Forestry, Faculty of
Science, Faculty of
Non UBC
Mathematics, Department of
DSpace
Zeng, Daile
Chen, Boya
Wang, Jingxin
Innes, John L.
Lu, Juliet
Guo, Futao
Yan, Yancun
Wang, Guangyu
Increasingly, adaptive processes and decentralization are vital aspects of watershed governance. Equitable and sustainable water governance requires an understanding that different societal members have unique relationships with the environment and varying levels of interaction with policymakers. However, the factors facilitating public involvement under centralized governance remain less understood. This study combined the Institutional Analysis and Development framework with ordered probit regression to empirically investigate the determinants of willingness to participate (WTP) and actual participation of the public in integrated watershed management (IWM). Data from 933 valid questionnaires collected across 36 counties in Fujian, China, were used to define stakeholders’ perceptions of IWM. Results show that stakeholders are predominantly willing to participate in watershed conservation, management, or planning (85.9%), while only 32.8% frequently attend related events. Pro-environmental intentions were mainly shaped by interactional capacity—information exposure, interpersonal exchanges, and cross-reach support recognition—while actual participation was influenced by perceived biophysical conditions, rules-in-use, socioeconomic factors, and interactional capacity. Frequent observations of poor forest management practices were correlated with higher behavioral intentions, and socioeconomic dynamics significantly affected self-reported actual participation. Information sharing had the most substantial positive impact on both WTP and actual participation. These findings reinforce the necessity for an integrated and holistic approach to regional watershed resource management that fosters inclusivity and sustainability. This study provides workable insights into the social and institutional factors that shape public participation in watershed governance as it evolves toward decentralization.
Citation: Zeng, D.; Chen, B.; Wang, J.;Innes, J.L.; Lu, J.; Guo, F.; Yan, Y.;Wang, G. Determinants of PublicParticipation in WatershedManagement in Southeast China:An Application of the InstitutionalAnalysis and DevelopmentFramework. Land 2024, 13, 1824.https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111824Academic Editors: Carlos RogérioMello and Paulette PosenReceived: 20 September 2024Revised: 31 October 2024Accepted: 1 November 2024Published: 2 November 2024Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.This article is an open access articledistributed under the terms andconditions of the Creative CommonsAttribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).ArticleDeterminants of Public Participation in Watershed Managementin Southeast China: An Application of the Institutional Analysisand Development FrameworkDaile Zeng 1 , Boya Chen 2 , Jingxin Wang 3, John L. Innes 1 , Juliet Lu 1, Futao Guo 4 , Yancun Yan 1and Guangyu Wang 1,*1 Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada;daile.zeng@ubc.ca (D.Z.); john.innes@ubc.ca (J.L.I.); juliet.lu@ubc.ca (J.L.); yancun@mail.ubc.ca (Y.Y.)2 Department of Statistics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada; boya_chen@sfu.ca3 School of Management, Yale University, 165 Whitney Ave, New Haven, CT 06511, USA;alice.jx.wang@yale.edu4 College of Forestry, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China; guofutao@126.com* Correspondence: guangyu.wang@ubc.caAbstract: Increasingly, adaptive processes and decentralization are vital aspects of watershed gov-ernance. Equitable and sustainable water governance requires an understanding that differentsocietal members have unique relationships with the environment and varying levels of interac-tion with policymakers. However, the factors facilitating public involvement under centralizedgovernance remain less understood. This study combined the Institutional Analysis and Devel-opment framework with ordered probit regression to empirically investigate the determinants ofwillingness to participate (WTP) and actual participation of the public in integrated watershed man-agement (IWM). Data from 933 valid questionnaires collected across 36 counties in Fujian, China,were used to define stakeholders’ perceptions of IWM. Results show that stakeholders are predom-inantly willing to participate in watershed conservation, management, or planning (85.9%), whileonly 32.8% frequently attend related events. Pro-environmental intentions were mainly shapedby interactional capacity—information exposure, interpersonal exchanges, and cross-reach supportrecognition—while actual participation was influenced by perceived biophysical conditions, rules-in-use, socioeconomic factors, and interactional capacity. Frequent observations of poor forest man-agement practices were correlated with higher behavioral intentions, and socioeconomic dynamicssignificantly affected self-reported actual participation. Information sharing had the most substantialpositive impact on both WTP and actual participation. These findings reinforce the necessity for anintegrated and holistic approach to regional watershed resource management that fosters inclusivityand sustainability. This study provides workable insights into the social and institutional factors thatshape public participation in watershed governance as it evolves toward decentralization.Keywords: public participation; questionnaire analysis; integrated watershed management; interactionalcapacity; institutional analysis and development framework1. IntroductionHumans throughout history have used various methods to control the level and flowof water resources. A watershed is a geographically defined area where all precipitationcollects and drains to a common water body or low point due to its topography. A water-shed functions as an integrated ecosystem characterized by the flow of materials, energy,and information flow. It is a key geographic unit for sustainable resource managementworldwide [1,2], even if management boundaries do not always coincide with watershedboundaries due to differing objectives (ecological-centered or anthropogenic-centeredboundaries) and administrative restrictions. Planners increasingly use watersheds as theLand 2024, 13, 1824. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111824 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/landLand 2024, 13, 1824 2 of 21basic unit to organize natural resources and manage anthropogenic activities. Since the1992 UN Earth Summit, there has been a shift toward promoting a decentralized andholistic Integrated Watershed Management (IWM) approach that effectively organizeswatershed resources in a locally responsive context. This trend promotes sustainability byincorporating biological conservation into socioeconomic development [3,4]. Wang et al. [5]described IWM as a multidisciplinary, combined, and adaptive approach to managingwatershed activities for social, economic, and environmental sustainability. However, thesuccess of IWM requires the active participation of the relevant stakeholders, includingpolicymakers, urban planners, industries, commercial sectors, the scientific community,and civilians, both within and outside the watershed [6–8].The value of IWM is increasingly recognized in densely populated regions, making ita feasible approach for populous, rapidly urbanizing countries like China [9,10]. Widelyapplied in water pollution control, IWM optimizes the spatial and temporal allocation ofpollutants and the rational distribution of discharge permits [11,12]. From 1988 to 2010,China invested over 30 billion yuan in scientific and technological projects for waterpollution control, advancing technical capabilities in pollutant detection, treatment, andmonitoring. However, social factors (e.g., participation) and management mechanisms(e.g., the relationship between river basin and jurisdictional management, coordination,and cooperation mechanisms) were ignored in the previous IWM design. The revised 2002Water Law states that the forms of public participation in water management includesproviding access to environmental information and empowering the public to reportviolations for civil compensation [13]. However, the relevant clauses are more principledand framework-oriented, lacking clear guidelines on participation methods and legalconsequences [14].When considering China’s relatively centralized power structure, IWM planning couldbe prone to bureaucratization and the over-centralization of decision-making institutions [3].Public participatory processes largely remain undeveloped in China’s urban planningand regional conservation projects [15]. Citizen perceptions do not significantly affectdecision-making; rather, the consultation process relies on instrumental rationales for thesmooth implementation of specific projects [16]. From the perspective of participatingentities, the government-led centralized governance model cannot effectively respond topublic demands [17]. Due to limitations in past procedural regulations, the traditional“command-and-control” management has offered few entrances for public participation,resulting in insufficient interactions and the inability to absorb the demands of otherstakeholders [18,19]. This lack of meaningful public participation may undermine thepublic’s trust in the government, which obscures policy implementation and watershedmanagement [20]. Encountering resistance and doubts in law enforcement and judicialdecisions poses challenges to sustainable watershed governance [21]. In this regard, thereis a need for enhanced public participation and a bottom-up approach to IWM to avoidtokenism or deregulation and secure its effective implementation.Establishing a dynamic planning process and interaction between citizens and policy-makers is crucial to the effectiveness of IWM [22]. Several water resources managementstudies also recommend enhancing stakeholder cooperation and public participation toimprove the monitoring network [23–27]. This study aims to revisit and deepen our un-derstanding of public awareness and perceptions concerning IWM within the Min RiverBasin. Its primary goal is to gather and assess socioeconomic data and public opinionspertaining to various factors, including the biophysical state, policy implementation, forestmanagement, and watershed administration.The geographic, temporal, social, and political complexity of watershed manage-ment requires a systematic framework for understanding. Ostrom’s institutional analysisand development framework (IAD) was employed to observe how institutional opera-tions influence the participation of respondents, and vice versa, in the socioecologicalcontext. The IAD framework is robust for examining social and political dynamics relevantto environmental issues, including collaborative watershed management [28,29]. LocalLand 2024, 13, 1824 3 of 21perceptions toward and connections within watershed resources are key factors influenc-ing outcomes. Kadirbeyoglu and Özertan [30] utilized perception data to characterizethe performance of common-pool resource governance. Socio-environmental perceptionsurveys are common information sources for policymakers to obtain an integrated viewof watershed conditions and public priorities [31]. Additionally, perception-based dataare useful for investigating the effectiveness of policy implementation and the influenceof institutions on actors [32]. The enhancement of information sharing and monitoringmechanisms can improve government credibility and, thus, increases citizens’ trust inmanagement efforts [33].IWM is a political process critically dependent upon the effective governance ofwatershed biophysical elements. Current watershed management studies mainly centeron the effects of human activities on ecological conditions or examining the impacts ofwatershed degradation on a single factor at the local community level [34–36], oftenoverlooking the broader, interconnected dynamics within watershed ecosystems. Moreover,these studies do not provide a systematic framework to holistically examine the influenceof institutional, socioeconomic, and biophysical factors on individual pro-environmentalactions. In this paper, we aim to reveal the interactions and set priorities for IWM froma socioecological perspective. We explore how contextual factors, including individuals’perceptions of biophysical conditions, rules-in-use, socioeconomic characteristics, andinteractional capacity, influence participation in IWM in the Min River Basin, Fujian, China.2. Theoretical Framework: Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) FrameworkThe institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework proposed by ElinorOstrom is instrumental in analyzing the management of common-pool resources likewoodlands and water sources, where institutional rules, policies, and governance affectactor behaviors ([33], p. 376). It summarizes how different factors shape individualand community actions as well as the process of institution formation. The core is theaction arena, which includes the action situation and actors. Exogenous factors, includingbiophysical conditions, community attributes (socioeconomic characteristics), and rules-in-use (institutional, policy, and governance), together comprise the current action arena.The IAD framework has been effectively applied to multiple management dilemmascentral to common-pool resource sustainability. Researchers have adopted it to understandthe impact of actor interactions on decentralized irrigation management in Turkey [30],estimate voluntary waste disposal monitoring in China [37], and analyze local farmerresponses to water deficits [38]. At a broader scale, the framework supports watershednatural resource conservation, large restoration projects, and wastewater governance byidentifying gaps in institutions and governance [39,40]. Comparative studies of the Yellowand Ganges Rivers further demonstrated its utility in understanding centralized governancenarratives of large rivers [41].The IAD framework guides the research from organizing our literature review andsurvey design (including socioeconomic characteristics, perceptions of biophysical con-ditions, the performance of formal institutions, and indicators for informal institutionformation—willingness to pay, participate, and actual participation) to model variableselection. We used the IAD framework as a conceptual framework to organize independentvariables and then analyzed individual participation decisions in watershed governancefor the Min River (Figure 1). By determining the factors influencing the probability ofrespondents’ involvement, management priorities can be set to maximize public participa-tion. Participatory processes and decentralization of IWM can be prioritized to ensure thelong-term sustainability of this approach.High levels of expressed willingness, commitment to meetings, and engagement inmonitoring networks suggest strong potential for institutional development. The IADframework also considers informal institutions and local-level interactions, making it well-suited to capture how local actors engage with top-down policies within China’s hierarchi-Land 2024, 13, 1824 4 of 21cal governance. It highlights how local actors, even within a centralized system, can modifyor impact formal rules through their actions despite restrictions on public participation.Land 2024, 13, 1824 4 of 23 Figure 1. IWM analysis framework in MRB; adapted from Ostrom ([33]). High levels of expressed willingness, commitment to meetings, and engagement in monitoring networks suggest strong potential for institutional development. The IAD framework also considers informal institutions and local-level interactions, making it well-suited to capture how local actors engage with top-down policies within China’s hi-erarchical governance. It highlights how local actors, even within a centralized system, can modify or impact formal rules through their actions despite restrictions on public par-ticipation. Factors Affecting Public Participation The two dependent variables in this study were the actual participation and willing-ness to participate in the participatory processes of IWM. These processes included any fora, meetings, and activities related to watershed conservation, management, project de-cision-making, and planning led by local authorities. Independent Variables Biophysical conditions. Two variables, perceived environmental quality and future concerns, were adopted to reflect the participants’ perception of the biophysical condi-tions of the Min River Basin. Perceived environmental quality is affected by the public perception of recent changes in environmental conditions [37]. Based on the most serious and concerning watershed issues identified by participants, a composite variable that summarizes future concerns about water pollution, flooding, and water deficit was devel-oped. Socioeconomic characteristics. Participation willingness and behavior are influ-enced by individuals’ satisfaction with management efforts, occupation and income, knowledge, attitudes, perception, and vision of the watershed [42]. The impacts of demo-graphic attributes and socioeconomic factors on direct participation behavior in environ-mental governance have been recognized [43]. Variables for the respondents’ gender, age, education level, annual income, and length of residence were selected in this study. Additionally, we assessed perceptions of the watershed and forest value, asking re-spondents to evaluate the MRB’s significance to Fujian Province’s development and the ecosystem services forests provide, including recreation, economic value/employment, wildlife habitats, global ecosystem balance, water, air/soil regulation, and natural envi-ronment protection (Table 1). Figure 1. IWM analysis framework in MRB; adapted from Ostrom ([33]).2.1. Factors Affecting Public ParticipationThe two dependent variables in this study were the actual participation and will-ingness to participate in the participatory processes of IWM. These processes includedany fora, meetings, and activities related to watershed conservation, management, projectdecision-making, and planni g led by local a thorities.Independent VariablesBiophysical conditions. Two variables, perceived environmental quality and futureconcerns, were adopted to reflect the participants’ perception of the biophysical conditionsof the Min River Basin. Perceived environmental quality is affected by the public perceptionof recent changes in environmental conditions [37]. Based on the most serious and con-cerning watershed issues identified by participants, a composite variable that summarizesfuture concerns about water pollution, flooding, and water deficit was developed.Socioeconomic characteristics. Participation willingness and behavior are influencedby individuals’ satisfaction with management efforts, occupation and income, knowledge,attitudes, perception, and vision of the watershed [42]. The impacts of demographicattributes and socioeconomic factors on direct participation behavior in environmental gov-ernance have been recognized [43]. Variables for the respondents’ gender, age, educationlev l, an ual incom , and length of residence were selected in this study.Additionally, we assessed perceptions of the watershed and forest value, asking re-spondents to evaluate the MRB’s significance to Fujian Province’s development and theecosystem services forests provide, including recreation, economic value/employment,wildlife habitats, global ecosystem balance, water, air/soil regulation, and natural environ-ment protection (Table 1).Table 1. The variable descriptions and composite details.Category/Variable Variable Definition and Measurement Composite or IndexDependent VariableWillingness to participate Willingness to partic pate in watershed-rel ted events(1 = not willing, 2 = unsure, 3 = willing) CompositeActual participationfrequencyFrequency of watershed-related event participation(1 = seldom, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often) CompositeLand 2024, 13, 1824 5 of 21Table 1. Cont.Category/Variable Variable Definition and Measurement Composite or IndexIndependent VariableBiophysical ConditionsPerceived environmentalqualityRate the improvement of the MRB environment quality(1 = significantly improved, 2 = improved, 3 = no change, 4 = worsened,5 = significantly worsened)CompositeFuture concerns Respondents’ concern about the future issues of water pollution,flooding, and water deficit in the MRB IndexedRules-in-useIntegrated watershedmanagementPublic overall perception of government management(1 = very good, 2 = good, 3 = neutral, 4 = poor, 5 = very poor)Forest management Indexed scale of public satisfaction with MRB forest management (lowerindex indicates less satisfaction) IndexedEffectiveness ofgovernment sectorIndexed scale of respondents’ satisfaction with effectiveness of variousgovernment departments (lower index indicates less satisfaction) IndexedWatershed managementand operationIndexed scale of respondents’ satisfaction with various prospects of MRBmanagement (lower index indicates less satisfaction) IndexedPresence of poormanagement practicesIndex of witness frequency of poor MRB management behaviors(lower index indicates less frequent) IndexedSocioeconomic CharacteristicsGender 1 = female, 2 = maleAge group 1 = below 18, 2 = 20 s, 3 = 30 s, 4 = 40 s, 5 = 50 s, 6 = 60 sEducation level 1 = elementary school, 2 = middle school, 3 = high school, 4 = college,5 = Bachelor’s degree, 6 = Master’s degree, 7 = PhDAnnual income range Annual income ranges from 36,000 to 300,000 divided into ten categories(in CNY)Length of residence Length of residence in MRB (years)(1 = ≥ 30, 2 = 21–30, 3 = 11–20, 4 = 6–10, 5 = 1–5, 6 = ≤ 1)Watershed importancecognitionPublic perception of level of importance of MRB to Fujian Province(1 = extremely important, 2 = important, 3 = neutral, 4 = unimportant,5 = extremely unimportant)Forest value Indexed scale of public perception of importance of MRB(lower index indicates less important) IndexedInteractional CapacityInterpersonalcommunicationWillingness to encourage others to participate in MRB-related events(1 = willing, 2 = unsure, 3 = not willing)Cross-reach support Public opinion of cross-reach support in terms of economics andtechnology (lower index indicates less willing to support other reaches) IndexedInformation sharingPublic perception of the government advertisement ofMRB-related information(1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = frequently, 5 = always)IndexedRules-in-use. This study interpreted “rules-in-use” based on stakeholders’ satisfac-tion with IWM. These indices acted as practical indicators of “rules-in-use”, reflecting theformal rules and the respondents’ direct experiences with them. People’s actual experi-ences and satisfaction are critical measures of governance effectiveness and are consideredwhen evaluating governance rules [44]. In scenarios involving air pollution, water, andwaste management, public surveillance, and frequency of monitoring informally establishcommunity standards [37,45]. Satisfaction and effectiveness indices, therefore, offer ameasurable representation of the IAD’s conceptualization of “rules-in-use” in the specificaction situation of MRB governance.Whether or not a regulation’s intended purposes can measure the effectiveness ofmanagement in environmental regulation [45] aligns with “perceived effectiveness” asit encompasses stakeholders’ assessment of whether regulatory objectives are being met.Stakeholder satisfaction is a critical insight into how well the governance process func-Land 2024, 13, 1824 6 of 21tions [46]. Ostroff [47] also noted a strong correlation between individual satisfaction andorganizational performance. Thus, we incorporated the assumption that stakeholders’satisfaction and perceived high management effectiveness were reliable indicators of rulefunctionality. We evaluated satisfaction with various aspects of IWM, covering overallIWM performance, watershed management and operations, perceived effectiveness of gov-ernment sectors, forest management, and the observed frequency of poor forest practices.The composite index of watershed management and operations aggregated individualresponses on the perceived performance of governance, including planning and decision-making, investment, public involvement, education and publicity, environmental protectionand supervision, law enforcement and legislation, cooperation among government sectors,and cross-reach cooperation. Another composite index measured perceived effectivenessacross government sectors, incorporating a range of specific management actions and out-comes. We also investigated the effectiveness and appropriateness of forest management,assessing respondents’ satisfaction with various aspects, including silvicultural practices,forest resource management, stand and species diversity, fertilization, wildlife protection,fire protection, logging operations, riparian protection, and pest control. The last compositeindex examined the presence of poor forest practices by aggregating the observed frequen-cies of various activities, including burning slash and shrubs, soil preparation, large-scaleclear-cutting, monocultures, logging within riparian zones, herbicide and pesticide use,logging on steep slopes, and natural forest harvesting.Interactional capacity. The first variable, interpersonal communication, focused oninformation exchange within the community. Respondents evaluated their willingnessto spread IWM-related information and encourage engagement in IWM-related activi-ties among friends, families, colleagues, or classmates. The second variable, cross-reachsupport, examined the respondents’ perceived necessity of coordinating technical andfinancial resources between the upper and lower reaches. The last indicator of interactionalcapacity was information sharing, which measured respondents’ exposure to discussions,meetings, and activities associated with watershed conservation, management, and plan-ning; it indicated the interaction level between institutions and the public (individualswithin communities).3. Materials and Methods3.1. Study AreaThe Min River is the largest river in Fujian Province, China; it has a length of 580 kmand an average annual flow of 62.9 billion m3. It is located between 25◦23′ and 28◦19′ Nand 116◦23′ and 119◦43′ E [48]. The river originates in the Wuyi Mountains and flowssoutheast to the East Sea. Its catchment area is 60,992 km2, occupying more than half ofthe total area of Fujian Province. The MRB covers three administrative cities (Nanping,Sanming, and Fuzhou), including 36 counties in the province. Around 12.95 million peoplelive in this area, accounting for 30.9% of the total provincial population [49].In the last 18 years, the total gross domestic product (GDP) of the MRB has increaseddramatically, from 32.49 billion to 1.68 trillion USD [49,50]. The central part of the GDP hasshifted from primary industries (e.g., agriculture) to secondary industries (e.g., manufactur-ing), then to tertiary industries (e.g., the service industry) in the past decade. The basin’snatural resources support agriculture, industry, and cultural heritage and are crucial forthe livelihoods of millions. It provides valuable ecosystem services, such as the provisionof materials (timber, water), water purification, and carbon sequestration services.MRB’s rapid economic development has led to the emergence of environmentalexternalities like water pollution, invasive aquatic species (e.g., water hyacinth booming),flooding, and soil erosion. These challenges have raised concerns about long-term ecologicalresilience and socioeconomic security among local authorities and residents.Land 2024, 13, 1824 7 of 213.2. Questionnaire DesignThe questionnaire distributed in 2021 was an adapted version of the Integrated Wa-tershed Management: Questionnaire Survey on Sustainable Management in the Min River Basindeveloped in 2006 [51]. The 2021 questionnaire investigated the public’s awareness, con-cerns, and understanding of the local environmental conditions and sustainable watershedmanagement in the MRB and collected comments and suggestions for further developmentin the area. Given the high forest coverage (76.8%) and soil erosion concerns, proper forestmanagement is crucial for watershed health. Accordingly, the survey includes a sectionon forest management, investigating perceptions of forest value and forest managementpractices, such as wildfire prevention, logging, and riparian zone protection. This echoesChina’s national emphasis on natural conservation, viewing forests as reservoirs for water(purification, conservation, drought replenishment), sources of grains (timber, bamboo,non-timber products), and carbon sinks. This community-based approach is vital to de-veloping governance models incorporating public participation, aligning with China’stransition towards more inclusive, stakeholder-responsive resource management.Environmental conditions and socioeconomic development vary significantly across thelower, middle, and upper reaches of the basin. The upper reach features mountains withsteep slopes and fast-flowing waters, while the lower reach consists of floodplains with higherpopulation density. Given these differences, the questionnaire captured unique challenges andopportunities across these regions, including the capacity for cross-reach collaboration. TheMRB’s mountainous, forested landscape is intertwined with agriculture and other productionactivities that directly impact the watershed and are closely tied to local livelihoods. Thissurvey was initially created with these socio-ecological linkages in mind. The collected datahelp inform governance strategies for sustainable management, ensuring the provision oftangible goods and services to support the basin’s socioeconomic development.Questions about annual income and education level were adjusted to reflect eco-nomic, social, and technological development over the past 15 years. A draft of thequestionnaire was created and pre-tested by distributing around 30 copies to local stake-holders at Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University. This pre-test helped identify andresolve issues such as ambiguous wording, errata, or insufficient question information.The estimated average completion time for the survey was approximately 15–20 min.The final version included 38 questions organized into the following six sections: per-sonal information, present state and issues, forest management, government role, publicawareness/willingness/participation, and comments and suggestions. The detailed ques-tionnaire information is provided in Table 2.Table 2. Structure and components of questionnaire.Section Questions Item ContentPersonal information 12 questions (filling-in, single-choice,multiple-choice, open-ended)Background information on respondents,relationship with sustainable watershedmanagement, general views on MRBPresent state and issues 9 questions (single-choice,multiple-choice, ranking, open-ended)Perception and concerns about watershed states,changes, and issuesForest management 3 questions (Likert scale) Perspectives on forest values and forestmanagement activitiesGovernment role 4 questions (Likert scale, ranking,single-choice)Extent of satisfaction with local government’smanagement of MRBPublic awareness, willingness,and participation6 questions (single-choice, filling-in,open-ended)Extent of WTP and willingness to financiallysupport watershed conservation and managementComments and suggestions 4 questions (open-ended, single-choice) Suggestions for sustainable watershedmanagement of MRB in the futureTotal 38 questionsLand 2024, 13, 1824 8 of 213.3. Data Collection and AnalysisThe survey was conducted physically, with participants choosing to fill out the surveyin either a digital or paper format. In total, 1203 questionnaires were collected, including700 completed online and 503 in the paper format. Two-stage sampling was adopted to ap-ply both cluster and random stratified sampling. Based on the population distribution anddensity, geographic location, and socioeconomic condition data from the Fujian ProvincialStatistical Yearbook [52] and proximity to the MRB, 14 counties were selected in the clustersampling stage. Six counties were chosen each from the upstream and downstream areas,and two were chosen from the midstream area. We sought to investigate the perceptionsand opinions of the public and those involved in managing the MRB. To ensure broadsampling, three high-population-mobility public facilities (city squares, community centers,and libraries), areas near parks and rivers, and watershed-related government departments(hydrology, forestry, agriculture, ecology, environment, and natural resources) at differ-ent jurisdictional levels were randomly selected as survey sites. Simple street interviewswere conducted at city squares, community centers, government institutions, and libraries,gathering responses from 10 to 15 pedestrians in 2021.Of the 1203 questionnaires received, 933 were deemed valid based on their responsetime and the completion of the answers. The cleaned sample size provides a 95% confidencelevel with a 3.2% margin of error, sufficient for social science analysis [53,54]. Consideringthose who had to redo the questionnaire due to internet errors, interruptions, or any otherincidents, data from participants who spent less than 3 min answering the questions wereexcluded from the data analysis. Approximately 44.6% and 35.3% of valid responses camefrom the lower and upper reaches, respectively, with a smaller portion from the midstreamand other regions.In the initial exploratory data analysis, different methods were used to assess theinternal consistency of the responses and the quality of the questionnaire’s structuralvalidity. At a value higher than 0.9 for each individual section, Cronbach’s α resultsconfirmed internal consistency across the questionnaire [55]. Further exploratory factoranalysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported the questionnaire’s strongstructural validity.Data were first imported and tabulated using Excel before SPSS (Version 27) wasapplied for exploratory data analysis. R (version 4.1.2) and STATA 17 software were alsoused for visualization and analytical purposes. As previously indicated, the questionnairedata related to the respondents’ perceptions of watershed-related events (WTP and ac-tual participation frequency) as per the respondents’ biophysical conditions, rules-in-use,socioeconomic characteristics, and interactional capacity (Table 1).At the preliminary stage, multiple questions were selected and combined from theoriginal survey data based on previous research. For combined features, such as forestmanagement and information sharing, the mean imputation method was applied to anymissing values to reduce bias, as these features are a combination of several Likert scalequestions. While mean imputation was chosen for its simplicity and to retain as manydata points as possible, this method assumes that the missing data are random, which mayintroduce some bias. The “future concerns” feature was created as a composite of threebinary questions, with missing responses assumed as “no concern” (zero). After combiningand indexing each feature, descriptive analyses provided an overview of the independentvariables. The Bonferroni correction was then applied to multiple comparisons, evaluatingrespondents’ WTP and actual participation in MRB-related events.Finally, sensitivity analyses were carried out using three different methods to investi-gate the associations between various factors and the respondents’ participation and per-ceptions. Independent factors were grouped into four categories based on the adapted IADframework, including biophysical conditions, rules-in-use, socioeconomic characteristics,and interactional capacity (Figure 1). Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was calculatedfor both participation variables against every factor to identify any linear relationships.Land 2024, 13, 1824 9 of 21Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE) was applied across three models (random forest,naïve Bayes, and bagged tree), with 10-fold cross-validation repeated five times to validateeach variable’s significance. RFE was chosen to enhance model accuracy by removing theleast important variables, thereby reducing the potential for overfitting. Through analyzingaccuracy changes across different numbers of optimal features, the best combination offeatures was identified to achieve the optimal balance between bias and variance trade-offs. The bagged tree and random forest models minimized data overfitting, while thenaïve Bayes model accounted for the unbalanced participation variable. No significantdiscrepancies were found among the results of the three models.Following feature selection, ordered probit regression was conducted for each variableto calculate marginal effects, assessing each independent variable’s impact on participationlikelihood. Model assumptions were tested for validity. The proportional odds assumptionwas confirmed with the Brant test, indicating consistent effects across all categories ofthe dependent variable. Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) scores, all below 3, revealed nosignificant multicollinearity, consistent with the results from Spearman’s correlation. Theregression indicates the extent to which each independent factor increases or decreasesthe likelihood of public participation in MRB-related events. Each step contributes to adetailed, bias-controlled analysis to identify the determinants of public participation inwatershed governance.4. Results4.1. OverviewSection 2 of the questionnaire revolved around the current situation and changesin MRB biophysical conditions. More than 88% of the participants stated that the MRBecosystem had improved over the past 15 years. Considering watershed-related disastersindividually, respondents’ concerns and observed improvements from 2006 to 2021, aswell as their concerns for the future, were recorded. Among all disasters, flooding, waterpollution, and soil erosion were the top three concerns, both in the past and the future.4.2. Public Attitudes Toward Forest Management and the Government’s RoleIn the third and fourth sections of the survey, participants valued the provisioning,supporting, and regulating services of forests while placing less value on recreational andeconomic benefits. Satisfaction with nine forest management practices was measured ona 5-point Likert scale, with responses mostly ranging from neutral to somewhat satisfied.Exceptions were noted for wildlife and fire protection, where satisfaction was higher;somewhat satisfied participants outnumbered neutral responses by about 10%. Dissatisfac-tion was noted primarily with riparian protection, although those satisfied still exceededthose dissatisfied. Over half seldom or never observed poor forest management, withonly 4% frequently noting issues in natural forest harvesting.The survey then evaluated government roles in watershed management, finding thatmost participants were either neutral or somewhat satisfied with government efforts, ex-cluding funding and public awareness, where opinion leaned more towards neutrality.Integrated management planning was the most needed government action, whereas en-hancing cooperation across reaches was considered the least needed. A majority (67.2%)were content with the current government management, with dissatisfaction below 2%.4.3. Public AwarenessWith 795 votes, water provisioning services were considered the most important valueof the watershed. There is a trend of rising public awareness regarding supporting and reg-ulating services. Notably, more than half of the participants rated natural environment andresource protection, maintaining an ecosystem network, and wildlife habitat conservationas extremely important.The focus of the last section of the questionnaire was on public awareness. We ex-amined the respondents’ awareness of singular events, news, and willingness to protectLand 2024, 13, 1824 10 of 21the Min River environment. Despite high awareness, with 87% informed on related news,only 65% had participated in protective actions. However, 78% were willing to promoteparticipation to others, suggesting a preference for collective action over individual initia-tives. On resource allocation, a substantial majority agreed that the more affluent lowerreach should aid the upper reach, with 92% and 87.5% backing technological and financialsupport, respectively. However, regarding personal financial contributions, only 48.5%were willing to donate, with 36% uncertain about donating. Among those uncertain, theprimary concerns were the lack of transparency regarding the use of funds, the impacton their living expenses, and the belief that the government or those benefiting from theenvironment should bear protection costs.4.4. Statistical AnalysisFour main variable categories were chosen to investigate the respondents’ WTP andactual participation regarding the MRB (Table 3). Many participants preferred not to re-spond to certain questions. The missing values in the data were treated as missing, andonly complete observations were included in the model estimation. Overall, approximately85.9% of participants expressed a willingness to participate in discussion meetings or activ-ities related to watershed conservation, management, or planning organized by the localgovernment (800 willing, 120 unsure, 11 unwilling). However, only 32.8% of participantsactively engage in such activities frequently (315 often, 309 sometimes, 315 seldom). Thelower reach shows a slightly higher WTP (61.9% vs. 57.8%) and significantly higher actualparticipation (47.1% vs. 29.4%) than the upper reach.Table 3. Sample descriptive statistics.Category/Variable Observations Mean Std. Dev. Min MaxDependent VariableWillingness to participate 931 2.847 0.391 1 3Actual participation frequency 929 1.989 0.817 1 3Independent VariableBiophysical ConditionsPerceived environmental quality 933 2.02 0.823 1 5Future concerns 933 1.436 0.831 0 3Rules-in-useIntegrated watershed management 911 2.193 0.719 1 5Forest management 933 33.135 6.654 9 45Effectiveness of the government sector 933 42.805 9.552 12 60Watershed management and operation 933 28.389 6.688 8 40Presence of poor management practices 933 19.884 6.922 8 39SocioeconomicCharacteristicsGender 924 1.397 0.49 1 2Age group 932 3.286 1.15 1 6Education level 931 4.987 0.858 1 7Annual income range 928 3.159 1.976 1 10Length of residence 924 2.522 1.653 1 6Watershed importance cognition 933 1.205 0.454 1 4Forest value 933 25.202 4.881 6 30Interactional CapacityInterpersonal communication 928 2.77 0.462 1 3Cross-reach support 933 5.737 0.705 2 6Information sharing 928 3.541 1.004 1 5Multiple comparison tests with the Bonferroni adjustment were conducted to deter-mine the relationship between the dependent and independent variables. As shown inTable 4 (with mean statistics in Appendix A Table A1), no significant correlation was foundLand 2024, 13, 1824 11 of 21between the future concern, age group, forest value and any of the dependent variables.In contrast, perceived environmental quality (as a biophysical condition) had a significantrelationship with the actual participation frequency but little association with WTP.Table 4. Mean differences in WTP and actual participation frequency.Willingness to Participate Actual Participation FrequencyMD(US-UW)MD(US-W)MD(UW-W)MD(O-S)MD(O-ST)MD(S-ST)Dependent VariableBiophysical ConditionsPerceived environmental quality 0.08 0.38 *** 0.3 −0.58 *** −0.43 *** 0.15 *Future concerns 0.11 −0.07 −0.18 −0.01 0.01 0.02Rules-in-useIntegrated watershed management 0.36 0.54 *** 0.18 −0.52 *** −0.39 *** 0.13 **Forest management −0.69 −2.53 *** −1.84 3.91 *** 2.92 *** −0.99Effectiveness of thegovernment sector −0.27 −4.73 *** −4.46 6.96 *** 4.93 *** −2.03 **Watershed management and operation 1.01 −2.57 *** −3.58 4.8 *** 3.46 *** −1.34 **Presence of poor management practices 5.1 * 0.5 −4.6 * 1.48 ** 1.4 ** −0.08SocioeconomicCharacteristicsGender −0.11 −0.06 0.05 −0.13 *** −0.06 0.07Age group 0.17 −0.14 −0.31 −0.11 −0.17 −0.06Education level 0.03 −0.06 −0.09 −0.04 −0.19 ** −0.15 *Annual income range 0.37 −0.4 −0.77 0.45 ** 0.03 −0.42 **Length of