*
 

iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry

*

Public perceptions of forests in Italy: ecosystem services, emotional meanings, and post-pandemic needs

Davide Clemente (1)   , Antonio Brunori (2), Giuseppe Carrus (3), Giuseppina Spano (4), Angelo Panno (1), Giovanni Sanesi (5)

iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry, Volume 19, Issue 2, Pages 130-140 (2026)
doi: https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor5149-019
Published: Apr 11, 2026 - Copyright © 2026 SISEF

Research Articles


Forests are increasingly recognized not only for their ecological and productive roles but also for their social, cultural, and psychological importance. In Italy, the last national-scale assessment of public perceptions of forests was conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving open questions about how citizens currently perceive forests, their functions, and their value for everyday life. Building on previous national evidence, this study provides an updated overview of Italians’ perceptions of forests in a post-pandemic context. A national online survey was conducted between May and July 2025 with a large, geographically diverse sample of Italian adults (n = 2.193), covering all 20 regions and five macro-areas. The questionnaire assessed perceptions of forest cover, the importance attributed to environmental issues and forest ecosystem services, perceived threats to forests, emotional responses to familiar and unfamiliar forest environments, post-pandemic need for nature, forest visitation frequency, and information needs and sources. Results indicate that Italians attribute high importance to forests for biodiversity conservation, climate regulation, hydrogeological protection, and human well-being, with non-material and regulatory services consistently rated higher than strictly productive ones. Participants showed a marked tendency to overestimate forest cover, replicating patterns observed in pre-pandemic studies. Forests were widely perceived as threatened by multiple pressures, particularly wildfires, climate change, illegal activities, and drought, with both nationally shared concerns and region-specific differences. Emotional responses to forest environments were predominantly positive, with high levels of interest, enthusiasm, and inspiration and very low levels of fear, even in unfamiliar forests. The post-pandemic need for nature emerged as a salient dimension across the country, with only modest geographical variation. Information demand was substantial, especially regarding biodiversity, health-related benefits, and forest management, and respondents primarily relied on institutional and science-based sources. Overall, the findings highlight a strong and multifaceted public engagement with forests in Italy, combining cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions. By updating pre-pandemic evidence and incorporating emotional and experiential aspects at a national scale, this study provides insights relevant for forest communication, governance, and the integration of social values into sustainable forest management strategies.

  Keywords


Forests, Urban Forest, Forest Access, Ecosystem Services, Public Perception

Authors’ address

(1)
Davide Clemente 0000-0002-7778-5024
Angelo Panno 0000-0002-6516-161X
Department of Human Science, Experimental and Applied Psychology Laboratory, European University of Rome, Rome (Italy)
(2)
Antonio Brunori 0000-0002-2277-5435
Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) Schemes, Via Pietro Cestellini, 17, 06135 Perugia (Italy)
(3)
Giuseppe Carrus 0000-0003-1680-1657
Department of Education Science, Roma Tre University, Rome, Lazio (Italy)
(4)
Giuseppina Spano 0000-0002-9565-460X
Department of Psychology and Health Science, Pegaso Telematic University, Naples (Italy)
(5)
Giovanni Sanesi 0000-0002-4218-3605
Department of Soil, Plant and Food Sciences, University of Bari, Bari (Italy)

Corresponding author

 

Citation

Clemente D, Brunori A, Carrus G, Spano G, Panno A, Sanesi G (2026). Public perceptions of forests in Italy: ecosystem services, emotional meanings, and post-pandemic needs. iForest 19: 130-140. - doi: 10.3832/ifor5149-019

Academic Editor

Marco Borghetti

Paper history

Received: Feb 03, 2026
Accepted: Mar 14, 2026

First online: Apr 11, 2026
Publication Date: Apr 30, 2026
Publication Time: 0.93 months

Breakdown by View Type

(Waiting for server response...)

