Resident Empowerment and National Park Governance: A Case Study of Three-River-Source National Park, China
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
2.1. The Paradigm Shift Toward Participatory Governance in Protected Areas
2.2. Resident Empowerment as a Core Governance Mechanism
2.3. The Mediating Effects of Empowerment on National Park Governance
2.4. Hypotheses
3. Research Design and Methodology
3.1. Case Selection and Data Collection
3.2. Variable Measurement
3.3. Model Specification
4. Results
4.1. Baseline Regression Results
4.2. Robustness Test
4.3. Mechanism Test
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Zheng, Q.; Tang, C.; Han, Y.; Zhang, Y. Influence mechanism and realization pathway for community common prosperity of national parks: A case study of Shennongjia National Park. J. Nat. Resour. (Chin. Ed.) 2024, 39, 2924–2945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, B. How Policy Integration of Local Government Promotes Effective Implementation—A Case Study of S County’s Synergy of Different Policies. J. Public Manag. (Chin. Ed.) 2024, 21, 128–140+175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, L.; Zhao, J. Truncated Decision Making and Deliberative Implementation: A Time-Based Policy Process Model for Transitional China. Policy Stud. J. 2020, 48, 298–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, L.; Zhao, J. Adaptive Reform and Limitations of the Public Policy Process in the Course of Transition. Soc. Sci. China 2017, 9, 45–67+206. [Google Scholar]
- Alonzo, D.; Tabelin, C.B.; Dalona, I.M.; Beltran, A.; Orbecido, A.; Villacorte-Tabelin, M.; Resabal, V.J.; Promentilla, M.A.; Brito-Parada, P.; Plancherel, Y.; et al. Bio plus Mine Project: Empowering the Community to Develop a Site-Specific System for the Rehabilitation of a Legacy Mine. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2023, 22, 16094069231176340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, Y.-C.; Nourbakhsh, I. When human-computer interaction meets community citizen science. Commun. ACM 2020, 63, 31–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, X.; Su, Y. From Conflict to Mutualism: The Institutional Logic of National Parks in the Construction of Ecological Civilization. J. Manag. World (Chin. Ed.) 2022, 38, 131–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, F.; Zhang, Z.H.; Wang, S.Z. Enlisting citizens: Forging the effectiveness of policy implementation in local China. J. Chin. Gov. 2022, 7, 400–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yudarwati, G.A.; Gregory, A. Improving government communication and empowering rural communities: Combining public relations and development communication approaches. Public Relat. Rev. 2022, 48, 102200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, T.; Jia, L.Z.; Zhong, L.S.; Gong, X.Y.; Wei, Y. Governance of China’s Potatso National Park Influenced by Local Community Participation. International J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, S. The role of communities in the governance of China’s national parks and the consolidation and development of their role. J. Nat. Resour. (Chin. Ed.) 2024, 39, 2310–2334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Zhu, H.; Cai, Y. The Implicit Conflicts Between National Park Construction and Community Development: A Field Survey Based on the Northeast China Tiger and Leopard National Park. China Rural. Surv. (Chin. Ed.) 2024, 93–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, D.; Zhong, L.; Yu, H. Research progress of community development of national parks and implications. Resour. Sci. 2021, 43, 1903–1917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonzales Tovar, J.; Barletti, J.; Larson, A.; Barnes, G.; Tucker, C. Can multistakeholder forums empower indigenous and local communities and promote forest conservation? A comparative analysis of territorial planning in two Brazilian states with contrasting contexts. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2020, 3, e326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J. Public participation in China: The case for environmental enforcement. J. Chin. Gov. 2021, 7, 159–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Vanclay, F. 