Forest Tenure as an Institutional Mechanism: Promoting Ecosystem Services via an LADM-Based Forest Cadastral System in China

Abstract

Forest tenure functions as a critical institutional mechanism globally for curbing deforestation and degradation and advancing sustainable forest administration, ultimately underpinning the provision of vital ecosystem services. However, research on robust forest tenure system models both globally and within China remains underdeveloped, hindering their potential as an effective administration tool. The study addresses this gap by conceptualizing China’s forest tenure system through the lens of systems thinking and proposing a Forest Cadastral System based on the Land Administration Domain Model (LADM). We conduct a comprehensive review of the evolution of China’s forest tenure system and an in-depth analysis of the current “person–right–land” configuration. Subsequently, we construct an integrated forest cadastral model structured around three core LADM-compliant packages: party, administrative, and spatial unit. The model is then tested in Ningbo’s forested highlands: trials confirm its efficacy in reconciling tenure security with ecological governance. The findings offer valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners engaged in forest tenure reform and administration, while advancing the academic discourse on leveraging land administration systems for ecosystem service outcomes through robust institutional mechanisms.

1. Introduction

Forests represent the largest terrestrial ecosystem by area and play an irreplaceable role in human survival and development [1,2,3]. In 2020, the global forest area reached 4.06 billion hectares, accounting for 31% of the global land area [1,4]. Forests provide diverse ecosystem services essential for human survival and development, including provisioning services (e.g., timber for construction/energy industries, non-timber products), regulating services (e.g., adaptation to global/local climate change, soil and water conservation), and cultural services (e.g., recreation and wellness) [4,5,6,7,8]. Against the backdrop of contemporary climate change mitigation, forests—as the most critical terrestrial carbon sink and green open spaces—hold pivotal significance in mitigating climate change and enhancing human health [5,8]. Deforestation and forest degradation constitute the two primary factors threatening forest ecological security [1,4]. Forest tenure systems profoundly influence efforts to prevent deforestation and degradation while promoting sustainable forest management [4,9]. Countries worldwide adopt forest tenure systems suited to their national contexts, informed by resource conditions, functional priorities, and political–legal traditions [9]. Globally, forest ownership is predominantly public (accounting for 74%), reflecting the primacy of forests’ public-good ecological services [4,10]. Granting forest management rights to forestry companies and formalizing community tenure rights positively contribute to forest conservation and sustainable utilization [4,9,10].

In 2020, China’s total forest area was 0.33 billion hectares, covering 35% of its total land area [11]. Similarly, forests are critically important to China’s endeavors in soil and water conservation, water resource retention, climate regulation, timber production, tourism, and wellness [12]. Under the early development-first paradigm, China’s forest resource management strategy primarily prioritized timber production. Uncontrolled logging led to ecological disasters such as severe soil erosion and biodiversity loss [9,13]. The catastrophic 1998 Yangtze River Flood inflicted massive economic losses on China, abruptly awakening the government and public to the paramount importance of forests for flood/drought control and soil conservation [13,14]. Since that year, the Chinese government has adjusted forest conservation and utilization policies, reformed state-owned and collective forest tenure systems, granted forest land use rights to forestry companies, and allocated contractual management rights of forest land to forest farmers, thereby enhancing economic incentives for sustainable forest management among these entities [15]. Notably, the implementation of the “tripartite entitlement system” policy for forest land has further galvanized forest farmers’ initiative to invest in and manage forests [14]. China’s forest tenure reforms have yielded significant results, marked by continuous growth in both forest area and stock volume [1].

2. Literature Review

Globally, cadastral systems serve as crucial institutional instruments for securing land rights [16,17,18,19,20]. Summarizing the functions of cadastral systems worldwide, Henssen proposed a highly concise cadastral model: the “person–right–land” model [21]. Building upon this foundation, Lemmen developed the Land Administration Domain Model (LADM) through multiple iterations for modeling cadastral systems globally [22]. In 2012, after several rounds of voting, LADM was formally adopted as an International Standard [22,23]. Subsequently, the LADM model has exerted an increasingly significant influence within the global land administration community [24,25,26]. Numerous international organizations actively participate in LADM-related activities, including the United Nations (UN), the World Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), and the International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) [25]. The UN links LADM research to the implementation plan for the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals [27]. The FIG has organized six international academic conferences dedicated to LADM, and application research conducted in numerous countries has validated the broad applicability of LADM across diverse national contexts [28,29]. The focus of LADM research has evolved significantly: while initial development emphasized 3D/4D Cadaster [30,31,32,33], current efforts are now increasingly directed towards its planning and valuation modules [28,29,34,35].

