胡玉俏, 赵敏燕, 杨军, 等. 自然教育驱动保护地社区发展的机理及影响研究[J]. 自然保护地,2025,5(0):1−19. DOI: 10.12335/2096-8981.2024052901
引用本文: 胡玉俏, 赵敏燕, 杨军, 等. 自然教育驱动保护地社区发展的机理及影响研究[J]. 自然保护地,2025,5(0):1−19. DOI: 10.12335/2096-8981.2024052901
HU Y Q, ZHAO M Y, YANG J, et al. Study on the mechanism and impact of nature education driving community development in protected areas[J]. Natural Protected Areas, 2025, 5(0): 1−19. DOI: 10.12335/2096-8981.2024052901
Citation: HU Y Q, ZHAO M Y, YANG J, et al. Study on the mechanism and impact of nature education driving community development in protected areas[J]. Natural Protected Areas, 2025, 5(0): 1−19. DOI: 10.12335/2096-8981.2024052901

自然教育驱动保护地社区发展的机理及影响研究

Study on the mechanism and impact of nature education driving community development in protected areas

  • 摘要:
    目的 验证自然教育“环境认知-地方依恋-保护意愿”的内在效应,并揭示其对保护地社区文化、社区经济和社区治理等因素的驱动影响机制。
    方法 采用结构方程模型,使用SPSS27.0和AMOS26.0软件,以江西婺源森林鸟类国家级自然保护区石门村和曹门村为案例地,通过409份有效问卷开展假设条件验证。
    结果 ①从内在效应看,自然教育对社区居民环境认知和保护意愿产生影响,其中地方依恋是不可忽视的中介变量;②从驱动影响看,自然教育对社区文化、社区经济、社区治理具有显著的驱动影响;③从人口特征群组分析看,性别、年龄、教育程度和收入变量在驱动影响的假设路径中表现出显著差异;④从社区群组对比看,自然教育对周边社区的经济、治理存在影响,对远郊社区文化的影响显著,但对近郊社区文化不存在影响。
    结论 提出了3点建议:一是提升自然教育内在效应的全面发挥,驱动社区文化、经济和治理的综合性发展;二是深化社区居民自然教育过程的情感因素关注,有助于反作用于保护地生态保护功能;三是加强探索因地制宜的保护地社区自然教育模式,从整体上促进自然教育及社区经济文化的协调发展。

     

    Abstract:
    Objectives This study aimed to validate the intrinsic effects of nature education on the "environmental cognition-sense of place-willingness to protect" and to reveal its driving mechanisms on factors such as community culture, community economy, and community governance in protected areas.
    Methods This study adopted structural equation modeling and utilized SPSS27.0 and AMOS26.0 software to test the hypotheses with 409 valid questionnaires in Shimen Village and Caomen Village of Jiangxi Wuyuan Forest Birds National Nature Reserve as the case study sites.
    Results The results indicated: (1) Intrinsic effects demonstrated that nature education influenced environmental cognition and the willingness to protect among community residents, with a sense of place being a significant mediating variable. (2) Driving effects showed that nature education significantly impacted community culture, community economy, and community governance. (3) A thorough analysis of demographic characteristics revealed significant differences in the driving effect hypothesis paths among gender, age, education level, and income variables. (4) Community group comparison shows that nature education impacted the economy and governance of surrounding communities, and significantly influenced the culture of suburban communities, but did not affect the culture of near suburban communities.
    Conclusions Three recommendations are proposed: First, the comprehensive role of intrinsic effects of nature education should be enhanced to contribute to the comprehensive development of community culture, economy, and governance. Second, attention should be paid to the emotional factors in the process of nature education for community residents to counteract the ecological protection function of the protected area. Third, the nature education model in the protected areas should be explored to promote the coordinated development of nature education and community development.

     

/

返回文章
返回