Local entrepreneurship in protected areas of the Carpathians: cross-border insights from stakeholder dialogues

Purpose. The aim was to identify the forms of economic activity in protected areas in the Carpathians, to name the essential problems and needs and to present findings for entrepreneurship support in the context of integrating economic performance, social inclusiveness, and environmental resilience. Methodology. Data, analysis and conclusions presented in the paper are based on the results of Focus Group Interviews (FGIs) that were conducted in Romania, Hungary, Ukraine, Poland, Slovakia and Czechia. The scenario for these FGIs was structured around a set of questions. FGIs from each country were transcribed and subsequently analysed using both quantitative and qualitative content analysis methods – a novel methodology in this regional context. The transcripts were coded, validated, and systematically categorised. Results. The mere legal and formal nature of protected areas is not perceived as a barrier to conducting entrepreneurial activities. Experts invited to the discussion agree with the necessity to protect the unique natural heritage of the Carpathians. However, protection should not solely rely on restriction of economic activities, but also on supporting entrepreneurship. Therefore, the protected areas themselves are not the problem, but rather the lack of systematic compensation for the restrictions and disadvantages resulting from the existence and operational framework of these areas. Originality. We are not aware of any scientific study monitoring this issue in the perspective of the entire region – all (six) countries crossed by the Carpathian mountain arc – and based on the assessment of experts actively involved in local entrepreneurship. This research provides a rare, panoramic view of entrepreneurship in Europe’s most extensive protected mountain region. Being conducted by a multidisciplinary and international team, it comes at a time of intense pan-European discourse on protecting the natural environment at the expense of limiting human economic activity. Practical implications. For policy makers: (i) at national levels, where laws directly allow or exclude human economic activities in the different levels of protection, (ii) at regional levels, where local institutions are deciding to promote or prohibit the use of resources and ecosystem services in protected areas for business purposes, depending on the degree of subsidiarity. Local governments and communities can be inspired by the idea of a collaborative approach to finding ways of development and appropriate forms of entrepreneurship. Educational institutions have a complex of incentives, examples of good practice for educating target groups.