本文優(yōu)化了國家公園社會(huì)影響評估框架和指標(biāo)體系,選擇中國大熊貓國家公園(唐家河園區(qū))周邊的三類典型社區(qū)——界內(nèi)社區(qū)、門戶社區(qū)和邊緣社區(qū)進(jìn)行比較分析。
本文優(yōu)化了國家公園社會(huì)影響評估框架和指標(biāo)體系,選擇中國大熊貓國家公園(唐家河園區(qū))周邊的三類典型社區(qū)——界內(nèi)社區(qū)、門戶社區(qū)和邊緣社區(qū)進(jìn)行比較分析。通過問卷調(diào)查、半結(jié)構(gòu)化訪談、因子分析和單因素方差分析,研究發(fā)現(xiàn):1)大熊貓國家公園綜合社會(huì)影響感知偏消極;2)三類社區(qū)對經(jīng)濟(jì)生計(jì)維度以外維度影響的感知存在顯著差異;3)社會(huì)影響分異主要受保護(hù)政策、產(chǎn)業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)、區(qū)位交通等因素影響。研究認(rèn)為,在關(guān)注經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的同時(shí),應(yīng)當(dāng)增加對平等權(quán)利、知識(shí)教育等非經(jīng)濟(jì)類社會(huì)影響的關(guān)注;需要對邊緣社區(qū)給予特別關(guān)注和支持。本研究可為相關(guān)自然保護(hù)地社會(huì)影響的優(yōu)化提供理論借鑒和案例依據(jù)。
關(guān)鍵詞
國家公園;自然保護(hù)地;社會(huì)影響評估;感知;界內(nèi)社區(qū);門戶社區(qū);邊緣社區(qū);唐家河國家級(jí)自然保護(hù)區(qū)
中國大熊貓國家公園社會(huì)影響評估研究——基于界內(nèi)、門戶和邊緣社區(qū)的比較分析
Social Impact Assessment of the Giant Panda National Park in China:
A Comparative Analysis of the Inside, Gateway, and Fringe Communities
1 荷蘭格羅寧根大學(xué)空間科學(xué)學(xué)院
2 重慶大學(xué)建筑城規(guī)學(xué)院
國家公園和周邊社區(qū)是一個(gè)整體化的“社會(huì)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)”,地方社區(qū)是實(shí)現(xiàn)國家公園共有、共建、共享的重要主體。我國的國家公園建設(shè)社會(huì)影響評價(jià)研究還停留在起步階段,尚未形成系統(tǒng)性研究。此外,國際學(xué)界也尚未形成被廣泛接受的評估框架。與此同時(shí),僅有少數(shù)研究關(guān)注國家公園對周邊不同地理區(qū)位社區(qū)的社會(huì)影響差異,且對門戶社區(qū)的研究集中于旅游發(fā)展影響,較少有結(jié)合地方文化、平等權(quán)利等多方面的綜合評價(jià)。
本研究依據(jù)社區(qū)與國家公園的空間關(guān)系將周邊社區(qū)分為界內(nèi)社區(qū)、門戶社區(qū)和邊緣社區(qū)。以大熊貓國家公園(唐家河園區(qū))為例,采用問卷調(diào)研、半結(jié)構(gòu)化訪談、主成分分析等方法,構(gòu)建了社會(huì)影響評估框架和方法,進(jìn)而評估了國家公園體制建設(shè)對界內(nèi)、門戶和邊緣社區(qū)的影響差異,并依此提出協(xié)調(diào)保護(hù)行動(dòng)和社區(qū)發(fā)展建議。
唐家河國家級(jí)自然保護(hù)區(qū)的扭角羚和綠尾虹稚 ? 馬文虎
本文結(jié)合中國國家公園體制建設(shè)的特征,提出包含6個(gè)潛在社會(huì)影響類型和19個(gè)指標(biāo)的國家公園周邊社區(qū)社會(huì)影響評估框架。除生計(jì)經(jīng)濟(jì)外,其他指標(biāo)均為非經(jīng)濟(jì)類的社會(huì)影響。
