Recreation as an ecosystem service in open landscapes in the Mediterranean region in Israel: Public preferences

This article was downloaded by: [Le Moyne College]On: 09 October 2014, At: 15:36Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Israel Journal of Ecology &EvolutionPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tiee20

Recreation as an ecosystemservice in open landscapes in theMediterranean region in Israel:Public preferencesGili Koniak a , Efrat Sheffer a & Imanuel Noy-Meir aa Institute of Plant Sciences, The Robert H. Smith Faculty ofAgriculture, Food, and Environment, The Hebrew Universityof Jerusalem, Rehovot 76100, IsraelPublished online: 14 Mar 2013.

To cite this article: Gili Koniak , Efrat Sheffer & Imanuel Noy-Meir (2011) Recreation asan ecosystem service in open landscapes in the Mediterranean region in Israel: Publicpreferences, Israel Journal of Ecology & Evolution, 57:1-2, 151-171, DOI: 10.1560/IJEE.57.1-2.151

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1560/IJEE.57.1-2.151

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tiee20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1560/IJEE.57.1-2.151

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1560/IJEE.57.1-2.151

http://dx.doi.org/10.1560/IJEE.57.1-2.151

Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

5:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

ISRAEL JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, Vol. 57, 2011, pp. 151–17110.1560/IJEE.57.1-2.151

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]✡Deceased.Received 6 October 2010; accepted 1 June 2011.

RecReation as an ecosystem seRvice in open landscapes in the mediteRRanean Region in isRael: public pRefeRences

Gili KoniaK,* Efrat ShEffEr, and imanuEl noy-mEir✡

Institute of Plant Sciences, The Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture, Food, and Environment, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot 76100, Israel

AbSTRACT

In recent years awareness has increased of the importance of open landscapes (natural and semi-natural) for human use, including provision of life-support-ing ecological benefits and services. In addition there has been an increase in awareness and demand for recreational activities in nature: cultural, social, sport, and spiritual activities outside of the urban setting. A partial list of all of the environmental benefits or services could add up to dozens of economical, biological, and social benefits. Social benefits such as recreation are just one component of the spectrum of benefits and services that can be derived from natural systems.

In this research we assessed the ecosystem service of recreation in a natu-ral setting in the Mediterranean region in Israel. We focused on two specific benefits: picnics and hikes. We assessed recreationers’ preferences using questionnaire-based surveys that were carried out directly at the research site, Ramat Hanadiv Park (RH park), while people were conducting the particular activity (picnic or hike). The research aim was to estimate the preferences of hikers and picnickers for different types of natural vegetation formations. We found that visitors preferred to hike in the open garrigue compared to either the dense scrub or the pine forest, whereas for picnics both the open garrigue and the planted pine forest were preferred over the dense scrub. We tested the attractiveness of each component of the landscape (e.g., trees, flowers, animals, archaeology) for hikers and picnickers. Surveys showed that scenery was highly and unanimously ranked. Flowering plants, birds, native trees, and to some extent gazelles, deer, and butterflies were ranked high, while reptiles, beetles, and cattle received a much lower attractiveness rank. The ranking of archeological sites and pine forest was more variable, and intermediate to the two main groups above. We analyzed these preferences according to different age and population distributions of visitors to the park and found only slight effects of the level of education.

The answers from this research can facilitate land managers and deci-sion-makers in providing the ecosystem service of recreation, and to guide management for obtaining the desired vegetation formations for this aim, according to the preferences of hikers and picnickers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

5:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4

152 G. KONIAK ET AL. Isr. J. Ecol. Evol.

Keywords: ecological benefits; ecosystem-based management; life-support-ing systems; multiple benefits use; recreation; open spaces.

INTRODUCTION

Humans have used natural systems throughout history to obtain various goods and services. In the past natural resources were considered infinite and freely available, due to the small and dispersed populations of humans, and low individual levels of consumption of resources, thus resulting in low levels of damage to nature and a small ecological footprint. This situation changed in the last hundred years due to the high rate of population growth and high individual consumption levels, leading to significant ecological damage to the natural environment by humans. The new ecological conse-quences, coupled with social and cultural changes, caused massive exploitation of natu-ral resources, destruction and degradation of the natural system, species extinctions, and climate change (Lubchenco et al., 1991; MEA, 2005).

Today there is an increasing recognition of the life-supporting services and benefits that the natural systems provide for human existence and use, including all the direct and indirect benefits and services. A partial list of the environmental benefits or services that may be obtained from any natural system may add up to dozens of different benefits (for further details see Costanza et al., 1997; Merlo and Briales, 2000; de Groot et al., 2002; Croitoru and Merlo, 2005). These services and benefits may be categorized according to a number of approaches. The categorization approach of the Millennium Ecosystem As-sessment (MEA, 2005) of ecosystem services relies on provision of products and goods such as pasture, wood, honey, water, and fuel; regulatory services such as regulation of diseases, floods, and cycling of natural materials such as carbon and nitrogen cycling; and social services in nature such as recreation, sport, spiritual, educational, and cultural activities. Other studies (e.g., de Groot et al., 2002; de Groot, 2006; Koniak et al., 2009) use a different division of services: economic benefits, which include all of the com-mercial products that have a market value such as wood, honey, and herbs; biological benefits, including environmental and biological benefits such as penetration of water to the aquifer, carbon fixation, and maintenance of diversity; social services, including all of the social, cultural, sport, spiritual, and educational activities and services that may be obtained by direct use of, or inspiration from, nature. Some benefits may be included in more than one category. For example, water may be considered an environmental benefit; however, it is possible, albeit not precisely, to estimate its monetary or bio-logical value. There are benefits that will be categorized differently in different regions: mushrooms as a forest product will be considered an economic benefit in Europe i.e., they are a commercial product with a market and value, while in Israel, since there is no market for wild mushrooms and they cannot be gathered on a commercial scale, this benefit would be more relevant as a social benefit in the framework of forest hikes for gathering mushrooms.

