IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i7p2767-d1365064.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Experts’ Perspectives on Inclusive Governance for Protecting Hot Spring Landscapes in China: Barriers and Implications

Author

Listed:
  • Yue Li

    (Department of Architecture, Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia
    School of Art and Design, Shandong Women’s University, Ji’nan 250300, China)

  • Nor Azlina Abu Bakar

    (Department of Architecture, Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia)

  • Nor Atiah Ismail

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia)

  • Noor Fazamimah Mohd Ariffin

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia)

  • Riyadh Mundher

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia)

Abstract

Hot spring landscapes offer enticing development prospects for investors in China. However, due to mounting economic pressures and a lack of coordination among various authorities, inclusive governance has proven ineffective in overseeing development projects centered around hot spring landscapes. Consequently, this manuscript delves into the potential for implementing inclusive governance strategies to safeguard hot spring landscapes in China. This study selected Linyi City as its study site due to its location above a fault zone, which has resulted in the presence of numerous hot springs. Additionally, it has been officially classified as a ‘hot spring city in China’ by the Chinese Ministry of Land and Resources. This study employed a semi-structured expert interview to investigate the barriers that stand in the way of applying inclusive governance to hot spring landscapes. Moreover, the interview investigates the implications of the lack of utilization of inclusive governance strategies for hot spring landscapes. The analysis of the results indicates that experts believed that the current protection policies were ineffective due to the existence of a multitude of barriers, such as the existence of deficiencies in the current policies, the multiplicity of management authorities, differences in visions in decision-making, limited public participation, a lack of awareness and trust from the public, a lack of balance in development approaches, and a limited role of science and technology. This resulted in a lack of proper communication and delegation of responsibilities with regard to inclusive governance strategies for protecting hot spring landscapes. Furthermore, the analysis unveiled diverse implications arising from the non-application of inclusive governance strategies, encompassing aspects such as tourism, economics, environment, sociocultural, and sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Yue Li & Nor Azlina Abu Bakar & Nor Atiah Ismail & Noor Fazamimah Mohd Ariffin & Riyadh Mundher, 2024. "Experts’ Perspectives on Inclusive Governance for Protecting Hot Spring Landscapes in China: Barriers and Implications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-28, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:7:p:2767-:d:1365064
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/7/2767/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/7/2767/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nhat Hong Nguyen & Martin Skitmore & Johnny Kwok Wai Wong, 2009. "Stakeholder impact analysis of infrastructure project management in developing countries: a study of perception of project managers in state-owned engineering firms in Vietnam," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(11), pages 1129-1140.
    2. Guimarães, E.F. & Malheiros, T.F. & Marques, R.C., 2016. "Inclusive governance: New concept of water supply and sanitation services in social vulnerability areas," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(PA), pages 124-129.
    3. Ogawa, Keishi & Garrod, Guy & Yagi, Hironori, 2023. "Sustainability strategies and stakeholder management for upland farming," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    4. de Castro-Pardo, Mónica & Pérez-Rodríguez, Fernando & Martín-Martín, José María & Azevedo, João C., 2019. "Modelling stakeholders’ preferences to pinpoint conflicts in the planning of transboundary protected areas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    5. Stefan Olander, 2007. "Stakeholder impact analysis in construction project management," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(3), pages 277-287.
    6. Forsyth, Tim & Springate-Baginski, Oliver, 2021. "Are landscape approaches possible under authoritarianism? Multi-stakeholder governance and social transformation in Myanmar," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 111039, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Rosanne Janssens & Selena Russo & Eline van Overbeeke & Chiara Whichello & Sarah Harding & Jürgen Kübler & Juhaeri Juhaeri & Karin Schölin Bywall & Alina Comanescu & Axel Hueber & Matthias Englbrecht , 2019. "Patient Preferences in the Medical Product Life Cycle: What do Stakeholders Think? Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews in Europe and the USA," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(5), pages 513-526, October.
    8. Riyadh Mundher & Shamsul Abu Bakar & Suhardi Maulan & Mohd Johari Mohd Yusof & Syuhaily Osman & Ammar Al-Sharaa & Hangyu Gao, 2022. "Exploring Awareness and Public Perception towards the Importance of Visual Aesthetics for Preservation of Permanent Forest Reserve (PFR) in Malaysia," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-14, August.
