ارزیابی ترجیحات جوامع بومی برای حفاظت اکوسیستم جنگلی (مطالعه موردی: جنگل‌های شیاده و دیوا)

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• حمید حاجی زاده
• اصغر فلاح
• ساره حسینی

گروه جنگلداری، دانشکده منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی ساری،ساری، ایران

https://doi.org/10.22067/jead.2021.72269.1078

چکیده

اکوسیستم جنگل از مهم­ترین ثروت­های طبیعی هر کشور به شمار می­آید که کارکردها و خدمات مختلفی را برای بشر فراهم می­کند. لذا شناخت کارکردها و خدمات اکوسیستم جنگل، تعیین ارزش اقتصادی آنها و بررسی ترجیحات جوامع جهت حفاظت از آنها باید هدف اساسی فعالیت­های انسان قرار گیرد. از این‌رو هدف پژوهش حاضر ارزیابی ترجیحات و تمایل به پرداخت جوامع بومی برای حفاظت اکوسیستم جنگلی شیاده و دیوا از توابع شهرستان بابل واقع در استان مازندران با استفاده از روش ارزشگذاری آزمون انتخاب است. جامعه آماری این پژوهش شامل 150 خانوار بومی روستاهای حاشیه جنگل­های شیاده و دیوا می­باشد. در این مطالعه داده­های پژوهش به­صورت پیمایش میدانی و از طریق نمونه­گیری تصادفی در تابستان 1399 توسط جوامع بومی منطقه تکمیل و جمع­آوری گردید. متغیرهای اجتماعی - اقتصادی در این تحقیق شامل هشت متغیر سن، تأهل، جنسیت، شغل، بعُد خانوار، تحصیلات، درآمد و مخارج خانوار بوده است که اثر این متغیرها بر میزان تمایل به پرداخت جوامع مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. در این مطالعه، تمایل به پرداخت افراد برای حفاظت اکوسیستم جنگلی منطقه با روش آزمون انتخاب و مدل رگرسیونی لاجیت شرطی برآورد گردید. برای راستی­آزمایی مدل لاجیت شرطی، آزمون استقلال بین گزینه­های نامرتبط (IIA) به کمک آماره هاسمن- مک­فادن انجام شد. همچنین جهت بررسی تأثیر متغیرهای اجتماعی- اقتصادی بر روی میزان تمایل به پرداخت از مدل لاجیت چندجمله­ای استفاده گردید. در این پژوهش پایایی پرسشنامه با استفاده از آزمون آلفای کرونباخ (87/0) محاسبه شد. تمایل به پرداخت هر خانوار برای حفظ اکوسیستم جنگلی شیاده و دیوا جهت ارائه خدمات تنظیمی، زیستگاهی و اطلاعاتی از وضعیت فعلی به وضعیت بهبود به­ترتیب برابر با 86/1120، 25/630 و 49/1026 ریال در ماه به­دست آمد. نتایج این مطالعه نشان داد تمایل به پرداخت جوامع بومی جهت حفاظت اکوسیستم جنگل برای ارائه خدمات تنظیمی و بهبود آن در اولین اولویت قرار دارد و خدمات زیستگاهی و اطلاعاتی جایگاه­های بعدی را به­خود اختصاص دادند. لذا خدمات تنظیمی مهم­ترین خدمات اکوسیستمی جنگل از نظر جوامع بومی منطقه شناخته شده است. همچنین، میزان تمایل به پرداخت نهایی جوامع بومی به­ازای هر خانوار 04/33329 ریال در سال (42/2777 ریال برای هر خانوار در ماه) محاسبه شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• آزمون انتخاب
• تمایل به پرداخت
• جوامع روستایی
• شیاده و دیوا
• کارکردهای اکوسیستمی

20.1001.1.20084722.1401.36.3.1.2

موضوعات

• اقتصاد منابع طبیعی و محیط زیست

عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluating Native Communities Preferences for Conservation of Forest Ecosystem (Case Study: Shiyadeh and Diva Forests)

