J. For. Sci., 2025, 71(4):195-204 | DOI: 10.17221/7/2025-JFS

Understanding societal priorities for forest ecosystem services: Survey insights from 'Forestry Days 2024' in SlovakiaOriginal Paper

Zuzana Sarvašová ORCID...1,3, Jozef Pajtík1, Zuzana Dobšinská ORCID...2,3
1 National Forestry Centre – Forest Research Institute, Zvolen, Slovak Republic
2 Department of Forest Economics and Policy, Faculty of Forestry, Technical University in Zvolen, Zvolen, Slovak Republic
3 Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

Understanding society's demand for forest ecosystem services (FES) is crucial for effective forest management and the development of supportive instruments, such as payments for ecosystem services (PES). This study surveyed visitors at 'Forestry Days 2024' in Slovakia through face-to-face questionnaires, capturing their views on FES and necessary management changes. Results show that regulating services and biodiversity are prioritised over cultural and provisioning FES. Respondents indicated a clear need for changes in forest management to reflect their FES preferences. Notably, perceptions of specific FES varied by gender, age, forestry background, and forest ownership but not by residence type. Public PES were considered the most acceptable policy for enhancing FES management, providing valuable insight for aligning public preferences with sustainable practices in Slovakia.

Keywords: biodiversity; payments for ecosystem services; preferences; regulatory services

