Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis of the Factors Affecting Satisfaction with the Policy of Ecological Forest Rangers
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Research Framework
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Research Area
3.2. Data Sources
3.3. Research Methods
3.4. Data Calibration
3.4.1. Result Variables
3.4.2. Condition Variables
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Analysis
4.2. Necessary Conditions Analysis
4.3. Condition Group Results
4.3.1. Group Analysis of High Satisfaction Conditions
4.3.2. Group Analysis of Low Satisfaction Conditions
4.4. Analysis of the Combined Effects of Groups
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Li, K.; Lloyd, B.; Liang, X.-J.; Wei, Y.-M. Energy poor or fuel poor: What are the differences? Energy Policy 2014, 68, 476–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pradhan, P.; Costa, L.; Rybski, D.; Lucht, W.; Kropp, J. A systematic study of sustainable development goal (SDG) interactions. Earth’s Future 2017, 5, 1169–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duan, M.; Zhang, C.; Xiao, H.; Liu, J.; Li, Z.; Li, W. Practice and thinking of poverty alleviation mode of ecological fishery poverty reduction work in Enshi city, Hubei province and Liupanshui city, Guizhou province, China. Bull. Chin. Acad. Sci. 2019, 34, 114–120. Available online: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/alldb/summary/b8402be5-c565-41bb-9bd1-45ae31bc4c34-69ea7df3/relevance/1 (accessed on 11 April 2023).
- Srivastava, S.K. Making a technological choice for disaster management and poverty alleviation in India. Disasters 2009, 33, 58–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Qin, B.; Yu, Y.; Ge, L.; Yang, L.; Guo, Y. Does eco-compensation alleviate rural poverty? New evidence from national key ecological function areas in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, K.; Dearing, J.A.; Dawson, T.P.; Dong, X.; Yang, X.; Zhang, W. Poverty alleviation strategies in Eastern China lead to critical ecological dynamics. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 506, 164–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bulte, E.H.; Lipper, L.; Stringer, R.; Zilberman, D. Payments for ecosystem services and poverty reduction: Concepts, issues, and empirical perspectives. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2008, 13, 245–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, D.; Xu, D.; Wang, Z.; Ding, X.; Song, A. Ecological compensation for desertification control: A review. J. Geogr. Sci. 2018, 28, 367–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, Z.; Wei, F.; Deng, X.; Li, C.; He, Q.; Qi, Y. Does the policy of ecological forest rangers (EFRs) for the impoverished populations reduce forest disasters?—Empirical evidence from China. Forests 2022, 13, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.-L.; Xu, M.; Zhou, K.-Y.; Zeng, F.-C.; Liu, Z.-M. Coupling development mechanism and typical ways of targeted poverty alleviation and eco-compensation in China: Case analysis based on forestry. J. Nat. Resour. 2019, 34, 989–1002. Available online: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/alldb/summary/99e66f02-ce7f-4627-90c7-b16d7034b150-69eaa3d1/relevance/1 (accessed on 18 March 2023).
- Wang, Y.; Wang, D.; Zhao, R. The effectiveness of the ecological forest rangers policy in southwest China. Forests 2021, 12, 746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.; Lan, Y.; Wang, X. Impact of livelihood capital endowment on poverty alleviation of households under rural land consolidation. Land Use Policy 2021, 109, 105608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiu, S.; Jin, L. Forest ecological benefit compensation, income level and policy satisfaction: Empirical analysis based on the survey data of farmers in ecological protection red line area. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 2022, 31, 234–243. Available online: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/alldb/summary/4fa7657e-eea8-4df4-b8be-59ce2196b7ff-69eaadad/relevance/1 (accessed on 25 March 2023).
