J. For. Sci., 2013, 59(12):514-519 | DOI: 10.17221/64/2013-JFS

Analysis of the perceived condition of forests in the Czech RepublicOriginal Paper

M. Riedl, L. Šišák
Department of Forestry Economics and Management, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

A realistic perception of the condition of forests, and the attributes of the forestry sector, by the public constitutes one of the basic prerequisites for successful implementation of forest policy in any country. Although data objectively demonstrate that the condition of Czech forests has improved, opinion polls show a gap between the public perception of the condition of Czech forests and the real status of these forests. The reasons for the discrepancy between reality and the perception of the public, and between the results of different surveys, are analysed. The most significant differences were found in perceptions of damage and threats to forests. The effectiveness of communication about forest policy is discussed, and some ways to create more effective communication are examined.

Keywords: forest policy; communication; opinion poll; public perception; Czech Republic

Published: December 31, 2013  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Riedl M, Šišák L. Analysis of the perceived condition of forests in the Czech Republic. J. For. Sci. 2013;59(12):514-519. doi: 10.17221/64/2013-JFS.
Download citation

References

  1. Country Reports Poland (2010): Global forest resources assessment. Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/al601E/al601e.pdf (accessed August 20, 2013).
  2. Cubbage F., Diaz D., Yapura P., Dube F. (2010): Impacts of forest management certification in Argentina and Chile. Forest Policy and Economy, 12: 497-504. Go to original source...
  3. ECORYS (2009): Shaping forest communication in the European Union: public perceptions of forests and forestry. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/publi/public-perception/report_en.pdf (accessed August 20, 2013).
  4. Hansen E. (1997): Forest certification and its role in marketing strategy. Forest Products Journal, 47: 16- 22.
  5. Owari T., Juslin H., Rummukainen A., Yoshimura T. (2006): Strategies, functions and benefits of forest certification in wood products marketing: Perspectives of Finnish Suppliers. Forest Policy and Economy, 9: 380-391. Go to original source...
  6. Rametsteiner E., Kraxner F. (2003): Europeans and Their Forests. What Do Europeans Think About Forests and Sustainable Forest Management? Available at http://www.foresteurope.org/filestore/foresteurope/Publications/pdf/LU_Europeans_Forest.pdf (accessed September 10, 2013).
  7. Report on the Forestry of the Czech Republic (2011): Available at http://www.uhul.cz/zelenazprava/2011/zz2011.pdf (accessed August 20, 2013).
  8. Riedl M. (2010): Marketingový pohled na výsledky výzkumu vnímání lesů a lesnictví. [The results of forestry public opinion survey from a marketing point of view.] Zprávy lesnického výzkumu, 2010 (Speciál): 1-9.
  9. Sedlak O. (1998): Forest harvesting and environment in Austria. Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/w3646e/w3646e0b.htm (accessed August 20, 2013).
  10. Šišák L. (2011): Forest visitors' opinions on the importance of forest operations, forest functions and sources of their financing. Journal of Forest Science, 57: 266-270. Go to original source...
  11. Šišák L. (2006): Importance of non-wood forest product collection and use for inhabitants in the Czech Republic. Journal of Forest Science, 52: 417-426. Go to original source...
  12. Tokarczyk J., Hansen E. (2006): Creating intangible competitive advantages in the forest products industry. Forest Products Journal, 56: 4-13.
  13. van Horne C., Frayret J. M., Poulin D. (2006): Creating value with innovation: From centre of expertise to the forest products industry. Forest Policy and Economy, 8: 751-761. Go to original source...
  14. Weiland S. (2010): Sustainability transitions in transition countries: forest policy reforms in South-eastern Europe. Environmental Policy and Governance, 20: 397-407. Go to original source...

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.