Comparison of geopark management systems and development strategies in China and Russia
https://doi.org/10.21285/2686-9993-2025-48-2-146-159
EDN: PFDPVE
Abstract
Geoparks are special areas combining geological and geomorphological features with cultural and environmental components such as geotourism, scientific and educational activities, and local economic development. This research adopts a comparative case study methodology to analyze the management structures, geotourism strategies and conservation outcomes of geoparks in China and Russia, two countries with contrasting political, cultural and environmental contexts. By examining historical trajectories, policy architectures and socio-economic dynamics, the paper identifies systemic similarities, such as the integration of geoparks into UNESCO Global Geopark networks, and key differences, including the centralized, state-led management model in China compared to the decentralized, regionally adaptive approach in Russia. While China’s top-down management system delivers rapid infrastructure development and standardized conservation practices, it faces challenges of over-commercialization and environmental fragmentation. In contrast, Russian geoparks benefit from local decision-making but face funding inconsistencies. Comparing the geoturism and geopark systems in China and Russia the paper describes best practices and lessons learned that can be applied to enhance geoturism and conservation efforts in both countries.
About the Authors
S. A. Gantimurova
Irkutsk National Research Technical University
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Svetlana A. Gantimurova - Junior Researcher of the Geoinformatics Department, Siberian School of Geosciences.
Irkutsk
Competing Interests:
The final manuscript has been read and approved by all the co-authors
A. K. Karaeva
Irkutsk National Research Technical University
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Angelina K. Karaeva - Student, Siberian School of Geosciences.
Irkutsk
Competing Interests:
The final manuscript has been read and approved by all the co-authors
E. A. Slyadnev
Irkutsk National Research Technical University
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Efim A. Slyadnev - Student, Siberian School of Geosciences.
Irkutsk
Competing Interests:
The final manuscript has been read and approved by all the co-authors
Y. Zhang
Nanjing University
China
Competing Interests:
China
Yongzhan Zhang - Ph.D., Professor, School of Geography & Ocean Science.
Nanjing
Competing Interests:
The final manuscript has been read and approved by all the co-authors
Y. Yan
Nanjing University
China
Competing Interests:
China
Yulan Yan - Student, School of Geography & Ocean Science.
Nanjing
Competing Interests:
The final manuscript has been read and approved by all the co-authors
K. Wu
Nanjing University
China
Competing Interests:
China
Kailin Wu - Student, School of Geography & Ocean Science.
Nanjing
Competing Interests:
The final manuscript has been read and approved by all the co-authors
References
1. Farsani N.T., Coelho C.O.A., Costa C.M.M., Amrikazemi A. Geo-knowledge management and geoconservation via geoparks and geotourism. Geoheritage. 2014;6:185-192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-014-0099-7 .
2. Mc Keever P.J., Zouros N., Patzak M., Weber J. The UNESCO global network of national geoparks. In: Newsome D., Dowling R.K. (eds). Geotourism: the tourism of geology and landscape. Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers; 2010, p. 221-230. https://doi.org/10.23912/978-1-906884-09-3-1071.
3. Ha P.V., Van T.T., Tin Q.D., Hieu H.H., Tuan N.D., Hung N.Q. Geoheritage values of the Dong Van Karst Plateau Geopark: a quantitative geomorphological and topographic analysis. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Malaysia. 2013;59:13-17. https://doi.org/10.7186/bgsm59201303.
4. Zouros N. The European geoparks network. Geological heritage protection and local development. Episodes. 2004;27(3):165-171. https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2004/v27i3/002.
5. Chen A., Lu Y., Ng Y.C.Y. The principles of geotourism. Berlin: Springer; 2015, 264 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-662-46697-1.
6. Wang L., Tian M., Wang L. Geodiversity, geoconservation and geotourism in Hong Kong Global Geopark of China. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association. 2015;126(3):426-437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pgeola.2015.02.006.
7. Gou G.R., Fang W., Cheung L.T.O., Fok L., Chow A.S.Y., Zhang K. Understanding the determinants of geologically responsible behaviour among geotourists: a multi-destination analysis. Tourism and Hospitality. 2024;5(1):1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp5010001.
8. George A.L., Bennett A. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. In: Arjona A., Pearlman W. (eds). Perspectives on politics. American Political Science Association; 2007, vol. 5, iss. 1, p. 187-188. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592707070491.
9. Fassoulas C., Mouriki D., Dimitriou-Nikolakis P., Iliopoulos G. Quantitative assessment of geotopes as an effective tool for geoheritage management. Geoheritage. 2012;4:177-193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-011-0046-9.
10. Yin H., Zhang K., Tong J., Yang Z., Wu S. The global stratotype section and point (GSSP) of the Permian-Triassic boundary. Episodes. 2001;24(2):102-114. https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2001/v24i2/004.
11. Chu Y. Utilization and protection of the world heritage – mixed property in Huangshan mount. Applied and Computational Engineering. 2023;3(1):356-361. https://doi.org/10.54254/2755-2721/3/20230548.
12. Farkhutdinov I.M., Farkhutdinov A.M., Ismagilov R.A. Geological structure of the Yangan-Tau geopark. Vestnik Bashkirskogo universiteta. 2018;23(4):1128-1138. (In Russ.). EDN: YUXOJN.
13. Zhuang A., Stoffelen A., Meijles E., Groote P. The complex governance of protected areas: insights from geoheritage and geopark management in China. Environmental Policy and Governance. 2024;34(6):679-690. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2118.
14. Xu K., Wu W. Geoparks and geotourism in China: a sustainable approach to geoheritage conservation and local development – a review. Land. 2022;11(9):1493. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11091493.
15. Xu X., Tan Y., Yang G., Barnett J. China’s ambitious ecological red lines. Land Use Policy. 2018;79:447-451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.037.
16. Wu L., Zhang Y., Wang P., Li B., Ye Q., Peng W., et al. Karst geoheritage of the red stone forest in the Xiangxi UNESCO Global Geopark: chromogenic factors, microgeomorphology and dissolution behaviour. Geoheritage. 2024;16:18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-024-00917-1.
17. He S. The role of communities in the governance of China’s national parks and the consolidation and development of their role. Journal of Natural Resources. 2024;39:2310. https://doi.org/10.31497/zrzyxb.20241004.
18. Luneva E.V. Organization of geoparks in Russia and peculiarities of their legal regime. Lex Russica. 2021;74(9): 32-43. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2021.178.9.032-043. EDN: JQMKUX.
19. Semiletkin S.A. UNESCO global geoparks as a driver of tourism development in the mountain territories of the CIS countries. Dialogue: politics, law, economics. 2024;1:112-116. (In Russ.). EDN: QOZJGJ.
20. Arutyunyan M.S., Kurbanov D.A., Samigullin R.M. To the issue of normative regulation of the legal regime of geoparks in Russia. The Rule of Law State: Theory and Practice. 2023;19(3):120-130. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.33184/pravgos-2023.3.13. EDN: SHBRTE.
Review
For citations:
Gantimurova S.A., Karaeva A.K., Slyadnev E.A., Zhang Y., Yan Y., Wu K. Comparison of geopark management systems and development strategies in China and Russia. Earth sciences and subsoil use. 2025;48(2):146-159. https://doi.org/10.21285/2686-9993-2025-48-2-146-159. EDN: PFDPVE
Views:
12
Email this article 
Post a Comment 
