巴西鱼栅水利遗产经济韧性博弈分析

期刊: 《社会发展与科技创新》 DOI:10.64649/yh.shfzykjcx.issn3078-8994.202609027 全文阅读 返回期刊

龙静宇；何钧阳

澳门城市大学

摘要

在全球文化遗产保护与地方发展诉求频繁张力的背景下，巴西马拉尼昂州沿海社区沿用的传统固定式渔栅（当地称 camboas/currais de pesca）正经历一场由考古学者、地方社区与政府部门共同参与的“遗产化”（patrimonialização）进程。本文以文化资本理论与共用资源治理理论为双重分析框架，结合文献研究评估渔栅这一活态水利遗产对沿海社区经济韧性的支撑作用。研究设定以社区人均收入与就业率为因变量、以遗产挂牌为核心自变量的评估模型，采用描述统计与前后对比思路，并引入莫桑比克赞比西河传统渔堰作为葡语国家比较案例。研究发现：渔栅的经济韧性主要体现为食物供给的稳态性、低收入门槛下的就业蓄水池功能与文化认同的资本化潜力；但“遗产化”若脱离社区主导，存在保护规制抑制生产弹性、旅游收益外流的风险。据此提出兼顾保护与发展的协同治理建议。

关键词

水利遗产；文化资本；共用资源治理；经济韧性；渔栅；马拉尼昂州

参考文献

[1]Bandeira, A. M. (2015). Distribuição espacial dos sítios Tupi na Ilha de São Luís – Maranhão. Cadernos do LEPAARQ (UFPEL), 12(24), 59–96.

[2]Begossi, A., May, P., Lopes, P., Oliveira, L., da Vinha, V., & Silvano, R. (2011). Compensation for environmental services from artisanal fisheries in SE Brazil: Policy and technical strategies. Ecological Economics, 71, 25–32.

[3]Begossi, A. (2014). Ecological, cultural, and economic approaches to managing artisanal fisheries. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 16(1), 5–34.

[4]Colonese, A. C., Brugere, C., Ramires, M., Clauzet, M., Brandi, R., Bandeira, A., Guedes, L., Wiedemann, M., Reyes-García, V., & Begossi, A. (2023). The legacy of pre-Columbian fisheries to food security and poverty alleviation in the modern Amazon. In Historical Ecology and Landscape Archaeology in Lowland South America (pp. 3–19). Cham: Springer.

[5]Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302(5652), 1907–1912.

[6]埃莉诺·奥斯特罗姆. 公共事物的治理之道：集体行动制度的演进[M]. 余逊达, 陈旭东, 译. 上海: 上海译文出版社, 2012.

[7]刘敏. 社区共管何以可能——梅村近海渔业资源治理的案例研究[J/OL]. 农业经济问题, 2023: 1-15 [2023-03-25].

[8]Hassan, F. A. (2017). Conflict between local communities and heritage managers in the conservation of historic heritage. In Managing Heritage in Africa. London: Routledge.

[9]Hoguane, A. M. (2015). The influence of the river runoff in the artisanal fisheries catches in tropical coastal waters—Case study: Sofala Bank, Mozambique. Revista de Gestão Costeira Integrada, 15(4).

[10]Jimura, T. (2019). The economic impacts of World Heritage Site designation on local communities. In World Heritage Sites: Tourism, Local Communities and Conservation Activities. Wallingford: CABI.

[11]Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[12]Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B., & Policansky, D. (1999). Revisiting the commons: Local lessons, global challenges. Science, 284(5412), 278–282.

[13]Pyburn, K. A. (2020). Archaeology, communities and economic development. In Communities and Cultural Heritage. London: Routledge.

[14]Throsby, D. (1999). Cultural capital. Journal of Cultural Economics, 23(1–2), 3–12.

[15]Throsby, D. (2001). Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[16]VanBlarcom, B. L., & Kayahan, C. (2011). Assessing the economic impact of a UNESCO World Heritage designation. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 6(2), 143–164.


XML显示示例 

    













·