Working report on social uses and collective benefits

Transcription

WORKING REPORT
ON SOCIAL USES AND
COLLECTIVE BENEFITS
ON THE MEDITERRANEAN
FORESTS
Leisure, sport, culture activities...
with the forest as background frame
Contents
March 2012
Coordinator: CTFC
Author: MAICH
With the participation of:
With the support of:
Layout: Communication Department, Forest Sciences Center of Catalonia
DL: L. 931-2012
This report was published in 2012 by the SYLVAMED project. www.sylvamed.eu
SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION
2. LEGISLATIVE CHAPTER
3. TECHNICAL CHAPTER
3.1 Government – private owners relationship on the social uses of forests
3.2 Summary of social uses of forests
3.2.1 Walking/Cycling (Recreation)
3.2.2 Sports (Recreation)
3.2.3 Hunting (Recreation)
3.2.4 Mushroom Picking (Recreation)
3.2.5 Aesthetic / Landscape
3.2.6 Historic Value and Cultural Heritage
3.2.7 Environmental Education
3.2.8 Importance of social trends in the EU-27
3.3 Social uses of forests in EU Mediterranean countries
3.3.1 Catalonia (Spain)
3.3.2 Languedoc-Roussillon and Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (France)
3.3.3 Liguria (Italy)
3.3.4 Slovenia
3.3.5 Crete (Greece)
3.4 Pilot actions for implementation under SylvaMED project
3.4.1 Pilot action in the region of Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, France
3.4.2 Pilot actions in the region of Languedoc-Roussillon, France
3.4.3 Pilot action at the urban forests of Celje, Slovenia
3.4.4 Pilot action at the forest of Anopoli in Crete, Greece
4 ECONOMIC CHAPTER
4.1. Payment for Environmental Services (PES) for provision of social functions
4.2 Social values identification and assessment methods
4.2.1 Travel Cost Method
4.2.2 Hedonic Pricing Method
4.2.3 Contingent Valuation Method (CVM)
4.2.4 Choice Modelling
4.2.5 A social choice modelling
4.3 Application of valuation methods and willingness-to-pay around the
Mediterranean Europe
4.3.4 Slovenia
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
5
7
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
12
13
13
15
16
17
19
19
19
19
20
21
23
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
27
27
27
28
28
28
30
31
This project is Part-Financed by the EU’s European Regional Development Fund
through the Med programme
3
summary
This report forms one of the deliverables of the “SylvaMED: Mediterranean Forests for All” project, funded by
the MED programme of the European Union. The report focuses the state of the art regarding the social uses of
the Mediterranean forests in general, as well as the forests of the countries participating in the project.
Despite their proximity to the Mediterranean basin, different countries have varying types of forests, each
with their particular characteristics. Each of those countries has variable legislation regarding the drafting
and implementation of forest management plans on public and private forests and each state offers different
incentives to the private owners for the implementation of particular forestry actions. The great financial risk
and the low potential income deter the private owners from pursuing the development of their forest for
social use by the public. Due to cultural and economic differences, the public of these countries has different
perceptions on the importance of forests as far as its social functions are concerned and portray variable desires
to take advantage of the different social functions.
The SylvaMED project aims to investigate the potential of establishing Payment for Environmental Services
(PES) schemes that will promote the social uses of the forests, while yielding a profit for the owners of the
forests, providing them with an incentive to sustainably manage the forest and contribute to the protection
of the environment. To this end, the project has established pilot actions in different countries, with the aim
of establishing such a scheme. Evaluation of the social functions of the forest are based on scientific socioeconomic methods, essential for the establishment of a PES scheme, and this report covers the most frequently
used methodologies for estimating market values for non-market social functions. The report concludes with
recommendations on actions that need to be undertaken, in order to promote the social functions of the
Mediterranean forests.
5
1. introduction
Since the 1970s, all forest functions followed in the wake of the production function, in order to avoid
restrictions on forest management, imposed by societal concerns for recreation and nature protection
functions. Sustainable forest management now recognises the presence of multiple forest values, including
non-timber products and eco-services and incorporates the preferences of multiple stakeholder groups, such
as local communities, environmental groups and forest industries in forest management decision making
(Blum, 2004). Globally the management of forests for social and cultural functions is increasing but the area
is difficult to quantify. Only 4% of the global forests are designated for the provision of social services. The
percentage is higher in Europe and more reliable data are available regarding the designation of forests for
recreation, tourism, education or conservation of cultural and spiritual heritage. It appears that even though
the main economic benefits of forests (employment and value of products) are static or declining, the social
and cultural benefits are showing an increasing trend (FAO, 2010).
However, the distinction of the uses has proven inefficient in directing policies and has been unable to meet the
demands of a theory. Nowadays, it is the interest approach of the social sciences which is employed, in order to
describe, analyze and explain processes in forestry and activities of forest-related stakeholders (Blum, 2004). In
Europe, excluding the Russian Federation, over 6.4 million ha (3.3 % of total European forests) are designated
for social uses, in comparison to a 3.7 % globally (FAO, 2010). Public owned forests are usually managed by
the state, with the consultation from expert groups and the local residents. In the case of privately owned
forests, certain European or national legislation applies, but any form of exploitation requires the consensus of
their owners. Timber and most non-wood products have certain market values, making it possible to calculate
whether their production is profitable or not. On the other hand, it is not easy to attribute a price to non-market
goods, including social uses of the forests. Alternative methods need to be developed in order to evaluate
which social uses are required by the public, and pursue financially viable social uses of forests.
6
7
2. Legislative chapter
The SylvaMED project has produced reports on the legislation related to the PES schemes and three forest
functions, water quality and quantity, non-wood forest products and social uses of forests. Detailed information
regarding the legislation related to the social uses of the Mediterranean forests can be found in the latter report.
In this section a brief overview of the legislation regarding the forest management plans in each of the country/
region participating to the SylvaMED project, is provided.
Forest Management Plans
Catalonia (Spain)
Forest management plans are voluntary for private owners in Catalonia. However, those that do commit to a
management plan have access to grants, reduction in taxation and payment of the liability for the civil insurance.
The maximum lifespan of forest management plans is 30 years but they are usually reviewed every 10 years. For
land parcels that are less than 25 hectares, their duration is fixed at 15 years.
Languedoc-Roussillon and Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (France)
In France, in accordance with the article L6 of the National Forest Code, any owner of forest land with a surface
equal or larger than 25 ha and located in the same geographical zone, must have a simple management plan (PSG)
for the forest. The management plan has a lifespan of between 10 and 20 years, and is approved by the Regional
Centre of forestry property. If the surface area of the private forest is between 10 and 25 ha, a voluntary PSG, with
the same characteristics, can be established. A management plan takes into consideration the economic issues,
environmental and social value of the forest, and also includes a program of wood cutting and work for forest
reconstitution and improvement. It also specifies the management strategy of the animal species populations,
which is the part of the hunting plan. The approval of the document can take in to account the local practice.
Liguria (Italy)
Forest management plans in Liguria are only compulsory for municipalities and other public bodies that own
more than 100 ha of forest in one or more forest land parcels, as long as there is a single forest land parcel of at
least 50 ha. Forest management plans are not compulsory for private owners, however they have the obligation
to dedicate at least 15% of the earning deriving from timber production and sale, for the maintenance of the area
they own. In any case, areas that belong to the NATURA2000 network or other type of protected area category,
must adhere to the restrictions imposed by their protected status, and if there is a management plan, it has to
take those restrictions into consideration. Despite most of the forested land being privately owned (87%), only
12.8% of the forested area is under a management plan (RaF Liguria, 2010)
Slovenia
Forest management plans are prepared for all forested areas (public and private) by the Forest Service (SFS)
and are updated every 10 years. If the private owners wish to perform any kind of sylviculture measure in their
forests and therefore prepare a specific management plan, they receive free counselling from the Forest Service
professional staff. SFS also drafts the management plan for them. All the costs related to forestry actions (cutting,
skidding), required by the management plan, are covered by the private owner, but there are various kind of
subsidies for those purposes. There is full or partial funding for certain sylvicultural and protective measures,
regarding the intensity of social and/or ecological functions. However, private owners seem more interested in
acquiring information about the intensity of possible cuts in their forest and also about forest protection and
sylvicultural measures relevant to the forest management (Ficko et al., 2010)
Crete (Greece)
The public Forest Service of Greece drafts long term management plans for the protective forests. These usually
focus on timber production and protection. Forest management plans are updated every 10 years. Most activities
in a forest must be authorised by the Forestry Service. Land use change is forbidden, both for private and public
forests and areas where there has been a forest fire are declared as reforested areas. Forest recreation and the
social function of forest is not yet taken into consideration when management plans are drawn, even though
there is growing concern from the scientific society regarding the potential multi-functionality of the forests.
8
3. Technical chapter
The SylvaMED project is implementing pilot actions in several EU Mediterranean countries, focusing on the
social uses of forests in the region. Each of the pilot actions is addressing one or more social use of the forest,
with the aim to establish a PES-like scheme that would make the social use available to the general public,
while being able to finance the actions required to establish and maintain this capacity. At the same time the
pilot actions aim to provide an incentive to the private forest owner and/or local population to support these
actions. Thorough description of these pilot actions will be provided after a quick look at the relationship
