IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i3p274-d512486.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Tale of Two Protected Areas: “Value and Nature Conservation” in Comparable National Parks in Estonia and Russia

Author

Listed:
  • Henri Järv

    (Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 1, 51006 Tartu, Estonia)

  • Anton Shkaruba

    (Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 1, 51006 Tartu, Estonia)

  • Olga Likhacheva

    (Department of Botany and Plant Ecology, Pskov State University, Lenin Square, 2, 180000 Pskov, Russia)

  • Viktar Kireyeu

    (Ecological Safety & Sustainable Development of Regions, Saint Petersburg State University, University Emb. 7/9, 199034 St. Petersburg, Russia)

  • Raymond Ward

    (Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 1, 51006 Tartu, Estonia
    Centre for Aquatic Environments, School of the Environment and Technology, University of Brighton, Cockcroft Building, Moulsecoomb, Brighton BN2 4GJ, UK)

  • Kalev Sepp

    (Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 1, 51006 Tartu, Estonia)

Abstract

This study explores how local communities reflect on institutional frameworks and protected area governance in two national parks (NPs) with similar nature values in Estonia and Russia, and aims to understand the role of value systems in these interactions. It is based on 50 in-depth interviews with a broad range of stakeholders, and a desktop analysis of relevant regulation and plans. Interview questions reflect on various aspects of well-being (including fairness of governance solutions), awareness of NPs’ function and restrictions, related value aspects, and covered basic personal data needed to interpret the interviews. The study reconfirms the pivotal role of social justice as a driver of wellbeing. In particular, it articulates the significance of value systems playing the role of filters between governance inputs and specific management activities of communities. It underlines the vulnerability of such systems at a community level, most of all to the impacts related to various instances of “centralization”. They are manifested through the choice of restrictive measures and top-down arrangements at the expense of transparency and inclusiveness (in Russia), as well as through the removal of governance autonomy from NPs and transferring monitoring and enforcement functions to local communities without clear mandates or sufficient capacity (in Estonia).

