Differences between urban and rural population with respect to demand on forestry aspects, in a case study of the Turkish province of Bal ıkesir - PDF

Description
Ciência 436 Rural, Santa Maria, v.42, n.3, p , mar, 2012Erol et al. ISSN Differences between urban and rural population with respect to demand on forestry aspects, in a case study of the

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 8
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information
Category:

Religion & Spirituality

Publish on:

Views: 31 | Pages: 8

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Transcript
Ciência 436 Rural, Santa Maria, v.42, n.3, p , mar, 2012Erol et al. ISSN Differences between urban and rural population with respect to demand on forestry aspects, in a case study of the Turkish province of Bal ıkesir Diferenças entre a população urbana e rural em matéria das suas exigências de silvicultura, estudo de caso da província turca de Bal ıkesir Seçil Yurdakul Erol I ABSTRACT Inhabitants of urban and rural areas are important participants in the process of developing and implementing forest policy. Thus, it is essential to determine their demands and attitudes towards forestry issues. In this context, the demands and evaluation of forest functions are investigated in a case study of the Turkish province of Bal ıkesir. The findings of the case study show that differences in terms of demands among inhabitants of rural and urban areas are related to forest fires fighting, crimes fighting, forestry-tourism integration, forestation and regeneration activities, and the enlargement of forest areas. The main differences among their assessments of forest functions are related to fire wood production, and the provision of flood and erosion control, nature protection, and recreational opportunities. The findings are important for conflict management and for local decision making. By using the findings of similar studies, the provincial organizations should harmonize their priorities with the expectations of relevant interest groups. Key words: forestry, people demands, forest functions, cluster analysis, comparing means. RESUMO A política de silvicultura da população urbana e rural é uma participante fundamental no processo de formação e execução das florestas. Portanto, é importante determinar as exigências e as aproximações em matéria da silvicultura. A determinação das exigências da população urbana e rural no âmbito desse processo e a interpretação destinada aos assuntos das funções da floresta foram pesquisadas tendo como base a província turca de Bal ıkesir. As constatações resultantes do estudo na região demonstraram que as diferenças entre as exigências da população urbana e rural em matéria da silvicultura são a luta contra os incêndios florestais, a luta contra os delitos florestais, a integração de silvicultura-turismo, as atividades de reflorestamento e rejuvenescimento da floresta e a ampliação dos campos florestais. Por outro lado, as diferenças fundamentais entre as constatações feitas em matéria das funções da floresta são a produção de lenha, a prevenção de erosão e inundação, a protecção natural, o projeto de recreação. Os resultados obtidos são importantes para a gestão de estudo e para a tomada de decisões no âmbito local. As instituições locais devem adaptar as suas prioridades e as exigências dos grupos interessados tirando proveito das constatações obtidas em estudos semelhantes. Palavras-chave: silvicultura, exigências da população, funções da floresta, análise de grupamento, comparação das médias aritméticas. INTRODUCTION The most successful natural resource management plans are community based: they involve those who work, live, and recreate on the land itself (DEBRUYCKERE, 2006). These kinds of projects are effective because traditional knowledge of available resources and existing social structures are used to develop more efficient strategies for managing resources (VIRA & JEFFERY, 2001). Because of this essential perception, participatory methods of developing policy are increasingly common in many areas, including environmental and forest policy (ELSASSER, 2007). In various international environmental and forest policy agreements, is offered to citizens increased opportunities to participate in making decisions regarding environmental issues, natural resources, and forest I Istanbul University, Faculty of Forestry, Department of Forest Policy and Administration, Bahçeköy, Istanbul, Turkey. Received Approved Returned by the author CR-4218 Differences between urban and rural population with respect to demand on forestry aspects management. Based on the effects of these international processes, public participation can be defined as one of the basic principles and integral elements of recent national forest programs (GLÜCK& HUMPHREYS, 2002; PÜLZL & RAMETSTEINER, 2002). In this regard, the equitable participation of stakeholders in decision making and in the resolution of conflicts among interest groups is becoming increasingly important. In the process of environmental decision making, advocacy of the rights and interests of the