The study highlights a broader shift in the way national parks are managed. Protected areas are no longer viewed simply as places that must be isolated from human activity. Instead, modern conservation increasingly seeks to balance environmental protection, community welfare, and effective institutional governance.
Vietnam provides an important case because its national park system faces challenges common to many developing countries. Protected areas must contend with limited funding, fragmented institutions, tourism development pressures, and conflicts between conservation and resource use. At the same time, communities living near national parks need access to sustainable livelihoods and a fair share of the economic benefits generated by natural resources.
Against this backdrop, the researchers applied the ESG framework to examine three key dimensions of national park governance. The Environmental (E) dimension covers biodiversity conservation and ecosystem protection. The Social (S) dimension focuses on community rights, livelihoods, benefit-sharing, and public participation. The Governance (G) dimension examines institutions, authority, planning, regulations, and accountability mechanisms.
Analysis of 294 Policy Documents
Cao Hy Yen and Bui Thi Huong Nguyet used Vietnam’s National Legal Document Database as the primary data source. An initial search for policy documents related to national parks identified 318 texts. After removing duplicates, irrelevant documents, and materials that did not meet the study’s analytical criteria, the researchers examined 294 policy documents.
The documents were organized into four historical periods:
- 1962–1985: Initial Period;
- 1986–2003: Growth Period;
- 2004–2017: Adjustment and Institutionalization Period;
- 2018–present: Modernization and Development Period.
The researchers then coded policy content according to ESG categories to identify how Vietnam’s conservation priorities, community participation mechanisms, and institutional arrangements changed over time.
Environmental Protection Remains the Main Priority
The analysis found that the Environmental dimension accounted for 41.4 percent of policy attention during the modernization period beginning in 2018. Governance represented 33.1 percent, while the Social dimension accounted for 25.5 percent.
However, the researchers emphasize that the lower proportion of social policy does not necessarily mean that communities have become less important. Instead, Vietnam appears to be moving from broad and general social participation toward more structured forms of participation connected to economic incentives, benefit-sharing, and co-management.
One of the most important mechanisms in this transformation is Payment for Forest Environmental Services (PFES). Under this system, organizations that benefit from ecosystem services—including hydropower companies, water suppliers, and ecotourism operators—contribute payments to support forest protection and surrounding communities.
The mechanism creates a direct financial link between the economic value of ecosystems and conservation funding. It also gives communities a stronger economic incentive to participate in protecting forests and biodiversity.
From Administrative Control to Collaborative Governance
Vietnam’s national park governance has evolved through several distinct stages. During the early period, the state played the dominant role in defining protected areas, establishing institutional authority, and managing conservation activities. Local communities had limited involvement in decision-making and were largely treated as subjects of administration.
A major shift began between 2004 and 2017. Environmental management became increasingly institutionalized through environmental impact assessments, biodiversity monitoring, and the development of ecological compensation mechanisms.
Since 2018, the governance model has moved further toward a combination of legal regulation, market-based mechanisms, and community participation. Communities surrounding national parks are increasingly recognized as stakeholders with social and economic interests in conservation.
Cao Hy Yen and Bui Thi Huong Nguyet describe this trajectory as “E-led, G-supported, and S-deepened”—an approach in which environmental protection leads policy priorities, governance provides institutional support, and the social dimension becomes deeper through community participation and benefit-sharing.
Vietnam and China Follow Different Governance Paths
The study also compares the national park governance models of Vietnam and China. Although both countries face similar conservation challenges, they have developed different institutional approaches.
China has moved toward a stronger state-led and centralized model, with national park management relying heavily on government fiscal investment. Vietnam, by contrast, has developed a system characterized by central-local power sharing and the use of market-based mechanisms such as PFES.
Vietnam’s approach offers an important advantage by connecting economic benefits with conservation. However, the researchers also identify a potential vulnerability: excessive dependence on specific sectors, such as hydropower and water supply companies, could expose conservation financing to economic fluctuations.
The two countries also face a common challenge regarding community participation. Communities may be formally included in conservation programs but still lack meaningful influence over decision-making. The researchers argue that modern protected-area governance must move beyond symbolic participation and give communities a substantive role in shaping conservation policies and sharing benefits.
Implications for Sustainable Conservation
The findings offer important lessons for protected-area governance in developing countries. Environmental protection cannot rely solely on government regulations or public funding. A more sustainable system requires a combination of strong legal foundations, innovative financing mechanisms, meaningful community participation, and effective coordination among institutions.
For policymakers, Vietnam’s experience shows how conservation can be strengthened by linking ecosystem protection with local economic benefits. For communities, participation becomes more meaningful when it is supported by clear mechanisms for sharing the benefits of conservation.
The study also highlights a critical challenge for the future: communities must become more than program beneficiaries or conservation workers. They need to become genuine stakeholders in decision-making.
The researchers conclude that an effective modern governance model should integrate legal foundations, market-based incentives, community participation, and coordination mechanisms. Vietnam’s experience with PFES provides a distinctive example of market-based conservation financing, while China offers lessons in the legal and institutional consolidation of national park governance. Together, these experiences provide valuable insights for countries seeking to develop more sustainable protected-area systems.
Author Profiles
Cao Hy Yen is affiliated with Zhejiang Gongshang University and works on issues related to policy governance, sustainability, and protected-area management.
Bui Thi Huong Nguyet is a researcher and the corresponding author of the study at Zhejiang Gongshang University. Her research interests in this article include ESG governance, public policy, national park management, sustainability, and comparative China–Vietnam institutional studies.
0 Komentar