[ Log In | Register]
! Skip Navigation Links
Skip Navigation Links
Image of Journal of Applied Nonlinear Dynamics
ISSN:2325-6192 (print)
ISSN:2325-6206 (online)
Journal of Environmental Accounting and Management
António Mendes Lopes (editor), Jiazhong Zhang(editor)
António Mendes Lopes (editor)

University of Porto, Portugal

Email: aml@fe.up.pt

Jiazhong Zhang (editor)

School of Energy and Power Engineering, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi Province 710049, China

Fax: +86 29 82668723 Email: jzzhang@mail.xjtu.edu.cn

Social Demand for Ecosystem Services Provided by Peri-Urban Forests: the Case Study of the Tlemcen Forest (Algeria)

Journal of Environmental Accounting and Management 9(1) (2021) 19--29 | DOI:10.5890/JEAM.2021.03.003

Larabi Fadila$^1$, Berrichi Mohamed$^1$, Paletto Alessandro$^2$

$^{1}$ Laboratory of Water Conservatory Management Soil and Forest, Faculty of Sciences of Nature and Life, University of Tlemcen, Tlemcen, Algeria

$^{2}$ Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l'analisi dell'economia agraria (CREA), Research Centre Forestry and Wood, Trento (Italy)

Download Full Text PDF

 

Abstract

Recently, many studies have highlighted the role of urban and peri-urban forests in mitigating environmental pollution and maintaining human quality of life by integrating the concepts of ecosystem services into forest management strategy. To increase the social acceptance and to reduce the conflicts between users, citizens' preferences towards ecosystem services should be included in the decision-making process. In the present study, a structured questionnaire was administered to a sample of 180 citizens and 50 forest managers of the Tlemcen peri-urban forest (Algeria). The collected data was processed to show convergent and different preferences between forest managers and citizens towards the main categories of ecosystem services -- provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services -- provided by the Tlemcen peri-urban forest. The results show that for both groups of respondents the three most important ecosystem services are: tourism and recreation (cultural services), soil erosion protection (regulating services), and biodiversity conservation (supporting services). Conversely, provisioning services (wood and non-wood forest products) are considered marginal by the two groups of respondents. These results are in line with international literature, which highlights in post-modern society an increase in importance of intrinsic values of nature at the expense of instrumental values.

