ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. For. Glob. Change, 21 May 2026

Sec. People and Forests

Volume 9 - 2026 | https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2026.1770765

Determinants community involvement in a forest carbon sequestration initiative: a study case in Indonesia

  • 1. Graduate School of Integrated Science and Technology, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan

  • 2. Graduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan

Abstract

Community involvement is a crucial component of climate mitigation strategy at the local level. This study investigates the determinants of community participation in forest carbon sequestration initiatives, focusing on how program characteristics and perceived co-benefits shape local attitudes and engagement. Using a sample of 231 households surrounding a forest concession area, the research employs a multi-method approach including Multiple Linear Regression, Ordinal Logistic Regression, and PLS-SEM. The results reveal significant influences of 19 identified co-benefits and program characteristics toward willingness to participate, even among non-participants. Notably, support capacity building and environmental education and awareness as significant predictor toward intention to participate. The ordinal regression model demonstrates that program characteristics program characteristics significantly influenced community evaluations, with desirability and open communication showing consistent positive effects. Moreover, using SEM analysis, program management and design are the primary drivers of positive attitudes and long-term willingness to engage, whereas material rewards alone were found insufficient to shift fundamental perceptions. The findings suggest that the longevity of nature-based solutions depends on prioritizing procedural justice and capacity building over simple incentive structures to align climate mitigation goals with community resilience.

1 Introduction

The importance of mitigation efforts continues to form the basis of climate mitigation strategies. Intended avoidance and removal counterbalance the emissions lowering atmospheric CO2 concentrations serve as the IPCC scenarios that limit global warming to 2 °C (IPCC, 2022). The dominant mitigation strategy in large-scale is removing CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering it in geological, ocean reservoirs, or terrestrial particularly forest type (Kalaiselvi et al., 2023). Currently, the measures are afforestation, reforestation, and the management of existing forests, since forest carbon sinks are considered to have a large potential to support climate stabilization (Austin et al., 2020) and to decrease peak warming over the short- to mid-term (Matthews et al., 2022).

Establishing forest carbon sequestration activity have been garnering increased political and public attention. Although the use of forest carbon projects within offsetting schemes has been widely criticized on accounting practices and justice concerns (Gifford, 2020), their expansion remains likely amid the ongoing development of international carbon markets under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement (UNEPCCC, 2025). Carbon market provides tool for channeling climate finance in cost-effective way. The concept of the carbon market is to enabling countries, companies and investors to secure flexible mitigation pathways, albeit blending markets. The on-going challenges on carbon leakage, double counting of emissions, unpredictable carbon prices, and incomplete MRV systems, lead to reputation, conversion, and revocation risks, demand higher integrity (Kreibich and Hermwille, 2021; Leal-Arcas and Alghamdi, 2025). Whilst nature credit market growth remains unpredictable, some estimates indicate that the carbon market alone could reach $50 billion by 2030 and $4 trillion by 2050 (TSVCM, 2021). Moreover, over two-thirds of nations are planning to utilize carbon markets to fulfil their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) (World Bank, 2022). As the market expands, countries and industries are intensifying decarbonization efforts and extending their focus toward corporate carbon performance (Sarwar et al., 2025; Waseem et al., 2025), forest maintenance measurement gain pivotal moment in net zero pathways. Harmonizing methodologies for forest carbon credits is essential to avoid permanence and non-permanence problems, where it can be reversible (Galik et al., 2014; Maréchal and Hecq, 2006), addressing this, the approach has been promoted to enhance the participatory of communities in a role. The participatory approach navigates forest carbon sequestration scheme to ensure inclusive local communities’ participation in the management and directly benefit from forest carbon initiatives (Eastman et al., 2025; Khatun et al., 2015).

Indonesia in particular, has taken significant strides towards achieving emission reduction targets of NDC and promoted “Social Forestry” programs for inclusive and participatory models to marginalized communities. This initiative promotes nature-based solutions go beyond restoring ecosystem and deliver additional benefits namely co-benefit, such as enhanced water quality, biodiversity, and improved livelihoods aim to increase local communities’ resilience (Sarira et al., 2022). Several carbon sequestration projects for preservation and rehabilitation of peatland forests implemented in Indonesia confirmed to foster inclusivity of local communities delivered co-benefits (Indriatmoko et al., 2014; Pachama, 2016; Puspitaloka et al., 2021). Moreover, the expansion forest restoration by companies or business model of project developers in Indonesia are common. Forest restoration companies hold an Ecosystem Restoration Concession (ERC) license to operate in restoring degraded forests, incorporating with viable economic activities focusing on community-based forestry (Buergin, 2016).

Nevertheless, the success of forest carbon sequestration projects depends on program characteristics that foster sustain community involvement. The determinants such as participatory governance (Djomo et al., 2018), secure tenure (Awono et al., 2014), transparent benefit-sharing (FCPF, 2023), and locally relevant capacity-building (Sanders et al., 2020) become critical factors not only for sequestration permanence, but also for maximizing social, economic, and environmental returns (Koh et al., 2021; Laurikka and Springer, 2003). It demonstrates that inclusive project design, shaped by local needs and institutional context, enables communities to actively engage (Scheyvens, 2012).

Despite significant progress, however, the development of carbon sequestration projects generating credit in the carbon market faces significant challenges in the implementation (Hermawan and Kusuma, 2024). Despite the potential offer of carbon prime price out of co-benefit indulgent, it showed poor performance on benefit of social and institutional aspects hindering community commitment in the project (Meijaard et al., 2021), and their engagement evident low (Ramdhan, 2018). Community engagement and acceptance becomes barriers to the long-term efficacy of the project (Tcvetkov et al., 2019). Moreover, market uncertainties, weak monitoring systems, and unequal benefit distribution can undermine both carbon performance and community trust (Grimault et al., 2018; Wittman and Caron, 2009).

By scrutinizing ongoing forest carbon initiatives, this study seeks to illuminate how the realization of co-benefits influences the communities participation in the project and which program characteristics determine to extent the attitude and quality of communities’ engagement in the project. This paper presents an experimental exploration of whether, and why co-benefits might result in increased levels of communities participation of carbon sequestration project. This is because, surprisingly, there is limited quantitative, empirical analysis within this research area. Moreover, uncertainty surrounds the mechanisms through which role of co-benefit might result in elevated levels of communities’ engagement for the restoration activities. The results of the study are analyzed prior to a discussion of their implications for project developers or organization alike.

2 Literature review

2.1 The concept of carbon sequestration

The basic concept of sequestration is to capture, store or removal of a substance within the active cycling process. In the phenomena of climate change, global mean temperature has already risen about 1.1 °C over the 20th century due to increased concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (Allen et al., 2018; Kabir et al., 2023). Therefore, mitigation aim to cut CO2 emission and remove via sequestration. Number studies has explored technology considered as effective to remove and sequester CO2 into oceanic, geologic formation, and terrestrial (Cobo et al., 2026; Mühlbauer et al., 2025; Oschlies et al., 2024). Terrestrial and plants have higher carbon storage capacity, storing most carbon in large volume and long–lived storage (Walker et al., 2022).

Terrestrial carbon sequestration refers as the increase in the amount of organic carbon from assimilation CO2 from the atmosphere, and maintenance over time in biological stocks. Part of soil plants such as trunks, leaves, wood, roots as well as the soil which fixed and do not decompose or burn, stores carbon (National Academies of Sciences et al., 2018). Notably, the rate of how much CO2 is sequestered by plants can be depends on the plant growth characteristics of individual tree species, the density of the tree’s wood, and the conditions for growth where the tree is planted and plant stage (Toochi, 2018; Wąsik, 2025; Wernick and Kauppi, 2022). Studies have estimated the average of carbon content 50% of the tree’s total volume, and tropical forest may absorb more CO2 (Lozano et al., 2026; Singh et al., 2025). In addition, fertile lands are major benefits for CO2 sequestrates. The soil contains more than three times the carbon of atmospheric CO2, which more than 50% of total carbon is stored between 0.3–1 m depth (Harper and Tibbett, 2013), while agricultural soils contain 25–75% less soil organic contain than natural ecosystems (Lal, 2004; Lal et al., 2015). Furthermore, net soil carbon sequestration estimates sequester up to 2 Gt C per year in the short term (Henderson et al., 2022). nonetheless, terrestrial have been accounted as huge source of storing so called carbon sinks which compromise land sector sequestration capacity on new establish forest (Peng et al., 2025).

2.2 Co-benefit in forest carbon sequestration credit initiatives

Forest plays a key role in mitigation of climate change, primarily through the ability to sequester carbon in the appropriate management. In extend, forest provides numerous essential ecosystem services and functions such as biodiversity, water and soil conservation, recreation and disaster risk reduction (Jenkins and Schaap, 2018; Rosário et al., 2015). Such activities to capture and store carbon become the alternative carbon offset credit project with financial investment or incentives. Initially, forest carbon credit projects may be traded either in compliance emission trading markets to fulfill regulatory requirements, or in voluntary carbon markets to support environmental, social, governance, and broader sustainability goals.