In order to fully enjoy environmental benefits there is a need for management of the natural systems for optimal and sustainable provision of such ecological services (de

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

5:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4

VOL. 57, 2011 PUbLIC PREFERENCES FOR RECREATION IN OPEN LANDSCAPE 153

Groot, 2006). In the past, Mediterranean ecosystems provided all of the above services freely to humans who lived in the environment, via management actions that were com-mon in this region as part of the basic-traditional way of life. Today, as a result of socio-logical and cultural changes, the traditional way of life has been replaced by the modern way of life, and Man’s activities in natural systems have changed. Figure 1 describes a conceptual model that links the dynamics of the natural vegetation, the benefits that can be obtained from natural landscapes, and the management that affects vegetation dy-namics in a directional way in order to obtain the desired benefits. Based on this model, traditional activities can serve as a tool for management of the natural system (Perevo-lotsky and Seligman, 1998) in order to obtain a specific vegetation formation (Koniak et al., 2010), according to the benefits that are desired from the land.

Natural landscapes in Israel are rare, and support a wide range of needs for human society. Human activity has affected the natural system around the Mediterranean basin via grazing, logging, fire, and agriculture for thousands of years (Barbero et al., 1990; Perevolotsky and Seligman, 1998; Pausas, 1999; Arabatzis and Kyriazopoulos, 2010). The long history of these anthropogenic disturbances created a heterogeneous landscape, characterized by vegetation patches in a diverse mosaic of different stages of secondary succession (Perevolotsky and Seligman, 1998). Koniak and Noy-Meir (2009) developed a dynamic model based on a state-and-transition model (Westoby et al., 1989), shown in Fig. 2. This model considers vegetation dynamics, and includes effects of different natural (e.g., fire) and human (e.g., grazing, logging) disturbances on the vegetation in the Mediterranean region in Israel.

In the present and especially for the future, there is a need to develop a strategy for

Fig. 1. A conceptual model of the interactions between management, vegetation, and ecosystem service. Adapted from Koniak et al. (2010).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

5:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4


cautious and rational management of the remaining natural landscapes and resources (Naveh, 1978; Costanza et al., 1997; Possingham et al., 2001; Farber et al., 2002; Pe-terson et al., 2003). Rational management is oriented to achieve the desired aims for the land in the best and most sustainable way, based on an understanding of the interac-tion between all the system components, as described in Fig. 2. The need for rational management is important in any natural system, and particularly imperative in Mediter-ranean ecosystems around the world, since they are included among the biodiversity hot-spots (Myers et al., 2000) and at the same time highly threatened due to human activities including large-scale development. The situation is particularly critical in Israel, one of the most population-dense developed countries in the world, with a population density of 305 individuals per square kilometer in 2005 and an average population growth rate of 3.9% since its establishment in 1948. In the northern part of the country, the popula-tion density is even higher, in particular near larger cities. For example, the population density in the Central Region is 1275 individuals per square kilometer (Chalichal et al., 2006).

In recent years, a number of studies were conducted to evaluate ecosystem services and different benefits from open landscapes. Koniak et al. (2009) measured three envi-ronmental benefits in their physical context. Arabatzis and Kyriazopoulos (2010) con-ducted a survey to estimate the importance of natural pastures for quality of life of the residents, as natural areas that sustain and provide many benefits. A number of studies estimated the public’s preferences for natural landscapes (Tahvanainen et al., 2001; Hen-kin et al., 2004, 2007; Aminzadeh and Ghorashi, 2007; Junker and Buchecker, 2008). Similarly, economic studies were conducted to estimate the economic value of specific

Fig. 2. States (boxes) and transitions (arrows) model for Mediterranean scrub forest vegetation in northern Israel, specifically on southern Mt. Carmel. Adapted from Koniak and Noy-Meir (2009).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

5:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4


benefits using different methods from environmental economics, such as Willingness To Pay (WTP), Contingent Valuation Method (CVM), and Travel Cost Method (TCM) (Nielsen et al., 2007; brandolini, 2009), and estimates of the demand curve for land-scapes (Fleischer and Tsur, 2000, 2003; Tchetchik and Fleischer, in press).

In this study, we focused on services related to human recreation and in particular two benefits: picnics and hiking. The research aim was to estimate the preferences of hikers and picnickers for differing vegetative landscapes: do they prefer to hike in a closed scrub landscape or in a more open garrigue landscape? Perhaps they prefer the shade of the pine trees? Do they prefer to have their picnics in a closed scrub landscape or in a more open garrigue landscape? What is the level of attractiveness of different landscape components (e.g., trees, flowers, animals, archaeology) for hikers and picnickers? If land managers intend for the public to use the specific land for picnics and hiking, the answers to these questions can guide management to obtain the desired vegetation formation in accordance with visitors’ preferences, aided by management tools that are available to the land manager, for example grazing, fire, and logging (Fig. 2).

Two research methods are customary in this field: the first is a verbal survey and the second is a visual evaluation, which may include visits in nature, presentation of photo-graphs, and presentation of photographs edited in graphics software. Tahvanainen et al. (2001) support the visual research method, in contrast to just a verbal survey, and claim that the results are closer to visitors’ actual preferences via this method. In our study we conducted a survey in RH park itself, wherein the respondents were in the middle of their particular recreational activity (picnic or hike), that is, they were “in the picture”, so to speak.

RESEARCH METHODS

The study area was in RH park at the southern tip of Mt. Carmel in northern Israel (32°30¢ N, 34°57¢ E, 120 m a.s.l., 600 mm annual rainfall). The vegetation is an East-ern Mediterranean garrigue, with a fine-grained mosaic of shrubs and trees (mainly Phillyrea latifolia L., Pistacia lentiscus L., Rhamnus lycioides L., and Calycotome vil-losa (Poiret) Link) of various sizes and heights, dwarf shrubs (mainly Sarcopoterium spinosum (L.) Spach.), herbaceous patches (mostly annuals), and exposed rock (Perevo-lotsky et al., 2003).

Two surveys were conducted: (1) a hikers’ survey, which was conducted along one of the trails of the park while survey respondents were in the middle of a hike. (2) a picnic survey, which was conducted in an area with wooden picnic tables (KKL-JNF tables), while respondents were having their picnic. Each survey was carried out twice, on two different dates.

