Relationships between land use changes,stakeholders,and national scenic area administrations: A case study of Mount Jinfo and its surroundings in China

Abstract

Rapid land use change in the surroundings of protected areas is rampant worldwide. This process is poorly understood and raises questions on how it happens, who shapes it, and the role of administration. To address these questions, we applied a case study in Jinfo National Scenic Area, China, and examined the relationships between land use change, concerned stakeholders, and the administration. Our study revealed that tourism-oriented commercial development and residential relocate were the main reasons for land use change and that the scenic area authorities, tourism enterprises, and locals were pivotal stakeholders in this process. In addition, we identified three authority types since the founding of Jinfo National Scenic Area. Evidence indicates that the conservation-oriented type and development-oriented type were less successful than the integration type in coordinating stakeholders and integrating the scenic area and its surroundings, and the development-oriented type has historically been most closely associated with damaging land use change. Further, we explored the causes for issues during the management of the Jinfo National Scenic Area included frequent administration changes, confusing plans and management goals, absence of a method for involving stakeholders, a lack of clear administrative authority, and a lack of an integrated national legal system. Our study highlights that it is critical to address these problems while aiming for a long-term balance of conservation and sustainable development in scenic areas and their surroundings.

Keywords

Scenic area surroundings land use change stakeholders administration

Introduction

Land use changes, particularly those that originate from activities in their surroundings, have been recognized as one of the most significant issues affecting protected areas (PAs) (Kozlowski and Vass-Bowen, 1997; Palomo et al., 2013). These changes seriously threaten the harmony between conservation and sustainable development within both the PAs and their surrounding areas (Ahmad et al., 2013). There is growing research that has delineated the issues affecting these surrounding areas and explored the relationship between PAs and their surroundings from various perspectives (Borgström et al., 2012; Hartter et al., 2011). Studies that have mapped ecosystem service flows have shown that most problems that have originated outside PAs are driven by the economic factors and land use change (Palomo et al., 2013). However, even though it is recognized that construction should be strictly controlled in the surroundings, most PA managers have little authority over these activities, resulting in major impacts on PAs (DeFries et al., 2010). Alternatively, the pressure of economic development is very strong in practice, even for some PA authorities, because delays caused by opposing viewpoints hinder not only conservation goals but also the development goals in surrounding areas. In our case, the evidence indicates that agritainment development (called “Nongjiale” in China, which means household tourism) in surroundings improves the income of locals and causes hesitation to the authorities’ restrictions to some extent (Zhang, 2015a).

Although this issue is a global one, it is particularly prevalent in China. As an important type of PA, China’s scenic areas (referred to as “Fengjingmingshengqu” in Chinese, meaning an area with concentrated landscape resources, with comprehensive ornamental, culture or science value, and with possibilities for visitation or conducting scientific or cultural activities) have been national parks for decades (AQSIQ, 1999). The multi-functionality of scenic areas was widely recognized for thousands of years prior to their systematization in late 1970s and early 1980s (Jia, 2012). With the introduction of the concept of national parks in China, there has been a growing recognition of their significant inherent value, resulting in an increase in their numbers from the late twentieth century onward. As of 2012, China has designated 225 national scenic areas and 737 provincial scenic areas, which occupied 193,700 km² and constituted 2.02% of the country’s total surface area (Mohurd, 2012).

China’s system of scenic areas is distinctive from those of national parks in other countries due to the deeply rooted agricultural activities there before the scenic areas were established (Cai, 2004). They not only provide numerous public ecosystem services, among them landscape aesthetics, recreation, and other cultural benefits (Xie, 2005), but also historically support the livelihoods of numerous indigenous dwellers with woods, foods and cash crops (Jiang, 2005; Wang et al., 2012). Consequently, scenic areas management must consider various needs (Zeng, 2013). During recent years, the spread of knowledge regarding strategies developed for foreign national parks has become well established for scenic area cores; nevertheless, it has not been extended to their surroundings¹ (Jia, 2015; Naughton-Treves et al., 2005). To support the goal of balanced conservation and sustainable development, many PAs include zoning designations for developing a semi-regulated zone consisting of a combined buffer and experimental area in their surroundings (Hull et al., 2011).

However, disagreements between stakeholders with diverse viewpoints impact the conservation and development policies created for the surroundings (Yong Chen, 2005). Despite numerous agencies and organizations in different countries, confusion regarding strategies for areas surrounding PAs prevails globally (Gimmi et al., 2011). Social justice advocates have argued that such areas should meet the needs of the local inhabitants (Sharma, 1990; Terra et al., 2014; Wood, 1995) and their communities (Aas et al., 2005). This poses a serious threat not only to the sustainability of the surroundings but also to the scenic area nearby (Jamal and Tanase, 2005).

Researchers have suggested various approaches to address the issues. These include the promotion of sustainable tourism as a development approach in the surroundings (Angelevska-Najdeska and Rakicevik, 2012); a participatory process incorporating stakeholders, entailing GIS-based multi-criteria analysis developed for PA zoning (Zhang et al., 2013); and an integrated approach for improving the efficacy of zoning designations (Hull et al., 2011). Some researchers have also developed zones of interaction with PAs that encompass hydrological, ecological, and socioeconomic interactions between PAs and their surroundings (DeFries et al., 2010).

Towards solving the challenges of integrating management in PAs and their surroundings, there has been extensive global research on issues in the surroundings of PAs, national parks, and scenic areas (Sharma, 1990). A few studies have proposed strategies or the wider significance of the surroundings of scenic areas (Kozlowski and Vass-Bowen, 1997) as well as the emergence and evolution of administrations for PAs (Petursson and Vedeld, 2015). Additionally, Du et al.’s (2015) review revealed two main approaches that have been used globally for integrating PAs with their surroundings: area-oriented (attempts to separate development and conservation activities in appropriate areas with scientific and accurate zoning, etc.) and process-oriented approaches (attempts to reduce conflicts in PAs and their surroundings in a resilient and adaptive process, for instance, involve more participants). However, few studies have further explored the connections between PA surroundings, the governing administration, and concerned stakeholders when examining the causes of land use changes in these areas. The key mechanisms whereby the administration and concerned stakeholders influence land use in surrounding areas remain poorly understood. This disregard for institutional configurations in studies of scenic areas has hindered an understanding of the fundamental causes of land use change as well as problems facing conservation and sustainable development.

In China, confusing PA systems, institutional conflicts, financial shortages, a lack of legal support, and local trust have been widely identified as the causes for the compromised management effectiveness (Wang et al., 2012; Xu and Melick, 2007). With the aim to solve these issues, there have also been many studies attempting to explore the process and issues of management in scenic areas, natural reserves, and other designations in China. They include, for instance, evaluations of administrative and statutory procedures for Chinese PAs (Jim and Xu, 2004), general categories of stakeholders in the Chinese context (Yong Chen, 2005), and phenomena and reasons for overlooking local residents’ rights in the scenic areas (Zeng, 2013). Although there has recently been a growing number of experiments for the new national park systems in China, these issues remain (Zhou and Edward Grumbine, 2011).

