Research article

The attractiveness of forests: Preferences and perceptions in a mountain community in Italy

Isabela De Meo , Alessandro Paletto, Maria Giulia Cantiani

Isabela De Meo
Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l’analisi dell’economia agraria - Agrobiology and Pedology Centre (ABP), Piazza ‘d’Azeglio 30, 50121 Firenze, Italy. Email: isabella.demeo@entecra.it
Alessandro Paletto
Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l’analisi dell’economia agraria- Agrobiology and Pedology Centre (ABP), Piazza Monsignor Nicolini6, 38123 Villazzano diTrento, Italy
Maria Giulia Cantiani
Department of Civil, Environmental, and Mechanical Engineering, University of Trento, via di Mesiano 23, 38123 Trento Italy

Online First: February 05, 2015
De Meo, I., Paletto, A., Cantiani, M. 2015. The attractiveness of forests: Preferences and perceptions in a mountain community in Italy. Annals of Forest Research DOI:10.15287/afr.2015.308


The analysis of the perception and preferences of local communities is a fundamental aspect to increase the social sustainability and to reduce the conflicts between forest users. The knowledge of people’s perception of forest resources is important for decision makers, when implementing management strategies and this is particularly relevant in mountainous area, characterized by a strong link between local communities and forest. The paper focuses on the analysis of people’s perception and preferences regarding the recreational value of forests. The research has been carried out by means of a case study, the Municipality of Trento, located in the Centre East sector of the Italian Alps. This area was chosen on the grounds of its geographical location and of the historical links that exist between local communities and forest resources. The sample included 1,000 randomly selected families and the method of investigation used was a structured selfreported questionnaire. The data were processed taking into account the relationship between people’s perception and the main social characteristics of respondents (gender and age); this allowed statistical differences among groups to be highlighted. Forest attractiveness has been investigated considering: (i) forest accessibility, (ii) forest stand characteristics, (iii) visitor facilities and infrastructures. The results show that people prefer the open mixed forests with an irregular structure and some visitor facilities such as paths and refreshment points. Besides, people like to have facilities in the forests, but at the same time would like these forests to be little frequented by other visitors, in order to have a greater feeling of naturalness.


Beierle T. C. 1998. Public Participation in Environmental Decisions: An Evaluation Framework Using Social Goals. Discussion Paper 99-06,WashingtonDC: Resources for the future.

Cantiani M. G., Bettelini D., Mariotta S. 2001. Participatory forest planning: a chance of communication between forest service and local communities. In: Proceedings of the International Conference FAO/ECE/ILO. Forestry meets the Public. Ruttihubelbad, pp 249-263.

Carvalho-Ribeiro S. M., Lovett A. 2011. Is an attractive forest also considered well managed? Public preferences for forest cover and stand structure across a rural/urban gradient in northernPortugal. For Policy Econ, 13: 46-54.

Cheng-Fei L., Hsun-I H., Huery-Ren Y. 2010. Developing an evaluation model for destination attractiveness: sustainable forest recreation tourism in Taiwan. J Sustain Tourism, 18(6): 811-828, 2010. DOI: 10.1080/09669581003690478

De Meo I., Cantiani M. G., Ferretti F., Paletto A. 2011. Stakeholders' Perception as Support for ForestLandscape Planning. Int J Ecol, 1: 1-8. DOI: 10.1155/2011/685708

Deng J., King B., Bauer T. 2002. Evaluating natural attractions for tourism. Ann Tourism Res, 29(2): 422–438. DOI: 10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00068-8

Evans J. 2001. The Forests Handbook: ApplyingForestScience for Sustainable Management.Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd.

FAO, 2001. GlobalForestResources Assessment 2000. Main Report.Rome: FAO Forestry Paper 140.

Grêt-Regamey A., Walz A., Bebi P. 2008. Valuing Ecosystem Services for Sustainable Landscape Planning in Alpine Regions. Mt Res Dev, 28: 156-165. DOI: 10.1659/mrd.0951

Hladnik D., Pirnat J. 2011. Urban forestry – linking naturalness and amenity: the case of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Urban For & Urban Greening, 10(2): 105-112. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug. 2011.02.002

Hu Y., Ritchie J. R. B. 1993. Measuring Destination Attractiveness: A Contextual Approach. J Travel Res, 32(2): 25-34. DOI: 10.1177/004728759303200204

Kangas A., Laukkanen S., Kangas J. 2006. Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management - a review. For Policy Econ, 9: 77-92.

Kangas J, Store R. 2002. Socioecological Landscape Planning: An Approach to Multi-Functional ForestManagement. Silva Fenn, 36(4): 867-871. DOI: 10.14214/sf.527

Kim S. S., Lee C. K., Klenosky D. B. 2003. The influence of push and pull factors at Korean national parks. Tourism Manage, 24: 169-180. DOI: 10.1016/S0261-5177(02)00059-6

Inglehart R. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Laws E. 1995. Tourism destination management: Issues, analysis, and policies.New York: Routledge.

