IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i18p10422-d638813.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Analysis between the Role of Local Communities in Regional Development inside Japanese and Russian UNESCO’s Biosphere Reserves: Case Studies of Mount Hakusan and Katunskiy Biosphere Reserves

Author

Listed:
  • Aida Mammadova

    (Organization of Global Affairs, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa 921-1192, Japan)

  • Christopher D. Smith

    (Smith Custom Editing, Kanazawa 920-1156, Japan)

  • Tatiana Yashina

    (Department of Protection, Katunskiy Biosphere Reserve, 649495 Ust-Koksa, Russia)

Abstract

The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization has designated the Man and Biosphere Program to foster a better relationship between the environment and people. The topic of this study is to elucidate the role of local communities in the regional development of Biosphere Reserves with a focus on management roles (top-down or participatory) and the motivational drivers of the people involved (ecocentric or anthropocentric). Based on qualitative interviews taken from the two case studies of the Mount Hakusan Biosphere Reserve in Japan and the Katunskiy Biosphere Reserve in Russia, a comparative analysis was conducted to explore the differences between the engagement of locals in the management of their biosphere reserves. This analysis examined relationships between the government and the local communities, the attitudes of the locals towards the biosphere reserves, and the historical perception on nature protection for each community. The findings showed that Russian biosphere reserves are mainly managed by local people who live inside the protected area while Japanese biosphere reserves are governed by local authorities and administration offices. This allows the Russian communities to have greater access to management processes, and therefore play a larger role in regional development.

Suggested Citation

  • Aida Mammadova & Christopher D. Smith & Tatiana Yashina, 2021. "Comparative Analysis between the Role of Local Communities in Regional Development inside Japanese and Russian UNESCO’s Biosphere Reserves: Case Studies of Mount Hakusan and Katunskiy Biosphere Reserv," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-23, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:18:p:10422-:d:638813
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/18/10422/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/18/10422/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bettina Hedden-Dunkhorst & Florian Schmitt, 2020. "Exploring the Potential and Contribution of UNESCO Biosphere Reserves for Landscape Governance and Management in Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-27, July.
    2. Agarwal, Bina, 2001. "Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry, and Gender: An Analysis for South Asia and a Conceptual Framework," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(10), pages 1623-1648, October.
    3. Schultz, Lisen & Duit, Andreas & Folke, Carl, 2011. "Participation, Adaptive Co-management, and Management Performance in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 662-671, April.
    4. Ana Filipa Ferreira & Heike Zimmermann & Rui Santos & Henrik von Wehrden, 2020. "Biosphere Reserves’ Management Effectiveness—A Systematic Literature Review and a Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-32, July.
    5. John Parkins & Richard Stedman & Jeji Varghese, 2001. "Moving towards local-level indicators of sustainability in forest-based communities: A mixed-method approach," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 43-72, October.
    6. Joachim Vogel, 1997. "The Future Direction of Social Indicator Research," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 103-116, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexey Gunya & Alexey Lysenko & Izolda Lysenko & Ludmila Mitrofanenko, 2021. "Transformation of Nature Protection Institutions in the North Caucasus: From a State Monopoly of Governance to Multi-Actor Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-13, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ana F. Ferreira & Heike Zimmermann & Rui Santos & Henrik Von Wehrden, 2018. "A Social–Ecological Systems Framework as a Tool for Understanding the Effectiveness of Biosphere Reserve Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-26, October.
    2. Lauren Pandolfelli & Ruth Meinzen-Dick & Stephan Dohrn, 2008. "Gender and collective action: motivations, effectiveness and impact," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 1-11.
    3. Pandit, Ram & Bevilacqua, Eddie, 2011. "Forest users and environmental impacts of community forestry in the hills of Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 345-352, June.
    4. Alkire, Sabina & Meinzen-Dick, Ruth & Peterman, Amber & Quisumbing, Agnes & Seymour, Greg & Vaz, Ana, 2013. "The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 71-91.
    5. Mac Ginty, Roger, 2013. "Indicators+: A proposal for everyday peace indicators," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 56-63.
    6. Nandigama, Sailaja, 2020. "Performance of success and failure in grassroots conservation and development interventions: Gender dynamics in participatory forest management in India," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    7. Hao, J., 2018. "Cooperative member commitment, trust and social pressure -- the role of members’ participation in the decision-making," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 275881, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Prakash Kashwan, 2016. "Integrating power in institutional analysis: A micro-foundation perspective," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(1), pages 5-26, January.
    9. Murat Sartas & Piet van Asten & Marc Schut & Mariette McCampbell & Moureen Awori & Perez Muchunguzi & Moses Tenywa & Sylvia Namazzi & Ana Sole Amat & Graham Thiele & Claudio Proietti & Andre Devaux & , 2019. "Factors influencing participation dynamics in research for development interventions with multi-stakeholder platforms: A metric approach to studying stakeholder participation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-20, November.
    10. Catherine Ragasa & Cristina Alvarez-Mingote & Paul McNamara, 2024. "Bottom-Up Approaches and Decentralized Extension Structures for Improving Access to and Quality of Extension Services and Technology Adoption: Multi-level Analysis from Malawi," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 36(5), pages 1093-1146, October.
    11. Ghazala Mansuri, 2004. "Community-Based and -Driven Development: A Critical Review," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 19(1), pages 1-39.
    12. Salazar, César A. & Jaime, Mónica M., 2009. "Participación en Organizaciones de la Sociedad Civil en Chile. ¿Una Alternativa para Mejorar el Bienestar Económico? [Participation in Civil Society Organizations in Chile. Is it an Alternative to ," MPRA Paper 12797, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Barbara Quimby & Arielle Levine, 2018. "Participation, Power, and Equity: Examining Three Key Social Dimensions of Fisheries Comanagement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    14. Nieto-Romero, M. & Parra, C. & Bock, B., 2021. "Re-building historical commons: How formal institutions affect participation in community forests in Galicia, Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    15. Njagi, T. & Kinyumu, N. & Kirimi, L., 2018. "farm household’s participation in governance: lessons from devolved systems in kenya," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276006, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Sirisha C. Naidu, 2005. "Heterogeneity and Common Pool Resources: Collective Management of Forests in Himachal Pradesh, India," Others 0511004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Saito-Jensen, Moeko, 6. "Who gains or who loses from Joint Forest Management? Lessons from two case study areas from Andhra Pradesh, India," Scandinavian Forest Economics: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, issue 42, April.
    18. Naidu, Sirisha C., 2011. "Gendered effects of work and participation in collective forest management," MPRA Paper 31091, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Laterra, Pedro & Weyland, Federico & Auer, Alejandra & Barral, Paula & González, Aira & Mastrángelo, Matías & Rositano, Florencia & Sirimarco, Ximena, 2023. "MARCHI: A serious game for participatory governance of ecosystem services in multiple-use protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    20. Kaaria, Susan & Osorio, Martha & Wagner, Sophie & Gallina, Ambra, 2016. "Rural women’s participation in producer organizations: An analysis of the barriers that women face and strategies to foster equitable and effective participation," Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security (Agri-Gender), Africa Centre for Gender, Social Research and Impact Assessment, vol. 1(2).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:18:p:10422-:d:638813. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.