Participatory Mapping of Community Use Zone in Dena District Adjacent to Dena Preserved Area

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Depatment of Environmental Planning and Management, Faculty of Environment, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Conservation planning needs to identify the perceptions of local communities about the distribution of uses. Required areas for supporting welfare of these communities within and around protected areas is called community use zone. Based on theoretical foundations and given that every place has value or values for local communities, it is possible to identify local values by combining participatory approach and explicit spatial approach. The aim of this study is to identify community use zone in Dena district and in the vicinity of the Dena protected area. In this regard, ethnography is applied by practices such as semi-open questionnaire, field observation and literature review and then is complemented by participatory mapping. Collecting data of local values (Subsistence, economic, cultural and conservative) is continued until the information saturation. Participants marked these hotspots of providing services on four basic maps. After digitizing the data, the spatial overlapping of these areas has been investigated. Community use zone is designated by counting the overlaps of subsistence, economic, and cultural values. Most of this zone is around rivers, roads and settlements. Within the Dena preserved area is influenced by economic and cultural uses. The conservative value identified outside the protected area requires participatory conservation planning, too. Dual-value and three-valued area in the community use zone should be a priority in educational planning and financial supporting for sustainable use. Future programs in Dena district should be focused on such actions: Prevention from firing and cultivating in the forests, prevention from land use change, increasing irrigation efficiency, proper cultivation management, prevention from irregular harvesting medicinal and edible plants, and prevention from illegal hunting of wildlife. Applying the method of this research provides a common language for the dialogue between conservation and community uses. It also provides the ground of training, empowering and attracting the participation of local communities and learning from them.
Extended Abstract
1-Introduction
Conservation planning needs to identify local community' perceptions about the distribution of uses. Required areas for supporting welfare of these communities within and around protected areas called community use zone. Given that Local communities value every place, it is possible to identify local values by combinatory and complementary methods. The concepts and methods of planning and managing protected areas and their surroundings have two main approaches: Area-oriented and process-oriented approach. The area-oriented approach is based on the science-based top-down land use planning experience and mapping with geographic tools has led to conflicts with Conservation which because of the ignorance of local communities. The most advanced method of this approach is the use of spatial information to make decision through ecosystem services mapping. The process-oriented approach includes soft social methods to create opportunities for dialogue, participation, adaptation and agreement, but its results do not lead to explicit spatial boundaries and regions, such as participatory rural appraisal and community-based conservation. Therefore, increasing the effectiveness of conservation planning requires the development of combinatory practices of the two approaches (area-oriented and process-oriented). In this regard, there are two confirmatory theories: The "Cartography, ethics & social theory" argues that the absence of social values in the content of the mapping has caused the mapping to be distanced from the democratic and human form of geographical knowledge. Also, "Cartographic semiosis" is a theory that knows map performance beyond description and representation and in communication and prescription form by deconstructing in the mapping and registering of place values. Such a map is a social product that finds institutional legitimacy by considering the perspectives of local communities. The aim of this study is to identify community use zone in Dena district and in the vicinity of the Dena protected area.
2-Materials and Methods
In this research, ethnography is applied by practices such as semi-open questionnaire, field observation and literature review which is then complemented by participatory mapping. Participants (some residents of settlements in Dena district) have been selected and collaborated voluntarily and by trying to balance the age, gender and population ratio of the settlements, during spring and summer of 1398 SH. Collecting data of local values (Subsistence, economic, cultural and conservative) is continued until the information saturation. Participants marked these hotspots of providing services on four basic maps. After digitizing the data, the spatial overlapping of these areas has been investigated.Community use zone is designated by counting the overlaps of subsistence, economic, and cultural values.
3-Results and Discussion
Parts of the Dena preserved area are affected by economic and cultural uses  which is especially noticeable around the Sisakht town. The conservative value identified outside the preserved area requires participatory conservation planning.  Local value overlapping shows the conservative local value depicted by the participants has no spatial overlap with other mapped values. Also, the largest overlap was between cultural and economic values and then subsistence and economic values. The overlap of economic and subsistence values was related to adjacency livelihood activities to income generating activities. Besides, the overlap of economic and cultural values is mostly related to the conventional livelihood of tourism revenue and the attractions of culturally valuable areas. The community use zone includes value areas which respectively have three types, two types or one type of three subsistence, economic and cultural values. The major distribution of this zone is close to and concentrated on the areas which have noticeable natural and human built features. In other words, the major surface of community use zone is at an altitude below 2500 meters and around rivers, roads and settlements. Dual-value and three-valued area in the community use zone should be given priority in educational planning and financial supporting in order to sustainable use. Future educational and participatory programs in Dena district should be focused on such actions:Prevention from firing and cultivating in the forests, prevention from land use change in gardens, increasing irrigation efficiency, proper cultivation management and waste control, prevention from irregular harvesting medicinal and edible plants, and prevention from trapping and illegal hunting of wildlife.
4-Conclusion
Applying the method of this research for other districts provides a common language for the dialogue between conservation and community uses. It also provides the training and empowering ground and attracting participation of local communities and learning from them. Such recognition can help reduce the scope of conflicts, increase compliance with conservation, strengthen the motivation for continued participation in conservation and finally make the resilience of land use allocation decisions between development and conservation.
 
