Abstract: Through a social survey, we applied a social-ecological analysis framework based on benefit perception to analyze multi-stakeholders' recognition of the meaning of ecosystem, the definition of benefit and their attitude towards potential management rules under national park management. Based on the interview with scholars, managers, visitors and community residents, we find that different stakeholders have explicit but different understanding of the same ecosystem. Scholars and managers hold a macroscopic view from the perspective of research and management which transcends individual benefit, while visitors and residents focus more on direct, personal benefit. Residents engaged with different livelihoods assess the importance of ecosystem services based on the spatial distribution of production and everyday life, and the temporal change of rules. Livelihood priority determines the meaning of ecosystem and residents have the request of converting ecological and cultural values to economic benefit. Their requests for ecosystem management reflect their expectation of perceived benefit, based on their judgment on the current management of the realised benefit. Stakeholders have agreement on the rationality and feasibility of rules which work for the spacious area and restricted mass behaviour; however, scholars and managers are cautious in judging rules to restrict the utilization of natural resources, and residents have the potential of violating these rules. Therefore, we believe that stakeholders' attitude towards benefit sharing rules depends on whether the application of rules affects their prioritised ecosystem meanings. Based on this understanding, we propose a dynamic negotiation space to guide cognitive convergence among stakeholders in order to improve their acceptance of rules and to guarantee the robustness of the social-ecological system.