Validation of a Forest Values Typology for Use in National Forest Planning

By Gregory Brown, P. Reed. Forestry sciences, 2000

291 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/472e793ed5eab4106420d7f755f4039837e3dc8c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Global and Planetary Change

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

In Plant Science

Citations in the corpus

A social choice approach to sustainable forest management: an analysis of multiple forest values in Northwestern Ontario (2004, background): “Fourth, in the MGSCM, an understanding of each groups’ preferences for forest management objectives is essential, and these preferences are easily obtained through the group’s forest values, as they are considered to be the underlying basis for the group’s preferences of forest use and non-use (Beng”
A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation (2013, background): “The values that are quantified depend on the values typology provided with the survey, which has typically been based on a “forest values typology” (Brown and Reed, 2000).”
Methods for identifying land use conflict potential using participatory mapping (2014, background): “And yet, values, as an indirect measure, are not reliable in predicting an individual’s preference with respect to a specific, proposed land use (Brown & Reed, 2000).”
Understanding the role of assigned values in natural resource management (2010, background): “…a r a n g e o f s o c i a l a n d demographic factors that have been found to influence values assigned to natural assets, including gender and age (Brown & Reed 2000; Tarrant & Cordell 2002; Bohnet & Kinjun 2009), place and length of residence (Tarrant & Cordell 2002; Brown & Raymond 2007), and…”
The relationship between social values for ecosystem services and global land cover: An empirical analysis (2013, methodology): “The study areas ranged geographically from approximately 611 north latitude (Alaska) to 461 south (New Zealand).”