Willingness and Influencing Factors of Farmers’ Forestland Management in Ethnic Minority Areas: Evidence from Southwest China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area Overview
2.2. Data Sources
2.3. Variable Selection
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Model Regression Results and Tests
3.2. Effectiveness of the Collective Forest Rights Reform and Forest Landowners’ Willingness to Engage in Forest Management
4. Discussion
4.1. Influence of “the Variables of Individual Social Economic Attributes of Forest Landowners” on Their Willingness to Engage in Forest Management
4.2. Influence of “Forest Landowners’ Perceptions and Related Experiences” on the Willingness to Engage in Forest Management
4.3. Influence of “Policy Guidance” on the Willingness to Engage in Forest Management
4.4. Research Shortcomings and Outlook
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
- Outline of Interviews with elderly villagers:
- (1)
- Basic information: ethnic categories; ethnic sentiments; ethnic culture; ethnic customs; ethnic beliefs;
- (2)
- Willingness to manage forest land: attitude to operation; difficulties in the process of operation; compensation standards for public welfare forests; knowledge and evaluation of the reform of collective forest rights system.
- Outline of Interviews with large-scale forestry households
- (1)
- Basic information: forest land resources (forest land area, distribution, etc.); operation cycle; labor use; degree of support in terms of social capital and financial capital;
- (2)
- Operation profile: forest land transfer and contracting; operation mode (large-scale operation, joint-family operation); mortgage of forest rights; willingness to operate; yield and output value.
- Outline of Interviews with village cadres, township leaders, forestry bureau department personnel
- (1)
- Overview of forest land resources in ethnic areas (plot size, distribution distance, forest land function, forest land management);
- (2)
- Effectiveness and problems of collective forest rights system reform;
- (3)
- Forestry ecological conservation (conservation effectiveness, ecological awareness);
- (4)
- Forestry industry development (business cycle, economic benefits, social benefits, ecological benefits).
Appendix B
- (I) Basic information
- 1. Your area: Province, State, County, Town, Village
- 2. Are you a head of household?
- A. Yes B. No
- 3. Your gender:
- A. Male B. Female
- 4. Your ethnicity is:
- 5. How old are you?
- A. Under 20 years old B. 20–40 years old
- C. 40–60 years old D. Over 60 years old
- 6. What is your education level?
- A. Junior high school and below B. High school
- C. Specialist D. Bachelor’s degree E. Master’s degree and above
- 7. What is your occupation or status?
- A. Cadres B. Ordinary people
- 8. What do you think of your family’s standard of living?
- A. Poverty B. Wealthy
- (II) Forest land resources and the effectiveness of reform
- 9. How many hectares of forest land do you own: (hectares).
- 10. What is the type of function of the forest land you own?
- A. Commercial forest B. Ecological public welfare forest
- 11. What is the area of commercial forest you own: (hectares).
- 12. What is the area of ecological public welfare forest you own: (hectares).
- 13. How far is the woodland from your home: (km)
- 14. Do you have a forest land right certificate?
- A. Yes B. No
- 15. Are you satisfied with the effectiveness of the reform of collective forest rights system?
- A. Yes B. No
- 16. Are you satisfied with how the relevant policies have been implemented after the reform?
- A. Yes B. No
- (III) Factors influencing foresters’ experience and willingness to manage
- 17. Do you have the will to manage forest land?
- A. Yes B. No
- 18. Based on the answers answered in question 17, choose to answer either (1) or (2):
- (1) If you have the will to run a business, what is the reason.
- (2) If you do not have the will to run a business, what is the reason.
- 19. Are you involved in joint-family business?
- A. Yes B. No
- 20. Do you understand the scale of business?
- A. Yes B. No
- 21. Have you ever participated in the project of returning farmland to forest and grass?
- A. Yes B. No
- 22. Do you have forest land transfer behavior?
- A. Yes B. No
- 23. Have you tried to obtain a financial loan by pledging a forest land title or management right certificate?
- A. Yes B. No
- 24. In the process of operating forest land, have you been compensated by the public welfare forest?
- A. Yes B. No
- 25. Are you satisfied with the harvesting quota policy for forest land resources?
- A. Yes B. No
- 26. Where do you obtain the bamboo forest harvesting indicators in the course of your business?
- A. Village allocation indicators B. Township C. Forestry station
- D. Foresters E. Other forestry departments F. Not sure
- 27. Please rate the logging limit policy on a scale of 1-10 based on your own experience and knowledge: (points).