between the state and the private owners, regarding the social uses of forests, and a description of the forest
social uses in general, along with a review of the popularity of the social uses in those regions.
3.1 Government – private owners relationship on the social uses of forests
One of the difficulties that arise with the implementation of actions promoting the social uses of forest is the
conflict between the private forest owners and the state, which varies among the European Mediterranean
countries. In general, the private owner is keen to make a profit out of his or her forest, which in some cases
would involve changing the land use from forest into something else (pasture, agriculture, etc.). At the same
time the state wants to encourage the owner to maintain the forest and manage it properly. In order for the
owner to adhere to the desires of the state he or she needs a financial incentive. This is where the Payments
for Environmental Services (PES) come into play, a mechanism that pays the forest owner in order to maintain
and manage the forest, while benefits are reaped both for the environment and the local society. Social uses
of forests require access of the general public to the forest, something that some private forest owners are
generally not very keen on. Legislation in each country regulates the right-of-passage of the public to forested
areas, and this issue is also addressed for each region participating in the SylvaMED project, in the following
paragraphs.
3.2 Summary of social uses of forests
Forest social values perceived by the public can vary between different countries and even different forests
within the same country (Simpson, et. al., 2008). In a publication by the European Parliament (1997), five main
social functions are identified: Landscape, Recreational, Educational, Cultural and Strict Sense social functions.
The EU Forest Action Plan 2007-2011 breaks down the social functions of the forests into 1) supplying
recreational and leisure amenities, especially to city dwellers, 2) providing a healthy living environment, 3)
protecting against natural disasters, 4) making rural areas attractive to live in and 5) safeguarding cultural
heritage and spiritual values (EC, 2006). According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) the Social
Forest Services include Ecotourism, Recreation, Sports and Fishing/Hunting. The Global Forest Resources
Assessment 2010 (FAO, 2010), recognises recreation, tourism, education, research and cultural and spiritual
significance as the main social services provided by forests.
All methods of categorising the social functions of forests include the category “Recreation”. However, some of
them treat it as a broad category, including activities such as Sports, Leisure walking, Trekking/Running, Fishing/
Hunting, Cycling, Riding, Canoeing, etc. Here, we will address each of this activity separately, as different trends
of popularity are observed in the EU Mediterranean countries.
3.2.1 Walking/Cycling (Recreation)
One of the simplest and most popular social uses of forest in
the EU and around the world are forest walks. People with close
proximity to a forest have the opportunity to visit the forest
and walk amongst the trees, observing and absorbing the
natural environment. Forests are a very popular destination for
those that want to avoid the artificial environment of an urban
centre. This is why many cities try to maintain the urban forests
that are near or within the city borders.
Natural forests grow on uneven ground and walking through
such a forest can be treacherous. In order to allow people to
safely visit the forests, actions are taken to improve access.
9
Narrow pathways are opened and maintained, offering both a safe surface and direction to the visitors. Barriers
also offer support and separate the area the visitor can walk from the rest of the forest. Whenever the ground is
leveled, visitors can use their bicycles to travel through the surface, provided that a flat and even surface is laid
and maintained. These improvements aim to ease access for the people but must be kept at a minimum, in order
not to alter the naturalness of the forest.
3.2.2 Sports (Recreation)
A variety of sporting activities can take place in a forest.
Racing with bicycles, mountain biking, running and
trekking and horse riding are common in most forests.
Motorised races with quad-bikes or off-road motorbikes
are also organised. Those that contain a river also offer the
possibility of canoeing or rafting, while those with lakes
can accommodate sailing and swimming. Forest where
snowfall occurs during the winter can also permit skiing
and snowboarding, provided the slopes can allow such
activities.
3.2.3 Hunting (Recreation)
There is variable legislation throughout the EU countries,
with the exception of environmental EU directives
regarding the maintenance of fauna species and ecological
equilibrium. The topic of hunting is too large to be covered
within the framework of this report and it is already
sufficiently developed. However it can be said that hunting
takes many forms, depending on the animals being
hunted and the forest environment in which it takes place.
It is formally allowed in many EU countries, with certain
restrictions which vary between the number of animals
that can be hunted at one time and the season within the
year in which they can be hunted. In most cases, in order
to be granted permission to hunt, a certain license must
be obtained from the authorities and in many cases permission from the forest owner, in the case of a private
forest, must be granted. In the UK hunting is traditionally seen as an aristocratic privilege, particularly fox
hunting (Nail, 2008). In a sense, this activity does not only fulfil a social aspect but also serves as a cultural and
hereditary activity, which people associate with their nationality and social status. The same type of hunting
also takes place in France, in addition to boar, deer and bird hunting.
3.2.4 Mushroom picking (Recreation)
Mushroom picking is a very popular activity in many
countries in the EU and around the world. Following their
gathering instincts, people frequently roam the forests
during the appropriate seasons in search of edible fungi.
However, this activity is not only seen as a food-collecting
process, but also as a social activity, since, in many cases,
mushroom picking is done in small groups.
One of the issues that arise with mushroom picking is the
conflict between the pickers and the forest owners, when this
activity takes place in a private forest. In most EU countries
every person has a right-of-passage through a private forest,
with the occasional restrictions. Forest owners see the
10
mushrooms growing in their forest as their property and even though they allow access to their forest, they often
frown upon passers-by collecting the mushrooms growing on their land. On the other hand, mushroom picking
is a very traditional activity and the general population feels that it is their right to pick mushrooms anywhere,
whether in private or public forests.
Since mushrooms are considered to be a non-wood forest product, the topic of mushroom picking is covered
by the relevant Working Report on Non-Wood Forest Products, produced by the SylvaMED project. The reader
is advised to consult that document for more information.
3.2.5 Aesthetic/Landscape
Who hasn’t enjoyed a panoramic view of a forest? The
sense of nature offered by the forest, with the numerous
trees covering large expanses is appealing to most people.
This is the reason that attracts people to visit the forest in
the first place. However, even without people visiting the
forest for walking or any other activity mentioned above,
the aesthetic pleasure offered by the view of the forest is
another very important function that forests offer to the
people. Whenever there is a need for relaxation in a natural
environment, people can socialise within the forest, by
organising barbecues or picnics. Similar to walking, these
activities also require some infrastructure that will make the
experience more pleasant. Benches and kiosks offer seating space and protection, while specifically designed fire
pits in clearings allow cooking without the risk of a forest fire.
3.2.6 Historic Value and Cultural Heritage
Forests can change in size or species distribution, as they are a dynamic ecosystem, but they generally exist in
a particular location. Human generations change but the presence of the forest remains. Due to the long-term
presence of forests, people often associate their place of residence with nearby forests and provide them with
a sense of location. Many historical events that have taken place in such areas are often directly or indirectly
associated with the forest. The presence of the forest reminds people of the historical provisions of the forest
to the past generations. In some cases forests can host archaeological sites, reminding people of their past
and cultural heritage. This service of the forest to the people is offered simply with the presence of the forest.
3.2.7 Environmental Education
With the increasing rate of urbanisation, more and more
people abandon the rural areas, in hope of a better
employment in the city. However, the newer generations
born in urban areas, do not have the opportunity to interact
with natural environments. The topic of environmental
education has seen increasing significance over the
last few decades, with the increase of environmental
consciousness amongst the European populations.
Primary and secondary education curricula often include
visits to forests within the framework of environmental
education, allowing children from urban centres to get in
touch with nature. In a similar manner that chemistry is
better instructed in the lab where students can conduct
experiment, environmental-related subjects, such as
ecology and biology are better taught when the pupil has the opportunity to witness the flora and fauna
present in a forest ecosystem.
11
3.2.8 Importance of social trends in EU-27
The Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) compiled a report on the
development of non-market products and services, including the social.
3.3 Social uses of forests in EU Mediterranean countries
The regions or countries covered by the SylvaMED project include (from west to east): Catalonia (Spain),
Languedoc-Roussillon (France), Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (France), Liguria (Italy), Slovenia and Crete (Greece).
The forests in these regions differ significantly between them and the preferences of the public regarding the
social uses of forest also portray great variability. The following section addresses the significance of each social
use mentioned above, for each region involved in the project.
Catalonian forests cover approximately 2 million hectares, about 61% of the total extent of the region. More
than three-quarters (76.9%) of those forests are privately owned. The vast majority of the forests are available
to the public and most activities are permitted, with the exception of certain restrictions in protected areas.
Almost 30% of the forests are included in the Network of Special Interest Sites (PEIN; Figure 3 and Table 1), and
are under form of protection. The PEIN includes all Natura 2000 areas, which contain priority habitats and some
important places for birds, at European level.
Protected areas in Catalonia (ha terrestrial):
National areas with special protection
Natura 2000
PEIN 284.774
957.051
960.102
Figure 1: Relative importance of social services (from MCPFE, 2007)
Figure 3: In green, the Network of Special Interest Sites -PEIN-
Table 1 Protection values and permitted uses.
Values
Scientific
Uses
Biodiversity
National Parks
ü
Natural Parks
ü
Natura 2000
ü
Natural Reserves
ü
Educational
Recreation
ü
ü
limited
Economic
Forest production
ü
ü
Figure 2: Trend of importance of social services (from MCPFE, 2007)