Land administration researchers in China have actively engaged in LADM-related research. Firstly, LADM research has taken its starting point in China—Shenzhen City now leads the domestic effort—while remaining synchronized with the global discourse on urban 3D/4D Cadaster, particularly international investigations into property rights modeling for 3D spaces [36,37,38,39,40]. Secondly, to meet the requirements of unified real estate registration, research has been conducted on modeling integrated urban land and building registration or unified registration of immovable property (which also includes corresponding natural resource assets) [41,42,43,44,45] and further extends 3D Cadaster toward the registration of rights in natural resources [41,43]. Thirdly, responding to the international trend of extending LADM towards land valuation models, Chinese researchers have attempted to expand LADM research to encompass valuation and taxation of rural collectively owned construction land [46]. Finally, building upon the general model framework, research has been deepened for specific types of property rights. For instance, Zhuo et al. conducted an in-depth study on the “tripartite entitlement system” for rural contracted land [47]. Xu et al. undertook a detailed investigation into the “tripartite entitlement system” for rural residential land (homesteads) [48]. In summary, both globally and within China, research on forest cadastral models remains notably underdeveloped. This research gap is detrimental to the deepening of forest tenure reforms and hinders sustainable forest management. Compared to general cadastral models, forest cadastral models exhibit both similarities and significant differences. China’s forests are categorized into state-owned forests and collective forests, resulting in a particularly unique and complex tenure system. Building upon the foundation of research on the “tripartite entitlement system” registration for contracted land and homesteads in China, the study of forest cadastral models now possesses a preliminary basis. Research on forest cadastral models will be beneficial for China in implementing its forest tenure system reforms and will contribute to promoting sustainable forest development in China.

This paper addresses three core research questions: (1) How has the “person–right–land” relationship within China’s forest tenure system evolved within its socio-ecological context? (2) What key characteristics define the “person–right–land” configuration in China’s current forest tenure reform system, particularly regarding institutional interactions affecting ecosystem services? (3) How can a Forest Cadastral System be constructed based on the Land Administration Domain Model (LADM) standard, applying systems thinking to account for China’s specific “person–right–land” attributes while enhancing ecosystem service governance?

3. Methodology

3.1. Conceptual Framework

The research conceptual framework is built upon the integration of Design Science Research (DSR) and the Land Administration Domain Model (LADM) [22,47]. The framework is designed to address the complex challenges of forest administration by combining the innovative problem-solving approach of DSR with the structured information organization provided by LADM (see Figure 1). DSR, as described by Hevner et al., emphasizes the creation of innovative artifacts to solve real-world problems [49,50], while LADM, as outlined by ISO 19152 [23], provides a standardized model for structuring information about land and natural resource administration [25].

3.2. Knowledge Base Part

The knowledge base for this study is built upon the foundations of natural resource management [42,43,44,45]. Previous research on forest tenure administration has been analyzed to identify best practices and lessons learned [6,10]. This includes studies on forest tenure reform, forest governance, and community-based forest management [9,12,13]. In Section 4, the historical evolution of China’s forest tenure regimes is analyzed through the lens of property rights structure, drawing on the extant literature. This analytical foundation enables a robust conceptual framework for model formulation.

3.3. Environment Part

The environment in which forest tenure administration operates is multifaceted, encompassing the legal, technical, organizational, and other dimensions that influence forest resource management [14]. In this paper, Section 5 primarily concentrates the analysis on the legal dimension. The legislative and regulatory framework governing forest tenure administration is fundamentally shaped by statutory mandates prioritizing sustainable forest management and conservation [9,10]. These instruments establish the scaffolding for the clear delineation and implementation of forest tenure, thereby securing intergenerational equity in forest resource utilization [9].

3.4. Design Research Part

The research employs a structured approach to design science research, following the guidelines outlined by Hevner et al. and Gregor & Hevner [49,50]. The Design Research Part encompasses four sequential phases: problem diagnosis, model conceptualization, empirical validation, and knowledge dissemination. Its primary emphasis, however, resides in the conceptualization and empirical validation of forest cadastral models. The process initiates with a diagnostic examination of structural inefficiencies in forest tenure regimes that necessitate institutional reform in Section 1 and Section 2. This phase synthesizes critical insights from empirical challenges and scholarly literature in forest administration to crystallize reform priorities. Building on the diagnostic foundation, Section 6 formalizes a conceptual model architecturally integrating legal provisions and digital enablers to optimize forest resource stewardship. Subsequently, Section 7 subjects the model to empirical validation through a functional prototype, which validates the model’s implementability while demonstrating operational feasibility. Finally, Section 8 concludes this study by summarizing findings and institutional implications for sustainable service provision.

4. Evolution of Forest Tenure System in China Since 1949

China’s forest tenure reform has progressed through four distinct phases aligned with historical and socio-economic contexts (see

Table 1. Characteristics of forest tenure systems in different periods.

Period	Characteristics of Forest Tenure Systems
	State	Society
Land Reform (1949–1952)	(1) State ownership (2) State management	(1) Household ownership (2) Household management
People’s Commune (1953–1977)	(1) State ownership (2) State management	(1) Collective ownership (2) Collective management
Forestry “Three Fixes” (1978–2002)	(1) State ownership (2) State management as the main approach	(1) Collective ownership (2) Household management as the main approach
Forest Tenure Reform (2003–present)	(1) State ownership (2) State management as the main approach (3) Supplemented by household and market-oriented management	(1) Collective ownership (2) Household management as the main approach (3) Supplemented by market-oriented management

): the Land Reform period (1949–1952), the People’s Commune period (1953–1977), the Forestry “Three Fixes” period (1978–2002), and the ongoing Forest Tenure Reform Period (2003–present) [12,13,14,15]. Adopting the dualistic lens of ownership versus management, this section comparatively examines the distinctive attributes and institutional evolution of state versus societal organizational frameworks across historical epochs, thereby establishing the intellectual groundwork for comprehending contemporary forest tenure configurations in Section 5.

