Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Mountain Forest Ecosystem Services: The Ukrainian Carpathians Case Study

  1. Zahvoyska, Lyudmyla 1
  2. Bas, Tetyana 1
  1. 1 National Forestry University of Ukraine
    info

    National Forestry University of Ukraine

    Leópolis, Ucrania

    ROR https://ror.org/00rwcdf75

Libro:
The Carpathians: Integrating Nature and Society Towards Sustainability

ISSN: 1863-5520,  1863-5539

ISBN: 9783642127243,  9783642127250

Ano de publicación: 2013

Páxinas: 353-367

Tipo: Capítulo de libro

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-12725-0_25 GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Obxectivos de Desenvolvemento Sustentable

Resumo

The large part of the Ukrainian Carpathians is covered by forests. Mountain forests sustain human life through numerous goods and services. Some of them are complementary, others are mutually exclusive. There are a lot of stakeholders for the benefits of mountain forest ecosystem services (MFES) and their interests often contradict. The paper provides insight into implicit world of stakeholders’ perceptions and preferences concerning MFES through a forest values universe and a set of cognitive maps of preferences across stakeholders, developed for the Ukrainian Carpathians. The forest values universe is designed using a Conceptual Content Cognitive Mapping method. This universe consists of nine dominant themes and more then 37 sub-themes. The dominant themes are: environmental, recreational, economic, educational, health care, emotional and aesthetical. The set of cognitive maps of stakeholders’ preferences regarding forest values is developed applying non-parametric statistic methods. The results indicate a consensus in perceptions of personal values across stakeholders and some contradictions in preferences of different stakeholders groups.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Arrow KJ, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report on the national oceanic and atmospheric administration (NOAA) panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 58(10):4601–4614
  • Bateman I, Carson R, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Ozdemiroglu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
  • Boyd J, Banzaf S (2006) What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. RFF Discussing papers. Washington
  • Brown S (2010) The history and principles of Q methodology in psychology and the social sciences. http://facstaff.uww.edu/cottlec/QArchive/Bps.htm. Accessed 31 Aug 2011
  • Costanza R, D’Aarge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill R, Paruelo J, Raskin R, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nat 387:253–260
  • Daly H, Farley J (2004) Ecological economics. Principles and applications. Island Press, Washington
  • Farley J, Zahvoyska L, Maksymiv L (2009) Transdisciplinary paths towards sustainability: new approaches for integrating research, education and policy. In: Soloviy IP, Keeton WS (eds) Ecological economics and sustainable forest management: developing a trans-disciplinary approach for the Carpathian Mountains. UNFU Press, Liga-Press, Lviv
  • Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1991) A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. In: Costanza R (ed) Ecological economics: the science and management of sustainability. Columbia University Press, New York
  • Hanemann M (1991) Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ? Am Econ Rev 81(3):635–647
  • Hanley N, Spash C (1998) Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
  • Hausman J (1993) Contingent valuation: a critical assessment. North Holland, Amsterdam
  • Hotulyeva M, Ye P, Vinnitchenko V, Cherp O, Yurkavichute A, Volostnov D, Dmitriyev A (2006) Stratyegucheskaya ekologicheskaya otsenka dlya razvitiya region-al’nogo i munitsipal’nogo planirovaniya. Ekoline, Moscow
  • Kant S, Lee S (2004) A social choice approach to sustainable forest management: an analysis of multiple forest values in Northwestern Ontario. For Policy Econ 6(3–4):215–227
  • Kearney A, Kaplan R (1997) Toward a methodology for the measurement of knowledge structures of ordinary people. The conceptual content cognitive map. Environ Behav 29(5):579–671
  • Kearney A, Bradley G, Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1999) Stakeholder perspectives on appropriate forest management in the Pacific Northwest. For Sci 45(1):62–73
  • Laureano P (2006) Traditional knowledge world bank for safeguarding ecosystems. In: Parotta J, Agnoletti M, Johann E (eds) Cultural heritage and sustainable forest management: the role of traditional knowledge. Proceedings of the conference held on 8–11 June 2006, Florence
  • Meadows D (2008) Thinking in systems: a primer. Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont
  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Synthesis Report http://www.greenfacts.org/en/ecosystems/figtableboxes/map-forest.htm. Accessed 31 July 2011
  • Newbold P, Carlson WL, Thorne B (2003) Statistics for business and economics, 5th edn. Pearson Education, New Jersey
  • Nijnik M, Mather A (2008) Analysing public preferences for woodland development in rural landscapes in Scotland. Landsc Urban Plan 86(3–4):267–275. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.03.007
  • Nijnik M, Zahvoyska L, Nijnik A, Ode A (2009) Public evaluation of landscape content and change. Land Use Policy 26(1):77–86. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.03.001
  • Patosaary P (2006) Foreword. In: Parotta J, Agnoletti M, Johann E (eds) Cultural heritage and sustainable forest management: the role of traditional knowledge. Proceedings of the conference held on 8–11 June 2006, Florence
  • Podolchak M, Zahvoyska L (2005) Ecological-economic valuation of landscapes. Sci Bull USUFWT 15(1):270–273
  • Portney PR (1994) The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care. J Econ Perspect 8:3–17
  • Rozhko I (2000) Recreational assessment of natural tourist complexes for tourists needs. Case of the Ukrainian Carpathians. Dissertation, Ivan Franko Lviv National University
  • Stephenson W (1963) Independency and operationism in Q-sorting. Psychol Rec 13:269–272
  • Zahvoyska L (2008) Analysis of Stakeholders’ preferences regarding urban park. In: Cesaro L, Gatto P, Pettenella D (eds) The multifunctional role of forests. Policies, methods and case studies. EFI Proceedings 55, European Forest Institute, Joensuu
  • Zahvoyska L, Bas T (2009) Deeper insight of stakeholders’ values and preferences regarding forest ecosystem services. In: Zahvoyska L, Jöbstl H, Kant S, Maksymiv L (eds) Building insights of managerial economics and accounting towards sustainable forest management: Proceedings of the IUFRO unit 4.05.00 international Symposium, UNFU Press, Lviv, 17–19 May 2007