A Tale of Two Protected Areas: “Value and Nature Conservation” in Comparable National Parks in Estonia and Russia
- How do conservation practices in Estonia and Russia impact the wellbeing of citizens and how do they interact with value systems?
- What are the values behind wellbeing and the motivation to participate in nature conservation in Estonia and Russia?
- How do conservation policies need to be informed of citizens’ wellbeing and values in order to work better?
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Case Studies
2.2. Data and Analytical Strategy
- Relative importance of problems (social, economic, and environmental);
- Relative importance of conservation targets;
- Sufficiency or excessiveness of PAs in the region (in terms of number and area occupied);
- Overall satisfaction about living in the PA;
- Overall attitude of family and/or friends towards the fact that one lives in the PA;
- Overall satisfaction towards the intensity of conservation measures in the area;
- Awareness about actual conservation measures in place and their implications for everyday life;
- Perceived overall impact of specific restrictions on everyday life;
- Alignment of management plans and conservation rules with the interests of permanent residents;
- Sufficiency or excessiveness and rationality of conservation measures on the PA;
- Discretion and opportunities affected by the PA;
- Preferred type of a management authority for the PA (e.g., the state, municipality, NGO, private business, etc.);
- Impact of the PA status on real estate prices;
- Acceptable compensation options for PA-related disadvantages and restrictions;
- Attitude towards plausible socio-economic scenarios for the PA;
- Overall willingness to pay price for nature conservation in the area;
- Unsatisfying features of land management and land-use;
- Valued landscape, land-use, and management features;
- Willingness to participate in landscape management and protection, and necessary incentives;
- Perceived effectiveness of the existing system of subsidies and compensations, and desired changes to this system;
- Actual personal contribution (including behavior) to nature conservation (both relevant for the PA and broader);
- Overall duration of residence in the area;
- Duration of annual stays in the area;
- Educational level;
- Employment information.
3.1. Does the PA Provide Problems or Solutions?
3.2. Is PA Governance Fair?
3.3. Do We Live a Life of Value?
4. Discussion: Wellbeing and Values through the Lenses of Governance Functions
4.1. Exclusion of Unauthorized Users
4.2. Regulation of Authorized Resource Uses and Distribution of Their Benefits
4.3. Provisioning and the Recovery of Its Costs
4.6. Conflict Resolution
4.7. Collective Choice
5. Conclusions: Incentives and Opportunities for Nature Conservation from the Lenses of Value Systems
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
- Coad, L.; Campbell, A.; Miles, L.; Humphries, K. The Costs and Benefits of Forest Protected Areas for Local Livelihoods: A Review of the Current Literature; UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre: Cambridge, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Shkaruba, A.; Kireyeu, V. Recognising Ecological and Institutional Landscapes in Adaptive Governance of Natural Resources. For. Policy Econ. 2013, 36, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, N.; Graziano, M.; Dimitrakopoulos, P.G. Social Impacts of European Protected Areas and Policy Recommendations. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 112, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agrawal, A.; Redford, K. Conservation and Displacement: An Overview. Conserv. Soc. 2009, 7, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- West, P.; Igoe, J.; Brockington, D. Parks and Peoples: The Social Impact of Protected Areas. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006, 35, 251–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- McShane, T.O.; Hirsch, P.D.; Trung, T.C.; Songorwa, A.N.; Kinzig, A.; Monteferri, B.; Mutekanga, D.; Van Thang, H.; Dammert, J.L.; Pulgar-Vidal, M.; et al. Hard Choices: Making Trade-Offs between Biodiversity Conservation and Human Well-Being. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 966–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cortes-Vazquez, J.A. The End of the Idyll? Post-Crisis Conservation and Amenity Migration in Natural Protected Areas. J. Rural Stud. 2017, 51, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dang, X.; Gao, S.; Tao, R.; Liu, G.; Xia, Z.; Fan, L.; Bi, W. Do Environmental Conservation Programs Contribute to Sustainable Livelihoods? Evidence from China’s Grain-for-Green Program in Northern Shaanxi Province. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 719, 137436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Sherbinin, A. Is Poverty More Acute near Parks? An Assessment of Infant Mortality Rates around Protected Areas in Developing Countries. Oryx 2008, 42, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Upton, C.; Ladle, R.; Hulme, D.; Jiang, T.; Brockington, D.; Adams, W.M. Are Poverty and Protected Area Establishment Linked at a National Scale? Oryx 2008, 42, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Meadows, D. Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development; The Sustainability Institute: Hartland, VT, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Adams, W.M.; Hutton, J. People, Parks and Poverty Political Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation Author (s): William, M. Adams and Jon Hutton Published by: Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment and Wolters Stable. Conserv. Soc. 2007, 5, 147–183. [Google Scholar]
- Abrams, J.; Gosnell, H.; Gill, N.; Klepeis, P. Re-Creating the Rural, Reconstructing Nature: An International Literature Review of the Environmental Implications of Amenity Migration. Conserv. Soc. 2012, 10, 270–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lund, J.F.; Balooni, K.; Casse, T. Change We Can Believe in? Reviewing Studies on the Conservation Impact of Popular Participation in Forest Management. Conserv. Soc. 2009, 7, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galvin, M.; Haller, T. People, Protected Areas and Global Change: Participatory Conservation in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Europe; NCCR: Bern, Switzerland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Rokeach, M. The Nature of Human Values; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1973. [Google Scholar]
- Ahn, S.; Amankwah, E.; Asah, S.; Balvanera, P.; Breslow, S.; Bullock, C.; Caceres, D.; Chobotová, V.; Daly-Hasen, H.; Başak Dessane, E.; et al. Preliminary Guide Regarding Diverse Conceptualization of Multiple Values of Nature and Its Benefits, Including Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functions and Services (Deliverable 3 (D)); IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- van den Born, R.J.G.; Arts, B.; Admiraal, J.; Beringer, A.; Knights, P.; Molinario, E.; Horvat, K.P.; Porras-Gomez, C.; Smrekar, A.; Soethe, N.; et al. The Missing Pillar: Eudemonic Values in the Justification of Nature Conservation. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2018, 61, 841–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnston, J.R.; Needham, M.D.; Cramer, L.A.; Swearingen, T.C. Public Values and Attitudes toward Marine Reserves and Marine Wilderness. Coast. Manag. 2020, 48, 142–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schröter, M.; Başak, E.; Christie, M.; Church, A.; Keune, H.; Osipova, E.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Sievers-Glotzbach, S.; van Oudenhoven, A.P.E.; Balvanera, P.; et al. Indicators for Relational Values of Nature’s Contributions to Good Quality of Life: The IPBES Approach for Europe and Central Asia. Ecosyst. People 2020, 16, 50–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- von Ruschkowski, E.; Mayer, M. From Conflict to Partnership? Interactions between Protected Areas, Local Communities and Operators of Tourism Enterprises in Two German National Park Regions. J. Tour. Leis. Stud. 2011, 17, 147–181. [Google Scholar]
- Järv, H.; Kliimask, J.; Ward, R.; Sepp, K. Socioeconomic Impacts of Protection Status on Residents of National Parks. Eur. Countrys. 2016, 8, 67–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Lee, J.; Matarrita-Cascante, D.; Xu, Y.; Schuett, M. Examining the Conflicting Relationship between U.S. National Parks and Host Communities: Understanding a Community’s Diverging Perspectives. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Government of the Russian Federation. Decree “On the Establishment of the National Park ‘Sebezhsky’ of the Federal Forestry Service of Russia in the Pskov Region.” Collect. Legis. Russ. Fed. 1996, 3, 211.
- Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation. Order on Approval of the Statute of the National Park “Sebezhsky” on 12.10.2016 No. 528; Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation: Moscow, Russia, 2016.
- Environmental Board of Estonia. Karula National Park, Karula Nature Area and Karula Bird Area Conservation Management Plan 2020–2029; Environmental Board of Estonia: Tallinn, Estonia, 2020.
