IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v89y2019ics026483771831740x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why would new protected areas be accepted or rejected by the public?: Lessons from an ex-ante evaluation of the new Patagonia Park Network in Chile

Author

Listed:
  • Zorondo-Rodríguez, Francisco
  • Díaz, Marion
  • Simonetti-Grez, Gabriela
  • Simonetti, Javier A.

Abstract

Social support is one of the key factors that determines the success of protected areas. An ex-ante evaluation of the social support regarding the establishment process of protected areas could facilitate a more effective formation and hence improved management of such areas. Public backing for new parks could depend on several factors, including relationships with already established protected areas, changes in land ownership, changes in management actions, and potential impacts on the territory. We evaluated the support of local indigenous and non-indigenous communities for the creation of the new Patagonia Parks Network. This involves the donation of land by the Tompkins Conservation to the Chilean State, the second of which is committed to creating, expanding or reclassifying protected areas. We analyzed the renaming and reclassifying of the Alacalufes National Reserve to the Kawésqar National Park. We estimated local peoples’ perceived costs and benefits and their support of (i) the donation process, (ii) the reclassification from reserve to park, and (iii) potential changes within the territory associated with new protected areas. The balance between the costs and benefits that people perceived of already established protected areas influenced their support for new ones. Although there is general social acceptation of the donation process and the establishment of parks among local people, indigenous communities may reject parks if their land-use requests for the park, including terrestrial and marine areas, are not included within the park’s management plans. Partial rejection by Kawésqar representatives may inhibit the success of parks. Our ex-ante evaluation provides empirical evidence about underlying social factors related to the successful establishment of protected areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Zorondo-Rodríguez, Francisco & Díaz, Marion & Simonetti-Grez, Gabriela & Simonetti, Javier A., 2019. "Why would new protected areas be accepted or rejected by the public?: Lessons from an ex-ante evaluation of the new Patagonia Park Network in Chile," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:89:y:2019:i:c:s026483771831740x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104248
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026483771831740X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104248?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. Canavire-Bacarreza, Gustavo & Hanauer, Merlin M., 2013. "Estimating the Impacts of Bolivia’s Protected Areas on Poverty," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 265-285.
    2. Martín-López, Berta & García-Llorente, Marina & Palomo, Ignacio & Montes, Carlos, 2011. "The conservation against development paradigm in protected areas: Valuation of ecosystem services in the Doñana social-ecological system (southwestern Spain)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1481-1491, June.
    3. Christopher F Baum, 2006. "An Introduction to Modern Econometrics using Stata," Stata Press books, StataCorp LP, number imeus, March.
    4. De Pourcq, K. & Thomas, E. & Arts, B. & Vranckx, A. & Léon-Sicard, T. & Van Damme, P., 2017. "Understanding and Resolving Conflict Between Local Communities and Conservation Authorities in Colombia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 125-135.
    5. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy & Bredahl Jacobsen, Jette & Poudyal, Mahesh & Rasoamanana, Alexandra & Hockley, Neal, 2018. "Estimating welfare impacts where property rights are contested: methodological and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 71-83.
    6. Benedikt Hora, 2018. "Private Protection Initiatives in Mountain Areas of Southern Chile and Their Perceived Impact on Local Development—The Case of Pumalín Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-22, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Liu, Shilei & Xu, Jintao, 2022. "Wildfire, protected areas and forest ownership: The case of China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).

    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. Qi Sun & Yunli Bai & Chao Fu & Xiangbo Xu & Mingxing Sun & Baodong Cheng & Linxiu Zhang, 2022. "Heterogeneous Effects of Skill Training on Rural Livelihoods around Four Biosphere Reserves in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-22, September.
    2. Ma, Ben & Cai, Zhen & Zheng, Jie & Wen, Yali, 2019. "Conservation, ecotourism, poverty, and income inequality – A case study of nature reserves in Qinling, China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 236-244.
    3. Yang, Zhe & Li, Qingqing & Xue, Wenhao & Xu, Zhihua, 2022. "Impacts of nature reserves on local residents' income in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    4. Estifanos, Tafesse Kefyalew & Polyakov, Maksym & Pandit, Ram & Hailu, Atakelty & Burton, Michael, 2020. "The impact of protected areas on the rural households’ incomes in Ethiopia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    5. Ben Ma & Yuqian Zhang & Yilei Hou & Yali Wen, 2020. "Do Protected Areas Matter? A Systematic Review of the Social and Ecological Impacts of the Establishment of Protected Areas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-13, October.
    6. Huy Quang Doan, 2019. "Trade, Institutional Quality and Income: Empirical Evidence for Sub-Saharan Africa," Economies, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-23, May.
    7. Langyintuo, Augustine S. & Mungoma, Catherine, 2008. "The effect of household wealth on the adoption of improved maize varieties in Zambia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 550-559, December.
    8. Boeker, Warren & Howard, Michael D. & Basu, Sandip & Sahaym, Arvin, 2021. "Interpersonal relationships, digital technologies, and innovation in entrepreneurial ventures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 495-507.
    9. Sims, Katharine R.E. & Alix-Garcia, Jennifer M., 2017. "Parks versus PES: Evaluating direct and incentive-based land conservation in Mexico," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 8-28.
    10. Christoph S. Weber, 2018. "Central bank transparency and inflation (volatility) – new evidence," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 21-67, January.
    11. Lionel Artige & Rosella Nicolini, 2008. "Memory in Contracts: The experience of the EBRD (1991-2003)," CREPP Working Papers 0803, Centre de Recherche en Economie Publique et de la Population (CREPP) (Research Center on Public and Population Economics) HEC-Management School, University of Liège.
    12. Micaela Antunes & Elias Soukiazis, 2009. "How well the balance-of- payments constraint approach explains the Portuguese growth performance: empirical evidence for the 1965-2008 period," GEMF Working Papers 2009-13, GEMF, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra.
    13. Fischer, Denise & Greven, Andrea & Tornow, Mark & Brettel, Malte, 2021. "On the value of effectuation processes for R&D alliances and the moderating role of R&D alliance experience," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 606-619.
    14. Jamie M. Sommer & Michael Restivo & John M. Shandra, 2020. "The United States, Bilateral Debt-for-Nature Swaps, and Forest Loss: A Cross-National Analysis," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(4), pages 748-764, April.
    15. Mendoza-Lozano, Frederick Andrés & Quintero-Peña, Jose Wilmar & García-Rodríguez, Jose Felix, 2021. "The digital divide between high school students in Colombia," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10).
    16. Fosu, Samuel & Danso, Albert & Agyei-Boapeah, Henry & Ntim, Collins G. & Murinde, Victor, 2018. "How does banking market power affect bank opacity? Evidence from analysts' forecasts," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 38-52.
    17. Cincera, Michele & Ince, Ela & Santos, Anabela, 2024. "Revisiting the innovation-competition nexus: Evidence from worldwide manufacturing and service industries," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 586-603.
    18. Amal Aouadi & Sylvain Marsat, 2018. "Do ESG Controversies Matter for Firm Value? Evidence from International Data," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 151(4), pages 1027-1047, September.
    19. Cazzavillan, Guido & Olszewski, Krzysztof, 2012. "Interaction between foreign financial services and foreign direct investment in Transition Economies: An empirical analysis with focus on the manufacturing sector," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 305-319.
    20. José María ARRANZ & Carlos GARCÍA SERRANO & Virginia HERNANZ, 2013. "Active labour market policies in Spain: A macroeconomic evaluation," International Labour Review, International Labour Organization, vol. 152(2), pages 327-348, June.

    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:eee:lauspo:v:89:y:2019:i:c:s026483771831740x. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.