Validation of a Forest Values Typology for Use in National Forest Planning 国家森林规划中使用的森林价值类型学的验证
Gregory Brown and Patrick Reed 格雷戈里·布朗和帕特里克·里德
Abstract 摘要
Public values for national forestlands are assumed to underlie preferences for actual forest use and define the context for forest planning and decision making, but the relationship between preferences and attitudes toward forest management activities and public forest values (both use and nonuse values) is not well understood. Using data from a survey of Alaskan residents in the Chugach National Forest plan revision process, the relationship between attitudes toward forest management actions and forest values is examined using a variety of statistical procedures. Key findings indicate that: (1) survey respondents were able to identify with 13 distinct forest values based on a modified forest value typology developed by Rolston and Coufal (1991), (2) no obvious latent structure of variables or constructs emerged from factor analysis of the 13 forest values indicating that the forest value typology may not be easily simplified without compromising the exclusiveness of measured forest values, (3) small, but statistically significant correlations were found between attitudes toward specific forest management practices such as logging and mining and held forest values, and (4) forest values are modestly predictive of respondent preferences for specific forest planning decisions. For. Sci. 46(2):240-247. 国家林地的公共价值被认为是对实际森林使用的偏好的基础,并确定了森林规划和决策的背景,但对森林管理活动的偏好和态度与公共森林价值(使用和非使用价值)之间的关系还没有得到很好的理解。使用的数据从阿拉斯加居民在楚加奇国家森林计划修订过程中,对森林管理行动和森林价值观的态度之间的关系进行了研究,使用各种统计程序。 主要调查结果表明:(1)根据Rolston和Coufal(1991年)提出的经修改的森林价值分类法,调查答卷人能够确定13种不同的森林价值,(2)对13种森林价值进行因素分析后,没有出现明显的潜在变量结构或结构,这表明,在不损害所测量的森林价值的排他性的情况下,可能不容易简化森林价值分类法,(3)对伐木和采矿等具体森林管理做法的态度与森林价值观之间存在小的但统计上显著的相关性;(4)森林价值观可适度预测受访者对具体森林规划决策的偏好。For. Sci. 46(2):240-247。
Additional Key Words: Forest values, forest planning, value typology. 其他关键词:森林价值,森林规划,价值类型学。
National forest management planning issues have usually been framed in terms of forest uses, especially commodity uses, rather than forest values (Rolston and Coufal 1991). However, what values a forest holds for people in the United States, both collectively and individually, lies at the heart of the debate over forest management. Conflict over forest management may actually reflect both individual and collective differences in held forest values. While values for forestlands and resources are assumed to underlie preferences for actual forest use, the relationship between preferences and attitudes ^(1){ }^{1} toward forest 国家森林管理规划问题通常是根据森林的用途,特别是商品用途,而不是森林价值来确定的(Rolston和Coufal,1991年)。然而,森林对美国人民的集体和个人价值是森林管理辩论的核心。森林管理方面的冲突实际上可能反映了个人和集体在所持森林价值观方面的差异。虽然林地和资源的价值被认为是实际使用森林的偏好的基础,但偏好和对森林的态度之间的关系
management activities and forest values (both use and nonuse values) is not well documented if understood. 管理活动和森林价值(使用和非使用价值)没有得到很好的记录。
In forest management, Rolston and Coufal suggest that attention to an expanded set of values is preferable to the traditional array of uses spelled out in the 1960 Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act. For forest planners to actually utilize the concept of forest values as a tool in forest planning, two distinct problems must be addressed: (1) the scope and range of values must be identified (the identification/classification issue) and (2) the values must be rendered measurable and commensurable. Though not explicitly examined in this article, following the “theory of reasoned action” (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980), we presume that publicly held forest values are ultimately manifest in attitudes and preferences toward specific forest management outcomes and activities. However, the measurement of these forest value/attitude relationships may not be strong or direct as witnessed in other areas of social inquiry. 在森林管理方面,Rolston和Coufal认为,关注一套扩大的价值观比1960年《多重可持续产量法》中规定的传统用途更可取。森林规划者要实际利用森林价值概念作为森林规划的工具,就必须解决两个不同的问题:(1)必须确定价值的范围和幅度(确定/分类问题);(2)必须使价值可以衡量和说明。虽然没有明确检查在这篇文章中,根据“理性行动理论”(Ajzen和Fishbein 1980),我们假设,公众持有的森林价值观最终表现在对特定的森林管理成果和活动的态度和偏好。然而,这些森林价值/态度的关系的测量可能不是强大的或直接的社会调查的其他领域所见证的。
