Is an attractive forest also considered well managed? Public preferences for forest cover and stand structure across a rural/urban gradient in northern Portugal

Ribeiro, Sónia Carvalho; Lovett, Andrew A.

doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.09.003

Cited by 52 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 50 publications

(67 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our review shows that these social groups might differ not only in where they live but also in sociodemographic characteristics, including education level, age, and sex. Second, environmental education programs can be targeted to specific groups to highlight the importance of underrecognized ES to their well-being (Racevskis and Lupi 2006, Carvalho-Ribeiro and Lovett 2011, Lindemann-Matthies et al 2013, Mombo et al 2014. In fact, Casado-Arzuaga and colleagues (2013) have shown that the information communicated can transform ES preferences.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Ecosystem Service Preferences between Urban and Rural Dwellers

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urbanization can profoundly alter socioecological relationships, but its influence on how people perceive and value ecosystem services (ES) is poorly understood. We reviewed an emerging literature in which sociocultural valuation of ES is compared among urban and rural dwellers. This research suggests that, although regulating and cultural ES were highly valued by both rural and urban dwellers, urban dwellers tended to value provisioning ES less than rural dwellers did. Differences in ES valuation could result from different experiences, uses, and needs for ES of urban and rural dwellers. We also identified two key gaps in the literature that relate to understanding how diverse ES contribute differently to the wellbeing of rural and urban populations (and the relevance of these differences for environmental education and policy) and the changing roles of ES in developing countries and vulnerable ecosystems, such as small islands, that face pressing environmental, social, and economic challenges.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Ecosystem Service Preferences between Urban and Rural Dwellers

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…People's preferences for forests can be defi ned as the degree to which a person prefers a feature over other features (Sheppard & Meitner 2005) and they may vary according to attractiveness (scenic beauty) and/or management strategy (Carvalho-Ribeiro & Lovett 2011). An analysis of people's perceptions and preferences is fundamental in participatory forest planning, as the knowledge local communities have may support decision makers in the management and maintenance of forest resources in an effective way (Lewis & Sheppard 2005, Šišák 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The attractiveness of forests: preferences and perceptions in a mountain community in Italy

Meo

Paletto²,

Cantiani

2015

Ann. For. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The analysis of the perception and preferences of local communities is a fundamental aspect to increase the social sustainability and to reduce the conflicts between forest users. The knowledge of people's perception of forest resources is important for decision makers, when implementing management strategies and this is particularly relevant in mountainous area, characterized by a strong link between local communities and forest. The paper focuses on the analysis of people's perception and preferences regarding the recreational value of forests. The research has been carried out by means of a case study, the Municipality of Trento, located in the Centre East sector of the Italian Alps. This area was chosen on the grounds of its geographical location and of the historical links that exist between local communities and forest resources. The sample included 1,000 randomly selected families and the method of investigation used was a structured selfreported questionnaire. The data were processed taking into account the relationship between people's perception and the main social characteristics of respondents (gender and age); this allowed statistical differences among groups to be highlighted. Forest attractiveness has been investigated considering: (i) forest accessibility, (ii) forest stand characteristics, (iii) visitor facilities and infrastructures. The results show that people prefer the open mixed forests with an irregular structure and some visitor facilities such as paths and refreshment points. Besides, people like to have facilities in the forests, but at the same time would like these forests to be little frequented by other visitors, in order to have a greater feeling of naturalness.

show abstract

“…Results of a focus group of ranchers from the Flint Hills of Kansas and the Osage Hills of Oklahoma indicate that ranchers clearly equate homogeneous, not heterogeneous, landscapes with utility (unpublished transcript of the focus group, September 2010). A small amount of forest-related literature discusses the difference between preferences for aesthetic attributes and for management-associated attributes (Sheppard et al 2001;Ribe 2002;Shelby et al 2005;Carvalho-Ribeiro and Lovett 2011). Ranchers and grassland specialists holding utilitarian land use attitudes might determine preference of landscapes differently than individuals lacking a utilitarian attitude.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrasting Preference for Grassland Landscapes Among Population Groups in the Central and Southern Great Plains

Becerra

Engle

Elmore

et al. 2013

Rangeland Ecology & Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

About 50% of farmers/ranchers in the PLJV region had heard of the term "playa" or "playa lake" which translates to about 115,000 individual farmers/ranchers in the PLJV region. Across BCRs, landowner awareness (heard of "playa") ranged from a low of 24% in BCR18CO to a high of 90% in BCR18TX.More revealing was the key question inquiring if respondents had playas on the lands they managed. Playa presence ranged from a low of about 8%--that is, 8% of properties had at least one playa lake-in BCR18CO, BCR19KS, and BCR19OK, to a high of 48% in BCR18TX. These survey data yielded an estimate of playa numbers in the PLJV region within the range of 41,000 to 127,000 playas, which easily encompasses playa numbers promoted by the JV of about 60,000.When asked about certain playa functions, about 50% of landowners did not know whether or not playas recharged groundwater. This indicates there is a need to continue to communicate about the link between playas and recharge of the Ogallala Aquifer.Of 13 possible resources that might warrant additional conservation effort, farmers/ranchers said they supported "more conservation than now" for only one-the Ogallala Aquifer. Their second-ranking conservation concern was the Conservation Reserve Program ("same support as now").When asked how willing they would be to implement certain conservation practices if given incentive, 28% of all playa landowners were "highly willing" and 46% were "moderately willing" to plant native grass buffers around playas/wetlands, indicating a significant landowner demand for playa conservation programs.A number of different incentives would be well received by landowners to help improve their management of playas and wetlands. Most popular among landowners-those who have playas, those that do not, and those that don't know-would be if "playa/wetland management helped my bottom line." In fact, the most popular incentive for all types of landowners would be some form of iii financial remuneration, augmented by knowledge that their actions were helping the land/water resources.Predictably, landowners in BCRs in which playas were more common were better able to identify playas as a type of wetland. Moreover, landowners who said they actually had playas on their properties were much more knowledgeable about playa lakes than those who did not have playas on their lands.Looking at farmers/ranchers across the PLJV region, those who said they had playas on their lands said playas and wetlands constituted an overall positive feature (68%), while 25% said playa lakes/wetlands were an overall negative feature. A majority of respondents who indicated they did not have playas on their properties still were prone to characterize playas and wetlands as a positive feature (53%), though a large group (39%) said "don't know."For landowners who said they had playas on their properties-and thought playas were an overall positive presence-the highest-ranking benefit was "attracts wildlife." Ranking second was "recharges groundwater," third was "improves groundwater qualit...

show abstract

Is an attractive forest also considered well managed? Public preferences for forest cover and stand structure across a rural/urban gradient in northern Portugal

Cited by 52 publications

References 50 publications

Comparing Ecosystem Service Preferences between Urban and Rural Dwellers

Comparing Ecosystem Service Preferences between Urban and Rural Dwellers

The attractiveness of forests: preferences and perceptions in a mountain community in Italy

Contrasting Preference for Grassland Landscapes Among Population Groups in the Central and Southern Great Plains

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About