Subsidies for Forest Environment and Climate: A Viable Solution for Forest Conservation in Romania?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Purpose of Study, Objectives and Research Niche
1.2. Literature Review
1.3. Definition of Key Concepts
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Survey Design and Data Collection
2.3. Data Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
4.1. The Environmental Impact of PES in Romania
4.2. The Economicl Impact of PES in Romania
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Zon, R. Forests and Human Progress. Geogr. Rev. 1920, 10, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Groot, R.S.; Alkemade, R.; Braat, L.; Hein, L.; Willemen, L. Challenges in Integrating the Concept of Ecosystem Services and Values in Landscape Planning, Management and Decision Making. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7, 260–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berkes, F.; Folke, C.; Colding, J. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Daily, G.C. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Mazzochini, G.G.; Rowland, L.; Lira-Martins, D.; Barros, F.D.V.; Flores, B.M.; Hirota, M.; Pennington, R.T.; Oliveira, R.S. Spectral Asynchrony as a Measure of Ecosystem Response Diversity. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2024, 30, e17174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrere, J.; Reineking, B.; Jaunatre, M.; Kunstler, G. Forest Storm Resilience Depends on the Interplay between Functional Composition and Climate—Insights from European-Scale Simulations. Funct. Ecol. 2024, 38, 500–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klimetzek, D.; Stancioiu, P.T.; Paraschiv, M.; Nita, M.D. Ecological Monitoring with Spy Satellite Images-The Case of Red Wood Ants in Romania. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spittlehouse, D.L.; Stewart, R.B. Adaptation to Climate Change in Forest Management. J. Ecosyst. Manag. 2003, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byg, B.; Shah, A.D. Heating up: Climate Change and the Threat to Human Health. Curr. Opin. Nephrol. Hypertens. 2024, 33, 78–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Combaud, M.; Cordonnier, T.; Dupire, S.; Vallet, P. Climate Change Altered the Dynamics of Stand Dominant Height in Forests during the Past Century—Analysis of 20 European Tree Species. For. Ecol. Manag. 2024, 553, 121601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Official Gazette Romanian. Forest Code. Available online: https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocumentAfis/280837 (accessed on 21 July 2024).
- Joa, B.; Schraml, U. Conservation Practiced by Private Forest Owners in Southwest Germany—The Role of Values, Perceptions and Local Forest Knowledge. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 115, 102141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministerul Mediului Apelor si Padurilor Strategia Natională Pentru Paduri 2030. Available online: https://www.mmediu.ro/categorie/strategia-nationala-pentru-paduri-2030/430 (accessed on 24 February 2024).
- MacKinnon, K.; Richardson, K.; MacKinnon, J. Protected and Other Conserved Areas: Ensuring the Future of Forest in a Changing Climate. Int. For. Rev. 2020, 22, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pringle, R.M. Upgrading Protected Areas to Conserve Wild Biodiversity. Nature 2017, 546, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- European Parliament Nature Restoration: Parliament Adopts Law to Restore 20% of EU’s Land and Sea. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20240223IPR18078/nature-restoration-parliament-adopts-law-to-restore-20-of-eu-s-land-and-sea (accessed on 28 February 2024).
- Marino, D.; Pellegrino, D. Can Payments for Ecosystem Services Improve the Management of Natura 2000 Sites? A Contribution to Explore Their Role in Italy. Sustainability 2018, 10, 665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agentia de Plati si Interventie pentru Agricultura (APIA). Ghidul Solicitantului; APIA: București, Romania; Available online: https://apia.org.ro/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/17-04-25-11-40-39Anexa_OMADR_108_24.04.2017_Ghidul_solicitantului.pdf (accessed on 17 April 2024).