Greg Brown, Environmental Science Department, Alaska Pacific University, 4101 University Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99508-Phone: (907) 5648267; Fax: 907-562-4276; E-mail: gregb@alaskapacific.edu. Patrick Reed, USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, 3301 C Street, Suite 300, Anchorage, AK 99503—Phone: 907-271-2751; Fax: 907-271-3992; E-mail: preed/r10_chugach@fs.fed.us. 格雷格布朗,环境科学系,阿拉斯加太平洋大学,4101大学路,安克雷奇,阿拉斯加99508-电话:(907)5648267;传真:907-562-4276;电子邮件:gregb@alaskapacific.edu。帕特里克里德,美国农业部林务局,楚加奇国家森林,3301 C街,套房300,安克雷奇,AK 99503-电话:907-271-2751;传真:907-271-3992;电子邮件:preed/r10_chugach@fs.fed.us。
Manuscript received September 28, 1998. Accepted Sentempecint This Moterial 1998年9月28日收到Mandarin pt。已接受的句子本材料
Consistent with Rolston and Coufal’s conclusion that forest values deserve attention, the Chugach National Forest (CNF) and Alaska Pacific University in early 1998 initiated a cooperative study of the values the CNF holds for residents of local communities. The results of the study are being incorporated into the CNF forest plan revision consistent with the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act and 1976 National Forest Management Act. 与罗尔斯顿和库法尔关于森林价值值得关注的结论一致,丘加奇国家森林(CNF)和阿拉斯加太平洋大学于1998年初发起了一项合作研究,探讨CNF对当地社区居民的价值观。研究结果正在纳入CNF森林计划修订,以符合1969年《国家环境政策法》和1976年《国家森林管理法》。
Conceptual Framework 概念框架
Bengston and Xu (1995) defined forest values as relatively enduring conceptions of “the good” related to forests and forest ecosystems wherein “value” is an ideal or held value. A number of different classification systems for defining forest values have been developed in the past. For example, eight categories of social values provided by forests were identified in the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) report (FEMAT 1993). Rolston and Coufal identified ten categories of forest values, and Bengston and Xu opted for a four-category typology of forest values. Others developed comparable schema for general wildland and wilderness values. Henning (1987) identified 13 categories of wilderness values; Driver et al. (1987) distinguished 34 categories of wilderness benefits and values; and a number of other comprehensive lists have been described by McCloskey (1990), Hendee et al. (1990) and others [see, for example, Hendee and Martin (1994), Lime (1990), and Reed (1990.)] Of particular interest to this study are the Bengston and Xu and Rolston and Coufal value typologies because these provide the most recent conceptualizations of generalized forest values that describe the multiple values of forestlands. Bengston和Xu(1995年)将森林价值定义为与森林和森林生态系统有关的相对持久的“善”概念,其中“价值”是一种理想或持有的价值。过去已制定了若干不同的界定森林价值的分类制度。例如,森林生态系统管理评估小组的报告(森林生态系统管理评估小组,1993年)确定了森林提供的八类社会价值。Rolston和Coufal确定了十类森林价值,Bengston和Xu选择了四类森林价值。其他人制定了类似的模式一般荒地和荒野的价值。Henning(1987)确定了13类荒野价值; Driver等人(1987)区分了34类荒野利益和价值; McCloskey(1990)、Hendee等人(1990)和其他人(例如,参见Hendee和Martin(1994)、Lime(1990)和Reed(1990))描述了许多其他综合列表。本研究特别感兴趣的是Bengston和Xu以及Rolston和Coufal的价值类型学,因为它们提供了描述林地多重价值的广义森林价值的最新概念。
The Bengston and Xu typology distinguished four ways in which people value forests and forest ecosystems: economic/ utilitarian, life support, aesthetic, and moral/spiritual value. They identified these values as either instrumental-the good is equated with what is useful to some desirable human end-or noninstrumental-the worth of something is seen as an end in itself. Bengston和Xu的类型学区分了人们评价森林和森林生态系统的四种方式:经济/实用,生命支持,美学和道德/精神价值。他们将这些价值观定义为工具性的(好的等同于对人类的某种理想目的有用的东西)或非工具性的(价值本身被视为目的)。
In justifying their four-part value typology for statistical content analysis, Bengston and Xu note that other value typologies suffer from not being mutually exclusive-a condition wherein forest values cannot be viewed as conceptually distinct. Their four-category typology does not include a number of important and obvious forest values such as recreation, biodiversity, and scientific values because they believe it is important to separate values from objects of value: Bengston和Xu在为统计内容分析的四部分价值类型学辩护时指出,其他价值类型学并不相互排斥,这是一种森林价值不能被视为概念上不同的条件。他们的四类分类法不包括一些重要和明显的森林价值,如娱乐、生物多样性和科学价值,因为他们认为必须将价值与价值对象分开:
