基于社会网络分析的全球自然保护地治理模式研究
|
摘要
治理模式的选择在自然保护地有效治理过程中起着关键作用,适宜的治理模式是实现保护地生态、社会、经济和文化效益最大化的重要途径。但是,目前国内外保护地体制机制研究大多集中在保护地治理模式的理论体系分析、体制机制构建与经验总结等方面,缺乏对全球尺度上自然保护地治理模式的系统分析,尤其是对于目前全球保护地网络的治理模式呈现何种结构,以及各类治理模式之间是否存在关联性等更未涉及。为弥补此短板,对IUCN全球保护地数据库中全球保护地的治理模式进行统计分析,结果表明:全球自然保护地治理模式主要呈现以"政府治理"为主,其他治理模式为辅的多样化状态,并且治理模式随保护地的空间分布及保护地类型的不同呈现差异性;进一步,利用社会网络分析法对全球保护地治理模式结构进行定量与定性相结合的系统分析,分析结果表明:目前全球自然保护地治理模式呈现一个较明显的双中心"核心-边缘"网络结构特征,形成以"联邦政府或国家部门/机构"、"地方政府部门/机构"为主要治理模式,"合作管理"为次要治理模式的核心圈,在边缘处形成以"通过社区建立和管理"的治理模式为主的独立中心,说明保护地社区治理模式的重要性不容忽视;并且通过研究发现"地方政府部门/机构"与"通过非营利组织",以及"通过社区"、"通过个人土地所有者"、"政府授权管理"这两组治理模式内部的治理模式间呈现较强的关联性,这表明同一国家/地区倾向于同时采用有关联的保护地治理模式。
Governance type plays a prominent role in the effective management of protected areas. Appropriate type of governance is essential to maximize the ecological, social, economic and cultural benefits of these areas. Nonetheless, existing studies on the institutional mechanisms of protected areas primarily focused on the theoretical system analysis, institutional mechanism construction, and experience summaries of specific governance types. These studies overlooked the need to analyze governance types on a global scale, especially the current governance structure of the global protected area network, and understand the correlations between different governance types. To this end, current study analyzed the IUCN global protected area database, and found that the global protected area governance types are quite diverse. In general, the "governance by government" serves as the dominant governance type, while other governance types act as the supplement. The governance types vary with the spatial distribution and management categories of protected areas. To evaluate the structure of the global protected area governance type, a social network analysis involving both qualitative and quantitative features was conducted. It revealed that the current structure of the global protected area governance type is a dual-center ‘core-edge' network structure, which consists of a core circle with the ‘federal or national ministry or agency in charge' and ‘sub-national ministry or agency in charge' as the main center. It is supplemented by the ‘collaborative governance'; and an independent center based on the ‘established and run by local communities' governance type at the edge, indicating that community governance type cannot be ignored. Present study also found that the governance types within the two groups show certain relevance. The first group includes the ‘sub-national ministry or agency in charge' and ‘conserved areas established and run by non-profit organizations', while the second group includes the ‘established and run by local communities' and ‘established and run by indigenous peoples' or ‘government-delegated management'. These imply that the same country/region tends to adopt these associated governance types simultaneously.
Governance type plays a prominent role in the effective management of protected areas. Appropriate type of governance is essential to maximize the ecological, social, economic and cultural benefits of these areas. Nonetheless, existing studies on the institutional mechanisms of protected areas primarily focused on the theoretical system analysis, institutional mechanism construction, and experience summaries of specific governance types. These studies overlooked the need to analyze governance types on a global scale, especially the current governance structure of the global protected area network, and understand the correlations between different governance types. To this end, current study analyzed the IUCN global protected area database, and found that the global protected area governance types are quite diverse. In general, the "governance by government" serves as the dominant governance type, while other governance types act as the supplement. The governance types vary with the spatial distribution and management categories of protected areas. To evaluate the structure of the global protected area governance type, a social network analysis involving both qualitative and quantitative features was conducted. It revealed that the current structure of the global protected area governance type is a dual-center ‘core-edge' network structure, which consists of a core circle with the ‘federal or national ministry or agency in charge' and ‘sub-national ministry or agency in charge' as the main center. It is supplemented by the ‘collaborative governance'; and an independent center based on the ‘established and run by local communities' governance type at the edge, indicating that community governance type cannot be ignored. Present study also found that the governance types within the two groups show certain relevance. The first group includes the ‘sub-national ministry or agency in charge' and ‘conserved areas established and run by non-profit organizations', while the second group includes the ‘established and run by local communities' and ‘established and run by indigenous peoples' or ‘government-delegated management'. These imply that the same country/region tends to adopt these associated governance types simultaneously.
引文
[1] Coates D. Strategic plan for biodiversity (2011—2020) and the Aichi biodiversity targets//Finlayson C M, Everard M, Irvine K, McInnes R J, Middleton B A, van Dam A A, Davidson N C, eds. The Wetland Book: I: Structure and Function, Management, and Methods. Dordrecht: Springer, 2016.
[2] Manolache S, Nita A, Ciocanea C M, Popescu V D, Rozylowicz L. Power, influence and structure in Natura 2000 governance networks. A comparative analysis of two protected areas in Romania. Journal of Environmental Management, 2018, 212: 54-64.
