A Chinese approach to protected areas: A case study ... · b Boston University, Department of Biology, Boston, Massachusetts, USA ... 2 A.J. Miller-Rushing et al. / Biological Conservation

Biological Conservation xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

BIOC-06818; No of Pages 12

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biological Conservation

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /b ioc

A Chinese approach to protected areas: A case study comparison with the United States

Abraham J. Miller-Rushing a, Richard B. Primack b,⁎, Keping Ma c, Zhi-Qiang Zhou d

a US National Park Service, Acadia National Park, Schoodic Education and Research Center, Bar Harbor, Maine, USAb Boston University, Department of Biology, Boston, Massachusetts, USAc Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Botany, Beijing, Chinad Northeast Forestry University, The Key Laboratory of Forest Plant Ecology of Ministry of Education, Harbin, China

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (R.B. Primack).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.0220006-3207/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Miller-Rushing, A.Jological Conservation (2016), http://dx.doi.o

a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 12 January 2016Received in revised form 19 April 2016Accepted 26 May 2016Available online xxxx

China is being transformed by economic development, urban migration, and social change. Environmentalreporting on China has tended to focus on environment damage, especially air pollution. Relatively unnoticedin the West, however, China has invested in improving and expanding its system of protected areas. Theseprotected areas follow varied models—they include nature reserves, forest parks, wetland parks, and more—andface challenges roughly similar to those of protected areas in the United States andmany other countries. Unsur-prisingly, though, there are important differences that make China's protected area program uniquely Chinese.Chinese protected areas have been largely created and continue to be developedwith strong top-down authority,although national-level control is softening and other models are being tested. Several nature reserves have re-ceived influxes of government funding in recent years to improve and expand their infrastructure and activitiesto support conservation, tourism, and other uses. Chinese nature reserves also tend to have explicit zoning andeconomic activities designed to promote economic development in and around them; this emphasis on econom-ic development is greater and takes a different approach in Chinese parks than is typical inWestern park systems.Here we compare aspects of the Chinese and US investments in national parks and national nature reserves; weuse two examples—Wudalianchi National Nature Reserve in China and Acadia National Park in the UnitedStates—to highlight similarities and differences. We conclude that each country's approach to protected areashas strengths and weaknesses in terms of conservation value, engagement with local communities, and sustain-ability, but that overall each country's protected areas program has structural deficiencies, particularly related tothe allocation of funding, that undermine their ability to achieve their stated mission over the long term. Theshortcomings in each country are different and may not be as substantial as the shortcomings of` nationalparks in many other countries, but they are critical nonetheless.

© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Acadia National ParkEconomic developmentInvestmentsProtected areasUS National Park ServiceWudalianchi National Nature Reserve

1. Introduction

In the popularWestern press and in the scientific literature, China isoften portrayed as hosting an ongoing environmental catastrophe char-acterized by severe air pollution, water pollution, loss of biodiversity,and declining quality of life (Chen et al., 2013; Murray et al., 2014;Phillips, 2015; Turner and Ellis, 2007;Wang et al., 2013). These observa-tions contain elements of truth, as China continues to invest heavily inmodern industrialization and the transformation of its populationfrom mostly poor, rural, and uneducated to much more middle-class,urban, and well educated. China is the most populous country in theworld, with over 1.3 billion people and rapid urbanization. Its economyis the fastest growing and second largest in the world (in terms of grossdomestic product), with growth rates averaging 10% over the past30 years. This large population and rapid economic growth have con-tributed to huge increases in natural resource consumption in China.

., et al., A Chinese approach torg/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.0

In 1970, China's domestic materials consumption (DMC), a measure ofnatural resource consumption, totaled 1.7 billion tonnes, representingabout 7% of the world total for that year (West et al., 2013). In 2008,their DMC totaled 22.6 billion tonnes—32% of the world total, and fourtimes higher than the DMC of the United States (West et al., 2013).This growth and its impact on biodiversity and other natural resourcesin China and elsewhere are astonishing.

The growth in the economy and consumption of natural resources inChina is particularly relevant for conservation biologists, because Chinais a megadiverse country and it consumes natural resources not onlyfrom within its own border, but also from many other biodiversityhotspots in Southeast Asia and elsewhere in the world (Tang et al.,2006; Xie et al., 2012). Areas such as the Yellow Sea and the regionaround the Three Gorges Dam have received attention in recent yearsas examples of human effects on habitat degradation and fragmentation(Murray et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2003; Yang and Lu, 2013; Zhang et al.,2014). Additionally, problems such as air and water pollution have re-ceived attention for their pervasive effects on human andwildlife health(Chen et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2013; Zheng et al., 2013).

protected areas: A case study comparison with the United States, Bi-22

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.022

mailto:[email protected]

Journal logo


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/

www.elsevier.com/locate/bioc


2 A.J. Miller-Rushing et al. / Biological Conservation xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

The story of conservation in China, when reported in the media andscientific literature, often focuses on challenges and failures(Wandesforde-Smith et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2012; Zheng and Cao,2014). However, the Chinese government has recently begun takingsteps to improve the environment, such as increasing its investmentsin renewable energy and other methods of making more efficient useof resources (Huang et al., 2012). The government has also called for en-hancing conservation in the framework of national policies (CCCP,2013; Cyranoski, 2016; Sang and Axmacher, 2016), and has investedheavily in improving and expanding protected areas (Li et al., 2016;Wang et al., 2012; Wu et al., 2011). Although these investments havebeen met with significant challenges and some skepticism (Huang,2016; Wandesforde-Smith et al., 2014; Zheng and Cao, 2014; Zhong etal., 2015), they also represent important strides toward reducing thenegative impacts of China's economic growth on the environment (Fu,2008; Ren et al., 2015).

Herewe build on a suite of recent papers that highlight challenges ofprotected area management in China (Quan et al., 2011; Wang et al.,2012; Xu et al., 2012; Zheng and Cao, 2014; Zinda, 2014) and describethe Chinese approach for addressing and overcoming these challenges(Grumbine and Xu, 2011, 2013). Specifically, we explore how thegoals and approaches for establishing and managing Chinese nationalnature reserves compare to the establishment and management of na-tional parks in the United States, a country with a similarly large landarea and economy, and one of the first countries to establish a nationalsystem of protected areas. We examine strengths and weaknesses ofeach approach and their abilities to achieve their goals. We use two ex-ample parks—Wudalianchi National Nature Reserve in China andAcadiaNational Park in the United States—to highlight points in ourcomparison.

2. Strategies toward protected areas

National nature reserves in China and national parks in the UnitedStates represent the most visible coherent systems of protected areasin each country (each country hasmany other designations and systemsfor protected areas); as such they reflect many key aspects of conserva-tion strategy in China and the United States. The areas they protect donot correspond directly with the International Union for the Conserva-tion of Nature (IUCN) categories with the same names—i.e., categoryIa strict nature reserves or category II national parks (Dudley, 2008). In-stead, the national nature reserve and national park systems each in-clude a mix of protected areas with various goals andchallenges—similar to each country's overall portfolio of protectedareas—but they are administered for the most part by a lead govern-ment agency and a coherent system of legislation and policies, whichmakes the comparison easier to describe and interpret.

2.1. United States

The United States began establishing protected areas at the federaland state levels in the mid-1800s through the early 1900s. YosemiteValley, which later became a national park, first received protection in1864. The first national park in the United States (and the world), Yel-lowstone National Park, was established in 1872. By the early 1900s,the United States had begun developing a complex system of protectedareas—including national parks, state parks, national wildlife refuges,national forests, and private land trusts—aimed at achieving a mix ofconservation and economic goals. For example, refuges enhanced fishand wildlife populations and habitat, largely for fishing and hunting,and national forests supported a mix of logging, grazing, mining,water supply, recreation, conservation, and other uses. In the 1960sand 1970s the United States passed a series of laws—e.g., the Clean AirAct (1963), National Environmental Policy Act (1970), Clean WaterAct (1972), and Endangered Species Act (1973)—that strengthened en-vironmental protections, includingwithin the country's protected areas.

Please cite this article as: Miller-Rushing, A.J., et al., A Chinese approach toological Conservation (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.0

The laws also established formal processes for engaging the public innatural resource management decisions and provided mechanisms forthe public to sue the government for not providing adequate protec-tions. The World Database on Protected Areas (IUCN and UNEP-WCMC, 2016) lists the United States as having 25,173 protected areasthat fall between IUCN category I (strict nature reserves or wildernessareas) and category IV (protected area with sustainable use of naturalresources), covering 2.6 million km2 or 26% of US land and waters.

The US system of national parks protects many of the country's bestknown natural and cultural sites, including the Grand Canyon, Yellow-stone, and Statue of Liberty. The US National Park System includes 410park units, which fall into a variety of IUCN categories and US protectedarea designations, including national parks, national recreation areas,national monuments, and national historical parks. US national parkunits can be created through a variety ofmechanisms, including conver-sion of federal lands to parks or through donations of lands from privatelandowners to the government. National park units are administered bythe US National Park Service.

The US National Park Service's founding legislation (1916a) chargesthe agency to manage national parks for the dual purpose of (1) preserv-ing scenic, natural, and cultural resources, and (2) providing for the enjoy-ment, education, and inspiration of the public. Early in the agency'shistory, the agency tended to emphasize economic development and vis-itor services over science and natural and cultural resource management(Sellars, 2009). In more recent years, however—particularly after thelandmark environmental legislation of the 1960s and 1970s mentionedearlier—the agency began to prioritize science and the preservation ofnatural and cultural resources (Sellars, 2009).

