Upload
rsyben1
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS AND ATTITUDES TOWARD
FOREST RESOURCES (CASE STUDY: TAIWAN)
By
Reuben Selase Yao Asempapa
Department of Mathematics & Statistics
Youngstown State University
Submitted to the Department of Mathematics and Statistics in partial
fulfillment of the requirement for the award of a Masters of Science Degree.
Advisor:
Dr.Andy Chang
Department of Mathematics &Statistics
AUGUST 2005
ii
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my best friend and life long companion, Mrs. Bridget
Asempapa. Without your faithful love and prayers through out these years this work
would not be in existence. Many women have done virtuously, nobly and well but you
surpass them all. Thanks so much for your love, care and support. God richly bless you.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Every new thing is like having another child. First of all I would like to thank the
Almighty God for the wisdom, strength and grace given me to complete this work. Many
thanks go to Dr. Andy Chang my supervisor, for his wonderful support, ideas,
contributions and also reading through this work.
To my advisor, research professor and mentor Dr. Annette M. Burden, thanks for all your
efforts and support for helping me to reach this far. To my own and extended family, in-
laws and all friends thanks for your diverse support and generosity through these years. I
also want to express my sincere thanks and gratitude to Karen Demateo, Sandi and all the
office staff of the mathematics and statistics department of Youngstown state University
for all the support and help in making this work a reality.
I can not end without saying thanks to my apartment mate Samuel Essah for your support
and the wonderful time we had together all these years.
iv
ABSTRACT
Forest resources and natural resources are important economic assets to Taiwan. The
study uses a focus group (the public) and mail questionnaire to determine attitude toward
forest and natural resources. The mailed questionnaire included 12 statements concerning
attitude toward forest resources and 15 statements regarding environmental ethics. These
statements were measured on a five point likert type scale anchored at strongly disagree
and strongly agree.
Empirical results from the study revealed that the 12 statements describing public
attitudes toward forest resources could be classified into two attitudinal dimensions
which could be interpreted as Use-Value and Non- Use value using the principal
component of factor analysis. Also the 15 statements concerning environmental ethics
shows that the public attitudes toward natural resources could be categorized into three
main groups as Utilitarian Conservation, Radical Environmentalism and Anti-
Environmentalism. The KMO measure of 0.928 and 0.886 for both forest values and
environmental ethics respectively indicates the existence of sufficient correlation between
the statements for carrying out the appropriate analysis. Also reliability coefficient of
0.912 and 0.818 for both forest values and environmental ethics respectively shows that
the method of analyzing was very reliable.
The study seeks to find out the publics attitudes toward forest and natural resources and
also to understand how socioeconomic characteristics influence forest and natural
resources. From the analysis and results obtained on this study, descriptive findings
suggest that most of the public have positive attitudes toward forest and natural resources.
The public also subscribe to a diversity of forest values, including Use –value and Non-
Use Value .They also subscribe to a diversity of environmental ethics including
Anthropocentric and Ecocentric.
v
It was also revealed form the study that socioeconomic characteristics including
household income, gender, marital status and purchasing behavior of ecolable products
influence attitudes toward forest and natural resources.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………….1
1.1 Purpose of Study………………………………………………………………...6
1.2 Work Already Done……………………………………………………………..7
2.0 Overview………………………………………………………………………….…9
2.1 Forest Land and Forest Type…………………………………………………….10
2.2 Environmental Ethics and Attitudes toward Forest Resources………………….14
3.0 Materials and Methodology ………………………………………………………...16
3.1 Forest Values and Environmental Ethics………………………………………..16
3.2 Factor Analysis…………………………………………………………………..20
3.3 Assumptions……………………………………………………………………..21
4.0 Analysis and Results of Study……………………………………………………….22
4.0 Descriptive Statistics…………………………………………………………….22
4.1 Factor analysis of forest values………………………………………………….23
4.2 Factor analysis of environmental ethics…………………………………………25
4.3 Discriminant analysis……………………………………………………………27
4.4 Cluster analysis and Cross tabulations for forest values………………………...29
4.5 Cluster analysis and Cross tabulations for environmental ethics………………..30
4.3 Regression analysis……………………………………………………………...32
5.0 Discussion …………………………………………………………………………..36
5.1 Forest values……………………………………………………………………..36
5.2 Environmental Ethics …………………………………………………………...37
6.0 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….39
7.0 References………………………………………………………………………….41
vii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
Forests and the environment are an integral part of the economy and way of life.
Increased knowledge about the interaction between the forest, environment and people is
an essential part of understanding sustainable forest management in a region. Forests are
essential for developing countries economic and environmental securities. Therefore a
comprehensive study of socio-cultural character, including perception and attitudes is
necessary to ensure the viability of our forest.
Within this context this project is directed at the understanding of the perception, beliefs
and behavior of the people of Taiwan and their forests. In particular this project focuses
on the attitude of the people towards forest resources and environmental ethics. Forests
are complex ecosystems capable of providing a wide range of economic, social and
environmental benefits. Forests and woodlands are essential for human life, but their
benefits and services are valued differently by different people and different groups.
Local, national and international interests in forest resources also differ greatly across
landscapes. Moreover, the numerous roles that forests are expected to play in local,
national and global development change dramatically over time. A widely held public
opinion is that we are "cashing in" our forests; an initial reading of many vital signs does
not reassure us that we are doing otherwise. A frequently cited study by the international
Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) asserts that fewer than I million ha of tropical
forests out of the 828 million ha within ITTO member countries were under sustained
yield management in the mid-1980s. FAO estimates that 15.4 million ha of tropical
forests were lost each year during the 1980s and that the area of severe forest degradation
is perhaps even larger than the area of forest depletion. Over time, forestry policies and
management practices evolved and adapted to changing economic demands, social needs
and political circumstances. For centuries, European governments set aside forest
reserves to maintain a reliable source of wood for warships. Later, forest management
looked on trees as the primary fuel source for the industrial revolution. By the middle of
the nineteenth century, European foresters had developed sustained yield practices to
viii
balance timber utilization with forest growth. North American foresters then broadened
the sustained yield concept to include the conservation of non-timber values and
ecological services. While the term "sustained yield" may mean different things to
different foresters, this tradition of managing forests for the indefinite future has
remained a guiding principle of forestry thinking. Foresters developed biological models
to maximize long-term timber production, pioneered economic techniques for evaluating
optimal harvest rotations and introduced an ecosystem approach to sustainable forest
management. This experience should provide a model for balancing economic and social
demands with nature's productivity. Instead, the competency of foresters to manage and
control forest practices is being increasingly questioned and criticized by the public.
Sustained yield of the several products and services’ means the achievement and
maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various
renewable resources of the national forests without impairment of the productivity of the
land. Forests are important to many people because they have the unique ability to meet
many different needs at once. The production and use of forest products provide products
we all use daily, as well as generates employment and support the economic well being of
rural and urban communities alike. People rely on forest for their livelihoods, recreation,
spiritual renewal, a vast array of forest products and other essential functions. To ensure
that our children and grandchildren are able to experience forests that is as healthy, useful
and abundant as they are today. It is imperative that we work together to ensure our
forests are managed sustainably across the landscape. While individual definitions of
sustainability differ slightly in their details, there is generally broad-based support that
sustainable forestry focuses on meeting the needs of current generations, while protecting
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Several objectives helped to define this project. More specific objectives related to the
project include
• To analyze public attitudes toward forest resources and natural resources.
• To know if the public believes the importance of natural resources and forest
ix
resources.
• To understand how socioeconomic characteristics influence attitudes toward
forest resources as well as natural resources.
Taiwan is a small island with a broad range of environments. Only 35,570 square
kilometres in area, or roughly twice the size of the big island of Hawaii or half of Ireland,
Taiwan is located one hundred and fifty kilometres off of the southeast coast of mainland
China, between cool-temperate Japan to the north, sub-tropical south China to the west,
and the tropical Philippines and Indo-Malayan islands to the south. This location,
combined with a tall range of mountains, with more than two hundred peaks over 3,000
meters, supports a diverse flora of over 4,000 vascular plant species and a spectrum of six
forest types. This range of environments in turn supports a rich fauna. Sixty-one species
of mammals, more than 400 species of birds (about 40% resident), 92 species of reptiles,
30 species of amphibians, 140 species of freshwater fish, and an estimated 50,000 insect
species, including more than 400 species of butterfly, are known to occur here.
Taiwan is dominated by forested mountains. Almost three fourths of the country is slope
land (land over 100 meters elevation and over 5% slope), and nearly half of the total area
of the main island is above 1000 meters. The lowlands, especially the coasts, are
important habitats for seabirds and for wildlife associated with the few remaining
undisturbed patches of tropical strand or mangrove trees. However, almost all flatland on
the island are used as farmlands, and an increasing amount of slope land is intensively
cultivated. The majority of cultivated land is below 500 meters on the western plain of
the island, while the mountains are sparsely inhabited and the home of the majority of
Taiwan's wildlife.
Ecosystem management is considered to be the key to maintaining biological diversity
and sustainable forestry. Management of the national forests constitutes an important
public policy issue in the environmental arena. Specific national forest management
issues are highly diverse and include clear cutting, preservation of endangered species
and biodiversity, wilderness designation and management, sustainability, timber salvage,
and tradeoffs among competing uses. In many cases these issues are highly controversial.
x
(Manning Robert, 1999). Ecosystem management is designed to “integrate scientific
knowledge of ecological relationships within a complex sociopolitical and values
framework toward the general goal of protecting native ecosystem integrity over the long
term” (Grumbine 1994, 31).
The main job of forest ecosystem management is to make the forest resource well
arranged and used. The ecosystem principles are applied to fit the objectives of economic
and social needs. For managers, the process of resource arrangement and using involves a
series of decision making. All kinds of decision support systems are being developed as
the computer techniques continue to improve. The ecosystem researchers are trying to
solve the dynamic and complex problems by computer simulation and analysis.
The purpose of ecosystem management is to maintain the diversity and sustainable
development of forest resource. Forest ecosystem management is the guideline of the
forest management in Taiwan now. According to the principle of sustainable
management, forest land must be classified for multi-purposes such as economics,
protection, and recreation. Long-rotation and deep-root species must be planted for the
needs of watershed management. While information on public attitudes toward national
forest resources is useful, we believe it may be equally useful to explore the underlying
ideas that drive such attitudes.
Information on public attitudes toward such issues can be useful in helping to guide
appropriate national forest management (Heberlin 1989). In fact, it is becoming
increasingly apparent that many such issues cannot be resolved without this type of
information. Many national forest management issues-perhaps most cannot be addressed
solely through science or technical expertise because such issues have important value or
ethical components which must be addressed (Bengston 1994). However, scientific and
technical approaches can be brought to bear on environmental values and ethics.
Bowers (1997) defines existence value as the economic value people attach to the
knowledge that an environmental asset simply exists even though they may not be
interested in consuming it. Also, option value relates to the amount that an individual or
xi
society is willing to pay to retain the option of using an environmental resource
themselves in the future (Field, 1994).Dixon and Sherman (1990) defines a similar value
known as quasi option value which people attach to an asset in order to maintain it and
avoid irreversible decisions today with the expectation that more information about the
resource will be available in the future. Finally, altruistic value is a value that people
express for ensuring that the environmental resource is available to others (Bowers,
1997).
Economic Principle: Investments into forestry normally are long-term, with returns on
investments being obtained only after a considerable span of time. Resources for Forest
Sector Development Co-operation are becoming scarce and need to be properly and
effectively allocated. This calls for the private sector to be addressed and considered
when dealing with forest projects, since; in general, this sector is able to use the resources
in an efficient way.
“Multiple Uses” means: The management of all the various renewable surface resources
of the national forests so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meets the
needs of the Taiwan people.
Functional Principle: Social and cultural phenomena have shaped the perception and the
use of forests worldwide at all times. People’s attitudes towards forests act as an
indicator of their social significance and therefore represent an important field of
research. The environment and nature are to be viewed in consideration of socioeconomic
circumstances and the values contained in them. Empirical research regarding people’s
knowledge and attitudes towards forestry and utilization of forestry can help to
understand their actual significance.
Social Functions: The classical productive functions of the world’s forests dominated the
focus of most of the past century’s research in forestry. Towards the end of the 20th
century, industrialisation and urbanisation in the western hemisphere turned attention
towards new important functions of the forests. These include ecological functions of
xii
forests as pollution moderating landscape elements and as safe havens for biodiversity in
the cultivated landscape. And it includes social functions expressed in the high demand
for a number of services and goods, i.e. quiet short afternoon walks, leisure relaxation,
leisure culture, eco-tourism, weekend stays in cabins, hiking, a site for recreational
sports, and simply as a beautiful and de-stressing view and experience.
Government Budget: As used here, the term "national forest fund" does not refer to a
specific model, but instead describes a constellation of approaches. In their most basic
form, forest funds are designed to set aside a portion of national revenues for forestry
purposes. They exist for more than a single government budget cycle, segregating
specific forestry-related revenues and earmarking them for investment in the forest
sector.
1.1 Purpose of Study
People’s action in pursuit of economic growth tremendously threatens forests of the
entire world, in particular Taiwan. The forests and their precious resources have almost
been destroyed, becoming irreplaceable losses, even before they have really been
understood.
The country's rich biodiversity resources are under increasing threat due to the rapid
disappearance of forested land and the absence of a conservation system. According to
data collected between 1982 and1989 there was a decrease in forest areas.
Location Forest areas 1982
(a)
Forest areas
(b)
1989
(c)
(a)-(b)=(c)
Decrease rate (c/a) %
Northern part of Lao 3765 3562 203 5.4
Central part of Lao 3927 3739 188 4.8
Southern part of Lao 3945 3866 79 2.0
11,637 11,168 469 4.0
“Source: Department of Forestry, National Office of Forest Inventory and Planning”
xiii
Looking at the trend of Taiwan forest areas and also the activities (environmental and
economic) of its people the purpose of this study is to analyse the public attitudes toward
forest and natural resources using a survey data collected by the Taiwan Forestry Bureau
(TFB).
1.2 Work Already Done
For the past two decades, the role of Taiwan's forests has altered, so that things such as
biodiversity conservation, environmental protection, providing clean water and fresh air
as well as recreation, have become the main priorities. To maintain sustainable and
efficient use of the forests in their conservation role, the Taiwan Forestry Bureau (TFB),
the management agency for Taiwan's forest, holds many activities every year. These
activities are designed to let the general public become aware of the importance of
forests, and establish the idea of protecting forests in people's minds.
For the past forty years, economic development has been the primary goal for Taiwan. As
great as the economic success has been, it has not occurred without compromising the
environmental integrity of the landscape. A small island to begin with, Taiwan's
continued expansion of industry and agriculture has made habitat destruction the primary
threat to wildlife.
The Department of National Parks and the Council of Agriculture both have taken it upon
themselves to preserve several of the remaining pockets of natural beauty and wildlife
habitat. The National Park System protects large undeveloped tracts of mountain range,
as well as coastal Kenting, the only true tropical rainforest on the main island. The
Council of Agriculture also has set aside mountain and coastal regions, declaring that
preservation, rather than sustainable use, is the appropriate management policy for select
reserves, preserves, and wildlife sanctuaries. Areas designated specifically for habitat
protection and an overall government policy of forest resource and soil conservation help
to maintain the integrity of the land resources. Despite a high population density, forests
continue to cover over 50% of Taiwan. The vast majority of these forests are on slope
land, and sound forestry practices are vital for soil protection and watershed management.
xiv
The most recent development in forest resource management is the Taiwan Forest
Management and Administration Policy of 1991. The purpose of this policy is to:
1. Cultivate new tree plantations: In addition to the reforestation of cut-over sites
and forestation of select grassland sites, emphasis will be put into timber stand
improvements.
2. .Protect forest resources in general: This will include (a) the management and
protection of forests and preservation/ reservation area; (b) the prevention of
forest fires; (c) the prevention of unauthorized activities within National Forests;
(d) timber harvesting limits of 200,000 cubic meters per year; and (e) a six-year
moratorium on harvesting of any natural forests.
3. Implement a multi-purpose National Forest Management Policy: This includes (a)
timber production; (b) watershed protection; (c) development of forest recreation
areas; and (d) protection and rehabilitation of wildlife habitat.
CHAPTER TWO
OVERVIEW
Taiwan is located in the Southeastern part of the Asian continent. The total land area is
about 35,980 sq km with water being about 3,720 sq km and the rest land (32,260 sq
km).The land size is slightly smaller than Maryland and Delaware combined
comparative. The climatic conditions are tropical marine and rainy season during
southwest monsoon (June to August); Cloudiness is persistent and extensive all year. The
population of Taiwan is about 22,749,838 (at July 2004) with a population growth rate of
0.64 %.( Source: World Fact Book, May 2004).
Environmental ethics is the discipline that studies the moral relationship of human beings
to, and also the value and moral status of, the environment and its nonhuman contents.
Ethics is a branch of philosophy that primarily discusses issues dealing with human
behavior and character. Ethics attempts to establish a basis for judging right from wrong
and good from bad. Environmental ethics employs concepts from the entire field of
philosophy, especially aesthetics, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of science, and
xv
social and political philosophy. Just as philosophers try to answer questions about reality,
environmental ethicists attempt to answer the questions of how human beings should
relate to their environment, how to use Earth's resources, and how to treat other species,
both plant and animal. Some of the conflicts that arise from environmental policies deal
with the rights of individuals versus those of the state, and the rights of private property
owners versus those of a community. Environmental issues are not universally supported.
The conflicts between those who want to protect the natural environment and its species,
and those for which this is a lesser concern, often center around economic issues. For
example, environmentalists in the Pacific Northwest want to protect the habitat of the rare
spotted owl, which inhabits old-growth forests on which the timber industry and many
people depend for their livelihood. There is much controversy over who had the most
"right" to use this forest. The perception of those who are economically affected by
protection of the old-growth forest is that spotted owls have become more "important"
than the needs of people. Environmentalists, on the other hand, believe that both are
important and have legitimate needs.
Four hundred years ago, Taiwan was called "Ihla Formosa "--the beautiful island--for its
lustrous landscape. Forests have not only been the home of abundant flora and fauna but
also protected the national land, provided the water resource for our daily life and
recreation sites. All our basic necessities such as food, water, clothing, housing,
transportation, education and recreation are closely related to the forests. Forest resources
include the timber resource, water resource, biological resource, recreation resource and
other ecological resources etc.
Humans ‘continuous pursuit of economic growth tremendously threatens forests of the
entire world. The forests and their precious resources have almost been destroyed,
becoming irreplaceable losses, even before they have really been understood. Using our
wisdom to protect these forest resources and maintain their diversities and thus preserve
their sustainable use is a very important subject for human beings. To preserve forest
resources, it is necessary, first, to recognize their diversities, which cover a broad range,
xvi
from landscapes, ecosystems, species, to genes. The Taiwan Forestry Research Institute
has contributed to related research and work for years. During the past year, they have
continued to properly manage the Hahpen Nature Preserve and Kenting Raised Coral
Nature Preserve. The vegetation of these two preserves was surveyed. Regarding animals,
the moth fauna and their growth characters were studied in the Taipei and Fushan
Botanical Gardens.
2.1 Forest Land Area and Forest Type
According to the data of the third aerial survey of forest resources in 1995, there are
2,102,400 hectares of forest land occupying 58.53% of the total island base (3,591,500
hectares). The non-forest land area 1,489,100 hectares occupying 41.47%. Among the
forest land areas, the conifer forests occupy 438,500ha, or 20.86 %, conifer and
hardwood mixed forests 391,200ha, or 18.61 %, hardwood forests 1,120,400ha, or 53.29
% and bamboo forests 152,300ha, or 7.24%.