Article Usage

Total Article Views: 138
(from publication date up to now)

Breakdown by View Type
HTML Page Views: 19
Abstract Page Views: 78
PDF Downloads: 35
Citation/Reference Downloads: 0
XML Downloads: 6

Web Metrics
Days since publication: 2
Overall contacts: 138
Avg. contacts per week: 483.00

Article Citations

Article citations are based on data periodically collected from the Clarivate Web of Science web site
(last update: Mar 2025)

(No citations were found up to date. Please come back later)


 

Publication Metrics

by Dimensions ©

Articles citing this article

List of the papers citing this article based on CrossRef Cited-by.

 
(1)
Anderson N, Ford RM, Bennett LT, Nitschke C, Williams KJ (2018)
Core values underpin the attributes of forests that matter to people. Forestry 91 (5): 629-640.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(2)
Barona CO, Wolf K, Kowalski JM, Kendal D, Byrne JA, Conway TM (2022)
Diversity in public perceptions of urban forests and urban trees: A critical review. Landscape and Urban Planning 226: 104466.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(3)
Bebi P, Seidl R, Motta R, Fuhr M, Firm D, Krumm F, Conedera M, Ginzler C, Wohlgemuth T, Kulakowski D (2017)
Changes of forest cover and disturbance regimes in the mountain forests of the Alps. Forest Ecology and Management 388 (9): 43-56.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(4)
Böhm G, Pfister HR (2017)
The perceiver’s social role and a risk’s causal structure as determinants of environmental risk evaluation. Journal of Risk Research 20 (6): 732-759.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(5)
Bowditch E, Santopuoli G, Binder F, Del Río M, La Porta N, Kluvankova T, Lesinski J, Motta R, Pach M, Panzacchi P, Pretzsch H, Temperli C, Tonon G, Smith M, Velikova V, Weatherall A, Tognetti R (2020)
What is climate-smart forestry? A definition from a multinational collaborative process focused on mountain regions of Europe. Ecosystem Services 43: 101113.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(6)
Carrus G, Panno A, Aragones JI, Marchetti M, Motta R, Tonon G, Sanesi G (2020)
Public perceptions of forests across Italy: An exploratory national survey. iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry 13 (4): 323-328.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(7)
Coles R, Millman Z, Flannigan J (2013)
Urban landscapes-everyday environmental encounters, their meaning and importance for the individual. Urban Ecosystems 16 (4): 819-839.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(8)
De Meo I, Paletto A, Cantiani MG (2015)
The attractiveness of forests: preferences and perceptions in a mountain community in Italy. Annals of Forest Research 58 (1): 145-156.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(9)
De Meo I, Cantiani MG, Ferretti F, Paletto A (2018)
Qualitative assessment of forest ecosystem services: the stakeholders’ point of view in support of landscape planning. Forests 9 (8): 465.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(10)
Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martín-López B, Watson RT, Molnár Z, Hill R, Chan KM, Baste IA, Brauman KA, Polasky S, Church A, Lonsdale M, Larigauderie A, Leadley PW, van Oudenhoven AP, van der Plaat F, Schröter M, Lavorel S, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Bukvareva E, Davies K, Demissew S, Erpul G, Failler P, Guerra CA, Hewitt CL, Keune H, Lindley S, Shirayama Y (2018)
Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359 (6373): 270-272.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(11)
Fernbach PM, Light N, Scott SE, Inbar Y, Rozin P (2019)
Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most. Nature Human Behaviour 3 (3): 251-256.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(12)
Führer E (2000)
Forest functions, ecosystem stability and management. Forest Ecology and Management 132: 29-38.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(13)
Gatersleben B, Andrews M (2013)
When walking in nature is not restorative. The role of prospect and refuge. Health and Place 20: 91-101.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(14)
Hartig T, Mitchell R, De Vries S, Frumkin H (2014)
Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health 35 (1): 207-228.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(15)
ISPRA (2023)
Rapporto sullo stato delle foreste e del settore forestale in Italia (RAF Italia) [Report on the State of Forests and the Forestry Sector in Italy (RAF Italia)]. Rete Rurale Nazionale 2014-2020, Ministero dell’Agricoltura, della Sovranità Alimetare e delle Foreste, Roma, Italy, pp- 284. [in Italian]
Online | Gscholar
(16)
Kaplan S (1995)
The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15 (3): 169-182.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(17)
Lumber R, Richardson M, Sheffield D (2017)
Beyond knowing nature: contact, emotion, compassion, meaning, and beauty are pathways to nature connection. PloS One 12 (5): e0177186.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(18)
McMahan EA, Estes D (2015)