- Quiroga, S.; Suarez, C.; Ficko, A.; Feliciano, D.; Bouriaud, L.; Brahic, E.; Deuffic, P.; Dobsinska, Z.; Jarsky, V.; Lawrence, A.; et al. What Influences European Private Forest Owners’ Affinity for Subsidies? For. Policy Econ. 2019, 99, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ardeleanu, N.-N.; Breaban, I.-G. Biodiversity Policies, Opportunities for Restoring the Economy. Present Environ. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 15, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciocirlan, M.; Campu, V.R.; Macinnis-Ng, C.; Palik, B.J. Characteristics of Forest Windthrow Produced in Eastern Carpathians in February 2020. Forests 2024, 15, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dinulica, F.; Marcu, V.; Borz, S.A.; Vasilescu, M.M.; Petritan, I.C. Wind Contribution to Yearly Silver Fir (Abies Alba Mill.) Compression Wood Development in the Romanian Carpathians. IForest 2016, 9, 927–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campu, R.V.; Bratu, M.A.; Ciocirlan, M. The Felling of Hung Up Trees-A Work Safety and Productivity Issue. Forests 2020, 11, 1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antofie, M.-M.; Sand-Sava, C. Genetically Modified Crops in Romania before and after the Accession of the European Union. Agriculture 2022, 12, 458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nemet, A.; Funar, S.; Man, A.; Pop, B. Agri-Environmental Payment Issues in Romanian Agriculture. Sci. Pap. -Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural. Dev. 2011, 11, 153–154. [Google Scholar]
- Kay, S.; Graves, A.; Palma, J.H.N.; Moreno Gerardo and Roces-Diaz, V.J.; Aviron, S.; Chouvardas Dimitrios and Crous-Duran, J.; Ferreiro-Dominguez, N.; de Jalon, S.G.; Macicasan, V.; Rosa Mosquera-Losada, M.; et al. Agroforestry Is Paying off—Economic Evaluation of Ecosystem services in European Landscapes with and without Agroforestry Systems. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 36, 100896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software Survey: VOSviewer, a Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Effendi, D.N.; Irwandani; Anggraini, W.; Jatmiko, A.; Rahmayanti, H.; Ichsan, I.Z.; Rahman, M.M. Bibliometric Analysis of Scientific Literacy Using VOS Viewer: Analysis of Science Education. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 1796, 12096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Budler, M.; Župič, I.; Trkman, P. The Development of Business Model Research: A Bibliometric Review. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 135, 480–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ogrean, C.; Herciu, M. Business Models Addressing Sustainability Challenges—Towards a New Research Agenda. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Achim, M.V.; Safta, I.L.; Văidean, V.L.; Mureșan, G.M.; Borlea, N.S. The Impact of COVID-19 on Financial Management: Evidence from Romania. Econ. Res. -Ekon. Istraživanja 2022, 35, 1807–1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bukar, U.A.; Sayeed, M.S.; Razak, S.F.A.; Yogarayan, S.; Amodu, O.A.; Mahmood, R.A.R. A Method for Analyzing Text Using VOSviewer. MethodsX 2023, 11, 102339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bratu, M.L.; Cioca, L.-I.; Nerisanu, R.A.; Rotaru, M.; Plesa, R. The Expectations of Generation Z Regarding the University Educational Act in Romania: Optimizing the Didactic Process by Providing Feedback. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1160046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES, Version 4.1). Eur. Environ. Agency 2012, 33, 107. [Google Scholar]
- Ministerul Agriculturii și Dezvoltării Rurale Ordin Nr. 495 din 01.10.2019. Available online: https://www.madr.ro/culturi-de-camp/download/3477_a8ad254ac5e990f5b9a8d4227e96a425.html (accessed on 28 February 2024).
- Ministerul Agriculturii si Dezvoltarii Rurale Ordin Nr. 1002/2016 Privind Aprobarea Schemei de Ajutor de Stat “Servicii de Silvomediu, Servicii Climatice Si Conservarea Padurilor“. Available online: https://legislatie.just.ro/public/DetaliiDocument/185569 (accessed on 28 February 2024).
- EC Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 808/2014. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ro/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014R0808 (accessed on 28 February 2024).
- APIA Ghidul Solicitantului Pentru Accesarea Schemei de Ajutor de Stat “Servicii de Silvomediu, Servicii Climatice Și Conservarea Pădurilor”, Aferentă Măsurii 15 “Servicii de Silvomediu, Servicii Climatice Și Conservarea Pădurilor”, Submăsura 15.1 “Plăți Pentru Angajamente de Silvomediu”. Available online: https://apia.org.ro/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Ghidul_solicitantului_M_15_Sesiunea_II.pdf (accessed on 28 February 2024).
- Schema de ajutor de stat Hotărârea 447/ 2017. Available online: https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/190864 (accessed on 28 February 2024).
