Community Perception of Forest Ecosystem Services to Enhance Environmental Decision-making in the Ifrane National Park (Morocco)

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3345060/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Community Perception of Forest Ecosystem Services to Enhance Environmental Decision-making in the Ifrane National Park (Morocco)

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3345060/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The concept of ecosystem services is increasingly seen as a tool allowing the achievement of sustainable use of forest resources. However, it is not yet sufficiently integrated into participatory forest management approaches. For this purpose, a study was conducted to assess the direct and indirect benefits of Forest Ecosystem Services perceived by local communities around Ifrane National Park in Morocco and their involvement in its management. The data are collected from 279 households between April and June 2021 through face-to-face interviews. Perceptions of use, priority, and trends of Forest Ecosystem Services are analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Chi-square test was used to examine significant associations between wealth categories and prioritization of provisioning FES. Several provisioning Forest Ecosystem Services have been identified as essential for household subsistence and cash uses. The chi-square test shows an association between provisioning forest services for subsistence and cash use and household wealth categories. Regarding the prioritization of FESs, fifteen were prioritized, showing the need for their integration into any future forest management approach. 92.8% of participants perceived change in ecosystem services using the participatory approaches, this change was almost always positive (30.9%) and often negative (27.6%). Provisioning FES experienced the greatest negative change (59.2%), requiring several interventions to ensure their sustainability. These results confirm the importance of integrating participatory ecosystem service assessment with biophysical evaluations to evaluate the benefits of forest areas for the well-being of users. Lack of involvement in forest management can contribute significantly to unsustainable resource extraction by local communities.

Forest ecosystem services

participatory forest management

Ifrane National Park

well-being

local communities

The inclusion of the human dimension in ecological process analysis is considered a key to understanding the complexity of environmental interactions (Piussi and Farrel, 2000, Ingold, 2011), which allows the development of sustainable management policies capable of supporting the socioeconomic and environmental roles of ecosystems (Castillo et al., 2005). Thus, the nature-society dualism remains one of the challenges (Filippo, 2002 ; Petel, 2018, Quintas-Soriano et al., 2021) faced by natural resource managers who try to maintain the integrity of these resources while satisfying human needs (Foley et al., 2005; Burke et al., 2008), considering human as an integral part of nature. To this end, the introduction of ecosystem services (ES) has provided an important manner for the integration of social, human, and natural capital to ensure human well-being in public policy (Costanza et al., 2014). It has become a central issue in sustainable development and natural resource management critically important for people’s lifeways (Cuerrier et al., 2015; Sun et al., 2020).

Indeed, sustainable management of natural ecosystems depends on the ability to satisfy the current needs of local communities for ecosystem services (ES) without compromising the needs of future generations (AFPA, 1999, Golladay et al., 2016).

This challenge is more expressed in forest ecosystems, which play a crucial role in maintaining the well-being of local communities highly dependent on forest resources (Angelsen et al., 2014 ; Okumu and Muchapondwa, 2020a) and whose livelihoods are threatened by unsustainable forest use. These forest ecosystems provide humans directly or indirectly with many forest ecosystem services (FES) essential to their social and economic well-being (MEA, 2005 ; Guerry et al., 2015). Some of these FES have economic value and are traded in existing markets. In addition to this category, these ecosystems also provide a wide range of environmental functions such as watershed protection, biodiversity maintenance, climate moderation, atmospheric carbon dioxide fixation and storage, improvement of air and water quality, and provide recreational and esthetic values in rural and peri-urban landscapes (Allison, 2019 ; Cooper et al., 2016 ; FAO, 2013 ; TEEB, 2010). Although these environmental functions do not have a clear monetary value because they are not traded in a market, they contribute to people's well-being and play vital roles in the local economy.

Globally 38% of the total value of ES comes mainly from forests (Costanza et al., 1997) which provide 20% of rural household income in the form of cash and subsistence needs (Wunder et al., 2014). Approximately 75% of poor people in developing countries are dependent on these FES (Acharya et al., 2019).

In developing countries such as Morocco, forest ecosystem services contribute significantly to household income (Wunder et al., 2014). However, these forests, which are renewable resources but of limited capacity, will only be able to maintain themselves and play their full socio-economic and environmental roles if they are managed in a participatory and sustainable manner (El Latifi, 2012). The loss or degradation of forest ecosystems compromises the FESs provided to humans and the economy, resulting in irreversible losses that endanger the sustainability of human well-being (Masiero et al., 2019). According to a recent study, urban and agricultural expansion in Morocco is putting pressure on ecosystem services (Kusi et al., 2021). Thus, changing land uses without considering their potential for ES production and the perception of users decreases their ability to maintain their diverse functions in providing ecosystem services (Williams et al., 2008) and causes a deterioration of these ecosystem services at the local and national scale. For this purpose, local community participation in forest management decision-making has been promoted as an approach to improving local community livelihoods and the condition of forest ecosystems (Mbeche, 2018 ; Mbeche et al., 2021) and the effectiveness of natural resource management (Ribot et al., 2010).

In recent decades, many developing countries have made efforts to ensure greater empowerment of local people in the management and conservation of forest resources, recognizing the inefficiency of top-down approaches (Mbeche et al., 2021 ; Walle & Nayak, 2019). Therefore, participatory forest management has been defined as a mechanism for analyzing trade-offs and developing a shared understanding to improve local decision-making and promote equitable use of forest resources (Mbeche et al., 2021 ; Okumu & Muchapondwa, 2020a). This participatory approach identifies which ecosystem services should be prioritized based on the benefits they provide to local communities (Kim et al., 2021), so we can find a compromise between increasing social demand and maintaining ecosystem resilience (Baskent 2020, García-Nieto et al., 2019, Damastuti & Groot, 2019). It differs from biophysical models that do not explore local communities' perceptions and needs for ecosystem services (Brown and Fagerholm, 2015 ; Kim et al., 2021).

In Morocco, since 1976 the state has changed its forest conservation policy from a top-down approach to one based on organizing the participation of populations in the development of the forest economy by giving them deliberative power over the issues and projects to be engaged in their territories and responsibility in the process of organizing users (Naggar, 2013). In 1999, the adoption of the Moroccan National Forestry Program established the basis for conducting large-scale sustainable management projects involving the participation of various social groups in negotiation processes throughout the life of a project.

In the Ifrane National Park (INP), the forest plays a significant role in the population's socio-economic life. First, it is a fuelwood resource, a space for grazing and for collection of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (MAP) marketed to cooperatives, adding its role in developing ecotourism activities that benefit a chain of users from the host to the guide. The participatory management was initiated in this park in 2001 through a project entitled "Development and Protection of the forest massifs of Ifrane Province" whose objective was to establish a partnership for the conservation and development of forest ecosystems. This approach was built without analyzing the local communities' needs and their attitudes toward FES.

Today a new forest strategy for Morocco 2020-2030 has been initiated wich aims to make the population the first partner in forest management, meaning the effective participation of the local community in the forest decision-making process and the appropriation of forest development actions.

Unfortunately, these initiatives have never been subjected to preliminary studies of local community perceptions and attitudes before designing a participatory forest management approach. Most analytical efforts in ES research focus on the supply of ES (Lin et al., 2019) forgetting that how nature benefits people is not only influenced by supply but also by socioeconomic characteristics, needs, and uses of humans (Riechers et al., 2018 ; Dou et al., 2019 ; Sun et al., 2020 ; Wardropper et al., 2020).

To this purpose, the assessment of perceptions and attitudes of users with significant knowledge of the ecological and socioeconomic environment remains the main success factors for new projects aiming for the sustainable conservation of forests in INP. It helps to understand the distinctive roles of ES in supporting several vital aspects among rural populations and therefore contribute to the improvement of management regimes (Daniel et al., 2012; Jacobs et al., 2016; Mensah et al., 2017; Tadesse and Teketay, 2017). Identifying community preferences toward ES can help avoid local conflicts and facilitate the preparation of sustainable participatory management plans (Richards et al., 2017).

Since, the health of an environmental ecosystem service is not only influenced by ecosystem properties but also by social needs (Harrington et al., 2010). This study examines the type of FES and aims to identify the contribution of FES to local livelihoods and household incomes using wealth categories.

It is the first of its type in the INP, trying to explore the perceptions and attitudes of local communities towards the conservation of ecosystem services. The study aims to study aspects related to the perception of different categories of the community through their actual uses, the types of FES that are most important to them, the interactions and synergies that exist between the different FES and the wealth categories, and the impact of PFM on FES which is an important tool for forest management and the conservation of biodiversity in the Park.

2.1. Study area

The study was conducted in the nine forests of the Ifrane National Park, one of the ten National Parks of Morocco managed by the Provincial Directorate of Water and Forests of Ifrane. The INP was created in 2004 and initially covered 53,800 ha. In 2008 it was extended to cover 125,000 ha of which 85% is covered by forests. The INP extends over the western portion of the central Middle Atlas, on the territories of the provinces of Ifrane (93%) and Boulmane (7%). This INP is part of the Biosphere Reserve of the Atlas Cedar and is distinguished by its biological and ecological values, its forest wealth, and the exceptional beauty of its landscapes.

The population of the INP is estimated at 155,000, including 45.6% of the rural population (HCP,2014). The unemployment rate is 14.8% which is relatively lower than those recorded at regional (16.5%) and national (16.2%) levels. Livelihoods are based on agriculture, livestock, and forest products. Thus, overgrazing and excessive fuelwood harvesting are the main drivers of forest ecosystem degradation in the NIP (Larbi et al., 2014). Since its creation, Ifrane National Park has aimed to conserve biodiversity and sustainably manage forest ecosystems to safeguard and restore natural balances and strengthen educational, cultural, and social values (HCEFLCD, 2007).

2.2. Methods of data collection and analysis

The nine forests of the Ifrane National Park have been selected to conduct the survey (Fig. 1). 279 households residents for more than 15 years in the study area and located within 10 km of the INP forests are randomly sampled to obtain effective responses related to user experience (Wangchuk et al., 2021; Walle and Nayak, 2022). Proportional stratified random sampling was used.

To capture different categories of households, and understand the dependency of individuals on forest ecosystems and the significant role these ecosystems play in supporting their livelihoods . Households were stratified according to their wealth categories based on their per capita income computed using the survey data. Three income classes reflecting the wealth categories were considered : the low-income class less than 2000 MAD, the medium income between 2000 and 3500 MAD, and the high income more than 3500 MAD.

A semi-structured questionnaire including both open-ended and multiple choice questions is used between April and June 2021 for the 279 randomly selected households. Data were collected through a social survey with face-to-face interviews. After giving an introduction to the topic and purpose of the study, sometimes using the local language (Tamazight), participants were asked to answer many questions.

The questionnaire was organized into two parts: one concerning the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents, i.e., the income reported by the households in the last 12 months, age, family size, education level, possession of livestock, and the main activity of the household head; the data on income made it possible to stratify the households according to their wealth categories. The parameters chosen are generally the factors explaining the level of user participation in forest conservation (Walle and Nayak, 2022).

