Introduction
Forest ecosystems have enormous significance to human civilizations. Housing a staggering array of plants and animals, forests have sustained countless groups of indigenous peoples at all latitudes for millennia, provided the raw materials that built nations during sea-faring years, and contain a myriad of pharmaceuticals used in modern medicine. Although it would be impossible to identify all of the specific values associated with the diverse array of species and ecosystem processes found in forests, conflicts over timber-dominated forest management ignited efforts to identify a broader range of values to include in land-use planning.
Different disciplines in the social sciences define values in different ways but the definition used in cultural anthropology captures the essence of the concept: values are emotionally charged beliefs about what is desirable, right and appropriate (Howard, 1996). Of course not everything that a person considers highly desirable (e.g., cheesecake) qualifies as a value. To distinguish values from the very broad concept of preferences, Schwartz (1992) describes values as desirable goals that serve as guiding principles in the life of a person or social entity. The notion of values as guiding principles captures the level of significance that distinguishes values from more mundane or transient beliefs or preferences.
The study of basic human values involves identifying the aspects of life that are centrally important to a person or to a social or cultural entity. Values researchers attempt to answer the question “what is fundamentally important to people?” Examples of basic values include equality, respect for elders, and security. Research on values associated with natural places, including forest ecosystems, has been guided by a slightly different question. In this work, the goal has been to identify the factors that make forests important to people and thus the question asked is “for what reasons are forests of value to a person or social entity?” The difference between these approaches can be illustrated by considering spiritual values. Imagine a person for whom spirituality or religion is not fundamentally important. Despite the fact that spirituality is not a guiding principal in the person’s life, he or she might state that forests are important because time spent in nature can evoke profound experiences similar to spiritual experiences. For this person, spending time in forests or natural places is the guiding principle due in part to the complex set of experiences, including spiritual, derived from the environment. To identify the range of forest values it is useful to examine both people’s basic values as well as their reasons for valuing forests. Value typologies from both research literatures are reviewed here.
Forest Values
One of the challenges in identifying the range of values associated with forests is identifying a comprehensive, but manageable set of values. Forests and natural places more generally house a wide diversity of species and ecological processes, each of which provides outcomes that can be of value. Also, different types of forests at different sizes will necessarily carry different values. A small fragmented forest parcel on a person’s two-acre private property will not have the same range of values as a contiguous forested watershed of coastal cedar hemlock old-growth that is owned by the state or province. Consequently, researchers attempting to identify forest values have tried to select a relatively limited number of broad values that can apply to a variety of forest types.
Some values researchers have limited the range of values by distinguishing between the objects of value (e.g., red wood forests, wildlife, wilderness, CO2 sequestering, biodiversity) and the way in which humans care about these objects (e.g., aesthetically or economically). Focusing on the way in which people care about forests, Bengston (1994) developed the simplest typology of forest values (see Table 1), which includes four values: life support and economic, which are designated as instrumental values and moral and aesthetic (non-instrumental). Moral values with respect to forest ecosystems can refer to the rights of other species to exist or to the rights of future generations to inherit a rich natural heritage. The notion of aesthetic value, which Bengston later expanded to include spiritual value (Bengston et al., 1999), is defined as feelings of aesthetic appreciation, affection, reverence and respect directed toward forests. People often report having profound, transcendent experiences from their time spent in natural environments, and these experiences have been likened to spiritual or religious experiences.
This very simple classification system has some limitations. For one, the broad categories such as moral or economic value do not specify the relevant moral principle or economic outcome at issue. A variety of conflicting moral principles can be linked to forests such as “society has an obligation to ensure a rich natural heritage for future generations” or “society has a moral obligation to maintain a strong economy for future generations”. With respect to economic value, economic activity is better described as a means to desirable ends rather than as a value in and of itself. Economic activity can be a source of life support or security for individuals, families, communities or nations; a means for gaining wealth and power; or a source of state funding for creating social programs and institutions that help promote social equality. In the research on basic human values (see below), security, wealth, power and social equality are separate and, in some cases, conflicting values. A third limitation with this typology is that some forest values that are significant to certain groups are not captured. For example, the cultural importance of forests to aboriginal peoples, whose culture and identity have traditionally been place-based and formed through extensive and complex relations to their traditional territories, is not captured.
|
An environmental philosopher (Rolston, 1985, Rolston & Coufal, 1991; Rolston, 1994) developed a forest value typology that included more specific values and a wider-range of values. In his writings, Rolston identified thirteen different values linked to forests or to wildlands (see Table 1). He includes the values identified by Bengston, life support, economic, aesthetic, religious / spiritual and moral, but the moral value was described as intrinsic value, which specifically means that the forest, as a living entity, has value itself independent of human wants, desires or admiration. Rolston’s typology includes two objects of value, wildlife and biotic diversity; and two knowledge values, scientific and natural history value. Cultural value captures nations’ symbolic use of nature with symbols such as the maple leaf or the bald eagle. More importantly, it can capture the significance of natural places for groups in society whose culture is closely linked to the land. For aboriginal peoples, displacement from the land can be equivalent to cultural genocide. The loss of cultural diversity on the planet gives cultural value a particular significance.
