Stakeholder Analysis On The Assessment Of Ecosystem Services For Recreational Forest Planning: A Case Study Of Panti Recreational Forest, Kota Tinggi, Johor

Nor Hanisah Mohd Hashim; Nurul Akmaniza Mohd Nasir; Aqilah Awg Abdul Rahman

doi:10.64757/alqanatir.2025.3404/1199

Authors

Nor Hanisah Mohd Hashim Senior Lecturer
Nurul Akmaniza Mohd Nasir Lecturer
Aqilah Awg Abdul Rahman Senior Lecturer

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.64757/alqanatir.2025.3404/1199

Keywords:

Ecosystem Services, Panti Recreational Forest, Recreational Forest, Stakeholder Analysis, Toolkit For Ecosystem Services Based Assessment (TESSA)

Abstract

The planning and management of recreational forests in Malaysia are currently focused on providing recreational benefits for the local community while preserving the natural environment to improve people’s quality of life. Incorporating stakeholders’ involvement in the decision-making process will help planners and forest managers in planning strategies for a sustainable environment in the area. This paper analyzed the stakeholders’ value towards four groups of ecosystem services namely provisioning services, regulating services, cultural services and supporting services in Panti Recreational Forest, Kota Tinggi, Johor. A total of 60 respondents representing different stakeholder groups were identified and Toolkit for Ecosystem Services Based Assessment (TESSA) was applied to assess the most important ecosystem services served by the forest and major threats to ecosystem services identified according to the mean impact score was calculated. Results from the study showed that there are ecosystem services most valued by respondents which are recreation and tourism and water-related services. However, major threats such as water management issues such as water-based tourism activities are identified as possible threats to the sustainability of the forest that could be taken into consideration for planning and managing the recreational forest. The study highlights the importance of incorporating stakeholders’ preferences in defining ecosystem services for recreational forest planning which could contribute to the implementation of forest management guidelines.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Nor Hanisah Mohd Hashim, Senior Lecturer

Studies of Park and Amenity Management, School of Geomatic Science and Natural Resources, College of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi MARA Shah Alam

Nurul Akmaniza Mohd Nasir, Lecturer

Centre of Studies for Park and Amenity Management Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying Universiti Teknologi MARA.

Aqilah Awg Abdul Rahman, Senior Lecturer

Center of Research for Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources, Universiti Tun Hussien Onn Malaysia.

References

Book

Baral H., Jaung W., Bhatta L.D., Phuntsho S., Paudyal K., Zarandian A., Sears R.R., Sharma R., Dorji T. & Artati Y. (2017). Approaches and Tools for Assessing Mountain Forest Ecosystem Services. Working Paper 235. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.

Guillermo M.P., Ajith H.P., Urmas P. & Louis R. I. (2018). Ecosystem Services from Forest Landscape: An Overview. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Martin-Lopez, B., Oteros-Rozas, E., Cohen-Shacham, E., Santos-Martin, F., Nieto-Romero, M., Carvalho-Santos, C., Antonio González, J., Garcia Llorente, M., Klass, K., Geijzendorffer, I. R., Montes, C. & Cramer, W. (2016). Ecosystem Services Supplied by Mediterranean Basin Ecosystems. In Handbook of Ecosystem Services. New York, USA: Routledge.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Panel (MEA). (2005). Washington, USA: Island Press.

Muoria P., Field R., Matiku P., Munguti S., Mateche E., Shati S. & Odeny D. (2015). Yala Swamp Ecosystem Service Assessment. Nature Kenya.

TEEB. (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations. Edited by Pushpam Kumar. London and Washington: Earthscan.

Journal

Abson, D. J., von Wehrden, H., Baumgärtner, S., Fischer, J., Hanspach, J., Härdtle, W., Heinrichs, H., Klein, A. M., Lang, D. J., Martens, P., & Walmsley, D. (2014). Ecosystem Services as a Boundary Object for Sustainability. Ecological Economics, 103, 29 – 37.

Guerry, A.D., Polasky, S., Lubchenco J., Chaplin-Kramer R., C. Daily, G., Griffin, R., Ruckelshaus, M., J. Bateman, I., Duraiappah, A., Elmqvist, T., W. Feldman, M., Folke, C., Hoekstra, J., M. Kareiva, P., L. Keeler, B., Li, S., McKenzie, E., Ouyang, Z., Reyers, B., H. Ricketts, T., Rockström, J., Tallis, H., Vira, B. (2015). Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services Informing Decisions: From Promise to Practice. PNAS, 112(24), 7348-7355.

Gustafsson, L., C. Baker, S., Bauhus, J., J. Beese, W., Brodie, A., Kouki, J., B. Lindenmayer, D., Lõhmus, A., Pastur, G. M., Messier, C., Neyland, M., Palik, B., Sverdrup-Thygeson, A., A. Volney, W. J., Wayne, A. & F. Franklin, J. (2012). Retention Foresty to Maintain Multifunctional Forests: A World Perspective. Bioscience, 62(7), 633 – 645.

Hussein M.K. (2014). Sustainability of Three Recreational Forest Landscape Management in Selangor, Malaysia. Journal of Design and Built Environment, 14(2), 1-16.

Jose A.A., Luis J.B., Maria J.L. & Juan F.V. (2018). Forest Ecosystem Services: An Analysis of Worldwide Research. Forests, 9(8), 453.

Levin S.A. & Lubchenco J. (2008). Resilience, Robustness and Marine Ecosystem-Based Management. Bioscience, 58(1), 27 – 32.

Martines P.G., Peri P.L., Lencinas M.V., Garcia L.M. & Martin L.B. (2016). Spatial Patterns of Cultural Ecosystem Services Provision in Southern Patagonia. Landscape Ecology, 31, 383 – 399.

Martins K.T., Gonzales A. & Lechowics M.J. (2015). Pollination Services are Mediated by Bee Functional Diversity and Landscape Context. Agriculture Ecosystem Environment, 200, 12 –20.

Nieto-Romero, M., Oteros-Rozas, E., Gonzales J.A. & Martin-Lopez B. (2014). Exploring the Knowledge Landscape of Ecosystem Services Assessments in Mediterranean Agroecosystem: Insights for Future Research. Environmental Science Policy, 37, 121- 133.

Paletto A., Balest J., De Meo I., Giacovelli, G. & Grilli G. (2019). Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy. Acta Silvatica et Lignaria Hungarica, 12(1), 9-22.

Paletto A., Giacovelli G., Grilli G., Balest J. & De Meo I. (2014). Stakeholders’ Preferences and the Assessment of Forest Ecosystem Services: A Comparative Analysis in Italy. Journal of Forest Science, 60(11), 472 – 483.

Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Fang, J., Houghton, R. A., Kauppi, P., Kurz, W. A., Phillips, O. L., Shvidenko, A., Lewis, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Pacala, S. W., McGuire, A. D., Piao, S., Rautiainen, A., Sitch, S., & Hayes, D. (2011). A Large and Persistent Carbon Sink in the World’s Forests. Science, 333(6045), 988 –993.

Peh, K. S.-H., Balmford, A., Bradbury, R. B., Brown, C., Butchart, S. H. M., Hughes, F. M. R., Stattersfield, A., Thomas, D. H. L., Walpole, M., Bayliss, J., Gowing, D., Jones, J. P. G., Lewis, S. L., Mulligan, M., Pandeya, B., Stratford, C., Thompson, J. R., Turner, K., Vira, B., Willcock, S., & Birch, J. C. (2013). TESSA: A Toolkit for Rapid Assessment of Ecosystem Services at Sites of Biodiversity Conservation Importance. Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, 5, 51 – 57.

Seppelt R., Dormann C.F., Eppink F.V., Lautenbach S. & Schmidt S. (2011). A Quantitative Review of Ecosystem Services Studies: Approaches, Shortcomings and the Road Ahea. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48(3), 630- 636.