Why Agree to a Forest Easement? Perception of the Residents about the Adaptation of the Conservation Easement in Qianjiangyuan National Park

Abstract

Conservation easements (CEs) were introduced in the Chinese context to resolve the conflict between rural land use and area-based conservation measures. As conservation easements are usually set on private lands, little is known about their adaptation to the collective land tenure. We introduced a social-psychological aspect to sustainable livelihoods (SL) for an integrated decision-making mechanism to assess rural residents’ motivations for granting CEs. We surveyed farmers in the Qianjiangyuan National Park pilot area in order to explore how tangible factors, i.e., the livelihood assets, and intangible factors, i.e., farmers’ perceptions of the livelihood environment, affected their true feeling of conservation easements. Results suggested that CEs that were adapted to the collectively-owned forestland followed a well-established grassroots democracy but sacrificed the CE’s diversity in restricted uses tailored to specific landowners and properties. Institutional capital and perception of the economic environment appeared most important to affect farmers’ acceptance of CEs. Furthermore, the livelihood assets affected farmers’ perception of the livelihood environment, and their acceptance of CEs affected the perception of policy outcomes. Overall, our findings demonstrate the acceptance of conservation easements as a livelihood strategic choice and strengthen the importance of securing economic rights in the changing institutional environment.

Driving mechanism for farmers to adopt agroecology for biodiversity conservation: Inspiration from tea management in a China National Park

“…agroecology, biodiversity conservation, livelihood assets, national park, tea plantations, theory of planned behaviour, traditional ecological knowledge typically focused on social-economic characteristics and have revealed several factors. Typical observable variables involve demographic parameters such as age, gender and educational level (Da Motta & Ortiz, 2018;Ndayambaje et al, 2012;Thangata & Alavalapati, 2003); social-economic variables such as income, land and labour (Andow et al, 2017;Apipoonyanon et al, 2019;Shehrawat et al, 2015); as well as various livelihood assets such as cultural capital, institutional capital and information capital, that lead to livelihood strategies and production activities (Daskon & McGregor, 2012;He & Wei, 2023;Liu et al, 2018;Odero, 2006). Some research has introduced external variables such as geographical location, road connectivity, access to the market, hazards and political background (Meijer et al, 2015;Pattanayak et al, 2003;Si et al, 2019).…”