Objects of value are the things that we care about or think are important; values are the ways in which we care about those things. Values are a conception of what is good about objects of value. Confusion between values and objects of value is common because the dividing line between these two concepts is subjective and dependent on how terms are defined (p. 6). 价值对象是我们关心或认为重要的东西;价值是我们关心这些东西的方式。价值观是关于价值对象的好的概念。价值和价值对象之间的混淆是常见的,因为这两个概念之间的分界线是主观的,取决于如何定义术语(第6页)。
The act of distinguishing between what they term a “root” forest value, such as life support, and an object of value, such as biological diversity, therefore requires subjective judg- 因此,区分他们所称的“根”森林价值(如生命支持)和价值对象(如生物多样性)需要主观判断,
ment. Adding further to the challenge of developing an exhaustive, yet mutually exclusive, forest value typology is the inherent difficulty in separating the means and ends components of human value systems. In his classic work on values, Rokeach (1968) defines a value as an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end state of existence is personally and socially preferable to alternative modes of conduct or end states of existence. Thus, he makes a distinction between instrumental values (means) and terminal values (ends). For example, a world at peace may be a basic terminal value, while honesty may be seen as an instrumental value. Values are organized hierarchically within an individual to achieve cognitive consistency. Continuing with the previous example, the achievement of world peace through dishonest action would be an example of potential value conflict that would depend on how the particular values in question are cognitively organized. Likewise, forest values may conflict depending on how individuals hierarchically structure their value system. For example, the belief that active management of forest vegetation (e.g., logging) is desirable (an instrumental value) may or may not conflict with the desired forest state of sustaining biological diversity (a terminal value). Our use of a finite, quantitative forest value rating system encourages study participants to make explicit their hierarchy of forest values. 我是说。除了制定一个详尽但相互排斥的森林价值分类法的挑战之外,将人类价值体系的手段和目的部分分开本身就很困难。罗基奇(Rokeach,1968)在他关于价值的经典著作中将价值定义为一种持久的信念,即一种特定的行为模式或存在的最终状态在个人和社会上比其他行为模式或存在的最终状态更可取。因此,他区分了工具价值(手段)和最终价值(目的)。例如,一个和平的世界可能是一个基本的终极价值,而诚实可能被视为一种工具价值。价值观在个体内部是分层组织的,以实现认知的一致性。继续前面的例子,通过不诚实的行动实现世界和平将是潜在价值冲突的一个例子,这取决于所讨论的特定价值观是如何认知组织的。 同样,森林价值观也可能发生冲突,这取决于个人如何按等级结构构建其价值体系。例如,认为积极管理森林植被(例如,伐木)是可取的(工具价值),可能与维持生物多样性的理想森林状态(终端价值)相冲突,也可能不冲突。我们使用一个有限的,定量的森林价值评级系统,鼓励研究参与者明确他们的森林价值等级。
Rolston and Coufal proposed expanding the five statutory multiple uses (recreation, timber, range, watershed, and fish and wildlife as per 1960 Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act) governing national forest management into categories that would integrate human and biotic values. The resultant forest value typology consisted of ten values: life support, economic, scientific, recreation, aesthetic, wildlife, biotic diversity, natural history, spiritual, and intrinsic. While this is a useful conceptualization of forest values, the typology raises a number of important questions. For example, is this generalized list inclusive and exhaustive? Are the values mutually exclusive? How are these values related to actual forest use and nonuse? Would an understanding of publicly held forest values assist land managers in making forest allocation decisions? Rolston和Coufal建议将管理国家森林管理的五种法定多种用途(根据1960年《多种用途持续产量法》,娱乐、木材、牧场、流域、鱼类和野生动物)扩大到将人类和生物价值结合起来的类别。由此产生的森林价值类型包括十种价值:生命支持、经济、科学、娱乐、美学、野生动物、生物多样性、自然历史、精神和内在价值。虽然这是一个有用的森林价值概念,但类型学提出了一些重要问题。例如,这一概括性清单是否具有包容性和详尽性?这些价值观是相互排斥的吗?这些价值与实际森林使用和不使用有何关系?了解公有森林的价值是否有助于土地管理人员作出森林分配决定?
