Attitudes toward Conservation of the Transboundary Białowieża Forest among Ecotourism Businesses in Poland and Belarus
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology
2.1. Overview of Research Approach
2.2. Case Study: The Cross-Border Białowieża Forest Massif in Poland and Belarus
2.2.1. The Ecological System: A Unique Forest Remnant and Zoning of Functions
2.2.2. The Social System: Disputes over the Białowieża Forest Massif
2.3. Survey Questionnaire and Interviews
3. Results
4. Discussion
4.1. Opposite Attitudes Underpinned by Generic Dependencies
4.2. Why, Unlike in Belarus, Increased Area Protection Is Not Popular in Poland
4.3. Zoning and Governance at Landscape and Regional Scales
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Appendix A.1. Econometric Framework
References
- Jonsson, B.G.; Svensson, J.; Mikusiński, G.; Manton, M.; Angelstam, P. European Union’s last intact forest landscape is at a value chain crossroad between multiple use and intensified wood production. Forests 2019, 10, 564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sabatini, F.M.; Burrascano, S.; Keeton, W.S.; Levers, C.; Lindner, M.; Pötzschner, F.; Verkerk, P.J.; Bauhus, J.; Buchwald, E.; Chaskovsky, O.; et al. Where are Europe’s last primary forests? Divers. Distrib. 2018, 24, 1426–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, Bringing nature back into our lives. In Communication for the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020; p. 25. [Google Scholar]
- ENV, N.R. Regulation of the European parliament and of the council on nature restoration. In Communication for the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions; ENV: Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Angelstam, P.; Khaulyak, O.; Yamelynets, T.; Mozgeris, G.; Naumov, V.; Prots, B.; Elbakidze, M.; Manton, M.; Valasiuk, S.; Chmielewski, T.J. Green infrastructure at the EU’s eastern border: Effects of road infrastructure development and forest habitat loss. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 193, 300–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blicharska, M.; Angelstam, P.; Jacobsen, J.B.; Giessen, L.; Hilszczanski, J.; Hermanowicz, E.; Holeksa, J.; Jaroszewicz, B.; Konczal, A.; Konieczny, A.; et al. Contested evidence and the multifaceted nature of biodiversity conservation and sustainable land use—The emblematic case of Białowieża Forest. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 248, 108614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, A.; Cent, J.; Grodzińska-Jurczak, M.; Szymańska, M. Factors influencing perception of protected areas—The case of Natura 2000 in Polish Carpathian communities. J. Nat. Conserv. 2012, 20, 284–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cotoi, C. The Making of a National Park: Ruins of Nature and History in Northern Dobrudja. East Eur. Politics Soc. Cult. 2017, 31, 596–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauer, N.; Vasile, M.; Mondini, M. Attitudes towards nature, wilderness and protected areas: A way to sustainable stewardship in the South-Western Carpathians. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2017, 61, 857–877. [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]
- Ekoportal.Gov.Pl. Available online: https://www.ekoportal.gov.pl/dane-o-srodowisku/polskie-parki-narodowe (accessed on 4 March 2023).