- Shir, N.; Nikolaev, B.N.; Wincent, J. Entrepreneurship and well-being: The role of psychological autonomy, competence, and relatedness. J. Bus. Ventur. 2019, 34, 105875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ziaei, H.; Katibeh, M.; Eskandari, A.; Mirzadeh, M.; Rabbanikhah, Z.; Javadi, M.A. Determinants of patient satisfaction with ophthalmic services. BMC Res. Notes 2011, 4, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Wang, Z.; Cheng, X.; Shuai, J.; Shuai, C.; Liu, J. Has solar PV achieved the national poverty alleviation goals? Empirical evidence from the performances of 52 villages in rural China. Energy 2020, 201, 117631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pang, J.; Jin, L.; Yang, Y.; Li, H.; Chu, Z.; Ding, F. Policy cognition, household income and farmers’ satisfaction: Evidence from a wetland ecological compensation project in the Poyang lake area at the micro level. Sustainability 2022, 14, 955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, D.; Luan, W.; Yang, J.; Xue, B.; Zhang, X.; Wang, H.; Pian, F. The contribution of data-driven poverty alleviation funds in achieving mid-21st-century multidimensional poverty alleviation planning. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2022, 9, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gakou-Kakeu, J.; di Gregorio, M.; Paavola, J.; Sonwa, D.J. REDD plus policy implementation and institutional interplay: Evidence from three pilot projects in Cameroon. For. Policy Econ. 2022, 135, 102642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitonga-Monga, J. Ethical climate influences on employee commitment through job satisfaction in a transport sector industry. J. Psychol. Afr. 2018, 28, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, M.; Xu, D.; Xie, F.; Liu, E.; Liu, S. The influence factors analysis of households’ poverty vulnerability in southwest ethnic areas of China based on the hierarchical linear model: A case study of liangshan yi autonomous prefecture. Appl. Geogr. 2016, 66, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, M.; Zhao, P.; Wu, L.; Chen, K. Effects of value perception, environmental regulation and their interaction on the improvement of herdsmen’s grassland ecological policy satisfaction. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gabriel, A.S.; Campbell, J.T.; Djurdjevic, E.; Johnson, R.E.; Rosen, C.C. Fuzzy profiles: Comparing and contrasting latent profile analysis and fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis for person-centered research. Organ. Res. Methods 2018, 21, 877–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiss, P.C. Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Acad. Manag. J. 2011, 54, 393–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnes, C.; Claus, R.; Driessen, P.; Dos Santos, M.J.F.; George, M.A.; van Laerhoven, F.; Dos Santos, M.F. Uniting forest and livelihood outcomes? Analyzing external actor interventions in sustainable livelihoods in a community forest management context. Int. J. Commons 2017, 11, 532–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, J.; Cai, Y. The impacts of farmer livelihood endowment on participation effectiveness in farmland conservation compensation policy: Chengdu and Suzhou as typical innovational practice areas. Resour. Sci. 2016, 38, 2082–2094. Available online: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/alldb/summary/1f9d2d4c-041b-4d3a-b899-6ead5ae1cfcd-69eab973/relevance/1 (accessed on 4 March 2023).
- Victora, C.G.; Adair, L.; Fall, C. Maternal, Maternal and child undernutrition: Consequences for adult health and human capital. Lancet 2008, 371, 340–357. Available online: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/alldb/summary/88799520-f05c-4f7d-85f9-99450f7cdbf8-69eab472/relevance/1 (accessed on 4 March 2023). [CrossRef]
- Schure, J.; Ingram, V.; Sakho-Jimbira, M.S.; Levang, P.; Wiersum, K.F. Formalisation of charcoal value chains and livelihood outcomes in central- and west Africa. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2013, 17, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldberg, A.C.; Robinson, J.G.; Cromwell, W.C.; Ross, J.L.; Ziajka, P.E. Future issues, public policy, and public awareness of familial hypercholesterolemias: Recommendations from the national lipid association expert panel on familial hypercholesterolemia. J. Clin. Lipidol. 2011, 5, S46–S51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, M.J.; Hwang, S.O.; Cha, K.C.; Cho, G.C.; Yang, H.J.; Rho, T.H. Influence of nationwide policy on citizens’ awareness and willingness to perform bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation 2013, 84, 889–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ansell, C.; Sørensen, E.; Torfing, J. Improving policy implementation through collaborative policymaking. Policy Politics 2017, 45, 467–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, S.; Murphy, S.A.; Watkins, J. Work changes and employee perceptions of co-worker flexible work policy use: A moderated mediation study. Empl. Relat. Int. J. 2022, 45, 516–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.; Ji, Y.-S. The effects of employees’ job satisfaction on work performance in social organization: Focusing on psychological capital and organizational identity as a mediator. Korean J. Bus. Adm. 2021, 34, 1955–1978. Available online: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/alldb/summary/3e1b6243-a7f7-4959-ab92-f0dd6db01f12-69ea6946/relevance/1 (accessed on 25 March 2023). [CrossRef]
- Pradhan, N.S.; Fu, Y.; Zhang, L.; Yang, Y. Farmers’ perception of effective drought policy implementation: A case study of 2009–2010 drought in yunnan province, China. Land Use Policy 2017, 67, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Llopis-Albert, C.; Merigó, J.M.; Xu, Y.; Liao, H. Application of fuzzy set/qualitative comparative analysis to public participation projects in support of the eu water framework directive. Water Environ. Res. 2018, 90, 74–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hug, S. Qualitative comparative analysis: How inductive use and measurement error lead to problematic inference. Political Anal. 2013, 21, 252–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marx, A.; Rihoux, B.; Ragin, C. The origins, development, and application of qualitative comparative analysis: The first 25 years. Eur. Political Sci. Rev. 2014, 6, 115–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schneider, C.Q.; Wagemann, C. Reducing complexity in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): Remote and proximate factors and the consolidation of democracy. Eur. J. Political Res. 2006, 45, 751–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.; Zhang, Q. Multicriteria decision making method based on intuitionistic fuzzy weighted entropy. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 916–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Chen, S.; Zhao, R. Current Research and Future Prospect of Long-term Mechanism of Forestry Industry Based Poverty Alleviation. World For. Res. 2021, 34, 54–59. Available online: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/alldb/summary/20aeb043-0616-46fd-b2d1-8f116db91dfb-75857eba/relevance/1 (accessed on 18 March 2023).