services of forests (MCPFE, 2007). The results for recreation and tourism in the forests show that in most
countries people believe it is an important or very important service of the forest (Figure 1). On the other hand
opinions about sporting activities in the forest vary, with many countries not considering this service as an
important one. Nevertheless, the same report highlights the fact that the trends of importance of the social
services is increasing in most EU countries (Figure 2).
12
13
Catalonia has 18 Natural Parks (Figure 4), their management intends to ensure that people can know and enjoy
nature. The activities held in a park have to fulfil 3 objectives: i) offer a quality touristic experience; ii) contribute
to the economic development of the region where they are; iii) raise awareness on the need to conserve the
natural heritage.
1 Aiguamolls de l’Empordà
2 Aigüestortes i Estany de Sant Maurici
3 Alt Pirineu
4 Cadí-Moixeró
5 Cap de Creus
6 Collserola
7 Delta de l’Ebre
8 Delta de Llobregat
9 Els Ports
10 El Montgrí, Illes Medes i Baix Ter
11 L’Albera
12 Massís del Pedraforca
13 Montseny
14 Montserrat
15 Poblet
16 Sant Llorenç del Munt i l’Obac
17 Serra de Montsant
18 Zona volcànica de la Garrotxa
Figure 4: Natural parks of Catalonia
Right-of-passage
The Spanish Civil Code (Art. 388) allows for fencing of and limiting public access to private properties.
Nevertheless, traditionally free access is granted to most forests, with a few exceptions where holdings devoted
to hunting, truffle production or cattle breeding can be fenced. Forest owners who do not want outsiders to
enter into their property must explicitly indicate so on the limits of the forest with clearly visible signs.
Catalan Law on Motorized Access allows landowners to prohibit or limit the driving of cars or motorbikes
along the roads that are of their property (Art. 6.5); the government can impose conditions in order to preserve
natural values and public services (e.g. forest fires extinctions). Even if it is not explicitly mentioned, this article
implicitly permits forest owners to establish an entrance fee to their forest.
The historical importance of cattle in Spain has resulted in the custom of drovers’ paths. Such cattle trails are
recognised nowadays as an easement, owned by the regional authorities with a guaranteed open access.
While ranching is the priority use of the cattle trails, trekking or horse riding are contemplated by the law as
complementary activities (Art. 17), allowing also for the possibility of harvesting of fruits and products not
used by the cattle (Art. 15).
Social uses
According to 2010 data, there were 298,000 visitors in Catalonia, 95% of which were Catalans. The recreation
and sporting activities promoted in the Natural Parks are:
Trekking/hiking and normal walking activities are quite popular in Catalonia. There
are many attractive walking and hiking routes in the Catalan side of the Pyrenees,
going through rivers and valleys. Horseback riding is also popular and there are
organised holidays focusing around horse riding. Skiing slopes and resorts can
also be found at the Pyrenees, with over 600 Km of skiing routes. Cycling is another
popular social use. The region also portrays many cycling routes for all types of
bicycles. Worthy of notice are the “green ways”, old rail lines travelling through Spain,
which have been converted into paths for cycling, walking or horse riding. The rivers
of the Pyrenees also offer opportunities for rafting and canoeing. The steep slopes in
the mountains of the Pyrenees also provide great spots for climbing.
At the moment there are 8 Adventure Parks established in the Catalonian
contryside. Those are private initiatives of forest owners, who maintain their
14
forest in a manner that allows the hosting of various sporting activities and organise events related to these
activities.
Sporting activities are allowed everywhere but there are some areas, especially wetlands, where public access is
forbidden for their fragile and vulnerable characteristics. In case these activities are held in private forests, forest
owners may limit or forbid the access. Whenever a prohibition is not clearly indicated, entrance is permitted,
provided that any impact on nature or damage on buildings will be avoided. Legislation (Decret 148/1992,
PEIN) establishes that in order to perform all-track biking away from the indicated tracks, an authorization of
the management body of the park is needed. Canyoning can only be practiced in the peripheral areas of the
protected zones, and it is only practiced around 4 parks. Due to the fact that climbing is practiced in the most
favorable places for reproduction of certain endangered species, an authorization is needed for climbing in a
PEIN spot.
Catalonia lies in a region where two bio-geographical regions converge; the Euro-Siberian and the
Mediterranean. This results in unique changes of scenery, natural richness and biodiversity. As a result, Nature
Tourism is very developed in the region with people visiting the country side to observe the fauna and flora.
Nature photography is another popular activity undertaken by many visitors. Legislation (Decret 148/1992,
PEIN) requires that an authorization is needed to take a photo or film of any protected species during the
reproductive period. Without this permit this activity is forbidden. Some parks organize photo contests. In
addition to nature tourism, Cultural Tourism which involves activities related to gastronomy and enology,
including exhibitions, courses and workshops are also of great interest to the visitors. Both types of tourism
involve the use of accommodation facilities by the visitors. Using accommodation in the forest has become a
popular trend, as most Catalans stay in the forest about twice a year.
The various activities offered to the visitors resulted in a growth for the tourism industry. In order to
accommodate the needs of the tourists, each Park has a “House of the Park”, located at a strategic point in the
Park, serving as a reference point to the visitors. Nature interpretation centres and in some cases museums are
also present, informing the visitors of the most important features of the parks and its influence area in different
aspects: nature, culture, local habits, traditional activities, society, economy, etc. Refuges are established in
remote areas to offer accommodations to those planning to spend more than one day in the area. Wherever
appropriate there are panoramic viewpoints and leisure areas, including parking spots, benches, water springs
and barbecue spots, are scattered within the Parks. A network of paths and trails is established, with appropriate
signs to for the visitors.
The area of south-eastern France (consisting of the regions Languedoc-Roussillon and Provence-Alpes-Côte
d’Azur) has approximately 2.66 million hectares of forest, covering 45.3% of the surface area. Of those about
71.2% are privately owned forests (Foret Privée Française, 2008). The two regions have a number of Natural
Parks, (Mercantour natural parks, Ecrins National Park, Queyras Regional Park, Mont Ventoux, Luberon Regional
Park, Verdon Natural Regional Park, Geological Reserve Of Haute Provence and Pyrenees Regional Park,
Narbonaise Regional Park, Cevennes National Park, Haut Languedoc Regional Park, and others).
Right of passage
Public forests in France are free to access to everyone, with the exception of Natural Reserves where access may
be prohibited, due to its delicate state and environmental value. On the other hand, private owners have the
option to forbid public access to their forest. However, the owner must explicitly inform the visitor that access is
not permitted and physically obstruct the point of entry of any private roads that go through the property. But
in the majority of the cases, the private forests are not enclosed and the public can access the private property
Many routes of excursion cross French forest spaces and they are generally (but not always) included in a
convention between the public community which organises the paths and the owner, in order to obtain the
agreements of passages and sometimes means to maintain the path. However, there is no payment for this
use.
15
Social uses
According to the National survey “French people and
the Forest” in 2004, people mostly visit the forest for
walking (59%), followed by picking of flowers, berries
and mushrooms (35%), and then by sport activities
(22%), relaxation and picnicking (15%) and nature
observation (15%). People tend to visit the forest if it is
nearby (less than half an hour). The preferences between
following the paths and straying off them are equally
popular. One of the main attractions to the forest is the
naturalness of the forest and the fact that they also see
it as a social activity, since people tend to go walking
with company. Only a 15% of the French people visit the forests on a weekly basis, 27% do so monthly and 29%
at least once a year, while 29% never visit the forest. There are approximately 500 million visits to the French
forests every year. The average annual visits to the forest per person for France is 7.3 (EC, 2008).
Camping is a very popular activity in south-east France. In order to accommodate the visitors, the area has a very
well developed network of organised campsites, with plenty of facilities, both for camping and caravanning.
At the south-east corner of the region, at the French-Italian and French-Swiss borders, the Azure Alps offer
stunning scenery and suitable slopes for skiing and other snow sports. There are organised resorts established
in the region, offering accommodation and all the necessary facilities. At the same vicinity, the forest-covered
slopes of the Alps form various rivers and streams, suitable for white water sports such as rafting, canoeing and
kayaking. For the cycling enthusiasts there is an extensive network of cycling paths in the regions of LanguedocRoussillon and Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, with varying degrees of difficulty, for all types of cycling.
Leisure involving motorized vehicles is growing in the regions and their development is rapid and unorganized,
despite French regulation and in particular the Code of the Environment, which restricts motorized traffic in
natural spaces, with the exception of roads which are open to traffic. Forest owners underline this emerging
trend which is difficult to manage and has severe impact on the forest.
Several private forest owners develop activities of tourism, sports and leisure in their forest, mainly in the
Provence area. They are organized in an association (“FORESTOUR, Forest – Network – Tourism”) for improved
collaboration and advertising. They offer lodging services, sporting and cultural activities.
Social uses
Trekking is quite popular in the region and there are over
2,000 footpaths in the area. They form an organised Network
of Hiking in Liguria (REL), which aims to promote the use of
rural areas and eco-tourism. The backbone of the network
is the Ligurian Alta Via dei Monti, a 400 Km route across the
region. Some of these paths are also used for cycling and
mountain-biking, and there are organised events taking
place, such as the “24 hours of mountain-biking” at the
platau Le Manie, near Finale Ligure. The inland area of this
urban centre also features suitable locations for climbing.
In Liguria, every Natural Park, Province and many
Municipalities have a centre for environmental education, aiming to promote eco-tourism and to involve
young people with the forest environment, but also to inform tourists and visitors. Those centres are particularly
active during the spring and summer periods, when the region receives most of the tourism and the weather is
more suitable for outdoor activities. The average annual visits to the forest per person for Italy is 2.6 (EC, 2008).