Suggested Citation

  • Henri Järv & Anton Shkaruba & Olga Likhacheva & Viktar Kireyeu & Raymond Ward & Kalev Sepp, 2021. "A Tale of Two Protected Areas: “Value and Nature Conservation” in Comparable National Parks in Estonia and Russia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-20, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:3:p:274-:d:512486
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/3/274/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/3/274/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anatoly Yakovlevich Zaporozhan & Dmitry Yuryevich Desyatnichenko & Vladislav Mikhailovich Khodachek, 0. "National Parks of Russia as Object of Ecological Tourism and Factor of Economic Growth," Administrative Consulting, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. North-West Institute of Management., issue 10.
    2. Shkaruba, Anton & Kireyeu, Viktar, 2013. "Recognising ecological and institutional landscapes in adaptive governance of natural resources," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 87-97.
    3. Shkaruba, Anton & Skryhan, Hanna & Likhacheva, Olga & Kireyeu, Viktar & Katona, Attila & Shyrokostup, Sergey & Sepp, Kalev, 2021. "Environmental drivers and sustainable transition of dachas in Eastern Europe: An analytical overview," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    4. Riyan J.G. van den Born & B. Arts & J. Admiraal & A. Beringer & P. Knights & E. Molinario & K. Polajnar Horvat & C. Porras-Gomez & A. Smrekar & N. Soethe & J.L. Vivero-Pol & W. Ganzevoort & M. Bonaiut, 2018. "The missing pillar: Eudemonic values in the justification of nature conservation," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 61(5-6), pages 841-856, May.
    5. Jae Ho Lee & David Matarrita-Cascante & Ying Xu & Michael Schuett, 2018. "Examining the Conflicting Relationship between U.S. National Parks and Host Communities: Understanding a Community’s Diverging Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-17, October.
    6. Paavola, Jouni, 2007. "Institutions and environmental governance: A reconceptualization," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 93-103, June.
    7. Amartya Sen, 2004. "Capabilities, Lists, And Public Reason: Continuing The Conversation," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 77-80.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Margarita N. Ignatyeva & Vera V. Yurak & Alexey V. Dushin & Irina G. Polyanskaya, 2021. "Assessing challenges and threats for balanced subsoil use," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(12), pages 17904-17922, December.
    2. Megan Devonald & Nicola Jones & Sally Youssef, 2022. "‘We Have No Hope for Anything’: Exploring Interconnected Economic, Social and Environmental Risks to Adolescents in Lebanon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-17, February.
    3. Leonie C. Steckermeier, 2021. "The Value of Autonomy for the Good Life. An Empirical Investigation of Autonomy and Life Satisfaction in Europe," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 154(2), pages 693-723, April.
    4. Matthias Winfried Kleespies & Paul Wilhelm Dierkes, 2020. "Impact of biological education and gender on students’ connection to nature and relational values," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-18, November.
    5. James Foster, Christopher Handy, 2008. "External Capabilities," OPHI Working Papers 8, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.
    6. Antoinette Baujard & Muriel Gilardone, 2017. "Sen is not a capability theorist," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 1-19, January.
    7. Martin Binder & Tom Broekel, 2011. "Applying a Non-parametric Efficiency Analysis to Measure Conversion Efficiency in Great Britain," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 257-281.
    8. Sarkar Shubhabrata & Bairagya Ramsundar, 2013. "Counting Multidimensional Poverty as Per Alkire And Foster Methodology- A Case Study Of Two Villages Of Sundarban Area Of West Bengal, India," International Journal of Management Sciences, Research Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 1(2), pages 37-50.
    9. Lijing Gao & J. Arbuckle, 2022. "Examining farmers’ adoption of nutrient management best management practices: a social cognitive framework," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 535-553, June.
    10. Van Hecken, Gert & Bastiaensen, Johan & Windey, Catherine, 2015. "The frontiers of the debate on Payments for Ecosystem Services: a proposal for innovative future research," IOB Discussion Papers 2015.05, Universiteit Antwerpen, Institute of Development Policy (IOB).
    11. See, Sin Ching & Shaikh, Shaikh Fairul Edros Ahmad & Jaung, Wanggi & Carrasco, L. Roman, 2020. "Are relational values different in practice to instrumental values?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    12. Tong Zhang & Chaofan Chen, 2018. "The Effect of Public Participation on Environmental Governance in China–Based on the Analysis of Pollutants Emissions Employing a Provincial Quantification," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-20, July.
    13. Gani, Azmat & Scrimgeour, Frank, 2014. "Modeling governance and water pollution using the institutional ecological economic framework," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 363-372.
    14. Xiaojun Zhang & Weiqiao Wang & Yunan Bai & Yong Ye, 2022. "How Has China Structured Its Ecological Governance Policy System?—A Case from Fujian Province," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-22, July.
    15. Pelenc, Jérôme & Etxano, Iker, 2021. "Capabilities, Ecosystem Services, and Strong Sustainability through SMCE: The Case of Haren (Belgium)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    16. Kaspar Walter Meili & Anna Månsdotter & Linda Richter Sundberg & Jan Hjelte & Lars Lindholm, 2022. "An initiative to develop capability-adjusted life years in Sweden (CALY-SWE): Selecting capabilities with a Delphi panel and developing the questionnaire," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-21, February.
    17. Roberta Sferrazzo & Renato Ruffini, 2021. "Are Liberated Companies a Concrete Application of Sen’s Capability Approach?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(2), pages 329-342, May.
    18. Na Zhang & Jinqian Deng & Fayyaz Ahmad & Muhammad Umar Draz & Nabila Abid, 2023. "The dynamic association between public environmental demands, government environmental governance, and green technology innovation in China: evidence from panel VAR model," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(9), pages 9851-9875, September.
    19. Marletto, Gerardo, 2012. "Which conceptual foundations for environmental policies? An institutional and evolutionary framework of economic change," MPRA Paper 36441, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Ensar Yilmaz, 2016. "A Methodological Dialogue on Justice," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 41, pages 1-1.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:3:p:274-:d:512486. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.