 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

ابوالقاسمی، شیرین (1395). برنامة حفاظت و توسعة پایدار کوهستان زاگرس مرکزی. سازمان حفاظت محیط­زیست و صندوق تسهیلات جهانی محیط زیست. تهران: معارف.
ادارة کلّ حفاظت محیط­زیست استان کهکیلویه و بویراحمد (1395). برنامة مدیریت جامع منطقة آبخیز مدیریتی دنا. تهران: سازمان حفاظت محیط­زیست.
انجمن دامون (1396). دستورالعمل حفاظت از گونه­های شاخص زیستی در منطقة زاگرس مرکزی. تهران: سازمان حفاظت از محیط­زیست.
رنجبر، هادی؛ حق­دوست، علی­اکبر؛ صلصالی، مهوش؛ خوشدل، علیرضا؛ سلیمانی، محمدعلی؛ بهرامی، نسیم (1391). نمونه‌گیری در پژوهش­های کیفی: راهنمایی برای شروع. مجلّة دانشگاه علوم پزشکی ارتش جمهوری اسلامی ایران، 10 (3)، 238-250.
رودگرمی، پژمان؛ اکبرزاده، عباس (1393). راهکارهای تحقیق کیفی برای علوم محیط­زیستی. فصلنامة علوم و تکنولوژی محیط­زیست، 16 (1)، 615-631.
عباس­زاده، محمد (1391). تأمّلی بر اعتبار و پایایی در تحقیقات کیفی. جامعه­شناسی کاربردی، 23 (1)، 19-34.
فروزه، محمدرحیم؛ حشمتی، غلامعلی؛ بارانی، حسین (1393). گیا­ه­مردم­نگاری گونه­های خوراکی و دارویی مرتع دیلگان، استان کهگیلویه و بویراحمد. پژوهش­های انسان­شناسی ایران، 4 (1)، 109-129.
فقیهی، ابوالحسن؛ علیزاده، محسن (1384). روایی در تحقیق کیفی. مدیریت فرهنگ سازمانی، 3 (9)، 5-19.
ملکیان، منصوره؛ باقری، راحله (1394) تأثیر اندازه و شکل مناطق حفاظت­شده بر غنا و تنوّع گونه­ای پستانداران، مطالعة موردی استان کهگیلویه و بویراحمد. مجلّة پژوهش­های جانوری، 28 (2)، 233-243.
منتظری، مجید (1394). بررسی نقش ناهمواری­ها در شکل­گیری خرده­نواحی اقلیمی استان کهکیلویه و بویراحمد. جغرافیا و توسعه، (40)، 1-18.
نیک­نشان، شقایق؛ نوروزی، رضاعلی؛ نصر اصفهانی، احمدرضا (1389) تحلیلی بر رویکردهای روایی در پژوهش کیفی. روش‌شناسی علوم انسانی، 16 (62)، 141-160.
وارثی، حمیدرضا (1381). دنا و اکوتوریسم. اطلاعات جغرافیایی سپهر، 11 (43)، 34-37.
یاوری، احمدرضا؛ طیب­زاده، نگار (1396) سنجش و ارزیابی در برنامه­ریزی استفاده از سرزمین. تهران: آوای قلم.
References
Abbaszadeh, M. (2012). Validity and reliability in qualitative researches. Journal of Applied Sociology.23 (1), 19-34. (In Persian)
Abolghasemi, S. (2016). Conservation and sustainable development program of central Zagros Mountains. Department of the environment and global environment facility, Tehran: Maaref. (In Persian)
Andrade, G. S. M., & Rhodes, J. R. (2012). Protected areas and local communities: an inevitable partnership toward successful conservation strategies?. Ecology and Society, 17 (4), 1-16.
Baker, J., Milner-Gulland, E. J. & Leader-Williams, N. (2011). Park gazettement and integrated conservation and development as factors in community conflict at Bwindi Impenetrable Forest. Conservation Biology, 26 (1), 160-70.
Ban, N. C.,  Mills, M ., Jordan Tam, J., C Hicks, C. & Klain, S. (2013). A social–ecological approach to conservation plan­ning: Embedding social considerations. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11 (4), 194-202.
Brown, G. & Fagerholm, N. (2014). Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: a review and evaluation. Ecosystem Services, 13, 119-133.
Brown, G. & Reed, P. (2012). Social landscape metrics: measures for understanding place values from public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS). Landscape Research, 37 (1), 73-90.
Canavire-Bacarreza, G. & Hanauer, M. (2013). Estimating the impacts of Bolivia’s protected areas on poverty. World Development, 41, 265-285.
Casti, E. (2014). A reflexive cartography and environmental conservation: a model of participatory zoning. Global Bioethics, 25 (2), 125-135.
Chambers, R. (1994). The Origins and Practice of Participatory/Rural Appraisal. World Dev, 22, 953-969.
Chao, S. (2012). Forest peoples: numbers across the world. Forest Peoples Program. Stratford Road: 1c Fosseway Business Centre.
Crossman, N. D., Burkhard, B., Nedkov, S., Willemen, L., Petz, K. & Palomo, I. (2013). A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 4, 4-14.
