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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    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. Arts, Bas, 2014. "Assessing forest governance from a ‘Triple G’ perspective: Government, governance, governmentality⁎⁎This article belongs to the Special Issue: Assessing Forest Governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 17-22.
    4. Mónica de Castro-Pardo & Fernando Pérez-Rodríguez & José María Martín-Martín & João C. Azevedo, 2019. "Planning for Democracy in Protected Rural Areas: Application of a Voting Method in a Spanish-Portuguese Reserve," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-17, October.
    5. Rocío del Pilar Moreno-Sánchez & Jorge H. Maldonado & Camilo Andrés Gutiérrez & Melissa Rubio, 2013. "Valoración de Áreas Marinas Protegidas desde la perspectiva de los usuarios de recursos: conciliando enfoques cuantitativos individuales con enfoques cualitativos colectivos," Documentos CEDE 11936, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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, Chr, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    9. 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.
    10. Chen, B. & Chen, G.Q., 2007. "Modified ecological footprint accounting and analysis based on embodied exergy--a case study of the Chinese society 1981-2001," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 355-376, March.
    11. Yoann Verger, 2015. "Sraffa and ecological economics: review of the literature," Working Papers hal-01182894, HAL.
    12. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio & Granvik, Madeleine & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2018. "Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 411-424.
    13. 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.
    14. Edward B. Barbier & Angela Cindy Emefa Mensah & Michelan Wilson, 2023. "Valuing the Environment as Input, Ecosystem Services and Developing Countries," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(3), pages 677-694, March.
    15. Luca Nonini & Marco Fiala, 2022. "Assessment of Forest Wood and Carbon Stock at the Stand Level: First Results of a Modeling Approach for an Italian Case Study Area of the Central Alps," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-24, March.
    16. Nils Droste & Bartosz Bartkowski, 2018. "Ecosystem Service Valuation for National Accounting: A Reply to Obst, Hein and Edens (2016)," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 205-215, September.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Beça, Pedro & Santos, Rui, 2010. "Measuring sustainable welfare: A new approach to the ISEW," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 810-819, February.
    20. 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.

    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.