J. For. Sci., 2016, 62(8):380-387 | DOI: 10.17221/48/2016-JFS

Provision of ecosystem services in mountain forests - case study of experts' and stakeholders' perceptions from SlovakiaOriginal Paper

Z. Sarvašová1, Z. Dobšinská2
1 Department of Forest Policy and Economics, National Forest Centre - Forest Research Institute in Zvolen, Zvolen, Slovak Republic
2 Department of Economics and Management of Forestry, Faculty of Forestry, Technical University in Zvolen, Zvolen, Slovak Republic

Forests in the mountain ranges are supposed to meet multiple objectives at the same time. There are different expectations and priorities among stakeholder groups. The object of the research is the case study area in the Goat Backs Mountains in Slovakia (representing Western Carpathians). The stakeholders' panel which included local government officials, landowners, foresters, interest group representatives etc. judged the current and future importance of ecosystem services in a special questionnaire. The context analysis provided main strengths and weaknesses, threats and opportunities that influence mountain forest management and the provision and use of ecosystem services in the case study area were done by involved experts from practice and science. Based on the SWOT results a possible strategy for the provision of ecosystem services was proposed. Some of the key issues that have been identified by experts concerning the balancing of ecosystem service provision are: strengthening the local stakeholder involvement; enhancing regional initiatives; and economic market-oriented instruments and economic incentives.

Keywords: ARANGE project; Western Carpathians; context analysis; participation; societal demands

Published: August 31, 2016  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Sarvašová Z, Dobšinská Z. Provision of ecosystem services in mountain forests - case study of experts' and stakeholders' perceptions from Slovakia. J. For. Sci. 2016;62(8):380-387. doi: 10.17221/48/2016-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. Beckley T., Parkins J., Sheppard S. (2005): Public Participation in Sustainable Forest Management: A Reference Guide. Edmonton, Sustainable Forest Management Network: 60.
    2. Brukas V., Sallnäs O. (2011): Forest management plan as a policy instrument: Carrot, stick or sermon? Land Use Policy, 29: 605-613. Go to original source...
    3. Costanza R., d'Arge R., de Groot R.S., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Limburg K., Naeem S., O'Neill R.V., Paruelo J., Raskin R.G., Suttonkk 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...
    4. Dax T. (2002): Research on Mountain Development in Europe: Overview of Issues and Priorities. Manuscript. Vienna, Federal Institute for Less-Favoured and Mountainous Areas: 15.
    5. de Groot R.S., Wilson M.A., Boumans R.M.J. (2002): A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41: 393-408. Go to original source...
    6. de Groot R.S., 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...
    7. De Meo I., Cantiani M.G., Ferretti F., Paletto A. (2011): Stakeholders' perception as support for forest landscape planning. International Journal of Ecology, 1: 1-8. Go to original source...
    8. Kangas A., Kangas J., Kurttila M. (2008): Decision Support for Forest Management. Berlin, Springer-Verlag: 222.
    9. Kangas A., Laukkanen S., Kangas J. (2006): Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management - a review. Forest Policy and Economics, 9: 77-92. Go to original source...
    10. Kohlöffel K.M. (2000): Strategisches Management. München, Carl Hanser Verlag: 262.
    11. Krott M. (2005): Forest Policy Analysis. Dordrecht, SpringerVerlag: 323.
    12. Kulla L., Bošela M., Burgan K. (2010): Potreba a možnosti inovácie rámcového plánovania HÚL na Slovensku. In: Bortel S., Bavlšík J. (eds): Súčasnost' a budúcnost' hospodárskej úpravy lesov na Slovensku. Zvolen, Národné lesnícke centrum: 42-49.
    13. Lichý J. (2013): Proposal of model of forest enterprise media communication. Lesnícky časopis - Forestry Journal, 59: 276-283. Go to original source...
    14. Lobriser R., Abplanalp P.A. (1998): Strategisches Management, Visionen entwickeln, Strategien umsetzen, Erfolgspotentiale aufbauen. Zürich, Versus: 468.
    15. Martins H., Borges J.G. (2007): Addressing collaborative planning methods and tools in forest management. Forest Ecology and Management, 248: 107-118. Go to original source...
    16. Martín-López B., Iniesta-Arandia I., García-Llorente M., Palomo I., Casado-Arzuaga I., García Del Amo D., GómezBaggethun E., Oteros-Rozas E., Palacios-Agundez I., Willaarts B., González J.A., Santos-Martín F., Onaindia M., López-Santiago C., Montes C. (2012): Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE, 7: e38970. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    17. Marzano M., Dandy N., Bayliss H.R., Porth E., Potter C. (2015): Part of the solution? Stakeholder awareness, information and engagement in tree health issues. Biological Invasions, 17: 1961-1977. Go to original source...
    18. O'Brien L., Marzano M., White R.M. (2013): 'Participatory interdisciplinarity': Towards the integration of disciplinary diversity with stakeholder engagement for new models of knowledge production. Science and Public Policy, 40: 51-61. Go to original source...
    19. Paletto A., Balest J., De Meo I., Giacovelli G., Grilli G. (2016): Power of forest stakeholders in the participatory decision making process: A case study in northern Italy. Acta Silvatica et Lignaria Hungarica, 12: 9-22. Go to original source...
    20. Phalen K.B. (2009): An invitation for public participation in ecological restoration: The reasonable person model. Ecological Restoration, 27: 178-186. Go to original source...
    21. Pukkala T. (2002): Multi-objective forest planning. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers: 207. Go to original source...
    22. Rauch P. (2007): SWOT analyses and SWOT strategy formulation for forest owner cooperations in Austria. European Journal of Forest Research, 126: 413-420. Go to original source...
    23. Sarvašová Z., Dobšinská Z., Šálka J. (2014): Public participation in sustainable forestry: The case of forest planning in Slovakia. iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry, 7: 414-422. Go to original source...
    24. Sedmák R., Fabrika M., Bahýl J., Pôbiš I., Tuček J. (2013): Application of simulation and optimization tools for developing forest management plans in the Slovak natural and management conditions. In: Tuček J., Smreček R., Majlingová A., Garcia-Gonzalo J. (eds): Implementation of DSS Tools into the Forestry Practice. Zvolen, Technical University in Zvolen: 139-152.
    25. Shackelford N., Hobbs R.J., Burgar J.M., Erickson T.E., Fontaine J.B., Laliberté Ramalho C.E., Perring M.P., Standish R.J. (2013): Primed for change: Developing ecological restoration for the 21st century. Restoration Ecology, 21: 297-304. Go to original source...
    26. Sitarz D. (1993): Agenda 21: The earth summit strategy to save our planet. Available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf (accessed Jan 15, 2016).
    27. Šálka J. (2006): Analýza verejnej politiky v lesníctve. Zvolen, Technická Univerzita vo Zvolene: 64.
    28. TEEB (2010): The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. London, Washington, Earthscan: 456.
    29. Wallace K.J. (2007): Classification of ecosystem services: Problems and solutions. Biological Conservation, 139: 235-246. 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