Assessing the common welfare in the Giant Panda National Park: From the perspective of stakeholders

doi:10.17520/biods.2024240

Abstract

Abstract:

Aims: Common welfare is one of the three foundational concepts in the establishment of Chinese national parks. Existing research predominantly focused on theoretical and qualitative analyses, with few empirical explorations and quantitative discussions, resulting in limited scientific guidance and support for the conservation practices. Therefore, this study aims to provide empirical evidence and scientific reference for achieving common welfare in Chinese national parks by proposing a comprehensive indicator framework.
Methods: This study draws on three dimensions, owned by all, participated by all, and shared by all, and proposes 15 common welfare indicators. Using questionnaire surveys and methodologies such as linear discriminant analysis and hierarchical regression analysis, a quantitative assessment of common welfare was conducted based on the perceptions of stakeholders in the Giant Panda National Park (GPNP).
Results: The results showed that the overall common welfare in the GPNP was generally perceived positively. However, perceptions varied among stakeholder groups: local management agencies and governments held the most positive views, local communities had the most negative perceptions, while local enterprises, experts, and visitors maintained a neutral stance.
Conclusion: To achieve common welfare, increased attention should be directed toward the local communities. In particular, comprehensive promotion of community co-management and improvement of the ecological compensation mechanism are essential. Furthermore, enhancing communication among stakeholders and optimizing their participation are crucial steps in this process.

Key words: national park, common welfare, stakeholder, community governance, protected area, public participation

Yuqi Zhang, Jun Wen, Yin Zhang, Shengzhi Li. Assessing the common welfare in the Giant Panda National Park: From the perspective of stakeholders[J]. Biodiv Sci, 2024, 32(9): 24240.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://www.biodiversity-science.net/EN/10.17520/biods.2024240

