Translator Disclaimer
1 May 2013 Social Perceptions and Forest Management Strategies in an Italian Alpine Community
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Individuals' perceptions are becoming increasingly relevant as a central component of social and environmental sustainability. As a result, the social dimension has become a fundamental element of sustainable forest management. To investigate people's perceptions of forest management, it is necessary to analyze values and norms in the social and cultural context and, at the same time, to consider individual preferences for forest management strategies. Trento municipality in northeast Italy was chosen as a study area because of its location in the European Alpine region and because of the links that exist between individuals and forest resources. A structured questionnaire was sent to 1000 randomly selected household heads. Responses were analyzed, taking into consideration the relationship between perceptions and respondents' gender, age, education, and geographical location; this allowed highlighting of statistical differences between groups. Results confirmed the importance of gender, age, and location in influencing individuals' preferences. Results also showed that people generally prefer open forests with mixed tree species and different sizes, which is in line with the goals of the local public forest service's management strategies.

Introduction

The sustainable forest management (SFM) paradigm aims to balance the social, economic, ecological, and cultural needs of present and future generations (Wyder 2001; Tabbush 2004) and to maintain resources based on the multiple use of forests (Garcìa-Fernàndez et al 2008). Direct integration of people's values in the decision-making process is an important aspect of SFM, because it can increase the social acceptance of the decisions and reduce conflict among users (Xu and Bengston 1997; O'Brien 2004; Cantiani 2012). By incorporating the preferences and perceptions of various actors in the decision-making process, the paradigm has gradually transformed forest management into “management by inclusion” (Kant and Lee 2004). Forest values can be defined as enduring concepts of what is good and desirable, or conversely, bad and undesirable, about forests (Bengston 1994). These values vary from culture to culture and over time (Manning et al 1999); consequently, knowledge of forest values is important in determining people's attitudes (Duinker 2008), and the criteria used to evaluate management practices from a social point of view should be based on the values assigned by people to forests (Gamborg and Rune 2004).

Forest values can be divided into two categories: material (economic and life supporting) and nonmaterial (sociocultural, ethical, spiritual, and aesthetic). They can also be classified as either intrinsic or instrumental (Buijs 2009). Intrinsic values relate to the contribution of action to maintaining the health and integrity of a forest ecosystem (holistic nonanthropocentric values) or the conservation of a single species (individualistic nonanthropocentric values), while instrumental values involve satisfying human needs or wants (anthropocentric values). Anthropocentric values also include some noninstrumental values, such as aesthetic, cultural, and spiritual values, whose importance has grown in recent decades (Patel et al 1999).

An analysis of people's perceptions is fundamental to participatory forest planning and management, because individuals' knowledge has the potential to effectively support decision-makers in the management and preservation of forest resources (Vining and Tyler 1999; Jensen 2000; Lewis and Sheppard 2005; Hickey et al 2007). Moreover, being aware of people's perceptions and preferences regarding the forest and its landscapes is important for designing and implementing management policies (Schmithüsen et al 1997; Jensen and Koch 1998; Lee 2001; Cantiani et al 2002; Heer et al 2003; Edwards et al 2012a). This aspect is particularly significant in mountain areas in general and the European Alpine region in particular. The Alpine region is characterized by a strong link between local communities and forests (Notaro and Paletto 2011) and by particular attention to forest multifunctionality (Grêt-Regamey et al 2008).

This study investigated people's perceptions of forest management practices by considering individual preferences. The method was tested in the Municipality of Trento, located in northeastern Italy in the Province of Trento, one of the country's most important forest regions, in which 345,180 ha, or 55.6% of total land surface, is covered by forests. This area was chosen on the grounds of its Alpine location and the links that exist between individuals and forest resources. The current situation in the forestry sector in this area may be considered emblematic: Faced with the crisis in the traditional timber sector, forest administrators and owners need to look for new opportunities in timber production (eg supplying wood biomass for energy provision) and to take into account new demands made of the forests by the communities, demands that increasingly diverge from those traditionally made by mountain populations. The traditional “close to nature” silviculture that has shaped the forests in the Province of Trento over the last 50 years (Wolynski 2001) might be forced to evolve in line with new management strategies.

