Analysis of Willingness to Participate in Forest Management: Investigating Socio-economic Factors and Barrier in Khorram Abad's Urban Forests

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Master's student, Department of Forestry, Faculty of Natural Resources, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Forestry, Faculty of Natural Resources, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran.

3 Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran.

Abstract

Background and objectives: Citizen engagement in the management of urban forests has emerged as a means to enhance forest conditions and improve the overall experience of forest users. However, several factors can influence people's willingness to participate in such initiatives. Understanding the barriers and grounds for participation from the perspective of citizens is crucial for effective planning and implementation of participatory forest management. This article aims to investigate the factors influencing people's willingness to participate in urban forest management, with a particular focus on socio-economic variables, demographic groups, and the identification of barriers and opportunities for involvement.

Materials and Methods: The study was conducted in the urban forests of Khorram Abad, with a sample population consisting of forest visitors. A total of 400 participants were selected using the proportional assignment method based on the Krejci-Morgan approach. Data were collected through a researcher-made questionnaire, which was validated and tested for reliability. The questionnaire explored various socio-economic variables and their relationship with willingness to participate in urban forest management. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were employed to examine the data.

Results: The findings indicate that, according to forest visitors, the lack of perceived impact on management programs and the absence of active community organizations are the primary barriers to citizen participation. Key areas for involvement include citizen education, waste management, and tree species protection. The recreational and aesthetic values of urban forests, as well as their positive impact on physical and mental health and air pollution reduction, were identified as crucial functions by the participants. Moreover, the study reveals variations in willingness to participate across different demographic groups. Women showed a higher inclination for participation compared to men, and unmarried individuals exhibited a greater willingness than married individuals. Furthermore, individuals who were members of environmental associations or groups and engaged with virtual environmental platforms demonstrated a stronger desire to participate in urban forest management. The duration of city residency and education level positively correlated with willingness to participate, as did the frequency of visits to urban forests.