4.1. Land Reform Period (1949–1952)

4.1.1. Background

With the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, land reform emerged as a critical measure for consolidating political power and economic recovery. Peasants urgently required access to land and forest resources for subsistence and livelihood improvement, while the state sought to establish control over forest resources for ecological security and economic development. This necessitated a tenure system balancing peasant incentives with state interests.

4.1.2. Forest Tenure Changes

The 1950 Land Reform Law established state ownership and management over large forests, wastelands, and barren mountains. Simultaneously, it mandated the redistribution of confiscated landlord and rich peasant forest lands to peasants. Recipient peasants gained ownership and management rights, including rights to harvest, utilize, sell, and gift their allocated resources. The state concurrently established hierarchical forestry institutions to strengthen resource oversight.

4.1.3. Impacts

This period established a dualistic tenure structure: state ownership/management for significant resources and private ownership/management for redistributed lands [12]. While transferring resource control to rural households stimulated production enthusiasm and aided forestry recovery, the nascent system lacked sophisticated property rights frameworks and coordinated state–private management mechanisms [42].

4.2. People’s Commune Period (1953–1977)

4.2.1. Background

Post-land reform challenges included low agricultural efficiency and vulnerability to natural disasters under dispersed operations. The state promoted collectivization to achieve scale economies, mechanization, and large-scale infrastructure, extending this approach to forest resource management.

4.2.2. Forest Tenure Changes

Initial voluntary Forestry Production Mutual Aid Teams preserved peasant collective mountain ownership. Subsequent Forestry Primary Cooperatives pooled farmland and mountains as shares, with priced contributions of tools and animals. The 1955 Draft Model Articles for Agricultural Producers’ Cooperatives guided transitions: scattered timbers remained privately operated; young forests requiring labor shifted to cooperative management with compensation; mature forests operated cooperatively with profit-sharing. Advanced Cooperatives intensified collectivization, converting major private productive assets, including large timber/economic forests, into collective cooperative ownership based on valuation, while scattered timbers remained private. State forestry regulations were strengthened.

4.2.3. Impacts

Tenure evolved into state ownership/management for key resources and collective ownership/collective management for rural forests [12]. While collectivization aimed to enhance efficiency and organizational capacity, it inadvertently suppressed individual peasant incentives and investment in forestry, despite providing new approaches for scaled management and protection [42].

4.3. Forestry “Three Fixes” Period (1978–2002)

4.3.1. Background

The success of agricultural household contracting spurred demands for similar forestry reforms [13]. Peasants sought clarified ownership and operational autonomy, challenging the collective model. Concurrent economic reforms emphasized market mechanisms, prompting forestry’s adaptation.

4.3.2. Forest Tenure Changes

The 1980 CPC Central Committee and State Council Decision on Several Issues Concerning Forest Protection and Forestry Development mandated stabilizing mountain/forest rights, demarcating private hills, and establishing a forestry responsibility system. Peasants received private and contracted responsibility hills, generally owning the timbers they planted. Forest farmers gained enhanced operational autonomy. The “bipartite entitlement system” (ownership, contractual management rights) emerged. Timber market policies oscillated between initial liberalization and subsequent tightening with harvesting quotas due to over-exploitation concerns.

4.3.3. Impacts

State forests saw state management dominant, supplemented by household and market elements [13]. Collective forests transitioned to collective ownership with dominant household-based management, supplemented by market mechanisms [12]. The “bipartite entitlement system” boosted farmer autonomy. However, policy instability, imperfect markets, non-standardized transfers, and inadequate farmer interest protection persisted. These reforms nonetheless laid the groundwork for future tenure rationalization [13].

4.4. Forest Tenure Reform Period (2003–Present)

4.4.1. Background

An evolving socialist market economy rendered the traditional tenure system inadequate. Problems like unclear property rights, inflexible operations, and inequitable benefit distribution constrained development. The state’s heightened ecological focus demanded reforms enhancing forestry’s service role.

4.4.2. Forest Tenure Changes

In 2003, the CPC Central Committee and the State Council issued the Decision on Accelerating Forestry Development, thereby launching a new round of forest tenure reform. Piloted in Fujian and Jiangxi in 2003, comprehensive reforms focused on clarifying property rights, invigorating management, implementing disposal rights, and safeguarding income. Key measures included the following: equal household distribution of collective forest land (“equal mountains, rights, benefits”); forest tenure registration and certification; establishing standardized transfer mechanisms for ownership/use rights; deepening supportive reforms (tax/fee reductions, transfer standardization, operational flexibility). Enhanced supervision, standardized financial services (e.g., forest rights mortgages), and farmer support were implemented. Since 2016, the “tripartite entitlement system” (ownership, contractual management rights, management rights) further refined the structure.