- 28. What problems have you encountered in the process of operating your forest land.
- 29. What levels of help do you think you need to increase your willingness to run your business?
- A. Social dimension B. Economic dimension
- C. Policy dimension D. Other dimensions
- 30. What suggestions do you have for the future development of forestry in ethnic areas?
References
- Rees, W.E. Economic development and environmental protection: An ecological economics perspective. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2003, 86, 29–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cao, S.; Liu, Z.; Li, W.; Xian, J. Balancing ecological conservation with socioeconomic development. Ambio 2021, 50, 1117–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hametner, M. Economics without ecology: How the SDGs fail to align socioeconomic development with environmental sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 2022, 199, 107490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kauppi, P.E.; Sandstrom, V.; Lipponen, A. Forest resources of nations in relation to human well-being. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0196248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pritchard, R.; Grundy, I.M.; van der Horst, D.; Ryan, C.M. Environmental incomes sustained as provisioning ecosystem service availability declines along a woodland resource gradient in Zimbabwe. World Dev. 2019, 122, 325–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duan, Q.R.; Kan, L.B.; Tsai, S.B. Analysis on Forestry Economic Growth Index Based on Internet Big Data. Math. Probl. Eng. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czajkowski, M.; Bartczak, A.; Budziński, W.; Giergiczny, M.; Hanley, N. Preference and WTP stability for public forest management. For. Policy Econ. 2016, 71, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ekanayake, E.; Xie, Y.; Ahmad, S. Rural Residents’ Participation Intention in Community Forestry-Challenge and Prospect of Community Forestry in Sri Lanka. Forests 2021, 12, 1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halalisan, A.; Abrudan, I.; Popa, B. Forest Management Certification in Romania: Motivations and Perceptions. Forests 2018, 9, 425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zubair, M.; Garforth, C. Farm Level Tree Planting in Pakistan: The Role of Farmers’ Perceptions and Attitudes. Agrofor. Syst. 2006, 66, 217–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crowley, M.A.; Hartter, J.; Congalton, R.G.; Hamilton, L.C.; Christoffersen, N.D. Characterizing Non-Industrial Private Forest Landowners’ Forest Management Engagement and Advice Sources. Soc. Nat. Res. 2019, 32, 204–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dung, N.V.; Thang, N.N. Forestland rights institutions and forest management of Vietnamese households. Post-Communist Econ. 2017, 29, 90–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karki, L.B.; Karki, U.; Tiwari, A. Woodland Grazing: Untapped Resource to Increase Economic Benefits from Forestland. J. Anim. Sci. 2021, 99, 7–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagner, J.E. Ruminations on Economic Decision Modeling of Managing Forest Resources with a Focus on Family Forest Landowners. J. For. 2020, 118, 362–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Price, C. Twenty-five years of forestry cost—Benefit analysis in Britain. For. Int. J. For. Res. 1997, 70, 171–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Viitala, E.-J.; Hänninen, H. Measuring the efficiency of public forestry organizations. For. Sci. 1998, 44, 298–307. [Google Scholar]
- Sonwa, D.J.; Walker, S.; Nasi, R.; Kanninen, M. Potential synergies of the main current forestry efforts and climate change mitigation in Central Africa. Sustain. Sci. 2011, 6, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thant, C. Sustainable agro-forestry in Myanmar: From intentions to behavior. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goyke, N.; Dwivedi, P.; Thomas, M. Do ownership structures effect forest management? An analysis of African American family forest landowners. For. Policy Econ. 2019, 106, 101959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jo, J.H.; Roh, T.; Shin, S.; Youn, Y.C. Sustainable Assets and Strategies Affecting the Forestry Household Income: Empirical Evidence from South Korea. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- National and Grassland Administration Government Website. About Collective Forest Rights System Reform [EB/OL]. Available online: https://www.forestry.gov.cn/c/www/lczdgz/149953.jhtml (accessed on 18 June 2023).
