IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i16p8752-d608964.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forest Resource Management: An Empirical Study in Northern Pakistan

Author

Listed:
  • Sajjad Ali

    (School of Sociology and Political Science, Shanghai University, No. 99 Shangda Road, Baoshan District, Shanghai 200444, China)

  • Dake Wang

    (School of Media and Communication, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China)

  • Talib Hussain

    (School of Economics and Management, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China)

  • Xiaocong Lu

    (School of Sociology and Political Science, Shanghai University, No. 99 Shangda Road, Baoshan District, Shanghai 200444, China)

  • Mohammad Nurunnabi

    (Department of Accounting, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh 11586, Saudi Arabia
    St Antony’s College, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6JF, UK)

Abstract

Community participation for forest sustainability and use of forest resources for community development is considered a vital way in all societies. This study was conducted to assess the public views toward sustainable forest management in the area of Gilgit–Baltistan, Pakistan, through collecting data from 255 respondents. Views about forest management techniques at different levels were discussed. Three main areas of focus to manage forest resources were: strategic-level management, local-level management, and communication-level management. To provide confidence and to measure factors affecting sustainable forest management, this study applied the structural equation modeling approach and built a model that explained and identified the critical factors affecting sustainable forest management. A quantitative approach via Smart Partial Least Squares version 3.2.8 was used for analysis. The findings of the study show that the R 2 value of the model was 0.653, which means that the three exogenous latent constructs collectively explained 65.3% of the variance in sustainable forest management. In this study, the goodness of fit of the model was 0.431, which is considered valid for further analysis. Among the three proposed levels for forest management, the strategic-level-management factor was found the most important of the three variables. This study concluded that for better and sustainable forest management, policies should flow from the strategic level to the local and also focus on communication-level management because all these factors appear to be significant in measuring sustainable forest management. Community engagement and awareness are also found to be an important way for forest resource management.

Suggested Citation

  • Sajjad Ali & Dake Wang & Talib Hussain & Xiaocong Lu & Mohammad Nurunnabi, 2021. "Forest Resource Management: An Empirical Study in Northern Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-19, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:16:p:8752-:d:608964
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/16/8752/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/16/8752/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leach, Melissa & Mearns, Robin & Scoones, Ian, 1999. "Environmental Entitlements: Dynamics and Institutions in Community-Based Natural Resource Management," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 225-247, February.
    2. Chun-Hung Lee & Chiung-Hsin Wang, 2017. "Estimating Residents’ Preferences of the Land Use Program Surrounding Forest Park, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-19, April.
    3. Kumar, Sanjay, 2002. "Does "Participation" in Common Pool Resource Management Help the Poor? A Social Cost-Benefit Analysis of Joint Forest Management in Jharkhand, India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 763-782, May.
    4. Nygren, Anja, 2005. "Community-based forest management within the context of institutional decentralization in Honduras," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 639-655, April.
    5. Buchy, M. & Hoverman, S., 2000. "Understanding public participation in forest planning: a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 15-25, May.
    6. Grieg-Gran, Maryanne & Porras, Ina & Wunder, Sven, 2005. "How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1511-1527, September.
    7. Mohammed, Abrar J & Inoue, Makoto & Shivakoti, Ganesh, 2017. "Moving forward in collaborative forest management: Role of external actors for sustainable Forest socio-ecological systems," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 13-19.
    8. Hubert Paluš & Ján Parobek & Rastislav Šulek & Ján Lichý & Jaroslav Šálka, 2018. "Understanding Sustainable Forest Management Certification in Slovakia: Forest Owners’ Perception of Expectations, Benefits and Problems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    9. Chien-Liang Lin & Chen-Huu Jeng, 2017. "Exploring Interface Problems in Taiwan’s Construction Projects Using Structural Equation Modeling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-15, May.
    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. Hunggul Yudono Setio Hadi Nugroho & Yonky Indrajaya & Satria Astana & Murniati & Sri Suharti & Tyas Mutiara Basuki & Tri Wira Yuwati & Pamungkas Buana Putra & Budi Hadi Narendra & Luthfy Abdulah & Tit, 2023. "A Chronicle of Indonesia’s Forest Management: A Long Step towards Environmental Sustainability and Community Welfare," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-62, June.
    2. Vítor João Pereira Domingues Martinho, 2022. "Forest Resources Management: An Editorial," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-2, March.