- Oblkomstat. Age and Sex. Composition of the Population of the Pskov Region; Oblkomstat: Pskov, Russia, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Pskov Regional Center of Folk Art. National Park “Sebezhsky”, 1st ed.; Musatov, V.Y., Fetisov, S.A., Eds.; POTSNG: Pskov, Russia, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Pskovstat. Age-Sex. Composition and Marriage Status of the Population of the Pskov Region; Oblkomstat: Pskov, Russia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Tomson, P.; Preismann, K.; Freiberg, R.; Kalve, K.; Kama, K.; Kronberg, E.; Lotman, A.; Meriste, M.; Peegel, H.; Tsimmer, M.; et al. Karula National Park Conservation Management Plan. 2008–2018; Environmental Board of Estonia: Tallinn, Estonia, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Ernits, R.; Ideon, A.; Leetmaa, K.; Metspalu, P.; Mägi, K.; Padrik, J.; Pae, T.; Plüschke-Altof, B.; Raagmaa, G.; Sepp, V. Survey of Small Settlements of Estonia 2019; Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Estonia: Tallinn, Estonia, 2019.
- Government of the Republic of Estonia. Protection Rules of Karula National Park; Riigi Teataja RT I: Tallinn, Estonia, 2006; Volume 31, p. 243.
- Diener, E. Subjective Well-Being. Psychol. Bull. 1984, 95, 542–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yliskylä-Peuralahti, J. Biodiversity—A New Spatial Challenge for Finnish Agri-Environmental Policies? J. Rural Stud. 2003, 19, 215–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palang, H.; Alumäe, H.; Printsmann, A.; Rehema, M.; Sepp, K.; Sooväli-Sepping, H. Social Landscape: Ten Years of Planning ‘Valuable Landscapes’ in Estonia. Land Use policy 2011, 28, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reimann, M.; Lamp, M.-L.; Palang, H. Tourism Impacts and Local Communities in Estonian National Parks. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2011, 11, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nastran, M. Why Does Nobody Ask Us? Impacts on Local Perception of a Protected Area in Designation, Slovenia. Land Use Policy 2015, 46, 38–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steinhäußer, R.; Siebert, R.; Steinführer, A.; Hellmich, M. National and Regional Land-Use Conflicts in Germany from the Perspective of Stakeholders. Land Use Policy 2015, 49, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pskov Sebezh Asks the State Duma to Relieve Him of the “Reserved” Status. Available online: https://regnum.ru/news/polit/2867366.html (accessed on 16 December 2020).
- National Park “Sebezhskiy”. Available online: https://seb-park.ru/ (accessed on 16 December 2020).
- Kivisild, H. Karula National Park Newsletter No. 67; Environmental Board of Estonia: Tallinn, Estonia, 2017; pp. 1–10.
- Kivisild, H.; Saarnits, P.; Jõesalu, K. Karula National Park Newsletter No. 66; Environmental Board of Estonia: Tallinn, Estonia, 2017; pp. 1–10.
- Freiberg, L.; Kivisild, H.; Tsimmer, M. Karula National Park Newsletter No. 69; Environmental Board of Estonia: Tallinn, Estonia, 2018; pp. 1–12.
- Freiberg, L.; Kivisild, H.; Tsimmer, M. Karula National Park Newsletter No. 70; Environmental Board of Estonia: Tallinn, Estonia, 2019; pp. 1–12.
- Freiberg, L.; Kivisild, H.; Tsimmer, M. Karula National Park Newsletter No. 71; Environmental Board of Estonia: Tallinn, Estonia, 2019; pp. 1–12.
- NGO Karula Hoiu Ühing. Available online: http://www.karula.com/ (accessed on 16 December 2020).
- Protected Paths. Sebezhsky Park. Available online: https://www.gtrkpskov.ru/television/rossiya-1/avtorskie-peredachi/4519-zapovednymi-tropami-sebezhskij-park.html (accessed on 16 December 2020).
- To the Sebezhsky Nature Reserve—With a QR code: An Interview with the Director of the Sebezhsky National Park Nadezhda Podoplekina. Available online: https://informpskov.ru/news/331702.html (accessed on 16 December 2020).
- Edwards, G.A.S.; Reid, L.; Hunter, C. Environmental Justice, Capabilities, and the Theorization of Well-Being. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2016, 40, 754–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Sen, A. Capabilities, Lists, and Public Reason: Continuing the Conversation. Fem. Econ. 2004, 10, 77–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paavola, J. Institutions and Environmental Governance: A Reconceptualization. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ostrom, E. A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science (80) 2009, 325, 419–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sirel, K. Land Ownership of Protected Areas and Acquisition of Nature Reserves to the State. In Estonian Nature Conservation in 2020; Roasto, R., Tampere, U., Eds.; Estonian Environment Agency: Tallinn, Estonia, 2020; pp. 86–89. [Google Scholar]
- Estonian Environment Agency. Estonian Nature Conservation in 2020; Roasto, R., Tampere, U., Eds.; Estonian Environment Agency: Tallinn, Estonia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Kauškale, L.; Geipele, I. Economic and Social Sustainability of Real Estate Market and Problems of Economic Development—A Historical Overview. Balt. J. Real Estate Econ. Constr. Manag. 2016, 4, 6–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Government of the Republic of Estonia. Forest Act and Nature Conservation Act Amendment Act; Riigi Teataja: Tallinn, Estonia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Kartau, K. The Public Opinion Poll about Environmental Issues in Estonia. Master Thesis, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia, University of Kalmar, Kalmar, Sweden, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Niidumaa, M. Analysis Nature Conservation Issues and Problems in Protected Areas from Local Perspective. Master Thesis, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Kliimask, J.; Parts, P.K.; Järv, H.; Sepp, K.; Ward, R. Endangered Settlements and Protected Areas in Estonia: The Challenge of Maintaining Cultural Landscapes. Int. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol. 2015, 11, 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Bobylev, N.; Gadal, S.; Kireyeu, V.; Sergunin, A. EU-Russia Cross-border Co-operation in the Twenty-first Century: Turning Marginality into Competitive Advantage. Reg. Sci. Policy Pract. 2020, 12, 847–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shkaruba, A.; Likhacheva, O.; Kireyeu, V.; Vasileva, T. European Environmental Assistance to the Region of Pskov in Northwest Russia: Sustainability, Effectiveness and Implications for Environmental Governance. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2018, 20, 236–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shkaruba, A.; Skryhan, H.; Likhacheva, O.; Kireyeu, V.; Katona, A.; Shyrokostup, S.; Sepp, K. Environmental Drivers and Sustainable Transition of Dachas in Eastern Europe: An Analytical Overview. Land use policy 2021, 100, 104887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallo, M.; Pezdevšek Malovrh, Š.; Laktić, T.; De Meo, I.; Paletto, A. Collaboration and Conflicts between Stakeholders in Drafting the Natura 2000 Management Programme (2015–2020) in Slovenia. J. Nat. Conserv. 2018, 42, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hogg, K.; Gray, T.; Noguera-Méndez, P.; Semitiel-García, M.; Young, S. Interpretations of MPA Winners and Losers: A Case Study of the Cabo De Palos- Islas Hormigas Fisheries Reserve. Marit. Stud. 2019, 18, 159–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Ward, C.; Stringer, L.C.; Holmes, G. Protected Area Co-Management and Perceived Livelihood Impacts. J. Environ. Manage. 2018, 228, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jentoft, S.; Pascual-Fernandez, J.J.; De la Cruz Modino, R.; Gonzalez-Ramallal, M.; Chuenpagdee, R. What Stakeholders Think About Marine Protected Areas: Case Studies from Spain. Hum. Ecol. 2012, 40, 185–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rees, S.E.; Rodwell, L.D.; Searle, S.; Bell, A. Identifying the Issues and Options for Managing the Social Impacts of Marine Protected Areas on a Small Fishing Community. Fish. Res. 2013, 146, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaytseva, M.V. Ecological-Tourist Potential of National Parks of North-West Russia and Factors Affecting the Efficiency of Their Management. Vestn. Natl. Tour. Acad. 2008, 3, 32–35. [Google Scholar]
- Markidonova, T. Ecotourism Development in National Parks as Mean to Support Local Population: Case of the National Park “Onezhskoe Pomorie”, Russia. Master Thesis, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Zaporozhan, A.; Desyatnichenko, D.; Khodachek, V. National Parks of Russia as Object of Ecological Tourism and Factor of Economic Growth. Adm. Consult. 2017, 10, 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danielsen, F.; Burgess, N.D.; Balmford, A.; Donald, P.F.; Funder, M.; Jones, J.P.G.; Alviola, P.; Balete, D.S.; Blomley, T.; Brashares, J.; et al. Local Participation in Natural Resource Monitoring: A Characterization of Approaches. Conserv. Biol. 2009, 23, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hockley, N.J.; Jones, J.P.G.; Andriahajaina, F.B.; Manica, A.; Ranambitsoa, E.H.; Randriamboahary, J.A. When Should Communities and Conservationists Monitor Exploited Resources? Biodivers. Conserv. 2005, 14, 2795–2806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Scholtz, M.; Saayman, M. Diving into the Consequences of Stakeholders Unheard. Eur. J. Tour. Res. 2018, 20, 105–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez-Rodríguez, D.; López, I. Effects of Legal Designation and Management of a Multiple-Use Protected Area on Local Sustainability. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Dawson, L.; Elbakidze, M.; Schellens, M.; Shkaruba, A.; Angelstam, P.K. Bogs, birds, and berries in Belarus: The governance and management dynamics of wetland restoration in a state-centric, top-down context. Ecol. Soc. 2021, 26, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|Karula National Park||Sebezhsky National Park|
|Location||South-East Estonia||North-West Russia|
|Coordinates||57°42′52″ N, 26°29′12″ E||56°16′00″ N, 28°30′00″ E|
|Area||123 km2||500 km2|
|Year of designation||1993||1996|
|Landscape||Similar in both parks—forest and lake rich undulating landscape formed by glaciers.|
|History||Both under rule of Soviet Union until 1991|
|Land ownership||~75% State owned,|
~25% privately owned.
|Management regime||Managed by State, existing dialogue, involvement in decision making.||Managed by State, fully centralized, lack of dialogue, no involvement in decision making.|
|Population||~200 inhabitants||~2000 inh. in rural settlements|
+ town of Sebezh ~5300 inh.
|Population dynamics||Population increasing and rejuvenating, in-migration.||Population decline, high proportion of elderly, low birth rate, depopulation of rural areas.|
|Settlements||~100 farmsteads, no larger settlements||~50 rural settlements|
+ town of Sebezh
|Economy||High number of agricultural enterprises, self-employed, unemployment rate low.||Economy concentrated in the town of Sebezh, very few enterprises and high unemployment in rural areas.|
|Education||Large proportion of highly educated people|
|Main occupation||Self-employed in agriculture and forestry, but also commuting and telework.||Employees in town of Sebezh and in law enforcement agencies, high number of retired people.|
|Current ecological status and pressure on values||In general good,|
major pressure on forest management
|In general good, |
minor pressure from real estate development.
|Cultural landscape||Usage near maximum.||Almost fully abandoned.|
|Services||Remote||Remote, except the town of Sebezh|
|Support measures on local economy||EU and State subsidies on agriculture and maintenance of semi-natural habitats||None|
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Järv, H.; Shkaruba, A.; Likhacheva, O.; Kireyeu, V.; Ward, R.; Sepp, K. A Tale of Two Protected Areas: “Value and Nature Conservation” in Comparable National Parks in Estonia and Russia. Land 2021, 10, 274. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10030274
Järv H, Shkaruba A, Likhacheva O, Kireyeu V, Ward R, Sepp K. A Tale of Two Protected Areas: “Value and Nature Conservation” in Comparable National Parks in Estonia and Russia. Land. 2021; 10(3):274. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10030274Chicago/Turabian Style
Järv, Henri, Anton Shkaruba, Olga Likhacheva, Viktar Kireyeu, Raymond Ward, and Kalev Sepp. 2021. "A Tale of Two Protected Areas: “Value and Nature Conservation” in Comparable National Parks in Estonia and Russia" Land 10, no. 3: 274. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10030274