HIKERS’ lAndSCAPE PREFEREnCES SURvEyA questionnaire was constructed to define hikers’ preferences (see Appendix). On

Yom Ha’atzma’ut (Israeli Independence Day 7/5/03; hereafter “Independence Day”) and on the second day of Rosh Hashana (Jewish New Year 28/9/03; hereafter ‘“New

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

5:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4


Year”), a survey and refreshment stand was set up at RH park next to the “Israel Trail”, about 300 m from “Gan Hanadiv” (the focal garden at the site) and the parking area. At this location there is an observation point located in close proximity to three vegeta-tion formations: open garrigue (shrub patches of 0.5–1.5 m height between herbaceous patches), closed scrub (high shrubs and trees >1.5 m height), and a planted forest of Pinus pinea L. The survey stand was active between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., the peak hours of recreational activity in the park. We presented the questionnaire to people who passed along the trail and asked them to fill them out independently in situ, asking for assistance when necessary.

PICnICKERS’ lAndSCAPE PREFEREnCES SURvEyOn two consecutive Saturdays in the spring of 2004, a new picnic area was opened

especially for the purposes of this study, with the assistance of the park management and staff. The picnic area was set up in the “barrier area” at RH park, about 80–160 m north of the central access road to Gan Hanadiv. In this area there is natural vegetation with two plant formation types: (1) open park scrub and (2) dense scrub. In 1992 shrubs in this area (S. spinosum, C. villosa, P. lentiscus) were mowed and removed, while trees and tall shrubs of P. latifolia were retained, in order to prepare it as a barrier area for prevention of spread of fires. This area has been subject to high grazing pressure by cattle for two weeks a year since 1992. The open scrub was mowed again in 2002 while the dense scrub was not, and subsequently was almost completely enclosed. In this area there are some isolated pine trees. Preparations were made for use by picnickers, including installation of rubbish bins, signs directing towards “recreation in the heart of nature”, a car park, and setting up of 15 wooden picnic tables (KKL-JNF (Jewish Na-tional Fund) tables). The tables were located in the area in a way that maintained high variation in environmental characteristics which may affect the way picnickers choose where to have their picnic (accessibility, shade, surrounding vegetation). A questionnaire of picnickers’ preferences (Appendix) was compiled and presented to people who sat down at the tables to relax. We asked them to fill out the questionnaires independently in situ, asking for assistance when necessary. Within each group of people that sat down next to a table there were a few who filled out the questionnaire.

Survey information was collected at two different locations in the park, at two differ-ent times, in order to determine whether there are differences in preference due to time and the type of activity, hike or picnic. Figure 3 presents the distribution of plant cover at the two sites in which the surveys were conducted. In each questionnaire the same basic questions were asked. In each questionnaire specific questions with a similar com-parative base were added, so that some of the statistical analyses dealt with each survey separately, while others combined both surveys. We conducted the statistical analyses with SPSS and JMP. We conducted a Cronbach’s alpha test to test the reliability of the combined database for the core (relevant) questions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

5:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4


RESULTS

HIKERS’ SURvEy

1. Composition of population sampleThe population composition, combining both Independence Day and New Year re-

spondents (n = 112), was: 63% men, 37% women; 64% urban residents, 36% rural resi-dents; 37% residents of the surrounding area and 63% residents from outside the area. There was a wide age distribution, although only a few of the respondents were younger than 10 or older than 70. Only 19% of respondents were visiting RH park for the first time; 19% were members of an environmental organization; 64% defined themselves as having tertiary education.

2. Characterization of hikers’ behaviorTo the question “What is the aim of your hike?” 61% of the respondents chose to

answer only “to spend time in nature”, while the others chose one of the other three alternatives as well as, or instead of, this answer. 82% responded that they usually go on hikes with family and/or friends. 70% answered that they go hiking once a week or once a month. 46% answered that they go hiking only on trails, in contrast to 54% who some-times go hiking off the trails. There were no significant differences between genders in all of these questions, which were intended to characterize hikers’ behavior.

3. Preferences and ranking of landscapes for hiking and picnicsTo the question, “between the groups of landscapes presented to you, which land-

scape would most likely entice you to leave the trail?” 49% said they would leave the trail for the low open garrigue with herbaceous patches, 36% for the pine forest, and only 15% for the high closed scrub. There were no significant differences between genders.

PICnICKERS’ SURvEy

1. Composition of population sampleThe population composition, combining both survey dates respondents (n = 59), was

40% men, 60% women; 58% urban residents, 42% rural residents; 29% residents of

Fig. 3. Distribution of vegetation cover among plant functional type in the open garrigue and dense scrub of the study area. Adapted from Koniak et al. (2009)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

5:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4


the surrounding area, 71% residents from outside the area. There was a wide age dis-tribution. Only 25% of respondents were visiting RH park for the first time; 22% were members of an environmental organization; 73% defined themselves as having tertiary education.

2. Characterization of picnickers’ behaviorTo the question “Why did you come here for a picnic?” 72% of respondents chose to

answer only “to spend time in nature” while 28% chose to answer “social/family gather-ing”, with no significant differences between dates. 71% go out mainly with family in contrast to 48% with friends. For all these questions, there were no significant differ-ences between genders.

CombInEd RESUlTS oF THE Two SURvEyS And EFFECT oF SoCIoEConomIC And dEmogRAPHIC vARIAblES

The total number of respondents to the two surveys across the four different survey dates was 171. We tested the consistency of responses comparing the four days of survey with the Cronbach’s alpha test in order to examine the reliability of the entire database for the analysis of the core questions (those relevant to us). We received a value of α = 0.743, which indicates that the surveys are consistent and enabled us to combine all surveys. When we examined the differences in visitors’ preferences for open landscape, closed landscape, or the planted pine forest for a hike or picnic, according to socioeco-nomic and demographic variables, we found no significant difference for the following characteristics: gender of respondent, residential zone of respondent (urban/rural), whether or not this was the first visit to RH park, membership in an environmental organization. Level of education was the only socio-economical variable for which we found different preferences for some of the questions. Level of education did not affect the preference to hike or picnic in open or closed landscapes. Visitors with academic education showed a significantly lower ranking for hiking or picnicking in pine forests (Table 1, t-test F = 8.8, p = 0.0035 and F = 6.316, p = 0.0131 respectively in a compari-son of all visitors >18 years old with academic vs lower education levels).

