IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i1p807-d1022156.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Governance of China’s Potatso National Park Influenced by Local Community Participation

Author

Listed:
  • Ting Ma

    (Key Laboratory of Regional Sustainable Development and Modelling, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
    College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Lizhi Jia

    (Lhasa Plateau Ecosystem Research Station, Key Laboratory of Ecosystem Network Observation and Modeling, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China)

  • Linsheng Zhong

    (Key Laboratory of Regional Sustainable Development and Modelling, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
    College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Xinyu Gong

    (College of Ecology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Yu Wei

    (Institute of Science and Development, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China)

Abstract

Conservationists recognize that protected areas (PAs) have limited prospects without the involvement and support of local people. As a governance strategy, community participation is to implement the coordinated development of communities and PAs. However, the effects of community participation on national park governance have rarely been tested. Therefore, the present study used a mixed-method approach that is derived from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) green list of protected and conserved areas (PCA) conservation outcomes framework, calibrated to the indigenous peoples and local communities’ (IPLCs) self-assessments about the outcomes of community participation on national park governance to explore the community participation effects. Our results show that management efficiency controls governance outcomes. Potatso National Park’s transformation from the tourism development model to national park is still ongoing, and there exists quite a few problems. We conclude that a successful national park governance as envisaged by the “ecological civilization” paradigm requires a balance of government regulation, participation of various stakeholders in decision-making and discussion, compensation, as well as sustainable access to environmental resources by the affected populations.

Suggested Citation

  • Ting Ma & Lizhi Jia & Linsheng Zhong & Xinyu Gong & Yu Wei, 2023. "Governance of China’s Potatso National Park Influenced by Local Community Participation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-19, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:1:p:807-:d:1022156
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/1/807/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/1/807/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mengtian Cao & Li Peng & Shaoquan Liu, 2015. "Analysis of the Network of Protected Areas in China Based on a Geographic Perspective: Current Status, Issues and Integration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-15, November.
    2. Gonghan Sheng & Heyuan Chen & Kalifi Ferretti-Gallon & John L. Innes & Zhongjun Wang & Yujun Zhang & Guangyu Wang, 2020. "Moving toward a Greener China: Is China’s National Park Pilot Program a Solution?," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-23, December.
    3. Rumin Zheng & Shuo Zhen & Lin Mei & Hongqiang Jiang, 2021. "Ecotourism Practices in Potatso National Park from the Perspective of Tourists: Assessment and Developing Contradictions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-14, November.
    4. Kaczan, David J. & Swallow, Brent M. & Adamowicz, W.L. (Vic), 2019. "Forest conservation policy and motivational crowding: Experimental evidence from Tanzania," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 444-453.
    5. Wang, Ju-Han Zoe, 2019. "National parks in China: Parks for people or for the nation?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 825-833.
    6. Cacho, Oscar J. & Milne, Sarah & Gonzalez, Ricardo & Tacconi, Luca, 2014. "Benefits and costs of deforestation by smallholders: Implications for forest conservation and climate policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 321-332.
    7. Asim Ijaz Khwaja, 2004. "Is Increasing Community Participation Always a Good Thing?," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 2(2-3), pages 427-436, 04/05.
    8. Agrawal, Arun & Gibson, Clark C., 1999. "Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 629-649, April.
    9. Liqi Jia & Junqing Wei & Zibin Wang, 2022. "The Intention of Community Participation in the Qilian Mountain National Park Policy Pilot," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    10. Ting Ma & Kun Xu & Yiming Xing & Hang Shu & Weiguo Sang, 2020. "Tendencies of Residents in Sanjiangyuan National Park to the Optimization of Livelihoods and Conservation of the Natural Reserves," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-17, June.
    11. André Pelser & Nola Redelinghuys & Nontombi Velelo, 2013. "Protected areas as vehicles in population development: lessons from rural South Africa," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 15(5), pages 1205-1226, October.
    12. Wondirad, Amare & Ewnetu, Biruk, 2019. "Community participation in tourism development as a tool to foster sustainable land and resource use practices in a national park milieu," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    13. Lan, Xiao & Zhang, Qin & Xue, Haili & Liang, Haoguang & Wang, Bojie & Wang, Weijun, 2021. "Linking sustainable livelihoods with sustainable grassland use and conservation: A case study from rural households in a semi-arid grassland area, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    14. Nchanji, Yvonne Kiki & Ramcilovic-Suominen, Sabaheta & Kotilainen, Juha, 2021. "Power imbalances, social inequalities and gender roles as barriers to true participation in national park management: The case of Korup National Park, Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    15. Soliku, Ophelia & Schraml, Ulrich, 2020. "Protected areas management: A comparison of perceived outcomes associated with different co-management types," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    16. Yue Chen & Weili Kou & Xianguang Ma & Xiaoyan Wei & Maojia Gong & Xiong Yin & Jingting Li & Jianqiang Li, 2022. "Estimation of the Value of Forest Ecosystem Services in Pudacuo National Park, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-16, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lucungu, Prince Baraka & Dhital, Narayan & Asselin, Hugo & Kibambe, Jean-Paul & Ngabinzeke, Jean Semeki & Khasa, Damase P., 2022. "Local citizen group dynamics in the implementation of community forest concessions in the Democratic Republic of Congo," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    2. Gonghan Sheng & Heyuan Chen & Kalifi Ferretti-Gallon & John L. Innes & Zhongjun Wang & Yujun Zhang & Guangyu Wang, 2020. "Moving toward a Greener China: Is China’s National Park Pilot Program a Solution?," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-23, December.
    3. Qi Sun & Yunli Bai & Chao Fu & Xiangbo Xu & Mingxing Sun & Baodong Cheng & Linxiu Zhang, 2022. "Heterogeneous Effects of Skill Training on Rural Livelihoods around Four Biosphere Reserves in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-22, September.
    4. Ting Ma & Brent Swallow & J. Marc Foggin & Linsheng Zhong & Weiguo Sang, 2023. "Co-management for sustainable development and conservation in Sanjiangyuan National Park and the surrounding Tibetan nomadic pastoralist areas," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Isyaku, Usman, 2021. "What motivates communities to participate in forest conservation? A study of REDD+ pilot sites in Cross River, Nigeria," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    6. Jiatong Li & Haiping Tang & Foyuan Kuang, 2023. "Exploring Livelihood Strategies of Farmers and Herders and Their Human Well-Being in Qilian Mountain National Park, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-16, May.
    7. Xiangshou Dong & Quanzhi Yuan & Yaowen Kou & Shujun Li & Ping Ren, 2023. "Distribution and Ecological Network Construction of National Natural Protected Areas in the Upper Reaches of Yangtze River," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-18, January.
    8. Qian Dong & Bo Zhang & Xiaomei Cai & Alastair M. Morrison, 2021. "Do Local Residents Support the Development of a National Park? A Study from Nanling National Park Based on Social Impact Assessment (SIA)," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-16, September.
    9. Andersson, Krister P. & Smith, Steven M. & Alston, Lee J. & Duchelle, Amy E. & Mwangi, Esther & Larson, Anne M. & de Sassi, Claudio & Sills, Erin O. & Sunderlin, William D. & Wong, Grace Y., 2018. "Wealth and the distribution of benefits from tropical forests: Implications for REDD+," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 510-522.
    10. Krott, Max & Bader, Axel & Schusser, Carsten & Devkota, Rosan & Maryudi, Ahmad & Giessen, Lukas & Aurenhammer, Helene, 2014. "Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 34-42.
    11. Purnamita Dasgupta, 2007. "Common Property Resources as Development Drivers: A Study of Fruit Cooperative in Himachal Pradesh: India," Working Papers id:917, eSocialSciences.
    12. Skutsch, Margaret & Turnhout, Esther, 2020. "REDD+: If communities are the solution, what is the problem?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    13. Schusser, Carsten, 2013. "Who determines biodiversity? An analysis of actors' power and interests in community forestry in Namibia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 42-51.
    14. Parvaneh Sobhani & Hassan Esmaeilzadeh & Seyed Mohammad Moein Sadeghi & Marina Viorela Marcu, 2022. "Estimation of Ecotourism Carrying Capacity for Sustainable Development of Protected Areas in Iran," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-19, January.
    15. Bui, Huong T. & Saito, Hiroaki, 2022. "Resource convergence for post disaster recovery," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    16. Kumar, Sushil & Kant, Shashi, 2005. "Bureaucracy and new management paradigms: modeling foresters' perceptions regarding community-based forest management in India," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 651-669, May.
    17. Jean Baptiste Habumuremyi & Thomas K Tarus, 2021. "Effect of Stakeholders’ Participation on Sustainability of Community Projects in Ruhango District, Rwanda," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 5(09), pages 429-433, September.
    18. Brannstrom, Christian, 2001. "Conservation-with-Development Models in Brazil's Agro-Pastoral Landscapes," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(8), pages 1345-1359, August.
    19. Elham Hoominfar & Claudia Radel, 2020. "Contested Dam Development in Iran: A Case Study of the Exercise of State Power over Local People," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.
    20. Gadamus, Lily & Raymond-Yakoubian, Julie & Ashenfelter, Roy & Ahmasuk, Austin & Metcalf, Vera & Noongwook, George, 2015. "Building an indigenous evidence-base for tribally-led habitat conservation policies," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 116-124.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:1:p:807-:d:1022156. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.