生物多样性 ›› 2012, Vol. 20 ›› Issue (6): 735-744. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1003.2012.10094
收稿日期:
2012-04-10
接受日期:
2012-07-26
出版日期:
2012-11-20
发布日期:
2013-01-04
通讯作者:
崔丽娟
作者简介:
* E-mail: lkyclj@126.com基金资助:
Changhai Wang, Lijuan Cui*(), Xufeng Mao
Received:
2012-04-10
Accepted:
2012-07-26
Online:
2012-11-20
Published:
2013-01-04
Contact:
Lijuan Cui
摘要:
为了检验当地居民参与绿色农业项目前后生产生活的变化以及他们对“绿色水稻项目”(Green Rice Project, GRP)的认知度, 包括对收益、成本、保护意识以及经济补偿费用的认知, 我们分析了2004年和2011年陕西朱鹮(Nipponia nippon)自然保护区周边社区3个村919份绿色水稻项目的农户调查问卷。结果表明: 就3个村子整体而言, 参与项目后, 农户实际生活水平提高了, 农户对此认知是一致的。农户对成本的认知与对保护意识的认知受经济发展水平影响不显著(P>0.05), 普遍认为绿色水稻种植的各种成本增加了, 但他们对朱鹮及其栖息地具有积极的保护意识。然而, 农户对收益的认知和对经济补偿的大部分认知受经济水平的影响显著(P<0.05)。如果农户的基本生计没有得到保障, 农户更多关心的是自己的生存问题, 对参与GRP项目的农户而言, 在一定时期内直接关注的必然是参与项目带来的现实经济收益和政府实际补助水平。因此, 政府要建立健全野生动物肇事经济补偿机制, 这是解决保护区与社区之间矛盾的根本途径。
王昌海, 崔丽娟, 毛旭锋 (2012) 保护区周边农户对绿色农业认知度分析. 生物多样性, 20, 735-744. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1003.2012.10094.
Changhai Wang, Lijuan Cui, Xufeng Mao (2012) Local households’ perceptions of green agriculture. Biodiversity Science, 20, 735-744. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1003.2012.10094.
图1 朱鹮国家级自然保护区位置及研究区域
Fig. 1 Location of the three pilot villages with different economic levels selected by the Green Rice Project (GRP) in the Crested Ibis National Nature Reserve
2004(N = 371) | 2011(N = 548) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
刘庄村 Liuzhuang Village | 田岺村 Tiancen Village | 草坝村 Caoba Village | 刘庄村 Liuzhuang Village | 田岺村 Tiancen Village | 草坝村 Caoba Village | ||
调查农户数 Households interviewed | 52 | 156 | 163 | 84 | 209 | 255 | |
男性 Male (%) | 77 | 84 | 73 | 54 | 47 | 56 | |
年龄 Age (%) | |||||||
18-25 | 6 | 7 | 11 | 4 | 7 | 9 | |
26-45 | 47 | 52 | 45 | 23 | 29 | 18 | |
46-65 | 41 | 38 | 35 | 67 | 59 | 68 | |
>65 | 6 | 3 | 9 | 6 | 5 | 5 | |
家庭人口 Family size (%) | |||||||
≤3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | |
4-6 | 47 | 54 | 45 | 53 | 57 | 53 | |
≥6 | 51 | 42 | 51 | 42 | 40 | 43 | |
出生地 Migration (%) | |||||||
出生在本县 Born in Yang County | 96 | 99 | 98 | 98 | 99 | 97 | |
其他地方迁移 Moved from other places | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
受教育程度 Education (%) | |||||||
文盲 Illiteracy | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 | |
小学 Primary school | 27 | 34 | 39 | 48 | 59 | 62 | |
中学 Junior high school | 52 | 47 | 45 | 45 | 35 | 32 | |
高中 Senior high school | 17 | 15 | 11 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
大专及以上 ≥College and above | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
工作性质 Job (%) | |||||||
务农 Farming | 47 | 52 | 44 | 36 | 38 | 31 | |
本地打工 Working in local area | 31 | 26 | 33 | 42 | 37 | 42 | |
本地运输业 Transportation business | 6 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 6 | |
乡村旅游业 Rural tourism | 0 | 1 | 0 | 12 | 15 | 19 | |
其他 Others | 16 | 13 | 19 | 7 | 5 | 2 | |
生活满意度 Life satisfaction (%) | |||||||
满意 Satisfied | 12 | 9 | 14 | 21 | 25 | 29 | |
基本满意 Basically satisfied | 31 | 37 | 40 | 63 | 57 | 54 | |
不满意 Dissatisfied | 57 | 54 | 46 | 16 | 18 | 11 |
表1 三个调查社区受访农户的基本情况
Table 1 Demographic characteristics of respondents across households interviewed in the three villages
2004(N = 371) | 2011(N = 548) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
刘庄村 Liuzhuang Village | 田岺村 Tiancen Village | 草坝村 Caoba Village | 刘庄村 Liuzhuang Village | 田岺村 Tiancen Village | 草坝村 Caoba Village | ||
调查农户数 Households interviewed | 52 | 156 | 163 | 84 | 209 | 255 | |
男性 Male (%) | 77 | 84 | 73 | 54 | 47 | 56 | |
年龄 Age (%) | |||||||
18-25 | 6 | 7 | 11 | 4 | 7 | 9 | |
26-45 | 47 | 52 | 45 | 23 | 29 | 18 | |
46-65 | 41 | 38 | 35 | 67 | 59 | 68 | |
>65 | 6 | 3 | 9 | 6 | 5 | 5 | |
家庭人口 Family size (%) | |||||||
≤3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | |
4-6 | 47 | 54 | 45 | 53 | 57 | 53 | |
≥6 | 51 | 42 | 51 | 42 | 40 | 43 | |
出生地 Migration (%) | |||||||
出生在本县 Born in Yang County | 96 | 99 | 98 | 98 | 99 | 97 | |
其他地方迁移 Moved from other places | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
受教育程度 Education (%) | |||||||
文盲 Illiteracy | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 | |
小学 Primary school | 27 | 34 | 39 | 48 | 59 | 62 | |
中学 Junior high school | 52 | 47 | 45 | 45 | 35 | 32 | |
高中 Senior high school | 17 | 15 | 11 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
大专及以上 ≥College and above | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
工作性质 Job (%) | |||||||
务农 Farming | 47 | 52 | 44 | 36 | 38 | 31 | |
本地打工 Working in local area | 31 | 26 | 33 | 42 | 37 | 42 | |
本地运输业 Transportation business | 6 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 6 | |
乡村旅游业 Rural tourism | 0 | 1 | 0 | 12 | 15 | 19 | |
其他 Others | 16 | 13 | 19 | 7 | 5 | 2 | |
生活满意度 Life satisfaction (%) | |||||||
满意 Satisfied | 12 | 9 | 14 | 21 | 25 | 29 | |
基本满意 Basically satisfied | 31 | 37 | 40 | 63 | 57 | 54 | |
不满意 Dissatisfied | 57 | 54 | 46 | 16 | 18 | 11 |
2004 (N=371) | 2011 (N=548) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
刘庄村 Liuzhuang Village | 田岺村 Tiancen Village | 草坝村 Caoba Village | 刘庄村 Liuzhuang Village | 田岺村 Tiancen Village | 草坝村 Caoba Village | ||
调查农户数 Households interviewed | 52 | 156 | 163 | 84 | 209 | 255 | |
家庭总收入 Aggregate family income | 14,508 | 17,407 | 25,674 | 35,674 | 40,144 | 56,591 | |
种植业收入 Crop farming | 7,750(53%) | 8,502(49%) | 9,911(39%) | 14,250(40%) | 12,860(32%) | 15,906(28%) | |
养殖业收入 Breeding industry | 1,080(7%) | 2,459(14%) | 5,754(22%) | 955(3%) | 1,275(3%) | 5,024(9%) | |
外出务工收入 Working outside | 5,088(35%) | 5,688(33%) | 8,800(34%) | 17,365(49%) | 18,800(47%) | 21,400(38%) | |
其他收入 Other income | 590(5%) | 758(4%) | 1,209(5%) | 3,104(9%) | 7,209(18%) | 14,261(25%) | |
家庭总消费 Aggregate family consumption | 13,522 | 18,254 | 23,250 | 24,206 | 27,360 | 42,096 | |
生活性消费 Living consumption | 4,263(31%) | 5,729(31%) | 9,257(40%) | 8,636(36%) | 10,030(37%) | 17,866(42%) | |
