Abstract:

Aims: Under the framework of rule of law for ecological civilization, national parks have emerged as a central mechanism for promoting biodiversity conservation and ecological restoration in China. However, their establishment has been accompanied by increasingly frequent and complex human-wildlife conflicts, particularly in regions inhabited by indigenous communities. These conflicts not only disrupt local livelihoods but also reveal underlying tensions between conservation goals and social justice. Study aims to critically examine the institutional logic and limitations of the current human-wildlife conflict management mechanism within Chinese national parks. It further explores the extent to which the National Park Law and associated regulatory instruments address the rights, participation, and compensation entitlements of indigenous communities affected by such conflicts. 

Method: It adopts a multidisciplinary approach combining legal analysis, institutional theory, and empirical policy review. It first conducts a doctrinal analysis of the National Park Law, related administrative regulations, and judicial interpretations to identify normative gaps in conflict management. Second, through policy document analysis and case studies from representative national parks such as Sanjiangyuan and Giant Panda National Park, the study evaluates the practical implementation of preemptive and compensatory mechanisms for managing human-wildlife conflict. Particular attention is paid to the institutional positioning of local governments, fiscal arrangements, and the procedural inclusion of indigenous populations. Finally, comparative insights are drawn from international experiences in countries with established national park systems to inform policy innovation. 

Results: It finds that the current “prevention plus ex post compensation” model is operationally expedient but structurally inadequate. Fiscal and technical constraints severely limit the implementation of effective preventive measures, while compensation schemes are often delayed, under-calculated, and administratively rigid. This institutional design disproportionately burdens indigenous communities living within or near national parks, who not only endure the direct impacts of wildlife incursions but also face restrictions on traditional land use and limited access to participatory governance. The analysis reveals that the law primarily focuses on managing wildlife behavior, rather than addressing the broader redistributional effects brought about by conservation initiatives. Moreover, the role of local communities remains largely passive, with insufficient institutional mechanisms to ensure their substantive involvement in decision-making, benefit-sharing, or legal redress. 

Conclusion: To achieve a more balanced integration of ecological protection and social equity under the National Park Law, a recalibration of institutional arrangements is necessary. The paper proposes a multidimensional reform strategy: the establishment of a vertically and horizontally coordinated ecological compensation framework to address human-wildlife conflict-related cost imbalances; the creation of a dynamic benefits-cost adjustment mechanism with public-private collaboration; and the strengthening of indigenous capacity through ecological knowledge training and participatory governance. Furthermore, external legal oversight, including the expansion of environmental public interest litigation, should be leveraged to safeguard the rights of indigenous communities. Ultimately, advancing the rule of law in ecological governance requires institutional innovation that aligns national conservation objectives with localized justice claims, ensuring that national parks contribute not only to environmental sustainability but also to inclusive development.

Key words: Rule of law for ecological civilization, National parks, National parks law, Human-wildlife conflicts, Indigenous people