Factors Affecting Community Participation in Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility Projects: Evidence from Mangrove Forest Management Project
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
2.2. Environmental CSR
2.3. Sustainable Mangrove Forest Management
2.4. Community Participation in Environmental CSR (Sustainable Mangrove Forest Management)
- (1)
- Participation in planning the project. Local community members can collaborate with a business enterprise and other related stakeholders to take part in decision-making for creating rules or agreements on activities for mangrove forest restoration and conservation. Community members must be encouraged to participate in decision-making for the allocation of rights, responsibilities, and resources for managing mangrove forests [61,62,63]. Reed et al. [64] stated that the participation of stakeholders, including diverse local community members, in planning allows their needs, priorities, concerns, and interests to be captured and taken into consideration throughout project implementation. According to Eddiwan [63], to avoid a community’s anxiety, significant information (such as objectives, location, area, activities, etc.) can be shared with local community members through their participation in planning. Community participation in the planning stage can also enhance community members’ capacities, which are important for mangrove forest restoration and conservation. Significant knowledge includes the efficient use of mangrove resources and mangrove rehabilitation techniques, such as growing conditions, conditions for growth, and effective ways to plant mangroves [63].
- (2)
- Participation in implementation. Local community members are responsible for acting in response to their roles and responsibilities, as indicated in the plan or agreements. For instance, they can participate in mangrove planting activities, while encouraging other people to take part in planting mangrove trees [63]. Local community members may also educate other people, particularly tourists and outsiders, about ways to avoid harming mangrove ecosystems.
- (3)
- Participation in monitoring. The monitoring stage involves the assessment of whether the main goals and end-points (such as the improvement of local livelihoods and forest conditions) have been achieved when implementing a plan [65]. According to Eddiwan [63], community members can conduct both regular and periodic monitoring of ongoing activities during the implementation of mangrove restoration and conservation activities. Local community members may also take part in monitoring problems occurring during activities and seeking suitable solutions. The results of monitoring can be used to adjust or change action plans.
2.5. Factors Affecting Community Participation in Environmental CSR (Sustainable Mangrove Forest Management)
2.5.1. Enterprise-Related Factors
- Organization-public relationship (OPR)
- CSR credibility
2.5.2. Participant-Related Factors
- Ecological knowledge
- Perceived CSR value (perceived ecological values)
- Expected benefits of participation
3. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
4. Methodology
4.1. Study Area and Population
4.2. Participants and Ethical Issues
4.3. Measures
- Participation in sustainable mangrove forest management
- Quality of organization–public relationship
- Perceived CSR Credibility
- Perceived values of the CSR project (perception of ecological values)
- Ecological knowledge
- Expected benefits
4.4. Data Collection and Data Analysis
5. Results
5.1. Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables
5.2. Determinants of Community Participation in the Environmental CSR Project
6. Discussion and Conclusions
7. Limitations of the Study
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Venturelli, A.; Fasiello, R.; Pizzi, S. CSR Education in Economia aziendale Curricula: An Overview. Adm. Sci. 2021, 11, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trireksani, T.; Zeng, Y.; Djajadikerta, H.G. Extent of sustainability disclosure by Australian public universities: Inclusive analysis of key reporting media. Aust. J. Public Adm. 2021, 80, 830–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schimperna, F.; Nappo, F.; Collaretti, F. Universities and CSR Teaching: New Challenges and Trends. Adm. Sci. 2022, 12, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 1998. Available online: www.wbcsd.org (accessed on 12 May 2022).
- Micheal, B. Corporate Social Responsibility in International Development: An Overview and Critique. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. 2003, 10, 115–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yuan, Y.; Lu, L.Y.; Tian, G.; Yu, Y. Business Strategy and Corporate Social Responsibility. J. Bus. Ethic 2020, 162, 359–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dilling, P.F. Sustainability Reporting In A Global Context: What Are The Characteristics of Corporations That Provide High Quality Sustainability Reports An Empirical Analysis. Int. Bus. Econ. Res. J. 2010, 9, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Junior, A.D.S.; Martins-Silva, P.D.O.; Feu, K.S.; Komino, A.C.; Da Silva, V.C.; Vasconcelos, K.C.D.A. Corporate social responsibility in the perspective of Brazilian management students: The inversion of the pyramid. Soc. Responsib. J. 2018, 16, 50–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brammer, S.; Millington, A.; Rayton, B. The contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational commitment. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2007, 18, 1701–1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sustainable Capital Market Development. 2022. Available online: https://www.setsustainability.com/page/disclosure (accessed on 20 June 2022).
- Levy, S.E.; Park, S.-Y. An Analysis of CSR Activities in the Lodging Industry. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2011, 18, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, D. The Frankenstein syndrome: Corporate responsibility and the environment. In Business and the Environment: Implications of the New Environmentalism; Smith, D., Ed.; Chapman in the Mining Idustry: Perspectives from Stakeholder Groups in Argentina: London, UK, 1993; pp. 172–189. [Google Scholar]
- Turker, D. Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility: A Scale Development Study. J. Bus. Ethic 2009, 85, 411–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CPF. 2022. Available online: https://www.cpfworldwide.com/en/sustainability/project/forest (accessed on 20 June 2022).