Table2.1a Forest Land in Taiwan
LAND CLASSIFICATION AREA (HA) PERCENTAGE (%)
Forest Land 2,102,400 58.53(100.00)
Conifers 438,500 12.21(20.86)
Conifers & hardwoods 391,200 10.89(18.61)
Hardwoods 1,120,400 31.19(53.29)
Bamboo 152,300 4.24(7.24)
Non-forest land 1,489,100 41.47
Total 3,591,500 100.00
Among the forest land area, of which the natural forest is 1,527,500ha, occupying 72.7%,
xvii
plantation forest is 422,600ha occupying 20.1%, and bamboo forest 152,300ha occupying
7.2%. (Table 2.1b)
xviii
Table 2.1b Forest Land by Major Forest Type
FOREST TYPE AREA (HA) PERCENTAGE (%)
Natural forest 1,527,500 72.7
Natural conifers 220,100 10.5
Spruce, Fir 27,100 1.3
Hemlock 52,600 2.5
Cypress 48,500 2.3
Other conifers
(pine included) 91,900 4.4M
Mixed forests 331,600 15.8
Hardwoods 975,800 46.4
Plantation 422,600 20.1
Conifers 218,400 10.4
Mixed forests 59,600 2.8
Hardwoods 144,600 6.9
Bamboo 152,300 7.2
Total 2,102,400 100.0
Table 2.1c Forest Land by Major Ownership
OWNERSHIP AREA(HA) PERCENTAGE (%)
National Land
(aborigines’ reserves incl.) 1,869,492 88.92
Public land 46,782 2.23
Private land 186,126 8.85
Total 2,102,400 100.00
xix
Table 2.1d Forest Growing Stock by Major Forest Type
FOREST TYPE GROWING
STOCK (1000M3)
PERCENTAGE
(%)
Natural forest 310,533 86.56
Natural conifers 91,770 25.58
Spruce, Fir 10,564 2.94
Hemlock 31,490 8.78
Cypress 29,045 8.10
Other conifers
(pine included) 20,671 5.76
Mixed forests 94,608 26.37
Hardwoods 124,155 34.61
Plantation 47,676 13.29
Hardwoods 8,818 2.46
Conifers 34,065 9.50
Mixed Forest 4,793 1.34
Bamboo 535 0.15
Total 358,744 100.00
The ownership of forest land can be divided by national, public and private land. The
national ownership including aborigines reserves, accounts for 88.92%, while the public
and private ownership only 11.08 %.( Table 2.1c). The estimated forest growing stock of
the whole island is 358,744 thousand cubic meters, this number breaking down into
310,533 thousand cubic meters of natural forest or 86.56%, 47,676 thousand cubic meters
of plantation or 13.29%, 535 thousand cubic meters of trees in bamboo forest or 0.15%.
The average forest growing stock per hectare of the whole island is 203 cubic meters in
natural forest, 113 cubic meters in plantation. (Table 2.1d).The forest in Taiwan supports
xx
a very rich flora. Under the influence of the climate, humidity and altitude, forest types
can be divided into tropical, warm, temperate, and frigid forest zones. There are more
than 200 species with high economic value, such as Taiwan zelkova, Formosan michelia,
Stout camphor tree, Griffith's ash, Taiwan red cypress, Taiwan yellow cypress, Taiwan
hemlock, and Taiwania just to mention a few. The excellent timber of Taiwan red cypress
and Taiwan yellow cypress is well known in the world. Many plantations are established
mainly with Japanese cedar, China fir, Taiwania, Taiwan red cypress, and Taiwan
Acacia. Under the favorable environments, trees survive and are quickly established. The
forest distribution of Taiwan from the seacoast to the elevation 3,952m of Yu-shanand
and the vertical distribution have lots of biodiversity. No matter the natural forests or
plantations, are the best places for outdoor recreations. At present, there are 20 forest
recreation areas and 5 millions visitors annually. The recreational income has more than
the value of timber production.
Under the complexity of topography and unique environments, Taiwan is one of the
highest biodiversity areas in the world. In order to protect the rare flora, fauna and
ecosystems resources, 39 nature reserves with the areas of 390,000ha have been set up by
the Taiwan Forestry Bureau since 1974. There are 6 national parks in Taiwan of which
95% of the land areas are in the national forest. The stock of biodiversity in Taiwan, as
anywhere, provides components most suited to that region, and in part unique. Thus
about a fourth of the organisms found in Taiwan occur nowhere else on Earth.
Understanding, protecting, and sustainably utilizing this island's biodiversity, protecting
Taiwan's natural resources is everyone’s responsibility. Therefore, strong efforts have
been made to conserve the biodiversity of Taiwan.
2.2Environmental Ethics and Attitudes Toward Forest Resources
Ethics have likewise received considerable academic attention, particularly in the
discipline of philosophy. Ethics can be defined as the ‘‘study or discipline which
concerns itself with judgments of approval and disapproval, judgments as to the rightness
or wrongness, goodness or badness, virtue or vice, desirability or wisdom of actions,
disposition, ends, objects, or states of affairs’’ (Runes 1983, 113).
xxi
According to Robert Manning, William Valliere and Ben Minter environmental ethics
deal more specifically with human conduct toward the natural environment. It is
inevitable that humans interact with the natural environment. But what ideas govern or
structure this interaction? What is the appropriate relationship between humans and the
natural environment? For purposes of this study, environmental ethics are defined as the
diversity of ideas that drive human relationships with the natural environment,
specifically the forest resources.
Research on attitudes has been a long standing focus of sociology and psychology. In
general terms, attitudes are measures of how people feel about issues. More specifically,
an attitude can be defined as ‘‘an orientation toward certain objects or situations that is
emotionally toned and relatively persistent. An attitude is learned and may be regarded as
a more specific expression of a value or belief in that an attitude results from the
application of a general value to concrete objects or situations’’ (Theodorson and
Theodorson 1969, 19).A considerable amount of research has been conducted on
attitudes toward environmental issues in general and some of these studies have focused
on national forest management. (Shindler et al. 1993; Steel et al. 1994; Bengston 1994;
Bengston and Xu 1995; Bengston and Xu 1996). This study builds on this literature by
focusing specifically on public attitudes toward the Use and Non-Use values of forest
resources in Taiwan as well as natural resources.
xxii
CHAPTER THREE
MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 Forest Values and Environmental Ethics
A mail survey of the general public was conducted in October 2002.Batteries of questions
were developed to measure the attitudes of the public toward forest resources as well as
natural resources. The twelve statements concerning forest values were adopted (with
minor wording variations) from Manning, et al (1999). The twelve statements concerned
the trade offs between material and non material benefits of the Taiwan forest and the
extent to which the forest should be managed for a dominant or single use (such as timber
or minerals) as against more integrated or holistic management approach. Also the 15
statements concerning environmental ethics were evaluated from an empirical study done
by Manning, et al., (1999). These issues are broadly reflective of some of the basic issues
or principles of the evolving concept of ecosystem management, as noted earlier.
Respondents were asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each
statement. A five-point response scale was used, anchored at ‘‘strongly agree’’ and
‘‘strongly disagree.’ The 12 statements regarding forest values are as shown in the tables
below;
Table 3.1.1 Use Value
STATEMENT VALUES
1.The opportunity to get timber, minerals, and other natural
resources
Economic
2.The opportunity to protect nature in order to ensure human
well-being and survival
Ecological
3.The opportunity to camp, hike, and participate in other
recreation activities in nature
Recreation
4.The opportunity to learn more about nature Education
5.The opportunity to enjoy the beauty of nature Aesthetic
6.The opportunity for scientists to study nature and ecology Scientific
xxiii
Table 3.1.2 Non-Use Value
STATEMENT VALUES
7. The opportunity to maintain or regain physical health or
mental well-being through contact with nature
Therapeutic
8. The opportunity to understand the relationship between
human well-being and nature
Social
9. The opportunity to see and experience nature as our ancestors
did.