- Cortes-Vazquez, J.A. A natural life: Neo-rurals and the power of everyday practices in protected areas. J. Political Ecol. 2014, 21.1, 493–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sen, A.; Pattanaik, S. How can traditional livelihoods find a place in contemporary conservation politics debates in India? Understanding community perspectives in Sundarban, West Bengal. J. Political Ecol. 2017, 24, 861–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soliku, O.; Schraml, U. Making sense of protected area conflicts and management approaches: A review of causes, contexts and conflict management strategies. Biol. Conserv. 2018, 222, 136–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ehrhart, S.; Soliku, O.; Schraml, U. Conservation conflicts in the context of protected areas in Ghana and Germany: Commonalities, differences and lessons for conflict analysis and management. GeoJournal 2021, 87, 2787–2803. [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]
- Mombeshora, S.; Le Bel, S. Parks-people conflicts: The case of Gonarezhou National Park and the Chitsa community in south-east Zimbabwe. Biodivers. Conserv. 2009, 18, 2601–2623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cundill, G.; Bezerra, J.C.; De Vos, A.; Ntingana, N. Beyond benefit sharing: Place attachment and the importance of access to protected areas for surrounding communities. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 28, 140–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veisten, K.; Grue, B.; Lindberg, K.; Haukeland, J.V.; Baardsen, S.; Inge, O.; Vistad, K.D. Innbyggernes holdninger til bruk og vern av nasjonalparkene i Nord-Gudbrandsdalen. Deskriptiv statistikk fra en internettstudie rettet mot nordgudbrandsdøler og andre nordmenn, 2010/2011. TØI-arbeidsdokument 2011, 2230, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- White PC, L.; Lovett, J.C. Public preferences and willingness-to-pay for nature conservation in the North York Moors National Park, UK. J. Environ. Manag. 1999, 55, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cobbinah, P.B. Contextualising the meaning of ecotourism. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2015, 16, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snyman, S. Assessment of the main factors impacting community members’ attitudes towards tourism and protected areas in six southern African countries. Koedoe 2014, 56, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giergiczny, M.; Ekologicznej WO, E.; Długa, U. Rekreacyjna wartość Białowieskiego Parku Narodowego. Ekonomia i Środowisko 2009, 2, 117–127. [Google Scholar]
- Czajkowski, M.; Buszko-Briggs, M.; Hanley, N. Valuing changes in forest biodiversity. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 2910–2917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartczak, A. The role of social and environmental attitudes in non-market valuation: An application to the Białowieża Forest. For. Policy Econ. 2015, 50, 357–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valasiuk, S.; Czajkowski, M.; Giergiczny, M.; Żylicz, T.; Veisten, K.; Elbakidze, M.; Angelstam, P. Are bilateral conservation policies for the Białowieza forest unattainable? Analysis of stated preferences of Polish and Belarusian public. J. For. Econ. 2017, 27, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valasiuk, S.; Czajkowski, M.; Giergiczny, M.; Żylicz, T.; Veisten, K.; Mata, I.L.; Halse, A.H.; Angelstam, P. Attitudinal drivers of home bias in public preferences for transboundary nature protected areas. Ecol. Econ. 2023, 208, 107798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blicharska, M.; Angelstam, P. Conservation at risk: Conflict analysis in the Białowieża Forest, a European biodiversity hotspot. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2010, 6, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bożetka, B. The role of land-use visions for protection of forest landscapes: The Białowieża Forest (Poland). Bosque 2012, 33, 275–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niedziałkowski, K. Why do foresters oppose the enlargement of the Białowieża National Park? The motivation of the State Forests Holding employees as perceived by social actors engaged in the conflict over the Białowieża Forest. For. Res. Pap. 2016, 77, 358–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niedziałkowski, K.; Blicharska, M.; Mikusiński, G.; Jędrzejewska, B. Why is it difficult to enlarge a protected area? Ecosystem services perspective on the conflict around the extension of the Białowieża National Park in Poland. Land Use Policy 2014, 38, 314–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikusiński, G.; Niedziałkowski, K. Perceived importance of ecosystem services in the Białowieża Forest for local communities—Does proximity matter? Land Use Policy 2020, 97, 104667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stokstad, E. Last stands. Science 2017, 358, 1240–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuboń, M.; Latawiec, A.; Scarano, E.; Rubio, F.; Drosik, A.; Strassburg, B.; Grzebieniowski, W.B.; Bastos, J. Searching for solutions to the conflict over Europe’s oldest forest. Conserv. Biol. 2019, 33, 476–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mandić, A.; Petrić, L. The impacts of location and attributes of protected natural areas on hotel prices: Implications for sustainable tourism development. Env. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 833–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bohdanowicz, P. European Hoteliers’ Environmental Attitudes. Cornell Hotel. Restaur. Adm. Q. 2005, 46, 188–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Getz, D.; Carlsen, J. Characteristics and goals of family and owner-operated businesses in the rural tourism and hospitality sectors. Tour. Manag. 2000, 21, 547–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlsen, J.; Getz, D.; Ali-Knight, J. The environmental attitudes and practices of family businesses in the rural tourism and hospitality sectors. J. Sustain. Tour. 2001, 9, 281–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, J.; Kim, H.J. Environmental proactivity of hotel operations: Antecedents and the moderating effect of ownership type. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 37, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazurek-Kusiak, A.; Soroka, A. Efforts by Hotel Owners Aimed at Maintaining Ecological Balance in Lubelskie Voivodship. Barom. Reg. Anal. I Progn. 2016, 14, 157–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dodds, R.; Holmes, M.R. Sustainability in Canadian B&Bs: Comparing the east versus west. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2011, 13, 482–495. [Google Scholar]
- Erdogan, N.; Tosun, C. Environmental performance of tourism accommodations in the protected areas: Case of Goreme Historical National Park. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2009, 28, 406–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dewhurst, H.; Thomas, R. Encouraging Sustainable Business Practices in a Non-regulatory Environment: A Case Study of Small Tourism Firms in a UK National Park. J. Sustain. Tour. 2003, 11, 383–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Font, X.; Garay, L.; Jones, S. Sustainability motivations and practices in small tourism enterprises in European protected areas. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 137, 1439–1448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huntington, S.P. The Clash of Civilizations? Macmillan, Palgrave: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Angelstam, P.; Grodzynskyi, M.; Andersson, K.; Axelsson, R.; Elbakidze, M.; Khoroshev, A.; Kruhlov, I.; Naumov, V. Measurement, collaborative learning and research for sustainable use of ecosystem services: Landscape concepts and Europe as laboratory. Ambio 2013, 42, 129–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Latałowa, M.; Zimny, M.; Jedzrejewska, B.; Samojlik, T. Białowieża primeval forest: A 2000-year interplay of environmental force in Europe’s best preserved temperate woodland. In Europe’s Changing Woods and Forest; Kirby, K.J., Watkins, C., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2015; pp. 243–264. [Google Scholar]
- Kirby, K.; Watkins, C. (Eds.) Europe’s Changing Woods and Forests: From Wildwood to Managed Landscapes; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Diamond, J. Factors controlling species diversity: Overview and synthesis. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 1988, 75, 117–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stake, R. The Art of Case Study Research; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Stake, R. Case studies. In Strategies in Qualitative Inquiry; Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., Eds.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2003; pp. 134–164. [Google Scholar]
- Angelstam, P.; Fedoriak, M.; Cruz, F.; Muñoz-Rojas, J.; Yamelynets, T.; Manton, M.; Washbourne, C.-L.; Dobrynin, D.; Izakovičova, Z.; Jansson, N.; et al. Meeting places and social capital supporting rural landscape stewardship: A Pan-European horizon scanning. Ecol. Soc. 2021, 26, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samojlik, T. Antropogenne Przemiany Środowiska Puszczy Białowieskiej do Końca XVIII Wieku; Jagiellonian University: Kraków, Poland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Jaroszewicz, B.; Cholewińska, O.; Gutowski, J.; Samojlik, T.; Zimny, M.; Latałowa, M. Białowieża forest—A relic of the high naturalness of European forests. Forests 2019, 10, 849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bubnicki, J.W.; Churski, M.; Schmidt, K.; Diserens, T.A. and Kuijper, D.P. Linking spatial patterns of terrestrial herbivore community structure to trophic interactions. eLife 2019, 8, e44937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schuck, A.; Van Brusselen, J.; Päivinen, R.; Häme, T.; Kennedy, P.; Folving, S. Compilation of a calibrated European forest map derived from NOAA-AVHRR data. EFI Intern. Rep. 2002, 13, 44. [Google Scholar]
- Jedrzejewska, B.; Okarma, H.; Jedrzejewski, W.; Milkowski, L. Effects of exploitation and protection on forest structure, ungulate density and wolf predation in Bialowieza Primeval Forest, Poland. J. Appl. Ecol. 1994, 31, 664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelstam, P.; Breuss, M.; Mikusinski, G.; Stenström, M.; Stighäll, K.; Thorell, D. Effects of forest structure on the presence of woodpeckers with different specialisation in a landscape history gradient in NE Poland. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual IALE (UK) Conference, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, 10–13 September 2002; Chamberlain, D., Wilson, A., Eds.; International Association for Landscape Ecology: Stowmarket, UK, 2002; pp. 25–38. [Google Scholar]
- Angelstam, P.; Dönz-Breuss, M. Measuring forest biodiversity at the stand scale—An evaluation of indicators in European forest history gradients. Ecol. Bull. 2004, 51, 305–332. [Google Scholar]
- Whc.Unesco.Org. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/33ter.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2023).
