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

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$^(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》。

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。

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。

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\mathrm{\%}$$30\mathrm{\%}$30%30 \% of the questionnaire recipients were likely to be 17 years or younger, and thus nonresponse would be expected from a high percentage of these households even though the cover letter requested that someone else in the household complete the questionnaire if the named recipient was a child.
在阿拉斯加居住不到一年（这些人不可能申请PFD）。根据人口普查局的人口估计，大约有 $30\mathrm{\%}$$30\mathrm{\%}$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$${}^2$^(2){ }^{2} (4) a set of 13 forest values in which respondents were to express personal preferences by allocating a hypothetical amount of money ( $\mathrm{\$}100$$\mathrm{\$}100$$100\$ 100 ) among the value choices (discussed further below); and (5) selected demographic information including age, gender, level of education, occupation, and race.
问卷包括五个部分：（1）关于CNF的熟悉和使用的问题（访问次数、维持生计的使用程度、依赖森林的就业情况以及对森林未来的兴趣程度）;（2）测量对19种潜在森林用途的态度的问题，如“商业伐木”，“观光”，“和“自给狩猎/捕鱼”，5分制，从“强烈赞成”到“强烈反对”;（3）CNF森林计划修订所特有的一系列八个政策问题，如多少伐木、荒野、“野生和风景优美”的河流指定，及新建道路应纳入修订计划; ${}^2$${}^2$^(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（ $\mathrm{\$}100$$\mathrm{\$}100$$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 $\mathrm{\$}100$$\mathrm{\$}100$$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 $\mathrm{\$}100$$\mathrm{\$}100$$100\$ 100 的部分。调查表中的具体指示如下：