Social impacts of European Protected Areas and policy recommendations

Abstract

Highlights Seven categories of social impacts were identified in the literature review. Most important negative impacts are on human rights and social equity. Most important positive impacts are on wellbeing and livelihoods. There is need to increase subjective assessment of impacts in protected areas. Coordination of policies across sectors is needed to meet future biodiversity targets.

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Management of European Protected Areas and Policy Implications

“…The increase in visitor numbers to European PAs during the pandemic comes as awareness of PAs has been increasing over time [44] and people are increasingly visiting areas of natural beauty in order to improve their wellbeing [16,17,45]. PAs benefit physical and mental health [45][46][47] by providing people with the opportunity to come closer to nature [48][49][50][51]. In addition, a significant increase in users of outdoor spaces [52] has also been documented during the pandemic that appears to be motivated by people trying to find relatively remote places where they felt safe from the virus.…”

“…This brings us to our first policy recommendation for the long-term management of European PAs. Future solutions will require careful spatial planning which also takes into consideration issues of social equity in accessing PAs [45]. Incidents of overcrowding can be controlled by the careful distribution of visitors within a PA (both temporal and spatial).…”

A Tale of Two Protected Areas: “Value and Nature Conservation” in Comparable National Parks in Estonia and Russia

“…The establishment of protected areas (PAs), even those with less restrictive legislation, such as national parks (NPs), inevitably puts significant limitations on many routines of the people living within or bordered by PAs [1][2][3]. As a result, some of the native populace may migrate away from PAs following their establishment [4], others will choose to stay (although often due to limited access to mobility options), while some people are attracted to living in NPs as a result of the pristine nature or emerging business opportunities [5][6][7][8].…”

“…At the same time, the relationship between PAs and poverty does not appear to be consistent, and reported as not significant at national and sub-national levels [9,10]. Building on the concept of wellbeing as suggested by Meadows 1998 [11], which encompasses an individuals' capacity to achieve happiness, harmony, identity, fulfilment, self-respect, self-realization, community, transcendence, and enlightenment [11], as well as the wide literature base on the social impacts of PAs [1,3,5,[12][13][14][15], the wellbeing of NP residents can be understood as a complex balance of the impacts caused by various restrictive conservation policies, benefits created by the presence of outstanding nature and cultural heritage, and the readiness and capacity of local communities to cope with restrictions as well as grasp opportunities.…”

“…The success of a NP as a conservation project is related to the ability and motivation of residents to see themselves as a part of the project contributing to their self-realization, be it business, spiritual development, or any life/career target-at least if the wellbeing of local communities is considered as a part of the success [3]. This should also be in agreement with governance solutions conveying the policy of the state, e.g., seeking to reach conservation targets.…”