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. Biol. Conserv. (Chin. Ed.) 2024, 292, 110561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butler, C.; Adamowski, J. Empowering marginalized communities in water resources management: Addressing inequitable practices in Participatory Model Building. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 153, 153–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clarke, G.S.; Douglas, E.B.; House, M.J.; Hudgins, K.E.G.; Campos, S.; Vaughn, E.E. Empowering Indigenous Communities Through a Participatory, Culturally Responsive Evaluation of a Federal Program for Older Americans. Am. J. Eval. 2022, 43, 484–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, Y.M.; Liu, X.J.; Liu, X.H.; Zhang, J.H.; Zhang, H.Y.; Fan, J.W.; Khan, N.; Ma, J.L. Quantitative assessment of the degree of harmony between humanity and nature for national parks in China: A case study of the Three-River-Source National Park. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2023, 11, 1121189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Hu, Y.; Liu, J. Overview of China’s national park system reform process. Chin. J. Popul. Resour. Environ. 2024, 22, 481–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dawson, N.M.; Coolsaet, B.; Sterling, E.J.; Loveridge, R.; Gross-Camp, N.D.; Wongbusarakum, S.; Sangha, K.K.; Scherl, L.M.; Phan, H.P.; Zafra-Calvo, N.; et al. The role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation. Ecol. Soc. 2021, 26, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bailey, N.; Pill, M. Can the State Empower Communities through Localism? An Evaluation of Recent Approaches to Neighbourhood Governance in England. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2015, 33, 289–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Healy, H. Pulp and participation: Assessing the legitimacy of participatory environmental governance in Umkomaas, South Africa. Ecol. Econ. 2023, 208, 107794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zawilinska, B.; Dická, J.N.; Matei, E.; Svajda, J.; Lapczynski, M.; Majewski, K.; Megyeri, B.; Calin, A.C.; Gessert, A. Applying Q-methodology to investigate the perception of the social and economic role of the national park by local stakeholders. Cases of national parks in the Carpathians. J. Nat. Conserv. 2023, 75, 126459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.H.Z. National parks in China: Parks for people or for the nation? Land Use Policy 2019, 81, 825–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Liu, Q.Q.; Lv, J.H. Game Analysis of Stakeholders in National Park Development and Eco-environmental System Compatibility. Ekoloji Derg. 2019, 28, 1373–1379. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Y.Y.; Wang, Z.Y.; Shrestha, A.; Zhou, X.; Teng, M.J.; Wang, P.C.; Wang, G.Y. Exploring the Main Determinants of National Park Community Management: Evidence from Bibliometric Analysis. Forests 2023, 14, 1850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Lou, Y.; Shu, Q.; Li, S. A performance comparison of different governance types of protected areas in China: From the perspective of local communities. J. Nat. Resour. (Chin. Ed.) 2024, 39, 2364–2382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meng, J.D.; Long, Y.; Shi, L.F. Stakeholders’ evolutionary relationship analysis of China’s national park ecotourism development. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 316, 115188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kachniarz, M. Global Gain, but Local Loss-National Park and Municipal Revenues in Poland. Land 2024, 13, 1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olko, J.; Hędrzak, M.; Cent, J.; Subel, A. Cooperation in the Polish national parks and their neighborhood in a view of different stakeholders—A long way ahead? Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 2011, 24, 295–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwiatkowski, G.; Anne-Mette, H.; Janne, L.; Saabye Simonsen, P. Volunteering and collaborative governance innovation in the Wadden Sea National Park. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 971–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kapera, I. The Relationship between National Parks and Local Governments in the Area of Tourism Development in Poland: Collaboration, Opportunities and Challenges. Zarz. Publiczne 2017, 38, 131–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurek, W.; Faracik, R.; Mika, M. Ecological conflicts in Poland. GeoJournal 2001, 55, 507–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rappaport, J. Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for community psychology. Am. J. Community Psychol. 1987, 15, 121–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mailloux, D.; Lacharité, C. Beyond new public management: Empowering community-based organisations. J. Community Psychol. 2020, 48, 2571–2588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steiner, A.A.; Farmer, J. Engage, participate, empower: Modelling power transfer in disadvantaged rural communities. Environ. Plan. C-Politics Space 2018, 36, 118–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chapin, F.S.; Knapp, C.N.; Brinkman, T.J.; Bronen, R.; Cochran, P. Community-empowered adaptation for self-reliance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2016, 19, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Senecah, S.L. The Trinity of Voice: A framework to improve trust and ground decision making in participatory processes. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2024, 67, 2091–2115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leng, X.; Pu, K.; Zheng, Y. The Extension of National “Governance at the Grassroots”: Research on the Optimization of Governance Systems of Urban Residential Community. Public Gov. Res. (Chin. Ed.) 2025, 37, 54–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tschirhart, C.; Mistry, J.; Berardi, A.; Bignante, E.; Simpson, M.; Haynes, L.; Benjamin, R.; Albert, G.; Xavier, R.; Robertson, B.; et al. Learning from one another: Evaluating the impact of horizontal knowledge exchange for environmental management and governance. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wali, A.; Alvira, D.; Tallman, P.S.; Ravikumar, A.; Macedo, M.O. A new approach to conservation: Using community empowerment for sustainable well-being. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, X.X.; Wang, Z.N. The impact of place attachment on the environmentally responsible behavior of residents in National Park gateway communities and the mediating effect of environmental commitment: A case of China National Park. Front. Psychol. 2024, 15, 1386337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adams, M.S.; Carpenter, J.; Housty, J.A.; Neasloss, D.; Paquet, P.C.; Service, C.; Walkus, J.; Darimont, C.T. Toward increased engagement between academic and indigenous community partners in ecological research. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, X.; Su, Y.; Wu, B.; Wang, Y.; Yang, Y.; Xu, W.; Min, Q.; Zhang, H. Theoretical debates and innovative practices of the development of China’s nature protected area under the background of ecological civilization construction. J. Nat. Resour. (Chin. Ed.) 2023, 38, 839–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, J.L.; Green, J.D.; Reed, A. Interdependence with the environment: Commitment, interconnectedness, and environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qin, L.G.; Wang, Z.G.; He, D. From well-being to conservation: Understanding the mechanisms of community pro-environmental actions in Wuyishan national park. J. Nat. Conserv. 2024, 81, 126680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, B.; Xiao, J.; Li, L.; Wu, G. Do citizen participation programs help citizens feel satisfied with urban redevelopment policy in China? J. Chin. Gov. 2022, 7, 341–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nahar, N.; Hossain, Z.; Mahiuddin, S. Assessment of the environmental perceptions, attitudes, and awareness of city dwellers regarding sustainable urban environmental management: A case study of Dhaka, Bangladesh. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 25, 7503–7531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Huang, B.; Lin, C.-T. Environmental awareness and environmental Kuznets curve. Econ. Model. 2019, 77, 2–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pekez, J.; Stojanov, J.; Mihajlovic, V.; Marceta, U.; Radovanovic, L.; Palinkas, I.; Vujic, B. The impact analysis of education on raising awareness towards climate change and energy efficiency. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2025, 35, 41–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pokharel, P.R.; Alqahtani, M.S.; Nandy, M.; Lodh, S. Exploring Global Environmental Engagement: The Role of Willingness and Membership in Environmental Action. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Indicators | Weight | |
---|---|---|---|
Explanatory Variable | RE | Is your household a “one post, one household” policy family? (Yes = 1, No = 0) | 1/1 |
Dependent Variable | NPG | How satisfied are you with the ecological projects in the national park? (1–5, with 1 being very dissatisfied and 5 being very satisfied) | 1/1 |
Mediating Variables | Environmental Effect | Do you agree that the ecological environment has been improving in recent years? (1–5, with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree) | 1/1 |
Income Effect | How has your household’s income changed? (Significantly decreased = 1, Slightly decreased = 2, Hardly any change = 3, Slightly increased = 4, Significantly increased = 5) | 1/3 | |
What is your household’s income and expenditure situation? (Expenses greater than income = 1, Basically balanced = 2, Expenses less than income = 3) | 1/3 | ||
How has your household’s source of income changed? (Lost = 1, Decreased = 2, Unchanged = 3, Increased = 4) | 1/3 | ||
Recognition Effect | How well do you understand ecological policies? (1–5, with 1 being not at all familiar and 5 being very familiar) | 1/3 | |
Do you think ecological projects should continue to be implemented? (Yes = 1, No = 0) | 1/3 | ||
Do you feel that the implementation process of ecological protection has fully respected the wishes of the herdsmen? (Not at all = 0, Consulted = 1, Consulted and adopted = 2) | 1/3 |
Variable | Obs | Mean | Std. Dev. | Min | Max | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Explanatory Variable | RE | 815 | 0.582 | 0.494 | 0 | 1 |
Dependent Variable | NPG | 815 | 3.088 | 1.154 | 1 | 5 |
Mediating Variables | Environmental Effect | 815 | 4.080 | 1.163 | 1 | 5 |
Income Effect | 578 | 0.458 | 0.227 | 0 | 1 | |
Recognition Effect | 694 | 0.661 | 0.186 | 0 | 1 | |
Control Variables | Annual per capita income (in 10,000) | 815 | 9.248 | 21.833 | 0 | 316.110 |
Education Level | 815 | 1.676 | 1.204 | 1 | 5 | |
Household Head | 815 | 0.839 | 0.368 | 0 | 1 | |
Gender | 815 | 0.701 | 0.458 | 0 | 1 | |
Total household population | 804 | 3.632 | 1.819 | 1 | 13 | |
Labor force participation rate | 797 | 0.529 | 0.305 | 0 | 1 | |
Fiscal subsidies (in 10,000) | 815 | 1.813 | 7.648 | 0 | 155.980 | |
Fixed household income (in 10,000) | 814 | 1.875 | 6.258 | 0 | 89 | |
Migrant work experience | 815 | 0.223 | 0.417 | 0 | 1 | |
Social network extent | 815 | 1.515 | 0.804 | 1 | 4 |
Variable/Indicators | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
How satisfied are you with the ecological projects in the national park? (1–5) | 14.23% | 13.01% | 29.20% | 36.81% | 6.75% |
How satisfied are you with the ecological compensation policy? (1–5) | 25.89% | 25.89% | 60.12% | 1.84% | 0.98% |
Variable | (1) NPG | (2) NPG |
---|---|---|
RE | 0.544 *** (4.22) | 0.549 *** (4.17) |
Annual per capita income (in 10,000) | −0.0065 (−1.02) | |
Education Level | 1.145 * (2.52) | |
Whether the household head | 0.0899 (0.46) | |
Gender | 0.0958 (0.65) | |
Total household population | 0.0409 (1.03) | |
Labor force participation rate | 0.0541 (0.23) | |
Fiscal subsidies (in 10,000) | 0.0026 (0.17) | |
Fixed household income (in 10,000) | −0.0028 (−0.15) | |
Migrant work experience | 0.0471 (0.30) | |
Social network extent | 0.0847 (0. 86) | |