[3] World Database on Protected Areas. [2018-03-29]. https://www.protectedplanet.net/c/unep-regions
[4] Bertzky B, Corrigan C, Kemsey J, Kenney S, Ravilious C, Besan?on C, Burgess N. Protected Planet Report 2012: Tracking Progress Towards Global Targets for Protected Areas. Cambridge: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and UNEP-WCMC, 2012.
[5] UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (2016). Protected Planet Report 2016. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN: Cambridge UK and Gland, Switzerland, 2016.
[6] Geldmann J, Coad L, Barnes M, Craigie I D, Hockings M, Knights K, Leverington F, Cuadros I C, Zamora C, Zamora C, Woodley S, Burgess N D. Changes in protected area management effectiveness over time: a global analysis. Biological Conservation, 2015, 191: 692-699.
[7] 张海霞, 钟林生. 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, 2017, 39(1): 11-19.
[8] Borrini-Feyerabend G, Dudley N, Jaege T, Lassen B, Broome N P, Phillips A. IUCN自然保护地治理——从理解到行动. 朱春全, 李叶, 赵云涛, 译. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 2016.
[9] 沈兴兴, 曾贤刚. 世界自然保护地治理模式发展趋势及启示. 世界林业研究, 2015, 28(5): 44-49.
[10] Alexander S M, Andrachuk M, Armitage D. Navigating governance networks for community-based conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2016, 14(3): 155-164.
[11] 曾维华, 程声通, 杨志峰. 流域水资源集成管理. 中国环境科学, 2001, 21(2): 173-176.
[12] 廖凌云, 杨锐, 曹越. 印度自然保护地体系及其管理体制特点评述. 中国园林, 2016, (7): 31-35.
[13] Ministry of Environment & Tourism (2010) State of Protected Areas in Namibia, A review of Progress and Challenges, Chapter 6: Protect Areas and Tourism. MET, Windhoek, Namibia, 2010.
[14] Dudley N. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland: IUCN, 2008.
[15] Molnar A, Scherr S J, Khare A. Who Conserves the World′s Forests? Community-driven Strategies to Protect Forests and Respect Rights. Washington, DC: Forest Trends, and Ecoagriculture Partners, 2004.
[16] Baghai M, Miller J R B, Blanken L J, Dublin H T, Fitzgerald K H, Gandiwa P, Laurenson K, Milanzi J, Nelson A, Lindsey P. Models for the collaborative management of Africa′s protected areas. Biological Conservation, 2018, 218: 73-82.
[17] 鲁冰清. 浅谈保护地管理模式及我国的模式选择//生态文明与环境资源法—2009年全国环境资源法学研讨会(年会)论文集. 昆明: 中国法学会环境资源法学研究会, 昆明理工大学, 2009.
[18] 邓禾. 论自然保护地居民的权利发展及其保障——兼论中国自然保护地完善的几点构想. 西南民族大学学报: 人文社科版, 2007, 28(5): 163-167.
[19] Kothari A, Pathak N, Anuradha R V, Taneja B. Communities and Conservation: Natural Resource Management in South and Central Asia. London: Sage Publications, 1988.
[20] Borrini-Feyerabend G. Bio-cultural Diversity Conserved by Indigenous Peoples & Local Communities: Examples & Analysis. ICCA Consortium and CENESTA: Teheran, Iran; p. 2010.
[21] FIJI. FLMMA Fiji Locally Managed Marine Protected Area Network: Community Based Management. [2018-10-20]. https://www.fijimarinas.com/flmma-fiji-locally-managed-marine-protected-area-network/.
[22] 刘军. 整体网分析讲义: UCINET软件实用指南. 上海: 格致出版社, 上海人民出版社, 2009.
[23] 邱兰. 基于社会网络视角的项目沟通管理研究. 建设监理, 2012, (10): 33-35.
[24] 程蕾. 基于社会网络结构分析法的中国水管理体制改革研究[D]. 北京: 北京师范大学, 2018.
[25] 孙菲. 社会网络节点重要性研究[D]. 武汉: 华中科技大学, 2014.
[26] yang_xian521, CSDN博客. MDS(multidimensional scaling)多维尺度分析. [2018-08-02]. https://blog.csdn.net/yang_xian521/article/details/7301121.
[27] 夜空骑士, CSDN博客. 社会网络分析法SNA. [2018-08-02]. https://blog.csdn.net/NIeson2012/article/details/46514815.
[28] MAth. CSDN博客. Force-direct力引导算法. [2018-08-02]. https://blog.csdn.net/newworld123made/article/details/51443603.
[29] YOYO做设计, 简书. 力引导布局. [2018-10-20]. https://www.jianshu.com/p/879c4215aca2.
[30] 解焱. 我国自然保护区与IUCN自然保护地分类管理体系的比较与借鉴. 世界环境, 2016, (S1): 53-56.
[31] Stafford R. Lack of evidence that governance structures provide real ecological benefits in marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management, 2018, 152: 57-61.
[2] Manolache S, Nita A, Ciocanea C M, Popescu V D, Rozylowicz L. Power, influence and structure in Natura 2000 governance networks. A comparative analysis of two protected areas in Romania. Journal of Environmental Management, 2018, 212: 54-64.
[3] World Database on Protected Areas. [2018-03-29]. https://www.protectedplanet.net/c/unep-regions
[4] Bertzky B, Corrigan C, Kemsey J, Kenney S, Ravilious C, Besan?on C, Burgess N. Protected Planet Report 2012: Tracking Progress Towards Global Targets for Protected Areas. Cambridge: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and UNEP-WCMC, 2012.
[5] UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (2016). Protected Planet Report 2016. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN: Cambridge UK and Gland, Switzerland, 2016.
[6] Geldmann J, Coad L, Barnes M, Craigie I D, Hockings M, Knights K, Leverington F, Cuadros I C, Zamora C, Zamora C, Woodley S, Burgess N D. Changes in protected area management effectiveness over time: a global analysis. Biological Conservation, 2015, 191: 692-699.
[7] 张海霞, 钟林生. 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, 2017, 39(1): 11-19.
[8] Borrini-Feyerabend G, Dudley N, Jaege T, Lassen B, Broome N P, Phillips A. IUCN自然保护地治理——从理解到行动. 朱春全, 李叶, 赵云涛, 译. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 2016.
[9] 沈兴兴, 曾贤刚. 世界自然保护地治理模式发展趋势及启示. 世界林业研究, 2015, 28(5): 44-49.
[10] Alexander S M, Andrachuk M, Armitage D. Navigating governance networks for community-based conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2016, 14(3): 155-164.
[11] 曾维华, 程声通, 杨志峰. 流域水资源集成管理. 中国环境科学, 2001, 21(2): 173-176.
[12] 廖凌云, 杨锐, 曹越. 印度自然保护地体系及其管理体制特点评述. 中国园林, 2016, (7): 31-35.
[13] Ministry of Environment & Tourism (2010) State of Protected Areas in Namibia, A review of Progress and Challenges, Chapter 6: Protect Areas and Tourism. MET, Windhoek, Namibia, 2010.
[14] Dudley N. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland: IUCN, 2008.
[15] Molnar A, Scherr S J, Khare A. Who Conserves the World′s Forests? Community-driven Strategies to Protect Forests and Respect Rights. Washington, DC: Forest Trends, and Ecoagriculture Partners, 2004.
[16] Baghai M, Miller J R B, Blanken L J, Dublin H T, Fitzgerald K H, Gandiwa P, Laurenson K, Milanzi J, Nelson A, Lindsey P. Models for the collaborative management of Africa′s protected areas. Biological Conservation, 2018, 218: 73-82.
[17] 鲁冰清. 浅谈保护地管理模式及我国的模式选择//生态文明与环境资源法—2009年全国环境资源法学研讨会(年会)论文集. 昆明: 中国法学会环境资源法学研究会, 昆明理工大学, 2009.
[18] 邓禾. 论自然保护地居民的权利发展及其保障——兼论中国自然保护地完善的几点构想. 西南民族大学学报: 人文社科版, 2007, 28(5): 163-167.
[19] Kothari A, Pathak N, Anuradha R V, Taneja B. Communities and Conservation: Natural Resource Management in South and Central Asia. London: Sage Publications, 1988.
[20] Borrini-Feyerabend G. Bio-cultural Diversity Conserved by Indigenous Peoples & Local Communities: Examples & Analysis. ICCA Consortium and CENESTA: Teheran, Iran; p. 2010.
[21] FIJI. FLMMA Fiji Locally Managed Marine Protected Area Network: Community Based Management. [2018-10-20]. https://www.fijimarinas.com/flmma-fiji-locally-managed-marine-protected-area-network/.
[22] 刘军. 整体网分析讲义: UCINET软件实用指南. 上海: 格致出版社, 上海人民出版社, 2009.
[23] 邱兰. 基于社会网络视角的项目沟通管理研究. 建设监理, 2012, (10): 33-35.
[24] 程蕾. 基于社会网络结构分析法的中国水管理体制改革研究[D]. 北京: 北京师范大学, 2018.
[25] 孙菲. 社会网络节点重要性研究[D]. 武汉: 华中科技大学, 2014.
[26] yang_xian521, CSDN博客. MDS(multidimensional scaling)多维尺度分析. [2018-08-02]. https://blog.csdn.net/yang_xian521/article/details/7301121.
[27] 夜空骑士, CSDN博客. 社会网络分析法SNA. [2018-08-02]. https://blog.csdn.net/NIeson2012/article/details/46514815.
[28] MAth. CSDN博客. Force-direct力引导算法. [2018-08-02]. https://blog.csdn.net/newworld123made/article/details/51443603.
[29] YOYO做设计, 简书. 力引导布局. [2018-10-20]. https://www.jianshu.com/p/879c4215aca2.
[30] 解焱. 我国自然保护区与IUCN自然保护地分类管理体系的比较与借鉴. 世界环境, 2016, (S1): 53-56.
[31] Stafford R. Lack of evidence that governance structures provide real ecological benefits in marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management, 2018, 152: 57-61.