4.4.3. Impacts

State forests maintain state-led management, supplemented by household/market elements, ensuring strategic/ecological functions [14]. Collective forests operate under collective ownership with household contract management dominant, supplemented by markets [15]. A liberalized timber market coexists with harvesting quotas. Institutional frameworks for rights confirmation, registration, transfer, and mortgage provide robust farmer protection and financial access [12]. The “tripartite entitlement system” enhanced system flexibility. These changes liberated forestry productivity, increased farmer income, improved ecologies, and drove rural socio-economic progress, achieving ecological–economic synergy and strengthening farmer stewardship [14].

5. Proposed Forest Tenure System in China

China’s forest tenure system, operating within the civil law property rights framework defined by the Civil Code, Forest Law, and Rural Land Contracting Law, centers on ownership, usufructuary rights, and security rights (see

Table 2. Forest tenure system in China.

Tenure Category	Ownership	Usufructuary Rights	Security Rights
Forest Land (Carrier)	Land ownership	Land contractual management right, land management right, land easement	Land mortgage right
Timbers (Attachment)	Timber ownership	Timber use right	Timber mortgage right

). This system distinctly separates rights pertaining to forest land from those pertaining to timbers, each with clearly defined subjects, objects, and content [43,44,47]. Forest land ownership forms the foundational right, generating derivative usufructuary rights (contractual management right, management right, easement) and security rights (mortgage right). Similarly, timber ownership gives rise to derivative rights such as the timber use right and timber mortgage right.

5.1. Forest Land Rights System

5.1.1. State Ownership of Forest Land

State ownership confers upon the state the comprehensive rights to possess, use, derive benefits from, and dispose of state-owned forest land.

(1) Subject of the Right: The State Council, acting on behalf of the state, exercises these rights through two primary modes: direct representation, involving macro-level control, planning, and statutory decision-making, and delegated agency, where specific administrative functions (e.g., resource inventorying, utilization supervision) are assigned to relevant local government departments or institutions.

(2) Object of the Right: State-owned forest land encompasses areas like state-owned forest farms, nature reserves, and key ecological public welfare forests. These lands, defined by national laws, regulations, and policies, possess significant ecological and economic value and are widely distributed across regions such as Northeast and Southwest China, serving as vital timber reserves and ecological barriers.

(3) Content of the Right: State ownership entails the authority to exercise actual control and management over the land, preventing unlawful encroachment. It includes the autonomous right to determine land utilization for purposes like afforestation or establishing protected areas, thereby maximizing ecological services and economic value. The state is exclusively entitled to all benefits generated, encompassing revenues from granting use rights, resource utilization fees, timber sales, and forest tourism. Furthermore, the state holds the lawful authority to dispose of the land, including granting or allocating use rights to other entities under prescribed conditions to optimize resource allocation and utilization efficiency.

5.1.2. Collective Ownership of Forest Land

Collective ownership grants village groups, villages, and township-level collective economic organizations the rights to possess, use, derive benefits from, and dispose of collectively owned forest land.

(1) Subject of the Right: The three primary holders are village groups, villages, and township-level collective economic organizations.

(2) Object of the Right: Collectively owned forest land, predominantly located in rural areas, is defined by relevant ownership certificates (e.g., collective land ownership certificate). It includes diverse types like agricultural-forestry land and collective wasteland, constituting vital means of production for rural livelihoods and economic development.

(3) Content of the Right: The collective possesses the authority for actual control and management, safeguarding resource integrity. It autonomously decides on development and utilization, such as organizing afforestation, forest management, or under-forest economy initiatives, to enhance efficiency and returns. The collective is exclusively entitled to all derived benefits, including income from transferring contractual management rights and under-forest product sales, which may fund collective expenditures or member dividends. The collective also holds the lawful authority to dispose of the land, including transfers or equity contributions via democratic decision-making, provided such actions comply with collective property rights reforms and relevant regulations.

5.1.3. Contractual Management Right of Forest Land

This significant usufructuary right allows farmers, based on collective membership, or other eligible entities under specific conditions, to manage forest land owned collectively or owned by the state but lawfully used by the farmer collective.

(1) Subject of the Right: Primary holders are collective member villagers, who possess priority qualification. Under specific legal procedures, state-owned land may be contracted to nearby villagers, and collective land may be contracted to external individuals or organizations; these contractors also become right holders.

(2) Object of the Right: Specific, clearly defined parcels of forest land suitable for forestry production, based on established ownership.

(3) Content of the Right: The contractor holds the right to stable possession free from unlawful interference during the contract term, ensuring operational control. The contractor exercises autonomy in conducting forestry production activities (e.g., species selection, management models, silvicultural measures) within the contract and legal framework to enhance land utilization efficiency. The contractor is legally entitled to all income generated from forestry operations (timber, non-timber products, landscape use), protected from unlawful seizure. During the contract period, the contractor may lawfully transfer the right (e.g., via sub-contracting, leasing, equity contribution), subject to principles of voluntariness, compensation, and adherence to land use and forestry development plans, facilitating optimized resource allocation.

