Research on community conflicts will provide important guidelines for the piloting work on the national park system in China. This research analyzed 12 cases of national park community conflicts in Asia, Europe, North and South America, and Africa. Community conflicts between park management and communities were studied. It was found that community conflicts arose from park delimitation, ecosystem conservation, and utilization. Park delimitation affects community residents’ land holdings and changing land property ownership, eventually making residents’lives unsustainable. Strict ecosystem conservation policies force local people to change their traditional ways of life. Excessive tourism development affects the normal everyday lives of local residents. These three issues can be traced back to land policies, benefit or profit distribution mechanisms, and park management strategies. Land ownership policies may ensure that community residents can continue and carry forward traditional ways of life. Reasonable benefit or profit distribution mechanisms safeguard residents’access to compensation because the land ownership changes to state-owned property or other land uses are limited. Flexible management strategies result in greater community residents' approval and more trust in park management bodies, and provide enhanced resident support for park creation and development. The relationships between community residents and national park management bodies can be improved through land ownership, community participation, and community concession systems. Four types of land ownership are available to solve the contradictions between ecological preservation and community development. At present, state-and collective-owned land systems are the two main types in China. There are four potential types of land ownership and rights approaches for national parks: (1) land ownership and use rights belong to the park (Type I); (2) land ownership belongs to the park, land use rights belong to the community (Type II); (3) land ownership and use rights belong to the community (Type III);and (4) land ownership belongs to the community, land use rights belong to the park (Type IV). Community involvement ensures an important position for local residents and a share of profits from the national park. Smooth information communication enhances community trust and confidence in the park and its management. Learning from international experiences,“enclosed”and“rescue”management do not apply, but the Park Advisory Committee (PAC) model could still be introduced in China. Additionally, community involvement should encompass capacity-building and a participation evaluation system. A concession system oriented to local residents guarantees more sustainable communities. Learning from the public-private partnerships (PPPs) in Australia, concession systems should have mutually-beneficial rules and regulations, and ensure information transparency. The concession policies must partly transfer rights, but the transfer period should not be too long. If community conflict can be transformed into community compensation, issues and problems can be stopped at their source.%国家公园社区冲突研究对于目前中国正开展的国家公园体制试点工作具有指导意义。文章以境外国家公园社区冲突为现实案例，梳理公园管理机构与社区之间冲突的具体表现，发现社区冲突是由公园定界、公园生态保护和公园开发利用3个方面所引致，由此追根溯源至土地政策、利益机制和管理手段。当这三者置身于国家公园体制框架中时，从土地权属保障制度、社区参与制度和特许经营制度3个方面着手预防或改善公园与社区居民之间的关系是具有可操作性和针对性的。文章提出的4类土地权属关系可从一定程度上解决生态保护和社区发展的矛盾，PAC模式保证了社区在国家公园利益分配和补偿中的重要地位，透明顺畅的信息沟通增强社区对公园的信任和信心，社区特许经营制度向社区的倾斜可保障失地社区居民生计。当社区居民“得以偿失”，社区冲突就会止于源头。
展开▼
