IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v14y2025i6p1181-d1668280.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of Perceptions of Community Co-Management by Households in the Surrounding Communities of Protected Areas: Empirical Study of Xishuangbanna National Nature Reserves in China

Author

Listed:
  • Changhai Wang

    (School of Government, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing 102488, China)

  • Ao Li

    (School of Government, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing 102488, China)

Abstract

How to coordinate the relationship between nature reserves and surrounding communities to achieve a win–win situation for protection and development has become an urgent issue that governments around the world need to address. The concept of community co-management emerged in this context, aiming to promote cooperation and interaction between protected areas and surrounding communities, achieve sustainable use of natural resources, and promote the healthy development of the community economy. This study conducted empirical analysis using the Xishuangbanna National Nature Reserve and surrounding communities in China as a case study. This study aims to reveal the key factors affecting the perception of the households in the surrounding communities of the national nature reserve through an in-depth analysis of their perceptions, attitudes, and actual effects on the innovative management model of community co-management. At the same time, it provides empirical evidence and theoretical support for the construction of a more reasonable, efficient, and win–win nature reserve management model. Based on field research and interviews, combined with a questionnaire survey of stakeholders, this study utilized the Q method to conduct a comprehensive analysis of household perceptions under community co-management. The research results indicate that community co-management is an effective path to promote the coordinated development of the local economy, society, and ecology. Specifically, this model not only significantly promotes employment and entrepreneurship among community residents but also achieves economic self-sufficiency and steady growth by cultivating characteristic industries and building distinctive brands. Further analysis reveals that improving residents’ well-being is the core value of community co-management. Meanwhile, system reform is seen as the key to promoting the deepening development of community co-management. This study not only helps to enhance households’ understanding and participation in ecological protection and promotes the deep integration of ecological protection and community development but also provides valuable experience and inspiration for the management of nature reserves in other regions around the world.

Suggested Citation

  • Changhai Wang & Ao Li, 2025. "Analysis of Perceptions of Community Co-Management by Households in the Surrounding Communities of Protected Areas: Empirical Study of Xishuangbanna National Nature Reserves in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-27, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:14:y:2025:i:6:p:1181-:d:1668280
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/6/1181/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/6/1181/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thoker, Irshad Ahmad & Bhat, M. Shafi & Shah, Shamim Ahmad & Lone, Fayaz Ahmad & Jeelani, Peer, 2024. "An appraisal of people's participation in the joint forest management programme in the Kashmir Himalayas," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    2. Niedziałkowski, Krzysztof & Komar, Ewa & Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2018. "Discourses on Public Participation in Protected Areas Governance: Application of Q Methodology in Poland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 401-409.
    3. David Ockwell, 2008. "‘Opening up’ policy to reflexive appraisal: a role for Q Methodology? A case study of fire management in Cape York, Australia," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(4), pages 263-292, December.
    4. Dimitra Syrou & Iosif Botetzagias, 2022. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions Concerning Greek Protected Areas Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, March.
    5. Wang, Weiye & Zhai, Daye & Li, Xinyang & Fang, Haowen & Yang, Yuanyuan, 2024. "Conflicts in mangrove protected areas through the actor-centred power framework - Insights from China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    6. Charnley, Susan, 2023. "Livelihood investments as incentives for community forestry in Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    7. Ullah, S M Asik & Tani, Masakazu & Tsuchiya, Jun & Rahman, M.Abiar & Moriyama, Masao, 2022. "Impact of protected areas and co-management on forest cover: A case study from Teknaf Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    8. Bluffstone, Randy & Dannenberg, Astrid & Martinsson, Peter & Jha, Prakash & Bista, Rajesh, 2020. "Cooperative behavior and common pool resources: Experimental evidence from community forest user groups in Nepal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    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. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    2. Ruiten, Kyra & Pesch, Udo & Rodhouse, Toyah & Correljé, Aad & Spruit, Shannon & Tenhaaf, Antje & Dijkshoorn, Jochem & van den Berg, Susan, 2023. "Drawing the line: Opening up and closing down the siting of a high voltage transmission route in the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    3. Qiujin Chen & Yuqi Zhang & Yin Zhang & Mingliang Kong, 2022. "Examining Social Equity in the Co-Management of Terrestrial Protected Areas: Perceived Fairness of Local Communities in Giant Panda National Park, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-17, September.
    4. Sonja Ayeb-Karlsson & Dominic Kniveton & Terry Cannon, 2020. "Trapped in the prison of the mind: Notions of climate-induced (im)mobility decision-making and wellbeing from an urban informal settlement in Bangladesh," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-15, December.
    5. Thomas, Annika & Hubo, Christiane, 2024. "Multiple crises as a policy window for forest and nature a power-analysis from Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    6. Sonja Ayeb-Karlsson, 2020. "No Power without Knowledge: A Discursive Subjectivities Approach to Investigate Climate-Induced (Im)mobility and Wellbeing," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-15, June.
    7. Mónica María Olarte Libreros & Carlos Mario Muñoz Maya, 2025. "Sustainable practices in the cocoa value chain: a systematic literature review," Revista Tendencias, Universidad de Narino, vol. 26(1), pages 197-215.
    8. Serge Blondel & Ngoc-Thao Noet, 2023. "Quels facteurs expliquent la faible coopération en horticulture ?," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 74(5), pages 861-888.
    9. Yexin Zhou & Hongke Song & Xiaopei Huang & Hao Chen & Wei Wei, 2022. "How Does Social Capital Affect Residents’ Waste-Separation Behavior? Evidence from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-21, March.
    10. Antonio Di Cintio & Federico Niccolini & Sara Scipioni & Fabio Bulleri, 2023. "Avoiding “Paper Parks”: A Global Literature Review on Socioeconomic Factors Underpinning the Effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-19, March.
    11. Sackey, Ransford & Brobbey, Lawrence Kwabena & Kumeh, Eric Mensah & Ameyaw, Joana Akua Serwaa, 2025. "Environmentality and the making of compliant subjects: Insights from collaborative forest management innovations in Southwestern Ghana," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    12. Kwabena A. Owusu & Micaela M. Kulesz & Agostino Merico, 2019. "Extraction Behaviour and Income Inequalities Resulting from a Common Pool Resource Exploitation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-13, January.
    13. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    14. Daile Zeng & Boya Chen & Jingxin Wang & John L. Innes & Juliet Lu & Futao Guo & Yancun Yan & Guangyu Wang, 2024. "Determinants of Public Participation in Watershed Management in Southeast China: An Application of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-23, November.
    15. Andrej Gill & Matthias Heinz & Heiner Schumacher & Matthias Sutter, 2023. "Social Preferences of Young Professionals and the Financial Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(7), pages 3905-3919, July.
    16. Dorothy Ruth Queiros, 2023. "Planning for Socio-Ecological Conservation in South African Nature Reserves: Model of Influences on the Attitudes of Proximate Communities," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-22, September.
    17. Yiwen, Zhang & Kant, Shashi, 2022. "Secure tenure or equal access? Farmers’ preferences for reallocating the property rights of collective farmland and forestland in Southeast China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    18. Scrase, J. Ivan & Ockwell, David G., 2010. "The role of discourse and linguistic framing effects in sustaining high carbon energy policy--An accessible introduction," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2225-2233, May.
    19. Díaz, Paula & Adler, Carolina & Patt, Anthony, 2017. "Do stakeholders’ perspectives on renewable energy infrastructure pose a risk to energy policy implementation? A case of a hydropower plant in Switzerland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 21-28.
    20. Phelps, Jacob & Zabala, Aiora & Daeli, Willy & Carmenta, Rachel, 2021. "Experts and resource users split over solutions to peatland fires," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).

    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:jlands:v:14:y:2025:i:6:p:1181-:d:1668280. 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.