SLIDE 1
1
Inter-Group Differences in Forest Values and Visual Forest Management Preferences.
SLIDE 2 2
Table 1: Groups Anayzed.
- 1. Artists/Writers
- 2. Community Representatives
- 3. Educators
- 4. Environment and Parks (Govt.)
- 5. First Nations
- 6. Forest Industry
- 7. MOF Managers, Employees
- 8. Environmental Organizations
- 9. Recreation Groups
- 10. Scientists
- 11. Tourism/Recreation Operators.
- 12. Trappers/Ranchers
- 13. Unions
SLIDE 3
3 Table 2. Groups Identified for Sampling Purposes: Relationship to Forests Quota Matrix
MAIN GROUPS SUBGROUPS Artists/Writers Artists (General) Painters Photographers Writers Sculptors Community Groups Local Politicians Community Forestry Organizations Chamber of Commerce Local Environmental Groups Regional Environmental Groups National/International Environmental Groups Educators Primary Educators Secondary Educators Post Secondary Educators Outdoor Educators Environment/Parks Managers and Employees Federal Parks Managers/Employees Provincial Parks Managers/Employees Local/Municipal Parks Managers/Employees Parks Canada Administration -- Managers/Employees (Dept. of Canadian Heritage) B.C. MELP Parks Division Managers/Employees First Nations (Cultural Background) Representatives of First Nations from a cross-section of Different Language Families in the Six Forest Regions. Forest Industry Managers and Employees (Private Sector): Including: Harvesting, Saw Mills, Pulp Mills, Fine Paper Making, Value Added/Remanufacturing, Forestation/Silviculture, Non-Traditional. Small Business Owners/Operators Managers/Supervisors Workers Private Forestry Consultants Forest Managers and Related Government Employees (Public Sector) Forest Managers — MOF Regional Forest Managers — MOF District Forest Managers — MOF Operations Forest Managers/Employees Other
SLIDE 4
4
(Continued) Relationship to Forests Quota Matrix. MAIN GROUPS SUBGROUPS Recreation Groups Mountain Climbing Outdoor Recreation Naturalists Hunters Anglers Birders Local Hiking Groups Other Recreation Groups Scientists Scientists — Ecologists Scientists — Trees Scientists — Plants Scientists — Animals Scientists — Soil Scientists — Water Scientists — Other Tourism/Recreation Operators Tourism Workers Recreation Operators — Owners (General) Guides Outfitters Trappers and Ranchers Trappers Ranchers Unions Cross-section of unions involved in the Forestry Sector.
SLIDE 5 5
Table 3. Items Used to Construct Abstract Value Indices. Section 1 of the Forest Values Questionnaire required respondents to rate the importance of 79 value indicators. The categories, and codes for these items were: 1 = Not Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Very Important, 4 = Extremely
- Important. These value indicators were treated as interval-ratio level variables in
the analyses. Based on theoretical, and substantive considerations, and upon results from factor analysis and reliability analysis, a set of abstract value indexes were created. These indexes, and the items that comprise them, are listed below. To construct each index, responses for the indicators comprising the value index were summed and the aggregate value was then divided by the number of indicators included in the index. The value of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of reliability is provided for each index below. Ecological Values = .84 Healthy populations of wildlife and fish species Maintaining biodiversity Clean water Clean air Healthy soils Recreation and Outdoor Experiences = .83 Outdoor recreation in wilderness (e.g., large unlogged natural areas) Outdoor recreation in large natural but non-wilderness settings (e.g., areas that have logging actvity) Outdoor recreation in developed natural environments (e.g., provincial car campgrounds, lakes or beaches with facilities) Gaining survival knowledge and skills Having a sense of competence in the woods Having a sense of competence in recreation activities Knowing and identifying natural phenomena (e.g., birds, plants) Gaining an understanding of natural systems and processes Having a sense of connection to nature Sharing time spent outdoors with friends and family Having a sense of place (getting to know and feel at home in a particular natural environment) Table 3. Items Used to Construct Abstract Value Indices (Continued).
SLIDE 6
6
Aesthetic Values = .84 The beauty of your community The beauty of natural areas surrounding your community The beauty along major transportation corridors The beauty of natural areas in which people recreate Community Sustainability = .75 Continued existence of smaller cities/towns around the province Low unemployment in communities and the province Community social stability (absence of large population fluctuations) Community economic diversity Community economic stability Community economic growth Cultural Values = .83 First Nations traditional beliefs and way of life First Nations sacred sites and artifacts Sites and artifacts of Canada’s history Economic Values = .81 Provincial economic growth Provincial economic diversity Provincial economic stability High paying work Companies or industries that are profitable
SLIDE 7
7
Table 3. Items Used to Construct Abstract Value Indices Continued. Work Values = .71 Physically challenging work Work that provides a variety of job experiences and required a range of skills Work where there is a sense of community Meaningful work (work that give you a sense of purpose or meaning) Intellectually challenging work Working outdoors Science and Education Values = .77 Scientific information and education about the functioning of natural ecosytems Scientific information and education about the habitat needs of wildlife Scientific information and education about growing trees and tending plantations Scientific information and education about forest pests and diseases Scientific information and education about the effects of different timber harvesting methods Scientific information and education about First Nations’ traidtional knowledge and use of natural products and areas Scientific information and education about British Columbians’ values associated with forests Equity Values = .66 Rights of future generations (inter-generational equity). Rights of non-human plant and animal species to exists in their natural habitat (regardless of their use to humans) Rights of First Nations to resources on their traditional territories Equity between resource communities and large cities in the province Equity among different resource communities of the province
SLIDE 8 8
Table 4. Ranking of Value Category Means – for Entire Sample
- 1. Ecological/Environmental
- 2. Science and Education
- 3. Community Sustainability
- 4. Aesthetic Values
- 5. Work Values
- 6. Outdoor Recreation Experiences
- 7. Economic Values
- 8. Equity Values
- 9. Cultural Values
SLIDE 9 9
Table 5A. Ranking of Value Category Means by Group. 2. Community Repre- sentatives 3. Educators 4. Environ- ment and Parks (Govt) 6. Forest Industry 7. MOF Managers. Employees 8. Environ- mental Organiz- ations 9. Recreation Groups 10. Scientists 11. Tourism /Recreation Operators
/Environmental
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2.Science and Education
4 5 2 5 4 4 5 5 4
Sustainability
1 7 7 3 3 6 8 6 5
Values
7 3 6 7 6 5 3 4 2
Values
5 8 4 4 5 8 4 2 7
Recreation Experiences
8 4 3 6 8 7 2 3 3
Values
3 9 8 2 2 9 9 9 9
Values
6 6 5 8 7 3 6 7 6
Values
9 2 9 9 9 2 7 8 8
SLIDE 10 10
Table 5B. Ranking of Value Category Means by Group. 1. Artists/ Writers 5. First Nations 12. Trappers /Ranchers 13. Unions
/Environmental
1 1 1 1
2.Science and Education
4 5 3 4
Sustainability
5 6 4 2
Values
2 8 8 8
Values
6 4 6 7
Recreation Experiences
3 7 5 9
Values
7 9 2 3
Values
9 2 7 6
Values
8 3 9 5
SLIDE 11 11
Table 6. Ranking of Value Category Means by Urban Versus Rural Residence. Urban Rural
/Environmental 1 1 2.Science and Education 5 3
Sustainability 8 2
Values 2 5
Values 4 6
Recreation Experiences 3 7
Values 9 4
Values 7 8
Values 6 9
SLIDE 12 12
Table 7. Ranking of Value Category Means by Gender. Women Men
/Environmental 1 1 2.Science and Education 2 3
Sustainability 7 2
Values 4 4
Values 5 6
Recreation Experiences 3 7
Values 9 5
Values 6 8
Values 8 9
SLIDE 13 13
Table 8. Ranking of Value Category Means by Forestry/Non- Forestry. Forestry Non- Forestry
/Environmental 1 1 2.Science and Education 4 2
Sustainability 3 6
Values 6 3
Values 5 7
Recreation Experiences 7 4
Values 2 9
Values 8 5
Values 9 8
SLIDE 14 14
Table 9. Frequencies for visual forest management opinion items (in percentage).
Strongly Agree Mostly Agree Partly Agree/ Disagree Mostly Disagree Strongly Disagree Don’t Know/No Opinion N
Opinion items:
- 1. Clearcutting should not be stopped
just because people think it is ugly.
26.9 32.2 16.4 8.2 15.8 .6 171
- 2. Visual corridors should not be
created just because people think logging “is ugly”.
17.3 25.0 23.8 22.0 10.1 1.8 168
- 3. The creation of visual corridors
should be discouraged -- because they give a false impression of forest managements by covering up the bad forest practices of forest companies.
8.9 19.0 31.0 28.6 11.3 1.2 168
- 4. Visual corridors are unnecessary --
we should take pride in logging instead
10.7 11.3 25.0 31.5 18.5 3.0 168
- 5. Visual corridors are good for
tourism.
17.4 46.1 24.0 6.0 2.4 4.2 167
- 6. More attention should be devoted to
minimizing the visual effects of logging
16.5 28.8 27.1 21.8 3.5 2.4 170
SLIDE 15 15 Table 10. Cross-classification of aesthetic values index by ratings of visual forest management opinion items (in percentage).