Constant/cut4 | 2.973 *** (18.18) | 3.682 *** (9.95) |
N | 815 | 797 |
Variable | (1) Replace | (2) Tail Reduction | (3) Tobit | (4) PSM |
---|---|---|---|---|
RE | 0.655 *** (4.92) | 0.560 *** (4.19) | 0.305 *** (3.73) | 0.561 *** (3.67) |
Control Variables | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Constant/cut4 | 0.803 * (2.36) | 2.484 *** (11.95) | 3.702 *** (9.01) | |
N | 797 | 797 | 797 | 661 |
Variable | Unmatched (U)/ Matche (M) | Mean | Standard Deviation (%) | T-Test | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Treatment Group | Control Group | t | p > |t| | |||
Annual per capita income (in 10,000) | U | 9.575 | 8.999 | 2.6 | 0.360 | 0.716 |
M | 8.440 | 8.011 | 1.9 | 0.460 | 0.643 | |
Education Level | U | 1.771 | 1.554 | 18.1 | 2.500 | 0.013 |
M | 1.772 | 1.691 | 6.7 | 0.960 | 0.335 | |
Whether the household head | U | 0.838 | 0.841 | −0.9 | −0.130 | 0.900 |
M | 0.837 | 0.837 | 0.0 | −0.000 | 1.000 | |
Gender | U | 0.685 | 0.722 | −8.1 | −1.120 | 0.263 |
M | 0.683 | 0.643 | 8.6 | 1.260 | 0.210 | |
Total household population | U | 3.689 | 3.584 | 5.8 | 0.800 | 0.421 |
M | 3.689 | 3.752 | −3.5 | −0.510 | 0.607 | |
Labor force participation rate | U | 0.534 | 0.522 | 3.6 | 0.510 | 0.612 |
M | 0.536 | 0.510 | 8.5 | 1.280 | 0.200 | |
Fiscal subsidies (in 10,000) | U | 1.346 | 2.032 | −11.8 | −1.750 | 0.080 |
M | 1.283 | 1.184 | 1.7 | 0.640 | 0.522 | |
Fixed household income (in 10,000) | U | 1.970 | 1.775 | 3.1 | 0.430 | 0.667 |
M | 1.777 | 1.288 | 7.7 | 2.060 | 0.040 | |
Migrant work experience | U | 0.229 | 0.210 | 4.7 | 0.650 | 0.516 |
M | 0.228 | 0.246 | −4.2 | −0.620 | 0.536 | |
Social network extent | U | 1.516 | 1.518 | −0.2 | −0.030 | 0.976 |
M | 1.520 | 1.474 | 5.7 | 0.870 | 0.382 |
Variable | (1) Recognition Effect | (2) Income Effect | (3) Environmental Effect |
---|---|---|---|
Indirect Effect | 0.112 *** (3.79) | 0.220 ** (2.88) | 0.0335 * (1.97) |
Direct Effect | 0.215 * (2.39) | 0.106 (1.46) | 0.272 *** (3.36) |
Total Effect | 0.327 *** (3.54) | 0.325 ** (3.12) | 0.305 *** (3.74) |
N | 680 | 565 | 797 |
Variable | (1) Satisfaction | (2) Recognition Effect | (3) Satisfaction |
---|---|---|---|
RE | 0.549 *** (4.17) | 0.0624 *** (4.39) | 0.419 ** (2.86) |
Recognition effect | 2.958 *** (7.32) | ||
Control Variables | YES | YES | YES |
Constant/cut4 | 3.682 *** (9.95) | 0.623 *** (56.23) | 5.861 *** (11.86) |
N | 797 | 694 | 680 |
Variable | (1) Satisfaction | (2) Income Effect | (3) Satisfaction |
---|---|---|---|
RE | 0.549 *** (4.17) | 0.0579 ** (3.01) | 0.310 (1.81) |
Income Effect | 8.744 *** (16.90) | ||
Control Variables | YES | YES | YES |
Constant/cut4 | 3.682 *** (9.95) | 0.422 *** (27.80) | 8.003 *** (14.41) |
N | 797 | 578 | 565 |
Variable | (1) Satisfaction | (2) Environmental Effect | (3) Satisfaction |
---|---|---|---|
RE | 0.549 *** (4.17) | 0.0379 ** (2.85) | 0.489 *** (3.69) |
Environmental Effect | 0.305 *** (5.26) | ||
Control Variables | YES | YES | YES |
cut4 | 3.682 *** (9.95) | 0.136 (1.32) | 4.891 *** (11.15) |
N | 797 | 815 | 797 |
Variable | (1) Recognition Effect | (2) Income Effect | (3) Environmental Effect |
---|---|---|---|
Result | Partial mediation | Dominant pathway | Partial mediation |
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. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
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. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14071413
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(7):1413. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14071413
Chicago/Turabian StyleMa, Yulian, Yaolong Li, Yonghuan Ma, Yusong Liu, Xuechun Li, and Fanglei Zhong. 2025. "Resident Empowerment and National Park Governance: A Case Study of Three-River-Source National Park, China" Land 14, no. 7: 1413. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14071413
APA StyleMa, Y., Li, Y., Ma, Y., Liu, Y., Li, X., & Zhong, F. (2025). Resident Empowerment and National Park Governance: A Case Study of Three-River-Source National Park, China. Land, 14(7), 1413. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14071413