Are bilateral conservation policies for the Białowieża forest unattainable? Analysis of stated preferences of Polish and Belarusian public

Abstract

a b s t r a c tTransboundary nature protected areas constitute a considerable proportion of all the existing spatial forms of biodiversity protection. One prominent example is the Białowieża Forest, shared by Poland and Belarus. There is a considerable literature on allocation of funds to preserving nature shared by several countries. Some of this literature assess the funding schemes and the impacts on biodiversity within the EU. A particular challenge for the Białowieża Forest is that the larger part of it is outside the EU border. There has been less research on the economic benefits that citizens attach to protected transboundary land nature on the other side of the border. We are trying to fill the gap by finding out and comparing preferences towards increased protection of domestic and foreign segments of the transboundary Białowieża Forest, stated by samples of Polish and Belarusian citizens. The results of a discrete choice experiment show an almost unilateral preference for nature conservation, passive protection of forest land, on the domestic side. Whilst Polish respondents on average are willing to pay for an increased area under protection, on their side of the border, most Belarusians seem to be satisfied with the status quo. Taken at face value, there is even an apparent mutual disutility derived from the perspective of co-financing bilateral passive protection programmes in the Białowieża Forest. By use of latent class analyses of responses, a group of the Polish sample willing to contribute to the transboundary conservation is identified and described, and compared against the non-cooperative groups on both sides of the border. The results can to some extent be explained by a strict border division with a high fence, by differences in welfare or by behavioural reasons. However, it cannot be ruled out that the affected populations simply do not perceive the Białowieża Forest as a binational public good.

Disentangling Distance and Country Effects on the Value of Conservation across National Borders

“…Other studies have found that nationality and degree of attachment to locations affect preferences (e.g., Brouwer et al, 2010;Carlsson et al, 2012;Dallimer et al, 2014;Davis and Tisdell, 1998;Hanley et al, 2003;Ressurreição et al, 2012;Samdin et al, 2010;Yau et al, 2014;Valasiuk et al, 2017). Conversly Dumalisile et al (2005), Horton et al (2003), and Jin et al…”

“…Dallimer et al (2014) showed that people in three different countries (Denmark, Estonia and Poland) were willing to pay significantly more for locally delivered services than for similar types of goods delivered in the two other countries, but did not account for differences in distance between the sites of provision and the respondents' locations. Possible explanations for such effects include sense of ownership or identity (Bateman et al, 2002;Hanley et al, 2003;Dallimer et al, 2014;Dallimer and Strange, 2015;van Houtum and van Naerssen, 2002), ethical concerns (Daw et al, 2015) by beneficiaries, notably if respondents have a belief system involving an obligation to protect biodiversity conservation in their own country, or strict border crossing constraints and differences in welfare (Valasiuk et al, 2017).…”

Is forest landscape restoration socially desirable? A discrete choice experiment applied to the Scandinavian transboundary Fulufjället National Park Area

“…At the same time, less than half the samples of Norwegian and Swedish citizens picked the status quo as their best option. In a similar survey of samples of Poles and Belarusians about passively protecting larger shares of the transboundary Białowieża Forest, the status quo option was picked as respondents' best choice in the majority of choice tasks they faced (Valasiuk et al ). In a study about public attitudes toward forest landscape restoration by re‐wilding in Switzerland, Bauer et al () estimated an approximately 50‐50 division of wilderness proponents and wilderness opponents.…”

Effective mitigation of conservation conflicts and participatory governance: reflections on Kuboń et al.

“…; Giergiczny ; Valasiuk et al. ); do not mention important economic data (e.g., concerning high annual losses of the forest districts [Ministry of Environment ]); and, in some instances, include inaccurate information (e.g., quote the number of inhabitants for one municipality portraying it as data for the region). Their key contribution is the recommendation to engage in participatory governance, but they do not refer to earlier publications in which similar approaches are proposed (Sadowski ; Franklin ; Blicharska & Angelstam ).…”

“…In their analysis, Kuboń et al overlook almost entirely the extensive social science literature on the conflict in BF that includes descriptions of the groups involved and their beliefs, values, interests, and activities (Sadowski 1995;Gliński 2001;Franklin 2002;Blicharska & Angelstam 2010;Blavascunas 2014;Niedziałkowski et al 2014;Blicharska & Van Herzele 2015;Niedziałkowski 2016;Konczal 2017). Despite declared interest in the economic dimension of the conflict, Kuboń et al also disregard the literature concerning the valuation of different BF management options (e.g., Czajkowski et al 2009;Giergiczny 2009;Valasiuk et al 2017); do not mention important economic data (e.g., concerning high annual losses of the forest districts [Ministry of Environment 2017]); and, in some instances, include inaccurate information (e.g., quote the number of inhabitants for one municipality portraying it as data for the region). Their key contribution is the recommendation to engage in participatory governance, but they do not refer to earlier publications in which similar approaches are proposed (Sadowski 1995;Franklin 2002;Blicharska & Angelstam 2010).…”