IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnljfs/v62y2016i8id45-2016-jfs.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social perception of forest multifunctionality in southern Italy: The case of Calabria Region

Author

Listed:
  • F. Pastorella

    (Council for Agricultural Research and Economics - Forest Monitoring and Planning Research Unit, Trento, Italy)

  • G. Giacovelli

    (Council for Agricultural Research and Economics - Forest Monitoring and Planning Research Unit, Trento, Italy)

  • M. Maesano

    (Institute for Agricultural and Forest Systems in the Mediterranean, National Research Council of Italy, Rende, Italy)

  • A. Paletto

    (Council for Agricultural Research and Economics - Forest Monitoring and Planning Research Unit, Trento, Italy)

  • S. Vivona

    (Institute for Agricultural and Forest Systems in the Mediterranean, National Research Council of Italy, Rende, Italy)

  • A. Veltri

    (Institute for Agricultural and Forest Systems in the Mediterranean, National Research Council of Italy, Rende, Italy)

  • G. Pellicone

    (Institute for Agricultural and Forest Systems in the Mediterranean, National Research Council of Italy, Rende, Italy)

  • G. Scarascia Mugnozza

    (Department of Innovation in Biological, Agro-food and Forest Systems, Tuscia University, Viterbo, Italy)

Abstract

During the last decades, forest management systems involving multifunctionality were developed and implemented at a local level all over Europe. Recently, the international scientific literature focused on the concept of ecosystem services. The substantial difference between forest functions and ecosystem services is that the former implies the capacity of forest ecosystem to supply goods and services to society, the latter focuses on the benefits that people obtain from the ecosystems. The aim of this paper is to analyse the social perception of the importance of forest functions and threats to forest multifunctionality in four case studies in the south of Italy, in the Calabria Region (Pollino, Sila, Catena Costiera and Serre Calabre). The study was structured in four steps: (i) stakeholder analysis, (ii) questionnaire survey, (iii) statistical analysis of the collected data, (iv) development of importance-threat matrices. At the end of the analysis, 71 representative stakeholders were identified and involved in the survey. Besides, the representative stakeholders were classified into four groups of interest according to their characteristics: public administrations, associations-non-governmental organizations, academia and research institutes, professional associations of the forest-wood-energy chain. The stakeholders assigned a level of importance to nine forest functions and to ten threats to multifunctionality using a 5-point Likert scale. The data analysis was elaborated distinguishing between groups of interest and case study areas. The overall results show that the two forest functions perceived as the most important by the involved stakeholders are biodiversity and landscape conservation, while a low importance was assigned to the productive forest functions. Regarding the threats, the overall results show that the most relevant threats are the forest fires that affect all functions followed by illegal cuttings and forest abandonment. The ranking of forest functions is similar in all four case studies, while the threat evaluations are more linked to local contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • F. Pastorella & G. Giacovelli & M. Maesano & A. Paletto & S. Vivona & A. Veltri & G. Pellicone & G. Scarascia Mugnozza, 2016. "Social perception of forest multifunctionality in southern Italy: The case of Calabria Region," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 366-379.
    • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnljfs:v:62:y:2016:i:8:id:45-2016-jfs
    DOI: 10.17221/45/2016-JFS
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://jfs.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/45/2016-JFS.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://jfs.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/45/2016-JFS.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/45/2016-JFS?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Silvano Fares & Giuseppe Scarascia Mugnozza & Piermaria Corona & Marc Palahí, 2015. "Sustainability: Five steps for managing Europe's forests," Nature, Nature, vol. 519(7544), pages 407-409, March.
    2. Farber, Stephen C. & Costanza, Robert & Wilson, Matthew A., 2002. "Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 375-392, June.
    3. Barbier, Edward B., 2000. "Valuing the environment as input: review of applications to mangrove-fishery linkages," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 47-61, October.
    4. Kangas, Annika & Laukkanen, Sanna & Kangas, Jyrki, 2006. "Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management--a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 77-92, November.