The second part concerned the identification of FES provided by nearby forest areas, the perceptions of respondents of these FES, and their prioritization . To understand these elements, the participants were asked to provide a list of the ecosystem services availed from the nearby forests. The discussion facilitator utilized probing questions and analogies to encourage participants to think more deeply about intangible benefits that were not initially brought up during the discussion. Three types of forest ecosystem services were selected as independent variables: 11 provisioning FES; 9 regulatory and supporting FES, and 6 cultural FES. Overall 26 FESs were selected for research. To indicate the importance of FES for subsistence or monetary consumption (subsistence, cash, or not used), respondents were then asked to classify the top five FES used by numerical measures of 100 preference points and to distribute these 100 points over the most essential five FES for them. The response goes from the lowest priority to the highest priority. The third question was to measure their perception of the importance of participatory management to the maintenance of FES using four nominal scales (declining, improving, no change, and I have no idea). Finally, participants were asked to share their ideas about threats to priority FES and actions that could be taken to improve the provision of forest ecosystem services in the future.

Quantitative data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 24. The main statistical analyses performed were frequency analysis and descriptive statistics. The chi-square test of independence was used to determine associations between categorical variables. Results are presented using frequency tables and graphs.

3.1. Characteristics of interviewed households

Of the 279 heads of households interviewed, 72.7% (n=203) were men, and 27.3% (n=76) were women. The average age is 38 years, the youngest respondent was 25 years old, and the oldest was 81 years old. 65% of the respondents are illiterate, 22% have attained the primary level, 11% at the secondary level, and 2% university level. Most respondents are married with children (89%), and the average household size was six members. Approximately 85% of respondents have livestock. Agriculture is the dominant economic activity (93%) in the study area. Households were composed of 79.2% low wealth, 14% medium wealth, and 6.8% high wealth. No significant association was observed between the gender of the household head and the wealth status of the household (χ2 = 5.31; p>0.05).

3.2. Cash and Subsistence use of provisioning forest ecosystem services

From the results, we can conclude a high dependence on provisioning forest ecosystem services is observed in all wealth groups and among different sexes of household heads. Many provisioning ecosystem services are used for subsistence or cash use presented in figure 2.

The most essential forest ecosystem services used for subsistence and cash use by households are fuelwood (96.4%), fodder (89.9%), medicinal and aromatic plants (85.3%), beekeeping (75%), freshwater (74%), timber (72%), NTFPs (53%), fish (66.3%), food (29%), and wildlife (5.7%).

For cash use, the most commonly used services are honey (74%), medicinal and aromatic plants (67.6%), NTFPs (64.8%), timber (59.2%), poison (46.4%), fodder (42.6%) and fuelwood (12%). These FES contribute significantly to the overall income of rural households, households who used FES for direct subsistence saved cash use that would be used to purchase other products (Shackleton and Shackleton 2004).

The provisioning service used only for subsistence is freshwater. As most other provisioning services are used for both subsistence and cash use, showing the importance of this service for livelihoods as demonstrated in several studies (Wangchuk et al., 2021 ; Zhang et al., 2021, Mahjoubi et al., 2022).

The chi-square test shows an association between the provision of forest services for subsistence or cash use and household wealth categories (Fig.2) explaining why the less wealthy income is more dependent on the provisioning ecosystem services for subsistence than for cash use. Dependence on local community subsistence for fuelwood and fodder supply services was significantly higher for poor households (χ2 = 7.9, df = 1, p < 0.05) than for rich households (χ2 = 3.5, df = 1, p < 0.05). For MAP, honey, and NTFPs, cash use dependence was more significant among the rich and not-so-rich (χ2 = 7.4, df = 1, p < 0.05) than among the poor (χ2 = 6.4, df = 1, p < 0.05). No significant associations were found between food supply, freshwater, wildlife and fish, and wealth groups.

Fuelwood remains the primary product consumed by poor households (92%) given the cold climatic conditions characterizing the study area, its quantity consumed is also influenced by household size (Benchekroun, 1987). Thus, to satisfy their daily needs, most poor households adopt survival strategies, including fuelwood use, which is necessary for the population's survival, either for cooking, or heating during most of the year (El Hairchi et al., 2022, Ismaili et al., 2022). This wood is taken sometimes deliciously without taking the condition of the trees remains among the main causes of forest degradation that leads to a loss of biodiversity (Hamzaoui et al., 2020).

For fodder, the not-so-rich and rich households use it more to supply their livestock, whose numbers are greater than those of poor households attributing to the reason that owning more livestock is one of the indicators of wealth and household economic status (Sarter, 2006 ; McPeak and Doss, 2006 ; Kalaba et al., 2013 ; Kristjanson et al., 2014 ; Ba, 2020). This situation asserts that households with low wealth have little land for agriculture, less livestock, and therefore little cash use, so they are supplied directly from the forest.

The use of aromatic and medicinal plants was also important as they are used to treat various diseases especially when villages are far from health facilities (Kalaba et al., 2013), and to obtain financial resources through sale to cooperatives in the area (Ismaili et al., 2022).

Low-wealth categories use MAPs, NTFPs, and honey to raise money, as these products are more commercialized in the market.

This finding is similar to other studies (Tesfaye, 2011 ; Ouko et al., 2018 ; Paudyal et al., 2018 ; Dorji et al., 2019 ; Lee, 2020; Wangchuk et al., 2021 ; Tessema and Nayak, 2022) that show that local communities use several forest products for economic gain and to satisfy their subsistence needs.

3.3. Prioritization of forest ecosystem services

Given the importance of managing ES according to their priority (Dorji et al., 2019, Kiran et al., 2015), it is essential to examine how communities perceived and prioritized the identified ES to prevent wrong decision-making that diminishes the value of these ecosystem services (Lee et al., 2020 ; Kim et al., 2021).