    9. John M Bryson, 2004. "What to do when Stakeholders matter," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 21-53, March.
    10. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2003. "The use of Analytic Hierarchy Process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 13-26, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Agata Klaus-Rosińska & Joanna Iwko, 2021. "Stakeholder Management—One of the Clues of Sustainable Project Management—As an Underestimated Factor of Project Success in Small Construction Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-27, September.
    2. Daniela M. Salvioni & Alex Almici, 2020. "Transitioning Toward a Circular Economy: The Impact of Stakeholder Engagement on Sustainability Culture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-30, October.
    3. Alamoush, Anas S. & Ballini, Fabio & Ölçer, Aykut I., 2024. "Management of stakeholders engaged in port energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    4. Nadirah Hazwani Najib & Syuhaida Ismail & Rohayah Che Amat & Serdar Durdyev & Zdeňka Konečná & Abdoulmohammad Gholamzadeh Chofreh & Feybi Ariani Goni & Chitdrakantan Subramaniam & Jiří Jaromír Klemeš, 2022. "Stakeholders’ Impact Factors of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Sustainable Mixed Development Projects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-19, August.
    5. Tuomas Lappi & Harri Haapasalo & Kirsi Aaltonen, 2015. "Business Ecosystem Definition in Built Environment Using a Stakeholder Assessment Process," Management, University of Primorska, Faculty of Management Koper, vol. 10(2), pages 111-129.
    6. Ahsan, Dewan & Pedersen, Søren, 2018. "The influence of stakeholder groups in operation and maintenance services of offshore wind farms: Lesson from Denmark," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 819-828.
    7. Jordi Gallego-Ayala & Dinis Juízo, 2014. "Integrating Stakeholders’ Preferences into Water Resources Management Planning in the Incomati River Basin," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(2), pages 527-540, January.
    8. Bert George, 2017. "Does strategic planning ‘work’ in public organizations? Insights from Flemish municipalities," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(7), pages 527-530, November.
    9. Ahsan Nawaz & Xing Su & Qaiser Mohi Ud Din & Muhammad Irslan Khalid & Muhammad Bilal & Syyed Adnan Raheel Shah, 2020. "Identification of the H&S (Health and Safety Factors) Involved in Infrastructure Projects in Developing Countries-A Sequential Mixed Method Approach of OLMT-Project," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-18, January.
    10. Martin Luštický & Martin Musil, 2016. "Stakeholder-Based Evaluation of Tourism Policy Priorities: The Case of the South Bohemian Region," Acta Oeconomica Pragensia, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2016(3), pages 3-23.
    11. Jolanta MAJ, 2015. "Diversity Management’S Stakeholders And Stakeholders Management," Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 9(1), pages 780-793, November.
    12. Franco-Trigo, L. & Fernandez-Llimos, F. & Martínez-Martínez, F. & Benrimoj, S.I. & Sabater-Hernández, D., 2020. "Stakeholder analysis in health innovation planning processes: A systematic scoping review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(10), pages 1083-1099.
    13. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    14. Kik, M.C. & Claassen, G.D.H. & Meuwissen, M.P.M. & Smit, A.B. & Saatkamp, H.W., 2021. "Actor analysis for sustainable soil management – A case study from the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    15. Mark K. McBeth & Donna L. Lybecker & James W. Stoutenborough, 2016. "Do stakeholders analyze their audience? The communication switch and stakeholder personal versus public communication choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 421-444, December.
    16. Bhatta, Arun & Bigsby, Hugh R. & Cullen, Ross, 2011. "Alternative to Comprehensive Ecosystem Services Markets: The Contribution of Forest-Related Programs in New Zealand," 2011 Conference, August 25-26, 2011, Nelson, New Zealand 115350, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    17. Salinas Fernández, José Antonio & Guaita Martínez, José Manuel & Martín Martín, José María, 2022. "An analysis of the competitiveness of the tourism industry in a context of economic recovery following the COVID19 pandemic," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    18. John Manso Frimpong & Jacob Kuutoume & Christiana Abrafi Gyamfi, 2024. "Supply Chain Integration and Organizational Resources and Capabilities: The Moderating Effect of Stakeholders’ Support," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 14(4), pages 72-82, July.
    19. Yu, Bing & Xu, Linyu, 2016. "Review of ecological compensation in hydropower development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 729-738.
    20. Ullah, Nazim & Showrav, Ifthakarul & Eram, Mubarrat, 2023. "Effects of Project Failure Towards Stakeholders: A Review of Literature," MPRA Paper 118721, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:16:y:2024:i:7:p:2767-:d:1365064. 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.