Comparative Analysis between the Role of Local Communities in Regional Development inside Japanese and Russian UNESCO’s Biosphere Reserves: Case Studies of Mount Hakusan and Katunskiy Biosphere Reserves

Abstract

The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization has designated the Man and Biosphere Program to foster a better relationship between the environment and people. The topic of this study is to elucidate the role of local communities in the regional development of Biosphere Reserves with a focus on management roles (top-down or participatory) and the motivational drivers of the people involved (ecocentric or anthropocentric). Based on qualitative interviews taken from the two case studies of the Mount Hakusan Biosphere Reserve in Japan and the Katunskiy Biosphere Reserve in Russia, a comparative analysis was conducted to explore the differences between the engagement of locals in the management of their biosphere reserves. This analysis examined relationships between the government and the local communities, the attitudes of the locals towards the biosphere reserves, and the historical perception on nature protection for each community. The findings showed that Russian biosphere reserves are mainly managed by local people who live inside the protected area while Japanese biosphere reserves are governed by local authorities and administration offices. This allows the Russian communities to have greater access to management processes, and therefore play a larger role in regional development.

Community Engagement in UNESCO Biosphere Reserves and Geoparks: Case Studies from Mount Hakusan in Japan and Altai in Russia

“…In contrast, Russian BRs have shown more active local engagement than their Japanese counterparts, where regulations by the local authorities are still dominant. The differences between such kinds of management may depend on the historical relationship between government and local communities, perceptions of nature protection, and attitudes towards the economic gain from nature [20].…”

“…Other countries have more "top-down" implementations for the management of BR and GPs, where local governments or authorities are managing and regulating the programme. The differences between such kinds of management may depend on the historical relationship between government and local communities, perceptions on nature protection, and attitudes towards the economic gain from nature [20].…”

An overview of community livelihoods in Biosphere Reserves: based on the sustainable livelihoods framework for the 21st century

“…Internationally, beyond ecological product valorisation, BR management entities are fervently searching for how to equip community residents with specialised education and training. For instance, in Katunskiy BR, Russia, in conjunction with NGOs, a comprehensive community development support Community livelihoods in BRs based on the sustainable livelihoods framework for the 21st century (Natarajan et al, 2022) (Mammadova et al, 2021).…”

Understanding Community Capacity for Bottom-up Management of Mount Hakusan UNESCO Biosphere Reserve

“…Some study found that the Geoparks had more community involvement than the BRs. This distinction can be linked to the Geopark's bottom-up strategy, which places an emphasis on involving the local population through the growth of tourism [Mammadova et al 2021, Mammadova et al 2022. Although community capability is essential for bottom-up management, there are obstacles to overcome.…”