Stakeholders' perceptions of protected area management following a nationwide community-based conservation reform.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
26
08
2018
accepted:
02
04
2019
entrez:
25
4
2019
pubmed:
25
4
2019
medline:
30
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
People's perceptions can point to reasons for conservation support or lack thereof. In this study, we surveyed the perceptions of conservation among local stakeholders who participated in protected area (PA) management following a reform towards community-based conservation in Norway. We analyzed the link between perceptions of threats to conservation values, prioritized management actions and trust in PA governance, and assessed how these perceptions aligned with the stakeholders' preferred overarching conservation approach and their support for PAs. Conservation perceptions differed mostly between property owners and representatives of nature conservation (such as NGOs). Property owners perceived modern farming, grazing and hay making, and securing the interests of rights holders as a priority. They had a lower support for PAs and favored a conservation approach focusing on "people and nature". Representatives from nature conservation prioritized management actions to increase biodiversity and reduce land development, had higher trust in environmental authorities and identified motorized vehicle use as a threat to conservation values. They had a high support for PAs and favored a conservation approach that mitigates threats from human activity (i.e. "nature despite people"). The nationwide reform aimed at increasing support for PAs, but 31% of the members of the stakeholder advisory councils were willing to downgrade or degazette PAs for the benefit of economic development, which is much more than general population surveys. However, the level of trust in local governance was less polarized among the members of stakeholder advisory councils compared with the former state governance, which suggests that that the community-based conservation reform has the potential to improve collaboration and conflict mitigation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31017937
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215437
pii: PONE-D-18-24018
pmc: PMC6481814
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0215437Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
PLoS One. 2017 Aug 30;12(8):e0183962
pubmed: 28854227
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Dec 26;109(52):21265-70
pubmed: 23236173
Conserv Biol. 2011 Apr;25(2):285-94
pubmed: 20964714
Conserv Biol. 2008 Aug;22(4):897-911
pubmed: 18544093
Environ Manage. 2013 Dec;52(6):1320-32
pubmed: 24026255
Ecol Appl. 2015 Mar;25(2):299-319
pubmed: 26263656
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Feb 9;113(6):1462-5
pubmed: 26862158
J Environ Manage. 2012 Jul 30;103:41-50
pubmed: 22459069
PLoS One. 2017 Apr 3;12(4):e0172579
pubmed: 28369087
Science. 2014 Sep 26;345(6204):1558-60
pubmed: 25258063
Conserv Biol. 2014 Jun;28(3):634-6
pubmed: 24702652
Conserv Biol. 2013 Oct;27(5):895-7
pubmed: 24073808
Conserv Biol. 2016 Jun;30(3):582-92
pubmed: 26801337