尼泊尔实施科学森林管理的用户意见——以纳瓦尔帕拉西地区为例

Q2 Environmental Science Cogent Environmental Science Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1080/23311843.2020.1778987
P. Bhusal, Kavi Raj Awasthi, J. N. Kimengsi
{"title":"尼泊尔实施科学森林管理的用户意见——以纳瓦尔帕拉西地区为例","authors":"P. Bhusal, Kavi Raj Awasthi, J. N. Kimengsi","doi":"10.1080/23311843.2020.1778987","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract While much emphasis has been placed on scientific and policy issues in forest management, there is a lack of clarity on users’ perspectives concerning the implementation of scientific forest management. To clarify this nuance, this study explores users’ opinion on scientific forest management implementation, focusing on four criteria—ecological, social, economic, and technical. Twelve key informant interviews and six focus group discussions were conducted in three selected communities within Nawalparasi District. This was further complemented by six expert interviews. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was employed to rank within and between groups of developed factors and their criteria. Users’ identified increased forest products (58%), community development (55%), employment opportunities (65%), and intense silviculture management (51%) as the dominant factors linked to the ecological, social, economic, and technical criteria, respectively. For between groups, economic (52%) and social (33%) criteria got the highest ranking. The findings suggest that the long-term success of this modality cannot be achieved if the users largely view it as economically and socially profitable. This study calls for tailor-made interventions to enhance ecological and technical knowledge linked to scientific forest management. The paper also makes a succinct request for further studies (including quantitative investigations) to ground this assertion.","PeriodicalId":45615,"journal":{"name":"Cogent Environmental Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/23311843.2020.1778987","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"User’s opinion in scientific forest management implementation in Nepal – a case study from Nawalparasi district\",\"authors\":\"P. Bhusal, Kavi Raj Awasthi, J. N. Kimengsi\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23311843.2020.1778987\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract While much emphasis has been placed on scientific and policy issues in forest management, there is a lack of clarity on users’ perspectives concerning the implementation of scientific forest management. To clarify this nuance, this study explores users’ opinion on scientific forest management implementation, focusing on four criteria—ecological, social, economic, and technical. Twelve key informant interviews and six focus group discussions were conducted in three selected communities within Nawalparasi District. This was further complemented by six expert interviews. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was employed to rank within and between groups of developed factors and their criteria. Users’ identified increased forest products (58%), community development (55%), employment opportunities (65%), and intense silviculture management (51%) as the dominant factors linked to the ecological, social, economic, and technical criteria, respectively. For between groups, economic (52%) and social (33%) criteria got the highest ranking. The findings suggest that the long-term success of this modality cannot be achieved if the users largely view it as economically and socially profitable. This study calls for tailor-made interventions to enhance ecological and technical knowledge linked to scientific forest management. The paper also makes a succinct request for further studies (including quantitative investigations) to ground this assertion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45615,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cogent Environmental Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/23311843.2020.1778987\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cogent Environmental Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2020.1778987\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Environmental Science\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cogent Environmental Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2020.1778987","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Environmental Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

摘要尽管人们非常重视森林管理中的科学和政策问题,但用户对实施科学森林管理的看法并不明确。为了澄清这一细微差别,本研究探讨了用户对科学森林管理实施的看法,重点关注四个标准——生态、社会、经济和技术。在Nawalparasi区的三个选定社区进行了12次关键线人访谈和6次焦点小组讨论。六次专家访谈进一步补充了这一点。采用层次分析法(AHP)对发展因素组及其标准进行内部和之间的排序。用户认为,增加的森林产品(58%)、社区发展(55%)、就业机会(65%)和严格的造林管理(51%)分别是与生态、社会、经济和技术标准相关的主导因素。在两组之间,经济(52%)和社会(33%)标准的排名最高。研究结果表明,如果用户在很大程度上认为这种模式在经济和社会上有利可图,那么这种模式就无法取得长期成功。这项研究呼吁采取量身定制的干预措施,以增强与科学森林管理相关的生态和技术知识。本文还简要要求进行进一步研究(包括定量调查),以支持这一论断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
User’s opinion in scientific forest management implementation in Nepal – a case study from Nawalparasi district
Abstract While much emphasis has been placed on scientific and policy issues in forest management, there is a lack of clarity on users’ perspectives concerning the implementation of scientific forest management. To clarify this nuance, this study explores users’ opinion on scientific forest management implementation, focusing on four criteria—ecological, social, economic, and technical. Twelve key informant interviews and six focus group discussions were conducted in three selected communities within Nawalparasi District. This was further complemented by six expert interviews. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was employed to rank within and between groups of developed factors and their criteria. Users’ identified increased forest products (58%), community development (55%), employment opportunities (65%), and intense silviculture management (51%) as the dominant factors linked to the ecological, social, economic, and technical criteria, respectively. For between groups, economic (52%) and social (33%) criteria got the highest ranking. The findings suggest that the long-term success of this modality cannot be achieved if the users largely view it as economically and socially profitable. This study calls for tailor-made interventions to enhance ecological and technical knowledge linked to scientific forest management. The paper also makes a succinct request for further studies (including quantitative investigations) to ground this assertion.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cogent Environmental Science
Cogent Environmental Science ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Effect of spirotetramat and 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic pesticides on two phytoplankton species (Monoraphidium griffithii and Coscinodiscus sp.) in a single and compound mixture laboratory exposure Analysing the challenges in implementing Vietnam’s Nationally-Determined Contribution (NDC) in the agriculture sector under the current legal, regulatory and policy environment Assessing spatial patterns of forest degradation in dry Miombo woodland in Southern Tanzania Dioxins in peat and its formation: An overview South Korea’s big move to hydrogen society
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1