生产性消费 Productive consumption | 6,200(46%) | 7,315(40%) | 9,892(43%) | 5,004(21%) | 4,588(17%) | 6,235(15%) | |
文化教育消费 Education spending | 3,059(23%) | 5,210(29%) | 4,101(17%) | 10,566(43%) | 12,742(46%) | 17,995(43%) | |
收入-消费差 Net income (income-consumption) | 986 | -847 | 2,424 | 11,468 | 12,784 | 14,495 |
表2 2004年和2011年受访农户的家庭收入与消费(元)
Table 2 Socio-economic characteristic of respondents in 2004 and 2011 (RMB yuan)
2004 (N=371) | 2011 (N=548) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
刘庄村 Liuzhuang Village | 田岺村 Tiancen Village | 草坝村 Caoba Village | 刘庄村 Liuzhuang Village | 田岺村 Tiancen Village | 草坝村 Caoba Village | ||
调查农户数 Households interviewed | 52 | 156 | 163 | 84 | 209 | 255 | |
家庭总收入 Aggregate family income | 14,508 | 17,407 | 25,674 | 35,674 | 40,144 | 56,591 | |
种植业收入 Crop farming | 7,750(53%) | 8,502(49%) | 9,911(39%) | 14,250(40%) | 12,860(32%) | 15,906(28%) | |
养殖业收入 Breeding industry | 1,080(7%) | 2,459(14%) | 5,754(22%) | 955(3%) | 1,275(3%) | 5,024(9%) | |
外出务工收入 Working outside | 5,088(35%) | 5,688(33%) | 8,800(34%) | 17,365(49%) | 18,800(47%) | 21,400(38%) | |
其他收入 Other income | 590(5%) | 758(4%) | 1,209(5%) | 3,104(9%) | 7,209(18%) | 14,261(25%) | |
家庭总消费 Aggregate family consumption | 13,522 | 18,254 | 23,250 | 24,206 | 27,360 | 42,096 | |
生活性消费 Living consumption | 4,263(31%) | 5,729(31%) | 9,257(40%) | 8,636(36%) | 10,030(37%) | 17,866(42%) | |
生产性消费 Productive consumption | 6,200(46%) | 7,315(40%) | 9,892(43%) | 5,004(21%) | 4,588(17%) | 6,235(15%) | |
文化教育消费 Education spending | 3,059(23%) | 5,210(29%) | 4,101(17%) | 10,566(43%) | 12,742(46%) | 17,995(43%) | |
收入-消费差 Net income (income-consumption) | 986 | -847 | 2,424 | 11,468 | 12,784 | 14,495 |
因为参与GRP…… After you participation in the GRP | 刘庄村 Liuzhuang Village (n1=84) | 田岺村 Tiancen Village (n2=209) | 草坝村 Caoba Village (n3=255) | χ2 | P |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 水稻种植收入增加了 The income from rice cultivation increased | 67(80%) | 178(85%) | 234(92%) | 9.813 | 0.007 |
2 家庭收入增加了 Family income increased | 75(89%) | 171(82%) | 251(98%) | 37.791 | 0.000 |
3 家庭消费增加了 Family consumption increased | 79(94%) | 195(93%) | 219(86%) | 8.835 | 0.012 |
4 朱鹮数量增加了 The number of Crested Ibis increased | 84(100%) | 205(98%) | 243(95%) | 6.143 | 0.046 |
5 改变了就业结构 Employment structure changed | 76(90%) | 182(87%) | 250(98%) | 21.108 | 0.000 |
6 就业机会增加了 Employment opportunities increased | 34(40%) | 126(60%) | 174(68%) | 20.519 | 0.000 |
7 社区旅游业增加了 Tourism in communities increased | 21(25%) | 89(43%) | 146(57%) | 28.726 | 0.000 |
8 自己家的土特产销售多了 Sales of local and special products increased | 15(18%) | 67(32%) | 111(44%) | 19.733 | 0.000 |
9 乡村公路里程增加了 Mileage of rural highway increased | 81(96%) | 158(76%) | 169(66%) | 30.438 | 0.000 |
10 保护区与社区的矛盾减少了 Conflicts between protected areas and communities reduced | 74(88%) | 181(87%) | 204(80%) | 5.052 | 0.080 |
11 人类生存环境变好了 Living environment of human beings getting improved | 24(29%) | 42(20%) | 34(13%) | 10.608 | 0.005 |