- Yu, J.; Wei, Y.; Fang, W.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Lan, J. New Round of Collective Forest Rights Reform, Forestland Transfer and Household Production Efficiency. Land 2021, 10, 988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, J.; Xiao, H.; Liu, C.; Huang, X.; Zhang, D. The Impact of Collective Forestland Tenure Reform on Rural Household Income: The Background of Rural Households’ Divergence. Forests 2022, 13, 1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, Y.F.; Ma, M.Y.; Sun, X.X.; Su, S.P.; Huang, S.W. Comparative Analysis of Changes in Forest Management Methods Before and after the Reform—A Case Study of Fujian, Zhejiang and Jiangxi. For. Econ. 2011, 11, 27–30. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Nelson, G.C.; Harris, V.; Stone, S.W.; Barbier, E.B.; Burgess, J.C. Deforestation, land use, and property rights: Empirical evidence from Darien, Panama. Land Econ. 2001, 77, 187–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, X.P.; Wang, L.; Liao, W.M. Policy Guidance, Poverty Level and Farmers’ Forestry Scale Management Behaviors. Probl. For. Econ. 2020, 40, 147–154. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Z.B.; Su, S.P.; Zheng, Y.F.; Huang, S.W. Analysis the Differences of Fujian Farmer Forestry TFP in Different Operation Scale after the Reform of Forest Property Right System. For. Econ. 2014, 36, 55–59+78. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Peng, P.; Chou, X.L.; Zhao, R. Reality Analysis and Implementation Pathway of Scale Forest Management in Collective Forest Area in China. World For. Res. 2018, 31, 86–90. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Tian, J.; Shi, C.N. Allocation Efficiency of Forestry Producing Factors in Different Forest Land Scale Farmer and its Influencing Factors. Issues For. Econ. 2017, 37, 73–78+109. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Alchian, A.A.; Demsetz, H. Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. 1972, 62, 777–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhan, L.H.; Su, S.P.; Chen, S.F.; Li, H.D. Forest Fragmentation’s and Forest Land Circulation Behavior’s Impact on Efficiency of Forest Resource Allocation. Resour. Dev. Mark. 2016, 32, 1209–1213. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Gao, L.; Xu, D.M. Influence of Individual Endowment and Cognition on the Behavior of Farmers in Forestland Circulation: Based on the View of Intention-Behavior Consistency. Sci. Silvae Sin. 2018, 54, 137–145. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Du, J.; Hu, Y.P.; Zhu, S.B. Impact of Eco-Forest Compensation Policy on Farmers’Career Differentiation in Collective Forest Regions: A Case Study of Jiangxi Province. J. Agro-For. Econ. Manag. 2021, 20, 749–758. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.; Ke, S.F.; Yang, G.H.; Liu, A.Y. The cognitions and willingness analysis of forestland management in the latter forest reform period: Based on the 200 household survey data in the Liaoning province. For. Econ. Rev. 2015, 6, 98–105. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Xie, F.T.; Zhu, S.B.; Du, J.; Kang, X.L. The Influence of Location Factors and Forestland Endowments of Collective Forest Area on Households’ Choice of Management Modes. Issues For. Econ. 2018, 38, 1–6+97. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Jin, L.; Xu, Q.; Yi, J.; Zhong, X. Integrating CVOR-GWLR-Circuit model into construction of ecological security pattern in Yunnan Province, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 81520–81545. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Li, Z. Constraints on Poverty Reduction Cooperation Under the Lancang-Mekong Cooperation Mechanism. China Q. Int. Strateg. Stud. 2020, 5, 437–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, L.H.; Trang, D.T.H.; Lin, Y.G.; Lei, X. Forestry Poverty Reduction in the Framework of Mekong Cooperation Mechanism. World For. Res. 2020, 33, 111–116. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Yoddumnern-Attig, B.; Attig, G.A.; Santiphop, T.; Rojnkureesatien, K.; Vorasiriamorn, Y. Population Dynamics and Community Forestry in Thailand; Mahidol University: Nakhon Pathom, Thailand, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Sunderlin, W.D. Poverty alleviation through community forestry in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam: An assessment of the potential. For. Policy Econ. 2006, 8, 386–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nhem, S.; Lee, Y.J.; Phin, S. Policy implications for community-managed forestry in Cambodia from experts’ assessments and case studies of community forestry practice. J. Mt. Sci. 2018, 15, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heller, M. The Tragedy of the Anticommons: A Concise Introduction and Lexicon. Soc. Sci. Electron. Publ. 2013, 76, 6–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhu, Y.; Wu, W.G.; Wang, Y.F. Policy Effects of Collective Forest Tenure Reform in China: A Review. World For. Res. 2023, 36, 8–13. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Oberlack, C.; Tejada, L.; Messerli, P.; Rist, S.; Giger, M. Sustainable livelihoods in the global land rush? Archetypes of livelihood vulnerability and sustainability potentials. Glob. Environ. Change 2016, 41, 153–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fahad, S.; Nguyen-Thi-Lan, H.; Nguyen-Manh, D.; Tran-Duc, H.; To-The, N. Analyzing the status of multidimensional poverty of rural households by using sustainable livelihood framework: Policy implications for economic growth. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 16106–16119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tian, G.S.; Qi, Y.N.; Zou, Y.Y. How Does Livelihood Capital Affect Forest Ecosystem Service Dependence? An Empirical Study Based on Micro Data of Workers in Northeast State-Owned Forest Areas. Sci. Decis. Mak. 2023, 307, 142–158. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Sunderlin, W.D.; Angelsen, A.; Belcher, B.; Burgers, P.; Nasi, R.; Santoso, L.; Wunder, S. Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries: An Overview. World Dev. 2005, 33, 1383–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Das, N. Impact of Participatory Forestry Program on Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Lessons from an Indian Province. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2012, 34, 428–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, T.; Cui, L.; Lv, W.; Song, X.; Cui, X.; Tang, L. Exploring the frontiers of sustainable livelihoods research within grassland ecosystem: A scientometric analysis. Heliyon 2022, 8, e10704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ping, L.; Ma, J. Research on the Influence of Herders on the Response Behavior of Grassland Ecological Compensation Policy. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 693, 012117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bisui, S.; Roy, S.; Bera, B.; Adhikary, P.P.; Sengupta, D.; Bhunia, G.S.; Shit, P.K. Economical and ecological realization of Joint Forest Management (JFM) for sustainable rural livelihood: A case study. Trop. Ecol. 2023, 64, 296–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, Y.Y.; Ahmed, T. Farmers’ Livelihood Capital and Its Impact on Sustainable Livelihood Strategies: Evidence from the Poverty-Stricken Areas of Southwest China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DFID. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets; DFID: London, UK, 2007.
- Zhang, X.R.; Gao, J.Z. An Empirical Analysis of the Utilization Efficiency of Farmers’ Collective Forest Land from the Perspective of Livelihood Capital. J. Northwest AF Univ. Soc. Sci. Ed. 2020, 20, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, C. Supplementary Note to Yunnan Zhi; Yunnan People’s Publishing House: Kunming, China, 1995. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Cook, S.L.; Ma, Z. The interconnectedness between landowner knowledge, value, belief, attitude, and willingness to act: Policy implications for carbon sequestration on private rangelands. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 134, 90–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartter, J.; Stevens, F.; Hamilton, L.C.; Congalton, R.G.; Ducey, M.; Oester, P.T. Modelling Associations between Public Understanding, Engagement and Forest Conditions in the Inland Northwest, USA. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0117975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Zhang, T.; Yu, J.; Zhou, L. Determinants of rural households’ afforestation program participation: Evidence from China’s Ningxia and Sichuan provinces. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2019, 17, e00533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, L.; Zhou, X.; Tan, W.; Liu, J.; Wang, Y. Analysis of dispersed farmers’ willingness to grow grain and main influential factors based on the structural equation model. J. Rural. Stud. 2022, 93, 375–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, H.; Ning, C.; Xie, F.; Kang, X.; Zhu, S. Influence of rural labor migration behavior on the transfer of forestland. Nat. Resour. Model. 