A comparison of perceived social equity associated with different governance types of protected areas

Despite the increasing attention to social equity of protected areas, few studies have focused on how different governance types influence varying perceptions of fairness. Using the institutional analysis and development framework as an analytical tool, our study examines how local perceptions of recognitional, procedural, and distributional equity vary across differing governance types and the factors accounting for these variations. The Giant Panda National Park, a recently established national park in China, provides an ideal case to test this idea, as it simultaneously implements three types of governance of protected areas, including state-led, co-managed, and community-based conservation. Through 578 questionnaires and 73 in-depth interviews, we conducted both quantitative and qualitative comparisons across the three governance types. Quantitative analysis show that local residents expressed overwhelmingly dissatisfaction with the state-led regime in terms of procedural, distributional, and combined social equity scores. While the co-management and community-based governance types received generally positive evaluations, their impacts across differing equity aspects varied. The qualitative analysis of coded interviews further displays a variety of pros and cons of each governance type. Our empirical study reveals the messy, diverse, and rather limited impacts of institutional drivers on perceived social equity. We argue that the better social equity outcomes can be achieved by proper inclusion of stakeholders and successful empowerment of local residents, especially in the decision-making and benefit-sharing process of protected areas.