IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnljfs/v62y2016i11id52-2016-jfs.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • I. De Meo

    (Council for Agricultural Research and Economics - Agrobiology and Pedology Research Centre (CREA-ABP), Florence, Italy)

  • F. Brescancin

    (Council for Agricultural Research and Economics - Forest Monitoring and Planning Research Unit (CREA-MPF), Villazzano di Trento, Italy)

  • A. Graziani

    (Council for Agricultural Research and Economics - Agrobiology and Pedology Research Centre (CREA-ABP), Florence, Italy)

  • A. Paletto

    (Council for Agricultural Research and Economics - Forest Monitoring and Planning Research Unit (CREA-MPF), Villazzano di Trento, Italy)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • I. De Meo & F. Brescancin & A. Graziani & A. Paletto, 2016. "Management of Natura 2000 sites in Italy: An exploratory study on stakeholders' opinions," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(11), pages 511-520.
    • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnljfs:v:62:y:2016:i:11:id:52-2016-jfs
    DOI: 10.17221/52/2016-JFS
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://jfs.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/52/2016-JFS.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://jfs.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/52/2016-JFS.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/52/2016-JFS?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jones, 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, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 1-8.
    2. Susanne Stoll-Kleemann, 2001. "Opposition to the Designation of Protected Areas in Germany," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(1), pages 109-128.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brescancin, Flavia & Dobšinská, Zuzana & De Meo, Isabella & Šálka, Jaroslav & Paletto, Alessandro, 2018. "Analysis of stakeholders' involvement in the implementation of the Natura 2000 network in Slovakia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 22-30.
    2. Niemela, Jari & Young, Juliette & Alard, Didier & Askasibar, Miren & Henle, Klaus & Johnson, Richard & Kurttila, Mikko & Larsson, Tor-Bjorn & Matouch, Simone & Nowicki, Peter & Paiva, Rosa & Portoghes, 2005. "Identifying, managing and monitoring conflicts between forest biodiversity conservation and other human interests in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(6), pages 877-890, November.
    3. Sena-Vittini, Mildred & Gomez-Valenzuela, Victor & Ramirez, Katerin, 2023. "Social perceptions and conservation in protected areas: Taking stock of the literature," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    4. Geitzenauer, Maria & Blondet, Marieke & de Koning, Jessica & Ferranti, Francesca & Sotirov, Metodi & Weiss, Gerhard & Winkel, Georg, 2017. "The challenge of financing the implementation of Natura 2000 – Empirical evidence from six European Union Member States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 3-13.
    5. Mikusiński, Grzegorz & Niedziałkowski, Krzysztof, 2020. "Perceived importance of ecosystem services in the Białowieża Forest for local communities – Does proximity matter?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    6. Marian Kachniarz, 2024. "Global Gain, but Local Loss—National Park and Municipal Revenues in Poland," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-18, October.
    7. Vassiliki Vlami & Jan Danek & Stamatis Zogaris & Eirini Gallou & Ioannis P. Kokkoris & George Kehayias & Panayotis Dimopoulos, 2020. "Residents’ Views on Landscape and Ecosystem Services during a Wind Farm Proposal in an Island Protected Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, March.
    8. Marcondes G. Coelho-Junior & Athila L. de Oliveira & Eduardo C. da Silva-Neto & Thayanne C. Castor-Neto & Ana A. de O. Tavares & Vanessa M. Basso & Ana P. D. Turetta & Patricia E. Perkins & Acacio G. , 2021. "Exploring Plural Values of Ecosystem Services: Local Peoples’ Perceptions and Implications for Protected Area Management in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-19, January.
    9. Kovács, Eszter & Kelemen, Eszter & Kalóczkai, Ágnes & Margóczi, Katalin & Pataki, György & Gébert, Judit & Málovics, György & Balázs, Bálint & Roboz, Ágnes & Krasznai Kovács, Eszter & Mihók, Barbara, 2015. "Understanding the links between ecosystem service trade-offs and conflicts in protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 117-127.
    10. Linc Ribana & Dinca Iulian & Stasac & Tatar Marcu Corina & Bucur Liviu, 2017. "Surveying the Importance of Population and its Demographic Profile, Responsible for the Evolution of the Natura 2000 Sites of Bihor County, Romania," Eastern European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 23(1), pages 147-170, December.
    11. Hubert Job & Sarah Bittlingmaier & Marius Mayer & Eick von Ruschkowski & Manuel Woltering, 2021. "Park–People Relationships: The Socioeconomic Monitoring of National Parks in Bavaria, Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-27, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:caa:jnljfs:v:62:y:2016:i:11:id:52-2016-jfs. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cazv.cz/en/home/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.