The main goal of our study was to explore how land use changes in the surroundings of scenic area, who shapes it, the role of administration, and the fundamental causes and key factors influencing management effectiveness. Based on well-rounded methods, which include a site survey, interviews, participatory mapping, and archival analysis, we performed an empirical study in the Jinfo National Scenic Area (JNSA), China. We analyzed five categories of stakeholders: scenic area authorities, local town governments, departments of city government, tourism enterprises, and local residents. Additionally, we elucidated three management types—the conservation-oriented type, the development-oriented type, and the integration type—in five periods of the JNSA’s history. This work not only enabled us to rethink the current management approach for scenic areas in China but also allowed us to estimate a potential basis to improve the management of PAs worldwide.

Study area

The JNSA (28°55′–29°07′N and 107°06′–107°18′E) is located in the Nanchuan District of Chongqing municipality, adjoining Guizhou Province in southern China (Figure 1). Mount Jinfo is well known for its distinctive karst geology and rich botanical diversity. It was designated a provincial scenic area in 1986 and as a national scenic area in 1988 (CLAPI, 2003; Zhang, 2006). It consists of a scenic area (441 km²) and a buffer area (522 km²), with the highest point at 2238 m above sea level (CAUPD, 2014). With South China karst characteristics, Mount Jinfo was also recognized as a national natural reserve in 1999 and gained the status as a UNESCO world natural heritage site in 2014.

Figure 1.

Location of the Jinfo National Scenic Area in Chongqing, China: (a) Map of China; (b) Chongqing, Municipality; (c) Location of Jinfo National Scenic Area in Nanchuan District.

There are 42,544 local residents within the JNSA, which includes one sub-district, 2 towns, 2 townships, and 39 villages (CAUPD, 2014). Most of the residents subsist on agriculture or informal employment in other cities. Only approximately 20 local families (mainly farmers) engaged in tourism have built guesthouses near the JNSA’s northern and western entrances (Zhang, 2015b). According to the JNSA Core Scenic Area Designation and Conservation Plan, JNSA comprises two unified parts, which are delineated by the two topographies of a strictly protected core scenic area in the mid-mountain plateau and a normal scenic area in the lower plateau and canyon area (CLAPI, 2003) (Figure 1). Beyond this area boundary lie the surroundings (mainly the buffer area and experimental area), while tourist towns and villages are mainly located in the northern and western parts, near the boundary or in the surrounding areas. Tourism transportation facilities, connecting the lower scenic areas with the core scenic area plateaus, are comprised of two cable cars. Human activities, especially tourism development projects to increase economic activity in areas surrounding the northern and western portions of the JNSA, have surged during the past two decades.

However, the boundary of the JNSA has not always been stable. In the history of the JNSA, there have been three revisions of its master plan (Figure 2). One of the most important changes in these revisions concerned the boundary between the scenic area and the buffer area (the main component of the surroundings, another part is experimental area). The first plan, released in 1991, established the JNSA’s conservation framework with its designation as a scenic area and of the buffer area surrounding it (SIUPD, 1991) (Figure 2(a)). In addition, the management challenges (tourism and housing development and the JNSA being in two provinces) led to a reduction of almost half of the scenic area in the second master plan (Figure 2(b)), from 441 km² to 266 km², involved 50,000 local residents living in the scenic area and made uncontrolled tourism development much easier to execute in Sanquan (SIUPD, 2007). In 2012, negotiations began for a third revision of the master plan. There was a strong support for expanding the scenic area zone to the original level to better integrate the scenic area with its surroundings. Nevertheless, no decision has been made at present (Figure 2(c) and (d)).

Figure 2.

Boundary changes in different versions of JNSA master plan: (a) first edition 1991–2010; (b) second edition 2008–2020; (c) third edition 2014–; (d) third edition 2014 (recommended edition, two towns included inside of the scenic area).

Methods

To perform research that was both broad and detailed in scope, we analyzed the JNSA and its surroundings at two levels (Figure 3): regionally (the scenic area with its surroundings) and at the community level (local towns). The analysis included mapping, stakeholder interviews, archival analysis, and a site survey for a well-rounded understanding of the situation.

Figure 3.

Research methods and flows.

First, at the regional level, we obtained information from three versions of the JNSA master plan and related plans from the academic and the archival literature and from development projects spanning the JNSA’s history (online Appendix 1).

Next, at the community level, we selected two towns that have undergone the most tourism and land use change for an in-depth analysis since the establishment of the scenic area. These are Sanquan, at the northern entrance, and Tianxing, in the western surroundings (including Sanhui Village and Tianxing new street). Most tourism development projects in both towns were initiated in 2000. Land use data at the community level was not available through government sources; thus, we chose to use publicly accessible Google Earth satellite images. We selected land use changes associated with building surface area (both single buildings and groups of buildings) and the road (only permanent concrete and asphalt roads were counted) length as key indicators for measuring development-related environmental pressure (Forman and Alexander, 1998; Gimmi et al., 2011). We employed two dates at 10-year intervals for each town, Tianxing (August 11, 2004, and June 18, 2014) and Sanquan (June 3, 2005, and March 31, 2015), to obtain land use data. First, we mapped the land use based on satellite imagery, Aster Global Digital Elevation Model (GDEM) data and site observations. By overlaying and combining topographical data of up to of 30-meter resolution, obtained from the ASTER GDEM (METI, 2013) in Arc GIS 10.1, we were able to manually digitize the satellite imagery and adjust the data for precision to accurately reflect land use changes for both dates. Second, we used a participatory mapping approach and site visits to revise the digital data in order to strengthen data validity. To do this, we presented copies of the satellite imagery to lifelong residents, two local managers and one guesthouse owner, who helped us to proofread not easily identifiable land use changes (simplified as building function) by a site survey undertaken together, and then we marked them for building categorization according to function. For instance, the hotels transformed from former factories were marked. Because this study employed buildings and roads as main indicators, the forest cover change was not included in the mapping.

Eventually, we explored the relationships between stakeholders and administrations and assessed how they have influenced land use changes through semi-structured interviews, site investigations, and archival research (online Appendix 1). To better reveal what occurred in the JNSA and why, we conducted site surveys with interviews on three occasions: December 2013, September 2014, and May 2015. In this series of visits, five, nine, and seven persons were interviewed individually on each respective occasion. Among the total of 21 persons, 3 of them were interviewed separately on two occasions for further information: a section chief of planning in the JNSA authority, a retired vice director of the JNSA, and a local farmhouse owner (Table 1). Interviewees covered the five categorized stakeholders defined in this research. Since the interview goals are different for various stakeholders (mainly to reveal who and how they shaped the land use changes), the numbers of interviewees are not simply averaged according to their total number statistically. For instance, a question such as “what policies have been made for land use control in JNSA history” was presented to scenic area managers. When the initial interview showed that more information was needed, therefore, we further interviewed more interviewees. Specific interview topics have been listed in online Appendix 2.

