بررسی عوامل موثر بر مشارکت جوامع روستایی و عشایری در مدیریت پایدار منابع طبیعی: مطالعه موردی جنگل های پسته وحشی و بادام وحشی شهرستان بافت

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• شجاع موسی پور سیاه جل ¹
• محمود هاشمی تبار ²
• مهدی صفدری ³

¹ دانشجوی دکتری اقتصاد کشاورزی، دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان، دانشکده اقتصاد، زاهدان، ایران.

² استادیار اقتصاد کشاورزی، دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان،دانشکده اقتصاد، زاهدان، ایران.

³ دانشیار اقتصاد کشاورزی، دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان، دانشکده اقتصاد، زاهدان، ایران.

10.30495/jzpm.2021.26554.3782

چکیده

در استان کویری کرمان پوشش جنگلی شهرستان بافت از اهمیت بالایی برخوردار است و عمده جنگل‌ها این شهرستان را جنگل‌های پسته وحشی و بادام وحشی تشکیل می‌دهند. در طی دو دهه اخیر مناطق جنگلی شهرستان بافت به‌علت به هم زدن چرخه طبیعت و عدم آگاهی جوامع از اهمیت جنگل‌ها، با بحران و چالش تخریب روبه‌رو شده‌ است. از این رو، تدوین برنامه‌ریزی مناسب برای جلوگیری از تخریب بیشتر و مدیریت جامع به منظور، حفظ و احیاء این جنگل‌ها ضروری است. بنابراین، تحقیق حاضر با اهدف بررسی عوامل موثر بر مشارکت محلی جامعه جنگل نشینان روستایی و عشایری و بررسی تمایل به تغییر ساختار مدیریتی از مدیریت دولتی به مدیریت محلی برای حفاظت و جلوگیری از تخریب جنگل‌ها شهرستان بافت با استفاده از مدل رگرسیون لاجیت(Logit) پرداخته است. ما روستاها و سکونت‌گاه‌های عشایری را به‌عنوان یک مطالعه موردی مورد مطالعه قرار دادیم و برای داده‌های مورد نیاز تحقیق 197 پرسشنامه با استفاده از طیف لیکرت طراحی شد و در تابستان و پاییز 1398 به صورت تصادفی در بین اهالی مناطق روستایی و عشایری که در حوضه جنگل‌ها زندگی می‌کردند، توزیع و جمع آوری شد. برای برآورد مدل و تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌ها کمی و کیفی از نرم افزارهای Stata15 و N Logit 5 استفاده شد. نتایج آماری نشان داد، آقایان با مشارکت 72 درصدی نسبت به مشارکت 28 درصدی بانوان از تمایل بیش‌تری به مشارکت در حفاظت از جنگل‌ها دارند. یافته‌های مدل رگرسیون لاجیت نشان داد، متغیرهای اقتصادی - اجتماعی، متغیرهای تهدیدات درونی اکوسیستم و متغیر انجمن جنگل‌داری تاثیر معنا‌داری در سطوح 1%، 5% و 10% بر مدل مشارکت جهت حفاظت و جلوگیری از تخریب جنگل‌ها دارند. همچنین، شبیه‌سازی(simulation) مدل روی سه متغیر سن، تحصیلات و درآمد، خروجی مدل لاجیت را تایید کرد. با توجه به یافته تحقیق، به سیاست‌گزاران منطقه‌ای توصیه می‌شود در مناطق جنگلی پیرامون روستاها و سکونتگاه‌های عشایری جهت حفاظت و جلوگیری از تخریب جنگل‌ها انجمن‌های جنگل‌داری با مشارکت جوامع محلی تشکیل شود. همچنین، با تغییر نوع مالکیت جنگل‌ها از دولت به جامعه محلی می‌توان جنگل‌‌ها را در مقابل هر گونه تهدید یا بحران‌ حفاظت کرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• جنگل‌داری مشارکتی
• روستایی و عشایری
• شهرستان بافت
• مدل لاجیت

---

عنوان مقاله [English]

Investigating the Factors Affecting the Participation of Rural and Nomadic Communities in Sustainable Management of Natural Resources: A Case Study of Wild Pistachio and Wild Almond Forests in Baft county

نویسندگان [English]

• shoja mousapour syahjel ¹
• Mahmood Hashemi tabar ²
• mahdi safdari ³

¹ PhD Student in Agricultural Economics, University of Sistan and Baluchestan , Faculty of Economics, Zahedan, Iran.

² Assistant Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of Sistan and Baluchestan , Faculty of Economics, Zahedan, Iran.

³ Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of Sistan and Baluchestan , Faculty of Economics, Zahedan, Iran.

چکیده [English]

In Kerman desert province, the forest part in Baft county largely covered by wild pistachio and wild almond trees is of great significance. During the last two decades, the forest areas of Baft County have faced a crisis and the challenge of destruction due to the disruption of the natural cycle and the lack of awareness of communities about the importance of forests. Therefore, it is necessary to develop appropriate planning to prevent further degradation and comprehensive management in order to preserve and rehabilitate these forests. Therefore, the present study purposes to investigate the factors affecting the local participation of rural and nomadic forest dwellers and to examine the willingness to change the management structure from public to local management to protect and prevent deforestation in Baft county using the logit regression model. We studied nomadic villages and settlements as a case study and for the data required for the research, 197 questionnaires were designed using the Likert scale and in the summer and autumn of 1398 randomly among rural residents Nomads living in the forest basin were distributed and collected. Stata15 and N Logit 5 software were used for model estimation and quantitative and qualitative data analysis. Statistical results showed that men with a participation of 72% are more inclined to participate in forest protection than women with a participation of 28%. Findings of the Logit regression model showed that socio-economic variables, variables of internal ecosystem threats and forestry association variables have a significant effect at the levels of 1%, 5% and 10% on the participation model to protect and prevent deforestation. Also, the model simulation on the three variables of age, education and income confirmed the output of the logit model. According to the research findings, regional policymakers are highly advised to form forestry associations with the participation of local communities in the forest areas around the villages and nomadic settlements to protect and prevent deforestation. Also, by adjusting the type of forest ownership from the government to the local community, forests can be protected against any threat or crisis.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Participatory forestry
• Rural and nomadic
• Baft county
• Logit model

