保护背景下的传统生计风险与适应:来自中国两个国家公园的见解

IF 2.8 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Siyuan He, Bojie Wang
{"title":"保护背景下的传统生计风险与适应:来自中国两个国家公园的见解","authors":"Siyuan He,&nbsp;Bojie Wang","doi":"10.1111/csp2.70134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Area-based conservation that addresses rural communities' livelihoods may result in both sustainable rural development and improved ecological outcomes. A comparative study was conducted within the context of China's national park pilot initiative, focusing on herders in Qilianshan and tea farmers in Wuyishan. The results show that inertia towards tradition was common among rural communities, regardless of geographical differences, but their perceptions of livelihood risks varied. Generally, herders were more dependent on policy-support, while tea farmers were more reliant on market mechanisms. Specifically, policy risks, especially from the grassland eco-compensation programme, were significant and added to the conventional natural and market risks for herders. Tea farmers, on the other hand, were more exposed to natural, market, and individual health risks that directly affected income from tea production. The herders' strong demand for adequate pastures and high dependence on eco-compensation created a tension that hindered both ecological and economic outcomes. The lack of tea processing facilities among tea farmers indicated a structural mismatch between supply and demand, which negatively impacted income due to restrictions on tea orchard expansion. We argue that national park management should align traditional livelihoods with conservation objectives by capitalizing on the multiple functions of conservation-compatible production systems, and employing targeted measures to address specific risks.</p>","PeriodicalId":51337,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Science and Practice","volume":"7 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/csp2.70134","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Traditional livelihood risks and adaptation within a conservation context: Insights from two national parks in China\",\"authors\":\"Siyuan He,&nbsp;Bojie Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/csp2.70134\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Area-based conservation that addresses rural communities' livelihoods may result in both sustainable rural development and improved ecological outcomes. A comparative study was conducted within the context of China's national park pilot initiative, focusing on herders in Qilianshan and tea farmers in Wuyishan. The results show that inertia towards tradition was common among rural communities, regardless of geographical differences, but their perceptions of livelihood risks varied. Generally, herders were more dependent on policy-support, while tea farmers were more reliant on market mechanisms. Specifically, policy risks, especially from the grassland eco-compensation programme, were significant and added to the conventional natural and market risks for herders. Tea farmers, on the other hand, were more exposed to natural, market, and individual health risks that directly affected income from tea production. The herders' strong demand for adequate pastures and high dependence on eco-compensation created a tension that hindered both ecological and economic outcomes. The lack of tea processing facilities among tea farmers indicated a structural mismatch between supply and demand, which negatively impacted income due to restrictions on tea orchard expansion. We argue that national park management should align traditional livelihoods with conservation objectives by capitalizing on the multiple functions of conservation-compatible production systems, and employing targeted measures to address specific risks.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51337,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Conservation Science and Practice\",\"volume\":\"7 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/csp2.70134\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Conservation Science and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.70134\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.70134","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

以区域为基础的保护,解决农村社区的生计问题,可能会带来可持续农村发展和改善生态结果。在中国国家公园试点计划的背景下进行了比较研究,重点是祁连山的牧民和武夷山的茶农。结果表明,无论地理差异如何,农村社区普遍存在对传统的惰性,但他们对生计风险的看法各不相同。总体而言,牧民更依赖于政策支持,茶农更依赖于市场机制。具体而言,政策风险,特别是来自草原生态补偿计划的风险是显著的,并且增加了牧民面临的传统自然和市场风险。另一方面,茶农更容易受到直接影响茶叶生产收入的自然、市场和个人健康风险的影响。牧民对充足草场的强烈需求和对生态补偿的高度依赖造成了一种紧张关系,阻碍了生态效益和经济效益。茶农缺乏茶叶加工设施表明供需结构性不匹配,这对茶园扩张的限制对收入产生了负面影响。我们认为,国家公园管理应通过利用与保护相容的生产系统的多种功能,并采取有针对性的措施来应对特定风险,从而使传统生计与保护目标保持一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Traditional livelihood risks and adaptation within a conservation context: Insights from two national parks in China

Traditional livelihood risks and adaptation within a conservation context: Insights from two national parks in China

Traditional livelihood risks and adaptation within a conservation context: Insights from two national parks in China

Traditional livelihood risks and adaptation within a conservation context: Insights from two national parks in China

Area-based conservation that addresses rural communities' livelihoods may result in both sustainable rural development and improved ecological outcomes. A comparative study was conducted within the context of China's national park pilot initiative, focusing on herders in Qilianshan and tea farmers in Wuyishan. The results show that inertia towards tradition was common among rural communities, regardless of geographical differences, but their perceptions of livelihood risks varied. Generally, herders were more dependent on policy-support, while tea farmers were more reliant on market mechanisms. Specifically, policy risks, especially from the grassland eco-compensation programme, were significant and added to the conventional natural and market risks for herders. Tea farmers, on the other hand, were more exposed to natural, market, and individual health risks that directly affected income from tea production. The herders' strong demand for adequate pastures and high dependence on eco-compensation created a tension that hindered both ecological and economic outcomes. The lack of tea processing facilities among tea farmers indicated a structural mismatch between supply and demand, which negatively impacted income due to restrictions on tea orchard expansion. We argue that national park management should align traditional livelihoods with conservation objectives by capitalizing on the multiple functions of conservation-compatible production systems, and employing targeted measures to address specific risks.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Conservation Science and Practice
Conservation Science and Practice BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
240
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信