Ecosystem services’ values and improved revenue collection for regional protected areas

Masiero, Mauro; Franceschinis, Cristiano; Mattea, Stefania; Thiene, Mara; Pettenella, D.; Scarpa, Riccardo

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.10.012

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Looking at economic aspects, at least in Southern European countries, the forest-sector value is lower or significantly lower if compared with agricultural sector; forests are frequently considered just components of rural development rather than national strategic resources of the industrial sector; timber prices are decreasing, while the international timber trade is polarized by certain countries (Lovrić et al, 2018a). The value of wild forest products is often underestimated and these products are exchanged in informal markets despite their importance for income generation in marginal rural areas (Cai et al, 2011); ecosystem services deriving from forests are considered very important and their value highly estimated (e.g., Merlo and Croitoru, 2005;Masiero et al, 2016Masiero et al, , 2018Masiero et al, , 2019Bösch et al 2018), even if sometimes it is difficult to estimate their monetary value (Hansen and Malmaeus, 2016), but land owners are often not remunerated for provisioning them (Thorsen et al, 2014). Looking at the social and environmental aspects, one of the most prominent phenomenon which has occurred in the last 50 years in remote rural areas in Europe is the decline and ageing of population due to urbanisation and rural-urban migration flows, with the consequent land abandonment, that led to the natural expansion of forest cover and increase in risks of hazards like landslides, pest attacks, forest fires exacerbated by climate change.…”

Section: On the Relevance Of Evaluating Social Innovation In The Forest Sectormentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a method of evaluating social innovation in forest-dependent rural communities: First suggestions from a science-stakeholder collaboration

Secco¹,

Pisani²,

Re³

et al. 2019

Forest Policy and Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we refer to "forestry domain" in a broad sense, including activities, forest sector components, actors and policies connected with the use and management of forest resources. For example, "nature tourism" is included within the forestry domain if it is based on recreational or educational activities organized in a forest site or in relation to forest resources (e.g., Wilkes-Alleman, J., Ludvig, A., 2019). 2 More information about the EU-funded Horizon 2020 project SIMRA (Social Innovation in Marginalized Rural Areas) that is at the basis of this definition is available at: www.simra-h2020.eu. Such project involves scientists, NGOs and practitioners aimed at understanding how social innovation emerges, what its impacts are and how it can be supported through policy. 10 The GIZ Monitoring and Evaluation Unit does not distinguish between outputs, outcomes, impacts, but simply refers to 'results'.According to this model, any output, outcome, or impact is a goal, and anything that may be achieved, more or less directly or indirectly, is a result. 11 The identification of existing evaluation frameworks, approaches, methods and tools for analysis was carried out by expert teams each working on one of four main domains, namely the economic, social, environmental, and institutional aspects. They each followed common selection criteria and procedures defined by specific guidelines . Overall, 111 frameworks, approaches and methods were fully analysed through the use of 107 variables. They have been identified in the four domains and pre-analysed for the purposes of SIMRA project respectively by: ICRE8 (Greece) (economic aspects), University of Foggia (Italy) (social aspects), EFI (Finland) (environmental aspects) and DLO (The Netherlands) (governance/institutional aspects). The trans-disciplinary frameworks/approaches/methods and tools have been identified and pre-analysed by the University of Padova (Italy). More details are available on: Secco et al. 2017 (Deliverable 4.2; www.simra-h2020.eu). 12 These experts and stakeholders are the official members of the SIMRA Social Innovation Think Tank (SITT), created in 2016 by the SIMRA Consortium. Since its creation, SIMRA has carried out three consultations, two online (July 2016 and July 2017), and one face-to face workshop (held in Bratislava, Slovakia, October 26 to 28 2016). The SITT stakeholder consultation is one of the key elements of SIMRA project, carried out under main responsibility and coordination of IFE SAS (Slovakia), which arranged both the workshop in Bratislava and the two online consultations. In the various rounds, the SITT members were consulted on several different issues related to social innovation in marginalised rural areas, not only on methodology aspects. More information are available at: www.simra-h2020.eu.

show abstract

Section: On the Relevance Of Evaluating Social Innovation In The Forest Sectormentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a method of evaluating social innovation in forest-dependent rural communities: First suggestions from a science-stakeholder collaboration

