J. For. Sci., 2014, 60(11):472-483 | DOI: 10.17221/85/2014-JFS

Stakeholders' preferences and the assessment of forest ecosystem services: a comparative analysis in ItalyOriginal Paper

A. Paletto1, G. Giacovelli1, G. Grilli2, J. Balest1, I. De Meo3
1 Consiglio per la Ricerca e la sperimentazione in Agricoltura - Forest Monitoring and Planning Research Unit (CRA-MPF), Villazzano, Trento, Italy
2 Department of Civil, Environmental and Mechanical Engineering, University of Trento, Trento, Italy
3 Consiglio per la Ricerca e la sperimentazione in Agricoltura - Agrobiology and Pedology Research Centre (CRA-ABP), Florence, Italy

Values are qualities and beliefs orientating human actions and they change according to socio-economic variables such as gender, culture, education and income. Incorporating stakeholders' values and attitudes in the forest planning is essential for reducing conflicts among forest users and ensuring successful formulation and implementation of the plans. The paper focuses on the analysis of stakeholders' attitudes and preferences to the forest ecosystem services considering three types of attitudes: biocentric attitudes, social-altruistic attitudes, and individual attitudes. The stakeholders' preferences were analysed in four case studies in Italy, characterized by different socio-economic structures and relationship between people and territory. Socio-economic attributes were tested as predictors of stakeholder preferences. A semi-structured questionnaire was used to collect opinions and preferences from altogether 327 stakeholders' involved in forest planning. Results show that different background and culture influence the priorities given to forest ecosystem services. The study suggests paying attention to the evaluation of stakeholders' preferences to forest ecosystem services when defining forest management guidelines, which could contribute to reduce the distance between communities and decision makers.

Keywords: ecosystem values; environmental attitudes; decision making process

Published: November 30, 2014  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Paletto A, Giacovelli G, Grilli G, Balest J, De Meo I. Stakeholders' preferences and the assessment of forest ecosystem services: a comparative analysis in Italy. J. For. Sci. 2014;60(11):472-483. doi: 10.17221/85/2014-JFS.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Allen E., Kruger C., Leung F.Y., Stephens J.C. (2013): Diverse perceptions of stakeholder engagement within an environmental modeling research team. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 3: 343-356. Go to original source...
    2. Babbie E. (2010): The Basics of Social Research. Belmont, Wadsworth Publishing: 552.
    3. Books J.W., Prysby C.L. (1991): Political Behavior and the Local Context. New York, Praeger: 184.
    4. Buonocore E., Häyhä T., Paletto A., Franzese P.P. (2014): Assessing environmental costs and impacts of forestry activities: A multi-method approach to environmental accounting. Ecological Modelling, 271: 10-20. Go to original source...
    5. Capello R., Camagni R., Chizzolini B., Fratesi U. (2008): Regional Scenarios for the Enlarged Europe. Berlin, Springer: 319.
    6. Costanza R., d'Arge R., de Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Naeem S., Limburg K., Paruelo J., O'Neill R.V., Raskin R., Sutton P., van den Belt M. (1997): The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387: 253-260. Go to original source...
    7. Costanza R., Wilson M., Troy A., Voinov A., Liu S., D'Agostino J. (2006): The value of New Jersey's ecosystem services and natural capital. Trenton, Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection: 167.
    8. Costanza R., Perez-Maqueo O., Martinez M.L., Sutton P., Anderson S.J., Mulder K. (2008): The value of coastal wetlands for hurricane protection. Ambio, 37: 241-248. Go to original source...
    9. de Groot R., Alkemade R., Braat L., Hein L., Willemen L. (2010): Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7: 260-272. Go to original source...
    10. Eagly A.H., Chaiken S. (1993): The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: 794.
    11. Ehrlich P., Ehrlich A. (1981): Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species. New York, Random House: 305.
    12. EC (2005): Territorial State and Perspectives of the European Union. Scoping document and summary of political messages. Luxembourg, European Commission: 83.
    13. Fontana V., Radtke A., Bossi Fedrigotti V., Tappeiner U., Tasser E., Zerbe S., Buchholz T. (2013): Comparing land-use alternatives: using the ecosystem services concept to define a multi-criteria decision analysis. Ecological Economics, 93: 128-136. Go to original source...
    14. Grimble R., Wellard K. (1997): Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agricultural Systems, 55: 173-193. Go to original source...
    15. Goode W.J. (1997): Rational choice theory. American Sociological Review, 28: 22-41. Go to original source...
    16. Kumar P. (2010): The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Oxon, Earthscan: 410.
    17. Johansson Sevä I. (2009): Welfare State Attitudes in Context: Local Contexts and Attitude Formation in Sweden. [Ph.D. Thesis.] Umeå, Umeå University, Faculty of Social Sciences: 34.
    18. Lamarque P., Tappeiner U., Turner C., Steinbacher M., Bardgett R.D., Szukics U., et al. (2011): Stakeholder perceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowledge on soil fertility and biodiversity. Regional Environmental Change, 11: 791-804. Go to original source...
    19. Menzel S., Teng J. (2010): Ecosystem services as a stakeholderdriven concept for conservation science. Conservation Biology, 24: 907-909. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    20. MA (2005): Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. Washington, World Resources Institute: 137.
    21. Montero J.T., Perrings C. (2011): The Provision of International Environmental Public Goods. Nairobi, Ecosystem Services Economics (ESE), Working Paper Series 16: 21.
    22. Nordlund A., Westin K. (2011): Forest values and forest management attitudes among private forest owners in Sweden. Forests, 2: 30-50. Go to original source...
    23. Notaro S., Paletto A., Piffer M. (2012): Tourism innovation in the forestry sector: comparative analysis between Auckland Region (New Zealand) and Trentino (Italy). iForest, 5: 262-271. Go to original source...
    24. Ostrom E. (1998): A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. American Political Science Review, 92: 1-22. Go to original source...
    25. Paletto A., De Meo I., Ferretti F. (2010): Social network analysis to support the forest landscape planning: an application in Arci-Grighine, Sardinia, (Italy). Forestry Ideas, 16: 28-35.
    26. Paletto A., Ferretti F., De Meo I. (2012): The role of social networks in forest landscape planning. Forest Policy and Economics, 15: 132-139. Go to original source...
    27. Palomo I., Martín-López B., López-Santiago C., Montes C. (2011): Participatory scenario planning for protected areas management under the ecosystem services framework: the doñana social-ecological system in Southwestern Spain. Ecology and Society, 16: 23. Go to original source...
    28. Pellizzoni L., Osti G. (2008): Sociologia dell'ambiente. [Environmental Sociology.] Bologna, Il Mulino: 306.
    29. Pereira E., Queiroz C., Pereira H.M., Vicente L. (2005): Ecosystem services and human-well-being: a participatory study in a mountain community in Portugal. Ecology and Society, 10: 14. Go to original source...
    30. Pretty J., Ward H. (2001): Social capital and the environment. World Development, 29: 209-227. Go to original source...
    31. Reed M.S., Graves A., Dandy N., Posthumus H., Hubacek K., Morris J., Prell C., Quinn C.H., Stringer L.C. (2009): Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environment Management, 90: 1933-1949. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    32. Schultz P.W., Zelezny L. (1999): Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19: 255-265. Go to original source...
    33. TEEB (2010): The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. London and Washington, Earthscan: 456.
    34. Wallace K.J. (2007): Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biological Conservation, 139: 235-246. Go to original source...
    35. Zhang W., Hu Y., Zhang J., Liu M., Yang Z. (2007): Assessment of land use change and potential eco-service value in the upper reaches of Minjiang River, China. Journal of Forest Research, 18: 97-102. 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.


    Return to the content