Effects of Information on the Social Acceptability of Alternatives to Clearfelling in Australian Wet Eucalypt Forests
The effects of viewing different types of information were investigated in people judging the social acceptability of alternative forest harvest systems. Approximately 500 Tasmanians were shown still-simulated images of four harvest systems (a clearfell system, two aggregated retention systems, and...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Environmental management (New York) 2009-12, Vol.44 (6), p.1149-1162 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1162 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 1149 |
| container_title | Environmental management (New York) |
| container_volume | 44 |
| creator | Ford, Rebecca M Williams, Kathryn J. H Bishop, Ian D Hickey, John E |
| description | The effects of viewing different types of information were investigated in people judging the social acceptability of alternative forest harvest systems. Approximately 500 Tasmanians were shown still-simulated images of four harvest systems (a clearfell system, two aggregated retention systems, and a selective system) and were asked to judge their acceptability. Individual interviews were conducted with 12 of the participants. It was anticipated that people holding different beliefs about the consequences of harvesting would have different responses to information. Cluster analysis was used to group participants according to these beliefs. Responses to still images were compared with responses to two other types of information: information about consequences of the harvest systems in the form of indicator symbols, and information about regeneration over time, presented as visual animations. The effects of information differed across both harvest system and belief cluster groups of participants. The largest effects of information occurred in people who held a mix of beliefs about consequences. Within this group, participants who viewed the indicators rated a 30% aggregated retention system higher and selective harvesting lower, than those who did not view the indicators. Viewing animated sequences led to slightly higher ratings of the more intensive harvest systems and significantly lower ratings of the selective harvest system than those based on the still images. The interview data provided examples of interviewees viewing information critically against their own values and beliefs. Only some interviewees appeared to use it in judging social acceptability |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00267-009-9392-7 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_734252403</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1777140946</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c489t-fe198fb9c4fb99722b2e728f67e1853befbc44796a9a6f0c87eb883e8a52de933</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkk1vEzEQhi0EomngB3ABiwNwWRh_7No-RlFaKlXiUCq4rbzuOGy1WQfbi5R_j1eJVIlDkCz7MM-8M-N3CHnD4DMDUF8SAG9UBWAqIwyv1DOyYFLwqkTNc7IA0ciK1fznBblM6REAhNb1S3LBjAHOTb0g08Z7dDnR4OnN6EPc2dyHkZaTfyG9C663A105h_tsu37o82FGV0PGOBb0DyaaA10PaKPHYejHLe1HuppSjnbo7Uh_YKabydnhsM_0KkRMOb0iL7wdEr4-vUtyf7X5vv5a3X67vlmvbisntcmVR2a074yT5TKK846j4to3CpmuRYe-c1Iq01hjGw9OK-y0FqhtzR_QCLEkH4-6-xh-T6Vyu-uTK23aEcOUWiUkr7mEmfxwlhSNMEaa_4Oc8VrWxYUl-XQWZEopJsHIpqDv_0Efw1S-dyhy0NQNGMELxI6QiyGliL7dx35n46Fl0M7r0B7XoS3et_M6lOmW5O1JeOp2-PCUcfK_APwIpBIatxifKp9TfXdM8ja0dhv71N7fcWAC2DwRcPEX91HI7Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>206560932</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effects of Information on the Social Acceptability of Alternatives to Clearfelling in Australian Wet Eucalypt Forests</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Ford, Rebecca M ; Williams, Kathryn J. H ; Bishop, Ian D ; Hickey, John E</creator><creatorcontrib>Ford, Rebecca M ; Williams, Kathryn J. H ; Bishop, Ian D ; Hickey, John E</creatorcontrib><description>The effects of viewing different types of information were investigated in people judging the social acceptability of alternative forest harvest systems. Approximately 500 Tasmanians were shown still-simulated images of four harvest systems (a clearfell system, two aggregated retention systems, and a selective system) and were asked to judge their acceptability. Individual interviews were conducted with 12 of the participants. It was anticipated that people holding different beliefs about the consequences of harvesting would have different responses to information. Cluster analysis was used to group participants according to these beliefs. Responses to still images were compared with responses to two other types of information: information about consequences of the harvest systems in the form of indicator symbols, and information about regeneration over time, presented as visual animations. The effects of information differed across both harvest system and belief cluster groups of participants. The largest effects of information occurred in people who held a mix of beliefs about consequences. Within this group, participants who viewed the indicators rated a 30% aggregated retention system higher and selective harvesting lower, than those who did not view the indicators. Viewing animated sequences led to slightly higher ratings of the more intensive harvest systems and significantly lower ratings of the selective harvest system than those based on the still images. The interview data provided examples of interviewees viewing information critically against their own values and beliefs. Only some interviewees appeared to use it in judging social acceptability</description><identifier>ISSN: 0364-152X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1009</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00267-009-9392-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19902295</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: New York : Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Acceptability ; Animated ; Aquatic Pollution ; Atmospheric Protection/Air Quality Control/Air Pollution ; Australia ; Clearcutting ; Cluster analysis ; Decision making ; Earth and Environmental Science ; Ecology ; Ecosystems ; Environment ; Environmental Management ; Environmental protection ; Eucalyptus ; Forest management ; Forestry ; Forestry Management ; Forests ; Harvest ; Harvesting ; Humans ; Indicators ; Information dissemination ; Natural resource management ; Nature Conservation ; Professionals ; Public Opinion ; Ratings ; Ratings & rankings ; Retention ; Social Conditions ; Social psychology ; Timber ; Timber industry ; Viewing ; Visual ; Waste Water Technology ; Water Management ; Water Pollution Control</subject><ispartof>Environmental management (New York), 2009-12, Vol.44 (6), p.1149-1162</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c489t-fe198fb9c4fb99722b2e728f67e1853befbc44796a9a6f0c87eb883e8a52de933</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c489t-fe198fb9c4fb99722b2e728f67e1853befbc44796a9a6f0c87eb883e8a52de933</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00267-009-9392-7$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00267-009-9392-7$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924,41487,42556,51318</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19902295$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ford, Rebecca M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, Kathryn J. H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bishop, Ian D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hickey, John E</creatorcontrib><title>Effects of Information on the Social Acceptability of Alternatives to Clearfelling in Australian Wet Eucalypt Forests</title><title>Environmental management (New York)</title><addtitle>Environmental Management</addtitle><addtitle>Environ Manage</addtitle><description>The effects of viewing different types of information were investigated in people judging the social acceptability of alternative forest harvest systems. Approximately 500 Tasmanians were shown still-simulated images of four harvest systems (a clearfell system, two aggregated retention systems, and a selective system) and were asked to judge their acceptability. Individual interviews were conducted with 12 of the participants. It was anticipated that people holding different beliefs about the consequences of harvesting would have different responses to information. Cluster analysis was used to group participants according to these beliefs. Responses to still images were compared with responses to two other types of information: information about consequences of the harvest systems in the form of indicator symbols, and information about regeneration over time, presented as visual animations. The effects of information differed across both harvest system and belief cluster groups of participants. The largest effects of information occurred in people who held a mix of beliefs about consequences. Within this group, participants who viewed the indicators rated a 30% aggregated retention system higher and selective harvesting lower, than those who did not view the indicators. Viewing animated sequences led to slightly higher ratings of the more intensive harvest systems and significantly lower ratings of the selective harvest system than those based on the still images. The interview data provided examples of interviewees viewing information critically against their own values and beliefs. Only some interviewees appeared to use it in judging social acceptability</description><subject>Acceptability</subject><subject>Animated</subject><subject>Aquatic Pollution</subject><subject>Atmospheric Protection/Air Quality Control/Air Pollution</subject><subject>Australia</subject><subject>Clearcutting</subject><subject>Cluster analysis</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Earth and Environmental Science</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>Environment</subject><subject>Environmental Management</subject><subject>Environmental protection</subject><subject>Eucalyptus</subject><subject>Forest management</subject><subject>Forestry</subject><subject>Forestry Management</subject><subject>Forests</subject><subject>Harvest</subject><subject>Harvesting</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Indicators</subject><subject>Information dissemination</subject><subject>Natural resource management</subject><subject>Nature Conservation</subject><subject>Professionals</subject><subject>Public Opinion</subject><subject>Ratings</subject><subject>Ratings & rankings</subject><subject>Retention</subject><subject>Social Conditions</subject><subject>Social psychology</subject><subject>Timber</subject><subject>Timber industry</subject><subject>Viewing</subject><subject>Visual</subject><subject>Waste Water Technology</subject><subject>Water Management</subject><subject>Water Pollution Control</subject><issn>0364-152X</issn><issn>1432-1009</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkk1vEzEQhi0EomngB3ABiwNwWRh_7No-RlFaKlXiUCq4rbzuOGy1WQfbi5R_j1eJVIlDkCz7MM-8M-N3CHnD4DMDUF8SAG9UBWAqIwyv1DOyYFLwqkTNc7IA0ciK1fznBblM6REAhNb1S3LBjAHOTb0g08Z7dDnR4OnN6EPc2dyHkZaTfyG9C663A105h_tsu37o82FGV0PGOBb0DyaaA10PaKPHYejHLe1HuppSjnbo7Uh_YKabydnhsM_0KkRMOb0iL7wdEr4-vUtyf7X5vv5a3X67vlmvbisntcmVR2a074yT5TKK846j4to3CpmuRYe-c1Iq01hjGw9OK-y0FqhtzR_QCLEkH4-6-xh-T6Vyu-uTK23aEcOUWiUkr7mEmfxwlhSNMEaa_4Oc8VrWxYUl-XQWZEopJsHIpqDv_0Efw1S-dyhy0NQNGMELxI6QiyGliL7dx35n46Fl0M7r0B7XoS3et_M6lOmW5O1JeOp2-PCUcfK_APwIpBIatxifKp9TfXdM8ja0dhv71N7fcWAC2DwRcPEX91HI7Q</recordid><startdate>20091201</startdate><enddate>20091201</enddate><creator>Ford, Rebecca M</creator><creator>Williams, Kathryn J. H</creator><creator>Bishop, Ian D</creator><creator>Hickey, John E</creator><general>New York : Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7SU</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20091201</creationdate><title>Effects of Information on the Social Acceptability of Alternatives to Clearfelling in Australian Wet Eucalypt Forests</title><author>Ford, Rebecca M ; Williams, Kathryn J. H ; Bishop, Ian D ; Hickey, John E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c489t-fe198fb9c4fb99722b2e728f67e1853befbc44796a9a6f0c87eb883e8a52de933</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Acceptability</topic><topic>Animated</topic><topic>Aquatic Pollution</topic><topic>Atmospheric Protection/Air Quality Control/Air Pollution</topic><topic>Australia</topic><topic>Clearcutting</topic><topic>Cluster analysis</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Earth and Environmental Science</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>Environment</topic><topic>Environmental Management</topic><topic>Environmental protection</topic><topic>Eucalyptus</topic><topic>Forest management</topic><topic>Forestry</topic><topic>Forestry Management</topic><topic>Forests</topic><topic>Harvest</topic><topic>Harvesting</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Indicators</topic><topic>Information dissemination</topic><topic>Natural resource management</topic><topic>Nature Conservation</topic><topic>Professionals</topic><topic>Public Opinion</topic><topic>Ratings</topic><topic>Ratings & rankings</topic><topic>Retention</topic><topic>Social Conditions</topic><topic>Social psychology</topic><topic>Timber</topic><topic>Timber industry</topic><topic>Viewing</topic><topic>Visual</topic><topic>Waste Water Technology</topic><topic>Water Management</topic><topic>Water Pollution Control</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ford, Rebecca M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, Kathryn J. H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bishop, Ian D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hickey, John E</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Environmental management (New York)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ford, Rebecca M</au><au>Williams, Kathryn J. H</au><au>Bishop, Ian D</au><au>Hickey, John E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effects of Information on the Social Acceptability of Alternatives to Clearfelling in Australian Wet Eucalypt Forests</atitle><jtitle>Environmental management (New York)</jtitle><stitle>Environmental Management</stitle><addtitle>Environ Manage</addtitle><date>2009-12-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>44</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1149</spage><epage>1162</epage><pages>1149-1162</pages><issn>0364-152X</issn><eissn>1432-1009</eissn><abstract>The effects of viewing different types of information were investigated in people judging the social acceptability of alternative forest harvest systems. Approximately 500 Tasmanians were shown still-simulated images of four harvest systems (a clearfell system, two aggregated retention systems, and a selective system) and were asked to judge their acceptability. Individual interviews were conducted with 12 of the participants. It was anticipated that people holding different beliefs about the consequences of harvesting would have different responses to information. Cluster analysis was used to group participants according to these beliefs. Responses to still images were compared with responses to two other types of information: information about consequences of the harvest systems in the form of indicator symbols, and information about regeneration over time, presented as visual animations. The effects of information differed across both harvest system and belief cluster groups of participants. The largest effects of information occurred in people who held a mix of beliefs about consequences. Within this group, participants who viewed the indicators rated a 30% aggregated retention system higher and selective harvesting lower, than those who did not view the indicators. Viewing animated sequences led to slightly higher ratings of the more intensive harvest systems and significantly lower ratings of the selective harvest system than those based on the still images. The interview data provided examples of interviewees viewing information critically against their own values and beliefs. Only some interviewees appeared to use it in judging social acceptability</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>New York : Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>19902295</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00267-009-9392-7</doi><tpages>14</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0364-152X |
| ispartof | Environmental management (New York), 2009-12, Vol.44 (6), p.1149-1162 |
| issn | 0364-152X 1432-1009 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_734252403 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Acceptability Animated Aquatic Pollution Atmospheric Protection/Air Quality Control/Air Pollution Australia Clearcutting Cluster analysis Decision making Earth and Environmental Science Ecology Ecosystems Environment Environmental Management Environmental protection Eucalyptus Forest management Forestry Forestry Management Forests Harvest Harvesting Humans Indicators Information dissemination Natural resource management Nature Conservation Professionals Public Opinion Ratings Ratings & rankings Retention Social Conditions Social psychology Timber Timber industry Viewing Visual Waste Water Technology Water Management Water Pollution Control |
| title | Effects of Information on the Social Acceptability of Alternatives to Clearfelling in Australian Wet Eucalypt Forests |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T06%3A28%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effects%20of%20Information%20on%20the%20Social%20Acceptability%20of%20Alternatives%20to%20Clearfelling%20in%20Australian%20Wet%20Eucalypt%20Forests&rft.jtitle=Environmental%20management%20(New%20York)&rft.au=Ford,%20Rebecca%20M&rft.date=2009-12-01&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1149&rft.epage=1162&rft.pages=1149-1162&rft.issn=0364-152X&rft.eissn=1432-1009&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00267-009-9392-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1777140946%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=206560932&rft_id=info:pmid/19902295&rfr_iscdi=true |