https://www.biodiversity-science.net/EN/Y2024/V32/I9/24240

Figures/Tables 9

References 59

[1]	Bai L, Shao W, Jiang YF (2023) Perceptions and attitudes of community residents to national park. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Sciences Edition), 47, 205-212. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[白玲, 邵炜, 蒋亚芳 (2023) 社区居民对国家公园的认知及态度分析. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 47, 205-212.] DOI
[2]	Bennett NJ, Calò A, Di Franco A, Niccolini F, Marzo D, Domina I, Dimitriadis C, Sobrado F, Santoni MC, Charbonnel E, Trujillo M, Garcia-Charton J, Seddiki L, Cappanera V, Grbin J, Kastelic L, Milazzo M, Guidetti P (2020) Social equity and marine protected areas: Perceptions of small-scale fishermen in the Mediterranean Sea. Biological Conservation, 244, 108531.
[3]	Bi YZ, Li LJ, Zhang YJ (2019) Interests coordination mechanism establishment for stakeholders of Three-River- Source National Park. Journal of Chinese Urban Forestry, 17(3), 35-39. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[毕莹竹, 李丽娟, 张玉钧 (2019) 三江源国家公园利益相关者利益协调机制构建. 中国城市林业, 17(3), 35-39.]
[4]	Brechin SR, Fortwangler CL, Wilshusen PR, West PC (2003) Contested Nature:Promoting International Biodiversity with Social Justice in the Twenty-first Century. SUNY Press, New York.
[5]	Cai HJ (2022) Public welfare of national parks: Analysis of residents’ participation willingness of the construction of Northeast China Tiger and Leopard National Park. Journal of Fujian Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), (1), 58-70 (in Chinese)
	[蔡华杰 (2022) 国家公园全民公益性: 基于公有制的实现理路解析. 福建师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), (1), 58-70.]
[6]	Cao YK, Liu JQ, Zhu ZF, Liang C (2019) Analysis of residents’ participation willingness of the construction of Northeast China Tiger and Leopard National Park. Issues of Forestry Economic, 39, 262-268. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[曹玉昆, 刘嘉琦, 朱震锋, 梁昶 (2019) 东北虎豹国家公园建设周边居民参与意愿分析. 林业经济问题, 39, 262-268.]
[7]	Campbell SJ, Kartawijaya T, Yulianto I, Prasetia R, Clifton J (2013) Co-management approaches and incentives improve management effectiveness in the Karimunjawa National Park, Indonesia. Marine Policy, 41, 72-79.
[8]	Chen F, Liu J, Wu J, Sjafrie NDM, Rahmadi P, Putranto RY (2021) Measuring the relationship among stakeholders from value-satisfaction-demand in the development of ecotourism of marine park. Marine Policy, 129, 104519.
[9]	Chen YH, Chen KL (2018) Research on the public welfare of national parks and its enlightenment for scenic areas in China. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 34(7), 13-16. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[陈耀华, 陈康琳 (2018) 国家公园的公益性内涵及中国风景名胜区的公益性提升对策研究. 中国园林, 34(7), 13-16.]
[10]	Cohen J, Cohen Pl, West SG, Aiken L (2003) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd edn. Routledge, New York.
[11]	Dawson N, Martin A, Danielsen F (2018) Assessing equity in protected area governance: Approaches to promote just and effective conservation. Conservation Letters, 11, e12388.
[12]	Dudley N (2013) Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. IUCN, Gland.
[13]	Dupke C, Dormann CF, Heurich M (2019) Does public participation shift German national park priorities away from nature conservation? Environmental Conservation, 46, 84-91.
[14]	Fisher RA (1936) The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems. Annals of Eugenics, 7, 179-188.
[15]	Gao L, Zhou W, Chen S (2023) An evidence-based compensation scheme for wildlife damages in giant panda reserves in Sichuan, China. Small-Scale Forestry, 22, 151-165.
[16]	Goldman MJ (2011) Strangers in their own land: Maasai and wildlife conservation in northern Tanzania. Conservation and Society, 9, 65-79.
[17]	Gong XY, Huang BR (2023) Public welfare evaluation index system of national parks: A case study of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau National Park Cluster. Biodiversity Science, 31, 22571. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI
	[龚心语, 黄宝荣 (2023) 国家公园全民公益性评估指标体系: 以青藏高原国家公园群为例. 生物多样性, 31, 22571.] DOI
[18]	Hastie TJ, Tibshirani R, Friedman JH (2009) The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, 2nd edn. Springer, New York.
[19]	He SY, Wei Y, Su Y, Min QW (2020) Guaranteeing fair and sustainable benefit sharing for communities in the national park: A study from perception of meanings of social-ecological systems. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 40, 2450-2462. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[何思源, 魏钰, 苏杨, 闵庆文 (2020) 保障国家公园体制试点区社区居民利益分享的公平与可持续性——基于社会-生态系统意义认知的研究. 生态学报, 40, 2450-2462.]
[20]	Huang BR, Zhang CL, Deng R (2020) The systemic solution to historical problems in China’s natural protected areas. Biodiversity Science, 28, 1255-1265. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[黄宝荣, 张丛林, 邓冉 (2020) 我国自然保护地历史遗留问题的系统解决方案. 生物多样性, 28, 1255-1265.] DOI
[21]	Huang Q, Fei Y, Yang H, Gu X, Songer M (2020) Giant Panda National Park, a step towards streamlining protected areas and cohesive conservation management in China. Global Ecology and Conservation, 22, e00947.
[22]	Huang XS, Guo T (2019) The manifestation of the public welfare of national parks and its system construction. Studies on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, 1(3), 95-102. (in Chinese)
	[黄锡生, 郭甜 (2019) 论国家公园的公益性彰显及其制度构建. 中国特色社会主义研究, 1(3), 95-102.]
[23]	Jones N, Graziano M, Dimitrakopoulos PG (2020) Social impacts of European protected areas and policy recommendations. Environmental Science & Policy, 112, 134-140.
[24]	Jones N, McGinlay J, Dimitrakopoulos PG (2017) Improving social impact assessment of protected areas: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 64, 1-7.
[25]	Jones PJS (2009) Equity, justice and power issues raised by no-take marine protected area proposals. Marine Policy, 33, 759-765.
[26]	Kusumawati R, Visser L (2016) Capturing the elite in marine conservation in Northeast Kalimantan. Human Ecology, 44, 301-310. PMID
[27]	Li F (2023) Conflicts of interest in national parks in China: Category explanation, generation mechanism, and relief path. Natural Protected Areas, 3(4), 11-20. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[李锋 (2023) 我国国家公园利益冲突: 类型阐释、生成机理与纾解路径. 自然保护地, 3(4), 11-20.]
[28]	Li XT, Wei Y, Zhang CL, Huang BR (2023) How to balance ecological protection and community development in national parks: International experiences and China’s exploration. National Park, 1, 44-52. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[李新婷, 魏钰, 张丛林, 黄宝荣 (2023) 国家公园如何平衡生态保护与社区发展: 国际经验与中国探索. 国家公园(中英文), 1, 44-52.]
[29]	Liu MC, Wang JR, Liu WW, Yang L, Sang WG (2019) Policy framework and key technologies of ecological protection compensation to national park. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 39, 1330-1337. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[刘某承, 王佳然, 刘伟玮, 杨伦, 桑卫国 (2019) 国家公园生态保护补偿的政策框架及其关键技术. 生态学报, 39, 1330-1337.]
[30]	Loukaitou-Sideris A (1995) Urban form and social context: Cultural differentiation in the uses of urban parks. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(2), 89-102.
[31]	Lund JF, Saito-Jensen M (2013) Revisiting the issue of elite capture of participatory initiatives. World Development, 46, 104-112.
[32]	Ma B, Cai Z, Hou Y, Wen Y (2023) Estimating the household costs of human-wildlife conflict in China’s Giant Panda National Park. Journal for Nature Conservation, 73, 126400.
[33]	Mannigel E (2008) Integrating parks and people: How does participation work in protected area management? Society & Natural Resources, 21, 498-511.
[34]	McDermott M, Mahanty S, Schreckenberg K (2013) Examining equity: A multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environmental Science & Policy, 33, 416-427.
[35]	Murphree MW (1994) The role of institutions in community- based conservation. In: Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-Based Conservation (eds Western D, Wright M), pp. 403-427. Island Press, Washington DC.
[36]	Pullin AS, Knight TM (2009) Doing more good than harm—Building an evidence-base for conservation and environmental management. Biological Conservation 142, 931-934.
[37]	Randle EJ, Hoye R (2016) Stakeholder perception of regulating commercial tourism in Victorian National Parks, Australia. Tourism Management, 54, 138-149.
[38]	Rastogi A, Badola R, Hussain SA, Hickey GM (2010) Assessing the utility of stakeholder analysis to protected areas management: The case of Corbett National Park, India. Biological Conservation, 143, 2956-2964.
[39]	Romagosa F, Eagles PFJ, Lemieux CJ (2015) From the inside out to the outside in: Exploring the role of parks and protected areas as providers of human health and well-being. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 10, 70-77.
[40]	Ruano-Chamorro C, Gurney GG, Cinner JE (2022) Advancing procedural justice in conservation. Conservation Letters, 15, e12861.
[41]	Schreckenberg K, Franks P, Martin A, Lang B (2016) Unpacking equity for protected area conservation. Parks, 22(2), 11-26.
[42]	Sterling EJ, Betley E, Sigouin A, Gomez A, Toomey A, Cullman G, Malone C, Pekor A, Arengo F, Blair M, Filardi C, Landrigan K, Porzecanski AL (2017) Assessing the evidence for stakeholder engagement in biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation, 209, 159-171.
[43]	Su HQ, Su Y (2018) National parks are not tourist attractions, but national park tourism should be developed. Tourism Tribune, 33(8), 2-5. (in Chinese)
	[苏红巧, 苏杨 (2018) 国家公园不是旅游景区, 但应该发展国家公园旅游. 旅游学刊, 33(8), 2-5.]
[44]	Su Y, Wang L (2015) Relative concepts, policy background and technological difficulty of pilot national park system in China. Environmental Protection, 43(14), 17-23. (in Chinese)
	[苏杨, 王蕾 (2015) 中国国家公园体制试点的相关概念、政策背景和技术难点. 环境保护, 43(14), 16-23.]
[45]	Sun K, Zhong LS (2021) International research on national park management for public welfare and implications. Progress in Geography, 40, 314-329. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI
	[孙琨, 钟林生 (2021) 国家公园公益化管理国外相关研究及启示. 地理科学进展, 40, 314-329.] DOI
[46]	Vanclay F (2017) Principles to gain a social licence to operate for green initiatives and biodiversity projects. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 29, 48-56.
[47]	Waheduzzaman W, As-Saber S, Hamid MB (2018) Elite capture of local participatory governance. Policy & Politics, 46, 645-662.
[48]	Wang SK, Jiao Y (2021) On realization of the concept of ‘benefit to all’ in legislation on national parks. Journal of Southeast University (Philosophy and Social Science), 23(4), 50-59. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[王社坤, 焦琰 (2021) 国家公园全民公益性理念的立法实现. 东南大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 23(4), 50-59.]
[49]	Warren C, Visser L (2016) The local turn: An introductory essay revisiting leadership, elite capture and good governance in Indonesian conservation and development programs. Human Ecology, 44, 277-286. PMID
[50]	West P, Igoe J, Brockington D (2006) Parks and peoples: The social impact of protected areas. Annual Review of Anthropology, 35, 251-277.
[51]	Wolf ID, Stricker HK, Hagenloh G (2015) Outcome-focused national park experience management: Transforming participants, promoting social well-being, and fostering place attachment. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23, 358-381.
[52]	Wondirad A, Ewnetu B (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, 88, 104155.
[53]	Yan Y, Shu M, Zhang TX, Zhang XP (2024) Research on franchising policy and countermeasures for national parks in China. Natural Protected Areas, 4(2), 46-54. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[闫颜, 舒旻, 张天星, 张小鹏 (2024) 我国国家公园特许经营政策研究及对策建议. 自然保护地, 4(2), 46-54.]
[54]	Yang R (2017) Conservation first, national representative, and commonwealth: The three concepts of China’s national park system construction. Biodiversity Science, 25, 1040-1041. (in Chinese) DOI
	[杨锐 (2017) 生态保护第一、国家代表性、全民公益性——中国国家公园体制建设的三大理念. 生物多样性, 25, 1040-1041.] DOI
[55]	Zafra-Calvo N, Pascual U, Brockington D, Coolsaet B, Cortes-Vazquez JA, Gross-Camp N, Palomo I, Burgess ND (2017) Towards an indicator system to assess equitable management in protected areas. Biological Conservation, 211, 134-141.
[56]	Zhang Y, Yang R (2019) The analysis of the current situation and reform proposals of community-based co-management in China’s nature reserves. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 35(8), 5-9. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[张引, 杨锐 (2019) 中国自然保护区社区共管现状分析和改革建议. 中国园林, 35(8), 5-9.]
[57]	Zhang YQ, Zhang Y (2023) Social impact assessment of the Giant Panda National Park in China: A comparative analysis of the inside, gateway, and fringe communities. Landscape Architecture Frontiers, 11(3), 67-95. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI
	[张雨琦, 张引 (2023) 中国大熊猫国家公园社会影响评估研究——基于界内、门户和边缘社区的比较分析. 景观设计学, 11(3), 67-95.]
[58]	Zhang YQ, Zhang Y, Vanclay F (2024) The playing out of distributional, procedural and recognitional equity and the acceptance of protected areas by local people: Evidence from the Giant Panda National Park, China. Biological Conservation, 292, 110561.
[59]	Zhang Y, Lou Y, Shu QF, Li SZ (2024) A performance comparison of different governance types of protected areas in China: From the perspective of local communities. Journal of Natural Resources, 39, 2364-2382. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI
	[张引, 楼颖, 舒全峰, 李晟之 (2024) 中国自然保护地典型治理模式成效比较研究——基于社区居民感知视角. 自然资源学报, 39, 2364-2382.] DOI

模型 Model	包含指标 Included indicators	调整后的R² Adjusted R²
模型 Model	包含指标 Included indicators	全民共有 Owned by all	全民共建 Participated by all	全民共享 Shared by all
模型1 Model 1	利益相关者 Stakeholders	0.038	0.195	0.141
模型2 Model 2	利益相关者、个人特征 Stakeholders; personal characteristics	0.061	0.270	0.166
模型3 Model 3	利益相关者、个人特征、所在区域 Stakeholders; personal characteristics; area	0.073	0.292	0.167

模型 Model	包含指标 Included indicators	调整后的R² Adjusted R²
模型 Model	包含指标 Included indicators	全民共有 Owned by all	全民共建 Participated by all	全民共享 Shared by all
模型1 Model 1	利益相关者 Stakeholders	0.038	0.195	0.141
模型2 Model 2	利益相关者、个人特征 Stakeholders; personal characteristics	0.061	0.270	0.166
模型3 Model 3	利益相关者、个人特征、所在区域 Stakeholders; personal characteristics; area	0.073	0.292	0.167

实际利益相关者分类 True stakeholders’ classification		分类利益相关者 Classified stakeholders
实际利益相关者分类 True stakeholders’ classification		管理机构 Management agencies	地方政府 Local governments	专家学者 Experts and scholars	地方企业 Local enterprises	访客 Visitors	当地社区 Local communities	总计 Total
管理机构 Management agencies	数量 Number	1	47	4	0	1	18	71
管理机构 Management agencies	比例 Percentage (%)	1.41	66.2	5.63	0	1.41	25.35	100
地方政府 Local governments	数量 Number	0	96	4	0	3	36	139
地方政府 Local governments	比例 Percentage (%)	0	69.06	2.88	0	2.16	25.9	100
专家学者 Experts and scholars	数量 Number	1	19	6	0	0	30	56
专家学者 Experts and scholars	比例 Percentage (%)	1.79	33.93	10.71	0	0	53.57	100
地方企业 Local enterprises	数量 Number	0	17	1	2	1	27	48
地方企业 Local enterprises	比例 Percentage (%)	0	35.42	2.08	4.17	2.08	56.25	100
访客 Visitors	数量 Number	0	20	4	1	1	26	52
访客 Visitors	比例 Percentage (%)	0	38.46	7.69	1.92	1.92	50	100
当地社区 Local communities	数量 Number	3	23	6	1	3	358	394
当地社区 Local communities	比例 Percentage (%)	0.76	5.84	1.52	0.25	0.76	90.86	100
总计 Total	数量 Number	5	222	25	4	9	495	760
总计 Total	比例 Percentage (%)	0.66	29.21	3.29	0.53	1.18	65.13	100
先验概率 Priors		0.0934	0.1829	0.0737	0.0632	0.0684	0.5184

实际利益相关者分类 True stakeholders’ classification		分类利益相关者 Classified stakeholders
实际利益相关者分类 True stakeholders’ classification		管理机构 Management agencies	地方政府 Local governments	专家学者 Experts and scholars	地方企业 Local enterprises	访客 Visitors	当地社区 Local communities	总计 Total
管理机构 Management agencies	数量 Number	1	47	4	0	1	18	71
管理机构 Management agencies	比例 Percentage (%)	1.41	66.2	5.63	0	1.41	25.35	100
地方政府 Local governments	数量 Number	0	96	4	0	3	36	139
地方政府 Local governments	比例 Percentage (%)	0	69.06	2.88	0	2.16	25.9	100
专家学者 Experts and scholars	数量 Number	1	19	6	0	0	30	56
专家学者 Experts and scholars	比例 Percentage (%)	1.79	33.93	10.71	0	0	53.57	100
地方企业 Local enterprises	数量 Number	0	17	1	2	1	27	48
地方企业 Local enterprises	比例 Percentage (%)	0	35.42	2.08	4.17	2.08	56.25	100
访客 Visitors	数量 Number	0	20	4	1	1	26	52
访客 Visitors	比例 Percentage (%)	0	38.46	7.69	1.92	1.92	50	100
当地社区 Local communities	数量 Number	3	23	6	1	3	358	394
当地社区 Local communities	比例 Percentage (%)	0.76	5.84	1.52	0.25	0.76	90.86	100
总计 Total	数量 Number	5	222	25	4	9	495	760
总计 Total	比例 Percentage (%)	0.66	29.21	3.29	0.53	1.18	65.13	100
先验概率 Priors		0.0934	0.1829	0.0737	0.0632	0.0684	0.5184

维度 Dimension	组间 Between groups		组内 Within groups		F	显著性Sig.	事后检验 Post-hoc test (P < 0.05)
维度 Dimension	平方和 Sum of squares	df	平方和 Sum of squares	df	F	显著性Sig.	邦弗伦尼或塔姆黑尼 Bonferroni or Tamhane
全民共有 Owned by all	33.828	5	725.172	754	7.034	0.000	管理机构 > 专家学者, 地方企业, 访客, 当地社区; 地方政府 > 当地社区 Management agencies > experts and scholars, local enterprises, visitors, local communities; local governments > local communities
全民共建 Participated by all	151.731	5	607.269	754	37.679	0.000	管理机构, 地方政府 > 专家学者, 地方企业; 访客 > 当地社区 Management agencies, local governments > experts and scholars, local enterprises; visitors > local communities
全民共享 Benefit by all	110.934	5	648.066	754	25.814	0.000	管理机构, 地方政府, 专家学者, 地方企业, 访客 > 当地社区; 地方政府 > 地方企业 Management agencies, local government, experts and scholars, local enterprises, visitors > local communities; local governments > local enterprises