Envisaging Participatory Management in Protected Areas: Local Response to Proposed Conservation Actions in Relation to Environmental Orientation
<p>Map of Skyros island (locating by the black box), Greece.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>The effect of occupation (working in the agro-pastoral sector or not) on the nature protection variable (<span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.001).</p> "> Figure 3
<p>The effect of occupation (working in the agro-pastoral sector or not) on the ecotourism variable (<span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.01).</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (a)
- Acceptance of the proposed LIFE project conservation actions by local people—as an indication of their intention to participate—by both informing them and asking for their opinions about specific LIFE project management actions;
- (b)
- The environmental orientation of local people, by measuring their endorsement of the New Environmental Paradigm, a widely accepted scale for capturing environmental beliefs.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Projects Related to Environmental Upgrade
- “LIFE09NAT/GR/000323”: «Demonstration of the Biodiversity Action Planning Approach, to Benefit Local Biodiversity on an Aegean Island, Skyros» (1 September 2010–28 February 2016).
- “PAMNATURA” (Participatory and Adaptive Management in NATURA areas): «Model Design for Participatory and Adaptive Management of Greek Natura 2000 sites» (27 August 2012–26 August 2015).
2.3. Questionnaire’s Structure
2.4. Sampling–Data Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics
3.2. Acceptability of the LIFE Project Actions by Local People
3.3. The NEP Scores
3.4. Correlation between Acceptability of LIFE Project Actions and Single NEP Scale Score
3.5. The Single NEP Score and the Acceptability of the LIFE Project Actions in Relation to the Characteristics of the Sample
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- McAllister, K. Understanding Participation: Monitoring and Evaluating Process, Outputs and Outcomes; International Development Research Centre: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Stoll-Kleemann, S. Barriers to nature conservation in Germany: A model explaining opposition to protected areas. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 369–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez, G.A.; Vargas-Chaves, I. Participation in environmental decision making as an imperative for democracy and environmental justice in Colombia. Mediterr. J. Soc. Sci. 2018, 9, 145–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berry, L.H.; Koski, J.; Verkuijl, C.; Strambo, C.; Piggot, G. Making Space: How Public Participation Shapes Environmental Decision-Making; Stockholm Environment Institute: Stockholm, Sweden, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Carrick, J.; Bell, D.; Fitzsimmons, C.; Gray, T.; Stewart, G. Principles and practical criteria for effective participatory environmental planning and decision-making. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2022, 66, 2854–2877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koontz, T.M. Citizen participation: Conflicting interests in state and national agency policy making—Policy lessons for a new century. Soc. Sci. J. 1999, 36, 441–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ran, B. Evaluating public participation in environmental policy-making. J. US-China Public Adm. 2012, 9, 407–423. [Google Scholar]
- Ghaffari, R.; Tonkaboni, M.A. Citizen participation policy making for environmental issues: A literature review. J. Southwest Jiaotong Univ. 2020, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kapoor, I. Towards participatory environmental management? J. Environ. Manag. 2001, 63, 269–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chambers, R. Paradigm shifts and the practice of participatory research and development. In Power and Participatory Development. Theory and Practice; Nelson, N., Wright, S., Eds.; Intermediate Technology Publications: London, UK, 1994; pp. 30–42. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, J.; Chen, L.; Lu, Y.; Fu, B. Local people’s perceptions as decision support for protected area management in Wolong Biosphere Reserve, China. J. Environ. Manag. 2006, 78, 362–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birendra, K.C. Complexity in balancing conservation and tourism in protected areas: Contemporary issues and beyond. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2022, 22, 241–246. [Google Scholar]
- Linkov, I.; Satterstrom, F.K.; Kiker, G.; Batchelor, C.; Bridges, T.; Ferguson, E. From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: Recent developments and applications. Environ. Int. 2006, 32, 1072–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aloni, C.; Daminabo, I.; Alexander, B.C.; Bakpo, M.T. The importance of stakeholders involvement in Environmental Impact Assessment. Resour. Environ. 2015, 5, 146–151. [Google Scholar]
- Haddaway, N.R.; Kohl, C.; Rebelo da Silva, N.; Schiemann, J.; Spök, A.; Stewart, R.; Sweet, J.B.; Wilhelm, R. A framework for stakeholder engagement during systematic reviews and maps in environmental management. Environ. Evid. 2017, 6, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walkerden, G. Adaptive management planning projects as conflict resolution processes. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agrawal, A.; Gibson, C.C. Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource. Conserv. World Dev. 1999, 27, 629–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geoghegan, T.; Renard, Y. Beyond community involvement: Lessons from the insular Caribbean. Parks 2002, 12, 16–27. [Google Scholar]
- Shi, X.; Ling, G.H.T. Factors influencing collective action of gated communities: A systematic review using an SES framework. Open House Int. 2023, 48, 325–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castro, A.P.; Nielson, E. Indigenous people and co-management: Implications for conflict management. Environ. Sci. Policy 2001, 4, 229–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rao, K.S.; Maikhuri, R.K.; Saxena, K.G. Local people’s knowledge, aptitude and perceptions of planning and management issues in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India. Environ. Manag. 2003, 31, 168–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rechciński, M.; Tusznio, J.; Grodzińska-Jurczak, M. Protected area conflicts: A state-of-the-art review and a proposed integrated conceptual framework for reclaiming the role of geography. Biodivers. Conserv. 2019, 28, 2463–2498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IUCN. Conflict and Conservation Nature in a Globalised World; Report No. 1; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Trakolis, D. Local people’s perceptions of planning and management issues in Prespes Lakes National Park, Greece. J. Environ. Manag. 2001, 61, 227–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kite-Powell, A.C.; Harding, A.K. Nitrate contamination in Oregon Well Water: Geologic variability and the public’s perception. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2006, 42, 975–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kierman, L.; Ledwith, A.; Lynch, R. Design teams management of conflict in reaching consensus. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 2020, 31, 263–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newmark, W.D.; Leonard, N.L.; Sariko, H.I.; Gamassa, D.M. Conservation attitudes of local people living adjacent to five protected areas in Tanzania. Biol. Conserv. 1993, 63, 177–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agrawal, A. Adaptive management in transboundary protected areas: The Bialowieza National Park and Biosphere Reserve as case study. Environ. Conserv. 2000, 27, 326–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trakolis, D. Perceptions, preferences, and reactions of local inhabitants in Vikos-Aoos National Park, Greece. Environ. Manag. 2001, 28, 665–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandara, R.; Tisdell, C. Comparison of rural and urban attitudes to the conservation of Asian elephant in Sri Lanka: Empirical evidence. Biol. Conserv. 2003, 110, 327–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papageorgiou, K.; Vogiatzakis, I.N. Nature protection in Greece: An appraisal of the factors shaping integrative conservation and policy effectiveness. Environ. Sci. Policy 2006, 9, 476–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allendorf, T.D. Residents’ attitudes toward three protected areas in southern Nepal. Biodivers. Conserv. 2007, 16, 2087–2102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Comerford, E. Understanding why landholders choose to participate or withdraw from conservation programs: A case study from a Queensland conservation auction. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 141, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Drescher, M.; Warriner, G.; Farmer, J.; Larson, B. Private landowners and environmental conservation: A case study of social-psychological determinants of conservation program participation in Ontario. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milán-García, J.; Uribe-Toril, J.; Ruiz-Real, J.L.; de Pablo Valenciano, J. Sustainable local development: An overview of the state of knowledge. Resources 2019, 8, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunlap, R.E. The New Environmental Paradigm scale: From marginality to worldwide use. J. Environ. Educ. 2008, 40, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D.; Mertig, A.G.; Jones, R.E. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 425–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D. The New Environmental Paradigm. J. Environ. Educ. 1978, 9, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernstein, J. Renewing the New Environmental Paradigm Scale: The Underlying Diversity of Contemporary Environmental Worldviews. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Hawaii at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, USA, 2017; 117p. [Google Scholar]
- Ntanos, S.; Kyriakopoulos, G.; Skordoulis, M.; Chalikias, M.; Arabatzis, G. An application of the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scale in a Greek context. Energies 2019, 12, 239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mannigel, E. Integrating parks and people: How does participation work in protected area management? Soc. Nat. Resour. 2008, 21, 498–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borrini-Feyerabend, G. Collaborative Management of Protected Area: Tailor the Approach to the Context; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Pimbert, M.P.; Pretty, J.N. Parks, people and professionals: Putting ‘participation’ into protected area management. In Social Change and Conservation. Environmental Politics and Impacts of National Parks and Protected Areas; Ghimire, K.B., Pimbert, M.P., Eds.; Earthscan: London, UK, 1997; pp. 297–330. [Google Scholar]
- Mattes, A. Partizipation der Bevölkerung am Management von zwei Ausgewählten Schutzgebieten in Minas Gerais, Brasilien. Der PRA-Ansatz als Beginn einer Zusammenarbeit Zwischen Schutzgebietsverwaltung und Bevölkerung in der Pufferzone; Diplomarbeit, Faculty of Forestry, Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg: Freiburg, Germany, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Diamond, N. Participatory Conservation for Protected Areas. An Annotated Bibliography of Selected Sources (1996–2001); World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Chassany, J.-P.; Rulleau, B.; Salles, J.M. Evolution of Biodiversity Policies on the Territory of the Cevennes National Park (France): Some Contractual Approach Issues; Working Papers; Finnish Forest Research Institute: Joensuu, Finland, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Henle, K.; Alard, D.; Clitherow, J.; Cobb, P.; Firbank, L.; Kull, T.; McCracken, D.; Moritz, R.F.A.; Niemela, J.; Rebane, M.; et al. Identifying and managing the conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe—A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 124, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quetier, F.; Marty, P.; Lepart, J. Farmers management strategies and land use in an agropastoral landscape: Roquefort cheese production rules as a driver of change. Agric. Syst. 2005, 84, 171–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barratt, L.; Bollen, A.; Delbaere, B.; Houston, J.; Sliva, J.; Velghe, D. Bringing Nature Back through LIFE—The EU LIFE Programme’s Impact on Nature and Society; Delbaere, B., Ed.; European Commission, Environment Directorate-General: Brussels, Belgium, 2020; Available online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/2e53d324-288c-11eb-9d7e-01aa75ed71a1/language-en (accessed on 28 June 2024).
- Siebert, R.; Toogood, M.; Knierim, A. Factors affecting European farmers’ participation in biodiversity policies. Sociol. Rural. 2006, 46, 318–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hellenic Statistical Authority. Census 2011. Available online: https://www.statistics.gr/en/2011-census-pop-hous (accessed on 28 June 2024).
- Fotiadis, G.; Vrahnakis, Μ.S. Action Plan for Agropastoral Ecosystems; Final Report; LIFE09NAT/GR/000323—”Demonstration of the Biodiversity Action Planning Approach, to Benefit Local Biodiversity on an Aegean island, Skyros”; Municipality of Skyros: Skyros, Greece, 2012; 81p, (+ ANNEXES). (In Greek) [Google Scholar]
- Chouvardas, D.; Vrahnakis, M.S. A semi-empirical model for the near-future evolution of the lake Koronia landscape. J. Environ. Prot. Ecol. 2009, 10, 867–876. [Google Scholar]
- Vrahnakis, M.S.; Fotiadis, G.; Pantera, A.; Goudelis, G.; Papadopoulos, A.; Papanastasis, V.P. Floristic diversity of valonia oak silvopastoral woodlands in Greece. Agrofor. Syst. 2014, 88, 877–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Guagnano, G.A. The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context. Environ. Behav. 1995, 27, 723–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kortenkamp, K.M.; Moore, C.F. Ecocentrism and anthropocentrism: Moral reasoning about ecological commons dilemmas. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonaiuto, M.; Carrus, G.; Martorella, H.; Bonnes, M. Local identity processes and environmental attitudes in land use changes: The case of natural protected areas. J. Econ. Psychol. 2002, 23, 631–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schneider, J.; Ruda, A.; Blahová, M. Stakeholders’ Perception of the impact of the declaration of new protected areas on the development of the regions concerned, Case study: Czech Republic. Forests 2021, 12, 580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garrod, B. Local participation in the planning and management of ecotourism: A revised model approach. J. Ecotourism 2003, 2, 33–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoll-Kleemann, S.; O’Riordan, T. Enhancing biodiversity and humanity. In Biodiversity, Sustainability and Human Communities: Protecting beyond the Protected; Riordan, T.O., Stoll-Kleemann, S., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2002; pp. 295–310. [Google Scholar]
- Bartkowski, B.; Bartke, S. Leverage points for governing agricultural soils: A review of empirical studies of European farmers’ decision-making. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faltaits, M. Skyrian Smihtes and Tsompanides; Publication of Historical and Folklore Society of Skyros: Skyros, Greece, 1976. (In Greek) [Google Scholar]
- Kamilaki-Polymerou, A.; Karamanes, E. Folklore: Traditional Culture; Hellenic Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs, Athens: Athens, Greece, 2008. (In Greek) [Google Scholar]
- West, P.C.; Brechin, S.R. (Eds.) National parks, protected areas and resident peoples: A comparative assessment and integration. In Resident Peoples and National Parks; University of Arizona Press: Tucson, Arizona, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Kurek, W.; Faracik, R.; Mika, M. Ecological conflicts in Poland. GeoJournal 2001, 507, 507–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weladji, R.B.; Tchamba, M.N. Conflict between people and protected areas within the Bénoué Wildlife Conservation Area, North Cameroon. Oryx 2003, 37, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wittmer, H.; Rauschmayer, F.; Klauer, B. How to select instruments for the resolution of environment conflicts? Land Use Policy 2006, 23, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karadeniz, N.; Yenilmez Arpa, N. Guidelines for Engaging Stakeholders in Managing Protected Areas; FAO and MAF: Ankara, Turkey, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reading, R.P.; Bedunah, D.J.; Amgalanbaatar, S. Conserving Biodiversity on Mongolian Rangelands: Implications for Protected Area Development and Pastoral Uses; USDA Forest Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; pp. 1–17. [Google Scholar]
- Tamang, B.; Baral, N. Livestock depredation by large cats in Bardia National Park, Nepal: Implications for improving park–people relations. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Manag. 2008, 4, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riginos, C.; Porensky, L.M.; Veblen, K.E.; Odadi, W.O.; Sensenig, R.L.; Kimuyu, D.; Keesing, F.; Wilkerson, M.L.; Young, T.P. Lessons on the relationship between livestock husbandry and biodiversity from the Kenya. Long-term exclosure experiment (KLEE). Pastor. Res. Policy Pract. 2012, 2, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Margalida, A.; Campión, D.; Donázar, J.A. Vultures vs. livestock: Conservation relationships in an emerging conflict between humans and wildlife. Oryx 2014, 48, 172–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, Y.; Li, C.; Zhao, M. Herders’ aversion to wildlife population increases in grassland ecosystem conservation: Evidence from a choice experiment study. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2021, 30, e01777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sulli, C.; Latini, R.; D’ Amico, D.; Sammarone, L. Protocolo Operative Sperimentale per la Prevenzione e la Gestione del Fenomeno degli orsi Confidentie/o Problematici nell’ Area del Parco Nazionale D’ Abruzzo, Lazzio e Molise; LIFE09 NAT/IT/000160 Project. 2012. Available online: https://www.parcoabruzzo.it/pdf/A5_protocollo_orsi_problematici.pdf (accessed on 28 June 2024).
