IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i5p742-d817475.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Local Residents’ Social-Ecological Adaptability of the Qilian Mountain National Park Pilot, Northwestern China

Author

Listed:
  • Jing Li

    (College of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Guoqiang Ma

    (College of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Jinghua Feng

    (College of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Liying Guo

    (College of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Yinzhou Huang

    (College of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
    Key Laboratory of Western China’s Environmental Systems, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

Abstract

Protected areas are critical for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services. In the last few years, there has been growing recognition of the role of indigenous peoples and local communities in the management of government designated protected areas, and thus their perceptions and adaptability were paid much attention. Drawing on a survey of 487 residents in the Qilian Mountain National Park Pilot of Northwestern China, this study used the adaptive analysis framework to study the adaptability of local residents. The main contribution of this paper is to select a typical social-ecological system to study the adaptability of local residents, and using Elinor Ostrom’s Social-Ecological System framework to analyze the adaptability mechanism. The results show that different types of residents had different adaptability to environmental change. People whose income mainly depends on work salary with a small part of herding have the highest level of adaptability, while people whose income mostly comes from farming with a small part of herding have the lowest level. This result is related to people’s living location, as people living in the core zone and buffer zone of the reserve mainly earned from grazing, and people living in the experimental zone and peripheral zone earned mainly from outside work. Moreover, people living in the core zone and buffer zone are mostly elders and ethnic groups, while people in the experimental zone and buffer zone are Han people. To improve management effectiveness and to avoid conflict between local residents and managers, this paper suggests that more attention should be paid to these who have lived for a long time in the core zone and buffer zone. They are the most vulnerable groups and show low adaptability in almost all domains. For the long run, education quality should be improved to decrease the population in the reserve.

Suggested Citation

  • Jing Li & Guoqiang Ma & Jinghua Feng & Liying Guo & Yinzhou Huang, 2022. "Local Residents’ Social-Ecological Adaptability of the Qilian Mountain National Park Pilot, Northwestern China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:5:p:742-:d:817475
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/5/742/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/5/742/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. You, Heyuan & Zhang, Xiaoling, 2017. "Sustainable livelihoods and rural sustainability in China: Ecologically secure, economically efficient or socially equitable?," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 1-13.
    2. William Nikolakis & R. Quentin Grafton, 2015. "Putting Indigenous water rights to work: the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework as a lens for remote development," Community Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(2), pages 149-163, April.
    3. Huang, Yinzhou & Fu, Jiao & Wang, Wenrui & Li, Jing, 2019. "Development of China’s nature reserves over the past 60 years: An overview," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 224-232.
    4. Bennett, Nathan James & Dearden, Philip, 2014. "Why local people do not support conservation: Community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 107-116.
    5. Liqi Jia & Junqing Wei & Zibin Wang, 2022. "The Intention of Community Participation in the Qilian Mountain National Park Policy Pilot," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    6. Jones, P.J.S. & Qiu, W. & De Santo, E.M., 2013. "Governing marine protected areas: Social–ecological resilience through institutional diversity," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 5-13.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Rasheed, A. Rifaee, 2020. "Marine protected areas and human well-being – A systematic review and recommendations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    2. Minh-Hoang Nguyen & Minh-Phuong Thi Duong & Manh-Cuong Nguyen & Noah Mutai & Ruining Jin & Phuong-Tri Nguyen & Tam-Tri Le & Quan-Hoang Vuong, 2023. "Promoting Stakeholders’ Support for Marine Protection Policies: Insights from a 42-Country Dataset," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-19, August.
    3. Timothy K Marcella & Scott M Gende & Daniel D Roby & Arthur Allignol, 2017. "Disturbance of a rare seabird by ship-based tourism in a marine protected area," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-23, May.
    4. Radisti A. Praptiwi & Carya Maharja & Matt Fortnam & Tomas Chaigneau & Louisa Evans & Leuserina Garniati & Jito Sugardjito, 2021. "Tourism-Based Alternative Livelihoods for Small Island Communities Transitioning towards a Blue Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-11, June.
    5. Sanjib Mondal & Pritam Ghosh & Pratima Rohatgi, 2023. "Village‐level livelihood security: A case study on a wasteland‐dominated forest fringe region of rural India," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(5), pages 1019-1036, June.
    6. Sukuryadi & Nuddin Harahab & Mimit Primyastanto & Bambang Semedi, 2021. "Collaborative-based mangrove ecosystem management model for the development of marine ecotourism in Lembar Bay, Lombok, Indonesia," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 6838-6868, May.
    7. Hatim Albasri & Jesmond Sammut, 2021. "A Comparison of Vulnerability Risks and Conservation Perceptions between Mariculture, Fishery and Ecotourism Livelihood Groups in a Multi-Use MPA in Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-17, November.
    8. Zehua Wang & Fachao Liang & Sheng-Hau Lin, 2023. "Can socially sustainable development be achieved through homestead withdrawal? A hybrid multiple-attributes decision analysis," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, December.
    9. Ryan S. Naylor & Carter A. Hunt & Karl S. Zimmerer & B. Derrick Taff, 2021. "Emic Views of Community Resilience and Coastal Tourism Development," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, August.
    10. Marko Böhm & Jan Barkmann & Sabina Eggert & Claus H. Carstensen & Susanne Bögeholz, 2020. "Quantitative Modelling and Perspective Taking: Two Competencies of Decision Making for Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-32, August.
    11. Sarkki, Simo & Pihlajamäki, Mia, 2019. "Baltic herring for food: Shades of grey in how backcasting recommendations work across exploratory scenarios," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 200-209.
    12. Lisa Ernoul & Angela Wardell-Johnson & Raphaël Mathevet & Alain Sandoz & Olivier Boutron & Loïc Willm & Stephan Arnassant & Arnaud Béchet, 2021. "Context in Landscape Planning: Improving Conservation Outcomes by Identifying Social Values for a Flagship Species," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-12, June.
    13. Ting Ma & Lizhi Jia & Linsheng Zhong & Xinyu Gong & Yu Wei, 2023. "Governance of China’s Potatso National Park Influenced by Local Community Participation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-19, January.
    14. Evan Artis & Noella J Gray & Lisa M Campbell & Rebecca L Gruby & Leslie Acton & Sarah Bess Zigler & Lillian Mitchell, 2020. "Stakeholder perspectives on large-scale marine protected areas," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-17, September.
    15. Benedikt Hora, 2018. "Private Protection Initiatives in Mountain Areas of Southern Chile and Their Perceived Impact on Local Development—The Case of Pumalín Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-22, May.
    16. Qiujin Chen & Yuqi Zhang & Yin Zhang & Mingliang Kong, 2022. "Examining Social Equity in the Co-Management of Terrestrial Protected Areas: Perceived Fairness of Local Communities in Giant Panda National Park, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-17, September.
    17. Totin, Edmond & Segnon, Alcade & Roncoli, Carla & Thompson-Hall, Mary & Sidibé, Amadou & Carr, Edward R., 2021. "Property rights and wrongs: Land reforms for sustainable food production in rural Mali," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    18. Samia Sediri & Michel Trommetter & Nathalie Frascaria-Lacoste & Juan Fernandez-Manjarrés, 2020. "Transformability as a Wicked Problem: A Cautionary Tale?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-19, July.
    19. Outeiro, Luis & Villasante, Sebastian & Oyarzo, Hugo, 2018. "The interplay between fish farming and nature based recreation-tourism in Southern Chile: A perception approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PA), pages 90-100.
    20. Tam, Chui-Ling, 2015. "Timing exclusion and communicating time: A spatial analysis of participation failure in an Indonesian MPA," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 122-129.

    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:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:5:p:742-:d:817475. 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.