The aim of this study was to investigate the socio-economic issues of a protected area and participation of the local stakeholders in conservation of the protected area. This study was conducted at 7 villages in Hamedan province in the midwest part of Iran. A questionnaire was used for data collection. Reliability of the data was determined by Cronbach's alpha. In order to investigate the relationship between the average incomes of different villages, a t-statistic test was used. Results indicated that at the 0.05 significance level, there were significant differences between most villages. Furthermore, the results indicated that there was no significant relationship between mean income of Jara and Saadat Abad villages. In order to investigate the interest for the preservation of different villages, a t-statistic test was used. Results indicated that at the 0.05 significance level of, there were significant differences between Shademaneh and Maloosan, Siyah Dare and Gheshlagh Najaf, Shademaneh and Taemeh, Taemeh and Gheshlagh Najaf villages. Results also showed that the Maloosan village has the highest income in the area and willingness to participate in conservation activities was highest at this village. The results of this study show a new approach to the protection of biodiversity of protected areas with connection to economic, biological and humanistic studies.
Billgren Ch., Holmen H. 2008. Approaching reality: Comparing stakeholder analysis and cultural theory in the context of natural resource management. Land Use Policy, 25: 550–562.
Campbell S.J., Kartawijaya T., Yuliantoa I., Prasetiaa R., Clifton J. 2013. Co-management approaches and incentives improve management effectiveness in the Karimunjawa National Park, Indonesia. Marine Policy, 41: 72–79.
Emerton L. 1996. Participatory Environmental Valuation: Subsistence Forest use around the Aberdares, Kenya. Applied economics conversation discussion paper, No 1, ACE-DP-1.
Gurney G.G., Pressey R.L., Cinner J.E., Pollnac R., Campbell S.J. 2015. Integrated conservation and development: evaluating a community-based marine protected area project for equality of socioeconomic impacts. (Theme issue ‘Measuring the difference made by protected areas: methods, applications and implications for policy and practice’ compiled and edited by R. L. Pressey and P. J. Ferraro). Philosophical Transaction of Royal Society B. (370)1681.
Howard P. 1995. The Economics of Protected Areas in Uganda: Costs, Benefits, and Policy Issues. M.Sc. thesis, Univ. of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Iranian Environmental Protection Agency, 2013a. The management plan of Maloosan protected area, wildlife report (unpublished reports).
Iranian Environmental Protection Agency, 2013b. The management plan of Maloosan protected area, erosion report (unpublished reports).
Iranian Environmental Protection Agency, 2013c. The management plan of Maloosan protected area, land use report (unpublished reports).
IUCN-TILCEPA, 2010. Joint PAEL-TILCEPA workshop on Protected Areas Management Evaluation & Social Assessment of Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 17 pp.
Jonathan M., Green H. 2012. Estimating management costs of protected areas: A novel approach from the Eastern Arc Mountains, Tanzania. Biol. Conserv., 150: 5–14.
Majnounian H. 2002. Protected areas management plan instructions, Publications of Management and Planning Organization, Publication No. 257.
Mutenje M., Ortmann G. 2011. Management of non-timber forestry products extraction: Local institutions, ecological knowledge and market structure in South-Eastern Zimbabwe. Ecol. Econ., 70: 454–461.
Philips A. 1998. Economic Values of protected Area Guidelines for protected Area Managers, World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA). Cardiff University, UK.
Schmitz M.F. 2012. Effects of a protected area on land-use dynamics and socioeconomic development of local populations. Biol. Conserv., 149: 122–135.
Xu J., Grumbine R.E. and Beckschäferc P. 2013. Landscape transformation through the use of ecological and socioeconomic indicators in Xishuangbanna, Southwest China, Mekong Region. Ecol. Indicators, 36: 749–756.