IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnljfs/v60y2014i11id85-2014-jfs.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • A. Paletto

    (Consiglio per la Ricerca e la sperimentazione in Agricoltura - Forest Monitoring and Planning Research Unit (CRA-MPF), Villazzano, Trento, Italy)

  • G. Giacovelli

    (Consiglio per la Ricerca e la sperimentazione in Agricoltura - Forest Monitoring and Planning Research Unit (CRA-MPF), Villazzano, Trento, Italy)

  • G. Grilli

    (Department of Civil, Environmental and Mechanical Engineering, University of Trento, Trento, Italy)

  • J. Balest

    (Consiglio per la Ricerca e la sperimentazione in Agricoltura - Forest Monitoring and Planning Research Unit (CRA-MPF), Villazzano, Trento, Italy)

  • I. De Meo

    (Consiglio per la Ricerca e la sperimentazione in Agricoltura - Agrobiology and Pedology Research Centre (CRA-ABP), Florence, Italy)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • A. Paletto & G. Giacovelli & G. Grilli & J. Balest & I. De Meo, 2014. "Stakeholders' preferences and the assessment of forest ecosystem services: a comparative analysis in Italy," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 60(11), pages 472-483.
    • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnljfs:v:60:y:2014:i:11:id:85-2014-jfs
    DOI: 10.17221/85/2014-JFS
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://jfs.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/85/2014-JFS.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://jfs.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/85/2014-JFS.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/85/2014-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. Roberta Capello & Roberto Camagni & Barbara Chizzolini & Ugo Fratesi, 2008. "Modelling Regional Scenarios for the Enlarged Europe," Advances in Spatial Science, Springer, number 978-3-540-74737-6, Fall.
    2. Buonocore, Elvira & Häyhä, Tiina & Paletto, Alessandro & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2014. "Assessing environmental costs and impacts of forestry activities: A multi-method approach to environmental accounting," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 271(C), pages 10-20.
    3. Elizabeth Allen & Chad Kruger & Fok-Yan Leung & Jennie Stephens, 2013. "Diverse Perceptions of Stakeholder Engagement within an Environmental Modeling Research Team," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(3), pages 343-356, September.
    4. Pretty, Jules & Ward, Hugh, 2001. "Social Capital and the Environment," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 209-227, February.
    5. Fontana, Veronika & Radtke, Anna & Bossi Fedrigotti, Valérie & Tappeiner, Ulrike & Tasser, Erich & Zerbe, Stefan & Buchholz, Thomas, 2013. "Comparing land-use alternatives: Using the ecosystem services concept to define a multi-criteria decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 128-136.
    6. Paletto, Alessandro & Ferretti, Fabrizio & De Meo, Isabella, 2012. "The role of social networks in forest landscape planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 132-139.
    7. Grimble, Robin & Wellard, Kate, 1997. "Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 173-193, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Mercy Serwah Owusu Ansah & Emmanuel Oppong Peprah, 2022. "The Link between Stakeholder Engagement and Strategic Planning in the Ghana Forestry Sector: A Systematic Literature Review," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 6(5), pages 907-914, May.
    2. Parnphumeesup, Piya & Kerr, Sandy A., 2011. "Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3591-3601, June.
    3. Sergio Currarini & Carmen Marchiori & Alessandro Tavoni, 2016. "Network Economics and the Environment: Insights and Perspectives," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(1), pages 159-189, September.
    4. Crespo, Joan & Réquier-Desjardins, Denis & Vicente, Jérôme, 2014. "Why can collective action fail in Local Agri-food Systems? A social network analysis of cheese producers in Aculco, Mexico," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 165-177.
    5. Arsovski Slobodan & Kwiatkowski Michał & Lewandowska Aleksandra & Peshevska Dimitrinka Jordanova & Sofeska Emilija & Dymitrow Mirek, 2018. "Can urban environmental problems be overcome? The case of Skopje–world’s most polluted city," Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, Sciendo, vol. 40(40), pages 17-39, June.
    6. Zeke Marshall & Paul E. Brockway, 2020. "A Net Energy Analysis of the Global Agriculture, Aquaculture, Fishing and Forestry System," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 1-27, June.
    7. repec:rom:campco:v:7:y:2011:i:1:p:392-398 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Tobias Böhmelt & Jürg Vollenweider, 2015. "Information flows and social capital through linkages: the effectiveness of the CLRTAP network," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 105-123, May.
    9. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2007:i:68:p:1-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Gillespie, Stuart & van den Bold, Mara, 2015. "Stories of change in nutrition: A tool pool:," IFPRI discussion papers 1494, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    11. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, 2006. "Environmental Morale and Motivation," CREMA Working Paper Series 2006-17, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    12. Põllumäe, Priit & Lilleleht, Ando & Korjus, Henn, 2016. "Institutional barriers in forest owners' cooperation: The case of Estonia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 9-16.
    13. Volland, Benjamin, 2017. "The role of risk and trust attitudes in explaining residential energy demand: Evidence from the United Kingdom," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 14-30.
    14. Leonardo Becchetti & Emanuele Bobbio & Federico Prizia & Lorenzo Semplici, 2022. "Going Deeper into the S of ESG: A Relational Approach to the Definition of Social Responsibility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-22, August.
    15. Ma, Cong & Cheok, Mui Yee, 2022. "The impact of financing role and organizational culture in small and medium enterprises: Developing business strategies for economic recovery," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 26-38.
    16. Sharmila Moganadas & Victor Corral-Verdugo & Santhi Ramanathan, 2013. "Toward systemic campus sustainability: gauging dimensions of sustainable development via a motivational and perception-based approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 15(6), pages 1443-1464, December.
    17. Yu, Bing & Xu, Linyu, 2016. "Review of ecological compensation in hydropower development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 729-738.
    18. Anne Hardy & Leonie J. Pearson, 2016. "Determining Sustainable Tourism in Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    19. Torgler, Benno & Garcã A-Valiã‘As, Marã A A. & Macintyre, Alison, 2011. "Participation in environmental organizations: an empirical analysis," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(5), pages 591-620, October.
    20. Kris Wyckhuys & Robert O’Neil, 2010. "Social and ecological facets of pest management in Honduran subsistence agriculture: implications for IPM extension and natural resource management," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 297-311, June.
    21. Thomas Campagnaro & Giovanni Trentanovi & Tommaso Sitzia, 2018. "Identifying Habitat Type Conservation Priorities under the Habitats Directive: Application to Two Italian Biogeographical Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-20, April.
    22. Roberta Capello & Andrea Caragliu & Ugo Fratesi, 2017. "Modeling Regional Growth between Competitiveness and Austerity Measures," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 40(1), pages 38-74, 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:caa:jnljfs:v:60:y:2014:i:11:id:85-2014-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.