摘要:治理模式的选择在自然保护地有效治理过程中起着关键作用，适宜的治理模式是实现保护地生态、社会、经济和文化效益最大化的重要途径。但是，目前国内外保护地体制机制研究大多集中在保护地治理模式的理论体系分析、体制机制构建与经验总结等方面，缺乏对全球尺度上自然保护地治理模式的系统分析，尤其是对于目前全球保护地网络的治理模式呈现何种结构，以及各类治理模式之间是否存在关联性等更未涉及。为弥补此短板，对IUCN全球保护地数据库中全球保护地的治理模式进行统计分析，结果表明：全球自然保护地治理模式主要呈现以"政府治理"为主，其他治理模式为辅的多样化状态，并且治理模式随保护地的空间分布及保护地类型的不同呈现差异性；进一步，利用社会网络分析法对全球保护地治理模式结构进行定量与定性相结合的系统分析，分析结果表明：目前全球自然保护地治理模式呈现一个较明显的双中心"核心-边缘"网络结构特征，形成以"联邦政府或国家部门/机构"、"地方政府部门/机构"为主要治理模式，"合作管理"为次要治理模式的核心圈，在边缘处形成以"通过社区建立和管理"的治理模式为主的独立中心，说明保护地社区治理模式的重要性不容忽视；并且通过研究发现"地方政府部门/机构"与"通过非营利组织"，以及"通过社区"、"通过个人土地所有者"、"政府授权管理"这两组治理模式内部的治理模式间呈现较强的关联性，这表明同一国家/地区倾向于同时采用有关联的保护地治理模式。



Abstract:Governance type plays a prominent role in the effective management of protected areas. Appropriate type of governance is essential to maximize the ecological, social, economic and cultural benefits of these areas. Nonetheless, existing studies on the institutional mechanisms of protected areas primarily focused on the theoretical system analysis, institutional mechanism construction, and experience summaries of specific governance types. These studies overlooked the need to analyze governance types on a global scale, especially the current governance structure of the global protected area network, and understand the correlations between different governance types. To this end, current study analyzed the IUCN global protected area database, and found that the global protected area governance types are quite diverse. In general, the "governance by government" serves as the dominant governance type, while other governance types act as the supplement. The governance types vary with the spatial distribution and management categories of protected areas. To evaluate the structure of the global protected area governance type, a social network analysis involving both qualitative and quantitative features was conducted. It revealed that the current structure of the global protected area governance type is a dual-center ‘core-edge’ network structure, which consists of a core circle with the ‘federal or national ministry or agency in charge’ and ‘sub-national ministry or agency in charge’ as the main center. It is supplemented by the ‘collaborative governance’; and an independent center based on the ‘established and run by local communities’ governance type at the edge, indicating that community governance type cannot be ignored. Present study also found that the governance types within the two groups show certain relevance. The first group includes the ‘sub-national ministry or agency in charge’ and ‘conserved areas established and run by non-profit organizations’, while the second group includes the ‘established and run by local communities’ and ‘established and run by indigenous peoples’ or ‘government-delegated management’. These imply that the same country/region tends to adopt these associated governance types simultaneously.





PDF全文下载地址:

https://www.ecologica.cn/stxb/article/pdf/stxb201808261827