IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i21p12001-d668343.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholders’ Opinions towards Water-Related Forests Ecosystem Services in Selected Southeast European Countries (Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia and Serbia)

Author

Listed:
  • Dijana Vuletić

    (Division for International Scientific Cooperation in Southeast Europe (EFISEE), Croatian Forest Research Institute, 10450 Jastrebarsko, Croatia)

  • Silvija Krajter Ostoić

    (Division for International Scientific Cooperation in Southeast Europe (EFISEE), Croatian Forest Research Institute, 10450 Jastrebarsko, Croatia)

  • Klára Báliková

    (Department of Forest Economics and Management, Faculty of Forestry, Technical University in Zvolen, 960 01 Zvolen, Slovakia)

  • Mersudin Avdibegović

    (Faculty of Forestry, University of Sarajevo, Zagrebačka 20, 71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina)

  • Kristina Potočki

    (Water Research Department, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Špela Pezdevšek Malovrh

    (Department of Forestry and Renewable Forest Resources, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia)

  • Stjepan Posavec

    (Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, University of Zagreb, Svetošimunska cesta 25, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Srđan Stojnić

    (Institute of Lowland Forestry and Environment, University of Novi Sad, 381021 Novi Sad, Serbia)

  • Alessandro Paletto

    (Consiglio Per La Ricerca in Agricoltura E L’analisi dell’economia agraria (CREA), Forestry and Wood Research Centre, 38123 Trento, Italy)

Abstract

Even though water-related forest ecosystem services are important for forestry and water management sectors, they have different definitions and are regulated differently in each sector, which makes them poorly recognized. How stakeholders from two main sectors (forestry and water management) perceive the importance of water-related forest ecosystem services, the trade-offs between ecosystem services and the effectiveness and implementation of payments schemes related to forest water ecosystem services were our areas of interest. We have conduct surveys with different groups of stakeholders from both sectors in four selected countries (the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia and Serbia) with a lot of similarities and the potential to learn from each other. The results show that in spite of the spotted differences among analyzed countries, there is a high level of agreement among respondents on all investigated aspects. In addition, even though different payment schemes exist in three of four countries, stakeholders are rarely aware of their existence, or it is better to say that they do not recognize them as payment schemes for ecosystem services because of their names and definitions, which do not clearly define ecosystem services. Mostly, they use bundled services and non-voluntary payments and are designed and implemented by the states. Due to the strong role of states and the low transparency in the existing schemes, we looked at possible conditions reflected through stakeholders’ opinions for overcoming that obstacle for the development of new payment schemes. We found that there is a high level of acceptance of payments schemes as more effective than “command and control” schemes and of the involvement of other stakeholders in decision-making processes as those conditions that can positively influence development of new payment schemes in all four countries. These results give us hope that in spite of the strong role of the state in selected countries, the role of stakeholders will be more acknowledged and, by that, the future schemes will be more harmonized among the sectors and their goals and needs, contributing to its effectiveness as well.

Suggested Citation

  • Dijana Vuletić & Silvija Krajter Ostoić & Klára Báliková & Mersudin Avdibegović & Kristina Potočki & Špela Pezdevšek Malovrh & Stjepan Posavec & Srđan Stojnić & Alessandro Paletto, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Opinions towards Water-Related Forests Ecosystem Services in Selected Southeast European Countries (Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia and Serbia)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-16, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:21:p:12001-:d:668343
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/21/12001/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/21/12001/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wunder, Sven, 2015. "Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 234-243.
    2. Muradian, Roldan & Corbera, Esteve & Pascual, Unai & Kosoy, Nicolás & May, Peter H., 2010. "Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1202-1208, April.
    3. De Vreese, Rik & Van Herzele, Ann & Dendoncker, Nicolas & Fontaine, Corentin M. & Leys, Mark, 2019. "Are stakeholders’ social representations of nature and landscape compatible with the ecosystem service concept?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Sarah Schomers & Bettina Matzdorf & Claas Meyer & Claudia Sattler, 2015. "How Local Intermediaries Improve the Effectiveness of Public Payment for Ecosystem Services Programs: The Role of Networks and Agri-Environmental Assistance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-31, October.
    5. Börner, Jan & Baylis, Kathy & Corbera, Esteve & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss & Honey-Rosés, Jordi & Persson, U. Martin & Wunder, Sven, 2017. "The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental Services," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 359-374.
    6. Calder, Ian R., 2002. "Forests and Hydrological Services: Reconciling public and science perceptions," Land Use and Water Resources Research, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Centre for Land Use and Water Resources Research, vol. 2, pages 1-12.
    7. Mäntymaa, Erkki & Juutinen, Artti & Tyrväinen, Liisa & Karhu, Jouni & Kurttila, Mikko, 2018. "Participation and compensation claims in voluntary forest landscape conservation: The case of the Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area, Finland," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 14-24.
    8. Loft, Lasse & Gehrig, Stefan & Le, Dung Ngoc & Rommel, Jens, 2019. "Effectiveness and equity of Payments for Ecosystem Services: Real-effort experiments with Vietnamese land users," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 218-228.
    9. Bösch, Matthias & Elsasser, Peter & Wunder, Sven, 2019. "Why do payments for watershed services emerge? A cross-country analysis of adoption contexts," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 111-119.
    10. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    11. Tacconi, Luca, 2012. "Redefining payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 29-36.
    12. Czúcz, Bálint & Arany, Ildikó & Potschin-Young, Marion & Bereczki, Krisztina & Kertész, Miklós & Kiss, Márton & Aszalós, Réka & Haines-Young, Roy, 2018. "Where concepts meet the real world: A systematic review of ecosystem service indicators and their classification using CICES," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 145-157.
    13. Schomers, Sarah & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 16-30.
    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. Blundo-Canto, Genowefa & Bax, Vincent & Quintero, Marcela & Cruz-Garcia, Gisella S. & Groeneveld, Rolf A. & Perez-Marulanda, Lisset, 2018. "The Different Dimensions of Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services (PES) Schemes: A Systematic Review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 160-183.
    2. Báliková, Klára & Šálka, Jaroslav, 2022. "Are silvicultural subsidies an effective payment for ecosystem services in Slovakia?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    3. Campanhão, Ligia Maria Barrios & Ranieri, Victor Eduardo Lima, 2019. "Guideline framework for effective targeting of payments for watershed services," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 93-109.
    4. Yan, Haiming & Yang, Huicai & Guo, Xiaonan & Zhao, Shuqin & Jiang, Qun'ou, 2022. "Payments for ecosystem services as an essential approach to improving ecosystem services: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    5. Martin-Ortega, Julia & Waylen, Kerry A., 2018. "PES What a Mess? An Analysis of the Position of Environmental Professionals in the Conceptual Debate on Payments for Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 218-237.
    6. Mangubhai, Sangeeta & Sykes, Helen & Manley, Marita & Vukikomoala, Kiji & Beattie, Madeline, 2020. "Contributions of tourism-based Marine Conservation Agreements to natural resource management in Fiji," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    7. Driss Ezzine-de-Blas & Sven Wunder & Manuel Ruiz-Pérez & Rocio del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, 2016. "Global Patterns in the Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, March.
    8. Lin, Yongsheng & Dong, Zhanfeng & Zhang, Wei & Zhang, Hongyu, 2020. "Estimating inter-regional payments for ecosystem services: Taking China’s Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region as an example," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    9. Jones, Kelly W. & Mayer, Alex & Von Thaden, Juan & Berry, Z. Carter & López-Ramírez, Sergio & Salcone, Jacob & Manson, Robert H. & Asbjornsen, Heidi, 2020. "Measuring the net benefits of payments for hydrological services programs in Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    10. Kaiser, Josef & Krueger, Tobias & Haase, Dagmar, 2023. "Global patterns of collective payments for ecosystem services and their degrees of commodification," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    11. Li, Ruiqian & van den Brink, Margo & Woltjer, Johan, 2017. "Market-based instruments for the governance of coastal and marine ecosystem services: An analysis based on the Chinese case," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 71-81.
    12. Martin-Ortega, Julia & Dekker, Thijs & Ojea, Elena & Lorenzo-Arribas, Altea, 2019. "Dissecting price setting efficiency in Payments for Ecosystem Services: A meta-analysis of payments for watershed services in Latin America," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    13. Brownson, Katherine & Guinessey, Elizabeth & Carranza, Marcia & Esquivel, Manrique & Hesselbach, Hilda & Madrid Ramirez, Lucia & Villa, Luis, 2019. "Community-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services (CB-PES): Implications of community involvement for program outcomes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    14. Teo Dang Do & Anchana NaRanong, 2019. "Livelihood and Environmental Impacts of Payments for Forest Environmental Services: A Case Study in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-22, August.
    15. Bauchet, Jonathan & Asquith, Nigel & Ma, Zhao & Radel, Claudia & Godoy, Ricardo & Zanotti, Laura & Steele, Diana & Gramig, Benjamin M. & Chong, Andrea Estrella, 2020. "The practice of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) in the Tropical Andes: Evidence from program administrators," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    16. Ma, Zhao & Bauchet, Jonathan & Steele, Diana & Godoy, Ricardo & Radel, Claudia & Zanotti, Laura, 2017. "Comparison of Direct Transfers for Human Capital Development and Environmental Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 498-517.
    17. Zhenglei Xie & Bing-Bing Zhou & Hanzeyu Xu & Le Zhang & Jing Wang, 2020. "An Agent-Based Sustainability Perspective on Payment for Ecosystem Services: Analytical Framework and Empirical Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, December.
    18. Galati, Antonino & Crescimanno, Maria & Gristina, Luciano & Keesstra, Saskia & Novara, Agata, 2016. "Actual provision as an alternative criterion to improve the efficiency of payments for ecosystem services for C sequestration in semiarid vineyards," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 58-64.
    19. Rodríguez-Ortega, T. & Olaizola, A.M. & Bernués, A., 2018. "A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 74-84.
    20. Arriagada, Rodrigo & Villaseñor, Adrián & Rubiano, Eliana & Cotacachi, David & Morrison, Judith, 2018. "Analysing the impacts of PES programmes beyond economic rationale: Perceptions of ecosystem services provision associated to the Mexican case," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 116-127.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:21:p:12001-:d:668343. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.