Table 1Average rank values and standard deviations for hiking and picnics in different vegetation forma-tions, divided according to visitor level of education: academic or non-academic primary, second-ary or tertiary levels of education. The analysis was conducted on a subset of the survey containing

only respondents older than 18 years

Preference Hiking PicnicLevel of n Open Dense Pine** Open Dense Pine *education

Non- 53 8.321 ± 0.29 6.943 ± 0.33 7.906 ± 0.32 8.151 ± 0.35 6.615 ± 0.36 8.096 ± 0.33academicAcademic 90 7.902 ± 0.22 6.967 ± 0.25 6.696 ± 0.25 7.315 ± 0.26 6.511 ± 0.27 7.056 ± 0.25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

5:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4


PREFEREnCES And RAnKIng oF lAndSCAPES FoR HIKIng And PICnICSIn one of the questions, respondents were asked to give a rank of 1–10 to each of three

vegetation formations for hiking (Fig. 4A) and picnics (Fig. 4b). The average rank for hiking that was given to open garrigue (8.03) was significantly higher than hiking in the dense scrub (7.13, paired samples test t = 5.372, p < 0.001) or in the pine forest (6.77, paired samples test t = 3.501, p = 0.001). For picnics, different results were obtained: a high rank was given to having a picnic in the open garrigue (7.59) and the planted pine forest (7.54), while a significantly lower rank was given to the dense scrub (6.3, paired samples test t = 5.372, p < 0.001).

RAnKIng oF THE ImPoRTAnCE oF “ATTRACTIonS” FoR RECREATIonWhen the public venture into nature there are many potential “animal”, “vegetable”,

and “mineral” attractions. The survey respondents were asked to rank, on a scale of 1–10, to what extent they want to see various attractions when they are out in nature (Fig. 5). The highest rank was given to the scenery, to which nearly all respondents attached very high importance (9.12 on average). Among the different components of the vegetation, in general the highest ranks were given to flowering plants (mostly low herbaceous vegetation) and native trees (8.98 and 8.56, respectively, paired samples test t = 2.775, p = 0.006), while the (planted) pine forest received a significantly lower (but more variable) rank (7.18, paired samples test t = 8.105 and t = 7.269 respectively, p < 0.001). Among the groups of animals, the highest importance rankings were given to birds (8.46), gazelles and deer (8.28), and butterflies (7.89). In contrast, lizards, beetles,

Fig. 4. Mean and standard error for ranks (0–10) given by respondents at Ramat Hanadiv (N = 171) to different plant functional types for (A) hiking in nature, and (b) having picnics in nature. Open—open vegetation (dwarf to low shrubs, garigue), pine forest, closed—dense closed veg-etation with tall shrubs and trees. Different letter indicate significant differences according to a post-hoc test analysis.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

5:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4


and cattle received significantly lower (and more variable) average rankings (5.36, 5.7, and 5.76, respectively). Archaeological artifacts along the hiking trail received a particu-larly high rank (7.58), albeit lower than some of the natural components.

CoRRElATIon bETwEEn dIFFEREnT ATTRACTIonSWe tested the correlation between rankings of the different attractions by all of the

respondents to the two surveys at all survey dates (N = 171) (Table 2). Strong positive correlations were found between the following attractions: (1) flowers with butterflies, birds, beetles, native trees, and scenery; (2) deer and gazelles with beetles, archaeo-logical artifacts, and native trees; (3) birds with butterflies, native trees, pine forest, and scenery; (4) butterflies with beetles, cattle, native trees, and scenery; (5) beetles with cattle and archaeological artifacts; 6) cattle with artifacts and pine forest; (7) archaeo-logical artifacts with native trees, scenery, and pine forest; (8) native trees with pine forest and scenery; (9) pine forest with scenery (Table 2).

vISIToR PREFEREnCES ACCoRdIng To THE FREqUEnCy oF nATURE vISITSIn the two surveys we asked the respondents if they spend time in nature more or

less than four times a year. 146 responded that they spend time in nature more than four times a year, while only 23 responded that they spend time in nature less than four

Fig. 5. Mean and standard error for ranks (1–10) given by respondents at Ramat Hanadiv Park (N = 171) for different attractions in answer to the question “Which attraction is important for you to see when you are in nature—flowers, deer and gazelles, birds, butterflies, lizards, beetles, cattle, archaeological artifacts, native trees, planted pine forest, scenery?”. Different letter indicate significant differences according to a post-hoc test analysis.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

5:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4


Tabl

e 2

Sim

ilarit

y m

atrix

, exp

ress

ed b

y co

rrel

atio

n co

effic

ient

, bet

wee

n th

e ra

nks (

1–10

) of d

iffer

ent a

ttrac

tions

for r

ecre

atio

n at

Ram

at H

anad

iv P

ark

(N =

171

) in

answ

er to

the

ques

tion

“Whi

ch a

ttrac

tion

is im

porta

nt fo

r you

to se

e w

hen

you

are

in n

atur

e—flo

wer

s, de

er a

nd g

azel

les,

bird

s, bu

tterfl

ies,

lizar

ds, b

eetle

s, ca

ttle,

arc

haeo

logi

cal a

rtifa

cts,

nativ

e tre

es,

pine

fore

st, s

cene

ry?”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

5:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4


times a year (we must remember that although the survey was conducted on special days of the year, when in the Israeli culture it is very common to do outdoor activities, it was still carried out in nature, so there was a lower likelihood of finding respondents who spend less time in nature). High frequency of nature visits was correlated only to demographic attributes of sex and residency place, which seem to be of slight relevance to this analysis and didn’t have a significant effect on the hike and picnic preferences of respondents. We examined preferences for specific vegetation formation for hiking and picnics and for attractions, according to the frequency of spending time in nature. In the statistical analysis we received some interesting results: in nearly all cases (at-tractions and preferences for vegetation formation for hiking and picnics) there was no significant difference between frequencies of spending time in nature. The only case in which there was a difference between those who spend time in nature more than four times a year compared to those who venture out less frequently, was the preference for archaeological artifacts (p = 0.013). We found that people who spend less time in nature have a significantly greater preference for archaeological artifacts compared to people who visit nature more frequently. An almost significant result (p = 0.094) was found for the preference for planted pine forests, wherein people who visit nature less frequently have a higher preference for seeing pine forests during their visit compared to those who visit nature more frequently.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