- Lopez, A.G.; Cuervo-Arango, M.A. Relationship among values, beliefs, norms and ecological behaviour. Psicothema 2008, 20, 623–629. [Google Scholar]
- Rauwald, K.S.; Moore, C.F. Environmental attitudes as predictors of policy support across three countries. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34, 709–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Connor, R.E.; Bord, R.J.; Fisher, A. Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Anal. 1999, 19, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schultz, P.W.; Zelezny, L.C. Values and proenvironmental behavior: A five-country survey. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 1998, 29, 540–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, C.; Dunlap, R.E.; Hong, D. Ecological worldview as the central component of environmental concern: Clarifying the role of the NEP. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2019, 32, 53–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunlap, R.E.; Jones, R. Environmental concern: Conceptual and measurement issues. In Handbook of Environmental Sociology; Dunlap, R.E., Michelson, W., Eds.; Greenwood Press: Westport, CT, USA, 2002; pp. 482–542. [Google Scholar]
- McMillan, M.; Hoban, T.J.; Clifford, W.B.; Brant, P. Social and demographic influences on environmental attitudes. South. Rural Sociol. 1997, 13, 89–107. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, J.; Ouyang, Z.; Miao, H. Environmental attitudes of stakeholders and their perceptions regarding protected area-community conflicts: A case study in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 2254–2262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denis, H.D.; Pereira, L.N. Measuring the level of endorsement of the new environmental paradigm: A transnational study. Dos Algarves Tour. Hosp. Manag. J. 2014, 23, 4–26. [Google Scholar]
- Atav, E.; Altunoğlu, B.D.; Sönmez, S. The determination of the environmental attitudes of secondary education students. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 174, 1391–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiallo, E.A.; Jacobson, S.K. Local communities and protected areas: Attitude of rural residence towards conservation and Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Environ. Conserv. 1995, 22, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehta, J.N.; Heinen, J.T. Does community-based conservation shape favorable attitudes among locals? An empirical study from Nepal. Environ. Manag. 2001, 28, 165–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jim, C.Y.; Xu, S.S.W. Stifled Stakeholders and Subdued Participation: Interpreting Local Responses Toward Shimentai Nature Reserve in South China. Environ. Manag. 2002, 30, 327–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kleftoyanni, V.; Abakoumkin, G.; Vokou, D. Environmental perceptions of students, farmers and other economically active members of the local population near the protected area of Axios, Loudias, Aliakmonas estuaries, in Greece. Glob. Nest J. 2011, 13, 288–299. [Google Scholar]
- Hazzah, L.; Dolrenry, S.; Kaplan, D.; Frank, L. The influence of park access during drought on attitudes toward wildlife and lion killing behaviour in Maasailand, Kenya. Environ. Conserv. 2013, 40, 266–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ardoin, N.M.; Bowersd, A.W.; Gaillard, E. Environmental education outcomes for conservation: A systematic review. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 241, 108224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masona, D. The influence of environmental education on conservation in secondary schools in Mvomero District. East Afr. J. Educ. Stud. 2022, 5, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Level | Description of Participation |
---|---|
A | Minimal or nominal participation, where almost no interaction occurs between local stakeholders and managing institutions. |
B | Informing or passive, where information receiving is a unilateral interaction. |
C | Information seeking or informing represents the canvassing of local stakeholders for factual information by the institution. |
D | Actively consulting or giving opinions/views is an engaged interaction with the active exchange of views and opinions. Decisions are made by the managing institution alone. |
E | Negotiation or active = functional participation, where local stakeholders are able to take part in decision-making to some extent. |
F | Sharing of authority or interactive participation, where formalized decision-making structures such as management councils involve local stakeholders and meet on a regular basis. |
G | Transferring authority or the taking over of the responsibility, in which local stakeholders assume primary management responsibility. |
Social Characteristics | (%) |
---|---|
Gender | |
Male | 63 |
Female | 37 |
Age | |
18–30 | 25 |
31–40 | 29 |
41–50 | 29 |
50–60 | 12 |
>60 | 5 |
Education | |
Compulsory | 15 |
Post-compulsory | 53 |
Higher, Postgraduate | 32 |
Occupation | |
Primary sector (farmers, shepherds, fishermen) | 20 |
Primary in parallel with another sector | 11 |
Public sector | 19 |
Private sector | 37 |
Education | 6 |
Unemployed, retired | 7 |
Responses (%) * | Mean | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Category | SA | A | U | D | SD | |
Proposed Action | ||||||
Nature protection | ||||||
Zoning of tourist activity in order to minimize the impacts on the natural environment of irrational tourism development | 32 | 47 | 15 | 4 | 1 | 4.06 |
Integration of Mount Kohylas areas into a protection scheme with stricter regulations | 40 | 37 | 15 | 5 | 3 | 4.06 |
Creation of zones exclusively for the Skyrian horse | 42 | 39 | 12 | 4 | 3 | 4.13 |
Delineation, protection and enhancement of wetlands for the benefit of migratory birds and riparian vegetation | 40 | 47 | 12 | 0 | 1 | 4.24 |
Agro-pastoralism | ||||||
Exploitation of abandoned terraces | 27 | 55 | 13 | 4 | 1 | 4.04 |
Gradual reduction in the number of sheep until it reaches about 75% of the current number | 34 | 39 | 16 | 7 | 5 | 3.90 |
Re-cultivation of local traditional varieties (e.g., fava beans) | 55 | 42 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4.49 |
Re-cultivation of traditional varieties of fodder crops | 52 | 45 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4.48 |
Application of grazing system with changes in time | 44 | 43 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 4.26 |
Activation of local Shepherd Cooperative | 58 | 36 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 4.50 |
Ecotourism | ||||||
Removal of debris from wetlands of the island, such as Kalamitsa and Aspous, to upgrade the landscape | 61 | 35 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 4.56 |
Emergence of wetland Kalamitsa, creating ecotourism routes | 50 | 41 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 4.38 |
Further enhancement of Skyrian horse, to promote agro-and ecotourism activities | 51 | 39 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 4.38 |
Statement | Responses (%) * | Mean | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SA | A | U | D | SD | ||
(%) | ||||||
1. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support | 18 | 33 | 14 | 26 | 9 | 3.25 |
2. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs | 1 | 4 | 7 | 37 | 51 | 4.33 |
3. When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences | 58 | 37 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 4.50 |
4. Human ingenuity will ensure that we do NOT make the earth unlivable | 6 | 13 | 23 | 38 | 20 | 3.50 |
5. Humans are severely abusing the environment | 35 | 52 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 4.13 |
6. The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them | 45 | 34 | 5 | 11 | 6 | 1.98 |
7. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist | 60 | 35 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 4.51 |
8. The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations | 2 | 7 | 13 | 48 | 30 | 3.97 |
9. Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature | 39 | 48 | 4 | 7 | 1 | 4.19 |
10. The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated | 12 | 16 | 16 | 39 | 17 | 3.34 |
11. The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources | 14 | 43 | 17 | 20 | 6 | 3.39 |
12. Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature | 4 | 10 | 14 | 49 | 24 | 3.80 |
13. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset | 31 | 49 | 9 | 9 | 2 | 3.99 |
14. Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it | 5 | 21 | 24 | 41 | 9 | 3.28 |
15. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe | 43 | 47 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 4.28 |
Category | Cronbach Alpha | Mean | SD |
---|---|---|---|
Nature Protection | 0.78 | 4.12 | 0.7 |
Agro-Pastoralism | 0.69 | 4.28 | 0.5 |
Nature Protection | Agro-Pastoralism | Ecotourism | |
---|---|---|---|
Single NEP score | 0.423 *** | 0.392 *** | 0.275 *** |
Single NEP Score | Nature Protection | Agro-Pastoralism | Ecotourism | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Education | 0.230 ** | 0.174 * | 0.191 * | 0.114 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kleftoyanni, V.; Vrahnakis, M. Envisaging Participatory Management in Protected Areas: Local Response to Proposed Conservation Actions in Relation to Environmental Orientation. Land 2024, 13, 976. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13070976
Kleftoyanni V, Vrahnakis M. Envisaging Participatory Management in Protected Areas: Local Response to Proposed Conservation Actions in Relation to Environmental Orientation. Land. 2024; 13(7):976. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13070976
Chicago/Turabian StyleKleftoyanni, Vassiliki, and Michael Vrahnakis. 2024. "Envisaging Participatory Management in Protected Areas: Local Response to Proposed Conservation Actions in Relation to Environmental Orientation" Land 13, no. 7: 976. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13070976