Tourists’ perception of deadwood in mountain forests
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15287/afr.2016.482Keywords:
forest management, lying deadwood, standing dead trees, forest recreation, people’s preferences, Bosnia-Herzegovina, ItalyAbstract
In the traditional forest management the non-living woody biomass in forests was perceived negatively. Generally, deadwood was removed during the silvicultural treatments to protect forests against fire, pests and insects attacks. In the last decades, the perception of forest managers regarding forest deadwood is changing. However, people’s opinions about the presence of deadwood in the forests have been few investigated. In view of this gap, the aim of the paper is to understand the tourists’ perception and opinions towards the deadwood in mountain forests. The survey was carried out in two study areas: the first one in Italy and the second one in Bosnia-Herzegovina. A structured questionnaire was administered to a random sample of visitors (n=156 in Italy; n=115 in Bosnia-Herzegovina). The tourists’ preferences were evaluated through a set of images characterized by a different amount of standing dead trees and lying deadwood. The collected data were statistically analyzed to highlight the preferred type of forests related to different forms of management of deadwood (unmanaged forests, close-to-nature forests, extensive managed forests and intensive managed forests). The results show that both components of deadwood are not perceived negatively by tourists. More than 60% of respondents prefer unmanaged forests and close-to-nature managed forests, 40% of respondents prefer intensive managed forests in which deadwood is removed during the silvicultural treatments.References
Bakhtiari F., Jacobsen J.B., Strange N., Helles F., 2014. Revealing lay people’s perceptions of forest biodiversity value components and their application in valuation method. Global Ecology and Conservation 1: 27-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2014.07.003Bengston D.N., 1994. Changing forest values and ecosystem management. Society & Natural Resources 7: 515-533. DOI: 10.1080/08941929409380885Bragg D.C., Kershner J.L., 1999. Coarse Woody Debris in Riparian Zones. Journal of Forestry 4: 30-35.Brown G., Reed P., 2000. Validation of a Forest Values Typology for Use in National Forest Planning. Forest Science 46: 240-247.Brown T.C., Daniel T.C., 1986. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. Forest Science 32: 471-487.Brunson M.W., 1996. A definition of “social acceptability” in ecosystem management. In Brunson M.W., Kruger L. E., Tyler C.B., Schroeder S.A., (eds.), Defining social acceptability in ecosystem management: A workshop proceedings, USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-369, pp. 7-17.Cantiani M.G., De Meo I., Paletto A., 2013. What do Human Values and Emotions Suggest about Forest Planning? An International Review Focusing on the Alpine Region. International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities 6(1): 228-243.De Meo I., Paletto A., Cantiani M.G., 2015. The attractiveness of forests: preferences and perceptions in a mountain community in Italy. Annals of Forest Research 58: 145-156. DOI: 10.15287/afr.2015.308Densmore N., Parminter J., Stevens V., 2004. Corse woody debris: Inventory, decay modelling, and management implications in three biogeoclimatic zones. Journal of Ecosystems Management 2: 14-29.Di Cosmo L., Gasparini P., Paletto A., Nocetti M., 2013. Deadwood basic density values for national-level carbon stock estimates in Italy. Forest Ecology and Management 295: 51-58. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2013.01.010Duncker P.S., Barreiro S.M., Hengeveld G.M., Lind T., Mason W.L., Ambrozy S., Spiecker H., 2012. Classification of Forest Management Approaches: A New Conceptual Framework and Its Applicability to European Forestry. Ecology and Society 17: 50-66. DOI: 10.5751/ES-05262-170451Edwards D.M., Jay M., Jensen F.S., Lucas B., Marzano M., Montagné C., Peace A., Weiss G., 2012a. Public preferences across Europe for different forest stand types as sites for recreation. Ecology and Society 17: 27-37. DOI: 10.5751/ES-04520-170127Edwards D.M., Jay M., Jensen F.S., Lucas B., Marzano M., Montagné C., Peace A., Weiss G., 2012b. Public preferences for structural attributes of forests: Towards a pan-European perspective. Forest Policy and Economics 19: 12–19. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.07.006European Environment Agency, 2014. Developing a forest naturalness indicator for Europe. Concept and methodology for a high nature value (HNV) forest indicator. EEA Technical report 13/2014, Luxembourg.Everitt B.S., Landau S., Leese M., 2001. Cluster Analysis. Arnold, London.FAO, 2004. Global Forest Resources Assessment Update 2005: Terms and definitions. Working Papers 83/E. Forest Resources Assessment Programme, Rome.Forest Europe, UNECE, FAO, 2011. State of Europe’s Forests 2011. Status and Trends in Sustainable Forest Management in Europe, Oslo.Fridman J., Walheim M., 2000. Amount, structure, and dynamics of dead wood on managed forestland in Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management 131: 23-36. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00208-XGliem J.A., Gliem R.R., 2003. Calculating, Interpreting, and Reporting Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficient for Likert-Type Scales. Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult Continuing and Community Education, pp. 82–88.Golivets M., 2011. Aesthetic Values of Forest Landscapes. Master thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.Gundersen V., Frivold L.H., Myking T., Øyen B.H., 2006. Management of urban recreational woodlands: The case of Norway. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 5: 73-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2006.06.003Hauru K., Koskinen S., Kotze D.J., Lehvävirta S., 2014. The effects of decaying logs on the aesthetic experience and acceptability of urban forests – Implications for forest management. Landscape and Urban Planning 123: 114-123. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.12.014Holub S.M., Spears J.D.H., Lajtha K., 2001. A reanalysis of nutrient dynamics in coniferous coarse woody debris. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31: 1894-1902. DOI: 10.1139/x01-125Jankovska I., Straupe I., Brumelis G., Donis J., Kupfere L., 2014. Urban forests of Riga, Latvia – Pressures, Naturalness, Attitudes and Management. Baltic Forestry 20(2): 342-351.Krankina O.N., Harmon M.E., 1994. The impact of intensive forest management on carbon stores in forest ecosystems. World Resource Review 6: 161-177. Kumar S., Kant S., 2007. Exploded logit modeling of stakeholders’ preferences for multiple forest values. Forest Policy and Economics 9: 516-526. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2006.03.001Manning R., Valliere W., Minteer B., 1999. Values, ethics, and attitudes toward national forest management: an empirical study. Society & Natural Resources 12(5): 421–436. DOI: 10.1080/089419299279515Marage D., Lemperiere G., 2005. The management of snags: A comparison in managed and unmanaged ancient forests of the Southern French Alps. Annals of Forest Science 62: 135-142. DOI: 10.1051/forest:2005005McComb W., Lindenmayer D., 1999. Dying, dead, and down trees. In Hunter M.L. (ed.), Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems, Cambrige University Press, Cambrige, pp. 335-361. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511613029.012Merganičová K., Merganič J., Svoboda M., Bače R., Šebeň V., 2012. Deadwood in forest ecosystems. In Blanco J.A., Lo Y.H. (eds.), Forest Ecosystems – More than Just Trees, InTech Book, pp. 81-108. DOI: 10.5772/31003Nielsen A.B., Olsenb S.B., Lundhede T., 2007. An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landscape and Urban Planning 80: 63-71.DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.06.003Nordén B., Ryberg M., Götmark F., Olausson B., 2004. Relative importance of coarse and fine woody debris for the diversity of wood-inhabiting fungi in temperate broadleaf forests. Biological Conservation 117: 1-10. DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00235-0Paletto A., De Meo I., Cantiani M.G., Maino F., 2013. Social Perceptions and Forest Management Strategies in an Italian Alpine Community. Mountain Research and Development 33(2): 152-160. DOI: 10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-12-00115.1Paletto A., De Meo I., Cantiani P., Ferretti F., 2014. Effects of forest management on the amount of deadwood in Mediterranean oak ecosystems. Annals of Forest Science 71: 791-800. DOI: 10.1007/s13595-014-0377-1Paletto A., Maino F., De Meo I., Ferretti F., 2012. Perception of Forest Values in the Alpine Community of Trentino Region (Italy). Environmental Management 8: 414-422.Paletto A., Tosi V., 2010. Deadwood density variation with decay class in seven tree species of the Italian Alps. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 25: 164-173. DOI: 10.1080/02827581003730773Pastorella F., Paletto A., 2015. Tourists’ perception and preferences regarding deadwood in forest. Conference paper of “Mountain Forest Management in a Changing World”, 7-9 July 2015, High Tatra Mountains, Slovakia. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3545.1289R Core Team, 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 28 May 2015.Radu S., 2006. The ecological role of deadwood in natural forests. Environmental Engineering Science 3: 137-141. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-47229-2_16Radu S., 2007. The ecological role of deadwood in natural forests. In Gafta D., Akeroyd J., (eds.) Nature Conservation: Concepts and Practice, Springer Verlag, Berlin.Rock J., Badeck F.W., Harmon M.E., 2008. Estimating decomposition rate constants for European tree species from literature sources. European Journal of Forest Research 127: 301-313. DOI: 10.1007/s10342-008-0206-xSchaich H., Plieninger T., 2013. Land ownership drives stand structure and carbon storage of deciduous temperate forests. Forest Ecology and Management 305: 146-157. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2013.05.013Stachura K., Bobiec A., Obidzi-ski A., Oklejewicz K., Wolkowycki D., 2007. Old trees and decaying wood in forest ecosystems of Poland, “Old Wood”. A toolkit for participants, Version 07. oldwood.eu.interiowo.pl/OW_07.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2015.Tahvanainen L., Tyrväinen L., Ihalainen M., Vuorela N., Kolehmainen O., 2001. Forest management and public perceptions – visual versus verbal information. Landscape and Urban Plannng 53: 53-70. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00137-7Tarrant M.A., Cordell H.K., 2002. Amenity Values of Public and Private Forests: Examining the Value-Attitude Relationship. Environmental Management 30: 692-703. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-002-2722-7Thomas J.W., 2002. Dead Wood: from Forester’s Bane to Environmental Boon. In Laudenslayer W.F. Jr, Shea P.J., Valentine B.E., Weatherspoon C.P., Lisle T.E. (eds.), Ecology and Management of Deadwood in Western Forests. Reno, NV. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-181, pp. 3-9.Tyrväinen L., Silvennoinen H., Kolehmainen O., 2003. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 1: 135-149. DOI: 10.1078/1618-8667-00014Vallauri D., André J., Blondel J., 2003. Le bois mort, une lacune des forêt gérérs. Revue forestière française 2: 99-112.Verkerk P.J., Mavsar R., Giergiczny M., Lindner M., Edwards D., Schelhaas M.J., 2014. Assessing impacts of intensified biomass production and biodiversity protection on ecosystem services provided by European forests. Ecosystem Services 9: 155-165. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.06.004Vojniković S., Višnjić Ć., Balić B., 2010. Second National Forest Inventory in Bosnia and Herzegovina (2006-2009). Preliminary data. Federalno ministarstvo poljoprivrede, vodoprivrede i šumarstva Ministarstvo poljoprivrede, šumarstva i vodoprivrede Republike Srpske.Weidinger H., 2002. Recreational forest management: Sustainably protecting and improving the recreational function of the Vienna woods. In: Arnberger A., Brandenburg C., Muhar A. (eds.), Conference proceedings “Monitoring and management of visitor flows in recreational and protected areas”, pp. 302-330.
Published
Issue
Section
License
All the papers published in Annals of Forest Research are available under an open access policy (Gratis Gold Open Access Licence), which guaranty the free (of taxes) and unlimited access, for anyone, to entire content of the all published articles. The users are free to “read, copy, distribute, print, search or refers to the full text of these articles”, as long they mention the source.
The other materials (texts, images, graphical elements presented on the Website) are protected by copyright.
The journal exerts a permanent quality check, based on an established protocol for publishing the manuscripts. The potential article to be published are evaluated (peer-review) by members of the Editorial Board or other collaborators with competences on the paper topics. The publishing of manuscript is free of charge, all the costs being supported by Forest Research and Management Institute.
More details about Open Access:
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access