Ratings in Percentage
Respondent’s score on aesthetic values index (High or Low)
Other Strongly Agree Mostly Agree Partly Agree/ Disagree Mostly Disagree Strongly Disagree Don’t Know/No Opinion N Value,
2
and Significance
Opinion items:
- 1. Clearcutting should not be
stopped just because people think it is ugly. High 2.4 15.5 28.6 16.7 31.1 22.6 1.2 84 = 22.20,
2
Low 37.6 34.1 16.5 2.4 9.4 85
- 2. Visual corridors should not be
created just because people think logging “is ugly”. High 2.4 10.6 20 20 28.2 15.3 3.5 85 = 18.14,
2
Low 23.5 29.6 25.9 16 4.9 81
- 3. The creation of visual corridors
should be discouraged -- because they give a false impression of forest managements by covering up the bad forest practices of forest companies. High 1.2 8.3 14.3 31 31 11.9 2.4 84 Non- significant Low 8.6 23.5 30.9 25.9 11.1 81
- 4. Visual corridors are unnecessary
- - we should take pride in logging
instead of trying to hide it. High 2.4 7.1 5.9 16.5 32.9 29.4 5.9 85 = 27.57,
2
Low 13.6 17.3 30.9 30.9 7.4 81
- 5. Visual corridors are good for
tourism. High 20 50.6 12.9 3.5 4.7 8.2 85 = 21.66,
2
Low 1.3 15.2 41.8 32.9 8.9 79
- 6. More attention should be devoted
to minimizing the visual effects of logging on the landscape. High 28.2 32.9 24.7 9.4 1.2 3.5 85 = 28.60,
2
Low 4.9 25.9 29.6 32.1 6.2 1.2 81
SLIDE 16 16
Table 11A. Bivariate correlations between abstract values and opinion/attitudes items concerning visual aspects of forest management.
Abstract Values Ecological Values Outdoor Recreation Experience Aesthetic Values Community Sustainability Cultural Values Economic Values Work Values Science and Education Equity Values
Attitude/Opinion items:
- 1. Clearcutting should not be
stopped just because people think it is ugly.
- .28***
- .24***
- .37***
- 0.01
- .28***
.20**
- 0.15
- .19*
- .22**
- 2. Visual corridors should not be
created just because people think logging “is ugly”.
.20*
.28*** 0.02
0.01
- 3. The creation of visual corridors
should be discouraged -- because they give a false impression of forest managements by covering up the bad forest practices of forest companies.
0.14 0.09
0.1
.18* 0.12 .20*
- 4. Visual corridors are unnecessary
- - we should take pride in logging
instead of trying to hide it.
.22**
.24*** 0.03
- 0.05
- 0.08
- 5. Visual corridors are good for
tourism.
0.12 0.03 .17*
0.05 0.03 0.08 0.01
- 0.07
- 6. More attention should be
devoted to minimizing the visual effects of logging on the landscape.
.31*** .23*** .44***
.23***
0.05 .24*** 0.13
SLIDE 17
17
Notes: * p. .05, ** p. .01, *** p. .005
SLIDE 18 18
Table 11B. Summary of bivariate correlations between abstract values and opinion/attitudes items concerning visual aspects of forest management.
Abstract Values Ecological Values Outdoor Recreation Experience Aesthetic Values Community Sustainability Cultural Values Economic Values Work Values Science and Education Equity Values Attitude/Opinion items:
- 1. Clearcutting should not be stopped just
because people think it is ugly.
- +
- 2. Visual corridors should not be created just
because people think logging “is ugly”.
- +
- 3. The creation of visual corridors should be
discouraged -- because they give a false impression of forest managements by covering up the bad forest practices of forest companies.
+ +
- 4. Visual corridors are unnecessary -- we should
take pride in logging instead of trying to hide it.
- +
- +
- 5. Visual corridors are good for tourism.
- 6. More attention should be devoted to
minimizing the visual effects of logging on the landscape.
+ + + +
Notes: “-“ indicates a significant negative correlation. “+” indicates a significant positive correlation.
SLIDE 19 19
Table 12. Cross-classification of aesthetic values index by ratings of visual forest management opinion items (in percentage). Ratings in Percentage Forestry or Non- Forestry Respondent Mean Rating N Sig of t-test at .05 level? Opinion items:
- 1. Clearcutting should not be stopped just because people
think it is ugly. Forestry 2.21 42 SIG Non-Forestry 2.65 126
- 2. Visual corridors should not be created just because people
think logging “is ugly”. Forestry 2.46 41 SIG Non-Forestry 2.95 122
- 3. The creation of visual corridors should be discouraged --
because they give a false impression of forest managements by covering up the bad forest practices of forest companies. Forestry 3.16 43 N.S. Non-Forestry 3.11 121
- 4. Visual corridors are unnecessary -- we should take pride in
logging instead of trying to hide it. Forestry 2.90 41 SIG Non-Forestry 3.52 120
- 5. Visual corridors are good for tourism.
Forestry 2.46 41 N.S. Non-Forestry 2.21 117
- 6. More attention should be devoted to minimizing the visual
effects of logging on the landscape. Forestry 2.93 43 SIG Non-Forestry 2.55 121 Scale for Opinion Items: 1 = Strong Agree, 5 = Strongly Disagree.