3.3.4 Slovenia
Slovenia is a country rich in forests, covering 1.17 million hectares,
approximately 58.1% of the entire country. Following the independence of
Slovenia, some public forests were given back to the former owners (or their
heirs) and, as a result, 74% of the forests are currently under private ownership
(Slovenia Forest Service, 2011).
Most Slovenian forests are located within the area of beech, fir-beech and
beech-oak sites (70%), which have a relatively high production capacity
(Debevc, 2010).
There are two types of protected forests in Slovenia: protection forests with
a highly emphasized protection role and special purpose forests. In the, so
called, special purpose forest - forest reserves, all human activity and forestry
measures are unconditionally forbidden (Figure 5). Those forests (covering an area of 9.600 ha) are also
protected by the valid legislation.
Forested area makes up 71.5% of the total land area,
covering 387,170 ha, most it being privately owned
(87%). The area is largely a coastal area with over 220
Km of coastline, with ten Regional Parks of protected
areas and one Natural Park. In total there are 125 sites
of community interest (SCIs) and 7 Special Protection
Areas (SPAs), covering an area of 138,000 ha and 20,000
ha respectively. One of the main problems the area is
facing is the floods following intense rainfall and forest
fires. The lack of proper forest management from the
private owners limits the capacity of the forests to
mitigate the effects of floods and makes them more
susceptible to forest fires, a fact the local population identifies as the most important problem with the forests
in the region.
Right of passage
In Liguria there is free access to all forested land, public or private, with the exception of natural reserves, where it is
prohibited. However, off-road motorised traffic is restricted in certain areas, due to the damage the vehicles cause.
16
Figure 5: Map of forest reserves (SFS, 2011)
17
The second type of protected forests - special purpose forest with forestry measures includes different types
of protected forests, mostly forests within the nature protected areas (national, landscape and regional parks,
nature reserves and monuments) (Figure 6) and some urban forests. In these forests, forest management is
allowed but adopted for the conservation and improvement of those forest services, which are the reasons
for the protected status. This means that often additional special measures, such as different management
activities (e.g. lower intensity of forest management, restrictions) and other instruments (e.g. subsidies,
compensations and other financial tools) are implemented according to the approved forest management
plans. The area of forests within national, landscape and regional parks is 233,862 ha.
Education within a forest is very important. The Slovenia Forest Service is creating and managing forest
educational trails for young people and adults alike. Furthermore, the Slovenia Forest Service also holds
educational meetings for forest owners, in an attempt to inform them on the benefits of forest management.
The Slovenian Public Opinion Survey in 1998 (Malnar and Sinko, 2000) showed that 95% of the respondents
considered forest to be an essential element of the Slovenian landscape, which proves that in the mind of the
local residents the forest is associated with their identity.
Approximately 6.4 million ha of Greece are forest or partly wooded land, which is roughly 50% of the total land
area of the country. Of these 65% are state owned forests, 15% are privately owned and 20% are owned by
municipalities, monasteries or the church and other legal entities (banks, foundations etc.).
Right of passage
Legislation permits free access to all forested areas, unless a specific area is fenced and access is explicitly
restricted. Access to protected areas is allowed, as long as no actions are taken that can cause damage.
Figure 6: Area of different types of parks (SFS, 2011)
Right of passage
The policy emphasizes strongly the public interest in forests as well as the principles of sustainability. Ecological,
social and production functions should be respected in forest management irrespective of ownership. Public
interest is presented through several legislative regulations, like: (1) free access and movement in all forests,
(2) free gathering of forest products, (3) hunting and gathering of free-living animals in all forests under the
conditions of the act, (4) prevention of use which would endanger forest sustainability and its functions, (5)
some of the forests are proclaimed as protective forests and special purpose forests, (6) forest and wildlife
planning for entire forest area regardless of ownership etc.
Non-owners of the forest have the right to pick up mushrooms, fruits of forest trees and other plants which
grow in forests, pick up herbal plants and the right to beekeeping, hiking, recreation in forests, etc. The forest
owner may, under defined conditions and in accordance with the silvicultural plan, collect seeds, resin, litter,
decorative trees and other non-timber goods in his forest. Transport and sale of decorative trees is allowed if
they are issued with a seal by the Slovenia Forest Service.
Social uses
Urban forests receive a large number of visitors, due to
the ease of access from the urban centres near which they
reside. Walking in the forest is one of the most common
uses of forest by the society, a fact that highlights the
need for paths, benches and relevant infrastructure. The
demand for access and facilities in the urban forests is very
high therefore the forest management in the designated
urban forests must be particularly user-orientated. Another
popular activity of people that visit forests in general (not
just urban forests) is mushroom and plant picking.
18
Social uses
Forest recreation was created as an idea in 1970 in Greece, due to the increase of urban population and people
moving away from nature. Initial works have focused on the opening of footpaths and creation of benches,
kiosks, rubbish bins and other small utility constructions, to serve those visiting the forests for walking or
picnicking. In more recent years (the last 10-15) there have been some shelters and organized hostels in the
mountains, to allow people to stay overnight. Crete has very rich biodiversity both for flora and fauna. There
are many endemic plant species growing on the island, many of which are found at secluded locations. The
variety of the elevation from coastal areas to mountainous ridges and gorges forms a complex and variable
environment with high amenity value, attracting many walkers in the area. Because Greece is very mountainous,
there are also many opportunities for people to go climbing at forested slopes. Agro-tourism and eco-tourism
are growing sectors in Greece. Many forest villages have been established recently, offering accommodation in
or near a forest, and at the same time offering a variety of nature-related activities (trekking, climbing, cycling,
etc.). Canoeing and rafting is also performed in rivers that flow through forests, whenever the slope and water
flow is suitable for such sports (for example the Nestos river at north-eastern Greece).
3.4 Pilot actions for implementation under SylvaMED project
Each of the seven partners has provided information regarding the social uses of forests in their region.
However, four partners (CRPF-Languedoc-Roussillon, CRPF-PACA, SFS and MAICh) are implementing pilot
actions related to the social uses of forests.
3.4.1 Pilot action in the region of Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, France
The objective of the CRPF of Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (PACA) is to establish a “win-win” partnership
between sport federations and private forest owners, with an agreement on a model which will aim to provide
high quality recreation to sports-people, while ensuring their safety. In parallel, there is an aim to provide
environmental education using the private sites, stimulating the interest of the younger generation for the
natural spaces, and take into account the necessary management of the forest. These activities will require
certain equipment and the cost of purchasing and maintaining this equipment is also taken into consideration,
as are the various possibilities of remuneration for these sporting services.
The CRPF of PACA and the Departmental Olympic committee are currently investigating the existence of a
private forest, to function as a pilot site for testing of the installation of an experimental device and agreement
with the private owner.
19
3.4.2 Pilot actions in the region of Languedoc-Roussillon, France
There are two pilot actions regarding the social use of forests
in the region of Languedoc-Roussillon. The first action is
related to the convergence between a tourism economic
development project in the territory of the “Pays Pyrénées
Méditerranée” and the financial support for the public
opening of private forests. The political committee of the Pays
Pyrénées Méditerranée (Department of Pyrénées Orientales),
between Canigou Massif and Mediterranean sea, is interested
in the implementation of a tourism development project. The
aims are to search for a combination between the littoral,
which is very popular, and the rural back-country, the extension of the touristic period and the development of
environmental services, which will help further develop the authenticity of the territory.
The priorities of the local actors are to develop sporting activities within the
natural environment (hiking, climbing, etc.), and also promote cultural tourism
(including natural heritage). The challenge lies in the effective involvement of
the private forest owners and providing them with development opportunities,
provision of financial support for the management of the local forests and the
possibility for diversification of activities for the owners.
The second pilot action is related to the management of the public visiting
of private forests within the Régional Natural Park of the Narbonnaise (Aude).
This area receives many visitors along its coastline, particularly during the
summer period. The Natural Park of the Narbonnaise is interested in providing
environmental and educational services in the area, in order to diversify the
activities in the littoral. People are interested in visiting natural and forest
spaces, however the majority of the forests away from the coastline are
privately owned, without production, and
under serious fire threat. The aim is to assist
the private owners to provide incentives to
potential visitors to come and visit their forest, providing the private forest
owners with an income and the encouragement to appropriately manage
their forest.
Project phases
1. Designation of the pilot area.
2. Designation of potential routes of two walking paths and two cycling forest tracks.
3. Interviews with forest owners.
4. Analysis of forest owners’ opinions and expectations.
5. Preparation of development proposals for the local municipality.
6. Conclusions of the pilot project.
Time frame
In 2011 the project proposal was elaborated and confirmed. Two pilot areas in the urban forests of Celje were
designated: Lokrovec area (210 ha) and Lahovna area (155 ha). Their characteristics are highly fragmented
private forest property with an average forest ownership area of 1.72 ha. The basic topics and guidelines of
the questionnaire for interviewing forest owners were selected as well as potential locations for designation
of walking paths and cycling tracks.
In 2012 the phases 2 – 6 will be further developed and concluded. Phase 2 and 3 will be conducted in late
winter and spring, phase 4 and 5 in summer and early autumn and phase 6 at the end of the year.
3.4.4 Pilot action at the forest of Anopoli in Crete, Greece
