IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v78y2017icp173-179.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public views on the value of forests in relation to forestation projects—A case study in central Taiwan

Author

Listed:
  • Chuang, Tsai-Jen
  • Yen, Tian-Ming

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to understand the public's attitude toward the Reforestation in Mountain Areas (RMA) and the Afforestation in Lowland Areas (ALA) projects. Understanding the public's attitudes toward these projects could provide critical information for forest management; furthermore, their underlying values and the acquired knowledge might help collect more detailed information for these projects. Out of a total of 800 questionnaires, 724 valid questionnaires were obtained from July 2012 to March 2013; the study site was in central Taiwan. A paired t-test was used to compare the perceived forest benefits between mountain and lowland areas, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was adopted to rank the different forest values in each area. However, the relationship between forest values, forest knowledge components and attitudes toward the two projects was constructed based on cognitive hierarchical theory. Logistic regressions were employed to analyze this relationship. The result indicated that the respondents held positive attitudes toward these two projects, particularly the RMA project. Comparing the same forest values held by public in mountain and lowland areas, the scores were higher in mountain areas, and all items showed the same pattern. Meanwhile, among the forest values, the external benefits were shown to have higher priority, regardless of the area. After the logistic regression analysis, we confirmed that people's forest values and forest knowledge were possible components for forming their attitudes toward the two projects—for example, the RMA project was influenced by forest values and forest knowledge, whereas the ALA project was only influenced by forest values. Nevertheless, the logistic models were shown to perform well in the cognitive hierarchical theory framework in our study.

