Search

Promoting the development of eco-industries plays a significant role in achieving the harmonious symbiosis between economic growth and environmental protection as well as enhancing the comprehensive effectiveness of ecological and economic benefits. Due to their unique nature, cooperatives may play a crucial role in facilitating the integration between farmers and the development of eco-industries. To investigate whether cooperatives possess the capacity to enhance the income-generating effects for farmers involved in eco-industries, this study selected the Crested Ibis National Nature Reserve (CINNR), a representative area for eco-industry development, as the research site. Data were gathered through face-to-face interviews, and this research empirically analyzed the impact of cooperatives on the income-generating effect of farmers using endogenous switching regression (ESR). The findings are threefold. First, cooperatives indeed enhance the income-generating effects for farmers engaged in eco-industries. Second, variables such as the distribution of agroforestry materials, premium capacity, soil quality, and status of village cadres have a positive impact on farmers joining cooperatives, whereas punishment initiatives discourage their participation. Third, for farmers who have joined cooperatives, factors such as the distribution of agroforestry materials, premium capacity, low-cost conservation initiatives, land area, status of village cadres, the proportion of labor force, technical training, soil quality, and land area positively affect their income from eco-industries. Conversely, punishment initiatives, age, and land location negatively impact their income. The results of this study provide new ideas for farmers to participate in the development of eco-industries, new evidence showing co-operatives can improve farmers' income, and new directions for coordinating conflicts between conservation and development in protected areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human–bear conflicts (HBC) impact the livelihoods and safety of local communities in underdeveloped areas and challenges local governments and wildlife conservation agencies. We conducted a systematic analysis of HBC in the Sanjiangyuan National Park, which is a core region of the Qinghai Tibet Plateau. This study consisted of semi-structured interviews with 81 stakeholders in October 2020, including local families and government departments. We qualitatively assessed the dominant characteristics and causes of bear damage in the region and proposed various mitigation strategies. The results revealed that recent implementations of biodiversity conservation and ecological restoration policies have increased the number and severity of HBC. Livestock depredation, attack on humans, and house break-ins were the most common and damaging conflict types. We discuss the challenges of HBC mitigation in the region and propose possible mitigation strategies based on the results of the interviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human–wildlife conflict is a major cause of losses resulting from the establishment of protected areas, most of which are borne by the communities within these areas. It is therefore important to establish a compensation system for such losses. This study measures the total costs of human-wildlife conflict by surveying communities within and surrounding China's Giant Panda National Park. The results show that the primary visible costs from human–wildlife conflict, which include crop loss, livestock depredation, property damage, and human fatalities and injury, were 2185.6 Yuan ($316.9) per household. Approximately 64.9% of households were affected by this conflict in 2020. For each affected household, the average visible costs per capita was 952.6 Yuan ($138.1) or 7.2% of per capita net income. When converting well-being losses caused by human-wildlife conflict into economic costs, we consider visible costs and hidden costs (e.g., transaction, opportunity, and health costs). This study shows that human–wildlife conflict reduced per capita net income by 15.3% and significantly affected household well-being. The average cost of the well-being loss caused by human-wildlife conflict was 38.5 % of per capita net income. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]