Management of Natura 2000 sites in Italy: An exploratory study on stakeholders’ opinions
I. De Meo, F. Brescancin, A. Graziani, A. Palettohttps://doi.org/10.17221/52/2016-JFSCitation:De Meo I., Brescancin F., Graziani A., Paletto A. (2016): Management of Natura 2000 sites in Italy: An exploratory study on stakeholders’ opinions. J. For. Sci., 62: 511-520.
The Natura 2000 network includes the sites of community importance identified by Directive 92/43/EEC and the special protection areas defined by Directive 79/409/EEC. This network can be considered the cornerstone of the European Union (EU) nature conservation policy in order to ensure the long-term protection of endangered species in their natural habitats. The European Union has adopted an integration approach to the Natura 2000 network. The integration approach is based on combining human activities and nature conservation purposes in Natura 2000 sites and in neighbouring areas. Furthermore, the stakeholders’ involvement in the site management is considered a fundamental point for the success of the network. The application of integration approach in Italy was different from one region to another, often presenting a framework where institutional actors collaborate with environmental non-governmental organizations and other groups. These stakeholders influence the Natura 2000 implementation with different strategies, increasing the complexity and unpredictability of the policy outcomes. The objective of this study is to analyse stakeholders’ opinions concerning the coexistence of different human activities in the Italian Natura 2000 sites. In order to achieve this objective a semi-structured questionnaire was administered by email to 146 stakeholders. 56 stakeholders filled in the questionnaire and the collected data were statistically processed. The stakeholders assessed the importance of five human activities (nature conservation, environmental education, recreational activities, agricultural activities and forestry activities) in Natura 2000 sites through a pairwise comparison and identified the main opportunities and obstacles of the network. The results show that the most relevant activities are nature conservation and environmental education according to stakeholders’ opinions. In addition, the respondents highlighted that the main opportunities are the possibility of access to EU funding and the enhancement of local green economy, while the main obstacle is the restriction of agricultural and forestry practices not adequately compensated.Keywords:
protected areas; nature conservation; human activities; conflicts; multi-stakeholders; questionnaire surveyReferences:
ALONSO JOSÉ ANTONIO, LAMATA M. TERESA (2006): CONSISTENCY IN THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS: A NEW APPROACH. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 14, 445-459 https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218488506004114Alphandery Pierre, Fortier Agnes (2001): Can a Territorial Policy be Based on Science Alone? The System for Creating the Natura 2000 Network in France. Sociologia Ruralis, 41, 311-328 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00185Apostolopoulou Evangelia, Drakou Evangelia G., Pediaditi Kalliope (2012): Participation in the management of Greek Natura 2000 sites: Evidence from a cross-level analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 113, 308-318 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.09.006Beunen Raoul, de Vries Jasper R. (2011): The governance of Natura 2000 sites: the importance of initial choices in the organisation of planning processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54, 1041-1059 https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2010.549034Biernacki P., Waldorf D. (1981): Snowball sampling. Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research, 10: 141–163.Corona P., Barbati A., Ferrari B., Portoghesi L. (2011): Pianificazione ecologica dei sistemi forestali. Arezzo, Compagnia delle Foreste Srl: 205.Deutz Pauline, McGuire Michael, Neighbour Gareth (2013): Eco-design practice in the context of a structured design process: an interdisciplinary empirical study of UK manufacturers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 39, 117-128 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.035Doremus H. (2003): A policy portfolio approach to biodiversity protection on private lands. Environmental Science & Policy, 6: 217–232.Eben M. (2006): Public participation during site selection for Natura 2000 in Germany: The Bavarian case. In: Stoll-Kleemann S., Welp M. (eds): Stakeholder Dialogues in Natural Resources Management – Theory and Practice. Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag: 261–278.European Commission (2002): El Teide Declaration. Brussels, European Commission.Ferranti F., Beunen R., Speranza M. (2010): Natura 2000 network: A comparison of the Italian and Dutch implementation experiences. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 12: 293–314.Henle K., Alard D., Clitherow J., Cobb P., Firbank L., Kull T., McCracken D., Moritz R.F.A., Niemelä J., Rebane M., Wascher D., Watt A., Young J. (2008): Identifying and managing the conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe – a review. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 124: 60–71.Hiedanpää Juha (2002): European-wide conservation versus local well-being: the reception of the Natura 2000 Reserve Network in Karvia, SW-Finland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 61, 113-123 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00106-8Hinkin T. R. (1998): A Brief Tutorial on the Development of Measures for Use in Survey Questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104-121 https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106Humphreys D. (2006): Logjam: Deforestation and the crisis of global governance. London, Earthscan: 299.Johnson R. B., Onwuegbuzie A. J. (2004): Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14-26 https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014Jones Nikoleta, Filos Elias, Fates Eleftherios, Dimitrakopoulos Panayiotis G. (2015): Exploring perceptions on participatory management of NATURA 2000 forest sites in Greece. Forest Policy and Economics, 56, 1-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.03.010Kaplowitz M. D., Hadlock T. D., Levine R. (): A Comparison of Web and Mail Survey Response Rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 94-101 https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfh006Kwak N., Radler B. (2002): A comparison between mail and web surveys: Response pattern, respondent profile, and data quality. Journal of Official Statistics, 18: 257–273.Maiorano Luigi, Falcucci Alessandra, Boitani Luigi (2006): Gap analysis of terrestrial vertebrates in Italy: Priorities for conservation planning in a human dominated landscape. Biological Conservation, 133, 455-473 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.07.015MAIORANO LUIGI, FALCUCCI ALESSANDRA, GARTON EDWARD O., BOITANI LUIGI (2007): Contribution of the Natura 2000 Network to Biodiversity Conservation in Italy. Conservation Biology, 21, 1433-1444 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00831.xMilligan Jessica, O’Riordan Tim, Nicholson-Cole Sophie A., Watkinson Andrew R. (2009): Nature conservation for future sustainable shorelines: Lessons from seeking to involve the public. Land Use Policy, 26, 203-213 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.01.004Nielsen Anders Busse, Olsen Søren Bøye, Lundhede Thomas (2007): An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landscape and Urban Planning, 80, 63-71 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.06.003Noble Elizabeth E., Sanchez Pedro P. (1993): A note on the information content of a consistent pairwise comparison judgment matrix of an AHP decision maker. Theory and Decision, 34, 99-108 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01074896Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska Agata, Cent Joanna, Grodzińska-Jurczak Małgorzata, Szymańska Magdalena (2012): Factors influencing perception of protected areas—The case of Natura 2000 in Polish Carpathian communities. Journal for Nature Conservation, 20, 284-292 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2012.05.005Rauschmayer F., van de Hove S., Koetz T. (2009): Participation in EU biodiversity governance: How far beyond rhetoric? Environmental and Planning C: Government and Policy, 27: 42–58.Saaty R.W. (1987): The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling, 9, 161-176 https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)90473-8Stoll-Kleemann Susanne (2001): Opposition to the Designation of Protected Areas in Germany. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44, 109-128 https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560123606Tsiafouli Maria A., Apostolopoulou Evangelia, Mazaris Antonios D., Kallimanis Athanasios S., Drakou Evangelia G., Pantis John D. (2013): Human Activities in Natura 2000 Sites: A Highly Diversified Conservation Network. Environmental Management, 51, 1025-1033 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0036-6Rao Tummala V.M., Wan Yat-wah (1994): On the mean random inconsistency index of analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Computers & Industrial Engineering, 27, 401-404 https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-8352(94)90319-0UNESCO-UNEP (1978): The Tbilisi Declaration: Final Report of Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education. Paris, UNESCO.Wurzel R.K.W. (2008): European Union environmental policy and Natura 2000: Form adoption to revision. In: Keulartz J., Leistra G. (eds): Legitimacy in European Nature Conservation Policy: Case Studies in Multilevel Governance. Wageningen, Springer-Verlag: 259–282.