J. For. Sci., 2016, 62(11):511-520 | DOI: 10.17221/52/2016-JFS

Management of Natura 2000 sites in Italy: An exploratory study on stakeholders' opinionsOriginal Paper

I. De Meo1, F. Brescancin2, A. Graziani1, A. Paletto2
1 Council for Agricultural Research and Economics - Agrobiology and Pedology Research Centre (CREA-ABP), Florence, Italy
2 Council for Agricultural Research and Economics - Forest Monitoring and Planning Research Unit (CREA-MPF), Villazzano di Trento, Italy

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 survey

Published: November 30, 2016  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
De Meo I, Brescancin F, Graziani A, Paletto A. Management of Natura 2000 sites in Italy: An exploratory study on stakeholders' opinions. J. For. Sci. 2016;62(11):511-520. doi: 10.17221/52/2016-JFS.
Download citation

Supplementary files:

Download file52-2016 De Meo_Annex_1.pdf

File size: 587.79 kB

References

  1. Alonso J.A., Lamata M.T. (2006): Consistency in the analytic hierarchy process: A new approach. International Journal of Uncertainty, 14: 445-459. Go to original source...
  2. Alphandery P., Fortier A. (2001): Can a territorial policy be based on science alone? The system for creating Natura 2000 network in France. Sociologia Ruralis, 41: 311-328. Go to original source...
  3. Apostolopoulou E., Drakou E.G., Pediaditi K. (2012): Participation in the management of Greek Natura 2000 sites: Evidence from a cross-level analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 113: 308-318. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  4. Beunen R., de Vries J.R. (2011): The governance of Natura 2000 sites: The importance of initial choices in the organization of planning processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54: 1041-1059. Go to original source...
  5. Biernacki P., Waldorf D. (1981): Snowball sampling. Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research, 10: 141-163. Go to original source...
  6. Corona P., Barbati A., Ferrari B., Portoghesi L. (2011): Pianificazione ecologica dei sistemi forestali. Arezzo, Compagnia delle Foreste Srl: 205.
  7. Deutz P., McGuire M., Neighbour G. (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. Go to original source...
  8. Doremus H. (2003): A policy portfolio approach to biodiversity protection on private lands. Environmental Science & Policy, 6: 217-232. Go to original source...
  9. Eben M. (2006): Public participation during site selection for Natura 2000 in Germany: The Bavarian case. In: StollKleemann S., Welp M. (eds): Stakeholder Dialogues in Natural Resources Management - Theory and Practice. Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag: 261-278. Go to original source...
  10. European Commission (2002): El Teide Declaration. Brussels, European Commission.
  11. 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. Go to original source...
  12. 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. Go to original source...
  13. Hiedanpää J. (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. Go to original source...
  14. Hinkin T.R. (1998): A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1: 104-121. Go to original source...
  15. Humphreys D. (2006): Logjam: Deforestation and the crisis of global governance. London, Earthscan: 299.
  16. Johnson R.B., Onwuegbuzie A.J. (2004): Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33: 14-26. Go to original source...
  17. Jones N., Filos E.E., Fates E., Dimitrakopoulos P.G. (2015): Exploring perceptions on participatory management of Natura 2000 forest sites in Greece. Forest Policy and Economics, 56: 1-8. Go to original source...
  18. Kaplowitz M.D., Hadlock M.D., Levine R. (2004): A comparison of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68: 94-101. Go to original source...
  19. Kwak 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.
  20. Maiorano L., Falcucci A., Boitani L. (2006): Gap analysis of terrestrial vertebrates in Italy: Priorities for conservation planning in a human dominated landscape. Biological Conservation, 133: 455-473. Go to original source...
  21. Maiorano L., Falcucci A., Garton E.O., Boitani L. (2007): Contribution of the Natura 2000 network to biodiversity conservation in Italy. Conservation Biology, 21: 1433-1444. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  22. Milligan J., O'Riordan T., Nicholson-Cole S.A., Watkinson A.R. (2009): Nature conservation for future sustainable shorelines: Lessons from seeking to involve the public. Land Use Policy, 26: 203-213. Go to original source...
  23. Nielsen A.B., Olsenb S.B., Lundhede T. (2007): An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landscape and Urban Planning, 80: 63-71. Go to original source...
  24. Noble E.E., Sanchez P.P. (1990): A note on the information content of a consistent pairwise comparison judgement matrix of an AHP decision maker. Theory and Decision, 34: 99-108. Go to original source...
  25. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska A., Cent A., Grodzińska-Jurczak M., Szymańska M. (2012): Factors influencing perception of protected areas - the case of Natura 2000 in Polish Carpathian communities. Journal of Nature Conservation, 20: 284-292. Go to original source...
  26. Rauschmayer 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. Go to original source...
  27. Saaty R.W. (1987). The analytic hierarchy process - what it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modeling, 9: 161-176. Go to original source...
  28. Stoll-Kleemann S. (2001): Opposition to the designation of protected areas in Germany. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44: 109-128. Go to original source...
  29. Tsiafouli M.A., Apostolopoulou E., Mazaris A.D., Kallimanis A.S., Drakou E.G., Pantis J.D. (2013): Human activities in Natura 2000 sites: A highly diversified conservation network. Environmental Management, 51: 1025-1033. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  30. Tummala V.M.R., Wan Y.W. (1994): On the mean random inconsistency index of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Computers and Industrial Engineering, 27: 401-404. Go to original source...
  31. UNESCO-UNEP (1978): The Tbilisi Declaration: Final Report of Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education. Paris, UNESCO.
  32. 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. Go to original source...

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.