2021, 34, e12293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.; Xiao, H.; Wang, Q.; Wang, L. Study on Farmers’ Willingness to Maintain the Sloping Land Conversion Program in Ethnic Minority Areas under the Background of Subsidy Expiration. Forests 2022, 13, 1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, Y.; Zhang, T.; Cao, J.; Jin, C.; Chen, T.; Su, Y.; Su, C.; Sannigrahi, S.; Maiti, A.; Tao, S.; et al. Heterogeneity Impacts of Farmers’ Participation in Payment for Ecosystem Services Based on the Collective Action Framework. Land 2022, 11, 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hujala, T.; Butler, B.J. Transformations Towards a New Era in Small Scale Forestry: Introduction to the Small-Scale Forestry Special Issue. Small-Scale For. 2020, 19, 123–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, R. Application of rural household survey to returned cropland to forest or grassland project: Application of rural household survey to returned cropland to forest or grassland project. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2009, 16, 995–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oniki, S.; Berhe, M.; Negash, T.; Etsay, H. Do economic incentives crowd out motivation for communal land conservation in Ethiopia? For. Policy Econ. 2023, 150, 102948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.J.; Xie, B.G.; Li, X.Q.; Liao, H.Y.; Wang, J.Y. Ecologicalcompensation standards and compensation methods of public welfare forest protected area. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2016, 27, 1893–1900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, X.H.; Ding, D.H. Factors Influencing Farmers’ Willingness and Behaviors in Organic Agriculture Development: An Empirical Analysis Based on Survey Data of Farmers in Anhui Province. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.; Yu, W.; Liu, X.; Wen, Y. Analysis of Influencing Factors and Income Effect of Heterogeneous Agricultural Households’ Forestland Transfer. Land 2022, 11, 1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niu, R.; Yan, X. Analysis on the Supply Willingness of Mortgage Loan of Farmland Management Right under the Government-Led Mode in China Western’s Region. Afr. Asian Stud. 2020, 20, 324–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.G. Analysis of farmers’ land scale management willingness based on Logistic model. Stat. Decis. 2020, 36, 97–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, X.X.; Jiang, Y.S. Family Endowment, Personal Characteristics, and Farmer’s Livelihood Differentiation—Based on an empirical study of 199 rural households in Sichuan Province. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 692, 042126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sinha, M.; Sendhil, R.; Chandel, B.S.; Malhotra, R.; Singh, A.; Jha, S.K.; Sankhala, G. Are Multidimensional Poor more Vulnerable to Climate change? Evidence from Rural Bihar, India. Soc. Indic. Res. Int. Interdiscip. J. Qual. Life Meas. 2022, 162, 123–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.H.; Liao, N.Y.; Liu, J.; Tang, Y.J.; Su, H.X.; Chen, M.Y.; Yang, C.M. Analysis of Farmers’ Sustainable Livelihood in the Communities of Nature Reserves in Ethnic Minority Areas—A Case Study of Guangxi Fangcheng Golden Camellias National Nature Reserve. For. Econ. 2021, 43, 37–51. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Ma, C.; Gao, J.Z. Non-agricultural Employment, Business Model and Forestry Production Efficiency. Issues For. Econ. 2021, 41, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, X.; Wang, S.; Fu, B. Multilevel analysis of factors affecting participants’ land reconversion willingness after the Grain for Green Program. AMBIO 2021, 50, 1394–1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, M.Y. Studies on the Miao Nationality Culture and Forest Institutions Changes. Probl. For. Econ. 2006, 26, 331–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tadesse, T.; Berhane, T.; Mulatu, D.W.; Rannestad, M.M. Willingness to accept compensation for afromontane forest ecosystems conservation. Land Use Policy 2021, 105, 105382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ke, S.X.; He, D.B. Discussion on Partially Openning of the Forest Cutting Limitation Policy. Cent. South For. Inventory Plan. 2015, 34, 5–7+41. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Han, Y.X.; Li, H.; Yang, Y.; Dong, L. Study on the Availability and Influencing Factors of Forestry Socialization Services for Farmers with Different Commercial Forest Management Types—Survey from Farmers in Zhejiang and Jiangxi Province. For. Econ. 2019, 41, 79–88+96. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Hu, X.; Xu, J.; He, D.; Zhang, N.; Zheng, Y. Households’ willingness to develop under-forest economy and its determinants in collective forest areas of Zhejiang. J. Zhejiang AF Univ. 2018, 35, 537–542. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
State | County | Village Name | Number of Minority Households Surveyed | Minorities Surveyed |
---|---|---|---|---|
Dali Bai Autonomous Prefecture | Jianchuan County | Jinhua South Gate Community | 19 | Bai, Yi, Lisu, Hui, Naxi |
Jinhua West Gate Community | 23 | |||
Aofeng Village of Shaxi Town | 21 | |||
Beilong Village of Shaxi Town | 20 | |||
Southeast Village of Shaxi Town | 18 | |||
Honghe Hani and Yi Autonomous Prefecture | Pingbian County | Fangyang Village of Baihe Town | 16 | Miao, Yi, Zhuang, Yao |
Mabuchong Village of Baihe Town | 18 | |||
Shengli Village of Baihe Town | 17 | |||
Taiping Village of Baiyun Town | 15 | |||
Baiyun Village of Baiyun Town | 18 |
Variable Type | Variable Name (Code) | Definition and Assignment | Average Value | Standard Deviation |
---|---|---|---|---|
dependent variable | willingness to engage in forest management (Y) | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0.720 | 0.449 |
variables of individual, social, and economic attributes of forest landowners | forest landowner identity (X1) | cadres = 1; ordinary people = 0 | 0.423 | 0.495 |
education level (X2) | read more = 1; read less = 0 | 0.170 | 0.377 | |
standard of living (X3) | poverty = 1; wealthy = 0 | 0.291 | 0.456 | |
woodland area (X4) | actual value (hectare) | 0.9226 | 0.583 | |
woodland feature type (X5) | commercial forest = 1; ecological public welfare forest = 0 | 0.736 | 0.442 | |
forest landowners’ perceptions and related experiences | understand scale operations (X6) | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0.093 | 0.292 |
participate in joint account operation (X7) | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0.088 | 0.284 | |
participated in the project of returning farmland to forest and grassland (X8) | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0.462 | 0.500 | |
policy guidance | whether they have been compensated by public welfare forests (X9) | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0.670 | 0.471 |
whether they are satisfied with the implementation of the reform (X10) | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0.857 | 0.351 | |
the binding force of the harvesting quota policy is scored on a scale of 1–10 (X11) | actual value | 8.533 | 1.627 |
Likelihood Ratio Chi-Squared Value | p | Sample Accuracy | F1 | AUC |
---|---|---|---|---|
158.414 | 0.000 *** | 0.808 | 0.794 | 0.836 |
Argument | Regression Coefficient | Standard Error | Salience |
---|---|---|---|
forest landowner identity (X1) | −0.788 | 0.591 | 0.183 |
education level (X2) | −2.21 | 0.807 | 0.006 *** |
standard of living (X3) | 2.359 | 0.715 | 0.001 *** |
woodland area (X4) | 0.095 | 0.034 | 0.006 *** |
woodland feature type (X5) | −0.229 | 0.461 | 0.619 |
understand scale operations (X6) | −0.055 | 0.644 | 0.932 |
participate in joint account operation (X7) | −0.108 | 0.703 | 0.878 |
whether they have participated in the project of returning farmland to forest and grassland (X8) | −1.48 | 0.441 | 0.001 *** |
whether they have been compensated by public welfare forests (X9) | −1.25 | 0.446 | 0.005 *** |
whether they are satisfied with the implementation of the reform (X10) | 0.446 | 0.635 | 0.483 |
the binding force of the harvesting quota policy is scored on a scale of 1–10 (X11) | 0.212 | 0.146 | 0.147 |
Overview of Woodland Rights Confirmation | Number of Plots (Blocks) | Percentage (%) | Whether or Not to Obtain a Loan | Number of Plots (Blocks) | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
have a woodland title certificate | 289 | 93.53 | Yes | 17 | 5.59 |
No | 287 | 94.41 | |||
no woodland title certificate | 20 | 6.47 | \ |
Whether There Is a Willingness to Engage in Forest Management | Frequency | Percentage (%) | Reason | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
No | 51 | 28.02 | low yield | 10 | 19.61 |
the subsidy standard for public welfare forests is too low | 21 | 41.18 | |||
the woodland is finely fragmented and far away | 6 | 11.76 | |||
policy restrictions; no logging indicators | 14 | 27.45 | |||
Yes | 131 | 71.98 | \ |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Li, Y.; Chang, H.; Dou, Y.; Zhao, X. Willingness and Influencing Factors of Farmers’ Forestland Management in Ethnic Minority Areas: Evidence from Southwest China. Forests 2023, 14, 1377. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14071377
Li Y, Chang H, Dou Y, Zhao X. Willingness and Influencing Factors of Farmers’ Forestland Management in Ethnic Minority Areas: Evidence from Southwest China. Forests. 2023; 14(7):1377. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14071377
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Ya, Haiqing Chang, Yaquan Dou, and Xiaodi Zhao. 2023. "Willingness and Influencing Factors of Farmers’ Forestland Management in Ethnic Minority Areas: Evidence from Southwest China" Forests 14, no. 7: 1377. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14071377
APA StyleLi, Y., Chang, H., Dou, Y., & Zhao, X. (2023). Willingness and Influencing Factors of Farmers’ Forestland Management in Ethnic Minority Areas: Evidence from Southwest China. Forests, 14(7), 1377. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14071377