Public Preferences Across Europe for Different Forest Stand Types as Sites for Recreation

被引:150
作者
Edwards, David M. [1 ]
Jay, Marion [2 ]
Jensen, Frank S. [3 ]
Lucas, Beatriz [4 ]
Marzano, Mariella [1 ]
Montagne, Claire [5 ]
Peace, Andrew [1 ]
Weiss, Gerhard [6 ,7 ]
机构
[1] Forest Res, Farnham, Surrey, England
[2] Univ Freiburg, Inst Forest & Environm Policy, Freiburg, Germany
[3] Univ Copenhagen, Fac Life Sci, DK-1168 Copenhagen, Denmark
[4] CTFC, Solsona, Lleida, Spain
[5] UMR INRA AgroParisTech ENGREF, Lab Econ Forestiere, Paris, France
[6] EFICEEC, Cent East European Reg Off, Suceava, Romania
[7] Univ Nat Resources & Life Sci BOKU, Vienna, Austria
关键词
Delphi; Europe; forest management; public preference; recreation; structural attribute;
D O I
10.5751/ES-04520-170127
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
A Delphi survey involving experts in forest preference research was carried out to derive scores for the recreational value of 240 forest stand types across Europe. The survey was organized around four regional panels: Great Britain, Nordic Region, Central Europe, and Iberia. In each region, 60 forest stand types were defined according to five forest management alternatives (FMAs) on a continuum of management intensity, four phases of development (establishment, young, medium, and adult), and three tree species types (conifer, broadleaved, and mixed stands of conifer and broadleaved). The resulting scores were examined using conjoint analysis to determine the relative importance of the three structural attributes (FMA, phase of development, and tree species type), and each level or component of the attributes. The findings quantify the extent to which forest visitors prefer a degree of management to unmanaged forest nature reserves across the four regions. Phase of development was shown to make the highest contribution to the recreational value of forests while the contribution of tree species type was shown to be relatively unimportant. While the results are indicative, they provide evidence to support long-term retention and low-impact silviculture in forests where recreation is a primary objective of management.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]   Conjoint analysis for environmental evaluation a review of methods and applications [J].
Alriksson, Stina ;
Oberg, Tomas .
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH, 2008, 15 (03) :244-257
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1984, RM256 USDA FOR SERV
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2008, SAS/STAT 9.2 user's guide
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2002, The Delphi Method
[5]   How many people should be in the urban forest? A comparison of trail preferences of Vienna and Sapporo forest visitor segments [J].
Arnberger, Arne ;
Aikoh, Tetsuya ;
Eder, Renate ;
Shoji, Yasushi ;
Mieno, Taro .
URBAN FORESTRY & URBAN GREENING, 2010, 9 (03) :215-225
[6]   PUBLIC RESPONSE TO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN VISUALLY DISTINGUISHABLE FOREST STANDS IN A RECREATION AREA [J].
AXELSSONLINDGREN, C ;
SORTE, G .
LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING, 1987, 14 (03) :211-217
[7]   Predicting scenic beauty of forest stands in Catalonia (North-east Spain) [J].
Blasco E. ;
González-Olabarria J.R. ;
Rodriguéz-Veiga P. ;
Pukkala T. ;
Kolehmainen O. ;
Palahí M. .
Journal of Forestry Research, 2009, 20 (1) :73-78
[8]  
Duncker P. H., ECOLOGY SOC IN PRESS
[9]  
Edwards D, 2010, D233 EFORWOOD
[10]  
Edwards D, 2010, D236 EFORWOOD