Further in forest carbon credit as versatile instruments in carbon credit market, it also deliver co-benefits in the form of additional delivered socioeconomic benefits such as improved livelihoods, jobs, human health, and food security (GEF, 2023). In the climate policies concept, Mayrhofer and Gupta (2016) defined the co-benefits as a strategic approach that aims to achieve multiple objectives simultaneously through the implementation of a single policy measure. For instance, a review of 148 forest carbon project in 2016 indicates that every individual project at least provided one type of co-benefit. The most common co-benefit were additional employment and/or training opportunities (98%), community benefits (50%), biodiversity (47%) and over than 60% reported multiple co-benefits provided in the project (Hamrick and Gallant, 2017). Likewise, the study on more than 100 nature-based solutions interventions projects reported positive outcomes (88%) for both adaptation and ecosystem health, while trade-off of creation of novel ecosystems such as monoculture plantations of non-native species may arise (Key et al., 2022).

Moreover, in the context of carbon markets, co-benefits can be the catalyst of market, where buyers and companies alike highly express that the beyond-carbon impacts are the reason they are active in the carbon market in the first place. The project could not deliver climate results without also addressing issues such as local economic development, poverty alleviation, and land tenure reform (Goldstein, 2016). While the co-benefits showed the association to the carbon price, where credit derived from projects impacts sustainable development, biodiversity and livelihood components carry a premium price. According to Donofrio et al. (2023) report that projects with at least one co-benefit certification had a 78 per cent premium in 2022 and projects aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) showed a significant price premium, 86% higher than projects not linked to SDGs. In reverse, Sarira et al. (2022) assessed that carbon pricing affects the delivery of co-benefits from forest carbon projects in southeast Asia. The findings highlight an increase in carbon price to US$25 per tCO2e would result in corresponding increases in climate mitigation potential, crop pollination, water quality regulation and biodiversity. While further increases in carbon prices would result in diminishing returns in benefits. This phenomenon reflets the necessary measurement, report, and certification of co-benefits to ensure the high quality credits and enhance market integrity as effective mechanism.

2.3 Community forestry approach and their participation

The strategy to promote sustainable forest management includes the improvement of livelihood, conserve biodiversity, and address inequality, and empowering local stakeholder involvement. As the global obligations for sustainable development are rising concern on local knowledge recognition, economic opportunities and stakeholder multiplicity, gradually evolve the community forestry approach (FAO, 2017). The definition of community forestry abound on the ground vary widely. Glasmeier and Farrigan (2005) reviewed that there are three characteristic of community forestry refers to such as (a) some degree of responsibility and authority for forest management is formally vested by the government in local communities; (b) a central objective of forest management is to provide local communities with social and economic benefits from forests; and (c) ecologically sustainable forest use is a central management goal, with forest communities taking some responsibility for maintaining and restoring forest health. While in this study, we define the community forestry as people that have social, cultural, and economic ties to nearby forests and have morally responsible to managed them. The essence of the community forestry is the involvement of locally resident groups in aspects of forest management (Baynes et al., 2015).

In carbon mitigation initiatives, the role of community intensifying the contribution which align with the expectations of policy and nongovernmental actors who draws productive scope for forest management (Walker, 2011). Particularly, in order to be considered for the voluntary carbon market, a forestry project must set itself aside from “traditional” forestry initiatives and provides advance mitigation process. Additionality must be secured, projects must also be from an eligible project type or activity such as reforestation, improved forest management and avoiding deforestation or forest degradation. In addition, the project must aim to limit leakage, through proper design, and must adjust the projected carbon benefits of the project to account for any leakage that cannot be prevented (Vickers et al., 2012). Moreover, community holds the opportunity of forestry stewardship (Trupin et al., 2018). Through the presence of formal community forest management associations and active local participation in rule-making, reflects recognition of communities’ role in the resource management demonstrates substantive capacity of local actors to influence forest management decisions (Fischer et al., 2023). While the governance of the project may cause potential response to market risks (Otto, 2019), community contribution to liaise external actors outside the village bound is another key to achieve successful forest project (Baynes et al., 2015). For instance, the community forestry participation driven in the carbon financing case in Nepal and Tanzania enabling local communities to manage forests. While both cases highlight the differ strategies such as strengthening pre-existing community forestry arrangements, enhances capacity building for monitoring and reporting in Nepal, while in Tanzania leveraging existing community forestry institutions to expand national forest management strategies (Newton et al., 2015; Staddon, 2009). Similarly, community participation in forestry project in the Peruvian Amazon is influenced by community characteristics, motivation, and skills, forest quality and accessibility, proximity to markets, support from external organizations, and the strength of legal frameworks and land rights (Cossío et al., 2014).

Nevertheless, forest carbon sequestration project may take years to accrue credits. The strategy in designing flexibility reward mechanism is necessary to sustain the participation. Incentivizing pattern throughout the generation of credits activities may be beneficial, demonstrate benefits to local community and biodiversity. Moreover, intervention of policy certainly could instill faith and increase trust among local community so that all participation actors shared long term objectives in mind (Roy and Bhan, 2024). In addition, payment mechanism significantly influences profit and risk for farmers in participating in the project, where result-based payments can potentially increase farmers’ profitability, whereas action-based payments can minimize participation risk (Raina et al., 2024).

Likewise (Baynes et al., 2015) comprehensively reviewed the determinants of community forestry participation, emphasizing the importance of reducing socio-economic and gender inequalities to foster solidarity, securing property rights and tenure to strengthen motivation, and promoting democratic and equitable governance in leadership, decision-making, and benefit-sharing. They further underscore the critical role of government, where supportive policies and capacity-building can enhance social capital, while interference, patronage, or corruption undermine participation. Finally, they note that tangible material benefits, including access to forest products, employment, or payments, provide essential incentives for sustained community engagement.

2.4 Theoretical approach

This study is grounded in the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) serve basis from psychological model in which explain individuals form intentions to perform a certain behavior in specific context. It is useful to understand behaviors that are not habitual in which predictive the decision making (Ajzen, 1985). Studies using TPB to predict behavioral intentions and actual behavior (Block et al., 2024; Bonke and Musshoff, 2020). TPB propose immediate predictor specific attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived control factors to form pro environmental decision. All three constructs involved in predicting intention are context-dependent, meaning they vary based on the behavior and the specific situation, and enable the explanation of the individual’s decision-making process (Ajzen, 1985; Cammarata et al., 2024). While despite having a positive attitude toward a behavior, insufficient resources, knowledge, or opportunities can be challenging to put it into practice (Park et al., 2024). The study hypothesized that the program characteristics and co-benefits can be as antecedent belief-based factors that influence communities’ evaluations of the project, thus increase the intention to participate (Figure 1). This approach is consistent with prior research with similar context where ecological benefits perceived by farmers significantly influence positive attitudes and leads to a higher intention to adopt conservation practices (Arbuckle and Roesch-McNally, 2015).

Figure 1

Moreover, the implementation of reforestation initiative aimed at generating carbon credits design to deliver co-benefits. Co-benefits associated with forest carbon projects are recognized as a key determinant in carbon credit transactions (Lee et al., 2018) and serve as a catalyst for engaging a wider stakeholders, including small businesses, in emission reduction efforts (Triana and Ota, 2024). Particularly in the community-based approach, the distribution of program characteristics intended to support community. This study seeks to investigate how the program characteristics shape general attitudes and community involvement. program characteristics particularly relevant for local residents generate positive general attitudes (Bell et al., 2013), Consequently, it is plausible that project features may influence attitudes, thereby fostering long-term willingness to actively engaging in the project implementation, thus may provide new insights related to distributive and procedural justice.

3 Materials and methods

3.1 Study area

The study was conducted in Katingan Kuala District, Katingan Regency, Central Kalimantan (Figure 2), located at 113o10’–113o40’ E and 2o50’–3o15’ S. The district covers area of approximately 1,483.71 km2. The total population of Katingan Kuala District is 20,303, comprising 10,596 males and 9,707 females, with a population density of 14.09 persons per km2. The district predominantly lies in a lowland, with approximately 89% of the area having slopes of 0–2% and at an elevation of about 10–50 meters above sea level. Climatically, the average air temperature ranges from 28.0 °C to 30.0 °C, while relative humidity varies between 66.0 and 79.5% (BPS Kabupaten Katingan, 2025).

Figure 2

Furthermore, the district encompasses two major ecosystems: coastal and peatland ecosystems. The coastal ecosystem includes a shoreline of approximately 54 km, marine area of around 21,000 km2, and mangrove forests covering about 17,000 ha (Birawa and Sukarna, 2016). Moreover, the peatland ecosystem extends over approximately 736,713 ha, comprising 714,239 ha within peat hydrological units and 22,474 ha designated as peat ecosystem reserves. Of total peatland area, 142,428 ha classified as moderately degraded (Pemerintah Kabupaten Katingan, 2023). According to the environmental agency (Dinas Lingkungan Hidup Kabupaten Katingan, 2023), approximately 26% of the total forest area is secondary forest cover, while approximately 26.5% of land has been converted to plantations, agriculture, and shrubland. Meanwhile, the peatland in this region is highly susceptible to fire, highlighting the urgent need for forest restoration initiatives.

In response, a forest carbon sequestration initiative has been implemented by PT Pagatan Usaha Makmur (PT PUM), an ecosystem restoration concession holder in Katingan Kuala District. The Ecosystem Restoration Concession (ERC), granted under the Decree of the Minister of Forestry (SK 734/Menhut-II/2013) (PT PUM, 2022), aims to support reforestation and ecological restoration efforts. The concession area encompasses 11 villages, including Satiruk, Kampung Tengah, Kampung Keramat, Pagatan Hulu, Pagatan Hilir, Bangun Jaya, Singam Raya, Bumi Subur, Subur Indah, and Jaya Makmur. The majority of local residents continue to rely on forest ecosystems and other natural resources for their livelihoods. This study conducted a household survey in villages located within the concession area to assess community engagement and perceptions related to the restoration program.

3.2 Sampling

The study target population is the local community lives surround the concession area. Eight villages were selected purposively based on accessibility and the background livelihood distribution. Purposive random sampling was then used to select the household who is implying dependency of utilizing non timber forest products and other ecological benefits from forest. A total 30 respondents (household head) were targeted in each village, given expected sample size of 240 respondents. Overall, the final sample is 231 respondents, as the remaining twenty-seven questionnaires were either not returned or incomplete during the data collection, giving a response rate 88%. Nevertheless, the number of samples considered enough for sample size for conducting multiple regression and SEM analysis as per rule of thumb which the diversity of the population and the number of latent variables chosen (Wolf et al., 2013).

3.3 Data collection

This study employed a quantitative cross-sectional survey design based on structured questionnaires. While the preliminary observation was conducted through interview with village leaders to investigate the background of community engagement toward restoration activities. The restoration company implements several community-based social forestry programs in collaboration with local communities, aiming to involve them in restoration activities. Participation is voluntary based, means that there are individuals who are willing to participate and not. Further, those individuals who choose to participate (here after “participant”) enter into contractual agreements with the company, created a group in each village with assigned leaders, enabling continuous engagement and ongoing communication with the company. We also conducted preliminary interviews with participants and not participants.

The survey was conducted between December 2023 and January 2024. The questionnaires were distributed through village leaders assistance considering time constraints and respondent availability. The questionnaire consists of closed-end questions. During the distribution of questionnaire, the participants will be asked to respond to the close-end questions prepared on the questionnaire1 within 1 day, aim to increase response rate (Marshall, 2005). This way is the alternative to give respondent time to think in filling out the questionnaire. The questionnaire consists of 3 sections and each section has 7 to 15 questions. All collected responses were measured using the same construct and analyzed rigorously using STATA 16 software and SmartPLS.

3.4 Data analysis

The study aim to clarify determinant factors of community participation toward forest carbon sequestration initiative. Frequency analysis was conducted to gain insights into demographic characteristic includes age, education level, number of household and transmigrant state (Table 1). In addition, the study presented the frequency analysis of co-benefits list (Table 2), which then clustered into four categories to simplify the heterogeneity. Prior to regression analysis to ensure the reliability of the survey data, normality test were thoroughly assessed. Shapiro–Wilk test, indicating that the residuals were approximately normally distributed. The study began with identifying the latent factor influences respondents participating in the initiative. Multiple linear regression (MLR) analysis was used to estimate relationship between the frequency of co-benefit and respondents’ intention to participate in the initiative (Table 3). MLR is very useful when it comes to analyze the direct relationship between the observed variables (Cerdo, 2025).

Table 1

CategoryDescriptionFreq.Percent
Age<20 years old41.92
21–35 years old7435.58
36–50 years old9646.15
>50 up3416.35
Education levelNo formal education5526.32
Primary school7435.41
High school6631.58
Vocational school41.91
College/university104.78
Number of members at household<2 people3617.14
3–5 people16578.57
6–8 people83.81
>8people10.48
Transmigrant in study areaYes10550.97
No10149.03

Sample demographics and characteristics.

Table 2

Co-benefitsnFreq.Percent
Establishment of local organizational groups21312257.28
Training in cultivation method2138841.31
Entrepreneurship activities21310147.42
Facilitation of community dialogue21312056.34
Creation of community activities21310147.42
Provision of material support21311051.64
Capital support for group enterprises21310549.3
Equipment and machines2139042.25
Provision of fertilizers2138439.44
Support for forest fire prevention21312960.56
Conservation of wild flora and fauna21311353.05
Instruction on sustainable forest conduct2139846.01
Reforestation/afforestation activities2136831.92
Environmental awareness building2138338.97
Provision of spaces and resources for dialogue2139645.07
Support for mentoring activities21311754.93
Support for knowledge sharing21312056.34
Support for community initiatives21311152.11
others21352.35

List of co-benefits perceived by local communities.

Table 3

Independent variablesPredicted variables (intention in participating in the project)
Coef. BStd. err.βTpOdds ratio
Cb_scb2.2420.5411.1074.1400.000***9.414
Cb_mb−0.0160.560−0.008−0.0300.9770.984
Cb_eeo−1.5480.591−0.773−2.6200.009**0.213
Cb_sswb0.2110.5150.1060.4100.6821.235
Education level0.0850.0950.1740.9000.3701.089
Number household0.0710.4190.0330.1700.8661.073
Transmigrant1.2510.4130.6273.0300.002**3.494
Past_exp0.4670.4810.2340.9700.3321.595
Awareness2.0100.4670.9944.3000.000***7.465
_cons−2.8250.971−0.423−2.9100.0040.059
No.obs201
Log likelihood (α)−86.693
LR chi2(9)101.06
Prob > chi20.000
Pseudo R20.368

The results of multiple linear regression analysis on the factor influencing farmer’s participation in a carbon sequestration project.

Standard errors in parentheses *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.

Furthermore, the study employed an ordinal logistic regression model to examine the relationship between program characteristics and perceived co-benefit outcomes. We observed ordinal response variables, thus the ordinal logistic is most appropriate (Walker and Duncan, 1967). The dependent variables are dimension of perceived co-benefit such as capacity building, livelihood improvement, decision-making, and local relevance. The independent variables consist of twelve observed items variable desirability, contract flexibility, accessibility, reward material to group, reward material to individual, reward non-material, opportunity cost, collaboration to other stakeholder, open communication, satisfaction to management, and engagement level. We reported coefficients to indicate the direction of the relationship, and the odds ratios to reflect the magnitude of the effect. A positive coefficient indicates an increase in the program characteristic item is associated with a higher likelihood of greater perceived co-benefits, holding other variables constant.

Second model used Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis approach is used to assess the respondents willingness to engage in the carbon sequestration initiative. Our objective is to identify the key determinant on community involvement, which (Hair et al., 2021) emphasize as a valid reason to use the PLS-SEM approach in specific context. SEM is effective to estimate the causal relationship between exogenous and endogenous latent variables or constructs (Figure 3).

Figure 3

The hypothesis of influence perceived program characteristic influences attitude toward behavior thus lead to willingness to engage in the initiative. Attitude towards the behavior captures a person’s favorable or unfavorable evaluation of benefit and knowledge. Studies carried out in similar context based found a positive influence of perceived ecological benefits and perceived economic benefits on farmers’ attitudes, e.g., towards the adoption of herbicide (Michels et al., 2022). Bonke and Musshoff (2020) showed that ecological benefits lead to a higher attitude, which in turn leads to a higher intention to adopt mixed cropping. With this in mind, we construct program design, program management, and program reward, of carbon sequestration initiative and the attitudinal construct into willingness to engage, thus derived the following hypotheses:

H1: The perceived program design have a positive and statistically significant influence on communities' attitude.

H2: The perceived program management have a positive and statistically significant influence on communities' attitude.

H3: The perceived program reward have a positive and statistically significant influence on communities' attitude.

H4: The perceived arable attitude have a positive and statistically significant influence on willingness to engage in the initiative.

The SEM analysis were employed to test hypothesis in two stage. The first stage, we constructed the latent variables from twelve observed items of program characteristics and eliminate the unfit observed variables using factor analysis (VanderWeele et al., 2022). As in this initial analysis, we eliminated four items (flexibility, collaboration, opportunity cost and reward to individual) due to low item’s loading value (<0.50). The second stage, we run path analysis model to test the four hypothesis aforementioned.

4 Results

4.1 Descriptive results

The sample (n = 213) consist of majority middle-aged respondents (21–35 years), covering low to moderate educational level up to high school, majority consisted of 3–5 people per household, and among the sample population 50% are identified as transmigrants, while the remaining 50% are native residents, as shown in Table 1.

4.2 Co-benefits delivered through the forest carbon sequestration projects

Forest carbon sequestration project implemented at the local scale delivered quantifiable local benefits listed as in Table 2.

We identified the 19 of co-benefit perceived by the respondents in the study site. Although only 36% of the community is actively participating within the project (n = 166), it appears that the project’s activities have created a ripple effect where the community or non-participants express that they feel the benefits and added value generated by the initiative. These co-benefits were identified and further categorized into support capacity building (scb), material benefit (mb), environmental education and outreach (eeo), and social support and well-being (sswb) (Figure 4). The results showed that the highest co-benefit perceived at study site is the support of capacity building (71.40%) which includes establish groups, entrepreneurship, facilitate the community dialogue and organizing community activities. While other category of co-benefits following with social and well-being support (66.70%), material benefit (66.20%) and environmental education and outreach (66.20%), respectively. This co-benefit creation aim to increase environmental preservation and stimulate communities’ participation in the study site. This ripple effect may foster deeper social engagement and acceptance, which in return contribute to project’s longevity and lasting impact.

Figure 4

4.3 Factors influencing communities’ participation in carbon sequestration initiative

The results of factors influencing communities’ participation in carbon sequestration projects are presented in Table 3. Aforementioned co-benefit has been enjoyed by local communities despite their active or absence of participation in the carbon sequestration carbon project. We assess the intention of communities future participation under conditions where co-benefits are sustainably enjoy to the future.

The result shows intention to participate in the initiative influenced by independent variables. The coefficients of four variables such as co-benefit support capacity building (Cb_scb), co-benefit environmental educational and outreach (Cb_eeo), Transmigrant, and awareness indicates have significant impact on farmers intention to participate. However, local communities who perceived receiving co-benefit support capacity building had odds of intention to future participation 9.5 times higher than those who perceived other co-benefits (OR = 9.414, p < 0.05). Likewise, higher awareness increases the intention to participate 7.5 times higher (OR = 7.465, p < 0.05). Conversely, an increase perceived to received environmental educational and outreach reduced the odds of participation by about 79% (OR = 0.213, p < 0.05). This assumes that a potential tension between conservation efforts and the ongoing practices of local communities, who continue to enter the forest and extract resources for their livelihoods.

4.4 Determinants of program characteristics toward perceived co-benefit

The implementation of projects is expected to generate wide range of co-benefits. Figure 5 shows that co-benefits perceived auxiliary benefits shape the outcomes perceived by the communities such as community development, improved livelihood, decision-making, and locally relevant. The importance of these domains resonates the demand of local communities for their intention towards project implementation. The result shows that four outcomes are expressed important to the community, however decision making and economic benefit are perceived highly important to the community input.

Figure 5

Further we examine the relationship between program characteristics and perceived importance of co-benefits role. We employ multiple regression to evaluate components of programs influencing community participation in the carbon sequestration projects (Table 4).

Table 4

Program characteristics evaluation(1)(2)(3)(4)
Capacity buildingImprove livelihoodDecision makingLocal relevance
Coef.ExpCoef.ExpCoef.ExpCoef.Exp
Desirability0.745**2.1050.730**2.0760.724**2.0630.4301.537
(0.314)(0.327)(0.296)(0.293)
Contract−0.0600.9420.2291.2570.615**1.8500.0251.025
(0.307)(0.318)(0.302)(0.289)
Flexibility−0.449**0.639−0.3300.719−0.570***0.566−0.1010.904
(0.219)(0.221)(0.209)(0.208)
Accessibility0.1011.1070.2911.3380.547**1.728−0.0090.991
(0.271)(0.281)(0.270)(0.256)
Reward material to group0.2081.2320.1911.2110.703***2.0190.2511.285
(0.213)(0.226)(0.215)(0.202)
Reward material to individual0.398**1.4890.535***1.7080.0981.1030.412**1.510
(0.192)(0.205)(0.186)(0.183)
Reward non-material−0.3020.739−0.1820.834−0.563**0.569−0.604***0.547
(0.231)(0.234)(0.225)(0.223)
Opportunity cost−0.3070.736−0.3040.7380.1011.1060.549**1.732
(0.236)(0.245)(0.223)(0.241)
Collaboration to other stakeholder0.1601.1740.2231.250−0.379*0.684−0.438**0.646
(0.216)(0.219)(0.204)(0.212)
Open communication of Management0.906***2.4740.831***2.2950.508**1.6620.3451.412
(0.266)(0.283)(0.252)(0.285)
Management satisfaction−0.3980.671−0.767***0.464−0.1640.8490.1331.142
(0.291)(0.293)(0.287)(0.271)
Engagement level0.449*1.5660.3261.386−0.3270.7210.533**1.705
(0.270)(0.273)(0.263)(0.255)
/cut1−6.251***−6.064***−5.546***−5.463***
(0.971)(0.912)(0.768)(0.812)
/cut2−4.115***−3.842***−3.868***−2.913***
(0.530)(0.464)(0.461)(0.341)
/cut3−1.241***−1.788***−1.065***−0.843***
(0.230)(0.269)(0.219)(0.204)
/cut43.185***2.982***2.779***2.746***
(0.358)(0.339)(0.317)(0.312)
Pseudo R20.2110.2230.21140.1514
Obs152152152152

The results of multiple linear regression analysis on determination of characteristics of program influencing co-benefits demand.

Standard errors in parentheses *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.

The result shows that the existing program characteristics have significant effect on perceiving co-benefit deliverance. The model compares which characteristics are likely to influence more outcomes to communities. The results show desirability, reward to individual and open communication of management showed significant positive effects across multiple domains. The project aligns with community preference with transparent communication increase perceived project value. Likewise, higher engagement level of management positively affected perceived importance for community development (p < 0.10) and relevance (p < 0.05). This highlights the responsiveness and trust-building in a participatory initiative. In terms of material rewards, allocation to individuals significantly enhanced perceived importance for community development (p < 0.01), economic improvement, and program relevance, while group-oriented is significant for decision-making. In contrast, the type of non-material reward is negatively preferred (p < 0.01) and Flexibility have negative associations in all domains, suggesting that higher flexibility participation may reduce perceived reliability. Meanwhile the negative impact of collaboration with other stakeholders on decision-making (p < 0.10) and relevance (p < 0.05) suggests possible concerns about external influence diluting local control. The results highlight the importance of designing programs to combine responsiveness to local preferences, clear communication, and incentive structures in determining the participatory community approach.

4.5 Structural equation modeling analysis of the effect of attitude on willingness to actively engage in carbon sequestration program

In this following part, the study first analyzed the correlation between independent variable (willingness to engage) and the socio-demographic characteristic of the respondents. Education level, household size, transmigrant status, prior participation and awareness were estimated to identify which socio-economic background is likely associate with their participation as shown in Table 5.

Table 5

VariablesActive engageAttitudeEduc. levelHousehold sizeTransmigrantPast_expAwareness
Active engage1
Attitude0.634***1
Education level0.0740.0161
Number household0.0320.029−0.0961
Transmigrant0.261***0.196***0.116*−0.0681
Past_exp0.127*0.183**0.115*−0.206**0.495***1
Awareness0.277***0.216***0.101−0.0440.436***0.617***1

Correlations between constructs explaining the willingness to actively engaging in carbon sequestration.

***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

From the above statistics, we found a moderate positive correlation between willingness to engage with attitude. In addition, there is weaker correlation between willingness to engage with transmigrant, past project experience and awareness. Hence, we find positive association between willingness to engage with all variables. Among the five socio characteristics, past experience appears to have medium level correlation towards all dimensions. This implies that the past experience of joining a program or similar activity will likely persuade respondents to actively engage in the program that is being implemented in their communities out of their interest and curiosity.

While the correlation analysis confirms significant association between attitude and willingness to engage, the study run further analysis. Before proceeding to examine the SEM model, it is important to conduct the validation of the measurement items in the factor analysis process. The preliminary results for KMO value is 0.844, Bartlett’s test was significant (χ2 = 773.794, p < 0.001), and Cronbach’s alpha is 0.87. One factor of eigenvalues 4.66 extracted eight items with account for 58.9% of total variance. This confirms that the measurement scales examines high internal consistency and factorability. Having satisfied validation test, the study proceeds with the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to examine the coefficient value of the hypothesized paths between the constructs, as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6

Moreover, a complete bootstrapping was performed, with a two-tailed test, with corrected and accelerated bias. From bootstrapping with 10,000 repetitions, p-values were estimated (see Table 6). The result shows that program characteristics shape people’s attitude and influence their willingness to engage. The total effect direct relation from Attitude to Willingness to engage indicating strongest substantial positive and significant effect (coeff. 0.686). This suggests that more positive attitudes among farmers are closely associated with greater willingness to participate actively in carbon sequestration initiatives. However, what can be clearly seen is that Program management exerts the strong effect followed by Program design to attitude, with path coefficient is 0.544 and 0.229, respectively. This finding highlights that aspects such as openness, management satisfaction, and engagement level are critical in building favorable attitudes toward the program. In contrast, Program reward has non-significant influence on attitude (coeff. 0.007), suggesting that material and non-material incentives alone are likely insufficient to shape respondents’ attitudes. The model explains approximately 53.3% of the variance in Attitude and 47.0% of the variance in willingness to engage, indicating a reasonably good fit and explanatory power. Indirect effects analysis shows that program management and program design indirectly influence willingness to engage through their impact on attitude. Specifically, program management, program design, program reward contributes to the total indirect effect to the willingness with the value 0.373, 0.157, and 0.005, respectively. Overall, the findings highlight that supportive and well-designed exerts stronger influence to shift favorable perception more positively toward initiative, thus motivating local community to actively participate rather than simply offering rewards.

Table 6

HypothesisVIFF2Coef. structuralSTDt-valuep-value
H1Accepted1.0000.8870.6860.04315.8660.000
H2Accepted2.3750.0470.2290.0772.9950.003
H3Not accepted2.1180.2990.5440.1005.4620.000
H4Accepted1.6140.0000.0070.0740.0960.923

PLS model direct effects summary.

After analyzing the structural equation model, it is necessary to evaluate the measurement models and assess their reliability and validity to evaluate the path model (Piazza, 2010). According to literature recommends a Cronbach’s alpha greater than 0.7, a Rho greater than 0.7, a composite reliability greater than 0.7, and an AVE greater than 0.5. Table 7 presents the results of the first analysis performed for the reliability indicators.

Table 7

Latent variablesCronbach’s AlphaRhoComposite reliabilityAverage variance extracted (AVE)
Will_engage0.7540.7630.8580.669
Attitude0.8280.8290.8860.660
Program_design0.7680.7850.8650.682
Program_management0.8140.8150.8900.729
Program_reward0.5340.5450.8100.681

Reliability and validity of the construct for model.

The reliability and validity tests show that most constructs demonstrate satisfactory levels of reliability and validity. Although program_reward alpha value indicates relatively below the threshold (α = 0.534), it might be attribute to the internal consistency, which may reduces alpha (Green et al., 1977). Despite this, other indicators suggest acceptable measurement properties. The composite reliability (CR = 0.810) and average variance extracted (AVE = 0.681) exceed recommended levels, supporting convergent validity. We further checked the other assessments such as HTMT which all items significantly smaller than 1, and Fornell-Larcker criterion as the square root of the AVE is greater than 0.681 (AVE = 0.825). Thus, we suspect the weaker value of cronbach’s alpha is likely to stems from inconsistent number of item constructs and the short of test length (Cortina, 1993). In addition, alpha value measures the homogeneity of the items, it also heterogeneity of what being assessed (Streiner, 2003). In the study, we observed the program rewards in different aspect type of rewards, yet the value is reduced. Thus, we suggest that increasing the number of items would result in higher value of cronbach’s alpha. Furthermore, the overall approximate modeling fit result is acceptable (SRMR 0.08) complies with the threshold proposed by Henseler et al. (2016) and Hu and Bentler (1999).

5 Discussion

5.1 Co-benefits contribute significantly to participation intention

We found that the recognition and utilization of explicit co-benefits shape the collective design of a community-based approach in a nature-based solution initiative. In practice, this type of carbon finance project commonly led to significant contributions of co-benefits for local communities as we identified. This study shows dynamic tensions to project participation, implies that there are ideas and views on structural factors associated with the communities values coupled with their awareness, societal background and social benefits. It is commonly emphasized that the intrinsic motivation may reveal the likelihood of their intentions to participate to a program (Cook and Ma, 2014; Yang et al., 2021). Consistent with our results, (Qiu et al., 2021) also revealed that participation intention is heavily influenced by how households perceive the multifaceted benefits of a project, particularly economic and social benefits. Amid the low participation rates among respondents, this study suggests that greater perceived risk is avoided such as limited access and activities to the forest. it is because the communities perceived risk outweigh how they perceived benefit (Wu et al., 2025). Meanwhile, it appears that the project did not reflect on achieving poverty alleviation but compensate the enhancement of social capital (Edstedt, 2017). The implementation of forest carbon projects within the voluntary carbon market demonstrates the contribution meaningfully to carbon sequestration. The additional benefit derives from the project utilizes as one way to enable the dissemination of awareness and training to the communities simultaneously. This dual function may enable adjacent communities morally engaged in, thus inclusive participation minimizing the risk of free riding (Schuppert, 2016).

5.2 Co-benefits: aligning program with community demand

Moreover, the program characteristics are derived from the way the restoration project examined. The interaction between program characteristics and the demand for co-benefits shows different interactions across domains. Capacity building was highly valued and expected by the communities, yet the participatory decision making and economic benefit are considered determined their participation. This suggests the communities demand of partnership arrangements integrate in the management system (Espada and Kainer, 2024), thus mutually benefitting ensure longer-lasting co-management. The communities not only being informed, but joint in a continuum equally benefit sharing process (Gebara, 2013). Moreover, we observed that project promote creation of community entrepreneurship development through livelihood improvement rather than distributing money or in-kind incentives, giving credit to the community creativity, this way project implementation generated nuance monetary and non-monetary benefit. It is typically engaging by supporting traditional livelihoods with a sustainable business model or expanding their own business (Leo et al., 2024). Inclusion of community in the forestry program, arises possible resolutions for co-management while promoting vigorously financial benefits and non-monetary benefits are necessary (Nuesiri, 2015).

5.3 Assessing program initiative shapes attitude and participation

Another finding is that the determinant of program management and program design contributed to increased probability of individual positive attitude and shape social acceptance. The community-based approach applied by the project developer appears jointly involving interactions within the community which emphasize well-organized and transparent management system fosters attention and participation (Woldie et al., 2025). This way, program is implicitly significant to the public opinion (Valentin et al., 2017). As the results, the attitude positively reflects their willingness to actively participate in the program proposed by the management. Normatively, communities attitude formed their commitment and values (Yang et al., 2021). Likewise, in Indonesia, where the community literacy categorized low, the effort of education and public awareness increase public trust and community participation in the forest conservation (Saputri and Diswandi, 2025). Consistently, this study found that awareness significantly influences farmers’ participation in the program in addition with the open communication through face-to-face discussion, the local communities perceived trust and positive behavior. Moreover, Western et al. (2017) investigated social acceptability in collaborative forest restoration clearly shows that the specifics of project design and stakeholder engagement directly shape participant attitudes, which then affect the level of collaborative support for the project. In this study, elevating preferential communities’ values on program management and design, project developers can use the results of the analysis to tailor program characteristics during planning stages or extending the program to address risks associated with social dynamics.

6 Conclusion and policy implication

Given the identification of program characteristic and co-benefit role in determining the successful community participatory approach scenario in the present study, the forest carbon sequestration project appears to be more viable to ensure commitment on climate mitigation efforts. Specifically, co-benefits role as a catalyst amplifies vary interest and value within community. Our findings revealed support capacity building and environmental education as significant predictor toward intention to participate. Moreover, program characteristic by desirability, reward to individual and open communication of management demonstrated significant positive effects across perceived co-benefit demand; capacity building, improve livelihood, and decision making. Consistently, our SEM model confirmed that program design and management underpin the formation of positive attitudes, which subsequently translate into a willingness to engage in the initiative. As a result, these co-benefits and program characteristics generate a multiplier effect, allowing individual appeals for gains to scale into collective participation.

Beyond merely increasing carbon storage to improve carbon project quality, community-based initiatives ensure coherent program characteristic and design are applied according to needs and context of the local community. Furthermore, determining the co-benefit is also shaping significant indicators linked to social acceptance and project success. Given the overall importance of sustainable restoration projects at the ground and co-benefit deliverance arising from the restoration of forests, the identification of viable program characteristics and valuation of ecosystem services should be conducted in the future. In addition, project developers and policymakers should prioritize equitable benefit-sharing, participatory decision making and genuine partnership, and livelihood capacity-building. Integrating these elements not only enhances social acceptance but also ensures that forest carbon initiatives deliver integrated impact on long-term sustainability.

The limitation of this study is that the observation in a communities’ socio-cultural and institutional context specific and it was not intended to cover behavioral and attitudinal transformations, but rather to capture the actual practices nature-based solutions credit scheme at the ground, reflects the quality of project. Therefore, future research could expand the analysis through comparative case studies across regions to measure comprehensive patterns in different socio-economic-cultural contexts, as well as longitudinal approach to understand how attitudes and participation evolve as the project mature.

Statements

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by Nagasaki University Code of Research Ethics. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

NT: Funding acquisition, Software, Writing – original draft, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Resources, Data curation, Methodology, Formal analysis, Project administration, Conceptualization, Validation, Visualization. TO: Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Funding acquisition. SS: Resources, Validation, Writing – review & editing, Supervision.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This work was supported by Research Grant of ESPEC Earth Environment Research and Technology Fund, ESPEC Foundation FY2023.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express our gratitude to the company PT Pagatan Usaha Makmur (PUM), Katingan District, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia, for granting permission to conduct this research and for their full assistance, facilitation, and team support throughout the fieldwork activities. We also wish to thank all the respondents, village chief, and village officials for their kind cooperation and warm welcome during the field work observation.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

1.^The questionnaire was originally developed in Indonesian language.

References

  • 1

    AjzenI. (1985). “From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior,” in Action Control, 11–39. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2

  • 2

    AllenM. R.DubeO. P.SoleckiW.Aragón-DurandF.CramerW.HumphreysS.et al. (2018). “Framing and context,” in Global Warming of 1.5°C, eds. Masson-DelmotteV.ZhaiP.PörtnerH.-O.RobertsD.SkeaJ.ShuklaP. R.et al. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 49–92.

  • 3

    ArbuckleJ. G.Roesch-McNallyG. (2015). Cover crop adoption in Iowa: the role of perceived practice characteristics. J. Soil Water Conserv.70, 418–429. doi: 10.2489/JSWC.70.6.418

  • 4

    AustinK. G.BakerJ. S.SohngenB. L.WadeC. M.DaigneaultA.OhrelS. B.et al. (2020). The economic costs of planting, preserving, and managing the world’s forests to mitigate climate change. Nat. Commun.11:5946. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19578-z,

  • 5

    AwonoA.SomorinO. A.Eba’a AtyiR.LevangP. (2014). Tenure and participation in local REDD+ projects: insights from southern Cameroon. Environ. Sci. Pol.35, 76–86. doi: 10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2013.01.017

  • 6

    BaynesJ.HerbohnJ.SmithC.FisherR.BrayD. (2015). Key factors which influence the success of community forestry in developing countries. Glob. Environ. Change35, 226–238. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.011

  • 7

    BellD.GrayT.HaggettC.SwaffieldJ. (2013). Re-visiting the ‘social gap’: public opinion and relations of power in the local politics of wind energy. Environ. Polit.22, 115–135. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2013.755793

  • 8

    BirawaC.SukarnaR. M. (2016). Zona Ekowisata Kawasan Konservasi Pesisir di Kecamatan Katingan Kuala, Kabupaten Katingan, Provinsi Kalimantan Tengah Melalui Pendekatan Ekologi Bentang Lahan [ecotourism zoning of a coastal conservation area in Katingan Kuala District, Katingan regency, Central Kalimantan, using a landscape ecology approach]. J. Ilmu Kehutan.10:19. doi: 10.22146/JIK.12628

  • 9

    BlockJ. B.DanneM.MußhoffO. (2024). Farmers’ willingness to participate in a carbon sequestration program – a discrete choice experiment. Environ. Manag.74, 332–349. doi: 10.1007/S00267-024-01963-9/METRICS

  • 10

    BonkeV.MusshoffO. (2020). Understanding German farmer’s intention to adopt mixed cropping using the theory of planned behavior. Agron. Sustain. Dev.40:48. doi: 10.1007/S13593-020-00653-0

  • 11

    BPS Kabupaten Katingan (2025). Kecamatan Katingan Kuala dalam Angka 2025 (Katingan Kuala District in Figures 2025), Eds. BPS Kabupaten Katingan Katingan, Indonesia: BPS Kabupaten Katingan (Kecamatan dalam Angka). Available online at: https://katingankab.bps.go.id/id/publication/2025/09/26/9fc47efed49002366548b8d3/kecamatan-katingan-kuala-dalam-angka-2025 (Accessed April 19, 2026).

  • 12

    BuerginR. (2016). Ecosystem restoration concessions in Indonesia: conflicts and discourses. Crit. Asian Stud.48, 278–301. doi: 10.1080/14672715.2016.1164017

  • 13

    CammarataM.ScuderiA.TimpanaroG.CasconeG. (2024). Factors influencing farmers’ intention to participate in the voluntary carbon market: an extended theory of planned behavior. J. Environ. Manag.369:122367. doi: 10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2024.122367,

  • 14

    CerdoA. H. (2025) Evaluating the Influence of Carbon Credit Payments on Coffee Farmers’ in Uganda and Kenya

  • 15

    CoboS.Galán-MartínÁ.Guillén-GosálbezG. (2026). Negative emissions technologies and practices could challenge global resource supply and environmental limits. Commun. Earth Environ.7:354. doi: 10.1038/s43247-026-03348-8

  • 16

    CookS. L.MaZ. (2014). The interconnectedness between landowner knowledge, value, belief, attitude, and willingness to act: policy implications for carbon sequestration on private rangelands. J. Environ. Manag.134, 90–99. doi: 10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2013.12.033,

  • 17

    CortinaJ. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J. Appl. Psychol.78, 98–104. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98

  • 18

    CossíoR.MentonM.CronkletonP.LarsonA. (2014). Community Forest Management in the Peruvian Amazon: A Literature Review.

  • 19

    Dinas Lingkungan Hidup Kabupaten Katingan (2023) Profil Keanekaragaman Hayati Kabupaten Katingan [The Biodiversity Profile of Katingan Regency]. Available online at: https://mandatling.katingankab.go.id/storage//file-manager//file-manager-164-file_main.pdf. (Accessed April 19, 2026).

  • 20

    DjomoA. N.GrantJ. A.Fonyikeh-Bomboh LuchaC.Tchoko GagoeJ.FontonN. H.ScottN.et al. (2018). Forest governance and REDD+ in Central Africa: towards a participatory model to increase stakeholder involvement in carbon markets. Int. J. Environ. Stud.75, 251–266. doi: 10.1080/00207233.2017.1347358

  • 21

    DonofrioS.ProctonA.WeathererL.BennettG.CoxonC. (2023). Paying for Quality, State of the Voluntary Carbon Market 2023. Available online at: www.forest-trends.org. (Accessed August 16, 2025).

  • 22

    EastmanB.BrzostekE.CifelliD.GazalK.KannenbergS. A.KeckM.et al. (2025). Building trust and efficacy in forest carbon programs: lessons from stakeholder engagement in central Appalachia. Bioscience75, 865–880. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biaf098

  • 23

    EdstedtK. (2017) Can the Clean Development Mechanism Bring Community Co-Benefits? A Case Study of the Kachung Forest Project, Uganda. Available online at: http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8924441. (Accessed August 1, 2025).

  • 24

    EspadaA. L. V.KainerK. A. (2024). Decision making processes and power dynamics in timber production co-management: a comparative analysis of seven Brazilian Amazonian community-based projects. Forest Policy Econ.159:103121. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2023.103121

  • 25

    FAO (2017) Community-based Forestry - Extent, Effectiveness and Potential. Available online at: www.fao.org/forestry/participatory. (Accessed August 31, 2025).

  • 26

    FCPF (2023) Designing Benefit Sharing Arrangements: A Resource for Countries. Available online at: https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/bio-carbon/Printable_version_script_2_27_final.pdf.

  • 27

    FischerH. W.ChhatreA.DudduA.PradhanN.AgrawalA. (2023). Nature climate change community forest governance and synergies among carbon, biodiversity and livelihoods. Nat. Clim. Chang.13, 1340–1347. doi: 10.1038/s41558-023-01863-6

  • 28

    GalikC. S.MurrayB. C.MitchellS.CottleP.GalikC. S.MurrayB. C.et al. (2014). Alternative approaches for addressing non-permanence in carbon projects: an application to afforestation and reforestation under the clean development mechanism. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change21, 101–118. doi: 10.1007/s11027-014-9573-4

  • 29

    GebaraM. F. (2013). Importance of local participation in achieving equity in benefit-sharing mechanisms for REDD+: a case study from the Juma sustainable development reserve. Int. J. Commons7:473. doi: 10.18352/IJC.301

  • 30

    GEF. (2023). Incorporating Co-Benefits in the Design of GEF Projects. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2105480118

  • 31

    GiffordL. (2020). “You can’t value what you can’t measure”: a critical look at forest carbon accounting. Clim. Chang.161, 291–306. doi: 10.1007/S10584-020-02653-1

  • 32

    GlasmeierA. K.FarriganT. (2005). Understanding community forestry: a qualitative meta-study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case. Geogr. J.171, 56–69. doi: 10.1111/J.1475-4959.2005.00149.X

  • 33

    GoldsteinA. (2016) Not So Niche Co-Benefits at the Intersection of Forest Carbon and Sustainable Development Donors. Available online at: https://www.forest-trends.org/publications/not-so-niche/. (Accessed: August 10, 2024).

  • 34

    GreenS. B.LissitzR. W.MulaikS. A. (1977). Limitations of coefficient alpha as an index of test unidimensionality1. Educ. Psychol. Meas.37, 827–838. doi: 10.1177/001316447703700403

  • 35

    GrimaultJ.BellassenV.ShishlovI. (2018). Key Elements and Challenges in Monitoring, Certifying and Financing Forestry Carbon Projects, 255. doi: 10.34894/VQ1DJA

  • 36

    HairJ. F.Jr.HultG. T. M.RingleC. M.SarstedtM.DanksN. P.RayS. (2021). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R: A Workbook. Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7

  • 37

    HamrickK.GallantM. (2017) Fertile Ground - State of Forest Carbon Finance 2017Ecosystem Marketplace, Forest Trends. Available online at: https://www.forest-trends.org/publications/fertile-ground/. (Accessed February 17, 2024).

  • 38

    HarperR. J.TibbettM. (2013). The hidden organic carbon in deep mineral soils. Plant Soil368, 641–648. doi: 10.1007/S11104-013-1600-9

  • 39

    HendersonB.LankoskiJ.FlynnE.SykesA.PayenF.MacleodM. (2022). Soil Carbon Sequestration by Agriculture: Policy Options. doi: 10.1787/63ef3841-en

  • 40

    HenselerJ.HubonaG.RayP. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines. Ind. Manag. Data Syst.116, 2–20. doi: 10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382

  • 41

    HermawanS.KusumaF. I. S. (2024). Navigating the complexities of carbon markets policy in ASEAN: challenges and opportunities. Environ. Dev. Sustain.28:8425. doi: 10.1007/S10668-024-05268-Z

  • 42

    HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J.6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118

  • 43

    IndriatmokoY.AtmadjaS.UtomoN. A.EkaputriA. D.KomalasariM. (2014) Katingan Peatland Restoration and Conservation Project, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Available online at: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/93544. (Accessed August 31, 2024).

  • 44

    IPCC. (2022). Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ShuklaP. R.SkeaR. J.SladeR.KhourdajieA.AlDiemenR.VanMccollumD.et al., Eds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • 45

    JenkinsM.SchaapB. (2018) Background Analytical Study 1 Forest Ecosystem Services 1 Untapped Potential: Forest Ecosystem Services for Achieving SDG 15 UNFF13 Background Analytical Study.

  • 46

    KabirM.HabibaU.IqbalM. Z.ShafiqM.FarooqiZ. R.ShahA.et al. (2023). Impacts of anthropogenic activities & climate change resulting from increasing concentration of carbon dioxide on environment in 21st century; a critical review. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.1194:012010. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1194/1/012010

  • 47

    KalaiselviP.DeviM.ParameswariE.SebastianP.DavamaniV.IlakiyaT. (2023). The ocean carbon pool: a vital component of the global carbon cycle. J. Agric. Ecol.17, 80–84. doi: 10.58628/JAE-2317-314

  • 48

    KeyI. B.SmithA. C.TurnerB.ChaussonA.GirardinC. A. J.MacgillivrayM.et al. (2022). Biodiversity outcomes of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation: characterising the evidence base. Front. Environ. Sci.10:905767. doi: 10.3389/FENVS.2022.905767/XML

  • 49

    KhatunK.Gross-CampN.CorberaE.MartinA.BallS.MassaoG. (2015). When participatory forest management makes money: insights from Tanzania on governance, benefit sharing, and implications for REDD+. Environ. Plann. A47, 2097–2112. doi: 10.1177/0308518X15595899

  • 50

    KohL. P.ZengY.SariraT. V.SimanK. (2021). Carbon prospecting in tropical forests for climate change mitigation. Nat. Commun.12, 1–9. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21560-2,

  • 51

    KreibichN.HermwilleL. (2021). Caught in between: credibility and feasibility of the voluntary carbon market post-2020. Clim. Pol.21, 939–957. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2021.1948384

  • 52

    LalR. (2004). Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma123, 1–22. doi: 10.1016/J.GEODERMA.2004.01.032

  • 53

    LalR.NegassaW.LorenzK. (2015). Carbon sequestration in soil. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.15, 79–86. doi: 10.1016/J.COSUST.2015.09.002

  • 54

    LaurikkaH.SpringerU. (2003). Risk and return of project-based climate change mitigation: a portfolio approach. Glob. Environ. Change13, 207–217. doi: 10.1016/S0959-3780(03)00048-7

  • 55

    Leal-ArcasR.AlghamdiA. (2025). Carbon Markets, International Trade, and Climate Finance. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.5198235

  • 56

    LeoS.HakimM. F.PambudiP. A.PramudiantoA. (2024). The role of an ecosystem restoration company in reducing carbon emission in the perspective of the carbon pricing scheme in Indonesia. AIP Conf. Proc.3001:080033. doi: 10.1063/5.0192586

  • 57

    LozanoA.Gaona-JimenezN.AlvaradoJ. W.García-GonzálesP.ArévaloA. A.OrdoñezL.et al. (2026). Dominance of large trees in carbon storage of Peruvian Amazon forest. Front. For. Glob. Change8:1711078. doi: 10.3389/FFGC.2025.1711078

  • 58

    MaréchalK.HecqW. (2006). Temporary credits: a solution to the potential non-permanence of carbon sequestration in forests?Ecol. Econ.58, 699–716. doi: 10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2005.08.017

  • 59

    MarshallG. (2005). The purpose, design and administration of a questionnaire for data collection. Radiography11, 131–136. doi: 10.1016/J.RADI.2004.09.002

  • 60

    MatthewsH. D.ZickfeldK.DickauM.MacIsaacA. J.MathesiusS.NzotungicimpayeC. M.et al. (2022). Temporary nature-based carbon removal can lower peak warming in a well-below 2 °C scenario. Commun. Earth Environ.3:65. doi: 10.1038/s43247-022-00391-z

  • 61

    MayrhoferJ. P.GuptaJ. (2016). The science and politics of co-benefits in climate policy. Environ. Sci. Pol.57, 22–30. doi: 10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2015.11.005

  • 62

    MeijaardE.SantikaT.WilsonK. A.BudihartaS.KusworoA.LawE. A.et al. (2021). Toward improved impact evaluation of community forest management in Indonesia. Conserv. Sci. Pract.3:e189. doi: 10.1111/csp2.189

  • 63

    MichelsM.BonkeV.MußhoffO. (2022). Factors Influencing the Adoption of Herbicide Resistance Tests in German Agriculture. Resilienz von Regionalen Und Globalen Wertschöpfungsketten Der Agrar-Und Ernährungswirtschaft, 293.

  • 64

    MühlbauerA.KeinerD.GerhardsC.CalderaU.SternerM.BreyerC. (2025). Assessment of technologies and economics for carbon dioxide removal from a portfolio perspective. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Con.141:104297. doi: 10.1016/J.IJGGC.2024.104297

  • 65

    National Academies of Sciences, Medicine, Division on Earth, Life Studies, Ocean Studies Board, Board on Chemical Sciences, Board on Earth Sciences, Board on Energy, Environmental Systems, Board on Atmospheric Sciences, Committee on Developing a Research Agenda for Carbon Dioxide Removal (2018). Terrestrial Carbon Removal and Sequestration. Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda, 1–495. doi: 10.17226/25259

  • 66

    NewtonP.SchaapB.FournierM.CornwallM.RosenbachD. W.DeBoerJ.et al. (2015). Community forest management and REDD +. Forest Policy Econ.56, 27–37. doi: 10.1016/J.FORPOL.2015.03.008

  • 67

    NuesiriE. O. (2015). Monetary and non-monetary benefits from the Bimbia-Bonadikombo community forest, Cameroon: policy implications relevant for carbon emissions reduction programmes. Community Dev. J.50, 661–676. doi: 10.1093/CDJ/BSU061

  • 68

    OschliesA.BachL. T.FennelK.GattusoJ. P.MengisN. (2024). Perspectives and challenges of marine carbon dioxide removal. Front. Clim.6:1506181. doi: 10.3389/FCLIM.2024.1506181/FULL

  • 69

    OttoJ. (2019). Precarious participation: assessing inequality and risk in the carbon credit commodity chain. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr.109, 187–201. doi: 10.1080/24694452.2018.1490167

  • 70

    Pachama (2016) Pachama’s Project Borneo Peatlands. Available online at: https://app.pachama.com/projects/borneo-peatlands/overview#evaluation. (Accessed August 31, 2024).

  • 71

    ParkJ.RyuY.KimY. (2024). Factors influencing air passengers’ intention to purchase voluntary carbon offsetting programs: the moderating role of environmental knowledge. J. Air Transp. Manag.118:102619. doi: 10.1016/J.JAIRTRAMAN.2024.102619

  • 72

    Pemerintah Kabupaten Katingan (2023) Rencana Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Ekosistem Gambut (RPPEG) Kabupaten Katingan Tahun 2023–2053 [Peat Ecosystem Protection and Management Plan of Katingan Regency for 2023–2053]. Available online at: https://mandatling.katingankab.go.id/storage/file-manager/file-manager-155-file_main.pdf. (Accessed April 19, 2026).

  • 73

    PengD.ZhangB.ZhengS.JuW.ChenJ. M.CiaisP.et al. (2025). Newly established forests dominated global carbon sequestration change induced by land cover conversions. Nat. Commun.16:6570. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-61956-y,

  • 74

    PiazzaT. (2010). Fundamentals of applied sampling. Handbook of Survey Research, 1–42. Available online at: https://books.google.com/books/about/Handbook_of_Survey_Research.html?id=mMPDPXpTP-0C. (Accessed September 12, 2025).

  • 75

    PT PUM. (2022). Plum Project - Climate, Community, Biodiversity. Available online at: https://plumproject.id/project/ (accessed December 9, 2025).

  • 76

    PuspitalokaD.KimY. S.PurnomoH.FuléP. Z. (2021). Analysis of challenges, costs, and governance alternative for peatland restoration in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Trees For. People6:100131. doi: 10.1016/J.TFP.2021.100131

  • 77

    QiuL.ZengW.KantS.WangS. (2021). The role of social capital in rural households’ perceptions toward the benefits of forest carbon sequestration projects: evidence from a rural household survey in Sichuan and Yunnan provinces, China. Land10:91. doi: 10.3390/LAND10020091

  • 78

    RainaN.ZavalloniM.ViaggiD. (2024). Incentive mechanisms of carbon farming contracts: A systematic mapping study. J. Environ. Manag.352:120126. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120126,

  • 79

    RamdhanM. (2018). Analisis Persepsi Masyarakat Terhadap Kebijakan Restorasi Lahan Gambut di Kalimantan Tengah. Risalah Kebijakan Pertanian Dan Lingkungan. Risalah Kebijakan Pertanian Dan Lingkungan: Rumusan Kajian Strategis Bidang Pertanian dan Lingkungan4:60. doi: 10.20957/JKEBIJAKAN.V4I1.20066

  • 80

    RosárioI. T.EssenM.vonNicholasK. A.MáguasC.RebeloR.Santos-ReisM. (2015). Mapping and Assessment of Forest Ecosystems and their Services. JRC Science for Policy Report, 34–44.

  • 81

    RoyA.BhanM. (2024). Forest carbon market-based mechanisms in India: learnings from global design principles and domestic barriers to implementation. Ecol. Indic.158:111331. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.111331

  • 82

    SandersA. J. P.FordR. M.KeenanR. J.LarsonA. M. (2020). Learning through practice? Learning from the REDD+ demonstration project, Kalimantan forests and climate partnership (KFCP) in Indonesia. Land Use Policy91:104285. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104285

  • 83

    SaputriA. S.DiswandiD. (2025). The role of carbon market in net zero emission: economic impact of carbon credit and forest conservation in Indonesia. J. Enterp. Dev.7, 92–100. doi: 10.20414/JED.V7I1.12792

  • 84

    SariraT. V.ZengY.NeugartenR.Chaplin-KramerR.KohL. P. (2022). Co-benefits of forest carbon projects in Southeast Asia. Nat. Sustain.5, 393–396. doi: 10.1038/S41893-022-00849-0

  • 85

    SarwarU.BaigW.RahiS.SattarS. (2025). Fostering green behavior in the workplace: the role of ethical climate, motivation states, and environmental knowledge. Sustainability17:4083. doi: 10.3390/SU17094083

  • 86

    ScheyvensH. (2012) Community-based Forest Monitoring for REDD+: Community-based Forest Monitoring for REDD+: Lessons and Reflections from the field Lessons and Reflections from the field POLICY BRIEF

  • 87

    SchuppertF. (2016). Carbon sink conservation and global justice: benefitting, free riding and non-compliance. Res. Publica.22, 99–116. doi: 10.1007/S11158-015-9314

  • 88

    SinghS.TripathiD. M.TripathiS. (2025). The role of forest ecosystems for carbon capture and storage in India. Int. J. Agric. Environ. Res.11, 1719–1749. doi: 10.51193/IJAER.2025.11522

  • 89

    StaddonS. C. (2009) Carbon financing and community forestry: a review of the questions, challenges and the case of Nepal. J. For. Livelihood8: 25–32. Available online at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267810522. (Accessed August 18, 2025).

  • 90

    StreinerD. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J. Pers. Assess.80, 99–103. doi: 10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18,

  • 91

    TcvetkovP.CherepovitsynA.FedoseevS. (2019). Public perception of carbon capture and storage: A state-of-the-art overview. Heliyon5:e02845. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02845,

  • 92

    ToochiE. C. (2018). Carbon sequestration: how much can forestry sequester CO2?For. Res. Eng.2, 148–150. doi: 10.15406/FREIJ.2018.02.00040

  • 93

    TrianaN.OtaT. (2024). Assessing preferences for forest carbon credit and co-benefits: a choice experiment case study in Japan. Environ. Chall.15:100936. doi: 10.1016/J.ENVC.2024.100936

  • 94

    TrupinA.Morgan-BrownT.DoultonH.NelsonF. (2018). Making Community Forest Enterprises Deliver for Livelihoods and Conservation in Tanzania.

  • 95

    TSVCM (2021) Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets: Final Report. Available online at: https://www.iif.com/Portals/1/Files/TSVCM_Report.pdf. (Accessed December 8, 2025).

  • 96

    UNEPCCC. (2025). Article 6 Pipeline. Available online at: https://unepccc.org/article-6-pipeline/. (Accessed December 8, 2025).

  • 97

    ValentinV.NaderpajouhN.AbrahamD. (2017). Impact of characteristics of infrastructure projects on public opinion. J. Manag. Eng.34:04017051. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000576

  • 98

    VanderWeeleT. J.VansteelandtS.Vander WeeleC. J. (2022). A statistical test to reject the structural interpretation of a latent factor model. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B Stat. Methodol.84, 2032–2054. doi: 10.1111/RSSB.12555,

  • 99

    VickersB.TrinesE.PohnanE. (2012). Community Guidelines for Accessing Forestry Voluntary Carbon Markets, Bangkok.

  • 100

    WalkerG. (2011). The role for “community” in carbon governance. WIREs Clim. Change2, 777–782. doi: 10.1002/wcc.137

  • 101

    WalkerS. H.DuncanD. B. (1967). Estimation of the probability of an event as a function of several independent variables. Biometrika54, 167–179. doi: 10.1093/BIOMET/54.1-2.167

  • 102

    WalkerW. S.GorelikS. R.Cook-PattonS. C.BacciniA.FarinaM. K.SolvikK. K.et al. (2022). The global potential for increased storage of carbon on land. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA119:e2111312119. doi: 10.1073/PNAS.2111312119/-/DCSUPPLEMENTAL

  • 103

    WaseemF.SarwarU.AzeemS.ZafarJ. (2025). Corporate climate based initiatives and carbon performance: evidence from Asian economies. J. Asian Dev. Stud.14, 1973–1984. doi: 10.62345/JADS.2025.14.3.155

  • 104

    WąsikR. (2025). Analysis of wood density to compare the amount of accumulated carbon dioxide in the stems of selected non-native tree species in Poland. Forests16:223. doi: 10.3390/F16020223

  • 105

    WernickI. K.KauppiP. E. (2022). Storing carbon or growing forests?Land Use Policy121:106319. doi: 10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2022.106319

  • 106

    WesternJ. M.ChengA. S.AndersonN. M.MotleyP. (2017). Examining the social acceptability of forest biomass harvesting and utilization from collaborative forest landscape restoration: a case study from Western Colorado, USA. J. For.115, 530–539. doi: 10.5849/JOF-2016-086

  • 107

    WittmanH. K.CaronC. (2009). Carbon offsets and inequality: social costs and co-benefits in Guatemala and Sri Lanka. Soc. Nat. Resour.22, 710–726. doi: 10.1080/08941920802046858

  • 108

    WoldieZ.AlemuA.TaddeseH.TazebewE. (2025). Contributions of participatory forest management for sustainable livelihoods and forest conservation in Ethiopia. Discov. Sustain.6, 1–26. doi: 10.1007/S43621-025-01595-X/FIGURES/7

  • 109

    WolfE. J.HarringtonK. M.ClarkS. L.MillerM. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: an evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educ. Psychol. Meas.76:913. doi: 10.1177/0013164413495237,

  • 110

    World Bank (2022) Countries on the Cusp of Carbon Markets. Available online at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2022/05/24/countries-on-the-cusp-of-carbon-markets. (Accessed December 8, 2025).

  • 111

    WuG.FuD.XingY.DuanH.WangY.HuJ.et al. (2025). A scale for evaluating the willingness of national forest farm to participate in forest carbon sink project. J. Environ. Manag.374:124087. doi: 10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2025.124087,

  • 112

    YangF.JiangY.PaudelK. P. (2021). Farmers’ willingness to participate in forest management for carbon sequestration on the sloping land conservation program in China. Int. For. Rev.23, 244–261. doi: 10.1505/146554821832952799

Summary

Keywords

co-benefits, forest carbon credit, program characteristics, regression analysis, SEM analysis

Citation

Triana N, Ota T and Suk S (2026) Determinants community involvement in a forest carbon sequestration initiative: a study case in Indonesia. Front. For. Glob. Change 9:1770765. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2026.1770765

Received

18 December 2025

Revised

25 April 2026

Accepted

29 April 2026

Published

21 May 2026

Volume

9 - 2026

Edited by

Sahar Erfanian, Huanggang Normal University, China

Reviewed by

Gonche Girma, Ethiopian Forestry Development, Ethiopia

Usman Sarwar, University of the Punjab, Pakistan

Updates

Copyright

© 2026 Triana, Ota and Suk.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Novelia Triana, ; Sunhee Suk,

Disclaimer

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Outline

Figures

Cite article

Copy to clipboard


Export citation file


Share article

Share on WeChat

Scan with WeChat to share this article

Article metrics