Cumming, G. S. (2011). Spatial resilience: integrating landscape ecology, resilience and sustainability. Landscape Ecology, 26, 899-909.
Damoon Association (2017). Bio-indicator speciesprotection guidelines in the central Zagros region. Tehran: department of the environment. (In Persian)
Dicicco-Bloom, B. & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical education, 40 (4), 314-21.
Dudley, N., Groves, C., Redford, K. H. & Stolton, S. (2014). Where now for protected areas? Setting the stage for the 2014 World Parks Congress. Oryx, 48 (4), 496-503.
Fagerholm, N., Käyhkö, N., Ndumbaro, F. & Khamis, M. (2012). Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments, mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecological Indicators, 18, 421-433.
Faghihi, A. & Alizade, M. (2005). Validity in qualitative research. Organizational culture management, 3 (9), 5-19. (In Persian)
Fisher, J. A., Patenaude, G., Giri, K., Lewis, K., Meir, P. & Pinho, P. (2014). Understanding the relationships between ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: a conceptual framework. Ecosystem Services, 7, 34-45.
Foroze, M. R., Heshmati, G. & Barani, H. (2014). Ethno botany in Dilgan rangeland for edible and medicinal species. Iranian Journal of Anthropological Research, 1 (7), 109-129. (In Persian)
García-Llorente, M., Martín-López B. & Iniesta-Arandia, I. (2012). The role of multi-functionality in social preferences toward semi-arid rural landscapes: An ecosystem service approach. Environmental Science and Policy, 19-20, 136-146.
Gardner, C. J. (2011). IUCN management categories fail to represent new, multiple-use protected areas in Madagascar. Oryx, 45 (3), 336-346.
Harley, J. B. (1992). Deconstructing the Map, Discoursetext and metaphor in the representation of landscape. London and New York: Routledge, 277-312.
Haslett, J. R., Berry, P. M., Bela, G., Jongman, R. H. G., Pataki, G., Samways, M. J. & Zobel, M. (2010). Changing conservation strategies in Europe: A frame­work integrating ecosystem services and dynamics. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19, 2963-2977.
Hull, V., Weihua, X., Wei, L., Shiqiang, Z., Andrés, V., Jindong, Z., Mao-Ning, T. & Jinyan, H. (2011). Evaluating the efficacy of zoning designations for protected area management. Biological Conservation, 144 (12), 3028-3037.
Kareiva, P. & Marvier, M. (2012). What is conservation science?. Bio Science, 62, 962-969.
Kearney, M. H. (2007). Going deeper versus wider in qualitative sampling. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing, 36 (4), 299.
Kohkilouyeh and Boyer-Ahmad general department of environmental protection (2016). Dena watershed Comprehensive management program. Tehran: department of the environment. (In Persian)
Kolahi, M., Sakai, T., Moriya, K., Makhdoum, M. F. & Koyama, L. (2013). Assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas management in Iran: case study in Khojir National Park. Environ. Manag, 52 (2), 514-530.
Lausche, B., & Burhenne. F. (2011). Guidelines for Protected Areas Legislation. IUCN, Zoning within a protected area. Bonn: IUCN Environmental Law Centre.
Lele, S., Wilshusen, P., Brockington, D., Seidler, R. & Bawa, K. (2010). Beyond exclusion: Alternative approaches to biodiversity conservation in the developing tropics. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2 (1-2), 94-100.
Leroux, S. J., Krawchuk, M. A., Schmiegelow, F., Cumming, S. G., Lisgo, K., Anderson, L. G. & Petkova, M. (2010). Global protected areas and IUCN designations: do the categories match the conditions?. Biological Conservation, 143 (3), 609-616.
Livingston, W. G. (2009). Discovering the academic and socialtransitions of re-enrolling student veterans at one institution:A grounded theory. A Dissertation for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Educational Leadership, Clemson University.