- Njoroge, O.; Ngugi, J.J.; Olielo, T.K.; Mungiria, M.; Nyaga, M. Business Studies, Form One Students Book, 3rd ed.; Kenya Literature Bureau: Nairobi, Kenya, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Leach, C.W.; Ellemers, N.; Barreto, M. Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 93, 234–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sen, S.; Bhattacharya, C.B.; Korschun, D. The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Strengthening Multiple Stakeholder Relationships: A Field Experiment. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2006, 34, 158–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilberthorpe, E.; Banks, G. Development on whose terms?: CSR discourse and social realities in Papua New Guinea’s extractive industries sector. Resour. Policy 2012, 37, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mutti, D.; Yakovleva, N.; Vazquez-Brust, D.; Di Marco, M.H. Corporate social responsibility in the mining industry: Perspectives from stakeholder groups in Argentina. Resour. Policy 2012, 37, 212–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prno, J.; Slocombe, D.S. Exploring the origins of ‘social license to operate’ in the mining sector: Perspectives from governance and sustainability theories. Resour. Policy 2012, 37, 346–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Owen, J.R.; Kemp, D. Social licence and mining: A critical perspective. Resour. Policy 2013, 38, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.Y.; Zhang, W.; Abitbol, A. What Makes CSR Communication Lead to CSR Participation? Testing the Mediating Effects of CSR Associations, CSR Credibility, and Organization–Public Relationships. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 157, 413–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Y.H. Public Relations Strategies, Relational Outcomes, and Conflict Management Strategies. Unpublished. Master’s Thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Newell, S.J.; Goldsmith, R.E. The development of a scale to measure perceived corporate credibility. J. Bus. Res. 2001, 52, 235–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raposo, A.; Durão, A.; Morais, M.M.; Vasconcelos, L. Public Participation: A Tool for Water Conservation and Environmental Management. In Proceedings of the 1st International Congress on Engineering and Sustainability in the XXI Century—INCREaSE 2017, Faro, Portugal, 11–13 October 2017; pp. 583–593. [Google Scholar]
- Mohr, L.A.; Webb, D.J.; Harris, K.E. Do Consumers Expect Companies to be Socially Responsible? The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Buying Behavior. J. Consum. Aff. 2011, 35, 45–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartmann, P.; Apaolaza-Ibáñez, V. Consumer attitude and purchase intention toward green energy brands: The roles of psychological benefits and environmental concern. J. Bus. Res. 2012, 65, 1254–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.; Liu, N. Research on Citizen Participation in Government Ecological Environment Governance Based on the Research Perspective of “Dual Carbon Target”. J. Environ. Public Health 2022, 2022, 5062620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Commission for European Communities. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions; Towards a Global Partnership for Sustainable Development. COM (2002) 82 Final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Labuschagne, C.; Brent, A.C.; van Erck, R.P. Assessing the sustainability performances of industries. J. Clean. Prod. 2005, 13, 373–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- KPMG International Cooperative. A New Vision of Value: Connecting Corporate and Societal Value Creation; KPMG International Cooperative: Amstelveen, The Netherlands, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Alam, S.M.S.; Islam, K.M.Z. Examining the role of environmental corporate social responsibility in building green corporate image and green competitive advantage. Int. J. Corp. Soc. Responsib. 2021, 6, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrei, J.; Panait, M.; Ene, C. Environmental Protection between Social Responsibility, Green Investments and Cultural Values; Faculty of Economic Sciences, Petroleum-Gas University of Ploiesti: Ploiesti, Romania; MPRA: Munich, Germany, 2014; Volume 60189, pp. 2–8. [Google Scholar]
- Saran, S.M.; Shokouhyar, S. Crossing the chasm between green corporate image and green corporate identity: A text mining, social media-based case study on automakers. J. Strat. Mark. 2021, 29, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rashid, A.Z.M.M.; Craig, D.; Mukul, S.A.; Khan, N.A. A journey towards shared governance: Status and prospects for collaborative management in the protected areas of Bangladesh. J. For. Res. 2013, 24, 599–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ailawadi, K.L.; Luan, Y.J.; Neslin, S.A.; Taylor, G.A. The impact of retailers’ corporate social responsibility on price fairness perceptions and loyalty. In Proceedings of the Inra-Idei Seminar on Competition and Strategies in the Retailing Industry, Toulouse, France, 16–17 May 2011; pp. 16–17. [Google Scholar]
- Rahman, S. Evaluation of definitions: Ten dimensions of corporate social responsibility. World Rev. Bus. Res. 2011, 1, 166–176. [Google Scholar]
- Kathiresan, K.; Bingham, B.L. Biology of mangroves and mangrove Ecosystems. Adv. Mar. Biol. 2001, 40, 81–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salampessy, M.L.; Febryano, I.G.; Martin, E.; Siahaya, M.E.; Papilaya, R. Cultural Capital of the Communities in the Mangrove Conservation in the Coastal areas of Ambon Dalam Bay, Moluccas, Indonesia. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2015, 23, 222–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alongi, D.M. The Energetics of Mangrove Forests; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Giesen, W.; Wulfrrat, S.; Zieren, M.; Schoten, L. Mangrove Guidebook for Southeast Asia; Dharmasarn Co., Ltd.: Bangkok, Thailand, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Alongi, D.M.; Sasekumar, A.; Tirendi, F.; Dixon, P. The Influence of Stand Age on Benthic Decomposition and Re-cycling of Organic Matter in Managed Mangrove Forests of Malaysia. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 1998, 225, 197–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duke, N.C.; Meynecke, J.O.; Dittmann, S.; Ellison, A.M.; Anger, K.; Berger, U.; Marcha, C.; Diele, K.; Ewel, K.C.; Field, C.; et al. A World Without Mangroves? Science 2007, 317, 41–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kauffman, J.B.; Donato, D.C. Protocols for the Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting of Structure, Biomass and Carbon Stocks in Mangrove Forests; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Kusmana, C. Integrated Sustainable Mangrove Forest Management. J. Nat. Resour. Environ. Manag. 2015, 5, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Food and Agriculture Organization. United States Forest Service Tropical Forestry Mangrove Forest Management Guidelines; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 1994; p. 117. [Google Scholar]
- Blaser, J. Criteria and Indicators for the Sustainable Management of Tropical Forests; ITTO Policy Development Series No. 21; International Tropical Timber Organization: Yokohama, Japan, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Tang-Lee, D. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and public engagement for a Chinese state-backed mining project in Myanmar—Challenges and prospects. Resour. Policy 2016, 47, 28–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IAP2. Foundations of Public Participation. 2003. Available online: http://www.iap2.org/indexpdfs/foundations-bro.pdfi (accessed on 17 June 2022).
- Arnstein, S.R. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 1996, 35, 216–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mostert, E. The challenge of public participation. Water Policy 2003, 5, 179–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newig, J.; Pahl-Wostl, C.; Sigel, K. The role of public participation in managing uncertainty in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. Eur. Environ. 2005, 15, 333–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EU. Guidance on Public Participation in Relation to the Water Framework Directive. Active Involvement, Consultation, and Public Access to Information; Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document No. 8; EU: Luxembourg, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Djosetro, M.; Behagel, J.H. Building local support for a coastal protected area: Collaborative governance in the Bigi Pan multiple use management area of suriname. Mar. Policy 2020, 112, 103746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Lavieren, H.; Spalding, M.; Alongi, D.M.; Kainuma, M.; Clüsener-Godt, M.; Adeel, Z. Securing the Future of Mangroves United Nations University, Institute for Water; Environment and Health: Hamilton, ON, Canada, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Uphoff, N.T. Feasibility and Application of Rural Development Participation: A State-of-the Art Paper; Rural Development Committee, Centre for International Studies, Cornel University: Ithaca, NY, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, J.; Uphoff, N. Participation’s place in rural development: Seeking clarity through specificity. World Dev. 1980, 8, 213–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Islam, K.K.; Rahman, M.; Fujiwara, T.; Sato, N. People’s participation in forest conservation and livelihoods im-provement: Experience from a forestry project in Bangladesh. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2013, 9, 30–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Obadire, O.; Mudau, M.; Zuwarimwe, J.; Mensah, P.S. Participation Index Analysis for CRDP at Muyexe in Limpopo Province, South Africa. J. Hum. Ecol. 2014, 48, 321–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mbeche, R.; Ateka, J.; Herrmann, R.; Grote, U. Understanding forest users’ participation in participatory forest management (PFM): Insights from Mt. Elgon forest ecosystem, Kenya. For. Policy Econ. 2021, 129, 102507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chowdhury, S.B. Participation in Forestry: A Study of People’s Participation on the Social Forestry Policy in Bangladesh: Myth or Reality? Master’s Thesis, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Tadesse, S.; Woldetsadik, M.; Senbeta, F. Forest users’ level of participation in a participatory forest management program in southwestern Ethiopia. For. Sci. Technol. 2017, 13, 164–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eddiwan, K.; Hanifah, A. Community-based mangrove forest management action in Rangsang region, district of Kepulauan Meranti, Riau. MOJ Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2018, 3, 62–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, M.S.; Graves, A.; Dandy, N.; Posthumus, H.; Hubacek, K.; Morris, J.; Prell, C.; Quinn, C.H.; Stringer, L.C. Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1933–1949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Evans, K.; Guariguata, M.R.; Brancalion, P.H.S. Participatory monitoring to connect local and global priorities for forest restoration. Conserv. Biol. 2018, 32, 525–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Broom, G.M.; Casey, S.; Ritchey, J. Toward a Concept and Theory of Organization-Public Relationships. J. Public Relat. Res. 1997, 9, 83–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ledingham, J.A.; Bruning, S.D. Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions of an organization-public relationship. Public Relat. Rev. 1998, 24, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruning, S.D.; Ledingham, J.A. Relationships between organizations and publics: Development of a multi-dimensional organization-public relationship scale. Public Relat. Rev. 1999, 25, 157–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, S. An integrated model for organization-public relational outcomes, organizational reputation, and their antecedents. J. Public Relat. Res. 2007, 19, 91–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ki, E.-J.; Hon, L.C. Reliability and Validity of Organization-Public Relationship Measurement and Linkages among Relationship Indicators in a Membership Organization. J. Mass Commun. Q. 2007, 84, 419–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunig, J.E.; Huang, Y. From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes. In Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to Public Relations; Ledingham, J.A., Bruning, S.D., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 2000; pp. 23–54. [Google Scholar]
- Ko, D.-G. The mediating role of knowledge transfer and the effects of client-consultant mutual trust on the performance of enterprise implementation projects. Inf. Manag. 2014, 51, 541–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hon, C.L.; Grunig, J.E. Guidelines for Measuring Relationships in Public Relations; The Institute for Public Relations: Gainesville, FL, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, Y.H. ORPA: A cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for measuring the effects of corporate social marketing on consumer behavior. J. Public Relat. Res. 2001, 13, 61–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ki, E.J. A model of an organization-public relationship for the banking industru. Public Relat. Rev. 2013, 39, 216–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, S.; Bhattacharya, C.; Sen, S. Maximizing Business Returns to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The Role of CSR Communication. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2010, 12, 8–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riley, M.W.; Hovland, C.I.; Janis, I.L.; Kelley, H.H. Communication and Persuasion; Psychological Studies of Opinion Change; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1953. [Google Scholar]
- Sternthal, B.; Dholakia, R.; Leavitt, C. The Persuasive Effect of Source Credibility: Tests of Cognitive Response. J. Consum. Res. 1978, 4, 252–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Goldberg, M.E.; Hartwick, J. The Effects of Advertiser Reputation and Extremity of Advertising Claim on Advertising Effectiveness. J. Consum. Res. 1990, 17, 172–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldsmith, R.E.; Lafferty, B.A.; Newell, S.J. The Impact of Corporate Credibility and Celebrity Credibility on Consumer Reaction to Advertisements and Brands. J. Advert. 2000, 29, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lafferty, B.A.; Goldsmith, R.E.; Newell, S.J. The Dual Credibility Model: The Influence of Corporate and Endorser Credibility on Attitudes and Purchase Intentions. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2002, 10, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jabeen, G.; Yan, Q.; Ahmad, M.; Fatima, N.; Qamar, S. Consumers’ intention-based influence factors of renewable power generation technology utilization: A structural equation modeling approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 237, 117737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karimi, S.; Papamichail, K.N.; Holland, C.P. The effect of prior knowledge and decision-making style on the online purchase decision-making process: A typology of consumer shopping behaviour. Decis. Support Syst. 2015, 77, 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, E.-J. How perceived cognitive needs fulfillment affect consumer attitudes toward the customized product: The moderating role of consumer knowledge. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 64, 152–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, V.; Smith, L.; Bowling, A.; Christidis, L.; Lloyd, D.; Pecl, G. Citizens as Scientists: What Influences Public Contributions to Marine Research? Sci. Commun. 2016, 38, 495–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singhapakdi, A.; Lee, D.-J.; Sirgy, M.J.; Roh, H.; Senasu, K.; Yu, G.B. Effects of perceived organizational CSR value and employee moral identity on job satisfaction: A study of business organizations in Thailand. Asian J. Bus. Ethic 2019, 8, 53–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afonso, F.; Félix, P.M.; Chainho, P.; Heumüller, J.A.; de Lima, R.F.; Ribeiro, F.; Brito, A.C. Assessing Ecosystem Services in Mangroves: Insights from São Tomé Island (Central Africa). Front. Environ. Sci. 2021, 9, 501673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis; World Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- McFarlane, B.L.; Boxall, P.C. Factors influencing forest values and attitudes of two stakeholder groups: The case of the foothills model forest, Alberta, Canada. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2000, 13, 649–661. [Google Scholar]
- Adhikari, S.; Kingi, T.; Ganesh, S. Incentives for community participation in the governance and management of common property resources: The case of community forest management in Nepal Forest. Policy Econ. 2014, 44, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Araral, E. What explains collective action in the commons? Theory and evidence from the Philippines. World Dev. 2009, 37, 687–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coulibaly-Lingani, P.; Savadogo, P.; Tigabu, M.; Oden, P.C. Factors influencing people’s participation in the forest management program in Burkina Faso, West Africa. For. Policy Econ. 2011, 13, 292–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, C.L.; Lin, J.C.C. What drives purchase intention for paid mobile apps?–An expectation confirmation model with perceived value. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2015, 14, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meinzen-Dick, R.; Knox, A. Collective action, property rights and devolution of natural resource management: A conceptual framework. In Collective Action, Property Rights and Devolution of Natural Resource Management: Exchange of Knowledge and Implications for Policy; Meinzen-Dick, R., Knox, A., Gregoria, M.D., Eds.; Zentralstelle für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft: Feldafing, Germany, 2001; pp. 41–73. [Google Scholar]
- Prakprasae Sub-District Municipality. 2020. Available online: http://www.prasae.com/viewcontent.asp?group=2&contentid=13 (accessed on 7 December 2020).
- Yamane, T. Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, 3rd ed.; Harper and Row Publication: New York, NY, USA, 1973. [Google Scholar]
- Pretty, J.N. Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Dev. 1995, 23, 1247–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fistiningrum, W.; Harini, R. The impacts of mangrove ecotourism management on the socio-economic conditions of people in kulonprogo regency. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 683, 012116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaruek, Y.; Thungngern, J.; Kummanee, K.; Seeniang, P. Farmers’ Participation in Mangrove Forest Conservation and Management: A Case Study Mangrove Forest Conservation Project Ban Tam Thong at Pak-Klong Sub-district, Pathio District, Chump. 2020. Available online: https://kuojs.lib.ku.ac.th/index.php/jasm/article/view/3606 (accessed on 7 December 2021).
- sillsPerex, A.; del Bosque, I.R. Customer personal features as determinants of the formation process of corporate social responsibility perceptions. Psychol. Mark. 2013, 30, 903–917. [Google Scholar]
- Sills, K.; Halter, B.; Frank, A. Put a Price on It: Measuring Ecological Value of a Diverse Landscape; Environmental Studies and Sciences, Skidmore College: Saratoga Springs, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Ayala-Azcárraga, C.; Diaz, D.; Zambrano, L. Characteristics of urban parks and their relation to user well-being. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 189, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cebrián-Piqueras, M.A.; Filyushkina, A.; Johnson, D.N.; Lo, V.B.; López-Rodríguez, M.D.; March, H.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Peppler-Lisbach, C.; Quintas-Soriano, C.; Raymond, C.M.; et al. Scientific and local ecological knowledge, shaping per-ceptions towards protected areas and related ecosystem services. Landsc. Ecol. 2020, 35, 2549–2567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Lin, X.; Qiu, B.; Ou, G.; Zhang, Z.; Han, S. Impact of Value Perception on Farmers’ Willingness to Par-ticipate in Farmland Fallow: A Case-Study in Major Grain-Producing Areas of Hubei and Hunan, China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kotchen, M.J.; Reiling, S.D. Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: A case study involving endangered species. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 32, 93–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fryxell, G.E.; Lo, C.W.H. The Influence of Environmental Knowledge and Values on Managerial Behaviours on Behalf of the Environment: An Empirical Examination of Managers in China. J. Bus. Ethic 2003, 46, 45–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mostafa, M. Gender differences in Egyptian consumers’ green purchase behaviour: The effects of environmental knowledge, concern and attitude. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2007, 31, 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arcury, T. Environmental Attitude and Environmental Knowledge. Hum. Organ. 1990, 49, 300–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, S.-L.; Chou, J.; Morrison, A.M.; Huang, W.-S.; Lin, M.-C. Will the Future Be Greener? The Environmental Behavioral Intentions of University Tourism Students. Sustainability 2018, 10, 634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hsu, S.; Roth, R.E. An Assessment of Environmental Literacy and Analysis of Predictors of Responsible Environmental Behaviour Held by Secondary Teachers in the Hualien Area of Taiwan. Environ. Educ. Res. 1998, 4, 229–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Y. An Assessment of Environmental Literacy among Undergraduate Students at Two National Universities in Hubei Province, China; Florida Institute of Technology: Melbourne, FL, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Nusong, O. Community Participation In Management of Aquatic Animal Protected Area: A Case Study of Moo 1, Pa-Khad Sub-District, Singhanakhon District Songkhla Province. Master’s Thesis, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hernes, M.I.; Metzger, M.J. Understanding local community’s values, worldviews and perceptions in the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere Reserve, Scotland. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 186, 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Truong, D.D. Villagers’ Perception and Attitude Toward Wetland Values and Conservation in Vietnam: A Case Study of Xuan Thuy Ramsar National Park. Front. Sociol. 2021, 6, 763743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Putnam, R.D. Bowling alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community; Simon; Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2000; ISBN 9780684832838. [Google Scholar]
- Teilmann, K. Measuring social capital accumulation in rural development. J. Rural Stud. 2012, 28, 458–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, M.J.; Coleman, K.J. The Multidimensionality of Trust: Applications in Collaborative Natural Resource Management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2014, 28, 117–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Smith, J.W.; Leahy, J.E.; Anderson, D.H.; Davenport, M.A. Community/Agency Trust and Public Involvement in Resource Planning. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2013, 26, 452–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Josephs, L.I.; Humphries, A.T. Identifying social factors that undermine support for nature-based coastal management. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 212, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Satti, H.A.; Young, H.; Adam, A.M. Participation in Integrated Natural Resource Management Projects: Reflections from North Darfur; A Feinstein International Center Brief; Tufts University: Boston, MA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Kanel, K.R.; Dahal, G.R. Community forestry policy and its economic implications: An experience from Nepal. Int. J. Soc. For. 2008, 1, 50–60. [Google Scholar]
- Durant, J.; Evans, G.; Thomas, G. The public understanding of science. Nature 1989, 340, 11–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, C.W.; Mothersbaugh, D.L.; Feick, L. Consumer Knowledge Assessment. J. Consum. Res. 1994, 21, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ricky, Y.K.C.; Lorett, B.Y.L. Antecedents of green purchase: A survey in China. J. Consum. Mark. 2000, 17, 338–357. [Google Scholar]
- Brunk, C.G. Public Knowledge, Public Trust: Understanding the ‘Knowledge Deficit’. Community Genet. 2006, 9, 178–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dolisca, F.; Carter, D.R.; McDaniel, J.M.; Shannon, D.A.; Jolly, C.M. Factors influencing farmers’ participation in forestry management programs: A case study from Haiti. For. Ecol. Manag. 2006, 236, 324–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Participant Characteristics | n/Average | Percentage |
---|---|---|
Average Age (Years) | 54 (±15.145) | - |
Career | ||
Fishery | 22 | 6.20 |
Laborer | 178 | 50.14 |
Private business owner such as tourism service providers and merchants. | 73 | 20.56 |
Officer in a private company | 11 | 3.10 |
Workers in governmental offices | 18 | 5.07 |
No job | 53 | 14.93 |
Place of Origin | ||
Within the community | 267 | 75.21 |
Outside the community | 88 | 24.79 |
- In another village in the same subdistrict | 47 | 13.24 |
- In another subdistrict of the district | 24 | 6.76 |
- In another district of the province | 14 | 3.94 |
- From another province | 3 | 0.85 |
Variables | Indicators | Mean/n | SD | Cronbach’s Alpha |
---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent Variable | ||||
1. Level of participation in planning the CSR project. | 1. I have attended meetings and shared my opinions with CPF Company about the current problems in mangrove forests and about ecological management project in the community area. | 2.64 | 1.193 | 0.950 |
2. I have expressed my desires on ecological management project (CSR project) to CPF Company. Those proposed desires were such as expected outcomes and benefits, types of conservation activities, needed career skills, etc. | 2.69 | 1.486 | ||
3. I have been invited by CPF Company to take part in a decision making process for developing and planning activities relevant to the CSR project. | 2.72 | 1.246 | ||
4. I have participated in the planning the utilization of resources in the CSR project such as participating in allocating financial recourse or managing volunteers in CSR activities. | 2.55 | 1.049 | ||
Average score | 2.65 | 1.168 | ||
2. Level of participation in implementing the CSR project. | 1. I have participated in seeking plant seeds and young plants for the ecological conservation project in the community. | 2.59 | 1.603 | 0.959 |
2. I have participated in planting mangrove trees in the community. | 3.09 | 1.457 | ||
3. I have participated in preparing spaces used for conservation activities. | 2.99 | 1.438 | ||
4. I have participated in inspecting whether volunteers plant mangrove trees correctly. | 3.21 | 1.337 | ||
5. I have participated in managing solid wastes in mangrove areas. | 3.35 | 1.387 | ||
6. I have participated in donating money used for ecological conservation activities. | 2.55 | 1.412 | ||
7. I have participated in donating assets, materials, or resources that support conservation activities. Those assets, materials, and resources are such as foods, planting tools, boats, etc. | 2.50 | 1.543 | ||
8. I have participated in communicating and advertising the project. | 2.60 | 1.204 | ||
9. I have participated in encouraging other residents to participate in the project. | 2.66 | 1.293 | ||
Average score | 2.84 | 1.228 | ||
3. Level of participation in monitoring the CSR project. | 1. After the project implementation, I look after mangrove trees and forests. | 2.93 | 1.172 | 0.970 |
2. I have informed responsible staff or organizations when I saw that mangrove trees were died or any problems in mangrove forests. | 2.96 | 1.156 | ||
3. I have planted mangrove trees when I saw that some trees were died or damaged. | 2.90 | 1.190 | ||
4. I have looked after mangrove forests and ensured that there is no invasion from improper human activities and no destruction of the forest. | 2.97 | 1.122 | ||
5. I have informed responsible staff or organizations when I saw destruction of the forest or invasion from residents. | 2.99 | 1.139 | ||
Average score | 2.95 | 1.091 | ||
Independent Variables | ||||
X1. OPR quality | 1. I am certain that the any activities developed by the CPF company will be useful for our community. | 3.79 | 1.217 | 0.980 |
2. I am certain that the CPF company will fulfill its roles following their promise with the community. | 3.62 | 1.183 | ||
3. I am certain that the CPF company will always take my concerns and opinions into consideration when a decision is made. | 3.67 | 1.317 | ||
4. When contacting with the community, the CPF company is always not overbearing. | 3.81 | 1.325 | ||
5. The CPF company always listens to the community’s voices. | 3.66 | 1.197 | ||
6. Whenever I need to talk to the CPF Company, I can always contact the company and talk. | 3.79 | 1.44 | ||
7. I feel that the CPF Company has tried to maintain a long relationship with the community. | 3.81 | 1.296 | ||
Average score | 3.74 | 1.282 | ||
X2. Perceived CSR credibility | 1. I clearly understand the objectives of the CSR project and believe that the company has sufficient capability to make it success. | 3.65 | 1.238 | 0.955 |
2. I clearly understand types of activities and relevant plans of the CSR project, and believe that the company is competent to make them success. | 3.55 | 1.258 | ||
3. In case that I cannot understand about the CSR project or have some questions, the CPF company will be eager to response my query. | 3.59 | 1.186 | ||
Average score | 3.60 | 1.176 | ||
X3. Perceived ecological values | 1. Mangrove forests can help protecting land from erosion. | 4.00 | 1.025 | 0.964 |
2. Mangrove forests can help minimizing wind speed and weakening ocean currents. | 4.01 | 1.132 | ||
3. Mangrove forests can refresh air and improve air quality. | 4.07 | 1.381 | ||
4. Mangrove trees can be used to produce firewood and charcoal. | 3.62 | 1.491 | ||
5. Mangrove trees can be used for construction of shelters and production of furniture. | 3.33 | 1.401 | ||
6. Mangrove forests have diverse species of aqua animals and some terrestrial animals which are human food. | 3.78 | 1.264 | ||
7. Mangrove forests have diverse plant species which can be consumed by human. | 3.59 | 1.426 | ||
8. Mangrove forests are a primary habitant for young aqua animals. | 3.87 | 1.177 | ||
9. Mangrove forests can be a tourist attraction. | 3.96 | 1.245 | ||
10. Mangrove forests can be used as a recreational place. | 4.12 | 1.311 | ||
11. Mangrove forests can be a place where community members connect and get together. | 3.92 | 1.308 | ||
12. Mangrove forests are attached with community beliefs, values, and spirituality. | 3.81 | 1.403 | ||
13. Mangrove forests can be a learning source for natural ecosystems. | 3.89 | 1.368 | ||
Average score | 3.84 | 1.095 | ||
X4. Ecological knowledge | 1. I know that before planting trees in the areas which used to be shrimp ponds, it is necessary to improve soil quality by removing accumulated sediment in the ponds. | 223 (yes) | 62.8% | 0.826 |
132 | 37.2% | |||
2. I know that the best time to plant mangrove trees in the community is during September-February of the next year. | 232 (yes) | 65.4% | ||
123 | 34.6% | |||
3. I know major causes of mangrove forest deterioration in the community. | 217 (yes) | 61.1% | ||
138 | 38.9% | |||
4. I know types of plant species of mangrove forests in the community. | 234 (yes) | 65.9% | ||
121 | 34.1% | |||
5. I know types of animal species living in mangrove forests. | 237 (yes) | 66.8% | ||
118 | 33.2% | |||
Average score * | 3.22 | ±1.839 | ||
X5. Expectations of monetary-related benefits | 1. I expected that I would receive financial benefits from participation in CSR activities. | 2.62 | 1.538 | 0.837 |
2. I expected that I would have an opportunity to enhance my skills for career from participation in CSR activities. | 3.38 | 1.217 | ||
3. I expected that my participation in the CSR project would make my current job more stable. | 3.52 | 1.274 | ||
Average score | 3.17 | 1.173 | ||
X6. Expectations of nonmonetary-related benefits | 1. I expected that the participation in the CSR project would make me have more friends. | 3.15 | 1.245 | 0.968 |
2. I expected that the participation in the CSR project would help environmental quality of the community improved, and made natural resources in the community more plentiful. | 3.46 | 1.287 | ||
3. I expected that the participation in the CSR project would help strengthening the community relationship. | 3.68 | 1.346 | ||
4. I expected that the participation in the CSR project would make me joyful and happy. | 3.48 | 1.347 | ||
Average score | 3.48 | 1.277 |
Explored Factors | B | S.E. | Beta | t | p | Tolerance | VIF |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Constant | −0.292 | 0.168 | −1.734 | 0.084 | |||
X1 OPR quality | −0.212 | 0.053 | −0.225 | −3.988 | 0.000 | 0.388 | 2.580 |
X2 Perceived CSR credibility | 0.298 | 0.057 | 0.301 | 5.192 | 0.000 | 0.368 | 2.717 |
X3 Perceived ecological values | 0.431 | 0.055 | 0.406 | 7.836 | 0.000 | 0.459 | 2.180 |
X4 Ecological knowledge | −0.026 | 0.024 | −0.041 | −1.089 | 0.277 | 0.881 | 1.134 |
X5 Expectation of monetary-related benefits | 0.387 | 0.061 | 0.386 | 6.370 | 0.000 | 0.336 | 2.973 |
X6 Expectation of nonmonetary-related benefits | −0.039 | 0.061 | −0.042 | −0.636 | 0.525 | 0.288 | 3.478 |
R = 0.755; R2 = 0.571; Adj. R2 = 0.563; S.E.est = 0.772; F = 77.119; p-value = 0.000 | |||||||
2nd Step | |||||||
Constant | −0.346 | 0.158 | −2.192 | 0.029 | |||
X1 OPR quality | −0.226 | 0.051 | −0.240 | −4.446 | 0.000 | 0.424 | 2.359 |
X2 Perceived CSR credibility | 0.283 | 0.056 | 0.285 | 5.037 | 0.000 | 0.384 | 2.603 |
X3 Perceived ecological values | 0.434 | 0.052 | 0.409 | 8.295 | 0.000 | 0.507 | 1.970 |
X5 Expectation of monetary-related benefits | 0.366 | 0.056 | 0.365 | 6.575 | 0.000 | 0.401 | 2.493 |
R = 0.754; R2 = 0.568; Adj. R2 = 0.563; S.E.est = 0.772; F = 115.238; p-value = 0.000 |
Explored Factors | B | S.E. | Beta | t | p | Tolerance | VIF |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Constant | −0.665 | 0.151 | −4.396 | 0.000 | |||
X1 OPR quality | −0.097 | 0.048 | −0.098 | −2.022 | 0.044 | 0.388 | 2.580 |
X2 Perceived CSR credibility | 0.280 | 0.052 | 0.268 | 5.414 | 0.000 | 0.368 | 2.717 |
X3 Perceived ecological values | 0.341 | 0.050 | 0.306 | 6.886 | 0.000 | 0.459 | 2.180 |
X4 Ecological knowledge | −0.011 | 0.021 | −0.016 | −0.500 | 0.617 | 0.881 | 1.134 |
X5 Expectation of monetary-related benefits | 0.265 | 0.055 | 0.251 | 4.844 | 0.000 | 0.336 | 2.973 |
X6 Expectation of nonmonetary-related benefits | 0.214 | 0.055 | 0.219 | 3.899 | 0.000 | 0.288 | 3.478 |
R = 0.828; R2 = 0.685; Adj. R2 = 0.680; S.E.est = 0.695; F = 126.261; p-value = 0.000 | |||||||
2nd Step | |||||||
Constant | −0.691 | 0.142 | −4.864 | 0.000 | |||
X1 OPR quality | −0.097 | 0.048 | −0.098 | −2.032 | 0.043 | 0.388 | 2.579 |
X2 Perceived CSR credibility | 0.277 | 0.051 | 0.266 | 5.397 | 0.000 | 0.372 | 2.687 |
X3 Perceived ecological values | 0.346 | 0.048 | 0.311 | 7.173 | 0.000 | 0.481 | 2.077 |
X5 Expectation of monetary-related benefits | 0.265 | 0.055 | 0.251 | 4.844 | 0.000 | 0.336 | 2.973 |
X6 Expectation of nonmonetary-related benefits | 0.209 | 0.054 | 0.214 | 3.876 | 0.000 | 0.297 | 3.367 |
R = 0.828; R2 = 0.685; Adj. R2 = 0.680; S.E.est = 0.694; F = 151.789; p-value = 0.000 |
Explored Factors | B | S.E. | Beta | t | p | Tolerance | VIF |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Constant | 0.531 | 0.186 | 2.860 | 0.004 | |||
X1 OPR quality | −0.250 | 0.059 | −0.284 | −4.260 | 0.000 | 0.388 | 2.580 |
X2 Perceived CSR credibility | 0.190 | 0.063 | 0.204 | 2.989 | 0.003 | 0.368 | 2.717 |
X3 Perceived ecological values | 0.371 | 0.061 | 0.374 | 6.103 | 0.000 | 0.459 | 2.180 |
X4 Ecological knowledge | 0.196 | 0.026 | 0.330 | 7.458 | 0.000 | 0.881 | 1.134 |
X5 Expectation of monetary-related benefits | 0.069 | 0.067 | 0.074 | 1.030 | 0.304 | 0.336 | 2.973 |
X6 Expectation of nonmonetary-related benefits | 0.115 | 0.067 | 0.132 | 1.701 | 0.090 | 0.288 | 3.478 |
R = 0.633; R2 = 0.401; Adj. R2 = 0.391; S.E.est = 0.852; F = 38.810; p-value = 0.000 | |||||||
2nd Step | |||||||
Constant | 0.496 | 0.185 | 2.672 | 0.008 | |||
X1 OPR quality | −0.191 | 0.054 | −0.216 | −3.525 | 0.000 | 0.464 | 2.155 |
X2 Perceived CSR credibility | 0.261 | 0.056 | 0.281 | 4.695 | 0.000 | 0.485 | 2.061 |
X3 Perceived ecological values | 0.405 | 0.059 | 0.409 | 6.881 | 0.000 | 0.494 | 2.025 |
X4 Ecological knowledge | 0.208 | 0.026 | 0.350 | 8.037 | 0.000 | 0.918 | 1.089 |
R = 0.625; R2 = 0.390; Adj. R2 = 0.383; S.E.est = 0.867; F = 55.949; p-value = 0.000 |
Explored Factors | Significant Predictors of Community Members’ Participation in the Environmental CSR Project | ||
---|---|---|---|
Planning | Implementing | Mornitoring | |
X1 OPR quality | Negative significance | Negative significance | Negative significance |
X2 Perceived CSR credibility | Positive significance | Positive significance | Positive significance |
X3 Perceived ecological values | Positive significance * | Positive significance * | Positive significance * |
X4 Ecological knowledge | Positive significance | ||
X5 Expectation of monetary-related benefits | Positive significance | Positive significance | |
X6 Expectation of nonmonetary-related benefits | Positive significance |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sattayapanich, T.; Janmaimool, P.; Chontanawat, J. Factors Affecting Community Participation in Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility Projects: Evidence from Mangrove Forest Management Project. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 209. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8040209
Sattayapanich T, Janmaimool P, Chontanawat J. Factors Affecting Community Participation in Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility Projects: Evidence from Mangrove Forest Management Project. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 2022; 8(4):209. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8040209
Chicago/Turabian StyleSattayapanich, Thirdchai, Piyapong Janmaimool, and Jaruwan Chontanawat. 2022. "Factors Affecting Community Participation in Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility Projects: Evidence from Mangrove Forest Management Project" Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 8, no. 4: 209. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8040209
APA StyleSattayapanich, T., Janmaimool, P., & Chontanawat, J. (2022). Factors Affecting Community Participation in Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility Projects: Evidence from Mangrove Forest Management Project. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(4), 209. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8040209