Multiple Services from Alpine Forests and Policies for Local Development*

The starting point of the analysis here presented is the concept of ecosystem services, which could help us appreciate natural systems as vital assets, recognizing the central roles that they play in supporting human well-being, either at the local or global level. In fact, ecosystem services provide benefits, in terms of goods and services, both to people living in the mountains and to people living outside them. At the moment, these services are seriously threatened, and “their global degradation is increasingly jeopardizing development goals”(OECD, 2008). As a consequence, it is necessary to reverse this trend while, at the same time, meeting the increasing demands of and interests in such services.1 The focus of our study are the alpine forest ecosystems, which represent a fundamental resource for people living in mountain areas and for human society, in general.2 In fact, it is commonly known that forests nowadays fulfil several other functions, in addition to what has been perceived as their main function (the productive one). These functions include the protective function, the landscape and recreational function and the ecological function. This functionality means that forests not only produce goods but also various social and environmental services,3 contributing, in many different ways, to the welfare of humans. This capacity is well summarized in the concept of “multi-functionality”. It is clear that ‘‘better understanding of the full range of goods and services supplied by forests is essential for optimal utilization of forests, and it may provide an economic rationale for sustainable forestry’’ (Lange, 2004).


Introduction
The starting point of the analysis here presented is the concept of ecosystem services, which could help us appreciate natural systems as vital assets, recognizing the central roles that they play in supporting human well-being, either at the local or global level.In fact, ecosystem services provide benefits, in terms of goods and services, both to people living in the mountains and to people living outside them.At the moment, these services are seriously threatened, and "their global degradation is increasingly jeopardizing development goals" (OECD, 2008).As a consequence, it is necessary to reverse this trend while, at the same time, meeting the increasing demands of and interests in such services. 1 The focus of our study are the alpine forest ecosystems, which represent a fundamental resource for people living in mountain areas and for human society, in general. 2 In fact, it is commonly known that forests nowadays fulfil several other functions, in addition to what has been perceived as their main function (the productive one).These functions include the protective function, the landscape and recreational function and the ecological function.This functionality means that forests not only produce goods but also various social and environmental services, 3 contributing, in many different ways, to the welfare of humans.This capacity is well summarized in the concept of "multi-functionality".It is clear that ''better understanding of the full range of goods and services supplied by forests is essential for optimal utilization of forests, and it may provide an economic rationale for sustainable forestry'' (Lange, 2004).


Regulating services, which are the benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes, including air quality regulation, climate regulation, water regulation, erosion regulation, water purification and waste treatment, disease regulation, pest regulation, pollination, and natural hazard regulation.


Cultural services, which are the non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences, including cultural diversity, spiritual and religious values, knowledge systems, educational values, inspiration, aesthetic values, social relations, sense of place, cultural heritage values, recreation, and ecotourism. Supporting services, which are necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services.Figure 1 summarizes well the different classes with reference to the mountain ecosystems.Mountains and their ecosystems provide all services from each of the four main MEA categories, as widely documented in the RUBICODE project. 6 Provisioning Services Food (crops, livestock, wild foods, etc.) Fiber (timber, wood

On forest multi-functionality
As described in the previous sections, it is commonly known that forests are defined as multifunctional 7 assets, providing, at the same time, different goods, connected with the productive 6 This project, aiming at rationalizing biodiversity conservation in dynamic ecosystems, focuses on assessing the ecological resilience of those components of biological diversity essential for maintaining ecosystem services.It provides this focus in order to suggest priorities for biodiversity conservation policy on the basis of dynamic ecosystems and the services they provide (http://www.rubicode.net). 7According to the OECD (2001), the term «multi-functionality» "refers to the fact that an economic activity may have multiple outputs and, by virtue of this, may contribute to several societal objectives at

