Despite the recent paradigmatic shift in conservation science, protected areas (PAs), which are associated with seminal conservation strategies, remain a key tool for achieving biodiversity conservation. Nevertheless, PAs' effectiveness as conservation measures is undermined by conflicts arising within their socio-ecological systems. Potential reasons for the negative impact of the conflicts include the tendency of researchers to emphasise managerial or behavioural aspects of conservation conflicts, while neglecting to develop theoretical foundations for conflict analysis. We aimed to critically review existing conceptual frameworks applied within the broadly defined field of conservation conflicts and to develop a new more comprehensive framework that better reflects contemporary identified challenges within nature conservation. We particularly proposed and emphasised the integration of a geographical perspective within existing interdisciplinary approaches for the application to PA settings. We systemised and unified conflict-related terminology, assessed the contributions and limitations of existing frameworks and identified critical gaps in the field. These gaps are: inadequate recognition of the spatial aspects of conflict analysis, a lack of consistency between individual-level and community-level frameworks and a lack of systematic linkages among the main structural attributes of conflicts, such as determinants, interests or types of conflicts. We systematically distinguished 26 conflict-related terms, including: conflict frames, images, orientations, factors, categories, issues, potential, or intensity. Our framework covers three major conflict components (determinants, dimensions, levels) and foregrounds the socio-psychological and spatial characteristics of PA conflicts, while enabling systemisation of existing conservation conflict typologies.

Protected areas provide important ecosystem services globally but few studies have examined how cultural differences influence the distribution of cultural ecosystem values and management preferences. We used internet-based public participation GIS (PPGIS) in the countries of Norway and Poland to identify ecosystem values and management preferences in protected areas held by regional residents and site users. We found significant differences in the type and quantity of ecosystem values with Norwegians mapping more values relating to use of resources (e.g., hunting/fishing, gathering) and Polish respondents mapping more environmental values such as scenery, biological diversity, and water quality. With respect to management preferences, Norwegians identified more preferences for resource utilization while Polish respondents identified more preferences for conservation. Norwegian respondents were more satisfied with protected area management and local participation which can be explained by historical, legal, and cultural differences between the two countries. For Norway, biodiversity conservation in protected areas will continue to be guided by sustainable use of protected areas, rather than strict nature protection, with management favoring local board control and active public participation. For Poland, change in protected area management to enhance biodiversity conservation is less certain, driven by national environmental values that conflict with local values and preferences, continuing distrust in government, and low levels of civic participation. Differential efficacy in PPGIS methods-Norway with greater participation from household sampling and Poland with greater response using social media-suggest different strategies will be required for effective public engagement in protected area planning and management.

Alarming plastic production growth worldwide reinforces the public debate about the prevailing environmental crisis, whereby single-use-plastic (SUP) items are considered as by far the most harmful to the environment and public health. Accordingly, European environmental policy aims at eliminating SUP. Recently, we presented a model of plastic governance that derives from a circular economy approach identifying and taking into consideration perspectives of different actors in the plastic governance, such as producers, wholesalers, shop keepers, consumers, citizen scientists, and academia. Our results illustrate that the vast majority of stakeholders cared for the natural environment and understood the need to phase out SUP from the global economy. We proposed that a knowledge brokerage, undertaken by scientists via means of citizen science, as the most effective method to implement elimination policy, as it provides stakeholders with knowledge on why and how to handle SUP issues. However, at the time of the global COVID-19 pandemic, a plastic governance model required a re-assessment. The perceived role of SUP has changed, as it reflects the health emergency. Namely, due to the health safety reasons stakeholders and consumers are requesting even more SUP than previously. Following up on our data gathered prior to the pandemic, we suggest that under the new circumstances health concerns outweigh the environmental concerns being determined by a shift in the value hierarchization. The paper discusses preliminary results.

No abstract

No abstract