Exploring the Feasibility of Building Parks for Peace in China: From Global Cases to Localized Solutions

Abstract

The “Parks for Peace” concept represents transboundary protected areas with ecological, cultural, and economic significance that can transcend geopolitical and ideological differences. Despite the global proliferation of these conservation models, China lacks officially designated peace parks and comprehensive development frameworks in this domain. This research addresses this gap through rigorous methodological approaches. The study conducts fieldwork in existing parks for peace and border national parks, collecting data through field observation, open-ended interviews, and informal conversations. The case analysis method is employed to analyze spatial relationships across different border contexts comparatively. This comparative analysis explores the feasibility of transboundary national parks by examining development bottlenecks, deconstructing rigid border narratives, and assessing long-term cultural benefits. Based on empirical findings, the research proposes a context-appropriate framework for Chinese border national parks encompassing four dimensions: establishing a transfrontier national park system, implementing multi-stakeholder governance mechanisms, building consensus around park cultural values, and developing transboundary recreational infrastructure.

1. An Overview of the Historical Development of Parks for Peace

1.1. Birth and Development of Parks for Peace

In November 2021, the State Forestry and Grassland Administration of China proposed in its response to the “Proposal on the construction of transboundary nature reserves with transboundary parks as the main body” that several national parks should be established in the border ecological regions of Tibet and Xinjiang for transboundary cooperation in the construction of national parks located in the border areas [1]. In the context of the Chinese government promoting the construction of the “One Belt, One Road” initiative, as it is upgrading the level of international cooperation and building a community of human destiny, the introduction of the concept of transboundary conservation in China is of positive strategic significance and significant academic value.

The concept of the Transfrontier Park can be traced back to the establishment of the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park in the Rocky Mountains of North America in 1932 by the United States and Canadian governments. The decision to establish this transboundary protected area was motivated by a desire to symbolize the peace and friendship between the two nations. A shared commitment to environmental conservation underpinned it. Developing low-impact transboundary recreation in this area is predicated on the synergistic protection of a diminishing mobile ice sheet. Construction of a road linking the two parks began the same year the parks were established and was completed four years later, with the number of visitors to the U.S. side of Glacier National Park increasing from 143,240 to 210,072 after construction was completed1. By the end of the 20th century, it was observed that more than half of the visitors to the Canadian side of the park also visited the United States as part of their trip [2]. The Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park was designated a Biosphere Reserve by the UNESCO in 1979 and was further declared as a World Heritage Site by the same institution in 1995.

The first park for peace was established on the U.S.–Canada border; however, the earliest agreements concerning transboundary protected areas were established in Europe. The Krakow Protocol, signed by Poland and Czechoslovakia in 1924, resolved their post-World War I border dispute, and an additional agreement was adopted the following year to establish a transfrontier natural park around the Pieniny Mountains to be jointly protected and managed by the two countries. This agreement is widely regarded as the world’s earliest example of a park for peace.

The establishment of Europe’s inaugural park for peace, the Pieniny Transfrontier National Park, occurred a mere month after the inauguration of the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park. However, over the ensuing two decades, the European nations’ interest in collaborating on transboundary conservation remained minimal. During the Cold War, Europe constructed a 12,500 km long barrier across 24 countries, dividing the continent into East and West, of which the Berlin Wall was a part of [3]. Fortunately, the international standoff inadvertently provided a period for ecological resource restoration. The initiative of scholars resulted in the formal establishment of the Wall as the European Green Belt in 2004, an ecological and cultural corridor that chronicles the division’s history. This is how Germany’s first national park, the Bavarian Forest National Park, came into existence (Figure 1).

The development of parks for peace in Europe was limited by the contradictions and conflicts accumulated over time in border politics. By contrast, Africa is characterized by differences and divisions between regional cultural value systems. During the Iron Curtain period in Europe, the number of African countries rapidly increased from 80 to 193 [4], with tribes such as the Barwe, Ndau, and Shangaan in South Africa and Zimbabwe being affected by the conflict between the values of “racial diversity” and “national identity”. The conflict between the values of “ethnic diversity” and “national identity” has created new border divisions [5]. In the cultural context of African transboundary communities, transnational identity has been prioritized over national identity. This is not a conservation-inspired frontier narrative, but rather one where the fragility of the state has led to the formation of borders with “porous attributes” unique to Africa. However, the establishment of the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, the continent’s first park for peace, did not take place until 2000 (Figure 2).

The establishment of parks for peace was created to address transnational barriers to biosphere protection [6]. This phenomenon was part of a broader globalization process that led to the gradual dissolution of national borders, thus establishing a sustainable model for biosphere reserves situated within or adjacent to borders. At the beginning of this century, the number of parks for peace increased from 59 to 169 worldwide [7,8].

1.2. Synthesis of Research on Parks for Peace

At the turn of the century, the establishment of parks for peace represented a pivotal shift in the discourse on national governance in the era of globalization. In 2003, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) hosted the World Parks Congress under the theme “Benefits Beyond Boundaries” to launch a book that documented the evolution of transboundary protected areas for peace and cooperation (Figure 3). The Parks Congress 2003 saw the release of the book Transboundary Protected Areas for Peace and Cooperation, which documented the development of parks for peace (Figure 3) and recommended the concept and criteria for recognizing parks for peace and related transboundary protected areas. The book documents the development of parks for peace (Figure 3), defines the concept of parks for peace and related transboundary protected areas, but most importantly, it establishes the conceptual system of transboundary protected areas that has been in use to this day (Figure 4).

The preliminary research on the subject of parks for peace concentrated on the potential positive impacts of the regional establishment of such parks on borders. The establishment of parks for peace was found to have a beneficial effect on maintaining stability in border regions (Brock, 1991; Butler and Boyd, 2000) [9,10], especially since the establishment of parks for peace along borders accompanied by historical geopolitical conflicts requires a more extended period of practice in order to ensure trust in cooperation between borders (Kalpers and Lanjouw, 1997; Barnard et al., 1998) [11,12]. Since the 2010s, with the further progression of globalization, transboundary management and landscape governance have been incorporated into research agendas. Parks for peace have been regarded as a means to adapt to an increasingly contradictory world order and to reconstruct environmental protection and sustainable development (Barquet et al., 2014) [13]. The bottom–up design of management systems by local institutions (Schon, 2013) [14] and the management model of multi-party coalition and joint decision-making have become pivotal to the survival of parks for peace (Mattsson et al., 2019; Osofsky and Taylor, 2021) [15,16]. Contemporary research on parks for peace has shifted towards site-specific studies, with a focus on analyzing the concept’s visual representation. Bigart et al. (2023) posit that the formation of peace impressions is pivotal for visitors to construct a cognitive map of the destination [17].

Furthermore, numerous scholars in the study of parks for peace in the African region have critically explored the tension between the coercive, militarized management of parks for peace and the results and willingness of local residents to implement measures in borders where transboundary crime still occurs. Marijnen (2022) posits that, in the absence of a shift in the prevailing management paradigm, the prevailing circumstances engendered by the violent enforcement of environmental regulations will persist as a wellspring of profound exasperation [18]. If the management model remains unchanged, the current illusion of “saving nature” created by violent enforcement aimed at protecting the environment will exacerbate the inequality between managers and communities. In this context, the involvement of non-governmental organizations was identified as a potential catalyst for the establishment of a conduit between coercive management practices and voluntary community participation in conservation initiatives (Lenggenhager and Ramutsindela, 2021; Sjöstedt and Linell, 2022) [19,20].

From a comprehensive standpoint, extant research on parks for peace principally concentrates on specific completed cases to enhance the existing management of the parks or as an exploration of the cultural imagery conveyed behind the parks. However, there is a paucity of research that combines multiple case studies to participate in the park’s development proposals. There are currently no parks for peace in China and research on “parks for peace” is limited, with most of the focus on the conceptualization of the parks [21]. It is imperative to analyze the possibility and necessity of transboundary cooperation when exploring the feasibility of establishing parks for peace (Longyu et al., 2012) [22]. The establishment of parks for peace is predicated on the enhancement of bilateral dialogs and the establishment of a network of transboundary exchanges characterized by shared objectives and mutual understanding (Shuxing and Xian, 2011) [23]. The promotion of biodiversity conservation and the maintenance of sustainable socio-economic development can be facilitated by joint administrative cooperation (Jun et al., 2022) [24]. In order to protect transboundary species in China, such as the Asian elephant (Liu et al., 2014) [25], it is necessary to break down national boundaries and implement data sharing and joint law enforcement.

Ecological, cultural, and governance elements are intertwined in this conceptual system. Parks for peace were initially envisaged to mitigate contentious border disputes; however, the evolution of Europe confirms that stable border relations are a prerequisite for establishing parks rather than an outcome. Parks for peace responds to the need for transboundary cooperation between neighboring border national parks, forming the physical entity of a transboundary protected area and fulfilling the pursuit of transboundary recreational functions and the vision of peace on the premise of realizing ecological values. Thus, the birth of parks for peace is embedded in complex factors such as resource control, ethnicity, and transboundary exchanges, and its defining feature is the national consciousness, policies, and practices formed around environmental concerns, which together make the border area a space that carries multiple values such as ecology, recreation, and culture.

1.3. The Process of Transboundary Protection Practice in China

It is evident that China’s national parks already possess the fundamental prerequisites for transboundary collaboration. In 2019, China completed 10 trial areas of the national park system [26], of which the Northeast Tiger and Leopard Trial Area signed a memorandum of understanding on tiger and leopard conservation cooperation with Russia’s Land of the Leopard National Park [27]. In 2022, of the 49 candidate national parks in the National Park Spatial Arrangement Program, jointly issued by the State Forestry and Grassland Administration and other ministries and commissions, the area of reserves located along the Sino–Nepalese and Sino–Indian borders accounted for 70% of the total area of the candidate areas [28]. Currently, ten ecological reserves with a total area of more than 70,000 km² have been constructed in China’s border areas, of which more than 35,000 km² border nine other countries and have begun to implement different degrees of transboundary cooperation (Figure 5).

The preliminary agreement concerning establishing a transfrontier national park, designated as the Land of Big Cats, was formally endorsed in 2023 at the Northeast Tiger and Leopard National Park on the Russian–Chinese border. This development followed a response to the proposal to create a “transfrontier park”. The article comprehensively explores the developmental process of parks for peace, methodically compares the development patterns of typical parks for peace around the world, and centers on the following research questions:

• Which characteristics have been internalized in the process of developing parks for peace in different modes of border interaction?
• How are the conditions of border resistance overcome, and how is the reconstruction of border narratives realized in the development of parks for peace?
• Is there a contemporary necessity for the establishment of parks for peace in China?
• How is the concept of parks for peace translated locally in China?

This paper discusses the theoretical background and development of parks for peace, contrasts the ideal form of the concept with the contradictions of transnational action, and argues that the construction of parks for peace does not require the state to dilute some of its territorial control, but rather helps to extend state power, law enforcement, and influence into areas that are difficult for local institutions to reach, such as culture and scientific research.

2. Materials and Methods

Parks for peace have been identified as being significant ecological, cultural, and eco-nomic areas, serving as a testament to ecological protection transcending political boundaries. The research conducted in China on the subject of parks for peace is still in its infancy. The extant literature on this subject is, for the most part, confined to the objective discussion of the historical development and status of foreign transboundary protected areas. The majority of relevant terminology is found in the context of biological protection when the concept was established. There is a paucity of in-depth research and a lack of systematic summary and analysis. Consequently, the present study employs a combination of case study and comparative analysis, selecting representative cases from across the globe, predominantly the inaugural parks for peace on each continent (Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park and Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park), which have a considerably longer history of development. These parks for peace have a more extended history of development and more experience and reference in park management, or they are representative examples of transboundary conservation on a regional scale or in terms of cultural value, such as the European Green Belt, Europe’s longest transboundary trail, containing six transfrontier parks. A systematized historical evolution of parks for peace, their current practices, and their application in the spatial relationship between different borders is recommended.

Since 2014, the research team has visited the following locations: Waterton National Park, Canada (2014), Niagara Falls Transfrontier Park (2018), Big Bend National Park, USA (2023), Mago National Park and Bale Mountains National Park, Ethiopia (2023), Thousand Islands Park, Canada (2023), and Bale Mountains National Park, Ethiopia (2023), and Thousand Islands Park, Canada (2023). In the course of the study, random interviews were conducted with rangers working at the park’s visitor centers. The study focused on three national parks: Mago National Park and Bale Mountains National Park in Ethiopia (2023) and Thousand Islands National Park in Canada (2024).

These interviews were then supplemented by on-site interviews conducted at 12 inland national parks, national monuments, national preserves, and national recreation areas, including Grand Canyon National Park, Mount Rainier National Park, Redwood National Parks, Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks, John Day Fossil Beds: National Monument, and Jasper National Park.

For Glacier National Park, Big Bend National Park, and other protected areas where on-site research was conducted, the research team followed up with detailed information collection by email. Based on the recommendations of the above respondents, the team contacted other transboundary protected areas by email, including Bavarian Forest National Park and Šumava National Park.

To collect information on protected areas within China, the team, led by university-based research organizations, conducted telephone interviews with the Northeast Tiger and Leopard National Park and the Xishuangbanna Nature Reserve in Yunnan Province.

In summary, the following data sources were utilized for the study: public government data, reports from protected area management organizations, and community interviews. A total of 16 individuals were interviewed, including national park rangers, heads of government departments, and local animal protection experts. Furthermore, 21 open-ended interviews, informal conversations, and other data collection activities were carried out both online and offline (Appendix A). Furthermore, a total of 21 open-ended interviews and informal conversations were conducted online and offline for data collection (Appendix A).

3. Comparison of Parks for Peace in Different Border Interaction Models

The analysis of spatial relations at borders is imperative to establishing that the “border-breaking” attributes of parks for peace can assist in the resolution of the ecological, economic, and social challenges encountered by border areas. In his study on the theory of border interaction patterns, Martínez proposes the following categories: alienated borderlands, where transboundary exchanges are virtually non-existent; coexistent borderlands, which involve localized openness and cooperation; interdependent borderlands with cross-border networks and partnerships, and integrated borderlands with no barriers to cross-border trade and no barriers to the movement of people [29]. Martínez’s perspective is the most common model for studying processes based on interactions and movements across physical borders (Tamás, Andrea 2017) [30]. The emergence of transnational spaces in the form of transboundary protected areas reveals the linkages between anthropogenic interactions in border regions and nature. This, in turn, is key to understanding the emerging connections among borders, politics, and ecology.

The article discusses the relevance of the relationship between transboundary protected areas and the creation of parks for peace in relation to the current situation of protected areas, taking into account the actual border interactions in protected areas. It also discusses the relevance of the current state of relations between border protection sites and the creation of parks for peace protection territories in interdependent borderlands. It is important to note that China does not possess an integrated intergovernmental organization analogous to the European Union. The country’s vastness, spanning an area of 9,600,000 km², is complemented by its substantial land border of 22,000 km, a testament to its rich historical and civilizational legacy that spans over 5000 years. This extensive history and cultural diversity, coupled with the absence of a cohesive political structure between China and its neighboring countries, underscores the complexity of the geopolitical landscape in this region. Consequently, the present article has chosen not to engage in an analysis and discussion of the integrated borderlands.

3.1. Alienated Borderlands: Transboundary Initiatives Within a Protectionist Framework

Regions marked by ideological differences and limited daily interactions are called alienated borderlands. These areas often struggle to maintain stable border dynamics and lack cooperative agreements. This issue arises from exclusivist political agendas rooted in historical violence. Such border zones are standard in developing countries in Asia and Africa, notably seen in the India–Pakistan and North–South Korea borders. Unlike the relatively stable borders in Europe, which developed after prolonged conflicts, many of these regions remain in a lasting state of tension.

Protected areas under the separatist border are not so much “cooperative spaces” as an evasive “ambiguous space” created to avoid or minimize group conflict. The Korean Armistice Agreement of 1935 established a demilitarized zone (DMZ) covering the border between the two countries with a length of 250 km and a width of about 4 km. The mutual constraints between the two countries have made this DMZ a “haven” for endangered wildlife. In 2010, South Korea constructed 11 “Peace Road” trails through border parks and neighborhoods, linking green borders and transforming contested national spaces into transnational spaces to a certain extent. The green borders that are linked together transform contested national spaces into transnational spaces and, to a certain extent, create the conditions for “dispute mitigation”—built upon the trans-territorial “vague acceptance” given by neighboring states. According to statistics, the DMZ receives more than 1.2 million visitors each year (Tourism Knowledge & Information System, 2018), 80% of whom are Korean visitors [31].

However, this delicate “balance of acquiescence” can be easily disrupted, as evidenced by the closure of the Joint Security Area (JSA) in the DMZ, a transboundary space accessible to the public, following the escape of a South Korean soldier in July 2023 to evade prosecution2. Behind the ongoing tense standoff along the border between the two Koreas, the natural and social resources accumulated over a long period in the form of the demarcation zone, with its protective attributes coexisting with external parks and community green spaces, have provided a rational basis for the promotion of the Parks for Peace program in the future (Figure 6).

3.2. Coexistent Borderlands: Landscape Pragmatism Is a Driving Force for Transboundary Cooperation

The term “coexistent” in a political context refers to the ability to exist together without obstructing each other’s growth. Most cooperation occurs without sacrificing national interests. This means shared interests in border matters, such as security and community development, need to be addressed. Additionally, many bordering countries have stable domestic environments that allow for effective external cooperation. As a result, several border national parks have begun transboundary collaborations. Transboundary protected areas and parks for peace have been stabilized in coexistent borderlands, including within Southern Africa, which is characterized by savannah landscapes. Wilderness recreation, especially involving wildlife migrations, is vital for a growing local population. The Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, located between South Africa and Botswana, exemplifies successful transboundary planning, featuring 59 mammal species known for their seasonal migrations. In the 2021–2022 period, the South African section of the park attracted 49,068 visitors, achieving an accommodation occupancy rate of 88.5%, the highest in the country (2022–2023 South African National Parks Annual Report).

Both Hanks and Myburgh, successive chief executives of the Peace Parks Foundation, have argued that “joint reserves are more likely to benefit from ecotourism programs than each national park individually” [32]. Following the signing of the Southern African Development Community (SADC)’s joint development strategy for cross-level reserves (2005), tourists spend, on average, USD 51 per person per year. This figure is almost double the average expenditure observed in Africa, which stands at USD 27 per person per year (Southern African Development Community Tourism Program 2020–2030). The removal of the border fence in the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (Figure 7) is an example of a pragmatic approach in action, as is the case with the Chimanimani Transfrontier Program (Zimbabwe–Mozambique), where key stakeholder meetings placed ecotourism development at the center of all discussions on the proposed parks for peace. In the South Africa–Mozambique Parks for Peace Program, the KwaZulu-Natal Conservation Authority began organizing community-based natural resource management. A series of similar initiatives laid the groundwork for the Southern African Development Community to develop a conservation policy for managing human–animal conflict in transboundary spaces in conjunction with the conservation of an important ecological resource in Southern Africa: wildlife (Peace Parks Foundation, 2004) [33].

In coexistent borderlands, deregulating interstitial spaces may lead to resource exploitation. This practice poses a serious threat to the progress of transboundary cooperation. Big Bend National Park (BBNP) is situated in the Chihuahuan Desert region of the United States, sharing borders with three protected areas and villages in Mexico. Since 1901, border enforcement issues have constituted a pivotal aspect of managing the park’s border living areas (Figure 8), with illegal immigration emerging as the most pressing challenge confronting BBNP today. Antonio, a Mexican illegal immigrant smuggler, highlighted the absence of guards on the U.S. side during an interview, stating that there is almost no border protection at all, underscoring the vulnerability of the border region.

BBNP is recognized as one of the least patrolled areas on the U.S.–Mexico border, with only six regular patrol officers on the 193 km border from 2021 to 2022. The Border Patrol found at least 70 accidental deaths of stowaways, and the total number of stowaways apprehended and repatriated reached 906 in 2023 alone. Ray, the proprietor of a ranch (Neely Ranch) within the confines of the national park, has expressed concerns, stating, “Individuals are beginning to carry weapons through this area, and for the first time in my life, I find myself compelled to sleep with my firearm at hand3”. BBNP and the adjacent preserves have been seeking designation as a park for peace since 1935, yet their efforts have thus far been unsuccessful. In contrast to the impediments of national political confrontation under the alienated borderlands, coexistent borderlands remain highly volatile in the mature national park system, with transboundary recreation only occurring intermittently. This is against a backdrop of significant imbalances in the resources inherent in the areas on both sides of the “fence” and with a significant impact on transboundary recreation. Such activities can only occur intermittently, with strict restrictions on transboundary passports, overnight visas, and other conditions. In light of these considerations, it is imperative for nations to ensure the sustainability of transboundary recreation and to implement public safety measures in designated parks for peace (Figure 8).

3.3. Interdependent Borderlands: Ecocentrism Fosters Mutually Beneficial Relationships Across Borders

A long history of cooperation and a stable border create ideal conditions for parks for peace. Direct communication with local governments can enhance site development, improving transboundary procedures and recreation management. This can also make ecological, social, and economic cooperation more efficient [34]. Unlike Big Bend National Park, where the vision of a peace park has not been realized for nearly 90 years, Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park has been a paradigm of success in this regard, having spent nearly a century living up to its original intent. The establishment of the park was guided by the vision of the Canadian government, as articulated in Bill H.R. 47521932, which stated that the park would serve as “an enduring monument of nature to the long-existing relationship of peace and goodwill between the people of and Governments of Canada and the United States”. Before creating the international peace park, the two national parks cooperated on transboundary patrols and water ecology management. Their informal partnership fostered trust, leading to mutual dependency. This allowed them to pursue common goals, such as converting the signage system on the U.S. side to metric units for Canadian and other international visitors [35]. Currently, personnel in both nations have adopted a shared international peace park insignia on their uniforms, a symbol commemorating the 50th anniversary of the park’s establishment. The National Park Service has engaged in the production of promotional materials and maps to encourage individuals to traverse the border as well. U.S.–Canadian residents can cross the border directly using their passports, while non-residents of both countries who hold U.S.–Canadian visas are permitted to pass through for a maximum stay of 24 h.

As the development process has unfolded, the regulatory framework regarding wildlife conservation within the two nations has undergone a progressive expansion, accompanied by the continuation of bilateral exchanges. The trout population in Waterton Lake was protected only in Canada until 1990 when the U.S. adopted similar regulations. A similar situation exists with wolves, which are protected in Montana but considered harmful in Alberta. These wolves were given equal protection on both sides of the border following the intervention of parks for peace. Through EU integration policies, transfrontier national parks in Europe have also enhanced their public service support systems for transboundary recreation. The Bavarian Forest National Park and the Šumava National Park have established four permanently open border crossing points, and the Hedgehog Buses transboundary transportation system was established in 1996 (Figure 9), with more than 110,000 passengers per year in Germany and the Czech Republic.

Given border spaces’ inherent complexity and the diversity of human activities, interdependent borderlands vary significantly across national, spatial, social, and ecological scales. Consequently, the everyday activities of ordinary people in conceiving, constructing, defending, and even resisting border policies require examination. In order to join the European-wide NATURA 2000 system of transboundary nature reserves, Ukraine has attempted to establish at the legislative level an “Emerald Network (2019)” connecting domestic reserves. The Transboundary East Carpathians Biosphere Reserve, which straddles Poland and Slovakia (1992), is part of this network. However, the proposal was met with significant opposition due to its impact on the livelihoods of the multinational border populations, leading to widespread resistance. The residents viewed the establishment of transboundary reserves as a form of “institutional violence” against the traditional lifestyles and the forest, and their reluctance to create such reserves stemmed from an inability to balance the environmental concerns with the needs of human habitation. The outbreak of the Russo–Ukrainian war subsequently left the border reserves in a state of abandonment, as the old order was utterly shattered. According to Yehor, a biologist working for the Ukrainian Organization for Nature Conservation, the war weakened governmental and civil oversight of illegal logging. The war, as an extreme form of the clash of civilizations, temporarily took over all resources and attention, and any transboundary protected area construction in this state would stagnate or even regress.

4. Research Focus: The Promise of Sustainable Transfrontier Parks

Transfrontier national parks collaborate on the shared values represented by nature, recreation, and leisure. By fostering trust on all sides, these parks create possibilities for dialog around more contentious issues such as border tensions, security, and so on. Consequently, research on transboundary parks must consider more than simply expanding the list of participants in a study or treating a patchwork of flora, fauna, and fluid borders. Research on transboundary parks must move beyond increasing stakeholder participation. It must also address the complexity of ecosystems and shifting border dynamics.

Instead, it is an endeavor to explore how our perceptions of the sustainability of “transboundary spaces” might evolve if we no longer perceive linear boundaries as mere domains of human control. Instead, we should recognize all the “others” who are marginalized by dominant forms of thought and practice. This shift in perspective would profoundly impact our understanding of sustainable development in “transborder spaces”.

4.1. Existing Barriers: Stakeholder Perspectives

Multi-species relationships in different locations along borders and the uneven conditions of human habitability in landscapes have been shown to have a more profound impact on the development of transboundary cooperation in national parks than political factors such as interstate hunting and territorial disputes. In the Central Albertine Rift Transfrontier Protected Area Network, along the border of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and Uganda, the International Gorilla Conservation Program (IGCP, 1991) highlighted a “green conflict” over the economic benefits of transboundary recreation. The creation of transboundary protected areas has led to the displacement of Indigenous peoples from their ancestral lands and increased tourism-related inequalities. Policymakers’ efforts to nationalize border areas to protect endangered species have been viewed by Indigenous peoples as a threat to their way of life, resulting in resentment toward state control. The effectiveness of conservation models based on environmental justice principles in alleviating community poverty has been questioned. These models may worsen conflicts between humans and nature (wildlife poaching) and between communities and law enforcement (patrol conflicts) due to neglecting distributive justice and local grievances.

Concurrently, the presence of external actors and the perception of contested borders gave rise to a form of nationalism characterized by profound violence, as evidenced by the Rwandan massacres of 1994. These events illustrated how ideological differences could incite exclusionary nationalism, leading to the establishment of psychological boundaries and profound distrust towards the “other”, thereby amplifying the political threat posed by internal and external entities. This dynamic ultimately gave rise to a nightmare of border terror between the Tutsi and the Hutu communities. The repercussions of this landmark case of violence persist to the present day, as evidenced by the recurring attacks on Rwandan rangers in the DRC by frontiersmen during the IGCP’s daily joint patrols, attributable to “historical distrust”.

Frequent violence along the border undermines the ideal cooperation expected from state institutions. Parks for peace require continuous dialog and reflection. Understanding the diversity of border spaces, the dynamics of border politics, and the history of borders is crucial. Geopolitical triggers can disrupt the balance in these international parks, creating political contradictions that complicate the establishment of transboundary protected areas. Local conflicts are the real obstacles to transfrontier national parks. Thus, rewriting the original narratives of competing interests and cultural conflicts is vital for the future survival of these parks.

4.2. Exploring the Rationale for Survival: Ways of Writing Border Narratives

National policymakers have the power to create a “vision” that fits the “ideal” of the long-marginalized border people, and parks for peace are clearly within this visionary framework. The high frequency of cultural symbols used in border national parks essentially reinforces the presence of shared rights.

In Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, both border checkpoints are located above the national border between South Africa and Botswana, and the adjacent flags synchronize the use of flagpoles and banners with unconventional heights (Figure 10).

In Niagara Falls Transfrontier Park, both sides have constructed multiple U.S.–Canadian border crossings on the Michigan–Ontario border with large, landscaped observation towers that allow visitors to enter with a ticket and overlook the border. At the Niagara Falls Transfrontier Park, the Maid of the Mist cruise, which is on the river bisected by the border, creates a tacit understanding that visitors will be issued different colored raincoats to reinforce the national attributes of the similar-looking cruise. Cognitive expressions of state power often “jump” around the border “fence”, even if they are only static landscape symbols.

The presence of the state in border spaces can be characterized as a form of metaphorical embodiment, serving to embody state authority and political norms in the policing of the border. The Diablo Fire Department (Los Diablos) in Big Bend National Park in the United States comprises Mexican frontiersmen (Figure 11). The fire department was able to reach the scene of a fire within an hour of its outbreak, several times faster than the U.S. Federal Rescue Squad.

In exchange for efficient operations, the border community fire department obtained special transboundary permits from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Border Patrol, with rescues given a higher priority than security checks. Following the successful and expeditious extinguishment of eight fires, seven states outside of Texas recognized the Border Community Fire Department’s model, thereby further expanding the law enforcement reach of transboundary firefighting assistance. This recognition of state authority has also inspired a sense of pride in transboundary work regarding ecological value and the orderly release of power dynamics by the state and its agents, effectively increasing the value of the social space within the parks for peace4. The concept of borders extends beyond physical barriers, it also includes key elements for national cooperation. These boundaries symbolize state authority and power. When borders open, some power is shared to achieve mutual goals that support marginalized communities. Such openings foster a sense of belonging and identity among border residents.

Over 21,000 km of border fences in Central Asia block the migration of large mammals [36]. Removing these fences for joint biological conservation has become a preferred option for low-impact cooperation between Asian and European countries. At this point, research institutions and non-governmental organizations have become key actors in this chain. For instance, in 2012, the Yunnan Xishuangbanna Nature Reserve agreed with three provinces in northern Laos to establish a 220 km long China–Laos Border Joint Conservation Area, encompassing an area of approximately 2000 km². In 2018, the reserve established a wild Asian elephant monitoring platform in collaboration with Laos to undertake Asian elephant monitoring, big data analysis, and joint patrols. This collaborative process has elevated transboundary conservation exchanges from a local environmental protection program to a national institutional conservation project. In 2022, the platform successfully analyzed the distribution of Asian elephant activities and migration routes. It issued early warning information to Asian elephants more than 2600 times, effectively mitigating human–elephant conflicts along the border.

The International Gorilla Conservation Program (IGCP) operates in Africa, partnering with the National Park Authorities of Uganda and Rwanda. It integrates economic opportunities for local communities with conservation goals. IGCP has started a revenue-sharing program that supports sustainable business ventures near gorilla habitats. Representatives of the local communities oversee the program in conjunction with government agents. These collaborative approaches, which were established following extensive dialog, have yielded distinct, new profitability, gradually detaching “nature conservation” from the attachment of “local livelihoods”. The involvement of local Indigenous people in the management of parks for peace, especially in the direction of recreation, has also resulted in the emergence of some main types of recreational themes in African national parks to meet the visitors’ image of the African frontier as “wild and untouched” (Figure 12). The efficacy of transboundary protected areas, or parks for peace, is derived from their capacity to align with overarching environmental agendas, and their articulation and implementation of these agendas, thereby metamorphosing transboundary protected areas into a distinct category of a park. To a certain extent, protected areas have transformed transboundary protected areas into alternative, healthier, and more sustainable boundary resources.

4.3. Sustainability Outcome: Transmission of Identity and National Spirit

Transboundary recreation has been demonstrated to ameliorate the spatial relations experienced within border national parks effectively. The border landscape is a spatial microcosm of national parks’ complex spatial and temporal flux, with the distinctive infectiousness of natural landscape features attracting visitors from across the globe. The mental activities generated by the recreational experience, combined with contextual memory, construct a personal impression of the national park, which is usually positive.

The Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park is notable for its retention of border monuments and signs along the national border, with the lakeside Entry Clearance Lodge (Goat Hunt Ranger Station) being carefully designed to blend into the landscape. This approach is evident in its subtle distinction from other vacation lodges when visited by boat, and the same could be said for the other lodges. The omnipresence of international peace park signs on both sides of the border further diminishes the border’s political significance, effectively relegating the recreational experience to the ongoing cooperation of the two nations (Figure 13). At the U.S.–Canada border, the parks for peace initiative has long transcended its nominal status, as evidenced by infrastructure such as a lake lodge in Canada’s Thousand Islands National Park. Despite not being designated as a park for peace site, this park exemplifies the commitment to the initiative and the U.S. national parks on the other side of the border. The presence of the flags of both countries serves as a metaphorical representation of peace, underscoring the ongoing efforts to maintain harmonious relations. Boats departing from one side of the park can access the island from the U.S. with a visa, and the Thousand Islands Bridge behind the park facilitates the movement of citizens between the two countries, thereby gradually eroding the distinct linear cartography of the border, which eventually dissolves into the expansive lake. In this context, parks for peace have evolved beyond governmental oversight, with the parks on both sides of the border electing to exhibit imagery that symbolizes cooperation and coexistence (Figure 14). Parks for peace, in this context, are places where the dissemination of national cultural intentions is no longer limited to national or governmental leadership but where parks on both sides of the border spontaneously choose to display imagery of cooperation and coexistence.

When agents of state power convey tolerance and even support for pluralism and a sense of coexistence, trust between transboundary groups is more likely to be established. In this way, as dynamic and evolving spatial realms, borders can truly dismantle violence and establish “ecosystems of peace”. An illustration of this is provided by the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park’s border area, which hosts annual Hands Across the Border events. The event is now in its 93rd year, with attendance at around 100 people per year5. These events include hikes, barbecues, golf, other group recreational activities, and international peace and security conferences. Hands Across the Border events are held annually in the border area and include group recreational activities, as well as storytelling sessions about parks for peace, with naturalists and rangers from both countries participating at regular intervals. The random appearance of daily activities blurs the perception of border demarcation. Through participation, feelings, and interactions, visitors create the unique cohesion and values of the border community, while the rituals of the activities soften the spatial texture of the national landscape.

5. Conclusions: Implications for Future Spatial Development of Transboundary Ecological Protection in China

China’s border areas feature diverse landscapes and a rich cultural heritage. By 2035, China will have established the world’s most extensive national park system, including transboundary ecological clusters on the Tibetan Plateau. This includes collaboration on monitoring, data sharing, and delegation exchanges. China’s border protected areas are pursuing various forms of transboundary cooperation. For example, in 2014, China opened new pilgrimage routes to India via the Nai Dudu La Pass for Indian incense burners traveling to Tibet Gang Rinpoche. In 2023, the first pilot zone, the Sino–Vietnamese De Tien (Ban Yol) Waterfalls, began operations.

The article traces the genesis and spatial and temporal characteristics of the concept of parks for peace, analyzing the sense of responsibility and right, the historical dilemma, the vision of cooperation, and the development path of transboundary ecological protection space under the controversy of “opening” and “closing” of international borders.

The article reveals that transboundary ecological cooperation has an important role in the development of international peace relations. It is demonstrated that transboundary ecological cooperation is instrumental in pursuing international peace relations and that the globalized cooperation landscape necessitates the establishment of parks for peace.

By analyzing the cases of parks for peace under different types of border interactions (

Table 1. Summary of typical transboundary protected areas.

Border Type	Name of Protected Area	Countries (Continent)	Factors Affecting the Parks for Peace Construction (Positive + Negative −)
			Politics		Economy		Culture
			Political Stability	International Cooperation Level	National Economic Level	Funding Sources and Allocation	Community Participation	Cultural Identity
Alienated borderlands	1. DMZ	North Korea and South Korea (Asia)	Tense confrontation −	Reliant on international organizations −	Weak local finances −	Funds diverted to security governance −	No participation in decision-making −	Public hope for peaceful reunification +
Coexistent borderlands	2. Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park	South Africa and Botswana (Africa)	Occasional transboundary poaching −	State cooperation and NGO involvement +	Economic disparity, relies on external funding −	Unequal distribution of ecotourism income −	Revenue-sharing scheme +	Diverse tribal cultures ±
	3. IGCP	Rwanda, Uganda, and Congo (Africa)	Frequent poaching −	NGO-led +	Low development, external funding-reliant −
	4. BBNP	USA and Mexico (Americas)	Frequent illegal immigration −	Local law enforcement cooperation, federal support insufficient −	Significant economic disparity −	Franchise-based, lacks federal funding −	Community involvement in park work +	Complex immigration history ±
Interdependent borderlands	5. Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park	USA and Canada (Americas)	Peaceful +	Strategic cooperation and shared management +	Highly developed +	State-funded and tourism revenue +	Residents engaged in transboundary activities +	“Undefended border” +
	6. 1000 Islands National Park
	7. Bavarian Forest and Šumava National Park	Germany and Czech Republic (Europe)	Historical legacies ±	Supported by EU policies +	Highly developed +	EU ecological funds +	Franchise involvement in recreation economy +	European Green Belt +
Coexistent borderlands	8. The Land of Big Cats Transfrontier Park	China and Russia (Asia)	Geopolitical risks ±	Belt and Road Initiative +	Similar development levels +	State-funded and market mechanisms +	“One household, one ranger” system +	Language barrier increases management costs −
	9. China–Laos Border Joint Conservation Area	China and Laos (Asia)	Some poaching incidents −	No formal national agreement −	Underdeveloped border communities −		Joint patrols +

), the ideal state that can be achieved by parks for peace construction under different border cooperation and security environments is elucidated.

Based on China’s current transboundary ecological conservation situation, several insights are presented.

(1)

Establishing transboundary specialties within the national parks system

In the future, we can reference the cooperation model of established parks for peace and implement a transboundary protection system in China’s National Park Administration. The provincial government and relevant departments6 will create a regional transboundary management plan under the National Park Administration’s framework. They will ensure its implementation and encourage participation from multiple parties to establish a co-management system. Scientific research institutes, local communities, and residents will help with ecological protection and park management. NGOs can support the parks through financial donations and volunteer efforts. Additionally, enterprises can enhance tourism and promote ecological products using franchising and other strategies.

For other forms of protected areas located at the border, such as the Sino–Vietnamese De Tien (Ban Yol) Waterfalls Transboundary Tourism Cooperation Zone, transfrontier national parks should be given limited discretionary powers within the legal framework to establish synergistic management institutions, including the establishment of specialized jurisdictions such as transboundary conservation landscapes and/or seascapes and transboundary migration conservation areas, and synchronize long-term monitoring and assessment.

The construction process of these areas should adapt to real-time border statuses. For instance, the India–China border has seen intermittent openings for the Hajj pilgrimage route due to ongoing tensions. Future developments should align with ecological measures in DMZ and include recreational planning in the transition.

(2)

Developing sustainable Transfrontier national park Development Pathways

In 2023, measures for the management of national nature parks (for trial implementation) was proposed for managing national nature parks. These measures prioritize conservation, scientific planning, and rational use. National parks should be included in the ecological protection red line, prohibiting development activities that do not meet control requirements. In 2024, the Draft Law on National Parks divides parks into core protection and general control areas. Human activities are banned in core areas, except for those outlined in regulations. In general control areas, such activities are strictly limited.

When developing transfrontier national park plans, it is essential to assess the “boundary” attribute. The plans should align with China’s national parks’ functional zoning: strictly protected areas, ecological conservation areas, traditional utilization areas, and scientific, educational, and recreational areas. Coordination is key, focusing on community involvement, ecological protection, and low-impact recreation planning.

In managing national parks, it is essential to establish a system that guarantees the rights of aboriginal people. The community’s right to know and participate in management should be a fundamental aspect of co-management, respecting their rights and opinions.

Community participation relies on economic community, cultural respect, and institutional safeguards. This is also evident in China’s Yunnan and Guangxi provinces, which border Laos and Myanmar. These areas face uneven economic development, heavy reliance on ecological resources, and cultural identity challenges for ethnic minorities like the Dai [37].

The park administration can open some positions and provide induction training for residents. It should also explore sustainable development financing options, like the ecological compensation mechanism. Potential funding sources include government finances, social donations, market mechanisms, international funding, and community self-financing.

(3)

Building Ecological Corridors and Cultural Consensus in Transfrontier National Parks

The establishment of ecological corridors, which facilitate the connectivity of habitats, nature reserves, and forest parks across national boundaries, is a key component of the formation of a continuous ecological network. Notably, a significant proportion of Chinese ethnic minorities are transboundary groups, a salient example being the Dai ethnic group, which is homologous with the Shan ethnic group in Myanmar and the Thai ethnic group in Thailand. The Russians, Mongols and Koreans in northeastern China are all transboundary ethnic groups. In formulating protection measures, it is imperative to fully respect local cultural traditions and lifestyles, thereby promoting the joint protection of ecology and culture. The Belt and Road Initiative has been instrumental in fostering transboundary ecological cooperation, which has contributed to the development of green infrastructure and the exchange of ecological technologies. Furthermore, it has facilitated trust-building among cultural minorities and border stability through a political system that supports and respects diversity.

(4)

Establishing a comprehensive transboundary recreation support system

Another key component is the establishment of opening hours for transboundary recreational nodes based on border security. On the basis of the most stringent protection, to make locally adapted choices of transboundary transportation modes based on the existing border status of the protected areas, such as multiple modes of crossing the border by car, on foot, by boat, etc., and to simplify the formalities. Preserving historical space along the border is paramount, and its translation into unique landscape symbols is crucial in fostering recognition of the imagery of “other countries”.

Unlike the similarities in linguistic structure between Western countries, the multiethnic coexistence and significant linguistic differences along China’s borders, especially the fact that the pictographic system of Chinese characters is not common to the writing systems of neighboring countries, make multilingual signage especially necessary in transfrontier national parks. The lack of multilingual information will seriously affect the understanding and experience of foreign visitors. The vision of cultural coexistence and peaceful exchanges can be sustainably conveyed through landscape symbols that incorporate multiethnic languages and cultures.

As an expression of globalization, parks for peace philosophically imply the elimination of international borders, but in practice, the opposite is true. Transboundary protected areas involve attempts by national governments to extend sovereign control over previously neglected areas and to control and manage the “wilderness”, all of which expand the state’s control of these landscapes and resources as well as the public. Research on transfrontier national parks fits into China’s macro-policy orientation of encouraging the sustainable use of natural resources and reducing the potential for regional conflict.