contemporary Social Movements in Theory and Practice. Second Edition, edited by William K. Carroll. Toronto, Ontario: Garamond Press.  43 Entman, Robert M. 1993. “Framing: Towards Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication 43: 51-58.  Fahmy, Shahira. 2010. “Contrasting Visual Frames of Our Times: A Framing Analysis of English- and Arabic-language Press Coverage of War and Terrorism.” The International Communication Gazette 72 (8): 695-717. Fourcade, Marion. 2011. “Cents and Sensibility: Economic Valuation and the Nature of ‘Nature’.” American Journal of Sociology 116: 1721-1777.  Gamson, William A. 2004. “Bystanders, Public Opinion, and the Media.” Pp. 242–261 in The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule & H. Kriesi. Oxford: Blackwell.  George, Paul. 2006. Big Trees Not Big Stumps. Vancouver, BC: Western Canada Wilderness Committee.  Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  Hannigan, John A. 1995. Environmental Sociology: A Social Constructionist Perspective. London: Routledge.  Heiner, Robert. 2002. Social Problems: An Introduction to Critical Constructionism. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Herman, Edward and Noam Chomsky. 1988. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books.  Holling, Crawford S. 2001. “Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems.” Ecosystems 4: 390-405.  Johnston, Hank and John Noakes. 2005.  Frames of Protest: Social Movements and the Framing Perspective. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.  Joubert, Brian and DJ Davidson. 2010. “Mediating Constructivism, Nature and Dissonant Land Use Values: The Case of Northwest Saskatchewan Metis.” Human Ecology Review 17: 1-10.  Kalberg, Steven. 1980.  “Max Weber’s Types of Rationality: Cornerstones for the Analysis of Rationalizaton Processes in History.” American Journal of Sociology 85: 1145-1179.  Kirkman, Robert. 2002. Skeptical Environmentalism: The Limits of Philosophy and Science. Bloomington: Indiana UP.    44 Klandermans, Bert and Dirk Oegema. 1987. “Potentials, Networks, Motivations and Barriers: Steps towards Participation in Social Movements.”  American Sociological Review 52: 519-31.  Krippendorff, Klaus. 2004. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.  Latour, Bruno and Steve Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.  Lombard, Matthew, Jennifer Snyder-Dutch, and Cheryl Bracken. 2004. “Practical Resources for Accessing and Reporting Intercoder Reliability in Content Analysis Research Projects.” Retrieved November 6, 2013.  (http://www.temple.edu/sct/mmc/reliability).  MacAdam, Doug, John McCarthy and Mayer Zald, eds. 1996.  Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures and Framing. New York: Cambridge University Press.  Malinick, Todd, David Tindall and Mario Diani. 2013. “Network Centrality and Social Movement Media Coverage: A Two-mode Network Analytic Approach.” Social Networks 35: 148-158.  Meitner, Mike. 2008. Public Perceptions of Mountain Pine Beetle Management Alternatives. Victoria, [B.C.]: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre.  Mische, Anne. 2003.  “Cross-talk in Movements: Reconceiving the Culture-Network Link.” Pp. 258-280 in Social Movements and Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action, edited by M. Diani and D. MacAdam. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Mohr, John and Vincent Duquenne. 1997. “The Duality of Culture and Practice: Poverty Relief in New York City.” American Journal of Sociology, 105: 88-127.  Oreskes, Naomi. 2004. “Science and Public Policy: What’s Proof Got to Do with It?” Environmental Science & Policy 7: 369–383.  Pew Research Center. 2006. Manufacturing Internet News Audiences - Broader than Deep, Washington, D.C. Polimeni, John M., Kozo Mayumi, Mario Giampietro, and Blake Alcott. 2008. The Jevons Paradox and the Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements. London: Earthscan. Rootes, Christopher. 2004. “Environmental Movements.” Pp. 608-640 in The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements edited by D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule & H. Kriesi. Oxford: Blackwell.  Satterfield, Terre. 2002. Anatomy of a Conflict: Identity, Knowledge, and Emotion in Old-growth Forests. Vancouver: UBC. 45 Scheufele, Dietram. 1999. “Framing as a Theory of Media Effects.” Journal of Communication 49: 103-122.  Schreiber, Dorothee, Ralph Matthews, and Brian Elliott. 2003. “The Framing of Farmed Fish: Product, Efficiency, and Technology.” The Canadian Journal of Sociology 28: 153-169.  Sheppard, Stephen J. and Michael Meitner. 