Received: January 17, 2025; Revised: February 19, 2025; Accepted: March 12, 2025; Published: April 29, 2025  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Sarvašová Z, Pajtík J, Dobšinská Z. Understanding societal priorities for forest ecosystem services: Survey insights from 'Forestry Days 2024' in Slovakia. J. For. Sci. 2025;71(4):195-204. doi: 10.17221/7/2025-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. Anderson J., Gomez C., McCarney G., Adamowicz W.L., Chalifour N.J., Weber M.L., Elgie S., Howlett M.P. (2010): Ecosystem service valuation, market-based instruments, and sustainable forest management: A primer. State of Knowledge Primer, Sustainable Forest Management Network, 5. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2412613
    2. Báliková K., Šálka J. (2022): Are silvicultural subsidies an effective payment for ecosystem services in Slovakia? Land Use Policy, 116: 106056. Go to original source...
    3. Báliková K., Dobšinská Z., Balážová E., Valent P., Šálka J. (2021): Forest land tax reductions - An effective payment for forest ecosystem services in Slovakia. Central European Forestry Journal, 67: 167-176. Go to original source...
    4. Báliková K., Hillayová M.K., Dúbravská B., Bartalský B., Halaj D., Dobšinská Z. (2024): Understanding the role of innovation systems in PES development: A survey of stakeholder perspectives. Trees, Forests and People, 15: 100498. Go to original source...
    5. Beckmann-Wübbelt A., Fricke A., Sebesvari Z., Yakouchenkova I.A., Fröhlich K., Saha S. (2021): High public appreciation for the cultural ecosystem services of urban and peri-urban forests during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainable Cities and Society, 74: 103240. Go to original source...
    6. Bennett D.E., Gosnell H. (2015): Integrating multiple perspectives on payments for ecosystem services through a social-ecological systems framework. Ecological Economics, 116: 172-181. Go to original source...
    7. Blundo-Canto G., Bax V., Quintero M., Cruz-Garcia G.S., Groeneveld R.A., Perez-Marulanda L. (2018): The different dimensions of livelihood impacts of payments for environmental services (PES) schemes: A systematic review. Ecological Economics, 149: 160-183. Go to original source...
    8. Bouwma I., Schleyer C., Primmer E., Winkler K.J., Berry P., Young J., Carmen E., Špulerová J., Bezák P., Preda E., Vadineanu A. (2018): Adoption of the ecosystem services concept in EU policies. Ecosystem Services, 29: 213-222. Go to original source...
    9. Bruzzese S., Blanc S., Merlino V.M., Massaglia S., Brun F. (2022): Civil society's perception of forest ecosystem services. A case study in the Western Alps. Frontiers in Psychology, 13: 1000043. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    10. Crivellaro M., Camin M., Colle G., Bezzi M., Paletto A. (2021): Stakeholders' perception towards ecosystem services provided by forests: Comparison among three Balkans countries. Annals of Silvicultural Research, 46: 74-83. Available at: https://journals-crea.4science.it/index.php/asr
    11. De Groot R.S., Alkemade R., Braat L., Hein L., Willemen L. (2010): Challenges in integrating ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management, and decision-making. Ecological Complexity, 7: 260-272. Go to original source...
    12. Fischer R., Lippe M., Dolom P., Kanungwe Kalaba F., Tamayo F., Torres B. (2023): Effectiveness of policy instrument mixes for forest conservation in the tropics - Stakeholder perceptions from Ecuador, the Philippines and Zambia. Land Use Policy, 127: 106546. Go to original source...
    13. Forest Europe (2020): Valuation and Payments for Forest Ecosystem Services in the pan-European region. Final Report of the FOREST EUROPE Expert Group on Valuation and Payments for Forest Ecosystem Services. Bratislava, Forest Europe: 28. Available at: https://foresteurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/PES_Final_report.pdf
    14. Haines-Young R., Potschin-Young M. (2012): CICES Version 5: Response to consultation. European Environmental Agency. Available at: https://cices.eu/
    15. Jarský V., Palátová P., Riedl M., Zahradník D., Rinn R., Hochmalová M. (2022): Forest attendance in the times of COVID-19 - A case study on the example of the Czech Republic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19: 2529. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    16. Kumar P. (2010): The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. London, Routledge: 114.
    17. Lin J.C., Chiou C.R., Chan W.H., Wu M.S. (2021): Public perception of forest ecosystem services in Taiwan. Journal of Forest Research, 26: 344-350. Go to original source...
    18. Louda J., Dubová L., Špaček M., Brnkaľáková S., Kluvánková T. (2023): Factors affecting governance innovations for ecosystem services provision: Insights from two self-organized forest communities in Czechia and Slovakia. Ecosystem Services, 59: 101497. Go to original source...
    19. Mann C., Loft L., Hernández-Morcillo M., Primmer E., Bussola F., Falco E., Geneletti D., Dobrowolska E., Grossmann C.M., Bottaro G., Schleyer C., Kluvankova T., Garcia G., Lovrić M., Torralba M., Plieninger T., Winkel G. (2022): Governance innovations for forest ecosystem service provision - Insights from an EU-wide survey. Environmental Science and Policy, 132: 282-295. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    20. Marcineková L., Štěrbová M., Výbošťok J., Hajdúchová I., Giertliová B., Šulek R., Sarvašová Z., Šálka J. (2024): Slovakia and its environmental transformation: Measuring environmental attitudes using the new ecological paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 15: 1320451. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    21. Mederly P., Černecký J., Špulerová J., Izakovičová Z., Jančovič M., Ďuricová V., Stašová S., Hreško J., Petrovič F., Štefunková D., Šatalová B., Močko M., Vrbičanová G., Kaisová D., Turanovičová M., Kováč T., Laco I. (2019): Katalóg ekosystémových služieb Slovenska. Banská Bystrica, ŠOP SR, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Institute of Landscape Ecology: 215. Available at: https://www.sopsr.sk/natura/dokumenty/Katalog-ES.pdf (in Slovak)
    22. Mengist W., Soromessa T. (2019): Assessment of forest ecosystem service research trends and methodological approaches at global level: A meta-analysis. Environmental Systems Research, 8: 22. Go to original source...
    23. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005): Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis. Washington, D. C.: World Resources Institute: 86.
    24. Paletto A., Giacovelli G., Grilli G., Balest J., De Meo I. (2014): Stakeholders' preferences and the assessment of forest ecosystem services: A comparative analysis in Italy. Journal of Forest Science, 60: 472-483. Go to original source...
    25. Paluš H., Krahulcová M., Parobek J. (2021): Assessment of forest certification as a tool to support forest ecosystem services. Forests, 12: 300. Go to original source...
    26. Puelzl H., Aggestam F., Prokofieva I., Lukina N.V., Sotirov M., Pecurul-Botines M., Tebenkova D.N., Widmark C., Rosinger C. (2021): Re-Imagining Nature Communication: The Role of Societal Values for Forest Ecosystem Services. Available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3972031 Go to original source...
    27. Ranacher L., Tyrväinen L., Pülzl H., Winkel G. (2021): What do people think about forests in the EU? Key questions on forests in the EU. Knowledge to Action, 4. Available at: https://efi.int/forestquestions/q3
    28. Šálka J., Sarvašová Z. (2023): Význam ekosystémových služieb lesov pre mestské obyvateľstvo. In: Zborník príspevkov z medzinárodnej konferencie 'Aktuálne otázky manažmentu prímestských lesov', Košice, Sept 27-28, 2023: 14-23. Available at: https://www.meleskosice.sk//files/2023-10-09-150058-ZBORN__K_KOMPLET.pdf (in Slovak)
    29. Sarvašová Z., Kovalčík M., Dobšinská Z., Šálka J., Jarský V. (2014): Ecosystem services - Examples of their valuation methods in Czech Republic and Slovakia. Change and Adaptation in Socio-Ecological Systems, 1: 74-83. Go to original source...
    30. Sarvašová Z., Ali T., Đorđević I., Lukmine D., Quiroga S., Suárez C., Hrib M., Rondeux J., Mantzanas K.T., Franz K. (2019): Natura 2000 payments for private forest owners in Rural Development Programmes 2007-2013 - A comparative view. Forest Policy and Economics, 99: 123-135. Go to original source...
    31. Sarvašová Z., Dobšinská Z., Báliková K., Šálka J. (2021): Preferencie a možnosti platieb za využívanie ekosystémových služieb lesa v okolí Banskej Bystrice a Štrbského plesa. In: Aktuálne otázky ekonomiky a politiky lesného hospodárstva Slovenskej republiky: Zborník prác z vedeckej konferencie. Zvolen, Národné lesnícke centrum - Lesnícky výskumný ústav: 41-50. (in Slovak)
    32. Schutter M.S., Hicks C.C., Phelps J., Belmont C. (2021): Disentangling ecosystem services preferences and values. World Development, 146: 105621. Go to original source...
    33. Sotirov M., Winkel G., Eckerberg K. (2021): The coalitional politics of the European Union's environmental forest policy: Biodiversity conservation, timber legality, and climate protection. Ambio, 50: 2153-2167. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    34. Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic (2024): Stock of Population in the SR on 30 September 2024. Bratislava, Statistical office of the Slovak Republic. Available at: https://slovak.statistics.sk/wps/portal/ext/themes/demography/population/news/!ut/p/z1/lZFNDoJADIXPwgmmA8PfckAZRgjCIILdGBbGYBRdGM8vElYaB-2u6fua11eCpCHYt4_u2N67a9-eh36Hzr5wpRcElIMXbE2QbqZoUhQioYzUb4JMLUFueC7UilFgNsFhHJW5yX0mwoVaR8M4NL0ydUwAOvEagY4XzsSHgsfMTQG8VNggeVwpv7As4NbIz_qHL8XhN15jEP_L70OAens1wVGiS2BuB849CbVXVO7MhiGF8tCT26V6VQOdPDFuGE8qrzR0/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/
    35. Van der Wilde C.P., Newell J.P. (2021): Ecosystem services and life cycle assessment: A bibliometric review. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 169: 105461. Go to original source...
    36. Winkel G., Lovrić M., Muys B., Katila P., Lundhede T., Pecurul M., Pettenella D., Pipart N., Plieniger T., Prokofieva I., Parra C., Puelzl H., Roitsch D., Roux J.L., Jellesmark Thorsen B., Tyrväinen L., Torralba M., Vacik H., Weiss G., Wunder S. (2022): Governing Europe's multiple ecosystem services: Opportunities, challenges, and policy options. Forest Policy and Economics, 145: 102849. Go to original source...
    37. Winkler K.J.K., Benessaiah J., Botzas-Coluni E.T.H., Crockett M.A., Crowley M., Dade D.E.L., Hanna J., Garrah J.T., Rieb Bennett E.M. (2022): Implications of Panarchy for ecosystem service research: The role of system dynamics in service delivery. Ecology and Society, 27: 43. Go to original source...
    38. Wunder S., Börner J., Ezzine-de-Blas D., Feder S., Pagiola S. (2020): Payments for environmental services: Past performance and pending potential. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 12: 209-234. 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