residence −0.09 0.32 *** 0.41 −0.14 0.07 0.21Watershed importance cognition −0.35 ** 0.21 *** 0.56 *** −0.29 −0.19 0.1Forest value 0.64 −0.66 −1.3 −0.38 0 0.38Interactional CapacityInterpersonal communication 0.55 *** −0.47 *** −1.02 *** 0.11 *** 0.07 −0.04Cross-reach support 0.47 * −0.42 *** −0.89 *** −0.01 0 0.01Information sharing 0.24 ** −0.35 *** −0.59 *** 1.53 *** 0.76 *** −0.77 ***Notes: *, **, and *** indicate statistical significance at 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively. MD denotes themean difference between two groups. Willingness to Participate (UW: unwilling, US: unsure, W: willing).Actual Participation Frequency (S: seldom, ST: sometimes, O: often). Bonferroni adjustment was made formultiple comparisons.Participants noticing some improvement in the MRB environment were more willingto participate in related events but were less willing to contribute financially. The four rules-in-use factors significantly affected event participation rates but had little to no influence onWTP. Interestingly, rules-in-use only made a difference in distinguishing between unsureparticipants and those willing to participate in MRB-related events. Only the perceptionof watershed importance significantly influenced WTP, with other factors not showingstatistical significance. Socioeconomic characteristics did not affect participation willingnessin MRB events. Among all examined factors, interaction capacity played a key role inaffecting the respondents’ readiness to contribute to the Min watershed.We conducted sensitivity analyses to further analyze the relationships between therespondents’ WTP and actual participation frequency and the independent variables pre-cisely to determine each factor’s impact on the dependent variables. According to theSpearman rank correlation coefficient results (see Appendix A Table A2), most factors wereweakly correlated (ρ < 0.1) with the variables of interest. Consistent with our previousfindings, socioeconomic characteristics had the lowest association, whereas interactionalcapacity had the highest. The strongest correlation was between actual participation andinformation sharing (ρ = 0.64). All but one of the rules-in-use factors were somewhatassociated with the two participation scales.Land 2024, 13, 1824 12 of 21Among the three algorithms we used during RFE, the bagged tree and random forestmodels consistently produced the same important features, which tended to differ signifi-cantly from the naïve Bayes model results. This may have been caused by an imbalance inthe WTP and actual participation frequency variables. Therefore, a factor was consideredsignificant in influencing the dependent variable only if it was identified as important byboth the naïve Bayes model and one of the tree models.For WTP, interpersonal communication and information sharing emerged as the mostand second-most important features. Meanwhile, actual participation frequency was moststrongly associated with three features: information sharing, environment quality, andsatisfaction with watershed management and operations. Interactional capacity was thekey determinant of WTP, followed by rules-in-use for both WTP and actual participationin MRB events. Conversely, socioeconomic and biophysical factors showed weak asso-ciations with WTP and actual participation frequency. One particular feature from eachsection was highly influential: forest value. Among the biophysical conditions, perceivedenvironmental quality was the second-most influential in actual participation frequency.Next, we used an ordered probit regression model to calculate the marginal effect ofeach factor on the respondents’ WTP and actual participation frequency in MRB-relatedevents. Given that the null hypothesis was true (Prob > chi2) for both dependent variables,the probability of obtaining the Chi-squared statistic was found to be 0.0000 (Table 5).Thus, both models were statistically significant. Both rules-in-use and the interactionalcapacity significantly affected the respondents’ WTP, consistent with previous findings.The effectiveness of the government sector and watershed importance cognition were theonly two factors that negatively influenced the respondents’ WTP. The marginal effectsfor government effectiveness and poor management (two rules-in-use factors), and allinteractional capacity factors, were positive and significant. This indicates that a one-unitincrease in interactional capacity boosts participants’ WTP in MRB-related events.Table 5. Ordered probit regression model of marginal effects.Willingness to Participate Actual Participation FrequencyVariable dy/dx Std.err. dy/dx Std.err.Biophysical ConditionsPerceived environmental quality −0.004 0.014 −0.058 *** 0.019Future concerns 0.005 0.012 −0.029 * 0.017Rules-in-useIntegrated watershed management −0.037 * 0.02 0.046 * 0.026Forest management −0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003Effectiveness of the government sector 0.004 * 0.002 0.003 0.003Watershed management and operation −0.002 0.003 0.004 0.004Presence of poor management practices 0.003 * 0.002 0.006 *** 0.002Socioeconomic CharacteristicsGender −0.002 0.021 −0.073 ** 0.029Age group −0.008 0.012 −0.035 ** 0.016Education level 0.002 0.013 −0.03 * 0.017Annual income range 0.009 0.006 0.03 *** 0.009Length of residence −0.001 0.007 −0.001 0.01Watershed importance cognition −0.034 * 0.02 0.022 0.032Forest value −0.001 0.003 −0.009 *** 0.003Interactional CapacityInterpersonal communication 0.138 *** 0.02 −0.021 0.032Cross-reach support 0.039 *** 0.013 −0.023 0.02Information sharing 0.034 *** 0.011 0.31 *** 0.02Number of observations 881 882LR χ2 169.82 524.81Prob > χ2 0.0000 0.0000Log likelihood −309.707 −706.525Notes: *, **, and *** indicate statistical significance at 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively.Land 2024, 13, 1824 13 of 21The information sharing factor was highly influential on actual participation. A one-unit increase in the spread of MRB-related news raised the probability of the respondentattending an MRB-related event by 31%. Biophysical conditions also significantly impactedactual participation rate. Respondents who observed less improvement in the MRB areaand were more concerned about natural disasters attended watershed-related events lessfrequently. Socioeconomic factors similarly influenced participation negatively but wereless impactful than biophysical conditions and information sharing. Regarding rules-in-use,participants were more likely to attend MRB-related events when they perceived highgovernment management effectiveness or observed poor forest management practices.In summary, interactional capacity had the greatest influence on the respondents’WTP and actual participation rate. Rules-in-use was also somewhat connected to the twodependent variables but not as strongly as interactional capacity. Conversely, socioeconomiccharacteristics and biophysical conditions had little to no influence on WTP but weresomewhat significant in actual participation frequency.5. DiscussionOur findings empirically validate and expand the IAD framework by demonstratinghow different variables influence stakeholders’ engagement, thereby deepening the appli-cation of this framework to water governance. The public’s environmental perceptionsand awareness of management strategies and activities are closely related to governanceeffectiveness, institutional success, and conservation sustainability [56].We found that increased awareness of the significance of watersheds would boostwillingness in IWM. Similarly, in Japan’s Yodo River area, social capital and public aware-ness have been vital in boosting individual involvement [57]. Public participation indecision-making addresses collective action challenges and expands opportunities forfurther participation [58]. Increased participation also builds social capital in local com-munities, enabling them to become more self-driven and resilient when facing collectiveaction problems over time [59].A notable disparity exists between expressed WTP and self-reported actual partici-pation in watershed conservation activities. The high level of expressed interest (85.9%)suggests a strong community inclination toward environmental stewardship, yet less thanone-third regularly participate, suggesting barriers preventing locals from translating theirwillingness into action. According to the Theory of Planned Behavior, individuals’ actionsare shaped by their perceived ability to engage in a behavior [60]. Participants may expressinterests, but actual involvement can be hindered by perceived barriers like lack of time, age,financial constraints, or inadequate tools (e.g., transportation to meetings) [61,62]. In thisstudy, barriers identified for actual participation included high concern levels and socioeco-nomic traits (male, older, higher education, higher income). Incentives for participationincluded improved environmental conditions, better-integrated watershed management(IWM) performance, awareness of poor practices, and information sharing between thegovernment and individuals.A common motive is the desire for better conservation outcomes. A sense of commu-nity stewardship is reinforced when participants observe a direct benefit or improvementsin their local environment, increasing their likelihood of participation [63]. Our identi-fication of improved environmental conditions as an incentive aligns with this broadertrend [64], where individuals are motivated by observable, tangible improvements. Whenmanagement and conservation efforts visibly improve watershed biophysical conditions,citizens’ confidence and motivation to participate actively increased.However, higher concern levels were associated with lower actual participation. Whenand Almomani [63] noted that high concern levels can serve as both a motivator and adeterrent interchangeably. Excessive concern may lead to feelings of being overwhelmedor pessimism about the effectiveness of participation, lowering active participation despitehigh willingness. Other researchers [65] have linked public participation with environmen-tal risk perceptions and trust in governance. Our survey showed significant improvementsLand 2024, 13, 1824 14 of 21in water pollution and flooding in the MRB, suggesting that, despite ongoing concerns,trust in the local government’s ability to manage these risks likely led to a nuanced decreasein participation as concern levels rose. Community concerns over flooding heightenedawareness of the ecosystem services provided by riparian forests, including water purifica-tion and erosion control [5,34,66,67]. Similar trends have been observed in China’s MiyunReservoir Basin, Heihe River Basin, and Baiyangdian watershed, where experiences withenvironmental issues have enhanced public environmental perceptions [68–70].We found that a more comprehensive understanding of forest ecosystem servicesdecreased the probability of actual participation (Table 5), which may initially seem counter-intuitive. A possible explanation is that awareness of ecosystem complexity might leadindividuals to overestimate the effort required to make a difference, discouraging