Current forest legislation in the Trentino

For the preceding reasons, the Province of Trento has undergone radical changes in forest legislation and planning in the last few years. A 2007 forest law revised the forest planning structure, introducing a regional-level plan covering all mountain ecosystems within a catchment or subcatchment, irrespective of the land ownership patterns within it. The regional plan has two tasks: (1) to take into account general and long-term interests, and on the basis of this provide its subordinate levels with useful information, and (2) by means of a single, coherent planning drive, to address the various problems related to the conservation of nature and the landscape, the physical protection of the territory, and the forest–timber or forest–timber–energy chain.

The legislature clearly intended to encourage the various services in charge of safeguarding and managing the territory to cooperate to address forest problems. This responds to a precise need, highlighted at the European level (Andersson et al 2000; Farcy and Devillez 2005), to consider the biological, physical, and socioeconomic systems from a networking perspective.

The success of the efforts undertaken in this direction depends on the extent to which those responsible for the planning and management of the natural resources recognize and interpret the entire spectrum of values, including those of a noninstrumental nature, that bind humans to the forest.

Material and methods

Trento municipality (46°4′0″N; 11°7′0″E) is located in the Province of Trento in the Italian Alps. The population numbers 114,236 with a density of 723 people/km2. It is subdivided into 12 districts: 6 on the valley floor and 6 on the adjacent mountain slopes.

Sampling

A self-reporting questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 1000 household heads living in Trento municipality. The sample was stratified according to the 12 administrative districts, and the sample size was proportional to the size of the population in each district. The survey focused on household heads because its main objective was to investigate the preferences of individuals belonging to the same community and living in the area; tourists were therefore not considered in this study.

Respondents were asked to return the completed questionnaire within 6 weeks and were given 3 options—return by mail, hand deliver to a prearranged collection center, or have collected (by appointment) by survey staff—to maximize the number of completed questionnaires.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire was composed of 56 mainly closed-ended questions grouped into 4 thematic sections: personal information, forest perceptions, forest and society, and personal knowledge about the forest. This article focuses on the questions on forest perceptions, in particular 6 questions on strategies adopted by the provincial forest service. The questions investigated people's perceptions indirectly. Based on the assumption that ordinary citizens were unlikely to be conversant with highly technical matters or specialized terminology, they focused on the consequences of the management strategies rather than the strategies themselves. On the questionnaire, 4 single-choice questions asked for opinions about different forest models that can be achieved with different silvicultural treatments, and 2 asked respondents to rate the importance of recreational resources in forests and of the goods and services they look for in forests on a 10-point Likert scale (Table 1).

TABLE 1

Survey questions.

i0276-4741-33-2-152-t01.tif

Analysis

The survey responses were analyzed statistically with respect to respondents' gender, age, level of education, and location. The χ2 test was used to test the differences among the groups. For question 6, because normal distribution in the various groups could not be guaranteed, the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test was used for statistical analysis with respect to age and education. Grouped by gender and geographical location, data from question 6 were compared by means of the Mann–Whitney U-test. All statistical analyses were carried out using XLStat 2012.

Results and discussion

The response rate was 34.6% (346 questionnaires); other research carried out in Italy has reported a response rate between 20% and 30% (Montini 2001). Regarding location, 244 questionnaires were returned by household heads living in the urban area, home to the majority of the population, and 74 were returned by household heads living in the mountainous and hilly area; 28 household heads did not indicate their location. Of the respondents, 67% were men (232) and 33% were women (114). In the Italian Alps, household heads are generally male.