In recent years there is a growing awareness of the importance of natural and semi-natu-ral areas for human use, including provision of various benefits and services from these areas (Arabatzis and Kyriazopoulos, 2010). Together with awareness of the environ-mental benefits there is increased awareness of the importance of recreational activities in nature, and a growing demand for such activities. In Israel there are several organiza-tions dealing with management of natural and semi-natural areas that function as nature parks, rangeland, and planted forests. The different organizations that manage these ar-eas (e.g., KKL-JNF, the Nature and Parks Authority, RH park) are aware of the increase in demand and interest in open landscapes, and have even taken upon themselves the aim of managing parts of the open landscapes under their jurisdiction for the benefit of the public. As such, these organizations aim at managing their land according to the desires and needs of the public. Several surveys of preferences of hikers and nature visitors have been conducted in Israel for management purposes; however, little has been published in the scientific literature (e.g., Becker and Choresh, 2007).

Around the world many studies have estimated preferences of the public in relation to landscapes and recreation. Such studies use research methods based on questionnaires with a number of possible landscape scenarios, described by pictures (Junker and bu-checker, 2008; Tahvanainen et al., 2001). Tahvanainen et al. (2001) found that studies which used visual surveys give clearer results compared to just a verbal questionnaire. In our study we used the most direct research methodology possible, wherein all of the respondents were in the middle of their recreational activity. In other words, the survey

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

5:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4


was conducted during direct use and enjoyment of the landscape, wherein the respon-dents can see the possible vegetation formation to which the survey refers and can feel its effect on them through multiple senses and not just by eyesight. We may assume that the methodology used in this study provided more accurate and clear results compared to simply showing the respondents various pictures. There are two disadvantages to this method: the first is in being able to find opportunities to question the visitors in several physical (i.e., real) landscape scenarios simultaneously. The study area in RH park en-abled us to find several physical locations in which it is possible to simultaneously see and experience different states of the ecosystem, due to different management practices being carried out in adjacent areas. The second disadvantage of the methodology is relat-ed to the fact that the survey includes only people present in the park, thus representing the preferences of people that are disposed to these activities. As a consequence of the later disadvantage, such an in-situ survey is less appropriate for testing the preferences of the general public and, for example, is less likely to help management in attracting more people to the park. Furthermore, we chose to conduct the surveys on slightly atypi-cal days (Independence Day and New Year holidays) because on such days there is a higher probability of finding a variety of people that chose to come and hike in the park. The choice of these days may bias the results compared to surveys of the general public outside the park or extensive surveys throughout the year within the park.

It was interesting to discover that differences in socioeconomic and demographic variables had little effect on respondents’ answers. Similarly, in nearly all instances, the frequency of nature visits had no significant effect. The main differences we found were for a higher preference for hiking and picnics in planted pine forests for people with a low level of education, and a high preference for archaeological artifacts (significant) and planted pine forests (marginally significant) among people who venture out into nature less frequently. Since we have shown that survey respondents represent the entire range of the socioeconomic and demographic variables, the fact that there are no sig-nificant correlations between most of these variables and visitors preferences indicates that the different preferences which arose from this survey are probably related to the individual personality of each visitor. It would be interesting to continue this study from a sociological perspective, and to investigate specifically the differences which were found in relation to the preference for pine forests and archaeological artifacts.

When the public venture into the heart of nature there are many potential “animal”, “vegetable”, and “mineral” attractions. In this study we found varying attitudes to the different attractions that might be seen in nature in the Mediterranean region of Israel. There are attractions about which there is almost no argument, i.e., the statistical varia-tion in respondents’ attitudes was low. For example, we may say that all visitors want to observe the various landscapes in the region (scenery), flowers,and native trees (in this order). This result conforms to a previous study that was conducted on public prefer-ences for developmental characteristics of forests (becker and Choresh, 2007), which also found that respondents gave the highest ranking to scenery. In contrast, there are biological groups which received a relatively low preference ranking, however, with relatively high variation (e.g., insects, reptiles, and cattle). Highly variable ranking can

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

5:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4


result for instance if one group of respondents gave a low ranking, probably because they are deterred from such animals while hiking (expression of fear of encountering such animals), compared to another group that gave them notably high values (as an ad-ditional and interesting facet of the natural world).

The strong positive correlations that were found between attractions may have logical explanations that may be given to some of these associations. For example, it is logical to find a strong association between flowers and butterflies, for which there is also a bio-logical association (pollination and hosting). Furthermore, there is a simple sociological explanation based on the fact that both of these groups are considered by visitors as native attractions which are aesthetically pleasing, and not dangerous or scary. Another strong association which can be logically explained is the association between beetles and lizards. These groups may be considered by some sectors of the public as unique, attractive, and interesting animals, while other sectors of the public may consider these groups as scary or threatening. These results indicate different preferences among the different visitors. We found a high variability in the ranking of attractions that received lower average ranks. This means that there are visitors who are highly interested in these relatively low ranked attractions. Our findings suggest that in order to answer all visitors’ interests, management should aim at preserving not only at the highly ranked attractions, but all attractions.

We found that people prefer to hike in more open natural landscapes than in planted pine forests or dense scrub (Fig. 4A). The average rank given for hiking in the open gar-rigue landscape was significantly higher than for hiking in a densely vegetated landscape or pine forest, which received lower rankings. Vegetation formation preference was also examined when we asked hikers, “Among the landscapes that you see before you, which landscape would entice you to leave the trail?” This result is interesting and shows that the social service provided by the dense and developed Mediterranean vegetation (advanced successional stages) for hiking, is the lowest among the vegetation formations. Although this is not an innovative finding, it is important since it contradicts the natural succesional development of the landscape towards this vegetation formation. If one of the aims of the park is to provide hiking opportunities, active management would be required to arrest successional encroachment of the scrub and maintain the open garigue. Alternatively, hik-ing trails through the dense scrub can increase the appeal and use of this vegetation forma-tion by hikers. In such case, active management is needed to form the trails and maintain them. Student surveys that we conducted in similar landscapes showed that for hiking in dense vegetation there is a preference to hike on a trail, while in open landscapes (e.g., open scrub, sparse trees, and planted pine forest) there was no preference for a trail.

Questions relating to picnickers’ preferences show a slightly different trend: people prefer to have picnics in open areas or in pine forests more than in the densely vegetated area. For picnics, the well-developed and dense vegetation form (late-successional) also received the lowest rank. This relatively high preference for picnics in pine forests, com-pared to hikes, is important. We believe that there are several reasons for this preference. First, there is the simple physical explanation: the pine forest offers more open areas for having a picnic in the comfort of the shade provided by the trees (Schiller, 2001).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

5:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4


In addition, we believe that there is also a socio-cultural connection that is specifically appropriate to the cultural and human history of the State of Israel. Planted pine forests have existed in Israel for nearly 100 years and they are developed for public use, with permanent car parks, picnic tables (KKL-JNF tables), and additional facilities; it is pos-sible that the public is accustomed to, or has been made accustomed to having picnics in such areas, thus this vegetation form received a high rank for picnicking compared to hiking. On the other hand, the high preference for the open garrigue may reflect a public appeal to the diversity of formations found in the open vegetation (e.g., with patches of herbaceous flowering meadows, medium densities of small to large shrubs, and interspersed trees). Future research should also examine whether people prefer a more diverse park which combines several vegetation types. Our findings show that although there was a preference for the open landscapes, all three vegetation formations received relatively high scores both for hiking and for picnicking. Hence, management that aims at pleasing the public should manage the landscape in a way that preserves all different vegetation formations.

In a study conducted in Denmark, Nielsen et al. (2007) asked how much money (tax-es) people would be willing to pay in order to preserve different types of forests. They found that people preferred to pay more money for a mixed forest of broad-leaved and coniferous trees, slightly less for broad-leaved species alone, and gave the lowest rank-ing to conifers alone. Similarly, they were willing to pay a high sum of money for a for-est of varying height compared to a forest of uniform height. Tahvanainen et al. (2001) found that there is a preference for recreation in native forest. Junker and buchecker (2008) conducted a study on preferences for river bank restoration and landscapes and found that people prefer native landscapes. All these results are similar to our results. It would be interesting to continue the study and examine other forest types in Israel which were not assessed in the current study, e.g., the mixed forest of conifers and broad-leaved species. This forest type has become widespread with time in Israel, due to biological processes of establishment of native broad-leaved species within planted conifer forests, and conversely, the spread of pine species into areas with native broad-leaved vegetation (Lavi et al., 2005; Osem et al., 2010).

Incorporating public preferences into management decisions is complex, especially when ecosystem management aims at accomplishing many goals at the same time. The vision and goals of Ramat Hanadiv’s park management, for example, is to create sustain-able interactions between man, nature, and the environment while serving as a nature area that provides opportunities for recreation, hiking, education, and research. Manag-ing for public use can be even more complex, because of the difficulties of assessing public preferences. Simplistic approaches to management for public use rely on struc-tural analysis of landscape features and their suitability for recreation, or on landscape planning based on the managers’ assumptions of public preference without actually testing it. The results we presented here provide an accurate assessment of such prefer-ences for the actual users. The surveys that were conducted in the current study point to a high potential for recreation—hiking and picnics—in the natural areas of RH park, in particular in the open herbaceous garrigue areas. We assume that in order to fulfill this

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

5:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4


potential in some parts of the park, there is a need for active management. Managing the park for visitors requires an investment in developing access trails, installation of tables, shaping of the tall Phillyrea latifolia shrub canopy in order to create accessible shade for picnics, preparation of scenic observation points and accessibility to groups of animals that are attractive to the public. We must notice that the picnickers’ preferences survey was conducted during the peak flowering season; it is possible that in a different season during which the herbaceous area is not in full bloom respondents’ preferences would change. Similarly, since the surveys were conducted in spring and autumn we can expect some change in preferences in warmer or colder seasons. If the managers want to have a complete picture of the appropriateness and value of such an area for picnics, they need to conduct such surveys throughout the year, following the changes in the natural landscape and climate conditions from one season to the next.

In light of diminishing open landscapes and high exploitation of natural resources in the world and specifically in Israel, great importance must be placed on multi-benefit use of natural systems for several different purposes (Naveh, 1978; Merlo and briales, 2000; de Groot, 2006). The combination of several benefits and services with different characteristics and units of measure is complex and non-trivial. Several studies have grappled with this complex problem (e.g., Howell, 1981; Stirn, 1990; Standiford and Howitt, 1993; Kuusipalo and Kangas, 1994; Tecle et al., 1995; Kochli and brang, 2005; 2006; Reyers et al., 2009). Koniak et al. (2010) assessed the potential “benefits basket” at RH park. In their study they examined the “benefits basket” of six benefits at the small scale (1 m2); three environmental benefits (Koniak et al., 2009); and three economic benefits. This study did not include social benefits since social benefits, such as hik-ing or picnics, can be measured only at the larger (landscape) scale. Ecosystem-based management approaches aiming at providing social, ecological, and economic benefits is even more complicated and requires a combination of approaches, study disciplines, and spatial scales of analysis and management. A holistic approach does not always help landscape managers, who usually break the system into its components, e.g., landscape patches or vegetation formations. In our survey we chose to decompose the RH park system into its vegetation formations and “attractiveness” features to increase the man-agers’ knowledge of what people are most attracted to. This approach can be taken a step further, for example by testing what is it in each vegetation formation (specific species, microclimate, shade, visibility, light, smells) that makes it more or less attractive for picnics or hiking. An interesting continuation of the current study could combine social benefits with environmental and economic services from the native ecosystem, to assess the total “benefits basket” at the park level.

One of the most complex aspects of multi-benefit management is to find ways to incorporate many ecosystem features using appropriate management tools when some-times the features or tools necessary for accomplishing one goal contradict other goals. In RH park open garigue and wild flowers were highly preferred by the visitors, while cattle—which is used as a management tool to open the scrub and increase flower rich-ness (Hadar et al., 1999)—received a very low rank of attractiveness. Koniak et al. (2010) also found a contradiction between the types of vegetation that provide different

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

5:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4


benefits. Dense garigue provided a high value of carbon retention but was associated with low values of geophyte density and honey flowers compared to more open vegeta-tion formations. Multi-benefit management, then, should take into consideration such contradictions and find ways to reconcile them.

Multi-benefit management of the benefits basket is of high importance in areas with low presence of natural spaces and high pressure for different uses of such areas. Such integrated management requires management directed towards natural ecosystem ser-vices for public use (Fig. 1) (Possingham et al., 2001; de Groot, 2006; Koniak et al., 2010). The current study presents a clear link between vegetation formations in the natu-ral system and their value for recreational services. This link indicates the possibility of managing natural areas for high value to hikers and picnickers.

This study was conducted in the research area of RH park in Israel; however, the results can point to trends in public preferences for all of the Mediterranean region in Israel. Our results highlight the contribution and importance, in the public eye, of dif-ferent landscape components (e.g., trees, flowers, animals) for the attractiveness of the area for hiking and picnics. If land managers want a wide public to use the natural areas under their jurisdiction for recreational purposes, they must manage the areas accord-ingly, preserving all landscape formations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to Avi Perevolotsky for his help, advice, and guidance, to Jaime Kigel for his advice and support, to Assaf Levi for his help in the statistical analysis, and to the Ramat Hanadiv Park team for their help in the field. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Nekudat Hen Fund (2003–2004).

REFERENCES

Aminzadeh, B., Ghorashi, S. 2007. Scenic landscape quality and recreational activities in natural forest parks, Iran. Int. J. Environ. Res. 1: 5–13.

Arabatzis, G., Kyriazopoulos, A. 2010. Contribution of rangelands in quality of life. The case of the Viotia Prefecture, Greece. J. Environ. Prot. Ecol. 11: 733–745.

Barbero, M., Bonin, G., Loisel, R., Quezel, P. 1990. Changes and disturbances of forest ecosys-tems caused by human activities in the western part of the Mediterranean basin. Vegetatio 87: 151–173

becker, N., Choresh, Y. 2007. Economic valuation of nature recreation: estimating the biria forest value using the Travel Cost Method. Forest 9: 27–34 (in Hebrew).

brandolini, S.M.D. 2009. Recreational demand functions for different categories of beach visitor. Tourism Economics 15: 339–365.

Chalichal, A., Platiel, A., Gurovich, N. 2006. Demographic situation in Israel—2005. Central bu-reau of Statistics, Israel. http://www.cbs.gov.il/ishuvim/demographic_report.pdf (in Hebrew).

Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., deGroot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., Oneill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, RG., Sutton, P., vandenbelt, M. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260

Croitoru, L., Merlo, M. 2005. Mediterranean Forest value. In: Merlo, M., Croitoru, L., eds. Valu-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

5:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4


ing Mediterranean forests toward total economic value. CAbI, Cambridge, UK, pp. 37–68.de Groot, R. 2006. Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in plan-

ning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan. 75: 175–186.de Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M.J. 2002. A typology for the classification, descrip-

tion and valuation of ecosystem function, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 41: 393–408.Farber, S.C., Costanza, R., Wilson, M.A. 2002. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing

ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 41: 375–392Fleischer, A., Tsur, Y. 2000. Measuring the recreational value of agricultural landscape. Eur. Rev.

Agric. Econ. 27: 385–398.Fleischer, A., Tsur, Y. 2003. Measuring the recreational value of open space. J. Agr. Econ. 54:

269–283Hadar, L. Noy-Meir, I., Perevolotsky, A. 1999. The effect of shrub clearing and grazing on the

composition of a Mediterranean plant community: functional groups versus species. J. Veg. Sci. 10: 673–682.

Henkin, Z., Hadar, L., Noy-Meir, I. 2004. Effect of cattle and goat grazing on landscape features and human visual qualities in northern Israel. In: Arianoutsou, M., Papanastasis, V.P., eds. Ecology, conservation and management of Mediterranean climate ecosystems. Proc 10th MEDECOS Conf., Rhodes, Greece. Milpress, Rotterdam, p. 152.

Henkin, Z., Hadar, L., Noy-Meir, I. 2007. Human-scale structural heterogeneity induced by graz-ing in a Mediterranean woodland landscape. Landscape Ecol. 22: 577–587.

Howell, E.A. 1981. Landscape design, planning, and management—an approach to the analysis of vegetation. Environ. Manage. 5: 207–212.

Junker, B., Buchecker, M. 2008. Aesthetic preferences versus ecological objectives in river resto-rations. Landscape Urban Plan. 85: 141–154.

Kochli, D.A., brang, P. 2005. Simulating effects of forest management on selected public forest goods and services: A case study. For. Ecol. Manage. 209: 57–68.

Koniak, G., Noy-Meir, I. 2009. A hierarchical, multi-scale, management-responsive model of Mediterranean vegetation dynamics. Ecol. Model. 220: 1148–1158

Koniak, G., Noy-Meir, I., Perevolotsky, A. 2009. Estimating multiple benefits from vegetation in Mediterranean ecosystems. biodivers. Conserv. 18: 3483–3501.

Koniak, G., Noy-Meir, I., Perevolotsky, A. 2010. Modelling dynamics of ecosystem services basket in Mediterranean landscapes: a tool for rational management. Landscape Ecol. 26 109–124.

Kuusipalo, J., Kangas, J. 1994. Managing biodiversity in a forestry environment. Conserv. biol. 8: 450–460.

Lavi, A., Perevolotsky, A., Kigel, J., Noy-Meir, I., 2005. Invasion of Pinus halepensis from planta-tions into adjacent natural habitats. Appl. Veg. Sci. 8: 85–92.

Lubchenco, J., Olson, A.M., brubaker, L.b., Carpenter, S.R., Holland, M.M., Hubbel, S.P., Levin, S.A., Macmahon, J.A., Matson, P.A., Melillo, J.M., Mooney, H.A., Peterson, C.H., Pulliam, H.R., Real, L.A., Regal, P.J., Risser, P.G. 1991. The Sustainable biosphere Initiative—an eco-logical research agenda. Rev. Chil. Hist. Nat. 64: 175–226.

Merlo, M., briales, E.R. 2000. Public goods and externalities linked to Mediterranean forests: economic nature and policy. Land Use Policy 17: 197–208.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiver-sity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.b., Kent, J., 2000. biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

5:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4


Naveh, Z. 1978. Model of multipurpose ecosystem management for degraded Mediterranean uplands. Environ. Manage. 2: 31–37.

Nielsen, A.b., Olsen, S.b., Lundhede, T. 2007. An economic valuation of the recreational ben-efits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landscape and Urban Plan. 80(1–2): 63–71.

Osem, Y., Lavi, A., Rosenfeld, A. 2010. Colonization of Pinus halepensis in Mediterranean habitats: consequences of afforestation, grazing and fire. Biological Invasions, DOI 10.1007/s10530-010-9843-3.

Pausas, J.G. 1999. Mediterranean vegetation dynamics: modelling problems and functional types. Plant Ecol. 140: 27–39.

Perevolotsky, A., Seligman, N.G. 1998. Role of grazing in Mediterranean rangeland ecosys-tems—Inversion of a paradigm. bioscience 48: 1007–1017.

Perevolotsky, A., Ettinger, E., Schwartz-Tzachor, R., Yonatan, R. 2003. Management of fuel breaks in the Israeli Mediterranean ecosystem: the case of Ramat-Hanadiv Park. Journal of Mediterranean Ecology 3: 13–22.

Peterson, G.D., Cumming, G.S., Carpenter, S.R. 2003. Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conserv. biol. 17: 358–366.

Possingham, H.P., Andelman, S.J., Noon, b.R., Trombulak, S., Pulliam, H.R. 2001. Making smart conservation decisions. In: Soule, M.E., Orians, G.H., eds. Conservation biology: research priorities for the next decade. Island Press, Washington—Covelo—London, pp. 225–244.

Reyers, B., O’Farrell, P.J., Cowling, R.M., Egoh, B.N., Le Maitre, D.C., Vlok, J.H.J. 2009. Eco-system services, land-cover change, and stakeholders: finding a sustainable foothold for a semiarid biodiversity hotspot. Ecol. Soc. 14: 38.

Schiller, G. 2001. biometeorology and recreation in east Mediterranean forests. Landscape Urban Plan. 57: 1–12.

Standiford, R.b., Howitt, R.E. 1993. Multiple use management of California hardwood range-lands. J. Range Manage. 46: 176–182.

Stirn, L.Z. 1990. Adaptive dynamic-model for optimal forest management. For. Ecol. Manage. 31: 167–188.

Stirn, L.Z. 2006. Integrating the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with dynamic programming approach for determining the optimal forest management decisions. Ecol. Model. 194(1–3): 296–305.

Tahvanainen, L., Tyrvainen, L., Ihalainen, M., Vuorela, N., Kolehmainen, O. 2001. Forest man-agement and public perceptions—visual versus verbal information. Landscape Urban Plan. 53(1–4): 53–70.

Tchetchik, A., Fleischer, A. in press. An optimal size for rural tourism villages with agglomeration and club good effects. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ.

Tecle, A., Szidarovszky, F., Duckstein, L. 1995. Conflict analysis in multi-resource forest manage-ment with multiple decision-makers. Nat. Resour. J. 31: 8–17

Westoby, M., Walker, b., Noy-Meir, I. 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium. J. Range Manage. 42: 266–274.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

5:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4


APPENDIx: HIKE AND PICNIC LANDSCAPE PREFERENCE qUESTIONNAIRE

Dear visitor,

We are performing a survey dealing with landscapes for public use on behalf of The Hebrew Uni-versity. This research is anonymous and the results are for scientific use only.

Thank you for your cooperation.

1. what is your purpose when you go hiking/picnicing outdoors? a. To be in nature c. Family/ social gathering b. To get a relief from d. Sports the stress of the week

2. with whom do you usually go on nature outings? a. Family b. Friends

3. How often do you go on nature outings? a. Less than 4 times a year b. More than 4 times a year

4. do you always use trails when you go hiking (in general, not only in Ramat Hanadiv park)? a. Always on trails b. Also in nature not on a trail

5. of the types of landscapes you see in front of you, which landscape type appeals more to you for going off the trail? a. Thick dense landscape c. Open landscape (natural trees) d. I prefer to stay on the b. Groves (planted pines) trail and not leave it

6. I usually conduct picnics in: a. Dense landscape with c. Open landscape natural trees d. I don’t mind / I have b. Groves (planted pines) no preference

7. would you prefer to have picnic in: a. This area b. Groves (planted pines)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

5:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4


PlEASE RAnK THE FollowIng lAndSCAPES ACCoRdIng To yoUR PREFEREnCE (1—lowEST To 10—HIgH PREFEREnCE)

1 not prefer at all ……….. 10 high preference

When hiking in nature how much do you prefer landscape as8. The open landscape surrounding you? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 109. The thick and dense landscape near you? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1010. The planted tree groves near you? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

for a picnic in nature how much do you prefer landscape as11. The open landscape surrounding you? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1012. The thick and dense landscape near you? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1013. The planted tree groves near you? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Which of the following attractions are important to you when you go on outings?14. Flowers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1015. Big mammals (for example deer, gazelle, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 boar)16. birds 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1017. Butterflies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1018. Reptiles and snakes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1019. Small animals (for example beetles, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 spiders)20. Herd of cattle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1021. Archeological artifacts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1022. Natural trees 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1023. Groves with planted trees (pine, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 cypress)24. Landscape for observation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

some personal details for survey statistics use only25. Is this your first visit at Ramat-Hanadiv Park? Yes / No26. Are you a resident of the area (up to 15 minutes driving distance)? Yes / No27. Please choose the character of your residence place: Urban / Rural28. Are you a member of any green organization (for examples the Society for the Protection of Nature, Greenpeace, etc.) Yes / No29. Please mark if you are: Male / Female30. Age: ___________31. Level of education a. Elementary c. Academic b. Tertiary d. Non-academic

Thank you for your cooperation and have a pleasant day.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

5:36

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

Recreation as an ecosystem service in open landscapes in the Mediterranean region in Israel: Public preferences