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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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).
    7. Stefan Olander, 2007. "Stakeholder impact analysis in construction project management," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(3), pages 277-287.
    8. 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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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).
    8. Yu, Bing & Xu, Linyu, 2016. "Review of ecological compensation in hydropower development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 729-738.
    9. 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.
    10. Eunice Kabahinda & Rogers Mwesigwa, 2023. "Trust Mediates the Relationship Between Stakeholder Behavior and Stakeholder Management of Public Private Partnership Projects in Uganda," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 245-263, March.
    11. Curran, Franziska & Smart, Simon & Lacey, Justine & Greig, Chris & Lant, Paul, 2018. "Learning from experience in the water sector to improve access to energy services," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 41-50.
    12. Piotr Zientara & Anna Zamojska & Giuseppe T Cirella, 2020. "Participatory urban governance: Multilevel study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-23, February.
    13. Matta, Jagannadha & Alavalapati, Janaki & Tanner, George, 2007. "A framework for developing marked-based policies to further biodiversity on non-industrial private forests (NIPF)," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(7), pages 779-788, April.
    14. Oluyomi A. Osobajo & David Moore, 2017. "Who is Who? Identifying the Different Sub-groups of Secondary Stakeholders within a Community: A Case Study of the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria Communities," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(9), pages 188-209, September.
    15. Mohammed Rady & Ahmed Farouk Kineber & Mohammed Magdy Hamed & Ahmed Osama Daoud, 2023. "Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling of Constraint Factors Affecting Project Performance in the Egyptian Building Industry," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, January.
    16. Ayodele Alejo & Clinton Aigbavboa & Douglas Aghimien, 2024. "How Can Safety Contribute to Working Conditions in the Construction Industry? A Conceptual Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-14, September.
    17. Alma Elisabeth Peirson & Gina Ziervogel, 2021. "Sanitation Upgrading as Climate Action: Lessons for Local Government from a Community Informal Settlement Project in Cape Town," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-18, August.
    18. Jelena Cvijović & Vladimir Obradović & Marija Todorović, 2021. "Stakeholder Management and Project Sustainability—A Throw of the Dice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-22, August.
    19. Hojatollah Khedrigharibvand & Hossein Azadi & Dereje Teklemariam & Ehsan Houshyar & Philippe Maeyer & Frank Witlox, 2019. "Livelihood alternatives model for sustainable rangeland management: a review of multi-criteria decision-making techniques," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 11-36, February.
    20. Zhengqi He & Dechun Huang & Changzheng Zhang & Junmin Fang, 2018. "Toward a Stakeholder Perspective on Social Stability Risk of Large Hydraulic Engineering Projects in China: A Social Network Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-15, April.

    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.