2.2. China

The first nature reserve in China, Dinghushan National Nature Re-serve, was established in 1956, 84 years after the first national park inthe United States. The number of protected areas grew slowly untilthe 1990s and 2000s (Fig. 1), when a series of key regulations and pro-grams were enacted, including the Environmental Protection Law(1989), Regulations on Nature Reserves (1994), the Environmental Im-pact Assessment Law (2002), and theWildlife Conservation and NatureReserve Development Program. These regulations and programsestablished guidance and funding for the creation and management ofprotected areas; between 2001 and 2005, the government investedover US$174 million through the Wildlife Conservation and Nature Re-serve Development Program alone (Xu et al., 2012). By 2014, 2856protected areas had been created (Fig. 1, Table 1). These protectedareas cover 18% of the country's land and water area (IUCN andUNEP-WCMC, 2016; MEP, 2015; Wu et al., 2011; Xu et al., 2012), al-though protected areas are not evenly distributed across thecountry—eastern and southern areas are poorly protected relative tosouthwestern areas (Guo and Cui, 2015; Xu et al., 2014). Protectedareas include a variety of designations—e.g., national nature reserves,national forest parks, national key scenic resorts, national geoparks, na-tional wetland parks, and national water reserve parks—managed by avariety of government agencies, including at the national, provincial,or more local levels (Table 1).

China's system of national nature reserves includes many of its mosticonic natural areas, including Alkin Mountain, Baimaxueshan,Changbaishan, Changtang, Hoh Xil, Jiuzhaigou, Qinghai Lake,Wanglang,and Wolong national nature reserves. In total, China currently has 428national nature reserves—a number similar to the 410 US nationalpark units—managed primarily by the Ministry of Environmental Pro-tection, but also by several other agencies (Table 1) (Xu et al., 2014).The reserves fall into a variety of IUCN categories, although the WorldDatabase on Protected Areas (IUCN and UNEP-WCMC, 2016) lists thevast majority as category V protected landscapes and seascapes. All ofthe national nature reserves have been created through governmentaction—in the past, private ownership (and thus donation) of land



Fig. 1.Growth of forest parks and national forest parks in China since 1982. Insert provides detail of increases before 1991. Growth of protected areas in China started later than the growthworldwide, but since 1992, its growth has outpaced that of protected areas worldwide, reflecting recent investment by the Chinese government into protected areas. From Wang et al.(2012).

3A.J. Miller-Rushing et al. / Biological Conservation xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

was impossible under Chinese law. Going forward, however, someprotected areas may be created through public-private partnerships(Yang et al., 2015).

Chinese national nature reserves aim to meet two inter-relatedneeds: (1) to protect natural resources from over-depletion, and (2)to meet growing interest in nature-based tourism (Wang et al., 2012).These goals are similar to the goals of US national parks, and also tomost national parks worldwide (Watson et al., 2014). Like US nationalparks did early in their history, many Chinese protected areas have em-phasized tourism rather than protection of resources (Han and Ren,2001; Zinda, 2014), although emphasis on prioritizing resource protec-tion has increased in recent years (Ma, 2014).

3. Challenges facing national parks and protected areas

Globally, the primary challenge to protected area performance islack of resources, particularly funding, to manage parks (Bruner et al.,2001; Watson et al., 2014). Additional challenges include poor gover-nance, economic development (including rapid growth of tourism),and bureaucratic inefficiency, which in turn can alienate stakeholdersand reduce support for management decisions (Borrini-Feyerabend etal., 2013). Political corruption, armed conflict, and the displacement oflocal people also create problems in some areas, especially developingcountries (Watson et al., 2014). Other widespread challenges that getless attention are related to science and education—e.g., difficulty of

Table 1China's national parks (as of 2014).

Type Number

National nature reserve 428

National forest park 791National geopark 185National wetland park 569National key scenic resort 225

National water reserve park 658Total 2856


implementing adequate scientific researchprograms, gettingnew infor-mation into the hands of resource managers in a way that they can acton it, and engaging and delivering effective educational materials andactivities to school groups, tourists, local residents, and other audiences.

These systematic challenges, especially the lack of adequate fundingand key information, make it difficult for resource managers to protectnatural resources from threats, such as climate change and invasive spe-cies, and also from economic pressures to increase the use of natural re-sources through expanded agriculture, mining, logging, and tourism. Infact, research suggests that only 20–50% of protected areas are effective-ly managed (Laurance et al., 2012; Leverington et al., 2010; Watson etal., 2014). Despite recent expansions in area protectedworldwide, it ap-pears that investments to support protected areas are declining, includ-ing in theUnited States and in someChinese parks (Watson et al., 2014).The evidence for the decline in support includes reductions in size ofprotected areas or outright degazettement to allow resource use, in-compatible useswithin protected areas, decliningfinancial investments,declining numbers of park staff, deteriorating infrastructure, and failureto address ongoing threats (Watson et al., 2014).

3.1. Comparison between China and the United States

In contrast to most countries, China and the United States haveabundant natural resources and economies that rank among the largestand strongest in the world. Even so, they face many of the same

Area (million ha) Administered by

96.52 Ministry of Environment Protection,State Forestry Administration, etc.

17.81 State Forestry Administration9.56 Ministry of Land Resources2.75 State Forestry Administration10.36 Ministry of Housing and Urban

and Rural ConstructionN/A Ministry of Water Resources137.00



Fig. 2.Annual operatingbudget (a) and spendingon resource stewardship activities (b) bythe US National Park Service, and annual visitation to US national parks (c).


challenges as other countries regarding management of their nationalparks. Of particular importance for China and the United States areproblems regarding the amount of funding for key park functions,such as scientific research, resource management, and education; thedevelopment of lands around parks, sometimes isolating them fromsurrounding natural areas; rapid environmental changes, such as cli-mate change, invasive species, air and water pollution, that frequentlyoriginate outside of park boundaries but threaten resources withinpark boundaries; changing visitor expectations regarding services, in-formation, and interactionswith parks; bureaucratic complexity and in-efficiency within government agencies and across agencies that haveoverlapping jurisdictions; challenges of creating effective andmeaning-ful working relationships with local communities around nationalparks; and the conundrum of protecting natural resources while simul-taneously using those resources to promote economic development.

China and the United States take different approaches to addressingthese challenges. We highlight three key differences between their ap-proaches: (1) huge government investments in China (in someprotected areas) contrasted with declining or flat federal investmentsin the United States; (2) strong top-down, command-and-control au-thority in China (originating at various levels of government—national,provincial, or more local) contrasted with the role of public input andprivate philanthropy in the United States; and (3) the relatively recentdevelopment and economic emphasis of protected areas in Chinacontrastedwith the long tradition and relative balance between conser-vation and economic benefits of national parks in the United States.

3.2. United States

3.2.1. Declining or flat federal investmentsThe annual operating budget for the US National Park Service (aver-

age 2008–2014 = US$2.2 billion) and spending on resource steward-ship (average 2008–2014 = US$319 million) have been flat in recentyears, and have declined slightly since their peaks in 2009 and 2010, re-spectively (Fig. 2), according to the annual “Green Book” budget justifi-cations for the agency (NPS, 2016a). Annual spending on resourcestewardship increased by roughly US$80 million between 1998 and2006 because of the implementation of the Natural Resource Challenge,a major initiative aimed at improving the agency's ability to meet itsmanagement obligations; however, the funding was well below theUS$200 million estimate of what would actually be necessary to meetthose obligations (Sellars, 2009). The National Park Service also faces adeferred maintenance backlog of US$11.9 billion, more than five timesits annual budget (NPS, 2015d). Visitation across all national parks hasremained relatively steady since 2008, with an average of 282 millionvisits each year (Fig. 2) (NPS, 2016b).

3.2.2. Public input and philanthropyUS national parks have a long history of public engagement and phi-

lanthropy. Individual parks have been created by a variety of means, in-cluding the protection of existing public lands as national parks, thepurchase or acquisition of private lands by the government, and the do-nation of lands to the government by private landowners. The public isfrequently engaged in extensive dialogues around the creation of newnational park units. Moreover, when the National Park Service preparesto make major management decisions—whether the construction ofnew facilities or policies to manage threatened species—they are fre-quently required to seek and respond to public input as specified bythe National Environmental Policy Act of 1970; some parks are also re-quired to consult with Congressionally-mandated advisory boards, gen-erally made up of people from local communities.

The US National Park Service also receives substantial contributionsfromprivate philanthropy. The US Congress chartered theNational ParkFoundation in 1967 to help raise private funds from individual citizens,corporations, land trusts, private foundations, and others to support Na-tional Park Service activities. In 2014, the foundation spent


US$20.8 million on grants and programs to support national parks(NPF, 2014). Many other philanthropic and advocacy organizations, in-cluding national organizations (e.g., National Parks Conservation Asso-ciation) and more than 180 local “friends” groups (NPS, 2011), alsoprovide private support for national park activities. The philanthropyfrom these groups is not adequate to make up for the shortfall in gov-ernment investment, but they substantially improve the capacity of na-tional parks to achieve their goals (Vaughn and Cortner, 2013).Additionally, 221,000 people serve in the official Volunteers in Parksprogram—an underestimate of the total volunteer contributions to na-tional parks, but reflective of the magnitude of public engagement be-yond simply visiting national parks.

