Stakeholders’ perceptions of protected area management following a nationwide community-based conservation reform
Permanent lenke
https://hdl.handle.net/10037/15864Dato
2019-04-24Type
Journal articleTidsskriftartikkel
Peer reviewed
Sammendrag
People’s perceptions can point to reasons for conservation support or lack thereof. In this
study, we surveyed the perceptions of conservation among local stakeholders who participated in protected area (PA) management following a reform towards community-based
conservation in Norway. We analyzed the link between perceptions of threats to conservation values, prioritized management actions and trust in PA governance, and assessed how
these perceptions aligned with the stakeholders’ preferred overarching conservation
approach and their support for PAs. Conservation perceptions differed mostly between
property owners and representatives of nature conservation (such as NGOs). Property owners perceived modern farming, grazing and hay making, and securing the interests of rights
holders as a priority. They had a lower support for PAs and favored a conservation approach
focusing on “people and nature”. Representatives from nature conservation prioritized management actions to increase biodiversity and reduce land development, had higher trust in
environmental authorities and identified motorized vehicle use as a threat to conservation
values. They had a high support for PAs and favored a conservation approach that mitigates
threats from human activity (i.e. “nature despite people”). The nationwide reform aimed at
increasing support for PAs, but 31% of the members of the stakeholder advisory councils
were willing to downgrade or degazette PAs for the benefit of economic development, which
is much more than general population surveys. However, the level of trust in local governance was less polarized among the members of stakeholder advisory councils compared
with the former state governance, which suggests that that the community-based conservation reform has the potential to improve collaboration and conflict mitigation.