مراجع

• Apipoonyanon, C., Kuwornu, J. K. M., Sazabo, S and Shrestha, R. (2019): Factors influencing household participation in community forest management: evidence from Udon Thani Province, Thailand. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 39(2), 184-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2019.1632211
• Afrough, A., Zare Mehrjerdi, M. R., Amirtaimoori, S., Mirzaei Khalilabadi, H. R. & Baniasadi, M. (2018): Identification and ranking of factors affecting lack of participation of local beneficiaries in management, preservation and reclamation of Lorestan oak forests. Iranian Journal of Forest and Poplar Research. 26(3), 393-405 (In Persian)
• Atmiş, E, Daşdemir, I, Lise, W. & Yildiran, Ö. (2007): Factors affecting women’s participation in forestry in Turkey. Ecological Economics. 60(4), 787–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.02.016
• AusAID, (2006): Recovering Shangri La: The Partnership in Community Forestry Between Nepal and Australia 1966–2005.
• Agrawal, A. and Gupta, K, (2005): Decentralization and participation: the governance of common pool resources in Nepal's Terai. World Development. 33(7), 1101–1114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.04.009
• Acharya, K. P. (2003): Twenty-four years of community forestry in Nepal. International Forestry Review. 4(2), 149–156. https://doi.org/10.1505/IFOR.4.2.149.17447
• Bastakoti, R, Davidsen, C. (2017): Framing REDD+ at national level: actors and discourse around Nepal’s policy debate. Forests. 8 )57(, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8030057
• Bayat, N., Rastegari, A. and Azaizi, F. (2011): Environmental protection and management of rural soil resources in Iran. journal of Regional Planning. 2, 63-78 (In Persian)
• Bellinger, S. & Gale, F. (2013): Models of community forestry. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management. 11(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2004.10648599
• Buttoud, G, (1999): Principles of participatory processes in public decision making. In: Niskanen,Vayrynen (Eds.), Regional Forest Programmes: A participatory approach to supportforest based regional development: EFI Proceedings, 11–28.
• Carreira, V, Machado, J. R. & Vasconcelos, L. (2016): Citizens education level and public participation in environmental and spatial planning public policies: case study in Lisbon and Surrounds Counties. International Journal of Political Science. 2(3), 25–34. doi:20431/2454-9452.0203004
• Coulibaly-Lingani, P, Savadogo, P, Tigabu, M. & 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. doi:1016/j.forpol.2011.02.005
• Carter, J, Pokharel, B, Parajuli, R. R. (2011): Two decades of community forestry in Nepal: what have we learned? Nepal Swiss Community Forestry Project, Lalitpur, Nepal.
• Dolisca, F, Carter, D. R, McDaniel, J. M, Shannon, D. A. & Jolly, C. M. (2006): Factors influencing farmers’ participation in forestry management programs: A case study from Haiti. Forest Ecology and Management. 236(2–3), 324–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.09.017
• Donoghue, E. M, Cubbage, F. W. & Mercer, D. E. (2004): Contract NGOs in community-based forest management in the Philippines. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 17(4), 47–73. https://doi.org/10.1300/J091v17n04_04
• (1997): Forestry for local community development. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.th/books?isbn=9251005850
• Gilmour, A. D. (2016): Forty years of community-based forestry: A review of its extent and effectiveness. Rome, Italy: FAO Forestry Paper.
• Glasmeier, A. K, & Farrigan, T. (2005): Understanding community forestry: A qualitative meta-study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case. Geographical Journal. 171(1), 56–69. doi:1111/j.1475-4959.2005.00149.x
• Graham, J, Amos, B, & Plumptre, T. (2003): Principles for good governance in the 21st century. Ottawa, Canada: Institute on Governance. Retrieved from https://iog.ca/docs/2003_August_policybrief15.pdf
• Greene, W. H. (2003): Econometric Analysis. New York University.Pp, 764-765
• Hajra, R, Szabo, S, Tessler, Z, Ghosh, T, Matthews, Z. & Foufoula-Georgiou, E. (2017): Unravelling the association between the impact of natural hazards and household poverty: evidence from the Indian Sundarban delta. Sustainability Science. 12(3), 453–464. doi:1007/s11625-016-0420-2
• Hobley, M. (1996): Participatory Forestry: The Process of Change in India and Nepal. Overseas Development Institute, London, UK
• Jumbe, C. B. and Angelsen, A, (2007): Forest dependence and participation in CPR management: empirical evidence from forest co-management in Malawi. Ecological Economics. 62 (3), 661-672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.08.008
• Kerman province Natural Resources Organization. (2015): Studies of the second stage of Kerman province planning and review of the first stage studies, 147-364 (In Persian)
