| 作成者 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 本文言語 |
|
| 出版者 |
|
|
|
| 発行日 |
|
| 雑誌名 |
|
| 巻 |
|
| 号 |
|
| 開始ページ |
|
| 終了ページ |
|
| 出版タイプ |
|
| アクセス権 |
|
| 概要 |
Competing interests over the park's land use between conservation and forest use result in many conflicts. The conservation group is interested in seeing more land be allocated for conservation, while... the community forestry-working group is interested in seeing more land be allocated for community forestry, but both view that their utilities would be maximized if they consume some of the other's good. The conservation groupvalues the land based on zone because of conservation nalue, while the community forestry values the land besed on habitai because of productivity. This study optimizing preferences of both groups attempts to propose the optimal allocation of the park's forestland between the two interests. The result suggests that the total evergreen forest land in the general conservation zone could be allocated 2,742ha for the conservation and 1,871ha for community forestry and the total evergteen forest land in the managed resources zone could be allocated 237ha for conservation and 475ha for community forestry. And the total mengrove forestland in the general conservation zone could be allocated 608ha for conservation and 352ha for community forestry and the total mangrove forestland in the managed resource zone could be allocated 585ha for conservation and 1,079ha for community forestry. For better management, it is recommended that all community forestry land should be confined in the managed resource zone only rather than in both zones. This requires some of the land in the general conservation zone be added into the managef resource zone.続きを見る
|
Mendeley出力