- Luo, Y.; Shi, Z.; Guo, D.; He, P. Toward universal health coverage: Regional inequalities and potential solutions for alleviating catastrophic health expenditure in the post-poverty elimination era of China. Int. J. Health Policy Manag. 2023, 12, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ebell, M.H.; Shaughnessy, A. Information mastery: Integrating continuing medical education with the information needs of clinicians. J. Contin. Educ. Health Prof. 2003, 23 (Suppl. 1), S53–S62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dunn, A.; Julien, G.; Ernst, W.; Cook, A.; Doe, K.; Jackman, P. Evaluation of buffer zone effectiveness in mitigating the risks associated with agricultural runoff in Prince Edward Island. Sci. Total Environ. 2011, 409, 868–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tuytens, M.; Devos, G. Teachers’ perception of the new teacher evaluation policy: A validity study of the policy characteristics scale. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2009, 25, 924–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Festjens, A.; Janiszewski, C. The value of time. J. Consum. Res. 2015, 42, 178–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bertot, J.C.; Jaeger, P.T.; Grimes, J.M. Using icts to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Gov. Inf. Q. 2010, 27, 264–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattarai, S.; Regmi, B.R.; Pant, B.; Uprety, D.R.; Maraseni, T. Sustaining ecosystem based adaptation: The lessons from policy and practices in Nepal. Land Use Policy 2021, 104, 105391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sample Area | Sample Size (Person) | Sample Share (%) |
---|---|---|
Huangbai | 50 | 12.14 |
Doumu | 33 | 8.01 |
Shuihou | 51 | 12.38 |
Wumiao | 44 | 10.68 |
Chashui | 72 | 17.48 |
Tafan | 30 | 7.28 |
Wanghe | 11 | 2.67 |
Huangpu | 52 | 12.62 |
Longtan | 39 | 9.46 |
Meicheng | 30 | 7.28 |
Total | 412 | 100.00 |
Variables | Variable Properties | Quantity/Person | Percentage/% |
---|---|---|---|
Age (years) | ≤35 | 8 | 1.94 |
36~45 | 37 | 8.98 | |
46~55 | 225 | 54.61 | |
≥56 | 142 | 34.47 | |
Years of education (years) | ≤6 | 238 | 57.77 |
7~9 | 155 | 37.62 | |
10~12 | 16 | 3.88 | |
≥13 | 3 | 0.73 | |
Self-assessment of health status | Very poor | 10 | 2.43 |
Poor | 42 | 10.19 | |
Fair | 185 | 44.90 | |
Better | 116 | 28.16 | |
Very good | 59 | 14.32 |
Indicator Name | Measurement Standard | Indicator Meaning | Specific Gravity |
---|---|---|---|
Natural capital (N) | Cultivated area (N1) | Having arable land area (mu) | 0.092 |
Quality of cultivated land (N2) | The quality of cultivated land, “very poor”, “worse”, “general”, “better”, “very good”, respectively. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 0.011 | |
Forest area (N3) | Having forest land area (mu) | 0.078 | |
Material capital (P) | House material (P1) | Material of the owned house. Four dummy variables set for “civil house”, “brick house”, “masonry house”, “concrete house”. | 0.007 |
The value of durable goods and other agricultural production equipment (P2) | Paid value of durable goods and other agricultural production equipment | 0.010 | |
Number of houses (P3) | The number of houses (rooms) that ecological forest guards have | 0.045 | |
Human capital (H) | Householder education period (H1) | The year of the householder receiving education (year) | 0.017 |
Proportion of labor (H2) | Number of family members undergoing labor for family Labor/number of families (%) | 0.026 | |
Financial capital (F) | Forestry subsidy income proportion (F1) | Forestry subsidy income/total family income (%) | 0.036 |
Agricultural income ratio (F2) | Agricultural operating income/total household income (%) | 0.131 | |
Annual savings (F3) | The value of the annual savings amount | 0.138 | |
Social capital (S) | Whether the neighborhood relationship is harmonious (S1) | 0 = No; 1 = Yes | 0.003 |
Number of staff members of government institutions (S2) | Number of people involved employed in government institutions (people) | 0.206 | |
The number of relatives and friends of the long-term residents of the town (S3) | Number of long-term urban residents’ relatives and friends (people) | 0.200 |