The majority of respondents expressed a preference for mixed forests (Table 2). The low preference for broadleaf forests is probably because in the Province of Trento, lower-altitude broadleaf forests are coppices of low aesthetic value, some still in use and others left to return to their natural state, whereas the broadleaf forests of the middle altitudes are young, high beech forests derived from the conversion, since the 1960s, of beech coppices. Both types of forest are characterized by trees of modest development and, particularly insofar as coppices are concerned, by trees with poor form far removed from the majestic bearing typical of high broadleaf forests. Women showed a greater preference for mixed forests (71.6%) than did men (62.7%). The χ2 test showed no significant statistical differences (χ2 test: observed value  =  2.981, critical value  =  5.991, P  =  0.225, α  =  0.05). Young people (18–35 years old) showed a greater preference for broadleaf forests (14.6%) than did other age groups (5.9% for ages 36–55, 3.4% for ages 56–75, and 5.4% for ages over 75), while elderly people preferred evergreen forests (43.2%). The latter statistic is most likely related to the important role played in the economy of mountain communities, until a few decades ago, by evergreen (mainly spruce) forests. There was a significant difference among the age groups (χ2 test: observed value  =  19.934, critical value  =  12.592, P  =  0.003, α  =  0.05).

TABLE 2

Preferred forest types.

i0276-4741-33-2-152-t02.tif

The majority of respondents expressed a preference for a random distribution of trees with diverse sizes (diameters). Most people do not like forests with a low degree of naturalness—for example, plantations and reforestation projects with regularly spaced trees—and prefer uneven-aged forests. A large number of people surveyed appreciate forests left to evolve naturally, such as those at higher altitudes and in protected areas. A significant difference between men and women was observed, with women showing a stronger preference for uneven-aged forests (χ2 test: observed value  =  6.219, critical value  =  5.991, P  =  0.045, α  =  0.05).

A substantial majority of respondents expressed a preference for forests with limited canopy cover (open forests), with women showing an even higher preference for open forests than men (χ2 test: value observed  =  3.909, critical value  =  3.841, P  =  0.048, α  =  0.05). The χ2 test showed no significant relationship between canopy cover preference and age or geographical location.

With regard to the presence of undergrowth (Figure 1), of the five possible options, almost half of respondents preferred no undergrowth (needles or leaf litter only); no significant statistical differences were found among the groups. The χ2 test showed no significant differences between urban and rural dwellers for the first 4 questions.

FIGURE 1

(A) Mixed, uneven-aged stand, with high diametric differentiation of trees, and presence of undergrowth. (B) Pure, even-aged Norway spruce stand, with regular distribution and low diametric differentiation of trees. (C) Lower-altitude broadleaf stand: mixed coppice left to natural evolution, typical of a limestone area. (Photos by Maria Giulia Cantiani)

i0276-4741-33-2-152-f01.tif

Respondents ranked on the 10-point Likert scale the unspoiled nature (9.34), paths (7.84), and food vendors (7.85) as the most important recreational resources in forests (Figure 2). This is a fair reflection of the attitude of the average inhabitant of the Province of Trento, who has a certain familiarity with forests, both their economic benefits (eg, firewood gathering) and their leisure benefits (primarily for physical activities such as hiking). There are no notable differences among the groups; the only difference of interest is that the elderly assign a higher value to almost all recreational resources.

FIGURE 2

Perceived importance of recreational resources in forests.

i0276-4741-33-2-152-f02.tif

Regarding the goods and services provided by the forest to society (Table 3), respondents ranked as most important naturalness, landscape contemplation, hiking, and relaxation. Economic benefits (firewood and nonwood forest products) were rated second, which is consistent with other surveys conducted in the Alpine region (Schmithüsen et al 1997). Women assigned higher values than men to aesthetic and spiritual services, while men assigned higher values to nonwood products, firewood, sports, and hunting. An explanation for this could be that these goods and services are typically related to male activities, while women favor contemplative activities (including relaxing and landscape appreciation). A number of studies carried out in North America confirm that women value the spiritual, aesthetic, and environmental aspects of forests, while men attribute a higher importance to economic and recreational values (Brown and Reed 2000; Tarrant and Cordell 2002; Kumar and Kant 2007).

TABLE 3

Most highly valued forest goods and services.a) (Table continued on next page.)

i0276-4741-33-2-152-t03.tif

TABLE 3

Continued. (First part of Table 3 on previous page.)

i0276-4741-33-2-152-t04.tif

While other age groups assign prime position to naturalness, the young (18–35 years old) consider the landscape the most important aspect of the forest. Interest in the landscape may be associated with the importance attributed to the forest's recreational function. With regards to age, a recent European survey found that young people value recreation more than other forest functions (Rametsteiner et al 2009).

In contrast to people living on the valley floor, those living in the mountainous districts assigned a higher score to all aspects except hiking and naturalness. The difference between urban and nonurban areas is higher for economic services and hunting. The nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test was applied to determine the statistical significance of differences based on age and education. It found no significant difference regarding age but a significant difference was found taking education into account with regard to naturalness (K observed value  =  11.523, K critical value  =  11.345, P  =  0.009, α  =  0.01) and nonwood forest products (K observed value  =  15.973, K critical value  =  11.345, P  =  0.001, α  =  0.01). Unlike those with a tertiary education, people with lower levels of education assigned a higher value to all services. These findings are consistent with the work of Kumar and Kant (2007), who found that irrespective of context, less educated people are the most attached to forests and forest-related goods and services.

The significance of differences between gender and geographical location was assessed by the nonparametric Mann–Whitney test. When taking gender into account, a significant difference was observed with regard to hiking (U  =  9953.5, attended value  =  12,208.0, variance  =  536,205.8, P  =  0.002, α  =  0.01) and hunting (U  =  14,174.0, attended value  =  12,376.5, variance  =  238,662.5, P  =  0.000, α  =  0.01). Women expressed a preference for walking and hiking; men expressed one for hunting. In terms of geographical location, a significant difference was found with regard to firewood production (U  =  4465.0, attended value  =  8073.0, variance  =  335,008.1, P < 0.0001, α  =  0.01). Contrasts between urban and rural populations are consistent with previous studies' findings that urban and rural inhabitants have different needs, generally related to the direct use that respondents make of the forest (Roovers et al 2002). In this case, the difference is strictly linked to common property rights, the right to harvest firewood from common forests exclusively afforded to those living in mountainous districts.

The questionnaire-based survey using closed questions was useful for the present study, because the preferences expressed by individuals were explicit and therefore assessable. Quantitative surveys have been described as excellent tools for measuring preferences and attitudes in a population (Babbie 2010). Nevertheless, closed questions have some disadvantages, such as the impossibility of individual interpretation and in-depth response (May 1997), which limits the analysis.

The approach followed in this study also revealed itself to be well suited to the reality of the territory surveyed. The possibility of extending the use of this approach to other areas was recently discussed in an Italian publication aimed at local public agencies (Betta et al 2009). This kind of survey has the potential to identify ongoing trends that need to be monitored over time, and it could prove highly effective if administered at regular intervals.

Conclusions and the way forward

Survey results indicate that the forest is important to people because it is a representation of nature undisturbed by human activity. These findings are consistent with other studies on perceptions of forests that focus on people living in urban areas (Schmithüsen and Wild-Eck 2000).

The majority of respondents appeared to prefer mixed and open forests with a high degree of natural diversity and a well-articulated structure. This fits quite well into the type of ecosystem that the Forest Service of the Province of Trento has been trying to design over the last 50 years, ecological conditions permitting. Such an ecosystem is made up of trees of mixed sizes and ages, ensuring the best possible protection for the soil in mountainous areas and a good maintenance of fertility and conservation of biodiversity. This model of forest, however, is generally characterized by well-developed undergrowth formed by natural regeneration and a shrub layer. People's preference is mostly for a forest without undergrowth, with the soil covered just by litter, which is typical of an even-aged, fairly closed forest. This is because, in addition to their concern for nature and landscape (questions 5 and 6), people show a strong interest in hiking (question 6) and prefer a good network of paths (question 5); forest cleared of undergrowth is therefore the most favored. This contradictory attitude must be carefully considered, particularly when managing forests with a high recreational use. These forests are important not only for the population of Trento and the other urban areas in the province but also for people from all over the country. Tourism is an important element in the economy of the Province of Trento.

