The importance of understanding the local community’s attitude toward nature conservation

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1759803/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

The importance of understanding the local community’s attitude toward nature conservation

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1759803/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Protected areas are an important cornerstone in trying to halt habitat and species loss, but it is generally accepted that conservation policies must also favor the local community as an integral part of these areas. This study reveals the importance of understanding local residents' perception of protected areas’ impacts on their livelihoods and development. It analyzes the perceptions of 612 respondents living in 15 settlements surrounding two protected areas in Serbia. The findings reveal that the locals have a very positive attitude about the impact of protected areas through benefits and protection of resources. They have a very strong sense of belonging to the place and are willing to contribute to protection, but they feel excluded, which is worrisome. A different approach of management that would respect the rights and the existence of the local people is required to prevent conflicts and foster mutual respect and benefit-sharing for everyone.

human well-being

protected area

local collaboration

livelihoods

community participation

The IUCN World Database on Protected Areas shows that 251,952 protected areas account for 15.73% of the Earth’s terrestrial area, whereas 17,721 marine protected areas account for 7.93% of the global oceans (Protected Planet 2022). There is a call to protect 30% of land and ocean ecosystems by 2030 and this would certainly be a major achievement. However, the establishment of protected areas is not sufficient to conserve and protect biodiversity. Protected areas can achieve their goals only if good management and governance are ensured as well as all stakeholders are included (Khan & Bhagwat 2010; Zafra-Calvo & Geldmann 2020).

As far as developing countries are concerned, many conservationists consider that in some cases the conservation of protected areas is unsustainable unless local communities are involved in their management (He et al. 2020). The local community depends on protected areas for its basic needs (especially if traditionally engaged in agriculture and forestry near protected areas) (Andrade & Rhodes 2012; Abukari & Mwalyosi 2020). The exclusion of the local population from the management of protected areas can lead to various conflicts and problems and it becomes extremely difficult to implement conservation policies (Ancrenaz et al. 2007; Jones et al. 2020). For example, the exclusion of the local population of the Digya National Park in Ghana and the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest in Uganda has led to disappointment among local community members and they resorted to the deliberate burning of protected areas (Ayivor et al. 2013; Hamilton et al. 2000). There have been many conflicts between local communities and the management of protected areas around the world, e.g. in the Kyabobo (Ghanaweb 2006) and Bui national parks (Ayivor 2007), in Tanzania (Newmark et al. 1994), in Germany (von Ruschkowski 2009), and in many other national parks around the world (De Pourcq et al., 2015). Nordic countries may be particularly prone to such conflicts, as the public in these countries has traditionally been granted significant access rights – “everyman’s rights” (Mortazavi 1997) – which can easily become more restricted, resulting in the local opposition that prevented the establishment of the Kiruna National Park in Sweden (Dahlberg et al. 2010; Sandell 2005) or the Käsivarsi National Park in Finland (Jokinen et al. 2016). When local people are excluded, they also tend to engage in illegal activities as a form of revenge for the conservation policy, e.g. in the Tsitsikamma National Park in South Africa (Watts & Faasen 2009).

In order to avoid conflict and to conserve biodiversity, cooperation between the management of protected areas and the local community is needed (Holmes 2013; Buta et al. 2014). Local people’s engagement in the planning, activities and decision-making processes related to protected areas leads to an increased awareness of the benefits of biodiversity, a more responsible use of resources and the welfare of local people (Rampheri & Dube 2021). Impacts of protected areas on local livelihoods and local development can be major determinants of local communities’ perceptions of conservation (Abukari & Mwalyosi 2020; Mojo et al. 2020). It is necessary to create a win-win situation for local communities and protected areas, since both parties have the responsibility to protect biodiversity and the right to benefit from it (Chaigneau & Brown 2016; Coad, et al. 2008; Kamil et al. 2019; Pullin 2015). Protected areas that empower local communities and provide socio-economic benefits to them are likely to achieve positive results in preserving biodiversity (Nelson & Hossack, 2003; Wali et al., 2017).

In Serbia, moving towards better participation and involvement of the local population can be difficult, due to the long history of centralized approaches to the planning and management of protected areas. For example, in the villages near the Tara National Park, people are completely dependent on the land and resources within the Park (Tomićević et al. 2010). On the other hand, in the Djerdap National Park, numerous negative impacts of the dam and restrictions on the use of the resources related to the national park have led to illegal activities by the locals, such as fishing, logging and hunting (Macura et al. 2010). There are also conflicts between the management and the local population in the area of the Bačko Podunavlje biosphere reserve when it comes to access to land and forests (Obradović 2021).

The study seeks to determine local communities’ perceptions about the impact of protected areas on their livelihoods and community development in two special nature reserve areas in Serbia. It also explores the types of impacts, seeking to find out whether the local communities have different conservation perceptions or whether their opinions in both areas are the same. The largest floodplains in Serbia, with sensitive ecosystems and protected species, are located within the boundaries of these two reserves. Both are distinguished for their international status (e.g. Ramsar, IPA, IBA) and both have the management involved in forestry, in addition to nature protection.

2.1. An overview of the case study areas

In this paper, two protected areas are analyzed – Gornje Podunavlje (GP) and Koviljsko-petrovaradinski rit (KPR). These are the largest floodplains in the Danube basin in Serbia. Both are special nature reserves (SNR) aligned with IUCN category IV – Habitat/Species Management Area (IUCN 2022), Ramsar sites (Ramsar 2008, 2012), IBA (Important Bird Area) (Bird Life International 2022), IPA (Important Plant Area) (Plant Life 2022), and part of the water-related protected areas in the Danube basin (ICPDR 2008). Moreover, Gornje Podunavlje is part of the Bačko Podunavlje Biosphere Reserve (UNESCO 2019) and the Danube Network of Protected Areas (DanubeParks 2020).