• Kumar Jana., Sebak, L., Wietze and Ahmed, M. (2014): Factors affecting participation in joint forest management in the West Bengal state of India”. Journal of Forest Economics. 20(4), 317-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2014.09.003
• Laudari, H. K, Aryal, K. and Maraseni, T. (2020): A postmortem of forest policy dynamics of Nepal. Land Use Policy. 91, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104338
• MoFSC (2015): Project Bank in the Forestry Sector of Nepal. Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Singha Durbar, Kathmandu, Nepal.
• Menegaki, A.N, Hanley, N. and Tsagarakis, K.P. (2007): The social acceptability and valuation of recycled water in Crete: A study of consumers’ and farmers’ attitudes. Ecol. Econ. 62(1), 7-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.008
• Meinzen-dick, R, Pandolfelli, L, Dohrn, S. and Athens, J. (2007): Gender and collective action : A conceptual framework for analysis. The International Research Workshop on Gender and Collective Action. 64, 1-30.
• Maskey, V., Gebremedhin, T. G. and Dalton, T. J, (2006): Social and cultural determinants of collective management of community forest in Nepal. Journal of Forest Economics. 11 (4), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2005.10.004
• Nelson, H. W, Williamson, T. B, Macaulay, C. and Mahony, C. (2016): Assessing the potential for forest management practitioner participation in climate change adaptation. Forest Ecology and Management, 360, 388–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.09.038
• Najmi, M., Borghanifarahani, M., Saiedi, A., Moghadasi, J., and Sadat mirvahabi, H. (2013). Investigation of effective factors and barriers factors in utilization cooperation to improvement of Markazi province rangelands.5th national conference of rangland management”, Boroujerd,184. (In Persian)
• Nagendra, H, (2011): Heterogeneity and Collective Action for Forest Management. Technical report. Human Development Report Office (HDRO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Pp: 53
• Okumu, B, & Muchapondwa, E, (2020): Determinants of successful collective management of forest resources: Evidence from Kenyan Community Forest Associations. Forest Policy and Economics. 113, 1-14. DOI :https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102122
• Oli, B. N. and Treue, T, (2015): Determinants of participation in community forestry in Nepal. International Forestry Review. 17, 311–325.
• Poffenberger, M. and Betsy, M. (1996): Village voices, forest choices: Joint forest management in India. Oxford, UK: Oxford University. MMS ID: .
• Rist, L, Shackleton, C, Gadamus, L, Chapin, F. S, Gowda, C. M, Setty, S. and Shaanker, R. U (2016): Ecological knowledge among communities, managers and scientists: Bridging divergent perspectives to improve forest management outcomes. Environmental Management. 57(4), 798–813. doi:1007/s00267-015-0647-1
• Steg, L. and Vlek, C. (2009): Encouraging proenvironmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Esychology.3( 29), 309-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
• Shafie, Sh. (2007): Central participation and its role in the activities of cooperative economic enterprises. Ministry of Cooperation, Education Office, page 10. (In Persian)
• Shackleton, C. M, Shackleton, S. E, Buiten, E. and Bird, N, (2007): The importance of dry woodlands and forests in rural livelihoods and poverty alleviation in South Africa. Forest Policy Econ. 9 (5), 558–577
• Thandar Soe, K. and Yeo-Chang, Y. (2019): Perceptions of forest-dependent communities toward participation in forest conservation: A case study in Bago Yoma, South-Central Myanmar. Journal forest policy ecomomics. 100, 129-141. doi:1016/j.forpol.2018.11.009
• Ting, Z, Haiyun, C, Shivakoti, G. P, Cochard, R. and Homcha-aim, K (2011): Revisit to community forest in northeast of Thailand: Changes in status and utilization. Environment. Development and Sustainability. 13(2), 385–402. doi:1007/s10668-010-9267-3
• Pirzadian, A. (2010): Check the status of local communities in the preservation and development plan Zagros forests (Case study in the province of Kermanshah). Iranian Journal forest and grassland. 12(15), 47-52. (In Persian).
• Youn, Y. C., Choi, J., de Jong, W., Liu, J., Park, M. S., Camacho, L. D., Tachibana, S., Huudung, N. D., Bhojvaid, P. P., Damaynti, E, K., Wanneng, P. and Othman, M. S. (2017). Conditions of forest transition in Asian countries. Forest Policy and Economics. 76, 14-24.
• Yaghobi Farani, A., karimi, s. and Parmozeh, F. (2017): Factors affecting people's participation in forest protection projects in Gilan-e- Gharb. Journal of wood and forest science and technology. 24(2), 33 – 45 (In Persian)
• Yaghoubi Farani, A., Sepahpanah, M. and Parmozeh, F, (2016): Barriers of local people participation in forest conservation plans in Gilan-e Gharb county. Journal of Zagros Forests Research. 2(2), 79-89 (In Persian)