Historical
10. The opportunity to think creatively and be inspired by nature Intellectual
11. The opportunity to get closer to God or obtain other spiritual
meaning through contact with nature.
Spiritual
12. The opportunity to exercise a moral and ethical obligation to
respect and protect nature and other living things.
Moral/Ethical
Those regarding environmental ethics are also shown in the tables as follows:
Table 3.1.3 Anti- Environmentalism
STATEMENT ETHICS
1. Nature is a threat to human survival Threat to survival
2. Nature is evil Spiritual evil
4. Humans were created as fundamentally different from the
rest of nature
Religious dualism
5. The ability to think makes humans fundamentally different
from the rest of nature
Intellectual
dualism
Table 3.1.4 Utilitarian Conservation
STATEMENT ETHICS
6. Cruelty toward animals is wrong because it could lead to
cruelty toward other humans
Anthropocentric
humanism
11.Nature should be protected because its sacred Mysticism
12.Humans should not cause needless pain and suffering to
animals
Humanitarianism
13.Nature should be protected because all living things are
interconnected.
Animism/
organicism
14.All living things have a spirit Pantheism
15.Nature should be protected because all living things have a
right to exist.
Liberalism/natura
l rights
xxiv
Table 3.1.5 Radical Environmentalism
STATEMENT ETHICS
3.Nature is a valuable storehouse of raw materials Storehouse of raw
materials
7.Humans should manage nature as efficiently as possible Efficiency
8.Nature is important because it adds to the quality of our lives Quality of life
9.Protecting ecological processes is important to human
survival
Ecological
survival
10.Nature should be protected for future generations Future
generations
These values and ethics were evaluated from an empirical study done by Manning, et. al.
(1999). The 12 statements concerning public attitudes towards forest resources and the 15
statements regarding environmental ethics were measured by a five-point Likert-type
scale with
• Strongly Disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Neutral (3)
• Agree (4)
• Strongly Agree (5)
The 12 statements regarding forest values were grouped into 2 main categories as shown
in the figure below:
Figure 3.1.1
xxv
Forest Values
= Use Value + Non-Use Value
Direct Use
Value
Indirect Use
Value
Ecological
Value
Option
Value
Existence
Value
Bequest
Value
Water,
agriculture,
tourism, …
Air & water quality,
biodiversity,
climate, …
Not used but has
potential value
Existence value means the public is satisfied as long as those things in the forest still exist
and it also gives them pleasure, whiles bequest value means sustainability. That is we
should keep those things in the forest for future use.
The 15 environmental ethics were further classified into 3 categories based on conceptual
similarities. They are:
1. Anti-Environmentalism: The statements under this category basically indicate that
humans have nothing to do with nature.
2. Utilitarian Conservation: Here the statements give us an idea that the environment
should be conserved and protected.
3. Radical Environmentalism: The statements that fall in this category see the
environment as a store house of raw materials and that the natural resources
should be there for future use.
The study questionnaire was administered by mail to a target population of 2500
households with listed telephone service. From this population a random sample of 633
based on the probability proportional to size (PPS) was used for the study. The
questionnaire was administered in October 2002 following procedures recommended by
xxvi
Dillman (1978). Overall, a 25 % response rate was achieved. The reliability coefficient
for the total values of the forest resources was calculated to be 0 .912 and that for the
environmental ethics of the natural resources was found to be 0.818. These high
reliability values indicate that these variables are good and hence the appropriate analysis
can be performed.
A Multivariate Data Analysis was carried out
in this study. The procedures include Factor analysis, Cluster analysis, Discriminant
analysis, Regression analysis and some cross tabulations, and Factor analysis being the
major one.
3.2 Factor Analysis
Factor analysis is statistical technique used to identify a relatively smaller number of
factors that can be used to represent relationships among sets of many interrelated
variables. For example variables such as scores on a battery of aptitude tests may be
expressed as a linear combination of factors that represent verbal skills, mathematical
aptitude and perceptional speed. For this study and using forest values as an example, the
variable total value of forest resources can be expressed as a function of factors such as
Use value and Non- Use value. Factor analysis helps identify those underlying, not-
directly observable constructs. The basic assumption of factor analysis is that underlying
dimensions or factors can be used to explain complex phenomena. The goal of factor
analysis is to identify the not-directly observable factors based on a set of observable
variables.
The mathematical model for factor analysis appears somewhat similar to a multiple
regression equation. Each variable is expressed as a linear combination of factors that are
not actually observed. For this study total value might be expressed as:
Total value= β0 (Use value) + β1 (Non- use value) + Utotal value Equation (3.1.0)
This equation differs from multiple regression equation in that Use value and Non-Use
value are not single independent variables. Instead they are labels for groups of variables
that characterize these concepts. These groups of variables constitute the factors. Usually
xxvii
the factors useful for characterizing a set for variables are not known in advance but are
determined by a factor analysis. Use value and Non-Use value are called common
factors, since all variables are expressed as factors of them. The U in equation 3.1.0 is
called a unique factor since it represents the part of total value index that cannot be
explained by the common factors.
In general the model for the ith standard variable is written as:
Xi = Ai1F1 + Ai2F2 + AikFk + Ui Equation (3.1.1)
Where F’s = common factors
U = unique factor
A’s = the coefficients used to combine the k factors
3.3 Assumptions
1. No selection bias/proper specification: The exclusion of relevant variables and the
inclusion of irrelevant variables in the correlation matrix being factored will affect
often substantially, the factors which are uncovered.
2. No Outliers: As with most techniques, the presence of outliers can affect
interpretations arising from factor analysis.
3. Interval data are assumed.
4. Linearity: principal components factor analysis is a linear procedure.
5. Moderate to moderate intercorrelations: Too high intercorrelation may indicate a
multicollinearity problem and too low intercorrelation will defeat the data reduction
purposes of factor analysis.
CHAPTER FOUR
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF STUDY
The analysis was done using the statistical package SPSS. From the analysis the
following results were obtained.
xxviii
4.0 Descriptive Statistics
Table 4.0.1 Some Descriptive Statistics
VARIABLES MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION
Household income per
month
$ 1,886 $ 1,213
Age 38 14
# of Family Members 5 2
Precentage (%)
Female 51%
Married 63%
College 59%
Ecolables 22%
Factor analysis was conducted because we had a lot of independent variables (i.e. the 12
statements concerning forest values and the 15 statements regarding environmental
ethics). It also helps us to get the direction of the public attitudes toward forest and
natural resources.
These results are from the factor analysis of forest values:
4.1 Factor analysis of forest values
Table 4.1.1 Use-Value
xxix
STATEMENT FACTOR 1 COMMUNALITY MEAN
1.The opportunity to get timber,
minerals, and other natural
resources
.731 .535 4.43
2.The opportunity to protect nature
in order to ensure human well-
being and survival
.623 .474 4.62
3.The opportunity to camp, hike,
and participate in other recreation
activities in nature
.701 .543 4.37
4.The opportunity to learn more
about nature
.750 .691 4.47
5.The opportunity to enjoy the
beauty of nature
.758 .683 4.54
6.The opportunity for scientists to
study nature and ecology
.729 .644 4.53
Eigenvalue 4.042
33.981
0.875
% of Variance
Reliability Coefficient
Table 4.1.2 Non-Use Value
STATEMENT FACTOR 2 COMMUNALITY MEAN
8.The opportunity to understand the
relationship between human well-
being and nature
.613 .620 4.54
9.The opportunity to see and
experience nature as our ancestors
did.
.775 .685 4.43
xxx
10.The opportunity to think
creatively and be inspired by nature
.775 .703 4.13
11.The opportunity to get closer to
God or obtain other spiritual
meaning through contact with
nature.
.803 .740 4.24
12.The opportunity to exercise a
moral and ethical obligation to
respect and protect nature and other
living things.
.795 .644 4.18
8.The opportunity to understand the
relationship between human well-
being and nature
.613 .620 4.03
Eigenvalue 3.523
29.357
0.872
% of Variance
Reliability Coefficient
xxxi
Table 4.1.3 Cumulative For Factors 1&2
FACTOR 1:
USE-VALUE
FACTOR 2:
NON – USE VALUE
Eigenvalue 4.042 3.523
% of Variance 33.681 29.357
Cumulative % 33.681 63.038
Total Reliability Coefficient 0.912
0.928 KMO Coefficient
4.2 Results from the factor analysis of the environmental ethics
Table 4.2.1 Utilitarian Conservation
STATEMENT FACTOR 1 COMMUNALITY MEAN
6. Cruelty toward animals is wrong
because it could lead to cruelty toward
other humans
.532 .403 4.16
11.Nature should be protected because
its sacred
.721 .532 3.95
12.Humans should not cause needless
pain and suffering to animals
.672 .486 4.23
13.Nature should be protected because
all living things are interconnected.
.633 .704 4.52
14.All living things have a spirit .748 .586 4.24
15.Nature should be protected because
all living things have a right to exist.
.693 .651 4.46
Eigenvalue 3.243
21.623
0.818
% of Variance
Reliability Coefficient
xxxii
Table 4.2.2 Radical Environmentalism
STATEMENT FACTOR 2 COMMUNALITY MEAN
3.Nature is a valuable storehouse of
raw materials
.413 .337 4.15
7.Humans should manage nature as
efficiently as possible
.702 .609 4.27
8.Nature is important because it adds
to the quality of our lives
.734 .695 4.50
9.Protecting ecological processes is
important to human survival
.718 .689 4.48
10.Nature should be protected for
future generations
.670 .608 4.51
Eigenvalue 2.994
19.957
0.784
% of Variance
Reliability Coefficient
Table 4.2.3 Anti-Environmentalism
STATEMENT FACTOR 3 COMMUNALITY MEAN
1.Nature is a threat to human
survival
.696 .486 3.06
2.Nature is evil .667 .548 1.85
4.Humans were created as
fundamentally different from the rest
of nature
.656 .458 3.37
5.The ability to think makes humans
fundamentally different from the rest
of nature
.496 .382 4.08
Eigenvalue 1.937
12.916
0.556
% of Variance
Reliability Coefficient
xxxiii
Table 4.2.4 Cumulative for factors 1, 2&3
FACTOR 1:
Utilitarian
Conservation
FACTOR 2:
Radical
Environmentalism
FACTOR 3:
Anti-Environmentalism
Eigenvalue 3.243 2.994 1.937
% of Variance 21.623 19.957 12.916
Cumulative % 21.623 41.580 54.497
Total Reliability
Coefficient
0.818
0.886
KMO Coefficient
4.3 Discriminant analysis results
Discriminant Analysis was used to check for the significance of the factors and their
correlations. Having a small p-value means we have strong discriminant factors. Wilk’s
Lambda scores for both discriminant functions respectively, indicate that group means
were significantly different. They are shown in the tables below:
Table 4.3.1 Significance of the factors from the Forest values
WILK’S LAMBDA OF DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS
Test of Function Wilk’s Lambda Chi-square DF Significance
1 - 2 .081 1577.02 6 .000
2 .316 725.55 2 .000
xxxiv
Table 4.3.2 Correlation between the discriminant functions of Forest values
CANONICAL CORRELATION OF DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION
Function Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative % Canonical Correlation
1 2.872 57.0 57.0 0.861
2 2.169 43.0 100.0 0.827
Table 4.3.3 Significance of the factors from the Environmental ethics
WILK’S LAMBDA OF DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS
Test of Function Wilk’s Lambda Chi-square DF Significance
1 - 2 .197 1020.87 6 .000
2 .482 459.69 2 .000
Table 4.3.4 Correlation between the discriminant functions of Environmental ethics
CANONICAL CORRELATION OF DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION
Function Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative % Canonical Correlation
1 1.440 57.2 57.2 0.768
2 1.077 42.8 100 0.720
Our empirical study based on cluster analysis of the forest values described that the
public could be identified into four groups and it is shown in the table below.
4.4 Cluster analysis and cross tabulations for forest values
xxxv
Table 4.4.1 Cluster group of the public based on the forest values
GROUP NUMBER PERCENTAGE (%)
Use-Oriented Group 158 25.0
Don’t care Group 238 37.5
Intermediate Oriented Group 201 31.8
Non-Use Oriented Group 36 5.7
Total 633 100
Based on the clusters, cross tabulations were performed on these groups and some socio-
economic characteristics to explore the relationships between them. The following charts
depicts the cross tabulations.
Cluster Number of Case
Non-U
se Oriented
Intermediate
Don't C
are
Use O
riented
Co
un
t
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Income
<$1300
$1300 - $4000
$4000+
Cluster Number of Case
Non-U
se Oriented
Intermediate
Don't C
are
Use O
riented
Co
un
t
200
100
0
Age
<25yrs
25yrs - 50yrs
50yrs+
Fig 4.4.1: Cross tabulation of Income and the
4 clusters of Forest Values.
From the chi-sq test p-value = .335 > .05
Fig 4.4.2: Cross tabulation of Age and the 4
clusters of Forest Values.
From the chi-sq test p-value = .369 > .05
xxxvi
4.5 Cluster analysis and cross tabulations for environmental ethics
Also our empirical study based on cluster analysis of the environmental ethics described
that the public could be identified into three groups and it is shown in the table below.
Cluster Number of Case
Non-U
se Oriented
Intermediate
Don't C
are
Use O
riented
Co
un
t
300
200
100
0
ECOLABEL
No
Yes
Cluster Number of Case
Non-Use Oriented
Intermediate
Don't Care
Use Oriented
Co
un
t
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Education
College and Above
Below college
Cluster Number of Case
Non-U
se Oriented
Intermediate
Don't C
are
Use O
riented
Co
un
t
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Gender
Female
Male
Cluster Number of Case
Non-U
se Oriented
Intermediate
Don't C
are
Use O
riented
Co
un
t
200
100
0
MARRIED
No
Yes
Fig 4.4.5: Cross tabulation of Education and
the 4 clusters of Forest Values
From the chi-sq test p-value = .083 > .05
Fig 4.4.3: Cross tabulation of Gender and the
4 clusters of Forest Values.
From the chi-sq test p-value = .015 < .05
Fig 4.4.4: Cross tabulation of Ecolable and
the 4 clusters of Forest Values.
From the chi-sq test p-value = .001 > .05
Fig 4.4.6: Cross tabulation of marital status
and the 4 clusters of Forest Values
From the chi-sq test p-value = .270 > .05
xxxvii
Table 4.5.1 Cluster group of the public based on the environmental ethics
Group Number PERCENTAGE (%)
Anthropocentric 274 43.3
Ecocentric 199 31.4
Intermediate 160 25.3
Total 633 100
Based on the clusters, cross tabulations were also performed on these groups and some
socio-economic characteristics to explore the relationships between them. The following
charts depicts the cross tabulations.
Cluster Number of Case
Intermediate
Ecocentric
Anthropocentric
Co
un
t
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Income
<$1300
$1300 - $4000
$4000+
Cluster Number of Case
Intermediate
Ecocentric
Anthropocentric
Co
un
t
200
100
0
Age
<25yrs
25yrs - 50yrs
50yrs+
Fig 4.5.1: Cross tabulation of Age and the 3 clusters
of Environmental Ethics.
From the chi-sq test p-value = .732 > .05
Fig 4.5.2: Cross tabulation of Age and the 3 clusters
of Environmental Ethics.
From the chi-sq test p-value = .611 > .05
xxxviii
4.6 Regression analysis
In addition multiple regressions were run between the socioeconomic characteristics and
the factors obtained from the forest values and the environmental ethics. The following
tables indicate the results obtained from the regressions.
Cluster Number of Case
Intermediate
Ecocentric
Anthropocentric
Co
un
t
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
GENDER
Female
Male
Cluster Number of Case
Intermediate
Ecocentric
Anthropocentric
Co
un
t
300
200
100
0
ECOLABEL
No
Yes
Cluster Number of Case
Intermediate
Ecocentric
Anthropocentric
Co
un
t
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
EDUCATION
College and Above
Below college
Cluster Number of Case
Intermediate
Ecocentric
Anthropocentric
Co
un
t
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
MARRIED
NO
Yes
Fig 4.5.3: Cross tabulation of Gender and the 3
clusters of Environmental Ethics.
From the chi-sq test p-value = .059 > .05
Fig 4.5.4: Cross tabulation of Ecolable and the 3
clusters of Environmental Ethics.
From the chi-sq test p-value = .609 > .05
Fig 4.5.5: Cross tabulation of Education and the 3
clusters of Environmental Ethics.
From the chi-sq test p-value = .794 > .05
Fig 4.5.6: Cross tabulation of Marital status and the 3
clusters of Environmental Ethics.
From the chi-sq test p-value = .95 > .05
xxxix
Table 4.6.1 Regression Analysis of Use Value
Variable Parameter Estimate Standard Error
Intercept -0.203 0.220
Income 0.031 0.022
Age -0.006* 0.003
Female -0.047 0.081
Ecolable 0.235* 0.095
Education 0.053 0.036
Married 0.018 0.107
*denotes statistical significance at the 5% level
Table 4.6.2 Regression Analysis of Non-Use Value
Variable Parameter Estimate Standard Error
Intercept -0.394 0.219
Income -0.013 0.022
Age 0.004 0.003
Female .0256* 0.081
Ecolable .0289* 0.095
Education 0.018 0.036
Married 0.027 0.107
*denotes statistical significance at the 5% level
xl
Table 4.6.3 Regression Analysis of Utilitarian Conservation
Variable Parameter Estimate Standard Error
Intercept -0.336 0.221
Income 0.013 0.022
Age 0.001 0.004
Female -0.021 0.081
Ecolable 0.207* 0.095
Education 0.069* 0.036
Married -0.045 0.108
*denotes statistical significance at the 5% level
Table 4.6.4 Regression Analysis of Radical Environmentalism
Variable Parameter Estimate Standard Error
Intercept 0.016 0.210
Income 0.026 0.022
Age 0.001 0.004
Female 0.222* 0.080
Ecolable .0229* 0.094
Education -0.233 0.036
Married -0.297* 0.106
*denotes statistical significance at the 5% level
xli
Table 4.6.5 Regression Analysis of Anti-Environmentalism
Variable Parameter Estimate Standard Error
Intercept 0.121 0.222
Income -0.001 0.022
Age -0.001 0.004
Female 0.059 0.082
Ecolable 0.021 0.096
Education -0.033 0.036
Married 0.044 0.108
xlii
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
5.0 Forest Values
From the observational study most of the public indicated higher scores for the forest
values which tells us that they had positive attitude towards forest resources since higher
scores depicts positive opinion (tables 4.1.1 & 4.1.2). However there were statistically
significant differences among most of the values. Aesthetic, Ecological and Therapeutic
were rated very high while Moral /Ethic and Historical were rated relatively low.
From the cluster analysis (table 4.4.1) results suggest that majority of the public believes
the importance of forest values and for that matter, forest resources. About 62.5% were
familiar with the Use and Non Use values of forest resources while 37.5% were found in
the Don’t Care group. In exploring the relationships between the four groups of the
public (Use group, Non -Use group, Intermediate group and Don’t care group) and some
socioeconomic characteristics of the forest values, the cross tabulations revealed some
interesting results. Whiles gender, marital status and education showed results that were
not far from expectation. The results about income, age and ecolabel products were far
below expectation. From figure 4.4.1 the chi sq. test shows that there is no significant
difference between the groups. The number of people begins to increase in the Use
oriented group to the Don’t care group, then reduces gently in the intermediate group but
falls sharply in the Non use oriented group for all the income levels. Also the proportion
of the public whose income were above $4000 were relatively small in all the four
groups, suggesting that, this category of income level earners were less likely with forest
resources.
A similar explanation can also be given about the public that falls in the age group of
above 50yrs (figure 4.4.2). The proportions of the public that said they don’t buy
products/items that educate about the forest or environment were very low. However a p-
value of .001 indicates a significant difference in the group, since it increases from the
use group to don’t care group, falls in the intermediate group and then sharply decreases
in the non-Use group for those who do not purchase ecolable products. For those that
xliii
purchase ecolable products the proportions were the same for both use and don’t care
groups, increases gently in the intermediate group and then reduces non-use group. The
low patronage of ecolable products could be due to the pricing or the packaging of the
products.