Nutrient cycling
Soil formation Primary production function (such as timber and non-timber products), and services connected with the ecological functions (such as soil conservation and protection, watercourse protection, hunting, fishing, protection of biodiversity, and the carbon cycle).As presented in the figure 2, these outputs (goods and services) can be classified differently with respect to the parameters of rivalry and excludability (Fisher et al., 2009;Gios & Clauser, 2009;Patterson & Coelho, 2009) and, thus, with reference to forests.These outputs could be purely private (excludable and rival -timber and non timber products) or purely public (non-excludable and non-rival 8 hydro-geological services).Moreover, there is a spectrum of forest goods ranging between purely private and purely public goods.Some of these "intermediate goods" are qualified as club goods (excludable and non-rival -landscape-recreational function) or as open access resources (nonexcludable and rival) or "common-pool resources" (Hardin, 1968).).This latter category characterizes many (not just natural) resources.Their need for management has led to the establishment of various institutions in the Alps since the 11 th century.Notably, the Autonomous Province of Trento treats almost 60% of overall surface (over 3,000 Km²) land and goods as collective property and manages them as common-pool resources.Usually, the productive function is defined as the «market function» while the others categories are referred to as «non market functions».In the first case, the forest generates some inputs for the productive processes that can be exchanged in the market and subsequently have a monetary value.Conversely, in the second case, the forest provides public goods (such as carbon sinks) and mixed goods (such as landscape and recreational values) that cannot be exchanged in the market, and therefore, cannot be priced.Moreover, as many studies have demonstrated and as we have already mentioned, "forests have a higher value than that solely connected to production aspects" (Goio et al., 2008).
We should consider that central to the debate on multi-functionality is the degree of the conjunction of the production of secondary goods compared to that of primary goods and the inevitability of this conjunction.Since the 1950s, some authors (Carlson, 1956;Marshall, 1959) have tried to define «joint-production» as involving things that cannot be produced separately, and are joined by a common origin.More recently, according to Shumway et al. (1984), "the joint production encompasses all production situations in which two or more outputs or products are interdependent".These inter-linkages could arise for three different reasons: 1. "there are technical interdependencies in the production process; 9 2. outputs are produced from a non-allocable input; 3. outputs compete for an (allocable) input that is fixed at the firm level" 10 (OECD, 2001).once.Multi-functionality is, thus, an activity-oriented concept that refers to specific properties of the production process and its multiple outputs." 8To briefly clarify, the term «non-rival» means that a unit of the good can be consumed by one individual without diminishing the consumption opportunities available to others, from the same unit.In contrast the term «non-excludable» refers to the situation in which it is physically or institutionally (i.e. through laws) impossible, or very costly, to exclude individuals from consuming a good. 9Instead of Y1 = f1 (L1, K1, T1) and Y2 = f2 (L2, K2, T2), it is Y1 = f1 (Y2, L1, K1, T1) and Y2 = f2 (Y1, L2, K2, T2).Where: Y = production L = labour K = capital T = land This means that, in the case of joint production, the production Y1 is function not only of the usual production factors (L, K, T) but also of the production Y2 and vice versa.
In the case of technical complementarities, (1) the products have to be produced together, or, in the other cases (2 and 3), outputs can be produced separately.However joint-production is cheaper because of the presence of economies of scope.

Fig. 2. Different utility flows provided by forests
A second critical aspect is that the time horizon is different depending on the output that is evaluated.The emphasis is usually on the market failures resulting from the difficult assignment of an adequate property rights system.Within this framework, the multi-functionality aspects that assume greater significance, may be identified as the following: the "type and strength of the link between forest production and secondary products; synergies and trade-offs between the various forest products; specificity of the forest in the provision of services and products not directly commercial; and the fact that the market is unable to assign a price to many secondary products, thereby requiring public intervention" (Henke, 2004).In many cases, as stressed by Janse & Ottitsch (2005), "synergies and the integration of these various components/products is not always without conflict".
Evidently, inappropriate means of development, such as excessive intensification, mechanization, over-exploitation of resources, environmental pollution and urbanization are only some of the factors that could increasingly threaten the multi-functionality of forest ecosystems.Hence, this ecosystem can continue to provide their goods and services, in a rapidly changing world, only if multi-functionality is taken into account in their management.As a consequence, as we discuss in detail in the following sections, with the objective of properly defining the management options and opportunities, it is important to characterize, precisely, the different utility flows performed by forests and to evaluate them. 11It is clear that the choice of the policy tools that have to be adopted will be: "a) different, depending on whether the goods are private, public or mixed and on the kind of joint production carried out; b) strictly connected with the specific socio-economic and environmental context of a given area; and c) flexible in order to operate within constantly changing circumstances" (OECD, 1999).

Some specific reflections on forest join-productions
In the case of forests, we are dealing with the two aspects of joint-production examined in the previous section.In particular, there is technical complementarities with reference to timber production and carbon fixation, and economies of scope with reference to the production of timber and the landscape.As a consequence, the non-commodity outputs are joint products with timber production.This circumstance means that joint products, that clearly create benefits for people living inside and outside the local areas, have different characteristics.In other words while timber is a market product that is "paid", the others are non-market products and are, therefore, "unpaid".It is important to point out the strong impact that the production of non-market outputs, has on the structure of the private costs related to market forest production.In fact, if the increase in private costs exceeds certain levels, this increase may affect the sustainability of the system.In such cases, the most effective solution is to pursue economies of scope rather than scale, because the costs to produce two or more outputs together are less than those for obtaining the same outputs through different production processes.
With the objective of maximizing the environmental externalities associated with forests, the production process should, consequently, be organized in a precise and defined way.The choice of many alpine areas has been and is so now, that of «natural forest management».
The problem is that this kind of management causes an increase in the use costs, due to: a) higher cutting and logging costs, related to constraints on the maximum cutting area and to the need to adopt more environmentally friendly techniques.; b) constraints on the characteristics of forest's roads (reduced width, practicable by less efficient equipment); c) the acquisition of heterogeneous material (by species, diameter, features) imposes higher costs for the selection and start-up to the sale.There are no specific researches able to quantify, in the alpine areas, the additional cost related to the natural forest management.However, some experts (Pollini et al., 1998) estimated that the increase is about 20-30 % of the forest utilisation.In addition, the natural forest management determines also a lower level in the production, and as a consequence, less available wood mass for the next links in the productive chain.
In particular cases, the cited circumstances lead to the abandonment of the cultivations or to damages to the non-market functions.
In the table 1, we try to link the possible private and social benefits, the different typologies of goods and services provided by forests.This classification occurs, largely, in the alpine context and, in particular, in the area that we are considering as our "case study".

Tourism
Recreational and aesthetic benefits Table 1.Forest goods and services and private and social benefits

Brief considerations about markets and payment for ecosystem services
In regard to sustainable forest management,12 it is necessary to pay particular attention to the costs of multi-functionality and to identify techniques that can internalize the positive externalities provided by forests.This effort will help ensuring a fair distribution of costs and benefits among the local population, the economic actors, the other stakeholders and the entire society.Many authors believe that important opportunities exist for provisioning forest ecosystem services, whether through "governance" (Gibson et al., 2000(Gibson et al., , 2005)), "payment systems and markets" (Engel et al., 2008;Johnson et al., 2001), adjustments to life cycle processes, "or other means " (Patterson & Coelho, 2009).Clearly, as previously mentioned, this process is not easy because of the presence of utility flows that have the characteristics of public or mixed goods.
A category that has been widely analyzed in this context is that of the "Payment for Ecosystem Services" (PES).According to Muradian et al. (2010), the PES13 "are a transfer of resources between social actors, which aim to create incentives to align individual and/or collective land use decisions with the social interest in the management of natural resources".Wunder (2005) in particular, attributes the following features to the PES: 1. "a voluntary transaction where, 2. a well-defined environmental service (or a land use likely to secure that service), 3. is being 'bought' by a (minimum one) service buyer, 4. from a (minimum one) service provider, 5. if and only if the service provider secures service provision (conditionality)."Very few PES schemes achieve the standards proposed by Wunder (Muradian et al., 2010;Porras et al., 2008)."Generating adequate resources or ensuring a just distribution of payments may require non-voluntary approaches such as taxes or mandatory service charges" (Patterson & Coelho, 2009).Whether payments should be voluntary or coerced through taxation should in fact be determined by the physical characteristics of the resource (Farley et al., 2010;Kemkes et al., 2010)."Services dominated by private good characteristics are amenable to voluntary payments, while services with public good characteristics are not" (Patterson & Coelho, 2009).