The effect of contact with natural environments on positive and negative affect: a meta-analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology 10 (6): 507-519.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(19)
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)
Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Gscholar
(20)
Paletto A, Cantiani MG, De Meo I (2013)
Perception of forest values in the Alpine community of Trentino region (Italy). Environmental Management 52: 414-422.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(21)
Paletto A, Giacovelli G, Grilli G, Balest J, De Meo I (2014)
Stakeholders’ preferences and the assessment of forest ecosystem services: A comparative analysis in Italy. Journal of Forest Science 60 (11): 472-483.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(22)
Paletto A, Guerrini S, De Meo I (2017)
Exploring visitors’ perceptions of silvicultural treatments to increase the destination attractiveness of peri-urban forests: a case study in Tuscany Region (Italy). Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 27: 314-323.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(23)
Pastorella F, Giacovelli G, Maesano M, Paletto A, Vivona S, Veltri A, Pellicone G, Scarascia Mugnozza G (2016)
Social perception of forest multifunctionality in southern Italy: the case of Calabria region. Journal of Forest Science 62 (8): 366-379.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(24)
Pouso S, Borja A, Fleming LE, Gómez-Baggethun E, White MP, Uyarra MC (2021)
Contact with blue-green spaces during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown beneficial for mental health. The Science of the Total Environment 756: 143984.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(25)
Purwestri RC, Palátová P, Hájek M, Dudík R, Jarsky V, Riedl M (2023)
Public perception of the performance of Czech forest ecosystem services. Environmental Sciences Europe 35 (1): 89.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(26)
Riedl M (2025)
Forestry communication and public perception: insights from the Czech Republic. Forests 16 (5): 818.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(27)
Rivieccio R, Romano R, Orsini S (2024)
Forest therapy in Italy: proposal of a standard procedure for validation of suitable sites. iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry 17 (4): 192-202.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(28)
Robinson JM, Brindley P, Cameron R, MacCarthy D, Jorgensen A (2021)
Nature’s role in supporting health during the COVID-19 pandemic: a geospatial and socioecological study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18 (5): 2227.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(29)
Rosa CD, Collado S (2019)
Experiences in nature and environmental attitudes and behaviors: Setting the ground for future research. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 763.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(30)
Sergiacomi C, Floris A, Clementel F, Paletto A (2024)
The economic value of the protective functions of mountain forests: a case study in the Italian Alps. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 43 (6-10): 153-173.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(31)
Seidl R, Thom D, Kautz M, Martin-Benito D, Peltoniemi M, Vacchiano G, Wild J, Ascoli D, Petr M, Honkaniemi J, Lexer MJ, Trotsiuk V, Mairota P, Svoboda M, Fabrika M, Nagel TA, Reyer CP (2017)
Forest disturbances under climate change. Nature Climate Change 7 (6): 395-402.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(32)
Smith F, Turner W (2023)
What are the psychological and cognitive wellbeing benefits as reported by people experiencing green space? A meta-ethnography. Wellbeing, Space and Society 5: 100158.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(33)
Soga M, Evans MJ, Cox DTC, Gaston KJ (2021)
Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on human-nature interactions: pathways, evidence and implications. People and Nature 3 (3): 518-527.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(34)
Spano G, Dadvand P, Sanesi G (2021)
The benefits of nature-based solutions to psychological health. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 646627.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(35)
Ulrich RS (1983)
Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In: “Behavior and the Natural Environment”. Springer, Boston, MA USA, pp. 85-125.
Gscholar
(36)
United Nations (2015)
Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations General Assembly, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, website.
Online | Gscholar
(37)
Van den Brink PJ, Boxall AB, Maltby L, Brooks BW, Rudd MA, Backhaus T, Van Wensem J (2018)
Toward sustainable environmental quality: priority research questions for Europe. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 37 (9): 2281-2295.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(38)
Van der Linden S (2015)
The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: towards a comprehensive model. Journal of Environmental Psychology 41: 112-124.
CrossRef | Gscholar
 

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. More info