general public is often much weaker than advocacy on behalf of other groups (JABBOUR & BALSILLIE, 2003). SALAM & NOGUCHI (2006) concluded that indigenous inhabitants of forests, who were of great importance to the success of forestry projects, had little influence on decision-making. RAO et al. (2003) also expressed the importance of investigation into local peoples aptitude and perceptions in decision making process for natural resources management. Moreover, regular relation between rural people and forestry is seen as the key factor for maintaining systematic and sustainable management of forests (EK İZO ĞLU & YILDIRIM, 2004). In addition, society is increasingly urbanized. Consequently, it is increasingly important to improve the understanding of inhabitants of urban areas with regard to forestry practices while simultaneously enhancing the understanding of foresters with regard to the urban public s expectations for forests (KONIJNENDIJK, 2000). Participation of rural and urban people in decision making and implementation processes is also emphasized in recent policy tools of Turkish Forestry. In spite of contrary statements, the participation of rural inhabitants in the development of forestry policy has not been implemented sufficiently. This has caused problems with the planning, decision making, and implementation processes of forest resource management (ÖZTÜRK et al., 2003). The main issues about participation in Turkish forestry can be listed as; i) the public s knowledge about forestry issues is low; various groups of society have different expectations from the forests that may contradict with each other, ii) no incentive systems have been established to encourage participation in the decision-making and implementation process, iii) forest policies, plans, implementations are not known by the public, hence the decision-making process is not transparent iv) neither current legal arrangements nor the organizational structure of the forestry service currently support public participation (AKESEN et al., 2003; ERDÖNMEZ, 2005; ATMI Şet al., 2007). On the other hand conflicts among interest groups are also common problems in Turkish forestry resource management (BARLI et. al., 2006). Generally results from preference studies can be useful component in planning multiple-use forest management (GUNDERSEN& FR İVOLD, 2008). To light this approach, the primary aim of this paper is to characterize the demands of the inhabitants of rural and urbanized areas and to assess the differences between them. This research was conducted in the Bal ıkesir province of Turkey, which has multi-functional forest resources and urban and rural populations that are approximately balanced. MATERIAL AND METHODS The province of Bal ıkesir has an especially large potential regarding nature protection, naturebased tourism, outdoor recreation, and natural landscape. On the other hand, the Regional Forest Directorate of Bal ıkesir, which operates within the borders of the city of Bal ıkesir, is one of the most important provincial organizations that deal with the production of wood and non-wood forest products in Turkey. Because of its multi-functional forestry structure and its balanced population, Bal ıkesir Province is chosen as the sample case. On the other hand, demographic properties of the province make it a good sample in context of forestry and community relation. The population of the province of Bal ıkesir is 1,118,313 according to the 2007 census. The urban population is 649,423 and the rural population is 468,890 (TUIK, 2008). Of the total population, 10% lives in the forest and 19% in villages near the forest. In the first stage, the districts of Bal ıkesir were allocated to different but homogeneous groups using k- means clustering. Each district was classified in terms of forest area (productive and unproductive forest area), non-wooded area, urban population, rural population (forest villages population, population of the remaining villages), recreational area, and protected area. Information regarding the distribution of the production of wood and non-wood forest products was not available for districts. Therefore, these data were not used. The data that were used in the cluster analysis, like clusters and distances are shown in table 1. Following two iterations of k-means clustering, three clusters were identified. In light of these results, one representative district was chosen from each of the three groups. These districts were central District, Edremit and Dursunbey (Figure 1). Then, questionnaires were used as the main method of collecting data. To evaluate demand, 23 statements were used. Eleven statements were used to evaluate forest function. Subjects responded to each statement using a five point, interval scale in which a value of 5 corresponded to very important and a value of 1 corresponded to unimportant. Members of 438 Erol et al. Table 1 - Data related Balıkesir s districts and cluster membership. DISTRICTS OF BALIKESİR Productive Forest Area (ha.) * Unproductive Forest Area (ha.)* Unwooded Area (ha.)* Urban Population** Forest Village Population** Rural Population** (Except Forest Villages) Recreational Area (ha.)*** Protected Area (ha.)*** CLUSTER DISTANCE Central Dist Ayvalık Balya Bandırma Bigadiç Burhaniye Dursunbey Edremit Erdek Gömeç Gönen Havran İvrindi Kepsut Manyas Marmara A Savaştepe Sındırgı Susurluk (*) Documents of Regional Forest Directorate of Balıkesir-2007, (**)Turkish Statistics Institution 2008, (***)Documents of Balıkesir Provincial Environment and Forest Directorate provincial assemblies and town councils represented the urban population. Village headmen represented the rural population (villagers). A total of 102 and 70 inhabitants of rural and urban areas were surveyed. To evaluate the results of the survey, SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) program was used. In the first stage of the evaluation, reliability analysis was conducted to assess the reliability of (a) the interval scale and (b) the estimates of correlation coefficients. The estimates of Cronbach s alpha ( α) for the groups of questions were α=0.78 and α=0.69 respectively. Descriptive statistics that were determined for each variable were the mean and standard deviation. Differences between rural and urban populations were analyzed by Student s t-test. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Based on descriptive statistics (Table 2), variation in the expectations of forest villagers was related to participation, demand determination and evaluation system, role of forestry sector in regional development, and employment opportunities in forestry sector. Forest fires fighting, forest maintenance, forestation and regeneration activities, forestry-tourism integration, enlargement of forest areas, and forest crime fighting were important subjects for the urban inhabitants. In particular, the last part of the rating forest villagers consisted of forest crimes fighting, forestrytourism integration, forestation and regeneration activities, forest fire fighting, and enlargement of forest areas, respectively. Moreover, the statement regarding the increase of wood production was important to forest villagers but not to inhabitants of urban areas. The results of t-tests (Table 2) showed that the responses of inhabitants of urban and rural areas differed most [t(169)= -12,84] for the statement regarding forest crimes fighting. One additional remarkable result was related to the statement that dealt with integrating tourism and forestry activities in the region [t (170) = -6,40]. The statement about increase in the production of wood and non-wood forest products was very important to the inhabitants of rural areas but only moderately important to inhabitants of urban areas. Responses of inhabitants of urban and rural areas differed substantially with respect to statements regarding fighting forest fires, forestation and regeneration activities, enlargement forest area, forest maintenance, and biodiversity and nature conservation activities. Differences between urban and rural population with respect to demand on forestry aspects Figure 1 - Map of the studied area (Province of Bal1kesir and Sample Districts). Based on the descriptive statistics, statements regarding water production, climate regulation and community health protection functions assigned a great importance by each group (Table 3).On the other hand the biggest difference between the assessments of rural and urban populations was related to the function of nature protection [t (170)=-6,03]. In addition, the function related to firewood was important for rural inhabitants but only moderately important to urban inhabitants [t (170)=2,68)]. Flood and erosion control function of the forests were more important for the urban population than for the rural population [t (170) = -3,82]. Statements regarding opportunities for recreation were more important for urban inhabitants than for rural inhabitants [t(169)=-2,23)]. The statement regarding service to science and education functions of forests also was considered more important to urban than rural people [t(170)=-2,91 )]. There are also some other researches that express the different priorities of urban and rural people. RACEVSKIS & LUPI s (2006) research results support the idea that rural community members are very concerned about the continued provision of both market and nonmarket forest outputs. While urban community members have milder concerns for sustaining multiple forest outputs but expressed strong concerns for marinating recreational opportunities. ZACHRISSON (2008) found that people living in more rural areas had a slightly different view from urban dwellers about management of protected areas. The mail survey results of CLEMENT & CHENG (2011) showed that the importance of economic values is greater on more rural forests than on the more urban one. Also they found that people living in more rural municipalities have a more favorable attitude towards human use and interaction with national forests than respondents, who tend to be more urban. ERDÖNMEZ & ÖZDEN s (2009) research results showed that the rural development project that focuses on meeting the needs of rural population and creating job opportunities influences the migration of people from villages to the cities. On the other hand the most average citizen s interests are focused on conserving forests conserving and on using those places to recreation (KROTT, 2005). 5 Table 2 - Descriptive statistics and t-test results ond demands of rural and urban inhabitants. σ ( s ) STATEMENT Participant type N -----Descriptive Statistics t-test Results X σ ( s ) t df p Increase participation implements in forestry Rural 102 4,65 0,77 activities Urban 70 4,33 1,04 2, ,02 Development of public education Rural 102 3,83 1,45 opportunities related to forestry Urban 70 4,40 0,98-2, ,05 Improve public demand s determination and Rural 97 4,56 0,85 evaluation system Urban 70 4,24 0,92 2, ,02 Increase the public s knowledge of forestry Rural 102 4,11 1,08 activities Urban 70 4,19 1,10-0, ,64 Enlarge forest areas Rural 97 3,54 1,75 Urban 70 4,43 0,95-3, ,0 Improve forest fire fighting Rural 101 3,54 1,47 Urban 69 4,58 0,83-5, ,0 Increase wood production Rural 99 3,89 1,42 Urban 70 2,64 1,18 6, ,0 Increase production of non-wood forest Rural 100 4,13 1,39 products Urban 70 3,34 1,37 3, ,0 Improve forest cadastre and solve ownership Rural 102 3,79 1,68 problems Urban 70 4,06 1,36-1, ,27 Increase enforcement of forestry-related crime Rural 102 1,86 1,47 Urban 69 4,43 0,93-12, ,0 Improve forest maintenance activities Rural 100 3,96 1,16 Urban 70 4,49 0,83-3, ,0 Accelerate forestation and regeneration Rural 100 3,44 1,72 activities Urban 70 4,49 0,89-4, ,0 Develop in-forest transportation and Rural 102 3,99 1,46 construction Urban 70 4,01 1,11-0, ,90 Enable further employment opportunities in Rural 102 4,39 1,15 forestry activities Urban 70 3,99 0,95 2, ,01 Meet the expectations of forest villagers Rural 102 4,03 1,59 regarding forest products Urban 70 4,16 0,89-0, ,50 Improve relations between agriculturebreeding and forestry sectors in the region Urban 70 4,36 0,86 Rural 100 3,89 1,24-2, ,01 Integrate tourism and forestry activities in the Rural 102 3,18 1,53 region Urban 70 4,46 0,79-6, ,0 Develop the current activates related to water Rural 102 3,98 1,36 and soil conservation Urban 70 4,37 0,90-2, ,03 Improve bio-diversity and nature Rural 102 3,83 1,21 conservation activities Urban 70 4,34 0,97-3, ,00 Increase the scientific and professional Rural 102 4,27 1,06 education activities in the region Urban 70 4,16 1,05 0, ,47 Encourage cooperation between the forestry Rural 102 4,17 1,14 sector and other related sectors Urban 70 4,17 0,88-0, ,97 Increase recreational opportunities in forests Rural 102 3,62 1,56 Urban 70 3,81 1,25-0, ,38 Improve the role of forestry in regional Rural 102 4,50 1,16 development Urban 70 4,31 0,94 1, ,25 N: total sample size, X :arithmetic mean, σ ( s ): standard deviation, t: observed t value, df: degree of freedom, p: significance level Differences between urban and rural population with respect to demand on forestry aspects Table 3 - Forest function evaluation of rural and urban inhabitants. Function Participant Type N Descriptive Statistics t-test Results X σ ( s ) t df p Timber production Rural 102 3,68 1,27 Urban 70 3,89 0,86-1, ,23 Fire-wood production Rural 102 3,81 1,22 Urban 70 3,36 0,86 2, ,0 Production of non-wood forest products Rural 102 3,76 1,41 Urban 70 3,61 0,90 0, ,43 Water production and water quality protection Rural 102 4,23 1,05 Urban 70 4,76 0,76-0, ,37 Flood and erosion control Rural 102 3,93 1,12 Urban 70 4,53 0,79-3, ,0 Climate regulation Rural 102 4,47 0,93 Urban 70 4,54 0,63-0, ,57 Community health protection Rural 102 4,52 0,71 Urban 70 4,66 0,56-1, ,17 Nature protection biodiversity, wilderness, gene Rural 102 3,72 1,1 resources Urban 70 4,60 0,62-6, ,0 Availability of recreational opportunities Rural 102 3,39 1,59 Urban 69 3,87 0,92-2, ,02 Contributions to rural development Rural 102 3,85 1,03 Urban 70 3,99 0,92-0, ,39 Science and education services Rural 102 3,55 1,11 Urban 70 4,04 0,90-2, ,0 N: total sample size, X :arithmetic mean, σ ( s ) : standard deviation, t: observed t value, df: degree of freedom, P: significance level. In conclusion, determining the expectations and priorities of the public could become a more important part of the decision making process for Turkey. Currently, mechanisms to solicit the active participation of the public are underdeveloped. Certainly, other interest groups, such as forest products enterprises, non-governmental organizations, and other related public institutions, should participate in the process of forestry administration. However, the general public has a special position among all stakeholders because of the size of the community and because of the relationship of the general public with the forests. In reality, forests are useful to society in many ways, any one of which may not be completely taken into consideration by any single stakeholder. Some of the more complex issues may require a specific knowledge, which should not be linked to any kind of social interest (KOUPLEVATSKAYA-YUNUSOVA & BUTTOU
Related Search
Similar documents
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks