IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v122y2022ics0264837722004173.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Socio-economic and ecological outcomes of a community-based restoration of peatland swamp forests in Peninsular Malaysia: A 5Rs approach

Author

Listed:
  • Alam, Md Jahangir
  • Rengasamy, Nagarajan
  • bin Dahalan, Mohd Puat
  • Halim, Sharina Abdul
  • Nath, Tapan Kumar

Abstract

Restoration of degraded forest lands is a global priority that aims to restore ecosystems and their functions in ways that provide multiple socio-economic benefits. The Selangor State Forestry Department (SSFD) of peninsular Malaysia in collaboration with an NGO, local people and other stakeholders had been implemented a community-based restoration of degraded peat swamp forest (1000 hectare) programme in Raja Musa Forest Reserve, North Selangor since 2008. However, socio-economic and ecological impacts of this restoration programme are yet to study fully. In this pioneer study, we followed 5Rs approach to peatland restoration and assessed rewetting status (R1), reduction of fire incidences (R2), revegetation (R3), revitalization (R4) and reporting and monitoring (R5) to understand socio-economic and ecological outcomes of the programme. Data on R1, R2, R3 (restoration approach), R4 (qualitative data on socio-economic outcomes) and R5 (management actions and stakeholders’ participation) were collected through four focus group discussions, five key informant interviews, review of NGO’s documents and a stakeholders’ workshop. Quantitative data on R4 (local peoples’ willingness to contribute (WTC) and socio-economic impact (e. g. benefits, education, awareness) were collected through structured interviews of 200 randomly selected households in four surrounding villages. Data on R3 (ecological outcomes- survival rate and growth of planted trees, status of natural regeneration) were gathered through a series of vegetation survey. Restoration project created jobs (e. g. patrolling) and small business (e. g. forest nursery) opportunities for local people, and enhanced tourism, nature education and research in RMFR thus contributed to locals’ socio-economic development (R4). Local people were WTC to tree planting and maintenance (69 %), canal blocking and maintenance (26 %), forest vigilance (34 %), fire control (35 %), trail construction (27 %), and education and awareness creation (40%) voluntarily without remuneration (R1, R2, R3). The SSFD and NGO adopted an innovative approach of PSF restoration where volunteers (local people and other stakeholders) participated in canals blocking to keep PSF wetted, monthly tree planting events, and education and awareness creation campaigns (R1, R3). Canal blockings helped to maintain a mean ground water level of − 24.96 cm. Due to continuous motivation and awareness creation among surrounding villagers, fire incidents in RMFR were reduced (R2). Between 2008 and 2019, 323.72- hectare plantations were developed mainly with Euodia redlevi tree species and few trees of Shorea leprosula, Myristica lowiana and M. pruinose (R3). Selection of species was done by the SSFD and NGO without input from local people (R5). The mean survival percentage of planted trees was 65%. Mean annual increment (MAI) of diameter and height of E. redlevi decreased from younger plantations (3-year) toward older ones (5-, 7-year) (R3). Overall, MAI (dbh and height) across four tree species between age groups was found significantly different (p = 0.001). Regeneration study identified 16 tree species with an average density of 17,798. E. redlevi was dominant, but only 10.6 % of its regeneration attained young tree stage (R3). Suggestions are made to expedite restoration with diverse tree species (R3) with effective participation of local people (R5) and to ensure post-planting maintenance for greater survival of planted trees (R1, R2, R3).

Suggested Citation

  • Alam, Md Jahangir & Rengasamy, Nagarajan & bin Dahalan, Mohd Puat & Halim, Sharina Abdul & Nath, Tapan Kumar, 2022. "Socio-economic and ecological outcomes of a community-based restoration of peatland swamp forests in Peninsular Malaysia: A 5Rs approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:122:y:2022:i:c:s0264837722004173
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106390
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837722004173
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106390?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lankia, Tuija & Neuvonen, Marjo & Pouta, Eija & Sievänen, Tuija, 2014. "Willingness to contribute to the management of recreational quality on private lands in Finland," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 141-160.
    2. Lankia, Tuija & Neuvonen, Marjo & Pouta, Eija & Sievänen, Tuija, 2014. "Willingness to contribute to the management of recreational quality on private lands in Finland," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182651, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Kijazi, Martin Herbert & Kant, Shashi, 2010. "Forest stakeholders' value preferences in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 357-369, June.
    4. Hesti Tata & Meine Noordwijk & Denis Ruysschaert & Rachmat Mulia & Subekti Rahayu & Elok Mulyoutami & Atiek Widayati & Andree Ekadinata & Riswan Zen & Adji Darsoyo & Rahayu Oktaviani & Sonya Dewi, 2014. "Will funding to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and (forest) Degradation (REDD+) stop conversion of peat swamps to oil palm in orangutan habitat in Tripa in Aceh, Indonesia?," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 693-713, August.
    5. Mohd Azmi, M.I. & Cullen, Ross & Bigsby, Hugh R. & Awang Noor, A.G., 2009. "The Existence Value of Peat Swamp Forest in Peninsular Malaysia," 2009 Conference, August 27-28, 2009, Nelson, New Zealand 97133, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hagedoorn, Liselotte C. & Koetse, Mark J. & van Beukering, Pieter J.H. & Brander, Luke M., 2021. "Reducing the finance gap for nature-based solutions with time contributions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    2. Sonter, Laura J. & Johnson, Justin A. & Nicholson, Charles C. & Richardson, Leif L. & Watson, Keri B. & Ricketts, Taylor H., 2017. "Multi-site interactions: Understanding the offsite impacts of land use change on the use and supply of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 158-164.
    3. Li-Chun Peng & Wan-Yu Lien & Yu-Pin Lin, 2020. "How Experts’ Opinions and Knowledge Affect Their Willingness to Pay for and Ranking of Hydrological Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-18, December.
    4. Heru Susilo & Yoshifumi Takahashi & Mitsuyasu Yabe, 2017. "The Opportunity Cost of Labor for Valuing Mangrove Restoration in Mahakam Delta, Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-13, November.
    5. Kocsis, Tamás & Marjainé, Szerényi Zsuzsanna, 2018. "Gazdag szegények. Időráfordítási hajlandóság a környezeti javak értékelésében [The wealthy poor - "willingness to spend time" in evaluating environmental benefits]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(11), pages 1154-1171.
    6. Amandine Gnonlonfin & Ali Douai, 2019. "Rapport d’enquête : Quel avenir pour la Brague face au risque d’inondation ?," Working Papers hal-03030376, HAL.
    7. Ebrahim Kheyri & Maryam Morovati & Akram Neshat & Gholamreza Siahati, 2020. "Economic valuation of natural promenades in Iran using zonal travel costs method (Case study area: Gahar Lake in Lorestan Province in western Iran)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-10, November.
    8. Anton Strokov & Ekatherine Yakubovich & Pavel Krasilnikov, 2017. "Economic and Ecological Evaluation of Land Use Change: Evidence from Karelia," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(2), pages 422-433.
    9. Xin Nie & Qian Chen & Ting Xiao & Han Wang, 2019. "Willingness to pay for ecological function regions protection based on a choice experiment method: a case study of the Shiwandashan nature reserve," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 813-829, March.
    10. Meine van Noordwijk & Robin Matthews & Fahmuddin Agus & Jenny Farmer & Louis Verchot & Kristell Hergoualc’h & Sebastian Persch & Hesti Tata & Betha Lusiana & Atiek Widayati & Sonya Dewi, 2014. "Mud, muddle and models in the knowledge value-chain to action on tropical peatland conservation," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 887-905, August.
    11. Boer, Henry James, 2018. "The role of government in operationalising markets for REDD+ in Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 4-12.
    12. Ni’matul Khasanah & Meine Noordwijk, 2019. "Subsidence and carbon dioxide emissions in a smallholder peatland mosaic in Sumatra, Indonesia," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 147-163, January.
    13. Khan, M. Ali, 2016. "On a forest as a commodity and on commodification in the discipline of forestry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 7-17.
    14. Patricia Carignano Torres & Carla Morsello & Luke Parry & Renata Pardini, 2016. "Who Cares about Forests and Why? Individual Values Attributed to Forests in a Post-Frontier Region in Amazonia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-18, December.
    15. 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.
    16. Sloan, Sean & Campbell, Mason J. & Alamgir, Mohammed & Collier-Baker, Emma & Nowak, Matthew G. & Usher, Graham & Laurance, William F., 2018. "Infrastructure development and contested forest governance threaten the Leuser Ecosystem, Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 298-309.
    17. Ruysschaert, Denis & Hufty, Marc, 2020. "Building an effective coalition to improve forest policy: Lessons from the coastal Tripa peat swamp rainforest, Sumatra, Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    18. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    19. de Man, Reinier & German, Laura, 2017. "Certifying the sustainability of biofuels: Promise and reality," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 871-883.
    20. Affek, Andrzej Norbert & Kowalska, Anna, 2017. "Ecosystem potentials to provide services in the view of direct users," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 183-196.

    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:eee:lauspo:v:122:y:2022:i:c:s0264837722004173. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.