Detection of social forestry approaches and its impact on managing forestry plans in Golestan province

Document Type : Complete scientific research article

Authors

1 Associate Professor of Department of Forestry

2 Gorgan University

3 PhD Student of Geography and Rural Planning, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.

4 PhD of forestry, Faculty of Forestry Sciences, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, I.R. Iran.

Abstract

Background: Community forestry has been introduced with a new concept in forest management with the participation of rural people as an optimal method for sustainable management of forest lands, which has forced governments and forestry officials to revise their role. In this regard, the present study was purposed to exposure social forestry approaches and its role in managing forestry plans in Golestan province.
Materials and Methods: The present study is an applied research in a survey manner. The population of the study consisted of 606 households with approximately 2250 inhabitants from six villages in three forestry plans including Loveh (East of Province), Vatana (West of Province) and Rezaian (middle of Province) forestry plans. Sampling size was determined through the Kerejcie-Morgan’s table including 241 households. In this research, sampling was done randomly and proportionally according to sampling size and proportion of each village population to total statistical population. . Data gathering was done by a researcher-made questionnaire to determine social forestry approaches through 21 individual interview and 9 group interview including natural resources experts and managers and also rural societies based on intensive grouped and mind-storm method. Respondents were asked to express their opinion on the social forestry approaches based on five-choice Likert spectrum (from very low to very high, numerically 1 to 5). In this research, determinthe validity of the questionnaire’s contents was distinguished by expert opinions from natural resources and social sciences. Reliability of the measuring instrument was also assessed by calculating the Cronbach's alpha coefficient. After collecting information, eleven questionnaires were removed due to incomplete information and 230 questionnaires were used for analysis. After collecting and categorizing data, analysis was performed using SPSS20 in the form of descriptive and presumption statistics.
Results: Results showed that among 230 respondents household, 53.5 percent was men, 80.9 percent was married, with characteristics of 4.61 people household dimension, 43.13 year mean age, 37.9 percent with primary and without education. Also, 45.2 percent of respondents were farmer and animal keeper and 35.7 percent were workers. Results showed there was no meaningful relationship between age and number of household members of respondents with their view about the operation of social forestry approaches in forestry plans. Meanwhile, there is a negative correlation between the levels of education of respondents with their views on social forestry approaches. Rural societies believe that being as a community member and participating to Education workshop can increase the effect of social forestry approaches on managing forestry plans.
On the basis of the results of this research, people participation and economical approaches were the most important (priorities 1 and 2) according to rural society’s view while servicing and educational approaches were the lowest important (priorities 5 and 6) in affecting on forest management performance.
Conclusion: In attention to importance and situation of social forestry approaches, it is necessary to apply participating approach for forest conservation and forestry implementation and economical approach for increasing income resources and welfare of rural society for reducing their dependency to forest. Also, educational approaches are important to enhance rural society’s knowledge to access to social forestry goals in managing forest.