Rolston includes recreation as a value and it is often through outdoor recreation that people report having aesthetic and spiritual experiences. Character building and therapeutic values are two additional values that can be derived from time spent in forests. Character building refers to a set of outcomes that Rolston argued were generated by outdoor recreation including independence, competence, skills and humility. Therapeutic value refers specifically to healing of people who suffer from either psychological or social (i.e., delinquency) problems, but other researchers have described the benefits of natural environments as assisting all people in staying healthy both physically and psychologically by reducing stress, improving cognitive functioning and providing time for quiet reflection (Herzog et al., 1997; Kaplan, 1995;Ulrich et al., 1991). The diverse set of valued experiences that people report having in natural environments (e.g., Driver et al., 1987; McCloskey, 1990) contributes to the sense of attachment some people feel to specific natural places or to wilderness environments more generally, and contributes to the strength of advocacy for the conservation of natural environments.
Basic Values
The research on basic human values can be used to identify social values that underlie the notion of economic value in forest values typologies as well as to identify additional values that might be overlooked when asking the question: “for what reasons are forests important to people?” In his research work, guided by the ambitious goal of identifying the range of central values important to people in most cultures, Schwartz (1992, 1994) has argued that values represent, in some form, one of three universal requirements of human existence: (1) needs of the individual as a biological and psychological organism, (2) requisites of coordinated social interaction, and (3) survival and welfare needs of the group. Based on meeting these conditions, Schwartz and Bilsky (1987, 1990) identified ten distinct clusters of values (see Table 1). These ten values have been classified as either individual values or collective values or a combination of the two.
Individual values include five clusters that range from the desire for wealth and power to the desire to exercise personal freedom and independence. These five clusters include: power, values associated with social status and prestige and the desire to exercise control or dominance over people and resources (e.g., wealth, social recognition); achievement, values linked with personal success through competence (e.g., capable, successful); hedonism, values associated with pleasure and gratification (e.g., pleasure, enjoying life); stimulation, values associated with the desire for excitement, novelty and challenge; and self-direction, values associated with independent thought and action (e.g., independence, freedom, creativity). A number of these values can be linked to forests either through economic activities (i.e., employment) or other activities such as recreation or subsistence lifestyles. For example, wealth and power, achievement and self-direction are all possible outcomes of employment. Recreational activities might also promote self-direction and achievement values as well as enjoyment of life (hedonism) and excitement (stimulation values).
Collective values include three value clusters: benevolence, values associated with the preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people (e.g., helpful, responsible); tradition, values associated with having respect, commitment and acceptance of the customs and traditions of one’s culture or religion; and conformity, values linked to individual restraint and observance of social norms, (e.g., politeness, obedience, honouring elders). Collective values help to coordinate social interaction and maintain the welfare of the group. The final two value clusters, security and universalism, combine collective and individual interests, and are very relevant to forest values. Universalism is defined as a cluster of values linked to the understanding, appreciation and protection of the welfare of all people and of the environment (e.g., social justice, equality, environmental protection). Security is defined as concern about the safety and stability of society, family and the self (e.g., national security, social order, family security, sense of belonging, & health).
In addition to the individual values obtained from employment linked to forestry, forest-related economic activity, either consumptive (e.g., timber production) or non-consumptive (e.g., eco-tourism) can be used to promote values of security (individual, family, community or national) and universalism. Most people are concerned to some degree about security for their future, but for some people this security is directly linked to economic activity in forests, while for others it is not. Similarly, countries vary in the extent to which their security and wealth are linked to forestry. With respect to universalism, if governments direct resource revenues toward social programs such as healthcare and education, social welfare and equality can be enhanced. The link between human values and economic activity is, however, dependent on political policies and thus varies from country to country. Consider Norway, Saudi Arabia, China and the United States for example; all could be described as having strong economies, but the social values resulting from this economic activity are very different. Thus economic activity should not be considered a value itself because it is primarily a means to other ends. Replacing the idea of economic value listed in forest values typologies with the values that can be derived from economic activity better represents the underlying interests of people and communities whose livelihoods are substantially dependent on the use of forest resources.
Value Conflicts and Common Ground
Concerns about protecting forest ecosystems are generally linked to universalism values such as moral values having to do with the rights of other species and to a sense of spiritual or aesthetic connection with nature. And universalism values are generally framed as in conflict with security values. With the Schwartz value framework for example the 10 value clusters are organized in a circle or circumplex reflecting the relations among the values with the values that are most highly correlated located beside each other and the values with the lowest correlations located across from each other. Security and universalism are opposite to each other on the circumplex; thus people who strongly prioritize universalism tend to assign security a lower importance and visa versa. The opposition of universalism and security values is also reflected in the research on worldviews in political science and sociology. Inglehart (1977, 1990) distinguishes between materialist values of wealth and security and postmaterialist values of social justice and self-direction. Despite these differences, among diverse interest groups there tends to be very strong and universal endorsement of a range of environmental values such as the importance of having clean water, clean air, and healthy soils, and of sustaining ecosystems (Lavallee, 2002). This wide support for environmental values suggests that people link healthy ecosystems with both universalism (moral / aesthetic) and security or basic life support values.
Despite the universal support for environmental values, according to Dunlap and Van Liere (1978, 1984), who distinguish between the new ecological paradigm and the dominant social paradigm, the dominant social paradigm of most countries appears to be the pursuit of wealth to the detriment of the environment. The interesting paradox is that the vast majority of people around the globe rate the values of universalism, self-direction and benevolence as most important and the value of power (including wealth) as least important (Schwartz & Bardi, 2001). According to Inglehart materialist pursuits are linked to perceived security needs. When security concerns are viewed as the highest priority, he argues that public policy will emphasize stability and social order, and the political and economic arrangements believed to ensure them.
Summary
Identifying the range of values associated with forests should be an essential part of land-use planning. Conflict however can emerge both between values (Lavallee & Suedfeld, 1997) and also within values. With respect to recreation in forests, for example, conflicts often emerge between people who enjoy motorized recreation (e.g., snowmobiling) and those who engage in non-motorized recreation (e.g., backcountry skiing). With respect to security, economic activities associated with cutting down the forest can conflict with economic or life support activities that are dependent on healthy intact forests ecosystems (e.g., eco-tourism, salmon fisheries, traditional aboriginal lifestyles). Identifying a range of values simply helps better clarify some of the stakes involved in land-use management.
References
Bengston, D. N. (1994). Changing forest values and ecosystem management. Society and Nautral Resources, 7, 515-533.
Bengston, D. N., Fan, D. P., & Celarier, D. N., (1999). Anew approach to monitoring the social environment for natural resource management and policy: The case of US national forest benefits and values. Journal of Environmental Management, 56, 181-193.
Driver, B. L., Nash, R., & Haas, G. E. (1987). Wilderness benefits: a state-of-knowledge review. In: Lucas, R. C., comp. Proceedings, National Wilderness Research conference: Issues, state of knowledge, future directions. General Technical Report INT-220. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 294-319.
Dunlap, R. E. & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The “new environmental paradigm”: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10-19.
Dunlap, R. E. & Van Liere, K. D. (1984). Commitment to the dominant social paradigm and concern for environmental quality. Social Science Quarterly, 65, 1013-1028.
Herzog, T. R., Black, a. M., Fountaine, K. A., & Knotts, D. J. (1997). Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restorative environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 165-170.
Howard, M. C. (1996). Contemporary Cultural Anthropology, 5th ed. New York: HarperCollins.
Inglehart, R. (1977). The silent revolution: Changing values and political styles among western publics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University press.
Kaplan S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182.
Lavallee, L. F. (2002, June). Common and contentious forest values. Paper presented at the 9th International Symposium on Society and Resource Management, Bloomington IN.
Lavallee, L. F. & Suedfeld, P. (1997). Conflict in Clayoquot Sound: Using thematic Content Analysis to Understand Psychological Aspects of Environmental Controversy. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 29, 194-209.
McCloskey, M. (1990). Evolving perspectives on wilderness values: Putting wilderness values in order. In P. C. Reed ed. Preparing to manage wilderness in the 21st Century: Proceedings of the Conference. General Technical Report SE-66. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 13-18.
Milbrath, L. W. (1989). Envisioning a sustainable society: Learning our way out. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Rolston, H. III. (1985). Valuing wildlands. Environmental Ethics, 7, 23-48.
Rolston, H. III (1994). Conserving Natural Value. New York: Columbia University Press
Rolston, H. III & Coufal, J. (1991). A forest ethic and multivalue forest management. Journal of Forestry, 89, 35-40.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). Orlando, FL: Academic.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50 (4), 19-45.
Schwartz, S. H. & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32 (3), 268-290.
Schwartz, S. H. & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550-562.
Schwartz, S. H. & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extension and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878-891.
Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E. et al. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11 (3), 201-230.
Posted: August 2006
Updated: 23 August 2007
|
|
