4. Examined the role of public lands in evolving timber markets (SAMAB
1996d, pp. 117–125)
5. Charted changing demands for recreation (SAMAB 1996d, pp. 169–
173)
6. Defined changes in recreation opportunities resulting from congestion
(SAMAB 1996d, pp. 159–162)
7. Charted changes in terrestrial habitats and the relative position
of public lands in providing various types of habitat (SAMAB 1996e,
pp. 21–38)
8. Documented recent and anticipated changes in early-successional
habitats (SAMAB 1996e, pp. 26–28)
9. Identified rare plant communities and their distribution by forest
ownership classes (SAMAB 1996e, pp. 11–25)
10. Charted the effects of various health factors on forest ecosystems, such
as oak decline and gypsy moth (SAMAB 1996e, pp. 103–131)
11. Evaluated trends in forest vegetation caused by human and other
influences (SAMAB 1996e, pp. 93–102)
12. Identified changes in atmospheric pollutants and their potential
impacts on forest ecosystems (SAMAB 1996c, pp. 53–62)
13. Examined the potential contribution of prescribed burning to particulate levels (SAMAB 1996c, pp. 21–26)
14. Defined the current and potential future effects of human activities on
the quality of water flowing from the Southern Appalachians (SAMAB
1996b, pp. 89–120)
15. Examined recent changes in the demand for water in the region
(SAMAB 1996b, pp. 121–132)
In addition to the findings presented in technical reports, another tangible product of the assessment was a suite of data sets addressing ecological
and social components of the region. These data sets were made available
on compact disks and on the World Wide Web (http://samab.org/data/
SAA_data.html). Planners as well as researchers made direct use of the
data sets in subsequent analyses.
4.5.2 Outcomes
Outcomes are difficult to measure for a process like the SAA, where the
objective was to improve the knowledge base for conducting ecosystem
management. To ascertain the types of outcomes that accrued, I interviewed
several forest planners and scientists in the region who were either or both
(1) involved in the SAA and (2) engaged in the forest planning that was
conducted following the assessment. This informal survey provided some
insights into the various ways these groups perceived, used, and valued
the assessment. However, it should not be viewed as a representative
sample.
78
David N. Wear
1996d, pp. 117–125)
5. Charted changing demands for recreation (SAMAB 1996d, pp. 169–
173)
6. Defined changes in recreation opportunities resulting from congestion
(SAMAB 1996d, pp. 159–162)
7. Charted changes in terrestrial habitats and the relative position
of public lands in providing various types of habitat (SAMAB 1996e,
pp. 21–38)
8. Documented recent and anticipated changes in early-successional
habitats (SAMAB 1996e, pp. 26–28)
9. Identified rare plant communities and their distribution by forest
ownership classes (SAMAB 1996e, pp. 11–25)
10. Charted the effects of various health factors on forest ecosystems, such
as oak decline and gypsy moth (SAMAB 1996e, pp. 103–131)
11. Evaluated trends in forest vegetation caused by human and other
influences (SAMAB 1996e, pp. 93–102)
12. Identified changes in atmospheric pollutants and their potential
impacts on forest ecosystems (SAMAB 1996c, pp. 53–62)
13. Examined the potential contribution of prescribed burning to particulate levels (SAMAB 1996c, pp. 21–26)
14. Defined the current and potential future effects of human activities on
the quality of water flowing from the Southern Appalachians (SAMAB
1996b, pp. 89–120)
15. Examined recent changes in the demand for water in the region
(SAMAB 1996b, pp. 121–132)
In addition to the findings presented in technical reports, another tangible product of the assessment was a suite of data sets addressing ecological
and social components of the region. These data sets were made available
on compact disks and on the World Wide Web (http://samab.org/data/
SAA_data.html). Planners as well as researchers made direct use of the
data sets in subsequent analyses.
4.5.2 Outcomes
Outcomes are difficult to measure for a process like the SAA, where the
objective was to improve the knowledge base for conducting ecosystem
management. To ascertain the types of outcomes that accrued, I interviewed
several forest planners and scientists in the region who were either or both
(1) involved in the SAA and (2) engaged in the forest planning that was
conducted following the assessment. This informal survey provided some
insights into the various ways these groups perceived, used, and valued
the assessment. However, it should not be viewed as a representative
sample.
78
David N. Wear