4.7 Article

The role of ecosystem services in park-people relationships: The case of Gaoligongshan Nature Reserve in southwest China

Journal

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
Volume 167, Issue -, Pages 187-193

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.08.013

Keywords

Park-people relationships; Ecosystem services; Protected areas; Attitudes; Perceptions; China

Funding

  1. China National Social Sciences Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Finding common ground between local residents' livelihoods and the conservation of protected areas in developing countries has been considered a challenge. Recently, ecosystem services have been used as a framework to understand the benefits that protected areas provide local residents. In this study, we explore the role of ecosystem services in residents' relationships with Gaoligongshan Nature Reserve (GNR) in Yunnan, China. GNR is located in a biodiversity hotspot and in an area that has been affected severe droughts. Results show that the majority of people recognize ecosystem services as benefits from GNR, particularly regulating services such as the provision of water. Respondents who perceived regulating services were more likely to be older, male, of Yi ethnicity, more educated, and grow sugarcane but not corn. However, controlling for residents' knowledge about GNR, the effects of gender, age, and education decrease or disappear, while ethnicity and agricultural crops grown remain significant. This study demonstrates that people recognize common ground between their livelihoods and GNR and suggests that people's knowledge about GNR, cultural context, and agricultural experiences influence their appreciation of ecosystem services from GNR. This study highlights that protected area conservation, if conducted with awareness of people's already-existing perceptions of benefits, can begin with a discussion of win-win scenarios. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available