Forest functions and abiotic threats in private forests: conclusions from an empirical analysis of stakeholder opinions


public forest functions
timber production
weather phenomena
abiotic damage
social research

How to Cite

Wysocka-Fijorek, Emilia, Piotr Gołos, Wojciech Gil, Małgorzata Sułkowska, and Vasyl Mohytych. 2022. “Forest Functions and Abiotic Threats in Private Forests: Conclusions from an Empirical Analysis of Stakeholder Opinions”. Economics and Environment 82 (3): 342-60.


The study aimed to recognise the preferences of various stakeholder groups representing three regions of Poland towards the most important forest ecosystem services and to determine the threats to performing these functions resulting from the occurrence of extreme weather phenomena. The study was based on surveys conducted in 2019 among various stakeholders in three regions of Poland. The respondents assigned a point weight value to each of the seven indicated forest functions and reported the occurrence of extreme weather events causing damage to forests owned or supervised by them. The survey results indicate that for all stakeholders, the most important function of the forest is timber production. However, respondents from the southern region paid more attention to water protection through forests than respondents from other regions.



Abildtrup, J., Stenger, A., de Morogues, F., Polomé, P., Blondet, M., & Michel, C. (2021). Biodiversity Protection in Private Forests: PES Schemes, Institutions and Prosocial Behavior. Forests, 12, 1241. https://

Biber, P., Felton, A., Nieuwenhuis, M., Lindbladh, M., Black ,K., Bahýl’, J., Bingöl, Ö., Borges, J.G., Botequim, B., Brukas, V., Bugalho, M. N., Corradini, G., Eriksson, L.O., Forsell, N., Hengeveld, G.M., Hoogstra-Klein, M. A., Kadıoǧulları, A. İ., Karahalil, U., Lodin, I., Lundholm, A., Makrickienė, E., Masiero, M., Mozgeris, G., Pivoriūnas, N., Poschenrieder, W., Pretzsch, H., Sedmák, R., Tuček, J. (2020). Forest Biodiversity, Carbon Sequestration, and Wood Production: Modeling Synergies and Trade-Offs for Ten Forest Landscapes Across Europe. Frontiers Ecology and Evolution, 8: 547696. https://doi: 10.3389/fevo.2020.547696

Bieling, C. (2004). Non-industrial private-forest owners: possibilities for increasing adoption of close-to-nature forest management. European Journal of Forest Research 123, 293-303.

Bjärstig, T., & Kvastegård, E. (2016). Forest social values in a Swedish rural context: The private forest owners’ perspective. Forest Policy and Economics, Volume 65, 17-24.

Bončina, A., Simončič, T., & Rosset, Ch. (2019). Assessment of the concept of forest functions in Central European forestry. Environmental Science and Policy, 99, 123-135.

Engel, S., Pagiola, S., & Wunder, S. (2008). Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecol. Econ. 65, 663-674.

European Commission. (2020). EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Bringing Nature Back into Our Lives. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2020) 380 Final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium.

European Commission. (2021). Forging a Climate-Resilient Europe-the New EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2021) 82 Final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium.

European Commission. (2021). New EU Forest Strategy for 2030. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2021) 572 Final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium.

Favada, I. M., Karppinen, H., Kuuluvainen, J., Mikkola, J., & Stavness, C. (2009). Effects of Timber Prices, Ownership Objectives, and Owner Characteristics on Timber Supply. Forest Science, Volume 55, Issue 6, December, 512–523.

Felipe-Lucia, M.R., Soliveres, S., Penone, C. et al. (2018). Multiple forest attributes underpin the supply of multiple ecosystem services. Nature Communications 9, 4839.

Gołos, P. (2018). Społeczne i ekonomiczne aspekty pozaprodukcyjne funkcji lasu i gospodarki leśnej – wyników badań opinii społecznej. Prace i Monografie Instytutu Badawczego Leśnictwa 22, ISBN: 978-83-62830-68-8, Sękocin Stary.

Gołos, P., Ukalska, J., Wysocka-Fijorek, E., & Gil W. (2021). How Much Is the Abandonment of Forest Management in Private Forests Worth? A Case of Poland. Forests, 12(9), 1138.

Górriz-Mifsud, E., Donazar, L. O., Eseverri, E. M., & Govigli, V. M. (2019). The challenges of coordinating forest owners for joint management. Forest Policy and Economics, 99, 100-109.

Hanewinkel, M., Cullmann, D., Schelhaas, MJ. et al. (2013). Climate change may cause severe loss in the economic value of European forest land. Nature Clim Change 3, 203–207.

Häyhä, T., Franzese, P.P., Paletto, A., & Fath, B.D. (2015). Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests. Ecosystem Services 14, 12-23. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.03.001

Joa, B., & Schraml, U. (2020). Conservation practiced by private forest owners in South-west Germany – The role of values, perceptions and local forest knowledge. Forest Policy and Economics, 115, 102141.

Kindler, E. (2016). A comparison of the concepts: Ecosystem services and forest functions to improve interdisciplinary exchange. Forest Policy and Economics.