- Novikau, A. The evolution of the natural protected areas system in Belarus: From communism to authoritarianism. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2021, 26, e01486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zientarski, J.; Szmyt, J. Should the whole Białowieża Forest be a national park? For. Res. Pap. 2017, 78, 93–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lethier, H.; Avramoski, O. IUCN Advisory Mission to the World Heritage WH property “Białowieża Forest”; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Debonnet, G.; Ossola, C. Report on the Joint World Heritage Centre—IUCN Reactive Monitoring Mission to Bialowieza Forest (Belarus and Poland) from 24 September to 2 October 2018. 2019. Available online: Whc.unesco.org (accessed on 1 April 2020).
- Wesołowski, T. Virtual conservation: How the European Union is turning a blind eye to its vanishing primeval forests. Conserv. Biol. 2005, 19, 1349–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blavascunas, E. When foresters reterritorialize the periphery: Post-socialist forest politics in Białowieża, Poland. J. Political Ecol. 2014, 21, 475–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gliński, P. Konflikt o puszczę. Raport z badań nad konfliktem społecznym o poszerzenie Białowieskiego Parku Narodowego. Pogranicze. Stud. Społeczne 2001, 10, 47–113. [Google Scholar]
- Niedziałkowski, K.; Paavola, J.; Jędrzejewska, B. Participation and protected areas governance: The impact of changing influence of local authorities on the conservation of the Białowieża Primeval Forest, Poland. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blicharska, M.; Van Herzele, A. What a forest? Whose forest? Struggles over concepts and meanings in the debate about the conservation of the Białowieża Forest in Poland. For. Policy Econ. 2015, 57, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franklin, S. Białowieża Forest, Poland: Representation, myth, and the politics of dispossession. Environ. Plan. A 2002, 34, 1459–1485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stereńczak, K.; Mielcarek, M.; Kamińska, A.; Kraszewski, B.; Piasecka, Ż.; Miścicki, S.; Heurich, M. Influence of selected habitat and stand factors on bark beetle Ips typographus (L.) outbreak in the Białowieża Forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 459, 117826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wesołowski, T.; Kujawa, A.; Bobiec, A.; Bohdan, A.; Buchholz, L.; Chylarecki, P.; Engel, J.; Falkowski, M.I.C.H.A.Ł.; Gutowski, J.M.; Jaroszewicz, B.; et al. Spór o przyszłość Puszczy Białowieskiej: Mity i fakty. Głos w dyskusji. Confl. Future Białowieża For. Myth. Facts 2016, 72, 83–99. [Google Scholar]
- Witkowski, Z. Spór o Puszczę Białowieską w świetle sporu o ochronę przyrody na świecie. Leśne Pr. Badaw. 2017, 78, 347–356. [Google Scholar]
- Hunter, M.L., Jr.; Redford, K.H.; Lindenmayer, D.B. The complementary niches of anthropocentric and biocentric conservationists. Conserv. Biol. 2014, 28, 641–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stat.gov.pl. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/inne-opracowania/wyznania-religijne/wyznania-religijne-w-polsce-20152018,5,2.html (accessed on 4 March 2023).
