Analysis of Key Propellants Affecting Livestock Return in Forests with a Futuristic /Forward-Looking Approach (Study in Golestan Province)

Naeimian, Navid; Moayeri, Mohammad Hadi; Shahraki, Mohammad Reza; Sobhani, Nobakht

[Home ] [Archive]

[ فارسی ]

Main Menu

Home

Journal Information

Articles archive

For Authors

For Reviewers

Registration

Contact us

Site Facilities

Search in website

Receive site information

Volume 10, Issue 21 (12-2022)

PEC 2022, 10(21): 139-154

Back to browse issues page

Analysis of Key Propellants Affecting Livestock Return in Forests with a Futuristic /Forward-Looking Approach (Study in Golestan Province)

Navid Naeimian¹

, Mohammad Hadi Moayeri ^*

, Mohammad Reza Shahraki³

, Nobakht Sobhani⁴

1- Sari Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sari
Faculty of Forestry Sciences, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Faculty of Forestry Sciences, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan , hadimoayeri54@gmail.com
3- Department of Natural Resources and Watershed Management of Golestan Province
4- Islamic Azad University, Research Branch, Tehran

Abstract: (1912 Views)

Today, livestock outflows from the forests of the north of the country have created environmental and social challenges and problems that have caused concern to natural resource policy makers. The re-emergence of livestock and ranchers illegally in the forests for various reasons has created disputes and tensions with conservation systems. In this regard, the present study was conducted to analyze the key drivers affecting the return of livestock in the forests of Golestan province. The sample population in the study consisted of 20 ranchers returning to the forest and were purposefully selected. After collecting information, using the cross-effects technique and using MicMac software, 27 indices extracted from the Delphi method were analyzed. The results of the dispersion of indicators in the axis of impact and effectiveness, indicate the instability of the livestock exit system from the forests of the province and its organization, based on which five variables were identified. Findings obtained from the effect-matrix direct dependence and dispersion of indicators showed that the lack of accurate implementation of the provisions of the plan in the forest, lack of support from government agencies in the area of housing, lack of alternative job opportunities and diversification of income sources, lack of pasture Natural resources for livestock and the high cost of complementary inputs, non-timely payment of salaries by people subject to the plan by the government, various procedures and instructions contrary to the plan, lack of proper planning in housing and livestock farms, as the most important effective indicators and Strategies were evaluated in the return of livestock to forest areas. According to the obtained results, the compilation and preparation of a 10-year transformation document in order to organize the settled forest households is the most important proposal with a forward-looking approach to the subject under study.

Article number: 11

Keywords: Forest, Forest Dweller, Livestock, Ranch, Management.

Full-Text [PDF 881 kb] (321 Downloads)

Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2022/05/8 | Accepted: 2022/08/30 | Published: 2023/04/22

References

1. Abbot, J.I.O., Homewood, K. 1999. A history of change: causes of miombo woodland decline in a protected area in Malawi, J. Appl. Ecol., 36: 422-433.

2. Adekunle, M.F., Hailu, M., Mitiku, L. 2008. Underutilized forest plants in traditional healthcare and nutrition in sekota woreda, Amhara Region, Ethiopia, International Symposium on Underutilized Plants for Food Security, Nutrition, Income and Sustainable Development.

3. Andersen, J., Nilsson, C., Richelieu, T., Fridriksdottir, H., Gobilick, J., Mertz, O., Gausset, Q. 2003. Local use of forest products in Kuyongon, Sabah, Malaysia, ASEAN Review of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation: http://www.arbec.com.my/pdf/art2janmar03.pdf.

4. Arcad, J., Godet, M., Meunire, F., Roubelat, F. 2003. Structural analysis with the MICMAC method & actors' strategy with MACTOR method, Futures Research Methodology, 7(33): 20-41.

5. Assogba, N. P., Zhang, D. 2020. An Economic Analysis of Tropical Forest Resource Conservation in a Protected Area, Sustainability, 12(14): 5850.‏

6. Bernes, C., Macura, B., Jonsson, B. G., Junninen, K., Müller, J., Sandström, J., Macdonald, E. 2018. Manipulating ungulate herbivory in temperate and boreal forests: effects on vegetation and invertebrates, A systematic review. Environmental Evidence, 7(1): 1-32.‏

7. Dobson, A. P., Bradshaw, A. D., Baker, A. Á. 1997. Hopes for the future: restoration ecology and conservation biology, Science, 277(5325): 515-522.‏

8. Giliba, R. A., Mafuru, C. S., Paul, M., Kayombo, C. J., Kashindye, A. M., Chirenje, L. I., Musamba, E. B. 2011. Human activities influencing deforestation on meru catchment forest Reserve, Tanzania. Journal of Human Ecology, 33(1): 17-20.

9. Gordon, A. 2009. Future savvy: identifying trends to make better decisions, manage uncertainty, and profit from change, American management association press, New York.

10. Kardell, Ö. 2016. Swedish forestry, forest pasture grazing by livestock, and game browsing pressure since 1900, Environment and history, 22(4): 561-587.‏

11. Lehtonen, E., kuluvainen, J., Pouta,E., Rekola, M., Li, C. 2003 . Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland, Environmental science and policy, 6:195-204.

12. Neuma, W. 2007. Social research methods. 6thed, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson education, London.

13. Nichiforel, L., Keary, K., Deuffic, P., Weiss, G., Thorsen, B. J., Winkel, G., Bouriaud, L. 2018. How private are Europe’s private forests? A comparative property rights analysis. Land Use Policy, 76: 535-552.‏

14. Öllerer, K., Varga, A., Kirby, K., Demeter, L., Biró, M., Bölöni, J., Molnár, Z. 2019. Beyond the obvious impact of domestic livestock grazing on temperate forest vegetation–A global review, Biological Conservation, 237: 209-219.

15. Rishi, P. 2003. What actors think of Joint Forest Management: a perceptual analysis, International Forestry Review, 5(1): 53-57.‏

16. Seidl, A.F., Silva, J.D., Moraes. A.S. 2001. Analysis cattle ranching and deforestation in the Brazilian Pantanal, Ecological Economics, 36: 413-425.

17. Trepp, E. 2010. Chandoli National Park and Resettlement: impacts on local communities in Maharashtra, India. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Vrije Universiteit. Amsterdam.‏

18. Unknown. 1972. Ranch system transition plan of Makaroud. (Distinct 36-Kazemroud). Organization of Forest, rangeland and watershed. 215p.

19. Walker, R., Moran, E., Anselin, U. 2000. Deforestation and cattle ranching in the Brazilian Amazon: external capital and household processes, World Development, 28(4): 683-699.

20. Walker, N.F., Patel, S.A., Kalif, K.A.B. 2013. From Amazon pasture to the high street: deforestation and theBrazilian cattle product supply Chain, Journal Tropical Conservation Science, 6(3): 446-467.

21. White, P.C.L., Lovett, J.C. 1999. Public preferences and Willingness – to – pay for nature conservation in the North York moors National Park, UK, Journal of environmental management, 55: 1-13.

22. Woube, M. 2005. Effects of resettlement schemes on the biophysical and human environments: The case of the Gambela Region, Ethiopia. Universal-Publishers.‏

Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Naeimian N, Moayeri M H, Shahraki M R, Sobhani N. Analysis of Key Propellants Affecting Livestock Return in Forests with a Futuristic /Forward-Looking Approach (Study in Golestan Province). PEC 2022; 10 (21) : 11
URL: http://pec.gonbad.ac.ir/article-1-858-en.html

Rights and permissions
	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Volume 10, Issue 21 (12-2022)

Back to browse issues page

Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.05 seconds with 37 queries by YEKTAWEB 4710