ANYTHING GOES MEANS EVERYTHING STAYS - THE PERILS OF UNCRITICAL PLURALISM IN THE STUDY OF ECOSYSTEM VALUES

There are two essential questions that need to be addressed by both so cial science researchers and public land managers: (1) What values do people assign to forest ecosystems? and (2) What is the best research strategy for understanding those values? To answer the first question, a number of contemporary definitions of value are considered, and a h uman preference-based definition is advocated as the most appropriate for scientific inquiry and for guiding public environmental policy. To answer the second question, the strategies of methodological pluralis m and critical multiplism are compared. Methodological pluralism risks equating opinion and fact. Critical multiplism, it is argued, provide s the best strategy for understanding the multifaceted values people a ssign to forests. The combination of the public-preference-based defin ition and the critical multiplism strategy offers the best opportunity for the development of forest ecosystem management policies that bala nce facts (i.e., biophysical functions) with values (i.e., human prefe rences).