- Adamczyk, W. Rezerwat biosfery Puszczy Białowieskiej a jego mieszkańcy—Diagnoza współdziałania (studium socjologiczne); Warszawa-Białystok-Lublin, Instytut Badawczy Leśnictwa: Sękocin Stary, Poland, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Angelstam, P. Maintaining cultural and natural biodiversity in Europe’s economic centre and periphery. In The Conservation of Cultural Landscapes; Agnoletti, M., Ed.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2006; pp. 125–143. [Google Scholar]
- Yadav, L.P.; O’Neill, S.; Van Rensburg, T. Supporting the conservation of farm landscapes via the tourism sector. Econ. Soc. Rev. 2013, 44, 221–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yadav, L.P.; O’Neill, S. Is there agreement between beneficiaries on who should bear the costs of conserving farm landscapes? Tour. Manag. 2013, 39, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czeszczewik, D.; Ginter, A.; Mikusiński, G.; Pawłowska, A.; Kałuża, H.; Smithers, R.J.; Walankiewicz, W. Birdwatching, logging and the local economy in the Białowieża Forest, Poland. Biodivers. Conserv. 2019, 28, 2967–2975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guimarães, M.H.; Madureira, L.; Nunes, L.C.; Santos, J.L.; Sousa, C.; Boski, T.; Dentinho, T. Using Choice Modeling to estimate the effects of environmental improvements on local development: When the purpose modifies the tool. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 108, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guimarães, M.H.; Nunes, L.C.; Madureira, L.; Santos, J.L.; Boski, T.; Dentinho, T. Measuring birdwatchers preferences: A case for using online networks and mixed-mode surveys. Tour. Manag. 2015, 46, 102–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moyle, B.D.; Scherrer, P.; Weiler, B.; Wilson, E.; Caldicott, R.; Nielsen, N. Assessing preferences of potential visitors for nature-based experiences in protected areas. Tour. Manag. 2017, 62, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bimonte, S.; Ferrini, S.; Grilli, G. Transport infrastructures, environment impacts and tourists’ welfare: A choice experiment to elicit tourist preferences in Siena–Italy. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2016, 59, 891–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torquati, B.; Tempesta, T.; Vecchiato, D.; Venanzi, S.; Paffarini, C. The value of traditional rural landscape and nature protected areas in tourism demand: A study on agritourists’ preferences. Landsc. Online 2017, 53, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnberger, A.; Eder, R.; Allex, B.; Preisel, H.; Husslein, M. National park affinity segments of overnight tourists differ in satisfaction with, attitudes towards, and specialization in, national parks: Results from the Bavarian Forest National Park. J. Nat. Conserv. 2019, 47, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hedlund, T. The impact of values, environmental concern, and willingness to accept economic sacrifices to protect the environment on tourists’ intentions to buy ecologically sustainable tourism alternatives. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2014, 11, 278–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jamieson, W.; Goodwin, H.; Edmunds, C.; Contribution of tourism to poverty alleviation Pro-Poor tourism and the challenge of measuring impacts. Paper written for the Transport Policy and Tourism Section. Bangkok: UN-Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. 2004, pp. 1–38. Available online: http://haroldgoodwin.info/resources/povertyalleviation.pdf (accessed on 28 May 2023).
- Janeczko, E.; Bielinis, E.; Tiarasari, U.; Woźnicka, M.; Kędziora, W.; Przygodzki, S.; Janeczko, K. How Dead Wood in the Forest Decreases Relaxation? The Effects of Viewing of Dead Wood in the Forest Environment on Psychological Responses of Young Adults. Forests 2021, 12, 871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lasy.gov.pl. Available online: https://www.lasy.gov.pl/pl/informacje/publikacje/do-poczytania/copy_of_wilczym-szlakiem/25_pytan_o_puszcze.pdf. (accessed on 4 February 2023).