Variable Name | Indicator Meaning | Calibration Result |
---|---|---|
Livelihood capital | Life Capital Comprehensive Score | Fully belong to (4.437); intersection (1.362); not affiliated at all (0.446) |
Livelihood outcomes | “How does your family living level change after the implementation of ecological forest protection policies?” | “Reduce a lot” (0); “Lower some” (0.25); “Unchanged” (0.5); “Improve some” (0.75); “Improve a lot” (1) |
Policy cognition | “Your support for the continuation of ecological forest guard policies” | “Very unsuitable” (0); “less supportive” (0.25); “Indifferent” (0.5); “More supportive” (0.75); “Very supportive” (1) |
Policy identity | “Do you think the degree of implementation of ecological forest protection policies?” | “Very unnecessary” (0); “more unnecessary” (0.25); “Indifferent” (0.5); “necessary” (0.75); “very necessary” (1) |
Information mastery | “Do you understand the policy of ecological forest guard?” | “don’t understand” (0); “don’t know more about” (0.25); “General understanding” (0.5); “More understanding” (0.75); “Know well” (1) |
Implement perception | “Your perception of the implementation of ecological forest guard policies” | “Very unknown” (0); “Not obvious” (0.25); “Generally obvious” (0.5); “More obvious” (0.75); “very obvious” (1) |
Condition Variable | Low Satisfaction | High Satisfaction | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consistency | Coverage | Consistency | Coverage | |
Livelihood capital | 0.715 | 0.502 | 0.676 | 0.745 |
~Livelihood capital | 0.636 | 0.556 | 0.548 | 0.751 |
Livelihood outcome | 0.664 | 0.504 | 0.713 | 0.849 |
~Livelihood outcome | 0.801 | 0.640 | 0.583 | 0.731 |
Policy cognition | 0.583 | 0.493 | 0.658 | 0.872 |
~Policy cognition | 0.849 | 0.613 | 0.617 | 0.699 |
Policy identity | 0.491 | 0.489 | 0.577 | 0.901 |
~Policy identity | 0.900 | 0.576 | 0.673 | 0.674 |
Information mastery | 0.665 | 0.414 | 0.912 | 0.889 |
~Information mastery | 0.821 | 0.856 | 0.399 | 0.651 |
Implementation perception | 0.578 | 0.456 | 0.688 | 0.850 |
~Implementation perception | 0.810 | 0.624 | 0.560 | 0.675 |
Variables | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Group 5 | Group 6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Livelihood capital | ⊗ | ⊗ | ⊗ | ● | ● | |
Livelihood outcome | ● | ● | ● | ⊗ | ⊗ | |
Policy cognition | ● | ● | ● | ● | ⊗ | |
Policy identity | ⊗ | ● | ● | ● | ⊗ | ● |
Implementation perception | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |
Consistency | 0.974 | 0.988 | 0.991 | 0.999 | 0.982 | 0.990 |
Coverage | 0.301 | 0.254 | 0.240 | 0.322 | 0.279 | 0.226 |
Unique coverage | 0.073 | 0.036 | 0.009 | 0.050 | 0.037 | 0.023 |
Consistency of solution | 0.969 | |||||
Coverage of solution | 0.568 |
Variables | Group 1 | Group 2 |
---|---|---|
Livelihood capital | ● | |
Livelihood outcome | ⊗ | |
Policy cognition | ⊗ | |
Information mastery | ⊗ | ⊗ |
Implementation perception | ⊗ | ⊗ |
Consistency | 0.965 | 0.968 |
Coverage | 0.598 | 0.439 |
Unique coverage | 0.199 | 0.040 |
Consistency of solution | 0.960 | |
Coverage of the solution | 0.638 |
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
Zhang, Y.; Wang, X.; Wan, S.; Zhu, H. Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis of the Factors Affecting Satisfaction with the Policy of Ecological Forest Rangers. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6743. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086743
Zhang Y, Wang X, Wan S, Zhu H. Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis of the Factors Affecting Satisfaction with the Policy of Ecological Forest Rangers. Sustainability. 2023; 15(8):6743. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086743
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhang, Yonghua, Xue Wang, Shenwei Wan, and Hongge Zhu. 2023. "Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis of the Factors Affecting Satisfaction with the Policy of Ecological Forest Rangers" Sustainability 15, no. 8: 6743. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086743