Lewis J. L., Sheppard S. R. J. 2005. Ancient Values, New Challenges: Indigenous Spiritual Perceptions of Landscapes and ForestManagement. Soc Nat Resour, 18: 907-920. DOI: 10.1080/08941920500205533

Luo J., Zheng J. 2008. Ecotourism in nature reserves inChina: current situation, problems and solutions.ForestSc Pract, 10(2): 130-133.

Martin S. 2008. Developing woodlands for tourism: Concepts, connections and challenges. J Sustain Tourism, 16(4): 386-407. DOI: 10.1080/09669580802154181

Mayo E. J., Jarvis L. P. 1981. The psychology of leisure travel: effective marketing and selling of travel service.Boston: CBI Publishing.

Montini A. 2001. The use of questionnaire in the contingent valuation.Torino,Italy: Fabio Nuti, Giappichelli Editore.

Nielsen A. B., Olsenb S. B., Lundhede T. 2007. An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landscape Urban Plan, 80: 63-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.06.003

Nordlund A., Westin K. 2011. Forest values and forest management attitudes among private forest owners in Sweden. Forests, 2: 30-50. DOI: 10.3390/f2010030

Notaro S., Paletto A. 2011. Links between Mountain Communities and Environmental Services in the Italian Alps. Sociol Ruralis, 5: 137-157. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2011.00532.x

Paletto A., Maino F., De Meo I., Ferretti F. 2012a. Perception of forest values in the alpine community of Trentino region (Italy). Environ Manage, 51(2): 414-422. DOI: 10.1007/ s00267-012-9974-7

Paletto A., Ferretti F., Cantiani P., De Meo I. 2012b. Multi-functional approach in forest landscape management planning: an application in Southern Italy. ForestSystems, 21(1): 68-80. DOI: 10.5424/fs/2112211-11066

Pommerening A. 2002. Approaches to quantifying forest structures. Forestry, 75: 305-324. DOI: 10.1093/forestry/75.3.305

Schmithüsen F., Wild-Eck S. 2000. Uses and perceptions of forests by people living in urban areas - findings from selected empirical studies.EurJForestRes, 119: 395-408.

Sheppard S. R. J., Meitner M. 2005. Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups. Forest Ecol Manag, 207: 171-187. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.032

Sewell W. R. D. 1974. Perceptions, attitudes and public participation in countryside management inScotland. J Environ Manage, 2: 235-257.

Smith J. W., Siderelis C., MooreR. L., AndersonD. H. 2012. The effects of place meanings and social capital on desired forest management outcomes: A stated preference experiment. Landscape Urban Plan, 106: 207-218. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.03.009

Stern P. C., Dietz T., Kalof L. 1993. Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern, Environ Behav, 25(5): 322-348. DOI: 10.1177/0013916593255002

Šišák L. 2011.Forestvisitors' opinions on the importance of forest operations, forest functions and sources of their financing. J For Sc, 57: 266-270.

Tahvanainen L., Tyrvainen L., Ihalainen M., Vuorela N., Kolehmainen O. 2011. Forestmanagement and public perceptions – visual versus verbal information. Landscape Urban Plan, 53: 53-70. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00137-7

Tarrant M. A., Cordell H. K., Green G. T. 2003. PVF. A scale to measure public values of forests. JForest, 9:24-30.

Tefera M., Demel T., Hultén H., Yemshaw Y. 2005. The Role of Communities in Closed Area Management in Ethiopia. Mt Res Dev, 25(1): 44-50. DOI: 10.1659/0276-4741(2005)025 [0044:TROCIC]2.0.CO;2

Van Raaij W. F. 1986. Consumer research on tourism: Mental and behavioral constructs. Ann Tourism Res, 13(1): 1-9. DOI: 10.1016/0160-7383(86)90054-X

Vierikko K., Kohl J. 2009. Improving the ecologically sustainable forest management behaviour - qualitative frame analysis for argumentation. Ann. For. Res. 52: 169-1

Vincent J. R., Binkley C. S. 1993. Efficient Multiple Use Forestry may require Land-Use specialization. Land Econ, 69(4): 370-376. DOI: 10.2307/3146454


No Supplimentary Material available for this article.
No metrics available for this article.

Related Articles

Related Authors

 



In Google Scholar

In Annals of Forest Research

In Google Scholar

 
  • Isabela De Meo
  • Alessandro Paletto
  • Maria Giulia Cantiani
  • Isabela De Meo
  • Alessandro Paletto
  • Maria Giulia Cantiani