Suggested Citation

  • Chuang, Tsai-Jen & Yen, Tian-Ming, 2017. "Public views on the value of forests in relation to forestation projects—A case study in central Taiwan," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 173-179.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:78:y:2017:i:c:p:173-179
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934116302337
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.020?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schaaf, Kenli A. & Broussard, Shorna R., 2006. "Private forest policy tools: A national survey exploring the American public's perceptions and support," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 316-334, December.
    2. Tassone, Valentina C. & Wesseler, Justus & Nesci, Francesco S., 2004. "Diverging incentives for afforestation from carbon sequestration: an economic analysis of the EU afforestation program in the south of Italy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(6), pages 567-578, October.
    3. Bull, Gary Q. & Bazett, Michael & Schwab, Olaf & Nilsson, Sten & White, Andy & Maginnis, Stewart, 2006. "Industrial forest plantation subsidies: Impacts and implications," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 13-31, November.
    4. Hajjar, Reem & Kozak, Robert A., 2015. "Exploring public perceptions of forest adaptation strategies in Western Canada: Implications for policy-makers," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 59-69.
    5. Kim, Taeyoung & Langpap, Christian, 2016. "Agricultural landowners’ response to incentives for afforestation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 93-111.
    6. Masiero, Mauro & Secco, Laura & Pettenella, Davide & Brotto, Lucio, 2015. "Standards and guidelines for forest plantation management: A global comparative study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 29-44.
    7. United Nations, 2016. "The Sustainable Development Goals 2016," Working Papers id:11456, eSocialSciences.
    8. Christie, Mike & Fazey, Ioan & Cooper, Rob & Hyde, Tony & Kenter, Jasper O., 2012. "An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 67-78.
    9. Czaja, Michael R. & Bright, Alan D. & Cottrell, Stuart P., 2016. "Integrative complexity, beliefs, and attitudes: Application to prescribed fire," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 54-61.
    10. Louise Eriksson & Annika M. Nordlund & Kerstin Westin, 2013. "The general public's support for forest policy in Sweden: a value belief approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(6), pages 850-867, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gebregziabher, Dawit & Soltani, Arezoo, 2019. "Exclosures in people’s minds: perceptions and attitudes in the Tigray region, Ethiopia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 1-14.
    2. Chang, Hung-Hao & Lee, Brian & Hsieh, Yi-Ting, 2021. "Participation in afforestation programs and the distribution of forest farm income," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    3. Rui Sun & Dayi He & Jingjing Yan & Li Tao, 2021. "Mechanism Analysis of Applying Blockchain Technology to Forestry Carbon Sink Projects Based on the Differential Game Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-18, October.
    4. Nhem, Sareth & Lee, Young Jin, 2019. "Using Q methodology to investigate the views of local experts on the sustainability of community-based forestry in Oddar Meanchey province, Cambodia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pelai, Ricardo & Hagerman, Shannon M. & Kozak, Robert, 2020. "Biotechnologies in agriculture and forestry: Governance insights from a comparative systematic review of barriers and recommendations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    2. Claudia Hanson & Sanni Kujala & Peter Waiswa & Tanya Marchant & Joanna Schellenberg, 2017. "Community-based approaches for neonatal survival: Meta-analyses of randomized trial data," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2017-137, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    3. Eugenia Ganea & Valentina Bodrug-Lungu, 2018. "Addressing Inequality in Vocational/ Technical Education by Eliminating Gender Bias," Revista romaneasca pentru educatie multidimensionala - Journal for Multidimensional Education, Editura Lumen, Department of Economics, vol. 10(4), pages 136-155, December.
    4. Gallopín, Gilberto, 2018. "Back to the future," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 318-324.
    5. OGUNNOWO, Fatai Abiodun & Prof. F. A. OKWO & JULIUS, Deborah Nwanne, 2023. "Availability and Utilization of Security Facilities in Federal Tertiary Institutions of Enugu State, Nigeria," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 7(5), pages 931-941, May.
    6. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    7. Põllumäe, Priit & Lilleleht, Ando & Korjus, Henn, 2016. "Institutional barriers in forest owners' cooperation: The case of Estonia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 9-16.
    8. Wirapong Chansanam & Chunqiu Li, 2022. "Scientometrics of Poverty Research for Sustainability Development: Trend Analysis of the 1964–2022 Data through Scopus," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.
    9. -, 2021. "The 2020 census round: challenges of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Montevideo Consensus on Population and Development," Población y Desarrollo 46727, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    10. Guillaume Peterson St-Laurent & Shannon Hagerman & Robert Kozak, 2018. "What risks matter? Public views about assisted migration and other climate-adaptive reforestation strategies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 573-587, December.
    11. Shannon L. Sibbald & Nicole Haggerty, 2019. "Integrating Business and Medical Pedagogy to Accomplish the Sustainable Development Goals," Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, , vol. 13(1), pages 92-101, March.
    12. Rahi Jain & Prashant Narnaware, 2020. "Application of Systems Thinking to Dent Child Malnutrition: A Palghar District, India Case Study," Millennial Asia, , vol. 11(1), pages 79-98, April.
    13. Asiamah, Ebenezer & Oduro-Yeboah, Charlotte & Mboom, Frank Peget & Atter, Amy & Idun-Acquah, Nancy Nelly & Nkansah, Jessica, 2022. "Assessment of the volume of seafood waste generation, utilization and management system from selected seafood processing companies in Ghana: A case study," African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), vol. 22(07).
    14. Temidayo Olabode Akenroye & Håvard Mokleiv Nygård & Ama Eyo, 2018. "Towards implementation of sustainable development goals (SDG) in developing nations: A useful funding framework," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 21(1), pages 3-8, March.
    15. Omar B. Da'ar & Abdi A. Gele, 2023. "Tuberculosis in a weak health system, conflict and fragile zone: The monetary value of human lives lost associated with deaths of persons older than 14 years in Somalia," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 53-68, January.
    16. Couture, Stéphane & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Forest management under fire risk when forest carbon sequestration has value," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 2002-2011, September.
    17. Hirokazu Akahori & Daisuke Sawauchi & Yasutaka Yamamoto, 2017. "Measuring the Changes of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Caused by the Trans-Pacific Partnership," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-12, April.
    18. Oier Imaz & Andoni Eizagirre, 2020. "Responsible Innovation for Sustainable Development Goals in Business: An Agenda for Cooperative Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-20, August.
    19. Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 291-307.
    20. Mehmet Çağlar & Cem Gürler, 2022. "Sustainable Development Goals: A cluster analysis of worldwide countries," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 8593-8624, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:78:y:2017:i:c:p:173-179. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.