Kuuluvainen, J., Karppinen, H., & Ovaskainen, V. (1996). Landowner Objectives and Nonindustrial Private Timber Supply, Forest Science, 42, 3, 300-309.

Maes, J., Liquete, C., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Paracchini, M.L., Barredo, J.I., Grizzetti, B., Cardoso, A., Somma, F., Petersen, J.E., Meiner, A., Gelabert, E.R., Zal, N., Kristensen, P., Bastrup-Birk, A., Biala, K., Piroddi, C., Egoh, B., Degeorges, P., Fiorina, C., Santos-Martín, F., Naruševičius, V., Verboven, J., Pereira, H.M., Bengtsson, J., Gocheva, K., Marta-Pedroso, C., Snäll, T., Estreguil, C., San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., Pérez-Soba, M., Grêt-Regamey, A., Lillebø, A.I., Malak, D.A., Condé, S., Moen, J., Czúcz, B., Drakou, E.G., Zulian, G., & Lavalle, C. (2016). An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. About the journal Ecosystem Services 17, 14-23.

Mayer, A.L. (2019). Family forest owners and landscape-scale interactions: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning 188, 4–18.

Miura, S. , Amacher, M., Hofer, T., San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., & Thackway, E. R. (2015). Protective functions and ecosystem services of global forests in the past quarter-century. Forest Ecology and Management 352, 35-46.

Nordlund, A., & Westin, K. (2010). Forest values and forest management attitudes among private forest owners in Sweden. Forests 2, 30-50.

Petucco, C., Abildtrup, J., & Stenger-Letheux, A. (2015). Influences of nonindustrial private forest landowners’ management priorities on the timber harvest decision – A case study in France. J. For. Econ., 21, 152-166.

Pregernig, M. (2001). Values of Forestry Professionals and its Implications for the Applicability of Policy Instruments. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 16, 3, 278-288.

R Core Team. (2020). The R Project for Statistical Computing.

Schenk, A., Hunziker, M., & Kienast, F. (2007). Factors influencing the acceptance of nature conservation measures – A qualitative study in Switzerland. Journal of Environental Management, 83, 1, 66-79.

Selter, A., Hartebrodt, C., Brandl, H., & Herbohn, J. (2009). A Critical Comparison of Typologies of Small-Scale Forestry in Baden-Württemberg Derived Using Single and Multiple Criteria. Small-scale Forestry 8, 25-42.

Serbruyns, I., & Luyssaert, S. (2006). Acceptance of sticks, carrots and sermons as policy instruments for directing private forest management. Forest Policy and Economics, 9, 3, 285-296.

Sheremet, O., Ruokamo, E., Juutinen, A., Svento, R., & Hanley, N. (2018). Incentivising Participation and Spatial Coordination in Payment for Ecosystem Service Schemes: Forest Disease Control Programs in Finland. Ecological Economics, 152, 260-272.

Sorice, M.G., Kreuter, U.P., Wilcox, B.P., & Fox, W.E. (2014). Changing landowners, changing ecosystem? Land-ownership motivations as drivers of land management practices. Journal of Environmental Management 133, 144-152.

Sourdril, A. E., Cabanettes, A., Elyakime, B., & Ladet, S. (2012). How to maintain domesticity ofusages in small rural forests? Lessons from forest management continuity through a French case study. Ecology and Society 17 (2): 6.

Spathelf, P., van der Maaten, E., van der Maaten-Theunissen, M. et al. (2014). Climate change impacts in European forests: the expert views of local observers. Annals of Forest Science 71, 131–137.

Stanislovaitis, A., Brukas, V., Kavaliauskas, M., & Mozgeris, G. (2015). Forest owner is more than her goal: a qualitative typology of Lithuanian owners. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 30:1–14.

Thorsen, B.J., & Wunder, S. (2014). Executive overview. In B. J. Thorsen, R. Mavsar, L. Tyrväinen, et al. (Eds.) The provision of forest ecosystem services, volume I: Quantifying and valuing non-marketed ecosystem services. European Forest Institute.

Veenman, S., & Liefferink, D. (2009). Bas Arts, A short history of Dutch forest policy: The ‘de-institutionalisation’ of a policy arrangement, Forest Policy and Economics, 11, 3, 202-208.

Weiss, G., Ramcilovic-Suominen, S., & Mavsar, R. (2011). Financing mechanisms for forest ecosystem services in Europe and their implications for forest governance. Allgemeine Forst - und Jagdzeitung 182, 61-69.

Wiersum, K. F., Elands, B.M., & Hoogstra, M. (2005). Small-scale forest ownership across Europe: Characteristics and future potential. Small-Scale For. 4, 1-19.

Wysocka-Fijorek, E. (2014). Społeczne, prawne i ekonomiczne aspekty rozwoju gospodarki leśnej w lasach prywatnych. Zeszyty Naukowe Szkoły Głównej Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego w Warszawie Problemy Rolnictwa Światowego 14(XXIX), 3, 216-225.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2022 Ekonomia i Środowisko - Economics and Environment


Download data is not yet available.