The Bengston and Xu typology appears to be a subset of the Rolston and Coufal typology. The latter typology contains some values (e.g., recreation, wildlife, biotic diversity) that Bengston and Xu would likely consider objects of value and therefore not mutually exclusive to their four categories. While the Bengston and Xu forest values typology may be exhaustive and mutually exclusive, it may suffer from too few categories given the human predisposition to blur the distinction between values and the objects of values in forestlands. Thus, an expanded and more explicit typology offered by Rolston and Coufal, even if not mutually exclusive, may prove more useful in the actual measurement of forest values. Bengston和Xu类型学似乎是Rolston和Coufal类型学的一个子集。后一种类型包含一些值(例如,娱乐,野生动物,生物多样性),本斯顿和徐可能会考虑有价值的对象,因此不相互排斥他们的四个类别。虽然Bengston和Xu的森林价值类型学可能是详尽无遗和相互排斥的,但由于人类倾向于模糊林地价值与价值对象之间的区别,它可能会受到类别太少的影响。因此,Rolston和Coufal提出的扩大和更明确的分类法,即使不是相互排斥的,在实际衡量森林价值方面可能证明更有用。
In their content analysis of national forest values, Bengston and Xu argue that values “play a critical role in identifying ecosystem management goals, setting the context for decision making, and guiding our choices” (p.1). And yet, there have been few studies that directly address the measurement of 在对国家森林价值观的内容分析中,Bengston和Xu认为,价值观“在确定生态系统管理目标、制定决策背景和指导我们的选择方面发挥着关键作用”(第1页)。然而,很少有研究直接涉及测量
forest values as a guide to forest planning and decision making. 森林价值观作为森林规划和决策的指南。
Using data from a survey of forest values collected from the general public during CNF plan revision process, this article attempts to help fill the research void in the measurement of forest values by: (1) examining how closely survey results support a modified Rolston and Coufal forest values typology and classification system; (2) describing the relationships between measured forest values and attitudes toward potential forest uses and forest policy preferences; and (3) determining whether knowledge of the public’s held forest values is useful in predicting forest management preferences. 本文利用在CNF计划修订过程中从公众收集的森林价值调查数据,试图通过以下方法填补森林价值计量研究的空白:(1)检验调查结果如何支持经修改的Rolston和Coufal森林价值类型学和分类系统;(2)描述森林价值测量值与对潜在森林用途的态度和森林政策偏好之间的关系;以及(3)确定公众持有的森林价值的知识在预测森林经营偏好方面是否有用。
Methods 方法
In March 1998, we conducted a mail survey of Alaskan residents using Dillman’s (1978) total design method. Our sampling methodology consisted of randomly selecting individuals from households in 12 communities (Anchorage, Cooper Landing, Cordova, Girdwood, Hope/Sunrise, Kenai, Moose Pass, Seward, Soldotna, Sterling, Valdez, and Whittier) in close proximity to CNF under the assumption that households in these communities would have the greatest interest in forest planning issues. In addition, a statewide random sample of households was selected for inclusion in the study to compare with households in close proximity to the forest. The names of the communities, sampling rates, and response rates appear in Table 1. 1998年3月,我们使用Dillman(1978)的总体设计方法对阿拉斯加居民进行了一次邮件调查。我们的抽样方法包括从12个社区(安克雷奇,库珀登陆,科尔多瓦,格德伍德,希望/日出,基奈,穆斯山口,苏厄德,Soldotna,斯特林,巴尔德斯,和惠蒂尔)的家庭中随机选择个人在CNF的假设下,在这些社区的家庭将有最大的兴趣在森林规划问题。此外,还选择了全州范围内的家庭随机样本纳入研究,以与靠近森林的家庭进行比较。社区名称、抽样率和答复率见表1。
The sampling frame used was a database produced by the State of Alaska of all individuals in Alaska who had applied to the state to receive a permanent fund dividend (PFD) from state oil revenues in 1997. The strength of this sampling frame is that it is reasonably comprehensive, and it includes most Alaskans who consider themselves permanent residents. For example, the 1996 U.S. Census Bureau population estimate for Alaska was 604,966 individuals, while the 1997 PFD application database contained names and addresses of 571,241 individuals. The PFD sampling frame has two major weaknesses: it includes Alaskan residents regardless of age (all Alaskan residents, including infants, are eligible to receive a PFD) and it underrepresents Alaskan residents who 所使用的抽样框架是阿拉斯加州制作的一个数据库,其中包括1997年向该州申请从州石油收入中获得永久基金股息的所有阿拉斯加人。这个抽样框架的优点在于它是相当全面的,它包括了大多数认为自己是永久居民的阿拉斯加人。例如,1996年美国人口普查局对阿拉斯加的人口估计为604,966人,而1997年PFD申请数据库包含571,241人的姓名和地址。PFD抽样框架有两个主要缺点:它包括阿拉斯加居民,无论年龄大小(所有阿拉斯加居民,包括婴儿,都有资格获得PFD),
Table 1. List of communities sampled and the survey response rate. 表1.抽样社区清单和调查答复率。
Community 社区
号1997年方案经费筹措申请人
No. of 1997
PFD applicants
No. of 1997
PFD applicants| No. of 1997 |
| :---: |
| PFD applicants |
had lived in Alaska for less than a year (these individuals could not have applied for a PFD). From Census Bureau population estimates, approximately 30%30 \% of the questionnaire recipients were likely to be 17 years or younger, and thus nonresponse would be expected from a high percentage of these households even though the cover letter requested that someone else in the household complete the questionnaire if the named recipient was a child. 在阿拉斯加居住不到一年(这些人不可能申请PFD)。根据人口普查局的人口估计,大约有 30%30 \% 的调查问卷接受者可能是17岁或以下,因此,即使求职信要求家庭中的其他人完成调查问卷,如果指定的接受者是儿童,也会有很高比例的家庭没有回答。
Sampling was limited to one individual per household. An introductory letter announcing the intent of the survey was sent to each selected household prior to the actual mailing of the questionnaire with a cover letter. A followup reminder postcard was sent approximately 10 days after the questionnaire. The questionnaire and cover letter were accompanied by a USDA Forest Service-printed CNF map that recipients were to use to complete part of the questionnaire. 抽样限于每户一人。在实际邮寄附有附信的调查表之前,向每个选定的家庭发送了一封介绍信,宣布调查的意图。在问卷调查后约10天发送了一张随访提醒明信片。问卷和附信附有美国农业部林务局打印的CNF地图,收件人将使用该地图完成问卷的一部分。
The questionnaire contained five sections: (1) questions about the familiarity and use of the CNF (number of times visited, level of subsistence use, employment relying on the Forest, and level of interest in the Forest’s future); (2) questions that measure attitudes toward 19 potential forest uses such as “commercial logging,” “sightseeing,” and “subsistence hunting/fishing” on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Favor” to “Strongly Oppose”; (3) a series of eight policy questions specific to CNF forest plan revision such as how much logging, wilderness, “wild and scenic” river designation, and new roads should be included in the revised plan; ^(2){ }^{2} (4) a set of 13 forest values in which respondents were to express personal preferences by allocating a hypothetical amount of money ( $100\$ 100 ) among the value choices (discussed further below); and (5) selected demographic information including age, gender, level of education, occupation, and race. 问卷包括五个部分:(1)关于CNF的熟悉和使用的问题(访问次数、维持生计的使用程度、依赖森林的就业情况以及对森林未来的兴趣程度);(2)测量对19种潜在森林用途的态度的问题,如“商业伐木”,“观光”,“和“自给狩猎/捕鱼”,5分制,从“强烈赞成”到“强烈反对”;(3)CNF森林计划修订所特有的一系列八个政策问题,如多少伐木、荒野、“野生和风景优美”的河流指定,及新建道路应纳入修订计划; ^(2){ }^{2} (4)一套13项森林价值,受访者须在各项价值选择中分配一笔假设金额( $100\$ 100 ),以表达个人喜好(下面进一步讨论);和(5)选定的人口统计信息,包括年龄、性别、教育水平、职业和种族。
The primary focus of this article is the section that requested survey participants to allocate a hypothetical $100\$ 100 among 13 possible forest values. The specific instructions included in the questionnaire were as follows: 本文的主要重点是要求调查参与者在13个可能的森林值中分配一个假设的 $100\$ 100 的部分。调查表中的具体指示如下:
Abstract 摘要
The Chugach National Forest holds different values to different people. Some of these values are connected to direct use of the forest (such as for recreation). Some people value the Forest without setting foot on it (such as knowing that future generations will have the opportunity to enjoy it as it is now). Listed below are some of the best known values of national forests. We would like to know how important each of the following values of the Chugach National Forest is to you. 楚加奇国家森林对不同的人有不同的价值。其中一些价值与森林的直接使用有关(例如用于娱乐)。有些人珍视森林,却不踏上它(比如知道后代将有机会像现在一样享受它)。下面列出的是一些最著名的国家森林的价值。我们想知道楚加奇国家森林的以下价值对您有多重要。
Imagine that you could "spend" $100\$ 100 to insure that the Chugach National Forest keeps its existing values. You may allocate or spend the $100\$ 100 in any way you like, but 想象一下,你可以“花” $100\$ 100 ,以确保楚加奇国家森林保持其现有的价值。你可以以任何你喜欢的方式分配或花费 $100\$ 100 ,但是
1 The term “preferences” as used in this study refers to the set of choices made by study participants from among a number of potential forest allocation decisions (e.g., designating more, less, or an amount of “wilderness” equal to the current forest plan designation). These preferences are amalgams of participant attitudes and beliefs that are tied to specific forest plan allocations. In contrast, attitudes in this study are measured as generalized predispositions (favor vs. oppose) toward generalized forest management activities such as logging, mining, and fishing. 1本研究中使用的“偏好”一词是指研究参与者从若干潜在的森林分配决定中作出的一系列选择(例如,指定更多、更少或等于当前森林计划指定的“荒野”的量)。这些偏好是参与者的态度和信念的混合体,与具体的森林计划分配有关。与此相反,在这项研究中的态度被测量为广义的倾向(赞成与反对)对广义的森林管理活动,如伐木,采矿和捕鱼。
^(1){ }^{1} PFD applicants are those individuals receiving Permanent Fund Dividends from state oil revenues in 1997. ^(1){ }^{1} PFD申请人是1997年从国家石油收入中获得永久基金红利的个人。
^(2){ }^{2} An example of the wild and scenic rivers policy question is as follows: "Congress may designate rivers as ‘wild and scenic’ to preserve their outstandingly remarkable recreation, scenic, and geologic features, or to protect fisheries. Designation does not restrict current uses of rivers but it may restrict future development if development is incompatible with protection goals. In general, do you support the recommendation of wild and scenic rivers in the Chugach National Forest?’ Respondent choices included “Do not support wild and scenic river designation under any conditions,” “Support designation of a few rivers ( 5 or less) that are suitable.” or “Support designation of all rivers that are suitable.” 一个关于野生和风景河流政策问题的例子如下:“国会可以指定河流为'野生和风景',以保护其突出的娱乐,风景和地质特征,或保护渔业。指定并不限制河流目前的使用,但如果开发与保护目标不相容,则可能限制未来的开发。总的来说,你支持在楚加奇国家森林公园里推荐野生和风景优美的河流吗?受访者的选择包括“在任何情况下都不支持野生和风景河流的指定”,“支持指定几条合适的河流(5条或更少)”。或“支持指定所有适合的河流”。