4.6 Article

A Case Study of the Snow Leopard in Sanjiangyuan National Park Boundaries regarding Park Boundary Divergence

期刊

LAND
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/land11060813

关键词

boundary divergence; national park; global warming; snow leopard; Sanjiangyuan National Park

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [42171389]
  2. Ministerial Social Science Research Project of Ministry of Culture and Tourism of China [22DY17]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper uses remote sensing data to examine the divergence between national park boundaries and natural habitat distribution. The study finds that this divergence is influenced by global warming and has a significant impact on the living conditions of local people. The authors propose the establishment of cooperative conservation areas to address these issues.
This paper uses remote sensing data from the Sanjiangyuan National Park (SNP) to explore the divergence between the boundaries of national parks and the distribution of natural habitats. Results are used to argue that these discrepancies evolve along with the potential impact of global warming. Using the example of the habitat change of snow leopards and the conflicts between local people and snow leopards, we reflect on the consequences of this divergence. Results show that divergence between the political boundaries and natural habitats as well as the consequent influence on the living conditions of local people are strikingly visible, and the effects of global warming on such conflicts are apparent. The authors conclude that both notions of 'political boundaries' and 'natural habitats' are expected to come together as the SNP region is spatially configured, while 'global warming' seems to be relevant as an essential reference when delimiting the region in the future. Finally, the proposal for the establishment of cooperative conservation areas is presented, emphasizing the role of cooperative governance in/around national parks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据