大熊貓國家公園(唐家河園區(qū))位于四川省廣元市境內(nèi),總面積約4萬公頃,總?cè)丝?500余人。本研究以落衣溝、陰平和東橋三個(gè)村作為研究對象。其中,落衣溝是界內(nèi)社區(qū),位于國家公園一般控制區(qū),面臨較嚴(yán)重的人獸沖突,享受特殊的野生動(dòng)物肇事補(bǔ)償政策;陰平村是門戶社區(qū),在旅游產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展上得到了農(nóng)家樂發(fā)展、旅游培訓(xùn)、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施建設(shè)等諸多扶持;而東橋村是邊緣社區(qū),以傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)為主,選聘了社區(qū)護(hù)林員開展保護(hù)。
唐家河國家級(jí)自然保護(hù)區(qū)云海 ? 蒲軍華
研究團(tuán)隊(duì)于2022年6月30日至7月6日開展實(shí)地調(diào)研。調(diào)查以農(nóng)戶為基本單位,采取隨機(jī)抽樣的方式入戶調(diào)查,最終獲得296份有效問卷。調(diào)查問卷由人口統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)信息和社會(huì)影響感知兩個(gè)部分組成,通過五級(jí)李克特量表進(jìn)行評價(jià)。此外,調(diào)研團(tuán)隊(duì)還進(jìn)行了13次半結(jié)構(gòu)化訪談,涵蓋社區(qū)管理現(xiàn)狀、保護(hù)管理政策、對影響的感知及其原因等,以分析具體的社會(huì)影響。
調(diào)研團(tuán)隊(duì)在唐家河國家級(jí)自然保護(hù)區(qū)管理處與社區(qū)科、保護(hù)科做座談會(huì) ? 張雨琦,張引
由統(tǒng)計(jì)結(jié)果可見,女性受訪者比例略多于男性,受訪者年齡普遍偏大,受教育程度普遍較低,年收入也普遍較低,近90%的受訪者在唐家河園區(qū)居住超過20年。
采用SPSS進(jìn)行信度分析,發(fā)現(xiàn)經(jīng)濟(jì)生計(jì)、平等權(quán)利及生活環(huán)境三個(gè)維度未通過信度檢驗(yàn)。剔除生計(jì)變化和土地權(quán)屬后,經(jīng)濟(jì)生計(jì)、平等權(quán)利維度系數(shù)通過信度檢驗(yàn);而生活環(huán)境維度只包含兩個(gè)指標(biāo),因無法通過信度檢驗(yàn)而被剔除。主成分分析用于探索15項(xiàng)指標(biāo)的內(nèi)在聯(lián)系,利用最大方差法旋轉(zhuǎn)確定了五個(gè)主成分。累計(jì)方差貢獻(xiàn)率顯示量表具有較好的結(jié)構(gòu)效度。
研究使用主成分分析的方法將原始指標(biāo)根據(jù)權(quán)重轉(zhuǎn)換為得分,并使用因子分析法計(jì)算指標(biāo)權(quán)重,以解釋變量之間的共同變異,并根據(jù)其貢獻(xiàn)程度確定權(quán)重。最后,使用單方差分析探索社會(huì)影響感知在不同社區(qū)之間的差異,并根據(jù)方差齊性檢驗(yàn)結(jié)果對有顯著差異的社會(huì)影響維度進(jìn)行多重比較,以確定差異的方向和程度。
03 社區(qū)居民社會(huì)影響感知的評估結(jié)果及差異
唐家河總體社會(huì)影響感知略偏消極。各維度影響感知程度從高到低依次為:社會(huì)關(guān)系、地方文化、平等權(quán)利、經(jīng)濟(jì)生計(jì)和知識(shí)教育。社會(huì)關(guān)系影響綜合得分最高,村民普遍表示信任親朋鄰里,與村社聯(lián)系緊密。地方文化影響也得到了村民的積極感知,因?yàn)閲夜珗@建設(shè)尊重傳統(tǒng)文化知識(shí),并保護(hù)當(dāng)?shù)匚幕z產(chǎn)和景觀。而村民對平等權(quán)利的影響感知一般,村民在一定程度上認(rèn)可對法定和傳統(tǒng)權(quán)利的尊重,但普遍沒有參與管理和決策。此外,村民對經(jīng)濟(jì)生計(jì)影響的感知較為消極,對管理處在促進(jìn)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展和利益共享方面的工作不太滿意。最后,村民對知識(shí)教育影響的感知最為消極,特別是能力建設(shè)和環(huán)境行為方面的訴求尚未得到滿足。
社會(huì)影響評估結(jié)果分布 ? 張雨琦,張引
研究發(fā)現(xiàn)社會(huì)影響感知的綜合得分從高到低依次為:門戶社區(qū)、界內(nèi)社區(qū)、邊緣社區(qū);除“經(jīng)濟(jì)生計(jì)”外,不同行政村村民對其他四個(gè)維度的社會(huì)影響感知均有顯著差異。通過多重比較分析可知,在地方文化和社會(huì)關(guān)系維度,村民對影響感知的積極程度從高到低依次為:門戶社區(qū)、界內(nèi)社區(qū)、邊緣社區(qū)。在知識(shí)教育維度,影響感知積極程度從高到低依次為:界內(nèi)社區(qū)、門戶社區(qū)、邊緣社區(qū)。平等權(quán)利維度影響的感知積極程度從高到低依次為:門戶社區(qū)、界內(nèi)社區(qū)、邊緣社區(qū)。
基于定量數(shù)據(jù)分析和訪談?wù){(diào)研,研究歸納總結(jié)了社會(huì)影響差異的形成原因:保護(hù)政策、產(chǎn)業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)、區(qū)位交通。首先,保護(hù)政策的差異是導(dǎo)致社會(huì)影響差異的直接原因。對界內(nèi)社區(qū)而言,該村設(shè)有社區(qū)共管委員會(huì),由此村民更容易參與生態(tài)保護(hù)和社區(qū)管理,從而促進(jìn)知識(shí)教育影響的積極感知。野生動(dòng)物肇事補(bǔ)償政策的試行促進(jìn)了經(jīng)濟(jì)生計(jì)影響的積極感知。然而,由于位于國家公園邊界以內(nèi),其土地利用、房屋和基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施建設(shè)受嚴(yán)格限制,又致使其產(chǎn)生了對地方文化、平等權(quán)利影響的消極感知。對于門戶社區(qū),鎮(zhèn)政府和公園管理處大力支持并投資參與建設(shè),提供優(yōu)惠貸款促進(jìn)家庭旅館的發(fā)展,促進(jìn)了門戶社區(qū)對地方文化、平等權(quán)利影響的積極感知。對邊緣社區(qū)而言,其公益崗位名額最少,村民缺乏能力建設(shè)和接受環(huán)境教育的機(jī)會(huì),導(dǎo)致其對知識(shí)教育、平等權(quán)利影響的感知最為消極。此外,缺少野生動(dòng)物肇事補(bǔ)償機(jī)制,導(dǎo)致其對經(jīng)濟(jì)生計(jì)影響的感知更為消極。
調(diào)研團(tuán)隊(duì)在做社區(qū)居民訪談 ? 張雨琦,張引
其次,社區(qū)產(chǎn)業(yè)類型的不同造成了地方文化、社會(huì)關(guān)系方面的影響差異。大熊貓國家公園以農(nóng)林和畜牧業(yè)和旅游服務(wù)業(yè)為主。野生動(dòng)物掠奪莊稼、捕獵牲畜的現(xiàn)象導(dǎo)致邊緣社區(qū)和界內(nèi)社區(qū)的農(nóng)林畜牧業(yè)受到較大干擾,導(dǎo)致人口外流、文化流失和社會(huì)關(guān)系疏離等負(fù)面影響。除此之外,國家公園體制建設(shè)在旅游基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施、旅游服務(wù)培訓(xùn)、文化品牌塑造上加大投入,能夠積極推動(dòng)門戶社區(qū)的地方文化發(fā)展;另一方面,農(nóng)家樂聯(lián)盟、民宿協(xié)會(huì)等經(jīng)營者組織也增進(jìn)了門戶社區(qū)的社會(huì)關(guān)系。
