Performance and Obstacle Tracking to Natural Forest Resource Protection Project: A Rangers’ Case of Qilian Mountain, China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Overview of the Policy for NFRPP
2.2. Overview of the Study Area
2.3. Questionnaire Design and Data Collection
2.4. Framework and Index
2.4.1. Measurement Framework of the Performance for NFRPP
2.4.2. Evaluation Index System of the Performance for NFRPP
2.5. Models Selection
2.5.1. The Improved TOPSIS Model Based on the Gray Relation Analysis
2.5.2. Obstacle Factor Tracking Model
3. Results
3.1. GRA-TOPSIS Results for Performance Evaluation of NFRPP
3.1.1. The Score and Distribution of Performance Value in Process Dimension
3.1.2. The Score and Distribution of Performance Value in Outcome Dimension
3.2. Obstacle Tracking Results of NFRPP Performance
4. Discussion
4.1. Reflection on the NFRPP
4.1.1. Function Setting in Management System: Multi-Sectoral Management Trigger System Fragmentation
4.1.2. Implementation Deviation in Management System: Differentiated Logical Direction of Ecological Governance and Goal Conflicts Trigger System Failure
4.1.3. Support Mechanism Vacancy in Management System: Social Capital Investment and Community Co-Management
4.2. The Multidimensional Strategies Proposals for NFRPP
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
NFRPP | Natural forest resource protection project |
QMNR | Qilian Mountain Nature Reserve |
QMNRA | Qilian Mountain Nature Reserve Administration |
Appendix A
References
- Wang, T.; Gao, F.; Wang, B.; Wang, P.; Wang, Q.; Song, H.; Yin, C. Status and suggestions on ecological protection and restoration of Qilian Mountains. J. Glaciol. Geocryol. 2017, 39, 229–234. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, X.; He, Z.B.; Du, J.; Yang, J.J.; Chen, L.F. Effects of Thinning on the Soil Moisture of the Picea crassifolia Plantation in Qilian Mountains. For. Res. 2015, 28, 55–60. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- He, Z.; Du Jun, C.L.; Zhu, X.; Zhao, M. Review on montane forest eco-hydrology in arid area. Adv. Earth Sci. 2016, 31, 1078–1089. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Song, Y.C. Study on Government Synergy and Counter-Measure in “One Land, Two Certificates” Control of Forest and Grass in Qilian Mountain Reserve. Master’s Dissertation, Lanzhou university, Lanzhou, China, 2019. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
- Nie, Y.; Liu, Q. Public Value Analysis and Performance Evaluation of Ecological Governance Policy from the perspective of public value: A case study of Wulan County of Qinghai. Henan Soc. Sci. 2018, 26, 40–44. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Ding, J.; Liu, Y.; Fan, S.Y. Performance evaluation of a water environment control project in Erhai Basin Yunnan Province, based on public values. J. Hydro. 2020, 41, 1–7. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Fan, S.Y.; Wang, H. Performance evaluation of water environment improvement project based on public values: Take Qilu Lake Basin in Yunan Province as an example. Areal Res. Dev. 2019, 38, 132–136, 152. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Moor, M.H. Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Moor, M.H. Recognizing Public Value; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Fan, S.Y.; Chen, Y.L.; Xu, J. Performance Evaluation and Comparison of Ecological Construction Policies Based on Public Value. J. Public Manag. 2013, 10, 110–116, 142–143. [Google Scholar]
- Bryson, J.M.; Crosby, B.C.; Bloomberg, L. Public Value Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional Public Administration and New Public Management. Public Adm. Rev. 2014, 74, 445–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelly, G.; Muerss Mulgan, G. Creating Public Value: An Analytical Framework for Public Service Reform; Cabinet Office: London, UK, 2002.