2005. “Using Multi-criteria Analysis and Visualisation for Sustainable Forest Management Planning with Stakeholder Groups.” Forest Ecology and Management 207: 171-187.  Skibbins, Jeffrey, Robert Powell, and Jeffrey Hallo. 2013. “Charisma and Conservation: Charismatic Megafauna’s Influence on Safari and Zoo Tourists’ Pro-conservation Behaviors.” Biodiversity and Conservation 22: 959-982. Snow, David and Robert D. Benford. 1988. “Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization.” International Social Movement Research 1: 197–217.  Snow, David, E. Burke Rochford, Steven K. Worden, and Robert D. Benford.  1986. “Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization and Movement Participation.” American Sociological Review 51: 464-81.  Statistics Canada. 2013. Framing the Environment.  Ottawa: StatCan Blog. Retrieved March 6, 2014 (http://statcan.gc.ca/eng/blog-blogue/cs-sc/environment). Stefanick, Lorna. 2001. “Baby Stumpy and the War in the Woods:  Competing Frames of British Columbia Forests.” BC Studies 130: 41-68. Stoddart, Mark C.J. 2005. “Wilderness or Working Forest? British Columbia Forest Policy Debate in The Vancouver Sun, 1991-2003.” Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change 26:179-198. Stoddart, Mark C.J. 2011. “Grizzlies and Gondolas: Animals and the Meaning of Skiing Landscapes in British Columbia, Canada.”  Nature and Culture 6: 41-63. Stoddart, Mark, Howard Ramos, and David Tindall. 2013. “Environmentalists’ Mediawork for Jumbo Pass and the Tobeatic Wilderness, Canada: Combining Text-Centred and Activist-Centred Approaches to News Media and Social Movements.” Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest 1-17. Suleski, Julie and Motomu Ibaraki. 2010. “Scientists Are Talking, but Mostly to Each Other: A Quantitative Analysis of Research Represented in Mass Media.” Public Understanding of Science 19: 115-125.  Swidler, Ann. 1986. “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies.” American Sociological Review 51: 273-286.  Talmazan, Yulia. 2014. “Canada’s Second Largest Douglas Fir Tree May Have Been Found Near Port Renfrew.” Global News, March 27. Retrieved March 28, 2014 46 (http://globalnews.ca/news/1235236/canadas-second-largest-douglas-fir-tree-may-have-been-found-near-port-renfrew/).  Taylor, Dorceta E. 2000. “The Rise of Environmental Justice Paradigm: Injustice Framing and the Social Construction of Environmental Discourses.” American Behavioral Scientist 43: 508-580.  Thompson, Michael. 2011. “Sustainability Is An Essentially Contested Concept.” S.A.P.I.E.N.S 4(1). Retrieved October 4, 2013. (http://sapiens.revues.org/1177)/  Tindall, David B. 2002. “Social Networks, Identification and Participation in an Environmental Movement: Low‐medium Cost Activism within the British Columbia Wilderness Preservation Movement.” Canadian Review of Sociology 39: 414-432.  Tindall, David B. and Noreen Begoray. 1993. "Old Growth Defenders: The Battle for the Carmanah Valley." Pp. 269-322 in Environmental Stewardship: Studies in Active Earthkeeping, edited by Sally Lerner. Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo Geography Series.  UBC Faculty of Forestry. 2011.  BC Big Tree Registry.  Retrieved November 8, 2013. (http://bigtrees.forestry.ubc.ca/files/2011/11/Big_Trees_Register.pdf). Walpole, Matthew J. and Nigel Leader-Williams. 2002. “Tourism and Flagship Species in Conservation.” Biodiversity and Conservation 11: 543-547.  Weigert, Andrew J. 1997.  Self, Interaction, and Natural Environment: Refocusing Our Eyesight. Albany: State University of New York.  Wessels, Tom. 2006. The Myth of Progress: Toward a Sustainable Future. Lebanon, New Hampshire: University Press of New England.   Wilkes, Rima, Catherine Corrigall-Brown and Danielle Ricard. 2010. “Nationalism and Media Coverage of Indigenous People’s Collective Action in Canada.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 34: 41-59.  Wilkes, Rima and Tamara Ibrahim. 2013. “Direct Action in Forests and Beyond.” Pp. 74-88. in Aboriginal Peoples and Forest Lands in Canada, edited by D. B. Tindall, R.L Trosper and P. Perreault. Vancouver: UBC Press.  Wilkes, Rima and Danielle Ricard. 2007. “How Does Newspaper Coverage of Collective Action Vary? Protest by Indigenous People in Canada.” The Social Science Journal 44: 231-251.  Willems-Braun, Bruce. 1996. “Colonial Vestiges: Representing Forest Landscapes on Canada's West Coast.”  BC Studies 112: 5-39.  47 Wilson, Jeremy. 1998.  Talk and Log: Wilderness Politics in British Columbia, 1965-96. Vancouver: UBC.  Yearley, Steven. 2005.  Cultures of Environmentalism: Empirical Studies in Environmental Sociology. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0103413/manifest

Comment

Related Items