The forest of Anopoli/Agios Ioannis is located at the south-west coast of the island of Crete in Greece (Figure 7).
It extends from the Samaria gorge on the west to the road leading down to the coast on the east, covering an
area of approximately 1220 ha. The forest is located at the side of the south-facing White Mountains between
elevations of 500 and 1800 metres.
There is an existing path that leads from the hamlet of Loutro at the south coast to one of the summits of White
Mountains at an elevation of 2435 metres (Figure 8). The 19 Km path goes through the Anopoli village, through
the forest and finally through the near-barren landscape as it approaches the summit. This path has been used
frequently in the distant past as it was one of the main roads that connected the port of Chania on the north
coast, with the south coast.
3.4.3 Pilot action at the urban forests of Celje, Slovenia
Background
Forests around cities, defined as urban forests are important elements of the urban landscape. With their social
and environmental functions, they influence living quality and ecological stability of a wider urban space.
Urban forests are the most heavily visited forests in the Slovenian public. In contrast, the majority of them are
privately owned. Urban forests are specific spaces with emphasized public significance, which differs from the
prevailing economic interests of private owners.
Figure 7: Location of pilot area in Crete, Greece
Aims
The general aim of the pilot action is to examine the possibilities for additional economic income for private
forest owners, due to the ecosystem services provided by urban forests. The pilot project in the urban forests
of Celje is focused on recreation, as the most emphasized social function. The economic expectations of private
urban forest owners will be investigated through detailed personal interviews with forest owners in the area
of four previously designated potential walking paths and cycling forest tracks. The results will be compared
with the possibilities and willingness of the local municipality to pay for the public recreational use through the
financial compensation of the affected forest owners.
20
These days, sections of the path are used by the locals to access their beehives or for hunting. Trekking
enthusiasts both from the region and also national and international visitors frequently use it to experience
the way the scenery changes as the elevation increases along the path. Its unique amenity value and the
popularity amongst those who love trekking make it an attractive site for the organisation of a sky-race, a race
that begins at sea level and ends at high elevation.
In co-operation with the local municipality of Sfakia, the Management Body of the White Mountains and the
Forest Directorate of Chania, such a race is organised to take place during autumn of 2012 for the first time. The
21
path will be cleared during spring of 2012 and appropriate signs will be erected to mark the path, to ensure
the safety of the participants. Part of the fees paid by the participants will be used to cover the expenses of
organising the race and the remaining portion of the income will be provided to the Forest Directorate, in
order to fund necessary forestry actions for the protection of the forest.
4. Economic chapter
This section covers the economic aspects of designing and establishing a scheme that promotes the social
uses of forests. A variety of methods are initially described and a short review of the costs involved and the
amount of money the users are willing to pay, is provided. These elements are necessary in order to set up such
a scheme, particularly when it is a Payment for Environmental Services scheme.
4.1. Payment for Environmental Services (PES) for provision of social functions
The term Payment for Environmental Services (PES) is often used broadly to cover any market-based mechanism
for conservation. In general, it can be defined as “a voluntary transaction where a well-defined environmental
service (or a land-use to secure that service) is being ‘bought’ by a service buyer from a service provider, if and
only if the service provider secures the service provision” (Wunder, 2005). In most cases the payment is made
from the buyer to the seller to ensure a particular land-use of the land owned by the seller, and in many cases
the land in question is forested.
Figure 8: Foot race course
Land owners often receive few benefits from a particular land use, such as forest conservation, in comparison
to an alternative use, such as pasture or crop land. However, this conversion would result in loss of benefits to
other users (water filtration, biodiversity and carbon emissions). Payments for these services from the users to
the land owners, can persuade them to maintain the original land use (Engel et. al., 2008). The payment to the
seller of the ES should be higher than the benefits incurred from changing land use and at the same time the
cost of buying the ES should be less that the value lost for the buyer, should the ES not be provided. If that does
not occur, then the PES programme is socially inefficient. In some cases it is necessary to change land use in
order to allow the desired service to be provided. In those cases the costs tend to be much higher, rather than
providing an ES by maintaining the current land-use (Engel et. al, 2008).
The most common types of PES are funded by the state, particularly when the forests in question are public
owned. Alternatively the PES can be directly financed by the users of the service. User-financed programs are
better targeted, more closely tailored to local conditions and needs, have better monitoring and a greater
willingness to enforce conditionality, and have far fewer confounding side objectives than governmentfinanced programs (Wunder et. al., 2008). However, there are cases where government-funded programmes
are the only option, when the user is indirectly making use of the service and it is not possible to identify which
member of the public is using the service and to what extent (Engel et. al., 2008).
A PES programme needs to have a monitoring method to ensure the provider is complying with the adoption
of the land use. Some go even further in monitoring that the actual environmental service is provided, even
though most PES simply monitor the compliance and not the provision of the service (Pagiola and Platais,
2007).
4.2 Social values identification and assessment methods
In order to identify the social values which are important for a particular forest, the relevant stakeholders
must be consulted. These include all those involved with the forest, whether those are private owners, the
local community or environmental groups. The initial step of the identifying the social values requires the
identification of those stakeholders.
Stakeholder analysis begins by defining the system boundaries, in order to then define the groups of people
who may have an interest. Direct and indirect research methods are then applied to analyse the perspectives
of each stakeholder. This is a useful tool to identify potential conflicts in terms of goals, beliefs or values, and
a good starting point of building a consensus between the conflicting stakeholders (Lawrence, 2004). Once
this consensus has been reached, the original set of social uses to be pursued would have been identified. It
is now the turn of the potential users of the forests to be consulted on their preferences and desires and their
valuation of the social values.
Traditional methods of collecting information and opinions from the people employ the use of questionnaires.
22
23
The responses undergo statistical analysis, in order to detect trends and summarize the opinions of the
group of respondents. Even though this method is still a valuable one, experience suggests that quantitative
valuation may be fallacious because the resulting numbers do not represent ‘reality’. The value of valuation
may lie in the actual process. Through the activity different stakeholders may understand each others’ goals
and objectives. Participatory methods, semi-structured interviews focus group discussions and storytelling
may help people express their values in ways that can be communicated to foresters (Lawrence, 2004). Those
alternative methods could supplement the traditional use of questionnaires or individual interviews.
The formulation of the questionnaire is a very important step in the process of inquiring the public opinion.
Various methods have been proposed for a range of applications, each with its own success stories. It is evident
that the survey method needs to be adapted to the particular application, which in this case is the identification
of the social values held by the public.
There are two broad categories of valuating non-market goods and services, the revealed preference methods
and the stated preference methods. The first category uses the cost that the user pays to acquire the nonmarket good or use the non-market service and employs it as proxy for the valuation of the good or service.
The stated preference method, directly inquire the user on the maximum amount of money they would be
willing to pay for a non-market good or service and use this value to estimate the value of the non-market
good or service (MCPFE, 2007).
4.2.1 Travel Cost Method
The travel cost method is a revealed preference method, and measures the actual cost of using a social service,
instead of inquiring the user on their willingness-to-pay. Taking advantage of a social service of a forest usually
involves travelling to the location of the forest. The decision to visit the forest or not, involves the distance
and accessibility to the forest and the cost that the journey will incur. The travel cost method is particularly
designed to estimate economic use values associated with ecosystems or sites that are used for recreation.
The method can be used to estimate the economic benefits or costs resulting from changes in access costs for
a recreational site, elimination of an existing recreational site, addition of a new recreational site and changes
in environmental quality at a recreational site. The basic premise of the travel cost method is that the time and
travel cost expenses that people incur to visit a site represent the “price” of access to the site. Thus, peoples’
willingness to pay to visit the site can be estimated based on the number of trips that they make at different
travel costs. This is analogous to estimating peoples’ willingness-to-pay for a marketed good based on the
quantity demanded at different prices.
The zonal travel cost method is an adaptation of the travel cost method and is the simplest and least expensive
approach. It will estimate a value for recreational services of the site as a whole. It cannot easily be used
to value a change in quality of recreation for a site, and may not consider some of the factors that may be
important determinants of value. The area surrounding the site of interest needs to be separated in zones and
information must be collected on the number of visits from each zone. Those visits need to be aggregated per
1,000 of people residing within each zone. Distance covered and time spent travelling, as well as the total cost
is required and aggregation of cost per km and minute travelling. A regression analysis between number of
visits and total cost can provide an indication on the change of demand, depending on the cost (Roovers et
al., 2002).
4.2.2 Hedonic Pricing Method
The Hedonic Pricing method is another revealed preference method. However, instead of estimating the value
of a good or service based on the cost of the user to acquire this good/service, the Hedonic Pricing method
measures the changes in the value of other marketed goods or services (variables) which are directly related