3.2.3. Tradition of balance between conservation and economic benefitsAs described earlier, there is a long history of tension between the

sometimes conflicting conservation and economic goals of national




parks (Sellars, 2009). Early in history of the US National Park Service,manymanagement and development decisionsweremadewith too lit-tle information or regard for impacts to resources—e.g., siting camp-grounds in grizzly bear foraging areas, building parking lots on theroots of Sequoia trees, and installing septic systems atop karst caves(M. Soukup, pers. comm.). Inmore recent years—particularly since land-mark environmental legislation in the 1960s and 1970s and the imple-mentation of the Natural Resource Challenge in 1998—the emphasis onconservation has grown and is now reflected in management policiesfor the National Park Service (NPS, 2006; Sellars, 2009). These policieshelp ensure uniform management of national park units and makeclear that the preservation of natural and cultural resources take prece-dent over accommodating the publicwhen the twoparts of the agency'smission conflict (NPS, 2006). There have been attempts, including bygovernment officials, to weaken these policies, but public support andthe policies' basis in science has helped to keep them relatively strong(Sellars, 2009).

Even with these policies, the economic value provided each year byUS national parks still receives a great deal of attention and is one of thereasons they enjoy widespread public support. In 2014, national parkvisitors spent an estimated US$15.7 billion in areas around nationalparks (Cullinane Thomas et al., 2015). Many national parks host busi-nesses (e.g., gift shops, restaurants, hotels, and others) within parkboundaries; these businesses are subject to regulation and contractswith the National Park Service. However, many parks also abut “gate-way” communities just outside park boundaries, where the NationalPark Service has no jurisdiction. Development in these communitiescan be extensive—e.g., hotels, restaurants, shopping areas, housing andretirement communities, office complexes, and light industry—andcan create substantial threats to national park resources, includingthrough nutrient pollution,water use, invasive species, and habitat frag-mentation (Gimmi et al., 2011; Nielsen, 2013;Wang et al., 2009). In ex-treme situations, development in gateway communities can be soextensive as to make parks function as islands of conservation, discon-nected from surrounding landscapes. TheNational Park Service general-ly works with communities to mitigate the impacts of development onpark resources, but the results can be mixed.

3.3. China

3.3.1. Substantial government investmentGovernment investment in Chinese national nature reserves has

been increasing substantially in recent years. Data on the total magni-tude of these investments are difficult to get because they tend to befunded on a project basis and come from multiple sources, comparedto the relatively straightforward annual government appropriationsfor the US National Park Service. Much of the new funding has gone to-ward infrastructure improvements, particularly infrastructure to ac-commodate visitors. Some of these infrastructure projects have beendramatic—e.g., cableways (present in 10% of protected areas nationally)and high elevators (up to 330 m at Wulingyuan) (Zhong et al., 2015).Visitation to national nature reserves has also increased substantially(Xu et al., 2013).

The Chinese government has not invested evenly across its nationalnature reserves. Whereas some reserves have received substantialfunding—particularly the oldest and most visited reserves—surveys ofmanagers and individual case studies reveal thatmany are underfundedrelative to their needs (Zhong et al., 2015). Surveys across 1000protected areas of all types, not just national nature reserves, foundthat 25% have annual revenues above US$771,000 (5 million CNY),whereas 38% operate on less than US$77,000 (500,000 CNY) and 11%on less than US$7700 (50,000 CNY) (Zhong et al., 2015). Because ofthis underfunding, illegal hunting, logging, water pollution, and illegalwildlife trade are problems in some reserves (roughly 6–15%, basedon surveys) limiting their ability to protect resources (Zhong et al.,2015), although recent analyses suggest that reforestation effortswithin


protected areas have been successful at the national scale (Ren et al.,2015).

New conservation initiatives are currently being developed tofurther increase the extent and effectiveness of national nature re-serves and other protected areas. These include the development ofa new “red line” to set goals for protected area extent, with an initialgoal of protecting an average of 20% of land area in each province(MEP, 2013; Sang and Axmacher, 2016), the creation of new nationalparks to streamline and reduce inefficiencies in management (Li etal., 2016), and an emphasis on increasing connectivity amongprotected areas in the new Five-Year Plan (Cyranoski, 2016). TheUS National Park Service has no parallel to these initiatives that weare aware of. Additionally, China is working with The Nature Conser-vancy (a US-based nongovernmental organization) to develop pub-lic-private partnerships for protected areas and to improvemanagement of some reserves (Southern, 2008; Yang et al., 2015),an approach similar to the management of some protected areas inthe United States.

3.3.2. Top-down controlMost environmental policies and other regulations affecting national

nature reserves in China are set by the central government. Many ormost of these policies are then implemented at the provincial or morelocal levels, through a complex bureaucracy. Although lower levels ofgovernment are now engaging the public more—55% of reserves hadlocal community co-management projects according to a survey pub-lished in 2012 (Xu et al., 2012)—there are few incentives for local gov-ernments to interact and cooperate with local people, and it is rareand very slow for higher levels of government to respond to feedbackfrom local stakeholders (Guan et al., 2011). Even when managers atthe local or mid-levels want to respond to local feedback, the complex-ity and competition within the various levels and ministries in the gov-ernment bureaucracymake it difficult to implement new strategies andproperly monitor their effectiveness (Xu et al., 2012). Moreover, strongincentives to show success frequently bias how results are communicat-ed (Guan et al., 2011).

Private contributions to the management of and advocacy fornational nature reserves is nearly absent in China—unlike the Unit-ed States, which has private foundations and friends groups dedi-cated to national parks at local and national levels—furtherlimiting the ability to engage non-government stakeholders in re-serve management (Zheng and Cao, 2014). Zinda (2014) providesan in-depth case study of the complexities and difficulties involvedin encouraging local engagement in national parks in YunnanProvince.

In some cases, the lack of effective local engagement impacts naturalresource management. For example, in some protected areas, the dis-placement of local people and agricultural practices have led to theloss of meadows and other open habitats valuable to some plants andwildlife (Urgenson et al., 2014). Similar changes have happened inmany US national parks, although in some cases US parks managethese areas as cultural landscapes and keep them open to reflect pastconditions.

Most Chinese residents support conservation and the system of na-tional nature reserves, but the links between support for conservationand personal behaviors, such as reducing consumption of wildlife anduse of fossil fuels, are still weak (Zhang and Yin, 2014).

3.3.3. Emphasis on economic benefitsQuite a number of Chinese national nature reserves rely on income

from visitors for a portion of their budget; thus reserves with higher vis-itation tend to have higher budgets, which can provide an incentive to in-crease visitation (Zhong et al., 2015). In recent years, many nationalnature reserves sold their tourism management rights to commercialcompanies, whose interests are primarily economic and whose develop-ment can increase threats to biodiversity in the reserves if not carefully




managed. Additionally, national nature reserves are affected by thebroader economy and are tightly linked to changes in the landscapesaround them. For example, some areas of the country have investedheavily in increasing agricultural production. In these areas, expansionof agricultural lands candisconnect national nature reserves frombroadernatural landscapes, and can even lead to the development of agriculturallands inside reserve boundaries (Wan et al., 2015). Poverty is also asevere problem in areas around many national nature reserves,which can drive local governments to encourage tourism and makecapital investments in nature reserve infrastructure to help improvelocal economies, sometimes at the cost of protecting natural re-sources (Zhou et al., 2014). Currently only 36% of protected areas na-tionwide report having monitoring programs to track and assesschanges in environmental conditions, such as water quality and thehealth and extent of vegetation and soil, that might result from eco-nomic development and other threats inside and outside of reserveboundaries (Zhong et al., 2015). That compares poorly to the US Na-tional Park Service, which has a nationwide program to inventoryandmonitor the health of natural resources in all park units with sig-nificant natural resources (Fancy et al., 2009).

4. Two cases studies

Here we use two case studies—one each from China and the Unit-ed States—to highlight the challenges facing Chinese and USprotected areas (Fig. 3). Neither of these case studies is “typical” ofprotected areas in the either country—protected areas vary dramati-cally within the United States and China—but the two protectedareas provide useful concrete examples of important differences be-tween approaches in the United States and China. Specifically, thesetwo protected areas reflect two of the best-case scenarios of nationalnature reserves and national parks in the two countries; they havesignificant challenges (arguably, challenges that still make it impos-sible to fully achieve their missions), but fewer and smaller chal-lenges than most other national parks in the United Sates andnational nature reserves in China. Later we provide more generalconclusions and recommendations.

Fig. 3. Maps and photographs of (a) Wudalianchi National Nature Reserve in China and (b)landscape. Acadia features mountains, lakes, and rocky coast. Both parks maintain infrastructuMapMaker. Photos courtesy of Zhi-Qiang Zhou and Richard Primack (a) and the US National P


4.1. Acadia National Park, USA

Acadia National Park, located on the Atlantic coast in the northeast-ern United States (Fig. 3),was established in 1916. The parkwas initiallycreated as a small national monument through the donation of privateland to the US government, with the support of wealthy philanthropists(1916b). Over time, local philanthropists purchased and donated moreland to the US National Park Service to protect the natural and culturalresources on over 143 km2 of exceptionally beautiful coastal lands,hills, and islands. The land that the park protects is not continuous; itis intermixed with private lands in many areas. The National Park Ser-vice also owns conservation easements that permanently restrict devel-opment and preserve conservation value on 50 km2 of these privatelands within the boundary of Acadia National Park, but much of the pri-vate land within the boundary is unprotected from potentialdevelopment.

Acadia sits within the transition zone from boreal forest to the northto temperate mixed hardwood forest to the south, and contains a num-ber of significant geological and other natural features, such as a rockycoast and low rounded mountains shaped by the retreat of glaciers atthe beginning of the Holocene. In particular, the founding legislation(1916b) for the park highlights the historical significance of the area,the scenic nature of its geological features, and the value of its floraand fauna for scientific research.