    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. Patrick Bottazzi & David Crespo & Harry Soria & Hy Dao & Marcelo Serrudo & Jean Paul Benavides & Stefan Schwarzer & Stephan Rist, 2014. "Carbon Sequestration in Community Forests: Trade-offs, Multiple Outcomes and Institutional Diversity in the Bolivian Amazon," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 45(1), pages 105-131, January.
    2. Platteau, Jean-Philippe & Somville, Vincent & Wahhaj, Zaki, 2014. "Elite capture through information distortion: A theoretical essay," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 250-263.
    3. Millner, Naomi & Peñagaricano, Irune & Fernandez, Maria & Snook, Laura K., 2020. "The politics of participation: Negotiating relationships through community forestry in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    4. Lund, Jens Friis & Treue, Thorsten, 2008. "Are We Getting There? Evidence of Decentralized Forest Management from the Tanzanian Miombo Woodlands," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(12), pages 2780-2800, December.
    5. L. Jamila Haider & Benjamin Neusel & Garry D. Peterson & Maja Schlüter, 2019. "Past management affects success of current joint forestry management institutions in Tajikistan," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 2183-2224, October.
    6. Uddin, Mohammad Nizam & Hossain, Mohammad Mosharraf & Chen, Yong & Siriwong, Wapakorn & Boonyanuphap, Jaruntorn, 2019. "Stakeholders' perception on indigenous community-based management of village common forests in Chittagong hill tracts, Bangladesh," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 102-112.
    7. Cochran, Jaquelin & Ray, Isha, 2009. "Equity Reexamined: A Study of Community-Based Rainwater Harvesting in Rajasthan, India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 435-444, February.
    8. Magessa, Kajenje & Wynne-Jones, Sophie & Hockley, Neal, 2020. "Does Tanzanian participatory forest management policy achieve its governance objectives?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    9. Carías Vega, Dora E. & Keenan, Rodney J., 2016. "Situating community forestry enterprises within New Institutional Economic theory: What are the implications for their organization?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 1-13.
    10. Abinash Bhattachan & Matthew D. Jurjonas & Priscilla R. Morris & Paul J. Taillie & Lindsey S. Smart & Ryan E. Emanuel & Erin L. Seekamp, 2019. "Linking residential saltwater intrusion risk perceptions to physical exposure of climate change impacts in rural coastal communities of North Carolina," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 97(3), pages 1277-1295, July.
    11. Araujo, Claudio & Bonjean, Catherine Araujo & Combes, Jean-Louis & Combes Motel, Pascale & Reis, Eustaquio J., 2009. "Property rights and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2461-2468, June.
    12. Abhilas Pradhan & Rabinarayan Patra, 2013. "Heterogeneity, collective action and management sustainability in common property forest resources: case study from the Indian state Odisha," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 979-997, August.
    13. Schusser, Carsten, 2013. "Who determines biodiversity? An analysis of actors' power and interests in community forestry in Namibia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 42-51.
    14. Arts, Bas & de Koning, Jessica, 2017. "Community Forest Management: An Assessment and Explanation of its Performance Through QCA," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 315-325.
    15. Lenyeletse V. Basupi & Claire H. Quinn & Andrew J. Dougill, 2017. "Pastoralism and Land Tenure Transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa: Conflicting Policies and Priorities in Ngamiland, Botswana," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-17, December.
    16. Caiado, Nathália & Guarnieri, Patricia & Xavier, Lúcia Helena & de Lorena Diniz Chaves, Gisele, 2017. "A characterization of the Brazilian market of reverse logistic credits (RLC) and an analogy with the existing carbon credit market," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 47-59.
    17. Yergeau, Marie-Eve & Boccanfuso, Dorothée & Goyette, Jonathan, 2017. "Reprint of: Linking conservation and welfare: A theoretical model with application to Nepal," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 229-243.
    18. Soh, Moonwon & Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yu, Edward & Boyer, Christopher & English, Burton, 2018. "Targeting Payments for Ecosystem Services Given Ecological and Economic Objectives," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266502, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    19. Ruben, Ruerd & Pender, John, 2004. "Rural diversity and heterogeneity in less-favoured areas: the quest for policy targeting," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 303-320, August.
    20. Kumar, Sushil & Kant, Shashi, 2005. "Bureaucracy and new management paradigms: modeling foresters' perceptions regarding community-based forest management in India," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 651-669, May.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:16:p:8752-:d:608964. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.