The GP SNR is located in the northwestern part of Serbia (19,648 ha). The special nature reserve comprises the remains of formerly vast inundated areas in the Danube basin (Panjković & Stojnić 2011). It is a complex mosaic of water and land ecosystems and one of the best preserved natural landscapes (Puzović et al. 2015). This is an area of great biodiversity (60 species of daytime butterflies, 55 species of fish, 11 species of amphibians, nine species of reptiles, and 51 species of mammals). The earliest activities related to landscape protection and natural assets in this area date back to 1955, when the Institute for Nature Protection passed the resolution on the protection of the forests in Monoštor as habitats of the white-tailed eagle and the black stork (Kovačević et al. 2000). A large number of rare and nationally or internationally threatened plant species and their communities are supported, along with vulnerable habitats (Law on Nature Protection 2001). This area is the habitat of rare plant species, such as the winter aconite (Eranthis hyemalis), water violet (Hottonia palustris), and mare's-tail (Hippuris vulgaris) which are protected under Serbian legislation as strictly protected species, whereas the area is protected as an important spawning place and a migratory route of fishes, a nesting place of the white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) and the black stork Ciconia nigra, as well as the habitat of the largest population of the red deer (Cervus elaphus) in Serbia (Ministry of Enviroment and Spatial Planning of Republic of Serbia 2007; Kovačević et al. 2000). The local population of this area is mostly engaged in agriculture and industry. The most commonly grown agricultural crops are: wheat, corn, sunflower and sugar beet, which mean that the local population depends on the resources of this area (Provincial Secretariat for Economy and Tourism 2022).

The KPR SNR is located in the southeast of the Bačka region along the inundation area in the middle course of the Danube. The KPR is a complex of marshes and forest ecosystems (5895.31 ha). The floodplain complex along the Danube is a mosaic of forest, meadow, and swamp ecosystems (Panjković et al.,2010). It is well-known for its biodiversity and abundance of fauna (172 species of birds and 46 species of fish). The KPR SNR is also the most important natural fish hatchery in the middle course of the Danube for over 20 species of fish, especially the pike, the sturgeon and the carp (Instutute for Nature Conservation of Serbia,2008). The most representative species include the black stork (Ciconia nigra), amphibians like the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus), but also diverse species of invertebrates, reptiles and mammals. The importance of the KPR SNR is manifold and is reflected in the presence of rare and preserved habitat types important for the preservation of the biological diversity in the region of Bačka, Vojvodina, Serbia and the Danube region. These are primarily specific forest communities of the Quarco-Fagatea class, the Salicetea purpureae class, and the Marsilio-Heleocharetum community of the four-leaf clover fern (Marsilea quadrifolia), which is categorised as Near Threatened (NT) according to the IUCN Red List and protected under the Habitats Directive (Anex II, IV) and the Bern Convention (Anex I), indicating that it is rare in Europe (Panjković et al. 2010; Law on Nature Protection 2011).

The population of this area depends heavily on natural resources for subsistence and economic development. They are mostly engaged in agriculture and viticulture. This area is known for its vineyards and vegetable growing (Provincial Secretariat for Economy and Tourism 2022).

2.2. Study sample

Since this study examines the perception of the two protected areas, feedback was collected from the local residents of each area and analyzed. The inhabitants of the settlements closest to the two SNRs were selected. The estimated population of the KPR SNR was about 54,000, whereas the GP SNR had about 35,397 inhabitants (according to the results of the latest Census – 2011). The study collected attitudes from respondents in eight settlements of the four municipalities in the territory of the KPR SNR and in eight settlements of the two municipalities in the territory of the GP SNR. For this study, the sample was made taking into account the population size of settlements.

2.3. Methods

The survey was conducted from May to July 2021 and it involved 612 respondents, 290 of whom were from the GP SNR area and 322 were from the KPR SNR area. The data required for the study were obtained via an online survey using a questionnaire specifically designed for this purpose – focusing on the local residents’ attitudes toward the impact of the protected areas on livelihood improvement and development. The online questionnaire (using Google Forms) was distributed via social media (Facebook). Locals were informed that the survey was anonymous, that participation was voluntary and that the results of the survey would be used only for research purposes. The questionnaire consisted of two sections. The first section consisted of seven questions probing into the respondents’ sociodemographic and economic characteristics, such as gender, age, education, employment status, income, household size, and length of residence. The second section of the questionnaire consisted of 17 statements related to the impacts of the protected areas for livelihood improvement and development, in line with the approach adopted by Abukari and Mwalyosi (2020).

A five-point Likert scale was used to measure the responses (1 – absolutely disagree, 2 – partially disagree, 3 – neutral, 4 – partially agree, and 5 – absolutely agree).

For data analyses, the IBM SPSS 25.0. Statistics software was used (IBM, 2017). A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with a varimax rotation was performed on 17 items to trace the scale of the importance that the protected areas had for the local community and it was loaded within four domains. Before the factor analysis, a test was conducted to verify the adequacy of the data for factor analysis. High values for the KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) indicate that the factor analysis of the variables is an appropriate approach. The standardized factor loading of all the item ranges should be above the threshold limit of 0.6, as suggested by Chin et al. (1997) and Hair et al. (2010).

Reliability analyses were performed to test the internal consistency of the items measuring each factor. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was first to be analyzed, as it is the most common reliability statistic measure used by many researchers to estimate the internal consistency reliability. An Alpha score of 0.7 or higher is the desired reliability, while 0.6 or higher is an acceptable reliability coefficient according to Nunnally & Bernstein (1994). Composite reliability (or the factor-level reliability) interpreters the internal consistency of items measuring the same underlying factors (Bacon et al. 1995; Fornell & Larcker 1981). Normally, composite reliability (sometimes called construct reliability) should be higher than 0.7 to be considered acceptable (Hair et al. 2010; Nunnally & Bernstein 1994).

The convergent validity was verified via two approaches: Cronbach’s alpha scores (already explained) and the average variance extracted (AVE), where the higher the values (within the 0–1 range), the better the convergence or internal consistency suggested by the items. According to Fornell & Larcker (1981), AVE is used to test the variance of a factor that can be explained by its measures as compared to the unexplained variance. In general, AVE exceeding 0.5 would suggest an adequate convergent validity (Hair et al. 2010).

In order to determine whether socio-demographic characteristics influenced local attitudes, tests (Independent Samples T-test and ANOVA test) were conducted.

3.1 Respondents' sociodemographic proﬁles

The total sample included 612 respondents, 290 of whom were from the GP SNR area and 322 were from the KPR SNR area. The gender ratio was different in the two areas; there were more men in the KPR SNR, and there were more women in the GP SNR, but the gender ratios were almost equal. In both protected areas, most people were aged 30–39 and 40–49 (about 60% of the total respondents). The majority of the respondents had a high school education (more than 60%). Most respondents were employed (64%), with an average monthly income of 535€ in the GP SNR, but with less than the national average (51.6%) in the KPR SN. Almost half of the respondents had an average monthly income smaller than 380 € (47.4%). In both protected areas households had 3–5 members on average, whereas the length of residence was 30–39 years (Table 1).

Table 1. Respondents' sociodemographic characteristics

Gornje Podunavlje (n = 290)												Koviljsko-petrovaradinski Rit (n = 322)
Gender (%)				Employment Status (%)								Gender (%)				Employment Status (%)
Male	Female			Pupil/Student	Employed			Unemployed	Retired		Housewife	Male	Female			Pupil/Student	Employed		Unemployed		Retired		Housewife
52.1	47.9			6.9	64.1			15.9	5.5		7.6	46.6	53.4			9.9	64.0		12.4		7.5		6.2
Age range (%)				Income (%)								Age range (%)				Income (%)
< 19 years		1.7		Less than average		Average (535€)				More than average		< 19 years		4.3		Less than average		Average (535€)				More than average
20−29 years		17.6		37.6		47.6				14.8		20−29 years		18.0		51.6		36.0				12.4
30−39 years		32.8		Household size (%)								30−39 years		32.8		Household size (%)
40−49 years		31.4		Less than three		Three to five				More than five		40−49 years		30.1		Less than three		Three to five				More than five
50−59 years		10.3		25.2		66.2				8.6		50−59 years		11.2		29.8		61.8				8.4
60+ years		6.2		Length of residence (%)								60+ years		6.5		Length of residence (%)
Education (%)				Less than 9 years			7.9					Education (%)				Less than 9 years				6.2
Elementary school			2.1	10−19 years			9.7					Elementary school			3.7	10−19 years				12.4
High school			61.7	20−29 years			23.1					High school			66.8	20−29 years				21.1
College/University			36.2	30−39 years			26.9					College/University			29.5	30−39 years				26.7
				40−49 years			21.0									40−49 years				23.0
				50+ years			11.4									50+ years				10.6

To summarize, the socio-demographic characteristics of the inhabitants of these two areas are mostly the same, with very few differences (e.g. income and gender ratio).

3.2 Factor analysis of the local communities’ perceptions of the impact of the protected areas on livelihoods improvement and development

Principal Component Analysis was applied to facilitate data analysis. In this way, the factors were determined. Initially, the factorability of the 17 items was examined (for both protected areas separately). The results showed that the correlation of all 17 items with at least one other item was 0.3, indicating a reasonable factorability. For both protected areas KMO was above the commonly recommended value of 0.6 required for a good factor analysis (Kaiser, 1970) – it was 0.839 for the GP and 0.836 for the KPR. Both KMOs were between 0.80 and 0.90 and can be described as “meritorious” (Kaiser, 1974). At the same time, Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant for both protected areas (the KPR χ2 (105) = 2249.335, p= 0.000; the GP χ2 (105) = 2169.388, p= 0.000) indicating the eligibility of the data. Using the eigenvalues criterion (larger than 1) and an absolute value of factor loading greater than 0.6 has confirmed four significant factors with a total of 66.78 of variance explained for the KPR SNR and 69.76% of variance explained for the GP SNR. Two statements in both area surveys had to be excluded due to low factor loading values. For the KPR, the statements “The representation of the local community in decision-making on natural resource governance” and “The park employs members of the neighboring community” were not included in further analysis. For the GP, one excludes statement was the same – “The park employs members of the neighboring community”, whereas the other was “The park is important for livelihoods & community development”. Due to the weak factor loadings, these statements were not included in further analysis. Given these overall indicators, the principal factor analysis (PCA) was deemed to be suitable for 15 out of 17 items.

Table 2. Principal component analysis (PCA) of the measured items

Gornje Podunavlje SNR							Koviljsko-petrovaradinski Rit SNR
Factor	Item description	Factor Loading	Cronbach’s Alpha (α)	Composite Reliability (CR)	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)	Mean	Factor	Item description	Factor Loading	Cronbach’s Alpha (α)	Composite Reliability (CR)	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)	Mean
The benefits of the protected area for the local community and resource protection	The protected area attracts social amenities into the community	0.811	0.90	0.91	0.56	3.67	The benefits of the protected area for the local community and resource protection	The protected area attracts social amenities into the community	0.891	0.91	0.93	0.62	3.75
	The protected area’s rules are well explained to communities	0.791						The protected area maintains good forest and wildlife presence close to our community	0.859
	Community members benefit from tourism activities	0.782						Protected area workers are good to the community members	0.819
	The protected area maintains good forest and wildlife presence close to our community	0.759						Community members benefit from tourism activities	0.777
	The actions of the protected area’s management take into account the community’s wellbeing	0.735						The community derives equitable share of economic benefits from the protected area	0.765
	The community derives an equitable share of the economic benefits from protected area	0.732						Protected area – community communication	0.751
	Protected area – community communication	0.722						The actions of the protected area’s management take into account the community’s wellbeing	0.710
	The employees of the protected area are good to community members	0.636						The protected area’s rules are well explained to communities	0.688
Involvement of the local community in management and protection	Local views are respected by the park	0.881	0.83	0.87	0.68	2.55	Involvement of the local community in management and protection	Local views are respected by the protected area Local views are respected by the protected area	0.868	0.80	0.85	0.86	2.22
	The protected area’s governance structure includes local communities	0.876
	The representation of the local community in decision-making on natural resource governance	0.715
Limited access and depredation	The community has a limited access to forest products	0.823	0.67	0.81	0.58	3.01		The protected area’s governance structure involves local communities	0.859
	Wildlife depredation is a serious concern for neighboring communities	0.747					Limited access depredation and the impact of the protected area on community development	The community has a limited access to forest products	0.712	0.61	0.74	0.70	3.41
	The protected area limits access to land for economic activities	0.716						Wildlife depredation is a serious concern for neighboring communities	0.697
Impact on culture	The protected area undermines our culture	0.927	/	0.86	0.86	1.41		The relevance of the protected area for livelihoods & community development	0.683
							Accessibility and impact on culture	The presence of the protected area undermines our culture	0.770	0.71	0.74	0.77	1.89
								The protected area limits access to land for economic activities	0.766

In this study, reliability scores ranged from 0.61 to 0.91 with the total scale reliability of 0.82 for the GP and 0.76 for the KPR, which means that it can be interpreted as moderate, acceptable, desirable and preferable. The composite reliability for factors was above 0.7 in all cases, indicating a desirable composite reliability for all factors (Table 2). Both approaches confirm a satisfactory convergent validity for each construct among the 15 items used to determine local residents' perception of the protected areas’ impacts on local livelihoods and development.

The Principal Component Analysis showed four factors. For both protected areas Factor 1 was the same and it contained eight items in which factor loads range from at least 0.63. This factor was named The protected area’s benefits for the local community and resource protection and had the mean value 3.67 for the GP and 3.75 for the KPR. There is a difference when it comes to Factor 2, even though it was assigned the same name – The involvement of the local community in management and protection. For the GP SNR, this factor comprises three items (M=2.55), whereas for the KPR SNR it comprises two items (M=2.22). There is a difference between the two protected areas as regards the statement “The representation of the local community in decision-making on natural resource governance”. In both protected areas Factor 3 contains three items but its name is slightly different. For the GP SNR, it is named Limited access and depredation (M=3.01), while for the KPR SNR it is named Limited access, depredation and the impact of the protected area on community development (M=3.41). There is a difference as regards the third statement (it is not the same for the two protected areas). This factor for the KPR includes the item “The protected area’s relevance for livelihoods & community development”, which means that the community members perceive the protected area as moderately important for their life and development. Factor 4 comprises only one item for the GP SNR (Impact on culture) and two items for the KPR SNR (Accessibility and impact on culture). This factor has the lowest mean value (M=1.89), indicating that people are not satisfied with the accessibility in the KPR. In particular, they believe that the special nature reserve limits their access to land for economic activities. On the other hand, in both protected areas, locals do not consider that the special nature reserve undermines their culture. For the GP (M=1.41) there is only one item “the presence of the protected area undermines our culture”. The local community of both protected areas believes that the protected area does not undermine their culture.

3.3 The influence of socio-demographic characteristics on local community attitudes

Table 3. The relation between the gender of the respondents and the factors of protected areas’ impacts on local livelihoods and development

Gornje Podunavlje				Koviljsko-petrovaradinski Rit
Factors		Male	Female			Male	Female
The benefits of the protected area for the local community and resource protection	Mean	3.59	3.76	The benefits of the protected area for the local community and resource protection	Mean	3.75	3.74
	F	13.246				5.581
	p	0.000*				0.019*
The involvement of the local community in management and protection	Mean	2.40	2.71	The involvement of the local community in management and protection	Mean	2.07	2.35
	F	0.336				4.705
	p	0.563				0.031*
Limited access and depredation	Mean	3.00	3.01	Limited access, depredation and the impact of the protected area on community development	Mean	3.48	3.35
	F	1.771				0.218
	p	0.184				0.641
Impact on culture	Mean	1.52	1.36	Accessibility and impact on culture	Mean	1.86	1.92
	F	11.183			F	0.055
	p	0.001*			P	0.815

* – differences between the protected areas significant for 0.05 level of significance

Statistically significant differences in the respondents' answers can be observed in two factors in both protected areas (Table 3). As far as the GP SNR is concerned, the mean scores show that women have a stronger attitude toward The benefits of the protected area for the local community and resource protection than men. However, the opposite is observed for the Impact on culture. On the other hand, for the KPR SNR the mean scores show that men have a stronger attitude toward The benefits of the protected area for the local community and resource protection than women, but women have a stronger attitude toward The involvement of the local community in management and protection.

Table 4. Relation between the respondents’ education, household size and income and the factors of the protected areas’ impacts on local livelihoods and development

Gornje Podunavlje			Koviljsko-petrovaradinski Rit
EDUCATION			EDUCATION
Factors	F-value	LSD post-hoc test	Factors	F-value	LSD post-hoc test
The benefits of the protected area for the local community and resource protection	2.644	/	The benefits of the protected area for the local community and resource protection	1.875	/
The involvement of the local community in management and protection	15.801^*	1>2,3	The involvement of the local community in management and protection	1.432	/
Limited access and depredation	3.403	3>2	Limited access, depredation and the impact of the protected area on community development	15.927*	3>2
Impact on culture	4.548	2>3	Accessibility and impact on culture	1.010	/
HOUSEHOLD SIZE			HOUSEHOLD SIZE
Gornje Podunavlje			Koviljsko-petrovaradinski Rit
Factors	F-value	LSD post-hoc test	Factors	F-value	LSD post-hoc test
The benefits of the protected area for the local community and resource protection	6.119*	1,3>2	The benefits of the protected area for the local community and resource protection	2.455	/
The involvement of the local community in management and protection	3.583*	1>2	The involvement of the local community in management and protection	5.430^*	2>1
Limited access and depredation	3.648*	3>1,2	Limited access, depredation and the impact of the protected area on community development	1.518	/
Impact on culture	2.615	/	Accessibility and impact on culture	0.767	/
INCOME			INCOME
Gornje Podunavlje			Koviljsko-petrovaradinski Rit
Factors	F-value	LSD post-hoc test	Factors	F-value	LSD post-hoc test
The benefits of the protected area for the local community and resource protection	9.022*	3<1,2	The benefits of the protected area for the local community and resource protection	3.693*	3<1,2
The involvement of the local community in management and protection	3.249*	1>2	The involvement of the local community in management and protection	0.266	/
Limited access and depredation	0.072	/	Limited access, depredation and the impact of the protected area on community development	1.901	/
Impact on culture	1.114	/	Accessibility and impact on culture	1.791	/

*p<0.01 Note (Education): (1) elementary school; (2) high school; (3) college/) university;

*p < 0.05 Note (Household size) (1) Less than three; (2) Three to five; (3) More than five

*p < 0.05 Note (Income): (1) Less than average; (2) Average; (3) More than average

The results show differences in the second, third and fourth factors as regards the GP SNR. Respondents with higher education (college/university) take into account Limited access, depredation and the impact of the protected area on community development more than those with high school. On the other hand, in the KPR SNR, differences are observed in the third factor. Respondents with elementary education are more concerned about The involvement of the local community in management and protection than those with high school or college/university education. Respondents with college/university consider Limited access and depredation more important than those with high school. The situation is reverse as regards the factor Impact on culture (Table 4). There are differences in the second factor in both protected areas, but the results are different. In the KPR SNR, households with 3–5 members are more interested in the involvement of the local community in management and protection than those with less than three members, while the opposite trend is observed in the GP SNR. In the GP SNR, there are also differences in the first factor, where households with less than three and more than five members are more interested in the benefits of the protected area for the local community and resource protection than those with 3–5 members. As for the third factor, households with more members are more likely to take into account limited access and depredation than those with fewer household members (Table 4). In both protected areas, there are differences in the first factor as regards income; respondents with an income higher than average care less about the benefits of the protected area for the local community and resource protection than the other two groups (less than average and average income). As far as the GP SNR is concerned, differences are also found in the second factor, namely locals with below average incomes are more interested in the involvement of the local community in management and protection than those with average incomes (Table 4).

The ANOVA test was also conducted to identify potential differences in the respondents’ answers related to their age, employment and length of residence. In all three cases, the results showed no statistically significant differences. This means that the formation of their perception of the protected areas’ impacts on local livelihoods and development is not influenced by the length of residence, the type of employment, or their age.

Local communities have an important role in biodiversity conservation and their participation is the most powerful tool for conservation in protected areas. Based on the survey results relating to different factors of nature conservation, we have found that in protected areas people mostly take into account benefits and the protection of resources. An in-depth analysis shows that the local population believes that the protected area attracts social events, protects natural resources, that the rules are well explained to the locals and that the protected area operates in line with the interests of the local population, as well as that there is a good communication between the locals and the protected area’s managers. The local residents who know the rules and regulations governing protected areas are likely to perceive the protected area as being supportive of their livelihoods and community development (Abukari & Mwalyosi 2020). In order to get the support of the local community, the management of protected areas has to establish a good communication with the population (Holmes 2013), which is mostly achieved in the GP and the KPR. It is very important for the local community to understand that protected areas operate in line with the interests of the local population (Coad et al. 2008). In that way, the support of the local communities of the GP the KPR is granted. Protected areas and local communities form an inevitable partnership toward successful protection and conservation of natural and cultural resources, but also towards benefits and the development of the local community (Andrade & Rhodes 2012). In the case of the GP and KPR, local residents believe that they are not sufficiently involved and respected by the management of the protected areas. The GP Protected Area Manager has undertaken numerous activities in the field of nature protection (restoration and conservation of wetlands, management of protected plant and animal populations, revitalization and reconstruction of habitats, etc. (Puzović et al. 2015). Regardless of the measures taken, the research shows that the locals believe that they are not sufficiently involved. Better communication is needed between the managers of the protected areas and local people to ensure that the latter are involved in protection activities. The exclusion of the local population from the management of protected areas can lead to various conflicts and problems (Ancrenaz et al. 2007). People feel that their access to land and forests is limited due to the protection regime and that they are unable to perform economic activities. They agree that wildlife depredation is a serious concern for neighboring communities. It is often stated in the literature that people who are victims of wildlife depredation or have limited access to forest and land resources are likely to have negative perceptions and attitudes towards protected areas in their vicinity (Abukari & Mwalyosi 2020; Maan & Chaudhry 2019).

As it is mentioned in our case study, the people of the GP and the KPR are mostly economically dependent on the land and resources. The removal of local community members from their land may result in a significant loss of livelihood opportunities and income. If extracting natural resources that are important for their livelihoods is entirely forbidden, this will not merely trigger an economic impact, but will also have an adverse social impact on the local community, disrupting its traditional way of living (Andrade & Rhodes 2012; Jones et al. 2020). In order to prevent conflicts, the involvement of local residents is necessary for an adequate management of the protected area, discussed in many studies (Abukari & Mwalyosi 2020; Andrade & Rhodes 2012). Conflicts between local communities and the management of protected areas have been observed around the world (Ayivor et al. 2013; Ayivor 2007; De Pourcq et al. 2015; Ghanaweb 2006; Newmark et al. 1994; von Ruschkowski 2009). In order to avoid this kind of conflicts in the KPR and the GP, the management of these protected areas should involve the local community in the governance structure and take their views into account when making decisions and managing the protected areas. A different approach to protected area management, based on the respect for the rights and existence of local populations, is required to prevent conflicts and foster mutual respect and benefit-sharing for everyone (Nelson & Hossack 2003).

The local communities of the two protected areas believe that the protection regime does not undermine their culture. As a result of the project aimed at accession to the European Charter for Sustainable Tourism (Stojanović et al. 2021), where the management of the GP was involved, experts from the Provincial Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments (Filipović & Janjušević 2021) introduced the practice of nurturing authentic culture through the construction of traditional houses (e.g. for tourist offer) which uses the natural resources of the Reserve (e.g. reeds) sustainably. Culture, as part of the lives of the local people, is interwoven in their interactions with nature (local culture) and can also contribute to livelihoods (e.g. via ecotourism) (Dong et al. 2021; Wright & Matthews 2015; Weber 2017). The role of the local people is often neglected, though they should gain most from conservation efforts and could be key partners and implementers of conservation actions (Infield et al. 2018). Failing to reflect the value systems that link communities to their natural worlds and motivate them to protect nature may undermine conservation intentions and even exacerbate conservation problems (Sillitoe 2015). The management of the GP and the KPR should provide more information to the local communities, explain and help them preserve their cultural identity, values and traditions. Through joint efforts, the management and the local community of these special nature reserves can achieve a lot, first of all, the preservation of natural and cultural values, but also benefits for both parties.

The results of this study indicate that conservation attitudes are influenced mainly by gender, education, household size and income. Numerous researches from various fields have dealt with the influence of socio-demographic characteristics on the attitudes to particular subjects – e.g. the impacts of tourism (Stojković et al. 2020), motivations underlying hiking tourism (Obradović & Tešin 2022), water management (Okumah et al. 2021), vaccination (Włodarska et al. 2021), marketing (Kral et al. 2020), employees (Žukauskas et al. 2018), etc. Desrochers et al. (2019) have come to the conclusion that women care more about the environment than men. This is in line with the results obtained in the GP SNR (resource protection). Gender plays an important role in respondents’ perceptions of wildlife (Mir et al. 2015) with men caring more about wildlife than women. This is confirmed in the study by Ochieng et al. (2021), suggesting that gender significantly contributes to unfavorable conservation attitudes, particularly among females. Contrary to our study, where it was found that education influenced the attitude of the population, the studies by Mir et al. (2015), Gadd (2005) and Groom & Harris (2008) found that education did not play a significant role in predicting attitudes towards conservation. The conclusion that household size affects the perception of protected areas among the respondents from the GP and the KPR is in line with the study by Shrestha & Alavalapati (2006) and Abukari & Mwalyosi (2018). That income plays a role in the perceptions of local residents is confirmed by Xu et al. (2022), who have found that the willingness of community residents to participate in conservation is determined by factors (socio-economic background) such as income and education. Our findings do not confirm the conclusion of Ochieng et al. (2021) and Wang et al. (2007) that attitudes are significantly influenced by age.

Local people were found to hold relatively positive perceptions of both special nature reserves, despite experiencing limited access to land and resources. This suggests that the problem could be solved by better management and communication with the local community.

The greatest challenge related to protected areas in Serbia is the development of management systems that ensure environmental sustainability and tangible long-term benefits for the local population. In order to achieve peace and harmony among local people and the management of the protected area, it is necessary to empower rural communities to sustainably manage their natural resources and this largely depends on the ability of governments to transfer management to the local level (Wells & McShane 2004). However, these processes are often complex, due to which the level of human and social capacity is critical to the success of local community participation in natural resource management and nature conservation (He at al. 2020). In order to achieve this, good cooperation and communication between all stakeholders is necessary.

The study reveals the perceptions of the local communities in two protected areas in Serbia about the impacts of conservation on livelihoods and community development. The differences in the perceptions are almost non-existent.

In both protected areas, the benefits and the protection of resources are generally taken into account when discussing the impact of protected areas. On the other hand, the local residents believe that they are insufficiently respected by the management of the protected areas, that they are not sufficiently involved, that their access to forest products and land use are limited. In order to avoid possible conflicts or illegal activities (cutting trees, picking endemic species, etc.) in the GP and the KPR, the management of these protected areas should involve the local community in the governance structure and take their views into account when making decisions and managing the protected areas. Management should always have in mind that the local community goes together with natural and cultural resources, i.e. that they form a unity. A different approach to protected area management that respects the rights and existence of local populations is required to prevent conflicts and foster mutual respect and benefit-sharing between local populations and the management of protected areas.

Most importantly, this study reveals that the local people have a very strong sense of belonging to the place and are willing to contribute to the protection of the GP and the KPR, but the management of the protected area must work to strengthen the position of the local community and ensure their support. Through joint efforts, the management and the local community can really achieve a lot – first of all, the preservation of natural and cultural values, but also benefits for both parties and community development. A different management model, more inclusive and mindful of the role of local communities as important actors, could improve perceptions and attitudes towards achieving conservation goals, so that local communities recognize protected areas as an important resource that can improve their lives and develop their communities. Conflict resolution between the managers of protected areas and the local community can be solved through round table discussions and joint cooperation projects, where the local community and management participate as project partners or stakeholders.

This study does not address the outcomes of current problems and conflicts; it rather provides a starting point by contributing to a better understanding of the problems and the different viewpoints of the involved stakeholders. The next step should be initiating development projects in special nature reserves. By creating opportunities for an increased interaction between stakeholders towards problem solving we will be one step closer to conflict resolution.

Funding

This work was supported by the Provincial Secretariat for Science and Technological Development (Grant No. 142-451-2557/2021-01). Partial support was also provided by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia (Grant No. 451-03-68/2022-14/200125).

Competing Interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Sanja Obradović. The first draft of the manuscript was written by all authors and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abukari H, Mwalyosi RB (2018) Comparing Conservation Attitudes of Park-Adjacent Communities: The Case of Mole National Park in Ghana and Tarangire National Park in Tanzania. Trop Conserv Sci 11:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082918802757
Abukari H, Mwalyosi RB (2020) Local communities’ perceptions about the impact of protected areas on livelihoods and community development. Glob Ecol Conserv 22:e00909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e00909
Ancrenaz M, Dabek L, O'Neil S (2007) The costs of exclusion: recognizing a role for local communities in biodiversity conservation. PLoS Biol 5(11):e289. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050289
Andrade GSM, Rhodes JR (2012) Protected areas and local communities: an inevitable partnership toward successful conservation strategies? Ecol Soc 17(4):14. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05216-170414
Ayivor JS (2007) An Exploration of Policy Implementation in Protected Watershed Areas: Case Study of Digya National Park in the Volta Lake Margins in Ghana: Master Thesis Presented to the College of Arts and Sciences Athens, USA: Ohio University
Ayivor JS, Gordon C, Ntiamoa-Baidu Y(2013) Protected area management and livelihood conflicts in Ghana: a case study of Digya National Park.Parks19(1)
Bird Life International (2022) http://datazone.birdlife.org/ (accessed March 22nd 2022)
Buta N, Holland SM, Kaplanidou K (2014) Local communities and protected areas: The mediating role of place attachment for pro-environmental civic engagement. J Outdoor Recreat Tour 5–6:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2014.01.001
Chaigneau T, Brown K (2016) Challenging the win-win discourse on conservation and development: analyzing support for marine protected areas. Ecol Soc 21(1):36. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08204-210136
Chin WW, Gopal A, Salisbury WD (1997) Advancing the Theory of Adaptive Structuration: The Development of a Scale to Measure Faithfulness of Appropriation. Inf Syst 8(4):342–367
Coad L, Campbell A, Miles L. Humphries K(2008) The Costs and Benefits of Protected Areas for Local Livelihoods: a review of the current literature. Working Paper. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, U.K
Dahlberg A, Rohde R, Sandell K (2010) National parks and environmental justice: Comparing access rights and ideological legacies in three countries. Conserv Soc 8:209–224
Danubeparks(2020) DANUBEPARKS - network of protected areas. https://danubeparks.org/ (accessed March 22nd 2022)
De Pourcq K, Thomas E, Arts B, Vranckx A, Léon-Sicard T, Van Damme P (2015) Conflict in Protected Areas: Who Says Co-Management Does Not Work? PLoS ONE 10(12):e0144943. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144943
Dong Q, Zhang B, Cai X, Morrison AM (2021) Do Local Residents Support the Development of a National Park? A Study from Nanling National Park Based on Social Impact Assessment (SIA). Land 10:1019. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/land10101019
Filipović J, Janjušević B (2021) Traditional houses in the Gornje Podunavlje: a handbook for reconstruction - techniques and methods of construction and renovation: Cultural and Historical Society "Spring on Cheney farms". Simbol, Petrovaradin. Novi Sad (in Serbian)
Gadd ME (2005) Conservation outside parks: Attitudes of local people in Laikipia, Kenya. Environ Conserv 32:50–63
Ghanaweb (2006) Assailants of Kyabobo Park Guards would face justice-DC assures. Regional News of 2006-07-12. Hohoe, Ghana
Groom R, Harris S (2008) Conservation on community lands: The importance of equitable revenue sharing. Environ Conserv 35:242–251
Hamilton A, Cunningham A, Byarugaba D, Kayanja F (2000) Conservation in a Region of Political Instability: Bwindi Impenetrable Forest, Uganda. Biol Conserv 14(6):1722–1725. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2000.99452.x
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE(2010) Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th Edition, Pearson, New York
Holmes G (2013) Exploring the Relationship Between Local Support and the Success of Protected Areas. Conserv Soc 11(1):72–82. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4923.110940
He S, Yang L, Min Q (2020) Community Participation in Nature Conservation: The Chinese Experience and Its Implication to National Park Management. Sustain 12(11):4760. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114760
IBM Corp, Released (2017) IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. IBM Corp, Armonk, NY
ICPDR (2008) International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River. https://www.icpdr.org/main/danube-basin/serbia (accessed March 22nd 2022)
Infield M, Entwistle A, Anthem H, Mugisha A, Phillips K (2018) Reflections on cultural values approaches to conservation: Lessons from 20 years of implementation. Oryx 52(2):220–230. doi:10.1017/S0030605317000928
Instutute for Nature Conservation of Serbia (2008) Spatial plan for the area of special purpose the SNR "Koviljsko-Petrovaradinski Rit". Protection and regulation of natural values (Zaštita i uređenje prirodnih vrednosti). Novi Sad
Institute for Nature Conservation of Serbia (2022) https://www.zzps.rs/ (accessed March 22nd 2022)
IUCN (2022) https://www.iucn.org/ (accessed March 22nd 2022)
Jokinen M, Sarkki S, Heikkinen H (2016) The Well-being effects of localized multi-level environmental governance: Case of Kilpisjärvi. Nordia Geographical Publication 45:19–36
Jones N, Malesios C, Kantartzis A, Dimitrakopoulos PG (2020) The role of location and social impacts of protected areas on subjective wellbeing. Environ Res Lett 15(11):114030
Kaiser HF (1970) A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika 35(4):401–415
Kaiser HF (1974) An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39(1):31–36
Kamil I, Abdullah O, Agustin H, Bakti I(2019) Role Of Stakeholder Communication In Sustainability of Indonesia's Conservation Area. Libr Philos Pract (e-journal): 3729
Khan MS, Bhagwat SA (2010) Protected Areas: A Resource or Constraint for Local People? Mt Res Dev 30(1):14–24
Kovačević B et al (2000) Special nature reserve “Gornje Podunavlje”, Proposal for protecting the area as natural asset of extraordinary importance. Institute for nature protection in Serbia, Department in Novi Sad, Novi Sad
Kral P, Janoskova K, Lazaroiu G, Suler P (2020) Impact of Selected Socio-Demographic Characteristics on Branded Product Preference in Consumer Markets. Management & Marketing. Chall Knowl Soc 15(4):570–586. DOI: 10.2478/mmcks-2020-0033
Law on Nature Protection ("Official Gazette of RS", No. 36/09, 88/10 and 91/10 - correction) and Article 42, paragraph 1 of the Law on Government ("Official Gazette of RS",No.55/05, 71/05 - correction, 101/07, 65/08 and 16/11)
Law on Nature Protection (" (2001) Official Gazette of RS", No. 66/91,83/92, 53/93, 67/93, 48/94 and 53/95)
Maan JS, Chaudhry P (2019) People and protected areas: some issues from India. Anim Biodivers Conserv 42(1):79–90. https://doi.org/10.32800/abc.2019.42.0079
Macura I, Bojovic D, Petric I, Tadic M, Cosic N, Jaric I, Knezevic J, Spiric J, Jaric M (2010) Local Communities and Management of Protected Areas in Serbia. Ecol Soc Endemit
Ministry of Enviroment and Spatial Planning of Republic of Serbia (2007) Protected natural resources in Serbia. Belgrade
Mir ZR, Noor A, Habib B (2015) Attitudes of Local People Toward Wildlife Conservation: A Case Study From the Kashmir Valley. Mt Res Dev 35(4):392–400. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-15-00030.1
Mojo D, Oduor AMO, Fu C, Bai J, Long H, Wang G, Zhang L (2020) Effects of protected areas on welfare of local households: The case of Maasai Mara National Reserve in Kenya. People and Nature 2(3):856–867. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10123
Mortazavi R (1997) The right of public access in Sweden. Ann Tour Res 24:609–623
Nelson J, Hossack L (2003) Indigenous peoples and protected areas in Africa: From principles to practice. Forest Peoples Programme, Moreton-in-Marsh, UK
Newmark WD, Manyanza DN, Gamassa DGM, Sariko H (1994) The Conflict between Wildlife and Local People Living Adjacent to Protected Areas in Tanzania: Human Density as a Predictor. Biol Conserv 8(1):249–255. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2386738
Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) The Assessment of Reliability. Psychometric Theory 3:248–292
Obradović S(2021) Sustainable tourism development in the Bačko Podunavlje Biosphere Reserve. Doctoral dissertation, University of Novi Sad
Obradović S, Tešin A (2022) Hiking in the Covid-19 era: Motivation and Post-outbreak intentions. J Sport Tourism. https://doi.org/10.1080/14775085.2022.2048683
Ochieng TN, Elizabeth KN, Nigel LW (2021) Measuring the conservation attitudes of local communities towards the African elephant Loxodonta africana, a flagship species in the Mara ecosystem. PLoS ONE 16(6):e0253234. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253234
Okumah M, Ankomah-Hackman P, Yeboah AS (2021) Do socio-demographic groups report different attitudes towards water resource management? Evidence from a Ghanaian case study. GeoJournal 86:2447–2456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10173-9
Panjković B et al (2010) Koviljsko-petrovaradinki rit Special Nature Reserve Proposal for protecting the area as natural asset of extraordinary importance. Institute for Nature Conservation of Vojvodina Province. (In Serbian)
Panjković B, Stojnić N (2011) Biodiversity and protected areas. In: Puzović S, Radovanović-Jovin H (eds) Environment in the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina. Provincial Secretariat for Urban Planning, Construction and Environmental Protection, Novi Sad
Protected Planet (2022) https://www.protectedplanet.net/ accessed March 7th 2022
Plant Life (2022) plantlifeipa.org (accessed March 22nd 2022)
Provincial Secretariat for Economy and Tourism (2022) http://www.spriv.vojvodina.gov.rs (accessed 23rd March, 2022)
Pullin AS (2015) Why is the evidence base for effectiveness of win–win interventions to benefit humans and biodiversity so poor? Environ Evid 4:19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-015-0045-4
Puzović S, Panjković B, Tucakov M, Stojnić N, Sabadoš K, Stojanović T, Vig L, Marić B, Tešić O, Kiš A, Galamboš L, Pil N, Kicošev V, Stojšić V, Timotić D, Perić R, Bošnjak T, Delić J, Dobretić V, Stanišić J (2015) Management of Natural heritage in Vojvodina. Provincial Secretariat for Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development and Institute for Nature Conservation of Vojvodina Province. (In Serbian)
Rampheri MB, Dube T (2021) Local community involvement in nature conservation under the auspices of Community-Based Natural Resource Management: A state of the art review. Afr J Ecol 59(4):799–808. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12801
Ramsar (2008) https://rsis.ramsar.org/ris/ (accessed March 23rd 2022)
Ramsar (2012) https://rsis.ramsar.org/ris/2028 (accessed March 23rd 2022)
Sandell K (2005) Access, Tourism and Democracy: A Conceptual Framework and the Non-establishment of a Proposed National Park in Sweden. Scand J Hosp Tour 5:63–75
Sillitoe P (2015) Indigenous Peoples, National Parks, and Protected Areas: A New Paradigm Linking Conservation, Culture, and Rights. Mt Res Dev 35(3):311–312. https://doi.org/10.1659/mrd.mm162
Shrestha RK, Alavalapati JRR (2006) Linking conservation and development: An analysis of local people’s attitude towards Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Environ Dev Sustain 8:69–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-005-0188-5
Stojanović V, Mijatov M, Obradović S(2021) Strategy and Action Plan For Sustainable Tourism In The Special Nature Reserve Gornje Podunavlje
Stojković I, Tepavčević J, Blešić I, Ivkov M, Šimon V (2020) The Influence Of Sociodemographic Characteristics Of Residents On The Perception Of Tourism Development. J Appl Econ 17(2):89–103. https://doi.org/10.5937/ejae17-26800
Tomićević J, Shannon MA, Milovanović M (2010) Socio-economic impacts on the attitudes towards conservation of natural resources: Case study from Serbia. For Policy Econ 12:157–162
UNESCO (2019) https://en.unesco.org/biosphere/eu-na/backo-podunavlje (accessed March 23rd 2022)
von Ruschkowski E(2009) Causes and Potential Solutions for Conflicts between Protected Area Management and Local People in Germany. Conference: The George Wright Society Biennial Conference on Parks, Protected Areas, and Cultural SitesAt: Portland, OregonVolume: Rethinking Protetcted Areas ina Changing World 2009: 240–244
Wali A, Alvira D, Tallman PS, Ravikumar A, Macedo MO (2017) A new approach to conservation: using community empowerment for sustainable well-being. Ecol Soc 22(4):6. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09598-220406
Wang Y, Pfister RE, Morais DB(2007) Residents’ attitudes toward tourism development: a case study of Washington, NC. In: Burns, R.; Robinson, K., comps. Proceedings of the 2006 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium; 2006 April 9–11; Bolton Landing, NY. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-14. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 411–419
Watts S, Faasen H (2009) Community-based conflict resolution strategies for sustainable management of the Tsitsikamma National Park, South Africa. S Afr Geogr J 91(1):25–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/03736245.2009.9725327
Weber S(2017) Connections Across People, Place, and Time: Proceedings of the 2017 George Wright Society Conference on Parks, Protected Areas, and Cultural Sites. Hancock, Michigan: George Wright Society
Wells MP, McShane TO (2004) Integrating Protected Area Management with Local Needs and Aspirations. Ambio 33(8):513–519. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4315540
Włodarska A, Gujski M, Pinkas J, Raciborski F (2021) The influence of socio-demographic characteristics on attitudes towards prophylactic vaccination in Poland. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 34(1):121–132. https://doi.org/10.13075/ijomeh.1896.01671
Wright PA, Matthews C (2015) Building a culture of conservation: Research findings and research priorities on connecting people to nature in parks. Parks 21(2). DOI: 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2014.PARKS-21-2PAW.en
Xu L, Xu W, Jiang C, Dai H, Sun Q, Cheng K, Lee CH, Zong C, Ma J (2022) Evaluating Communities’ Willingness to Participate in Ecosystem Conservation in Southeast Tibetan Nature Reserves, China. Land 11:207. https://doi.org/10.3390/ land11020207
Zafra-Calvo N, Geldmann J (2020) Protected areas to deliver biodiversity need management effectiveness and equity. Glob Ecol Conserv 22:e01026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01026
Žukauskas P, Vveinhardt J, Andriukaitienė R(2018) Sociodemographic Indicators: Employee Attitude. In P. ?ukauskas, J. Vveinhardt, & R. Andriukaitien? (Eds.), Management Culture and Corporate Social Responsibility. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70635

Download PDF

Reviewers agreed at journal
18 Jul, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
27 Jun, 2022
Editor invited by journal
23 Jun, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
20 Jun, 2022
First submitted to journal
14 Jun, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

The importance of understanding the local community’s attitude toward nature conservation

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Material And Methods

2.1. An overview of the case study areas

2.2. Study sample

2.3. Methods

3. Results

4. Discussion

5. Conclusions

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1