environmental ethics and attitudes toward forest resources (case study: taiwan)-master's...

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



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


Hardwoods 124,155 34.61

Plantation 47,676 13.29


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


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


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


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


all living things are interconnected.

.633 .704 4.52

14.All living things have a spirit .748 .586 4.24


all living things have a right to exist.

.693 .651 4.46

Eigenvalue 3.243

21.623

0.818

% of Variance


xxxii

Table 4.2.2 Radical Environmentalism


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


Table 4.2.3 Anti-Environmentalism


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


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+


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.


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.


Non-U

se Oriented

Intermediate

Don't C

are

Use O

riented

Co

un

t

300

200

100

0

ECOLABEL

No

Yes


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


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


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


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.


Fig 4.4.6: Cross tabulation of marital status

and the 4 clusters of Forest Values


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.


Intermediate

Ecocentric

Anthropocentric

Co

un

t

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Income

<$1300

$1300 - $4000

$4000+


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.


Fig 4.5.2: Cross tabulation of Age and the 3 clusters

of Environmental Ethics.


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.


Intermediate

Ecocentric

Anthropocentric

Co

un

t

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

GENDER

Female

Male


Intermediate

Ecocentric

Anthropocentric

Co

un

t

300

200

100

0

ECOLABEL

No

Yes


Intermediate

Ecocentric

Anthropocentric

Co

un

t

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

EDUCATION

College and Above

Below college


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.


Fig 4.5.4: Cross tabulation of Ecolable and the 3



Fig 4.5.5: Cross tabulation of Education and the 3



Fig 4.5.6: Cross tabulation of Marital status and the 3



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



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


xl

Table 4.6.3 Regression Analysis of Utilitarian Conservation



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


Table 4.6.4 Regression Analysis of Radical Environmentalism


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


xli

Table 4.6.5 Regression Analysis of Anti-Environmentalism


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

environmental ethics and attitudes toward forest resources (case study: taiwan)-master's...

Documents