Stakeholders’ Opinions towards Water-Related Forests Ecosystem Services in Selected Southeast European Countries (Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia and Serbia)

Dijana Vuletić, Silvija Krajter Ostoić, Klára Báliková, Mersudin Avdibegović, Kristina Potočki, Špela Pezdevšek Malovrh, Stjepan Posavec, Srđan Stojnić and Alessandro Paletto
Additional contact information
Dijana Vuletić: Division for International Scientific Cooperation in Southeast Europe (EFISEE), Croatian Forest Research Institute, 10450 Jastrebarsko, Croatia
Silvija Krajter Ostoić: Division for International Scientific Cooperation in Southeast Europe (EFISEE), Croatian Forest Research Institute, 10450 Jastrebarsko, Croatia
Klára Báliková: Department of Forest Economics and Management, Faculty of Forestry, Technical University in Zvolen, 960 01 Zvolen, Slovakia
Mersudin Avdibegović: Faculty of Forestry, University of Sarajevo, Zagrebačka 20, 71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Kristina Potočki: Water Research Department, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
Špela Pezdevšek Malovrh: Department of Forestry and Renewable Forest Resources, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
Stjepan Posavec: Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, University of Zagreb, Svetošimunska cesta 25, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
Srđan Stojnić: Institute of Lowland Forestry and Environment, University of Novi Sad, 381021 Novi Sad, Serbia
Alessandro Paletto: Consiglio Per La Ricerca in Agricoltura E L’analisi dell’economia agraria (CREA), Forestry and Wood Research Centre, 38123 Trento, Italy

Sustainability, 2021, vol. 13, issue 21, 1-16

Abstract: Even though water-related forest ecosystem services are important for forestry and water management sectors, they have different definitions and are regulated differently in each sector, which makes them poorly recognized. How stakeholders from two main sectors (forestry and water management) perceive the importance of water-related forest ecosystem services, the trade-offs between ecosystem services and the effectiveness and implementation of payments schemes related to forest water ecosystem services were our areas of interest. We have conduct surveys with different groups of stakeholders from both sectors in four selected countries (the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia and Serbia) with a lot of similarities and the potential to learn from each other. The results show that in spite of the spotted differences among analyzed countries, there is a high level of agreement among respondents on all investigated aspects. In addition, even though different payment schemes exist in three of four countries, stakeholders are rarely aware of their existence, or it is better to say that they do not recognize them as payment schemes for ecosystem services because of their names and definitions, which do not clearly define ecosystem services. Mostly, they use bundled services and non-voluntary payments and are designed and implemented by the states. Due to the strong role of states and the low transparency in the existing schemes, we looked at possible conditions reflected through stakeholders’ opinions for overcoming that obstacle for the development of new payment schemes. We found that there is a high level of acceptance of payments schemes as more effective than “command and control” schemes and of the involvement of other stakeholders in decision-making processes as those conditions that can positively influence development of new payment schemes in all four countries. These results give us hope that in spite of the strong role of the state in selected countries, the role of stakeholders will be more acknowledged and, by that, the future schemes will be more harmonized among the sectors and their goals and needs, contributing to its effectiveness as well.

Keywords: water-related ecosystem services (WES); stakeholder analysis; questionnaire survey; payments for ecosystem services (PES) (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/21/12001/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/21/12001/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:21:p:12001-:d:668343

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().