Analysis of the Parties Role on Stabilizing the Lore Lindu National Park Buffer Area (Case Study in Lembah Bada Villages, Lore Barat District, Poso Regency, Central Sulawesi)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The stability of protected areas was influenced by the existence of areas outside it (Meijaard et al., 2006). The more development of the area outside the conservation area, it was necessary to arrange the function of the area to increase the value and opportunities for the use of the area to support development (Kelso et al., 2010). The buffer zone had a very important function, namely to reduce population pressure into conservation areas and nature reserves, provide community economic activities and was an area that allows for sustainable interaction of benefits for the community with conservation areas (Ardhian, 2011). The existence of conservation areas, buffer zones and community economics had a reciprocal relationship that could be beneficial if managed properly (Robinson et al., 2013; and Golar, 2014). This conservation area was increasingly isolated due to exploitative and destructive human activities such as land conversion, encroachment and the resulting increase in human population (Indrawan, 2007; Livawanty et al., 2012; and Golar et al., 2014). A conservation strategy that integrates the uniqueness of resources and the people who live and activities around and within the national park still needs to be explored (Mallombasang, 2012). Abdullah et al. (2013) states that the application of collaboration mechanisms must be followed by safeguards, as a safeguard for its success. One of them was the consolidation of social contracts towards strengthening the buffer zone. The research purposes was to find out the effectiveness of collaboration models that had been applied in overcoming conflicts and find out management strategies through a partnership pattern (process towards social contracts) in an effort to implement collaborative management. This research was conducted in the Lore Lindu National Park area which included 6 buffer villages as samples. The location was determined by consideration as a buffer zone where the community was part of the partnership process. Data analysis was adjusted to the research objectives of qualitative descriptive (in cluster model), fishbone and SWOT analysis. The conclusion was interaction and dependence on various supply of forest resource products that had been going on for generations, and in the end giving birth to positive local wisdom was a major factor in maintaining forest cover in Cluster 1 of Lore Lindu Valley Bada National Park. The experience and learning of collaborative management activities that had been or had been carried out in TNLL were still conventional in nature where community involvement was still mobilized and dominated by BBTNLL management. The non-optimal management of colabotaif in TNLL was dominated by internal factors compared to internal and external factors such as limited resources and access to information, the involvement of stakeholders at the local level which was not yet maximal, the absence or finalization of boundary management, traditional attitudes towards life, and experience bad past in resolving tenure and social conflicts. Global, national and local strategic issues demonstrate the potential for developing collaborative and participatory TNLL management through prospective and competitive Community-based Conservation Partnerships (KKM) in the future. Four important components as a policy strategy that must be carried out based on SWOT in the development of KKM in TNLL were strengthening the legality status of the area through mapping boundaries and preparing participatory zoning, empowering parties, especially local institutions and resources, changing paradigms in resolving tenurial and social conflicts, and developing diversity alternative livelihood sources. Collaborative Management that begins with a social contract in the Community-based Conservation Partnership (KKM) policy, besides having a huge opportunity in overcoming tenurial and social conflicts in the LLNP, also provided certainty and guarantees the sustainability of more equitable and participatory management.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».