This article examines how China's Giant Panda National Park turns conservation boundaries into a redistribution of collective forest rights without expropriation. Drawing from ethnographic fieldwork, semi-structured interviews, and legal-policy analysis, the study traces how the park's boundary is ‘made real’ through territorial technologies: maps and markers, permitting and certification gateways, and remote-sensing-enabled audits. Two cases illustrate a dual mechanism of taking-like loss: (a) a de facto logging ban produced through permit withdrawal and routine refusal, blocking timber income and lawful conversion into emerging forest commodities, and (b) a certification freeze that prevents in-park forest rights from being documented and used as collateral, immobilising credit-dependent livelihoods and investment. Across both, an ‘audit horizon’ reshapes bureaucratic risk, making non-authorisation the safest default. Linking legal geography and takings analysis, it explains why substitutes, leasing, swaps, agreements, and welfare-forest conversion remain distributively thin, and it proposes clearer compensation triggers and calibrated, accountable permitting.
BlandySSibleyD (2010) Law, boundaries and the production of space. Social & Legal Studies19(3): 275–284.
3.
BlomleyN (1994) Law, Space, and the Geographies of Power, 1st ed. New York: The Guilford Press.
4.
BlomleyN (2008) Enclosure, common right and the property of the poor. Social & Legal Studies17(3): 311–332.
5.
BlomleyN (2019) The territorialization of property in land: space, power and practice. Territory, Politics, Governance7(2): 233–249.
6.
BlomleyN (2022) Territory: New Trajectories in Law. London: Routledge.
7.
BlomleyNDelaneyDFordRT (eds) (2001) The Legal Geographies Reader: Law, Power and Space, 1st ed.Oxford; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
8.
BravermanI (2014) Who’s afraid of methodology? Advocating a methodological turn in legal geography. In: BravermanIBlomleyNDelaneyD, et al. (eds) The Expanding Spaces of Law: A Timely Legal Geography, 1st ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 120–141.
9.
BravermanIBlomleyNDelaneyD, et al. (2014) The Expanding Spaces of Law: A Timely Legal Geography, 1st ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
10.
BryanJ (2012) Rethinking territory: social justice and neoliberalism in Latin America’s territorial turn. Geography Compass6(4): 215–226.
11.
CalliesDL (2007) Takings: physical and regulatory. Asia Pacific Law Review15(1): 77–121.
12.
DegensheinALeslieCA (2025) Using court documents as data: opportunities and challenges for sociolegal scholarship. Law & Society Review59(3): 619–647.
13.
DelaneyD (2003) Beyond the word: law as a thing of this world. In: HolderJHarrisonC (eds) Law and Geography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 67–83.
14.
DelaneyD (2005) Territory: A Short Introduction, 1st ed.Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
15.
DelaneyD (2010) The Spatial, the Legal and the Pragmatics of World-Making: Nomospheric Investigations, 1st ed.Abingdon; New York: Routledge-Cavendish.
16.
DelaneyDFordRTBlomleyN (2001) Preface: where is law? In: BlomleyNDelaneyDFordRT (eds) The Legal Geographies Reader: Law, Power and Space, 1st ed. Oxford; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, xiii–xxii.
17.
DengDLongX (2018) A national governance perspective on the transformation of rural property rights: the Chinese experience. Social Sciences in China39(1): 50–64.
18.
DingX (2017) Law according to the Chinese communist party: constitutionalism and socialist rule of law. Modern China43(3): 322–352.
19.
EpsteinRA (1985) Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain. Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press.
20.
ErieMS (2007) China’s (post-)socialist property rights regime: Assessing the impact of the property law on illegal land takings. Hong Kong Law Journal37(3): 919–949.
21.
FensterM (2009) The stubborn incoherence of regulatory takings symposium: litigating takings and other legal challenges to land use and environmental regulation. Stanford Environmental Law Journal28(3): 525–576.
22.
GengBHuangY (2019) Introduction and application of regulatory takings theory in administrative trials (guanzhixing zhengshou lilun zai xingzheng shenpan zhong de yinru yu yunyong). People’s Judicature (renmin sifa) (1): 54–59.
23.
HoP (2001) Who owns China’s land? Policies, property rights and deliberate institutional ambiguity. The China Quarterly166: 394–421.
24.
HoP (2005) Institutions in Transition: Land Ownership, Property Rights and Social Conflict in China, Illustrated ed.Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
25.
HoP (2006) Credibility of institutions: forestry, social conflict and titling in China. Land Use Policy23(4): 588–603.
26.
HoP (2014) The ‘credibility thesis’ and its application to property rights: (in)secure land tenure, conflict and social welfare in China. Land Use Policy40: 13–27.
27.
HolderJHarrisonC (2003) Connecting law and geography. In: Law and Geography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–16.
28.
JiangYXiaoYZhangZ, et al. (2024) How does central-local interaction affect local environmental governance? Insights from the transformation of central environmental protection inspection in China. Environmental Research243: 117668.
29.
KostkaGNahmJ (2017) Central–local relations: recentralization and environmental governance in China. The China Quarterly231: 567–582.
30.
KymäläinenP (2024) Legal geography I: everyday law. Progress in Human Geography48(3): 352–361.
31.
LewisD (2023) China is using satellites to police the protection of nature - but will it work?Nature618(7964): 224–225.
32.
LiF (2025) Balancing biodiversity conservation and rural development: contested spaces of regulating bamboo shoots in China’s Giant Panda National Park. Journal of Agrarian Change. Epub ahead of print 2025. DOI:10.1111/joac.70041.
33.
LiuCLiuHWangS (2017) Has China’s new round of collective forest reforms caused an increase in the use of productive forest inputs?Land Use Policy64: 492–510.
34.
LiuY (2022) From regulation to expropriation: the generative logic of regulatory takings - an inquiry based on U.S. Law (cong guanzhi dao zhengshou: guanzhixing zhengshou de shengcheng luoji — jiyu Meiguo fa de kaocha). SJTU Law Review (jiaoda faxue)13(4): 105–121.
35.
MaoWQiaoS (2021) Legal doctrine and judicial review of eminent domain in China. Law & Social Inquiry46(3): 826–859.
36.
MichelmanFI (1966) Property, utility, and fairness: comments on the ethical foundations of just compensation law. Harvard Law Review80(6): 1165–1258.
37.
National Forestry and Grassland Administration (2023) The Master Plan of Giant Panda National Park (2023-2030) [daxiongmao guojia gongyuan zongti guihua (2023-2030)].
38.
O’DonnellTRobinsonDFGillespieJ (eds) (2019) Legal Geography: Perspectives and Methods, 1st ed.Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.
39.
PanJ (2021) Regulatory taking or conservation easement: institutional choice of national park legislation (guanzhixing zhengshou haishi baohu diyiquan: guojia gongyuan lifa de zhidu xuanze). Administrative Law Review (xingzheng faxue yanjiu) (2): 76–84.
40.
RasmussenMBLundC (2018) Reconfiguring frontier spaces: the territorialization of resource control. World Development101: 388–399.
41.
RodenbikerJ (2023) Ecological States: Politics of Science and Nature in Urbanizing China. Ithaca; London: Cornell University Press.
42.
RozelleSBrandtLGuoL, et al. (2005) Land tenure in China: facts, fictions and issues. In: Developmental Dilemmas: Land Reform and Institutional Change in China,1st ed. London: Routledge, 107–132.
43.
SchmidtCAMcDermottCL (2015) Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: local explanations for forestry law compliance. Social & Legal Studies24(1): 3–24.
44.
ShengGChenHFerretti-GallonK, et al. (2020) Moving toward a greener China: is China’s National Park pilot program a solution?Land9(12): 89.
45.
ShengJChengQ (2024) National Parks as the materialized imaginary of ecological civilization in China. Environmental Science & Policy152: 103660.
46.
SingerJW (2014) Justifying regulatory takings. Ohio Northern University Law Review41(3): 601–670.
WainwrightJBryanJ (2009) Cartography, territory, property: postcolonial reflections on indigenous counter-mapping in Nicaragua and Belize. Cultural Geographies16(2): 153–178.
51.
WangQZhangX (2017) Three rights separation: China’s proposed rural land rights reform and four types of local trials. Land Use Policy63: 111–121.
52.
WangW (2005) Land use rights: legal perspectives and pitfalls for land reform. In: Developmental Dilemmas: Land Reform and Institutional Change in China, 1st ed. London: Routledge, 55–78.
53.
WashburnVJ (2011) Regular takings or regulatory takings?: Land expropriation in rural China. Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal20(1): 71–124.
54.
XiaoWLiangC (2016) Connotation, basic meaning and right relation of separating rural land ownership, household contracting right and land management right (nongcun tudi ‘sanquan fenzhi’ de neihan jiben yaoyi ji quanli guanxi). Chinese Rural Economy (zhongguo nongcun jingji) (11): 17–29.
55.
XuY (2019) On the U.S. regulatory takings regime and its implications for China (lun meiguo guanzhixing zhengshou zhidu jiqi dui woguo de qishi). Research on Rule of Law (fazhi yanjiu) (4): 138–150.
56.
ZhangMCaoXSunA (2024) Applications of satellite technologies within China’s legal system - A review. Acta Astronautica219: 750–760.
57.
ZhangYKantS (2005) Collective forests and forestland: physical asset rights versus economic rights. In: Developmental Dilemmas: Land Reform and Institutional Change in China, 1st ed. London: Routledge, 249–269.
