IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i4p468-d779199.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholders’ Attitudes toward Protected Areas: The Case of Tara National Park (Serbia)

Author

Listed:
  • Jovana Brankov

    (Geographical Institute “Jovan Cvijić” of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Ðure Jakšića 9, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
    Institute of Sports, Tourism and Service, South Ural State University, 76 Lenin Ave., 454080 Chelyabinsk, Russia)

  • Jasna Micić

    (Geographical Institute “Jovan Cvijić” of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Ðure Jakšića 9, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Jelena Ćalić

    (Geographical Institute “Jovan Cvijić” of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Ðure Jakšića 9, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Jelena Kovačević-Majkić

    (Geographical Institute “Jovan Cvijić” of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Ðure Jakšića 9, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Ranko Milanović

    (PE “Tara National Park”, Milenka Topalovića 3, 31250 Bajina Bašta, Serbia)

  • Tamás Telbisz

    (Department of Physical Geography, Eötvös Loránd University, Pázmány Péter 1/C, 1117 Budapest, Hungary)

Abstract

This paper represents a case study examining attitudes of various stakeholders about Tara National Park (NP) (Serbia), identifying also the factors that shape these attitudes. The survey method was applied to a sample of 405 respondents (197 community members and 208 visitors). In addition, 15 interviews with specific key actors (NP executives and local key persons) were performed. The research confirmed the presence of different types of conflicts among stakeholders, mostly between the NP and the local population (primarily farmers) associated with land use in agriculture and the ban on the construction of facilities. The community recognizes tourism as the highest priority, unlike the NP leaders and visitors, who emphasize protection and conservation (especially biodiversity) as the primary goals of future NP development. The opinions of the local population are divided concerning support for the existence of the NP and the importance of it as a part of the national heritage. Most of them do not recognize the economic benefits resulting from the proclamation of the NP and do not see themselves as participants in the decision-making process. The findings also reveal that visitors strongly support tourism development and activities following the principles of nature protection. This category of respondents is only partly affected by the fact that this area has been declared a NP. The analysis shows that certain socioeconomic factors considerably influence the opinions of both community and visitors. Results suggest that future actions should be aimed at improving the coordination of various stakeholders, especially the NP and the community, through different social mobilization activities. Stimulating small businesses and providing incentives for agriculture and nature tourism development could be a useful step forward.

Suggested Citation

  • Jovana Brankov & Jasna Micić & Jelena Ćalić & Jelena Kovačević-Majkić & Ranko Milanović & Tamás Telbisz, 2022. "Stakeholders’ Attitudes toward Protected Areas: The Case of Tara National Park (Serbia)," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-25, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:4:p:468-:d:779199
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/4/468/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/4/468/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Monz, Christopher & D'Antonio, Ashley & Lawson, Steve & Barber, Jesse & Newman, Peter, 2016. "The ecological implications of visitor transportation in parks and protected areas: Examples from research in US National Parks," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 27-35.
    2. Abdulelah Al-Tokhais & Brijesh Thapa, 2019. "Stakeholder Perspectives Towards National Parks and Protected Areas in Saudi Arabia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-15, April.
    3. Ezebilo, Eugene E. & Mattsson, Leif, 2010. "Socio-economic benefits of protected areas as perceived by local people around Cross River National Park, Nigeria," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 189-193, March.
    4. Kovács, Eszter & Kelemen, Eszter & Kalóczkai, à gnes & Margóczi, Katalin & Pataki, György & Gébert, Judit & Málovics, György & Balázs, Bálint & Roboz, à gnes & Krasznai Kovács, Eszter & MihÃ, 2015. "Understanding the links between ecosystem service trade-offs and conflicts in protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 117-127.
    5. Janetta Nestorová Dická & Alena Gessert & Lenka Bryndzová & Tamás Telbisz, 2020. "Behavioural Survey of Local Inhabitants’ Views and Attitudes about Slovak Karst National Park in Slovakia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-24, December.
    6. Ana Milanović Pešić & Jovana Brankov & Dragana Milijašević Joksimović, 2020. "Water quality assessment and populations’ perceptions in the National park Djerdap (Serbia): key factors affecting the environment," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 2365-2383, March.
    7. Ayhan Akyol & Türkay Türkoğlu & Sultan Bekiroğlu & Ahmet Tolunay, 2018. "Resident perceptions of livelihood impacts arising from the Kızıldağ National Park, Turkey," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 1037-1052, June.
    8. Mannetti, Lelani M. & Göttert, Thomas & Zeller, Ulrich & Esler, Karen J., 2017. "Expanding the protected area network in Namibia: An institutional analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PB), pages 207-218.
    9. Tomicevic, Jelena & Shannon, Margaret A. & Milovanovic, Marina, 2010. "Socio-economic impacts on the attitudes towards conservation of natural resources: Case study from Serbia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 157-162, March.
    10. 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.
    11. D. Rodríguez-Rodríguez & P. Ibarra & M. Echeverría & J. Martínez-Vega, 2019. "Perceptions, attitudes and values of two key stakeholders on the oldest and newest Spanish national parks," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 1053-1073, April.
    12. Arsić, Sanela & Nikolić, Djordje & Mihajlović, Ivan & Fedajev, Aleksandra & Živković, Živan, 2018. "A New Approach Within ANP-SWOT Framework for Prioritization of Ecosystem Management and Case Study of National Park Djerdap, Serbia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 85-95.
    13. Andrew L. Friedman & Samantha Miles, 2002. "Developing Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 1-21, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mohamad Syahrul Nizam Ibrahim & Shazali Johari & Mohamad Ibrani Shahrimin Adam Assim & Syamsul Herman Mohammad Afandi & Waseem Razzaq Khan & Suziana Hassan, 2023. "Community well-being dimensions in Gunung Mulu National Park, Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Irena Medar-Tanjga & Neda Živak & Anđelija Ivkov-Džigurski & Vesna Rajčević & Tanja Mišlicki Tomić & Vukosava Čolić, 2022. "Drina Transboundary Biosphere Reserve—Opportunities and Challenges of Sustainable Conservation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-15, December.

    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. Gebregziabher, Dawit & Soltani, Arezoo, 2019. "Exclosures in people’s minds: perceptions and attitudes in the Tigray region, Ethiopia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 1-14.
    2. Ayhan Akyol & Türkay Türkoğlu & Sultan Bekiroğlu & Ahmet Tolunay, 2018. "Resident perceptions of livelihood impacts arising from the Kızıldağ National Park, Turkey," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 1037-1052, June.
    3. Tamás Telbisz & Zoltán Imecs & András Máthé & László Mari, 2023. "Empirical Investigation of the Motivation and Perception of Tourists Visiting the Apuseni Nature Park (Romania) and the Relationship of Tourism and Natural Resources," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-17, February.
    4. Simona Galletta & Sebastiano Mazzù & Valeria Naciti & Carlo Vermiglio, 2021. "Sustainable development and financial institutions: Do banks' environmental policies influence customer deposits?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 643-656, January.
    5. Päivi Myllykangas & Johanna Kujala & Hanna Lehtimäki, 2010. "Analyzing the Essence of Stakeholder Relationships: What do we Need in Addition to Power, Legitimacy, and Urgency?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 65-72, August.
    6. Sajad Fayezi, 2022. "Student-Centered Curriculum Design and Evaluation in Logistics Management," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-16, October.
    7. Yuan Ding & Thomas Jeanjean & Hervé Stolowy, 2013. "Accounting for Stakeholders or Shareholders? The Case of R&D Reporting," Post-Print hal-01002936, HAL.
    8. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Vikraman R & Shulagna Sarkar & Vishnukumar K & Selvarasu A, 2021. "Leading Sustainable CSR Efforts: A Case of Sneha Opportunity School by NLCIL," Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, , vol. 14(1), pages 110-125, June.
    11. Mostafa Shaaban & Carmen Schwartz & Joseph Macpherson & Annette Piorr, 2021. "A Conceptual Model Framework for Mapping, Analyzing and Managing Supply–Demand Mismatches of Ecosystem Services in Agricultural Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-19, January.
    12. Jose Luis Retolaza & Maite Ruiz & Leire San‐Jose, 2009. "CSR in business start‐ups: an application method for stakeholder engagement," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(6), pages 324-336, November.
    13. K. Miloradov & G. Eidlina, 2018. "Analysis of Tourism Infrastructure Development Projects in the Context of "Green Economy"," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(4), pages 20-30.
    14. Fabio Blanco-Mesa & Anna M. Gil-Lafuente & José M. Merigó, 2018. "Subjective stakeholder dynamics relationships treatment: a methodological approach using fuzzy decision-making," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 441-472, December.
    15. Qun Liu & Zhaoping Yang & Fang Wang, 2017. "Conservation Policy-Community Conflicts: A Case Study from Bogda Nature Reserve, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-15, July.
    16. Samantha Miles, 2017. "Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 437-459, May.
    17. Natalia Vasilenko & Marck Khaykin & Natalia Kirsanova & Arunas Lapinskas & Larisa Makhova, 2020. "Issues for Development of Economic System for Subsurface Resource Management in Russia through Lens of Economic Process Servitization," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 10(1), pages 44-48.
    18. Vitiana L'Abate & Nicola Raimo & Francesco Albergo & Filippo Vitolla, 2024. "Social media to disseminate circular economy information. An empirical analysis on Twitter," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(1), pages 528-539, January.
    19. Irena Medar-Tanjga & Neda Živak & Anđelija Ivkov-Džigurski & Vesna Rajčević & Tanja Mišlicki Tomić & Vukosava Čolić, 2022. "Drina Transboundary Biosphere Reserve—Opportunities and Challenges of Sustainable Conservation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-15, December.
    20. Liu, Xianda & Hou, Wenxuan & Main, Brian G.M., 2022. "Anti-market sentiment and corporate social responsibility: Evidence from anti-Jewish pogroms," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).

    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:11:y:2022:i:4:p:468-:d:779199. 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.