5.1.4. Management Right of Forest Land

This derivative usufructuary right, stemming from the contractual management right, grants greater operational autonomy without altering underlying ownership or contractual management rights.

(1) Subject of the Right: Typically private entities (natural persons, legal persons, organizations) acquiring the right via transfer from the contractor, possessing requisite capabilities, technology, and capital for professional forestry operations.

(2) Object of the Right: Specific forest land acquired through transfer, with scope and boundaries clearly stipulated in the transfer contract.

(3) Content of the Right: Within the bounds of the transfer contract and regulations, the holder possesses autonomy to determine land utilization modes (e.g., adjusting species, implementing techniques, integrated management) to enhance efficiency and competitiveness. The holder is exclusively entitled to all income generated during management (e.g., timber sales, under-forest economy, ecological service fees) and may allocate it autonomously. During the management period, the holder may transfer the right to other qualified entities to maximize market value, subject to legal limitations and original contract terms (e.g., duration not exceeding the residual term, unchanged land use purpose).

5.1.5. Easement of Forest Land

An easement establishes a use right on another party’s forest land via contract to meet specific operational needs of the holder (dominant tenement).

(1) Subject of the Right: Primarily the state (for macro-regulation/ecological protection, e.g., buffer zones) or neighboring entities (for operational convenience, e.g., access, water).

(2) Object of the Right: Forest land owned by another party (state, collective, or private), possessing specific utility value relevant to the holder’s defined needs.

(3) Content of the Right: The holder possesses the right to use the burdened land (servient tenement) according to the contract’s stipulated method and scope to achieve its specific objective. Establishing the easement inherently imposes restrictions on the burdened land holder (e.g., limiting development intensity, prohibiting land use change) to safeguard the easement holder’s rights. The burdened land holder, suffering economic loss or restricted rights due to the easement, holds the right to corresponding economic compensation, with standards and methods typically defined in the contract to ensure interest balance.

5.1.6. Mortgage Right of Forest Land

This security interest pledges the forest land management right as collateral for loans.

(1) Subject of the Right: Primarily financial institutions (e.g., banks, credit cooperatives) accepting the collateral to mitigate risk and support forestry financing.

(2) Object of the Right: The pledged forest land management right, which must be legally transferable, realizable, and free from ownership disputes or defects.

(3) Content of the Right: Upon debtor default, the mortgagee holds a priority claim to proceeds from the sale or auction of the mortgaged land management right to satisfy the debt. During the mortgage term, the mortgagor’s disposition rights (transfer, lease, equity contribution) are restricted, generally requiring mortgagee consent to protect collateral value. The mortgagee also holds supervisory rights over the mortgagor’s custody and utilization of the land, ensuring reasonable management and preventing actions diminishing its value.

5.2. Timber Rights System

5.2.1. Timber Ownership

Timber ownership constitutes the core, entitling the owner to possess, use, derive benefits from, and dispose of timbers.

(1) Subject of the Right: Includes the state (timbers in state-owned farms, reserves, defense forests with high public value), collectives (village/group/township timbers on collective land), and private entities (citizens, legal persons, organizations acquiring timbers legally, e.g., farmers on hillsides, enterprises via contracts).

(2) Object of the Right: Diverse timber resources (arbors, shrubs, bamboos) possessing economic or ecological value, growing on various forest land types.

(3) Content of the Right: The owner holds the authority for actual possession and control, preventing unlawful encroachment, damage, or felling. The owner autonomously decides on reasonable development and utilization (e.g., thinning, harvests) according to law to realize economic value through timber, bamboo, or other products. The owner is exclusively entitled to all economic benefits derived from utilization (e.g., timber sales, processing, tourism) and protected from unlawful seizure; this serves as a key investment incentive. The owner possesses the lawful authority to dispose of the timbers (e.g., via transfer, donation, equity contribution) to optimize allocation and maximize value, provided such actions comply with forest protection laws, do not harm national/public interests, and adhere to sustainable utilization principles.

5.2.2. Timber Use Right

This right allows a non-owner to use and derive benefits from timbers owned by another party.

(1) Subject of the Right: For publicly owned timbers, holders can be collective members or entities/individuals acquiring the right legally (e.g., via contract or lease). For privately owned timbers, holders are individuals or enterprises entering use contracts with the owner (e.g., timber processors via harvest agreements).

(2) Object of the Right: Timbers owned by another party (public or private), requiring clear legal ownership and compliance with forest protection and rational use requirements.

(3) Content of the Right: The holder possesses the right to reasonably use the timbers according to the contract’s stipulated method and scope (e.g., tending, harvesting) to obtain timber or other products for operational needs. The holder is entitled to the benefits derived from this use (e.g., timber sales revenue), after deducting costs, but is typically obligated to pay corresponding usage fees or remuneration to the timber owner as contractually stipulated.

5.2.3. Timber Mortgage Right

This security interest pledges timbers as collateral for loans.

(1) Subject of the Right: Primarily financial institutions, accepting timbers as collateral to mitigate risk and facilitate forestry financing.

(2) Object of the Right: The pledged timbers, which must have clear ownership, be dispute-free, possess economic value, and be legally transferable and realizable.

(3) Content of the Right: Upon debtor default or agreed realization conditions, the mortgagee holds a priority claim to proceeds from the sale or auction of the mortgaged timbers. The mortgagee possesses supervisory rights over the mortgaged timbers’ growth, management, and utilization, requiring diligent protection and prohibiting unauthorized felling, damage, or use changes. If disposition (e.g., harvesting, transfer) becomes necessary during the mortgage term, the mortgagee holds the right to participate in the process to ensure compliance with law and contract terms, safeguarding its interests.

6. Design of LADM-Based Forest Cadastral System for China

Building upon the historical analysis of forest tenure evolution (Section 4) and contemporary structural examination of property rights frameworks (Section 5), this section develops an LADM-compliant forest cadastral model for China. The model prioritizes adaptation to current institutional demands while incorporating temporal dimension traceability to facilitate archival retrieval of historical property records. Given that pre-1978 forest tenure administration was predominantly characterized by ownership-centric management of forest land and timbers, achieving backward compatibility and historical record traceability in the model presents limited challenges. The design of the LADM-based Forest Cadastral System for China involves the construction of party, administrative, spatial unit, and surveying and representation packages. These packages collectively provide a comprehensive framework for managing and administering forest tenure in China.

6.1. Party Package

The party package forms the core of the LADM-based forest tenure system, encapsulating all legal subjects involved in the forest tenure framework (see Figure 2) [25]. These subjects are pivotal in defining the “person–right–land” relationship within China’s forest tenure system.

6.1.1. Legal Subjects

Legal subjects in the forest tenure system are classified into three primary categories: natural persons, legal persons, and unincorporated organizations [42,47]. Natural persons encompass individual farmers and forest managers. Legal persons include village collectives, township collectives, and forest enterprises. Unincorporated organizations refer to partnerships and associations engaged in forest management activities. These classifications reflect the diverse entities involved in forest land management and utilization. Within the legal entity framework, legal subjects are predominantly represented by the CN_Party, whereas collective entities (e.g., rural household) shall be exclusively encoded using the CN_PartyGroup.

6.1.2. Code Lists

To ensure clarity and standardization, code lists are established for group party types and party roles [42,47]. For group party types, the code list includes village group collectives, village collectives, and town collectives. Party roles are categorized as owners, contractors, operators, and mortgagees. These code lists provide a structured framework for identifying and differentiating the various subjects within the forest tenure system.

6.2. Administrative Package

The administrative package delves into the legal aspects of the LADM, offering a detailed modeling of interests in land (see Figure 3) [25]. It primarily consists of two core classes: RRR (with right, restriction, and responsibility specializations) and BAUnit (basic administrative unit) [22].

6.2.1. Rights, Restrictions, and Responsibilities

The forest tenure system in China comprises a variety of rights, restrictions, and responsibilities [15,40]. The forest tenure framework comprises two constitutive dimensions: (1) Forest Land Rights, encompassing ownership, contractual management rights, management rights, easements, and mortgage rights, and (2) Timber Rights, incorporating ownership, use rights, and mortgage rights. Within the semantic encoding schema aligned with ISO 19152 LADM [23], ownership rights for both forest land and timbers are uniformly assigned to CN_Ownership, contractual management rights to CN_ContractualManagementRight, management rights to CN_ManagementRight, timber use rights to CN_TimberUseRight, unified mortgage rights to CN_Mortgage, and easements to CN_Easement. Each right is associated with specific restrictions and responsibilities. For instance, ownership of forest land entails the responsibility of ecological protection and sustainable resource utilization. Contractual management rights of forest land are subject to restrictions on land use purpose and transfer conditions. Management rights of forest land carry the responsibility of resource protection and rational development. Easements of forest land involve restrictions on the use of servient tenements and the responsibility of economic compensation. Mortgage rights of forest land are accompanied by restrictions on the disposal of mortgaged property and the responsibility of supervision and disposition participation.

6.2.2. Association Relationships

The Administrative Package establishes association relationships between different rights and between rights and subjects [25]. For example, ownership of forest land is associated with village groups, villages, and town collectives. Contractual management rights of forest land are linked to rural households within the collective. Management rights of forest land are connected to private entities that have acquired these rights through transfer. Easements of forest land are associated with the state and neighboring entities. Mortgage rights of forest land or timbers are tied to financial institutions. These association relationships help clarify the complex legal relationships within the forest tenure system [15].

6.3. Spatial Unit Package

The spatial unit package focuses on the spatial characteristics of forest land and timbers, providing a detailed description of the object part of the “person–right–land” relationship (see Figure 4) [25].

6.3.1. Spatial Units

Spatial units in the forest tenure system include forest land parcels and timber parcels [14]. Forest land parcels are the basic units of forest land ownership and use. Timber parcels are the basic units of forest resource management and utilization. These spatial units are defined based on natural features, ownership boundaries, and management needs. The rationale for separating these two spatial units is twofold. First, BAUnits are delineated so that each unit encapsulates a homogeneous bundle of rights—whether ownership, contractual management, or mortgage—thereby ensuring legal clarity for registration and transaction purposes. Second, both forest land parcels and timber parcels are further subdivided into spatial units on the basis of stand homogeneity; stands exhibiting similar species composition, canopy structure, and growth stage are grouped into the same parcel. This stand-level partitioning is directly underpinned by the polygon data produced by China’s National Forest Inventory.

6.3.2. Measurement and Representation

To accurately measure and represent the boundaries of forest land and timbers, a double-level structure is introduced. This structure includes forest land parcels and timber parcels. The boundaries of forest land parcels are determined through field surveys and mapping. The boundaries and attributes of individual timbers are recorded through detailed measurements. This double-level structure provides a comprehensive and precise representation of the spatial characteristics of forest land. CN_LevelContentType is specifically designed to record the hierarchical categories of spatial units.

6.4. Surveying and Representation Subpackage

The surveying and representation subpackage is dedicated to capturing and representing the spatial data of forest land and timbers (see Figure 5) [25]. It details the methods and standards for surveying forest land and timbers.

6.4.1. Surveying Methods

Surveying methods for forest land and timbers include traditional surveying techniques such as plane table surveying and traverse surveying, as well as modern technologies like global positioning system (GPS), remote sensing (RS), and geographic information system (GIS) technologies [43]. These methods ensure the accuracy and reliability of spatial data. CN_SpatialSourceType documents the provenance of spatial location information, encompassing both traditional and modern acquisition methods. Critically, UAV-based photogrammetry now offers superior operational efficacy for large-scale forest tenure demarcation, delivering significantly higher precision, broader spatial coverage, and markedly reduced temporal and economic expenditures compared to conventional approaches. This technological advancement enables cost-efficient boundary delineation and rights verification essential for contemporary forest administration systems.

6.4.2. Representation Standards

Representation standards for forest land and timber data include digital elevation models (DEMs), digital terrain models (DTMs), and digital surface models (DSMs) [44]. These standards provide a unified framework for representing forest land and timber data in databases and geographic information systems. Their three-dimensional attributes enable immersive virtual boundary demarcation experiences that dramatically reduce reliance on physical field operations. By leveraging high-fidelity terrain visualizations and interactive spatial simulations, these models facilitate remote verification of forest tenure boundaries, significantly diminishing the logistical burdens and safety risks associated with on-site delineation surveys.

7. Test of the LADM-Based Forest Cadastral Model in Ningbo

7.1. Core Dilemmas in Ningbo’s Forest Administration

Given resource constraints and data accessibility considerations, the authors strategically selected Ningbo—the host city of our university—as the primary case to test and evaluate the cadastral model’s performance in a typical Chinese context. According to the field survey, Ningbo’s forest administration confronts four structural contradictions: (1) Historically, missing archives and ambiguous boundary descriptions perpetuate tenure disputes. (2) Spatially, interlaced state-owned and collective forests exacerbate boundary demarcation complexities. (3) Rights–responsibility imbalances manifest as state forest farms bearing primary ecological stewardship without operational autonomy, while rural households hold contractual management rights lacking ecological compensation—creating an institutional paradox of “conservation burdens unmatched by benefits”. (4) Regulatory inefficiencies, characterized by labor-intensive boundary surveys and inadequate contract filing, underscore the urgency of institutional–technical synergy.

7.2. Localized Construction of the Forest Cadastral Model

The authors collaborated with the Natural Resources Bureau and Real Estate Registration Center of Ningbo to comprehensively upgrade the real estate registration platform using LADM classes as a semantic framework. (1) Database Server: LADM conceptual packages were replicated in PostgreSQL/PostGIS, mapping CN_Party, CN_BAUnit, CN_SpatialUnit, and CN_RRR to relational schemas. Semantic integrity was maintained via triggers and partitioned tables, with GeoServer-WFS interfaces pushing incremental tenure data to the unified geospatial platform. (2) Application Server: A Spring-Boot/Spring-Cloud micro-service cluster was implemented as the data-middle-platform backbone. Each LADM core package (CN_Party, CN_BAUnit, CN_SpatialUnit, and CN_RRR) was encapsulated into an independent service exposing REST/GraphQL endpoints; service discovery and configuration are handled by Eureka/Consul and Spring-Cloud-Config. The managerial role interface of the Ningbo Forest Cadastral Application System is illustrated in Figure 6. (3) Mobile: The “Ningbo Forest Tenure e-Check” app (Flutter-based) with a lightweight LADM model was developed, supporting RTK point collection, offline caching, and resumable uploads for field verification.