Another possible source of conflict may be old-growth stands that are left to natural forest succession, as is being done in the Province of Trento for biological, scientific, and educational purposes (Wolynski 2010), because the majority of respondents indicated a preference for forests without undergrowth. To prevent such conflict from arising, it is advisable that appropriate and timely information regarding the aim of this option be furnished, though it is foreseeable, as stressed by Hunziker (2000), that in the near future the new generation will show an increasing sensibility toward these forms of nature conservation.

This survey confirmed the importance of social characteristics and situational context in research into forest preferences, which has been underlined by other studies (Gobster et al 2007; Carvalho-Ribeiro and Lovett 2011). Results regarding the relationship between social aspects and preferences given to forest attributes on the one hand and goods and services on the other confirm that these interactions are complex. While the relationship between gender and nature (in the specific forests) has undoubtedly changed with the shift from traditional to modern society, women still tend to have a more intense relationship with nature and to attribute higher values to the contemplative and environmental values of forests (Buckingham-Hatfield 2000).

Individuals' preferences for certain forest landscape characteristics are influenced by a combination of factors associated with people and place (including cultural, social, and human values; attitudes; and biophysical differences in forest types) and deeply rooted in the local context. Therefore, surveys offer useful insights for a potential systematic and comparative program of research whose conclusions and recommendations would be generalizable for European policy (Edwards et al 2012b).

Open access article: please credit the authors and the full source.

Acknowledgments

An earlier report on this research was presented at the conference Forestry Science and Practice for the Purpose of Sustainable Development of Forestry—20 Years of the Faculty of Forestry in Banja Luka, Banja Luka, Republic of Srpska/Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1–4 November 2012.

REFERENCES

  1. FO Andersson KH Feger RF Hüttl N Kräuchi L Mattson O Sallnäs K Sjöberg 2000. Forest ecosystem research: Priorities for Europe. Forest Ecology and Management 132:111–119. Google Scholar
  2. E Babbie 2010. The Basics of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Google Scholar
  3. DN Bengston 1994. Changing forest values and ecosystem management. Society & Natural Resources 7:515–533. Google Scholar
  4. A Betta MG Cantiani I De Meo F Maino 2009. La percezione del bosco da parte delle comunità locali: un caso di studio nel Comune di Trento [in Italian with English summary]. Forest@ 6:320–332.  http://www.sisef.it/forest@; accessed on 12 March 2013. Google Scholar
  5. G Brown P Reed 2000. Validation of a forest values typology for use in national forest planning. Forest Science 46:240–247. Google Scholar
  6. S Buckingham-Hatfield 2000. Gender and Environment. London, United Kingdom: Routledge. Google Scholar
  7. AE Buijs 2009. Lay people's images of nature: comprehensive frameworks of values, beliefs, and value orientations. Society & Natural Resources 22:417–432. Google Scholar
  8. MG Cantiani 2012. Forest planning and public participation: A possible methodological approach. iForest 5:72–82.  http://dx.doi.org/10.3832/ifor0602-009Google Scholar
  9. MG Cantiani D Bettelini S Mariotta 2002. Participatory forest planning: A chance of communication between forest service and local communities. In: M Büchel F Nipkowand M Güntensperger editors. Forestry Meets the Public: Seminar and Workshop Proceedings. Bern, Switzerland: Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape, pp 249–263. Google Scholar
  10. SM Carvalho-Ribeiro A Lovett 2011. Is an attractive forest also considered well managed? Public preferences for forest cover and stand structure across a rural/urban gradient in northern Portugal. Forest Policy and Economics 13:46–54. Google Scholar
  11. PN Duinker 2008. Society's Forest Values. Report 11, Drivers of Change in Canada's Forests and Forest Sector Series, prepared for the Forest Futures Project of the SFM [Sustainable Forest Management] Network, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada.  http://www.sfmn.ales.ualberta.ca/en/Research/ForestFutures/∼/media/sfmn/Research/ForestFutures/Documents/FF_SocValues_Duinker.ashx; accessed on 12 March 2013. Google Scholar
  12. DM Edwards M Jay FS Jensen B Lucas M Marzano C Montagné A Peace G Weiss 2012a. Public preferences across Europe for different forest stand types as sites for recreation. Ecology and Society 17(1):27.  http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04520-170127Google Scholar
  13. DM Edwards M Jay FS Jensen B Lucas M Marzano C Montagné A Peace G Weiss 2012b. Public preferences for structural attributes of forests: Towards a pan-European perspective. Forest Policy and Economics 19:12–19. Google Scholar
  14. FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations]. 2001. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. Main Report. Rome, Italy: FAO. Google Scholar
  15. C Farcy F Devillez 2005. New orientations of forest management planning from an historical perspective of the relations between man and nature. Forest Policy and Economics 7:85–95. Google Scholar
  16. C Gamborg F Rune 2004. Economic and ecological approaches to assessing forest value in managed forests: Ethical perspectives. Society and Natural Resources 17:799–815. Google Scholar
  17. C Garcìa-Fernàndez M Ruiz-Pérez S Wunder 2008. Is multiple-use forest management widely implementable in the tropics? Forest Ecology and Management 256:1468–1476. Google Scholar
  18. PH Gobster JI Nassauer TC Daniel G Fry 2007. The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology 22:959–972. Google Scholar
  19. A Grêt-Regamey A Walz P Bebi 2008. Valuing ecosystem services for sustainable landscape planning in Alpine regions. Mountain Research and Development 28:156–165. Google Scholar
  20. C Heer HP Rusterholz B Baur 2003. Forest perception and knowledge of hikers and mountain bikers in two different areas in northwestern Switzerland. Environmental Management 31:709–723. Google Scholar
  21. GM Hickey JL Innes RA Kozak 2007. Monitoring and information reporting for sustainable forest management: A regional comparison of forestry stakeholder perceptions. Journal of Environmental Management 84:572–585. Google Scholar
  22. M Hunziker 2000. Einstellungen der bevölkerung zu möglichen landschaftsentwicklungen in den Alpen [in German]. Birmensdorf, Switzerland: Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Landschaft. Google Scholar
  23. FS Jensen 2000. The effects of information on Danish forest visitors' acceptance of various management actions. Forestry 73:165–172. Google Scholar
  24. FS Jensen NE Koch 1998. Measuring forest preferences of the population: A Danish approach. In: D Terrasson editor. Public Perception and Attitudes of Forest Owners Towards Forest in Europe [in French]. Commentaires et synthèses du groupe de travail COST E3-WG1, 1994/1998. Antony, France: Cemagref éditions, pp 39–82.  http://dx.doi.org/10.3188/szf.2000.0011Google Scholar
  25. S Kant S Lee 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. Google Scholar
  26. S Kumar S Kant 2007. Exploded logit modeling of stakeholders' preferences for multiple forest values. Forest Policy and Economics 9:516–526. Google Scholar
  27. TR Lee 2001. Perceptions, Attitudes and Preferences in Forests and Woodlands. Technical Paper 18. Edinburgh, United Kingdom: Forestry Commission. Google Scholar
  28. JL Lewis SRJ Sheppard 2005. Ancient values, new challenges: Indigenous spiritual perceptions of landscapes and forest management. Society & Natural Resources 18:907–920. Google Scholar
  29. R Manning W Valliere B Minteer 1999. Values, ethics, and attitudes toward national forest management: An empirical study. Society & Natural Resources 12(5):421–436. Google Scholar
  30. T May 1997. Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process. Buckingham, United Kingdom: Open University Press. Google Scholar
  31. A Montini 2001. L'uso del questionario nella valutazione contingente [in Italian]. Torino, Italy: Fabio Nuti, Giappichelli Editore. Google Scholar
  32. S Notaro A Paletto 2011. Links between mountain communities and environmental services in the Italian Alps. Sociologia Ruralis 5:137–157. Google Scholar
  33. E O'Brien 2004. A Sort of Magical Place: People's Experiences of Woodlands in Northwest and Southeast England. Farnham, United Kingdom: Forest Research. Google Scholar
  34. A Patel DJ Rapport L Vanderlinden J Eyles 1999. Forests and societal values: Comparing scientific and public perception of health. Environmentalist 19:239–249. Google Scholar
  35. A Pommerening 2002. Approaches to quantifying forest structures. Forestry 75:305–324. Google Scholar
  36. E Rametsteiner L Eichler J Berg 2009. Shaping Forest Communication in the European Union: Public Perceptions of Forests and Forestry. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: ECORYS Nederland. Google Scholar
  37. P Roovers M Hermy H Gulinck 2002. Visitor profile, perceptions and expectations in forest from a gradient of increasing urbanization in central Belgium. Landscape and Urban Planning 59:129–145. Google Scholar
  38. F Schmithüsen S Wild W Zimmermann 1997. Research on public perception of the importance of mountain forests and forestry in the context of Swiss Forest Policy Development. In: F Schmithüsen editor. Voluntary Papers Presented at the XI World Forestry Congress, Antalya, Turkey Zurich, Switzerland: Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, pp 1–6. Google Scholar
  39. F Schmithüsen S Wild-Eck 2000. Uses and perceptions of forests by people living in urban areas: Findings from selected empirical studies. European Journal of Forest Research 119:395–408. Google Scholar
  40. P Tabbush 2004. Public money for public good? Public participation in forest planning. Forestry 77:145–156. Google Scholar
  41. L Tahvanainen L Tyrvainen M Ihalainen N Vuorela O Kolehmainen 2001. Forest management and public perceptions: Visual versus verbal information. Landscape and Urban Planning 53:53–70. Google Scholar
  42. MA Tarrant HK Cordell 2002. Amenity values of public and private forests: Examining the value-attitude relationship. Environmental Management 30:692–703. Google Scholar
  43. UNEP/FAO [United Nations Environment Programme/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations]. 1994. Report on the UNEP/FAO Expert Meeting on Harmonizing Land Cover and Land Use Classifications. GEMS Report Series No. 25. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP. Google Scholar
  44. J Vining E Tyler 1999. Values, emotions and desired outcomes reflected in public responses to forest management plans. Human Ecology Review 6(1):21–34. Google Scholar
  45. A Wolynski 2001. Close-to-nature forestry in the Trentino/North Italy [in German]. Forst und Holz 56(10):312–315. Google Scholar
  46. A Wolynski 2010. Boschi vetusti nella pianificazione e nella gestione forestale trentina [in Italian]. Italian Journal of Forest and Mountain Environments 65(6):775–782. Google Scholar
  47. J Wyder 2001. Multifunctionality in the Alps: Challenges and the potential for conflict over development. Mountain Research and Development 21:327–330. Google Scholar
  48. Z Xu D Bengston 1997. Trends in national forest values among forestry professionals, environmentalists, and the news media, 1982–1993. Society and Natural Resources 10:43–59. Google Scholar
International Mountain Society
Alessandro Paletto, Isabella De Meo, Maria Giulia Cantiani and Federica Maino "Social Perceptions and Forest Management Strategies in an Italian Alpine Community," Mountain Research and Development 33(2), (1 May 2013). https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-12-00115.1
Received: 1 March 2013; Accepted: 1 March 2013; Published: 1 May 2013
JOURNAL ARTICLE
9 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top