Table 1.

Interviewees information.

Stakeholder group belonged (numbers)	Interview occasions and dates
Scenic area authority (2)	One was interviewed in December 2013 and September 2014, another in September 2014 and May 2015.
Governmental sections (2)	September 2013
Local town governments (1)	September 2014
Tourism enterprises (3 in public, 3 in private)	September 2014, one of them was interviewed again in May 2015
Local residents (10)	September 2014 and May 2015

Results

Land use changes in surroundings of the JNSA

We classified land use types on the basis of the building types that the case areas have or once had. As shown in Figure 4, Figure 5, and Table 2, there was an extremely dramatic increase in the constructed area of buildings and roads in Tianxing and Sanquan from 2004 to 2014. For the two towns, huge tracts of industrial land, owned by the former industrial Hongquan Company (some of it in environmentally sensitive areas) were converted to commercial buildings for tourism projects (Zhang, 2006). A very large amount of unused land was allocated to tourism projects as well. Residential buildings increased significantly; both the size of single family homes and the number increased dramatically. Site surveys and interviews show that many locals remodeled and enlarged their former small buildings into buildings two or three more floors to improve livelihoods or to develop local farm stay tourism (Zhang, 2014). In particular, there was a dramatic increase in commercial buildings for tourism use (a staggering 4350%) in Sanquan, from 869 m² to 38,673 m². Currently, there is ongoing large-scale commercial building development and infrastructure construction in both towns, despite the proximity to the scenic area.

Figure 4.

Land use changes in Tianxing (2004–2014).

Figure 5.

Land use changes in Sanquan (2005–2015).

Table 2.

Land use changes in Tianxing (2004–2014) and Sanquan (2005–2015).

	Land use type	Area (2004/2005)	Percentage of total housing	Area (2014/2015)	Percentage of total housing	Change in past 10 years
Tianxing	B-Industrial	64,618 m²	32.14	0	0	－
	B-Residence	136,063 m²	67.68	176,184 m²	57.27	29%
	B-Commercial	313 m²	0.15	67,319 m²	21.88	21,407%
	B-Public	53 m²	0.03	327 m²	0.11	517%
	Area under construction	－	0	63,798 m²	20.74	－
	Total constructed area	201,047 m²	100	307,628 m²	100	53%
	Road	24,106 m	100	35,969 m	100	49%
Sanquan	B-Industrial	45,098 m²	36.27	12,914 m²	4.35	–71%
	B-Residential	71,903 m²	57.83	93,661 m²	31.54	30%
	B-Commercial	869 m²	0.70	38,673 m²	13.02	4350%
	B-Public	6458 m²	5.19	9251 m²	3.11	43%
	Area under construction	－	0	142,494 m²	47.98	－
	Total constructed area	124,328 m²	100	296,993 m²	100	139%
	Road	21,885 m	100	24,285 m	100	11%

Note. “B” stands for before industrial, residential, commercial; public represents the calculated areas that are only building base area, not including open space next to buildings.

Key stakeholders influencing land use changes in the JNSA and its surroundings

Stakeholders in the JNSA and its surroundings (Figure 6)

The first stakeholder category is the authorities in charge of the JNSA during any particular period. The roles, responsibilities, and power of this authority have shifted several times during the past 30 years. Previously known as the Jinfo Mountain Management Committee (JMMC), this is the Nanchuan governmental agency that currently manages the JNSA and is responsible for its conservation. The second category comprises town governments responsible for local area management and site planning for residential and touristic development. The third category comprises privately and publicly owned tourism enterprises, which influenced the most aspects of commercial land use. The fourth category comprises departments of Nanchuan City, for administration duties in their own field. For example, the Nanchuan Tourism Authority (NCTA) has, at times, assumed the critical role of administrator over the area. The fifth category of stakeholders comprises local residents, including current inhabitants and newcomers relocated from the interior of the JNSA. They have directly influenced the agricultural and housing land changes in the JNSA’s surroundings.

Unfortunately, there is a lack of coordination among these five categories of stakeholders. The results from interviews show that the JMMC and other departments, particularly the tourism and forestry departments, have experienced long-term strained relationships. Additionally, the tourism developers are overly competitive. There is also little communication between the local inhabitants, the JNSA authority, and local town governments. The stakeholders’ discordant relationships exacerbate management problems in the surroundings, weakening the possibilities for sustainability.

Figure 6.

Types of stakeholders in the JNSA and its surroundings.

Key stakeholders influencing land use changes in the towns of Tianxing and Sanquan

The results show that, in both areas, the most apparent land use changes (including new construction) were related to residential, commercial, and industrial land and roads. As shown in Table 3, in Sanquan and Tianxing, the JMMC and locals residents are the most important stakeholders in residential land use change. Most changes were caused by the abundant new apartment blocks for residents relocated from the scenic area during the fourth and fifth periods. Relocation occurred mostly for highway construction and tourism development projects. In comparison, only a slight number of locals underwent relocation as a result of conservation policy due to the high cost of relocation. In addition, although policies have been formulated to control the building of new houses, the construction of residences is rampant and unregulated, particularly in Tianxing. Furthermore, the proportion of remodeled or rebuilt houses is very high, and most remodeled houses exceed their original size in both towns (Zhang, 2014). Consequently, in order to enhance conservation, rather than using relocation, the JMMC enacted construction regulations in 2014 (JMMC, 2014b).

Table 3.

Key stakeholders influencing land use changes in Sanquan and Tianxing.

Area	Land use type	Change of land	Key stakeholders	Main administrations	Role of JMMC
Sanquan	Residential	Stable	Local inhabitants	Local town government; JMMC	Strict control of new buildings; investigation and approval necessary for remodeling
		Increase	Residents moved from within JNSA	JMMC	Key policy-maker for subsequent projects
	Commercial	Increase	Public tourism enterprise	NCTA	Coordinator and participator
		Increase	Private tourism enterprise	NCTA	Coordinator and participator
		Increase	Local guesthouses	Town government, JMMC	Examine and approve
	Industrial	Decrease	Industrial companies	City and upper government	Promote to move out
	Construction	Increase	Local government
Inhabitants	City and upper government	Coordinate locals’ relocation
	Road	Increase	(Highway) Transportation department	City and upper government;	Almost no influence
		Increase	(Local road) Local town government	Local town government	Almost no influence
Tianxing	Residential	Increase	Local inhabitants	local town government;	Almost no influence.
		Increase	Residents moved from inside of JNSA	JMMC	Key policy-maker of the moving project
	Commercial	Increase	Public tourism enterprise	NCTA	As a coordinator to solve the land-related problems inside of the JNSA
		Increase	Private tourism enterprise	NCTA	As a coordinator to solve the land-related problems inside of the JNSA
		Increase	Local guesthouse	Town government; JMMC	Almost no influence
	Industrial	Decrease	Industrial company/upper government	Industrial company; upper government	Almost no influence

	Construction	Increase	Tourism enterprise
Inhabitants	NCTA	Coordinate locals’ relocation
	Roads	Increase	(Local road) Local town government	Local town government	Almost no influence

JMMC: Jinfo Mountain Management Committee; JNSA: Jinfo National Scenic Area; NCTA: Nanchuan Tourism Authority.