References

  1. [1] Babali, B., Bouazza, M., and Merzouk, A. (2018), La diversit\{e} v\{e}g\{e}tale de la for\^{e}t de Moutas -- Tlemcen, Revue Ecologie-Environnement, 14, 27-31.
  2. [2] Bar\{o}, F., Chaparro, L., G\{o}mez-Baggethun, E., Langemeyer, J., Nowak, D.J., and Terradas, J. (2014), Contribution of Ecosystem Services to Air Quality and Climate Change Mitigation Policies: The Case of Urban Forests in Barcelona, Spain, Ambio, 43, 466-479.
  3. [3] Bencherif, K. and Bellifa, M. (2017), The expected impact of climate change on forest species composition in the national park of Tlemcen-Algeria, Agriculture and Forestry Journal, 1, 79-88.
  4. [4] Bengston, D.N. (1994), Changing forest values and ecosystem management, Society & Natural Resources, 7, 515--533.
  5. [5] Bertram, C. and Rehdanz, K. (2015), Preferences for cultural urban ecosystem services: Comparing attitudes, perception, and use, Ecosystem Services, 12, 187-199.
  6. [6] Blazevska, A., Miceva, K., Stojanova, B. and Stojanovska, M. (2012), Perception of the Local Population Toward Urban Forests in Municipality of Aerodrom, South-East European Forests, 3, 87-96.
  7. [7] Bolund, P. and Hunhammar, S. (1999), Ecosystem services in urban areas, Ecological Economics, 29, 293-301.
  8. [8] Brang, P., Spathelf, P., Larsen, J.B., Bauhus, J., Bon\c{c}ina, A., Chauvin, C., Dr\"{o}ssler, L., Garcia-G\"{u}emes, C., Heiri, C., Kerr, G., Lexer, J.M., Mason, B., Mohren, F., M\"{u}hlethaler, U., Nocentini, S. and Svoboda, M. (2014), Suitability of close-to-nature silviculture for adapting temperate European forests to climate change, Forestry, 87, 492-503.
  9. [9] Carreiro, M.M. and Zipperer, W.C. (2008), Urban Forestry and the Eco-City: Today and Tomorrow, In: Carreiro, M.M., Song Y.C., and Wu, J. (eds.), Ecology, Planning, and Management of Urban Forests International Perspectives, Springer, New York, pp. 435-456.
  10. [10] Casado-Arzuaga, I., Madariaga, I., and Onaindia, M. (2013), Perception, demand and user contribution to ecosystem services in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt, Journal of Environmental Management, 129, 33-43.
  11. [11] Clemente, P., Calvache, M.F., Antunes, P., and Santos, R. (2015), Mapping stakeholders perception on ecosystem services provision within the Portuguese Southwest Alentejo and Vincentine Coast Natural Park. In: 8th Congresso sobre Planeamento e Gest\~{a}o das Zonas Costeiras dos Pa\{\i}ses de Express\~{a}o Portuguesa, Aveiro, Oct 14--16, 2015: pp. 1-15.
  12. [12] \c{C}olak, A.H., Rotherham, I.D., and \c{C}alikoglu, M. (2003), Combining `Naturalness Concepts with Close-to-Nature Silviculture, Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt, 122, 421-431.
  13. [13] Costanza, R., dArge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., and et al. (1997), The value of the worlds ecosystem services and natural capital, Nature, 387, 253--260.
  14. [14] Daily, G.C. (1997), Natures Services. Island Press, Washington, DC.
  15. [15] De Meo, I., Cantiani, M.G., Ferretti, F., and Paletto, A. (2011), Stakeholders perception as support for forest landscape planning, International Journal of Ecology, 1, 1-8.
  16. [16] De Meo, I., Cantiani, M.G., Ferretti, F., and Paletto, A. (2018), Qualitative Assessment of Forest Ecosystem Services: The Stakeholders Point of View in Support of Landscape Planning, Forests, 9, 465.
  17. [17] Dearborn, D.C. and Kark, S. (2010), Motivations for Conserving Urban Biodiversity, Conservation Biology, 24, 432-440.
  18. [18] Dobbs, C., Escobedo, F.J. and Zipperer W.C. (2011), A framework for developing urban forest ecosystem services and goods indicators, Landscape and Urban Planning, 99, 196-206.
  19. [19] Dob\v{s}insk\{a}, Z. and Sarva\v{s}ov\{a}, Z. (2016), Perceptions of forest owners and the general public on the role of forests in Slovakia, Acta Silvatica {$\&$ Lignaria Hungarica}, 12, 23--33.
  20. [20] Grilli, G., Jonkisz, J., Ciolli, M., and Lesinski, J. (2016), Mixed forests and ecosystem services: Investigating stakeholders perceptions in a case study in the Polish Carpathians, Forest Policy and Economics, 66, 11-17.
  21. [21] H\"{a}yh\"{a}, T. and Franzese, P.P. (2014), Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective, Ecological Modelling, 289, 124-132.
  22. [22] H\"{a}yh\"{a}, T., Franzese, P.P., Paletto, A., and Faath, B.D. (2015), Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests, Ecosystem Services, 14, 12-23.
  23. [23] Inglehart, R. (1977), The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
  24. [24] Jankovska, I., Straupe, I., Brumelis, G., Donis, J., and Kupfere, L. (2014), Urban forests of Tiga, Latvia -pressures, naturalness, attitudes and management, Baltic Forestry, 20, 342--351.
  25. [25] Jim, C.Y., and Chen, W.Y. (2009), Ecosystem services and valuation of urban forests in China, Cites, 26, 187-194.
  26. [26] J{\o}rgensen, S.E., (2010). Ecosystem services, sustainability and thermodynamic indicators, Ecological Complexity, 7, 311--313.
  27. [27] Kim, G., Miller, P.A., and Nowak, D.J. (2015), Assessing urban vacant land ecosystem services: Urban vacant land as green infrastructure in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, Urban Forestry {$\&$ Urban Greening}, 14, 519-526.
  28. [28] Konijnendijk, C.C., Ricard, R.M., Kenney, A., and Randrup, T.B. (2006), Defining urban forestry- A comparative perspective of North America and Europe, Urban Forestry {$\&$ Urban Greening}, 4, 93-103.
  29. [29] Kruskal, W.H., and Wallis, W.A. (1952), Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47, 583-621.
  30. [30] Lee, H., and Lautenbach, S. (2016), A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services, Ecological Indicators, 66, 340-351.
  31. [31] Likert, R. (1932), A technique for the measurement of attitudes, Archives of Psychology, 22, 1-55.
  32. [32] Maire, M., Qarro, M., Segur, M., Robert, N., Gouriveau, F., Malvar, M.E., Mart\{\i}nez, S.M., and Sfeir, P.R. (2018), Participation: a pillar of sustainable forest management in the Mediterranean. FAO and Plan Bleu (eds.), State of Mediterranean forest 2018, FAO, Rome, pp. 196-215.
  33. [33] Mann, H.B. and Whitney, D.R. (1947), On a Test of Whether one of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger than the Other, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18, 50-60.
  34. [34] MEA (2005), Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis, World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA.
  35. [35] Nikodinoska, N., Paletto, A., Franzese, P.P., and Jonasson, C. (2015), Valuation of Ecosystem Services in Protected Areas: The Case of the Abisko National Park (Sweden), Journal of Environmental Accounting and Management, 3, 355-369.
  36. [36] Nikodinoska, N., Paletto, A., Pastorella, F., Granvik, M., and Franzese, P.P. (2018), Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden), Ecological Modelling, 368, 411-424.
  37. [37] Notaro, S. and Paletto, A. (2012), The economic valuation of natural hazards in mountain forests: An approach based on the replacement cost method, Journal of Forest Economics, 18, 318-328.
  38. [38] Paletto, A., Giacovelli, G., and Pastorella, F. (2017), Stakeholders opinions and expectations for the forest-based sector: a regional case study in Italy, International Forestry Review, 19, 68-78.
  39. [39] Paletto, A., Giacovelli, G., Grilli, G., Balest, J., and De Meo, I. (2014), Stakeholders preferences and the assessment of forest ecosystem services: a comparative analysis in Italy, Journal of Forest Science, 60, 472-483.
  40. [40] Pelyukh, O., Zahvoyska, L., Maksymiv, L., and Paletto, A. (2019). Stakeholders interests and roles in the context of secondary Norway forest conversion: Ukrainian Carpathians case study, Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Bra\c{sov}, 12, 59-62.
  41. [41] Rosenblatt, P.C. (2012), One Interviewer Versus Several: Modernist and Postmodernist Perspectives in Qualitative Family Interviewing, Journal of Family Theory {$\&$ Review}, 4, 96-104.
  42. [42] Sanesi, G. and Chiarello, F. (2006), Residents and urban green spaces: The case of Bari, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 4, 125-134.
  43. [43] Schmeer, K. (2001), Stakeholder Analysis Guidelines, Governance and Leadership, Health Systems 20/20, USAid.
  44. [44] Sherrouse, B.C., Clement, J.M., and Semmens, D.J. (2011), A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services, Applied Geography, 31, 748-760.
  45. [45] TEEB (2010), A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature. UNEP, Geneva.
  46. [46] UK NEA (2011), The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the key findings. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge.
  47. [47] Valbuena, P., Aissaoui, O., and Segur, M. (2014), Establishing a Model Forest in the Tlemcen region, Algeria, Unasylva, 242, 32-39.
  48. [48] Vallecillo, S., La Notte, A., Ferrini, S., and Maes, J. (2019), How ecosystem services are changing: an accounting application at the EU level, Ecosystem Services, 40, 101044.
  49. [49] Van Herzele, A., De Clercq, E.M., and Wiedemann, T. (2005), Strategic planning for new woodlands in the urban periphery: through the lens of social inclusiveness, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 3, 177-188.
  50. [50] Varvasovszky, Z. and Brugha, R. (2000), A stakeholder analysis, Health Policy and Planning, 15, 338-345.
  51. [51] Yoshimura, N. and Hiura, T. (2017), Demand and supply of cultural ecosystem services: Use of geotagged photos to map the aesthetic value of landscapes in Hokkaido, Ecosystem Services, 24, 68-78.

Copyright © 2011-2024 L & H Scientific Publishing. All rights reserved. Wildcard SSL Certificates