The importance of the forest's ‘existence value’

Our initial results are very interesting and some were quite unexpected. First, both the forest walk and the use of photographs revealed a wide range of intangible values. Most work with local people has been based on the assumption that their values are almost entirely related to uses of the forest, so it was exciting to find that people were again and again telling us about the beauty of a place, the quality of ‘peace and quiet’ found there, spiritual values shown by their attachment to a place through its affinity with ancestors or its role in traditional ceremonies, or simply what economists would call ‘existence value,’ that is, the value of habitats and species being there ‘because that is what God intended’ (Figure 2).

Intangible values are closely linked to habitat types. The forest (lowland and montane) generated the widest range and greatest frequency of intangible values, while high-altitude grassland was closely associated with beauty and tourism. Forest fallow and forest also elicited responses connected with option values; in other words, villagers were seeing the land, rather than the actual species there, in terms of future potential use. Negative intangibles were mostly related to the presence of pests or diseases and the quality of the terrain or vegetation type.

The high use value of variety

As expected, many of the values listed were use values, but the analysis of these was in itself interesting. It suggested that a local concept of diversity per se is related to usefulness of a habitat. To our surprise, a majority of participants explicitly appreciated diversity of species and of habitats because it provided them with all the things they needed for their existence. Also, the more products found in one place (e.g., herbs, wild fruit, bushmeat, medicines) the better because this allows people to carry out many activities in the same place at the same time. This appreciation of variety means that habitats further from the village have some positive values (because the distance from people is related to numbers of both plant and animal species, enhancing the diversity of resources available to them) and negative values (because those habitats are harder to reach).

The work also showed that local people have a detailed understanding of ecological processes associated with particular habitats, and of the role of mountain forests in regulating climate and water availability.

Using the photos, we were able to explore which habitats people preferred. Their reasons for habitat preference were broadly similar across interest groups, with primary importance being placed on habitats (domestic and wild) that provided food crops and other important products related to livelihood. However, most people perceived that man's activity led to decreased diversity. They usually ranked habitats closest to the farm as more important but those further from the farm as having greater biodiversity. But when we compare these opinions with the number of plants and animals they actually mentioned during the forest walk, there are some interesting contrasts. In general, each respondent mentioned more species on farmland and in fallow (Figure 3) but showed a greater tendency to mention the value of diversity in old fallow and (particularly) forest (Figure 4). Furthermore, when we add up the total number of plants and animals mentioned in each habitat (i.e., discounting duplications between respondents), we find that, overall, more are known in forest fallow than on farmland or in forests (Figure 5).

These results suggest some fundamental differences between the appreciation of diversity and the knowledge of useful species by forest users (Figure 6). We will be carrying out further research and analysis. But the work so far shows that it is worth going beyond assumptions that local values associated with biodiversity are based on simple counts of useful species or on monetary values based on the income or subsistence value of species known to be useful. Our ultimate aim is to develop a set of research techniques or ‘tools’ that could provide locally derived indices or ‘maps’ of biodiversity value to stand alongside those produced by ecologists and conservation managers. If we can find ways to communicate local perceptions of biodiversity and combine resource users' evaluations with scientific evaluations, we hope that local communities will have a stronger voice in the negotiation of natural resource management plans and conservation interventions. This should also provide scientists, managers, and the communities themselves with a clear understanding of decision making procedures.