Elsevier

Biological Conservation 生物保育

Volume 292, April 2024, 110561
第 292 卷，2024 年 4 月，110561
Biological Conservation

The playing out of distributional, procedural and recognitional equity and the acceptance of protected areas by local people: Evidence from the Giant Panda National Park, China
分配、程序和承认公平的发挥以及当地人对保护区的接受——来自中国大熊猫国家公园的证据

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110561Get rights and content 获取权利和内容

Highlights 突出

  • •
    Procedural and distributional equity facilitate acceptance of protected areas.
    程序和分配公平有助于接受保护区。
  • •
    Recognitional equity has an intricate relationship with local support.
    认可公平与当地支持有着错综复杂的关系。
  • •
    Perceived justice tends to be non-linear in relation to local support.
    感知到的正义与地方支持相比往往是非线性的。
  • •
    The location of communities influences local pro-conservation behaviours.
    社区的位置会影响当地支持保护的行为。
  • •
    There is a need for a better understanding of the equity-acceptance relationship.
    需要更好地了解股权-接受关系。

Abstract 抽象

This paper examines how perceived social equity (distributional equity, procedural equity, and recognitional equity) affects acceptance of protected areas by local communities. We also consider the consequences of these perceptions on the behaviour of local people in relation to biodiversity conservation. Despite increasing importance being given to social issues in protected area management, there is limited evidence about the effect of perceived equity on local support for conservation initiatives. Questionnaires (mostly face-to-face interviews) were undertaken with 426 households living in and around the Giant Panda National Park, which lies across the Sichuan, Shanxi and Gansu provinces of China. Structural equation modelling revealed that local residents with positive perceptions of procedural and distributional equity were more willing to support conservation and engage in conservation behaviours. Surprisingly, perceived recognitional equity had no effect on acceptance and negatively impacted conservation behaviour. This highlights that, although it is essential to promote recognitional equity, the complexities around this must be considered further. The context (e.g. age, education, village of residence) moderates the relationships between procedural equity, distributional equity and local acceptance. We suggest that, in order to achieve better park-people relationships, in addition to addressing equity concerns, it is also necessary to implement supplementary measures, such as community co-management and benefit sharing with host communities.
本文研究了感知到的社会公平（分配公平、程序公平和承认公平）如何影响当地社区对保护区的接受度。我们还考虑了这些看法对当地人在生物多样性保护方面的行为的影响。尽管在保护区管理中越来越重视社会问题，但关于感知公平对当地对保护倡议支持的影响的证据有限。对居住在大熊猫国家公园及其周边地区的 426 户家庭进行了问卷调查（主要是面对面访谈），该公园横跨中国四川、山西和甘肃省。结构方程模型显示，对程序和分配公平有积极看法的当地居民更愿意支持保护并参与保护行为。令人惊讶的是，感知到的认可公平性对接受度没有影响，并且对保护行为产生了负面影响。这凸显出，尽管促进认可公平性至关重要，但必须进一步考虑这方面的复杂性。环境（例如年龄、教育程度、居住村庄）调节了程序公平、分配公平和当地接受度之间的关系。我们建议，为了实现更好的公园与人的关系，除了解决公平问题外，还需要实施补充措施，例如社区共同管理和与寄宿社区的利益分享。

Keywords 关键字

Protected area governance
Conservation and society
Community participation
Wildlife conservation
National park management
Environmental justice

保护区治理
保护与社会
社区参与
野生动物保护
国家公园管理
环境正义

1. Introduction 1. 引言

The ‘Nature 2030’ program initiated by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) advocates for “a just world that values and conserves nature” (IUCN, 2021, p.2). From even before the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, there has been awareness that social issues are important for biodiversity conservation (McDermott et al., 2013; Klein et al., 2015; Cetas and Yasué, 2017; Dawson et al., 2018). Ecosystem management is more likely to fail if the social acceptability of a protected area (PA) is low, and when the needs and expectations of local people are not met (West et al., 2006; Halpern et al., 2013; Klein et al., 2015; Vanclay, 2017; Dawson et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2022).
由国际自然保护联盟 （IUCN） 发起的“自然 2030”计划倡导“一个重视和保护自然的公正世界”（IUCN，2021 年，第 2 页）。甚至在 1992 年在里约热内卢举行的联合国环境与发展会议（地球峰会）之前，人们就已经意识到社会问题对生物多样性保护很重要（McDermott 等人，2013 年;Klein et al.， 2015;Cetas 和 Yasué，2017 年;Dawson et al.， 2018）。如果保护区 （PA） 的社会可接受度较低，并且当地人民的需求和期望没有得到满足，生态系统管理就更有可能失败（West 等人，2006 年;Halpern et al.， 2013;Klein et al.， 2015;Vanclay，2017 年;Dawson et al.， 2018;Jones et al.， 2022）。
Much literature has discussed the importance of various social issues in conservation, including: the need for justice and equity (Zafra-Calvo et al., 2019); perceptions of historical events (Wang et al., 2019); and the bi-directional relationship between perception of equity and the extent of local people's participation in park management (Vanclay, 2017; Bennett et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2022). Till now, there has been limited attention given to the role of equity for achieving the success of conservation initiatives (Halpern et al., 2013; Klein et al., 2015). Much of the discussion about the relationship between equity and conservation has been of a theoretical nature, therefore it is highly desirable for empirical quantitative studies to provide evidence on this topic (Halpern et al., 2013; Klein et al., 2015), which is the focus of our paper.
许多文献讨论了各种社会问题在保护中的重要性，包括：正义和公平的需要（Zafra-Calvo 等人，2019 年）;对历史事件的看法（Wang et al.， 2019）;以及公平感知与当地人参与公园管理程度之间的双向关系（Vanclay，2017 年;Bennett等人，2020 年;Chen等人，2022 年）。到目前为止，人们对公平在实现保护倡议成功方面的作用的关注有限（Halpern 等人，2013 年;Klein et al.， 2015）。关于公平与保护之间关系的大部分讨论都是理论性质的，因此非常希望实证定量研究提供有关该主题的证据（Halpern 等人，2013 年;Klein et al.， 2015），这是我们论文的重点。
Equity is hard to define, but is similar to justice and fairness, and these terms tend to be used interchangeably (Schroeder and Pisupati, 2010; McDermott et al., 2013; Schreckenberg et al., 2016). In the context of PA management, sometimes the term ‘social equity’ is used to refer to a fair distribution of benefits and burdens among all stakeholders (Zafra-Calvo et al., 2017). But, as argued in this paper and elsewhere, social equity is more than just distributional equity, it is also procedural equity and recognitional equity (Schreckenberg et al., 2016; Zafra-Calvo et al., 2017). For this paper, equity and social equity are synonymous.
公平很难定义，但类似于正义和公平，这些术语往往可以互换使用（Schroeder 和 Pisupati，2010 年;McDermott et al.， 2013;Schreckenberg et al.， 2016）。在保护区管理方面，有时使用“社会公平”一词来指代所有利益相关者之间公平分配利益和负担（Zafra-Calvo et al.， 2017）。但是，正如本文和其他地方所论述的那样，社会公平不仅仅是分配公平，它还是程序公平和承认公平（Schreckenberg et al.， 2016;Zafra-Calvo等人，2017 年）。在本文中，公平和社会公平是同义词。
Our research considered the relationship between different forms of equity and the social acceptability of PAs. From an ethical perspective, vulnerable and marginalized communities, which are frequently displaced or experience restrictions in their access to natural resources as a result of PAs, should be given more consideration in conservation management (Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau, 2006; Schmidt-Soltau, 2009; Shahabuddin and Bhamidipati, 2014; Vanclay, 2017). There is evidence that having support from local communities and an equitable sharing of benefits will increase the effectiveness of conservation (Oldekop et al., 2016). In contrast, unacceptable conservation policies and regulations will lead to resentment, opposition, resistance and protest from local communities (Schlosberg, 2007; Miller et al., 2012; Twinamatsiko et al., 2014; Hanna et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2020b; Groce and Cook, 2022). This raises two key questions: Do the different forms of equity contribute equally to local willingness to support conservation?; and How are the various forms of equity linked to local residents' pro-conservation behaviours?
我们的研究考虑了不同形式的公平与 PA 的社会可接受性之间的关系。从伦理角度来看，脆弱和边缘化社区经常流离失所，或因保护区而在获取自然资源方面受到限制，在保护管理中应予以更多考虑（Cernea 和 Schmidt-Soltau，2006 年;Schmidt-Soltau，2009 年;Shahabuddin 和 Bhamidipati，2014 年;Vanclay，2017 年）。有证据表明，获得当地社区的支持和公平分享利益将提高保护的有效性（Oldekop 等人，2016 年）。相反，不可接受的保护政策和法规将导致当地社区的不满、反对、抵制和抗议（Schlosberg，2007 年;Miller et al.， 2012;Twinamatsiko et al.， 2014;Hanna et al.， 2016;Zhang et al.， 2020b;Groce 和 Cook，2022 年）。这提出了两个关键问题：不同形式的公平是否对当地支持保护的意愿做出了同等贡献？以及各种形式的公平如何与当地居民的支持保护行为联系起来？
Even though they are often used in the field of natural resource management, social acceptability and social acceptance are imprecise concepts (Jones et al., 2022). Essentially, when applied with respect to a PA, they describe the extent to which local people accept the existence of the PA and are supportive of it. These concepts overlap with the notion of ‘social licence to operate’ (Vanclay, 2017). Local acceptance of a PA can be demonstrated by the extent of willingness to support conservation and by the behavioural support of local people towards the specific PA (Bennett, 2016). The focus of this paper is on how different forms of equity affect local communities' behaviour and willingness to support conservation. For our conceptualisation of equity, we used a framework commonly used in the field of conservation studies that includes distributional equity, procedural equity, and recognitional equity (McDermott et al., 2013; Pascual et al., 2014; Klein et al., 2015; Schreckenberg et al., 2016; Zafra-Calvo et al., 2017, Zafra-Calvo et al., 2019; Law et al., 2018; Bennett et al., 2020). We measured and statistically analysed perceptions of these forms of equity in relation to the newly formed Giant Panda National Park (GPNP) in China.
尽管它们经常用于自然资源管理领域，但社会接受度和社会接受度是不精确的概念（Jones et al.， 2022）。从本质上讲，当应用于 PA 时，它们描述了当地人接受 PA 的存在并支持它的程度。这些概念与“社会经营许可”的概念重叠（Vanclay，2017 年）。当地对保护区的接受程度可以通过支持保护的意愿程度和当地人对特定保护区的行为支持来证明（Bennett，2016）。本文的重点是不同形式的公平如何影响当地社区的行为和支持保护的意愿。对于我们对公平的概念化，我们使用了保护研究领域常用的框架，其中包括分配公平、程序公平和承认公平（McDermott 等人，2013 年;Pascual 等人，2014 年;Klein et al.， 2015;Schreckenberg et al.， 2016;Zafra-Calvo 等人，2017 年，Zafra-Calvo 等人，2019 年;Law et al.， 2018;Bennett等人，2020 年）。我们测量并统计分析了与中国新成立的大熊猫国家公园 （GPNP） 相关的这些形式的公平的看法。

2. Conceptual framework 2. 概念框架

Over the past decade, various theoretical frameworks for considering environmental justice in conservation studies have given increasing attention to the concept of equity (McDermott et al., 2013; Schreckenberg et al., 2016; Zafra-Calvo et al., 2017; Gupta et al., 2023; Schinko et al., 2023; Zimm et al., 2024). Recognitional, procedural, and distributional are three interlinked components of equity that have gained wide recognition (Pascual et al., 2014; Schreckenberg et al., 2016; Zafra-Calvo et al., 2017; Law et al., 2018; Bennett et al., 2020). Perceptions of equity also depend on the particular political, historical, and social settings, and thus context is a critical underlying factor of equity and influences people's motivations and behaviour (Pascual et al., 2014; Sikor et al., 2014). In our research, we use the three dimensions of equity and context as key considerations (see Fig. 1).
在过去的十年中，在保护研究中考虑环境正义的各种理论框架越来越关注公平的概念（McDermott 等人，2013 年;Schreckenberg et al.， 2016;Zafra-Calvo等人，2017 年;Gupta 等人，2023 年;Schinko等人，2023 年;Zimm等人，2024 年）。认可、程序和分配是公平的三个相互关联的组成部分，已获得广泛认可（Pascual 等人，2014 年;Schreckenberg et al.， 2016;Zafra-Calvo等人，2017 年;Law et al.， 2018;Bennett等人，2020 年）。对公平的看法还取决于特定的政治、历史和社会环境，因此环境是公平的关键潜在因素，并影响人们的动机和行为（Pascual 等人，2014 年;Sikor et al.， 2014）。在我们的研究中，我们使用公平和背景的三个维度作为关键考虑因素（见图 1）。
Fig. 1
  1. Download: Download high-res image (148KB)
    下载： 下载高分辨率图像 （148KB）
  2. Download: Download full-size image
    下载：下载全尺寸图像

Fig. 1. A conceptual model of equity for local communities and protected areas.
图 1.当地社区和保护区公平的概念模型。

Source: adapted from McDermott et al. (2013) and Pascual et al. (2014).
来源：改编自 McDermott 等人（2013 年）和 Pascual 等人（2014 年）。
Inherent to the notion of recognitional equity is that the values, knowledge systems, legal and traditional rights, traditional livelihoods, cultural beliefs and cosmologies of Indigenous and local peoples must be acknowledged and appreciated (Vanclay et al., 2013; Pascual et al., 2014; Zafra-Calvo et al., 2019). However, especially in the field of conservation studies, recognitional equity has received inadequate attention (Martin et al., 2016; Friedman et al., 2018). Procedural equity involves the transparent, effective and equitable inclusion of local people in community management and conservation initiatives, including in decision-making, implementation, and problem-solving (Zafra-Calvo et al., 2017; Bennett et al., 2020). Perceptions of procedural equity influence people's attitudes, and are critical for their subjective wellbeing and conservation behaviours (Ruano-Chamorro et al., 2021). Distributional equity pertains to the fair allocation of benefits and burdens between different rightsholders and stakeholders of a particular PA. Whether stakeholders consider the distribution of benefits and burdens to be fair substantially affects the success of conservation outcomes (Fisher et al., 2018; Gurney et al., 2021). Furthermore, context, which refers to the broad social, governance, economic, and cultural contexts, past and present (e.g., power dynamics, gender, education, age, etc), influences local people's ability to gain recognition, participate in decision making, and lobby for a fairer distribution (Pascual et al., 2014).
承认公平概念的内在之处在于，土著和当地人民的价值观、知识体系、法律和传统权利、传统生计、文化信仰和宇宙观必须得到承认和赞赏（Vanclay et al.， 2013;Pascual 等人，2014 年;Zafra-Calvo等人，2019 年）。然而，特别是在保护研究领域，承认公平性没有得到足够的重视（Martin et al.， 2016;Friedman et al.， 2018）。程序公平涉及将当地人透明、有效和公平地纳入社区管理和保护计划，包括决策、实施和问题解决（Zafra-Calvo 等人，2017 年;Bennett等人，2020 年）。对程序公平的看法会影响人们的态度，对他们的主观幸福感和保护行为至关重要（Ruano-Chamorro et al.， 2021）。分配公平涉及特定 PA 的不同权利持有人和利益相关者之间利益和负担的公平分配。利益相关者是否认为利益和负担的分配是公平的，对保护结果的成功有很大影响（Fisher et al.， 2018;Gurney等人，2021 年）。此外，语境，指的是过去和现在的广泛社会、治理、经济和文化语境（例如、权力动态、性别、教育、年龄等）影响当地人获得认可、参与决策和游说更公平分配的能力（Pascual et al.， 2014）。
There has been a growing number of publications about local perceptions of equity and justice in relation to PAs (Sirivongs and Tsuchiya, 2012; Lecuyer et al., 2019; Abebe et al., 2020; Bennett et al., 2020; Lau et al., 2021; Schéré et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2022). Sirivongs and Tsuchiya (2012) found that positive perceptions towards PAs were positively associated with local people's conservation attitudes and behaviours. Lau et al. (2021) realized that the level of recognitional equity can impact the legitimacy of procedures for governing resources, thus leading to perceptions of the fairness of distributional decisions. For instance, in the Bwindi Impenetrable National Park in Uganda, feelings of injustice were found to be an important driver of illegal resource use (Twinamatsiko et al., 2014). Conversely, Friedman et al. (2020) argued that participatory forest management and other procedural equity strategies do not always result in the intended conservation outcomes, while higher wellbeing promotes higher procedural satisfaction.
关于当地对 PA 的公平和正义的看法的出版物越来越多（Sirivongs 和 Tsuchiya，2012 年;Lecuyer等人，2019 年;Abebe等人，2020 年;Bennett等人，2020 年;Lau et al.， 2021;Schéré 等人，2021 年;Chen等人，2022 年）。Sirivongs 和 Tsuchiya （2012） 发现，对保护区的积极看法与当地人的保护态度和行为呈正相关。Lau et al. （2021） 意识到，承认公平的水平会影响治理资源程序的合法性，从而导致对分配决策公平性的看法。例如，在乌干达的 Bwindi 难以穿越的国家公园，不公正的感觉被发现是非法使用资源的重要驱动因素（Twinamatsiko et al.， 2014）。相反，Friedman 等人（2020 年）认为，参与式森林管理和其他程序性公平策略并不总是能产生预期的保护结果，而更高的福祉会促进更高的程序满意度。
The interactions among local communities' perceptions of equity, willingness to participate in conservation (conservation willingness), and conservation behaviours are context-dependent (Sikor et al., 2014), yet few studies have compared the influence of perceptions of fairness across the recognitional, procedural and distributional dimensions of equity. Doing this would provide a deeper understanding of the intricate relationship between equity and conservation effectiveness. In our research, we included different aspects of context as moderating variables, in order to test the following hypotheses (see Fig. 2):
当地社区对公平的看法、参与保护的意愿（保护意愿）和保护行为之间的互动取决于环境（Sikor et al.， 2014），但很少有研究比较公平感知对公平性的看法在公平的承认、程序和分配维度上的影响。这样做将更深入地理解公平和保护有效性之间的复杂关系。在我们的研究中，我们将上下文的不同方面作为调节变量，以检验以下假设（见图 2）：

H1

: more favourable perceptions of recognitional equity are correlated with stronger conservation willingness (H1a) and behaviours (H1b);
： 对认可公平的更有利的看法与更强的保护意愿 （H1a） 和行为 （H1b） 相关;

H2 H2 系列

: more positive perceptions of procedural equity are correlated with stronger conservation willingness (H2a) and behaviours (H2b);
： 对程序公平的更积极的看法与更强的保护意愿 （H2a） 和行为 （H2b） 相关;

H3 H3 系列

: more positive perceptions of distributional equity are correlated with higher pro-conservation willingness (H3a) and behaviours (H3b);
： 对分配公平的更积极的看法与更高的支持保护意愿 （H3a） 和行为 （H3b） 相关;

H4 H4 系列

: conservation willingness positively impacts on local residents' participation behaviours.
： 保护意愿对当地居民的参与行为产生积极影响。
Fig. 2
  1. Download: Download high-res image (144KB)
    下载： 下载高分辨率图片 （144KB）
  2. Download: Download full-size image
    下载：下载全尺寸图像

Fig. 2. Proposed model of the effect of social equity on conservation willingness and participation behaviour.
图 2.提出的社会公平对保护意愿和参与行为影响的模型。

(Source: the authors) （来源： 作者）

3. Methods 3. 方法

3.1. Study area 3.1. 研究区域

The Giant Panda National Park (GPNP), which crosses the Sichuan, Shanxi, and Gansu provinces of China, is a large conservation area of 21,978 km2 that was officially established in 2020 (CTGPNPOP, 2022). Its primary objective is protection of wild giant pandas, which is effected by having 73 special nature reserves (high conservation value zones) within the GPNP. Apart from pandas, the GPNP provides refuge for a wide range of species (over 8000 in total) including the Sichuan takin, black bear, wild boar and various types of deer (Cai et al., 2008). Our research was done in and near the Tangjiahe Nature Reserve, which is at the northern end of the GPNP (see Fig. 3). The Tangjiahe Nature Reserve was first established in 1978. It was later promoted to be a national nature reserve in 1986, and was included in the IUCN Green List in 2014. In 2016, it was consolidated into the newly-established Giant Panda National Park (GPNP), and renamed the Tangjiahe area of Giant Panda National Park (TGPNP) (Li et al., 2021).
大熊猫国家公园 （GPNP） 横跨中国四川、山西和甘肃省，是一个 21,978 km2 的大型保护区，于 2020 年正式建立（CTGPNPOP，2022 年）。其主要目标是保护野生大熊猫，通过在 GPNP 内建立 73 个特殊自然保护区（高保护价值区）来实现这一点。除了大熊猫，GPNP 还为各种物种（总共超过 8000 种）提供庇护所，包括四川羚牛、黑熊、野猪和各种鹿（Cai et al.， 2008）。我们的研究是在 GPNP 北端的唐家河自然保护区及其附近进行的（见图 3）。唐家河自然保护区始建于 1978 年。后来于 1986 年被提升为国家自然保护区，并于 2014 年被列入 IUCN 绿色名录。2016 年，它被合并为新成立的大熊猫国家公园 （GPNP），并更名为大熊猫国家公园 （TGPNP） 的唐家河地区 （Li et al.， 2021）。
Fig. 3
  1. Download: Download high-res image (366KB)
    下载： 下载高分辨率图像 （366KB）
  2. Download: Download full-size image
    下载：下载全尺寸图像

Fig. 3. Map of the Tangjiahe area of the Giant Panda National Park.
图 3.大熊猫国家公园唐家河地区地图。

NOTES: (a) location of GPNP in China (adapted from http://bzdt.ch.mnr.gov.cn); (b) location of TGPNP (adapted from the Overall Planning of Tangjiahe Area of Giant Panda National Park); (c) location of TGPNP and surveyed villages (adapted from local government data), noting that the figure does not include the spatial boundary of Suyang village as this information was not available; (d) information correct at the time of compilation in early 2024.
注：（a） GPNP 在中国的位置（改编自 http://bzdt.ch.mnr.gov.cn）;（b） 大熊猫国家公园位置（改编自《大熊猫国家公园唐家河片区总体规划》）;（c） TGPNP 和调查村庄的位置（改编自地方政府数据），并指出该数字不包括苏阳村的空间边界，因为无法获得此信息;（d） 在 2024 年初编制时的信息正确无误。
(SOURCE: the author using publicly available information and Photoshop)
（来源：作者使用公开信息和 Photoshop）
In 2019, about 15,000 people, of which 95 % were Han, the dominant group in China, were living within and around the Tangjiahe area of the TGPNP (Tangjiahe Area Authority, 2019). The increasing population and heavy utilization of forest resources have been major threats to biodiversity conservation efforts of the PA, which is under the responsibility of the Tangjiahe Area Authority (TAA). To reduce the potential for park-people conflict, the TAA has employed various programs to encourage local support and participation in conservation, such as providing employment opportunities, establishing co-management committees, signing co-management agreements, initiating wildlife-conflict compensation programs, and supporting community-based tourism (Chen et al., 2022). These initiatives were mainly applied to the five main villages situated inside or adjacent to TGPNP, including Luoyigou, Yinping, Weiba, Dongqiao, and Suyang (see Table 1). These were the five villages in which we did our research.
2019 年，约有 15,000 人居住在 TGPNP 的唐家河地区及其周边地区，其中 95% 是中国的主要群体汉族（唐家河地区管理局，2019 年）。人口增长和森林资源的大量利用一直是巴勒斯坦权力机构生物多样性保护工作的主要威胁，该保护区由唐家河地区管理局 （TAA） 负责。为了减少公园与人之间冲突的可能性，TAA 采取了各种计划来鼓励当地支持和参与保护，例如提供就业机会、建立共同管理委员会、签署共同管理协议、启动野生动物冲突补偿计划以及支持社区旅游（Chen 等人，2022 年).这些举措主要应用于位于 TGPNP 内部或附近的五个主要村庄，包括罗依沟、银平、渭坝、东桥和苏阳（见表 1）。这是我们进行研究的五个村庄。

Table 1. Basic information about the five key villages.
表 1.五个重点村庄的基本信息。

Village 村Number of households in village
村庄户数		Location relative to the park
相对于公园的位置		Distance from main gate (kms)
距正门的距离 （kms）		Main livelihood activities
主要生计活动
Luoyigou 罗伊沟470Inside 里面1.6Family inns & restaurants
家庭旅馆和餐厅
Yinping 银平642Adjacent (Gateway community)
相邻 （Gateway 社区）		6.1Agriculture, and family inns & restaurants
农业、家庭旅馆和餐馆
Weiba 微霸318Adjacent 邻近的6.7Quarrying and agriculture
采石和农业
Dongqiao 东桥445Adjacent 邻近的8.7Agriculture and livestock
农业和畜牧业
Suyang 苏阳486Adjacent 邻近的9.7Agriculture and livestock
农业和畜牧业
NOTES: Data was sourced from the official data by Qingxi Town and the interviews with the TAA.
注：数据来源于青溪镇的官方数据和对 TAA 的采访。
Due to differing location, traffic conditions, natural resources, and main activities, these five communities have differentiated relations with the TAA. Luoyigou has received the most consideration from TAA because of its location inside TGPNP, and because it has suffered the most from human-wildlife conflicts. It is the only village that has received human-wildlife conflict compensation and that has an established co-management committee (Chen et al., 2022). In contrast, residents of Yinping village, at the gateway to the park, have harvested substantial benefits from tourism by running homestay inns and restaurants, mostly with support from the TAA, such as by providing concessional loans and improving infrastructure (e.g. electricity supply and tourist facilities) (Zhang and Zhang, 2023). Both Weiba and Dongqiao villages have only been involved in a few programs, such as job provision (e.g. as forest rangers) and livestock industry support, and have generally relied on various other livelihood activities (e.g. agriculture, quarrying). Suyang, which is furthest from the entrance gate, has the weakest connection with TAA. We surmise that these diverse park-people relationships will lead to diverse perceptions about fairness and equity, conservation attitudes, and participation behaviours.
由于地理位置、交通状况、自然资源和主要活动不同，这五个社区与 TAA 的关系各不相同。罗鱼沟之所以受到 TAA 的重视，是因为它位于 TGPNP 内，而且它受人类与野生动物冲突的影响最大。它是唯一一个获得人类与野生动物冲突赔偿并已建立共同管理委员会的村庄（Chen et al.， 2022）。相比之下，位于公园门户的银平村的居民通过经营寄宿家庭旅馆和餐馆从旅游业中获得了可观的好处，这主要得到了 TAA 的支持，例如提供优惠贷款和改善基础设施（例如电力供应和旅游设施）（Zhang 和 Zhang，2023 年).渭坝村和东桥村都只参与了少数几个项目，例如提供就业机会（例如护林员）和畜牧业支持，并且通常依赖于各种其他生计活动（例如农业、采石）。距离入口大门最远的苏阳与 TAA 的联系最弱。我们推测，这些不同的公园与人的关系将导致对公平和公正、保护态度和参与行为的不同看法。

3.2. Sampling 3.2. 采样

Preliminary fieldwork was conducted onsite in 2017 to collect information about the communities and the management efforts of the TAA, which was used to develop a draft questionnaire that was later tested. In the summer of 2022, local residents in the five key villages (see Table 1) were approached by one of our 10 trained interviewers to complete the survey. A convenience sample was appropriate because there were many empty households in the villages. The survey was implemented as follows: (1) interviewers approached every household in the 5 villages, and where people were home they explained the survey content, and gained verbal informed consent to proceed; (2) each household then recommended a family member with the strongest connection to the community to be interviewed; (3) most questionnaires were completed by the trained interviewers, although a few questionnaires were delivered to the household and self-completed.
2017 年在现场进行了初步实地考察，以收集有关社区和 TAA 管理工作的信息，这些信息用于制定一份问卷草案，该问卷后来进行了测试。2022 年夏天，我们 10 名训练有素的访谈员中的一名联系了 5 个重点村庄的当地居民（见表 1）以完成调查。方便的样本是合适的，因为村庄里有很多空户。调查实施如下：（1） 访问员接近 5 个村庄的每家每户，如果人们在家，他们就解释调查内容，并获得口头知情同意以继续进行;（2） 然后每个住户推荐一位与社区联系最紧密的家庭成员进行访谈;（3） 大多数问卷是由训练有素的访谈员完成的，尽管少数问卷是送到住户并自行完成的。
With some households declining to participate in the interview, and many empty dwellings, ultimately about 18 % of all households participated, and 426 questionnaires were completed, of which, after checking, 424 were regarded as being valid for the purposes of the current research. Respondents included 139 people from Yinping, 104 from Luoyigou, 72 from Weiba, 60 from Dongqiao, and 48 from Suyang. The proportion of respondents to all residents was approximately similar in each of these 5 villages, and thus the difference in these numbers reflects the relative size of these villages. Given that the questionnaires were completed by trained interviewers or checked by them onsite, there was no missing data of any consequence.
由于一些住户拒绝参加访谈，而且许多住户空置，最终约有 18% 的住户参与，完成了 426 份问卷，其中，经过检查，424 份被认为对当前研究有效。受访者包括银平市 139 人、罗邱沟 104 人、渭坝县 72 人、东桥县 60 人、苏阳市 48 人。这 5 个村庄中每个村庄的受访者占所有居民的比例大致相似，因此这些数字的差异反映了这些村庄的相对规模。鉴于问卷是由训练有素的访谈员填写的或由他们在现场检查的，因此没有遗漏任何后果的数据。
In addition to the questionnaire, two group interviews were held with TAA staff to learn about their community activities. Also, 14 interviews were conducted with key stakeholders, including town government cadres, community leaders, a ranger, and a rural cooperative leader. Interview questions primarily focused on the issues faced by the communities, and were adjusted according to each interviewee's position. The interviews were conducted in Mandarin or a local dialect, and ranged from 15 to 50 min. All interviews were recorded, and replayed later to make notes about each interview. Due to cultural norms in China, participants gave verbal consent rather than signing informed consent forms (Vanclay et al., 2013).
除了问卷之外，还对 TAA 工作人员进行了两次小组访谈，以了解他们的社区活动。此外，还对主要利益相关者进行了 14 次访谈，包括镇政府干部、社区领袖、护林员和农村合作社领导。访谈问题主要集中在社区面临的问题上，并根据每个受访者的立场进行调整。访谈以普通话或当地方言进行，时长为 15 至 50 分钟。所有采访都被记录下来，并在以后重播以记录每次采访。由于中国的文化规范，参与者给予口头同意，而不是签署知情同意书（Vanclay et al.， 2013）。

3.3. Survey instruments 3.3. 调查工具

The questionnaire had four sections, the first including demographic characteristics (e.g. gender, age, education, village, household income, length of residency, and other information) (see Supplementary materials Table S1). The second section presented 15 concepts, drawn from a range of sources, comprising the items in the scales we used for the three dimensions of equity (see Table 2). We initially considered a longer list of concepts but, after taking the Chinese context into account, some more esoteric concepts were dropped. For example, although we did think it relevant, we decided to remove ‘access to justice’ (公正) during the process because the typical way it is implemented (i.e. grievance redress mechanism) is not known or available in Chinese villages. Due to ‘fair compensation’ and ‘employment distribution’ being important (Yang et al., 2018; Zhang and Yang, 2020, Zhang and Yang, 2021), and a high frequency of wildlife conflicts in GPNP (Ma et al., 2023), we included burdens and benefits in the distributional dimension.
问卷分为四个部分，第一部分包括人口统计学特征（例如性别、年龄、教育程度、村庄、家庭收入、居住时间长短和其他信息）（见补充材料表 S1）。第二部分介绍了 15 个概念，这些概念来自一系列来源，包括我们用于公平的三个维度的量表中的项目（见表 2）。我们最初考虑了一个较长的概念列表，但在考虑了中国的背景之后，一些更深奥的概念被放弃了。例如，尽管我们确实认为它有意义，但我们决定在此过程中删除“司法救助”（公正），因为它的典型实施方式（即申诉机制）在中国村庄并不为人所知或不可用。由于“公平薪酬”和“就业分配”很重要（Yang et al.， 2018;Zhang 和 Yang，2020 年，Zhang 和 Yang，2021 年），以及 GPNP 中野生动物冲突的高频率（马 et al.，2023），我们在分配维度中包括了负担和收益。

Table 2. Description of the scales and variables relating to equity.
表 2.描述与公平相关的量表和变量。

Scalea
缩放a		Label 标签Concept 概念Description 描述Key References 关键参考
Recognition 识别RE1Cultural identity 文化认同Recognize and respect the values and cultural identity of local communities
承认并尊重当地社区的价值观和文化认同		Zafra-Calvo et al. (2017); Franks et al. (2018); Bennett et al. (2020)
Zafra-Calvo 等人（2017 年）;Franks 等人（2018 年）;Bennett 等人（2020 年）
RE2Livelihoods 生计Recognize and respect the local traditional livelihoods
承认并尊重当地传统生计		Bennett et al. (2020) Bennett 等人（2020 年）
RE3Traditional rights 传统权利Recognize the legal and traditional rights of local people
承认当地人的法律和传统权利		Zafra-Calvo et al. (2017); Bennett et al. (2020)
Zafra-Calvo 等人（2017 年）;Bennett 等人（2020 年）
RE4Land rights 土地权利Recognize local people's rights to own, management and use the land
承认当地人拥有、管理和使用土地的权利		Franks et al. (2018); He et al. (2020)
Franks 等人（2018 年）;He et al. （2020）
RE5Knowledge diversity 知识多样性Recognize the traditional knowledge of local communities
承认当地社区的传统知识		Zafra-Calvo et al. (2017); Franks et al. (2018); Bennett et al. (2020)
Zafra-Calvo 等人（2017 年）;Franks 等人（2018 年）;Bennett 等人（2020 年）
Procedure 程序PE1Decision-making 决策Local communities express satisfaction with the process of decision-making
当地社区对决策过程表示满意		Schreckenberg et al. (2016); Zafra-Calvo et al. (2017); Franks et al. (2018); Bennett et al. (2020)
Schreckenberg 等人（2016 年）;Zafra-Calvo 等人（2017 年）;Franks 等人（2018 年）;Bennett 等人（2020 年）
PE2Community participation 社区参与Local communities have ways to participate in conservation initiatives
当地社区有办法参与保护倡议		Yang et al. (2018) Yang et al. （2018）
PE3Transparency 透明度Local people are provided with planning and management information regarding the protected area
向当地人提供有关保护区的规划和管理信息		Schreckenberg et al. (2016); Zafra-Calvo et al. (2017); Franks et al. (2018); Bennett et al. (2020)
Schreckenberg 等人（2016 年）;Zafra-Calvo 等人（2017 年）;Franks 等人（2018 年）;Bennett 等人（2020 年）
PE4Accountability 问 责Local people are aware of relevant channels by which to raise concerns about management actions and to seek resolution
当地人知道提出对管理行为的担忧并寻求解决方案的相关渠道		Schreckenberg et al. (2016); Zafra-Calvo et al. (2017); Franks et al. (2018); Bennett et al. (2020)
Schreckenberg 等人（2016 年）;Zafra-Calvo 等人（2017 年）;Franks 等人（2018 年）;Bennett 等人（2020 年）
PE5Consulted 咨询Local people are informed and consulted
向当地人民提供信息并咨询他们		Hanna and Vanclay (2013); Schreckenberg et al. (2016); Zafra-Calvo et al. (2017); Bennett et al. (2020)
Hanna 和 Vanclay （2013）;Schreckenberg 等人（2016 年）;Zafra-Calvo 等人（2017 年）;Bennett 等人（2020 年）
Distribution 分配DE1Conservation burdens 保护负担Local people do not unfairly incur any burdens from conservation
当地人不会因保护自然保护而产生任何不公平的负担		Zafra-Calvo et al. (2017); Franks et al. (2018)
Zafra-Calvo 等人（2017 年）;Franks 等人 （2018）
DE2Fair compensation 公平的薪酬Local people receive fair compensation for loss of access to ecological resources
当地人因失去获得生态资源而获得公平的赔偿		Zhang and Yang (2020) 张和杨 （2020）
DE3Wildlife conflict compensation
野生动物冲突赔偿		Local people receive equitable and appropriate compensation for wildlife conflict
当地人因野生动物冲突而获得公平和适当的赔偿		Ma et al. (2023) 马等人 （2023）
DE4Benefits distribution 福利分配Local people fairly share economic and other benefits
当地人公平地分享经济和其他利益		Schreckenberg et al. (2016)
Schreckenberg 等人 （2016）
DE5Employment distribution 就业分布Local people have fair access to job opportunities
当地人有公平的机会获得工作机会		Zhang and Yang (2020); Zhang and Yang (2021)
Zhang 和 Yang （2020）;张和杨 （2021）
a
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.
1 = 非常不同意，2 = 不同意，3 = 中立，4 = 同意，5 = 非常同意。
The third part of the questionnaire contained five questions representing conservation willingness, which were adapted from Zhang et al. (2020a) (see Table 3). Responses were collected using a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The last section included five local frequent conservation behaviours suggested by TAA, including patrolling, training, environmental education, participating in consultative meetings, and contact with TAA, which were measured by frequency: ‘never’, ‘sometimes’, or ‘often’.
问卷的第三部分包含代表保护意愿的五个问题，改编自 Zhang 等人（2020a）（见表 3）。使用从非常不同意到非常同意的五点李克特量表收集回复。最后一部分包括 TAA 建议的五种当地频繁保护行为，包括巡逻、培训、环境教育、参加咨询会议以及与 TAA 的联系，这些行为以频率衡量：“从不”、“有时”或“经常”。

Table 3. Variables comprising the conservation willingness and participation behaviours scales.
表 3.变量包括保护意愿和参与行为量表。

Topics 主题Label 标签Items 项目
Conservation Willingnessa
保护意愿a		CW1I am willing to follow the conservation regulations of GPNP
我愿意遵守 GPNP 的保护规定
CW2I am willing to monitor and report violations of conservation regulations
我愿意监督和报告违反保护法规的行为
CW3I am willing to participate in the conservation and management of GPNP
我愿意参与 GPNP 的保护和管理
CW4I am willing to promote the importance of the conservation work at the GPNP
我愿意宣传 GPNP 保护工作的重要性
CW5I am willing to make suggestions about conservation and the management of GPNP
我愿意就 GPNP 的保护和管理提出建议
Participation Behavioursb
参与行为b		PB1I was engaged in forest patrolling
我当时从事森林巡逻
PB2I was engaged in capacity training activities
我参与了能力培训活动
PB3I was involved in environmental educational activities
我参与了环境教育活动
PB4I was involved in consultative meetings about the planning and policy making of TGPNP
我参与了有关 TGPNP 规划和政策制定的咨询会议
PB5I kept in contact with staff from the TAA
我与 TAA 的工作人员保持联系
a
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.
1 = 非常不同意，2 = 不同意，3 = 中立，4 = 同意，5 = 非常同意。
b
1 = never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often.
1 = 从不，2 = 有时，3 = 经常。

3.4. Data analysis 3.4. 数据分析

The 4 hypotheses we presented in our Conceptual Framework section were tested by constructing latent variables (or scales) for local people's equity perception, conservation willingness, and participation behaviours. Structural equation modelling was the best statistical approach to use because: (1) it establishes the relationships between the observed variables and the latent variables; and (2) it is widely used to test hypotheses, as well as the intensity and direction of relationships among the latent variables (Sirivongs and Tsuchiya, 2012).
我们在概念框架部分提出的 4 个假设是通过构建当地人公平感知、保护意愿和参与行为的潜在变量（或量表）来检验的。结构方程建模是最好的统计方法，因为：（1） 它建立了观察到的变量和潜在变量之间的关系;（2） 它被广泛用于检验假设，以及潜在变量之间关系的强度和方向（Sirivongs 和 Tsuchiya，2012 年）。
A reliability analysis was performed to test the internal reliability of the items that comprise each scale or latent variable. The results indicated that the five latent variables exhibited satisfactory internal consistency, all with Cronbach's alpha values exceeding 0.7 (see Supplementary materials Table S2). An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to initially establish and then to improve the scales. After removing some items (RE4, RE5, DE1 and W1), the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin statistic for each of the five latent variables exceeded 0.60, and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was significant, indicating that the items and latent variables were suitable for assessing the relationships between the variables.
进行了可靠性分析以检验构成每个量表或潜在变量的项目的内部可靠性。结果表明，五个潜在变量表现出令人满意的内部一致性，所有 Cronbach 的 alpha 值都超过 0.7（见补充材料表 S2）。进行探索性因子分析以初步建立量表，然后改进量表。去除部分项目 （RE4、RE5、DE1 和 W1） 后，5 个潜在变量的 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin 统计量均超过 0.60，Bartlett 球形度检验显著，表明项目和潜在变量适合评估变量之间的关系。
To ensure the validity and reliability of our measurement models, we followed the two-step procedure for structural equation modelling recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). We performed confirmatory factor analysis to ensure that the criteria for reliability and validity (convergent and discriminant validity) were met (Everitt and Dunn, 2001; Hair et al., 2011, Hair et al., 2014; Kline, 1998) (see Supplementary materials Table S3). Then, we proceeded to estimate the goodness of fit of our hypothesized structure among our model variables. The coefficients indicating the quality of overall model fit were: χ2/df = 2.255 < 3; the root mean square error of approximation = 0.056 < 0.08; and goodness-of-fit = 0.913 > 0.9 (more coefficients see Supplementary materials Table S4). These measures indicated that the model fitness was acceptable as per the standards suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999). Multigroup analysis is widely used to detect between-group differences and to accurately estimate the strength of moderating effects (Qureshi and Compeau, 2009). Following the procedures suggested by Keikhosrokiani et al. (2018), and Jang and Kim (2018), we conducted five multigroup analyses to identify the impacts of demographic variables on the results of structural model. The models (see Supplementary materials Table S5) all have an adequate goodness-of-fit and other measures of performance. All analyses were performed using Amos 26 and SPSS 28.
为了确保测量模型的有效性和可靠性，我们遵循了 Anderson 和 Gerbing （1988） 推荐的结构方程建模的两步程序。我们进行了验证性因子分析，以确保满足信度和效度标准（收敛效度和判别效度）（Everitt 和 Dunn，2001 年;Hair et al.， 2011， Hair et al.， 2014;Kline，1998 年）（见补充材料表 S3）。然后，我们继续估计我们的假设结构在模型变量中的拟合优度。表示整体模型拟合质量的系数为：χ2/df = 2.255 < 3;近似均方根误差 = 0.056 < 0.08;拟合优度 = 0.913 > 0.9（更多系数参见补充材料表 S4）。这些措施表明，根据 胡 和 Bentler （1999） 提出的标准，模型适应性是可以接受的。多组分析广泛用于检测组间差异并准确估计调节效应的强度（Qureshi 和 Compeau，2009 年）。按照 Keikhosrokiani 等人 （2018） 和 Jang 和 Kim （2018） 建议的程序，我们进行了五次多组分析，以确定人口统计变量对结构模型结果的影响。这些模型（见补充材料表 S5）都具有足够的拟合优度和其他性能度量。所有分析均使用 Amos 26 和 SPSS 28 进行。

4. Results 4. 结果

4.1. Demographic profile of respondents
4.1. 受访者的人口统计概况

Out of the 424 respondents, the percentage of females (54 %) was slightly higher than that of males (46 %). The respondents mostly fell into the middle or older age brackets, with 87 % aged over 40 years old. Their education levels were relatively low, with 65 % only having attended primary or middle school. The vast majority of respondents (88 %) reported having lived in Tangjiahe for over 20 years. The primary livelihood activity of most people was farming (77 %). However, around half of all families (48 %) had multiple income sources, with income-earning domestic work (25 %) and labouring work away from home (32 %) being the two primary income sources.
在 424 名受访者中，女性的百分比 （54%） 略高于男性 （46%）。受访者大多属于中老年人，其中 87% 的受访者年龄在 40 岁以上。他们的教育水平相对较低，65% 的人只上过小学或初中。绝大多数受访者 （88%） 表示在唐家河生活了 20 多年。大多数人的主要生计活动是农业 （77%）。然而，大约一半的家庭 （48%） 有多种收入来源，其中赚取收入的家政工作 （25%） 和离家劳动 （32%） 是两个主要收入来源。

4.2. Perceptions of fairness, willingness to participate, and behaviours
4.2. 对公平的看法、参与意愿和行为

As depicted in Fig. 4, Fig. 5, local residents were slightly positive about the recognitional equity dimension (mean = 3.57). Respondents appreciated GPNP for respecting their traditional culture and identity (RE1, mean = 3.69). However, respondents generally expressed dissatisfaction regarding procedural equity (mean = 2.60) and distributional equity (mean = 2.57). Only 16 % of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they can participate in conservation conveniently and fairly (PE2), and over half of the respondents (58 %) reported not having been informed or consulted (PE5). The two items that had the lowest mean score related to (inadequate) human-wildlife compensation (DE2) and to (the lack of) fair compensation (DE3). Only around 20 % of residents agreed they received appropriate compensation.
如图 4 和图 5 所示，当地居民对认可公平维度略持乐观态度（平均值 = 3.57）。受访者赞赏 GPNP 尊重他们的传统文化和身份 （RE1，平均值 = 3.69）。然而，受访者普遍对程序公平性（平均值 = 2.60）和分配公平性（平均值 = 2.57）表示不满。只有 16% 的受访者同意或强烈同意他们可以方便和公平地参与保护 （PE2），超过一半的受访者 （58%） 表示没有被告知或咨询过 （PE5）。平均得分最低的两个项目与（不足）人类-野生动物补偿 （DE2） 和（缺乏）公平补偿 （DE3） 有关。只有大约 20% 的居民同意他们获得了适当的赔偿。
Fig. 4
  1. Download: Download high-res image (231KB)
    下载： 下载高分辨率图片 （231KB）
  2. Download: Download full-size image
    下载：下载全尺寸图像

Fig. 4. Frequency distribution for recognitional, procedural, and distributional equity.
图 4.认可、程序和分配公平的频率分布。

Note: The black trendline depicts the smooth density estimates (n = 424).
注： 黑色趋势线表示平滑密度估计值 （n = 424）。
Fig. 5
  1. Download: Download high-res image (272KB)
    下载： 下载高分辨率图像 （272KB）
  2. Download: Download full-size image
    下载：下载全尺寸图像

Fig. 5. Local residents' responses to: (a) social equity (b) conservation willingness; (c) conservation behaviours.
图 5.当地居民对以下方面的回应：（a） 社会公平 （b） 保护意愿;（c） 保护行为。

Overall, respondents were willing to take the initiative to engage in conservation activities, with nearly 70 % being keen to participate in all conservation activities (see Fig. 5). Willingness to promote the efforts of the park (CW4) was strong (69 %), followed by an interest in making suggestions to assist the PA (66 %). In spite of their relative high levels of conservation willingness, over 60 % of respondents expressed they had never engaged in any of the activities included in the list of participation behaviours. Among all conservation behaviours, participation in environmental education activities (PB3) was highest (41 %) (see Fig. 5). In contrast, only a small proportion of respondents (13 %) reported having been involved in consultative meetings arranged by TAA (PB4).
总体而言，受访者愿意主动参与保育活动，近 70% 的受访者热衷于参与所有保育活动（见图 5）。促进公园努力的意愿很强 （CW4） （69%），其次是有兴趣提出建议以协助 PA （66%）。尽管他们的保护意愿相对较高，但超过 60% 的受访者表示他们从未参与过参与行为清单中包含的任何活动。在所有保护行为中，参与环境教育活动 （PB3） 的人数最高 （41%）（见图 5）。相比之下，只有一小部分受访者 （13%） 表示参与了 TAA 安排的咨询会议 （PB4）。

4.3. Structural equation modelling
4.3. 结构方程建模

The results of the structural equation modelling, as presented in Fig. 6, illustrate the relationships between social equity and conservation willingness and participation behaviours. The strength of the correlations between the latent variables were measured by explanatory power (R2), with a cut-off level of 0.10 being deemed acceptable (Falk and Miller, 1992). In addition, the path coefficients indicate the size of the effects among variables, with values of between 0.02 and 0.15 representing weak impacts, from 0.15 to 0.35 indicating medium impacts, and over 0.35 denoting large effects (Singh et al., 2022).
如图 6 所示，结构方程建模的结果说明了社会公平与保护意愿和参与行为之间的关系。潜在变量之间相关性的强度通过解释力 （R2） 来衡量，0.10 的临界水平被认为是可以接受的（Falk 和 Miller，1992 年）。此外，路径系数表示变量之间效应的大小，介于 0.02 和 0.15 之间的值表示较弱的影响，从 0.15 到 0.35 表示中等影响，超过 0.35 表示较大的影响（Singh et al.， 2022）。
Fig. 6
  1. Download: Download high-res image (209KB)
    下载： 下载高分辨率图像 （209KB）
  2. Download: Download full-size image
    下载：下载全尺寸图像

Fig. 6. Results of the assessment of the structural model.
图 6.结构模型的评估结果。

NOTES: Circles present latent variables. Rectangles present manifest variables. Dotted lines among structural model indicate non-significant results, and solid arrows present the direction of the relationship for significant relationships at p < 0.05*, p < 0.01**, p < 0.001***.
注意：圆圈表示潜在变量。矩形表示清单变量。结构模型中的虚线表示不显著的结果，实线箭头表示 p < 0.05*、p < 0.01**、p < 0.001*** 处显著关系的关系方向。
Structural equation modelling revealed that procedural equity and distributional equity had significant causal relationships on both conservation willingness and participation behaviours, which supported hypotheses H2 and H3. In Fig. 6, the path coefficients from both procedural and distributional equity were 0.37 and 0.38 respectively, indicating the strong effects on participation behaviours. Surprisingly, no significant relationship between recognitional equity and conservation willingness (H1a) was identified (p = 0.79). However, perception of recognitional equity was negatively related to conservation behaviours (H1b) with a path coefficient of −0.19 (p < 0.01). Moreover, H4, that conservation willingness positively impacts participation behaviours, was also significant (f2 = 0.25, p < 0.001). In the relationship between the three forms of social equity and conservation willingness, the explanatory power (R2) was 0.143, indicating that 14.3 % of the variance in conservation willingness was explained, among which procedural equity had the strongest positive effect (f2 = 0.23). The R2 for participation behaviours was 0.532, indicating that the forms of social equity and conservation willingness had a very strong impact on participation behaviours.
结构方程模型显示，程序公平和分配公平对保护意愿和参与行为都有显著的因果关系，这支持了假设 H2 和 H3。在图 6 中，程序公平和分配公平的路径系数分别为 0.37 和 0.38，表明对参与行为有很强的影响。令人惊讶的是，承认公平性和保护意愿 （H1a） 之间没有发现显着关系 （p = 0.79）。然而，对认知公平的感知与保护行为 （H1b） 呈负相关，路径系数为 -0.19 （p < 0.01）。此外，H4，即保护意愿对参与行为产生积极影响，也显著 （f2 = 0.25，p < 0.001）。在社会公平与保护意愿的三种形式之间的关系中，解释力 （R2） 为 0.143，表明解释了 14.3% 的保护意愿方差，其中程序公平具有最强的积极影响 （f2 = 0.23）。参与行为的 R2 为 0.532，表明社会公平和保护意愿的形式对参与行为有非常大的影响。

4.4. Multigroup comparison
4.4. 多组比较

The results of the multigroup comparison showed that age, gender, education, and village of residence have a moderating effect on various hypotheses, while the annual household income had no effect on the hypothesized relationships (see Table 4, and Supplementary materials Table S6). Gender leads to differences in the relationship between perceived equity of distribution and participation behaviours (thus supporting H3b). The impact of perceived distributional equity on engagement in conservation activities was stronger for men than for women (CR = −1.733*). Perception of procedural equity impacts the conservation willingness of elderly people (H2a), while there is no significant relationship in younger generations (CR = 3.330***). Similarly, in participation in conservation, elderly residents are more concerned about distributional equity than younger people (thus supporting H3b) (CR = 2.186**). Conversely, perceived procedural equity has a positive impact on the engagement of younger residents in conservation activities, but do not influence the participation of elderly residents (thus supporting H2b) (CR = −1.654*). Residents' level of education moderates the relationship between procedural equity and conservation willingness (H2a). Residents with primary school education or less demonstrated a significant influence of perceived procedural equity on their conservation willingness (H2a), whereas residents with secondary school education or higher exhibited no impact of procedural equity on their conservation willingness. The multigroup analysis for village of residence showed that, compared with gateway and adjacent villages, residents from the inside village (Luoyigou) demonstrated a significant impact of perceived procedural equity on their willingness to participate (p = 0.000 for Luoyigou, p = 0.245 for Yinping, p = 0.735 for other villages). Moreover, compared with other adjacent communities, the perceived distributional equity of residents living in gateway community (Yinping) doesn't impact their conservation behaviours (H3b) (p = 0.052 for Luoyigou, p = 0.001 for other villages).
多组比较的结果表明，年龄、性别、教育程度和居住村对各种假设有调节作用，而家庭年收入对假设的关系没有影响（见表 4 和补充材料表 S6）。性别导致感知的分配公平性与参与行为之间的关系存在差异（从而支持 H3b）。感知到的分配公平对参与保护活动的影响对男性强于女性 （CR = -1.733*）。对程序公平的感知会影响老年人的保护意愿 （H2a），而在年轻一代中没有显着关系 （CR = 3.330***）。同样，在参与保护方面，老年居民比年轻人更关心分配公平（因此支持 H3b）（CR = 2.186**）。相反，感知的程序公平性对年轻居民参与保护活动有积极影响，但不会影响老年居民的参与（因此支持 H2b）（CR = −1.654*）。居民的受教育程度调节了程序公平与保护意愿 （H2a） 之间的关系。受过小学或以下教育的居民表现出感知的程序公平性对其保护意愿 （H2a） 的显着影响，而具有中学或更高教育程度的居民表现出程序公平性对其保护意愿没有影响。 居住村的多组分析表明，与门户村和相邻村相比，内部村（罗依沟）的居民表现出感知程序公平对其参与意愿的显著影响（洛依沟 p = 0.000，银平 p = 0.245，其他村庄 p = 0.735）。此外，与其他相邻社区相比，生活在门户社区（银平）的居民感知的分配公平不会影响他们的保护行为 （H3b）（罗依沟 p = 0.052，其他村庄 p = 0.001）。

Table 4. Results of multigroup analyses.
表 4.多组分析的结果。

Groups 组Hypotheses 假设Estimate 估计pEstimate 估计pCritical difference ratios
临界差值比
Gender 性Male 雄Female 女性
H3b H3乙型0.3910.000 ***0.1850.005**-1.733*
Age 年龄∼59 years old ∼59 岁> 59 years old > 59 岁
H2a−0.0430.6490.681***3.330***
H2b0.3540.000 ***0.1530.094−1.654*
H3b H3乙型0.1430.039*0.4480.000 ***2.186**
Education 教育Primary or less 主要或更少Secondary school or above
初中或以上
H2a0.3800.006**0.0340.775−1.909*
Residency village (1) 居住村 （1）Luoyigou (inside) 罗义沟（内部）Yinping (gateway) 银平（网关）
H2a0.7500.005**0.1760.245−1.870*
Residency villages (2) 居住村 （2）Luoyigou (inside) 罗义沟（内部）Other Adjacent 其他相邻
H2a0.7500.005**0.0430.735−2.388**
Residency villages (3) 居住村 （3）Yinping (gateway) 银平（网关）Other Adjacent 其他相邻
H3b H3乙型0.1710.0520.4550.001**1.717*
Notes: (1) n = 424; (2) The p values identify which relationships are significant (ns = not significant, * ≤0.05; ** ≤0.01; *** ≤0.001); (3) The critical difference ratios present the significance and direction of the demographic variable on the paths of our structural model.
注：（1） n = 424;（2） p 值确定哪些关系是显著的 （ns = 不显著， * ≤0.05; ** ≤0.01; *** ≤0.001）;（3） 临界差值比表示人口变量在我们的结构模型路径上的重要性和方向。

5. Discussion and conclusion
5. 讨论和结论

This study aimed to deepen our understanding of the connections between perceptions of equity and local support towards PAs. A prominent finding was that the various forms of equity had different impacts on local residents' conservation willingness and behaviours regarding the Tangjiahe area of Giant Panda National Park. First, of the three forms of equity, perceived procedural equity had the largest positive effect on conservation willingness, and its influence on participation behaviours was even stronger. This finding is interesting because other research, e.g. in West Kalimantan, Indonesia, found that there was a complicated association between procedural equity and the level of conservation support (Friedman et al., 2020).
本研究旨在加深我们对公平观念与当地对 PA 的支持之间联系的理解。一个突出的发现是，各种形式的公平对当地居民对大熊猫国家公园唐家河地区的保护意愿和行为产生了不同的影响。首先，在三种形式的公平中，感知的程序公平对保护意愿的积极影响最大，其对参与行为的影响甚至更强。这一发现很有趣，因为其他研究，例如在印度尼西亚的西加里曼丹，发现程序公平与保护支持水平之间存在复杂的关联（Friedman 等人，2020 年）。
Our study indicated that distributional equity had a strong association with conservation willingness, and an even stronger association with participation behaviours. This may imply that the majority of residents who participated in conservation activities of TGPNP were driven by economic benefits. Fair compensation also strongly influenced local people's pro-conservation behaviours, emphasizing the importance of avoiding detriment to local people's interests in conservation initiatives. Overall, an inequitable distribution of conservation costs and benefits can reduce the intention of local residents to participate in PA activities. These findings are consistent with the results in the case of Phou Khao Khouay National Park in Laos, where favourable perceptions towards distributional equity were positively associated with pro-conservation attitudes and action among local residents (Sirivongs and Tsuchiya, 2012).
我们的研究表明，分配公平与保护意愿有很强的关联，与参与行为的关联更强。这可能意味着大多数参与 TGPNP 保护活动的居民都是受经济利益的驱动。公平的补偿也强烈影响了当地人支持保护的行为，强调了在保护活动中避免损害当地人利益的重要性。总体而言，保护成本和收益的不公平分配会降低当地居民参与 PA 活动的意愿。这些发现与老挝 Phou Khao Khouay 国家公园的结果一致，那里对分配公平的有利看法与当地居民支持保护的态度和行动呈正相关（Sirivongs 和 Tsuchiya，2012）。
Contrary to our hypotheses, the results of the structural equation modelling also revealed that positive recognitional equity did not significantly contribute to enhancing local residents' conservation willingness. This is possibly due to the relatively high score for recognitional equity, which was much higher than for procedural equity or distributional equity. If traditional values, knowledge, and rights were sufficiently respected, local communities potentially could be able to simply live their lives as they wanted, without having to worry about conservation practices. In such a situation, PA-based conservation might not be regarded as a fundamental part of their day-to-day living (Brockington et al., 2012; Ponte et al., 2022). Nevertheless, respect for local traditional rights was found to be significantly associated with conservation willingness, which emphasises the ongoing importance of respecting and preserving traditional rights (Ruano-Chamorro et al., 2021).
与我们的假设相反，结构方程模型的结果还表明，积极的承认公平性对提高当地居民的保护意愿没有显着贡献。这可能是由于确认权益的得分相对较高，远高于程序权益或分配权益。如果传统价值观、知识和权利得到充分尊重，当地社区就有可能简单地按照自己的意愿生活，而不必担心保护做法。在这种情况下，基于 PA 的保护可能不被视为他们日常生活的基本组成部分（Brockington 等人，2012 年;Ponte等人，2022 年）。然而，研究发现，尊重当地传统权利与保护意愿显著相关，这强调了尊重和维护传统权利的持续重要性（Ruano-Chamorro 等人，2021 年）。
Other possible reasons for the impact of recognitional equity on conservation willingness and behaviours have to do with the local context. In Tangjiahe, primarily local people are Han, and did not have traditional ideas or customs that conflicted with the conservation practices of TAA, therefore the need for cultural and spiritual recognition may not be a critical component in their holding pro-conservation attitudes. Conversely, for Indigenous communities in other places where they have been granted private property rights and cultural sovereignty (Martin et al., 2016), the impact of recognitional equity on their conservation intention might be stronger than what we found in TGPNP. For example, in the Philippines, recognition of Indigenous rights, institutions and knowledge systems has largely encouraged the local Manbo people to assist in the conservation of the Agusan Marsh Wildlife Sanctuary (Osterhaus and Hauschnik, 2015).
承认公平性对保护意愿和行为产生影响的其他可能原因与当地环境有关。在唐家河，当地人主要是汉族人，没有与 TAA 保护实践相冲突的传统观念或习俗，因此文化和精神认可的需求可能不是他们持有支持保护态度的关键组成部分。相反，对于其他被授予私有财产权和文化主权的地方的土著社区（Martin et al.， 2016），承认公平对其保护意图的影响可能比我们在 TGPNP 中发现的要强。例如，在菲律宾，对土著权利、机构和知识体系的承认在很大程度上鼓励了当地 Manbo 人协助保护 Agusan 沼泽野生动物保护区（Osterhaus 和 Hauschnik，2015）。
Surprisingly, contrary to our expectations, local residents with a low perception of the degree of recognitional equity were more inclined to participate in the conservation of TGPNP. We suspect that the relationship may be influenced by other variables, local policies and opportunities for local involvement. Residents in Luoyigou village (the only village inside the TGPNP) had restricted access to natural resources, leading to the lowest score for recognitional equity among the five villages. Meanwhile, their cooperation in protecting natural resources and endangered wildlife was better supported and financed by the TAA, leading to more residents being involved in conservation. In contrast, Dongqiao village, which is located outside the TGPNP and subject to less restrictions, experienced a higher level of recognition, but had only limited cooperation with the TAA, resulting in less opportunities for conservation participation. This finding points to the differences between villages inside and outside a PA, indicating that the relationship between recognitional equity and participation in conservation behaviours may be more complex than initially anticipated. Therefore, more emphasis is needed on the frequently overlooked dimension of recognitional equity (Friedman et al., 2018; Martin et al., 2016).
令人惊讶的是，与我们的预期相反，对认可公平程度认知较低的当地居民更倾向于参与 TGPNP 的保护。我们怀疑这种关系可能受到其他变量、当地政策和当地参与机会的影响。罗义沟村（TGPNP 内唯一的村庄）的居民获得自然资源的机会受到限制，导致 5 个村庄的承认公平得分最低。与此同时，他们在保护自然资源和濒危野生动物方面的合作得到了 TAA 的更好支持和资助，导致更多的居民参与到保护工作中来。相比之下，位于 TGPNP 之外且受限制较少的东桥村获得了更高的认可水平，但与 TAA 的合作有限，导致参与保护的机会较少。这一发现指出了保护区内外村庄之间的差异，表明承认公平与参与保护行为之间的关系可能比最初预期的要复杂。因此，需要更加强调承认公平性这一经常被忽视的维度（Friedman et al.， 2018;Martin et al.， 2016）。
Beyond the considerations of equity in affecting local willingness and conservation behaviours, our multigroup analysis revealed the moderating role of gender, age, education, and village of residence. The perception of procedural equity affected the elderly people's willingness to participate in conservation efforts but does not impact their engagement in conservation initiatives, while this is reversed among younger people. Perceptions of procedural equity do not influence highly educated individual's willingness to participate in conservation. These findings suggest that more educated younger people are better informed about the value of conservation, thus the presence or absence of procedural equity does not influence their conservation willingness. However, unfair procedures discourage younger people from participating, indicating that they value procedural equity in conservation initiatives. Apps et al. (2018), Truong (2021), and Habel et al. (2022) have similar findings, indicating that highly educated individuals bestowed with information, capacity, and technical advantages were more likely to become involved in conservation activities.
除了考虑公平影响当地意愿和保护行为之外，我们的多组分析还揭示了性别、年龄、教育和居住村的调节作用。对程序公平的认知影响了老年人参与保护工作的意愿，但不会影响他们参与保护倡议，而这在年轻人中则相反。对程序公平的看法不会影响受过高等教育的个人参与保护的意愿。这些发现表明，受教育程度更高的年轻人更了解保护的价值，因此程序公平的存在与否不会影响他们的保护意愿。然而，不公平的程序阻碍了年轻人的参与，表明他们重视保护倡议的程序公平。Apps 等人（2018 年）、Truong （2021 年）和 Habel 等人（2022 年）也有类似的发现，表明受过高等教育、拥有信息、能力和技术优势的人更有可能参与保护活动。
We compared the differences in the relationships between perceived equity and acceptance among the communities located within, on the gateway, and adjacent to TGPNP. Residents living inside TGPNP were more influenced by their perception of procedural equity in their conservation willingness, while the perception in adjacent communities does not affect their willingness to participate. One reason is that residents in adjacent villages have limited opportunities to participate, resulting in less awareness about procedural equity. Another interesting finding is that distributional equity had no effect on the participation of residents in the gateway community (Yinping), but significantly influenced the involvement of residents from adjacent communities. One reason is that the gateway community receives financial and technological support for ecotourism development from the local government and TAA. Also, as local biodiversity and ecological integrity are critical for sustaining ecotourism, residents in Yinping are inclined to actively engage in conservation efforts. Conversely, adjacent communities primarily rely on farming, and, due to their limited access to natural resource and potential wildlife-caused crop losses, residents tend to shoulder a disproportionate conservation cost while having only minimal benefits, thus underscoring the importance of distributional equity for them.
我们比较了位于 TGPNP 内部、门户上和邻近社区之间感知公平性和接受度之间关系的差异。居住在 TGPNP 内的居民在保护意愿中受他们对程序公平的看法的影响更大，而对相邻社区的看法不会影响他们的参与意愿。原因之一是相邻村庄的居民参与的机会有限，导致对程序公平的认识较低。另一个有趣的发现是，分配公平对门户社区（银平）居民的参与没有影响，但显着影响了相邻社区居民的参与。原因之一是门户社区从当地政府和 TAA 那里获得生态旅游发展的财政和技术支持。此外，由于当地的生物多样性和生态完整性对于维持生态旅游至关重要，银平的居民倾向于积极参与保护工作。相反，邻近社区主要依赖农业，由于他们获得自然资源的机会有限且可能由野生动物造成的农作物损失，居民往往承担着不成比例的保护成本，而受益却微乎其微，从而强调了分配公平对他们的重要性。
All the above findings, taken together, suggest that the relationship between perceived social equity and local support varies depending on equity type and the context. To promote local acceptance of conservation, TGPNP should make more effort to ensure social equity. We recommend that TAA pay greater attention to procedural equity, especially regarding participation and accountability, since procedural equity has the most significant impact on local people's willingness and behaviour towards conservation. TGPNP should conduct management and policy implementation in a more transparent and participatory manner. This might include strengthening and expanding communication channels with local people, e.g. by creating WeChat groups, organizing community forums, or community meetings. Fairness in the experience of burden and in benefit-sharing need to be emphasized. This calls for an increased focus on vulnerable groups, including by providing employment and skills training. Another suggestion is to promote local economic development, especially to encourage a green transformation, which may contribute to a more positive attitude towards conservation willingness and behaviour within the local community. Finally, more attention being given to the adjacent communities is much needed, and more inclusive policies and practices should be implemented to promote their participation and ways they might benefit.
综上所述，上述所有发现都表明，感知到的社会公平与当地支持之间的关系因公平类型和背景而异。为了促进当地对保护的接受度，TGPNP 应做出更多努力来确保社会公平。我们建议 TAA 更加关注程序公平，尤其是在参与和问责方面，因为程序公平对当地人对保护的意愿和行为影响最为重大。TGPNP 应以更加透明和参与的方式进行管理和政策实施。这可能包括加强和扩大与当地人的沟通渠道，例如通过创建微信群组、组织社区论坛或社区会议。需要强调负担体验和惠益分享的公平性。这需要更加关注弱势群体，包括提供就业和技能培训。另一个建议是促进当地经济发展，特别是鼓励绿色转型，这可能有助于当地社区对保护意愿和行为采取更积极的态度。最后，我们非常需要对邻近社区给予更多关注，并且应该实施更具包容性的政策和做法，以促进他们的参与和他们可能受益的方式。
Our study primarily focused on subjective equity. However, it is worth noting that the residents living in and around the GPNP tend to be older and less educated, which is significantly associated with negative perceptions of social equity (Chen et al., 2022). This raises the question of whether subjective fairness/equity is equivalent to objective fairness/equity. Therefore, we suggest that future research should compare the differences between subjective and objective fairness/equity in order to gain a deeper understanding of social equity and to achieve more effective conservation outcomes. The perception of procedural equity plays a pivotal role in shaping social acceptance of the PA. However, this study has not delved deeply into analyzing procedural justice. Future research could explore the relationship between local acceptance and the three domains of procedure justice, process properties, agency, interpersonal treatment (Ruano-Chamorro et al., 2021).
我们的研究主要集中在主观公平上。然而，值得注意的是，居住在 GPNP 及其周边地区的居民往往年龄较大且受教育程度较低，这与对社会公平的负面看法显著相关（Chen et al.， 2022）。这就提出了一个问题，即主观公平/公平是否等同于客观公平/公平。因此，我们建议未来的研究应该比较主观和客观公平/公平之间的差异，以更深入地理解社会公平并实现更有效的保护结果。对程序公平的看法在塑造社会对 PA 的接受度方面起着关键作用。然而，本研究并未深入分析程序正义。未来的研究可以探索当地接受与程序正义、过程属性、代理、人际关系治疗三个领域之间的关系（Ruano-Chamorro et al.， 2021）。
Our research revealed the mixed interactions between the various forms of perceived equity and community support for conservation. Specifically, we identified the positive impact of procedural and distributional equity on pro-conservation willingness and behaviour. However, perceived recognitional equity had no significant relationship with conservation willingness, and was negatively associated with participation behaviour. A range of other variables, including gender, age, education level, and village of residence, were identified as significant variables in shaping conservation attitudes. Such findings imply that not all types of social equity unequivocally result in local supportive attitudes towards conservation, and therefore it is necessary to clarify the forms of social equity that might maximize conservation outcomes in PAs.
我们的研究揭示了各种形式的感知公平与社区对保护的支持之间的混合相互作用。具体来说，我们确定了程序和分配公平对支持保护的意愿和行为的积极影响。然而，感知的认可公平性与保护意愿没有显著关系，并且与参与行为呈负相关。一系列其他变量，包括性别、年龄、教育水平和居住村，被确定为塑造保护态度的重要变量。这些发现意味着，并非所有类型的社会公平都明确导致当地对保护的支持态度，因此有必要澄清可能使保护区保护成果最大化的社会公平形式。

CRediT authorship contribution statement
CRediT 作者贡献声明

Yin Zhang: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Software, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Frank Vanclay: Writing – review & editing, Supervision.
张寅：写作 - 审查和编辑，写作 - 原始草稿，可视化，软件，方法论，调查，形式分析，数据管理，概念化。弗兰克·范克利：写作 - 审查和编辑，监督。

Declaration of competing interest
利益争夺声明

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgment 确认

The authors are grateful to J. Wen and Dr. P. Shi for suggestions regarding the research methods. The authors also thank Q.J. Chen, L. Peng, Y.L Liang., L.C. Wang, Q.Y. Li, B.S. Shen, J.X Chen. and C.L. Zuo who were involved in the field survey. We also owe special thanks to staff from the Tangjiahe Area Authority, who provided us with experience, information, and data-collecting assistance. Funding was provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.52108040 and No.72241413), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 2021M700574), and China Scholarship Council (No. 202006260019).
作者感谢 J. 温 和 P. Shi 博士对研究方法的建议。作者还感谢 Q.J. Chen， L. Peng， Y.L Liang.， L.C. Wang， Q.Y. Li， B.S. Shen， J.X Chen.以及参与实地调查的 C.L. Zuo。我们还特别感谢唐家河地区管理局的工作人员，他们为我们提供了经验、信息和数据收集帮助。资金由中国国家自然科学基金委员会提供（No.52108040 和 No.72241413）、中国博士后科学基金（No.2021M700574） 和国家留学基金委 （No.202006260019）。

Appendix A. Supplementary data
附录 A. 补充数据

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

References

Cited by (2)

  • How communities and social impacts are considered in policies for protected areas in China

    2025, Land Use Policy

  • A CASE STUDY: TOURISM IMPACT ON THE INHABITANTS OF LAKE SANDOVAL - TAMBOPATA NATIONAL RESERVE - PERU

    2024, Revista de Gestao Social e Ambiental
View Abstract
© 2024 Published by Elsevier Ltd.