Key innovations have been fully integrated into Ningbo’s real estate registration platform. (1) Restructuring Spatial Units: Leveraging CN_SpatialUnit, a “five-level tenure unit” (village–forest–mountain–team–household) integrated fragmented plots through topological relationships. Bidirectional traceability linked historical deeds to spatial units, resolving overlapping claims. (2) Encoding Rights–Responsibilities: CN_RRR was extended with an “EcoConstraint”, transforming carbon sink maintenance and biodiversity conservation into legally binding parameters. Automated alerts trigger upon breaches of ecological stewardship agreements. (3) Binding Stakeholder Accountability: Via CN_Party, “ecological custodian” roles were introduced, clarifying management duties for village collectives and state forest farms. The “collective trusteeship + carbon revenue sharing” model operationalized rights–responsibility integration.

7.3. Synergistic Institutional–Technical Administration Pathways

The LADM model drives a mutually reinforcing governance loop: (1) Rights Clarification: Here, “3D map-based demarcation + mobile QR verification” enables remote electronic signing. Spatiotemporal provenance chains via CN_Source ensure full lifecycle traceability, reducing historical disputes. The parcel map delineating the contractual management rights of forestland for a rural household in Ningbo is presented in Figure 7. (2) Protection Enforcement: Mandatory registration of logging bans and conservation easements through CN_RRR ecological constraints, combined with remote sensing, automates land use change detection. (3) Oversight Efficiency: A digital twin platform integrates high-resolution spatial data in the municipal database. Management terminals overlay registration and remote sensing data, while financial terminals verify mortgage status—enabled by unified CN_Party, CN_BAUnit, and CN_RRR data integration.

7.4. Evaluation and Discussion

Ningbo’s practice demonstrates that integration of international standards with local innovation is pivotal for activating ecological resource value. Following the forest tenure reform with adoption of the forest cadastral model, tenure disputes declined markedly as boundaries became mutually recognized and digitally verifiable. Concurrently, the area under sustainable forest management expanded, driven by transparent stewardship obligations attached to every parcel. Remote sensing indicators reveal gains in canopy density and riparian vegetation, while field surveys report increased abundance of indicator species, signaling a broad-based recovery of forest ecosystem health and biodiversity.

However, the Ningbo pilot reveals that legacy weakness, not algorithmic design, remains the binding constraint. Earlier rounds of demarcation relied on coarse 1:10,000–1:50,000 hand-drawn maps and intermittent field visits financed by ad hoc village levies; the resulting “one mountain, many certificates” and blurred boundaries still appear in today’s dispute caseload. Adoption of the new cadastral model—sub-meter imagery, LiDAR, blockchain cadaster—compresses marginal costs, yet demands a non-trivial lumpy investment in proprietary imagery, sensor service contracts, and specialist salaries. Yinzhou District, prioritized under the city’s “digital-government” envelope, moves from imagery purchase to public issuance within one season; a neighboring county with tighter fiscal space suspends this demarcation and registration process after its first tile.

This episode underscores a broader institutional lesson: technological efficiency is realizable only where sustained political salience translates into guaranteed public finance; without such commitment, even cost-saving innovation risks reproducing old patterns of uneven coverage and tenure insecurity.

8. Discussion and Conclusions

The study elucidates the historical evolution, structural characteristics, and institutional innovation pathways of China’s forest tenure system through the “person–right–land” analytical framework. Historical analysis reveals four distinct developmental phases where shifts between individual, collective, and market-oriented tenure models generated persistent tensions between economic incentives and ecological sustainability. Contemporary examinations identify inherent systemic challenges, including polycentric governance conflicts, multi-layered rights fragmentation, and critical gaps in formalizing ecosystem service obligations within tenure instruments.

To address these institutional voids, we developed an LADM-based Forest Cadastral System that translates systems thinking into three operational mechanisms: (1) materializing ecosystem services as legally registrable spatial units integrated with watershed and habitat boundaries; (2) encoding dynamic ecological constraints through specialized RRR classes that formalize conservation benchmarks; (3) establishing traceable accountability chains linking rights holders to specific stewardship responsibilities.

Testing and evaluation in Ningbo’s forested highlands demonstrates the framework’s efficacy in reconciling tenure security with ecological governance. Implementation facilitated more coordinated cross-jurisdictional management while reducing administrative redundancies. Notably, parcels registered with embedded ecosystem obligations exhibited accelerated canopy recovery, confirming the model’s capacity to align institutional design with ecological outcomes. Key challenges persist, however, particularly regarding the legal enforcement of conservation easements and scalable technical verification of service provision.

Looking more broadly, we argue this research can advance China’s national SDGs—particularly climate-resilient livelihoods and sustainable land use governance—by providing a scalable, tenure-based mechanism for ecosystem service valuation and reward. The same LADM framework can support information interoperability between forest cadastral administration and other rural natural resource systems, such as grassland, wetland, and watershed management. Future work could therefore extend the modeling scope to encompass complete forest–grassland–wetland continuum rights, restrictions, and responsibilities; expand validation to all major forest eco-regions in China; and pursue policy pilots that close the governance gap between forested and non-forested rural landscapes. Simultaneously, comparative studies with tenure-transitioning countries can distill generalizable lessons for embedding socio-ecological regulation into cadastral systems worldwide.