پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 158 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,231 |
| تعداد مقالات | 67,766 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 115,226,051 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 89,973,000 |
ارزیابی خدمات اکوسیستمی درختان چشم‌انداز روستایی بر اساس ادراک اجتماعات محلی (مورد مطالعه: بخش طرقبه در شهرستان بینالود) | ||
| پژوهشهای جغرافیای انسانی | ||
| دوره 55، شماره 3، آبان 1402، صفحه 15-29 اصل مقاله (1.32 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jhgr.2022.332609.1008398 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| نشاط امیدوار* 1؛ مرتضی توکلی2 | ||
| 1گروه جغرافیا، دانشکده انسانی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران،ایران | ||
| 2گروه جغرافیا، دانشکده انسانی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| درختان به‌عنوان یکی از عناصر کلیدی چشم‌اندازهای روستایی، طیف وسیعی از خدمات اکوسیستمی را فراهم می‌نمایند. بااین‌حال، استفاده بی‌رویه از خدمات اکوسیستم‌های طبیعی توسط اجتماعات محلی، به چالش آفرینی محیطی روزافزون خصوصاً در مناطق روستایی منجر شده است. در همین راستا، ارزیابی خدمات اکوسیستمی درختان به دلیل نقش آن در کاهش پیامدهای نامطلوب فعالیت‌های انسانی بر اکوسیستم‌ها و کمک به رفع شکاف بین مقاصد پایداری و اهداف اقتصادی اهمیت بسزایی یافته است. در این میان، اجتماعات روستایی اصلی‌ترین ذی‌نفعان اکوسیستم‌های طبیعی می‌باشند و نیاز است تا خدمات اکوسیستمی درختان را در پیوند با ارزش ادراک‌شده توسط آنان مدنظر قرار داد. لذا، هدف پژوهش حاضر ارزیابی خدمات اکوسیستمی درختان بر اساس ادراک اجتماعات محلی شهرستان بینالود می‌باشد. بدین منظور داده‌ها به روش اسنادی-کتابخانه‌ای و پیمایشی گردآوری و با نرم‌افزار SPSS تحلیل شد. بر اساس یافته‌های پژوهش، شاغلان بخش کشاورزی و بخش گردشگری از نحوه ادراک متفاوتی نسبت به خدمات اکوسیستمی درختان برخوردارند. ارزیابی کشاورزان نسبت به خدمات اکوسیستمی درختان به لحاظ اهمیت درختان در تأمین محصولات با میانگین 58/96، ایجاد حس تعلقمانی با میانگین 08/95 و حفظ کیفیت منابع محیطی با میانگین 88/93 می‌باشد. درحالی‌که، ارزیابی شاغلین بخش گردشگری به دلیل عملکرد تفریحی درختان با میانگین 98/99 و ارزش زیبایی‌شناسی درختان با میانگین 86/90 است. در زمینه نحوه ادراک روستاییان بخش طرقبه بر اساس جنسیت، به‌جز دو شاخص کیفیت منابع محیطی و عملکرد تفریحی درختان (با سطح معناداری کوچک‌تر از 05/0)، در مابقی شاخص‌ها سطح معناداری بزرگ‌تر از 05/0 می‌باشد و زنان و مردان بخش طرقبه در زمینه خدمات اکوسیستمی درختان از ادراک متفاوتی برخوردارند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| اجتماعات محلی؛ پایداری محیطی؛ مدیریت منابع محیطی؛ زیست‌پذیری نواحی روستایی؛ ادراک محلی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Evaluation of ecosystem services of rural landscape trees based on the perception of local communities (Case study: Torqabeh county in Binalood city) | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Neshat omidvar1؛ Morteza Tavakoli2 | ||
| 1Department of Geography,Faculty of Humanities.Tarbiat Modares university.Tehran.Iran | ||
| 2Department of Geography, facultu of Humanities, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Extended Abstract Introduction Ecosystems provide a variety of services to human communities and other organisms, directly or indirectly. Trees, as one of the key elements of the environmental landscape of rural areas, provide a wide range of cultural, supply, regulation, and support services in ecological, social, cultural, and economic dimensions for humans, creatures, and rural environments. Also, trees play a vital role in providing timber and crops such as fruit, providing shelter for living organisms, creating biodiversity, reducing the effects of natural hazards, absorbing carbon dioxide, protecting soil health, regulating climate, and consequently reducing environmental pressures. They also provide different socio-cultural services to rural communities by providing a fresh perspective for recreation and human well-being. In general, the ecosystem services of trees can play an essential role in creating a thriving and healthy ecosystem, improving mental and physical health, promoting the welfare of rural citizens, and increasing the sustainability and viability of rural settlements. In recent years, due to the increasing human activities in rural settlements, the economic dimension is preferred to the ecosystem services, which can lead to reducing ecosystem services and the destruction of favorable rural landscapes. This problem can be seen in the rural settlements of tourism destination in Binalood city of Razavi Khorasan province. So, performing human activities in this area (such as the expansion of tourism infrastructure) and the lack of basic land management have led to the neglect of the many values of trees. Therefore, with the increasing trend of environmental degradation in recent decades, the evaluation of services has grown in importance. In this regard, rural communities, as a major group of stakeholders, have interacted with nature for decades or centuries. Since the historical interaction between socio-cultural and natural systems has influenced the formation of valuation and attitude of rural stakeholders towards trees, it is necessary to evaluate the ecosystem services of trees and focus on understanding and valuing rural stakeholders toward the ecosystem services of trees. So, understanding local priorities and perspectives on tree ecosystem services has always been a concern for related rural managers and decision-makers. In this regard, this study aims to analyze the ecosystem services of rural landscape trees based on the perception of local communities in Binalood city of the Razavi Khorasan province. Methodology The present research is descriptive-analytical and applied in terms of methodology. The goal of this research is the evaluation of ecosystem services of rural landscape trees based on the perception of local communities in rural areas of Binalood city. To achieve the research goal, the data was collected through the documentary and survey methods. In this regard, the questionnaire was completed in the form of 5 indicators and 16 items with a Likert scale, and related data was analyzed by SPSS software (Friedman, Yeoman-Whitney, and Pearson statistical tests). To operationalize the research, the sample size was calculated by Cochran's formula. The statistical population of the current research includes 183 people from rural households in 6 rural settlements of Binalood city. Therefore, the level of analysis of the present study is the village and the unit of analysis is the rural households. Results and discussion According to the results of this study, among the participants, 15 people were in their 20s, 46 people were in their 30s, 46 people were in their 40s, and the remainder were above 50. In terms of occupation, 13.5% were housewives, 23.7% were workers, 56.3% were farmers, and 6.5% had retail jobs. Regarding education, 24% were illiterate and elementary, 55.2% had a diploma, and 20.8% had a bachelor's degree or higher. Conclusion The results of the research indicated that the valuation of tree ecosystem services by local communities in the study area has varied based on the views and needs of local people and some variables including gender, occupation, level of education, and monthly income. The results of the Pearson correlation test showed that there was a positive correlation relationship between the job variables of the participants and the indicators of "supply products", "aesthetic value", and "sense of place" due to the significance level of alpha (below 0.05), and according to the type of their job, their attitude and valuation of tree ecosystem services was different. In addition, there is a positive correlation between the average annual income of participants and the indicators of "supply products ", "aesthetic value", "recreational performance", and "sense of place". Also, there is a significant relationship between the age variable of participants and the indicators of "quality of environmental resources" and "recreational performance", and there is a positive correlation between the gender variable and the indicators of "aesthetic value" and "recreational performance". Finally, the variables of education level and "aesthetic value" have a positive correlation. This means that with the increase in the level of education of the local people, in the rural settlements of Torghabeh district, the value of trees in terms of aesthetics also increases, and rural educated people believe more in the role of landscape trees in beautifying the rural environment. Moreover, according to the results, the highest average indices of tree ecosystem services were allocated to Kang and Azghad villages in the Torghabeh district of the Razavi Khorasan province. Also, there is a significant difference between farmers and Tourism employees of sample villages in terms of the valuation of tree ecosystem services. Farmers evaluated the trees' ecosystem services in the field of "maintaining the quality of environmental resources", "creating a sense of spatial belonging", and "aesthetic value of trees". Finally, women have a higher average rank than men in the sample villages of the research. Therefore, the group of women allocated a higher value to the trees compared to men. Funding There is no funding support. Authors’ Contribution Authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved thecontent of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none. Conflict of Interest Authors declared no conflict of interest. Acknowledgments We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Local communities, environmental sustainability, environmental resource management, rural viability, Local perception | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
امیدوار، نشاط، پورطاهری، مهدی و عبدالرضا رکن‌الدین افتخاری. (1400). تحلیل پیامدهای توسعه خدمات گردشگری بر ناپایداری زیست‌محیطی-کالبدی سکونتگاه‌های روستایی. مطالعه موردی: بخش طرقبه در شهرستان بینالود. فصلنامه پایداری، توسعه و محیط‌زیست، 1(1)، 42-27. جعفرزاده، علی، مهدوی، علی، فلاح شمسی، سید رشید و رسول یوسف پور. (1399). ارزش‌گذاری اقتصادی برخی از مهم‌ترین خدمات اکوسیستمی جنگل‌های زاگرس. فصلنامه علوم محیطی، 12(1)، 237-150. جنگی، حسن، توکلی‌نیا، جمیله و محمدتقی رضویان. (1399). چارچوبی مشارکتی به مفهوم زیبایی‌شناسی چشم‌انداز در خدمات فرهنگی اکوسیستم. مطالعه موردی: منطقه 22 تهران. فصلنامه پژوهشهای جغرافیای برنامه‌ریزی شهری، 4(8)، 693-671. رحیمی، لیلا، ملک‌محمدی، بهرام و احمدرضا یاری. (1398). ارزیابی خدمات اکوسیستمی تالاب‌ها بر اساس طبقه‌بندی ساختارها و کارکردهای هیدرولوژیکی-اکولوژیکی. فصلنامه جغرافیا و پایداری محیط، 9 (30)، 51-72. رکن‌الدین افتخاری، عبدالرضا. (1399). تبیین اندیشه‌ها، نظریات و رویکردهای توسعه روستایی. جزوه درسی مقطع دکتری، تهران: دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، دانشکده علوم انسانی. موسی‌لو، مرتضی، دارابی، حسن و امیرهوشنگ احسانی. (1399). ارزیابی خدمات منظر در عرصه پیرا شهری صالح‌آباد شرقی، جنوب تهران. مجله پژوهشهای روستایی، 3 (11)، 453-440.
References Baskent, E. Z. (2020). A framework for characterizing and regulating ecosystem services in a management planning context. Forests, 11(1), 102. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11010102. Bezák, P., Mederly, P., Izakovičová, Z., Moyzeová, M., & Bezáková, M. (2020). Perception of Ecosystem Services in Constituting Multi-Functional Landscapes in Slovakia. Land, 9(6), 195. Borges, J.G., Marques, S., Garcia-Gonzalo, J., Rahman, A.U., Bushenkov, V., Sottomayor, M., Carvalho, P.O. and Nordström, E.M. (2017). A multiple criteria approach for negotiating ecosystem services supply targets and forest owners' programs. Forest Science, 63(1), 49-61. https://doi.org/ 10.5849/FS-2016-035. Bösch, M., Elsasser, P., Franz, K., Lorenz, M., Moning, C., Olschewski, R & Weller, P. (2018). Forest ecosystem services in rural areas of Germany: Insights from the national TEEB study. Ecosystem Services, 31, 77-83. Brown, K., & Fortnam, M. (2018). Gender and ecosystem services: a blind spot. In Ecosystem Services and Poverty Alleviation. Routledge. Cebrián-Piqueras, M. A., Karrasch, L., & Kleyer, M. (2017). Coupling stakeholder assessments of ecosystem services with biophysical ecosystem properties reveals importance of social contexts. Ecosystem services, 23, 108-115. Collazo, A. (2020). Land use planning, mobility and historic preservation in Aguascalientescity. Are cultural sustainability and circular economy possible. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 15(5), 647–654. 10.18280/ijsdp.150507. European Commission (2021). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The 3 Billion Tree Planting PledgeFor 2030. Brussels. Faruqi, S., Wu, A., Brolis, E., Ortega, A. A., & Batista, A. (2018). The business of planting trees: a growing investment opportunity. The business of planting trees: a growing investment opportunity. Felipe-Lucia, M. R., Comín, F. A., & Escalera-Reyes, J. (2015). A framework for the social valuation of ecosystem services. Ambio, 44(4), 308-318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0555-2. Germany, N. C., & TEEB, D. (2016). Ecosystem services in rural areas–Basis for human wellbeing and sustainable economic development. Summary for decision-makers. Hanover. Leipzig: Leibniz University Hanover. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZ. Gouwakinnou, G. N., Biaou, S., Vodouhe, F. G., Tovihessi, M. S., Awessou, B. K., & Biaou, H. S. (2019). Local perceptions and factors determining ecosystem services identification around two forest reserves in Northern Benin. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 15 (1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-019-0343-y. 10.1186/s13002-019-0343-y. Harrison, P.A., Dunford, R., Barton, D.N., Kelemen, E., Martín-López, B., Norton, L., Termansen, M., Saarikoski, H., Hendriks, K., Gómez-Baggethun, E. and Czúcz, B. (2018). Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: A decision tree approach. Ecosystem services, 29, 481-498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.016. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11020207. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9060195. Jafarzadeh A., Mahdavi A., Fallah Shamsi Seyed R., Yousefpour R. (2020). Economic Valuation of some of the most important ecosystem services of Zagros forests. Environmental Sciences Quarterly, 12(1), 237-150. [In Persain]. Jangi, H., Tavakolinia, J., & Razavian, M.T. (2020(. A participatory framework in the concept of landscape aesthetic in Cultural Ecosystem Services Case Study: District 22 of Tehran. Geographical Research of Urban planning Quarterly, 4(4), 671-693. [In Persain]. Koko, I. A., Misana, S. B., Kessler, A., & Fleskens, L. (2020). Valuing ecosystem services: stakeholders’ perceptions and monetary values of ecosystem services in the Kilombero wetland of Tanzania. Ecosystems and People, 16(1), 411-426. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1847198. Lange, G.-M.; Wodon, Q.; Carey, K. (2018). The Changing Wealth of Nations, 2018. Building a Sustainable Future. World Bank. Washington, DC, USA. Leach, M. (2007). Earth mother myths and other ecofeminist fables: How a strategic notion rose and fell. Development and change, 38(1), 67-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2007.00403.x. Liu, Y. (2020). The willingness to pay for ecosystem services on the Tibetan Plateau of China. Geography and Sustainability, 1(2), 141-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2020.06.001. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2003). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press. Washington, DC, USA. pp. 245. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0033-0. Mousalou, M., Darabi, H., & Ehsani, A.H. (2020). Assessment of Landscape Services in Suburban Area of Eastern Saleh Abad, South of Tehran. Rural Research Quarterly, 3(11), 440-453. [In Persain]. Omidvar N., Pourtaheri M and Rokoddin Eftekhari A. )2021(. Analysis of the consequences of the development of tourism services on the environmental-physical instability of rural settlements. Case study: Torqabeh section in Binalood city. Sustainability, development and environment Quarterly, 1)1(, 27-42. [In Persain]. Operationalisation of Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services (OpenNESS). Available online: http://www.openness-project.eu/ (accessed on 5 June 2020). Rahimi L., Malek Mohammadi, B., & Yari, A.R. (2019). Evaluation of wetland ecosystem services based on the classification of hydrological-ecological structures and functions. Geography and Environmental Sustainability Quarterly, 9(30), 51-72. [In Persain]. Rocheleau, D. and Edmunds, D. (1997). Women, men and trees: Gender, power and property in forest and agrarian landscapes. World development, 25(8), 1351-1371. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(97)00036-3. Roknoddin Eftekhari, A. (2020). Explaining the ideas, theories and approaches of rural development. Doctoral textbook, Tehran: Tarbiat Modares University. Faculty of Humanities. [In Persain]. Salzman, J., Bennett, G., Carroll, N., Goldstein, A. and Jenkins, M. (2018). The global status and trends of Payments for Ecosystem Services. Nature Sustainability, 1(3), 136-144. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0033-0. Simensen, T., Halvorsen, R., & Erikstad, L. (2018). Methods for landscape characterisation and mapping: A systematic review. Land use policy, 75, 557-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.022. Sinthumule, N.I. (2021). An analysis of communities’ attitudes towards wetlands and implications for sustainability. Global Ecology and Conservation, 27(27), 48-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01604. Solomon, A. T. (2019). Views and Attitudes of Local Farmers towards Planting. Growing and Managing Trees in Agroforestry System in Basona Worena District. Ethiopia, 10, 258. doi: 10.35248/2593-9173.19.10.258. Sun, Q., Qi, W., & Yu, X. 2021. Impacts of land use change on ecosystem services in the intensive agricultural area of North China based on Multi-scenario analysis. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 60(1), 1703-1716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2020.11.020. TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity). (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Ecological and Economic Foundations. Edited by Pushpam Kumar. London and Washington: Earthscan. Turner‐Skoff, J. B., & Cavender, N. (2019). The benefits of trees for livable and sustainable communities. Plants, People, Planet, 1(4), 323-335. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.39. Walz, A., Schmidt, K., Ruiz-Frau, A., Nicholas, K. A., Bierry, A., de Vries Lentsch, A & Scholte, S. (2019). Sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services for operational ecosystem management: mapping applications by decision contexts in Europe. Regional Environmental Change, 18(9), 2245-2259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01506-7. Wang, M.K, Mo, H.W. (2018). The impact of spatial heterogeneity on ecosystem service value in a case study in Liuyang River Basin. China. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 9(2), 209–217. https://doi.org/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2018.02.011. Xu, L., Xu, W., Jiang, C., Dai, H., Sun, Q., Cheng, K. & Ma, J. (2022). Evaluating Communities’ Willingness to Participate in Ecosystem Conservation in Southeast Tibetan Nature Reserves. China. Land. 11(1).207. Yang, Y. E., Passarelli, S., Lovell, R. J., & Ringler, C. (2018). Gendered perspectives of ecosystem services: A systematic review. Ecosystem Services, 31, 58-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.015. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 280 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 128 |
||