最后,地理區(qū)位和交通條件的不同是造成社會(huì)影響差異的根本原因。尤其在旅游方面,門戶社區(qū)和界內(nèi)社區(qū)位于進(jìn)入國家公園游憩資源的必經(jīng)之路,促進(jìn)了旅游資源和政策向其傾斜,產(chǎn)生了比邊緣社區(qū)更為積極的社會(huì)影響感知。此外,界內(nèi)社區(qū)受到更多生態(tài)保護(hù)的要求和限制,同時(shí)也享受國家公園體制建設(shè)過程中優(yōu)惠政策的傾斜;而邊緣社區(qū)由于地處偏遠(yuǎn),得到的政策支持非常有限。
總體而言,不同地理區(qū)位的社區(qū)受到國家公園政策不同程度的影響,導(dǎo)致各社區(qū)發(fā)展?fàn)顩r差異加大,進(jìn)而形成了社會(huì)影響感知的顯著差異。界內(nèi)社區(qū)在不同維度影響上的感知都最為明顯。邊緣社區(qū)幾乎未享受政策傾斜,同時(shí)受到的保護(hù)限制也較少,因而對國家公園社會(huì)影響的感知較低。但野生動(dòng)物沖突和村民“被邊緣化”的感受,仍然導(dǎo)致了部分消極感知。
落衣溝社區(qū)護(hù)林員會(huì)議 ? 張雨琦,張引
關(guān)注國家公園非經(jīng)濟(jì)類的社會(huì)影響
大熊貓國家公園(唐家河園區(qū))社會(huì)影響評估的指標(biāo)權(quán)重結(jié)果顯示,部分非經(jīng)濟(jì)指標(biāo)更受重視。然而,既有的研究通常更關(guān)注經(jīng)濟(jì)因素,對非經(jīng)濟(jì)因素關(guān)注不足。因此,未來的國家公園社區(qū)管理有必要為社區(qū)居民提供更多與能力建設(shè)、環(huán)境教育相關(guān)的機(jī)會(huì),促進(jìn)居民提高自身綜合素質(zhì),鼓勵(lì)其有效參與國家公園建設(shè)。
本研究發(fā)現(xiàn)大多數(shù)邊緣社區(qū)既得不到門戶社區(qū)的旅游發(fā)展機(jī)遇,也得不到界內(nèi)社區(qū)的保護(hù)政策傾斜,導(dǎo)致了在社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)、知識(shí)教育等方面更為消極的社會(huì)影響感知。因此,本研究呼吁,未來的國家公園建設(shè)應(yīng)更多地關(guān)注邊緣社區(qū)的發(fā)展,采取相應(yīng)政策傾斜。
大熊貓國家公園(唐家河園區(qū))對周邊社區(qū)產(chǎn)生社會(huì)影響的消極感知主要體現(xiàn)在知識(shí)教育、平等權(quán)利和經(jīng)濟(jì)生計(jì)方面,未來應(yīng)當(dāng)在政策層面予以優(yōu)化。第一,發(fā)展邊緣社區(qū)特色產(chǎn)業(yè)。邊緣社區(qū)可挖掘自身?xiàng)l件特點(diǎn)實(shí)現(xiàn)產(chǎn)業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)轉(zhuǎn)型第二,優(yōu)化社區(qū)政策體系。一方面要建立公平的人獸沖突補(bǔ)償機(jī)制等,另一方面要保障界內(nèi)社區(qū)居民的日常生產(chǎn)生活需要。第三,完善社區(qū)參與機(jī)制,重視當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)的能力建設(shè)和環(huán)境教育,促進(jìn)社區(qū)參與向更高賦權(quán)程度發(fā)展,并擴(kuò)大參與范圍。
本文在生活環(huán)境宜居性、基礎(chǔ)社會(huì)服務(wù)和設(shè)施等“生活環(huán)境”維度有所欠缺,指標(biāo)未能通過信度檢驗(yàn)。這可能是因?yàn)榇笮茇垏夜珗@建設(shè)對生活環(huán)境的改變尚未見成效,導(dǎo)致受訪者對此感知差異大。建議未來研究在考慮生活環(huán)境維度時(shí)依據(jù)案例背景,仔細(xì)考量設(shè)計(jì)評估指標(biāo)。此外,本研究在三類社區(qū)中僅各選擇了一個(gè)典型村作為研究對象,未來可對多個(gè)社區(qū)進(jìn)行分類和比較研究,加強(qiáng)研究結(jié)論的普適性。
本研究填補(bǔ)了已有研究對非經(jīng)濟(jì)類社會(huì)影響因素討論的不足;強(qiáng)調(diào)重視邊緣社區(qū)的可持續(xù)發(fā)展。研究針對各個(gè)社區(qū)的政策提出了改善和優(yōu)化建議,以促進(jìn)社區(qū)的可持續(xù)發(fā)展。我國國家公園的社會(huì)影響評價(jià)還處于起步階段。在理論層面,有必要系統(tǒng)性構(gòu)建適應(yīng)我國國情的指標(biāo)體系、科學(xué)制定社會(huì)影響評估的階段和周期,橫向?qū)Ρ炔煌瑖夜珗@/不同社區(qū)的社會(huì)影響感知差異。在實(shí)踐層面,需要確立社會(huì)影響評估后社區(qū)管理政策調(diào)整的原則和方針,采用多元化策略降低國家公園建立的負(fù)面社會(huì)影響,促進(jìn)國家公園“全民公益性”理念的在地實(shí)現(xiàn)。
感謝清華大學(xué)景觀學(xué)系楊銳教授、莊優(yōu)波副教授,國務(wù)院發(fā)展研究中心蘇楊研究員,四川省社科院李晟之教授,大熊貓國家公園四川管理局沈興娜處長,唐家河國家級(jí)自然保護(hù)區(qū)管理局諶利民局長、廖飛處長、何萬紅科長、廖佳佳主任等對本文的指導(dǎo)和支持。感謝重慶大學(xué)彭琳副教授、碩士研究生陳秋瑾、李晴宇、王柳川、梁玉琳、左春林、陳佳鑫、沈博嵩等參與實(shí)地調(diào)查。
國家自然科學(xué)基金青年基金項(xiàng)目“空間正義視角下國家公園社區(qū)管理公平性測度及規(guī)劃調(diào)控研 究”(編號(hào):52108040)
國家公園自然科學(xué)基金專項(xiàng)項(xiàng)目“國家公園社區(qū)可持續(xù)發(fā)展路徑研究”(編號(hào):72241413)
中央高校基本科研業(yè)務(wù)費(fèi)“公平性視角下自然保護(hù)區(qū)社區(qū)共管績效評估及調(diào)控機(jī)制研究”(編號(hào):2023CDJXY-008)
中國博士后科學(xué)基金項(xiàng)目“中國自然保護(hù)地社區(qū)管理公平性的空間分異及形成機(jī)制研究”(編號(hào):2021M700574)
國家留學(xué)基金管理委員會(huì)獎(jiǎng)學(xué)金(編號(hào):202006260019)
[1] Yang, R. (2017). Conservation first, national representative, and commonwealth: The three concepts of China’s National Park System Construction. Biodiversity Science, 25(10), 1040–1041.
[2] Su, Y., & Wang, L. (2015). Relative concepts, policy background and technological difficulty of Pilot National Park System in China. Environmental Protection, 43(14), 17–23.
[3] Ma, T., Swallow, B., Foggin, J. M., Zhong, L., & Sang, W. (2023). Co-management for sustainable development and conservation in Sanjiangyuan National Park and the surrounding Tibetan nomadic pastoralist areas. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications, (10), 321
[4] He, S., Wang, B., Wang, G., & Wei, Y. (2021). Rural livelihood transition and industrial development inprotected areas: Experience and inspiration. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 41(23), 9207–9215.