with the non-market good/service. For example, a study in Finland used the Hedonic Pricing method to attach
a market value to urban forests in Salo in Finland (Tyrväinen and Miettinen, 2000). The study collected house
market values in the area and observed that an increase of the distance from an urban forest to one kilometre
brought about a 5.9 % decrease to the house value, and that houses with a view of an urban forest were 4.9 %
more expensive.
24
4.2.3 Contingent Valuation Method (CVM)
The Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) is a method to estimate economic values for all kinds of ecosystem
and environment services through questioning of individuals on their willingness to pay for a good or a service,
particularly the non-market goods or services. Contingent Valuation Method is a simple flexible non-market
valuation method widely used in cost-benefit analysis and environmental impact assessment. However it is
under severe criticism regarding its validity and reliability and the effects of biases and errors (Prato, 2000; Clark
et. al., 2000; Venkatachalam, 2004)
Use of CV method showed that residents in the Lagoon of Venice drainage basin associate a positive value
and a preference with the implementation of an agroforestry network (plantations), but its value is strongly
affected by their identity with the landscape and their income. The expectations of the farmers were lower
than European Union incentives due to poor information and bureaucratic difficulties. Landscape choices
strongly involve issues of identity perceived rights and evaluation capacity that cannot be simply resolved
in terms of preference cost benefit analyses (Franko et al., 2001). Forest recreation valuation in Poland using
the CV method showed that it is highly valued at 0.64-6.93 euros per person per trip (Bartczak, et al., 2008).
In Croatia the Contingent Valuation, Hedonic Price and Expert Assessment methods were used to estimate
the aesthetical/ambient value of forest view to tourism and local population (Horak et. al., 2002a). Valuation
of non-material forest services in Croatia and value of actual tourist recreational forest service through CVM.
Tourists were willing to pay for at least one activity related to the protection of the forest surrounding their
accommodation, and stated they enjoyed hiking, cycling and seeing and learning more about nature (Krznar
et al., 1998). The willingness-to-pay of people for services in Finland’s state-owned parks was measured, in
order to evaluate outdoor recreation. A variant of the Tobit model was used to examine willingness-to-pay
responses (Huhtala, 2004). Nature-based tourism provides locally owned small businesses with more direct
income, in comparison to externally owned large-scale ones (Lee, 1997).
Despite its weaknesses, the CV method is the only technique at hand for the assessment of non-use values of
environmental goods. The willingness-to-pay is biased upwards because the respondents do not properly observe
their budgetary constraints and do not remove the amount stated from their budget remaining to purchase
private goods (Ahlheim, 1998). An additional advantage of CV method is that it is a democratic method, based on
questionnaires (Price, 2000). The weaknesses of the CV are also reduced when additional time and information is
provided to the respondents, as well as the opportunity to deliberate (MacMillan et al. 2006).
4.2.4 Choice Modelling
Non-use values associated with preservation of forests are difficult to be estimated with non-market valuation
techniques such as the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM). In addition, when considering social uses of
forests, the opinion of the potential visitors is very significant. In order to balance the user requirements with
the problems that can arise from satisfying those requirements, the provision of choice sets when consulting
the users through questionnaires, is a useful tool (Hearne and Salinas, 2002). An alternative to CVM in such
cases is the Choice Modelling (CM), which can handle complex situations and frame choices consistent with ‘real
life’ choices (Rolfe et. al., 2000). Choice Modelling are the procedures that use questionnaires presenting to the
respondents with ‘bundles’ of attributes and ask them to choose between these bundles, or rank or rate them.
There is no direct questioning of their willingness-to-pay, but one of the attributes of the choice sets includes a
cost and a price, so that willingness-to-pay can be inferred (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity,
2001). However, when deriving welfare measures from hypothetical utility functions of a forest, both methods
produce similar results, as long as the functions are described in detail (Mogas et. al., 2006).
A study in Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania employed the CM and surveyed villagers, foresters, park employees,
entrepreneurs and environmentalists in order to investigate the societal states of forests that are perceived to
enhance human and environmental well-being. The survey applied a multi-group choice method, following
six steps: (i) identification of all relevant social states for sustainable forest management; (ii) elicitation of
preferences, for different social states, of forest user groups’ members; (iii) determination of attributes of users
and social states; (iv) aggregation of individual forest value preferences into social value preferences; (v) intergroup comparison of preferences; and (vi) estimation of predictors of social forest value preferences. There was
25
a distinction between household-perspective and the citizen-perspective of evaluations, and socio-economic
and institutional-legal attributes of stakeholders were tested as predictors of stakeholder preferences. The
results showed that non-consumptive forest uses, including ecosystem services, were given highest priority
by all stakeholders and consumptive values were weighted more discriminately, while non-consumptive
values were viewed more holistically. Forest dependence and environmental-resource-entitlements lead to
more household consumption-based valuations, whereas the appreciation of diverse forest values increased
with the education of people. Finally the stakeholders exercised higher consensus on the importance of nonconsumptive uses when such values were evaluated in the context of societal needs but not as household
needs, while consumptive uses registered the opposite effect (Kijazi and Kant, 2010).
A study in Finland examined visitors’ preferences for forest management at five adjacent municipal recreation
sites. The study design accounted for changes in scenery and biodiversity indices in the forest environment
resulting from forest management practices. Respondents were asked to choose their preferred management
option from alternative management regimes for the sites. Results showed that visitors had a strong preference
for the preservation of species richness and for scenic beauty. However, when there was a trade-off between
these benefits, visitors chose their favourite scenery at their favourite recreation site and opted for management
options, which preserve biodiversity at the other sites in the recreation system (Horne et. al., 2005).
4.2.5 A social choice modelling
A stated preference technique (SPT) based on the Conceptual Content Cognitive Mapping (3CM; Kearney and
Kaplan, 1997) was proposed by Kant and Lee (2004). According to the method, the respondents are initially
informed of the objectives of the exercise and the steps that were going to follow. They are assured that there
is no right or wrong answer, nor is there an upper or lower limit to the number of forest values that can be
stated. The respondents are dealt blank index cards and a visualisation exercise is used to stimulate their
thinking. Subsequently they are asked to write their preferred forest values on the cards, arrange the cards in
groups in a way that would simplify explaining their significance, assign titles to the groups and rank them in
order of importance. This is method that receives responses from individual respondents, but can be used as
a part of a greater participatory method. The outcomes are not quantified responses, but ranking of the forest
values in order of preference. For example, Haider et al. (1998) have described the use of choice experiments to
determine recreationists’ preferences for different forest management scenarios.
Because people have different opinions about what is important and what is not, an overall consensus on
all the aspects of a conflicting issue is usually impossible, particularly when a large number of stakeholders
are involved. Multi-criteria Analysis (MCA) is a social choice method, that derives the relative preferences of
the stakeholders in relation to specific criteria, in order to produce an overall strategy for the management
of a particular issue. Sheppard and Meitner (2005) employed multi-criteria analysis for sustainable forest
management. According to the method, the stakeholders were asked to prioritise the criteria by means of
weightings, which were then aggregated to produce scores for various management scenarios. The criteria are
usually developed by experts, based on early consultation with the stakeholders. The result of the process is a
matrix combining the effect of each criteria under different strategies. A thorough review of studies using MCA
models for forestry has been produced by de Steiguer et al. (2003) and Kangas et al. (2001). A similar method,
was tested in Finland, where the stakeholders were provided with the alternative scenarios and were asked to
develop the relevant criteria and attach weightings to them. The same final matrix is produced, but instead of
calculating weighted scores for each scenario, the scenarios were compared based on the number of criteria
which surpassed a certain arbitrary threshold, such as median values (Laukkanen et al., 2003).
Certain principles need to be observed, in order to ensure reliable results from a participatory decision-support
method. The stakeholders group needs to be representative and cover a large base of stakeholders, to ensure
all interests will be voiced. This is also promoted by allowing open access to the stakeholders. The decisionmaking process should be clearly structured and engaging, to stimulate the interest of the stakeholders and
the information provided need to be clear, understandable and accurate. It is important to ensure that the
participants are relevant to the scale of the area involved in the decision-making process. Finally, the process
needs to be credible, requiring the use of straightforward and comprehensive methods, the agreement of
the participants to the rules enforced by the process and the assessment of their satisfaction with the process
26
and the outcomes. Capacity building and mutual learning is particularly important, in order to assist the
participants to their future work and enable them to feel more involved. (Sheppard, 2005).
A social choice method was used by Ebert and Welsch (2003), when they provided a characterisation of
meaningful environmental indices in terms of preference ordering on multidimensional states. Investigation
of the pluralism of sustainable forest management these days was performed by Wang and Wilson (2007),
highlighting the importance of the social choice method. The method was also applied when it was shown that
landscape content and land cover interactions should be considered when deciding on land use development
(Nijnik et. al, 2009). The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), a form of MCA, has been used to demonstrate its
capability to enhance the overall participatory process of the public being involved in sustainable forest
management decisions, by deriving stakeholder weightings for management objectives (Kangas, 1994;
Ananda, 2007).
4.3 Application of valuation methods and willingness-to-pay around the Mediterranean Europe
Social uses of forests are often services that do not have a designated market value. In order to set up a payment
scheme, one of the initial steps that need to be taken is to determine the economic value of the forest, with
regards to its social functions. This is often done by estimating the tendencies of the users of the forests, with
regards to the amount of money they would be willing to pay, in order to receive the service that is the social
function of the forest. Some examples of willingness-to-pay estimates in various countries were presented in
the previous paragraphs. In this section, the previous experiences in the willingness-to-pay studies around the
regions covered by the SylvaMED project, are presented.
In a study (Riera and Mogas, 2004), a sample of residents in Catalonia was questioned on their willingness-topay for the increase of Catalonian forest from 40% to 60%. Two methods were evaluated on different samples
of the population, the continent ranking and the choice experiment, inquiring about the opportunity to
picnic, use of four-wheel vehicles, mushroom picking and CO2 sequestration. . The results showed that the
choice experiment yielded higher WTP estimates than the contingent ranking. A more recent study (Brey et
al., 2007), used choice modelling, and specifically a random parameter logit model, to reveal that individuals
would annually pay an average of 6.33 euros to picnic in the new forests. On the other hand, individuals would
experience a loss in welfare equivalent to -9.67 euros if four-wheel driving was to be allowed in the new
forests. Finally, being allowed to pick mushrooms in the new forests was valued at an average of 12.82 euros by
those who live in rural areas. In an early study, Riera (1997) underlines the importance of the travel cost when
estimating willingness to pay using the contingent valuation method.
In 2010, the Foundation for Rural Areas of Catalonia, made a survey for the whole agrarian-forestry sector. The
recreational and cultural values of forest were estimated using the “willingness to pay” method by citizens in
order to conserve a natural area susceptible of being used by recreational or cultural activities. Recreational
issues were divided into two concepts: leisure, referring to the use of natural areas by families; and landscape.
The estimated contingent value was 237€/ha for forests, which for the whole Catalonia would represent 448
million Euros (0,22 % of the NGP).
In 2008 the Spanish Statistical Institute launched the questionnaire “Households and environment” capturing
the main environmental habits, consumer patterns and attitudes. It included a section on preferences for
environmental measures, presuming their future social acceptance. It is interesting to notice that people are in
favour of the introduction of an ecological tourist tax (35%).
Other older experiences summarized in Kristöm and Riera (1997) estimated the willingness to pay for
recreational uses in 1082 pesetas/visitor (equivalent to 6€/visitor in 1993) for the Natural Parks in the Pyrenees
and 1479 pesetas/visitor (equivalent to 9€/visitor in 1994) for a Dehesa-type forest in Spain.
There are no specific studies from the south-east region of France. However, a survey from 1997 (Normandin,
1998) representing 650 households in Lorraine region can serve as an example. According to the survey
27
65% of households expressed support to a payment for environmental services or improvement of leisure in
forests. The payment solution which appeared to be most the most popular was an “eco-tax”, taxes on polluting
activities. Payments by national or local tax, or by entrance fee, were much less accepted. The recreation value
of forest (in this region) was estimated to approximately 255 to 390 Francs/ha/year (between 39 and 60 euros/
ha/year). The study also differentiated willingness to pay in the case of a free value or with a grid of proposed
values. The mean value was higher in the case of free value than with a grid value. Willingness to pay was
higher among young people, highly educated or with high income. This study also tries to establish a model,
and to explain WTP with segmentations of the sample according to the different factors.
for immediate restoration of the burnt areas in Kassandra and 30-40% were willing to pay 10 euros if .the
restoration would help against the impacts mentioned above.
According to the COST Action E33 network of the European Commission, Greece does not currently have a
National Forest Programme, which would help promote forest recreation and its other social uses, and on the
contrary, has given forest recreation a low priority (Mann et al, 2010).
There was also a study of willingness to pay to restore forest after the 1999 storm (Scherrer, 2002). Again, it
differentiated the means of payment (taxes, entrance fee, voluntary donation), and it showed that refusals
were influenced. It also took into account the « false zeros », which corresponded to refusal of the scenario, but
not refusal to pay. The study used the CV method and identified that the potential users were willing to spend
2.2 to 2.9 euros / visit.
On average, the French make 14 trips per year in forests, each individual trip generating an average surplus
around 22 euros/trip. On this basis, in France, the recreational value of forests is estimated at nearly 9 billion
euros per year (Montagne et al., 2009).
In a study on the economic valuation of forest recreation facilities in Liguria (Bellu and Cistulli, 1997) the
economic value of open access recreation was assessed using the Individual Travel Cost Method (ITCM) and
Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Method (CVMD). Several forest areas were analysed for their
suitability for tourism, the actual flow of tourism and the regional plans for the creation of new parks. Both
methods produced similar results, consistent with economic theory and it appeared that forest recreation
income would not only contribute to regional Gross Domestic Product (GDP), but also help to tackle three
major problems of the area, unemployment, abandonment of the inland areas and relief of the pressure
currently put on the coastal areas. In another study, Cooper et al. (2002), evaluated the Contingent Valuation
Method in southern Sicily and found that the visitors to the forest were willing to pay 5.7 euros per visit.
4.3.4 Slovenia
There have been no official studies for Slovenia on the economic valuation of forest recreation and forest
social uses in general, or for the willingness-to-pay of potential users, with the exception of graduate and postgraduate theses. In one of those (Rozman, 2008), the economic valuation of a hypothermal spring in Pirince,
used contingency methods, in combination with the travel cost method to assess the willingness to pay of the
users.
There have been no specific studies for the Cretan region, but there has been one study on the economic
valuation of forest recreation in the forest of Kassandra at the Halkidiki region (Kazana et al., 2008). According
to the study about half of the people inquired (45%) had not visited the forest of the area for recreation but
the majority (76%) were interested in doing so in the future. The dominant responses stated that they visited
similar areas twice a year for two days each, spending 10-15 euros for travelling, another 10-30 euros for food
and drinks and 0-20 euros for other expenses, per person. Most people spent about 20-40 euros in total, per
person per visit. Interestingly, people would be willing to spend an additional 10-15 euros before it became
too expensive for them and travel up to 100 Km for this purpose. Spending a day in the open air was the most
appealing aspect of the forest (49% of the respondents), followed closely by swimming in a forested coastal
landscape (48%), walking (35.7%), spending a family day (31.3%) and picnicking (31.1%). In addition, the
majority would be attracted to the forest of Kassandra if the appropriate recreation infrastructure was present,
if the landscape was suitable for recreation activities, as well by the trees and nature, but not because of the
fauna or the proximity to the residence. Most of the respondents also stated that forest fires had extremely
important impacts on the loss of opportunities, soil erosion, flood damage to residential areas, water quality
and quantity, landscape beauty and biodiversity, carbon storage and climate regulation. A total of 94% agreed
28
29
5. Recommendations
The social function of the forests is extremely important for the people. However the state and the legislation
do not yet give the social function the attention it deserves. There is some loose mention in some national and
EU policies, mostly within the framework of multi-functional forest. However, forest owners do not yet perceive
the potential for profit, as they believe the material goods produced from the forest have more concrete value.
This is because a lot of them already have a market value and the forest owner can easily decide whether it is in
his interest to pursue the production of the said product. Many social functions do not yet have a market value.
This value must be determined for each particular location, as it depends on the preferences of the users, and
must be renewed at regular intervals. However, there are still problems with the valuation of the non-market
social services. Determination of the value of different recreation possibilities and assessment methods used,
since all have advantages and disadvantages (MCPFE, 2007).
One of the main problems in having forest owners, as well as the general forest users participating in economic
studies and forestry project is the lack of information and awareness of the potential participants (Richards
et al., 2003). Sustainable forest management requires public participation following one of the emerging
methods such as public multi-criteria analysis of alternative forest management scenarios and the use of
decision support systems (Sheppard, 2005).
Because the private owner will be tending the forest, in order to promote the social use and make a profit, it is
in the interest of the state to support him financially, as his actions will further the protection and development
of the forest. More subsidies should be made available, both from national and EU bodies, supporting the
private forest owner towards this direction. The forest owner should commit to following a forest management
plan, in order to receive the subsidy. The plan must be drafted along with the help of a Forest Service, adhering
to EU regulations, in order for the state to monitor the progress of the project.
6. bibliography
Ahlheim, M. 1998, Contingent valuation and the budget constraint, Ecological Economics, 27(2), 205-211.
Ananda, J., 2007, Implementing participatory decision making in forest planning, Environmental
Management, 39, 534-544.
Bartczak, A., Lindhjem, H., Navrud, S., Zandersen, M. and Zylicz, T., 2008, Valuing forest recreation on the
national level in a transition economy: The case of Poland, Forest Policy and Economics, 10(7-8), 467-472.
Bellu, L. and Cistulli, V., 1997, Economic Valuation of Forest Recreation Facilities in the Liguria Region (Italy).
Working paper GEC 97-08, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East
Anglia and University College London.
Blum, A., 2004, Social and Collaborative Forestry. Forest functions, in Encyclopedia of Forest Sciences, J. Burley,
J. Evans and J. A. Youngquist (eds.), Oxford, UK, Elsevier Ltd./San Diego, USA, Elsevier Inc., p. 2061.
Brey, R., Riera, P. and Mogas, J., 2007, Estimation of forest values using choice modeling. An application to
Spanish forest, Ecological Economics, 64, 305-312.
Clark, J., Burgess, J. and Harrison, C.M., 2000, “I struggled with this money buisiness”: respondents’
perspectives on contingent valuation method, Ecological Economics, 33, 45-62.
Cooper, J.C., Hanemann, M. and Signorello, G., 2002, One-And-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice
Contingent Valuation, The Review of Economic Statistics, 84, 742-750.
de Steiguer, J.E., Liberti, L., Schuler, A. and Hansen, B., 2003, Multi-criteria decision models for forestry and
natural resources management : an annotated bibliography. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-307.
Debevc B. (ed.), 2010, Caring for forest to benefit nature and people. Ljubljana, Slovenia Forest Service: 19 p.
[URL: http://www.zgs.gov.si/fileadmin/zgs/main/img/PDF/PDF_BROSURE/ Brosura_ANGL.pdf (12.1.2011).
Ebert, U. And Welsch, H., 2003, Meaningful environmental indices: a social choice approach, Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management, 47, 270-283.
Engel, S., Pagiola, S. and Wunder, S., 2008, Designing payments for environmental services in theory and
practice: An overview of the issues, Ecological Economics, 65(4), 663-674.
European Commission, 2006, EU Forest Action Plan, [URL: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/action_plan/
index_en.htm
European Commission, 2008, Study on the Development and Marketing of Non-Market Forest Products and
Services, DG AGRI Study Contract No: 30-CE-0162979/00-21, pp. 137.
European Parliament, 1997, Europe and the Forest / L’Europe et la Fôret, vol 3. DG IV Publication, Series AGRI.
http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/europe -and-the -forest.-volume -3-pbAX2594003/
(8/12/2011).
Ficko, A., Poljanec, A. and Boncina, A., 2010, Forest management planning in small scale forestry: Forestry
property plan (FPP) and owners’ attitudes, IUFRO Conference Small Scale Forestry in a Changing World:
Opportunities and Challenges and the Role of Extension and Technology Transfer, Bled, Slovenia 6-16 June 2010. p.
188-203.
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, 2010, Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010,
FAO Forestry Paper 163.
30
31
Foret Privée Française, 2008, Private forest property in France: Key figures, [URL: http://www.foretpriveefrancaise.
com/data/info/141462-ChiffresCles_english_2008.pdf ]
Lee Choong-Ki, 1997, Valuation of nature-based tourism resources using dichotomous choice contingent
valuation method, Tourism Management, 18(8), 587-591.
Franco, D., Franco, D., Mannino I. and Zanetto G., 2001, The role of agroforestry networks in landscape
socioeconomic processes: the potential and limits of the contingent valuation method, Landscape and Urban
Planning, 55(4), 239-256.
MacMillan, D., Hanley, N. and Lienhoop, N., 2006, Contingent valuation: next term Environmental polling or
preference engine?, Ecological Economics, 60(1), 299-307.
Haider, W., Anderson, D.A., Daniel, T.C., Louviere, J.J, Orland, B. and Williams, M., 1998, Combining calibrated
digital imagery and discrete choice experiments: an application to remote tourism in northern Ontario. In
Proceedings from Shaping Tomorrow’s North: the Role of Tourism and Recreation, 15-17 October 1995, Thunder
Bay, Ont., M.E. Johnston, D. Twynam and W. Haider (eds.), Centre for Northern Studies, Lakehead University,
Thunder Bay, Ont, pp. 257-278.
Hearne, R. R. and Salinas, Z. M., 2002, The use of choice experiments in the analysis of tourist preferences for
ecotourism development in Costa Rica, Journal of Environmental Management, 65, 153-163.
Horak S., Marusic, Z. and Weber, S., 2001, Coastal forest reconstruction project in Croatia: The aesthetic and
recreational value of Croatian coastal forests to the local population, Final Report, Institute for Tourism, Zagreb,
pp. 3-47.
Horne, P., Boxall, P.C. and Adamowicz, W.L., 2005, Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially
explicit choice experiment, Forest Ecology and Management, 207, 189-199.
Huhtala, A., 2004, What price recreation in Finland? A contingent valuation study on non-market benefits of
public outdoor recreation areas, Journal of Leisure Research, 36(1), 23-44.
Kangas, J., 1994, An approach to public participation in strategic forest management planning, Forest Ecology
and Management, 70, 75-88.
Kangas, J., Kangas, A., Leskinen, P. and Pykalainen, J., 2001, MCDM methods in strategic planning of forestry on
state-owned lands in Finland, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 10, 257-271.
Malnar, B. and Sinko, M., 2010, Slovensko Javno Mnenje V Letu 1998 O Slovenskih Gozdovih, Zbornik gozdarstva
in lesarstva, 62, 149-169.
Mann, C. Pouta, E. Gentin, S. and Jensen, F. S., 2010, Outdoor recreation in forest policy and legislation: A
European comparison. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. 9, 303-312.
Martínez de Aragón, J.; Riera, P.; Giergicznyc, M.; Colinas, C. 2011. Value of wild mushroom picking as an
environmental service. Forest Policy and Economics, 13:419-424.
Martínez de Aragón, J., Oliach, D., Henriques, R., Fortuny, M., Girbal, J. i Bonet, J.A. 2011. Manual para la gestión
del recurso micológico forestal en Cataluña. Ediciones CTFC. 112 pp.
MCPFE, 2007, State of´Europe’s forests 2007, The MCPFE Report on Sustainable Forest Management in Europe.
Jointly prepared by the MCPFE liaison unit Warsaw, UNECE and FAO. Warsaw, 2007.
MEA, 2005, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment. Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment Series. [URL: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Framework.aspx#download]
Montagne, C., Niedzwiedz, A. and Stenger, A., 2009, Les comptes de la forêt française : un outil d’évaluation
intégré des biens et services (marchands et non marchands) fournis par la forêt, INRA Sciences sociales, n°5,
Novembre 2009.
Mogas, J., Riera, P. and Bennett, J., 2006, A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with
second-order interactions, Journal of Forest Economics, 12(1), 5-30.
Nail, S., 2008, Forest policies and social change in England, Springer Science, pp. 329.
Kant, S. and Lee, S., 2004, A social choice approach to sustainable forest management: an analysis of multiple
forest values in Northwestern Ontario, Forest Policy and Economics, 6, 215-227.
Kazana, V., Kazaklis, A., Boutsimea, A. and Chatzigoga, Ch., 2008, Economic valuation of Mediterranean forest
related tourism: A Greek CVM case study, EFI Annual Meeting 2008, Palazzo del Popolo, September 15-20 2008.
Kearney, A.R. and Kaplan, S., 1997, Toward a methodology for the measurement of knowledge structures of
ordinary people. The conceptual content cognitive map (3CM), Environment and Behavior, 29, 579-617.
Kijazi, M. H. and Kant, S., 2010, Forest stakeholders’ value preferences in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania, Forest
Policy and Economics, 12(5), 357-369.
Kriström, B. and Riera, P., 1997, El Método de Valoración Contingente. Aplicaciones al Medio Rural Español,
Revista Española de Economía Agraria, 179(1), 133-165.
Krznar, A., Lindic, V. and Vuletic, D., 2000, Metodologija vrednovanja korisnosti turisticko-rekreacijskih usluga
suma, Radovi - Sumarski Institut Jastrebarsko, 35(1), 65-82.
Laukkanen, S., Kangas, J. and Palander, T., 2003, Applying voting theory in participatory decision support for
sustainable timber harvesting in Finland. Paper presented at Decision Support for Multiple Purpose Forestry,
IUFRO Conference, 23-25 April 2003, Vienna, Austria.
Lawrence, A., 2004, Social and Collaborative Forestry. Social values of forests, in Encyclopedia of Forest Sciences,
J. Burley, J. Evans and J. A. Youngquist (eds.), Oxford, UK, Elsevier Ltd./San Diego, USA, Elsevier Inc., p. 2061.
32
Nijnik, M., Zahvoyska, L., Nijnik, A. and Ode, A., 2009, Public evaluation of landscape content and change:
Several examples from Europe, Land Use Policy, 26, 77-86.
Normandin, D., 1998, Opinions et attitudes des lorrains par rapport à l’environnement et à la forêt, INRA.
Pagiola, S. and Platais, S., 2007, Payments for Environmental Services: From Theory to Practice, World Bank,
Washington.
Palahí, M., Mavsar, R., Gracia, C., & Birot, Y. (2008). Mediterranean forests under focus. International Forestry
Review, 10(4), 676-688.
Prato, T., 2000, Multiple attribute evaluation of landscape management, Journal of Environmental
Management, 60, 325-337.
Price, C., 2000, Valuation of unpriced products: contingent valuation, cost–benefit analysis and participatory
democracy, Land Use Policy, 17(3), 187-196.
RaF Liguria, 2010, Rapporto sullo stato delle foreste in Liguria 2010.
Richards, M., Davies, J. and Yaron, G., 2003, Economic Stakeholder Analysis for Participatory Forest
Management, Overseas Development Institute Forestry Briefing, Number 4, May 2003.
33
Riera, P., 1997, El valor del tiempo de desplazamiento recreativo al campo, Revista Española de Economía
Agraria, 179, 191-201.
Riera, P. and Mogas, J., 2004, Finding the social value of forests through stated preference methods. A
Mediterranean forest valuation exercise, Silva Lusitana, 12, 17-34.
Rolfe, J, Bennett, J. and Louviere, J., 2000, Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest
preservation, Ecological Economics, 35(2), 289-302.
Roovers, P., Hermy, M. and Gulick, H., 2002, Visitor profile, perceptions and expectations in forests from a
gradient of increasing urbanization in central Belgium, Landscape and Urban Planning, 59(3), 129-145.
Rozman, I., 2008, Economic valuation of natural worth - a case study on hypothermal spring in the
vicinity of Pirniče, Master of Science thesis, Ljubljana.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2001, The Value of Forest Ecosystems. Montreal, SCBD,
67p. (CBD Technical Series no. 4).
Slovenia Forest Service, 2005, Caring for forest to benefit nature and people, Slovenia Forest Service, pp. 11.
Scherrer, S., 2002, Les pertes d’usage récréatif du patrimoine forestier après les tempêtes de 1999: le cas de la
forêt de Fontainebleau. Economie et Statistique n°357-358: 153-171.
Sheppard, S. R. J., 2005, Participatory decision support for sustainable forest management: a framework for
planning with local communities at the landscape level in Canada, Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 35,
1515-1526.
Sheppard, S.R.J. and Meitner, M.J., 2005, Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest
management planning with stakeholder groups, Forest Ecology and Management, 207, 171-187.
Simpson M. C., Pichler, V., Tyrvainen, L., Collins, K., Martin, S., Strange, N. and Vuletic, D., 2008, The economic
and social values of forests for recreation and nature tourism: A research overview, Cost Action E33: Forests for
Recreation and Nature Tourism (FORREC), Cost Office 2008
Tyrväinen, L. and Miettinen, A., 2000, Property prices and urban forest amenities, Journal of Environmental
Economics, 39, 205-223.
Venkatachalam L., 2004, The contingent valuation method: a review, Environmental Impact Assessment Review,
24(1), 89-124.
Wang, S. and Wilson, B., 2007, Pluralism in the economics of sustainable forest management, Forest Policy and
Economics, 9, 743-750.
Wunder, S., 2005, Payments for Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts. Occasional Paper No. 42. CIFOR,
Bogor.
Wunder, S., Engel, S. and Pagiola, S., 2008, Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental
services programs in developed and developing countries, Ecological Economics, 65(4), 834-852.
34

Working report on social uses and collective benefits

Transcription

Similar documents

Folie 1

Los combustibles fósiles liberan bióxido de carbono al quemarse e

SUSTAINABLE PACIFIC GROVE APRIL MEETING

Parque Nacional Natural Cueva de Los Guacharos

Some facts about Biggest Roulette Win In Vegas

Monitoring of Italian Forests and environment

“LUCIAN GRIGORESCU” SCHOOL MEDGIDIA – CONSTANTA

Website: www.forru.org

Old Growth Forests Of The Pacific Northwest

WheatwareTM Medium Size Clothes Hangers www.wheatware.com