Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Understanding how forest values vary across individuals and geographic contexts is important for comparative forest research and governance. We examined socio-cultural, provisioning, and regulating/supporting forest values among 12,460 adults in 12 European countries and five macro-regions. Weighted linear mixed-effects models estimated associations with socio-demographic characteristics, forest ownership, and social proximity to forest owners, while three-level models partitioned residual variation across macro-regions, countries, and respondents. Most residual variation occurred at the respondent level, but geographic clustering differed across value domains. Country and macro-region jointly accounted for 21.22% (95% CI [8.08, 37.90]) of residual variation in provisioning values, compared with 2.19% [0.65, 4.58] for socio-cultural and 2.60% [0.87, 5.38] for regulating/supporting values. Despite descriptive geographic differences, no adjusted macro-regional contrast had a 95% confidence interval excluding zero. In the primary models, older age groups had higher values across all domains, although provisioning-age associations weakened in the restricted-sample analysis. Gender and education associations varied by domain. Forest owners reported higher provisioning but lower socio-cultural and regulating/supporting values; the socio-cultural ownership association also weakened after sample restriction. Social proximity to forest owners was positively associated with all three domains. These findings highlight domain-specific geographic and social structuring of forest values, supporting approaches that distinguish forest-value domains while accounting for national context and within-country heterogeneity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kazungu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: