Socioeconomic Impacts of Protection Status on Residents of National Parks-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Socioeconomic Impacts of Protection Status on Residents of National Parks

Published:2016-06-01 Issue:2 Volume:8 Page:67-85
ISSN:1803-8417
Container-title:European Countryside
language:en
Short-container-title:

Author:

Järv Henri¹,Kliimask Jaak²,Ward Raymond³,Sepp Kalev⁴

Affiliation:

1. Henri Järv, M.S., Estonian University of Life Sciences, Institute of agricultural and environmental sciences Kreutzwaldi 1, Tartu 51014, Estonia

2. Ass. Prof. Jaak Kliimask, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Institute of agricultural and environmental sciences Kreutzwaldi 1, Tartu 51014, Estonia

3. Dr. phil. Raymond Ward, School of Environment and Technology, University of Brighton, Moulsecoomb, Brighton, BN2 4GJ, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

4. Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Kalev Sepp, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Institute of agricultural and environmental sciences Kreutzwaldi 1, Tartu 51014, Estonia

Abstract

Abstract Rural population ageing and decline is a serious problem throughout Europe resulting in a deterioration of the socioeconomic situation in rural areas. This leads to land abandonment, and consequently the loss of valuable cultural landscapes. Protected areas are no exception and inhabitants also face restrictions arising from the protection status. The aim of this study is to identify the existence, extent and nature of the socioeconomic impacts derived from the protection status on the local population. Population and socioeconomic indicators were compared with the results of in-depth interviews with local stakeholders within 2 Estonian national parks and contextualised with recent social change. It was concluded that protected areas have a considerable socioeconomic impact and in order to preserve cultural landscapes, achieve conservation objectives and contribute to balanced regional development, measures must be taken.

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Subject

Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Nature and Landscape Conservation,Geography, Planning and Development

Reference75 articles.

1. [1] Agnoletti, M. (2014). Rural landscape, nature conservation and culture: Some notes on research trends and management approaches from a (southern) European perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning 126, 66-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.02.012.

2. [2] Amin, A., Zaehringer, J. G., Schwilch, G. & Koné, I. (2015). People, protected areas and ecosystem services: a qualitative and quantitative analysis of local people’s perception and preferences in Côte d’Ivoire. Natural Resources Forum 39 (2), 97-109. DOI: 10.1111/1477-8947.12069.

3. [3] Antrop, M. (1997). The concept of traditional landscapes as a base for landscape evaluation and planning. The examples of Flanders Region. Landscape and Urban Planning 38(1-2), 105-117. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(97)00027-3.

4. [4] Antrop, M. (2005). Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape and Urban Planning 70(1-2), 21-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.002.

5. [5] Antrop, M. (2006). Sustainable landscapes: contradiction, fiction or utopia? Landscape and Urban Planning 75(3-4), 187-197. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.014.

Cited by 15 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Drina Transboundary Biosphere Reserve—Opportunities and Challenges of Sustainable Conservation;Sustainability;2022-12-13

2. A novel composite environmental fragility index to analyse Italian ecoregions’ vulnerability;Land Use Policy;2022-11

3. Stakeholders’ Attitudes toward Protected Areas: The Case of Tara National Park (Serbia);Land;2022-03-25

4. Socio-Economic Effects of National Park Governance and Management: Lessons from Post-Socialist Era Estonia;Land;2021-11-17

5. National Parks—Areas of Economic Development or Stagnation? Evidence from Poland;Sustainability;2021-10-14