The Role of Sociodemographic Characteristics in Expert Perceptions of the Ecological Impacts of Forest Roads
Abstract
This study examined whether experts’ perceptions of the ecological impacts of forest roads differed by age, gender, professional experience, and sector of employment. The research involved 120 participants from civil engineering, forestry engineering, landscape architecture, and urban and regional planning. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire consisting of three sections: sociodemographic characteristics, open-ended questions, and a set of 36 questionnaire statements specifically developed for this to assess expert perceptions of the ecological impacts of roads in natural ecosystems. The data were analysed using frequency analysis, the independent samples t-test, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and post hoc multiple comparison tests. The findings indicated that participants generally had at least a moderate level of knowledge regarding the ecological impacts of forest roads. Significant differences in responses were observed by gender, age, professional experience, and sector of employment. In particular, differences in sociodemographic variables emerged for habitat integrity, fragmentation, stream improvement, road density, ecological design solutions, and wildlife corridors. The finding that most experts demonstrated at least a moderate knowledge suggests that sociodemographic differences in expert evaluations may provide useful input for improving ecological sensitivity, participatory decision-making, and mitigation-oriented planning in forest road management. Consequently, it was determined that expert assessments of the ecological impacts of forest roads are shaped by technical knowledge, as well ass by sociodemographic and professional characteristics.
Keywords
Forest roads, Expert perceptions, Demographic variation, Ecosystem sensitivity, Multidisciplinary assessment
Ethical Statement
Thanks
References
- Akhmedova, E.G., Surkeeva, D.B., Turgunbaeva, B.J. 2024. Gender and environment. Journal of Osh State University Chemistry Biology Geography 1(4):148-158. https://doi.org/10.52754/16948688_2024_1(4)_19
- Al Naqbi, K.K.M., Ojiako, U., Al-Mhdawi, M.K.S., Chipulu, M., Dweiri, F.T. 2025. How different stakeholders perceive benefits, challenges, and barriers in the implementation of green technology projects. Sustainability 17(21):9849. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17219849
- Angelstam, P., Khaulyak, O., Yamelynets, T., Mozgeris, G., Naumov, V., Chmielewski, T.J., Elbakidze, M., Manton, M., Prots, B., Valasiuk, S. 2017. Green infrastructure development at European Union’s eastern border: Effects of road infrastructure and forest habitat loss. Journal of Environmental Management 193:300–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.02.017
- Arıcak, B. and Acar, H.H. 2008. The modeling of filling and construction impact areas in building forest roads by using QuickBird satellite image. Kastamonu Univ., Journal of Forestry Faculty 8(2):144-156.
- Arjmand, A., Kiadaliri, H., Kazemnezhad, F., Nimvari, M.E. 2023. Effects of forest roads on vegetation biodiversity and soil characteristics in Hyrcanian forests. Nordic Journal of Botany e04039. https://doi.org/10.1111/njb.04039
- Austin, K.F. and McKinney, L.A. 2016. Disaster devastation in poor nations: The direct and indirect effects of gender equality, ecological losses, and development. Social Forces 95(1):355-380. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow056
- Buckingham, S. 2020. Gender and environment (2nd ed.). Routledge.
- Bhuiyan, M.A.R., Mia A., Sarker A., Khan, A. 2022. Effect of transportation infrastructure on forest plant diversity and soil properties in Lawachara National Park, Bangladesh. Acta Ecol. Sin. 42:110-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chnaes.2021.08.015
- Broeckhoven, N., Cliquet, A. 2015. Gender and ecological restoration: Time to connect the dots. Restoration Ecology 23(6): 729–736. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12270
- Chawla, L. 2020. Childhood nature connection and constructive hope: A review of research on connecting with nature and coping with environmental loss. People and Nature 2(3):619-642. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10128