Two regression analyses were also performed. These analyses were conducted to
determine how those socioeconomic characteristics influence forest values. From (table
4.6.1) the significant variables to Use–value (as dependent variable) of the forest values
were age and purchasing behavior of ecolable products of the public. Age has a
parameter estimate of about -0.006.This suggests that perhaps as people get older and
older their value system changes, so they become less adjusted to the use value of forest
resources. It could also be associated to cultural differences. Ecolable had a parameter
estimate of about 0.235. This suggests that there is a positive correlation between
ecolable products and the use–value of forest resources. Also from (table 4.6.2), females
and ecolable products were found to be statistically significant to the Non-Use value of
forest resources. Thus the suggestion is that there is a positive correlation between
ecolable products and the non-use value of forest resources. The parameter estimate for
females was found to be 0.256, indicating that there is also a positive correlation.
Females are more likely adjusted with the non-use value of forest resources.
5.1 Environmental Ethics
Also from the observational study most of the public also showed positive attitudes
toward natural resources, (tables 4.2.1, 4.2.2 & 4.2.3). Again there were statistically
significant differences among most of the ethics; quality of life, animism/organicism and
future generations were rated very high, while threat to survival, mysticism and religious
dualism were rated relatively low. The cluster analysis results from (table 4.5.1) suggest
that most of the public believes the importance of natural resources. About 74.7% were
concerned with natural resources, while 25.3%were found in the intermediate group. Also
the cross tabulations for the 3 groups (Anthropocentric, Ecocentric and Intermediate) of
the public under environmental ethics shows that what was observed was not too far from
the observations made under the forest values. Gender, marital status and educational
xliv
background of the public showed results that were not far from expectation. However
with regards to income, age and ecolable products, similar explanations that were given
for the forest values could also be said about environmental ethics. Most of the public
whose income was above $4000 were less likely with natural resources. Those whose age
were 50years and above were also less adjusted to natural resources, while those who do
not purchase ecolable products were also less likely with natural resources.
In addition the results from running the regression of the three main categories of
environmental ethics with the socioeconomic characteristics reveal that the significant
variables to utilitarian conservation were ecolable and education (table 4.6.2). Thus, as
more ecolable products are purchased and as people get more education they become
more associated with natural resources. Also the variables that were significant to the
Radical Environmentalism were female, ecolable and marital status. Surprisingly,
married people were less associated with seeing the natural environment as the store
house of raw materials. None of the socioeconomic characteristics were found to be
significant with Anti-Environmentalism (table 4.6.5). This suggests that it is highly
impossible for humans to say that they have nothing to do with the environment.
xlv
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSION
From this observational study the following conclusions can be drawn:
It’s apparent that forest values and environmental ethics can be isolated and measured.
Often, environmental values and ethics are treated primarily at a conceptual level.
However, these notions can be defined more explicitly, classified and measured through
scale development and associated survey and statistical techniques. While the values and
ethics related classification systems and measurement scales are certainly subject to
continued refinement, they also suggest that an empirical approach to these issues can be
potentially productive and useful.
Also, descriptive study findings provide some direct insights into forest values and
environmental ethics of the public. The public holds positive attitudes toward forest
resources as well as natural resources. The public also subscribe to a diversity of forest
values including those that might be described as Use- value and Non-Use value. They
also subscribe to a diversity of environmental ethics including those that might be
generally described as Anthropocentric (including utilitarian conservation and
stewardship) and Ecocentric (including radical environmental ethics). These results tell
us that the forest as well as the environment should be managed to support several
benefits.
Moreover, most of the values and ethics that the respondents supported or strongly agreed
to are highly dependent upon the protection of ecological integrity.
Finally, the analytical findings from this study provide insights into the relationship
between forest values, environmental ethics and some socioeconomic characteristics.
These statistical relationships suggest that, socioeconomic characteristics including
household income, gender, marital status and the purchasing behavior of ecolable
products influence the public attitudes toward forest and natural resources. This will
allow natural forest managers at the forest, regional or national, to meet the diverse and
sometimes competing values and ethics of the public while avoiding potential conflicts.
xlvi
However in carrying out this study the following limitations were experienced.
1. Getting a data set with response rate above 50% was a bit difficult.
2. It was also time demanding
3. The nature of the questions were simple, no probing.
4. Another potential limitation of the study concerns the attitudinal nature of the
study variables. Research suggests that the relationship between attitudes and
behavior vary according to context and other variables (Ajzen and Fishbein1980;
Manfredo and Shelby 1988).
Nevertheless, based on the results and findings from this study the following
recommendations are made.
That;
1. The government and the Taiwan Forest Bureau should support project of this
nature so that in-depth studies can be done for better results to be achieved.
2. Due to the intriguing idea of the results about Ecolable products, further analysis
should be performed on Ecolable products.
3. A comprehensive comparison study should be conducted between visitors and
public attitudes so that forest managers can effectively meet the diverse and
sometimes competing values and ethics of people.
4. Policy makers and the government should implement programs that will
encourage the public about the essence and importance of forest and natural
resources.
xlvii
REFERENCES
1. Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behavior. EnglewoodCliVs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2. Bengston, D. 1994. Changing forest values and ecosystem management. Society and
Natural Resources 7:515-533.
3. Bowers, W., and Hopkin, A. 1997. Arnews and North American Maple Project 1995.
Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service Information Report ST-X-14. 35 p.
4. Dillman, D. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
5. Dixon, J.A. & Sherman, P.B. 1990. Economics of protected areas. Washington, DC,
Island Press.
6. Field, D.B. 1994. (Compiler) The forest laws of Maine Fourth Ed.Bureau of Forestry,
Maine Dept. of Conservation, Augusta, ME. 366 p.
7. Grumbine, R. E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conserv. Biol. 8:24 38.
8. Heberlein, T. 1989. Attitudes and environmental management. J. Social Issues
45(1):37 57.
9. Jih-Chang Ru.1993. Forest Resources in Taiwan. A publication on agricultural and
forestry aerial survey.
10. Manning, et.al. 1999. Values, Ethics and Attitudes Toward national Forest
Management: an Empirical Study. Society Nat. Resources, 12:421-436.
xlviii
11. Manfredo, M., and B. Shelby. 1988. The effect of using self-report measures in tests
of attitude-behavior relationships. J. Social Psychol. 128:731 743.
12. Rolston, H. 1988. Environmental Ethics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
13. Runes, D. 1983. Dictionary of philosophy. New York: Philosophical Library.
14. Steel, B., P. List, and B. Shindler. 1994. Conflicting values about federal forests: A
comparison of national and Oregon publics. Society Nat. Resources 7:137 153.
15. Yeong Nain Chi and G. Andy Chang. An Examination of public Attitudes toward
Forest Resources
16. Yeong Nain Chi and G. Andy Chang. Environmental Ethics; An Empirical study