The landscape-recreational function
In this framework, an example is represented by the last typology presented in the table 1.It is the landscape-recreational function, which we now further analyze.Natural resources14 and, thus, forests, under certain conditions15 that we identify in this and the following sections, could guide the local development of mountain areas, ensuring that income arising from the territory remains with local communities.
Although the concept of local development is very broad, according to Greffe (1989Greffe ( , 1990) ) it can be considered "a process through which a certain number of institutions and/or local people mobilise themselves in a given locality in order to create, reinforce and stabilise activities using, as well as possible, the resources of the territory."In addition, "local development policies can help to achieve sustainable development goals.
In fact, they are based on facilitating structural adjustment and enabling economies and societies to adapt to changing conditions, combating social exclusion and maintaining social equilibrium, and making the best use of social, economic and environmental resources in the local area" (OECD, 1999).It should be noted that, the increasing globalization of the economy and changing technologies have opened new markets and new competition with regard to which local development policies need to offer new responses.
According to the paradigm of the total economic value (TEV) 16 , which mainly differentiates between use and non-use value, the landscape-recreational function can be subdivided into different components (Table 2).Specifically, "the recreational and scenic values require the direct use of the good: the first one derives from the possibility of carrying out tourist-recreational activities in environmental contests of quality, and the second one is related to the benefits produced by observing certain typologies of landscape" (Goio et al., 2008).In contrast, the evocative value "derives from the desire that a landscape encompassing aesthetic functions should exist, and from knowing that its associated traditions, culture and lifestyles continue to exist through its conservation" (Novelli, 2005).
From the perspective of local development, each component is related to different management options and to different benefits for people living inside and outside the local area. 17

Recreational value
-Areas with user-oriented management 18 -Areas with resources-oriented management 19   Use value

Scenic value Use value Evocative value
Non-use value Source: Gios & Clauser, 2009 Table 2. Different components of the landscape-recreational function In table 4 we present some of the possible ways for "internalizing" the landscaperecreational function.
As shown in table 4, these ways are related to the different kinds of goods or services considered.In the case of private goods related to "user-oriented management" the internalization could be a ticket or a fee, while in the case of public goods what is needed is public support.Finally, for mixed goods connected with resources-oriented management, an approach based on the management of "commons" is required.With reference to the landscape-recreational function it is necessary to introduce an element characterizing many mountain areas: the tourism activity.Although this activity can foster the economic development and is a source of employment for the local population, in some cases, it can, also, lead to an imbalance among the various components of ecosystems, producing negative trade-offs (Dollinger, 1988).These trade-offs, sometimes, become very difficult to manage.

Typology of goods
17 "One particular landscape typically has different functions for different people" (Heilig, 2003). 18We refer to areas that generate direct revenue.These include the following:  areas with quick and excludable admission (e.g.adventure parks and golf courses) (Type I) and  areas characterised by the provision of direct use 18 services and ad hoc facilities accessible through the payment of fees (e.g.hunting, fishing and mushroom collection) (Type II). 19Includes areas characterized by the provision of direct use, free of charge services (that is, open-access protected areas) that, under certain conditions, allow the creation of other sources of revenue (e.g.restaurants, hotels and guides) (Type III).

Some policy implications for decision-makers
In this framework, if the «ultimate aim» is the enhancement of the landscape-recreational function, a strategy able to incorporate jointly, forest management, the kind of landscaperecreational components and, finally, the characteristics of the tourism system has to be adopted.For this purpose, it is really important to take into account not only the specific characteristics of the forests, but also the system in which they are included.These considerations are summarized in the following table (n°4).When the landscape is referred to as a specific resource for a well-defined project (for example an adventure park), the arrangements for tourist activities require large investments in equipment and structures with related management costs.In the area under consideration, cash flow can create, both directly and indirectly, jobs and sources of income.It also represents the underpinning of the traditional development pattern of some touristic districts, which has occurred since the 1960s in alpine areas.In other words, investments transform a public good into a private one.In contrast, in cases where the investments needed to utilize the natural resources are of small dimension, it is impractical to implement mechanisms of excludability from consumption, even if such mechanisms were technically feasible.It has to be noted that the forms of tourism, so-called "green" or "soft", fall mainly into this category.The central objective is to find, even in the case of landscape and recreational activities that do not require large investments, mechanisms that allow the enjoyment of those activities after a specific payment is made as a compensation supporting local development. 21n addition some further observation can be made.In the case of specific resources, the forest is managed to extract timber.However, this benefit is a "sub-product" because the dominant use of the forest is as an adventure-park.In the second case, where the forest is considered as scenery (for example in relation to sport use), an increase in the overall timber quantity produced, is a positive aspect.Its perceived value in fact increases, but the associated management costs, which clearly grow (for example for checking fires and pests), are not compensated by the market.Consequently a public support is needed.Finally, with respect to "complex resources" a double objective, related to tourism activity and timber production, has to be achieved.In this case, higher costs related to timber production should be compensated by tourism revenues.However that initiative requires investments to disseminate and share knowledge amongst the general stakeholders who use natural resources.

The need for a participative approach
The future development, especially of mixed goods in the Alps, will depend, largely, on the ability to involve local stakeholders in the environmental protection and promotion processes, establishing, at the same time, the priorities for each single area.Clearly, to make this involvement work, local actors should be able to direct the management of natural resources, in general, and of forests in particular, towards their own interests and needs.They also need to control the management options adopted. 22As known, the participative approach of local stakeholders has emerged in the last 15 years, following, precisely, the evolution of the concept of sustainable development.It is based on the belief that citizens are able to shape their own future.It is "thought up on the conviction that people are capable of defining their own future" (Jennings, 2000).As a consequence, "it uses capabilities and local knowledge to guide and define the nature of actions and strategies" (Jennings, 2000).Through efficient participative development processes, it is possible to take into account some territorial dimensions that are often neglected or not considered, such as traditions, beliefs and habits, thereby creating the preconditions for the implementation of spontaneous action by the communities involved.In the development initiatives related to the management of natural resources, however, this participation cannot be confined to the mere application of techniques to facilitate the involvement of larger social groups.On the contrary, it is fundamental that the stakeholders become aware of the issues related to natural, social and human capital, thus creating a shared sense of the problems and the basis for potential collective actions.Since sustainability refers to three different dimensions (environmental, social and economic), integrated and comprehensive territorial development is required.In order to pursue it, as already noted, it is necessary to understand how the stakeholders perceive the factors connected with sustainability, facilitating and promoting an enriching exchange of views, knowledge and initiatives.To obtain a complete and reliable overview, these exchanges should involve both public and private actors, producing new synergies and new partnerships in the area.This field is very complex and a pre-eminent participative process does not exist, because the process "is perceived and implemented in different ways" (Buchy & Hoverman, 2000).In fact in the literature there are many different classifications of participation 23 , "because of the concept give rise to a wide range of interpretations" (Lawrence, 2006).Some writers take into account the degree of involvement, which can be strong or weak.For the World Bank (1996), in fact, "participation is strong if there is a real influence on development decisions by local actors and weak in the case of a simple informative involvement concerning the implementation or benefits of a particular development activity".Other classifications (Rowe & Frewer, 2000) focus on the nature rather than the degree of engagement, identifying different types of public engagement by the direction of communication flows between parties.According to this view, information dissemination to passive recipients constitutes ''communication'', gathering information from participants is ''consultation'' and ''participation'' is conceptualized as two-way communication between participants and exercise organizers in which information is exchanged in some sort of dialogue or negotiation.Others (Biggs, 1989) describe the level of engagement as a relationship that can be ''contractual'', ''consultative'', ''collaborative'' and ''collegiate''.Finally, some engagements stand between pragmatic participation and normative participation."The first focuses on p r o c e s s , s u g g e s t i n g t h a t p e o p l e h a v e a d e m o cratic right to participate in environmental decision-making", while the second "arguments focus on participation as a means to an end, which can deliver higher quality decisions " (Reed, 2008).For this reason, different kinds of participation can be implemented, in relation to: "a) the characteristics and conditions of any specific context, b) the aims that have to be realized, and c) the ability of the stakeholders to influence the final results" (Richards et al., 2004;Tippett et al., 2007).The literature urges to move towards a high degree of participation (Arnstein, 1969;Johnson et al., 2004) or to a strong participation, as defined by the World Bank (1996).In addition, several authors believe that the success of participatory processes should be institutionalized 24 (Richards et al. 2004).They require a) "a sufficiently detailed and clear description of the context and objectives" (Reed, 2008), b) "to identify appropriately and adequately the role of each actor, be it public or private " (Purnomo et al., 2005), to manage any conflicts, and c) to encourage the actors to develop an adequate motivation and ability to participate, triggering a process that might be called «educational» 25 .This approach requires 23 For example:  "Participation is concerned with . . . the organised efforts to increase control over resources and regulative institutions in given social situations on the part of groups and movements hitherto excluded from such control" (Pearse & Stiefel, 1979);  "Participation can be seen as a process of empowerment for the deprived and the excluded.This view is based on the recognition of differences in political and economic power among different social groups and classes.Participation in this sense necessitates the creation of organisations of the poor which are democratic, independent and self-reliant!"(Ghai, 1988);  "Participation is a process through which stakeholders influence and share control over development initiatives and the decisions and resources which affect them" (World Bank, 1996);  "Participatory development stands for partnership which is built upon the basis of dialogue among the various actors, during which the agenda is jointly set, and local views and indigenous knowledge are deliberately sought and respected.This implies negotiation rather than the dominance of an externally set project agenda.Thus people become actors instead of being beneficiaries" (OECD, 1994). 24If participation is a democratic right and not just a legislative goal. 25The issue is really one of education and politics: neither the general public nor decision makers appear to be well-informed concerning the relative contributions of ecosystem services and economic growth to our well-being" (Farley et al., 2010).

www.intechopen.com
Sustainable Forest Management -Current Research 254 knowledge of each actor to check the degree of understanding and awareness of the project, with the aim of filling any gaps.Today, it is increasingly necessary to include in the participatory processes the so-called «experts»: a) "local stakeholders, namely those who have proven experience and knowledge (location-specific), not only scientific but also operational, in reference to the area and location of interest, b) the external stakeholders, namely those who truly understand the phenomena and who have a more scientific/universal knowkledge" (McCall, 2003;Fraser & Lepofsky, 2004).These categories are generally involved "simultaneously" (Reed, 2007), because local knowledge combined with what science can contribute, leads to a more complete understanding of complex systems and processes (Johnson et al. 2004), as well as the learning pathways within each category and between the two categories.

Evidence from alpine examples: Logarska Dolina
As presented in table 4, specific economic and political tools need to be created in order for stakeholders to pursue local development.Payment for ecosystem services is rather common for some resources, but not for scenery and landscape services.
There are examples of fees connected with the touristic and recreational uses of alpine territories, but they are mainly not resource-related.Many local communities are requiring daily-payment from tourists, but they cannot be individuated as in the categories of Table 4 because their practices have general purposes and, sometimes, are not supportive of the maintenance of landscape.In fact, it is necessary to aim for payments capable of financing management activities devoted to preserving and enhancing the natural and forest features of the Alps.The role of the participation of local inhabitants is clearly presented with reference to "Logarska Dolina": a valley seven kilometers long, covered by meadows and forests, with some waterfalls, is located in the northern part of Slovenia.The attraction of this area lies in its abundant natural sights, coupled with an almost pristine environment.It has been attracting hikers since the late 1800s.Also characteristic are the farmsteads, which have, over the centuries, aided in building a cultural landscape.This valley has recently been part of the network of the "European Destination of Excellence". 26n 1987, the local council of Mozirje decided to create a "Landscape Park".However, there were not enough financial resources for protecting the local flora and fauna and developing the recreational and management structures needed.An additional problem has been the increasing number of tourists visiting the valley by car and creating such diseconomies as pollution, chaos, fires and rubbish.The small local population (at that time, ten families with 35 persons) decided to prevent an excessive use of the local amenities.According to local oral norms, the land is private and it has not been divided over the centuries through inheritance.The only public property is the traffic road situated in the middle of the valley.Although some families were able to make a living through their occupations in agriculture and forestry, others might be interested in developing some services for tourists.The local population agreed that the option of direct management was the optimal choice, even though it involved delegating this activity to external bodies.In 1992, the council of Mozirje created a public company devoted to the management of the park of the Logarska Dolina valley.There are 14 members: ten local families, two companies owning houses in the valley for the recreation of their staff, the manager of the local hotel and a member of the local tourist board.Thus, decisions are made only by persons who are living in the valley or who have a strong interest in the valley.They are members who are aiming at long-term results by taking care of the cultural landscapes as well as the employment of locals.A decision to introduce a fee for visiting the valley was made to reduce the number of cars and to restore a sense of quiet.The valley should be crossed, preferably, by foot, with tourists leaving their cars at the free parking places located on private land at the beginning of the valley.The entering fees generated most of the money needed to manage the public company.However, more recently, most financial support has been coming from external sources, such as those from the European Union or national government.The small managing board permitted a review of a sustainable model of development, which rejected the ideas of creating golf courses, tennis halls, or new buildings on land not utilized.Few developments were permitted other than nearby local farms in order to avoid landscape fragmentation."We are creating our house, not a leisure park," reflects the main aim of the board of the public company.What has been created is a heating network, using biomasses, and a purification plant.Five permanent positions have been created for managing the local resources and the activity of the public company.In 2008, the Logarska Dolina Valley was incorporated into a large park that included the surrounding three valleys of the Solcava district.The cooperative system of management was used as an example.However, it has not been incorporated into the new authority."The sense of trust and reciprocity is easier when there are few persons involved and all of them are sharing almost the same interests; the largest and most direct right of participation is the better way of management" declared Avgust Lenar, the Director of the Logarska Dolina public company (CIPRA, 2007).Similar communities, which required the payment of a fee for entering the territories, could be found within the Alps in Natural Parks or in some municipalities where some outstanding recreational or landscape features are located (Cimoliana Valley in Friuli, Italy, nearby the peaks of Cime di Lavaredo).Dimensioning the population involved, the property regimes and the structure of the political and management organization is playing a relevant role in defining the participatory tools and the design of the development plan and strategies.As previously mentioned in Paragraph 6.1, there are no models that can easily be adapted for the Alps.Thus, there is need to adapt or create new participatory tools and strategies, paying particular attention to the characteristics of territory and stakeholders.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the Autonomous Province of Trento (PAT) for providing financial support for the research, carried out within the activities of the project "Public policies and local development: innovation policy and its effects on locally embedded global dynamics (OPENLOC)" (2008-2012; www.openloc.eu).

Table 3 .
How to internalize the landscape-recreational function

Table 4 .
Intervention related to tourism exploitation of forests