IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i15p4154-d253765.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Effectiveness of PPGIS on Protected Areas by Governance Quality: A Case Study of Community-Based Monitoring in Wu-Wei-Kang Wildlife Refuge, Taiwan

Author

Listed:
  • Ming-Kuang Chung

    (Department of Geography, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10617, Taiwan)

  • Dau-Jye Lu

    (School of Forestry and Resource Conservation, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10617, Taiwan)

  • Bor-Wen Tsai

    (Department of Geography, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10617, Taiwan)

  • Kuei-Tien Chou

    (Graduate Institute of National Development, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10617, Taiwan)

Abstract

Based on the criterion of governance quality, this study aimed to use the case of community-based monitoring in Taiwanese Wu-Wei-Kang Wildlife Refuge to evaluate the impact of public participation geographic information system (PPGIS) on its governance quality regarding inclusiveness, respect, competence, visions and scopes, accountability, and equity. Our research included 31 informants and 75 records (25 by in-depth interview and 50 from participant observation) collected in the field from 2009 to 2015. The results show that there are several effects attributable to the application of PPGIS in substratum elevation monitoring, including generating high quality data; strengthening monitoring processes and extending attributes of its outputs by lay knowledge; promoting stakeholders’ understanding of wetlands and their involvement in negotiations; increasing their capacity and degree to participate in refuge management; amending visions and scopes of this refuge; rearranging stakeholder divisions of labor; and assisting local communities as partners of this refuge. This study demonstrates that governance quality could provide a useful concept for evaluating PPGIS effectiveness on stakeholders’ participation, knowledge interpretation, capacity and consensus building, decision-making, and distribution of rights. Being a sole case with a qualitative approach, further case studies need to be undertaken to better understand the relationships between protected area governance quality and PPGIS.