12 水稻种植技术提高了 Rice cultivation technique increased | 43(51%) | 102(49%) | 115(45%) | 1.191 | 0.551 |
13 当地投资多了Investment increased | 15(18%) | 89(43%) | 137(54%) | 33.262 | 0.000 |
表3 2011年农户对绿色水稻项目的收益认知 (N=548)
Table 3 Local perceived benefits toward GRP in 2011 (N=548)
因为参与GRP…… After you participation in the GRP | 刘庄村 Liuzhuang Village (n1=84) | 田岺村 Tiancen Village (n2=209) | 草坝村 Caoba Village (n3=255) | χ2 | P |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 水稻种植收入增加了 The income from rice cultivation increased | 67(80%) | 178(85%) | 234(92%) | 9.813 | 0.007 |
2 家庭收入增加了 Family income increased | 75(89%) | 171(82%) | 251(98%) | 37.791 | 0.000 |
3 家庭消费增加了 Family consumption increased | 79(94%) | 195(93%) | 219(86%) | 8.835 | 0.012 |
4 朱鹮数量增加了 The number of Crested Ibis increased | 84(100%) | 205(98%) | 243(95%) | 6.143 | 0.046 |
5 改变了就业结构 Employment structure changed | 76(90%) | 182(87%) | 250(98%) | 21.108 | 0.000 |
6 就业机会增加了 Employment opportunities increased | 34(40%) | 126(60%) | 174(68%) | 20.519 | 0.000 |
7 社区旅游业增加了 Tourism in communities increased | 21(25%) | 89(43%) | 146(57%) | 28.726 | 0.000 |
8 自己家的土特产销售多了 Sales of local and special products increased | 15(18%) | 67(32%) | 111(44%) | 19.733 | 0.000 |
9 乡村公路里程增加了 Mileage of rural highway increased | 81(96%) | 158(76%) | 169(66%) | 30.438 | 0.000 |
10 保护区与社区的矛盾减少了 Conflicts between protected areas and communities reduced | 74(88%) | 181(87%) | 204(80%) | 5.052 | 0.080 |
11 人类生存环境变好了 Living environment of human beings getting improved | 24(29%) | 42(20%) | 34(13%) | 10.608 | 0.005 |
12 水稻种植技术提高了 Rice cultivation technique increased | 43(51%) | 102(49%) | 115(45%) | 1.191 | 0.551 |
13 当地投资多了Investment increased | 15(18%) | 89(43%) | 137(54%) | 33.262 | 0.000 |
因为参与GRP…… After you participation in the GRP | 刘庄村 Liuzhuang Village (n1=84) | 田岺村 Tiancen Village (n2=209) | 草坝村 Caoba Village (n3=255) | χ2 | P |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 水稻产量减少 Rice production reduced | 75(89%) | 186(89%) | 232(91%) | 0.552 | 0.759 |
2 水稻种植成本增加 Cost of the green rice cultivation increased | 81(96%) | 179(86%) | 239(94%) | 12.723 | 0.002 |
4 朱鹮损害水稻的面积增加 Damaged area increased | 75(13%) | 179(11%) | 211(12%) | 2.268 | 0.322 |
3 生活被朱鹮干扰 Daily life was disturbed by the Crested Ibis | 2(2%) | 2(1%) | 0(0) | 5.184 | 0.075 |
5 种植其他类型庄稼的机会减少 Other crops planting getting less | 80(95%) | 195(93%) | 239(94%) | 0.390 | 0.823 |
表4 2011年农户对绿色水稻项目的成本认知(N=548)
Table 4 Local perceived costs toward GRP in 2011 (N=548)
因为参与GRP…… After you participation in the GRP | 刘庄村 Liuzhuang Village (n1=84) | 田岺村 Tiancen Village (n2=209) | 草坝村 Caoba Village (n3=255) | χ2 | P |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 水稻产量减少 Rice production reduced | 75(89%) | 186(89%) | 232(91%) | 0.552 | 0.759 |
2 水稻种植成本增加 Cost of the green rice cultivation increased | 81(96%) | 179(86%) | 239(94%) | 12.723 | 0.002 |
4 朱鹮损害水稻的面积增加 Damaged area increased | 75(13%) | 179(11%) | 211(12%) | 2.268 | 0.322 |
3 生活被朱鹮干扰 Daily life was disturbed by the Crested Ibis | 2(2%) | 2(1%) | 0(0) | 5.184 | 0.075 |
5 种植其他类型庄稼的机会减少 Other crops planting getting less | 80(95%) | 195(93%) | 239(94%) | 0.390 | 0.823 |
刘庄村 Liuzhuang Village (n1=84) | 田岺村 Tiancen Village (n2=209) | 草坝村 Caoba Village (n3=255) | χ2 | P | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 经济补偿费用少, 需要增加 More economic compensation is needed | 64(76%) | 99(47%) | 121(47%) | 23.591 | 0.000 |
2 及时得到经济补偿费用 Having got economic compensation in time | 75(89%) | 201(96%) | 253(99%) | 18.746 | 0.000 |
3 担心补偿款将来会被取消 Worrying about the cancellation of the economic compensation | 76(90%) | 156(75%) | 211(83%) | 10.818 | 0.004 |
4 如果绿色水稻种植没有经济补偿了还愿意参与 Continue to participate in the GRP even if the economic compensation is cancelled | 35(42%) | 107(51%) | 117(46%) | 2.548 | 0.280 |
5 如果种植绿色水稻会继续有经济补偿还愿意参与 Continue to participate in the GRP if the economic compensation continued | 73(87%) | 173(83%) | 211(83%) | 0.883 | 0.643 |
6 基本满意现在的补偿方式 Basically satisfied with current economic loss compensation system a | 69(82%) | 190(91%) | 241(95%) | 12.138 | 0.002 |
表5 2011年农户对绿色水稻项目经济补偿的认知(N=548)
Table 5 Local perceived compensation toward GRP in 2011 (N=548)
刘庄村 Liuzhuang Village (n1=84) | 田岺村 Tiancen Village (n2=209) | 草坝村 Caoba Village (n3=255) | χ2 | P | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 经济补偿费用少, 需要增加 More economic compensation is needed | 64(76%) | 99(47%) | 121(47%) | 23.591 | 0.000 |
2 及时得到经济补偿费用 Having got economic compensation in time | 75(89%) | 201(96%) | 253(99%) | 18.746 | 0.000 |
3 担心补偿款将来会被取消 Worrying about the cancellation of the economic compensation | 76(90%) | 156(75%) | 211(83%) | 10.818 | 0.004 |
4 如果绿色水稻种植没有经济补偿了还愿意参与 Continue to participate in the GRP even if the economic compensation is cancelled | 35(42%) | 107(51%) | 117(46%) | 2.548 | 0.280 |
5 如果种植绿色水稻会继续有经济补偿还愿意参与 Continue to participate in the GRP if the economic compensation continued | 73(87%) | 173(83%) | 211(83%) | 0.883 | 0.643 |
6 基本满意现在的补偿方式 Basically satisfied with current economic loss compensation system a | 69(82%) | 190(91%) | 241(95%) | 12.138 | 0.002 |
刘庄村 Liuzhuang Village (n1=84) | 田岺村 Tiancen Village (n2=209) | 草坝村 Caoba Village (n3=255) | χ2 | P | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 认为GRP能够保护朱鹮及其栖息地 The GRP can protect the Crested Ibis and its habitat | 66(79%) | 154(74%) | 200(78%) | 1. 625 | 0.438 |
2 我认为朱鹮应该被保护, 因为…… Why do you protect the Crested Ibis? Because …… | 9.759 | 0.055 | |||
没有原因, 仅仅是喜欢朱鹮 With out particular reason just for the fond of the Crested Ibis | 28(34%) | 87(42%) | 84(33%) | ||
它是世界珍稀的、当地吉祥鸟 A rare and lucky bird | 39(46%) | 66(31%) | 113(44%) | ||
政府要求的 The requirement of the government | 17(20%) | 56(27%) | 58(23%) | ||
3 知道当地野生朱鹮是中国特有的珍稀动物 I know the Crested Ibis is rare animal endemic to China | 84(100%) | 207(99%) | 255(100%) | 3.256 | 0.196 |
4 为了保护朱鹮, 如果需要一名社区周边的巡护员, 定期巡护 If a community patroller is needed to protect the Crested Ibis, you will be interested in it. | 8.830 | 0.065 | |||