The NCTA and public and private tourism enterprises and local guesthouse developers are the most important stakeholders of commercial land use change. As key components of the JNSA’s tourism development project, the public and private enterprises were managed by the NCTA during most periods. For example, Shanshui City Co., Ltd. (SCCL), a public enterprise, was required by the NCTA to charge an entrance fee (approximately 10% becomes the JNSA’s conservation budget), invest in, and conduct facility construction projects in the JNSA. The commercial land in the two towns above was invested in and built by SCCL and other private companies. The JMMC only played the role of “coordinator” during the development process. Comparatively meagre, approximately 10 local guesthouses are managed by the town government and the JMMC, requiring permission for operation and remodeling. The biggest road-related change in Sanquan is the ongoing highway entrance project, which was decided upon by the regional transportation plan of the upper provincial government.

Overall, the conversion of abandoned industrial land to commercial land has shown a significant impact on the both areas. Because the Hongquan Company was founded in the 1950s, long before the establishment of the JNSA in the 1980s, factory building sites are environmentally problematic. The NCTA was in charge of the JMMC at the early stage of tourism development, and because of the large amount of land area for infrastructure, coupled with the inexpensive cost, they chose to convert the Hongquan industrial land in the environmentally sensitive valley to tourism development over the more appropriate residential land available in nearby Sanhui village. Consequently, conservation was not prioritized in the decision-making process.

Administration of the JNSA in relation to its surroundings

Administration within the JNSA: The authority

Being a typical tourist-oriented area with multiple functions, Mount Jinfo has several overlapping designations: the Jinfo National Scenic Area (JNSA, 1988), the Jinfo National Nature Reserve (JNNR, 1999), and the Jinfo World Natural Heritage Site (JWNHS, 2014) (Figure 7). The core and the buffer of the natural heritage area and the core and most of the buffer of the natural reserve are located within the scenic area. The JMMC, as the Nanchuan government’s umbrella organization, is comprised of the Jinfo World Natural Heritage Site Committee (JWNHSC), the Jinfo National Natural Reserve Authority (JNNRA), and the Jinfo National Scenic Area Authority (JNSAA) (Figure 7). JMMC’s specific responsibilities in relation to these national treasures include conservation, planning, and management of the three categorizations as well as overseeing development within the JNSA. Physically, the three areas partially overlap, as seen in Figure 7, and each has a strictly protected core area. After the administration of the three categories was combined in 2015, the conservation power of the JMMC has greatly intensified.

Figure 7.

Current administrative system in the Mount Jinfo area. JMMC: Jinfo Mountain Management Committee; JNNRA: Jinfo National Natural Reserve Authority; JNSAA: Jinfo National Scenic Area Authority; JWNHSC: Jinfo World Natural Heritage Site Committee.

Current administration of the JNSA’s surroundings: The tourism department and local authorities.

Compared to the inside of the scenic area, the administration of areas surrounding the JNSA is more complex, encompassing eight local authorities associated, respectively, with one sub-district, five towns, and two townships (CAUPD, 2014). Following the establishment of the JNSA, the NCTA was in charge of the management of related tourism development. Local authorities are responsible for conservation and development in their areas (Zhang, 2006). Concerned about the economic and social development, they concentrate more on development than on conservation. For example, the Master Plan of Sanquan Town planned to enlarge construction land from 43 ha in 2005 to 200 ha in 2020, which was organized by the local town government (TGS, 2005). Although the planned enlarged area was very close to scenic area (however, outside of scenic area it, locates in surroundings) (Figure 5), the JMMC only has weak administrative power to provide “suggestions” during this decision-making process (Zhang, 2015a). According to our research, this division between administrations considerably undermines effective cooperation and seriously impacts the integration of conservation with development goals in the JNSA and its surroundings (Qin, 2015).

Transition of the types, levels, and power of the JNSA authorities

With the establishment of the Jinfo Scenic Area Management Office (JSAMO) in 1987, the JNSA’s management authority has repeatedly been subjected to modifications in its name, administration type, responsibilities, position within the hierarchy, and power. An analysis of archival records (Zhang, 2006) and interviews (Qin, 2015; Zhang, 2015a) conducted with members of the JNSA management authority revealed 11 changes to power and level in three categories of administration type during the five periods (28 years) of the JNSA’s history (Figure 8 and Table 4).

Figure 8.

Five periods of the JNSA authorities’ transitions in the type, level, and power. JNSA: Jinfo National Scenic Area; NCCC: Nanchuan Construction Committee; JSAMO: Jinfo Scenic Area Management Office; NCTA: Nanchuan Tourism Authority; JTAMC: Jinfo Tourism Area Management Committee; JMMC: Jinfo Mountain Management Committee. Note that these abbreviations represent the JNSA authorities in different periods.

Table 4.

Transitions in responsibilities and power of the JNSA authorities during the five periods spanning the JNSA’s history.

Periods	Year	Event	Status\Duties of JMMC	Types of administration
1987–1996	1987	Establishment of JNSA and the JSAMO. It is placed under the management of the NCCC.	This period mainly focused on development and construction infrastructure in JNSA.	Development-oriented type
	1989	JSAMO becomes independent from NCCC.
	1993	JSAMO becomes the JSAMA. It is placed under the authority of the NCTA.
1996–2001	1996	Establishment of the JTAMC, a powerful semi-governmental authority.	In charge of both conservation and development in JNSA and its surrounding towns. It has full governmental authority.	Integration type
	1997	Chongqing is upgraded to a municipality. JTAMC and other related administrations are also upgraded in the administrative hierarchy.
2001–2010	2001	Institutional reform of JNSA. The JNSA’s management by the JTAMC is replaced with that of NCTA. This administration includes JTAMC and the JSAAA. The three organizations share same leadership and team.	Focus on development, has power in development projects.	Development-oriented type
	2003	Higher administration level leaders control NCTA, which also includes JTAMC and JSAMA. The three organization share same leadership and team.	NCTA has greater power for development projects in the JNSA and its surroundings.
	2005	The JTAMC changes into the JSAMC.	Conservation is further impaired.
2010–2015	2010	Establishment of the JMMC, umbrella organization for the JSAAA, and the JNNRA.	Focus on conservation (coordinate, administration service). Has weak power in development projects.	Conservation-oriented type
2015–	2015	Mount Jinfo was recognized as a world Natural Heritage site. The JMMC includes the JSAMA, JNNRA, and the JWNHSC.	Focus on conservation. Has little say in development projects.	Conservation-oriented type

JNSA: Jinfo National Scenic Area; JSAMO: Jinfo Scenic Area Management Office; NCCC: Nanchuan Construction Committee; JSAMA: Jinfo Scenic Area Management Authority; NCTA: Nanchuan Tourism Authority; JTAMC: Jinfo Tourism Area Management Committee; JSAAA: JSAMC: Jinfo Scenic Area Management Committee; JMMC: Jinfo Mountain Management Committee; JNNRA: Jinfo National Natural Administration Authority; JWNHSC: Jinfo World Natural Heritage Site Committee.