- Angelstam, P.; Asplund, B.; Bastian, O.; Engelmark, O.; Fedoriak, M.; Grunewald, K.; Ibisch, P.; Lindvall, P.; Manton, M.; Nilsson, M.; et al. Tradition as asset or burden for transitions from forests as cropping systems to multifunctional forest landscapes: Sweden as a case study. For. Ecol. Manag. 2022, 505, 119895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Savilaakso, S.; Johansson, A.; Häkkilä, M.; Uusitalo, A.; Sandgren, T.; Mönkkönen, M.; Puttonen, P. What are the effects of even-aged and uneven-aged forest management on boreal forest biodiversity in Fennoscandia and European Russia? A systematic review. Environ. Evid. 2021, 10, 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Triviño, M.; Pohjanmies, T.; Mazziotta, A.; Juutinen, A.; Podkopaev, D.; Le Tortorec, E.; Mönkkönen, M. Optimizing management to enhance multifunctionality in a boreal forest landscape. J. Appl. Ecol. 2017, 54, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hertog, I.M.; Brogaard, S.; Krause, T. Barriers to expanding continuous cover forestry in Sweden for delivering multiple ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2022, 53, 101392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawrence, A. Forestry in transition: Imperial legacy and negotiated expertise in Romania and Poland. For. Policy Econ. 2009, 11, 429–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larsen, J.B.; Angelstam, P.; Bauhus, J.; Carvalho, J.F.; Diaci, J.; Dobrowolska, D.; Gazda, A.; Gustafsson, L.; Krumm, F.; Knoke, T.; et al. Closer-to-Nature Forest Management. Sci. Policy 2022, 12, 1–54. [Google Scholar]
- Blicharska, M.; Angelstam, P.; Axelsson, R.; Elbakidze, M.; Skorupski, M.; Węgiel, A. The Polish Promotional Forest Complexes: Objectives, implementation and outcomes towards sustainable forest management? For. Policy Econ. 2012, 23, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pullin, A.S.; Bangpan, M.; Dalrymple, S.; Dickson, K.; Haddaway, N.R.; Healey, J.R.; Hauari, H.; Hockley, N.; Jones, J.P.G.; Knight, T.; et al. Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas. Environ. Evid. 2013, 2, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelstam, P.; Manton, M.; Yamelynets, T.; Fedoriak, M.; Albulescu, A.-C.; Bravo, F.; Cruz, F.; Jaroszewicz, B.; Kavtarishvili, M.; Muñoz-Rojas, J.; et al. Maintaining natural and traditional cultural green infrastructures across Europe: Learning from historic and current landscape transformations. Landsc. Ecol. 2021, 36, 637–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albulescu, A.-C.; Manton, M.; Larion, D.; Angelstam, P. The Winding Road towards Sustainable Forest Management in Romania, 1989–2022: A Case Study of Post-Communist Social–Ecological Transition. Land 2022, 11, 1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parlament and of the Council on Nature Restoration. 2022. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52022PC0304 (accessed on 9 May 2023).
Transboundary Białowieża Forest Massif | ||
---|---|---|
Białowieża Biosphere Reserves in Poland and Belarus World Heritage Site (WHS) + Buffer Zone | ||
Functional categories for zoning | Poland | Belarus |
National terminology | National terminology | |
Strict protection (limited access) | Białowieski NP strictly protected area | Strict control zone |
Conservation management (limited access) | Białowieski NP active conservation management zone and nature reserves | Controlled use zone (plus parts of strict control zone) |
Managed forest—without wood removal (free access, no forest management) | Managed State Forest Holding | Recreational zone |
Managed forest—with removal allowed (free access, silviculture aimed at re-naturalization) Active protection of biodiversity and landscape | Managed State Forest Holding | Business zone with economic activities (inside and outside WHS) |
Functional Categories for Zoning | Poland (Adapted from [54]) | Belarus [61] | Transboundary Białowieża Forest Massif [60] | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Land Users/Categories | Area, km2 | % of the Total | Land Users/Categories | Area, km2 | % of the Total | Area, km2 | % of the Total | |
Strict protection | Białowieski NP strictly protected | 60.6 | 9.7 | Strict control zone | 583.0 | 38.8 | 643.6 | 30.3 |