نویسندگان [English]

• H. Hajizadeh
• A. Fallah
• S. Hosseini

Department of Forestry, Natural Resources Faculty, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University,Sari ,Iran

چکیده [English]

Introduction
 The forest ecosystem is one of the most important natural resources of any country, which provides various functions and services for human beings. Therefore, recognizing the functions and services related to the forest and determining the most appropriate valuation method for them is of particular importance. Also, the continuation of using the functions and services of forests requires programs to protect and improve their environmental status. This issue itself requires the participation of stakeholders and finding out about their preferences for forest ecosystem protection and valuing them. But estimating the real value of some functions, ecosystem services and developing appropriate mechanisms to obtain their economic value requires economic valuation methods using non-market methods. Although there are different interpretations of the economic valuation methods of functions and services forest ecosystems but among the various valuation methods, economists have more emphasis on the value of money that is estimated through stated preferences. One of these methods to estimate the stated preferences is the Choice Experiment.
 
Materials and Methods
 The purpose of this study is to evaluate the preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) of native communities for the conservation of Shiadeh and Diva forest ecosystems of Babol city located in Mazandaran province using the evaluation Choice Experiment (CE) method. The Choice Experiment is a subset of the choice modeling method and the stated preference method family. Choice modeling is based on Lancaster's value theory and random utility theory. Also, Shiadeh and Diva forests are one of the green areas with all kinds of forest covers, plants and valuable trees and as one of the useful and valuable resources for the residents of the region. These forests play an important role in the lives of the forest dwellers, herdsmen and villagers on its outskirts. Also, Shiadeh and Diva forests because of the presence of natural forest ecosystem, beautiful landscapes, unique vegetation and diverse animal species, as well as special human and cultural effects, are always one of the centers of interest. This forest ecosystem is very valuable and can provide services for the residents of this area. Therefore, in this study, the statistical population of the study includes 150 native households in the villages of Shiadeh and Diva forests. In the study, research data were completed and collected by field sampling in the summer of 2020 by native communities of the region. Socio-economic variables include eight variables: age, marriage, gender, job, household size, education, income and household expenditure. The effect of these variables on the WTP of communities was surveyed. In this study, the WTP of individuals for the forest ecosystems conservation was estimated by the CE method and conditional logit model. To validate the conditional logit model, the independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) was performed using Hassman-McFadden statistic. Also, a multinomial logit model was used to investigate the effect of socio-economic variables on the WTP.
Results and Discussion
 In this study, the reliability of the questionnaire was calculated using Cronbach's alpha test and was obtained as α=0.87, which indicates its reliability. WTP of each household for the conservation of Shiadeh and Diva forest ecosystem services, including regulatory, habitat and information services, from the status quo to the improvement situation was equal to 1020.68, 630.25 and 1026.49 thousand Rials per month, respectively. The study results showed that WTP native communities for the forest ecosystem conservation to provide regulatory services and its improvement is the first priority, and habitat and information services took the next positions.
Conclusion
 The aim of this study was to evaluate the preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) of native communities for the conservation of Shiadeh and Diva forest ecosystem using the evaluation Choice Experiment (CE) method. In general, it can be concluded that regulatory services was the most important forest ecosystem services in terms of native communities in the region. Also, the final WTP of native communities' estemated at 33329.04 Rials per year (2777.42 Rials per household per month).Therefore, considering the great importance of the regulatory services of Shiadeh and Diwa forest ecosystem, such as water protection, soil protection, carbon sequestration and climate regulation, etc., it is suggested that relevant institutions such as the country natural resources and watershed management organization, the general department of natural resources of the province Mazandaran, regional water organization and agricultural Jahad organization allocate the necessary investments for the protection of Shiadeh and Diwa forests, and implementation of projects such as forest management projects, water protection, soil protection, species protection flora and fauna of the region projects, etc.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Choice experiment
• Ecosystem functions
• Rural communities
• Shiadeh and Diva
• Willingness to pay