actualparticipation. Moreover, if individuals do not perceive an immediate threat or urgency, theirmotivation to participate may be reduced. Respondents valued regulating and supportingservices more than provisioning and cultural services, indicating some understanding ofecological processes. This aligns with findings from Lima and Basto [71], who noted apredominant recognition of regulating services. The lesser emphasis on cultural servicesmay indicate a weaker connection between community well-being and the watershedecosystem, contrasting with locales where tourism and direct livelihood reliance on forestshighly value cultural services [72]. Most respondents in the MRB recognized both theinstrumental and intrinsic value of natural watershed resources. Environmental educationmight, therefore, be expanded to areas such as involvement in problem-solving, responsiblebehavior, youth engagement, and leadership to guide specific actions.The universality of environmental degradation and social development has reducedthe effect of demographic variables on environmental awareness [68], with a gap in actualenvironmental participation being more influenced by economic capacity and leisuretime [73]. Our findings indicate that while willingness to participate is not closely tiedto gender, age, education, or income, these factors do play a role in actual participation.Despite the lower tendency of the more educated to engage in environmental projects,individuals with higher incomes show more activity in IWM-related activities [74,75].In regions dominated by agriculture and horticulture activities [76], higher educationand income levels correlate with greater involvement. Individuals are more likely to con-tribute when they see clear financial advantages, such as jobs or revenue from non-timberforest products. However, this trend does not hold in the MRB, where higher educationand income are associated with competing priorities, time constraints, and a preference forindirect forms of engagement (e.g., financial donations). The lack of immediate, tangiblebenefits from hands-on participation likely contributes to this contrasting trend. Theseparticipation trends, based on gender, age, and income, highlight the need for IWM plansto consider these social dynamics [77–80].Regarding institutional capacity and governance, overall IWM performance and poorpractices were the two most significant predictors of WTP and actual participation. EchoingLiu et al. [65], we found that effective public engagement boosts environmental regulation,with positive views on IWM enhancing WTP but potentially reducing direct participationdue to enhanced trust in authorities’ capabilities [37]. Conversely, frequent observations ofpoor forest management practices led to a higher probability of involvement by motivatingrespondents to seek change. Naiga and Penker [81] found that effective law enforcementand both downward and upward accountability promoted WTP. Similarly, we found that ahigher perceived effectiveness of government sectors increased respondents’ WTP. Whilepublic participation allows individuals to express expectations and demands, it has alsopositively correlated with higher satisfaction levels [65]. Furthermore, satisfaction withpublic services has been directly associated with the quality of those services [82]. Our studyadds to this narrative by correlating satisfaction and participation with higher institutionaltrust and efficacy, thus contributing to the IAD framework’s applicability in analyzingwater governance. The interaction element of the IAD framework could be expanded toincorporate the stages of perception, intention, and behavioral change. Our results showLand 2024, 13, 1824 15 of 21that while recognizing the importance of watershed value increases willingness, translatingthis into action requires strategic engagement beyond simply raising awareness.This study highlights the impact of subjective cognition in shaping public engagementin centralized water governance. Awareness of current watershed conditions, past manage-ment experiences, and future expectations are critical in moving individuals from intentionto action. Integrating these elements into the IAD framework allows a more comprehensiveunderstanding of how subjective interpretations of information, experiences, and future vi-sions influence willingness and participation, especially in top-down governance structures.Additionally, a dynamic, longitudinal analysis of endogenous variables is essential forbetter predicting participation behavior over time. A longitudinal approach can reveal howshifts in perceptions, experiences, and external conditions drive sustained participationand support the long-term viability of informal institutions.Our study revealed that individuals’ willingness to encourage participation in IWMactivities did not lead to a higher willingness to participate, contradicting the role of so-cial information flow highlighted by Floress et al. [83]. This observation suggests thatencouraging others does not directly reflect one’s trust levels, which Collard and Gam-betta [84] identified as pivotal for community and policy engagement. Despite this, 79% ofparticipants were willing to disseminate information within their networks, indicating astrong potential for community-wide information sharing. Additionally, we discoveredthat recognizing the value of cross-reach support significantly elevates WTP, validating theIAD framework’s emphasis on collaborative stakeholder engagement in resource manage-ment. Similarly, the longitudinal connectivity of the Min River, as noted by Wang et al. [51],necessitated the cooperation of stakeholders across spatial scales to achieve positive man-agement outcomes. Thus, understanding the need to enhance cross-reach cooperationwould encourage the public to fully understand IWM, thereby potentially increasing theirWTP in IWM-related activities. A more integrated understanding of the interconnectednessacross biophysical conditions, socioeconomic factors, and governance might encourageindividuals to participate in decision-making processes [85].Interactional capacity is vital in participatory processes and facilitates institutionformation [38,86]. This interaction is critical in establishing institutions and associations,leading to collective action and participation in mitigating environmental risks [87]. Theinformation sharing variable had the most significant impact on both WTP and actual par-ticipation. This observation is supported by the findings of Dolnicar et al. [88] regarding thecapability of factual information to increase public support for water policies and projects.Information provision promotes participation in and adaptive responses to environmentalconservation practices [38,89,90]. Our study affirms that interactional capacity is crucialfor effective water governance, emphasizing that informed communication and collabo-ration facilitate stakeholder engagement. This insight complements the IAD frameworkby highlighting the need for strong interactional capacities to build resilient institutions.To enhance institutional credibility, governments should monitor the authenticity of in-formation and prioritize factual information over persuasive arguments. For example,visualizations can readily convey water treatment information [88]. Large basins like theMRB, spanning multiple administrative regions and departments, often struggle withinformation disclosure that is fragmented and inconsistent. To address this, we recommendthat policymakers appoint designated agencies responsible for integrating and releasingriver basin policies, plans, and data uniformly across these regions. Standardizing releasemethods, timing, and standards will enhance communication accuracy and completeness,thereby improving public responses’ effectiveness.6. Conclusions and Policy ImplicationsIn this study, adopting the IAD framework as a structural lens, we analyzed the com-plex interdependencies that drive stakeholder engagement in environmental governance.Our findings, drawn from the marginal effects from the probit regression model, highlightthe significant influence of interactional capacity on public willingness to participate (WTP)Land 2024, 13, 1824 16 of 21and actual participation in IWM, followed by the perceived effectiveness of rules-in-use inwatershed management. Biophysical conditions and demographic factors in the socioeco-nomic context had limited impact on WTP but significantly affected actual participation.Environmental cognition strongly predicted WTP but did not necessarily lead to action.Clear communication about environmental status, management strategies, publicparticipation channels and opportunities, and monitoring and surveillance means is es-sential. Beyond providing information, all levels of government need to institutionalizedecentralization to provide access for stakeholder involvement and to empower grassrootsparticipation. Adopting a “river chief” system could bring decisions directly to applicableareas. However, a lack of institutional support could undermine the river chief’s actualpower in the coordination and supervision of the river basin [91]. At its most fundamentallevel, watershed management is the key to increasing direct stakeholder participation, suchas downward monitoring accountability (e.g., monitoring poor forest practices).To ensure the sustainability and viability of IWM, institutional decentralization andinformational accessibility need to be considered. From a unique institutional perspectiveextended from the interactional arena and enhanced focal action (public participation) ofthe IAD, several policy innovations and practical recommendations targeted at integratedwatershed management could be made. First, cross-department and cross-reach watergovernance should be improved to reduce administrative costs and complexity. Second,a community-focused approach to IWM increases social cohesion. With high levels ofwillingness and commitment, there is substantial potential to form informal institutionswithin the watershed. Policies that facilitate community-building activities, stakeholder col-laboration, and cooperative decision-making can strengthen residents’ sense of ownershipand responsibility. Establishing community-based monitoring groups and involving resi-dents in decision-making will increase public engagement and lead to better managementoutcomes by leveraging local knowledge and ensuring that policies address communityneeds. Lastly, improving transparency and accountability in water governance is necessaryfor ensuring policy effectiveness and credibility. In this case, resource coordination wasoptimized to maximize conservation efforts for the sustainable development of the basin.Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.Z. and G.W.; methodology, D.Z. and B.C.; software,D.Z. and B.C.; validation, J.L.I., J.L. and G.W.; formal analysis, D.Z. and B.C.; investigation, J.W., Y.Y.and G.W.; resources, Y.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, D.Z. and B.C.; writing—review andediting, J.W., J.L.I., J.L., F.G., Y.Y. and G.W.; supervision, G.W.; project administration, G.W.; fundingacquisition, G.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.Funding: This work was supported by the UBC research grant [#NALN GR004014].Institutional Review Board Statement: The studies involving humans were approved by the Univer-sity of British Columbia Research Ethics Boards (REBs) (id: H19-03133). The studies were conductedin accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements.Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in the study are included in thearticle, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.Acknowledgments: We thank the support from Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University. Theauthors are highly thankful to the editors and anonymous reviewers for their valuable commentsand reviews.Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to thecontent of this article. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses,or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.Land 2024, 13, 1824 17 of 21Appendix ATable A1. Mean statistics for WTP and actual participation frequency.Willingness to Participate Actual Participation FrequencyUnwilling Unsure Willing Seldom Sometimes OftenDependent VariableBiophysical ConditionsPerceived environmental quality 2.27 2.35 1.97 2.26 2.11 1.68Future concerns 1.27 1.38 1.45 1.45 1.43 1.44Rules-in-useIntegrated watershed management 2.3 2.66 2.12 2.41 2.28 1.89Riparian forest management 31.64 30.95 33.48 31.56 32.55 35.47Effectiveness of the government sector 39 38.73 43.46 39.9 41.93 46.86Watershed management and operation 25.18 26.19 28.76 26.4 27.74 31.2Presence of poor management practices 15.27 20.37 19.87 19.37 19.45 20.85Socioeconomic characteristicsGender 1.45 1.34 1.4 1.46 1.39 1.33Age group 3 3.17 3.31 3.30 3.36 3.19Education level 4.91 4.94 5 4.95 5.10 4.91Annual income range 2.45 2.82 3.22 2.87 3.29 3.32Length of residence 2.73 2.85 2.47 2.64 2.43 2.50Watershed importance cognition 1.73 1.38 1.17 1.24 1.19 1.18Riparian forest value 24 24.64 25.3 25.48 25.10 25.1Interactional CapacityInterpersonal communication 1.82 2.37 2.84 2.72 2.76 2.83Cross-reach support 4.91 5.38 5.8 5.74 5.73 5.73Information sharing 2.27 3.05 3.64 2.78 3.55 4.31Table A2. Spearman’s rank correlation.Willingness to Participate Actual Participation FrequencyDependent VariableBiophysical ConditionsPerceived environmental quality −0.179 −0.322Future concerns 0.023 −0.023Rules-in-useIntegrated watershed management −0.248 −0.297Riparian forest management 0.151 0.28Effectiveness of the government sector 0.178 0.318Watershed management and operation 0.163 0.322Presence of poor management practices −0.006 0.058Socioeconomic CharacteristicsGender 0.032 −0.116Age group 0.05 −0.012Education level 0.017 −0.04Annual income range 0.082 0.095Length of residence −0.073 −0.027Watershed importance cognition −0.167 −0.055Riparian forest value 0.111 0.048Interactional CapacityInterpersonal communication 0.389 0.101Cross-reach support 0.217 0.011Information sharing 0.24 0.635Land 2024, 13, 1824 18 of 21References1. Alemu, M.M. Integrated Watershed Management and Sedimentation. J. Environ. Prot. 2016, 7, 490–494. [CrossRef]2. Gu, J.; Sun, S.; Wang, Y.; Li, X.; Yin, Y.; Sun, J.; Qi, X. Sociohydrology: An Effective Way to Reveal the Coupled Evolution ofHuman and Water Systems. Water Resour. Manag. 2021, 35, 4995–5010. [CrossRef]3. Heathcote, I.W. Integrated Watershed Management: Principles and Practice, 2nd ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; ISBN 978-0-470-37625-6.4. Chapman, P.M. New Strategies for America’s Watersheds. National Research Council (1999). National Academy Press, Washing-ton, DC. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2000, 40, 717–718. [CrossRef]5. Wang, G.; Mang, S.; Cai, H.; Liu, S.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, L.; Innes, J.L. Integrated Watershed Management: Evolution, Developmentand Emerging Trends. J. For. Res. 2016, 27, 967–994. [CrossRef]6. Benson, D.; Gain, A.K.; Giupponi, C. Moving beyond Water Centricity? Conceptualizing Integrated Water Resources Managementfor Implementing Sustainable Development Goals. Sustain. Sci. 2019, 15, 671–681. [CrossRef]7. Behmel, S.; Damour, M.; Ludwig, R.; Rodriguez, M.J. Participative Approach to Elicit Water Quality Monitoring Needs fromStakeholder Groups – An Application of Integrated Watershed Management. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 218, 540–554. [CrossRef]8. Wang, Y.; Sun, M.; Yang, X.; Yuan, X. Public Awareness and Willingness to Pay for Tackling Smog Pollution in China: A CaseStudy. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 1627–1634. [CrossRef]9. Chang, I.-S.; Zhao, M.; Chen, Y.; Guo, X.; Zhu, Y.; Wu, J.; Yuan, T. Evaluation on the Integrated Water Resources Management inChina’s Major Cities–Based on City Blueprint® Approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 262, 121410. [CrossRef]10. Zhang, Z.; Chang, X.; Jiao, J. The Practice of Integrated Water Resource Management in China. In Proceedings of the 2010 Inter-national Conference on Future Information Technology and Management Engineering, Changzhou, China, 9–10 October 2010;IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 123–126.11. Xu, X.; Ni, J.; Xu, J. Incorporating a Constructed Wetland System into a Water Pollution Emissions Permit System: A Case Studyfrom the Chaohu Watershed, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 61526–61546. [CrossRef]12. Yu, S.; Lu, H. Integrated Watershed Management through Multi-Level and Stepwise Optimization for Allocation of Total Load ofWater Pollutants at Large Scales. Environ. Earth Sci. 2018, 77, 373. [CrossRef]13. Shen, D. The 2002 Water Law: Its Impacts on River Basin Management in China. Water Policy 2004, 6, 345–364. [CrossRef]14. Wang, Y.; Chen, X. River Chief System as a Collaborative Water Governance Approach in China. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2019,36, 610–630. [CrossRef]15. Brombal, D.; Niu, Y.; Pizzol, L.; Moriggi, A.; Wang, J.; Critto, A.; Jiang, X.; Liu, B.; Marcomini, A. A Participatory SustainabilityAssessment for Integrated Watershed Management in Urban China. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 85, 54–63. [CrossRef]16. Brombal, D.; Moriggi, A.; Marcomini, A. Evaluating Public Participation in Chinese EIA. An Integrated Public Participation Indexand Its Application to the Case of the New Beijing Airport. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2017, 62, 49–60. [CrossRef]17. Teng, F.; Wang, P. The Evolution of Climate Governance in China: Drivers, Features, and Effectiveness. Environ. Polit. 2021,30, 141–161. [CrossRef]18. Brierley, G.; Fryirs, K. Truths of the Riverscape: Moving beyond Command-and-Control to Geomorphologically InformedNature-Based River Management. Geosci. Lett. 2022, 9, 14. [CrossRef]19. Xu, H.; Meng, M.; Zhu, F.; Ding, Q. The Role of Local Officials in Promoting Public Participation during Local Urban PlanningProcesses: Evidence from Chinese Cities. Land Use Policy 2024, 141, 107108. [CrossRef]20. Webler, T.; Tuler, S. Four Decades of Public Participation in Risk Decision Making. Risk Anal. 2021, 41, 503–518. [CrossRef]21. He, C.; James, L.A. Watershed Science: Linking Hydrological Science with Sustainable Management of River Basins. Sci. ChinaEarth Sci. 2021, 64, 677–690. [CrossRef]22. Yu, Z.; Zhao, Q. Research on the Coordinated Governance Mechanism of Cross-Regional and Cross-Basin Ecological Compensa-tion in the Yangtze River Delta. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9881. [CrossRef]23. Durán-Díaz, P. Sustainable Land Governance for Water–Energy–Food Systems: A Framework for Rural and Peri-Urban Revitali-sation. Land 2023, 12, 1828. [CrossRef]24. Stosch, K.C.; Quilliam, R.S.; Bunnefeld, N.; Oliver, D.M. Rapid Characterisation of Stakeholder Networks in Three CatchmentsReveals Contrasting Land-Water Management Issues. Land 2022, 11, 2324. [CrossRef]25. Es’haghi, S.R.; Karamidehkordi, E. Understanding the Structure of Stakeholders − Projects Network in Endangered LakesRestoration Programs Using Social Network Analysis. Environ. Sci. Policy 2023, 140, 172–188. [CrossRef]26. Handayani, W.; Dewi, S.P.; Septiarani, B. Toward Adaptive Water Governance: An Examination on Stakeholders Engagementand Interactions in Semarang City, Indonesia. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 25, 1914–1943. [CrossRef]27. Zhou, L.; Dai, Y. What Is the Role of Hierarchical Interventions? Insights from the Evolution of Water Collaborative Governancein China. Environ. Manag. 2022, 71, 641–654. [CrossRef]28. Mudliar, P.; Koontz, T.M. Locating Power in Ostrom’s Design Principles: Watershed Management in India and the United States.Soc. Nat. Resour. 2021, 34, 639–658. [CrossRef]29. Sarr, S.; Hayes, B.; DeCaro, D.A. Applying Ostrom’s Institutional Analysis and Development Framework, and Design Principlesfor Co-Production to Pollution Management in Louisville’s Rubbertown, Kentucky. Land Use Policy 2021, 104, 105383. [CrossRef]30. Kadirbeyoglu, Z.; Özertan, G. Power in the Governance of Common-Pool Resources: A Comparative Analysis of IrrigationManagement Decentralization in Turkey. Environ. Policy Gov. 2015, 25, 157–171. [CrossRef]Land 2024, 13, 1824 19 of 2131. Perkins, P.E. (Ellie) Public Participation in Watershed Management: International Practices for Inclusiveness. Phys. Chem. EarthParts ABC 2011, 36, 204–212. [CrossRef]32. Bardhan, P.; Mookherjee, D. (Eds.) Decentralization and Local Governance in Developing Countries: A Comparative Perspective; MITPress: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2006; ISBN 978-0-262-26769-4.33. Ostrom, Elinor Understanding Institutional Diversity; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2006.34. Tan, X.; Liu, S.; Tian, Y.; Zhou, Z.; Wang, Y.; Jiang, J.; Shi, H. Impacts of Climate Change and Land Use/Cover Change on RegionalHydrological Processes: Case of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 9, 783324.[CrossRef]35. Yang, X.; Chen, X. Using a Combined Evaluation Method to Assess Water Resources Sustainable Utilization in Fujian Province,China. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 23, 8047–8061. [CrossRef]36. Zhang, S.; Zhong, Q.; Cheng, D.; Xu, C.; Chang, Y.; Lin, Y.; Li, B. Coupling Coordination Analysis and Prediction of LandscapeEcological Risks and Ecosystem Services in the Min River Basin. Land 2022, 11, 222. [CrossRef]37. Zhang, Z.; Zhao, L. Voluntary Monitoring of Households in Waste Disposal: An Application of the Institutional Analysis andDevelopment Framework. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 143, 45–59. [CrossRef]38. Fan, Y.; Tang, Z.; Park, S.C. Effects of Community Perceptions and Institutional Capacity on Smallholder Farmers’ Responses toWater Scarcity: Evidence from Arid Northwestern China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 483. [CrossRef]39. Hardy, S.D. Power to the People: Collaborative Watershed Management in the Cuyahoga River Area of Concern (AOC). Environ.Sci. Policy 2022, 129, 79–86. [CrossRef]40. Oñate-Valdivieso, F.; Massa-Sánchez, P.; León, P.; Oñate-Paladines, A.; Cisneros, M. Application of Ostrom’s Institutional Analysisand Development Framework in River Water Conservation in Southern Ecuador. Case Study—The Zamora River. Water 2021,13, 3536. [CrossRef]41. Ching, L.; Mukherjee, M. Managing the Socio-Ecology of Very Large Rivers: Collective Choice Rules in IWRM Narratives. Glob.Environ. Change 2015, 34, 172–184. [CrossRef]42. Bagherian, R.; Bahaman, A.S.; Asnarulkha, A.S.; Ahmad, S. Community Participation in Watershed Management Programs. J. Soc.Sci. 2009, 5, 251–256. [CrossRef]43. Panyavaranant, P.; Lai Nguyen, T.P.; San Santoso, D.; Nitivattananon, V.; Tsusaka, T.W. Analyzing Sociodemographic FactorsInfluencing Citizen Participation: The Case of Infrastructure Planning in Khon Kaen, Thailand. Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 225. [CrossRef]44. Sanfilippo, M.; Frischmann, B.; Standburg, K. Privacy as Commons: Case Evaluation Through the Governing KnowledgeCommons Framework. J. Inf. Policy 2018, 8, 116–166. [CrossRef]45. OECD. Measuring Regulatory Performance: A Practitioner’s Guide to Perception Surveys; OECD: Paris, France, 2012; ISBN 978-92-64-16714-8.46. Nouzari, E.; Hartmann, T.; Spit, T. Interactive Governance for Satisfaction Measurements: Stakeholder Involvement in DesignProcesses for Flood Risk Management. J. Flood Risk Manag. 2020, 13, e12650. [CrossRef]47. Ostroff, C. The Relationship between Satisfaction, Attitudes, and Performance: An Organizational Level Analysis. J. Appl. Psychol.1992, 77, 963–974. [CrossRef]48. Fujian Chorography Compilation Committee Fujian Chorography Compilation Committee. Fujian Provincial Records; FangzhiPublishing House: Beijing, China, 2002.49. Fujian Provincial Bureau of Statistics. Fujian Statistical Yearbook; Fujian Provincial Bureau of Statistics: Fuzhou, China, 2023.50. Fujian Provincial Bureau of Statistics. Fujian Statistical Yearbook; Fujian Provincial Bureau of Statistics: Fuzhou, China, 2006.51. Wang, G.; Innes, J.L.; Hajjar, R.; Zhang, X.; Wang, J. Public Awareness and Perceptions of Watershed Management in the MinRiver Area, Fujian, China. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2013, 26, 586–604. [CrossRef]52. Fujian Provincial Bureau of Statistics. Fujian Statistical Yearbook; Fujian Provincial Bureau of Statistics: Fuzhou, China, 2020.53. Moore, D.S.; McCabe, G.P. Introduction to the Practice of Statistics; WH Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.: New York, NY,USA, 1989.54. Squire, C.M.; Giombi, K.C.; Rupert, D.J.; Amoozegar, J.; Williams, P. Determining an Appropriate Sample Size for QualitativeInterviews to Achieve True and Near Code Saturation: Secondary Analysis of Data. J. Med. Internet Res. 2024, 26, e52998.[CrossRef]55. Lunneborg, C.E. Book Review: Psychometric Theory: Secon d Edition Jum C. Nunnally New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978, 701 Pages.Appl. Psychol. Meas. 1979, 3, 279–280. [CrossRef]56. SHIVAKOTI, G.P.; THAPA, S.B. Farmers’ Perceptions of Participation and Institutional Effectiveness in the Management ofMid-Hill Watersheds in Nepal. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2005, 10, 665–687. [CrossRef]57. Ohno, T.; Tanaka, T.; Sakagami, M. Does Social Capital Encourage Participatory Watershed Management? An Analysis UsingSurvey Data From the Yodo River Watershed. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2010, 23, 303–321. [CrossRef]58. Wehn, U.; Rusca, M.; Evers, J.; Lanfranchi, V. Participation in Flood Risk Management and the Potential of Citizen Observatories:A Governance Analysis. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 48, 225–236. [CrossRef]59. Nie, L.; Wang, H. Government Responsiveness and Citizen Satisfaction: Evidence from Environmental Governance. Governance2022, 36, 1125–1146. [CrossRef]60. Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [CrossRef]Land 2024, 13, 1824 20 of 2161. Xu, Z.; Shan, J.; Li, J.; Zhang, W. Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior to Predict Public Participation Behavior in AirPollution Control: Beijing, China. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2020, 63, 669–688. [CrossRef]62. Gansser, O.A.; Reich, C.S. Influence of the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) and Environmental Concerns on pro-EnvironmentalBehavioral Intention Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 382, 134629. [CrossRef]63. Wehn, U.; Almomani, A. Incentives and Barriers for Participation in Community-Based Environmental Monitoring and Informa-tion Systems: A Critical Analysis and Integration of the Literature. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 101, 341–357. [CrossRef]64. Ahmed, M.F.; Mokhtar, M.B.; Alam, L. Factors Influencing People’s Willingness to Participate in Sustainable Water ResourcesManagement in Malaysia. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2020, 31, 100737. [CrossRef]65. Liu, H.; Zhu, G.; Li, Y. Research on the Impact of Environmental Risk Perception and Public Participation on Evaluation of LocalGovernment Environmental Regulation Implementation Behavior. Environ. Chall. 2021, 5, 100213. [CrossRef]66. Iniesta-Arandia, I.; García-Llorente, M.; Aguilera, P.A.; Montes, C.; Martín-López, B. Socio-Cultural Valuation of EcosystemServices: Uncovering the Links between Values, Drivers of Change, and Human Well-Being. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 108, 36–48.[CrossRef]67. Wang, L.; Ge, M.; Chen, N.; Ding, J.; Shen, X. An Evaluation Model of Riparian Landscape: A Case in Rural Qingxi Area, Shanghai.Land 2022, 11, 1512. [CrossRef]68. Du, Y.; Wang, X.; Brombal, D.; Moriggi, A.; Sharpley, A.; Pang, S. Changes in Environmental Awareness and Its Connectionto Local Environmental Management in Water Conservation Zones: The Case of Beijing, China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2087.[CrossRef]69. Huang, Q.; Yin, D.; He, C.; Yan, J.; Liu, Z.; Meng, S.; Ren, Q.; Zhao, R.; Inostroza, L. Linking Ecosystem Services and SubjectiveWell-Being in Rapidly Urbanizing Watersheds: Insights from a Multilevel Linear Model. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 43, 101106. [CrossRef]70. Zhao, H.; Wei, Y.; Ding, M.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, Z. Farmers’ Perceptions of Water Use for Social Equality, Economic Developmentand Environmental Protection in a Water-Stressed Region. Int. J. River Basin Manag. 2019, 18, 407–414. [CrossRef]71. Lima, F.P.; Bastos, R.P. Perceiving the Invisible: Formal Education Affects the Perception of Ecosystem Services Provided byNative Areas. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 40, 101029. [CrossRef]72. Dehghani Pour, M.; Barati, A.A.; Azadi, H.; Scheffran, J.; Shirkhani, M. Analyzing Forest Residents’ Perception and Knowledgeof Forest Ecosystem Services to Guide Forest Management and Biodiversity Conservation. For. Policy Econ. 2023, 146, 102866.[CrossRef]73. Milovantseva, N. Are American Households Willing to Pay a Premium for Greening Consumption of Information and Communi-cation Technologies? J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 127, 282–288. [CrossRef]74. Alam, K. Factors Affecting Public Participation in River Ecosystem Restoration: Using the Contingent Valuation Method. J. Dev.Areas 2013, 47, 223–240. [CrossRef]75. Haile, D.T.; Slangen, L. Estimating the Willingness to Pay for the Benefit of AES Using the Contingent Valuation Method. J. Nat.Resour. Policy Res. 2009, 1, 139–152. [CrossRef]76. Thoker, I.A.; Bhat, M.S.; Shah, S.A.; Lone, F.A.; Jeelani, P. An Appraisal of People’s Participation in the Joint Forest ManagementProgramme in the Kashmir Himalayas. For. Policy Econ. 2024, 166, 103265. [CrossRef]77. Xiao, C.; Hong, D. Gender Differences in Environmental Behaviors in China. Popul. Environ. 2010, 32, 88–104. [CrossRef]78. Hao, F.; Michaels, J.L.; Bell, S.E. Social Capital’s Influence on Environmental Concern in China: An Analysis of the 2010 ChineseGeneral Social Survey. Sociol. Perspect. 2019, 62, 844–864. [CrossRef]79. Momsen, J.H. Gender Differences in Environmental Concern and Perception. J. Geogr. 2000, 99, 47–56. [CrossRef]80. Triantafyllidis, S.; Darvin, L. Mass-Participant Sport Events and Sustainable Development: Gender, Social Bonding, andConnectedness to Nature as Predictors of Socially and Environmentally Responsible Behavior Intentions. Sustain. Sci. 2020,16, 239–253. [CrossRef]81. Naiga, R.; Penker, M. Determinants of Users’ Willingness to Contribute to Safe Water Provision in Rural Uganda. Lex Localis-J.Local Self-Gov. 2014, 12, 695–714. [CrossRef] [PubMed]82. Swindell, D.; Kelly, J.M. Linking Citizen Satisfaction Data to Performance Measures: A Preliminary Evaluation. Public Perform.Manag. Rev. 2000, 24, 30. [CrossRef]83. Floress, K.; Akamani, K.; Halvorsen, K.E.; Kozich, A.T.; Davenport, M. The Role of Social Science in Successfully ImplementingWatershed Management Strategies. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ. 2015, 154, 85–105. [CrossRef]84. Collard, D.; Gambetta, D. Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Econ. J. 1989, 99, 201. [CrossRef]85. Reed, M.S.; Vella, S.; Challies, E.; de Vente, J.; Frewer, L.; Hohenwallner-Ries, D.; Huber, T.; Neumann, R.K.; Oughton, E.A.; Sidolidel Ceno, J.; et al. A Theory of Participation: What Makes Stakeholder and Public Engagement in Environmental ManagementWork? Restor. Ecol. 2017, 26, S7–S17. [CrossRef]86. Kitamura, K.; Nakagawa, C.; Sato, T. Formation of a Community of Practice in the Watershed Scale, with Integrated LocalEnvironmental Knowledge. Sustainability 2018, 10, 404. [CrossRef]87. Qin, H.; Flint, C. Changing Community Variations in Perceptions and Activeness in Response to the Spruce Bark Beetle Outbreakin Alaska. Sustainability 2017, 9, 67. [CrossRef]88. Dolnicar, S.; Hurlimann, A.; Nghiem, L.D. The Effect of Information on Public Acceptance–The Case of Water from AlternativeSources. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 1288–1293. [CrossRef]Land 2024, 13, 1824 21 of 2189. Vicente, P.; Reis, E. Factors Influencing Households’ Participation in Recycling. Waste Manag. Res. J. Sustain. Circ. Econ. 2008,26, 140–146. [CrossRef]90. Wang, J.; Yang, Y.; Huang, J.; Chen, K. Information Provision, Policy Support, and Farmers’ Adaptive Responses against Drought:An Empirical Study in the North China Plain. Ecol. Model. 2015, 318, 275–282. [CrossRef]91. Li, W.; Zhou, Y.; Deng, Z. The Effectiveness of “River Chief System” Policy: An Empirical Study Based on EnvironmentalMonitoring Samples of China. Water 2021, 13, 1988. [CrossRef]Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individualauthor(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury topeople or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Article
eng
Reviewed
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
CC BY 4.0
Faculty
Researcher
public participation
questionnaire analysis
integrated watershed management
interactional capacity
institutional analysis and development framework
Determinants of Public Participation in Watershed Management in Southeast China: An Application of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework
Text