Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Public perception of forest crimes: The case of Ilgaz Province in Turkey

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The protection and sustainable management of forests are widely accepted and considered a solution for mitigating climate change. Although there are many variables concerning economic, political, social, and legal aspects in terms of forest protection, the main target is always focused on human behavior. Legal instruments are one of the most effective methods in regulating human behavior. Since illegal activities are often the most destructive human behavior, this study aims to examine the public’s perception regarding forest crimes: illegal logging, illegal transportation/smuggling, open land expansion, squatting, and arson. It has been explained in previous studies that legal regulations alone do not sufficiently prevent forest crimes. Although forest villagers themselves benefit greatly from healthy forests, it was determined that occurrences of criminal activity in forests are directly correlated with low-income levels, lack of awareness of laws and sanctions, low penalties on crimes, and a low level of education. Those administrations responsible for the management of forests need to identify the socio-economic needs of these groups and communities through social analysis within the parameters of SFM.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yurike, Y., Rudi, F., & Karimi, S. (2015). Land grabbing and deforestation: Community perception on forest land ownership in Dharmasraya District, West Sumatra, Indonesia. Paper presented at the land grabbing, conflict and agrarian-environmental transformations: Perspectives from East and Southeast Asia, Thailand.

  2. Hemström, K., Mahapatra, K., & Gustavsson, L. (2014). Public perceptions and acceptance of intensive forestry in Sweden. Ambio, 43(2), 196–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0411-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ranjan, R. (2018). What drives forest degradation in the central Himalayas? Understanding the feedback dynamics between participatory forest management institutions and the species composition of forests. Forest Policy and Economics, 95, 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.07.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. FERN. (2018). Loggingoff: Transparency and the timber trade: Under construction (p. 17). FERN.

  5. USTR. (2019). Trans-Pasicif partnership combating illegal logging (p. 1). Office of United States Trade Representative.

  6. Mourao, P. R., & Martinho, V. D. (2019). Forest fire legislation: Reactive or proactive? Ecological indicators, 104, 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.04.080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. FERN. (2001). Behind the logo: An environmental and social assessment of forest certification schemes (p. 64). UK: FERN.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Castro, G. S., & Díaz, R. Z. (2016). Forest conflicts and public intervention. The case of the forests of María and Vélez Blanco (Almeria, Spain). 1879–1901. Forest Policy and Economics, 70, 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.05.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brack, D., Marijnissen, C., & Ozinga, S. (2002). Controlling İmports of illegal timber: Options for Europe (p. 74). UK: FERN.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Van Heeswijk, L., & Turnhout, E. (2013). The discursive structure of FLEGT (Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade): The negotiation and interpretation of legality in the EU and Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics, 32, 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.10.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kishor, N., & Oksanen, T. (2010). Combating illegal logging and corruption in the forestry sector. Environmental Matters Annual Review (pp. 1–15): FAO.

  12. Shi, M., Yin, R., Zulu, L., Qi, J., Freudenberger, M., & Sommerville, M. (2016). Empirical linkages between devolved tenure systems and forest conditions: Selected case studies and country experiences. Forest Policy and Economics, 73, 286–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.05.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Simpson, R., Lemaitre, S., & Whiteman, A. (2012). Implementing an action plan to tackle timber illegality. Unasylva, 63(1), 239.

    Google Scholar 

  14. FERN. (2019). How community restoration and management of forests can help meet climate goals: EU Forests of Hope (p. 16). FERN.

  15. Arias, A. (2015). Understanding and managing compliance in the nature conservation context. Journal of Environmental Management, 153, 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.02.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Eckerberg, K., & Sandström, C. (2013). Preface to forest conflicts: A growing research field. Forest Policy and Economics, 33, 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lesniewska, F., & McDermott, C. L. (2014). FLEGT VPAs: Laying a pathway to sustainability via legality lessons from Ghana and Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics, 48, 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.01.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ramcilovic-Suominen, S., & Hansen, C. P. (2012). Why some forest rules are obeyed and others violated by farmers in Ghana: Instrumental and normative perspective of forest law compliance. Forest Policy and Economics, 23, 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Proskurina, S., Heinimö, J., & Vakkilainen, E. (2018). Policy forum: Challenges of forest governance: Biomass export from Leningrad oblast, North-West of Russia. Forest Policy and Economics, 95, 13–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. De Oñate-Calvín, R., Oviedo, J. L., & Salo, M. (2018). Forest resource-based household economy in the communities of the Nanay River Basin, Peruvian Amazonia. Ecological Economics, 146, 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.10.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Axsen, J. (2014). Citizen acceptance of new fossil fuel infrastructure: value theory and Canada׳s Northern Gateway Pipeline. Energy Policy, 75, 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.10.023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Boudet, H., Clarke, C., Bugden, D., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2014). “Fracking” controversy and communication: using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing. Energy Policy, 65, 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Huijts, N. M. A., Molin, E. J. E., & Steg, L. (2012). Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: a review-based comprehensive framework. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(1), 525–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.08.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Namaalwa, J., Sankhayan, P. L., & Hofstad, O. (2007). A dynamic bio-economic model for analyzing deforestation and degradation: An application to woodlands in Uganda. Forest Policy and Economics, 9(5), 479–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2006.01.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Boudet, H., Bugden, D., Zanocco, C., & Maibach, E. (2016). The effect of industry activities on public support for ‘fracking.’ Environmental Politics, 25(4), 593–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2016.1153771

  26. Forsyth, C. J., Luthra, A. D., & Bankston, W. B. (2007). Framing perceptions of oil development and social disruption. The Social Science Journal, 44(2), 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2007.03.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Freudenburg, W. R., & Gramling, R. (1994). Oil in troubled waters: perceptions, politics, and the battle over offshore drilling. SUNY Press.

  28. Meijaard, E., Abram, N. K., Wells, J. A., Pellier, A.-S., Ancrenaz, M., Gaveau, D. L., et al. (2013). People’s perceptions about the importance of forests on Borneo. PLoS ONE, 8(9), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. FAO. (2007). Public perception of forestry industry and environment. FAO advisory committee on paper and wood products (pp. 28). Rome.

  30. Hammond, E. A. S. (2019). Effect of public perceptions on support/opposition of frac sand mining development. The Extractive Industries and Society, 6(2), 471–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2019.03.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. OGM. (2018). Orman Genel Müdürlüğü Stratejik Plan 2019–2023. (pp. 82). Ankara.

  32. FAO. (2008). National Report of Turkey Mountain Watershed Management. (pp. 16). Rome.

  33. KB. (2014). Sürdürülebilir Orman Yönetimi, Özel İhtisas Komisyonu Raporu. http://tarim.kalkinma.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Surdurulebilir_Orman_Yonetimi_oik.pdf. Accessed 06.03.2018.

  34. Lebedys, A., & Yanshu, L. (2014). Contribution of the forestry sector to national economies, 1990–2011. Forest Finance Working Paper FSFM/ACC/09. FAO.

  35. TİM. (2010). Türkiye 2023 İhracat Stratejisi Sektörel Kırılım Projesi Proje Raporu (p. 167). Türkiye İhracatçılar Meclisi.

  36. TOD. (2019). Türkiye Ormancılığı 2019 (Vol. 47). Türkiye Ormancılar Derneği.

  37. Valente, S., Coelho, C., Ribeiro, C., Liniger, H., Schwilch, G., Figueiredo, E., et al. (2015). How much management is enough? Stakeholder views on forest management in fire-prone areas in central Portugal. Forest policy economics, 53, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.01.003

  38. Druckman, D. (2005). Doing research: methods of inquiry for conflict analysis: sage publications.

  39. Gritten, D., Saastamoinen, O., & Sajama, S. (2009). Ethical analysis: a structured approach to facilitate the resolution of forest conflicts. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(8), 555–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2009.07.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Yasmi, Y. (2003). Understanding conflict in the co-management of forests: the case of Bulungan Research Forest. The International Forestry Review, 5(1), 38–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. OGM. (2020). Ormancılık İstatistikleri 2019. Ankara: Orman Genel Müdürlüğü.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Mantel, N. (1963). Chi-square tests with one degree of freedom; extensions of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58(303), 690–700.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Stokes, M. E., Davis, C. S., & Koch, G. G. (2012). Categorical data analysis using SAS. SAS institute.

  44. Dittrich, R., Francis, B., Hatzinger, R., & Katzenbeisser, W. (2007). A paired comparison approach for the analysis of sets of Likert-scale responses. Statistical Modelling, 7(1), 3–28.

  45. de Winter, J., & Dodou, D. (2010). Five-Point Likert Items: T test versus Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Addendum added October 2012). Practical Assessment, Research, Evaluation, 15(1), 11.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Jamieson, S. (2004). Likert scales: How to (ab) use them. Medical education, 38(12), 1217–1218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Subedi, B. P. (2016). Using Likert type data in social science research: Confusion, issues and challenges. International journal of contemporary applied sciences, 3(2), 36–49.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ho, R. (2013). Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis with IBM SPSS. Chapman and Hall/CRC.

  49. Hart, A. (2001). Mann-Whitney test is not just a test of medians: Differences in spread can be important. BMJ, 323(7309), 323–391. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7309.391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Sheskin, D. J. (2003). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures: CRC Press.

  51. Baş, R. (2014). Türkiye’de orman yangınları nedenleri, zararları ve yangınlara karşı alınacak önlemler. İstanbul Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(2), 52–73.

  52. Avcı, M., Korkmaz, M., & Alkan, H. Türkiye’de orman yangınlarının nedenleri üzerine bir değerlendirme. In I. Orman Yangınları İle Mücadele Sempozyumu, Antalya, 2009 (pp. 33–45)

  53. OGM. (2019). Orman Yangınlarıyla Mücadele Eylem Planı 2019 (p. 120). Ankara: Orman Genel Müdürlüğü.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Gençay, G., & Mercimek, A. (2019). Public Consciousness and Influence of Law on Forest Crimes: Insights from Kastamonu. Turkey. Forest Policy and Economics, 106, 101978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.101978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Özden, S., Kılıç, H., Ünal, H., & Birben, Ü. (2012). Orman Yangını İnsan İlişkisi (1ed.). Türkiye Ormancılar Derneği.

  56. Yüksel, B., Akbulut, S., İpek, A., & Baysal, İ. (2009). Türkiye’de Orman Kaçakçılık Suçları ve Kaçakçı Profilinin Değerlendirilmesi: Akyazı ve Hendek Örneği. İstanbul Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 59(1), 1–14.

  57. Kant, S., Deegen, P., Hostettler, M., Wang, S., & Nelson, H. (2019). New frontiers of forest economics, III: Governing our forests: The evolving political economy of multiple values and multiple stakeholders. Forest Policy and Economics, 107, 2–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.05.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Sotirov, M., Blum, M., Storch, S., Selter, A., & Schraml, U. (2017). Do forest policy actors learn through forward-thinking? Conflict and cooperation relating to the past, present and futures of sustainable forest management in Germany. Forest Policy and Economics, 85, 256–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.11.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Dragoi, M., Popa, B., & Blujdea, V. (2011). Improving communication among stakeholders through ex-post transactional analysis — case study on Romanian forestry. Forest Policy and Economics, 13(1), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2010.08.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Stickler, M. M., Huntington, H., Haflett, A., Petrova, S., & Bouvier, I. (2017). Does de facto forest tenure affect forest condition? Community perceptions from Zambia. Forest Policy and Economics, 85, 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.08.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work would not have been possible without the support of Prof. Dr. Sun Joseph CHANG from Louisiana State University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Forest Economics, Faculty of Forestry, Çankırı Karatekin University, 18200, Çankırı, Turkey

    Hasan Emre Ünal & Üstüner Birben

  2. Department of Environment and Forestry Law, Faculty of Forestry, İstanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, 34473, İstanbul, Turkey

    Osman Devrim Elvan

Authors
  1. Hasan Emre Ünal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Üstüner Birben
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Osman Devrim Elvan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hasan Emre Ünal.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors certify that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patentlicensing arrangements), or non-fi nancial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ünal, H.E., Birben, Ü. & Elvan, O.D. Public perception of forest crimes: The case of Ilgaz Province in Turkey. Crime Law Soc Change 75, 487–506 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-021-09951-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-021-09951-4

Search

Navigation