IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i6p1150-d1159438.html

Attitudes toward Conservation of the Transboundary Białowieża Forest among Ecotourism Businesses in Poland and Belarus

Author

Listed:
  • Marek Giergiczny

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, Długa 44/50, 00-241 Warszawa, Poland)

  • Sviataslau Valasiuk

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, Długa 44/50, 00-241 Warszawa, Poland)

  • Mikita Yakubouski

    (State Nature Protection Institution “National Park “Biełavieskaja Pušča”, a/h Kamianiuki, 225063 Kamianiecki Rajon, Belarus)

  • Mikołaj Kowalewski

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, Długa 44/50, 00-241 Warszawa, Poland
    Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej, 23 DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark)

  • Jędrzej Maskiewicz

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, Długa 44/50, 00-241 Warszawa, Poland)

  • Per Angelstam

    (Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Campus Evenstad, N-2480 Koppang, Norway
    Faculty of Forest Sciences, School for Forest Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-730 21 Skinnskatteberg, Sweden)

Abstract

The Białowieża Forest is a contested transboundary forest massif in Poland and Belarus. Reflecting on transitions from value chains built on sustained yield forestry to ecotourism, we pioneer documentation of how country-specific legacies shape preferences toward increased forest protection at the expense of wood production. For both countries, we used a quantitative ordered logit model based on questionnaires to Polish and Belarusian ecotourism business owners to, for the first time, empirically study drivers of their preferences toward different Białowieża Forest values, and we used qualitative data to identify attitudes toward the expansion of protected areas in the Białowieża Forest. Whilst Belarusian ecotourism business owners supported increased area protection, the opposite was true for their Polish counterparts. The proportion of foreign guests co-varied with support toward increased area protection. Conversely, local origin, size of hospitality business, and role of foresters as customers decreased interest in area protection. The qualitative data revealed that narratives against extended area protection were spread in Poland but not in Belarus. The conflict over the conservation of the Polish part of the Białowieża Forest involves actors and stakeholders with competing interests. A solution is that this remnant massif of the once widespread European temperate lowland forest becomes subject to a regional planning and zoning perspective. Encouraging multiple value chains and evidence-based collaborative learning are key components.

Suggested Citation

  • Marek Giergiczny & Sviataslau Valasiuk & Mikita Yakubouski & Mikołaj Kowalewski & Jędrzej Maskiewicz & Per Angelstam, 2023. "Attitudes toward Conservation of the Transboundary Białowieża Forest among Ecotourism Businesses in Poland and Belarus," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-24, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:6:p:1150-:d:1159438
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/6/1150/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/6/1150/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hertog, Iris Maria & Brogaard, Sara & Krause, Torsten, 2022. "Barriers to expanding continuous cover forestry in Sweden for delivering multiple ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    2. Cundill, Georgina & Bezerra, Joana Carlos & De Vos, Alta & Ntingana, Nokuthula, 2017. "Beyond benefit sharing: Place attachment and the importance of access to protected areas for surrounding communities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PB), pages 140-148.
    3. Bartczak, Anna, 2015. "The role of social and environmental attitudes in non-market valuation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 357-365.
    4. Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Buszko-Briggs, Malgorzata & Hanley, Nick, 2009. "Valuing changes in forest biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2910-2917, October.
    5. Blicharska, Malgorzata & Angelstam, Per & Elbakidze, Marine & Axelsson, Robert & Skorupski, Maciej & Węgiel, Andrzej, 2012. "The Polish Promotional Forest Complexes: objectives, implementation and outcomes towards sustainable forest management?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 28-39.
    6. Salvatore Bimonte & Silvia Ferrini & Gaetano Grilli, 2016. "Transport infrastructures, environment impacts and tourists' welfare: a choice experiment to elicit tourist preferences in Siena--Italy," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(5), pages 891-910, May.
    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. Dawson, Lucas & Angelstam, Per, 2026. "What do stakeholders want from multifunctional forest landscapes and can bottom-up collaborations help them to get it?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    2. Agnieszka Lorek & Paweł Lorek, 2021. "Social Assessment of the Value of Forests and Protected Areas on the Example of the Silesian Voivodeship," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-12, March.
    3. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Barczak, Anna & Budziński, Wiktor & Giergiczny, Marek & Hanley, Nick, 2016. "Preference and WTP stability for public forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 11-22.
    4. Sacher, Philipp & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Mayer, Marius, 2022. "Evidence of the association between deadwood and forest recreational site choices," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    5. Gabriela Scheufele & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Valuing ecosystem resilience," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1098, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    6. Salehnia, Mina & Hayati, Baballah & Ghahremanzadeh, Mohammad & Molaei, Morteza, . "Estimating the Value of Improvement in Lake Urmia’s Environmental Situation Using Choice Experiment," International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development (IJAMAD), Iranian Association of Agricultural Economics, vol. 5(4).
    7. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    8. Glenk, Klaus & Schaafsma, Marije & Moxey, Andrew & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Hanley, Nick, 2014. "A framework for valuing spatially targeted peatland restoration," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 20-33.
    9. Uggeldahl, Kennet Christian & Lundhede, Thomas & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2026. "The effects of spatial framing and attribute range on the measurement of nonuse values of biodiversity improvements," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    10. Blicharska, Malgorzata & Van Herzele, Ann, 2015. "What a forest? Whose forest? Struggles over concepts and meanings in the debate about the conservation of the Białowieża Forest in Poland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 22-30.
    11. Richard Yao & David Palmer & Barbara Hock & Duncan Harrison & Tim Payn & Juan Monge, 2019. "Forest Investment Framework as a Support Tool for the Sustainable Management of Planted Forests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-22, June.
    12. Agnieszka Mandziuk & Dagmara Stangierska & Beata Fornal-Pieniak & Jerzy Gębski & Barbara Żarska & Marta Kiraga, 2022. "Preferences of Young Adults concerning the Pocket Parks with Water Reservoirs in the Aspect of Willingness to Pay (WTP) in Warsaw City, Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-13, April.
    13. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    14. Caixia Lu & Yuan Jiang & Xiaojun Zhao & Ping Fang, 2020. "Will Helping Others Also Benefit You? Chinese Adolescents’ Altruistic Personality Traits and Life Satisfaction," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1407-1425, April.
    15. George Halkos & Panagiotis Stavros Aslanidis & Conrad Landis & Lydia Papadaki & Phoebe Koundouri, 2024. "A review on primary and cascading hazards by exploring individuals' willingness-to-pay for urban sustainability policies," DEOS Working Papers 2415, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    16. Andra-Cosmina Albulescu & Michael Manton & Daniela Larion & Per Angelstam, 2022. "The Winding Road towards Sustainable Forest Management in Romania, 1989–2022: A Case Study of Post-Communist Social–Ecological Transition," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-29, July.
    17. Agimass, Fitalew & Lundhede, Thomas & Panduro, Toke Emil & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "The choice of forest site for recreation: A revealed preference analysis using spatial data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 445-454.
    18. Baranovskis, Ģirts & Nikodemus, Oļģerts & Elferts, Didzis & Brūmelis, Guntis & Līviņa, Agita & Mežgaile, Anda, 2025. "Biodiversity conservation in private forests: Preferences of Latvian forest owners in the context of involuntary conservation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    19. Jasper N. Meya, 2018. "Environmental Inequality and Economic Valuation," Working Papers V-416-18, University of Oldenburg, Department of Economics, revised Dec 2018.
    20. Giergiczny, Marek & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Żylicz, Tomasz & Angelstam, Per, 2015. "Choice experiment assessment of public preferences for forest structural attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 8-23.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:12:y:2023:i:6:p:1150-:d:1159438. 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 The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (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.