IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i2p170-d730152.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Intention of Community Participation in the Qilian Mountain National Park Policy Pilot

Author

Listed:
  • Liqi Jia

    (School of Design Art, Lanzhou University of Technology, Lanzhou 730050, China)

  • Junqing Wei

    (School of Design Art, Lanzhou University of Technology, Lanzhou 730050, China)

  • Zibin Wang

    (School of Educational Science and Technology, Northwest Minzu University, Lanzhou 730030, China)

Abstract

As a management strategy, community participation is to implement the coordinated development of communities and protected areas. In recent years, the development of China’s national parks has faced many challenges related to human and environmental constraints. Community participation plays an essential role in solving such issues. As one of the critical indicators to test community participation, community residents’ willingness to participate significantly impacts community participation in constructing national parks. As such, this study was conducted using the extended model of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and the structural equation model. Taking the Tianzhu county and Sunan Yugu county as examples, and based on 230 valid questionnaires, we investigated the impacts of the Qilian Mountain National Park System Pilot Area on community residents’ willingness to participate and provided relevant suggestions for amendments. The results indicated that, for the Qilian Mountain National Park System Pilot Area, behavioral attitude, subjective norms, and perceptual behavior control positively impacted the participation intention of community residents. At the same time, the variables mentioned above positively impacted the implementation of the participation intention of community residents. Specifically, the order of impacts is as follows: perceptual behavior control (path coefficient = 0.89) > participation behavior attitude (path coefficient = 0.68) > related impact system (path coefficient = 0.41) > subjective norms (path coefficient = 0.38). According to the results, we put forward three suggestions: (1) providing relevant instructions and guidance on various methods to ensure that the pilot policies on the construction of national parks can form a positive relationship with the participation intentions of the community residents; (2) making full use of the function of perceptual behavior control, so the subjective initiative of community residents can be maximized, thereby enhancing the willingness of community residents to participate in constructing national parks; and (3) strengthening the impacts of subjective norms, enhancing the soft culture of national park communities’ participation, reshaping the community cultural landscapes with the goal of constructing national parks, and establishing community residents’ sense of honor as the builders of national parks.

Suggested Citation

  • Liqi Jia & Junqing Wei & Zibin Wang, 2022. "The Intention of Community Participation in the Qilian Mountain National Park Policy Pilot," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:2:p:170-:d:730152
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/2/170/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/2/170/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Agrawal, Arun & Gibson, Clark C., 1999. "Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 629-649, April.
    2. Leah Joyner & N. Qwynne Lackey & Kelly S. Bricker, 2019. "Community Engagement: An Appreciative Inquiry Case Study with Theodore Roosevelt National Park Gateway Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-17, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jing Li & Guoqiang Ma & Jinghua Feng & Liying Guo & Yinzhou Huang, 2022. "Local Residents’ Social-Ecological Adaptability of the Qilian Mountain National Park Pilot, Northwestern China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, May.
    2. Ting Ma & Lizhi Jia & Linsheng Zhong & Xinyu Gong & Yu Wei, 2023. "Governance of China’s Potatso National Park Influenced by Local Community Participation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-19, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andersson, Krister P. & Smith, Steven M. & Alston, Lee J. & Duchelle, Amy E. & Mwangi, Esther & Larson, Anne M. & de Sassi, Claudio & Sills, Erin O. & Sunderlin, William D. & Wong, Grace Y., 2018. "Wealth and the distribution of benefits from tropical forests: Implications for REDD+," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 510-522.
    2. Krott, Max & Bader, Axel & Schusser, Carsten & Devkota, Rosan & Maryudi, Ahmad & Giessen, Lukas & Aurenhammer, Helene, 2014. "Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 34-42.
    3. Purnamita Dasgupta, 2007. "Common Property Resources as Development Drivers: A Study of Fruit Cooperative in Himachal Pradesh: India," Working Papers id:917, eSocialSciences.
    4. Taeyoung Cho & Taesoo Cho & Hao Zhang, 2021. "The Effect of IMC of Golf Product Exhibitions on Customer Behavior and Recommendation Intention," Tourism and Hospitality, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-14, July.
    5. Skutsch, Margaret & Turnhout, Esther, 2020. "REDD+: If communities are the solution, what is the problem?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    6. Schusser, Carsten, 2013. "Who determines biodiversity? An analysis of actors' power and interests in community forestry in Namibia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 42-51.
    7. Bui, Huong T. & Saito, Hiroaki, 2022. "Resource convergence for post disaster recovery," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    8. Kumar, Sushil & Kant, Shashi, 2005. "Bureaucracy and new management paradigms: modeling foresters' perceptions regarding community-based forest management in India," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 651-669, May.
    9. Brannstrom, Christian, 2001. "Conservation-with-Development Models in Brazil's Agro-Pastoral Landscapes," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(8), pages 1345-1359, August.
    10. Elham Hoominfar & Claudia Radel, 2020. "Contested Dam Development in Iran: A Case Study of the Exercise of State Power over Local People," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.
    11. Gadamus, Lily & Raymond-Yakoubian, Julie & Ashenfelter, Roy & Ahmasuk, Austin & Metcalf, Vera & Noongwook, George, 2015. "Building an indigenous evidence-base for tribally-led habitat conservation policies," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 116-124.
    12. Burger Ronelle & Owens Trudy & Prakash Aseem, 2018. "Global Non-Profit Chains and the Challenges of Development Aid Contracting," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 9(4), pages 1-12, December.
    13. Sommerville, Matthew & Jones, Julia P.G. & Rahajaharison, Michael & Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2010. "The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based Payment for Environmental Services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1262-1271, April.
    14. Zhan, Shaohua, 2015. "From Privatization to Deindustrialization: Implications of Chinese Rural Industry and the Ownership Debate Revisited," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 108-122.
    15. Prakash Kashwan, 2016. "Integrating power in institutional analysis: A micro-foundation perspective," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(1), pages 5-26, January.
    16. Delacote, Philippe & Robinson, Elizabeth J.Z. & Roussel, Sébastien, 2016. "Deforestation, leakage and avoided deforestation policies: A spatial analysis," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 192-210.
    17. Suhardiman, Diana & Karki, Emma, 2019. "Spatial politics and local alliances shaping Nepal hydropower," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 525-536.
    18. Saeed, Abdul-Razak & McDermott, Constance & Boyd, Emily, 2018. "Examining equity in Ghana's national REDD+ process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 48-58.
    19. Campbell, Bruce & Mandondo, Alois & Nemarundwe, Nontokozo & Sithole, Bevlyne & De JonG, Wil & Luckert, Marty & Matose, Frank, 2001. "Challenges to Proponents of Common Property Recource Systems: Despairing Voices from the Social Forests of Zimbabwe," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 589-600, April.
    20. Erwin, Anna & Ma, Zhao & Popovici, Ruxandra & Salas O’Brien, Emma Patricia & Zanotti, Laura & Silva, Chelsea A. & Zeballos, Eliseo Zeballos & Bauchet, Jonathan & Calderón, Nelly Ramírez & Arce Larrea,, 2022. "Linking migration to community resilience in the receiving basin of a large-scale water transfer project," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:2:p:170-:d:730152. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.