国家公园全民公益性评估指标体系: 以青藏高原国家公园群为例

doi:10.17520/biods.2022571

生物多样性 ›› 2023, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (3): 22571. DOI: 10.17520/biods.2022571

所属专题：青藏高原生物多样性与生态安全

• 研究报告: 生物安全与自然保护 • 上一篇下一篇

国家公园全民公益性评估指标体系: 以青藏高原国家公园群为例

龚心语¹^,²^,³, 黄宝荣¹^,^*()

1.中国科学院科技战略咨询研究院, 北京 100190
2.兰州大学泛第三极环境中心, 兰州 730000
3.中国科学院青藏高原研究所, 青藏高原地球系统与资源环境全国重点实验室, 北京 100101

收稿日期:2022-10-08 接受日期:2023-02-09 出版日期:2023-03-20 发布日期:2023-03-04
通讯作者: 黄宝荣
作者简介:* E-mail: huangbaorong@casipm.ac.cn
基金资助:
中国科学院战略性先导科技专项(A类)(XDA20020303);第二次青藏高原综合科学考察研究(2019QZKK0401);国家自然科学基金专项(72241413)

Public welfare evaluation index system of national parks: A case study of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau National Park Cluster

Xinyu Gong¹^,²^,³, Baorong Huang¹^,^*()

1 Institutes of Science and Development, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190
2 Center for Pan-third Pole Environment, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000
3 State Key Laboratory of Tibetan Plateau Earth System, Environment and Resources (TPESER), Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101

Received:2022-10-08 Accepted:2023-02-09 Online:2023-03-20 Published:2023-03-04
Contact: Baorong Huang

1. 附录1 国外国家公园定位中全民公益性的体现.pdf(276KB)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

全民公益性是我国国家公园建设需坚持的三大理念之一, 但受其内涵不明确且缺乏有效考核评价机制的制约, 尚未受到相关方的充分重视。建立一套能准确反映其内涵的指标体系, 用于评估国家公园全民公益性理念执行成效、引导相关方采取针对性措施提高国家公园的全民公益性具有重要意义。本研究在梳理国外主要国家公园全民公益性的内涵和具体体现, 分析我国国家公园建设的时代背景和独有特征的基础上, 剖析了我国国家公园全民公益性的内涵和逻辑构成。在此基础上, 通过深入实地考察, 建立了青藏高原国家公园群全民公益性评估备选指标体系, 利用Delphi法, 以发放电子问卷的形式对本领域14名知名专家开展两轮咨询, 从拟定的全民公益性评估备选指标体系中筛选指标, 结合问卷咨询结果建立了包括管理者、社区居民、相关企业和社会组织、游客和公众5个方面, 涉及5个一级指标、17个二级指标和35个三级指标的青藏高原国家公园群全民公益性评估指标体系。指标体系囊括了国家公园体制机制、社区民生福祉、企业和社会组织参与、访客体验、公众参与等方面的多个内容。针对青藏高原的实际情况, 还设置了医疗保障体系、应急救援体系等指标, 并考虑在实际评估中增加相关指标权重, 更加重视高海拔地区的访客安全保障与居民利益。通过多维度的指标选择, 能够系统全面地对我国国家公园特别是青藏高原国家公园群全民公益性落实情况进行评估, 能一定程度上填补目前全民公益性评估研究的空白, 并促进相应指标更好地服务国家公园管理, 也为未来如何实现全民公益性提供了有效路径的参考。

关键词: 国家公园, 全民公益性, 指标体系, 青藏高原国家公园群

Abstract

Aims: Public welfare for all people is one of the three concepts to be adhered to in the construction of national parks in China. However, due to its unclear connotation and lack of effective performance assessment mechanisms, it has not been fully valued by relevant parties. Establishing a set of index systems that can accurately reflect what it means to consider national public welfare in national parks is of great importance for evaluating the effects of implementing the concept of national public welfare in national parks and guiding relevant parties to take targeted measures to improve the national public welfare of national parks.

Methods: This study conducted an in-depth field investigation of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau National Park Cluster, sorted out the meaning and embodiment of public welfare of major national parks abroad, and analyzed the meaning of public welfare of national parks in China. On this basis, the Delphi method was utilized to conduct two rounds of consultations with 14 well-known experts in this field in the form of electronic questionnaires. The proposed national public welfare evaluation index system was scored, and the national public welfare evaluation index system of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau National Park Cluster was established based on the results of the questionnaire consultation.