愿意无偿参加 Participate without payments | 37(44%) | 81(39%) | 79(31%) | ||
需要给予一定报酬参加 Participate with some payments | 15(18%) | 42(20%) | 59(23%) | ||
没有时间参加 No time to participate in patrol work | 32(38%) | 86(41%) | 117(46%) | ||
5 会向派出所举报伤害朱鹮的违法行为 Report to the local police office for the illegal activities against the Crested Ibis. | 84(100%) | 209(100%) | 255(100%) | ||
6 发现野生朱鹮受伤, 会积极向保护部门举报并参与救护 Take an active part in rescuing the injured Crested Ibis | 79(94%) | 192(92%) | 244(96%) | 2.963 | 0.227 |
表6 2011年农户对生物多样性保护意识的认知(N=548)
Table 6 Local protection consciousness toward GRP in 2011(N=548)
刘庄村 Liuzhuang Village (n1=84) | 田岺村 Tiancen Village (n2=209) | 草坝村 Caoba Village (n3=255) | χ2 | P | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 认为GRP能够保护朱鹮及其栖息地 The GRP can protect the Crested Ibis and its habitat | 66(79%) | 154(74%) | 200(78%) | 1. 625 | 0.438 |
2 我认为朱鹮应该被保护, 因为…… Why do you protect the Crested Ibis? Because …… | 9.759 | 0.055 | |||
没有原因, 仅仅是喜欢朱鹮 With out particular reason just for the fond of the Crested Ibis | 28(34%) | 87(42%) | 84(33%) | ||
它是世界珍稀的、当地吉祥鸟 A rare and lucky bird | 39(46%) | 66(31%) | 113(44%) | ||
政府要求的 The requirement of the government | 17(20%) | 56(27%) | 58(23%) | ||
3 知道当地野生朱鹮是中国特有的珍稀动物 I know the Crested Ibis is rare animal endemic to China | 84(100%) | 207(99%) | 255(100%) | 3.256 | 0.196 |
4 为了保护朱鹮, 如果需要一名社区周边的巡护员, 定期巡护 If a community patroller is needed to protect the Crested Ibis, you will be interested in it. | 8.830 | 0.065 | |||
愿意无偿参加 Participate without payments | 37(44%) | 81(39%) | 79(31%) | ||
需要给予一定报酬参加 Participate with some payments | 15(18%) | 42(20%) | 59(23%) | ||
没有时间参加 No time to participate in patrol work | 32(38%) | 86(41%) | 117(46%) | ||
5 会向派出所举报伤害朱鹮的违法行为 Report to the local police office for the illegal activities against the Crested Ibis. | 84(100%) | 209(100%) | 255(100%) | ||
6 发现野生朱鹮受伤, 会积极向保护部门举报并参与救护 Take an active part in rescuing the injured Crested Ibis | 79(94%) | 192(92%) | 244(96%) | 2.963 | 0.227 |
[1] | Allendorf TD (2007) Residents’ attitudes toward three protected areas in southwestern Nepal. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16, 2087-2102. |
[2] | Bajracharya SB, Furley PA, Newton AC (2005) Effectiveness of community involvement in delivering conservation benefits to the Annapurna conservation area, Nepal. Environmental Conservation, 32, 1-9. |
[3] | Baral N, Stern MJ (2011) A comparative study of two community-based conservation models in Nepal. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20, 2407-2426. |
[4] | Bauer H (2003) Local perceptions of Waza National Park, northern Cameroon. Environmental Conservation, 30, 175-181. |
[5] |
Bergquist DA (2007) Sustainability and local people’s participation in coastal aquaculture: regional differences and historical experiences in Sri Lanka and the Philippines. Environmental Management, 40, 787-802.
