IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v13y2011i1p46-54.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is an attractive forest also considered well managed? Public preferences for forest cover and stand structure across a rural/urban gradient in northern Portugal

Author

Listed:
  • Carvalho-Ribeiro, Sónia Maria
  • Lovett, Andrew

Abstract

There is an extensive body of empirical research focusing on public preferences for forest landscapes. However, it is also recognised that visually appealing landscapes may not be ecologically healthy and these differences may cause tensions as indirect ecosystem services become an increasingly important focus for forest management. This study used a questionnaire survey to investigate the extent to which public preferences for characteristics such as forest cover and stand structure varied when framed in terms of attractiveness or good management objectives. The research took place in northern Portugal and also examined the implications of using verbal prompts or visual stimuli (e.g. photographs) as means of eliciting preferences. Key results from the study were: 1) public preferences regarding forest cover and stand structure do not, in general, differ under attractiveness and management criteria, 2) there were statistically significant differences in preferences for forest cover and stand structure amongst user groups 3) because ground cover vegetation was not regarded as attractive or good then strategies for future whole catchment management may face some tension, and 4) there were some inconsistencies identified in the preferences derived from verbal prompts and visual stimuli. By contrasting preferences for attractiveness and management criteria the research presents a simple quantitative approach that provides a basis for interventions through design or knowledge exchange to help align aesthetic and ecological goals. However, it also suggests that research approaches able to provide a deeper engagement with the public regarding the indirect ecosystem services from forests via qualitative approaches such as focus groups and incentive mechanisms are likely to be important.

Suggested Citation

  • Carvalho-Ribeiro, Sónia Maria & Lovett, Andrew, 2011. "Is an attractive forest also considered well managed? Public preferences for forest cover and stand structure across a rural/urban gradient in northern Portugal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 46-54, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:13:y:2011:i:1:p:46-54
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389-9341(10)00128-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Rekola, Mika & Pouta, Eija, 2005. "Public preferences for uncertain regeneration cuttings: a contingent valuation experiment involving Finnish private forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 635-649, May.
    2. van Rensburg, Tom M. & Mill, Greig A. & Common, Mick & Lovett, Jon, 2002. "Preferences and multiple use forest management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 231-244, December.
    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. Fen Luo & Chen Wang & Haiqian Lei & Zhijun Xiao, 2023. "Young Adults’ Perception of Forests Using Landscape-Image-Sketching Technique: A Case Study of Changsha, Central China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-13, February.
    2. Affek, Andrzej Norbert & Kowalska, Anna, 2017. "Ecosystem potentials to provide services in the view of direct users," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 183-196.
    3. Ciesielski, Mariusz & Stereńczak, Krzysztof, 2021. "Using Flickr data and selected environmental characteristics to analyse the temporal and spatial distribution of activities in forest areas," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    4. Grace, David & Jeuland, Marc, 2018. "Preferences for Attributes of Sacred Groves and Temples along an Urbanization Gradient in the National Capital Region of India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 322-335.
    5. Pihel, Johan & Ode Sang, Åsa & Hagerhall, Caroline & Nyström, Marcus, 2015. "Expert and novice group differences in eye movements when assessing biodiversity of harvested forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 20-26.
    6. Marzano, Mariella & Dandy, Norman & Papazova-Anakieva, Irena & Avtzis, Dimitrios & Connolly, Tom & Eschen, René & Glavendekić, Milka & Hurley, Brett & Lindelöw, Åke & Matošević, Dinka & Tomov, Rumen &, 2016. "Assessing awareness of tree pests and pathogens amongst tree professionals: A pan-European perspective," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 164-171.
    7. Schutter, Marleen S. & Hicks, Christina C. & Phelps, Jacob & Belmont, Clara, 2021. "Disentangling ecosystem services preferences and values," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    8. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.

    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. Dhakal, Bhubaneswor & Yao, Richard T. & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim, 2012. "Recreational users' willingness to pay and preferences for changes in planted forest features," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 34-44.
    2. Li, Zhengtao & Hu, Bin, 2018. "Perceived health risk, environmental knowledge, and contingent valuation for improving air quality: New evidence from the Jinchuan mining area in China," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 54-68.
    3. Pihel, Johan & Ode Sang, Åsa & Hagerhall, Caroline & Nyström, Marcus, 2015. "Expert and novice group differences in eye movements when assessing biodiversity of harvested forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 20-26.
    4. Morgan, Edward A. & Buckwell, Andrew & Guidi, Caterina & Garcia, Beatriz & Rimmer, Lawrence & Cadman, Tim & Mackey, Brendan, 2022. "Capturing multiple forest ecosystem services for just benefit sharing: The Basket of Benefits Approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    5. Sell, Joachim & Koellner, Thomas & Weber, Olaf & Pedroni, Lucio & Scholz, Roland W., 2006. "Decision criteria of European and Latin American market actors for tropical forestry projects providing environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 17-36, June.
    6. Lindhjem, Henrik, 2007. "20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: A meta-analysis," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 251-277, February.
    7. Polimeni, John M., 2004. "Graduate education in ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(3-4), pages 287-293, December.
    8. Moritz A. Drupp & Zachary M. Turk & Ben Groom & Jonas Heckenhahn, 2023. "Limited substitutability, relative price changes and the uplifting of public natural capital values," Papers 2308.04400, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    9. van der Heide, C.M. & Blaeij, A.T. de & Heijman, Wim J.M., 2008. "Economic Aspects in Landscape Decision-making: a Participatory Planning Tool based on a Representative Approach," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 43949, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Andrew Mill, Greig & van Rensburg, Tom M. & Hynes, Stephen & Dooley, Conor, 2007. "Preferences for multiple use forest management in Ireland: Citizen and consumer perpectives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 642-653, January.
    11. Fabio Zagonari, 2013. "Implementing a trans-boundary flood risk management plan: a method for determining willingness to cooperate and case study for the Scheldt estuary," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 66(2), pages 1101-1133, March.
    12. John Loomis & Lindsey Ellingson & Armando Gonzalez‐Caban & Andy Seidl, 2006. "The Role of Ethnicity and Language in Contingent Valuation Analysis," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(3), pages 559-586, July.
    13. Jens Abildtrup & Jacques-Alexandre Laye & Maximilien Laye & Anne Stenger, 2012. "Irreversibility and Uncertainty in Multifunctional Forest Management Allocation," Post-Print hal-01072290, HAL.
    14. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2008. "How reliable are meta-analyses for international benefit transfers?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 425-435, June.
    15. Jones, P.J. & Andersen, E. & Capitani, C. & Carvalho Ribeiro, S. & Griffiths, G.H. & Loupa-Ramos, I. & Madeira, L. & Mortimer, S.R. & Paracchini, M.L. & Pinto Correia, T. & Schmidt, A.M. & Simoncini, , 2016. "The EU societal awareness of landscape indicator: A review of its meaning, utility and performance across different scales," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 112-122.
    16. Englin, Jeffrey E. & McDonald, Jered M. & Moeltner, Klaus, 2006. "Valuing ancient forest ecosystems: An analysis of backcountry hiking in Jasper National Park," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 665-678, June.
    17. Knoke, Thomas & Moog, Martin, 2005. "Timber harvesting versus forest reserves--producer prices for open-use areas in German beech forests (Fagus sylvatica L.)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 97-110, January.

    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:eee:forpol:v:13:y:2011:i:1:p:46-54. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    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.