Malekian, M. & bagheri, R. (2015). The influence of size and shape of protected areas on species diversity and richness of mammals, a case study on Kohgiluyeh & Boyer Ahmad protected areas. Journal of animal research (Iranian journal of biology), 28 (2), 233-143.(In Persian)

Martín-López B., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I. & Montes C. (2011). The con­servation against development paradigm in protected areas: Valuation of ecosystem services in the Doñana social–ecological system (south­western Spain). Ecological Economics, 70 (8), 1481-1491.
Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M. & Palomo, I. (2012). Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. Plos one, 7 (6), 1-11.
McDonald, R. I. & Boucher, T. M. (2011). Global development and the future of the protected area strategy. Biological Conserationv, 144 (1), 383-392.
McLain, R., Poe, M., Biedenweg, K., Cerveny, L., Besser, D. & Blahna, D. (2013). Making sense of human ecology mapping: an overview of approaches to integrating socio-spatial data into environmental planning. Human Ecology, 41, 651-665.

Montazeri, M. (2015). Zoning of Climatic Sub Regions of Kohgiluyeh and Boyer Ahmad Province by Emphasis on Land Roughness. Geography and development Iranian journal, (40), 1-18. (In Persian)

Naughton-Treves, L. (2012). Participatory Zoning to Balance Conservation and Development in Protected Areas. Integrating Ecology and Poverty Reduction, 17, 235-251.
Nikneshan, S., Norouzi, R. A. & Nasr Isfahani, A. R. (2010). Analytic Study of Approaches to Validity in Qualitative Research. Methodology of social science and humanities journal, 16 (62), 141-160.(In Persian)
Pagella, T. F. & Sinclair, F. L. (2014). Development and use of a typology of mapping tools to assess their fitness for supporting management of ecosystem service provision. Landscape Ecology, 29, 383-399.
Palomo, I., Martín-López B., Zorrilla-Miras, P., García del Amo, D. & Montes, C. (2013 a). Deliberative mapping of ecosystem services within and around Doñana National Park (SW Spain) in relation to land use change. Regional Environmental Change, 14, 237-251.
Palomo, I., Martín-López, B., Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R. & Montes, C. (2013 b). National parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: Mapping ecosys­tem service flows. Ecosystem Services, 4, 104-116.
Palomo, I., Montes, C. & Martin-Lopez, B. (2014). Incorporating the Social–Ecological Approach in Protected Areas in the Anthropocene. BioScience, 64 (3), 181-191.

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods, Integrating theory and practice. USA: International educational and professional publisher, Sage Publications.

Petursson, J. G. & Vedeld, P. (2015). The ‘‘nine-lives’’ of protected areas. A historical-institutional analysis from the transboundary Mt. Elgon, Uganda and Kenya. Land Use Policy, 42, 251-263.
Ramirez-Gomez, S. O. I., Brown, G. G. & Tjon Sie Fat, A. (2013). Participatory mapping with indigenous communities for conservation: challenges and lessons from suriname. Electronic Journal of Information System in Developing Countries, 58 (1), 1-22.
Ramirez-Gomez, S. O. I., Greg, B. & Pita, A. (2016). Verweijb, René Boot, Participatory mapping to identify indigenous community use zones: Implications for conservation planning in southern Suriname. Journal for Nature Conservation, 29, 69-78.
Ranjbar, H., Haghdoost, A. A., Salsali, M., Khoshdel, A., Soleimani, M. & Bahrami, N. (2012). Sampling in qualitative research: A guide for beginning. Annals of Military and Health Sciences Research, 10 (3), 238-250. (In Persian)
Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G. D. & Bennett, E. M. (2010). Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 5242-5247.
Reyers, B., Biggs, R., Cumming, G. S., Elmqvist, T., Hejnowicz, A. P. & Polasky, S. (2013). Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social–ecological approach. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 107 (11), 268-273.
Rotich, D. (2012). Concept of zoning management in protected areas. Journal of Environment and Earth Science, 2 (10), 173-183.
Roudgarmi, P. & Akbarzadeh, A. (2015). Qualitative Research Approaches for Environmental Sciences: A review. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 16 (1), 615-631. (In Persian)
Salerno, J. D., Mulder, M. B. & Kefauver, S. C. (2014). Human migration, protected areas, and conservation outreach in Tanzania. Conserv. Biol, 28, 841-850.
Satar, M. (2004). Using Participatory GIS to Identified Local Land use zoning for conservation inMerauke District, Papua, Indonesia1. Thesis Research to get Master Degree in Urban and Regional Planning, Institut Teknologi Bandung, 1-8.
Schägner, J. P., Brander, L., Maes, J. & Hartje, V. (2013). Mapping ecosystem services’ values: current practice and future prospects. Ecosystem Services, 4, 33-46.
Serna-Chavez, H. M., Schulp, C. J. E., van Bodegom, P. M., Bouten, W., Verburg, P. H. & Davidson, M. D. (2014). A quantitative framework for assessing spatial flows of ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators, 39, 24-33.
Shafer, C. L. (2015). Cautionary thoughts on IUCN protected area management categories V–VI. Global Ecology and Conservation, 3, 331-348.
Stevens, S. (2014). A new protected area paradigm. Indigenous Peoples, National Parks, and Protected Areas: A New Paradigm Linking Conservation, Culture and Rights. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 47-83.
Stortini, C. H., Shackell, N. L. & O’Dor, R. K. (2015). A decision-support tool to facilitate discussion of no-take boundaries for Marine Protected Areas during stakeholder consultation processes, Journal for Nature Conservation, 23, 45-52.
Syrbe, R.-U. & Walz, U. (2012). Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecological Indicators, 21, 80-88.
Talen, E. (2000). Bottom-Up GIS: A new tool for individual and group expression in participatory planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66, 279-294.
Toupal, R. S., Zedeño M. N., Stoffle R. W. & Barabe P. (2001). Cultural landscapes and ethnographic cartographies: Scandinavian-American and American Indian knowledge of the land. Environmental Science & Policy, 4 (4), 171-184.

Varesi, H. R. (2002). Dena and ecotourism. SEPEHR, 11 (43), 34-37.(In Persian)

Villa, F., Voigt, B. & Erickson, J. D. (2014). New perspectives in ecosystem services science as instruments to understand environmental securities. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 369, 1-15.
Wenwu, Du., Sofia, M. & Isami, K. (2015). Models and Approaches for Integrating Protected Areas with Their Surroundings: A Review of the Literature. Sustainability, 7 (7), 8151-8177.
Wiseman, A. W. (2009). Educational leadership: global contexts and international comparisons, Lehigh university. USA: Emerald Group Publishing.
Yavari, A. R. & Tayebzadeh, N. (2017). Evaluation and assessment methods of landscape planning. Tehran: Avaye Ghalam.(In Persian)
Zhang, Z., Sherman, R., Yang, Z., Wu, R., Wang, W., Yin, M., Yang, G. & Ou, X. (2013). Integrating a participatory process with a GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis for protected area zoning in China. Journal for Nature Conservation, 21 (4), 225-240.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics