عوامل تعیین‌کننده دسترسی خدمات اکوسیستم‌های تالابی-کاربست چارچوب IPBES و تئوری دسترسی (مورد: تالاب بین‌المللی زریبار در شهرستان مریوان) | ||
| فصلنامه علوم محیطی | ||
| مقاله 10، دوره 22، شماره 2، 1403، صفحه 349-372 اصل مقاله (1.08 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.48308/envs.2024.1363 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| کاروان شانازی؛ موسی اعظمی* | ||
| گروه ترویج و آموزش کشاورزی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| سابقه و هدف: درک دسترسی به اکوسیستم های طبیعی و اولویت های احتمالی برای بهره مندی از مزایای طبیعت، عوامل کلیدی در شناسایی راه های کاهش نابرابری در دسترسی و نیز آگاهی بخشی برای برنامه ریزی و مدیریت مناطق حفاظت شده در آینده خواهد بود. درجه ای که یک فرد می تواند به خدمات اکوسیستم دسترسی داشته باشد به طیف پیچیده ای از مکانیسم ها از جمله روابط اجتماعی، نهادها، قابلیت ها، حقوق مالکیت و سرمایه های مختلف بستگی دارد. چارچوب‌های مختلفی برای مفهوم‌سازی این پیوندها و تشریح روابط بین خدمات اکوسیستم و رفاه انسان ایجاد شده‌اند که علوم اجتماعی و طبیعی و معیارهای عینی و ذهنی را در بر می‌گیرد یکی از چارچوب های مرتبط و قابل توجه و اهمیت در این زمینه پلتفرم بین دولتی تنوع زیستی و خدمات اکوسیستمی (IPBES) است در این مطالعه با ترکیب عوامل Ribot and Peluso (2003) در تئوری دسترسی با بخشی از چارچوب IPBES این امکان و بستر برای بررسی و مطالعه علمی فراهم می گردد که چه عواملی در تعیین سطح دسترسی مردم به خدمات اکوسیستم تالاب زریبار موثر هستند. مواد و روش‌ها: پژوهش حاضر به لحاظ هدف کاربردی، از نظر پارادایم کیفی و دارای رویکرد استقرایی است، به منظور تجزیه و تحلیل داده های حاصل از مصاحبه های نیمه ساختارمند از روش تحلیل محتوا در قالب نرم افزار ATLAS.ti7 استفاده شد. منطقه مورد مطالعه، جوامع روستایی حاشیه تالاب زریبار در شهرستان مریوان به تعداد 10 روستا با جمعیت 2853 خانوار بودند که در تعامل نزدیک و وابسته به خدمات تالاب هستند. برای انتخاب افراد یا نمونه های مورد بررسی از روش کیفی بهره گرفته شد. نمونه گیری به صورت غیراحتمالی هدفمند و به شیوه گلوله برفی انجام گرفت. انتخاب نمونه ها تا حصول کفایت و رسیدن به اشباع نظری داده ها تداوم یافت که درنهایت پژوهشگر با انجام 22 مصاحبه به اشباع نظری رسید. در این پژوهش برای ارزیابی اعتبارسنجی پژوهش از چهار معیار گوبا و لینکلن شامل قابلیت اعتبار، انتقالپذیری، قابلیت اطمینان و تأییدپذیری استفاده شد. تجزیه و تحلیل داده ها حول "چارچوب IPBES" و "تئوری دسترسی" دسته بندی شد. نتایج و بحث: نتایج این مطالعه منجر به شناسایی پنج مقوله و مضمون اصلی شد که دسترسی ساکنان حاشیه تالاب زریبار را تحت تاثیر قرار می دهند این عوامل عبارتند از نهادی-مدیریتی، ساختاری-ارتباطی، زیرساختی-فناورانه، اقتصادی-سرمایه ای و محیطی-زمینهای. مقوله های فرعی این عوامل نیز شامل "عضویت و مشارکت نهادی"، "قوانین و مقررات تالاب"، "مدیریت یکپارچه اکوسیستمی"، "حقوق و مالکیت ها"، "نفوذ و قدرت اجتماعی"، "مجوزها"، "روابط و شبکه های اجتماعی"، "توافقات بین المللی"، "تغییرات اقلیم"، "وضعیت زمین"، "موقعیت جغرافیایی"، "زیرساخت و بازار"، "ابزار و تجهیزات"، "نیروی کار"، "سرمایه مالی"، "دانش بومی و تخصصی" و "تسهیلات دولتی" است. نتیجه‌گیری: دسترسی به خدمات اکوسیستم در جوامع حاشیه تالابی از جمله زریبار، پیچیده، درحال تغییر، با درهم تنیدگی روابط و متاثر از عوامل اقتصادی، نهادی، محیطی و غیره است. نتایج حاصل از این مطالعه نشان می دهد که مقررات و ترتیبات سازمانی مختلف در رابطه با دسترسی جوامع، به جای تقویت تعامل و رابطه مناسب، تا حدی موجب انواع مختلفی از روابط مبادله و حقوق نابرابر در حوزه این اکوسیستم شده است. بیشتر خدمات اکوسیستمی هم از طریق فرآیندهای اکوسیستمی و هم از طریق اقدامات اجتماعی تولید می‌شوند، و بنابراین ارزیابی آنها را نمی‌توان از بافت اجتماعی که در آن تعبیه شده است جدا کرد. در نتیجه، توصیه می گردد که تحقیقات خدمات اکوسیستمی بیشتر با رویکردهای فرآیندگرا، زمینهای خاص و یکپارچه، بر اساس شناخت پیچیدگی واقعیت‌های اجتماعی-اکولوژیکی صورت گیرد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| مدیریت یکپارچه اکوسیستمی؛ دسترسی؛ اکوسیستم تالاب زریبار؛ پلتفرم بین دولتی تنوع زیستی و خدمات اکوسیستم | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Determinants of Access to Wetland Ecosystem Services-Application of IPBES Framework and Access Theory (Case Study: Zaribar International Wetland in Marivan County) | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Karwan Shanazi؛ Mousa Aazami | ||
| Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Faculty of Agriculture, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Introduction: Understanding access to natural ecosystems and identifying potential priorities for harnessing the benefits of nature will be crucial factors in reducing inequality of access. Additionally, this understanding will inform the future planning and management of protected areas. The degree to which an individual can access ecosystem services depends on a complex range of mechanisms including social relations, institutions, capabilities, property rights, and various capitals. Various frameworks have been developed to conceptualize these linkages and describe the relationships between ecosystem services and human well-being, which include social and natural sciences and objective and subjective criteria, One of the significant and important frameworks in this field is the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). In this study, the factors outlined by Ribot and Peluso (2003) in the access theory were integrated with components of the IPBES framework, providing a theoretical foundation for investigating the determinants of access to ecosystem services in the Zaribar Wetland. Material and Methods: The current research is applied, qualitative, and has an inductive approach. In order to analyze the data obtained from the semi-structured interviews, the content analysis method was used. The study area of the research is the villages around Zaribar Wetland in Marivan City, there are 10 villages with a population of 2853 households, which are in close interaction and depend on the services of the Wetland. Non-probability purposeful snowball sampling was used to select the investigated individuals or samples. The selection of samples continued until the adequacy and the theoretical saturation of the data were reached, and finally the researcher reached the theoretical saturation by conducting 22 interviews. In this study, Guba and Lincoln's four criteria—validity, transferability, reliability, and verifiability (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) were employed to assess the validity of the research. Data analysis was structured around the 'IPBES framework' and the 'access theory'. Results and Discussion: The process of qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the factors affecting residents' access to Zaribar wetland ecosystem services in Marivan City. First, 106 primary codes were extracted. By multiple revisions and integration of codes based on similarity during several stages, five main categories and 17 subcategories were extracted. The five main categories and themes identified in this analysis were institutional-management, structural-communication, infrastructural-technological, economic-capital and environmental-contextual. Conclusion: Access to ecosystem services in wetland communities, including those in Zaribar, is complex and dynamic, influenced by interwoven relationships and affected by economic, environmental, and other factors. The results of this study show that different regulations and organizational arrangements regarding people's access, instead of strengthening interaction and proper relationships, have caused different types of exchange relationships and unequal rights in the field of this ecosystem. Most ecosystem services are produced through both ecosystem processes and social actions, and thus their assessment cannot be separated from the social context in which they are embedded. As a result, it is recommended that more ecosystem service research be done with process-oriented, context-specific and integrated approaches, based on the recognition of the complexity of social-ecological realities. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Integrated Ecosystem Management. Access, Zaribar Wetland Ecosystem, Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Aazami, M. and Shanazi, K., 2018. The impacts of Zarivar wetland on the livelihood assets of rural households. Geography and Development. 16(51), 25-42 (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22111/gdij.2018.3848 Afrough, A., Zare Mehrjerdi, M.R., Amirtaimoori, S., Mirzaei Khalilababdi, H.R. and Baniasadi, M., 2018. Identification and ranking of factors affecting lack of participation of local beneficiaries in management, preservation and reclamation of Lorestan oak forests. Iranian Journal of Forest and Poplar Research. 26(3), 393-405. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22092/ijfpr.2018.117742 Agarwala, M., Atkinson, G., Fry, B., Homewood, K., Mourato, S., Rowcliffe, J.m., Wallace, G. and Milner-Gulland, E., 2014. Assessing the Relationship Between Human Well-being and Ecosystem Services: A Review of Frameworks. Conservation and Society. 12(4), 437. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4923.155592 Baviskar, A., 2001. Written on the body, written on the land: Violence and environmental struggles in central India. Violent Environments. 354-379. Bennett, N.J., Ban, N.C., Schuhbauer, A., Splichalova, D.V., Eadie, M., Vandeborne, K. and Sumaila, R., 2021. Access rights, capacities and benefits in small-scale fisheries: insights from the pacific coast of Canada. Marine Policy. 130, 104581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104581 Bennett, N.J., Kaplan-Hallam, M., Augustine, G., Ban, N., Belhabib, D., Brueckner-Irwin, I. and Bailey, M., 2018. Coastal and Indigenous community access to marine resources and the ocean: A policy imperative for Canada. Marine Policy. 87, 186-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.10.023 Berkes, F., 2017. Environmental governance for the anthropocene? Social-ecological systems, resilience, and collaborative learning. Sustainability. 9(7), 1232. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071232 Bhatt, Y., Ghuman, K. and Dhir, A., 2020. Sustainable manufacturing. Bibliometrics and content analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production. 260, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120988 Braun, V. and Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3(2), 77-101. Brockington, D. and Wilkie, D., 2015. Protected areas and poverty. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 370(1681), 20140271. 1-6, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0271 Clarkson, B.R., Ausseil, A.G.E. and Gerbeaux, P., 2013. Wetland ecosystem services. Ecosystem services in New Zealand: conditions and trends. Manaaki Whenua Press. Lincoln, 1, 192-202. mwpress.co.nz Costanza, R., De Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P. and Grasso, M., 2017. Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosystem services. 28, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008 Daw, T.M., Coulthard, S., Cheung, W.W.L., Brown, K., Abunge, C., Galafassi, D., Peterson, G.D., McClanahan, T.R., Omukoto, J.O. and Munyi, L., 2015. Evaluating taboo trade-offs in ecosystems services and human well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (2), 6949–6954. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414900112 Dawson, N. and Martin, A., 2015. Assessing the contribution of ecosystem services to human wellbeing: A disaggregated study in western Rwanda. Ecological Economics. 117, 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.06.018 Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Zlatanova, D., 2015. The IPBES Conceptual framework–Connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 14, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002 Djoudi, H., Brockhaus, M. and Locatelli, B., 2013. Once there was a lake: vulnerability to environmental changes in northern Mali. Regional Environmental Change. 13, 493-508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-011-0262-5 Fisher, J.A., Patenaude, G., Giri, K., Lewis, K., Meir, P., Pinho, P., Rounsevell, M.D. a. and Williams, M., 2014. Understanding the relationships between ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: A conceptual framework. Ecosystem Services. 7, 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.08.002 Ghermandi, A., Van Den Bergh, J.C., Brander, L.M., De Groot, H.L., Nunes, P.A., 2010. Values of natural and human-made wetlands: a meta-analysis. Water Resources Research. 46 (12). https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009071 Given, L.M., 2008. The sage encyclopedia of qualitative method. Vol.1. Californi: Sage. 29-27 Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y., 1989. Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hauck, J., Görg, C., Varjopuro, R., Ratamäki, O. and Jax, K., 2013. Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making: some stakeholder perspectives. Environmental Science & Policy. 25, 13-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.08.001 Hicks, C.C. and Cinner, J.E., 2014. Social, institutional, and knowledge mechanisms mediate diverse ecosystem service benefits from coral reefs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111(50), 17791–17796. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1413473111 Islam, G.M.N., Tai, S.Y., Kusairi, M.N., Ahmad, S., Aswani, F.M.N., Senan, M.K.A.M. and Ahmad, A., 2017. Community perspectives of governance for effective management of marine protected areas in Malaysia. Ocean & Coastal Management. 135, 34-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.11.001 Javidi deljavan, S. and Hosseini, S. M., 2019. The Role of Water Resources Management in Controlling the Quantitative and Qualitative Changes of Water Resources due to Climatic Changes in the Catchment Area of Zarivar Wetland. Journal of Environmental Studies. 45(2), 361-377. (In Persian with English abstract). 20.1001.1.10258620.1398.45.2.12.6 Jayathilaka, R. and Serasinghe, P., 2018. Willingness to pay for wetland conservation in Sri Lanka: a contingent valuation study. Sri Lanka Economic Journal. 15(1). Kelemen, E., Potschin, M., Martín-López, B., Pataki, G., 2016. Ecosystem services: a gender perspective. In: Potschin, M., Jax, K. (eds): OpenNESS Ecosystem Services Reference Book. EC FP7 Grant Agreement no. 308428. Lakerveld, R.P., Lele, S., Crane, T.A., Fortuin, K.P.J. and Springate-Baginski, O., 2015. The social distribution of provisioning forest ecosystem services: Evidence and insights from Odisha, India. Ecosystem Services. 14, 56-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.04.001 Lau, J.D., Cinner, J.E., Fabinyi, M., Gurney, G.G. and Hicks, C.C., 2020. Access to marine ecosystem services: Examining entanglement and legitimacy in customary institutions. World Development. 126, 104730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104730 Liu, D., Chen, H., Geng, T., Shi, Q. and Chen, W., 2022. The impact of individual capabilities on the access to ecosystem services: a case study from the Loess Plateau, China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16486-7 Martinez-Harms, M.J., Bryan, B.A., Wood, S.A., Fisher, D.M., Law, E., Rhodes, J.R. and Wilson, K.A., 2018. Inequality in access to cultural ecosystem services from protected areas in the Chilean biodiversity hotspot. Science of the total environment. 636, 1128-1138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.353 Mensah, S., Veldtman, R., Assogbadjo, A.E., Ham, C., Kakaï, R.G. and Seifert, T., 2017. Ecosystem service importance and use vary with socio-environmental factors: A study from household-surveys in local communities of South Africa. Ecosystem Services. 23, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.018 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment., 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington DC: Island Press Müller, F. and Burkhard, B., 2012. The indicator side of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services. 1(1), 26-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.001 Negev, M., Sagie, H., Orenstein, D.E., Shamir, S.Z., Hassan, Y., Amasha, H. and Izhaki, I., 2019. Using the ecosystem services framework for defining diverse human-nature relationships in a multi-ethnic biosphere reserve. Ecosystem Services. 39, 100989 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100989 Nita, A., Ciocanea, C.M., Manolache, S. and Rozylowicz, L., 2018. A network approach for understanding opportunities and barriers to effective public participation in the management of protected areas. Social Network Analysis and Mining. 8(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-018-0509-y Oldekop, J.A., Holmes, G., Harris, W.E. and Evans, K.L., 2016. A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas. Conservation Biology. 