Conclusion: The research findings highlight the importance of considering socio-economic characteristics when designing participatory programs for urban forest management. While individuals may have different propensities for participation based on their socio-economic backgrounds, the desire to engage in forest management activities remains prevalent. City managers should therefore prioritize planning and educational-promotional initiatives to facilitate and encourage public involvement. By addressing barriers, promoting citizen education, and fostering collaboration with environmental organizations, urban forest management can be effectively enhanced through increased public participation.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1.Salbitano, F., Borelli, S., Chen, Y., & Conigliaro, M. (2016). Guidelines on urban and peri-urban forestry. In Fao. 170p.
2.Hoshyari, Z., Maleknia, R., Naghavi, H., & Barazmand, S. (2020). Studying spatial distribution of urban parks of Khoramabad city using Network Analysis and Buffering Analysis. J. of Wood and Forest Science and Technology. 27 (3), 37-51. [In Persian]
3.Zhao, H., Zhao, D., Jiang, X., Zhang, S., & Lin, Z. (2023). Assessment of urban forest ecological benefit based on the
i-tree eco model-A case study of Changchun central city. Forests. 14, 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14071304.
4.Galati, A., Coticchio, A., & Peiró-Signes, Á. (2023). Identifying the factors affecting citizens’ willingness to participate in urban forest governance: Evidence from the municipality of Palermo, Italy. Forest Policy and Economics. 155, 103045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2023.103054.
5.Zare, S., Namiranian, M., Feghhi, J., & Fami, H. S. (2015). Factors encouraging and restricting participation in urban forestry (Case study of Tehran, Iran). Arboricultural J. 37: 4. 224–237.
6.Moskell, C., Allred, S. B., & Ferenz, G. (2011). Examining volunteer motivations and recruitment strategies for engagement in urban forestry. Cities and the Environment. 3, 1. https://digital commons. lmu.edu/cate/vol3/iss1/9.
7.Plieninger, T., Kizos, T., Bieling, C., Dû-Blayo, L. Le, Budniok, M. A., Bürgi, M., Crumley, C. L., Girod, G., Howard, P., Kolen, J., Kuemmerle, T., Milcinski, G., Palang, H., Trommler, K., & Verburg, P. H. (2015). Exploring ecosystem-change and society through a landscape lens: Recent progress in european landscape research. Ecology and Society. 20, 2. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07443-200205.
8.Siagian, N., Ridayani, Andrias, Kamsinah, Maryanti, E., Fatmawati, E., Adi Pramono, S., & Fajri, I. (2023). The effect of environmental citizenship and spiritual norms as mediators on students’ environmental behaviour. International J. of Adolescence and Youth. 28 (1), 69-83.
9.Cebrián-Piqueras, M. A., Filyushkina, A., Johnson, D. N., Lo, V. B., López-Rodríguez, M. D., March, H., Oteros-Rozas, E., Peppler-Lisbach, C., Quintas-Soriano, C., Raymond, C. M., Ruiz-Mallén, I., van Riper, C. J., Zinngrebe, Y., & Plieninger, T. (2020). Scientific and local ecological knowledge, shaping perceptions towards protected areas and related ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology. 35 (11), 2549-2567. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01107-4.
10.Raymond, C. M., Singh, G. G., Benessaiah, K., Bernhardt, J. R., Levine, J., Nelson, H., Turner, N. J., Norton, B., Tam, J., & Chan, K. M. A. (2013). Ecosystem services and beyond: Using multiple metaphors to understand human-environment relationships. BioScience. 63 (7), 536-546. https://doi. org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.7.7.
11.Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review. 6 (2), 81-97.
12.Fisher, D., Svendsen, E., & Connolly, J. (2015). Urban environmental stewardship and civic engagement. Routledge. London. 164p. https://doi.org/10. 4324/9781315857589.
13.Devine-Wright, P. (2009). Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. J. of Community & Applied Social Psychology. 19 (6), 426-441.
14.Kirkpatrick, J. B., Davison, A., & Daniels, G. D. (2012). Resident attitudes towards trees influence the planting and removal of different types of trees in eastern Australian cities. Landscape and Urban Planning. 107 (2), 147-158.
15.Dawes, L. C., Adams, A. E., Escobedo, F. J., & Soto, J. R. (2018). Socioeconomic and ecological perceptions and barriers to urban tree distribution and reforestation programs. Urban Ecosystems. 21 (4), 657-671.
16.Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 30 (3), 607-610.
17.Zarei, I., Ehsani, M., Moghimehfar, F., & Aroufzad, S. (2021). Predicting mountain hikers’ pro-environmental behavioral intention: An extension to the theory of planned behavior. J. of Park and Recreation Administration.39 (3), 70-90.
18.Khedrizadeh, M., Maleknia, R., Adeli, K., & Henareh, J. (2017). Survey of barriers and potential field to involve local people in the forest management process (Case study: Local Communities in Nameshir, Baneh). J. of Wood and Forest Science and Technology.24 (3), 35-48. [In Persian]
19.Panyavaranant, P., Lai Nguyen, T. P., San Santoso, D., Nitivattananon, V., & Tsusaka, T. W. (2023). Analyzing sociodemographic factors influencing citizen participation: The case of infrastructure planning in Khon Kaen, Thailand. Social Sciences. 12, 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12040225.
20.Fors, H., Molin, J. F., Murphy, M. A., & Cecil Konijnendijk van den Bosch. (2016). User participation in urban green commons. Urban green. 15, 22-31.
21.Zhao, Z., Zhang, Y., & Wen, Y. (2018). Residents’ support intentions and behaviors regarding urban trees programs: A Structural Equation Modeling-multi group analysis. Sustainability. 10, 377. 11p. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020377.
22.Baumeister, C. F., Gerstenberg, T., Plieninger, T., & Schraml, U. (2020). Exploring cultural ecosystem service hotspots: Linking multiple urban forest features with public participation mapping data. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. 48. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ufug.2019.126561.
23.Binyanya, M. R., Mugwima, N. B., Karanja, D., & Mbiti, S. (2022). Sustainable urban forest conservation: Assessing public attitudes towards urban forests in Nairobi city. Current Urban Studies. 10 (04), 655-672. https://doi. org/10.4236/cus.2022.104039.
24.Baur, J. W. R., Tynon, J. F., Ries, P., & Rosenberger, R. S. (2016). Public attitudes about urban forest ecosystem services management: A case study in Oregon cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 17, 42-53. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ufug.2016.03.012.
25.Motamedi Barabadi, S., Maleknia, R., Shayan, H., & Gracicutea, F. A. (2020). Do the demographic factors can
predict pro-environmental behavior of ecotourists?. J. of Natural Environment. 73 (2), 369-382. [In Persian]
26.Elton, A. J., Harper, R. W., Bullard, L. F., Griffith, E. E., & Weil, B. S. (2023). Volunteer engagement in urban forestry in the United States: reviewing the literature. Arboricultural Journal. 45 (2), 96-117.
27.Kazungu, M., Zhunusova. E., Kabwe, G., & Günter S. (2021). Household-Level Determinants of Participation in Forest Support Programmes in the Miombo Landscapes, Zambia. Sustainability. 13 (5), 2713.
28.Tadesse, S., Woldetsadik, M., & Senbeta, F. (2017). Forest users’ level of participation in a participatory forest management program in southwestern Ethiopia. Forest Science and Technology. 13 (4), 164-73.
29.Igor MAP, C. (2018). Spatial differentiation of community participation on urban forest management at
Jakarta Capital City. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environmental Sciences. 26 (200), 012038. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/200/1/012038.
30.Gorgul, E., Luo, L., Wei, S., & Pei, C. (2017). Sense of place or sense of belonging? Developing guidelines for human-centered outdoor spaces in
China that citizens can be proud of. Procedia Enginering. 198, 517-24. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ retrieve/ pii/S1877705817329521.
31.Wang, Y., & Wang, C. C. (2022). How climbers’ sensation of recreation impact and recreation experience affect their environmental attitudes and environmentally responsible behaviors: A case of jiaming Lake National Trail. Sustainability. 14, 12775. https://doi. org/10.3390/ su141912775.
32.Birks, C., Féménias, D., & Machemehl, C. (2022). Citizen participation in urban forests: analysis of a consultation process in the metropolitan area of Rouen Normandy. Urban Planning. 77, 174-185.
33.Wang, Y., Cao, H., Yuan, Y., & Zhang, R. (2022). Empowerment through emotional connection and capacity building: Public participation through environmental non-governmental organizations. Environmental Impact Assessment. J. 80, 106319. https:// linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0195925519302653.
34.Gholizade, S., Nourozi, F., & Dehqan, H. (2021). The connection of virtual social networks with the desire to participate in environmental protection (Case study of Tehran Citizens over 15 years old). Intercultural Studies. 16 (49), 135-56.
35.Rezaei, M., & Shobeiri, S. M. (2017). The Effect of social networks usage on the promotion of pro-environmental behavior in tourism (Case Study: telegram social network). Tourism Planing and Development. 6 (21), 28-53.
36.Mensah, C. (2012). Residents’ perception of socio-economic impacts of tourism in Tafi Atome, Ghana. Asian Social Sciences. 8 (15), 274-287.
37.Latifiniya, A., Maleknia, R., & Rahimian, M. (2022). Using the value-belief-norm model to investigate conservation behavior based on the participation of the ecotourism host community in Zagros forests (case study: Ghaleh-Gol forest, Lorestan). J. of Wood and Forest Science and Technology. 29 (3), 73-91. [In Persian]
Journal of Wood and Forest Science and Technology
Volume 30, Issue 4
December 2024
Pages 74-91

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics