| 居民对文化林生态系统服务功能的认知与态度 |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 高虹 欧阳志云 郑华 Bettina Bluemling |
| |
| 基金项目： | 国际合作项目(中荷战略合作:中国农村自然资源可持续发展);中国科学院国际合作项目(GJHZ0948);洛克菲勒基金 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 文化林是按照文化传统和风俗习惯来保护和管理的森林,在保护生物多样性的同时也维持了生态系统服务功能.采用半结构式访谈法调查了文化林周边村民对文化林的生态系统服务功能的认知及保护意愿,结果表明:(1)村民认为文化林提供的最重要的服务功能为固碳释养、水源涵养及美学价值,并与最满意的服务功能间存在正相关关系.最期望提高的服务功能是文化功能,例如:生态旅游,美学价值.(2)相对周边其他森林村民对文化林的资源利用较小,主要是非林木产品,平均26.3％的被访村民在文化林中获得过收入,40.6％的被访者获得山野菜、竹子、中药材、薪柴等.但90.1％被访者从其他森林中得到薪柴等林产品,开展旅游村落的村民获得林产品比例相对较小,但管护意愿相对较低.(3)村民对文化林的保护积极性较高,70.4％的被访者愿意花时间来管护森林,距文化林越近、家庭收入越高,管护意愿越高.38.9％的被访者愿意支付费用来维持服务功能不变化,距文化林越近,管护意愿越低的被访者,支付意愿越高.(4)通过了解村民对文化林的态度和认知,对我国农村森林生态系统服务功能和天然林保护具有重要意义.建议大力宣传文化林的生态系统服务功能,尤其是文化功能,并寻找替代生计提高居民收入,雇佣当地男性村民看护森林,充分利用村民的传统知识加强共管力度,完善村规民约,在今后规划中尽量将村落沿着文化林布局,积极支持对文化林的保护和发展.
|
| 关 键 词： | 生态系统服务功能 文化林 态度 支付意愿 管护意愿 |
Perception and attitudes of local people concerning ecosystem services of culturally protected forests |
| |
| Authors: | GAO Hong OUYANG Zhiyun ZHENG Hua and Bettina Bluemling |
| |
| Abstract: | Culturally protected forests (CPFs) can be defined as forest areas preserved and managed by local people on the basis of traditional cultural practices and beliefs, and these forests have been maintained for decades or even centuries without much disturbance or change. Most of them are natural growth forests with well-developed vegetation, which gives them significant biodiversity value. Often, they do not only provide forest products and regulate water flows and micro-climate, but also show great cultural values to the local community. Semi-structured interview with key informants was used to investigate the attitude and perception of local community concerning about ecosystem services of CPFs in three villages in Southeast China. The sampling method was multi-stage stratified random sampling method, a total 152 questionnaires were available and the respondent rate was 98.7%. (1) We found that 81.6% respondents were satisfied with ecosystem services provided by CPFs. These ecosystem services seemed important to local residents which were the motivation of local community to protect the forests. Air improvement, conservation water and aesthetic value were considered important and satisfied with respondents. Ecotourism which was not so satisfied and aesthetic value were considered to be improved in the future. Besides, percentage of respondents prioritizing the services which they consider important had significant positive correlation with services they satisfied. This indicated the services they considered important have been protected better and provided services to villagers and human well-being. (2) CPFs preserve water, moisture soil, abate flood, clean air, and maintain traditional culture and aesthetic value, although providing timber are not the main aim. Only 26.3% respondents could get income from CPFs, particularly village with ecotourism for providing services for tourists. 40.6% respondents could get forests products, for instance, wild herb, mushrooms, bamboo and timber. However, 90.1% respondents could get forest products from other forests mainly for firewood and timber. (3) The enthusiasm of the villagers to protect the CPFs was high. 70.4% of the respondents were willing to manage (WTM) CPFs, and WTM was affected by distance to CPFs and family income through logistic regression. 38.9% of the respondents were willing to pay (WTP) to maintain the ecosystem services, and WTP was also affected by distance to CPFs and WTM. Willingness to pay for CPFs was lower than willingness to manage, because they are poor to maintain daily expense. Respondents who were not willing to pay tend to willing to manage, and the management frequency of men was higher than women. However, WTO and WTM had no significant relationship with age, satisfaction of CPFs, educational level, age and gender. (4) CPFs help to conserve the biodiversity and ecosystem services, and local communities are willing to manage and preserve the forests since they benefit from the ecosystem services especially cultural services. Thus, we recommend government to enhance the cognition of ecosystem services of CPFs to promote the protective ideas of villagers. Also, traditional knowledge and informal regulations are needed to be integrated into formal protection strategy. At last, other ways would dedicate to biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services, for instance: hire local males to manage the CPFs, make villages surrounded by CPFs. The management based on traditional belief and culture combined with informal regulation, which is not a panacea, will contribute to long term protective strategy of rural area. |
| |
| Keywords: | ecosystem services culturally protected forests attitude WTP WTM |
|
| 点击此处可从《》浏览原始摘要信息 |
| 点击此处可从《》下载免费的PDF全文 |
|
