Advertisement

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

  • Lyudmyla ZahvoyskaEmail author
  • Tetyana Bas
Chapter
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Ecosystem Service Stakeholder Group Contingent Valuation Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Forest Industry 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 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):4601–4614Google Scholar
  2. 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, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyd J, Banzaf S (2006) What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. RFF Discussing papers. WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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 387:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daly H, Farley J (2004) Ecological economics. Principles and applications. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  7. 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, LvivGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Hanemann M (1991) Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ? Am Econ Rev 81(3):635–647Google Scholar
  10. Hanley N, Spash C (1998) Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  11. Hausman J (1993) Contingent valuation: a critical assessment. North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  12. 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, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  13. 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):215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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):579–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kearney A, Bradley G, Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1999) Stakeholder perspectives on appropriate forest management in the Pacific Northwest. For Sci 45(1):62–73Google Scholar
  16. 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, FlorenceGoogle Scholar
  17. Meadows D (2008) Thinking in systems: a primer. Chelsea Green Publishing, VermontGoogle Scholar
  18. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Synthesis Report http://www.greenfacts.org/en/ecosystems/figtableboxes/map-forest.htm. Accessed 31 July 2011
  19. Newbold P, Carlson WL, Thorne B (2003) Statistics for business and economics, 5th edn. Pearson Education, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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, FlorenceGoogle Scholar
  23. Podolchak M, Zahvoyska L (2005) Ecological-economic valuation of landscapes. Sci Bull USUFWT 15(1):270–273Google Scholar
  24. Portney PR (1994) The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care. J Econ Perspect 8:3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rozhko I (2000) Recreational assessment of natural tourist complexes for tourists needs. Case of the Ukrainian Carpathians. Dissertation, Ivan Franko Lviv National UniversityGoogle Scholar
  26. Stephenson W (1963) Independency and operationism in Q-sorting. Psychol Rec 13:269–272Google Scholar
  27. 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, JoensuuGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 2007Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Ecological EconomicsUkrainian National Forestry UniversityLvivUkraine

Personalised recommendations