The COVID-19 pandemic led to many European countries imposing lockdown measures and limiting people’s movement during spring 2020. During the summer 2020, these strict lockdown measures were gradually lifted while in autumn 2020, local restrictions started to be re-introduced as a second wave emerged. After initial restrictions on visitors accessing many Nature Protected Areas (PAs) in Europe, management authorities have had to introduce measures so that all users can safely visit these protected landscapes. In this paper, we examine the challenges that emerged due to COVID-19 for PAs and their deeper causes. By considering the impact on and response of 14 popular European National and Nature Parks, we propose tentative longer-term solutions going beyond the current short-term measures that have been implemented. The most important challenges identified in our study were overcrowding, a new profile of visitors, problematic behavior, and conflicts between different user groups. A number of new measures have been introduced to tackle these challenges including information campaigns, traffic management, and establishing one-way systems on trail paths. However, measures to safeguard public health are often in conflict with other PA management measures aiming to minimize disturbance of wildlife and ecosystems. We highlight three areas in which management of PAs can learn from the experience of this pandemic: managing visitor numbers in order to avoid overcrowding through careful spatial planning, introducing educational campaigns, particularly targeting a new profile of visitors, and promoting sustainable tourism models, which do not rely on large visitor numbers.

9Protected areas are the most widely applied policy tool for biodiversity conservation. 10However, effective management of protected areas is often obstructed by conflicts mainly 11 associated with the social impacts imposed on local communities and other users by their 12 establishment. Despite the importance of these social impacts they remain significantly 13 under-researched. There is now an increasing need to incorporate social impacts in decision 14 making processes by providing accurate estimations and develop ways to forecast their 15 change in the future. Considering the increase of studies identifying this need, the present 16 paper aims to indicate three main directions that will assist in designing effective tools for 17 measuring and most importantly understanding social impacts: a) perceptions on social 18 impacts of individuals who are directly affected by protected areas need to be incorporated in 19 management evaluation techniques in a meaningful and accurate way and be combined with 20 objective measurements of impact; b) understanding the factors determining the actual and 21 perceived levels of social impacts is a key step for the design of effective management 22 frameworks of protected areas and c) social impacts should not be seen as static concepts but 23 should be seen as a dynamic and long-term factor which needs to be incorporated in decision-24 making processes.

The concepts of circular economy (CE) and sustainability (S) have lately gained momentum among scholars, theorists, academics, and practitioners. Although these concepts are considered necessary to solve many of the existing global environmental and social challenges (e.g., climate change, nature conservation and social equity), it seems there is no consistency relating to their content. Some scholars consider these two concepts identical, while others contemplate them as different. Several theoretical approaches have been presented to clarify the content of these two concepts and to provide effective ways to solve the social and environmental problems. The goal of this paper is to examine the existing literature regarding the content of CE and S based on a triple-level analysis (micro, meso, and macro level) across different scientific fields: economic/management and engineering/natural science. Our findings show many theoretical approaches with several relationships, similarities, and differences among CE and S at the micro, meso, and macro-levels within engineering and management scientific fields. Based on these findings, a future research agenda on CE and S is also proposed. Keywords Circular business model . Sustainable business model . Corporate Social Responsibility and circular economy . Circular corporate accounting . Corporate reporting and circular economy . Environmental engineering and firms . Wastewater and circular economy . Reuse and firms . Recycle and firms . Industrial ecology and circular economy . Industrial symbiosis and circular economy . Industrial metabolism . Eco-clusters and circular economy . Eco-industrial park . Circular economy and 17 SDGs

No abstract