{"id":843,"date":"2023-06-13T14:21:41","date_gmt":"2023-06-13T18:21:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/chapter\/__unknown__\/"},"modified":"2023-12-31T17:19:37","modified_gmt":"2023-12-31T22:19:37","slug":"forest_values","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/chapter\/forest_values\/","title":{"raw":"Old-Growth Values of the Ancient Forest","rendered":"Old-Growth Values of the Ancient Forest"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n\r\nForest values we are referring to the features of a forest that contribute to human physical well-being, to the intangible benefits of a forest that contribute to the non-material dimensions of quality of life, and to the intrinsic benefits of a forest that exist independently of humankind.[footnote]Putney, A. D. (2003). Introduction: Perspectives on the values of protected areas. In The full value of parks: From economics to the intangible<\/em>, ed. D. Harmon and A. D. Putney, pp. 3\u201311. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield[\/footnote]\u00a0 In other words, we are referring to the things we value about forests.\r\n\r\nMoyer and colleagues developed a framework specifically for assessing values of old-growth forests.[footnote]Moyer, J. M., R. J. Owen, and P. N. Duinker. (2008). Forest values: A framework for oldgrowth forest with implications for other forest conditions<\/a>. Open Forest Science Journal<\/em> 1:27\u201336.[\/footnote]\u00a0 This framework combines the ways of valuing forests and the specific objects of value (e.g., timber and tourism).\u00a0 Based on people\u2019s descriptions of values associated with old-growth forests in Eastern Canada, Moyer developed a value framework specifically for old-growth forests.\u00a0 Moyer\u2019s Old-Growth Value framework specifies between four and six specific values for each of six categories, yielding a framework with 31 values.\r\n\r\nThis framework was further developed by Shapiro and colleagues for studying forest values associated with the ancient forest of BC\u2019s inland temperate rainforest.[footnote]Shapiro, J (2012). Forest values surround ancient cedar stands in British Columbia\u2019s inland temperate rainforest<\/em>. MA thesis, Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC. Connell, David J., Jessica Shapiro, and Loraine Lavallee (2015). Held Forest Values of the Ancient Cedars of British Columbia<\/a>. Society and Natural Resources<\/em> 28(12): 1,323-1,339.[\/footnote]\u00a0 This old-growth forest is located in the watershed of the Upper Fraser River in British Columbia.\u00a0 The modifications were based on a content analysis of values generated by users of the Ancient Forest Trail who recorded their reflections about the forest in the trail guestbook.[footnote]The Ancient Forest Trail is now part of the Ancient Forest\/Chun T\u2019oh Whudujut Provincial Park.[\/footnote]\u00a0 Trail users frequently describe the ancient cedar forests as rare and unique and thus Shapiro included values in their framework that capture a variety of such qualities.\u00a0 Some of the specific terms used for these additional values were drawn from Moyer\u2019s definitions.\u00a0 Recreation was identified as a separate category among non-material values.\u00a0 The modified framework includes values classified into seven value categories (Figure 1).\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nFigure 1.\u00a0 Ancient Forest Value Framework\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_1253\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"823\"]\"Shapiro_forest Shapiro (2012). Used with permission.[\/caption]\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nThe study of the ancient forest revealed that tocal residents identified a wide range of forest values associated with the ancient cedars as highly important to them.\u00a0 Of the 51 values given to participants, 39 different values were identified as important to at least one local resident (Chart 1).\u00a0 Of all the values selected by the respondents, the majority of values (39%) were life-support values, followed by aesthetic (19%), ethical (15%), economic\/material uses (12%), spiritual (7%), socio-cultural (6%) and recreation (3%).\u00a0 Life-support values clearly emerged as extremely important to residents.\u00a0 Ninety percent of respondents selected at least one life-support value.\u00a0 The most highly endorsed life-support values were linked to fundamental ecological processes, air and water quality, and carbon storage; and to support of biodiversity, specifically habitat, wildlife, and biodiversity.\u00a0 Over 50 percent of respondents selected at least one aesthetic value and one-third of respondents selected at least one spiritual value.\u00a0 Among aesthetic values, the most frequently selected values included natural\/undisturbed state (30% of the sample), beauty, and landscape\/scenery.\u00a0 Among the spiritual values, sacredness was the most frequently selected (17% of the sample).\u00a0 Of the ethical values, two that are identified as values capturing the inherent worth of old-growth forests were selected most frequently:\u00a0 age of trees (23%) and uniqueness (17%).\u00a0 Among residents, there was great appreciation of a range of values beyond traditional timber values.\u00a0 With respect to economic values, timber values were identified as important to three residents (10% of the sample) and cedar products identified as important to five residents (17%).\u00a0 Tourism was identified as an important value (7 residents or 23%) more frequently than timber.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nChart 1.\u00a0 Most Important Ancient Cedar Stand Values\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_1254\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"830\"]\"Shaprio_Forest Shapiro (2012). Used with permission.[\/caption]\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n ","rendered":"
\n

Forest values we are referring to the features of a forest that contribute to human physical well-being, to the intangible benefits of a forest that contribute to the non-material dimensions of quality of life, and to the intrinsic benefits of a forest that exist independently of humankind.[1]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 In other words, we are referring to the things we value about forests.<\/p>\n

Moyer and colleagues developed a framework specifically for assessing values of old-growth forests.[2]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 This framework combines the ways of valuing forests and the specific objects of value (e.g., timber and tourism).\u00a0 Based on people\u2019s descriptions of values associated with old-growth forests in Eastern Canada, Moyer developed a value framework specifically for old-growth forests.\u00a0 Moyer\u2019s Old-Growth Value framework specifies between four and six specific values for each of six categories, yielding a framework with 31 values.<\/p>\n

This framework was further developed by Shapiro and colleagues for studying forest values associated with the ancient forest of BC\u2019s inland temperate rainforest.[3]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 This old-growth forest is located in the watershed of the Upper Fraser River in British Columbia.\u00a0 The modifications were based on a content analysis of values generated by users of the Ancient Forest Trail who recorded their reflections about the forest in the trail guestbook.[4]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Trail users frequently describe the ancient cedar forests as rare and unique and thus Shapiro included values in their framework that capture a variety of such qualities.\u00a0 Some of the specific terms used for these additional values were drawn from Moyer\u2019s definitions.\u00a0 Recreation was identified as a separate category among non-material values.\u00a0 The modified framework includes values classified into seven value categories (Figure 1).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Figure 1.\u00a0 Ancient Forest Value Framework<\/p>\n

\"Shapiro_forest
Shapiro (2012). Used with permission.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

The study of the ancient forest revealed that tocal residents identified a wide range of forest values associated with the ancient cedars as highly important to them.\u00a0 Of the 51 values given to participants, 39 different values were identified as important to at least one local resident (Chart 1).\u00a0 Of all the values selected by the respondents, the majority of values (39%) were life-support values, followed by aesthetic (19%), ethical (15%), economic\/material uses (12%), spiritual (7%), socio-cultural (6%) and recreation (3%).\u00a0 Life-support values clearly emerged as extremely important to residents.\u00a0 Ninety percent of respondents selected at least one life-support value.\u00a0 The most highly endorsed life-support values were linked to fundamental ecological processes, air and water quality, and carbon storage; and to support of biodiversity, specifically habitat, wildlife, and biodiversity.\u00a0 Over 50 percent of respondents selected at least one aesthetic value and one-third of respondents selected at least one spiritual value.\u00a0 Among aesthetic values, the most frequently selected values included natural\/undisturbed state (30% of the sample), beauty, and landscape\/scenery.\u00a0 Among the spiritual values, sacredness was the most frequently selected (17% of the sample).\u00a0 Of the ethical values, two that are identified as values capturing the inherent worth of old-growth forests were selected most frequently:\u00a0 age of trees (23%) and uniqueness (17%).\u00a0 Among residents, there was great appreciation of a range of values beyond traditional timber values.\u00a0 With respect to economic values, timber values were identified as important to three residents (10% of the sample) and cedar products identified as important to five residents (17%).\u00a0 Tourism was identified as an important value (7 residents or 23%) more frequently than timber.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Chart 1.\u00a0 Most Important Ancient Cedar Stand Values<\/p>\n

\"Shaprio_Forest
Shapiro (2012). Used with permission.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Media Attributions<\/h2>