Suggested Citation

  • Ming-Kuang Chung & Dau-Jye Lu & Bor-Wen Tsai & Kuei-Tien Chou, 2019. "Assessing Effectiveness of PPGIS on Protected Areas by Governance Quality: A Case Study of Community-Based Monitoring in Wu-Wei-Kang Wildlife Refuge, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-20, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:15:p:4154-:d:253765
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4154/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4154/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brown, Greg & Fagerholm, Nora, 2015. "Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 119-133.
    2. James E. M. Watson & Nigel Dudley & Daniel B. Segan & Marc Hockings, 2014. "The performance and potential of protected areas," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7525), pages 67-73, November.
    3. Fikret Berkes, 2007. "Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from resilience thinking," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 41(2), pages 283-295, May.
    4. Weaver, David B. & Lawton, Laura J., 2017. "A new visitation paradigm for protected areas," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 140-146.
    5. Kevin Ramsey, 2008. "A Call for Agonism: GIS and the Politics of Collaboration," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 40(10), pages 2346-2363, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kim, Ilkwon & Lee, Jae-hyuck & Kwon, Hyuksoo, 2021. "Participatory ecosystem service assessment to enhance environmental decision-making in a border city of South Korea," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    2. Jessica L. Needham & Karen F. Beazley & Victoria P. Papuga, 2020. "Accessing Local Tacit Knowledge as a Means of Knowledge Co-Production for Effective Wildlife Corridor Planning in the Chignecto Isthmus, Canada," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-38, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Esteban Pérez-Calderón & Jorge Manuel Prieto-Ballester & Vanessa Miguel-Barrado & Patricia Milanés-Montero, 2020. "Perception of Sustainability of Spanish National Parks: Public Use, Tourism and Rural Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-14, February.
    2. Juyi Xia & Ming Cao & Wen Xiao & Yanpeng Li & Gang Fu & Wei Wang & Junsheng Li, 2020. "Integrating Spatial Valuation of Ecosystem Services into Protected Area Management: A Case Study of the Cangshan Nature Reserve in Dali, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-18, November.
    3. Shakya, Bandana & Uddin, Kabir & Yi, Shaoliang & Bhatta, Laxmi Dutt & Lodhi, Mahendra Singh & Htun, Naing Zaw & Yang, Yongping, 2021. "Mapping of the ecosystem services flow from three protected areas in the far-eastern Himalayan Landscape: An impetus to regional cooperation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    4. Ante Mandić, 2020. "Structuring challenges of sustainable tourism development in protected natural areas with driving force–pressure–state–impact–response (DPSIR) framework," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 560-576, December.
    5. Wai Soe Zin & Aya Suzuki & Kelvin S.-H. Peh & Alexandros Gasparatos, 2019. "Economic Value of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Recreation in Popa Mountain National Park, Myanmar: A Comparison of Two Rapid Valuation Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    6. Shingo Yoshida & Hironori Yagi, 2021. "Long-Term Development of Urban Agriculture: Resilience and Sustainability of Farmers Facing the Covid-19 Pandemic in Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-23, April.
    7. Yongdeng Lei & Jing’ai Wang & Yaojie Yue & Hongjian Zhou & Weixia Yin, 2014. "Rethinking the relationships of vulnerability, resilience, and adaptation from a disaster risk perspective," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 70(1), pages 609-627, January.
    8. Ana Raquel Nunes, 2021. "Exploring the interactions between vulnerability, resilience and adaptation to extreme temperatures," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 109(3), pages 2261-2293, December.
    9. Busby, Joshua & Smith, Todd G. & Krishnan, Nisha & Wight, Charles & Vallejo-Gutierrez, Santiago, 2018. "In harm's way: Climate security vulnerability in Asia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 88-118.
    10. Chunrong Mi & Liang Ma & Mengyuan Yang & Xinhai Li & Shai Meiri & Uri Roll & Oleksandra Oskyrko & Daniel Pincheira-Donoso & Lilly P. Harvey & Daniel Jablonski & Barbod Safaei-Mahroo & Hanyeh Ghaffari , 2023. "Global Protected Areas as refuges for amphibians and reptiles under climate change," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    11. J. Park & T. P. Seager & P. S. C. Rao & M. Convertino & I. Linkov, 2013. "Integrating Risk and Resilience Approaches to Catastrophe Management in Engineering Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(3), pages 356-367, March.
    12. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    13. Stefano Duglio & Alessandro Bonadonna & Marilisa Letey & Giovanni Peira & Laura Zavattaro & Giampiero Lombardi, 2019. "Tourism Development in Inner Mountain Areas—The Local Stakeholders’ Point of View through a Mixed Method Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-19, October.
    14. Tingting Zhang & Dan He & Tian Kuang & Ke Chen, 2022. "Effect of Rural Human Settlement Environment around Nature Reserves on Farmers’ Well-Being: A Field Survey Based on 1002 Farmer Households around Six Nature Reserves in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-18, May.
    15. Mazur, Christoph & Hoegerle, Yannick & Brucoli, Maria & van Dam, Koen & Guo, Miao & Markides, Christos N. & Shah, Nilay, 2019. "A holistic resilience framework development for rural power systems in emerging economies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 235(C), pages 219-232.
    16. Víctor García-Díez & Marina García-Llorente & José A. González, 2020. "Participatory Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Madrid: Insights for Landscape Planning," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-15, July.
    17. Smith, Sarah Lindley & Golden, Abigail & Ramenzoni, Victoria & Zemeckis, Douglas R & Jensen, Olaf P, 2020. "Adaptation and resilience of commercial fishers in the Northeastern United States during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic," SocArXiv z3v2h, Center for Open Science.
    18. Arki, Vesa & Koskikala, Joni & Fagerholm, Nora & Kisanga, Danielson & Käyhkö, Niina, 2020. "Associations between local land use/land cover and place-based landscape service patterns in rural Tanzania," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    19. Felkner, John S. & Lee, Hyun & Shaikh, Sabina & Kolata, Alan & Binford, Michael, 2022. "The interrelated impacts of credit access, market access and forest proximity on livelihood strategies in Cambodia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    20. Daniel Coq-Huelva & Angie Higuchi & Rafaela Alfalla-Luque & Ricardo Burgos-Morán & Ruth Arias-Gutiérrez, 2017. "Co-Evolution and Bio-Social Construction: The Kichwa Agroforestry Systems ( Chakras ) in the Ecuadorian Amazonia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-19, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:15:p:4154-:d:253765. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.