Results: The national park public welfare evaluation index system was established, including five aspects: managers, community residents, relevant enterprises and social organizations, visitors, and the public. There are 5 first-level indicators, 17 second-level indicators, and 35 third-level indicators. The index system includes many aspects such as national park system and mechanisms, the well-being and willingness of community people, the participation of enterprises and social organizations, the experience and participation of visitors, and public participation and perception. Considering the current situation of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, we have also set up indicators such as a medical security system and an emergency rescue system. There was further consideration of increasing the weight of relevant indicators in the actual assessment, such as paying more attention to the safety and security of visitors and the interests of residents in high-altitude areas.

Conclusion: Through the selection of multi-dimensional indicators, we can systematically and comprehensively evaluate the realization of national public welfare in China’s national parks, especially in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau National Park Cluster. This can fill the gap in the current national public welfare assessment research to a certain extent and promote corresponding indicators that better serve the management of national parks. It also provides an effective path reference for how to realize public welfare in the establishment of future national parks.

Key words: national park, public welfare, index system, Qinghai-Tibet Plateau National Park Cluster

龚心语, 黄宝荣 (2023) 国家公园全民公益性评估指标体系: 以青藏高原国家公园群为例. 生物多样性, 31, 22571. DOI: 10.17520/biods.2022571.

Xinyu Gong, Baorong Huang (2023) Public welfare evaluation index system of national parks: A case study of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau National Park Cluster. Biodiversity Science, 31, 22571. DOI: 10.17520/biods.2022571.

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://www.biodiversity-science.net/CN/10.17520/biods.2022571

https://www.biodiversity-science.net/CN/Y2023/V31/I3/22571

图/表 4

参考文献 64

[1]	Bai L, Shao W, Jiang YF (2023) Analysis on the perceptions and attitudes of community residents to national park, China. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Sciences Edition), doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202109018. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI
	[白玲, 邵炜, 蒋亚芳 (2023) 社区居民对国家公园的认知及态度分析. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202109018.] DOI
[2]	Bello FG, Lovelock B, Carr N (2018) Enhancing community participation in tourism planning associated with protected areas in developing countries: Lessons from Malawi. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 18, 309-320. DOI URL
[3]	Berriet-Solliec M, Lataste F, Lépicier D, Piguet V (2018) Environmentally and socially beneficial outcomes produced by agro-pastoral systems in the Cévennes National Park (France). Land Use Policy, 78, 739-747. DOI URL
[4]	Bingham H, Fitzsimons JA, Redford K, Mitchell BA, Bezaury-Creel J, Cumming TL, Conservancy TN, Consul- ting A, Conservancy TN (2017) Privately protected areas: Advances and challenges in guidance, policy and documentation. Parks, 23, 13-28.
[5]	Brescancin F, Dobšinská Z, De Meo I, Šálka J, Paletto A (2017) Analysis of stakeholders’ involvement in the implementation of the Natura 2000 network in Slovakia. Forest Policy and Economics, 78, 107-115. DOI
[6]	Bruner AG, Gullison RE, Balmford A (2004) Financial costs and shortfalls of managing and expanding protected-area systems in developing countries. BioScience, 54, 1119-1126. DOI URL
[7]	Chen DJ, Zhong LS, Fan J, Yu H, Yang D, Zeng YX (2022) Function evaluation and structure analysis of Qinghai-Tibet Plateau National Park Cluster. Acta Geographica Sinica, 77, 196-213. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI
	[陈东军, 钟林生, 樊杰, 虞虎, 杨定, 曾瑜皙 (2022) 青藏高原国家公园群功能评价与结构分析. 地理学报, 77, 196-213.] DOI
[8]	Chen HZ (2015) Realization ways of public welfare of China’s national park from the perspective of public goods. Landscape Architecture, (11), 90-95. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[陈涵子 (2015) 公共物品视角下中国国家公园公益性实现途径. 风景园林, (11), 90-95.]
[9]	Chen YH, Chen KL (2018) Research on the public welfare of national parks and its enlightenment for scenic areas in China. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 34(7), 13-16. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[陈耀华, 陈康琳 (2018) 国家公园的公益性内涵及中国风景名胜区的公益性提升对策研究. 中国园林, 34(7), 13-16.]
[10]	Collin G (1990) Rural society and protected area: Which dialogue? The case study of Cevennes National Park and Biosphere Reserve (France). Landscape and Urban Planning, 19, 173-180. DOI URL
[11]	Dinica V (2017) Tourism concessions in national parks: Neo-liberal governance experiments for a conservation economy in New Zealand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25, 1811-1829. DOI URL
[12]	Dupke C, Dormann CF, Heurich M (2019) Does public participation shift German national park priorities away from nature conservation? Environmental Conservation, 46, 84-91. DOI URL
[13]	Fan J, Zhong LS, Li JP, Chen T, Huang BR, Yu H, Chen D, Wang YF, Guo R (2017) Third Pole national park group construction is scientific choice for implementing strategy of major function zoning and green development in Tibet, China. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 32, 932-944. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[樊杰, 钟林生, 李建平, 陈田, 黄宝荣, 虞虎, 陈东, 王亚飞, 郭锐 (2017) 建设第三极国家公园群是西藏落实主体功能区大战略、走绿色发展之路的科学抉择. 中国科学院院刊, 32, 932-944.]
[14]	Foerster S, Wilkie DS, Morelli GA, Demmer J, Starkey M, Telfer P, Steil M (2011) Human livelihoods and protected areas in Gabon: A cross-sectional comparison of welfare and consumption patterns. Oryx, 45, 347-356. DOI URL
[15]	Gibson S, Loukaitou-Sideris A, Mukhija V (2019) Ensuring park equity: A California case study. Journal of Urban Design, 24, 385-405. DOI URL
[16]	Groulx M, Lemieux C, Dawson J, Stewart E, Yudina O (2016) Motivations to engage in last chance tourism in the Churchill Wildlife Management Area and Wapusk National Park: The role of place identity and nature relatedness. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24, 1523-1540. DOI URL
[17]	Haefele M, Loomis JB, Bilmes LB (2016) Total economic valuation of the national park service lands and programs: Results of a survey of the American public. SSRN Electronic Journal, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2821124. DOI
[18]	Harada K, Prabowo D, Aliadi A, Ichihara J, Ma HO (2015) How can social safeguards of REDD+ function effectively conserve forests and improve local livelihoods? A case from Meru Betiri National Park, East Java, Indonesia. Land, 4, 119-139.
[19]	Hardin R (2011) Collective contradictions of “corporate” environmental conservation. Focaal, (60), 47-60.
[20]	He SY, Wang BJ, Wang GP, Wei Y (2021) Rural livelihood transition and industrial development in protected areas: Experience and inspiration. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 41, 9207-9215. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[何思源, 王博杰, 王国萍, 魏钰 (2021) 自然保护地社区生计转型与产业发展. 生态学报, 41, 9207-9215.]
[21]	Heck N, Dearden P, McDonald A, Carver S (2011) Stakeholder opinions on the assessment of MPA effectiveness and their interests to participate at Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, Canada. Environmental Management, 47, 603-616. DOI PMID
[22]	Huang BR, Wang Y, Su LY, Zhang CL, Cheng DW, Sun J, He SY (2018) Pilot programs for national park system in China: Progress, problems and recommendations. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 33, 76-85. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[黄宝荣, 王毅, 苏利阳, 张丛林, 程多威, 孙晶, 何思源 (2018) 我国国家公园体制试点的进展、问题与对策建议. 中国科学院院刊, 33, 76-85.]
[23]	Huang BR, Zhang CL, Deng R (2020) The systemic solution to historical problems in China’s natural protected areas. Biodiversity Science, 28, 1255-1265. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI URL
	[黄宝荣, 张丛林, 邓冉 (2020) 我国自然保护地历史遗留问题的系统解决方案. 生物多样性, 28, 1255-1265.] DOI
[24]	Huang FJ, Yu JA, Ma XJ (2022) The funding guarantee mechanism of national parks in South Africa and its enlightenment. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 38(6), 81-85. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[黄富杰, 余吉安, 马晓静 (2022) 南非国家公园资金保障机制及其对中国的启示. 中国园林, 38(6), 81-85.]
[25]	Huang LM, Zhang YZ (2015) Key problems to be solved in national park pilot project. Tourism Tribune, 30(6), 1-3. (in Chinese)
	[黄林沐, 张阳志 (2015) 国家公园试点应解决的关键问题. 旅游学刊, 30(6), 1-3.]
[26]	Kwiatkowski G, Hjalager AM, Liburd J, Simonsen PS (2020) Volunteering and collaborative governance innovation in the Wadden Sea National Park. Current Issues in Tourism, 23, 971-989. DOI URL
[27]	Li XL (2018) Practical cases of promoting national park model and social organization. Tourism Tribune, 33(8), 12-14. (in Chinese)
	[李笑兰 (2018) 推动国家公园模式与社会组织的实践案例. 旅游学刊, 33(8), 12-14.]
[28]	Li Y, Yu L, Dou YQ (2022) Path to improve natural education function of China’s national parks based on international experience. World Forestry Research, 35(4), 113-118. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[李娅, 余磊, 窦亚权 (2022) 中国国家公园自然教育功能提升路径——基于国外的启示与经验借鉴. 世界林业研究, 35(4), 113-118.]
[29]	Li YP, Tang J, Wu Y, Hou YZ (2021) Admission and distribution of national parks in Canada from the dual perspectives of history and nature. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 37(10), 54-59. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[李亚萍, 唐军, 吴韵, 侯艺珍 (2021) 历史与自然双重视角下的加拿大国家公园准入与分布. 中国园林, 37(10), 54-59.]
[30]	Liu Y, Zou X, Chen J, Pan T (2022) Impacts of protected areas establishment on pastoralists’ livelihoods in the Three- River-Source Region on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Land Use Policy, 115, 106018. DOI URL
[31]	Lü WK, Wang XH, Bai K, Kong Y (2013) Practicability assessment of comprehensive utilization technique modes for the waste from livestock and poultry raising in China—Based on Delphi methodology embedded AHP theory. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 20(5), 85-89, 99. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[吕文魁, 王夏晖, 白凯, 孔源 (2013) 我国畜禽养殖废弃物综合利用技术模式应用性评价研究——基于嵌入AHP理论的德尔菲法. 安全与环境工程, 20(5), 85-89, 99.]
[32]	Mathevet R, Thompson JD, Folke C (2016) Protected areas and their surrounding territory: Socioecological systems in the context of ecological solidarity. Ecological Applications, 26, 5-16. DOI URL
[33]	Mayer M (2014) Can nature-based tourism benefits compensate for the costs of national parks? A study of the Bavarian Forest National Park, Germany. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22, 561-583. DOI URL
[34]	Mbile P, Vabi M, Meboka M, Okon D, Arrey-Mbo J, Nkongho F, Ebong E (2005) Linking management and livelihood in environmental conservation: Case of the Korup National Park Cameroon. Journal of Environmental Management, 76, 1-13. DOI PMID
[35]	More TA (2005) From public to private: Five concepts of park management and their consequences. The George Wright Forum, 22, 12-20.
[36]	Nchanji Y, Ramčilović-Suominen S, Kotilainen J (2021) Power imbalances, social inequalities and gender roles as barriers to true participation in national park management: The case of Korup National Park, Cameroon. Forest Policy and Economics, 130, 102527. DOI URL
[37]	Nyaupane GP, Graefe AR, Burns RC (2009) The role of equity, trust and information on user fee acceptance in protected areas and other public lands: A structural model. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17, 501-517. DOI URL
[38]	Okubo N (2016) The development of the Japanese legal system for public participation in land use and environmental matters. Land Use Policy, 52, 492-500. DOI URL
[39]	Ostergren D, Solop FI, Hagen KK (2005) National park service fees: Value for the money or a barrier to visitation? Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 23, 18-36.
[40]	Pandit R, Dhakal M, Polyakov M (2015) Valuing access to protected areas in Nepal: The case of Chitwan National Park. Tourism Management, 50, 1-12. DOI URL
[41]	Qin ZW, Xiong WQ, Zhang YJ (2020) Experience and enlightenment of public participation mechanism in British national parks. World Forestry Research, 33(2), 95-100. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[秦子薇, 熊文琪, 张玉钧 (2020) 英国国家公园公众参与机制建设经验及启示. 世界林业研究, 33(2), 95-100.]
[42]	Ramkissoon H, Mavondo F, Uysal M (2018) Social involvement and park citizenship as moderators for quality-of-life in a national park. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26, 341-361. DOI URL
[43]	Risvoll C, Elin Fedreheim G, Sandberg A, BurnSilver S (2014) Does pastoralists’ participation in the management of national parks in northern Norway contribute to adaptive governance? Ecology and Society, 19(2), 71.
[44]	Shen QY, Ouyang H, Ouyang YL (2021) Construction of the evaluation index system for the achievement degree of production and education integration goal. Higher Education Exploration, (12), 104-109. (in Chinese)
	[沈绮云, 欧阳河, 欧阳育良 (2021) 产教融合目标达成度评价指标体系构建——基于德尔菲法和层次分析法的研究. 高教探索, (12), 104-109.]
[45]	Slocum SL (2017) Operationalising both sustainability and neo-liberalism in protected areas: Implications from the USA’s National Park Service’s evolving experiences and challenges. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25, 1848-1864. DOI URL
[46]	Slocum SL, Curtis KR (2016) Assessing sustainable food behaviours of national park visitors: Domestic/on vocation linkages, and their implications for park policies. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24, 153-167.
[47]	Su HQ, Su Y (2018) National parks are not tourist attractions, but national park tourism should be developed. Tourism Tribune, 33(8), 2-5. (in Chinese)
	[苏红巧, 苏杨 (2018) 国家公园不是旅游景区, 但应该发展国家公园旅游. 旅游学刊, 33(8), 2-5.]
[48]	Sun K, Zhong LS (2021) International research on national park management for public welfare and implications. Progress in Geography, 40, 314-329. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI
	[孙琨, 钟林生 (2021) 国家公园公益化管理国外相关研究及启示. 地理科学进展, 40, 314-329.] DOI
[49]	Sutton PC, Duncan SL, Anderson SJ (2019) Valuing our national parks: An ecological economics perspective. Land, 8(4), 54.
[50]	Tosun C (2006) Expected nature of community participation in tourism development. Tourism Management, 27, 493-504. DOI URL
[51]	Wang FY, Peng JY, He X, Zeng ZX, Yang R (2022) An international comparison of national park ranger systems. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 38(4), 32-37. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[王方邑, 彭家园, 何茜, 曾子轩, 杨锐 (2022) 国家公园管护员制度的国际比较研究. 中国园林, 38(4), 32-37.]
[52]	Wang SK, Jiao Y (2021) On realization of the concept of ‘benefit to all’ in legislation on national parks. Journal of Southeast University (Philosophy and Social Science), 23 (4), 50-59, 153, 151. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[王社坤, 焦琰 (2021) 国家公园全民公益性理念的立法实现. 东南大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 23(4), 50-59, 153, 151.]
[53]	Weiler B, Moyle BD, Scherrer P, Hill M (2019) Demarketing an iconic national park experience: Receptiveness of past, current and potential visitors to selected strategies. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 25, 122-131. DOI URL
[54]	Wu CZ, Wang CL (2022) The nature, development characters and policy needs of national park gateway communities in China. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 38(4), 14-19. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[吴承照, 汪长林 (2022) 国家公园入口社区性质、发展特征与政策需求. 中国园林, 38(4), 14-19.]
[55]	Wu P, Zhang H (2022) Evaluation of appropriate criteria for ecological compensation in Sanjiangyuan National Park— Based on the supply of ecosystem service value. Qinghai Social Sciences, (1), 50-58. (in Chinese)
	[武萍, 张慧 (2022) 三江源国家公园生态补偿适度标准评估——基于生态系统服务价值供给的视角. 青海社会科学, (1), 50-58.]
[56]	Yang R (2017) Conservation first, national representative, and commonwealth: The three concepts of China’s national park system construction. Biodiversity Science, 25, 1040-1041. (in Chinese) DOI
	[杨锐 (2017) 生态保护第一、国家代表性、全民公益性——中国国家公园体制建设的三大理念. 生物多样性, 25, 1040-1041.] DOI
[57]	Yang ZJ, Xie B, He X (2020) On China national park from the perspective of society-ecology system. Journal of Sichuan Normal University (Social Sciences Edition), 47(4), 65-71. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[杨子江, 谢兵, 何雄 (2020) 社会-生态系统视角下的中国国家公园可持续旅游新范式探索. 四川师范大学学报(社会科学版), 47(4), 65-71.]
[58]	Yu H, Zhong LS, Zeng YX (2018) Research on identification of potential regions of national parks in China. Journal of Natural Resources, 33, 1766-1780. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI
	[虞虎, 钟林生, 曾瑜皙 (2018) 中国国家公园建设潜在区域识别研究. 自然资源学报, 33, 1766-1780.] DOI
[59]	Zhang DC, Xia EL, Liu C, Yang WJ, Ma YB, Fan SM (2022) Origin and innovation of China’s development concept of national park. World Forestry Research, 35(3), 1-7. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[张德成, 夏恩龙, 刘畅, 杨文娟, 马一博, 范圣明 (2022) 中国国家公园理念的源流与创新. 世界林业研究, 35(3), 1-7.]
[60]	Zhang HX, Zhong LS (2017) Institutional logic and model selection in the construction of national parks administration. Resources Science, 39, 11-19. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI
	[张海霞, 钟林生 (2017) 国家公园管理机构建设的制度逻辑与模式选择研究. 资源科学, 39, 11-19.] DOI
[61]	Zhang YJ, Xiong WQ, Xie YF (2021) Improve the quality of recreational environment and establish a framework for public participation in national parks. Tourism Tribune, 3(3), 7-9. (in Chinese)
	[张玉钧, 熊文琪, 谢冶凤 (2021) 提升游憩环境质量, 建立国家公园公众参与行动框架. 旅游学刊, 3(3), 7-9.]
[62]	Zhang ZW, Yang R (2015) The public involvement mechanism of American national park management planning. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 31(2), 23-27. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[张振威, 杨锐 (2015) 美国国家公园管理规划的公众参与制度. 中国园林, 31(2), 23-27.]
[63]	Zheng DF, Hao S, Lü LT, Xu WJ, Wang YY, Wang H (2020) Spatial-temporal change and trade-off/synergy relationships among multiple ecosystem services in Three-River-Source National Park. Geographical Research, 39, 64-78. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI
	[郑德凤, 郝帅, 吕乐婷, 徐文瑾, 王燕燕, 王辉 (2020) 三江源国家公园生态系统服务时空变化及权衡-协同关系. 地理研究, 39, 64-78.] DOI
[64]	Zhu HG, Zhao MH (2022) Impact of national parks on livelihood and income structure of different types of forestry workers’ family: A case study of Northeast Tiger and Leopard National Park. Journal of Agro-Forestry Economics and Management, 21, 78-86. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[朱洪革, 赵梦涵 (2022) 国家公园对不同类型林业职工家庭生计与收入结构的影响研究——以东北虎豹国家公园为例. 农林经济管理学报, 21, 78-86.]

类别 Category		频数 Frequency	占比 Proportion
性别 Gender	男 Male	9	64.29%
性别 Gender	女 Female	5	35.71%
年龄 Age	30?40	7	50.00%
	41?50	3	21.43%
	> 50	4	28.57%
职称 Professional title	高级 Senior	8	57.14%
职称 Professional title	中级 Medium-grade	6	42.86%
从事相关领域的年限 Working years in related fields	10年及以下 10 years and below	8	57.14%
	11-20年 11-20 years	4	28.57%
	21年以上 Over 21 years	2	14.29%

类别 Category		频数 Frequency	占比 Proportion
性别 Gender	男 Male	9	64.29%
性别 Gender	女 Female	5	35.71%
年龄 Age	30?40	7	50.00%
	41?50	3	21.43%
	> 50	4	28.57%
职称 Professional title	高级 Senior	8	57.14%
职称 Professional title	中级 Medium-grade	6	42.86%
从事相关领域的年限 Working years in related fields	10年及以下 10 years and below	8	57.14%
	11-20年 11-20 years	4	28.57%
	21年以上 Over 21 years	2	14.29%

专家编号 Number of experts	熟悉系数 Familiarity coefficient (Cs)	判断依据 Judgement basis				判断依据系数 Coefficient of judgement basis (Ca)	权威系数 Authority coefficient (Cr)
专家编号 Number of experts	熟悉系数 Familiarity coefficient (Cs)	理论分析 Theoretical analysis	实践经验 Practical experience	同行了解 Peer understanding	个人直觉 Personal intuition	判断依据系数 Coefficient of judgement basis (Ca)	权威系数 Authority coefficient (Cr)
1	0.75	0.3	0.5	0.1	0.1	1	0.875
2	1	0.2	0.5	0.1	0.1	0.9	0.95
3	1	0.3	0.5	0.1	0.1	1	1
4	0.75	0.2	0.5	0.1	0.1	0.9	0.825
5	0.75	0.1	0.4	0.1	0.1	0.7	0.725
6	0.5	0.3	0.4	0.1	0.1	0.9	0.7
7	0.75	0.3	0.5	0.1	0.1	1	0.875
8	1	0.3	0.5	0.1	0.1	1	1
9	1	0.2	0.5	0.1	0.1	0.9	0.95
10	0.75	0.3	0.5	0.1	0.1	1	0.875
11	1	0.3	0.5	0.1	0.1	1	1
12	1	0.3	0.5	0.1	0.1	1	1
13	0.75	0.2	0.5	0.1	0.1	0.9	0.825
14	0.75	0.3	0.4	0.1	0.1	0.9	0.825

专家编号 Number of experts	熟悉系数 Familiarity coefficient (Cs)	判断依据 Judgement basis				判断依据系数 Coefficient of judgement basis (Ca)	权威系数 Authority coefficient (Cr)
专家编号 Number of experts	熟悉系数 Familiarity coefficient (Cs)	理论分析 Theoretical analysis	实践经验 Practical experience	同行了解 Peer understanding	个人直觉 Personal intuition	判断依据系数 Coefficient of judgement basis (Ca)	权威系数 Authority coefficient (Cr)
1	0.75	0.3	0.5	0.1	0.1	1	0.875
2	1	0.2	0.5	0.1	0.1	0.9	0.95
3	1	0.3	0.5	0.1	0.1	1	1
4	0.75	0.2	0.5	0.1	0.1	0.9	0.825
5	0.75	0.1	0.4	0.1	0.1	0.7	0.725
6	0.5	0.3	0.4	0.1	0.1	0.9	0.7
7	0.75	0.3	0.5	0.1	0.1	1	0.875
8	1	0.3	0.5	0.1	0.1	1	1
9	1	0.2	0.5	0.1	0.1	0.9	0.95
10	0.75	0.3	0.5	0.1	0.1	1	0.875
11	1	0.3	0.5	0.1	0.1	1	1
12	1	0.3	0.5	0.1	0.1	1	1
13	0.75	0.2	0.5	0.1	0.1	0.9	0.825
14	0.75	0.3	0.4	0.1	0.1	0.9	0.825

一级指标 First grade indicators	二级指标 Second grade indicators	三级指标 Third grade indicators			平均值 Mean value		标准差 Standard deviation	变异系数 Coefficient of variation
管理者 Managers (A)	多方参与 Multi-participation (A1)	是否建立了社区共管委员会 Whether a community co-management committee has been established (A11)			4.07		0.96	0.24
		是否建立了国家公园科学/专家委员会 Whether a national park science/expert committee has been established (A12)			4.14		0.83	0.20
		国家公园政务公开率 Government openness rate of national parks (A13)			4.28		0.80	0.18
		是否建立了国家公园志愿服务机制 Whether a national park volunteer service mechanism has been established (A14)			4.43		0.49	0.11
		是否建立第三方监督及公众举报/听证制度 Whether to establish a third-party supervision and public reporting / hearing system (A15)			4.28		0.62	0.14
		是否与地方政府部门建立有效的合作机制 Whether to establish an effective cooperation mechanism with local government departments (A16)			4.14		0.91	0.22
	自然资源所有权 Natural resources ownership (A2)	实施国土空间用途管制的国土面积百分比 Percentage of land area for land space use control (A21)			3.71		0.80	0.21
	财政投入 Financial investment (A3)	中央财政投入占年度总预算的占比 Proportion of central financial input in total annual budget (A31)			4.29		0.79	0.18
	门票的公益性定价 Public welfare pricing of tickets (A4)	是否建立门票公益性定价和调整机制 Whether to establish ticket public welfare pricing and adjustment mechanism (A41)			4.71		0.45	0.10
	门票的公益性定价 Public welfare pricing of tickets (A4)	访客对门票价格的满意度 Visitors’ satisfaction with ticket prices (A42)			4.21		0.67	0.16
	访客安全保障 Visitor security (A5)	应急救援体系建设成效 Effectiveness of emergency rescue system construction (A51)			4.14		0.64	0.15
	访客安全保障 Visitor security (A5)	医疗保障体系建设成效 Effectiveness of medical security system construction (A52)			4.07		0.70	0.17
	宣传教育 Publicity and education (A6)	接受国家公园自然教育的中小学生数量 Number of primary and secondary school students receiving nature education in national parks (number) (A61)			4.64		0.48	0.10
社区居民 Community residents (B)	社区民生福祉 People’s well-being of communities (B1)	国家公园为社区居民提供的就业岗位占适龄就业人口的比例 Proportion of jobs provided by national parks to community residents in working age population (B11)			4.50		0.73	0.16
		国家公园管理局/管委会为社区可持续发展提供的规划、技术和资金支持情况 Planning, technical and financial support provided by the National Park Service / National Park Board for sustainable community development			4.43		0.62	0.14
		是否对野生动物危害防控和损害进行生态补偿 Whether to carry out ecological compensation for wildlife hazard prevention and damage (B13)			4.29		0.80	0.19
	社区治理的有效性 The effectiveness of community governance (B2)	社区居民参与国家公园管护情况(包括生态管护岗等公益岗位) Community residents’ participation in the management and protection of national parks (including public welfare positions such as ecological management and protection posts) (B21)			4.64		0.61	0.13
	社区民意支持 Public support in the community (B3)	社区居民对国家公园的满意度 Community residents’ satisfaction with national parks (B31)			4.42		0.62	0.14
		社区居民对参与国家公园管护的积极性 Community residents’ enthusiasm for participating in the management and protection of national parks (B32)			4.36		0.61	0.14
		对身居国家公园具有自豪感的居民百分比 Percentage of residents proud of living in national parks (B33)			4.29		0.59	0.13
一级指标 First grade indicators	二级指标 Second grade indicators		三级指标 Third grade indicators	平均值 Mean value		标准差 Standard deviation		变异系数 Coefficient of variation
企业和社会组织 Enterprises and social organizations (C)	特许经营的公益性 The public welfare of franchise (C1)		特许经营项目提供的服务质量(专家评分或公众反馈) Quality of service provided by franchised projects (expert ratings or public feedback) (C11)	4.29		0.59		0.14
			特许经营提供的工作岗位数量 Number of jobs provided by franchising (C12)	4.36		0.61		0.14
			本地人占特许经营提供的工作岗位的比例 The proportion of local people in jobs provided by franchises (C13)	4.71		0.45		0.10
	社会资本投入国家公园建设 Social capital investment in national park construction (C2)		社会资本投入金额 The amount of social capital investment (C21)	3.93		0.80		0.20
	公益组织参与国家公园建设与管理 Participation of public welfare organizations in national park construction and management (C3)		公益组织开展的项目数量 Number of projects carried out by charitable organizations (C31)	4.07		0.80		0.20
访客 Visitors (D)	自然教育和生态体验惠及公众 Nature education and ecological experience benefit the public (D1)		年接待自然教育和生态体验访客数 Annual number of visitors to nature education and ecological experience (D11)	4.43		0.73		0.16
	访客体验 Visitors’ experience (D2)		访客对国家公园自然和生态景观的好评度 Visitors’ praise of the natural and ecological landscape of the national park (D21)	4.14		0.83		0.20
			访客对国家公园自然教育和生态体验项目的满意度 Visitors’ satisfaction with nature education and ecological experience projects in national parks (D22)	4.50		0.50		0.11
			访客对特许经营项目提供的服务满意度 Visitors’ satisfaction with the services provided by franchised projects (D23)	4.29		0.59		0.14
			因到访国家公园而产生民族自豪感的访客比例 Proportion of visitors with national pride due to visits to national parks (D24)	4.50		0.63		0.14
	访客参与 Visitors’ participation (D3)		受访访客在体验结束后愿意为国家公园管理建言献策的意愿比例 Proportion of respondents willing to advise on national park management after the experience (D31)	4.21		0.67		0.16
公众 Publics (E)	公众参与 Public participation (E1)		每年为国家公园工作和服务的志愿者数量 Number of volunteers working and serving national parks per year (E11)	4.64		0.61		0.13
	公众参与 Public participation (E1)		国家公园志愿者累计志愿服务时长 Cumulative volunteer hours in national parks (E12)	4.29		0.70		0.16
	公众感知 Public perception (E2)		知道并认可青藏高原国家公园群的受访公众比例 Percentage of the public who know and recognize the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau National Park Cluster (E21)	4.07		0.70		0.17
	公众感知 Public perception (E2)		对我国建立青藏高原国家公园群感到自豪感的受访公众比例 Proportion of respondents proud of the establishment of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau National Park Cluster (E22)	4.21		0.67		0.16

国家公园全民公益性评估指标体系: 以青藏高原国家公园群为例

Public welfare evaluation index system of national parks: A case study of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau National Park Cluster

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

补充材料

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 4

参考文献 64

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	杜宇晨, 刘蓓萌, 陈俊峰, 王浩, 谢屹. 基于结构方程模型的农户保护意愿影响因素分析: 以东北虎豹国家公园珲春片区为例[J]. 生物多样性, 2024, 32(1): 23155-.
[2]	耿云, 寇一祎, 范新卓, 徐姝瑶, 丛丽, 张玉钧. 基于卡诺模型的大熊猫国家公园自然教育需求研究[J]. 生物多样性, 2024, 32(1): 23101-.
[3]	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-.
[4]	李世东. 中国和美国国家公园时空发展及驱动因素[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(6): 23040-.
[5]	邓昶, 郝杰威, 高德, 任明迅, 张莉娜. 海南受威胁苔藓植物适生热点区域识别与保护[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(4): 22580-.
[6]	陈天傲, 李想. 我国国家公园管理体系优化路径: 以中央层面为例[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(3): 22485-.
[7]	杨预展, 余建平, 钱海源, 陈小南, 陈声文, 袁志林. 钱江源国家公园体制试点区水稻田土壤微生物群落的格局及其驱动机制[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(2): 22392-.
[8]	金彦君, 赵龙辉, 覃远玉, 汪继超. 海南国家公园霸王岭片区无尾两栖类鸣声多样性: 基于自动录音技术[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(1): 22360-.
[9]	孙翊斐, 王士政, 冯佳伟, 王天明. 东北虎豹国家公园森林声景的昼夜和季节变化[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(1): 22523-.
[10]	李国华, 郭向阳, 李霖明, 任明迅, 万玲, 丁琼, 李娟玲. 海南热带雨林国家公园不同植被类型的大型真菌多样性[J]. 生物多样性, 2022, 30(7): 22110-.
[11]	颜文博, 莫燕妮, 曾治高, 薛少亮, 王琦, 梁春生, 黄祝礼, 罗文, 刘大业, 莫世琴, 李晓光, 梁路, 杜鹍鹏. 海南尖峰岭中华穿山甲的分布与保护现状[J]. 生物多样性, 2022, 30(6): 22106-.
[12]	赵鑫蕊, 何思源, 苏杨. 生态系统完整性在管理层面的体现方式: 以跨省国家公园统一管理的体制机制为例[J]. 生物多样性, 2022, 30(3): 21493-.
[13]	王重阳, 赵联军, 孟世勇. 王朗国家级自然保护区滑坡体兰科植物分布格局及其保护策略[J]. 生物多样性, 2022, 30(2): 21313-.
[14]	陈秋菊, 孙智闲, 李雪健, 张睿, 席蕊, 田晨, 王鑫, 邢迎春, 赵亚辉. 武夷山国家公园及其周边鱼类多样性[J]. 生物多样性, 2022, 30(11): 22260-.
[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-.