Abstract: As the spatial overlap between human activities and wildlife habitats continues to increase, human-wildlife conflict has become a pressing global challenge. Among the affected species groups, ungulates are particularly notable due to their wide distribution, significant ecological roles, and long-standing interactions with agricultural and pastoral systems. In recent years, conflicts involving ungulates in China, especially those caused by wild boars, have become increasingly prominent. These conflicts manifest as damage to crops and forestry, threats to human safety, and disease transmission. Such challenges are particularly acute within and around national parks and nature reserves, where wildlife populations are recovering and expanding beyond protected area boundaries. With the formal implementation of the National Park Law in 2026, there is an urgent need for China to develop a governance approach that balances ecological conservation, community livelihoods, and social legitimacy. This study systematically examines the management of human-wildlife conflict in Europe and explores its relevance for China′s protected area system, with a focus on national parks. Europe serves as a valuable comparative case, as many countries experience historical cycles of ungulate population decline, recovery, and even overabundance. As ungulate populations expand, the types of conflicts diversify, encompassing agricultural and forestry losses, wildlife-vehicle collisions, public safety concerns, and disease risks. In response, European countries gradually shift away from reactive population-reduction strategies toward more integrated governance models. Based on a comprehensive review, this study identifies a common cyclical governance framework for human-wildlife conflict in Europe, consisting of four interconnected core components: (1) scientific assessment and long-term monitoring of population dynamics and conflict patterns; (2) clear and measurable management objectives within multi-level policy frameworks; (3) coordinated management practices integrating prevention measures, population regulation, and compensation mechanisms; and (4) monitoring, feedback, and adaptive adjustments. This governance model integrates ecological data, socio-economic assessments, and stakeholder engagement within a unified framework, supported by transparent decision-making and institutionalized coordination mechanisms. Rather than relying on a single approach, European human-wildlife conflict governance emphasizes the combination of multiple tools and continuous learning to enhance effectiveness and social acceptance. By comparing this experience with current governance approaches in China, this study highlights key systemic challenges in China′s human-wildlife conflict governance, including lagging and non-standardized monitoring, ambiguous governance objectives, fragmented inter-departmental decision-making, and insufficient professionalization of governance practices. Although China has made progress through policy guidance, compensation schemes, and pilot interventions, its current governance model remains predominantly reactive and fragmented, limiting long-term effectiveness and public trust. Based on European experience and China′s institutional context, this study proposes an adaptive governance framework for human-wildlife conflict within China′s national park system. The framework emphasizes the establishment of a unified scientific monitoring system, multi-level and coordinated decision-making mechanisms, integrated management combining prevention and regulation, and robust feedback mechanisms to facilitate continuous policy improvement. While some European tools, such as regulated hunting systems, may not be directly transferable, the underlying governance principles offer valuable insights for China. The study argues that, as China′s legal and policy frameworks evolve, strengthening adaptive capacity, cross-sector coordination, and community engagement will be essential for transitioning from conflict management to sustainable human-wildlife coexistence.