30(1), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12568 Ostrom, E., 2010. A multi-scale approach to coping with climate change and other collective action problems. Solutions. 1(2), 27-36. Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Diaz, S. and Wickson, F., 2017. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: The IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006 Patton, M., 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. California: Thousand Oaks. Peluso, N.L., 2009. Rubber erasures, rubber producing rights: Making racialized territories in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Development and change. 40(1), 47-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2009.01505.x Ramsar Information Sheet., 2019. Iran (Islamic Republic of) Zarivar wetland, https://rsis.ramsar.org/ris/2369 Ribot, J.C. and N.L. Peluso., 2003. A theory of access. Rural Sociology. 68 (2), 153–181. Rodriguez-Martínez, R.E., 2008. Community involvement in marine protected areas: The case of Puerto Morelos reef, México. Journal of environmental management. 88(4), 1151-1160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.06.008 Salata, S., Garnero, G., Barbieri, C.A. and Giaimo, C., 2017. The integration of ecosystem services in planning: An evaluation of the nutrient retention model using InVEST software. Land. 6(3), 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/land6030048 Sandifer, P.A., Sutton-Grier, A.E. and Ward, B.P., 2015. Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosystem services. 12, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.007 Schmeller, D.S. and Bridgewater, P., 2016. The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES): progress and next steps. Biodiversity and Conservation. 25, 801-805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1095-9 Shanahan, D.F., B.B. Lin, K.J., Gaston, R. Bush, and R.A. Fuller., 2014. Landscape and Urban Planning Socio-Economic Inequalities in Access to Nature on Public and Private Lands: A Case Study from Brisbane, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning. 130, 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.06.005 Sundar, N., 2001. Beyond the bounds? Violence at the margins of new legal geographies. Violent environments. 328-353. Szaboova, L., Brown, K. and Fisher, J.A., 2020. Access to ecosystem benefits: more than proximity. Society & Natural Resources. 33(2), 244-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1556759 Tengo, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., Elmqvist, T. and Folke, C., 2016. Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond – lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinions in Environmental Sustainability. 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005 Wang, Y.Z., Hong, W., Wu, C.Z., He, D.J., Lin, S.W. and Fan, H. L., 2008. Application of landscape ecology to the research on wetlands. Journal of Forestry Research. 19(2), 164-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-008-0029-0 Yang, W., Dietz, T., Kramer, D.B., Ouyang, Z. and Liu, J., 2015. An integrated approach to understanding the linkages between ecosystem services and human well‐being. Ecosystem health and sustainability. 1(5), 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/15‐0001.1.sm Yang, Y.E., Passarelli, S., Lovell, R.J. and Ringler, C., 2018. Gendered perspectives of ecosystem services: A systematic review. Ecosystem Services. 31, 58-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.015 Zaldivar-Jiménez, A., Ladrón-de-Guevara-Porras, P., Pérez-Ceballos, R., Díaz-Mondragón, S. and Rosado-Solórzano, R., 2017. US-Mexico joint Gulf of Mexico large marine ecosystem based assessment and management: Experience in community involvement and mangrove wetland restoration in Términos lagoon, Mexico. Environmental Development. 22, 206-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2017.02.007 Zhu, H., Guan, Z. and Wei, X., 2016. Factors influencing farmers’ willingness to participate in wetland restoration: Evidence from China. Sustainability. 8(12), 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8121325 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 8,210 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 4,213 |
||