Keywords

References

1.Adhikari, S., Kingi, T., and Ganesh, S. 2014. Incentives for community participation in the governance and management of common property resources: the case of community forest management in Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics. 44: 1-
2.Agbogidi, O.M., Ofuoku, A.U., and Dolor, D.E. 2010. Role of community forestry in sustainable forest management and development: a review. ASSET: An International J. (Series A). 7: 1. 44-54.
3.Anderson, N.M., Williams, K.J.H., and Ford, R.M. 2013. Community perceptions of plantation forestry: The association between place meanings and social representations of contentious rural land use. J. of Environmental Psychology.
34: 121-136.
4.Asmin, F. 2021. Social forestry and natural resource management in West Sumatra. In Workshop on Geography Education at State University of Padang. 18: file:///C:/ Users/ mr. shahraki/ Downloads/ Social Forestry and Natural Resource Managementin West Sumatra.pdf.
5.Ansong, M., and Røskaft, E. 2014. Local communities’ willingness to pay for sustainable forest management in Ghana. J. of Energy and Natural Resource Management (JENRM). 1: 2. 80-87.
6.Atmis, E., Dasdemir, I., Lise, W., and Yidiran, O. 2009. Analysis factors affecting women’s participation in forestry in Turkey. J. of Ecological Economic. 60: 787-796.
7.Barrow, E. 2005. Evaluation the effectiveness of participatory agroforestry extension programs in a pastoral system, based on existing values, a case study of Turkana in Kenya. J. of Agroforestry System. 14: 1-21.
8.Cheng, A.S., Danks, C., and Allred, S.R. 2011. The role of social and policy learning in changing forest governance: An examination of community-based forestry initiatives in the U.S. Forest Policy and Economics. 13: 2. 89-96.
9.Coulibaly, P., Savadogo, P., Tigabu, M., and Oden, P.C. 2011. Factors influencing people's participation in the forest management program in Burkina Faso, West Africa. Forest Policy and Economics. 13: 4. 292-302.
10.Dave, R., Tompkins, E.L., and Schreckenberg, K. 2017. Forest ecosystem services derived by smallholder farmers in northwestern Madagascar: Storm hazard mitigation and participation in forest management. Forest Policy and Economics. 84: 72-82.
11.De-Boer, W., and Baquete, D.S. 1998. Natural resource use, crop damage, and attitudes of rural people in the vicinity of the Maputo elephant reserve, Mozambique. J. of Environmental conservation. 25: 3. 208-218.
12.Dolisca, F., Douglas, R.C., Joshua, M.M., Dennis, A.S., and Curtis, M.J. 2006. Factors influencing farmers' participation in forestry management programs: a case study from Haiti.
J. of Forest Ecology and Management. 236: 324-331.
13.Dongre, P. 2011. Role of social forestry in sustainable development a micro-level study. International J. of Social Sciences and Humanity Studies. 3: 1. 351-364.
14.Ekanayake, E.M.B.P., Xie, Y., and Ahmad, S. 2021. Rural residents’ participation intention in community forestry-challenge and the prospect of community forestry in Sri Lanka. Forests. 12: 8. 1050-1066.
15.Ekanayake, E.M.B.P., Xie, Y., Ahmad, S., Geldard, R.P., and Nissanka, A.H.S. 2020. Community forestry for livelihood improvement: evidence from the intermediate zone, Srilanka. J. of Sustainable Forestry. 1-17: file:///C:/ Users/  Kahkeshan/Downloads/CF-Sri Lanka.pdf.
16.Falcner, J. 1987. Forestry extension: a review of the key issues, Network paper, Social Forestry Network. UK: Overseas Development Institute, 40p.
17.Fisher, M.R., Moeliono, M., Mulyana, A., Yuliani, E.L., Adriadi, A., Judda,J., and Sahide, M.A.K. 2018. Assessing the new social forestry project in Indonesia: recognition, livelihood and conservation?. International Forestry Review. 20: 3. 346-361.
18.Foham, E., Rezvanfar, A., and Darvish, A.K. 2009. Participation in Social Forestry. Tehran: Pelk Publication.(In Persian)
19.Furness, E., Harshaw, H., and Nelson, H. 2015. Community forestry in British Columbia: policy progression and public participation. Forest Policy and Economics. 58: 85-91.
20.General department of natural resources and watershed management of Golestan province. 2021. Deputy for forest affairs. Archives of Forestry plans.(In Persian)
21.Green, K.E., and Lund, J.F. 2015. The politics of expertise in participatory forestry: A case from Tanzania. Forest Policy and Economics. 60: 27-34.
22.Guillén, L.A., Wallin, I., and Brukas, V. 2015. Social capital in small-scale forestry: A local case study in Southern Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics. 53: 21-28.
23.Heidarpoor, Z. 2006. Investigation of the role of enrolment in forest dweller cooperatives in conservation, development, and exploitation of forest resources in the west of Mazandaran province. MSc Thesis, Dept. Natural Resources Extension, Branch Azad University of Tehran Science and Research. (In Persian)