Conservation management | Białowieski NP active conservation management zone | 44.6 | 7.1 | Controlled use zone | 379.1 | 25.3 | 544 | 25.6 |
Nature reserves | 120.3 | 19.2 | ||||||
Managed forest (without or with logging) | Managed State Forest Holding | 399.5 | 63.9 | Recreation zone | 80.1 | 5.3 | 938.3 | 44.1 |
Business zone | 458.7 | 30.6 | ||||||
TOTAL | 625 | 100 | 1500 | 100 | 2125 | 100 |
Variables | Country | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Poland | Belarus | |||||||
Mean | SD | Min | Max | Mean | SD | Min | Max | |
Dependent variable: Attitude (3-point Likert scale) | −0.103 | 0.910 | −1 | 1 | 0.422 | 0.839 | −1 | 1 |
Independent variables: | ||||||||
Distance from the main villages | 18.56 | 19.30 | 1 | 64 | 19.71 | 13.69 | 1 | 40 |
Number of beds | 14.37 | 12.54 | 2 | 60 | 16.87 | 10.54 | 4 | 41 |
Main source of income | 0.28 | 0.45 | 0 | 1 | 0.51 | 0.51 | 0 | 1 |
Share of foreign visitors | 15.78 | 18.36 | 0 | 80 | 32.44 | 23.47 | 0 | 80 |
Associated with State Forest | 0.27 | 0.45 | 0 | 1 | − | − | − | − |
Being local | 0.69 | 0.46 | 0 | 1 | 0.47 | 0.50 | 0 | 1 |
Sample size | 107 | 45 |
Variables | Poland | Belarus | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficient | (Std. Error) | Coefficient | (Std. Error) | |
Distance from the main villages | 0.038 *** | (0.012) | −0.071 * | (0.042) |
Number of beds | −0.056 ** | (0.022) | 0.068 * | (0.058) |
Main source of income | 1.337 *** | (0.514) | 1.925 ** | (0.909) |
Share of foreign visitors | 0.058 *** | (0.016) | 0.055 ** | (0.024) |
Associated with State Forest | −1.807 *** | (0.590) | − | − |
Being local | −1.600 *** | (0.484) | 0.605 | (1.044) |
Model characteristics | ||||
Log−likelihood | −81.161 | −27.370 | ||
McFadden’s pseudo R2 | 0.259 | 0.240 | ||
Sample size | 107 | 45 |
Independent Variables | Attitude | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Poland | Belarus | |||||
Negative | Neutral | Positive | Negative | Neutral | Positive | |
Margin. Eff. (p-Value) | Margin. Eff. (p-Value) | Margin. Eff. (p-value) | Margin. Eff. (p-Value) | Margin. Eff. (p-Value) | Margin. Eff. (p-Value) | |
Distance from the main villages | −0.006 *** (0.002) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.006 *** (0.002) | −0.006 * (0.003) | 0.003 (0.002) | 0.009* (0.005) |
Number of beds | 0.009 *** (0.003) | −0.000 (0.000) | −0.008 *** (0.003) | −0.006 (0.005) | −0.002 (0.003) | 0.009 * (0.007) |
Main source of income | −0.207 *** (0.073) | 0.005 (0.012) | 0.202 *** (0.071) | −0.175 ** (0.075) | −0.078 (0.046) | 0.253 ** (0.102) |
Share of foreign visitors | −0.009 *** (0.002) | 0.000 (0.001) | 0.009 *** (0.002) | −0.005 *** (0.002) | −0.002 * (0.001) | 0.007 *** (0.002) |
Being associated with State Forests | 0.279 *** (0.078) | −0.007 (0.015) | −0.273 *** (0.084) | − | − | − |
Being local | 0.247 *** (0.063) | −0.006 (0.013) | −0.241 *** (0.064) | −0.055 (0.097) | −0.025 (0.041) | 0.080 (0.136) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Giergiczny, M.; Valasiuk, S.; Yakubouski, M.; Kowalewski, M.; Maskiewicz, J.; Angelstam, P. Attitudes toward Conservation of the Transboundary Białowieża Forest among Ecotourism Businesses in Poland and Belarus. Land 2023, 12, 1150. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12061150
Giergiczny M, Valasiuk S, Yakubouski M, Kowalewski M, Maskiewicz J, Angelstam P. Attitudes toward Conservation of the Transboundary Białowieża Forest among Ecotourism Businesses in Poland and Belarus. Land. 2023; 12(6):1150. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12061150
Chicago/Turabian StyleGiergiczny, Marek, Sviataslau Valasiuk, Mikita Yakubouski, Mikołaj Kowalewski, Jędrzej Maskiewicz, and Per Angelstam. 2023. "Attitudes toward Conservation of the Transboundary Białowieża Forest among Ecotourism Businesses in Poland and Belarus" Land 12, no. 6: 1150. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12061150
APA StyleGiergiczny, M., Valasiuk, S., Yakubouski, M., Kowalewski, M., Maskiewicz, J., & Angelstam, P. (2023). Attitudes toward Conservation of the Transboundary Białowieża Forest among Ecotourism Businesses in Poland and Belarus. Land, 12(6), 1150. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12061150