Using perceived impacts, governance and social indicators to explain support for protected areas

Abstract

Protected areas (PAs) are the foremost policy tool for biodiversity conservation internationally. In order for PAs to deliver desired conservation outcomes effectively, equitably, and for the long-term, they require a high level of support from local communities. A mosaic of factors have been proposed aiming to explain the level of support for PAs focusing mainly on governance indicators, perceived social impacts and social attributes, such as personal norms and values. However, these factors are often explored in isolation and in studies of small scale within the scientific literature. To cover this research gap we run a structural equation model exploring how the interconnections between these factors can lead to higher levels of support for PAs using data from 3239 local residents in 10 PAs in Europe. Our analysis shows that the mediation effects of governance indicators, such as trust in institutions and level of public engagement, are important in explaining associations between an individual’s social profile and their perceived social impacts with public support. Our findings also provide a useful and operational framework for PA practitioners and researchers illuminating pathways to increase the level of public support for a PA.

Perceived Social Impacts of Protected Areas, Their Influence on Local Public Support and Their Distribution across Social Groups: Evidence from the Eifel National Park, Germany, during the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…The respondents' evaluation of impacts appears to be correlated with the level of support for the park that they reported, implying that either respondents who experience or evaluate the benefits more positively are in consequence more supportive of the park, or conversely, that respondents who are less supportive of the park for other reasons, in consequence, view the impacts more negatively. This accords with the finding of other studies that indicate that public support for PAs is correlated with the social impacts of the PA on local people [8,10,13]. Furthermore, overall public support was noted to be lower in the core area of the park than in the wider area of this study.…”

“…Indeed, in the survey results, the impact of the park on the reputation of the region and on local people's sense of connectedness to nature were reported to be the most positive impacts of all. Such increases in support are in accordance with evidence in research elsewhere [8,10,13].…”

“…Due to their role as multi-functional landscapes, PAs may have a very wide range of positive and negative social impacts and may impact on different stakeholders according to their geographical location, as well as depending on the influence of diverse social factors [7][8][9][10]. The magnitude and direction of the impact (positive or negative) will therefore depend 2 of 19 significantly on the stakeholder group and type of user.…”

“…However, new regulations accompanying the designation of a PA often restrict local communities' practices and livelihoods due to changes in governance, ownership rights, and access to natural resources [11,12]. Public perception of such impacts, positive and negative, are found to be a key factor affecting public support for nature protected areas [8][9][10]13], and the assessment and equitable management of such impacts will be essential for the legitimacy of PAs [14][15][16].…”