Towards Collaborative Planning and Management of Natural Protected

Towards Collaborative Planning and Management of Natural Protected Areas: A Case Study in the Formosan Landlocked Salmon Wildlife Refuge, Taiwan Kuang-Chung Lee Department of Geography University College London Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Ph.D. University of London 11/2001 ProQuest Number: U644294 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest U644294 Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to explore what contributions a collaborative planning approach can make to achieving more sustainable solutions to the management of protected areas in Taiwan. Among the three designations of natural protected areas in Taiwan, the Wildlife Refuge is notable because its legal status provides more opportunities for stakeholder participation than other statutory designations. Drawing on a theory of collaborative planning advanced by Healey (1997, 1998a) this study provides an in-depth analysis of the history of the Formosan Landlocked Salmon Wildlife Refuge to evaluate the effectiveness of a collaborative approach to planning and management. A historical review of institutional practices suggests that several attempts have been made to move towards a more collaborative approach to natural areas planning and management in Taiwan. For example, devolution of power to the local government on a legal basis, some involvement of local people and conservation NGOs in the planning process on a legal basis, and establishment of formal instruments of policy, such as management plans and advisory committees. These are all ways of encouraging government institutions and scientists to work together in processes of planning and management. However, these practices mainly involve establishing formal arenas to foster the implementation of official ‘plans’ and their imposition on local areas. Local knowledge and local people are still marginalized in the planning process. Public meetings convened as part of the research were held with local farmers, tourists, and local management authorities and provided new inclusionary and communicative forums and arenas that were appreciated by most participants. The meetings discussed a range of issues based on local knowledge previously not addressed in traditional planning meetings. The meetings also involved local people who had previously been excluded from traditional planning processes. Such meetings brought together local people and the local management authorities in a face-to-face, consensus-building process. The meetings demonstrated how new political instruments designed to build social capacity amongst all relevant stakeholders can be used as a means of mobilising collaborative actions associated with the management of the local area. Detailed qualitative analysis of the record of these public meetings reveals that the main management problem of the Formosan Salmon Refuge Area arises from the different priorities given by stakeholders to two concepts: ‘livelihoods of people’ and ‘the well-being of wildlife.’ A sustainable solution to the long term management of the area will require a continuing programme of collaborative planning so that agreement can be reached about how these two goals can be reconciled. Recommendations about the forms such approaches might take are suggested based on a theoretically informed and explicit evaluation of the case study. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is almost impossible to acknowledge all those who have contributed to the writing of this thesis. First and foremost 1 would like to wholeheartedly thank my supervisor Carolyn Harrison for her tremendous help throughout my time at UCL. Her patience, critical guidance and a great deal of encouragement have fostered my research interest and motivation, and led me gradually on the right path of learning. Carolyn’s supervision and her family’s warm support have made my four-year study at UCL an enjoyable journey and experience. 1 would like to extend my thanks to Sheilah Meikle, Andrew Warren, Jacquie Burgess, Richard Munton, Pasty Healey, and many people in the Environment and Society Research Unit (ESRU) for their valuable comments and advice on my research, particularly in helping me in the development of my thinking and research approaches. For financial support 1 am indebted to the Ministry of Education in Taiwan for granting me a four-year scholarship between Sep 1997 and Aug 2001. 1 would also like to express my gratitude to the Cultural Division of Taipei Representative Office in the UK that administers the scholarship scheme and has always kept an active interest in my personal and intellectual well-being. In the course of my fieldwork in Taiwan 1 have begged for favours from many people and institutions. In particular 1 would like to thank the Council of Agriculture, the Wuling Farm Office (especially for kindly offering me free accommodation and a motorcycle throughout my second phase of fieldwork), the Shei-Pa National Park Headquarters and its Wuling Warden and Police Office, the Forestry Bureau Tungshih Branch, the Taichung County Government, the Endemic Species Research Institution, and all the nice people from these institutions, all the friendly local farmers and their family in the Wuling area, and all those who took part in interviews and group meetings, and Pei-Fen Lee at National Taiwan University and his colleagues. The conduct of fieldwork would have not been possible without their generous help, support, and participation. Many thanks go to all the nice people from the Hawkridge, the Nansen Village, AFSIL, the International Lutheran Student Centre, and the St. Helens Church in London for their friendship, help, and company. Special thanks and love go to Professor Shin Wang, Mr. Hsiao-Yu Tang, and Miss Ling-Yu Hsu and her family in Taiwan for their constant encouragement, generous help, and valuable advice. A big thank you also to my dear friends Tung-Liang & Shu-Ming, Wei-Hsi & Chuan Pao, and Tao-Chung & Jan-Yin for their lovely friendship. Finally, 1 would like to give my sincere love and thanks to my parents and parents-in-low, my sister Ming-Hsuan and my brother Kuang-Yu in the United States, and my dear wife Mei-Ling and our two sons Po-Sheng and Po-Wen. Their love and full support have been the foundation of my four-year study in the UK. CONTENTS TITLE ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CONTENTS FIGURES TABLES PLATES Chapter 1 Introduction............................................................................................ 11 1.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................11 1.2. Thesis structure............................................................................................................13 1.3. General background and problems of protected area management ............................... 14 1.3.1. Definition, categories, and management objectives of protected areas ...............15 1.3.2. Problems and causes of people-park conflicts ....................................................17 1.4. Public participation and participatory approaches ........................................................ 22 1.4.1. Definition and types of public participation ...................................................... 22 1.4.2. Varieties of participatory approaches................................................................. 24 1.4.3. Benefits and risks of public participation .......................................................... 26 1.4.4. Problems of participatory approaches................................................................29 1.5.Public participation in environmental decision-making in Taiwan ...............................29 1.5.1. The development of Taiwan’s environmental movement ...................................30 1.5.2. Public participation in the planning systems of protected areas ......................... 32 1.6. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................41 Chapter 2 Theory and Methodology ...................................................................... 44 2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 44 2.2. Theoretical underpinnings of collaborative planning ................................................... 45 2.2.1. Choice of theory ............................................................................................. 45 2.2.2. Theories of collaborative planning ...................................................................45 2.2.3. Anthony Giddens and the theory of structuration ............................................. 46 2.2.4. Jurgen Habermas and the theory of communicative action ...............................47 2.3. Approach of collaborative planning .............................................................................48 2.3.1. How are collaborative processes to be constructed? ..........................................49

Load more