The results cited in Figure 3 show how communities perceive and prioritize the identified forest ES in the study area. Fifteen forest ecosystem services were prioritized in the INP. The top five preferences for provisioning ES are Freshwater (82%), Fuel wood (79%), Fodder (69.8%), MAP (65.7%), and NTFP (51.7%). For regulating and supporting ecosystem services, the five pronounced preferences are Biodiversity maintenance (78.4%), Clean air (75.4%), Soil protection (71%), Natural hazard reduction 68%), and Water purification (62%). This situation can be explained by the distance of the FNP from the industrial areas and therefore the value of these FES types for their well-being. For cultural services, we find Ecotourism (85.1%), Spiritual (79.4%), esthetic (78.4%), Recreation (78%), and environmental education (53%) which shows the awareness of the local communities of the spiritual and recreational values of the INP.

Other services like carbon sequestration, genetic diversity, and pollinisation were not prioritized by respondents. This situation could be due to the indirect provisioning or non-use values of regulatory and supporting ES, posing a potential threat to these ES (Aryal et al., 2021). Among the provisioning ecosystem services, freshwater is the first one chosen, and biodiversity conservation and ecotourism also come first for regulating and cultural services respectively (Fig.3). These services should therefore be the priority concerns for sustainable participatory management in future projects.

3.4. Perceived changes in the priority ecosystem services

A part of the study also focused on assessing the perceptions of local communities regarding the impact of participatory forest management initiated by the administration of water and forests at the Ifrane National Park on the 15 priority forest ecosystem services.

Of the 279 heads of households surveyed, 92.8% (259) perceived changes in priority ecosystem services, 30.9% reported improvements in FES due to PFM, 27.6% deterioration in FES, 19.6% no change in FES, and 21.9% said they had no idea of the impact of this management on FES (Fig.4).

The majority of respondents perceive that PFM contributes negatively to the supply of three FES, namely fuelwood (81%), fodder (73%), and NTFPs (69%). For MAPs, participatory management improved it by 51%, while freshwater remained stable under participatory management. Compared to other types of ecosystem services cited in this study PFM negatively impacted provisioning services by 59.2%, which is probably due to the tangible nature and direct benefits of provisioning services easily perceived by local communities.

Regarding the regulation and support of forest ecosystem services, the results show significant percentages for improvement than for deterioration, however only the prevention of erosion and the conservation of biodiversity were improved by PFM with 49% and 61% respectively, for the purification of the area and water the respondents did not know if the management influences these two FES respectively by (49%) and (59%). For the natural disaster reduction, the respondents attributed a percentage of 77% to no change and 23% to deterioration. Regarding cultural services, all ES have improved, namely ecotourism (89%), recreation (84%), aesthetics (62%), and educational (46%), except for spiritual, for which respondents indicated that they do not know if PFM influences this ES that they do not know if PFM influences this ES.

4.5. Threats and management recommendations

The respondents were approached to identify the various threats affecting these prioritized ecosystem services and some proposed solutions (Table 1). The threats cited are sometimes technical like unsuccessful reforestation and regeneration operations, artificial regeneration of MAP lack, anthropogenic like illegal activities of tree cutting, deforestation, overgrazing, inappropriate MAP collection practices, over-frequentation, and lack of awareness, and climatic as climate change, rainfall scarcity.

The respondents listed a series of proposed interventions that are sometimes biophysical, such as increasing the area of reforestation and combating deforestation. Other times, they are related to improving governance by integrating the local population into the planning and management of forest ecosystem services, especially by organizing users into forestry cooperatives or into silvopastoral management associations whose members benefit from compensation amounts for closed areas to grazing. These amounts can be used to purchase fodder livestock or to finance community projects.

Awareness about the importance of sustainable management of forest resources was also cited as a solution in most cases, especially for regulatory and cultural services. This observation will firstly provide an overview of the problems and the state of the FES, and secondly on the adopted approaches to managing these resources sustainably. This environmental awareness was sometimes more impacting than the formal education used for communities (Zoderer et al., 2016) and could therefore be used for communities to appreciate the importance of their local forests (Sears et al., 2018).

Table 1: Local communities' perception of the ecosystem services management intervention

Forest ecosystem services Categories	Threats	Intervention proposal
Provisioning ecosystem services
Fuelwood	Unsuccessful reforestation and regeneration operations, Illegal activities, Deforestation, Climate change.	Increase reforested areas, intensify control, organize users in forestry cooperatives.
Fodder	Overgrazing, livestock increase, climate change.	Giving financial donations to buy other livestock feeds Increase the number of silvopastoral management associations benefiting from compensation for closed area to grazing.
MAP	Inappropriate collection practices, scarcity of rainfall, lack of artificial regeneration operations.	Sensitizing collectors on correct collection practices, organizing users in cooperatives for MAP cultivation.
NTFP	Irrational harvesting, scarcity of rain.	Sensitize collectors on good collection practices and developing product value chains.
Freshwater	Climate change, irrational exploitation, extension of irrigated agricultural land upstream of the lakes.	Adopt water efficiency, cultivate non-water consuming crops, adopt traditional water management practices.
Regulating and supporting ecosystem services
Clean air	Pollution, deforestation.	Increase the reforested area.
Soil protection	Deforestation and climate change.	Increase the reforested areas, raise awareness on the importance of upstream forests to control erosion.
Water purification	Waste, deforestation.	Increase the area reforested, raise awareness in the local community.
Biodiversity maintenance	Deforestation, lack of awareness.	Raising awareness in local communities.
Natural hazard reduction	Climate change.	-
Cultural ecosystem services
Esthetic	Lack of awareness, Forests fires	Fire prevention and raising awareness in local communities.
Spiritual	Lack of awareness.	Raising awareness in local communities.
Recreation	Lack of awareness.	Raising awareness in local communities.
Environmental education	Lack of awareness.	Raising awareness in local communities.
Ecotourism	Over-frequentation, lack of awareness.	Raising awareness in local communities.

Participatory forest management has been experimented with in the Ifrane National Park for some 20 years but with mitigated results. This preoccupation constitutes the foundation of this research trying to understand the relationship between human and the environment by analyzing the local community's perceptions of the forest ecosystem services to build equitable management of the environment at the level of this park.

Knowing that a deep understanding of how different forest users perceive and value ecosystem services is interesting for decision-making at the landscape level (Cáceres et al., 2015) and for ensuring ES resilience defined as the capacity to maintain ES (Biggs et al., 2012).

Our results revealed how residents prioritize FESs and interpret the impact of participatory management on these services. Many provisioning FES were identified as interesting to people's livelihoods and/or monetary resources. This result may explain the importance of local awareness raising cited as a means of redressing some threats in several studies (references), which shows the importance of environmental education in presenting the magnitude of SEFs.

The prioritized provisioning ecosystem services are Freshwater, Fodder, Fuel wood, MAP, and NTFP respectively. For the regulating and supporting services, those classified as priorities are biodiversity maintenance, Clean air, Soil protection, Water purification, and Natural hazard reduction. The cultural services that were most important to users are Ecotourism, Recreation, esthetic, environmental education, and Spiritual.

The direct use of some provisioning ecosystem services varies among the wealth categories of the respondents may cause negative effects on the sustainability of these FES.

Considering the impact of participatory forest management on the provision of FES, users responded that three of five provisioning FES were negatively impacted by PFM, namely fuelwood, fodder, and NTFPs. Thus, under participatory management, access to these resources becomes increasingly controlled and managed to influence users' satisfaction with provisioning services. However, for the regulatory and support services only, erosion control and biodiversity conservation were improved by PFM. The others remain unknown to the respondents due to insufficient knowledge of the benefits provided by them.

The cultural services were all improved except for the spiritual, which shows that local communities are aware of the importance of these services in Ifrane National Park described as one of the most important economic and ecological parks in Morocco.

Our results show the awareness of the local population of the importance of forest ecosystem services for their well-being and their participation in the planning and implementation of sustainable participatory forest resource projects. This can reflect that the adhesion of the user populations constitutes support for rehabilitation and reconstitution realization programs in a participatory and partnership framework based on the preferences and attitudes of these populations towards the forest ecosystem services.

For this reason, such research is necessary before starting any forest resource conservation and management project as it facilitates partnerships and trust among stakeholders and develops a sense of ownership over these resources, which is important for sustainable forest management objectives (Dorji et al., 2019).

The multitude of FES identified by users in our survey, can only reflect the multifunctionality of the functions of forest areas and the importance of finding synergies between these areas and society. Our study is the first to look specifically at community perceptions of ecosystem services in public forests in Morocco. It could provide more information and a scientific basis for the socially just development of the INP. This study can also serve as a pilot for future studies in other regions of Morocco. It can be complemented by other studies on factors that support or limit the participation of forest-dependent people in a participatory management program that should be considered when planning and implementing forestry programs.

The direct use of some provisioning ecosystem services varies among the wealth categories of the respondents which may cause negative effects on the sustainability of these FES.

The cultural services were all improved, except for the spiritual, which shows that local communities are aware of the importance of these services in Ifrane National Park considered one of the most important economic and ecological parks in Morocco.

Our results have shown that the local population is aware of the importance of forest ecosystem services for their well-being and their participation in the planning, and implementation of sustainable participatory forest resource projects. This can reflect that the adhesion of the user populations constitutes support for rehabilitation programs and reconstitution realization in a participatory and partnership framework based on the preferences and attitudes of these populations towards the forest ecosystem services.

For this reason, such research is necessary before starting any forest resource conservation and management project as it facilitates partnerships and trust among stakeholders and develops a sense of ownership over these resources, which is interesting for sustainable forest management objectives (Dorji et al., 2019).

The multitude of FES identified by users can only reflect the multifunctionality of the functions of forest areas and the importance of finding synergies between these areas and society. Our study is the first to look specifically at community perceptions of ecosystem services in public forests in Morocco. It could provide more information and a scientific basis for the socially just development of the INP. This study can also serve as a pilot for future studies in other regions of Morocco. It can be complemented by other studies on factors that support or limit the participation of forest-dependent people in a participatory management program that should be considered when planning and implementing forestry programs.

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their thanks to the Professors who contributed to the elaboration of this work. The authors want also to thank the administrative responsible for their assistance in the collection of the data.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acharya, R.P., Maraseni, T.N., Cockfield, G. (2019). Local users and other stakeholders’ perceptions of the identification and prioritization of ecosystem services in fragile mountains: a case study of Chure region of Nepal. Forests, 10 (5), 421–441. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10050421.
AFPA. (1999). Sustainable Forestry Initiative Standard. Principles and Objectives, 5–8. Washington: American Forest and Paper Association.
Allison, E. (2019). Deity citadels: Sacred sites of bio-cultural resistance and resilience in Bhutan. Religion, 10 (4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel10040268.
Angelsen, A., Jagger, P., Babigumira, R., Belcher, B., Hogarth, N.J., Bauch, S. (2014). Environmental income and rural livelihoods: a global-comparative analysis. World Dev., 64, S12–S28.
Aryal, K., Ojha, B. R., and Maraseni, T. (2021). Perceived Importance and Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services in Ghodaghodi Wetland of nepal. Land Use Policy 106, 105450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105450.
Ba, M. (2020). Does livestock ownership affect food security? The case of rural Mauritania. ffhal-03088715
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.
Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Biggs, D., Bohensky, E.L., BurnSilver, S., Cundill, G., Dakos, V., Daw, T.M., Evans, L.S., Kotschy, K., et al. (2012). Toward Principles for Enhancing the Resilience of Ecosystem Services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour, 37, 421–448
Brown, G., Fagerholm, N. (2015). Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: a review and evaluation. Ecosyst. Serv., 13, 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecoser.2014.10.007.
Burke, D. A., K. A. Elliott, S. B. Holmes, and D. Bradley. (2008). The Effects of Partial Harvest on the Understory Vegetation of Southern Ontario Woodlands For. Ecol. Manag., 255, 2204–2212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.12.032.
Cáceres, D.M., Tapella, E., Quétier, F., Díaz, S. (2015). The social value of biodiversity and ecosystem services from the perspectives of different social actors. Ecol. Soc, 20(1), 62. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07297-200162.
Castillo, A., Magaña, A., Pujadas, A., Martínez,L., and Martínez, C. (2005). Understanding the Interaction of Rural People with Ecosystems: A Case Study in a Tropical Dry Forest of Mexico. Ecosystems, 8, 630–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021- 005-0127-1.
Cooper, N., Brady, E., Steen, H., Bryce, R. (2016). Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognizing the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv., 21, 218–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecoser.2016.07.014.
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I., et al. (2014). Changes in the Global Value of Ecosystem Services. Glob. Environ. Change, 26, 152–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002
Costanza, R., R. D’Arge, R. DeGroot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, et al. (1997). The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital., Nature, 387, 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0.
Damastuti, E., de Groot, R. (2019). Participatory ecosystem service mapping to enhance community-based mangrove rehabilitation and management in Demak. Indonesia. Reg. Environ. Change, 19 (1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1378-7.
Daniel, T.C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J.W., Chan, K.M.A., Costanza, R., Elmqvist, T., Flint, C.G., Gobster, P.H., Grêt-Regamey, A., Lave, R., Muhar, S., Penker, M., Ribe, R.G., Schauppenlehner, T., Sikor, T., Soloviy, I., Spierenburg, M., Taczanowska, K., Tam, J., von der Dunk, A. (2012). Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 109 (23), 8812–8819. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109.
Dorji, T., Brookes, J., Facelli, J., Sears, R., Norbu, T., Dorji, K., Baral, H et al. (2019). Socio-Cultural Values of Ecosystem Services from Oak Forests in the Eastern Himalaya. Sustainability, 11(8), 2250. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082250.
Dou, Y., Zhen, L., Yu, X., Bakker, M., Carsjens, G.-J., and Xue, Z. (2019). Assessing the Influences of Ecological Restoration on Perceptions of Cultural Ecosystem Services by Residents of Agricultural Landscapes of Western china. Sci. Total Environ., 646, 685–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.205.
El hairchi, K., Benbrahim, Y., Ouiaboub, L., Limame, A. (2022). Evaluation of the effect of anthropic factors on the degradation of forests in the central Middle Atlas (case of the Ain Nokra forest). Geographic space & Morocco, 1(59). https://doi.org/10.34874/IMIST.PRSM/EGSM/31805.
El latifi, M. (2012). The economy of the forest and forest products in Morocco: assessment and prospects. PhD thesis in economics, Université Montesquieu - Bordeaux, pp. 424
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). (2013). Forest and water: international momentum and action. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Filippo, B. (2002). Multifunctionality of Mountain Forests and Economic Evaluation. Forest Policy and Economics, 4, 101– 112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00010-2.
Foley, J. A., R. DeFries, G. P. Asner, C. Barford, G. Bonan, S. R. Carpenter, F. S. Chapin, et al. (2005). Global Consequences of Land use. Science, 309 (5734), 570–574. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111772.
García-Nieto, A.P., Huland, E., Quintas-Soriano, C., Iniesta-Arandia, I., GarcíaLlorente, M., Palomo, I., Martín-Lopez, ´ B. (2019). Evaluating social learning in participatory mapping of ecosystem services. Ecosyst. People, 15 (1), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2019.1667875.
Golladay, K., J. Martin, D. Vose, A. P. Wear, R. J. Covich, K. Hobbs, G. E. Klepzig, R. J. Likens, and A. W. Naiman. (2016). Shearer Achievable Future Conditions as a Framework for Guiding Forest Conservation and Management For. Ecol. Manag., 360, 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.10.009.
Guerry, A. D., Polasky, S., Lubchenco, J., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Daily, G. C., Griffin, R., et al. (2015). Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services Informing Decisions: From Promise to Practice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 112, 7348–7355. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503751112.
Hamzaoui, I., Gmira, N., Qarro, M. (2020). Sédentarisation Des éleveurs Et Impacts Sur La Durabilité Des écosystèmes Forestiers Du Moyen Atlas Central (cas De La Province D'ifrane, Maroc, 12(1), 38-46
Harrington, R., Anton, C., Dawson, T.P. et al. (2010). Ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation: concepts and a glossary. Biodivers Conserv, 19, 2773–2790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9834-9.
Haut-Commissariat aux Eaux et Forêts et à la Lutte Contre la Désertification (HCEFLCD). (200). Plan d’aménagement et de gestion du Parc National d’Ifrane pp 66. http://homepage.mac.com/jmdelacre/PNIfrane_rapport-_final strategie_V_07.pdf.
HCP (Haut-Commissariat au Plan). (2014). Base de données inventaire communal rural. High Commission for the Plan of Morocco National Documentation Center. Internet site. Available at: https://www.hcp.ma/RGPH-2014_r230.html.
Ingold, A. (2011). Écrire la Nature De L’histoire Sociale à la Question Environnementale?. Annales. Histoire Sciences Sociales 1 (1), 11–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/S039526490000545X.
Iniguez-Gallardo, V., Halasa, Z., Briceño, J. (2018). People’s Perceptions of Ecosystem Services Provided by Tropical Dry Forests: A Comparative Case Study in Southern Ecuador. In Tropical Forests—New Edition, InTechOpen: London, UK
Ismaili, A.H., Asri, B., Ghazi, S., Brhadda, N., Ziri, R. (2022). Ethnobotanical and socio-economic evaluation of the medicinal and aromatic plants in the oued beht watershed, Morocco. Forestry ideas, 28, 1 (63): 163–177
Ismaili, A.H., Bouhatta, M., Ghazi, S., Brhadda, N., Ziri, R. (2022). A socio-economic analysis of the wood supply ecosystem service in the Oued Beht watershed, Morocco, Local Environment, https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2022.2136633.
Jacobs, S., Dendoncker, N., Martín-López, B., Barton, D.N., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Boeraeve, F., McGrath, F.L., Vierikko, K., Geneletti, D., Sevecke, K.J., Pipart, N., Primmer, E., Mederly, P., Schmidt, S., Aragão, A., Baral, H., Bark, R.H., Briceno, T., Brogna, D., Cabral, P., De Vreese, R., Liquete, C., Mueller, H., Peh, K.S.-H., Phelan, A., Rincón, A.R., Rogers, S.H., Turkelboom, F., Van Reeth, W., van Zanten, B.T., Wam, H.K., Washbourn, C.L. (2016). A new valuation school: integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosyst. Serv., 22, 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.007.
Kalaba, F.K., Quinn, C.H., Dougill, A.J. (2013). The role of forest provisioning ecosystem services in coping with households’ stresses and shocks in Miombo woodlands, Zambia. Ecosyst. Serv., 5, 143–148.
Kim, I., Lee, J., & Kwon, H. (2021). Participatory ecosystem service assessment to enhance environmental decision-making in a border city of South Korea. Ecosystem Services, 51, 101337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101337.
Kiran, K., Kini, S., Santhosh, N., Kiran, N.U. (2015). KAP study of solid waste disposal of households in Kuttar & Manjanadi Panchayath covered under gramaskhema programme of KS Hegde Medical Academy. Nitte University Journal of Health Science, 5(3). https://doi.org/1055/s-0040-1703908.
Kristjanson, P., Waters-Bayer, A., Johnson, N., Tipilda, A., Njuki, J., Baltenweck, I., Grace, D., MacMillan, S. (2014). Livestock and women‟s livelihoods, in: Gender in Agriculture. Springer, pp. 209–233.
Kusi KK., Khattabi A, Mhammdi N, Lahssini S (2020) Prospective evaluation of the impact of land use change on ecosystem services in the Ourika watershed, Morocco. J Land Use Policy 97, 104796 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104796.
Lee, J.-H., Park, H.-J., Kim, I., Kwon, H.-S. (2020). Analysis of cultural ecosystem services using text mining of residents’ opinions. Ecol. Indic., 115, 106368. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106368.
Lin, W., Xu, D., Guo, P., Wang, D., Li, L., and Gao, J. (2019). Exploring Variations of Ecosystem Service Value in Hangzhou bay Wetland, Eastern china. Ecosystem Serv., 37, 100944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100944.
Mahjoubi, I., Bossenbroek, L., Berger, E., Frör, O. (2022). Analyzing Stakeholder Perceptions of Water Ecosystem Services to Enhance Resilience in the Middle Drâa Valley, Southern Morocco," Sustainability, MDPI, 14(8), 1-17.
Masiero, M., Pettenella, D., Boscolo, M., Barua, S.K., Animon, I., Matta, J.R. (2019). Valuing forest ecosystem services: a training manual for planners and project developers. Forestry Working Paper No. 11. FAO, Rome, pp. 216.
Mbeche, R. (2018). Climbing the ladder of participation: symbolic or substantive representation in preparing Uganda for REDD+? Conserv. Soc., 15 (4), 426–438.
Mbeche, R., Ateka, J., Herrmann, R., & Grote, U. (2021). Understanding forest users’ participation in participatory forest management (PFM): Insights from Mt. Elgon forest ecosystem, Kenya. Forest Policy and Economics, 129, 102507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102507.
McPeak, J.G., Doss, C.R. (2006). Are household production decisions cooperative? Evidence on pastoral migration and milk sales from northern Kenya. Am. J. Agric. Econ., 88, 525–541.
MEA. (2005). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis, 151. Washington: Island Press.
Mensah, S., Veldtman, R., Assogbadjo, A. E., Ham, C., Glèlè Kakaï, R., and Seifert, T. (2017). Ecosystem Service Importance and Use Vary with SocioEnvironmental Factors: A Study from Household-Surveys in Local Communities of south africa. Ecosystem Serv., 23, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecoser.2016.10.018.
Naggar, M. (2013). Les questions forestières au Maroc et la gouvernance territoriale. Revue forestière française, Agro Paris Tech, 65 (3),255-263. ff10.4267/2042/51854ff. ffhal-03447367f
Okumu, B., Muchapondwa, E., (2020a). Welfare and forest cover impacts of incentive based conservation: evidence from Kenyan community forest associations. World Dev., 129, 104890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104890.
Ouko, C.A., Mulwa, R., Kibugi, R., Owuor, M.A., Zaehringer, J.G., Oguge, N.O. (2018). Community perceptions of ecosystem services and the management of Mt. Marsabit Forest in Northern Kenya. Environments 5 (11), 121. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments5110121.
Paudyal, K., Baral, H., Keenan, R.J. (2018). Assessing social values of ecosystem services in the Phewa Lake Watershed, Nepal. For. Policy Econ., 90, 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.01.011.
Petel, M. (2018). La Nature: D’un Objet D’appropriation à un Sujet de Droit. Réflexions Pour un Nouveau Modèle de Société. Revue Interdisciplinaire D’études Juridiques, 1 (1), 207–239. https://doi.org/10.3917/riej.080.0207.
Piussi, P., and E. P. Farrel. (2000). Interactions Between Society and Forest Ecosystems: Challenges for the Near Future. For. Ecol. Manag, 132, 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00376-5.
Quintas-Soriano, C., Brandt, J., Baxter, C.V., Bennett, E.M., Requena-Mullor, J.M., Castro, A.J. (2021). A framework for assessing coupling and de-coupling trajectories in river social-ecological systems. Sustain. Sci., 17, 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01048-0.
Ribot, J.C., Lund, J.F., Treue, T. (2010). Democratic decentralization in sub-Saharan Africa: its contribution to forest management, livelihoods, and enfranchisement. Environ. Conserv., 37 (1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000329.
Richards, D.R., Warren, P.H., Maltby, L., Moggridge, H.L. (2017). Awareness of greater numbers of ecosystem services affects preferences for floodplain management. Ecosyst. Serv., 24, 138–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.001.
Riechers, M., Barkmann, J., and Tscharntke, T. (2018). Diverging Perceptions by Social Groups on Cultural Ecosystem Services provided by Urban green. Landscape Urban Plann., 175, 161–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.03.017.
Sarter, G. (2006). Manger et élever des moutons au Maroc : Sociologie des préférences et des pratiques de consommation et de production de viande. Sociologie. Université Panthéon-Sorbonne - Paris I: ff. fftel-00273344f.
Sears, R., Choden, K., Dorji, T., Dukpa, D., Phuntsho, S., Rai, P., Wangchuk, J., Baral, H. (2018). Bhutan’s Forests through the Framework of Ecosystem Services: Rapid Assessment in Three Forest Types. Forests, 9, 675. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9110675.
Shackleton, C., & Shackleton, S. (2004). The importance of non-timber forest products in rural livelihood security and as safety nets: A review of evidence from South Africa. South African Journal of Science, 100(11), 658–664
Sun, X., Tang, H., Yang, P., Hu, G., Liu, Z., and Wu, J. (2020). Spatiotemporal Patterns and Drivers of Ecosystem Service Supply and Demand across the Conterminous united states: A Multiscale Analysis. Sci. Total Environ., 703, 135005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135005.
Tadesse, S., Woldetsadik, M., Senbeta, F. (2017). Forest users’ level of participation in a participatory forest management program in southwestern Ethiopia. For. Sci. Technol., 13, 164–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/21580103.2017.1387613.
TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity). (2010).The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB
Tesfaye, Y. (2011). Participatory Forest Management for Sustainable Livelihoods in the Bale Mountains, Southern Ethiopia. Doctoral Thesis. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
Tessema, S.B., Nayak, D. (2022). Analyzing the Perceived Prioritized Forest Ecosystem Services Under the Participatory Management: A Case of Maksegnit District, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. Trees, Forests and People, (9). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2022.100318.
Walle, Y., Nayak, D. (2019). How can participatory forest management cooperatives be successful in forest resources conservation? An evidence from Ethiopia. Sustain. For., https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2019.1684950.
Walle,Y., Nayak, D. (2022). Factors determining the participation of natural resource cooperative members in forest management: A study of dry forest area in Ethiopia, Trees, Forests and People, 8, 2666-7193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2022.100241.
Wangchuk, J., Choden, K., Sears, R. R., Baral, H., Yoezer, D., Tamang, K. T. D. et al. (2021). Community perception of ecosystem services from commercially managed forests in Bhutan. Ecosystem Services, 50, 101335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101335.
Wardropper, C. B., Mase, A. S., Qiu, J., Kohl, P., Booth, E. G., and Rissman, A. R. (2020). Ecological Worldview, Agricultural or Natural Resource-Based Activities, and Geography Affect Perceived Importance of Ecosystem Services. Landscape Urban Plan, 197, 103768. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.landurbplan.2020.103768.
Williams, M., C. M. Ryan, R. M. Rees, E. Sambane, J. Fernando, and J. Grace. (2008). Carbon Sequestration and Biodiversity of re-Growing Miombo Woodlands in Mozambique. For. Ecol. Manag, 254, 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.07. 033.
Wunder, S., Angelsen, A., Belcher, B. (2014). Forests, livelihoods, and conservation: broadening the empirical base. World Dev., 64, S1–S11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.007.
Zhang, G., Zhang, X., Xie , L., Zhang , Q., Liu , D., Wu , H., Li, S. (2021). Perceived Importance and Bundles of Ecosystem Services in the Yangtze River Middle Reaches Megalopolis, China. Frontiers in Environmental Science ( IF 5.411 ). https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.739876;
Zoderer, B.M., Lupo Stanghellini, P.S., Tasser, E., Walde, J., Wieser, H., Tappeiner, U. (2016). Exploring socio-cultural values of ecosystem service categories in the Central Alps: The influence of socio-demographic factors and landscape type. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2016, 16, 2033–2044. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0922-y.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Community Perception of Forest Ecosystem Services to Enhance Environmental Decision-making in the Ifrane National Park (Morocco)

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Material and methods

3. Results

4. Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1