Secco¹,

Pisani²,

Re³

et al. 2019

Forest Policy and Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We gather information from 25 studies about the attributes and their levels, the sample size, the scale of the survey and the study area, the experimental design, and the data analysis. The models most frequently used in the literature are the mixed logit model [36,39,40], the latent class model [12,41,42] and the conditional logit model [43,44].…”

Section: Selection Of the Attributes For The Choice Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Different valuation techniques can be used when data are not already available and when it is not possible to estimate a market price [11]. In this study, we use a choice experiment [12][13][14] to explore individuals' preferences towards NWFPs and associated services in three European countries, namely Italy, Sweden and Czechia. Choice experiment is a common approach for the estimation of non-market values and its use is particularly indicated for the economic valuation of multifunctional resources (such as forest), as it allows to investigate preferences (and estimate monetary values) towards each characteristic of a given good/service [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral Foundations and Willingness to Pay for Non-Wood Forest Products: A Study in Three European Countries

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-Wood Forest Products (NWFPs) provide social and cultural services related to e.g., the tradition and social role of collecting berries, mushrooms and herbs. These services can be ranked among intangible outputs as a part of the recreational function of forests. However, their social value is only partially captured in non-forest activities. We used a Choice Experiment to explore individuals’ preferences towards NWFPs and associated services in Italy, Sweden, and Czechia. We estimated the individual marginal willingness to pay for the supply and maintenance of NWFPs. In addition, we analysed the determinants of people’s choices using the framework of the Moral Foundations Theory (MFT). The results show that people collect NWFPs mostly for self-consumption and recreation, rather than for livelihood or to sell them on the market. Despite this, they are willing to pay for sustainable forest management practices that favour NWFPs supply, as well as for forest conservation. Additionally, Care and Fairness traits in the MFT determine people’s willingness to pay for NWFPs. The results from this study highlight the value of the social component of non-wood forests products and the expenses related to picking. This is a first step towards a value chain analysis of the NWFPs.

show abstract

“…Moreover it allows different contributing factors towards preferences to be compared in a quantified manner. Consequently, economic valuation and in particular stated preference methods (Bateman et al, 2002;Johnston et al, 2017) have been used frequently for quantifying social preferences as a measure of support for environmental management programmes (Balmford et al, 2011;De Groot et al, 2012;Giergiczny et al, 2015;Kenter et al, 2016;Masiero et al, 2018;Rolfe et al, 2000;Tallis and Polasky, 2009;TEEB Foundations, 2010). Studies have shown that society is commonly willing to pay to support biodiversity and conservation (Bartkowski et al, 2015;Christie et al, 2006;Czajkowski et al, 2009;Nijkamp et al, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Untangling perceptions around indicators for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biodiversity indicators are commonly monitored to ensure the sustainable management of ecosystems and the conservation of multiple ecosystem goods and services. Indicators are important for tracking the ecological outcomes of conservation programmes, but they are also important in a wider context such as monitoring progress towards broader sustainability goals and serving to generate public support and funding for these programmes. Little attention is usually given to the social and cultural dimensions of biodiversity indicators. In this paper, using a discrete choice experiment, we compare the impact of within-species, between-species and within-ecosystem level biodiversity indicators on public preferences for conservation programmes in Spanish pine forests. Specifically we show that preferences towards conservation programmes are significantly affected by the interaction between indicators and their perceived role in delivering ecosystem services. Genetic variation, the number of invasive species and keystone elements were associated equally frequently with provisioning, regulating and cultural ecosystem services, whereas population structure, the number of native species and the area of land conserved were more variable in how they were associated with different ecosystem services. Our results highlight the importance of considering the perceived social relevance of indicators alongside their ecological suitability in the design of conservation programmes and monitoring. HIGHLIGHTS: ¥ PeopleÕs preferences for conservation are affected by how they view the functional role of biodiversity. ¥ Regulation is the ecosystem service most frequently associated with biodiversity, followed by cultural services. ¥ Provisioning services are least frequently associated with biodiversity. ¥ The choice of indicators for conservation programmes should take account of social and cultural considerations.

show abstract

Ecosystem services’ values and improved revenue collection for regional protected areas

Cited by 7 publications

References 68 publications

Towards a method of evaluating social innovation in forest-dependent rural communities: First suggestions from a science-stakeholder collaboration

Towards a method of evaluating social innovation in forest-dependent rural communities: First suggestions from a science-stakeholder collaboration

Moral Foundations and Willingness to Pay for Non-Wood Forest Products: A Study in Three European Countries

Untangling perceptions around indicators for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About