prilagođeno pretraživanje po punom tekstu

ŠUMARSKI LIST 5-6/2016 str. 21     <-- 21 -->        PDF

Sommerville, M. M., Jones, J. P.G., Milner-Gulland, E. J., 2009: A revised conceptual framework for payments for environmental services. Ecology and Society 14(2): 34 [online] URL:
Stevanov, M., Dobšinská, Z., Surový, P., 2015: Assessing survey-based research in forest science: Turning lemons into lemonade? Forest Policy and Economics, in press, doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2015.07.004
Tarnaj, I., 2012: Opet kroje funkcioniranje šumarstva (OKFŠ). Šumarski list 136(3-4): 189-190, Zagreb
Tišma, S., Pisarović, A., Farkaš, A., 2002: Ekološko i ekonomsko vrednovanje šuma u Republici Hrvatskoj. Metoda cost-benefit analize. Socijalna ekologija 11(1-2): 115-131, Zagreb
Tomašević, A., 1979: Na pragu stoljeća rada na pošumljavanju i melioraciji krša. Šumarski list 103(1-3): 11-24Torkar, G., Verlič, A., Vilhar, U., 2014: Importance of forest ecosystem services to secondary school students: a case from the North-West Slovenia. SEEFOR 5(1): 35-43, Zagreb
Uredništvo Šumarskog lista, 2011: Na kraju 2011. Godine – međunarodne godine šuma. Šumarski list 135(11-12): 541-541, Zagreb
Uredništvo Šumarskog lista, 2013: Šumarstvo sa i bez naknade za općekorisne funkcije šuma. Šumarski list 137(5-6): 277-277, Zagreb
Vukadinović, N., 2014: Parafiskalni nameti i dalje su ubojice malaksalih poduzetnika. Glas Slavonije, 24.11.2014. Dostupno na, pristupljeno 10.1.2016.
Vuletić, D., 2002: Metode vrednovanja cjelovitog učinka turističkih irekreacijskih usluga šuma za otok Korčulu kao pilot objekt. Disertacija, Šumarski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, str. 337, Zagreb
Vuletić, D., Vondra, V., Szirovicza, L., Paladinić, E., 2006: Rezultati ispitivanja sklonosti turista za boravak u šumi i odnos prema ekološkim i socijalnim uslugama šuma. Radovi Šumarkog instituta Jastrebarsko 41 (1–2): 83–90, Jastrebarsko
Vuletić, D., Krajter, S., Mrazek, M., Ćorić, A., 2009: Nedrvni šumski proizvodi i usluge – koristimo li ih dovoljno? Šumarki list 133(3-4): 175-184, Zagreb
Vuletić, D., Posavec, S., Krajter, S., Paladinić, E., 2010: Payments for Environmental Services (PES) in Croatia – Public and Professional Perception and Needs for Adaptation. SEEFOR 1(2): 61-66, Zagreb
Vuletić, D., Krajter, S., Vlainić, O., 2011: Pregled stavova lokalnog stanovništva i korisnika o nedrvnim proizvodima i uslugama šuma. Šumarski list 135(13): 222-229, Zagreb
Wendland, K.J., Honzák, M., Portela, R., Rubinoff, S., Randrianarisoa, J., 2009: Targeting and implementing payments for ecosystem services: Opportunities for bundling biodiversity conservation with carbon and water services in Madagascar. Ecological Economics. 69: 2093-2107
Zbinden, S., Lee, D.R., 2004: Paying for environmental services: An analysis of participation in Costa Rica’s PSA programme. World Development 33(2): 255 – 272
Ecosystem services including forest ecosystem services are hot topic globally among scientists and practitioners for decades. In Croatia there is a long tradition of discussing forest ecosystem services in terms of how to systemise them, assess and value, as well as how to secure payment for their provision. However, literature review showed discrepancy between scientific and professional production and importance of this topic for forestry sector in Croatia. This is especially a fact when it comes to research related to citizen perceptions and attitudes and whether they are informed about the topic. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to analyse the role of information in better understanding of the topic with the assumption that being informed leads to better understanding of the topic. Survey questionnaire was applied on the sample of three student populations of the University of Zagreb – Faculty of Forestry (FoF), Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture (FMENA) and Centre for Croatian Studies (CCS) (Table 1). The hypothesis was made that respondents from FoF would have better understanding of the topic since they are more informed through their study programme in comparison to respondents from other two faculties. The sample was purposeful and convenient at the same time, and included 247 respondents. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for statistical data analysis that included Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric tests beside descriptive statistics. Results showed that respondents from FoF in their own opinion were more informed about the topic of forest ecosystem services and payment for ecosystem services in comparison to respondents from other faculties (Figures 1 and 2). However, questions concerning their actual knowledge on the topic showed that even them had problems with recognising forest ecosystem services and purposes of the payment for forest ecosystem services (Tables 2 and 4). However, there was always statistically significant difference in answers between respondents from FoF and other two faculties (Table 3). When asked about who has the obligation to pay for forest ecosystem services respondents provided various answers, while only 29.2% of respondents from FoF, 9.9% of respondents from FMENA and 15.2% of respondents from CCS provided correct answer to this question (Figure 3). Similarly respondents were asked about the institution responsible for distribution of resources collected as payment for forest ecosystem services. Correct answer was given only by 41.5% of respondents from FoF, 26.8% from FMENA and 19.7% from CCS (Figure 4). Furthermore, respondents