Protected areas for local societies well-being

According to the IUCN definition, protected areas are established for the conservation of particular space, not only because of their natural values or ecological significance, but also as providing variety of environmental,... [ view full abstract ]

According to the IUCN definition, protected areas are established for the conservation of particular space, not only because of their natural values or ecological significance, but also as providing variety of environmental, social and economic benefits to people. When justifying the need for nature conservation, environmentalists refer to values, benefits, resources, future generations, well-being and happiness and lately – ecosystem services. Yet, scientific evidence of how local societies perceive benefits from protected areas and their influence on inhabitants’ well-being are limited.

We present the results of the 13 participatory mapping workshops completed with the professionals of spatial planning and nature conservation and local communities representatives not professionally involved in nature conservation. The aims of the workshops were to (1) identify “benefits from nature” perceived as the most important for the local societies well-being, (2) identify areas providing those benefits and (3) recognize the differences in perception of those “benefits” between the professionals and local representatives. Our research was performed on five study sites in Poland, covering both Natura 2000 sites and neighboring, unprotected areas within administrative units borders. Study sites were purposively selected to vary in size, landscape and dominant habitats’ character, conservation regime, and socio-economic context. At five sites we conducted participatory mapping workshops with local representatives and professionals separately. Participants were asked to identify five “benefits from nature” (out of the list of 25) perceived as crucial for the local societies well-being, and consecutively to sketch the borders of areas providing those benefits. Finally, in three (out of the previous five) study sites we reorganized the participatory mapping workshops, following the same methodology, yet with a mixed group of both, professionals and local representatives working jointly.

Although participants were asked to refer to “benefits from nature”, we translated those benefits into various categories of ecosystem services (following the CICES classification). While conservation professionals perceived mostly provisioning (food, water, material provision) and cultural services (experiencing nature, recreation) as important for well-being of local societies, local representatives selected mostly cultural ones (aesthetic values, heritage, experiencing nature). This choice was also reflected in qualitative analyses of interviews. Both groups recognized regulating services (micro-climate regulation, flood protection or mediation of noise). We prepared maps of the five selected benefits for each site and each group. The coverage of the NATURA 2000 areas mapped as providing the “benefits from nature” within the study site varied from 45% in the mountainous study site up to only 7% in the urban study site. Although the local representatives did not easily recognize the idea of „nature as benefits provider”, they noticed its cultural value and the importance of regulatory processes for their own well-being. The experts though often concentrated on technicalities and definitions.

Our study shows how important it is to explore the perception of natural values, benefits and services provided by protected areas, as well as conservation professionals’ and local inhabitants’ needs concerning those areas. This kind of knowledge is important and useful for comprehensive management of the natural areas, both protected and non-protected.