Acadia attracts nearly 2.5 million visits each year (Fig. 4); most aredrawn to the park's hiking trails, carriage roads, and the scenic beautyof the park's rocky coast, lakes, and mountains, making it one of themost heavily visited parks in the United States (NPS, 2016b; UI ParkStudies Unit, 2013). Visitors come primarily from thenortheasternUnit-ed States with smaller portions from outside the region and outside thecountry (Manni et al., 2010). Visitor spending contributes roughlyUS$221 million annually to the local economy and supports over 3000jobs for local businesses (Thomas et al., 2015).

4.1.1. Declining or flat federal investmentsOver the past ten years, the operational base budget (US$7.9million

in 2015) for Acadia National Park has remained flat, despite the park'sgrowing visitation and resource protection responsibilities (Fig. 4)

Acadia National Park in the United States. Volcanoes and lakes dominate Wudalianchi'sre to allow visitors to experience iconic locations. Maps courtesy of National Geographicark Service (b).




(NPS, 2015c). Most of the park budget comes from funds provided bythe federal government; however, entrance fees constitute a growingportion of the park's funding as government funding declines. Thepark's budget has remained flat despite increases in the costs of staff,both salary and benefits, and other aspects of park operations; costshave increased at a rate that exceeds the rate of inflation. Acadia cur-rently has a maintenance backlog of US$57.6 million (NPS, 2015a). In1990 the resource management division of the park had a base-fundedstaff of three people. By 2005 the number of staff was up to 13. Now, in2015, the number of base-funded resource management staff has de-clined slightly to 12 andmay decline further as long-time staffmembersretire; their positions may not be filled if there are not sufficient funds.Overall, the park has a staff of 135 and has lost 15 positions (roughly10%) that it cannot fill because of insufficient funding (NPS, 2015c).

4.1.2. Public input and philanthropyAcadia National Park has had a long tradition of private philanthropy

to help the park achieve its mission. In fact, Acadia National Park wascreated entirely from land donated by private landowners. Landtrusts—initially the Hancock County Trustees of Public Reservations,and later the Maine Coast Heritage Trust—helped purchase land andconservation easements and later donate them to the US NationalPark Service. Donations of private land and easements continue to thepresent day.

Additionally, in 1986 a new philanthropic organization, Friends ofAcadia, was created to promote community interest in volunteerismand philanthropy and help the park achieve key tasks related to the

Fig. 4. Variability in (a) visitation and (b) budgets for Wudalianchi (filled circles) andAcadia (open squares) National Parks. Axes for Wudalianchi are on the left and Acadiaon the right. Budgets for Acadia National Park vary from a minimum of US$7.1 million in2008 to a maximum of US$8.3 million in 2010. Data from the US National Park Serviceand the Tourism and Financial Bureaus of Wudalianchi National Nature Reserve.


rehabilitation and maintenance of historical and natural resources, rec-reational experiences, and education. Initially, these contributions wererelatively small, but Friends of Acadia now supports, through fundingand volunteers, major components of the programs and resource pro-tection efforts in Acadia National Park. Friends of Acadia also advocateson behalf of the park to the US Congress and other government entities.As an example of the power of this private philanthropic organization,they raised over US$16 million to rehabilitate and maintain the park'shistorical carriage road and trail systems, and endow their future main-tenance (FOA, 2015). They have also raised over US$3million to supporta propane-powered bus system in the park to reduce congestion and airpollution (Clement, 2014), and are currently starting new initiatives tosupport watershed restoration, youth involvement in the park, and sus-tainable tourism (FOA, 2015).

The role of private philanthropy in protecting Acadia National Parkand its natural and cultural resources continues to grow today. The non-profit Schoodic Institute at Acadia National Park was created in 2002 tohelp manage a new research learning center in the park, and to supportscientific research, science education, and science communicationthroughout the region and internationally (Schoodic Institute, 2016).An anonymous private donor funded the purchase of over 6.5 km2 ofland adjacent to Acadia National Park (BDN, 2011). The landwas subse-quently protected through a conservation easement and roughly halfwas donated to the US government and added to Acadia NationalPark. The land had previously been targeted for development as an“eco-resort” that would have functionally isolated the only mainlandsection of Acadia.

All of this philanthropy provides opportunities for the public to con-tribute to and support themanagement of the park. Additionally, the USNational Park Service, like all federal agencies in the United States, hasestablished formalized mechanisms to involve the public in importantmanagement decisions. For example, Acadia National Park has a con-gressionally-created advisory commission (1986), which consists of16members—threemembers appointed by the Secretary of the Interior,three appointed by the governor of Maine, and one member appointedby each of the towns that border the park. The advisory commissionconsults with the US National Park Service on matters relating to themanagement and development of the park. Its meetings are publicand provide an opportunity for interested community members tohear about and comment on park plans.

4.1.3. Long tradition and balance between conservation and economicbenefits

The relatively long history of the US National Park Service, and ofAcadia National Park specifically, has helped achieve a certain balancebetween the conservation and economic goals of Acadia. The tensionbetween conservation and economic benefits has not beenwithout con-troversy in the past, and this controversy persists today. Prior to the cre-ation of Acadia National Park, for example, there was debate aboutwhether to allow cars ontoMount Desert Islandwhere themain sectionof the park now exists. Cars did end up being allowed on the island tomeet the needs of local residents. Partially in response to this allowance,John D. Rockefeller, Jr., a well-known supporter of national parks,funded the creation of both a paved motor road and a car-free, crushedgravel carriage road system in the park. The carriage road system allowsvisitors to experience Acadia's natural and cultural resources and scen-ery without a car, whether by foot, bike, or on horseback.

Prior to the 1990s, conservation of natural resources in Acadia Na-tional Park was severely understudied and underfunded. Over the first80 years of the park's existence its natural resources were damaged bymany anthropogenic forces, including mercury pollution from atmo-spheric deposition (largely as a result of fossil fuel emissions frompower plants in the Midwestern United States and elsewhere), theloss of vegetation onmountain summits from off-trail hiking and subse-quent erosion, the loss of about one-fifth of the park's flora (the causesare being investigated), and the spread of invasive plants, many of




which arrived through planting in private gardens or as a part of privatelandscaping near the park (Greene et al., 2005; Harris et al., 2012).

More recently, Acadia National Park has benefited from nationwideinvestments in the study and restoration of natural resources in nationalparks. For example, Acadia National Park was a part of the recent suc-cessful recovery of the once-endangered peregrine falcon (Falcoperegrinus) (O'Connell, 1990). The National Park Service also created alarge research learning center in Acadia to support science and the inte-gration of sciencewithmanagement and education. This research learn-ing center has received over US$30 million in combined public andprivate capital investment, and (as described earlier) is supported by anonprofit organization, the Schoodic Institute at Acadia National Park,based at the research learning center and dedicated to ecological andecosystem-level research and education (Schoodic Institute, 2016).The National Park Service is also currently working with private part-ners to begin a long-term project to manage the park for the ecologicalintegrity of ecosystems, the historical authenticity of cultural land-scapes, and the resilience of both natural and cultural resources water-shed-by-watershed in Acadia (Miller-Rushing et al., 2014).

Interpretation and education are provided for visitors, local commu-nities, educational institutions, and other stakeholders, and also serve asimportant management strategies because many of the threats toAcadia's resources come from outside the park. For example, park staffdiscourages the import of firewood and non-native plants to the park,to prevent the spread of invasive plants and insect pests. Park staff iscurrently revising interpretation and education activities to meet theshifting needs and interests of park visitors as technology and audienceneeds change.

Although the balance between economic gain and protection of nat-ural resources is better in Acadia National Park than in many otherprotected areas, the investments in natural resource management arestill not sufficient given the threats fromwidespread rapid environmen-tal change and the pressures from tourism. Acadia is one of the 10most-visited national parks in the United States, but is also among thesmallest of the US national parks. This concentration of visitation cancause damage through trampling and water pollution. Theinfrastructure—such as roads, parking lots, cruise ships, hotels, restau-rants, and so on, both in and outside of the park—to support visitors con-tributes to this damage, particularly as it facilitates large concentrationsof people in specific places, including intertidal and summit areas sensi-tive to trampling.

The US National Park Service takes actions to reduce the impacts ofthese threats. For example, the agency is currently beginning a substan-tial transportation planning process in Acadia National Park that in-volves plans and policies for roads, carriage roads, trails, parking lots,vehicles, bikes, hikers, etc., and will influencemuch of the park's opera-tions and visitors' experiences (NPS, 2015b). The planning process willtake several years and will involve scientific research and engagementwith local communities and park visitors. Options being discussed in-clude restrictions on the use of private vehicles and greater relianceon public transportation. In the end, the National Park Service hopesto arrive at a plan that strikes an effective balance between the protec-tion of the park's natural and cultural resources and the public's accessto and enjoyment of them. Evenwith elaborate and thoughtful planningprocesses like the one in Acadia, the level and growth in threats to parkresources suggests that without substantial increases in government orprivate funding the National Park Service's efforts will not be adequateto achieve itsmission to preserve unimpaired the park's natural and cul-tural resources for future generations.

4.2. Wudalianchi National Nature Reserve, China

Wudalianchi National Nature Reserve, located in Heilongjiang Prov-ince in Northeast China, 270 km from the border with Russia (Fig. 3),was created as a national nature reserve in 1980. In subsequent yearsit was recognized as a biosphere reserve (2003) and global geopark


(2004) by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Orga-nization (UNESCO), and was added to the IUCN Green List of protectedareas (2014). Within the park's 1003 km2 are 14 volcanoes, two ofwhich are active but not erupting. Lava flows have blocked the ShilongRiver in several places, creatingfive barrier lakes, which give the park itsname, “Wudalianchi.” The volcanoes range in age from 2 million yearsto just under 300 years old. The park is also known for its mineralsprings, giant boulders, and lava tubes.