مراجع

1. Abedi, T., & Yousefi, B. (2015). Economic value of river protection in order to ensure the sustainability of agricultural water from the perspective of indigenous peoples (Case study: Khalkai Masal River), First International Congress, Land, Space, Clean Energy: 13-1.
2. Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F., & Martinsson, P. (2001). Using choice experiments for non-market valuation, working papers in economics, 52.
3. (2013). Lefebvre Forestry Plan Booklet 6, Nature and Resource Sustainability Consulting Engineers. 156.
4. (2020). https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki.
5. Arcidiacono, P., Bayer, P., Blevins, J.R., & Ellickson, P.E. (2016). Estimation of dynamic discrete choice models in continuous time with an application to retail competition, Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press 83(3): 889-
6. Bamwesigye, D., Hlavackova, P., Sujova, A., Fialova, J., & Kupec, P. (2020). Willingness to pay for forest existence value and sustainability. Sustainability 12(3): 891. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030891.
7. Benjamin, S., Thompson, D., & Friess, A. (2019). Stakeholder preferences for payments for ecosystem services (PES) versus other environmental management approaches for mangrove forests. Journal of Environmental Management 233: 636–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.12.032.
8. Carson, R., Louviere, J.J., Anderson, D., Arabie, P., Bunch, D., Hensher, D.A., Johnson, R., Kuhfeld, W., Steinberg, D., Swait, J.D., Timmermans, H., & Wiley, J. (1994). Experimental analysis of choice. Marketing Letters 351–368.
9. De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., & Boumans, R.M.j. (2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem function, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41: 393-408. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7.
10. De Groot, R., Brander, L., & Ploeg, S. (2012). Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosystem Services 1: 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005.
11. Esmaeili, A., & Paroon, S. (2010). Market valuation of mangrove forest in Qeshm island protected area, Agricultural Economics 4(2): 131-147. (In Persian(
12. Facciolia, M., Czajkowskic, M., Klaus, G., & Julia, M. (2021). Environmental attitudes and place identity as determinants of preferences for ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 174: 106600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106600.
13. Ghomi, A.M., Akbarinia, S.M., Hosseini, T., Mohammad, H., & Hannes Ditter, K. (2021). Prioritizing of the Hyrcanian proposed sites for inscription on the UNESCO´S world Heritage List by use of decision making methods. Ecology of Iranian Forest 8(16): 90-102. (In Persian)
14. Haghjou, M., Hayati, B., Pishbahar, E., & Molaei, M. (2019). An application of choice experiment approach on total economic valuation of Arasbaran forests. Journal Forest Research and Development 5(3): 449-467.
15. Hanley, N., Wright, R.E., & Alvarez-Farizo, B. (2006). Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to the water framework directive. Journal of Environmental Management 78(2): 183-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.05.001.
16. Hanley, N., Mourato, S., & Wright, R. (2001). Choice modeling approaches: A superior alternative for environmental valuation? Journal of Economic Surveys 15(3): 435-462. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6419.00145.
17. Hausman, J., & Macfadden, D. (1984). Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Journal of Econometrical 52(5): 1219-1240. https://doi.org/10.2307/1910997.
18. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., & Greene, W.H. (2005). Applied choice analysis: A primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
19. Jalili Kamjo, P., Sharzie, Gh., Khoshakhlsgh, R., & Rahimi, T. (2014). Application of nested logit model in ecosystem services valuation (Case study: Ganjname recreational site). Journal of Natural Environment 67(3): 253-265. (In Persian)
20. Jalili Kamjoo, P., Khosaghlagh, R., & Ftros, M. (2014). M. Anew Approach in Estimate of regional and non-regional visitor's preference with Zayanderood Ecosystem Services: Choice Experiment – Conditional Logit. Quarterly Energy Economics Review 10(42) :1-24.
21. Jaung, W., Bull, G., Sumail, U., & Putzel, L. (2018). Estimating water user demand for certification of forest watershed, Services. Journal of Environmental Management 212: 469-478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.02.042.
22. Johnson, R.M., & Orm, B.K. (1996). How many questions should you ask in choice-based conjoint studies? In Art Forum, Beaver Creek: 1-23.
23. (1996). A new Approach to consumer theory, Journal of Political Economy.
24. Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D., Swait, J., & Adamowicz, W. (2000). Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
25. Manski, C.F. (1977). The structure of random utility models. Theory and Decision 8(3): 229-254.
26. Marvi Mohajer, M. (2016). Forestry and forestry, University of Tehran Press, 410 p. (In Persian(
27. Mashayekhi, Z. (2007). Economic Valuation of Zagros Forest Ecosystems in Rapid Runoff Reduction as an Environmental Service (Case Study: Bazaft Forests of Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari Province), M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Tehran, 136 p. (In Persian(
28. Mashayekhi, Z., Sharzehi, , Danehkar, A., & Majed, V. (2017). Estimating the local cost of conservation: a choice modeling approach for eliciting willingness to accept compensation. Journal of Forest and Wood Products 70(1): 71-81. (In Persian)
29. Mashayekhi, Z., Sharzehi, G., Danehkar, A., & Majed, V. (2018). A comparison of stated preferences methods for economic valuation of ecosystem services (case study: Qeshm mangrove ecosystems), Environmental Sciences 16(1): 69-88. (In Persian)
30. McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics, Zarembka, P., (ed.) New York: Academic press.
31. Mobarghai, N.(2008). Presenting and applying spatial valuation model of forest ecosystem services using geographic information system (case study: Khairud forests Nowshahr), PhD Thesis, Department of Environmental Planning and Management, Faculty of Environment, University of Tehran, 210 p. (In Persian)
32. Muharramnejad, N., & Mafi, A. (2006). A study of strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities for the implementation of forest principles in the forests of northern Iran (Rio to Johannesburg). Journal of Environmental Technology 11(4): 149-172. (In Persian(
33. Niazi, N., & Malikonia, R. (2013). Prioritization of functions of Middle Zagros forests using classical and fuzzy AHP analysis (Case study: Kakarzai forests of Khorramabad). Natural Ecosystems of Iran 4(1): 45-57. (In Persian(
34. Noden, A., Coria, J., Jonsson, A., Lagergern, F., & Lehsten, V. (2017). Divergence in stakeholder’s preferences: Evidence from a choice experiment on frost landscapes preferences in Swedan. Ecological Economics 132: 179-195.
35. Pirkia, M., Fallah, A., Amirnejad, H., & Mohamadi, J. (2018). The identification and prioritization of criteria and indicators for Assessment of Multiple Ecosystem Services using of multi-criteria decision making techniques Entropy and TOPSIS in Darabkola Watershed. Journal of Natural Ecosystem of Iran 9(3): 79-100. (In Persian)
36. Rezende, C.E., Kahn, J.R., Passareli, L., & Vasquez, W.F. (2015). An economic valuation of mangrove restoration in Brazil. Ecological Economics 120: 296-302.
37. Shahpouri, A., & Amirnejad, H. (2016). Choice modeling, a new method for valuing natural resources in order to sustain and maintain the environment. First National Conference on Applied Research in Environmental Conservation, Water and Natural Resources, Arak. (In Persian(
38. Sharzehi, G., & Jalili Kamjoo, S.P. (2013). Choice modeling: A new approach to valuation of environmental commodity; case study: Ganjnameh, Hamadan. 13(3): 1-18. (In Persian)
39. Taye, F., Vedel, S., & Jacobsen, J. (2018). Accounting for environmental attitude to explain variations in willingness to pay for forest ecosystem services using the new environmental, Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 2160-6544 (Print) 2160-6552.22pp. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2018.1467346.
40. Vega, D.C., & Alpizar, F. (2011). The case of the Toro 3 Hydroelectric project and the Recreo Verde Tourist center in Costa Rica. Environment for Development: Discussion Paper Series, May, EfD DP.