IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i5p733-d814885.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding Public Support for European Protected Areas: A Review of the Literature and Proposing a New Approach for Policy Makers

Author

Listed:
  • Nikoleta Jones

    (Institute for Global Sustainable Development, School for Cross-Faculty Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK)

  • James McGinlay

    (Institute for Global Sustainable Development, School for Cross-Faculty Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK)

  • Andreas Kontoleon

    (Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 9EP, UK)

  • Victoria A. Maguire-Rajpaul

    (Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 9EP, UK)

  • Panayiotis G. Dimitrakopoulos

    (Department of Environment, University of the Aegean, 81100 Mytilene, Greece)

  • Vassilis Gkoumas

    (Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 9EP, UK)

  • Jan Åge Riseth

    (Department of Social Sciences, Norwegian Research Center (NORCE), Rombaksveien E6 47, N-8517 Narvik, Norway)

  • Kalev Sepp

    (Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Friedrich Reinhold Kreutzwaldi 1a, 51014 Tartu, Estonia)

  • Frank Vanclay

    (Department of Cultural Geography, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Protected Areas are the most widely applied policy tool for biodiversity conservation. In Europe, protected areas are expected to significantly increase as the new EU Biodiversity strategy sets an ambitious target of 30% of land and 30% of water to be protected by 2030. Despite the popularity of this environmental policy, understanding variations in the level of public support for protected areas remains underexplored. This is an important area of research, considering that, in order for protected areas to be effective, they need to be supported by most users, including local communities and visitors. In this paper, we reviewed theoretical and empirical evidence explaining the level of support for protected areas and proposed a new approach when designing and designating protected areas in Europe. This approach models the process of the introduction of a new protected area as a policy intervention within a socio-ecological system. Specifically, it models how protected area social outcomes or impacts are conditioned and contextualised by numerous intervening factors relating to the social context and governance and management system to influence local actors’ attitude and active support for the protected area. This new approach aims to assist policy makers, conservation practitioners and scientists to plan actions that assist in increasing the level of public support for protected areas in the context of the post 2020 Biodiversity Strategy of the European Union.

Suggested Citation

  • Nikoleta Jones & James McGinlay & Andreas Kontoleon & Victoria A. Maguire-Rajpaul & Panayiotis G. Dimitrakopoulos & Vassilis Gkoumas & Jan Åge Riseth & Kalev Sepp & Frank Vanclay, 2022. "Understanding Public Support for European Protected Areas: A Review of the Literature and Proposing a New Approach for Policy Makers," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-15, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:5:p:733-:d:814885
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/5/733/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/5/733/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Swemmer, Louise & Mmethi, Helen & Twine, Wayne, 2017. "Tracing the cost/benefit pathway of protected areas: A case study of the Kruger National Park, South Africa," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PB), pages 162-172.
    2. Geraint Ellis & John Barry & Clive Robinson, 2007. "Many ways to say 'no', different ways to say 'yes': Applying Q-Methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 517-551.
    3. Hattam, C.E. & Mangi, S.C. & Gall, S.C. & Rodwell, L.D., 2014. "Social impacts of a temperate fisheries closure: understanding stakeholders' views," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 269-278.
    4. 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.
    5. Devine-Wright, Patrick, 2011. "Enhancing local distinctiveness fosters public acceptance of tidal energy: A UK case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 83-93, January.
    6. Bertsch, Valentin & Hall, Margeret & Weinhardt, Christof & Fichtner, Wolf, 2016. "Public acceptance and preferences related to renewable energy and grid expansion policy: Empirical insights for Germany," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 465-477.
    7. Burdon, D. & Potts, T. & McKinley, E. & Lew, S. & Shilland, R. & Gormley, K. & Thomson, S. & Forster, R., 2019. "Expanding the role of participatory mapping to assess ecosystem service provision in local coastal environments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    8. Bennett, Nathan James & Dearden, Philip, 2014. "Why local people do not support conservation: Community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 107-116.
    9. Eastwood, A. & Brooker, R. & Irvine, R.J. & Artz, R.R.E. & Norton, L.R. & Bullock, J.M. & Ross, L. & Fielding, D. & Ramsay, S. & Roberts, J. & Anderson, W. & Dugan, D. & Cooksley, S. & Pakeman, R.J., 2016. "Does nature conservation enhance ecosystem services delivery?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 152-162.
    10. Poortinga, Wouter & Steg, Linda & Vlek, Charles & Wiersma, Gerwin, 2003. "Household preferences for energy-saving measures: A conjoint analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 49-64, February.
    11. D. Pellegrino & U. Schirpke & D. Marino, 2017. "How to support the effective management of Natura 2000 sites?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(3), pages 383-398, March.
    12. Michael Huber & Arne Arnberger, 2016. "Opponents, waverers or supporters: the influence of place-attachment dimensions on local residents' acceptance of a planned biosphere reserve in Austria," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(9), pages 1610-1628, September.
    13. Frank Vanclay & Ruth Lane & Joanna Wills & Ian Coates & Damian Lucas, 2004. ""Committing To Place" And Evaluating The Higher Purpose: Increasing Engagement In Natural Resource Management Through Museum Outreach And Educational Activities," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 6(04), pages 539-564.
    14. Francesca Ferranti & Esther Turnhout & Raoul Beunen & Jelle Hendrik Behagel, 2014. "Shifting nature conservation approaches in Natura 2000 and the implications for the roles of stakeholders," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(11), pages 1642-1657, November.
    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. Zhang, Yuqi & Vanclay, Frank & Hanna, Philippe, 2025. "How communities and social impacts are considered in policies for protected areas in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    2. Yaquan Dou & Changhao Wu & Youjun He, 2023. "Public Concern and Awareness of National Parks in China: Evidence from Social Media Big Data and Questionnaire Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-21, February.
    3. Kokkoris, Ioannis P. & Skuras, Dimitrios & Maniatis, Yannis & Dimopoulos, Panayotis, 2023. "Natura 2000 public awareness in EU: A prerequisite for successful conservation policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    4. James McGinlay & Jens Holtvoeth & Alfie Begley & Juliana Dörstel & Anne Kockelmann & Michael Lammertz & Chrysovalantis Malesios & Nikoleta Jones, 2023. "Perceived Social Impacts of Protected Areas, Their Influence on Local Public Support and Their Distribution across Social Groups: Evidence from the Eifel National Park, Germany, during the COVID-19 Pa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-19, July.

    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. David Rudolph & Claire Haggett & Mhairi Aitken, 2018. "Community benefits from offshore renewables: The relationship between different understandings of impact, community, and benefit," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(1), pages 92-117, February.
    2. Devine-Wright, Patrick & Wiersma, Bouke, 2020. "Understanding community acceptance of a potential offshore wind energy project in different locations: An island-based analysis of ‘place-technology fit’," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    3. Rasheed, A. Rifaee, 2020. "Marine protected areas and human well-being – A systematic review and recommendations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    4. Gonyo, Sarah Ball & Fleming, Chloe S. & Freitag, Amy & Goedeke, Theresa L., 2021. "Resident perceptions of local offshore wind energy development: Modeling efforts to improve participatory processes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    5. Devine-Wright, Patrick & Peacock, Adam, 2024. "Putting energy infrastructure into place: A systematic review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    6. Petrova, Maria A., 2016. "From NIMBY to acceptance: Toward a novel framework — VESPA — For organizing and interpreting community concerns," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1280-1294.
    7. Schirpke, Uta & Marino, Davide & Marucci, Angelo & Palmieri, Margherita, 2018. "Positive effects of payments for ecosystem services on biodiversity and socio-economic development: Examples from Natura 2000 sites in Italy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 96-105.
    8. Jeremy Horowitz & Robert L. Pressey & Georgina G. Gurney & Amelia S. Wenger & Kristina A. Pahang, 2018. "Investigating Stakeholder Perceptions of Fish Decline: Making Sense of Multiple Mental Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-26, April.
    9. Cohen, Jed J. & Reichl, Johannes & Schmidthaler, Michael, 2014. "Re-focussing research efforts on the public acceptance of energy infrastructure: A critical review," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 4-9.
    10. Schirpke, Uta & Marino, Davide & Marucci, Angelo & Palmieri, Margherita & Scolozzi, Rocco, 2017. "Operationalising ecosystem services for effective management of protected areas: Experiences and challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 105-114.
    11. Daniela Marzo & Iacopo Cavallini & Luisa Scaccia & Paolo Guidetti & Antonio Di Franco & Antonio Calò & Federico Niccolini, 2023. "Drivers of Small-Scale Fishers’ Acceptability across Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas at Different Stages of Establishment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-17, June.
    12. Ruano-Chamorro, Cristina & Castilla, Juan Carlos & Gelcich, Stefan, 2018. "Human dimensions of marine hydrokinetic energies: Current knowledge and research gaps," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 1979-1989.
    13. David Rodríguez-Rodríguez & Iván López, 2018. "Effects of Legal Designation and Management of a Multiple-Use Protected Area on Local Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-12, September.
    14. Boudet, Hilary S. & Flora, June A. & Armel, K. Carrie, 2016. "Clustering household energy-saving behaviours by behavioural attribute," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 444-454.
    15. Songsore, Emmanuel & Buzzelli, Michael, 2014. "Social responses to wind energy development in Ontario: The influence of health risk perceptions and associated concerns," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 285-296.
    16. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    17. Dalia Streimikiene & Tomas Balezentis, 2020. "Willingness to Pay for Renovation of Multi-Flat Buildings and to Share the Costs of Renovation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-16, May.
    18. L. Mundaca & H. Moncreiff, 2021. "New Perspectives on Green Energy Defaults," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 357-383, September.
    19. Ju-Hee Kim & Young-Kuk Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2023. "Does Proximity to a Power Plant Affect Housing Property Values of a City in South Korea? An Empirical Investigation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-14, February.
    20. Lee, Juyong & Cho, Youngsang, 2020. "Estimation of the usage fee for peer-to-peer electricity trading platform: The case of South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(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:5:p:733-:d:814885. 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.