IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to 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

Listed author(s):
  • Carvalho-Ribeiro, Sónia Maria
  • Lovett, Andrew
Registered author(s):

    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.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Forest Policy and Economics.

    Volume (Year): 13 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 1 (January)
    Pages: 46-54

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:13:y:2011:i:1:p:46-54
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    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)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.