[5] He, S., Wei, Y., Su, Y., & Min, Q. (2020). Guaranteeing fair and sustainable benefit sharing for communities in the national park: A study from perception of meanings of social-ecological systems. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 40(7), 2450–2462.
[6] Wei, Y., & Lei, G. (2019). From biocenosis to ecosystem: The theory trend of conserving ecosystem integrity in national parks. Journal of Natural Resources, 34(9), 1820–1832.
[7] Gong, X., & Hang, B. (2023). Public welfare evaluation index system of national parks: A case study of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau National Park Cluster. Biodiversity Science, 31(3), 1–12.
[8] Yang, R. (2021). National park governance system of China: Principles, vision and approaches. Biodiversity Science, 229(3), 269–271.
[9] Cheng, Q., C., Cheng, X., Ma, K., Zhao, X., & Qu, J. (2020). Offering the win-win solutions between ecological conservation and livelihood development: National parks in Qinghai, China. Geography and Sustainability, 1(4), 251–255.
[10] Vanclay, F., Esteves, A. M., Aucamp, I., & Franks, D. (2015). Social Impact Assessment: Guidance for Assessing and Managing the Social Impacts of Projects. International Association for Impact Assessment.
[11] Vanclay, F. (2003). International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21(1), 5–12.
[12] National Forestry and Grassland Administration of China. (2020). Technical regulations for the national park master plan (LY/T 3188—2020).
[13] Chen, J., Ye, J., Liu, T., Chen, W., & Tian, Y. (2022). Construction and evaluation of social impact system in national parks—A case study of Qinling National Park. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 38(4), 20–25.
[14] Yang, R. (2014). Discussions on nine relationships to build a national park and protected area system in China. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 30(8), 5–8.
[15] Yu, P., Zhang, J., Wang, Y., Wang, C., & Zhang, H. (2020). Can tourism development enhance livelihood capitals of rural households? Evidence from Huangshan National Park adjacent communities, China. Science of the Total Environment, (748), 141099.
[16] Zhang, Y., Xiao, X., Zheng, C., Xue, L., Guo, Y., & Wu, Q. (2020). Is tourism participation in protected areas the best livelihood strategy from the perspective of community development and environmental protection?. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(4), 587–605.
[17] Xu, J., Wang, Q., & Wei, J. (2018). Assessment of the contribution to human well-being by ecosystem services in Wolong Natural Reserve from the perspective of local communities. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 38(20), 7348–7358.
[18] Tian, B., Stoffelen, A., & Vanclay, F. (2023). Ethnic tourism in China: Tourism-related (dis)empowerment of Miao villages in Hunan Province. Tourism Geographies, 25(2–3), 552–571.
[19] Chen, Q., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., & Kong, M. (2022). Examining social equity in the co-management of terrestrial protected areas: Perceived fairness of local communities in Giant Panda National Park, China. Land, 11(10), 10.
[20] Wang, W., Liu, J., & Innes, J. (2019). Conservation equity for local communities in the process of tourism development in protected areas: A study of Jiuzhaigou Biosphere Reserve, China. World Development, (124), 104637.
[21] Xu, J., & Melick, D. R. (2007). Rethinking the effectiveness of public protected areas in southwestern China. Conservation Biology. 21(2), 318–328.
[22] He, J., & Guo, N. (2021). Culture and parks: Incorporating cultural ecosystem services into conservation in the Tibetan region of Southwest China. Ecology and Society, 26(3), 12.
[23] Jones, N., McGinlay, J., & Dimitrakopoulos, P. G. (2017). Improving social impact assessment of protected areas: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, (64), 1–7.
[24] Schrekenberg, K., Camargo, I., Withnall, K., Corrigan, C., Franks, P., Roe, D., Scherl, L. M., & Richardson, V. (2010). Social Assessment of Conservation Initiatives: A Review of Rapid Methodologies. International Institute for Environment and Development.
[25] Luo, X., Zhang, S., & Gong, J. (2022). The difference of residents’ perception on tourism impact in National Park System pilot area: Case study of three communities of Shennongjia, Hubei Province, China. Tourism Research, 14(2), 27–40.
[26] Guo, R., Sun, Y., & Yu, H. (2023). Spatial coupling types of Qinghai-Tibet Plateau national park cluster construction and community sustainable development. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 43(14), 1–13.
[27] General Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, General Office of the State Council. General Plan for Establishing National Park System.
[28] He, Q., Wu, Z., Zhou, W., & Dong, R. (2011). Perception and attitudes of local communities towards wild elephant-related problems and conservation in Xishuangbanna, southwestern China. Chinese Geographical Science, 21(5), 629–636.
[29] Wang, Y. (2014). Multiple values identification based research on the community planning in the national park of China [Doctoral Dissertation]. Tsinghua University.
[30] Wang, Y., & Lu, L. (2014). Community tourism support model and its application based on social exchange theory: Case studies of gateway communities of Huangshan Scenic Area. Acta Geographica Sinica, 69(10), 1557–1574.
[31] Li, D., Zhang, J., Zhao, Y., & Shi, C. (2007). Spatial differentiation of tourism impact based on residents’ perception and attitude—A case study of Sanhe Town, Anhui Province of China. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 27(4), 602–608.
[32] Yin, S., & Liu, Y. (2013).Difference and mechanism of residents’ perceptions and attitudes adjacent to scenic spot: A case study of Tangkou Town, Huangshan City. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 33(4), 427–434.
[33] Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment. (1995). Guidelines and principles for social impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 15(1), 11–43.
[34] Becker, H. (1997). Social Impact Assessment: Method and Experience in Europe, North America and the Developing World (p.22). UCL Press.
[35] Esteves, A. M., Franks, D., & Vanclay, F. (2012). Social impact assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 34–42.
[36] Jones, N., Graziano, M., & Dimitrakopoulos, P. G. (2020). Social impacts of European Protected Areas and policy recommendations. Environmental Science & Policy, (112), 134–140.
[37] Bennett, N. J., Di Franco, A., Calò, A., Nethery, E., Niccolini, F., Milazzo, M., & Guidetti, P. (2019). Local support for conservation is associated with perceptions of good governance, social impacts, and ecological effectiveness. Conservation Letters, 12(4), e12640.
[38] Ward, C., Stringer, L. C., & Holmes, G. (2018). Protected area co-management and perceived livelihood impacts. Journal of Environmental Management, (228), 1–12.
[39] Vanclay, F. (2002). Conceptualising social impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22(3), 183–211.
[40] Zhao, Z., & Yang, R. (2021). The concept of national park authenticity and integrity in China and its evaluation framework. Biodiversity Science, (29), 1271–1278.
[41] Zhang, Y., & Yang, R. (2021). Research on the framework of mechanism building of community-based co-management in China’s national park system. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 37(11), 98–103.
[42] Zhu, J., Lu, C., Shi, J., Zhang, L., & Pan, Z. (2019). Diachronic study on the residents’ well-being in natural reserves: A case study of Foping National Nature Reserve, China. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 39(22), 8299–8309.
[43] Meng, Z., Zhang, L., Zhao, M., Tang, T., Xie, C., & Ding, Y. (2022). Analysis on environmental education effects and influencing factors in Tangjiahe Community of Giant Panda National Park. Chinese Journal of Wildlife, 43(4), 1065–1075.
[44] Yuan, J., Wu, Q., & Liu, J. (2012). Understanding indigenous knowledge in sustainable management of natural resources in China: Taking two villages from Guizhou Province as a case. Forest Policy and Economics, (22), 47–52.
[45] Han, F. (2010). Cultural Landscape—Filling the Gaps between Nature and Culture. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 26(9), 7–11.
[46] Yang, J. (2022). Study on the evaluation index system of community co-management effectiveness of nature reserves from the perspective of farmers—Taking Tangjiahe and Baishuijiang National Nature Reserves as an example [Master’s thesis]. Sichuan Academy of Social Sciences.
[47] Guo, Y., Zhou, Y., & Liu, Y. (2020). Spatial-temporal evolution of rural population outflow and its mechanism in China. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 40(1), 50–59.