24.Hyde, W.F., and Köhlin, G. 2000. Social forestry reconsidered. Silva Fennica.34: 3. 285-314.
25.Kolavalli, S. 1995. Joint forest management: superior property rights?. Economic and Political Weekly. 29: 933-1938.
26.Lestari, S., Kotani, K., and Kakinaka, M. 2015. Enhancing voluntary participation in community collaborative forest management: a case of Central Java, Indonesia. J. of Environmental Management. 150: 299-309.
27.Lise, W. 2000. Factors influencing people’s participation in forest management in India. J. of Ecological Economics. 34: 379-392.
28.Liu, W.Y., Lin, J.C., and Lin, C.C.2010. Landowners' willingness to participate in the green forestation plan in Taiwan. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. 4: 6. 246-250.
29.Lund, J.F. 2015. Paradoxes of participation: The logic of professionalization in participatory forestry. Forest Policy and Economics. 60: 1-6.
30.Maskey, V., Gebremedhin, T., and Dalton, T. 2003. A survey analysis of participation in a community forest management in Nepal, Selected paper for presentation at the Northeastern Agricultural Resource Economics Association, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, June 8-10, RESEARCH PAPER 2003-8, P 21.
31.Meijaard, E., Santika, T., A. Wilson, K., Budiharta, S., Kusworo, A., Law, E.A. and John, F.A. 2020. Toward improved impact evaluation of community forest management in Indonesia. Conservation Science and Practice. 24: e2189.
32.Menon, A. 1995. Constructing the ‘local’ decentralizing forest management. Economic and Political Weekly.
30: 2110-2111.
33.Mirzaei Molla-Ahmad, R., Mohammadi Kangarani, H., Soltani, A., and Avatefi, M. 2011. Social forestry. Tehran: Publication of Higher Education Institute of Scientific-Applied Jihad-e-Daneshgahi. (In Persian)
34.Moktan, M.R., Norbo, L., and Choden, K. 2016. Can community forestry contribute to household income and sustainable forestry practices in a rural area? A case study from Tshapey and Zariphensum in Bhutan. Forest Policy and Economics. 62: 49-157.
35.Rahman, M.M., Rahman, M.D., Guogang, Z., and Islam, K.S. 2016.A review of the present threats to tropical moist deciduous Sal (Shorea Robusta) forest ecosystem of central Bangladesh. Tropical Conservation Science. 3: 1. 90-102.
36.Salam, M.A., Noguchi, T., and Koike, M. 2005. Factors influencing the sustained participation of farmers in participatory forestry: a case study in central sal forests in Bangladesh. J. of Environmental Management. 74: 43-51.
37.Sapkota, L.M., Dhungana, H., Poudyal, B.H., Chapagain, B., and Gritten, D. 2020. Understanding the barriers to community forestry delivering on its potential: An illustration from two heterogeneous districts in Nepal. Environmental Management. 65: 1-15.
38.Sharma, U.R., and Shaw, W.W. 1993. Role of Nepal’s royal Chitwan national park in meeting the grazing and fodder needs of local people. Environmental Conservation. 20: 139-142.
39.Soe, K.T., and Yeo-Chang, Y.O.U.N. 2019. Perceptions of forest-dependent communities toward participation in forest conservation: A case study in Bago Yoma, South-Central Myanmar. Forest Policy and Economics.100: 129-141.
40.Srivastava, B.P., and Pant, M.M.1979. Social forestry on a cost-benefit analysis framework. Indian Forester. 105: 1. 2-35.
41.Tadesse, S., Woldetsadik, M., and Senbeta, F. 2017. Forest users’ level of participation in a participatory forest management program in southwestern Ethiopia. Forest Science and Technology. 13: 4. 164-173.
42.Tahpa, B., Joshi, L., Jha, Y.N., Karki, I.B., Kusle, R.K., Mainali, MP., and Sherpa, S.L. 1999. A community scheme to encourage private tree planting by farmer in the hills of Nepal. Overseas Development Institute: https://www.odi.org/publications/678-community-scheme-encourage-private-tree-planting-farmers-hills-nepal.
43.Udaya-Sekhar, N. 1998. Crop and livestock depredation caused by wild animals in protected areas: the case of Sariska tiger reserve, Rajasthan, India.J. of Environmental Conservation.25: 2. 160-171.
44.Udaya-Sekhar, N., and Jørgensen, I. 2003. Social forestry in South Asia: myths and realities, Centre for International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric: www. umb.no/statisk/noragric/publications.
45.Yadav, N.P., Dev, O.P., Springate-Baginski, O., and Soussan, J. 2003. Forest management and utilization under community forestry. J. of Forest and Livelihood. 3: 1. 37-50.
Journal of Wood and Forest Science and Technology
Volume 28, Issue 4
January 2022
Pages 1-24

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics