Next Article in Journal
Restoration Potential of Vegetation: Soil Nutrient Responses and Heavy Metal Distribution in Coal Mine Tailings
Previous Article in Journal
Dynamics of Meteorological and Agricultural Drought in the Karnali River Basin, Nepal
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 14
Issue 11
10.3390/land14112275
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Tianchuang in National Parks of China: Its Concept, Causes, and Consequences

by
Rong Tao
1,
Tianjiao Li
1,* and
Xujiao Zhang
2
1
Institute of Nature & Culture, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China
2
School of Earth Sciences and Resources, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2025, 14(11), 2275; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14112275
Submission received: 30 September 2025 / Revised: 31 October 2025 / Accepted: 15 November 2025 / Published: 17 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue National Parks and Natural Protected Area Systems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

In global national parks, many land parcels, despite being inside park boundaries, have incompatible land uses with their surroundings and are normally not integrated into the park’s unified management. These non-contiguous management spaces present common and persistent spatial management challenges. In China, such spaces are called Tianchuang, a relatively new phenomenon that is underexplored in current research. Therefore, this study explores Tianchuang’s concept, causes, and consequences through policy and literature, and it compares Tianchuang with international cases to situate China’s experience in a global perspective. The findings are as follows. Firstly, originating from functional conflicts and historical legacies, Tianchuang are land parcels that retain their original usage, not ecologically coherent with the overall protected area and temporarily not incorporated into unified management. Secondly, there are three typical approaches to deal with land parcels that have incompatible land uses with their surroundings, including withdrawal, boundary adjustment, and Tianchuang. Compared with the other two approaches, Tianchuang serves as a way to balance ecological protection and local development, and as a transitional method for potential integration into unified management. Thirdly, by alleviating short-term institutional and social conflicts, Tianchuang creates challenges for ecosystem integrity and connectivity, management responsibilities, and community trust. Finally, through cross-national comparisons with U.S. inholdings, Australian indigenous co-management, and Nigerian GGNP enclaves, the uniqueness of Tianchuang in China is highlighted as a proactive policy design under centralized governance that balances efficiency and flexibility, with potential for unified management in the future. This study provides theoretical support for China’s national park Tianchuang governance and contributes Chinese insights in terms of non-contiguous management spaces in national parks for global protected area governance.

1. Introduction

Since the reform and opening-up policy, China has witnessed rapid urbanization and tremendous economic growth during the past decades. However, development also leads to difficult problems like environmental pollution, deteriorating ecosystems, and resource constraints. In order to resolve the conflicts between economic development and ecological protection, China has proposed the national strategy of ecological civilization construction. National parks, initially started in the USA in the 19th century, are specific areas approved by the central government and managed under a unified system, with the primary goal of protecting representative large-scale natural ecosystems and ensuring the scientific conservation and sustainable use of natural resources [1,2]. Given this background, China has continuously promoted a series of policies to construct national parks. In 2013, China proposed establishing a national park system. In 2016, China launched the first pilot national parks in multiple regions to explore the natural protected area governance model. In 2021, the first five national parks were officially established, including Sanjiangyuan National Park, Wuyishan National Park, Hainan Tropical Rainforest National Park, Giant Panda National Park, and Northeast Tiger and Leopard National Park. In 2022, China further clarified its goal of building the world’s largest national park system. These measures have made a great contribution in maintaining China’s ecological security, optimizing ecological spatial patterns, and promoting regional sustainable development [3,4,5], highlighting national parks’ crucial role in natural protected area systems. To achieve complete ecosystem protection, China prioritizes the authenticity and integrity of ecosystems when determining the boundaries of national parks. As a result, many areas involving human production and living activities have been included within their scope. To enhance management efficiency, during the process of integrating and optimizing natural protected areas with national parks as the mainstay, China has excluded areas with lingering historical issues—such as permanent basic farmland, mining rights, settlements, and artificial commercial forests—from the continuous management space of national parks, resulting in the formation of the Tianchuang phenomenon [6]. From the perspective of management practice, Tianchuang refers to small-area zones or plots within a specific functional space or on its boundary that exhibit functional incompatibility with the designated purpose of that space [7]. As a relatively new phenomenon, Tianchuang remains underexplored in current research, making its concept and causes still unclear domestically and internationally. The consequences of Tianchuang are also debated, which may help to balance the central government’s ecological protection goal and local government development needs, but this also weakens the effectiveness of national parks in terms of ecosystem integrity and management consistency. Therefore, this study of Tianchuang in China can not only clarify its concept but also provide valuable insights for non-contiguous management spaces in protected areas worldwide.
Internationally, non-contiguous management spaces similar to Tianchuang in national parks are quite common worldwide, presenting substantial management challenges and academic discussions in different countries. In the United States, inholdings are private lands retained before park establishment, owned by local governments or individuals and not directly subject to the federal law. Once developed, these parcels may create legal and governance gaps, increase management complexity [8], and threaten ecosystem integrity [9]. For example, through avian community monitoring, some scholars demonstrated that inholdings and residential development along park boundaries directly undermine biodiversity within protected areas [10]. To alleviate this, the local governments and conservation planners take measures of inholdings such as boundary management, land acquisition, and community collaboration. Beyond these conventional tools, some U.S. regions also rely on community-based land trusts to protect ecologically or scenically important inholdings. These trusts draw on tax and donation incentives, conservation easements, and partnerships with local and state governments to keep private parcels under conservation use and to buffer national parks, thereby reinforcing federal acquisition and boundary management. In doing so, community-based land trusts build a flexible form of public–private partnership that, through fiscal incentives and multi-level collaboration, effectively supplements broader conservation initiatives [11,12]. In Australia, Indigenous communities such as Mutitjulu from the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park have retained land rights, forming relatively independent management modes. Studies indicate that communities play a central role in national park protection and development [13], and co-management mechanisms facilitate the integration of Indigenous knowledge with national institutional frameworks [14]. The case from Australia highlights the legitimacy and specificity of land tenure in Indigenous communities’ park management. There are similar cases in developing countries. In Nigeria, when it comes to the Gashaka–Gumti National Park of Nigeria (GGNP), enclaves have been built to satisfy the local needs of long-term pastoralism and farming. On the one hand, the local communities’ participation in tourism development and infrastructure construction is beneficial to local development [15]. On the other hand, local agricultural, pastoral, and hunting activities severely impact the ecological environment of national parks [16]. The “risk–reward” dilemma, faced by Fulani pastoralists within these enclaves, revealed that grazing benefits coexist with long-term challenges from crop damage and resource constraints [17]. The case from Nigeria shows how enclaves pose challenges to national park institutional stability in contexts of limited management capacity and high community dependence, and it highlights the necessity of balancing local residents’ livelihood needs and the conservation objectives of national parks. In India and Nepal, where protected areas are embedded in densely populated rural landscapes, conservation and tourism policies likewise bring both gains and losses to nearby communities. Households benefit from access to fuelwood, fodder, and tourism-related income, but they also bear crop and livestock depredation, tighter resource restrictions, and at some sites, strained relations with park staff. These benefits and costs are distributed unevenly across space and social groups, meaning that conservation measures can simultaneously support and constrain local livelihoods in developing-country contexts [18,19]. In summary, there are different forms of non-contiguous management spaces within national parks across countries in the world. These non-contiguous management spaces are normally land parcels inside park boundaries, incompatible land use with its surroundings and not integrated into the park’s unified management. The institutional contexts and reasons for their existence are quite diverse, including historical legacies, legal systems, Indigenous rights, and livelihood dependence. Tianchuang in China is unique as a top-down management model, making its contexts, definitions, causes, and consequences different from other cases abroad. Therefore, the research about Tianchuang can contribute to China’s global protected area management.
In China, scholars have conducted preliminary research on Tianchuang from the perspectives of spatial evolution, formation causes, social outcomes, governance effectiveness, and international comparison. Land use changes were examined to explore the spatial evolution of Tianchuang, showing that forests, as the dominant land type, remain highly aggregated in core zones but more fragmented in Tianchuang areas. Tianchuang is designed to resolve contradictions between ecological conservation and social development resulting from historical problems within national parks to mitigate spatial overlaps and conflicts among the “Three Zones and Three Lines” planning and to reserve space for local future development [20]. When it comes to social outcomes, negative effects have been pointed out in terms of household livelihood capital and ecological protection, but these still need further examination. Some scholars calculated the impact of Tianchuang setting on household livelihood capital in Wuyi Mountain National Park, finding that the livelihood capital of households in Tianchuang communities decreased with regional variations, highlighting the necessity of differentiated governance and precise compensation [21]. Some scholars found that Tianchuang may lead to landscape fragmentation, land-use inconsistencies, and violation of core protection zones, which requires comprehensive investigation, strict delineation, and boundary optimization [6]. The management effectiveness of Tianchuang has been hindered by the existing dual structure, overlapping responsibilities, and mismatched authority in national parks, making it necessary to clarify the shared rights and establish coordination mechanisms [22]. Regarding international comparison, some scholars have compared the management pathways of Tianchuang-setting and Tianchuang-closing in China and inholdings in the USA, showing that the disparity between the two models originated from their resource management systems and land tenure regimes [7]. In summary, existing studies have preliminarily revealed the multi-dimensional characteristics of Tianchuang, but overall, systematic research and comparisons across nations are still limited, which are helpful to understand the similarity and disparities in non-contiguous management spaces in national parks around the world.
This study about Tianchuang in China contributes to the current research about the non-contiguous management spaces within national parks in two aspects. First, it systematically clarifies the concept, the causes, and the consequences of Tianchuang, constructing a relatively complete and systematic framework of Tianchuang in China’s national parks. Second, it situates China’s Tianchuang within a global perspective, comparing its formation, governance, challenges, and prospects with American inholdings, Australian Indigenous communities, and Nigerian enclaves, highlighting the uniqueness of China’s Tianchuang. This study not only provides theoretical support for the research and governance of China’s national park Tianchuang but also offers new experiences and perspectives for international protected area management, facilitating cross-regional and cross-institutional comparative research. The framework of the paper is shown in Figure 1, and this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the concept and characteristics of Tianchuang are summarized. In Section 3, the causes of Tianchuang are demonstrated by analyzing its policy background and disparity from the other approaches of resolving land-use conflicts with surroundings. In Section 4, the ecological, institutional, and social consequences of Tianchuang are pointed out. In Section 5, Tianchuang’s uniqueness is highlighted through cross-national comparison. Finally, the findings of this paper are concluded.

2. Concept of Tianchuang

Due to the lack of explicit legal support, Tianchuang has not yet been formally recognized at the legislative level. As a result, there is no unified conceptual definition. In policy practice, initially, many areas involving human production and living activities have been included within the boundaries of national parks to keep the authenticity and integrity of ecosystems but afterwards excluded from the unified management, with their original usage not ecologically coherent with the overall protected area. In this way, the overlapping conflicts in multiple spatial planning can be resolved, and the management efficiency can be raised. These non-contiguous management spaces are named as Tianchuang and Tianchuang-setting by relevant authorities.
In academic research, scholars have defined Tianchuang from varying perspectives. From a spatial and function perspective, Tianchuang refers to parcels within national park boundaries that are normally farmland or communities, which are not ecologically coherent with the overall protected area [7]. Because of functional conflicts originating from different planning, Tianchuang is set as a strategy to locate outside the “Ecological Protection Red Line” at the cost of the integrity of red lines [23]. From a management perspective, Tianchuang is defined as parcels within national park boundaries that neither belong to nor are managed by the park [24]. From sociological and economic perspectives, Tianchuang is regarded as a method to coordinate development and protection. From ecological and environmental science perspectives, Tianchuang is considered as disruptions in ecosystem connectivity and landscape fragmentation caused by development [25]. These definitions are classified in Table 1, which reveal the multi-dimensional attributes of Tianchuang and provide theoretical and methodological entry points for related studies.
Based on the above multi-dimensional perspectives, this study defines Tianchuang in national parks as independent land parcels that are surrounded by national park boundaries but are temporarily not incorporated into the parks’ unified management. Therefore, the most important features of Tianchuang have been classified as follows: (1) functional heterogeneity and separation from surrounding ecological areas; (2) complex land tenure and ambiguous management responsibilities; and (3) tension between ecological protection goals and utilization demands.

3. Causes of Tianchuang

3.1. Policy Background: Spatial Overlaps and Functional Conflicts from Planning

The practice of Tianchuang-setting was initially proposed as a spatial adjustment measure during the delineation of China’s “Three Zones and Three Lines” to address spatial overlaps and functional conflicts among different planning, and it has continued to be applied in the boundary delineation of national park pilot projects. Before the concept of “Three Zones and Three Lines” was initiated in China, three control lines had already been established by the planning of agriculture, environmental protection, and urban-rural construction [31]. However, because of separate authorities and inconsistent delineation standards (see Table 2), there were overlaps among the three control lines. In order to integrate multiple management authorities and establish unified standards, in 2019, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council formally proposed the coordinated delineation of the “Three Zones and Three Lines” in the Several Opinions on Establishing a Territorial Spatial Planning System and Supervising its Implementation, creating a unified land use control system [31]. China’s territorial spatial planning system has kept the so-called “Three Zones and Three Lines” as a core concept [32]. This classification categorizes land according to its function and sets rigid boundaries, ensuring each type of land performs its major role and achieves coordinated development. The “Three Zones” refer to agricultural space, ecological space, and urban space, whose major functions are food production, ecological protection, and urban development, respectively. The “Three Lines” correspond to the “Three Zones” as rigid boundaries, referring to permanent basic farmland, ecological protection red lines, and urban development boundaries, strictly regulating land use types within each functional zone [33,34].
In the practice of delineating the “Three Zones and Three Lines”, Tianchuang-setting was developed as a method to preserve the original usage of small areas that were within a control line but were not coherent with the function of the designated zone [7]. There are two typical forms of Tianchuang-setting. The first form of Tianchuang-setting is applied to certain high-quality farmland or ecological parcels within urban development boundaries to retain the original agricultural and ecological functions. The second form of Tianchuang-setting is applied to built-up urban areas or high-quality permanent farmland within ecological protection red lines to safeguard the supply of farmland and construction land. The second form is the case of Tianchuang in national parks [35]. In this way, Tianchuang-setting resolves functional conflicts while accommodating development needs under the premise of maintaining overall spatial control [36,37].
In policy documents, Tianchuang usually appears in the form of Tianchuang-setting, which means retaining certain areas within the boundary of a national park but leaving them outside unified management for the time being. The exact time of the proposal of national park Tianchuang is uncertain, but it existed in the early stages of national park construction. During the first round of national park pilot projects (2015–2020), no unified national establishment guidelines had been issued, and related legal systems and boundary delineation standards were still in the exploratory stage [25,38]. In the absence of clear policy guidance, considering areas with functional conflicts, complex land tenure, frequent human activities, and future regional development, pilot units referred to the practice of “Three Zones and Three Lines” and Tianchuang-setting to retain certain special areas within national park boundaries, maintaining their original usage and temporarily not incorporating them into unified management (Figure 2).

3.2. Three Approaches to Resolving Functional Conflicts: Withdrawal, Boundary Adjustment, and Tianchuang-Setting

To resolve the spatial overlaps and functional conflicts during the construction of national parks, three main approaches have been used in practice, including withdrawal, boundary adjustment, and Tianchuang-setting. In 2024, the National Forestry and Grassland Administration stated in its response to the Proposal on Accelerating the Modernization of China’s Protected Area System that it is necessary to “properly handle the dialectical relationship between withdrawal and boundary adjustment, and seriously address the issue of Tianchuang-setting.” To better understand the reasons for using Tianchuang-setting in certain circumstances, this study compares the three approaches in terms of conditions, changes, authorities, governance priority, and spatial forms (Table 3, Figure 3).
(1)
Withdrawal refers to removing the existing human activities from the land parcels and converting its original usage to ecological usage, normally by the way of ecological relocation and usage restrictions. In this way, the national park boundaries and ecological red lines remain unchanged, and the management responsibility remains assumed by the national park. Withdrawal is generally applied in core protection zones, fit for areas having serious conflicts between ecological protection and human activities, but also having relocation feasibility and ecological restoration potential [39]. In practice, the feasibility of withdrawal depends on the financial capacity, local acceptance, and relocation conditions [40]. For example, in 2024, the Ministry of Natural Resources responded to the Suggestion on Overlapping Areas of Ecological Protection Red Lines and Permanent Basic Farmland in National Parks and Other Protected Areas [41], proposing that permanent basic farmland in core protection zones should be retained as general farmland and cultivation gradually withdrawn to restore ecological functions. Overall, withdrawal targets areas without significant value but with conflicts in management and ecological function threatened (the “one-with-two” areas). For example, low-quality farmland scattered in general control zones of national parks can take the approach of withdrawal.
(2)
Boundary adjustment refers to removing specific areas from national park boundaries or changing land use. In this way, both the areas’ space and management responsibilities will be fully separated from the national parks, and local governments will take the responsibilities [42]. This approach applies to areas that are clearly defined, spatially contiguous, and have long-term stable usage. These areas are normally at the edge of national parks’ boundaries and will be excluded during the official boundary delineation of the national park. For instance, the Response specifies that permanent basic farmland which is concentrated, spatially contiguous, stably used, and located out of core protection zones can be removed away from the national park. Additionally, quantity and quality balance of farmland can be achieved through additional allocation. Generally, areas without significant protection value, having no great ecological impacts or management conflicts (the “two-with-one” areas [41]), can be legally adjusted out. The advantage of the boundary adjustment approach is not involved with resident relocation, land use change, or large administrative costs. The disadvantage of this approach might involve insufficient supervision, ecological degradation, and disruption of ecological connectivity and functional integrity [43,44].
(3)
Tianchuang-setting refers to maintaining the current land usage, management responsibilities temporarily not incorporated into unified management, leaving governance to local governments until conditions are suitable for future integration. Tianchuang-setting applies to areas deep within park boundaries, with complex land tenure, concentrated populations, and are currently incapable of withdrawal or boundary adjustment. Tianchuang commonly includes permanent basic farmland, township settlements, and infrastructure dense regions. For example, some permanent basic farmland and cropland in national parksmay be temporarily retained and integrated later when the conditions are appropriate.
Generally speaking, Tianchuang-setting mainly targets areas deep inside park boundaries, with complex land tenure, concentrated populations, and lacking conditions for immediate withdrawal or boundary adjustment. Tianchuang-setting emerges as a balance between national ecological protection goals and local community development needs, forming a governance model led by local authorities with participation from the national park administration. This approach has many advantages in practice. On the one hand, Tianchuang-setting does not rely on large-scale relocation or boundary adjustments, resulting in lower implementation costs and higher feasibility. On the other hand, it reserves space for future development and integration. Some national parks have begun classification management and integration pathways for Tianchuang, such as enhanced management through remote sensing monitoring and land use guidance, laying a practical foundation for future integration [45]. However, due to difficulties in land function conversion, policy implementation costs, and local tendencies to maintain the status quo, this progress is slow, and its effectiveness remains to be improved [46].

4. Consequences of Tianchuang

(1)
Ecological Consequences
Tianchuang are intentionally reserved “blanks”. Therefore, wildlife does not avoid these spaces, and they continue to follow their habitual migration routes. In this way, Tianchuang areas used for grazing, construction, or agriculture might have conflicts between human activities and wildlife [47]. For example, in Sanjiangyuan National Park, grazing and infrastructure development are legally allowed in pastures and settlements designated as Tianchuang. However, because these areas are located in important grassland and water conservation zones, overgrazing can lead to grassland degradation, creating ecological “gaps” that obstruct the migration paths of Tibetan antelopes as well [48,49]. Similar problems are particularly evident in the Northeast Tiger and Leopard National Park. Tigers and leopards require large contiguous forested areas, but logging sites, transportation roads, and settlements within Tianchuang serve as “bottlenecks” that can increase the animals’ mortality risks [50]. These cases illustrate that ecosystem integrity highly depends on connectivity, but Tianchuang can break the connectivity and lead to landscape fragmentation. In the long-term, Tianchuang may weaken ecological corridor functions by creating breaks in ecological networks and may produce spillover effects of ecological degradation extending into core protected areas.
(2)
Institutional Consequences
During the delineation of national park boundaries, the “proactive avoidance” strategy brings problems such as unclear responsibility and complex multi-parties of interests. For instance, in the Tianchuang communities of Hainan Tropical Rainforest National Park, the local governments take charge of the land, but the national park administration is responsible for ecological regulation, making accountability unclear in cases of environmental damage [22]. Furthermore, Tianchuang involves multiple interests with multiple purposes; for example, natural resource agencies prioritize protection, local governments prioritize development, while communities prioritize farmers’ livelihoods. Additionally, Chinese national parks are characterized by the large-scale protection of contiguous ecosystems, which often requires cross-departmental, cross-administrative, and cross-provincial management. The differences in planning, implementation, supervision, and evaluation, as well as discrepancies in rights, responsibilities, and benefits, can lead to incompatible management mechanisms in different provinces [51]. From a governance perspective, Tianchuang does not reflect a systemic defect but rather a transitional stage of institutional development. It highlights the ongoing alignment between the national park system and existing land management, fiscal allocation, and local development mechanisms. Tianchuang provides a buffer for this alignment but simultaneously complicates the distribution of governance responsibilities and authorities [52]. In other words, the existence of Tianchuang indicates that the national park system is dynamically adjusting, and the challenge lies in gradually establishing a clear chain of responsibilities and a cross-departmental coordination framework.
(3)
Social Consequences
Tianchuang is helpful to local governments and local communities in pursuing development, but it poses challenges to the local society in two ways. First, conflicts may arise over livelihoods and ecological compensation. Tianchuang was designed to “leave a window” for residents, preventing a one-size-fits-all protection approach, but accompanying restrictions may affect resource use and income. If ecological compensation mechanisms are inadequate, residents may experience livelihood declines and constrained opportunities, exacerbating local social tensions. Insufficient compensation not only undermines policy effectiveness but also reduces residents’ willingness to participate in conservation [53,54]. In Hainan Tropical Rainforest National Park, Tianchuang areas of rubber and betel nut plantations support the livelihoods of local households but require the local governments to constantly negotiate between conservation policies and farmer compensation [55]. Second, Tianchuang can trigger public trust crises and relaxation of ecological standards. Its designation may lead the public to perceive national park boundaries as flexible; when economic development conflicts with conservation goals, authorities might loosen ecological protection standards. This perception can weaken policy authority, reduce societal trust in the national park system, and pose long-term risks to ecological protection and sustainable development [56,57].

5. Discussion

Similar spatial arrangements to Tianchuang have been observed in the United States, Australia, Nigeria, and elsewhere. Governance practices vary across countries under different political and economic contexts, land tenure systems, and management capacities. Cross-national comparison not only reveals common challenges and diverse approaches but also highlights the uniqueness of China’s national park Tianchuang in terms of institutional design and governance model (Table 4).
(1)
Formed in China, Tianchuang was temporarily retained under original usage and excluded from unified management because of planning conflicts, frequent human activities, and complex land tenure. Essentially, Tianchuang represents a transitional strategy under a centralized governance system to balance ecological protection objectives with local development needs during rapid boundary delineation [58]. In the United States, inholdings originated from a historical transition of land policy from “transfer” to “retention”. Large-scale land transfers in the 19th century had left private and state-owned parcels, which became enclosed by national park boundaries after park establishment. Given strong property rights and limited federal funds, the federal government could not compel acquisition of these parcels. The integration of these parcels relied on market tools (purchases and land exchanges) and were incomplete [59]. In Australia, co-managed at Uluru-Kata Tjuta originated from the recognition of indigenous land rights. In 1985, the land ownership of Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park was returned to the Anangu people and co-managed with the government through long-term leases and formalized agreements. Rooted in colonial legacies and Indigenous movements, it institutionalized cultural recognition and land-rights legitimacy [60]. In Nigeria, the GGNP enclaves originated from the traditional migratory pastoralism of the Fulani herders, who established camps locally. When the protected area was established, some camps were retained through negotiations between the state and local chiefs, forming de facto enclaves. With limited national finances and regulatory capacity, governance gradually relied on the traditional “chief–family–camp” structure and external international project support, evolving into a negotiated governance model prioritizing social stability [61].
(2)
Governance In China, Tianchuang follows a government-led model, where the central government sets policies and boundaries, and local authorities implement them, balancing community interests through categorized management and transitional compromises [62,63]. In the United States, inholding management exhibits a dual-track governance model, where the federal government enforces top-down ecological protection via land acquisition, eminent domain, or land-use regulations, while the local governments regulate private development from the bottom-up using planning, density control, and design review, balancing ecological protection with property rights [64]. In Australia’s Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, co-management is practiced. The Anangu, as landowners, hold a majority of seats on the board and jointly govern with the park authority. Community members also participate directly in ecological and tourism management through projects such as the Mutitjulu Mala Rangers, achieving a combination of rights and responsibilities [65]. In Nigeria, GGNP enclave governance reflects a bottom-up negotiated approach [66]. The Fulani communities maintain order using traditional governance structures, while the state and NGOs intervene through project collaboration and educational programs.
(3)
Challenges: In China, Tianchuang are faced with concentrated populations and infrastructure, complex land tenure, imperfect compensation, and withdrawal mechanisms, making policy implementation and local coordination difficult. Unclear responsibilities and insufficient coordination weaken protection enforcement and exacerbate community trust crises. In the USA, the main issues of inholdings are fragmented property rights and high acquisition costs, slowing integration; differences in state and local policies further complicate management, and ongoing private development in some areas undermines ecosystem integrity [59,67]. In Australia, the co-management of Uluru-Kata Tjuta are faced with the challenge of balancing the sacredness of indigenous culture with tourism development. The community livelihoods depend on external funding, while Anangu and Parks Australia still have divergences in governance responsibilities [68]. In Nigeria, GGNP enclaves are faced with conflicts between state and local community in terms of land tenure and governance rights. Local groups view enclaves as traditional lands with clear family ownership and usage rules, and the division of power between federal and local authorities, combined with diverse land tenure, makes central policies prone to conflict with local customs [69].
Prospects: Based on current policies and practices, China has recently proposed measures to backfill and integrate parts of Tianchuang, promoting the transition from temporary spaces to unified governance through Three Zones and Three Lines delineation, unified confirmation of natural resource rights, and national protected area integration [70,71]. In the United States, governance relies more on market-based integration, easements, and local planning tools. In Australia, the future of Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park depends on enhancing indigenous community self-governance while achieving a robust balance among cultural sensitivity, tourism development, and ecological protection, ensuring the long-term sustainability of the co-management model [72]. In Nigeria, NGOs and international cooperative projects temporarily fill governance capacity gaps, and future governance is likely to rely on multi-stakeholder collaboration to mitigate conflicts between conservation and community livelihoods [73].
Through international comparison and considering the causes and consequences discussed earlier, China’s national park Tianchuang demonstrates clear proactive policy design. It is not a residual property or passive legacy but a transitional strategy under centralized governance to balance ecological protection objectives with local development demands during rapid boundary delineation. In governance, the state assumes a leading role in institutional design, policy promotion, and supervision, local governments implement policies and mediate conflicts, and residents from the communities are direct stakeholders and collaborators. While Tianchuang mitigates conflicts between conservation and development, it also generates ecological, institutional, and social consequences. Compared with other countries, China’s Tianchuang represents a transitional institutional arrangement, with future prospects of gradual integration into a unified protection system supported by state financial and planning capacity, highlighting institutional flexibility and policy integration capabilities.
It should be noted that this study has several limitations. First, it relies mainly on literature and policy documents, with limited quantitative analysis and case-based evidence, which may weaken the strength of some conclusions. Second, basic information on Tianchuang in the first five national parks—such as their number, size, and spatial distribution—is not yet available. Third, the cross-national comparison of non-contiguous management spaces remains largely descriptive rather than analytical. Future work should therefore build a Tianchuang dataset (location, area, number of involved households), use it for quantitative analysis and modeling to test ecological and governance consequences, and conduct in-depth case studies, including international comparisons. In doing so, more dimensions of Tianchuang can be revealed, contributing more effectively to global discussions on non-contiguous management spaces in national parks.

6. Conclusions

By analyzing the policy document and literature, this study systematically explores the concept, causes, and consequences of Tianchuang and situates China’s Tianchuang within a global perspective to highlight its uniqueness. Tianchuang refers to independent parcels or areas within national park boundaries that are temporarily not incorporated into unified management. Its core characteristics include spatial heterogeneity, functional conflicts, complex land tenure, and ambiguous management responsibilities. The concept of Tianchuang was first proposed during the delineation of the Three Zones and Three Lines, and in policy documents is named Tianchuang-setting, serving as an adjustment mechanism to address spatial overlaps and functional conflicts originating from different planning. There are three main approaches to resolve spatial overlaps and functional conflicts in national parks, including withdrawal, boundary adjustment, and Tianchuang-setting. Compared with the other two approaches, Tianchuang-setting applies to areas deep within park boundaries, concentrated on human activities, with short-term infeasibility of withdrawal or boundary adjustment. The land use of Tianchuang normally includes permanent basic farmland, township settlements, and infrastructure-dense regions. Tianchuang-setting provides a temporary and adaptive transitional pathway to reconcile ecological protection objectives with local development demands. Through cross-national comparisons with U.S. inholdings, Australian indigenous community co-management, and Nigerian enclaves, China’s Tianchuang stands out as a unique transitional institutional arrangement. It originates from proactive policy design under a centralized governance system, demonstrating institutional flexibility that balances efficiency and adaptability and possessing the potential for gradual integration into a unified protection system.

Author Contributions

R.T. contributed to conceptualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing, and visualization. T.L. contributed to writing—review and editing, and supervision. X.Z. contributed to supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (2-9-2023-065).

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Zhang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Shrestha, A.; Zhou, X.; Teng, M.; Wang, P.; Wang, G. Exploring the main determinants of National Park community management: Evidence from bibliometric analysis. Forests 2023, 14, 1850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zhong, L.S.; Xiao, L.L. Path selection and research issues in the pilot construction of China’s National Park system. Resour. Sci. 2017, 39, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  3. Dou, M.; Tao, Y.Z.; Tan, L.; Bai, H.N. Research on ecological management of National Parks. Nat. Reserves 2023, 3, 102–110. [Google Scholar]
  4. Duan, T.L.; Li, N.; Huang, Z.P.; Li, Y.P.; Mu, Y.; Xiao, W. Research progress on the construction of National Parks in China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2024, 44, 4964–4972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chen, T.A.; Li, X. Optimizing the National Park management system in China: A case study at the central level. Biodivers. Sci. 2023, 31, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wang, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Lu, Q.Y.; Huang, B.R. The “Tianchuang” in China’s National Parks: Causes, status and management recommendations. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2025, 45, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ma, Y.; He, S.Y. Management pathways and practices for National Park “Tianchuang”: Comparisons and insights from China and the USA. Landsc. Archit. 2025, 32, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zale, K. Inholdings. Harv. Environ. Law Rev. 2022, 46, 439–522. [Google Scholar]
  9. Carlson, A.R.; Radeloff, V.C.; Helmers, D.P.; Mockrin, M.H.; Hawbaker, T.J.; Pidgeon, A. The extent of buildings in wildland vegetation of the conterminous U.S. and the potential for conservation in and near National Forest private inholdings. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2023, 237, 104810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wood, E.M.; Pidgeon, A.M.; Radeloff, V.C.; Helmers, D.P.; Culbert, P.D.; Keuler, N.S.; Flather, C.H. Long-term avian community response to housing development at the boundary of protected areas: Effect size increases with time. J. Appl. Ecol. 2015, 52, 1227–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Braddock, K.N.; Heinen, J.T. Conserving nature through land trust initiatives: A case study of the little traverse conservancy, Northern Michigan, USA. Nat. Areas J. 2017, 37, 549–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lowe, J.S.; Prochaska, N.; Keating, W.D. Bringing permanent affordable housing and community control to scale: The potential of community land trust and land bank collaboration. Cities 2022, 126, 103718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kong, S.; Xie, M.; Zhang, W.; Xia, C.; Yi, X.; Solomon, T.; Yin, X.; Liu, H.; Wang, C. International experience of community support for National Park development and its implications. For. Econ. Rev. 2025, 7, 2–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sadler, K.L. A Comparative Analysis of Co-Management Agreements for National Parks: Gwaii Haanas and Uluru-Kata Tjuta. Master’s Thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  15. Sahabo, A.A. Community participation in tourist resort development in Gashaka Gumti National Park, North Eastern Nigeria. FUTY J. Environ. 2019, 13, 112–127. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kwesaba, D.A.; Daniel, O.E.; Delphine, D.; Benjamin, E. Examination of the challenges militating against the development of Gashaka-Gumti National Park, Nigeria. J. Emerg. Technol. Innov. Res. 2023, 10, b665–b673. [Google Scholar]
  17. Bennett, D.; Ross, C. Fulani of the Highlands: Costs and benefits of living in National Park enclaves. In Primates of Gashaka; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 283–317. [Google Scholar]
  18. Karanth, K.K.; Nepal, S.K. Local residents’ perception of benefits and losses from protected areas in India and Nepal. Environ. Manag. 2012, 49, 372–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mariyam, D.; Gulati, S.; Karanth, K.K. Contradictions in Conservation: Education, Income, and the Desire to Live Near Forest Ecosystems. Environ. Manag. 2025, 75, 2795–2805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Li, L.M. Spatio-Temporal Variation Analysis of Landscape Pattern and Ecosystem Service Value in Hainan Tropical Rainforest National Park. Ph.D. Thesis, Hainan University, Haikou, China, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  21. Xu, R.F.; Yang, X.L.; Zhang, S.Y.; Zhang, Y.L. Differential impacts of “Tianchuang-setting” on rural household livelihood capitals: A case study of Wuyi Mountain National Park. Natl. Parks 2025, 3, 224–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Su, Y.; Su, H.Q.; Zhao, X.R. Reform of administrative rights allocation in National Parks: Status, issues and optimization paths. Natl. Parks 2024, 2, 613–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Xu, L.; Sang, J.; Peng, M.X.; Sui, Y.T.; Tang, Y.F.; Wang, Y.K.; Li, Z.Y.; Guo, S.L. Practical issues and optimization suggestions in the adjustment process of ecological protection red line assessment. Urban Rural Plan. 2020, 78, 48–57. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ouyang, Z.Y.; Tang, X.P.; Du, A.; Zang, Z.H.; Xu, W.H. Scientific construction of National Parks: Progress, challenges and opportunities. Natl. Parks 2023, 1, 67–74. [Google Scholar]
  25. Tang, X.P. Functional positioning and spatial attributes of National Park planning systems. Biodivers Sci. 2020, 28, 1246–1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Huang, R.R.; Zhang, L.; Xu, P.F.; Xing, Y.; Zhu, Y.W.; Zhao, J.W.; Zang, Y. Analysis of integration and optimization plan for nature reserves in Wuyi, Zhejiang. Zhejiang For. Sci. Technol. 2022, 42, 58–65. [Google Scholar]
  27. Shu, Y.; Peng, T.L.; Zhao, Y.T.; Wang, Z.H. Exploration of integration and optimization ideas for Hongjiang nature reserves. Cent.-South For. Investig. Plan. 2021, 40, 11–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lu, Q.L.; Gu, J.; Ruan, H.H.; Shang, S.B.; Hu, X.Y.; Tang, H.W.; Liu, N. Construction of natural resource classification system under the concept of a new nature reserve system. J. Nanjing For. Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2024, 48, 125–134. [Google Scholar]
  29. Yu, H.; Zhao, Y.T.; Chen, X.H.; Ma, Y.W.; Liu, M. Sustainable development research on world natural heritage protection of giant panda habitat in Sichuan. J. Mt. Sci. 2008, 26, 70–76. [Google Scholar]
  30. Wu, C.Z.; Wang, C.L. Nature, development characteristics and policy needs of National Park entrance communities. Chin. Landsc. Archit. 2022, 38, 14–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, S.W.; Liu, Z.Y.; Wang, Y.F. Integrated delimitation of “three zones and three lines” and optimization of national spatial layout: Challenges and methodological considerations. Urban Plan. Forum 2022, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Li, S.T.; Lu, S.W.; Ma, Y.P.; Huang, Y.P. Research progress, characteristics and trends of “three zones and three lines” in national spatial planning: A CiteSpace data visualization analysis. In Proceedings of the People’s City, Planning Empowerment—2023 China Urban Planning Annual Conference (20 Master Planning), Wuhan, China, 23–25 September 2023; pp. 103–115. [Google Scholar]
  33. Gao, X.L.; Wu, D.X.; Zhou, K.; Liao, L.W. Delimitation of urban space and urban development boundaries in national spatial planning. Geogr. Res. 2019, 38, 2458–2472. [Google Scholar]
  34. Wang, P.; Li, Z.Y.; Li, Q. Evolution characteristics and driving mechanisms of China’s spatial planning system from an ecological perspective. World For. Res. 2020, 33, 54–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yao, N.; Fan, M.X. Exploration of urban development boundary delimitation based on “two plans in one”. Planner 2015, 31, 72–75. [Google Scholar]
  36. Chen, W.G.; Zhang, Q.P.; Kong, X.B.; Duan, X.F.; Zuo, X.Y.; Tan, M.; Zhao, J.; Dong, T. Optimization rules and empirical study of provincial permanent basic farmland layout under the coordination of “three lines”. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2021, 37, 248–257. [Google Scholar]
  37. Ye, B.; Zheng, X.H.; Luo, H.M.; Shen, J.; Ji, F.F.; Lin, X.H. Integrated delimitation of “three zones and three lines”: Phenomenon analysis, technical logic and the Nanjing experience. Urban Plan. Forum 2024, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wang, W.; Gao, J.X. Progress and prospects of China’s natural protected area system construction with National Parks as the main body. Environ. Sci. Res. 2024, 37, 2100–2109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cai, X.M.; Su, Y. From conflict to coexistence: Institutional logic of National Parks in ecological civilization construction in China. Manag. World 2022, 38, 131–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhang, J.R.; Ma, S.J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Y.J. Analysis of National Park concession cooperation mechanism from a social embeddedness perspective: A case study of Three-River-Source National Park. J. Nat. Resour. 2024, 39, 2276–2293. [Google Scholar]
  41. Tang, X.P.; Liu, Z.L.; Ma, W. Research on integration and optimization rules and paths of China’s natural protected areas. For. Resour. Manag. 2020, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. He, S.Y.; Su, Y.; Min, Q.W. Boundaries, zoning and land use management of National Parks in China: Lessons from nature reserves and scenic areas. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2019, 39, 1318–1329. [Google Scholar]
  43. Shi, Y.B.; Guo, Y.; Liu, C.; Liu, Y.P.; Kong, D.Z. Exploration of integration and optimization of natural protected areas under the National Park system: A case study of Sanmenxia. Hubei Agric. Sci. 2021, 60, 180–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cui, G.F. Discussion and suggestions on several key issues in the integration and optimization of natural protected areas. Biodiversity 2023, 31, 180–187. [Google Scholar]
  45. He, S.Y. The role of communities in governance of China’s national parks and its consolidation and development. J. Nat. Resour. 2024, 39, 2310–2334. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ma, Y.; Li, Y.; Ma, Y.; Liu, Y.; Li, X.; Zhong, F. Resident empowerment and national park governance: A case study of Three-River-Source National Park, China. Land 2025, 14, 1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Xi, B.Y.; Yu, C.Y.; Zheng, J.X.; Yang, D.; Wang, Y.; Zheng, J.N. Impact assessment of regional adjustment in Shuangbai Dinosaur River Provincial Nature Reserve, Yunnan. For. Investig. Plan. 2021, 46, 63–68. [Google Scholar]
  48. Sang, C.J. Survey Report on the Living Environment of Three-River-Source National Park. Urban and Rural Construction. Urban Rural. Dev. 2022, 44–47. [Google Scholar]
  49. Wei, W.; Zhang, K.; Zhou, J. Review and prospects of human–land relationship studies in the Three-River-Source area: From the perspective of “people, events, time, space”. Adv. Earth Sci. 2020, 35, 26–37. [Google Scholar]
  50. Zhou, Y.; Miao, R.; Ren, Y.; Yang, X.; Li, Y.; Liu, G. Corridor area identification of the Amur tiger and leopard based on National Highway (G331) in Hunchun City. J. Northeast Norm. Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2023, 55, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Yin, W. Some reflections on the high-quality development of China’s national parks. Nat. Reserves 2025, 5, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  52. Li, X.S.; Deng, W.G.; Li, Z.; Kang, X.X. Integration and optimization of natural protected areas: Approaches, responses and discussions. Chin. Landsc. Archit. 2020, 36, 25–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Liu, G.G.; Zhou, Y.X.; Ge, Y.X. The Impact of Diversified Ecological Compensation on Rural Household Livelihood Strategy Choice: A Case Study of Households in Ecological Protection Red Line Areas. Rural. Econ. 2024, 502, 120–131. [Google Scholar]
  54. Cui, J.N. The Impact of Ecological Migrant Urban Integration on Livelihood Strategy Choice: A Case Study of the Three-River-Source Area. Ph.D. Thesis, Northwest A&F University, Xianyang, China, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  55. Chen, J.H.; Hu, Z.M.; Wu, K. Spatiotemporal changes of NDVI and climate driving forces on Hainan Island from 1982 to 2015. Remote Sens. Technol. Appl. 2023, 38, 1071–1080. [Google Scholar]
  56. Hang, L.D. Research on the Implementation Mechanism of Community Participation in Co- Management of Wuyishan National Park. Master’s Thesis, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, China, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  57. Liu, Y.; Li, F. Research progress and prospects on community co-management in national parks. Green Technol. 2023, 25, 276–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Li, X.; Feng, Y.B. A study on the predicament of community governance and its optimization in the process of national parks’ construction. Adv. Soc. Sci. 2019, 08, 944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gu, Y.T.; Zhang, Y.L.; Li, X. Insights for China from the construction and management experience of U.S. national parks. China Urban For. 2020, 18, 61–65. [Google Scholar]
  60. Walliss, J. Transformative landscapes: Postcolonial representations of Uluru-Kata Tjuta and Tongariro National Parks. Space Cult. 2014, 17, 280–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kwesaba, D.A.; Daniel, O.E.; Delphine, D.; Benjamin, E. An assessment of land cover change in Gashaka-Gumti National Park, Nigeria. J. Geosci. Environ. Prot. 2023, 11, 184–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jiang, Y.; Wang, W.Y. Research on the relationship between ecological zoning control and land spatial planning. J. Environ. Eng. Technol. 2024, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  63. Xu, W.H.; Zang, Z.H.; Zhao, L.; Wang, S.H.; Cheng, X.G. Current status, problems, and countermeasures of national park zoning and differentiated management. Natl. Parks 2024, 2, 708–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Heald, P.J.; Sherry, S. Implied Limits on the Legislative Power: The Intellectual Property Clause as an Absolute Constraint on Congress. Univ. Ill. Law Rev. 2000, 2000, 1119–1197. [Google Scholar]
  65. Renkert, S.R. Community-owned tourism and degrowth: A case study in the Kichwa Anangu community. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 1893–1908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Tagowa, W.N.; Buba, U.N. Emergent strategies for sustainable rural tourism development of Gashaka-Gumti National Park, Nigeria. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2012, 161, 27–41. [Google Scholar]
  67. Shen, X.J.; Huang, R. Nation, ethnicity, and community: Experiences and lessons from the construction of U.S. national parks. J. Ethnol. 2018, 9, 119–121. [Google Scholar]
  68. James, S. Constructing the climb: Visitor decision-making at Uluru. Geogr. Res. 2007, 45, 398–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Dunn, A. Gashaka Gumti, Nigeria—From Game Reserve to National Park; Technical Report Rural Development Forestry Network Paper 18d; Overseas Development Institute: London, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  70. Cai, X.M.; Su, Y.; Wu, B.H.; Wang, Y.; Yang, R.; Xu, W.H.; Min, Q.W.; Zhang, H.X. Theoretical reflections and innovative practices of China’s natural protected areas development under the background of ecological civilization construction. J. Nat. Resour. 2023, 38, 839–861. [Google Scholar]
  71. Wang, C.H.; Xie, M. Governance of natural protected areas with national parks as the main body: Process, challenges, and system optimization. China Rural Econ. 2023, 139–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Clarke, A.; Waterton, E. A journey to the heart: Affecting engagement at Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park. Landsc. Res. 2015, 40, 971–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ayeni, S.M.; Meduna, P.N.; Babatunde, A.A. Effects of banditry and illegal logging on conservation in Kainji Lake National Park, Nigeria. J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manag. 2025, 29, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 14 02275 g001
Figure 1. The framework of this paper.
Figure 1. The framework of this paper.
Land 14 02275 g001
Land 14 02275 g002
Figure 2. The “Three Zones and Three Lines” and the Tianchuang policy in national parks.
Figure 2. The “Three Zones and Three Lines” and the Tianchuang policy in national parks.
Land 14 02275 g002
Land 14 02275 g003
Figure 3. Spatial forms of withdrawal, boundary adjustment, and Tianchuang-setting.
Figure 3. Spatial forms of withdrawal, boundary adjustment, and Tianchuang-setting.
Land 14 02275 g003
Table 1. Definitions of Tianchuang in the literature.
Table 1. Definitions of Tianchuang in the literature.
CategorySpecific Connotation
Problems arising from land-use planning conflictsDue to land-use planning conflicts or historical legacies, areas retain specific functions not ecologically coherent with the overall protected area [26,27,28].
Fragmentation phenomenaWithin or at the edges of protected areas caused by boundary adjustments or changes in land function due to development projects or human activities [29].
Method for balancing development and protectionTransitional areas between ecological protection and economic development [25], allowing indigenous communities or moderate development while being restricted by ecological policies and infrastructure to ensure ecological functions are not compromised [30].
Table 2. Original competent authorities and delineation criteria of “Three Zones and Three Lines”.
Table 2. Original competent authorities and delineation criteria of “Three Zones and Three Lines”.
Three ZonesThree LinesOriginal Competent Authority (Former)Delineation Criteria
Ecological SpaceEcological Protection Red LineMinistry of Environmental Protection, National Development and Reform CommissionEcological importance and ecological sensitivity
Agricultural SpacePermanent Basic Farm landMinistry of Land and ResourcesFarmland quality and agricultural productivity
Urban SpaceUrban Development BoundaryUrban–Rural Development, Ministry of Land and ResourcesExisting built-up areas, future population, economic targets
Table 3. Differences among withdrawal, boundary adjustment, and Tianchuang-setting.
Table 3. Differences among withdrawal, boundary adjustment, and Tianchuang-setting.
Three ApproachesApplicable ConditionsSpecific ChangesAuthoritiesGovernance Priority
Withdrawal① Significant conflicts between ecological protection and human activities
② Relocation feasibility
③ Ecological restoration potential		No change in the boundary; ecological relocation and land-use restrictionsNational park authorityEcological protection
Boundary Adjustment① Near the boundary
② Clear, concentrated, contiguous, and stable land-use functions		Adjust the national park boundary to formally exclude the areaLocal governmentDevelopment
Tianchuang-setting① Deep inside the park, complex land ownership
② Concentrated population
③ Infeasible for immediate withdrawal or boundary adjustment		Retain within the boundary, temporarily not incorporated into unified managementLocally led with national park participationBalance (future integration)
Table 4. Comparison of non-contiguous management spaces in national parks across the world.
Table 4. Comparison of non-contiguous management spaces in national parks across the world.
DimensionChina (Tianchuang)USA (Inholding)Australia (Uluru-Kata Tjuta Co-managed Community)Nigeria (GGNP
Enclaves)
FormationFollow the “Three Zones and Three Lines” delineation practice to address parcels with frequent human activities and functional conflicts.Private/state lands enclosed by parks after 19th-century transfers, preserved due to property rights and limited federal funds.Land rooted in colonial legacy and indigenous rights recognition.Camps retained through negotiation, shaped by Fulani pastoral traditions and limited state resources.
GovernanceGovernment-led modelDual-track modelCo-management modelBottom-up negotiated model
ChallengesComplex tenure, dense population, weak compensation, unclear responsibilities, poor coordination, trust deficit.Fragmented property rights, high acquisition costs, state–local policy differences, ecological threats.Tension between cultural sacredness and tourism; reliance on external funds; governance disputes.Federal–local conflicts, ancestral land claims, overlapping tenures vs. customary rules.
ProspectsGradual reintegration into unified governanceSlow market-based
integration		Strengthening Indigenous governanceNegotiated governance with multi-party collaboration.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tao, R.; Li, T.; Zhang, X. Tianchuang in National Parks of China: Its Concept, Causes, and Consequences. Land 2025, 14, 2275. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14112275

AMA Style

Tao R, Li T, Zhang X. Tianchuang in National Parks of China: Its Concept, Causes, and Consequences. Land. 2025; 14(11):2275. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14112275

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tao, Rong, Tianjiao Li, and Xujiao Zhang. 2025. "Tianchuang in National Parks of China: Its Concept, Causes, and Consequences" Land 14, no. 11: 2275. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14112275

APA Style

Tao, R., Li, T., & Zhang, X. (2025). Tianchuang in National Parks of China: Its Concept, Causes, and Consequences. Land, 14(11), 2275. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14112275

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop