This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Protected area management can be highly contentious. Information about the acceptability of conservation actions can help environmental authorities design policies that are accepted locally, and identify potential areas of conflict between land users and conservation objectives. In this study, we implemented a spatially-explicit method for eliciting public preferences for land use and conservation policy (web-based public participation GIS; PPGIS). We invited randomly selected local residents in two mountainous regions in Norway to map their preferences for consumptive resource use, motorized use, land development and predator-control. We assessed whether local communities favored or opposed these human activities in nearby protected areas using mixed-effects logistic regression and controlling for landscape characteristics, accessibility and demographics. Local residents strongly favored consumptive resource use and predator control regardless of protected area status, and were more likely to oppose than favor land development inside protected areas. These preferences are largely consistent with the present protected area policy in Norway and Europe that promotes traditional consumptive use and the maintenance of cultural landscapes, but restricts land development. Our results suggest that use-based framing of conservation is more likely to resonate with these communities than narratives tied to the preservation of pristine nature and emerging conservation ideas of the rewilding of nature. Mapped community preferences can be a valuable tool for policy makers and stakeholders representing community interests in participatory processes, and for assessing the local acceptance of alternative management actions within protected areas.

Ocean-based economic development arising from an increasing interest in the ‘blue economy’ is placing ecosystems and small-scale fisheries under pressure. The dominant policy response for dealing with multiple uses is the allocation of coastal space through coastal zone planning (CZP). Recent studies have shown that the rush to develop the blue economy and regulate coastal activity can result in social injustices and the exclusion of less powerful and unrecognized groups (e.g., small-scale fishers, women, Indigenous peoples and youth). To achieve a primary goal of the 2030 sustainable development agenda to “leave no one behind”, it is important to understand the implications of coastal planning and development for these groups. Here, we present a social survey protocol for examining perceptions of justice related to small-scale fisheries (SSF) in the context of the blue economy in coastal areas. Specifically, we designed the survey instrument and sampling protocol to assess whether decisions about the use of the coastal zone over the last five years have i) followed principles of good governance, ii) recognized fishers’ knowledge, culture and rights and iii) been attentive to impacts of changed coastal zone use on fisheries. The survey will engage coastal planners (N = app. 120) and fishers (N = app. 4300) in all the coastal municipalities (N = 81) in Northern-Norway. The sampling protocol is designed to ensure representation of different sectors of society, including those defined by gender, age, ethnicity and occupation (e.g., small-scale fishers, large-scale fishers, coastal planners).

No abstract

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.

Community-based conservation, where local decision makers are responsible for balancing conservation and development, is often preferred to exclusionary conservation that prioritizes use-limitation through strict regulation. Unraveling the evidence for conservation impact of different governance regimes is challenging. Focusing on conservation practices before and after a reform can provide an early indication of behavioral changes acting as a precursor to changes in social and ecological outcomes, which generally need more time to materialize. A recent reform in Norway provides a unique opportunity to evaluate the impact of local empowerment on conservation practices in protected areas. We analyzed 1,466 decisions in 31 protected areas before and after the reform while accounting for differences between private and public property ownership. We found that the conservation practices were liberal both before and after the reform. The impact of local empowerment on conservation practices was contingent on land tenure: more use was allowed after the reform on private land. We conclude that conservation impact evaluations could benefit from a before-and-after spatial approach taking into account land tenure for analyzing the impacts of local decision making.

No abstract

No abstract