DOI URL PMID |
[6] | Ding CQ (2010) Crested Ibis. Chinese Birds, 1, 156-162. |
[7] | Jin LS (靳乐山), Guo JQ (郭建卿) (2011) Rural residents’ awareness of environmental protection and willingness to pay for environmental protection: a case study of the Nabanhe Nature Reserve. Resources Science (资源科学), 33(1), 50-55. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[8] | Karanth KK, Nepal SK (2012) Local residents perception of benefits and losses from protected: areas in India and Nepal. Environmental Management, 49, 372-386. |
[9] | Khadka D, Nepal SK (2010) Local responses to participatory conservation in Annapurna conservation area, Nepal. Environmental Management, 45, 351-362. |
[10] | Luo H (罗辉), Liang JZ (梁建忠), Huang XY (黄晓园) (2010) An analysis of the profit body of natural reserve and periphery community based on game theory. Journal of Guizhou University (Social Sciences) (贵州大学学报), 28(1), 62-66. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[11] | Ministry of Environmental Protection, P. R. C. (中国环境保护部) (2012) List of Nature Reserves of China (全国自然保护区名录). Chinese Environmental Science Press, Beijing. (in Chinese) |
[12] | Muller-Boker U, Kollmair M (2000) Livelihood strategies and local perceptions of a new nature conservation project in Nepal: the Kanchenjunga conservation area project. Mountain Research and Development, 20, 324-331. |
[13] | Nepal SK, Spiteri A (2011) Linking livelihoods and conservation: an examination of local residents’ perceived linkages between conservation and livelihood benefits around Nepal’s Chitwan National Park. Environmental Management, 47, 727-738. |
[14] | Pandit BH, Albano A, Kumar C (2009) Community-based forest enterprises in Nepal: an analysis of their role in increasing income benefits to the poor. Small-scale Forestry, 8, 447-462. |
[15] | Ren X (任啸) (2005) A probe into community participation managerial mode of natural protection zones: a case study of Jiuzhaigou Natural Reserve Zone. Tourism Science (旅游科学), 19(3), 15-19. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[16] | Spiteri A, Nepal SK (2008) Evaluating local benefits from conservation in Nepal’s Annapurna conservation area. Environmental Management, 42, 391-401. |
[17] | Wang CH (王昌海), Wen YL (温亚利), Yang LF (杨莉菲) (2010a) Economic dependence of communities surrounding the Giant Panda Nature Reserve on nature resources in the Qinling Mountains. Resources Science (资源科学), 32, 1315-1322. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[18] | Wang CH (王昌海), Wen YL (温亚利), Hao CX (郝春旭) (2010b) A study on farmers ''pre-satisfaction and follow-up willingness of returning farmland in the Giant Panda Nature Reserve: a case on 124 households surrounding Shaanxi Changqing Nature Reserve. Resources Science (资源科学), 32, 2028-2035. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[19] | Wang CH (王昌海), Wen YL (温亚利), Shi J (时鉴)(2011) Analysis on introspection of the relationship between nature reserves in Qinling and adjacent community from the perspective of symbiosis theory. Journal of Northwest Forestry University (西北林学院学报), 26, 236-240. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[20] | Weaver DB, Lawton LJ (2008) Perceptions of a nearby exurban protected area in South Carolina, United States. Environmental Management, 41, 389-397. |
[21] | Wen YL (温亚利), Xie Y (谢屹) (2009) Analysis on characteristics of biodiversity resource property right and their influences on conservation in China. Journal of Beijing Forestry University (Social Sciences) (北京林业大学学报: 社会科学版), 8(4), 87-92. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[22] | Wilson E, Koester D (2008) Community participation in international projects: an analytical perspective from the Russian Far East. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10, 267-290. |
[23] | Wittmayer JM, Büscher B (2010) Conserving conflict? Transfrontier conservation, development discourses and local conflict between South Africa and Lesotho. Human Ecology, 38, 763-773. |
[24] | Zhang YM (张跃明), Zhang ZL (张哲邻), Ding HH (丁海华) (2006) Practice of greening agriculture applied in Crested Ibis habitat conservation under marketing incentive mechanism. Journal of Shaanxi Normal University (Natural Science Edition) (陕西师范大学学报: 自然科学版), 34, 222-227. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[1] | 李雪萌, 蒋际宝, 张曾鲁, 刘晓静, 王亚利, 吴宜钊, 李银生, 邱江平, 赵琦. 宝天曼国家级自然保护区蚯蚓物种多样性及其影响因素[J]. 生物多样性, 2024, 32(4): 23352-. |
[2] | 王启蕃, 刘小慧, 朱紫薇, 刘磊, 王鑫雪, 汲旭阳, 周绍春, 张子栋, 董红雨, 张明海. 黑龙江北极村国家级自然保护区鸟类与兽类多样性[J]. 生物多样性, 2024, 32(4): 24024-. |
[3] | 所翟, 俞渃茜, 李媛辉, 徐基良. 基于实证分析中国自然保护区地方立法问题检视和优化路径[J]. 生物多样性, 2024, 32(2): 23287-. |
[4] | 刘啸林, 吴友贵, 张敏华, 陈小荣, 朱志成, 陈定云, 董舒, 李步杭, 丁炳扬, 刘宇. 浙江百山祖25 ha亚热带森林动态监测样地群落组成与结构特征[J]. 生物多样性, 2024, 32(2): 23294-. |
[5] | 黄小龙, 蒙秉顺, 李海波, 冉伟, 杨伟, 王丞, 谢波, 张旭, 冉景丞, 张明明. 基于红外相机的黔金丝猴及其同域分布物种种间关联[J]. 生物多样性, 2024, 32(2): 23402-. |
[6] | 万志前, 张媛, 张文斐. 重要农业文化遗产利用中农民权益保护: 理论证成、现实困境与实现机制[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(9): 23064-. |
[7] | 崔国发. 关于自然保护地整合优化工作中几个关键问题的讨论与建议[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(9): 22447-. |
[8] | 邢超, 林依, 周智强, 赵联军, 蒋仕伟, 林蓁蓁, 徐基良, 詹祥江. 基于DNA条形码技术构建王朗国家级自然保护区陆生脊椎动物遗传资源数据库及物种鉴定[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(7): 22661-. |
[9] | 陈本平, 陈建武, 凌征文, 杨旭, 陈鑫, 李生强, 杨彪. 四川老君山国家级自然保护区林下鸟兽多样性及动态变化数据集[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(5): 22566-. |
[10] | 姚雪, 陈星, 戴尊, 宋坤, 邢诗晨, 曹宏彧, 邹璐, 王健. 采集策略对叶附生苔类植物发现概率及物种多样性的重要性[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(4): 22685-. |
[11] | 赵梦乔, 陈友, 徐正会, 王戌勃, 赵忠良, 徐文川, 何宗辉, 王文华. 云南哀牢山国家级自然保护区东坡垂直带蚂蚁物种多样性[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(11): 23168-. |
[12] | 胡远芳, 李斌强, 梁丹, 李兴权, 刘兰香, 杨家伟, 罗旭. 人为干扰对白腹锦鸡活动节律的影响[J]. 生物多样性, 2022, 30(8): 21484-. |
[13] | 李海萍, 徐竹青, 龙志航. 大兴安岭地区重点保护和珍稀动物保护空缺分析[J]. 生物多样性, 2022, 30(2): 21294-. |
[14] | 秦乐, 朱彦鹏, 任月恒, 李博炎, 付梦娣, 李俊生. 青藏高原国家级自然保护区管理能力差异及其对保护成效的影响[J]. 生物多样性, 2022, 30(11): 22419-. |
[15] | 王伟, 周越, 田瑜, 李俊生. 自然保护地生物多样性保护研究进展[J]. 生物多样性, 2022, 30(10): 22459-. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||
备案号:京ICP备16067583号-7
Copyright © 2022 版权所有 《生物多样性》编辑部
地址: 北京香山南辛村20号, 邮编:100093
电话: 010-62836137, 62836665 E-mail: biodiversity@ibcas.ac.cn