The first period was development-oriented (Figure 8). It was under the regulation of two government sections successively (NCCC and NCTA). Both sections were primarily tourism development-oriented, which historically had the most influence on land use change in the area. During this early period, the management priorities were developing construction-based infrastructure, such as the northern slope road and telecommunications facilities within the JNSA (Zhang, 2006).

The second period was oriented towards integration (Figure 8). In charge of both conservation and development in the JNSA and surrounding towns, it had full governing authority (Zhang, 2015a). Their most important projects within the JNSA included the northern slope cable ways and the western slope road. The JNSA authority, which was powerful during this period, planned and conducted a project to enhance harmony between conservation and development in areas surrounding the JNSA known as the Western Slope Forest Recovery Project (destroyed by road construction in the last period) (Zhang, 2006). It is evident that the integration type was effective in coordinating local government and other stakeholders and integrating tourism development with environmental concerns.

The third period was also development-oriented, similar to the first period (Figure 8). Beginning with the JNSA’s institutional reform in 2001 (Zhang, 2006), the power allotted to its administrative authority was downgraded, and it was again placed under the management of departments of city government. Most of the environmentally destructive development projects, such as the large-scale vacation resorts and hotels in the narrow Sanquan valley in the JNSA, boomed during this period (Zhang, 2015a).

The fourth period was conservation-oriented (Figure 8). The scenic area authority was also in charge of the Jinfo natural reserve as well. During this period, three important conservation regulations were enacted, and development was controlled. These policies include the Jinfo Scenic Area Commercial Activities Management Regulation (NCG, 2014), the Jonfo Scenic Area Tourism Service Quality Management Regulation (JMMC, 2014c), and the Jinfo Scenic Area Construction Regulation (JMMC, 2014a). However, the construction of large hotels and crowded villas continued in the ecologically delicate narrow valley because of previously made agreements.

The fifth period was also conservation-oriented (Figure 8). Compared with the fourth period, the conservation power was enhanced because the JMMC (comprising the JNSAA, JNNRA, and JWNHSC) now had full power for conservation of the entire Mount Jinfo area. However, development projects are still overseen by the NCTA. Consequently, the authorities of conservation and development are divorced and are missing an effective integration opportunity.

Discussion

Extensive research has been conducted on land use changes (Hansen et al., 2011; Mas, 2005; Terra et al., 2014), stakeholder relationships within national parks (Arnaboldi and Spiller, 2011; Elise Truly Sautter, 1999; Robson, 1996), stakeholders as potential driving forces (Ariti et al., 2015; Kiruki et al., 2016; Malek et al., 2014), and administration issues globally (Tanaka, 2012). However, these research methods and focuses have seldom been connected in a logical chain for comprehensive integration as a method for research. In this contribution, we took the novel approach of integrating these naturally linked elements. This study creates a new way of analyzing land use change and its driving forces (for example, stakeholder relationships and administrations). Owing to a lack of a tradition of local participation, some participatory approaches, such as crowdsourcing (See et al., 2013), Geo-Wiki-based technology (Fritz et al., 2012), and game playing, which is combined with agent-based modeling (Castella et al., 2005), were not achieved in this study. In the future, those tools need to be employed in further study to help stakeholders identify land changes and improve their knowledge on the role of decision-making.

Due to a focus on administration and stakeholders, which is unlike similar approaches, the influence of a spatial analysis of land use change and the local biophysical characteristics behind these changes was outside the scope of this study (Mottet et al., 2006; Tasser et al., 2007). However, knowledge of stakeholders and how they shape land use change not only demonstrated the complexities of the past decade but also pointed towards potential future developments in the study area. We believe that understanding stakeholders and administration could serve to model potential future development scenarios in scenic areas (Castella et al., 2005; Van Berkel and Verburg, 2012) and be used to analyze potential future environmental consequences or to help plan for a desired future (Malek and Boerboom, 2015). In next subsection, we will discuss the influential forces behind the issues and what might be done to solve them.

Who has shaped land use changes? The role of key stakeholders

This study on relationships between land use change and stakeholders has revealed that while the JNSA authority is the one of key stakeholders in land use change, the extent of its power has significantly differed depending on the type of administration that prevailed during particular phases in history.

Evidence gathered through interviews also indicated that economic and social factors caused the residential land use changes: the relocated residents from within the JNSA and the remodeling of existing residences. This kind of residential land use change prevails nationally, and the large populations residing in and around delicate scenic areas greatly impact the environment (Jiang, 2005).

First, residential land use in PA surroundings not only has increased as a result of relocation from within PAs and represents an increasing environmental pressure (CAUPD, 2014) but also causes extensive socioeconomic issues (Xu et al., 2006). Relocated residents’ agricultural land was reclaimed, they were given a one-time payment, and they are excluded from tourism activities. The process was undertaken solely by the agency; the locals’ concerns were not considered, resulting in social issues and resentment and a long-term risk to sustainable management (Fu et al., 2004).

Second, rebuilt or newly constructed single-family homes by established residents have also increased, and the number is higher in Tianxing than in Sanquan. An onsite investigation revealed that agency construction regulations are disregarded to some extent (residential areas increased from 136,063 m² in 2004 to 176,184 m² in 2014 in Tianxing, and from 71,093 m² in 2005 to 93,661 m² in 2015 in Sanquan, according to our mapping). Although the JMMC has, on paper, made a construction regulation to control the increase of residential land use (JMMC, 2014b), the policy cannot be implemented as wished. Our study revealed that, to a great extent, this is because the supports (for instance, financial compensation or jobs) to locals who suffered from the regulation are absent. Actually, the situation has occurred not only in the JNSA but also in many other cases (Bai, 2014). This suggests that for construction regulations of PAs, an effective mechanism for fostering locals’ understanding and cooperation is imperative.

Interviews and a site survey show that a significant amount of commercial development in the area is mostly tourism-oriented. Under NCTA’s guidance (and the Nachuan city government), about 10 public and private companies conducted tourism development projects in and around the JNSA. Development projects within the JNSA are strictly managed according to the master plan; however, development in the surroundings has been dominated by tourism enterprises, accompanied by the JNSA authority’s weak guidance and suggestions. Therefore, though built in the surroundings, the combined presence of new commercial buildings created an overwhelming presence in environmentally sensitive areas, for example, narrow valleys (CAUPD, 2014). Interviews revealed that commercial land developers acquired former industrial land because it was cheap, and agencies could avoid relocation issues.

Unfortunately, it seems that the JNSA follows the pattern Wang (2010) identified in China’s PAs, that scenic area conservation efforts and local residents currently hold a conflictive type of relationship, versus having a symbiotic relationship or coexistence. For example, local resettlement residents complained they are compensated little from the relocation projects that originated from Jinfo forest conservation (Pi, 2015) or even worse, residents gathering to fight for their benefits against the scenic area authority, which occurred in a national scenic area close to Jinfo (Bai, 2014). Evidence showed that the combination of limited opportunities with low trust for authorities greatly impairs long-term management effectiveness.

The role of administrations: Transitions and influences

It is important to note that the administration of the JNSA and its surroundings has undergone a series of changes relating to name, status, responsibility, and priorities. These changes have greatly influenced the effectiveness, continuity, and quality of scenic area management. According to the evidence in accordance with our results, the kind of institutional imbalance between conservation and utilization that occurred to varying degrees during each of the periods has been a long-standing threat to Chinese scenic areas for a long time (Cai, 2004).

Moreover, frequent changes in the administration of the JNSA have not only curbed the possible positive long-term influence of integrative administration, but they have also influenced relationships among stakeholders, created confusion regarding management roles, and undermined goals for area-wide sustainability. It is noteworthy that in the case of the JNSA, evidence from interviews and a land use change analysis indicate that, in period 2, the JTAMC as the integrative agency not only included the JSAMA (aims for conservation) and the NCTA (aims for development) but was also the administrator for the JNSA and surrounding towns and townships, and as a result, was the most powerful of the three administrative types in coordinating conservation and development. For example, the JTAMC successfully led the restoration of the destroyed woodland in the West Slope Development Controversy over time (Zhang, 2006). Furthermore, current JMMC managers considered the integrative administration the most beneficial to the JNSA with its surroundings.

Insufficient integration of the JNSA and its surroundings: Reasons and possible solutions

In general, the JNSA’s establishment has been highly positive regarding the conservation of key natural resources within the JNSA. However, according to the Scenic Area Management Regulations, the goal of balancing conservation and sustainable development is far from being realized, especially in the JNSA’s surroundings. Other studies verified reasons for inadequate management over PAs, such as issues resulting from low levels of professional training (Zhou and Edward Grumbine, 2011), shifting responsibilities to lower levels of administration (Jim and Xu, 2004), a lack of community trust (Xu and Melick, 2007), etc. We conclude this discussion by suggesting key reasons for this situation.

First, an overriding reason could be numerous and intense changes in the administration of the scenic area. Frequent administrative shifts have led to unstable management actions for both tourism development and conservation. For example, decision-making of tourism development projects are easily influenced by shifting managers (Zhang, 2015a). Although evidence shows that the integration of administration in the history of the JNSA better coordinate conservation in scenic areas and development in the surroundings than the other two types, it did not last. The establishment of a stable administration is a crucial step for maintaining regulations and developing consecutive policies, which will in turn acquire the local trust required for establishing a participatory approach (Kubo and Supriyanto, 2010).

Second, another primary issue may be confusion regarding the strategies, goals, and responsibilities of scenic areas and their surroundings. Interviews with the JMMC’s managers highlighted that boundary changes in the JNSA within different versions of the master plan (Qin, 2015) (Figure 2) provide obvious evidence of the issue, resulting in zoning quandaries and unsustainable management agendas for the past 30 years. It demonstrates that a well-formulated master plan, with stable boundaries and geared towards conservation and sustainable development, is desperately needed.

A third key reason is the absence of a comprehensive methodology for bringing together stakeholders. Global experiences revealed that combining zoning or mapping methods to manage resources and establishing a communicative process among stakeholders is absolutely necessary (Du et al., 2015). Moreover, the involvement of local residents is more successful where participatory planning is used (Nepal, 2002). However, in the last 30 years of the JNSA’s history, the area-oriented approach has been utilized but lacks of clear, strict higher level support (laws and regulations) compared to other countries like Japan (Japan Congress, 1957; Kawasaki, 2013). Moreover, the process-oriented approach between stakeholders has been overlooked. This study indicates that in the absence of a process-oriented approach, the effectiveness of an area-oriented approach is strongly impacted by pressure to develop the local economy, greatly weakening the original intention of balancing conservation and development in the surroundings of scenic areas.

Our study also found that a lack of clear administrative authority and a superior level scenic area authority are other deeply rooted issues (Zhou and Edward Grumbine, 2011). First, the multiple administration changes of the JNSA actually originate from a well-known failure of the “fence and fine” model, an approach that emphasizes the enforcement of restrictive regulations (Kubo and Supriyanto, 2010). Scenic areas, natural reserves, and heritage sites often overlap and are managed by different entities, and as a result, the scenic area receives multiple, often conflicting directives (Wang et al., 2012). For their level, they are too low in the regulatory hierarchy to negotiate with other departments and local towns and to coordinate with powerful stakeholders. According to the Scenic Area Regulations, national scenic area authorities are set up by the local government (PRC, 2006), creating a conflict of interest to improve the local economy. In addition, above them are higher levels of government. It is conclusively almost impossible for them to implement effective management and balance conservation and development goals.

Finally, scenic area authorities currently have no legal system to support them in negotiation and decision-making. Recently, the Chinese central government has begun a plan to establish a national park legal system (PRC, 2013), and with this important development, we highly recommend the formulation of a completely encompassing national law that clearly distinguishes the PA categories at a fundamental level with top-down authority. It is pivotal to establish an integrated administration with these characteristics: complete authority over both conservation as well as development projects in each specific scenic area (or future national park), and integration as part of a linear management system oriented directly beneath a branch of higher government (provincial level or higher).

Conclusions

This study of land use change and the relationships between stakeholders and the administration in the case of the JNSA revealed the complex challenges and issues as well as the key concerns, facing scenic areas and their surroundings. The results highlighted that an integrated administration in integrating PAs with their surroundings is necessary and indicated potential of the “integration type” emerged in the JNSA’s history (Naughton-Treves et al., 2005). Moreover, this study showed the importance of an effective mechanism (combined area-oriented approach and process-oriented approach) for fostering stakeholders’ understanding and cooperation in sustainable land use management (Du et al., 2015; Pimbert and Pretty, 1995). The results also raised questions concerning the land use changes and their influences from larger scales, border perspectives, and more indicators as well as how the three administration types used in the JNSA are operated and performed in other similar PA regimes. Generally, this study provided possible solutions for the future not only by contributing to the Chinese national administration systems in the new national parks (CPC, 2013) but also by providing recommendations for local decision-making. Being a worldwide issue, our study applied a comparable case for PAs suffering from conflicts with their surroundings when this involves administrations, stakeholder relationships, and land use change. For the field of study, the novel methodology used in this research has presented a new way to explore this type of issue.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material1 - Supplemental material for Relationships between land use changes, stakeholders, and national scenic area administrations: A case study of Mount Jinfo and its surroundings in China

Supplemental material, Supplemental Material1 for Relationships between land use changes, stakeholders, and national scenic area administrations: A case study of Mount Jinfo and its surroundings in China by Wenwu Du, Sofia M Penabaz-Wiley and Isami Kinoshita in Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material2 - Supplemental material for Relationships between land use changes, stakeholders, and national scenic area administrations: A case study of Mount Jinfo and its surroundings in China

Supplemental material, Supplemental Material2 for Relationships between land use changes, stakeholders, and national scenic area administrations: A case study of Mount Jinfo and its surroundings in China by Wenwu Du, Sofia M Penabaz-Wiley and Isami Kinoshita in Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the support extended by Mr. Zhang and Mr. Qin of the Jinfo Mountain Management Committee for consenting to be interviewed and for the archival documents essential to this study. We thank Mr. Zhang of the Sanquan government for consenting to be interviewed and the site survey. We also thank many other persons, including guesthouse owners, tourism enterprises managers, and local residents for their clarifications.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (SWU117026) and the Chongqing Research Program of Basic Research and Frontier Technology (cstc2018jcyjAX0677).

Note

Du Wenwu is an Associate Professor at the Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Southwest University, China. He got his Doctor degree from Chiba University, Japan. He studies sustainable development in urban and rural areas, particularly protected areas, urban parks systems, and their surroundings.

Sofia M Penabaz-Wiley is a PhD student at Chiba University. Originally from California, she has lived in Japan for 12 years. Her studies include sustainable development and ethnobotany.

Isami Kinoshita is a Professor of Urban and Rural Planning in the Landscape Architecture Field at Chiba University. His research fields include public participation in spatial planning (town and country planning).

References

Aas

Ladkin

Fletcher

(2005) Stakeholder collaboration and heritage management. Annals of Tourism Research 32: 28–48.

Ahmad

Abdullah

Jaafar

(2013) Community perspectives on buffer zone for protected areas: A preliminary study. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 85: 198–205.

Angelevska-Najdeska

Rakicevik

(2012) Planning of sustainable tourism development. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 44: 210–220.

AQSIQ M (1999) Code for Scenic Area Planning.

Ariti

Van Vliet

Verburg

(2015) Land-use and land-cover changes in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia: Assessment of perception and adaptation of stakeholders. Applied Geography 65: 28–37.

Arnaboldi

Spiller

(2011) Actor-network theory and stakeholder collaboration: The case of Cultural Districts. Tourism Management 32: 641–654.

Bai

(2014) Analysis of the incident of residents blocking roads for defending legal rights in Mount Emei Scenic Area. Available at: http://ah.people.com.cn/n/2014/1013/c366711-22590954.html

Borgström

Cousins

SAO

Lindborg

(2012) Outside the boundary – Land use changes in the surroundings of urban nature reserves. Applied Geography 32: 350–359.

Cai

(2004) Problems and countermeasures in the planning and administration of landscape and historic spots. City Planning Review 10: 74–80.

10.

Castella

J-C

Trung

Boissau

(2005) Participatory simulation of land-use changes in the northern mountains of Vietnam: The combined use of an agent-based model, a role-playing game, and a geographic information system. Ecology and Society 10: 27.

11.

CAUPD (2014) The General Planning for Jinfoshan National Park in Nanchuan (2012–2030). Beijing: China Academy of Urban Planning & Design.

12.

CLAPI (2003) Designation and Planning of Core Area for Jinfo Scenic Area.

13.

CPC (2013) Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on some major issues concerning comprehensively deepening the reform. Available at: www.ce.cn/xwzx/gnsz/szyw/201311/18/t20131118_1767104.shtml (accessed 14 February 2019).

14.

DeFries

Karanth

Pareeth

(2010) Interactions between protected areas and their surroundings in human-dominated tropical landscapes. Biological Conservation 143: 2870–2880.

15.

Penabaz-Wiley

Njeru

, et al. (2015) Models and approaches for integrating protected areas with their surroundings: A review of the literature. Sustainability 7: 8151–8177.

16.

Elise Truly Sautter

(1999) Managing stakeholders — A tourism planning model. Annals of Tourism Research 26(2): 312–328.

17.

Forman

RTT

Alexander

(1998) Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 207–231.

18.

Fritz

Mccallum

Schill

, et al. (2012) Geo-Wiki: An online platform for improving global land cover. Environmental Modelling & Software 31: 110–123.

19.

Wang

, et al. (2004) Entangling the complexity of protected area management: The case of Wolong biosphere reserve, Southwestern China. Environmental Management 33(6): 788–798.

20.

Gimmi

Schmidt

Hawbaker

, et al. (2011) Increasing development in the surroundings of U.S. National Park Service holdings jeopardizes park effectiveness. Journal of Environmental Management 92: 229–239.

21.

Hansen

Davis

Piekielek

, et al. (2011) Delineating the ecosystems containing protected areas for monitoring and management. BioScience 61: 363–373.

22.

Hartter

Goldman

Southworth

(2011) Responses by households to resource scarcity and human–wildlife conflict: Issues of fortress conservation and the surrounding agricultural landscape. Journal for Nature Conservation 19: 79–86.

23.

Hull

Liu

, et al. (2011) Evaluating the efficacy of zoning designations for protected area management. Biological Conservation 144: 3028–3037.

24.

Jamal

Tanase

(2005) Impacts and conflicts surrounding Dracula Park, Romania: The role of sustainable tourism principles. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13: 440–455.

25.

Japan Congress (1957) The Natural Parks Law. Available at: http://elaws.e-gov.go.jp/search/elawsSearch/elaws_search/lsg0500/detail?lawId=332AC0000000161āopenerCode=1

26.

Jia

(2012) Development and planning characteristics of scenic areas of China. Chinese Landscape Architecture 28: 11–15.

27.

Jia

(2015) Research on the planning and implementation mechanism of the World Heritage buffer zone from the perspective of the scenic area in China. Doctor of Philosophy, Tsinghua University, China.

28.

Jiang

(2005) On the upper limit of the area of the strictly protected nature reserves in China. Acta Ecologica Sinica 25: 1205–1212.

29.

Jim

SSW

(2004) Recent protected-area designation in China: An evaluation of administrative and statutory procedures. The Geographical Journal 170: 39–50.

30.

JMMC (2014a) Jinfo Scenic Area Construction Regulation.

31.

JMMC (2014b) Jonfo Scenic Area Tourism Service Quality Management Regulation.

32.

Kawasaki

(2013) Administrative realities and future challenges of the national park system in Japan: A study of the Urabandai area (Part 2). Reports of the City Planning Institute of Japan 11: 126–133.

33.

Kiruki

Zanden

Malek

, et al. (2016) Land cover change and woodland degradation in a charcoal producing semi-arid area in Kenya. Land Degradation & Development 28(2): 472–481.

34.

Kozlowski

Vass-Bowen

(1997) Buffering external threats to heritage conservation areas: Planner’s perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning 37: 245–267.

35.

Kubo

Supriyanto

(2010) From fence-and-fine to participatory conservation: Mechanisms of transformation in conservation governance at the Gunung Halimun-Salak National Park, Indonesia. Biodiversity and Conservation 19: 1785–1803.

36.

Malek

Boerboom

(2015) Participatory scenario development to address potential impacts of land use change: An example from the Italian Alps. Mountain Research and Development 35: 126–138.

37.

Malek

Scolobig

Schr TER

(2014) Understanding land cover changes in the Italian Alps and Romanian Carpathians combining remote sensing and stakeholder interviews. Land 3: 52–73.

38.

Mas

J-F

(2005) Assessing protected area effectiveness using surrounding (buffer) areas environmentally similar to the target area. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 105: 69–80.

39.

METI (2013) ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model (GDEM). Available at: https://ssl.jspacesystems.or.jp/ersdac/GDEM/E/ (accessed 12 September 2013).

40.

Mohurd

M-R

(2012) Development communique of Chinese Scenic Area (1982–2012). Available at: www.mohurd.gov.cn/fjms/fjmshydt/index.html (accessed 4 December 2012).

41.

Mottet

Ladet

Coqu

, et al. (2006) Agricultural land-use change and its drivers in mountain landscapes: A case study in the Pyrenees. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 114: 296–310.

42.

Naughton-Treves

Holland

Brandon

(2005) The role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30: 219–252.

43.

NCG (2014) Jinfo Scenic Area Commercial Activities Management Regulation.

44.

Nepal

(2002) Involving indigenous peoples in protected area management: Comparative perspectives from Nepal, Thailand, and China. Environmental Management 30: 748–763.

45.

Palomo

Martín-López

Potschin

, et al. (2013) National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: Mapping ecosystem service flows. Ecosystem Services 4: 104–116.

46.

Petursson

Vedeld

(2015) The “nine lives” of protected areas. A historical-institutional analysis from the transboundary Mt Elgon, Uganda and Kenya. Land Use Policy 42: 251–263.

47.

Pi (2015) Interview of relocate residences in Jinfo National Scenic Area. In: Du W (ed).

48.

Pimbert

Pretty

(1995) Parks, People and Professionals: Putting ‘Participation' into Protected Area Management. London, UK: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

49.

PRC (2006) Scenic Area Regulation. Beijing: The Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China.

50.

PRC (2013) The decision on major issues concerning comprehensively deepening reforms. Available at: www.gov.cn/jrzg/2013-11/15/content_2528179.htm (accessed 11 December 2013).

51.

Qin

(2015) Semi-structure interview of Jinfo National Scenic Area Management. In: Du W (ed.).

52.

Robson

JRL

(1996) From shareholders to stakeholders: Critical issues for tourism marketers. Tourism Management 17(7): 533–540.

53.

See

Mccallum

Fritz

, et al. (2013) Mapping cropland in Ethiopia using crowdsourcing. International Journal of Geosciences 4: 6–13.

54.

Sharma

(1990) An overview of park-people interactions in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Landscape and Urban Planning 19: 133–144.

55.

SIUPD (1991) Master Plan of Jinfo National Scenic Area (1991–2020). 1st ed.

56.

SIUPD (2007) Master Planning Manual for Jinfo National Scenic Area (2008–2020). 2nd ed.

57.

Tanaka

(2012) Weak zoning systems of Japanese National Park: International comparison of administration and its authority resources. Hokkaido Journal of New Global Law and Policy 17: 369–402.

58.

Tasser

Walde

Tappeiner

, et al. (2007) Land-use changes and natural reforestation in the Eastern Central Alps. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 118: 115–129.

59.

Terra

DOS Santos

Costa

(2014) Land use changes in protected areas and their future: The legal effectiveness of landscape protection. Land Use Policy 38: 378–387.

60.

TGS (2005) Master Plan of Sanquan Town (2005-2020).

61.

Van Berkel

Verburg

(2012) Combining exploratory scenarios and participatory backcasting: Using an agent-based model in participatory policy design for a multi-functional landscape. Landscape Ecology 27: 641–658.

62.

Wang

Innes

, et al. (2012) National park development in China: Conservation or commercialization? Ambio 41: 247–261.

63.

Wang

(2010) A research on the pattern of harmonious development of scenic areas and indigenous inhabitants in China. Human Geography 3: 139–143.

64.

Wood

(1995) Conserved to death—Are tropical forests being overprotected from people? Land Use Policy 12: 115–135.

65.

Xie

(2005) The function development of national scenic sites and their protection and utilization. Chinese Landscape Architecture 21: 1–8.

66.

Chen

, et al. (2006) Local people’s perceptions as decision support for protected area management in Wolong Biosphere Reserve, China. Journal of Environmental Management 78: 362–372.

67.

Melick

(2007) Rethinking the effectiveness of public protected areas in southwestern China. Conservation Biology 21: 318–328.

68.

Yong Chen

(2005) Analysis on principal body of interest and adjustment of mechanism in scenic spots. Planners 21: 8–11.

69.

Zeng

(2013) The conflicts and coordination between the protection and utilization of scenic sites and the protection of indigenous peoples' rights. Chinese Landscape Architecture 29: 54–57.

70.

Zhang (2014) Semi-structure interview of land use change in Sanhui Village In: Du W (ed).

71.

Zhang (2015a) Semi-structure interview of Jinfo National Scenic Area Management. In: Du W (ed).

72.

Zhang

(2006) Nanchuan Tourism Authority Records.

73.

Zhang

(2015b) Semi-structure interviews and site surveys of national scenic areas management in Chongqing. In: Du W (ed).

74.

Zhang

Sherman

Yang

, et al. (2013) Integrating a participatory process with a GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis for protected area zoning in China. Journal for Nature Conservation 21: 225–240.

75.

Zhou

Edward Grumbine

(2011) National parks in China: Experiments with protecting nature and human livelihoods in Yunnan province, Peoples’ Republic of China (PRC). Biological Conservation 144: 1314–1321.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.07 MB

0.10 MB