Model Forest in Local Forest Politics
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RUSSIAN MODEL FOREST IN LOCAL FOREST POLITICS: Case Study of the Creation of a National Park within the Gassinski Model Forest by ICHIRO MATSUO BA, Osaka University of Foreign Studies, 1999 Graduate Diploma in Science, The Australian National University, 2000 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Faculty of Forestry) (Department of Forest Resources Management) We accept this thesis as conforming THE UMVERSITYOF BRITISH COLUMBIA March 2002 © Ichiro Matsuo, 2002 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2788) ABSTRACT This thesis examines local people's perception of the Gassinski Model Forest's (GMF) projects and activities in relation to local involvement and public communication. The GMF is the first model forest in the Russian Federation. A case study describing the creation of a national park (NP) within the GMF territory has been adopted for designing this research. The term "local involvement" for the purpose of this research, describes the inclusion of local people in the decision-making process and the term "public communication" refers to communication between the GMF and local people, including mass communication, a word-of-mouth communication and education. Public communication often accompanies local involvement. This research consists of six main chapters: introduction, background, conceptual framework, research methods, results and discussion and conclusion. In the background, firstly the organizational structure and characteristics of Canadian-style model forest programs and the GMF program are described, and then the continuity between the GMF program and the NP is explained. The conceptual framework of natural resources management is created to explain the focus of the questionnaire survey for this research. In the chapters concerned with the questionnaire survey, the methodology of the questionnaire survey was initially explained and then the results and the analyses are presented. According to the survey, more than 71% of the respondents are aware of the GMF. On the other hand, 71.8% of the respondents regard themselves as not being involved in the GMF. There are some statistical differences ( a =0.05) between groups (categorized by demographic information and responses to questions such as "Do you know anything about the GMF?" and "Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?"). Many people do not have clear idea of the GMFs boundary. The results of the survey infer the GMFs projects and activities concerned with local involvement and public communication are perceived as insufficient by locals. The future National Park, which will be created within the GMF territory and the logical successor of the GMF, should learn from the GMFs experience in order to achieve the task of facilitating "ecological [environmental] education for locals." ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT u TABLE OF CONTENTS Hi LIST OF TABLES .viii LIST OF FIGURES x LIST OF MAPS xiii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xiv 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Introduction. ..... 2 1.1.1 Definitions of Local Involvement and Public Communication 4 1.1.2 Sustainable Forest Management and Local Involvement 4 1.2 Objectives and Research Process . .....—.... ...6 2 BACKGROUND 8 2.1 Model Forest.................. ........ ~~—~ 9 2.1.1 Description of a Model Forest 9 2.1.2 Issues of Authority and Partnership for Model Forests 12 2.1.3 Local Involvement in Model Forests 12 2.2 Gassinski Model Forest.......... 14 2.2.1 GMF after 2000 16 2.2.2 GMF in Local Forest Politics 16 2.2.3 Realization of GMF's Projects 19 iii 2.2.4 Indigenous Peoples in Nanaiski District 21 23 Establishment of National Park "Anyuski" within the GMF Territory „—23 2.4 Transition from GMF to National Park "Anyuski" ....................................«....„...«.....................26 2.4.1 Continuity between the GMF Tasks to Future NP Task 27 2.4.2 Cooperation between a Model Forest and a National Park 27 2.5 Natural Resources Utilization in the GMF and NP Territory . 28 2.6 Need for Local Involvement and Public Communication.... .—..........................................29 3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THIS RESEARCH 31 3.1 Conceptual Framework of Natural Resources Management and Focus of the Questionnaire Survey...... .... ..—..—.......................................—. -• 32 3.2 Limitations of this Research...... ...... ................—... 34 4 RESEARCH METHODS 36 4.1 Methodology of the Questionnaire Survey.....................................................................................37 4.1.1 Survey Design and Question Types 37 4.1.2 Translation from English to Russian 38 4.1.3 Preparation for the Questionnaire Survey 39 4.1.4 Sampling Locations and their Characteristics 39 4.1.4.1 Troitskoe 39 4.1.4.2 Arsenyevo 40 4.1.5 Sample Frame 40 4.1.6 Sampling Methods 41 4.1.7 Target Sample Size 42 4.1.8 Response Rates 42 4.1.9 Data Analyses 42 4.1.10 Limitations and Biases 43 5 RESULTS 45 iv 5.1 Summary of Results...............................................—....—..................—....... .........................46 52 Information of Respondents......—......... .......—. ................ .......—. .....46 5.2.1 Gender 46 5.2.2 Age 47 5.2.3 Ethnicity 48 5.2.4 Occupation 50 5.2.5 Academic Background 51 5.2 Questions about the Gassinski Model Forest...............................................™.....—...........™.........53 5.2.3 Q3. Do you know anything about the Gassinski Model Forest (GMF)? 53 5.2.3.1 Overall 53 5.2.3.2 By Gender 54 5.2.3.3 By Age 55 5.2.3.4 By Ethnicity 57 5.2.3.5 By Occupation 59 5.2.3.6 By Location 61 5.2.4 Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in the GMF? 63 5.2.4.1 Overall 63 5.2.4.2 By Gender 64 5.2.4.3 By Age 65 5.2.4.5 By Ethnicity 67 5.2.4.6 By Occupation 69 5.2.4.7 By Location 70 5.2.5 Q 10. Do you live in the territory of the GMF? 72 5.2.6 Local People's Perception about the GMF 73 5.2.6.1 Overall 74 5.2.6.2 By Location 78 5.2.6.3 By Ethnicity 80 5.2.6.4 By Gender 82 5.2.6.5 By Age 84 5.2.6.6 By Occupation 86 5.2.6.7 Breakdown of Q6 by Q3 "Do you know anything about the Gassinski Model Forest ?" (ANOVA and Tukey's HSD) 88 v 5.2.6.8 Breakdown of Q6 by Q5 "Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?"(ANOVA and Tukey's HSD) 89 5.2.7 Correlations between Questions in Q6 (Kendall's taub) 90 5.2.7.1 Correlation between Q6a and j (Correlation coefficient = 0.444) and between Q6j and k (-0.434) 92 5.2.7.2 Correlations between b and d (Correlation coefficient = 0.425), b and j(0.569), b and k(-0.484) 92 5.2.7.3 Correlations between Q6c and e (Correlation coefficient = 0.458), c and e (0.485) 93 5.2.7.4 Correlations between Q6d and e (Correlation coefficient = 0.425) and Q6e and h (0.427) 93 5.2.7.5 Characteristic of Q6k in Correlation 94 5.2.8 Cluster Analysis 94 5.3 Questions about the National Park.... 98 5.3.1 Q7. Do you know about the creation of a National Park within the GMF? 98 5.3.1.1 Overall 98 5.3.1.2 By Gender 98 5.3.1.3 By Ethnicity 99 5.3.1.4 By Location 100 5.3.2 Q8. If you answered "Yes" to Q7, do you think that a new NP will have a positive impact on your life? 100 5.3.2.1 Overall 100 5.3.2.2 By Gender 101 5.3.2.3 By Ethnicity 102 5.3.2.4 By Location 102 5.4 Questions about Local Concerns.............—......................................................................—......103 5.4.1 Local People's Concerns in Daily Life 103 5.4.1.1 Overall 103 5.4.1.2 By Location 104 5.4.1.3 By Ethnicity and Location (Arsenyevo) 106 5.4.1.4 By Ethnicity and Location (Troitskoe) 108 5.4.1.5 Russians in Arsenyevo and Troitskoe 110 vi 6.1 Discussion....................... ....... .....................................................................................114 6.1.1 Objective 1: Learn about Local People's Perception about the GMF 114 6.1.2 Objective 2: Determine what the GMF Achieved to Facilitate Public Communication and Local Involvement 116 6.1.3 Objective 3: Recommendations for the Future National Park within the GMF 117 6.2 Conclusion .. .....................................................................^ —...118 7 REFERENCES 121 APPENDIX I: EVALUATION OF THE GMFA BY THE IMFNS 128 APPENDIX H: QUESTIONNAIRE IN ENGLISH . 135 APPENDIX HI: QUESTIONNAIRE IN RUSSIAN 140 APPENDIX TV: SURVEY COVER LETTER IN ENGLISH . 145 APPENDIX V: SURVEY COVER LETTER IN RUSSIAN. 147 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Completed Projects of the GMF. 15 Table 2. Number of Nanai and Udege in the USSR in 1926, 1959 and 1989, in Khabarovsk Province in 1990 and in Nanaiski District in 2000 21 Table 3. Data of the National Park "Anyuiski" 24 Table 4. Characteristics of the GMF and the NP 25 Table 5. Commonalities between the GMF and the future NP. 27 Table 6. Population of Nanaiski District, Arsenyevo and Troitskoe and a Breakdown by Ethnicity (as of 1 January 2000) 41 Table 7.