[48] Shi, X., Liu, R., Chen, L., & He, F. (2012). Spatial difference of environmental pollution perception in coal mine area: A case study of Hancheng mine area, Shaanxi Province. Areal Research and Development, 31(4), 146–151.
[49] Zhang, J. (2004). The diagnosis methods in planning and design (15)—Factor analysis. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 20(9), 73–78.
[50] Zhang, Y., Hu, F., Zhang, Y., Du, C., & Brockington, D. (2023). Exploring the relationship between local participation and perceived co-management performance: Evidence from China’s Giant Panda National Park. Global Ecology and Conservation, (45), e02517.
[51] Li, S. (2006). Key issues in socio-economic impact evaluation in the establishment of nature reserves. Rural Economy, (10), 44–45.
[52] Tang, X., Qin, B., & Wu, Z. (2010). Evaluation of tourism impact on agricultural heritage community from residents’ perception—A case study on Ping’an Village Guilin. Journal of Guilin University of Technology, 30(3), 461–466.
[53] Xu, Z., Zhang, J., Wall, G., Cao, J., & Zhang, H. (2009). Research on influence of residents’ place attachment on positive attitude to tourism with a mediator of development expectation: A case of core tourism community in Jiuzhaigou. Acta Geographica Sinica, 64(6), 736–744.
[54] Xu, J., Chen, L., Lu, Y., Fu, B., & Yang, S. (2004). Local people’s responses to policies in Wolong Nature Reserve, Sichuan. Biodiversity Science, 12(6), 639–645.
[55] Wang, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2019). Study on categories and hotspots of community conservation conflicts in China’s Natural Protected Areas: Based on Literature Research. Landscape Architecture, 26(11), 75–79.
[56] Yin, H., Fei, J., & Xie, S. (2011). A perception research on the residents’ benefits of scenic spot from the perspective of ecological tourism—A case study of Wulingyuan scenic zone. Journal of Hunan University (Social Sciences), 25(5), 81–87.
[57] Chen, H., Shivakoti, G., Zhu, T., & Maddox, D. (2012). Livelihood sustainability and community based co-management of forest resources in China: Changes and improvement. Environmental Management, (49), 219–228.
[58] Liu, G., Ge, Y., Li, Y., & Zhang, H. (2022). Impact of ecological compensation on sustainable livelihood capacity of farmers in water source area—Based on the improved DFID livelihood analysis framework. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, 43(10), 97–109.
[59] Zhou, M. (2013). On the study of enabling farmers’ livelihood change in the context of community based co-management—Taking the case study from Xiao Nuo You Shang Zhai Naban He National Nature Reserve Yunnan Province. Journal of Xiangtan University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 37(5), 81–86.
[60] Ma, B., Zhao, Z., Ding, H., & Wen, Y. (2018). Household costs and benefits of biodiversity conservation: Case study of Sichuan giant panda reserves in China. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 20(4), 1665–1686.
[61] Zhang, Y., Zhuang, Y., & Yang, R. (2018). Review on the management and planning of National Park System in France. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 34(7), 36–41.
[62] Wang, Y., Zhuang, Y., & Yang, R. (2017). Research on optimization of community planning in National Parks of China—A case study of Jiuzhaigou Valley. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 33(8), 24–29.
[63] Zhang, Y., Zhuang, Y., & Yang, R. (2020). Research on typical models of community-based co-management in worldwide protected areas. Landscape Architecture, 27(3), 18–23.
本文引用格式 / PLEASE CITE THIS ARTICLE AS
Zhang, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Social impact assessment of the Giant Panda National Park in China: A comparative analysis of the inside, gateway, and fringe communities. Landscape Architecture Frontiers, 11(3), 67?95. https://doi.org/10.15302/J-LAF-1-020078
版權(quán)聲明:本文版權(quán)歸原作者所有,請勿以景觀中國編輯版本轉(zhuǎn)載。如有侵犯您的權(quán)益請及時(shí)聯(lián)系,我們將第一時(shí)間刪除。
投稿郵箱:info@landscape.cn
項(xiàng)目咨詢:18510568018(微信同號(hào))