- Nie, Y.; Fan, S.Y. Public Value Analysis and Performance Evaluation of Ecological Governance Policy in Western Minority Region: A Case Study of Ongniud Banner in Inner Mongolia. J. Minzu Univ. China Philos. Soc. Sci. Ed. 2017, 44, 110–119. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.; Guo, S.; Wang, J.; Hong, Y.; Bolin, X.; Duoyao, W. Estimation of forest ecosystem service value in the Qilian Mountain national nature reserve in Gansu of China. J. Desert Res. 2013, 33, 1905–1911. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Nie, Y. Public value analysis and the building of performance evaluation system of ecological construction projects. J. Hebei Univ. Philos. Soc. Sci. 2016, 41, 135–140. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Yang, L.; Wang, J.L.; Wang, K. Establishment and verification the Benefit cube of forestry ecological engineering benefit: A case analysis based on Beijing-Hebei cooperation afforestation project. J. Agrotech. Econ. 2016, 5, 92–101. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Bao, G.X.; Wang, X.J. Public Value—Based Government Performance Governance: Origin, Structure and Research Questions. J. Public Manag. 2012, 9, 89–97, 126–127. [Google Scholar]
- Hwang, C.L.; Yoon, K. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications a State-of-the-Art Survey; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1981. [Google Scholar]
- Mardani, A.; Rani, P.; Mishra, A.R.; Cavallaro, F.; Alrashidi, A. A novel approach to extended fuzzy topsis based on new divergence measures for renewable energy sources selection. J. Clean. Prod. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ikram, M.; Sroufe, R.; Zhang, Q. Prioritizing and overcoming barriers to integrated management system (ims) implementation using ahp and g-topsis. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 120121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, T.; Zhang, Q.; Wan, X.; Li, X.; Wang, Y.; Wang, W. Comprehensive ecological risk assessment for semi-arid basin based on conceptual model of risk response and improved TOPSIS model-a case study of Wei River Basin, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.; Chuanglin, F.; Fang, K. Coupled human and natural cube: A novel framework for analyzing the multiple interactions between humans and nature. J. Geogr. Sci. 2020, 30, 355–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, G.P.; Liu, L.M.; Sun, J. Multifunction orientation of rural landscape in metropolitan suburbs based on GRA and TOPSIS models. Geogr. Res. 2018, 37, 263–280. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, Y.S.; Liao, H.P.; Wang, S.; Hong, H.K.; Chen, H.; Shen, Y. Research of land use division: A case study of Kaixian, Chongqing. J. Southwest Univ. Nat. Sci. Ed. 2007, 29, 151–155. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, G.J.; Zhang, P.T.; Li, H.W. Research on land use change in Hebei province and its driving force mechanism. J. Agric. Univ. Hebei 2008, 31, 93–98. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Sun, C.Z.; Dong, L.; Zheng, D.F. Rural water poverty risk evaluation, obstacle indicators and resistance paradigms in China. Resour. Sci. 2014, 36, 895–905. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Chen, L.; Shi, P.; Wei, W.; Zhang, S.; Liu, H. Water poverty temporal-spatial differentiation in the Shi Yang River Basin. Resour. Sci. 2013, 35, 1373–1379. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Chen, J.; Xu, Y.H.; Liao, K. Study on the eco-environment structure of Fujian province based on Geo-information Tupu. Res. Soil Water Conserv. 2009, 16, 139–147. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Qiu, H.L.; Liao, W.M.; Kong, F.B. Transportation infrastructure investment promote poverty reduction in forest areas: Based on the empirical study on the penal data from 13 province of South China. For. Econ. 2017, 39, 8–14. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.G.; Wang, W.J. Thoughts on the “One Site, Two Certificates” of Forest Right Certificate and Grassland Certificate: Taking Qinghai Province as an example. For. Econ. 2017, 33, 33–36. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Qi, J.G.; Wu, L. Overcoming tragedy of political commons: Thinking over administrative law of ecological problem in Qilian Mountain. East China For. Manag. 2018, 4, 29–42. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Xing, C.J. The Bridge between the Multivariate Logic of Government Poverty Governance and Precision Poverty Alleviation. Issues Agric. Econ. 2020, 2, 31–39. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Ostrom, E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 2009, 325, 419–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, Y.Y. Research on Regionalization of Environmental Justice: Taking Qilian Mountain Nature Reserve as an example. J. Gansu Radio TV Univ. 2018, 28, 49–54. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Ding, W.G.; Gou, X.H.; Li, Y. Annual Report on the Development of Qilian Ecosystem (2018); Social Science Academic Press (China): Beijing, China; Cambridge, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
Survey Content | Number | Specific Content |
---|---|---|
Social attribute information | 8 | Years of working, education, unit, age, resignation intention and reasons, wage and satisfaction |
Protection station organization and management | 8 | Staff allocation and mobility, management appraisal system, content and conflict of manage work, subsidy recognition and expectation |
Social-ecological perception | 8 | Evaluation the economic, ecological, climate, transportation, working environment, employment mechanism, democratic autonomy, development prospects |
Surrounding farmers’ behavior and attitude | 6 | Awareness protection and vandalism of farmers, the degree of support and satisfaction to NFRPP |
Evaluation, problem and advise for NFRPP | 7 | Comparison of problem and solution in two stage, support, satisfaction, rationality of NFRPP, proposal and prospect |
Dimension | Component | Indicators | Assignment | Weight | Mean (std. dev) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Process value | Support | A1: What is your attitude towards NFRPP? | 1 = Against, 2 = Neutrality, 3 = Support | 0.049 | 2.85 (0.65) |
A2: What is the attitude of local farmers to NFRPP? | 0.190 | 2.38 (1.13) | |||
Stability | B1: How is the working environment? | 1 = strongly worsen to 5 = strongly better | 0.090 | 4.15 (0.91) | |
B2: How is the climate in your forest area? | 0.089 | 3.83 (0.86) | |||
B3: Are you willing to leave the forest area to work outside? | 1 = Willing, 2 = Never thought, 3 = Unwilling | 0.085 | 3.68 (1.08) | ||
Sustainability | C1: What is the development prospect of your forest area? | 1 = strongly worsen to 5 = strongly better | 0.088 | 3.33 (1.19) | |
C2: How much does the ecological restoration of Qilian Mountain require for the sustainability of the NFRPP? | 1 = very unnecessary to 5 = very necessary | 0.007 | 3.88 (1.25) | ||
Satisfaction | D1: Are you satisfied with the current NFRPP? | 1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied | 0.035 | 3.03 (1.19) | |
D2: Are you currently satisfied with the job of a forester? | 0.026 | 3.45 (1.18) | |||
Fairness | E1: Are you satisfied with the subsidy of NFRPP? | 0.053 | 3.70 (1.25) | ||
Outcome value | Economic outcomes | F1: How is the current economic development of your forest area? | 1 = strongly worsen to 5 = strongly better | 0.096 | 2.30 (0.81) |
Ecological outcomes | F2: How is the current ecological environment? | 0.085 | 3.90 (1.30) | ||
Social outcome | F3: How is the current traffic situation? | 0.108 | 4.10 (0.49) |
Component | C (Ci) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | Max | Min | |||||||
Support | 0.205 | 0.792 | 0.905 | 0.413 | 0.848 | 0.309 | 0.732 | 0.857 | 0.143 |
Stability | 0.314 | 0.752 | 0.713 | 0.437 | 0.733 | 0.375 | 0.663 | 0.857 | 0.143 |
Fairness | 0.265 | 0.735 | 0.705 | 0.423 | 0.139 | 0.344 | 0.315 | 0.600 | 0.000 |
Satisfaction | 0.267 | 0.803 | 0.708 | 0.551 | 0.756 | 0.409 | 0.649 | 0.828 | 0.208 |
Sustainability | 0.225 | 0.780 | 0.668 | 0.466 | 0.724 | 0.345 | 0.678 | 0.857 | 0.143 |
Process value | 0.327 | 0.832 | 0.795 | 0.512 | 0.813 | 0.420 | 0.663 | 0.808 | 0.231 |
Economic outcomes | 0.335 | 0.665 | 0.642 | 0.460 | 0.653 | 0.398 | 0.622 | 0.857 | 0.143 |
Ecological outcomes | 0.225 | 0.775 | 0.748 | 0.424 | 0.762 | 0.324 | 0.701 | 0.857 | 0.143 |
Social outcome | 0.395 | 0.605 | 0.599 | 0.485 | 0.100 | 0.440 | 0.213 | 0.600 | 0.000 |
Outcome value | 0.358 | 0.665 | 0.663 | 0.456 | 0.664 | 0.407 | 0.621 | 0.857 | 0.143 |
Index | Mean/% | Maximum/% | Minimum/% | Coefficient of Variation | Skewness | Kurtosis |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | 4.89 | 4.93 | 4.82 | 0.004 | −1.19 | 3.80 |
A2 | 18.96 | 19.42 | 18.59 | 0.001 | 1.37 | 1.63 |
B1 | 8.98 | 9.10 | 8.91 | 0.004 | 0.48 | −0.06 |
B2 | 8.88 | 8.99 | 8.78 | 0.005 | 0.18 | 0.65 |
B3 | 8.48 | 8.70 | 8.31 | 0.009 | 0.33 | 0.22 |
C1 | 8.78 | 8.89 | 8.68 | 0.006 | −0.18 | −0.33 |
C2 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.69 | 0.005 | −1.45 | 2.41 |
D1 | 3.49 | 3.52 | 3.43 | 0.005 | −1.63 | 4.86 |
D2 | 2.59 | 2.63 | 2.54 | 0.008 | −0.59 | 0.67 |
E1 | 5.39 | 5.53 | 5.27 | 0.009 | 0.05 | 1.11 |
F1 | 9.58 | 9.70 | 9.49 | 0.005 | 0.67 | 0.44 |
F2 | 8.48 | 8.59 | 8.43 | 0.004 | 0.57 | 1.37 |
F3 | 10.78 | 10.97 | 10.65 | 0.006 | 0.33 | 0.80 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, Y.; Zhou, L.; Yang, G.; Guo, R.; Xia, C.; Liu, Y. Performance and Obstacle Tracking to Natural Forest Resource Protection Project: A Rangers’ Case of Qilian Mountain, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5672. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165672
Wang Y, Zhou L, Yang G, Guo R, Xia C, Liu Y. Performance and Obstacle Tracking to Natural Forest Resource Protection Project: A Rangers’ Case of Qilian Mountain, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(16):5672. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165672
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Ya, Lihua Zhou, Guojing Yang, Rui Guo, Cuizhen Xia, and Yang Liu. 2020. "Performance and Obstacle Tracking to Natural Forest Resource Protection Project: A Rangers’ Case of Qilian Mountain, China" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 16: 5672. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165672