The park now attracts about 1.2million visitors each year, a rate thatis growing annually (Fig. 4). Most visitors are Chinese, Russian, or Kore-an and are attracted by its scenic beauty and for health treatments in-volving cold mineral springs and mud baths.

4.2.1. Substantial government investmentIn 2009 the provincial government of Heilongjiang Province began a

massive renovation and development program (US$500 million) forWudalianchi National Nature Reserve and the surrounding area (Fig.3). Over five years the park was transformed into a world-class destina-tion. Government funding remains the primary income for the parkbudget. Annually, roughly 10% of the park's income comes from localtaxes on tourist goods and services, 10% from entrance fees, 30% fromgovernment funds for resource management, and 50% from govern-ment funds for construction and infrastructure. The park now has astaff of 1247 permanent employees, only a small percentage of whomwork on resourcemanagement, and thousands of additional temporaryand seasonal employees whowork as cleaners, security guards, drivers,and in other roles. Funding to date has emphasized environmentallyfriendly infrastructure, geology educational programs, and reductionsin water pollution.

The park's road network has been improved and now links togetherthe town, outside highways, and themain tourist areas, including lakes,and certain volcanoes, and lava flows. New construction is planned toprovide access to a few of the more remote volcanoes. Where theroads cross lava fields, the roads have been elevated on wooden postsand are constructed from heavy wooden beams to minimize damageto the lava. Large parking lots have also been constructed to provideparking for visitors.

An extensive network of trails and boardwalks has been built to pro-vide access to volcano craters, lakes, and lava flows. Some of the volcanotrails are strongly constructed using heavy stone, not unlikemany trailsin Acadia, and wooden boardwalks and viewing platforms are used toallow access to sensitive areas—like lava flows, springs, wetlands, andlake edges—and to protect them from trampling by visitors.

Development has also included many other amenities (both in andoutside the park boundaries) for visitors, including a marina, tour boatservices, food vendors, picnic tables, souvenir shops, a luxury hotel, res-taurant, visitor center, and toilets. The infrastructure appears to havebeen designed well and built of quality materials. The quality contrastswith much of the recent construction in China, where buildings areoften not fully completed, and where inferior construction and buildingmaterials can lead to rapid deterioration in the appearance of structures.Provincial authorities apparently want to make Wudalianchi NationalNature Reserve a model of good development and a top attraction forthe province and the country.

4.2.2. Top-down controlThe transformation of the Wudalianchi National Nature Reserve in-

volved the re-settling of 30,000 people who had been living inside thepark boundaries.Most of these peoplewere involved in farming, fishing,and industries, such as making cement. People living in the park signedagreements with the government to move outside the park and intonew government-built housing. The government heavily subsidizedhousing for the first three years after relocation, and relocated peoplewere guaranteed jobs for a certain number of years. Relocation ensuredthat the park had an uninhabited core area, allowing it tomeet the stan-dards of a biosphere reserve, standards set by UNESCO's Man and the




Biosphere Program. Every family signed the agreement, and there wasno protest, either formal or unofficial, that we are aware of. People ex-pected that the new park would create substantial and long-term eco-nomic benefits to the surrounding region. Based on interviews withlocal people and government officials, more than 90% of peoplemoved voluntarily. They also expressed a general feeling that the gov-ernment had kept its promises so far and that the people in the regionwere substantially more prosperous after the government's investmentin the park (Tsinghua University Technical Team, pers. comm.). In par-ticular, new housing provided more reliable utilities (e.g., heat, water,gas), and increases in tourism have improved job security and income.Despite these positive responses, residents remain concerned about fu-ture of development and its impacts on jobs, income, and other aspectsof their well-being.

Parkmanagers exert strong control on park operations in comparisonwith many other countries, including the United States. There are veryfew reported problems with park visitors or local residents. Camping isprohibited inside the park and access to the park is controlled throughguarded gates at the few key entry points. Paperwork carried by visitorsis carefully scrutinized and recorded at checkpoints, minimizing the po-tential for inappropriate activity. Access to many of the most visitedareas is evenmore strictly controlled; private vehiclesmust park in desig-nated parking lots, and shuttles provide transportation to the sites them-selves. Park cameras (130 of them) continuously monitor crowds, traffic,and key infrastructure—such as bridges, ticket booths, and walkways—inthe park. In the town itself, more than 100 cameras are deployed as partof public safety efforts. The Chinese government also strongly restrictsthe possession of weapons. As a consequence of these measures, thepark and town are considered extremely safe, with very little concernfor petty or more serious crime. These government actions in China arein contrast to those in Acadia National Park, where camping is allowedin developed campgrounds in the park, wheremost park locations are ac-cessible without having to pass through an entrance gate, where there isno camera monitoring of visitors, and where weapons are allowed (al-though their use is not).

Officials inWudalianchi National Nature Reserve also tightly controlfishing and water quality. There are about 30 full-time fishermen whowork for a business with a license to commercially harvest fish fromthe lakes. The system facilitatesmonitoring and control of fishing levels.Both fishermen and government officials agree that water quality in thelakes has not declined within living memory, and it may even be im-proving as a result of the re-settlement program. Removing peoplefrom the park interior, which includes most of the watersheds draininginto the lakes, eliminated sewage and other sources of pollution. Thegovernment also requires farmers to maintain a 300–400-m bufferzone between crops and lakes, rivers, and wetlands in and around thepark, reducing fertilizer and pesticide runoff. The government is encour-aging farmers to switch from growing annual crops, such as corn andsoybeans, which require large inputs of fertilizer and chemicals, to lessintensive berry crops, such as blueberries and blackberries.

Despite the strong top-down control, the influence of local residentson park infrastructure and activities is still evident. A particularly visibleexample is that of a 94-year-old Buddhist temple complex that occupiesmost of the base of the crater of Yaoquanshan Volcano. The temple com-plex is controlled and owned by a Buddhist religious society, and theyare building a large, modern three-story residence building next to thecomplex within the crater. The local religious group was able to exertsufficient local, and even provincial and national pressure to allow theconstruction to go forward. Apparently, past agreements that grantedcontrol of the crater to the religious group were key to obtaining per-mission for construction, even though the buildingwill negatively affectthe natural resources and aesthetics of the crater.

4.2.3. Emphasis on economic benefitsMuch of the investment and top-down control is intended to turn

Wudalianchi National Nature Reserve into a premier tourist destination


and an economic engine for the region. As reflected in the budget, sub-stantially more funding is spent on construction and infrastructureaimed at visitor services—roads, parking, trails, food services, lodging,marina, etc.—compared to resource management. With the combina-tion of new park facilities and a growing population of affluent citizens,Chinese visitors nowmake up the bulk of park visitors and typically stayin the park area for one to three nights. The provincial governmenthopes that the park soon attracts more international visitors too, be-yond the Russian visitors who currently come for the area's springsand for medical treatments.

The goal of economic development is also a key aspect of maintain-ing local buy-in for the national park. Many locals support the park pri-marily because they see its potential (and actual) ability to raise thestandards of living for local residents. The park currently has about1247 employees, and several thousand more work in restaurants, ho-tels, shops and related tourist industries in towns around the park. Ad-ditional people are employed in the manufacture of local handicrafts,including stone carving, woodwork, and souvenirs, and also the produc-tion of bottledmineral water and health care products. These jobs are ofprimary importance to local communities, although they have come atsome cost to local cultural traditions and ways of life.

The park's emphasis on attracting tourists and economic developmentalso creates a tension with the mission to preserve the area's natural re-sources. The construction of all of the roads, trails, and other facilitiesmake it a world-class visitor destination, but natural resources are de-graded or destroyed during construction and can be further degradedby increased visitation. Althoughmuch effort wasmade tomeet the stan-dards of international protected areas programs, such as UNESCO's Manand the Biosphere Program, and despite controls to avoid problems relat-ed to poaching and pollution, economic development—through its effectson habitat loss, fragmentation, pollution, invasive species, etc.—is still asubstantial threat to the area's natural resources.

One example of this imbalance in development and preservation isthe park's lack of investment in scientific research, especially comparedto its investments in infrastructure. The geology of the park has been aprincipal subject of scientific investigation for the past 50 years (Chenet al., 2004; Gong, 1997;Mao et al., 2010; Tsutomu, 1936).Water qualityhas also been well studied because of its tight relationship to visitor ex-perience and fish production (Zhou et al., 2011a). In addition, variouswildlife and botanical teams have visited the park over the past decades,collecting specimens,making lists of species, andmonitoring vegetationwithin long-term plots (Huang et al., 2014; Zhou et al., 2011b).

Strikingly, though, the park lacks scientists and an organized pro-gram of scientific research. Unlike in Acadia National Park in the UnitedStates, Wudalianchi has no staff person charged with recruiting and co-ordinating scientific research tomeet park needs, nor is there a compre-hensive monitoring program to describe how the environment and thebiodiversity of the park are changing over time—changes we expect be-cause of climate change, the removal of people from the park interior,and the impacts of park infrastructure and visitors. Moreover, there isno system to effectively use scientific information and research to helpinform management decisions, a problem typical in conservation inChina, and many other locations (Grumbine and Xu, 2011).

5. Discussion and conclusion

The cases of Acadia National Park and Wudalianchi National NatureReserves highlight the challenges of creating and sustaining effectivenational parks, no matter what resources are available and the culturesof the countries they are in. It is difficult to protect areas and their nat-ural and cultural resources in perpetuity and to simultaneously invitelarge numbers of visitors to enjoy and learn from and be inspired bythem. However, if the public is not educated about and allowed toenjoy spectacular natural resources, the resourcesmay degrade becauseof benevolent ignorance or lack of interest. To their credit, the UnitedStates and China invest much in protecting their national parks; but




even so, it is difficult to balance economic and conservation goals, main-tain good working relationships with local residents, and provide ade-quate funding and allocate that funding effectively. Failure in any ofthese areas can undermine a national park system's ability to achieveits mission over the long term.

Researchers and others have pointed out failures in several of theseareas in both China and the United States (Grumbine and Xu, 2011;NPCA, 2011; Wang et al., 2012; Watson et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2012;Zheng and Cao, 2014; Zhou and Grumbine, 2011; Zinda, 2014). The ex-tent andmagnitude of these failures aremore widespread than our twocase studies suggest (Zhou et al., 2014). Most US parks, for example, donot receive the same level of private philanthropy that Acadia NationalPark does. And most Chinese parks do not receive the level of security(to prevent poaching, for example) and investment that Wudalianchidoes. Many of the failures are serious and difficult to resolve, but it ap-pears that the governments of both countries are attempting strategiesto overcome them. For example, both countries continue to experimentwith methods to improve engagement with local communities, wheth-er through formal agreements with displaced people, cooperationamong local, provincial, and national governments, or innovationssuch as citizen science and volunteerism (McKinley et al., 2015; Xu etal., 2012; Zinda, 2014). Our cases in Acadia National Park andWudalianchi National Nature Reserve provide examples of some ofthese innovations, but they are taking place elsewhere too (e.g., Yanget al., 2015).

Appropriate allocation of funding, however, is a particularly substan-tial and difficult-to-remedy challenge (NPCA, 2011; Quan et al., 2011;Watson et al., 2014; Zhong et al., 2015). Even in these two countrieswith huge economies, key park functions receive too little funding toachieve their goals. Science, resource management, and education areamong the most severely underfunded functions, particularly relativeto the government and private investments that go into economic de-velopment in and around national parks (Colwell et al., 2012; Han andRen, 2001; NPCA, 2011; Quan et al., 2011; Sellars, 2009; Zhou andGrumbine, 2011).

For example, the backlogs of maintenance and resource manage-ment needs in US national parks are huge, estimated at well overUS$10 billion (NPCA, 2011; NPS, 2015d; Watson et al., 2014). Even so,the US government has reduced its expenditures on national parks—theNational Park Service's main operational budget declined by nearly 13%between 2009 and 2013 (Watson et al., 2014)—and is instead increas-ingly relying on private partnerships to fund and implement more ofthe work required to protect park resources. This approach hasadvantages—e.g., it may strengthen ties with local communities andother stakeholders who benefit from parks, and provides incentivesfor park managers to show and communicate the value of parks—butit has disadvantages as well. Park functions or entire parks that are im-portant but less popular with the public may be underfunded (NPS,2011; Ren et al., 2015), and management decisions may be influencedby private interests unrelated or counterproductive to achieving themission of the National Park Service. Moreover, the volume of privatephilanthropy and other non-government funding opportunities is notadequate to make up for the shortfall in government investment(Vaughn and Cortner, 2013).

China's government investment in protected areas and steps to in-crease visitation to these striking natural areas are valuable, particularlyconsidering the scale of the impacts that the growth of the Chineseeconomy has on the environment. However, the government's focuson highly visited reserves and emphasis on economic developmentrisks undermining resource protection in cases where visitation is lowor where economic and conservation interests are at odds (Cheng etal., 2005; Han and Ren, 2001; Zhong et al., 2015; Zinda, 2014). Through-out China, control of parks is shifting from national to provincial author-ities, which is exacerbating the emphasis on using parks for economicgain rather than primarily to protect natural and cultural resources ofnational significance (Grumbine and Xu, 2011; Urgenson et al., 2014;


Xu et al., 2012; Zheng and Cao, 2014; Zinda, 2014). The national govern-ment still maintains park infrastructure to some extent, but routine ad-ministration is now the responsibility of relevant regional and localgovernments (1994; Zheng and Cao, 2014; Zinda, 2014). Regional andlocal government officials have strong incentives to promote local andregional economies, and ecotourism and natural resource extractioncan appear to be attractive options, even if they come at the cost of con-servation and traditional ways of life (Urgenson et al., 2014;Wandesforde-Smith et al., 2014; Xu and Melick, 2007; Xu et al., 2012;Zinda, 2012, 2014). In Wudalianchi National Nature Reserve, theseproblems are small relative to other Chinese protected areas, but scienceand education appear vastly underfunded compared to the investmentsin park functions more directly related to visitor accommodation andeconomic development.

We believe that greater investment in science, resource manage-ment, and education in national parks is warranted if they are to fulfilltheir ambitious missions over the long-term (Colwell et al., 2012; Hanand Ren, 2001; Liu et al., 2013; NPCA, 2011; Quan et al., 2011; Sellars,2009). This is not surprising advice coming from a group of scientists,but without adequate investment in these areas, economic develop-ment around parksmay reduce their conservation value and parkman-agers may be unable to detect or respond to serious resourcedegradation until it is too late. For example, Acadia National Park hasexisted for 100 years, but only recently have scientists found that nearly20% of its flora has disappeared over that time (Greene et al., 2005). USNational Park Service staff now routinely monitor a set of indicators ofecosystem health and have established a research learning center inAcadia, but even with these investments, no studies have been doneto detectwhether the parkmayhave lost large proportions of other spe-cies groups, such as lichens, insects, or freshwater invertebrates. InWudalianchi, we know of no routine monitoring of resource conditionsother than water quality. We believe the situation is similar in mostother Chinese and US national parks—investments in science, resourcemanagement, and education are not adequate to meet informationneeds (NPCA, 2011; Zhou and Grumbine, 2011).

Inadequate information on the condition of resources makes it diffi-cult or impossible to manage them effectively, particularly in a time ofrapid environmental change (Colwell et al., 2012). The magnitude ofthe investments in protected area infrastructure in China makes thelack of information particularlyworrying. There is strongpotential to in-advertently and irreparably damage natural resources. Chinese man-agers and policy makers may be able learn from the history, mistakes,and successes in older system of US national parks in this regard(Sellars, 2009).

National parks and other protected areas are among themost visiblemeans that a country has to demonstrate its commitment to conserva-tion (Ma, 2014) and to allow people to experience some of the world'smost spectacular natural treasures. However, as they currently function,the funding deficiencies of national park systems of China and the Unit-ed States, as with most other countries, undermine their abilities toachieve their missions over the long-term (Watson et al., 2014). Giventhe substantial recent government investment in national parks inChina and the public enthusiasm for national parks in the United States,we are hopeful that these deficiencies can be rectified.

Acknowledgements

We thank Christie Anastasia, Mark Berry, Becky Cole-Will, RichardCorlett, Ed Grumbine, Michael Madell, David MacDonald, MichaelSoukup, Sheridan Steele, and three anonymous reviewers for providinghelpful comments on the manuscript, and the Administrative Commit-tee of Wudalianchi for providing data on budget, visitation, and thenumber of employees. The findings and conclusions in this report arethose of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of thefunding agencies or the Department of Interior or the US Government.




References

Act to Establish a National Park Service (Organic Act), In 16 U.S.C. §1. United States.Presidential Proclomation 1339 of July 8, 1916, United States.An Act to Establish a Permanent Boundary for the Acadia National Park in the State of

Maine, and for Other Purposes, United States.Regulation of Nature Reserves. State Council, People's Republic of China.BDN, 2011. Saving Schoodic Peninsula. Bangor Daily NewsBangor, Maine.Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Dudley, N., Jaeger, T., Lassen, B., Pathak Broome, N., Phillips, A.,

Sandwith, T., 2013. Governance of Protected Areas: From Understanding to Action.Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines SeriesIUCN, Gland, Switzerland, p. 124.

Bruner, A.G., Gullison, R.E., Rice, R.E., da Fonseca, G.A.B., 2001. Effectiveness of parks inprotecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291, 125–128.

CCCP, 2013. Communique of the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee ofthe Communist Party of China. Communist Party of China, Beijing.

Chen, H.-Z., Gao, F., Wu, X.-J., Meng, X.-S., 2004. Relationship between earthquake andvolcanic eruption inferred from historical records. Acta Seismol. Sin. 17, 500–506.

Chen, Y., Ebenstein, A., Greenstone, M., Li, H., 2013. Evidence on the impact of sustainedexposure to air pollution on life expectancy from China's Huai River policy. Proc.Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 12936–12941.

Cheng, Z.H., Zhang, J.T., Wu, B.-H., Niu, L.-Q., 2005. Relationship between tourism develop-ment and vegetated landscapes in Luya Mountain Nature Reserve, Shanxi, China. En-viron. Manag. 36, 374–381.

Clement, S., 2014. Friends of Acadia celebrates five million island explorer riders. FriendsAcadia J. 19, 9.

Colwell, R., Avery, S., Berger, J., Davis, G.E., Hamilton, H., Lovejoy, T., Malcom, S., McMullen,A., Novacek, M.J., Roberts, R.J., Tapia, R., Machlis, G., 2012. Revisiting Leopold: Re-source Stewardship in the National Parks. National Park System Advisory Board,Washington, DC.

Cullinane Thomas, C., Huber, C., Koontz, L., 2015. 2014 National park visitor spending ef-fects: economic contributions to local communities, states, and the nation. NaturalResource Report NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRR. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Cyranoski, D., 2016. Science wins in five-year plan. Nature 531, 424–425.Dudley, N. (Ed.), 2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories.

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.Fancy, S.G., Gross, J.E., Carter, S.L., 2009. Monitoring the condition of natural resources in

US national parks. Environ. Monit. Assess. 151, 161–174.FOA, 2015. Friends of Acadia. Friends Acadia Bar Harbor, Maine friendsofacadia.org.Fu, B., 2008. Blue skies for China. Science 321, 611.Gimmi, U., Schmidt, S.L., Hawbaker, T.J., Alcantara, C., Gafvert, U., Radeloff, V.C., 2011. In-

creasing development in the surroundings of U.S. National Park Service holdingsjeopardizes park effectiveness. J. Environ. Manag. 92, 229–239.

Gong, J., 1997. Volcanic activity of Wudalianchi volcanic cluster, Heilongjiang, China. Hei-longjiang Geol. 8, 88–94.

Greene, C.W., Gregory, L.L., Mittelhauser, G.H., Rooney, S.C., Weber, J.E., 2005. Vascularflora of the Acadia National Park region, Maine. Rhodora 107, 117–185.

Grumbine, R.E., Xu, J., 2011. Creating a ‘conservation with Chinese characteristics’. Biol.Conserv. 144, 1347–1355.

Grumbine, R.E., Xu, J., 2013. Recalibrating China's environmental policy: the next 10 years.Biol. Conserv. 166, 287–292.

Guan, L., Sun, G., Cao, S., 2011. China's bureaucracy hinders environmental recovery.Ambio 40, 96–99.

Guo, Z., Cui, G., 2015. Establishment of nature reserves in administrative regions of main-land China. PLoS ONE 10, e0119650.

Han, N.Y., Ren, Z.G., 2001. Ecotourism in China's nature reserves: opportunities and chal-lenges. J. Sustain. Tour. 9, 228–242.

Harris, T.B., Rajakaruna, N., Nelson, S.J., Vaux, P.D., 2012. Stressors and threats to the floraof Acadia National Park, Maine: current knowledge, information gaps, and future di-rections. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 139, 323–344.

Huang, C., Su, J., Zhao, X., Sui, J., Ru, P., Zhang, H., Wang, X., 2012. Government funded re-newable energy innovation in China. Energ Policy 51, 121–127.

Huang, Q.Y., Wang, J.F., Zhu, D.G., Ni, H.W., 2014. Species composition and succession dis-cipline on lava flow of different periods volcano, Wudalianchi China. Applied Me-chanics and Materials, pp. 3005–3008 Trans Tech Publ.

Huang, S., 2016. Exploitation of endangered species feared as China revisits wildlife law.The New York Times New York.

IUCN, UNEP-WCMC, 2016. World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). UNEP-WCMC,Cambridge, UK.

Laurance, W.F., Useche, D.C., Rendeiro, J., Kalka, M., Bradshaw, C.J., Sloan, S.P., Laurance,S.G., Campbell, M., Abernethy, K., Alvarez, P., Arroyo-Rodriguez, V., Ashton, P.,Benitez-Malvido, J., Blom, A., Bobo, K.S., Cannon, C.H., Cao, M., Carroll, R., Chapman,C., Coates, R., Cords, M., Danielsen, F., De Dijn, B., Dinerstein, E., Donnelly, M.A.,Edwards, D., Edwards, F., Farwig, N., Fashing, P., Forget, P.M., Foster, M., Gale, G.,Harris, D., Harrison, R., Hart, J., Karpanty, S., Kress, W.J., Krishnaswamy, J., Logsdon,W., Lovett, J., Magnusson, W., Maisels, F., Marshall, A.R., McClearn, D., Mudappa, D.,Nielsen, M.R., Pearson, R., Pitman, N., van der Ploeg, J., Plumptre, A., Poulsen, J.,Quesada, M., Rainey, H., Robinson, D., Roetgers, C., Rovero, F., Scatena, F., Schulze, C.,Sheil, D., Struhsaker, T., Terborgh, J., Thomas, D., Timm, R., Urbina-Cardona, J.N.,Vasudevan, K., Wright, S.J., Arias, G.J., Arroyo, L., Ashton, M., Auzel, P., Babaasa, D.,Babweteera, F., Baker, P., Banki, O., Bass, M., Bila-Isia, I., Blake, S., Brockelman, W.,Brokaw, N., Bruhl, C.A., Bunyavejchewin, S., Chao, J.T., Chave, J., Chellam, R., Clark,C.J., Clavijo, J., Congdon, R., Corlett, R., Dattaraja, H.S., Dave, C., Davies, G., BeisiegelBde, M., da Silva Rde, N., Di Fiore, A., Diesmos, A., Dirzo, R., Doran-Sheehy, D., Eaton,M., Emmons, L., Estrada, A., Ewango, C., Fedigan, L., Feer, F., Fruth, B., Willis, J.G.,Goodale, U., Goodman, S., Guix, J.C., Guthiga, P., Haber, W., Hamer, K., Herbinger, I.,Hill, J., Huang, Z., Sun, I.F., Ickes, K., Itoh, A., Ivanauskas, N., Jackes, B., Janovec, J.,


Janzen, D., Jiangming, M., Jin, C., Jones, T., Justiniano, H., Kalko, E., Kasangaki, A.,Killeen, T., King, H.B., Klop, E., Knott, C., Kone, I., Kudavidanage, E., Ribeiro, J.L.,Lattke, J., Laval, R., Lawton, R., Leal, M., Leighton, M., Lentino, M., Leonel, C., Lindsell,J., Ling-Ling, L., Linsenmair, K.E., Losos, E., Lugo, A., Lwanga, J., Mack, A.L., Martins,M., McGraw, W.S., McNab, R., Montag, L., Thompson, J.M., Nabe-Nielsen, J.,Nakagawa, M., Nepal, S., Norconk, M., Novotny, V., O'Donnell, S., Opiang, M.,Ouboter, P., Parker, K., Parthasarathy, N., Pisciotta, K., Prawiradilaga, D., Pringle, C.,Rajathurai, S., Reichard, U., Reinartz, G., Renton, K., Reynolds, G., Reynolds, V., Riley,E., Rodel, M.O., Rothman, J., Round, P., Sakai, S., Sanaiotti, T., Savini, T., Schaab, G.,Seidensticker, J., Siaka, A., Silman, M.R., Smith, T.B., de Almeida, S.S., Sodhi, N.,Stanford, C., Stewart, K., Stokes, E., Stoner, K.E., Sukumar, R., Surbeck, M., Tobler, M.,Tscharntke, T., Turkalo, A., Umapathy, G., van Weerd, M., Rivera, J.V., Venkataraman,M., Venn, L., Verea, C., de Castilho, C.V., Waltert, M., Wang, B., Watts, D., Weber, W.,West, P., Whitacre, D., Whitney, K., Wilkie, D., Williams, S., Wright, D.D., Wright, P.,Xiankai, L., Yonzon, P., Zamzani, F., 2012. Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical for-est protected areas. Nature 489, 290–294.

Leverington, F., Costa, K.L., Pavese, H., Lisle, A., Hockings, M., 2010. A global analysis ofprotected area management effectiveness. Environ. Manag. 46, 685–698.

Li, J., Wang, W., Axmacher, J.C., Zhang, Y., Zhu, Y., 2016. Streamlining China's protectedareas. Science 351, 1160.

Liu, C., Xiao, W., Li, J., Pechacek, P., 2013. Attitude of tourists visiting nature reserves inChina. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 5, 1–4.

Ma, K.P., 2014. Nature conservation is the first priority for a national park. Biodivers. Sci.22, 415–417.

Manni, M.F., Littlejohn, M., Hollenhorst, S.J., 2010. Acadia National Park Visitor Study:Summer 2009. National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, Fort Collins,Colorado.

Mao, X., Li, J., Gao, W., Zhang, T.-R., 2010. Vent distribution of Wudalianchi Volcanoes Hei-longjiang Province, China, and its relation to faults. Geol. J. China Univ. 2, 010.

McKinley, D.C., Miller-Rushing, A.J., Ballard, H.L., Bonney, R., Brown, H., Evans, D.M.,French, R.A., Parrish, J.K., Phillips, T.B., Ryan, S.F., Shanley, L.A., Shirk, J.L., Stepenuck,K.F., Weltzin, J.F., Wiggins, A., Boyle, O.D., Briggs, R.D., Chapin Iii, F.S., Hewitt, D.A.,Preuss, P.W., Soukup, M.A., 2015. Investing in citizen science can improve natural re-source management and environmental protection. Issues Ecol. 19.

MEP, 2013. Ministry of Environmental Protection will Implement Ecological Red Line.Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People's Republic of China, Beijing.

MEP, 2015. 2014 Report on the State of the Environment in China. Ministry of Environ-mental Protection of the People's Republic of China, Beijing.

Miller-Rushing, A.J., Cole-Will, B., Manski, D., 2014. Preserving a resilient Acadia. FriendsAcadia J. 19, 12–14.

Murray, N.J., Clemens, R.S., Phinn, S.R., Possingham, H.P., Fuller, R.A., 2014. Tracking therapid loss of tidal wetlands in the Yellow Sea. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 267–272.

Nielsen, M.G., 2013. Changes in Nitrogen Loading to the Northeast Creek Estuary, Bar Har-bor, Maine, 2000 to 2010. Virginia, US Geological Survey, Reston, p. 33.

NPCA, 2011. The State of America's National Parks. Fort Collins, CO., National Parks andConservation Association, p. 64.

NPF, 2014. National Park Foundation 2014 Annual Report. National Park Foundation,Washington, DC.

NPS, 2006. Management Policies 2006. US Department of the Interior, National Park Ser-vice, Washington, DC.

NPS, 2011. NPS Friends Group Directory FY 2011. National Park Service, Washington, DC.NPS, 2015a. Acadia National Park has $57.6 Million in Deferred Maintenance. National

Park Service, US Department of Interior, Bar Harbor, Mainehttp://www.nps.gov/acad/learn/news/acadia-national-park-has-57-million-dollars-in-deferred-maintenance.htm.

NPS, 2015b. In: Service, N.P. (Ed.), Envision the Future of Transportation in Acadia. Na-tional Park Service, US Department of Interior, Acadia National Park, Maine.

NPS, 2015c. InsideNPS. National Park Service, US Department of Interior, Washington, DC.NPS, 2015d. NPS Deferred Maintenance by State and Park. National Park Service, Wash-

ington, DC.NPS, 2016a. Budget. National Park Service, Washington, DChttps://www.nps.gov/

aboutus/budget.htm.NPS, 2016b. National Park Service Visitor Use Statistics. US Department of the Interior, Na-

tional Park Service, Washington, DC.O'Connell, A.F., 1990. The Peregrine Falcon at Acadia National Park. Bar Harbor Times p. B7

Bar Harbor, Maine.Phillips, T., 2015. Airpocalypse now: China pollution reaching record levels. The Guardian

London.Quan, J., Ouyang, Z., Xu, W., Miao, H., 2011. Assessment of the effectiveness of nature re-

serve management in China. Biodivers. Conserv. 20, 779–792.Ren, G., Young, S.S., Wang, L., Wang, W., Long, Y., Wu, R., Li, J., Zhu, J., Yu, D.W., 2015. Ef-

fectiveness of China's National Forest Protection Program and nature reserves.Conserv. Biol. 29, 1368–1377.

Sang, W., Axmacher, J.C., 2016. China draws lines to green future. Nature 531, 305.Schoodic Institute, 2016. Schoodic Institute at Acadia National Park. Schoodic Institute at

Acadia National Park, Winter Harbor, Maine SchoodicInstitute.org.Sellars, R.W., 2009. Preserving Nature in the National Parks: a History. Yale University

Press, New Haven.Southern, M., 2008. Sonshan: a Conservation Window in China. The Nature Conservancy.Tang, Z., Wang, Z., Zheng, C., Fang, J., 2006. Biodiversity in China's mountains. Front. Ecol.

Environ. 4, 347–352.Thomas, C.C., Huber, C., Koontz, L., 2015. 2014 national park visitor spending effects: eco-

nomic contributions to local communities, states, and the nation. National Park Ser-vice, US Department of the Interior, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Tsutomu, O., 1936. Investigation Report of Geological Survey in Wudalianchi Volcanoes,Heilongjiang Province. Lvshun University of Technology, Lvshun.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(16)30204-X/rf0025




























http://friendsofacadia.org

































































http://www.nps.gov/acad/learn/news/acadia-national-park-has-57-million-dollars-in-deferred-maintenance.htm








https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/budget.htm

https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/budget.htm













http://schoodicinstitute.org













Turner, J.L., Ellis, L., 2007. China's growing ecological footprint. China Monit. 7–10.UI Park Studies Unit, 2013. Acadia NP 2013 visitor survey card data report. Park Visitor

Survey Card Reports. University of Idaho Park Studies Unit, Moscow, Idaho.Urgenson, L., Schmidt, A.H., Combs, J., Harrell, S., Hinckley, T., Yang, Q., Ma, Z., Li, Y., Li, H.,

MacIver, A., 2014. Traditional livelihoods, conservation and meadow ecology inJiuzhaigou National Park, Sichuan, China. Hum. Ecol. 42, 481–491.

Vaughn, J., Cortner, H.J., 2013. Philanthropy and the National Park Service. Palgrave Mac-millan, New York.

Wan, L., Zhang, Y., Zhang, X., Qi, S., Na, X., 2015. Comparison of land use/land cover changeand landscape patterns in Honghe National Nature Reserve and the surroundingJiansanjiang Region, China. Ecol. Indic. 51, 205–214.

Wandesforde-Smith, G., Denninger Snyder, K., Hart, L.A., 2014. Biodiversity conservationand protected areas in China: science, law, and the obdurate party-state. J. Int.Wildl. Law Policy 17, 85–101.

Wang, G., Innes, J.L., Wu, S.W., Krzyzanowski, J., Yin, Y., Dai, S., Zhang, X., Liu, S., 2012. Na-tional park development in China: conservation or commercialization? Ambio 41,247–261.

Wang, S.L., Xu, X.R., Sun, Y.X., Liu, J.L., Li, H.B., 2013. Heavymetal pollution in coastal areasof South China: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 76, 7–15.

Wang, Y., Mitchell, B.R., Nugranad-Marzilli, J., Bonynge, G., Zhou, Y., Shriver, G., 2009. Re-mote sensing of land-cover change and landscape context of the National Parks: acase study of the Northeast Temperate Network. Remote Sens. Environ. 113,1453–1461.

Watson, J.E., Dudley, N., Segan, D.B., Hockings, M., 2014. The performance and potential ofprotected areas. Nature 515, 67–73.

West, J., Schandl, H., Heyenga, S., Chen, S., 2013. Resource Efficiency: Economics and Out-look for China. UNEP, Bangkok.

Wu, J., Huang, J., Han, X., Xie, Z., Gao, X., 2003. Three-Gorges Dam—experiment in habitatfragmentation? Science 300, 1239–1240.

Wu, R., Zhang, S., Yu, D.W., Zhao, P., Li, X., Wang, L., Yu, Q., Ma, J., Chen, A., Long, Y., 2011.Effectiveness of China's nature reserves in representing ecological diversity. Front.Ecol. Environ. 9, 383–389.

Xie, G., Cao, S., Yang, Q., Xia, L., Fan, Z., Chen, B., Zhou, S., Chang, Y., Ge, L., Cook, S.,Humphrey, S., 2012. China Ecological Footprint Report 2012. WWF, Beijing.

Xu, H., Cui, Q., Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., 2013. Effective environmental interpretation atChinese natural attractions: the need for an aesthetic approach. J. Sustain. Tour. 21,117–133.

Xu, J., Melick, D.R., 2007. Rethinking the effectiveness of public protected areas in south-western China. Conserv. Biol. 21, 318–328.


Xu, J., Sun, G., Liu, Y., 2014. Diversity and complexity in the forms and functions ofprotected areas in China. J. Int. Wildl. Law Policy 17, 102–114.

Xu, J., Zhang, Z., Liu,W., McGowan, P.J.K., 2012. A review and assessment of nature reservepolicy in China: advances, challenges and opportunities. Oryx 46, 554–562.

Yang, B., Busch, J., Zhang, L., Ran, J., Gu, X., Zhang,W., Du, B., Xu, Y., Mittermeier, R.A., 2015.China's collective forest tenure reform and the future of the giant panda. Conserv.Lett. 8, 251–261.

Yang, X., Lu, X.X., 2013. Ten years of the Three Gorges Dam: a call for policy overhaul. En-viron. Res. Lett. 8, 041006.

Zhang, J., Huo, Y., Wu, H., Yu, K., Kim, J.K., Yarish, C., Qin, Y., Liu, C., Xu, R., He, P., 2014. Theorigin of the Ulva macroalgal blooms in the Yellow Sea in 2013. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 89,276–283.

Zhang, L., Yin, F., 2014.Wildlife consumption and conservation awareness in China: a longway to go. Biodivers. Conserv. 23, 2371–2381.

Zheng, H., Cao, S., 2014. Threats to China's biodiversity by contradictions policy. Ambio 44,23–33.

Zheng, W., Wang, X., Tian, D., Jiang, S., Andersen, M.E., He, G., Crabbe, M.J., Zheng, Y.,Zhong, Y., Qu, W., 2013. Water pollutant fingerprinting tracks recent industrial trans-fer from coastal to inland China: a case study. Sci. Report. 3, 1031.

Zhong, L.S., Buckley, R.C., Wardle, C., Wang, L., 2015. Environmental and visitor manage-ment in a thousand protected areas in China. Biol. Conserv. 181, 219–225.

Zhou, C.-M., Huang, X.-Y., Hu, B.-J., 2011a. Forecast method analysis of dry season runofffor Nierji Reservoir. Heilongjiang Sci. Technol. Water Conservancy 3, 025.

Zhou, D., Wang, Z., Lassoie, J., Wang, X., Sun, L., 2014. Changing stakeholder relationshipsin nature reserve management: a case study on Snake Island-Laotie Mountain Na-tional Nature Reserve, Liaoning, China. J. Environ. Manag. 146, 292–302.

Zhou, D.Q., Grumbine, R.E., 2011. National parks in China: experiments with protectingnature and human livelihoods in Yunnan province, Peoples' Republic of China(PRC). Biol. Conserv. 144, 1314–1321.

Zhou, Z.Q., Xu, L.J., Zhang, Y.H., Xia, C.M., Li, H.G., Liu, T., Ma, K.P., 2011b. An analysis of theecological value of Wudalianchi, Heilongjiang Province, China. Biodivers. Sci. 19,63–70.

Zinda, J.A., 2012. Hazards of collaboration: local state co-optation of a new protected-areamodel in Southwest China. Soc. Nat. Resour. 25, 384–399.

Zinda, J.A., 2014. Making national parks in Yunnan: shifts and struggles within the ecolog-ical state. In: Yeh, E., Coggins, C. (Eds.), Mapping Shangrila: Nature, Personhood, andSovereignty in the Sino-Tibetan Borderlands. University of Washington Press, Seattle.










































































Documents

A Chinese approach to protected areas: A case study ... · b Boston University, Department of Biology, Boston, Massachusetts, USA ... 2 A.J. Miller-Rushing et al. / Biological Conservation