- Ojea, E.; Loureiro, M.L.; Allo, M.; Barrio, M. Ecosystem Services and REDD: Estimating the Benefits of Non-Carbon in Worldwide Forests. World Dev. 2016, 78, 246–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bush, G.; Taye, F.A.; Fleming, C.; Samndong, R.A. Evaluating the Costs of Primary Forest Conservation in the Democratic of Congo, Implications for Policy and Practice. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 352, 119975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, H.; Harper, R.J.; Dell, B. Examining Local Community Understanding of Mangrove Carbon Mitigation: A Study from Ca Mau Province, Mekong River Delta, Vietnam. Mar. Policy 2023, 148, 105398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brancalion, P.H.S.; Schweizer, D.; Gaudare, U.; Mangueira, J.R.; Lamonato, F.; Farah, F.T.; Nave, A.G.; Rodrigues, R.R. Balancing Economic Costs and Ecological Outcomes of Passive and Active in Agricultural Landscapes: The Case of Brazil. Biotropica 2016, 48, 856–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adams, C.; Rodrigues, S.T.; Calmon, M.; Kumar, C. Impacts of Large-Scale Forest Restoration on Socioeconomic Status and local Livelihoods: What We Know and Do Not Know. Biotropica 2016, 48, 731–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gastauer, M.; Cavalcante, R.B.L.; Caldeira, C.F.; Nunes, S.D.S. Structural Hurdles to Large-Scale Forest Restoration in the Brazilian. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 8, 593557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, J.; Mulongoy, K.; Persson, R.; Sayer, J. Harnessing Carbon Markets for Tropical Forest Conservation: Towards a more Realistic Assessment. Environ. Conserv. 2000, 27, 300–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia, S.; Abildtrup, J.; Stenger, A. How Does Economic Research Contribute to the Management of Forest Services? Ann. For. Sci. 2018, 75, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Locatelli, B.; Imbach, P.; Wunder, S. Synergies and Trade-Offs between Ecosystem Services in Costa Rica. Environ. Conserv. 2014, 41, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boerner, J.; Wunder, S.; Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S.; Hyman, G.; Nascimento, N. Forest Law Enforcement in the Brazilian Amazon: Costs and Income Effects. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 29, 294–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benedek, A.M.; Sirbu, I.; Lazar, A. Responses of Small Mammals to Habitat Characteristics in Southern Forests. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 12031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lazar, A.; Benedek, A.M.; Sirbu, I. Small Mammals in Forests of Romania: Habitat Type Use and Additive Partitioning. Forests 2021, 12, 1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hashida, Y.; Withey, J.; Lewis, D.J.; Newman Tara and Kline, J.D. Anticipating Changes in Wildlife Habitat Induced by Private Forest’ Adaptation to Climate Change and Carbon Policy. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0230525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Macpherson, M.F.; Kleczkowski, A.; Healey, J.R.; Hanley, N. Payment for Multiple Forest Benefits Alters the Effect of Tree disease on Optimal Forest Rotation Length. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 134, 82–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Khanal, Y.; Devkota, B.P. Farmers’ Responsibilization in Payment for Environmental Services: Lessons from Community Forestry in Nepal. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 118, 102237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Varela, E.; Pulido, F.; Moreno, G.; Zavala, M.A. Targeted Policy Proposals for Managing Spontaneous Forest Expansion in the Mediterranean. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 57, 2373–2380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matthies, B.D.; Kalliokoski, T.; Eyvindson, K.; Honkela, N.; Hukkinen, J.I.; Kuusinen, N.J.; Raisanen, P.; Valsta, L.T. Nudging Service Providers and Assessing Service Trade-Offs to Reduce the social Inefficiencies of Payments for Ecosystem Services Schemes. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 55, 228–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boerner, J.; Wunder, S.; Giudice, R. Will Up-Scaled Forest Conservation Incentives in the Peruvian Amazon Cost-Effective and Equitable Outcomes? Environ. Conserv. 2016, 43, 407–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shinbrot, X.A.; Holmes, I.; Gauthier, M.; Tschakert, P.; Wilkins, Z.; Baragon, L.; Opua, B.; Potvin, C. Natural and Financial Impacts of Payments for Forest Carbon Offset: A 14-Long Case Study in an Indigenous Community in Panama. Land Use Policy 2022, 115, 106047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bratu, M.L.; Cioca, L.-I. Modelling Human Behaviour through Game Theory in Order to Increase the Quality of Work and the Quality of Life of Employees through Managerial Appropriate to Individual and Group Personality. Qual. -Access Success 2018, 19, 54–58. [Google Scholar]
- Thuy, P.T.; Hue, N.T.; Dat, L.Q. Households’ Willingness-to-Pay for Mangrove Environmental Services: Evidence from Phu Long, Northeast Vietnam. Trees For. People 2024, 15, 100474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koch, D.-J.; Verholt, M. Limits to Learning: The Struggle to Adapt to Unintended Effects of international Payment for Environmental Services Programmes. Politics Law Econ. 2020, 20, 507–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saito-Jensen, M.; Rutt, R.L.; Chhetri, B.B.K. Social and Environmental Tensions: Affirmative Measures Under REDD plus Carbon Payment Initiatives in Nepal. Hum. Ecol. 2014, 42, 683–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bratu, M.L.; Miricescu, D. Study on Heredity Value in Communication Skills, for Improving Performance in the Workplace. MATEC Web Conf. 2017, 121, 07002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naime, J.; Angelsen, A.; Molina-Garzón, A.; Carrilho, C.D.; Selviana, V.; Demarchi, G.; Duchelle, A.E.; Martius, C. Enforcement and Inequality in Collective PES to Reduce Tropical Deforestation: Effectiveness, Efficiency and Equity Implications. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2022, 74, 102520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grilli, G.; Fratini, R.; Marone, E.; Sacchelli, S. A Spatial-Based Tool for the Analysis of Payments for Forest Ecosystem Services Related to Hydrogeological Protection. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 111, 102039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Razzaque, J. Payments for Ecosystem Services in Sustainable Mangrove Forest in Bangladesh. Transnatl. Environ. Law 2017, 6, 309–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wuenscher, T.; Engel, S.; Wunder, S. Spatial Targeting of Payments for Environmental Services: A Tool for boosting Conservation Benefits. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65, 822–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wunder, S. When Payments for Environmental Services Will Work for Conservation. Conserv. Lett. 2013, 6, 230–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Guidance on the Development of Public and Private Payment Schemes for Forest Ecosystem Services. Available online: https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-07/guidance-dev-public-private-payment-schemes-forest_en.pdf (accessed on 28 February 2024).
- Le, T.-A.T.; Vodden, K.; Wu, J.; Bullock, R.; Sabau, G. Payments for Ecosystem Services Programs: A Global Review of Contributions towards Sustainability. Heliyon 2023, 10, e22361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gale, R.P.; Cordray, S.M. Making Sense of Sustainability—Nine Answers To What Should Be Sustained? Rural. Sociol. 1994, 59, 311–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, P.B. Agricultural sustainability: What it is and what it is not. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2007, 5, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agenția pentru Finanțarea Investițiilor Rurale AFIR Submăsura 15.1—Plăți Pentru Angajamente de Silvomediu. Available online: https://www.afir.info/ (accessed on 28 February 2024).
- Ministerul Apelor şi Pădurilor Ordinul Nr. 766/2018 Pentru Aprobarea Normelor Tehnice Privind Elaborarea Amenajamentelor Silvice, Modificarea Prevederilor Acestora Şi Schimbarea Categoriei de Folosinţă a Terenurilor Din Fondul Forestier Şi a Metodologiei Privind Aprobarea Depăşirii Posibilităţii/Posibilităţii Anuale În Vederea Recoltării Produselor Accidentale I. Monitorul Oficial. 2018. Available online: https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/204225 (accessed on 5 June 2024).
- Cioca, L.-I.; Bratu, M.L. Sustainability of Youth Careers in Romania-Study on the Correlation of Students’ Personal Interests with the Selected University Field of Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bratu, M.L.; Cioca, L.-I. Impact of Engineer Personality on Sustainable Environment. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on ENERGY and ENVIRONMENT (CIEM), Timisoara, Romania, 17–18 October 2019; p. 16+. [Google Scholar]
- EC Uniunea Europeană Și Pădurile. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/ro/sheet/105/uniunea-europeana-si-padurile (accessed on 5 July 2024).
- Institutul National de Statistica Statistica Activitatilor Din Silvicultura, in Anul 2022. Available online: https://insse.ro/cms/ro/content/statistica-activit%C4%83%C5%A3ilor-din-silvicultur%C4%83-%C3%AEn-anul-2022 (accessed on 13 May 2024).
- Wagner, W.E., III. Using IBM® SPSS® Statistics for Research Methods and Social Science Statistics; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics; Sage Publications Limited: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Ter Braak, C.J.F.; Šmilauer, P. Canoco Reference Manual and User’s Guide: Software for Ordination (Version 5.10); Wageningen University & Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Smilauer, P.; Leps, J. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data Using CANOCO 5; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; pp. 1–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graves, R.A.; Nielsen-Pincus, M.; Haugo, R.D.; Holz, A. Forest Carbon Incentive Programs for Non-Industrial Private Forests in Oregon (USA): Impacts of Program Design on Willingness to Enroll and Landscape-Scale Program Outcomes. For. Policy Econ. 2022, 141, 102778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ureta, J.C.; Motallebi, M.; Vassalos, M.; Seagle, S.; Baldwin, R. Estimating Residents’ WTP for Ecosystem Services Improvement in a Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) Program: A Choice Experiment Approach. Ecol. Econ. 2022, 201, 107561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tăban, C.I.; Benedek, A.M.; Stoia, M.; Cocîrlea, M.D.; Oancea, S. A Multivariate Model of Drinking Water Quality Based on Regular Monitoring of Radioactivity and Chemical Composition. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 10544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mayrand, K.; Paquin, M. Payments for Environmental Services: A Survey and Assessment of Current Schemes. 2004. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10919/66935 (accessed on 11 April 2024).
- Wunder, S. Payments for Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts; Cifor Bogor, 2005; Volume 42, Available online: https://www.cifor-icraf.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-42.pdf (accessed on 5 July 2024).
The purpose of the sub-measure 15.1 | Enhance the stability of forest ecosystems and improve the environmental services they offer; |
Reduce the frequency of silvicultural interventions; | |
Maintain increased stand density; | |
Compensation for income losses and additional costs incurred by forest landowners who undertake voluntary commitments for a duration of 5 years. | |
The objectives of the sub-measure 15.1 | Promotion of carbon sequestration; |
Adaptation to the effects of climate change; | |
Reduction in soil erosion; | |
Development of fauna specific to forest ecosystems; | |
Restoration and conservation of local biodiversity; | |
Improvement in water retention capacity. |
Program Attribute | Attribute Type | Attribute Level Description |
---|---|---|
AA (Authorized_Amount) | Response variable | The total amount that was paid in year x to the account of the holder of the Support Request |
County | Factorial | There are 42 counties in Romania with abbreviation (i.e., ALBA—AB, ARAD—AR) |
Region | Factorial | There are 7 regions in Romania (NE, north-east, SE, south-east, S, south, SW, south-west, W, west, NW, north-west, C, center) |
ID | Numeric | Anonymized ID of applicants |
FORG | Factorial | This study contains 7 forms of organization for forest owners: Economic operators (EOs); Educational institutions (EIs); NGO; Churches (PWs); Private individuals (PIs); Forest owners’ associations (PAs); Local administration (LA) |
Sessions | Numeric | M 15 had 4 sessions for submitting Support Applications: 2017, 2019, 2020 and 2021 |
Year | Numeric | M15 is implemented over a period of 5 years, having 4 sessions for submitting Support Requests |
NoPlots | Numeric/counts | The number of parcels is shown here. Forestry management plans are organized on plots |
Area_P1 | Numeric/quantitative | The total area for which support was requested |
Area_P2 | Numeric/quantitative | The total area for which support was requested |
SA (Sanctions_Amount) | Numeric/quantitative | The amount with which the holder of the Support Request was penalized for breaching the commitment |
Variable | Mean | Minimum | Maximum | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Spearman’s Rho | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AA | 29,311.35 | 1374.14 | 335,712.46 | 31,247.46 | 106.60 | - | - |
County | 15.11 | 1 | 51 | 10.98 | 72.70 | −0.073 | ** |
Region | 5.39 | 1 | 7 | 1.32 | 24.50 | 0.117 | ** |
FORG | 3.69 | 1 | 7 | 1.25 | 33.90 | 0.012 | >0.05 |
Session | 2.75 | 1 | 4 | 0.82 | 29.70 | −0.040 | * |
Year | 2.11 | 1 | 5 | 1.00 | 47.60 | 0.028 | >0.05 |
NoPlots | 113.42 | 5 | 1459 | 137.85 | 121.50 | 0.888 | ** |
Area_P1 | 994.24 | 100.02 | 15,603.83 | 1326.83 | 133.50 | 0.983 | ** |
Area_P2 | 1.25 | 0.00 | 210.51 | 8.12 | 650.60 | 0.044 | * |
SA | 1131.62 | 0.00 | 164,881.94 | 5160.15 | 456.00 | 0.174 | ** |
Variable | AA | County | Region | FORG | Session | Year | NoPlots | Area_P1 | Area_P2 | SA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AA | −0.073 ** | 0.117 ** | −0.040 * | 0.888 ** | 0.983 ** | 0.044 * | 0.174 ** | |||
County | −0.073 ** | 0.081 ** | 0.091 ** | 0.104 ** | −0.047 * | −0.054 ** | −0.077 ** | −0.058 ** | −0.087 ** | |
Region | 0.117 ** | 0.081 ** | 0.197 ** | −0.068 ** | 0.113 ** | 0.125 ** | 0.117 ** | |||
FORG | 0.091 ** | 0.223 ** | −0.072 ** | 0.056 ** | 0.066 ** | |||||
Session | −0.040 * | 0.104 ** | 0.197 ** | 0.223 ** | −0.361 ** | −0.038 * | −0.044 * | −0.073 ** | ||
Year | −0.047 * | −0.068 ** | −0.072 ** | −0.361 ** | −0.126 ** | |||||
NoPlots | 0.888 ** | −0.054 ** | 0.113 ** | 0.056 ** | −0.038 * | 0.905 ** | 0.063 ** | 0.258 ** | ||
Area_P1 | 0.983 ** | −0.077 ** | 0.125 ** | −0.044 * | 0.905 ** | 0.255 ** | ||||
Area_P2 | 0.044 * | −0.058 ** | 0.066 ** | −0.073 ** | 0.063 ** | 0.117 ** | ||||
SA | 0.174 ** | −0.087 ** | 0.117 ** | −0.126 ** | 0.258 ** | 0.255 ** | 0.117 ** |
Analysis ‘Test Effects RDA AA~EV All’ | Analysis ‘Test Effects RDA AA~EV All’ | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Simple Term Effects: | Conditional Term Effects: | ||||||||
Name | Explains % | Pseudo-F | p | p (adj) | Name | Explains % | Pseudo-F | p | p (adj) |
Area_P1 | 95.834 | 61,599 | 0.001 | 0.0034 | Area_P1 | 95.834 | 61,599 | 0.001 | 0.0102 |
NoPlots | 86.567 | 17,257 | 0.001 | 0.0034 | SA | 0.923 | 762 | 0.001 | 0.0102 |
SA | 11.91 | 362 | 0.001 | 0.0034 | FORG.PI | 0.049 | 40.9 | 0.001 | 0.0102 |
County.BN | 6.087 | 174 | 0.001 | 0.0034 | FORG.EI | 0.001 | 0.8 | 0.001 | 0.0102 |
FORG.LA | 5.223 | 148 | 0.001 | 0.0034 | Region.NW | 0.047 | 40.2 | 0.001 | 0.0102 |
County.SB | 3.881 | 108 | 0.001 | 0.0034 | FORG.LA | 0.018 | 15 | 0.002 | 0.017 |
FORG.PI | 2.913 | 80.3 | 0.001 | 0.0034 | FORG.EO | 0.014 | 12 | 0.004 | 0.0255 |
Area_P2 | 2.34 | 64.2 | 0.001 | 0.0034 | Region.W | 0.01 | 9 | 0.003 | 0.02186 |
County.SM | 1.162 | 31.5 | 0.001 | 0.0034 | Region.C | 0.005 | 4.2 | 0.001 | 0.0102 |
Region.C | 1.005 | 27.2 | 0.001 | 0.0034 | County.CS | 0.016 | 13.6 | 0.001 | 0.0102 |
FORG.FA | 0.904 | 24.4 | 0.001 | 0.0034 | County.SM | 0.008 | 7.3 | 0.013 | 0.07367 |
County.BV | 0.756 | 20.4 | 0.001 | 0.0034 | Area_P2 | 0.006 | 4.8 | 0.031 | 0.1581 |
County.SJ | 0.733 | 19.8 | 0.001 | 0.0034 | FORG.PW | 0.005 | 4.5 | 0.044 | 0.19125 |
County.HD | 0.61 | 16.4 | 0.001 | 0.0034 | County.SJ | 0.004 | 3.5 | 0.066 | 0.2414 |
Region.W | 0.554 | 14.9 | 0.001 | 0.0034 | County.B | 0.004 | 3.5 | 0.045 | 0.19125 |
County.AR | 0.478 | 12.9 | 0.002 | 0.00638 | FORG.FA | 0.002 | 1.7 | 0.109 | 0.327 |
County.CS | 0.297 | 8 | 0.004 | 0.012 | County.VL | 0.004 | 3.4 | 0.071 | 0.2414 |
Region.S | 0.251 | 6.8 | 0.017 | 0.04563 | County.BN | 0.004 | 3.3 | 0.067 | 0.2414 |
County.VL | 0.247 | 6.6 | 0.008 | 0.02267 | Year | 0.003 | 2.6 | 0.102 | 0.32513 |
County.IL | 0.229 | 6.1 | 0.022 | 0.051 | County.BR | 0.002 | 1.7 | 0.109 | 0.327 |
FORG.PW | 0.214 | 5.7 | 0.023 | 0.051 | |||||
County.MM | 0.205 | 5.5 | 0.026 | 0.05525 | |||||
County.CV | 0.193 | 5.2 | 0.022 | 0.051 | |||||
County.AG | 0.188 | 5 | 0.03 | 0.06081 | |||||
County.DB | 0.183 | 4.9 | 0.02 | 0.051 | |||||
County.PH | 0.182 | 4.9 | 0.046 | 0.08379 | |||||
County.TM | 0.176 | 4.7 | 0.031 | 0.06081 | |||||
Region.SE | 0.16 | 4.3 | 0.037 | 0.06989 | |||||
County.CL | 0.128 | 3.4 | 0.056 | 0.09848 | |||||
County.BH | 0.1 | 2.7 | 0.112 | 0.168 | |||||
Region.SW | 0.089 | 2.4 | 0.108 | 0.16691 | |||||
County.DJ | 0.082 | 2.2 | 0.105 | 0.16691 | |||||
County.BT | 0.072 | 1.9 | 0.102 | 0.16691 | |||||
FORG.EO | 0.07 | 1.9 | 0.158 | 0.21778 | |||||
County.OT | 0.065 | 1.7 | 0.091 | 0.1547 | |||||
County.IF | 0.06 | 1.6 | 0.149 | 0.21108 | |||||
County.TR | 0.06 | 1.6 | 0.123 | 0.17923 | |||||
County.BC | 0.052 | 1.4 | 0.195 | 0.26171 | |||||
County.MH | 0.048 | 1.3 | 0.245 | 0.31237 | |||||
County.VS | 0.045 | 1.2 | 0.229 | 0.29946 | |||||
County.VN | 0.044 | 1.2 | 0.26 | 0.32341 | |||||
County.AB | 0.038 | 1 | 0.276 | 0.33514 | |||||
County.BR | 0.038 | 1 | 0.283 | 0.33565 | |||||
County.GJ | 0.026 | 0.7 | 0.413 | 0.46807 | |||||
County.GL | 0.023 | 0.6 | 0.394 | 0.45668 | |||||
County.B | 0.021 | 0.6 | 0.438 | 0.47528 | |||||
FORG.EI | 0.021 | 0.6 | 0.426 | 0.4723 | |||||
Region.NW | 0.019 | 0.5 | 0.474 | 0.49335 | |||||
County.HR | 0.018 | 0.5 | 0.453 | 0.48131 | |||||
County.BZ | 0.007 | 0.2 | 0.688 | 0.688 | |||||
Year | 0.006 | 0.2 | 0.67 | 0.6834 | |||||
Region.NE | 0.004 | 0.1 | 0.741 | 0.741 | |||||
Session | 0.003 | <0.1 | 0.772 | 0.772 | |||||
County.CJ | 0.001 | <0.1 | 0.845 | 0.845 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bratu, I.A.; Câmpu, V.R.; Budău, R.; Stanciu, M.A.; Enescu, C.M. Subsidies for Forest Environment and Climate: A Viable Solution for Forest Conservation in Romania? Forests 2024, 15, 1533. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15091533
Bratu IA, Câmpu VR, Budău R, Stanciu MA, Enescu CM. Subsidies for Forest Environment and Climate: A Viable Solution for Forest Conservation in Romania? Forests. 2024; 15(9):1533. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15091533
Chicago/Turabian StyleBratu, Iulian A., Vasile R. Câmpu, Ruben Budău, Mirela A. Stanciu, and Cristian M. Enescu. 2024. "Subsidies for Forest Environment and Climate: A Viable Solution for Forest Conservation in Romania?" Forests 15, no. 9: 1533. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15091533