    5. Kumar, Sushil & Kant, Shashi, 2007. "Exploded logit modeling of stakeholders' preferences for multiple forest values," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(5), pages 516-526, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hana Krejčí & Marta Stárová & Ivan Hrbek & Miroslava Navrátilová & Markéta Beranová, 2019. "The perception of forests by the Czech Republic general public," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 65(6), pages 226-233.
    2. Óscar González-Yebra & José Ángel Aznar-Sánchez & Juan Francisco Velasco-Muñoz & Belén López-Felices, 2023. "A methodological proposal for the sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 69(2), pages 68-77.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yang, Wu & Chang, Jie & Xu, Bin & Peng, Changhui & Ge, Ying, 2008. "Ecosystem service value assessment for constructed wetlands: A case study in Hangzhou, China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 116-125, December.
    2. Swinton, Scott M. & Zhang, Wei, 2005. "Rethinking Ecosystem Services from an Intermediate Product Perspective," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19536, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Hackbart, Vivian C.S. & de Lima, Guilherme T.N.P. & dos Santos, Rozely F., 2017. "Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 218-227.
    4. Richmond, Amy & Kaufmann, Robert K. & Myneni, Ranga B., 2007. "Valuing ecosystem services: A shadow price for net primary production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 454-462, December.
    5. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chris, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    6. Wong, S.C. & Wong, C.W. & Sze, N.N., 2008. "Attitudes of public light bus drivers to penalties to combat red light violations in Hong Kong," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 43-54, January.
    7. Yuni Xu & Xiang Fu & Xuefeng Chu, 2019. "Analyzing the Impacts of Climate Change on Hydro-Environmental Conflict-Resolution Management," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 33(4), pages 1591-1607, March.
    8. Admiraal, Jeroen F. & Wossink, Ada & de Groot, Wouter T. & de Snoo, Geert R., 2013. "More than total economic value: How to combine economic valuation of biodiversity with ecological resilience," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 115-122.
    9. Olivier Petit & Franck-Dominique Vivien, 2015. "When economists and ecologists meet on Ecological Economics: two science paths around two interdisciplinary concepts," Post-Print halshs-01249774, HAL.
    10. McVittie, Alistair & Norton, Lisa & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Siameti, Ioanna & Glenk, Klaus & Aalders, Inge, 2015. "Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach using Bayesian Belief Networks: An application to riparian buffer strips," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 15-27.
    11. Daniel Muller, 2018. "Economics of Human-AI Ecosystem: Value Bias and Lost Utility in Multi-Dimensional Gaps," Papers 1811.06606, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2018.
    12. Alamanos, Angelos & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2022. "Economics of Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management," MPRA Paper 122046, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Chen, G.Q. & Chen, B., 2007. "Resource analysis of the Chinese society 1980-2002 based on energy--Part 5: Resource structure and intensity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 2087-2095, April.
    14. Bachev, Hrabrin, 2009. "Governing of agro-ecosystem services - modes, efficiency, perspectives," MPRA Paper 99870, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Azqueta, Diego & Sotelsek, Daniel, 2007. "Valuing nature: From environmental impacts to natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 22-30, June.
    16. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    17. Baral, Nabin & Stern, Marc J. & Bhattarai, Ranju, 2008. "Contingent valuation of ecotourism in Annapurna conservation area, Nepal: Implications for sustainable park finance and local development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 218-227, June.
    18. Sinden, John Alfred & Griffith, Garry, 2007. "Combining economic and ecological arguments to value the environmental gains from control of 35 weeds in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 396-408, March.
    19. Kijazi, Martin Herbert & Kant, Shashi, 2010. "Forest stakeholders' value preferences in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 357-369, June.
    20. Yamamoto, Yuki, 2023. "Living under ecosystem degradation: Evidence from the mangrove–fishery linkage in Indonesia," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:caa:jnljfs:v:62:y:2016:i:8:id:45-2016-jfs. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cazv.cz/en/home/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.