IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v99y2020ics0264837720300478.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using IUCN protected areas management categories as a tool to assess youth preferences for local management of an Important Plant Area (IPA) in Lebanon

Author

Listed:
  • Salman, M.M.
  • Kharroubi, S.
  • Itani, M.
  • Talhouk, S.N.

Abstract

Important Plant Areas (IPAs) designated for their biodiversity value are not always officially protected and often fall within mixed private-public land ownership schemes. The objective of this study was to develop a quantitative tool based on the Protected Area (PA) management categories developed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to assess local youth’s preferences for conservation of an IPA in Lebanon. A total of 778 high school students living in ten villages that overlap the case study IPA filled the survey. The findings suggest that the youth preferred flexible conservation measures that entail sustainable resource use, education and tourism, and open access. The majority (84 %) preferred National Parks (Protected Area Category II) as the conservation management approach for the site. Participants’ environmental attitude, frequency of contact with nature, and self-reported ecological behavior revealed that they have a strong environmental attitude towards nature (96 %) and positive ecological behavior (92 %) after recoding the variables into negative, neutral and positive responses. Moreover, type of school (public or private), gender, age, environmental attitude and frequency of contact predicted 37.2 % of self-reported ecological behavior scores, with environmental attitude as the largest predictor (β (.499), p = .02), The developed tool can serve as a guide to participatory conservation initiatives and local planning of unprotected biodiversity-rich areas, such as IPAs.

Suggested Citation

  • Salman, M.M. & Kharroubi, S. & Itani, M. & Talhouk, S.N., 2020. "Using IUCN protected areas management categories as a tool to assess youth preferences for local management of an Important Plant Area (IPA) in Lebanon," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:99:y:2020:i:c:s0264837720300478
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105035
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837720300478
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105035?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. Hassan, Suziana & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2019. "Urban-rural divides in preferences for wetland conservation in Malaysia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 226-237.
    2. Otto, Siegmar & Kröhne, Ulf & Richter, David, 2018. "The dominance of introspective measures and what this implies: The example of environmental attitude," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 13(2), pages 1-13.
    3. Claudia L. Gray & Samantha L. L. Hill & Tim Newbold & Lawrence N. Hudson & Luca Börger & Sara Contu & Andrew J. Hoskins & Simon Ferrier & Andy Purvis & Jörn P. W. Scharlemann, 2016. "Local biodiversity is higher inside than outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 1-7, November.
    4. Lorena Muñoz & Vera Helene Hausner, 2013. "What Do the IUCN Categories Really Protect? A Case Study of the Alpine Regions in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-22, May.
    5. Norman Myers & Russell A. Mittermeier & Cristina G. Mittermeier & Gustavo A. B. da Fonseca & Jennifer Kent, 2000. "Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities," Nature, Nature, vol. 403(6772), pages 853-858, February.
    6. Taciano L. Milfont, 2009. "The effects of social desirability on self-reported environmental attitudes and ecological behaviour," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 263-269, September.
    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. Guangdong Li & Chuanglin Fang & Yingjie Li & Zhenbo Wang & Siao Sun & Sanwei He & Wei Qi & Chao Bao & Haitao Ma & Yupeng Fan & Yuxue Feng & Xiaoping Liu, 2022. "Global impacts of future urban expansion on terrestrial vertebrate diversity," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Patricia A. Henríquez-Piskulich & Constanza Schapheer & Nicolas J. Vereecken & Cristian Villagra, 2021. "Agroecological Strategies to Safeguard Insect Pollinators in Biodiversity Hotspots: Chile as a Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-31, June.
    3. Luis Santiago Castillo & Camilo Andrés Correa Ayram & Clara L. Matallana Tobón & Germán Corzo & Alexandra Areiza & Roy González-M. & Felipe Serrano & Luis Chalán Briceño & Felipe Sánchez Puertas & Ale, 2020. "Connectivity of Protected Areas: Effect of Human Pressure and Subnational Contributions in the Ecoregions of Tropical Andean Countries," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-19, July.
    4. Patricia P.A. Henríquez‐piskulich & Constanza Schapheer & Nicolas Vereecken & Cristian Villagra, 2021. "Agroecological strategies to safeguard insect pollinators in biodiversity hotspots: Chile as a case study," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/328659, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    5. Kelly Maria Zanuzzi Palharini & Luciana Cristina Vitorino & Gisele Cristina de Oliveira Menino & Layara Alexandre Bessa, 2020. "Edge Effects Reflect the Impact of the Agricultural Matrix on the Corticolous Lichens Found in Fragments of Cerrado Savanna in Central Brazil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-19, September.
    6. Laxmi D. Bhatta & Sunita Chaudhary & Anju Pandit & Himlal Baral & Partha J. Das & Nigel E. Stork, 2016. "Ecosystem Service Changes and Livelihood Impacts in the Maguri-Motapung Wetlands of Assam, India," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-14, June.
    7. Caviedes, Julián & Ibarra, José Tomás & Calvet-Mir, Laura & Álvarez-Fernández, Santiago & Junqueira, André Braga, 2024. "Indigenous and local knowledge on social-ecological changes is positively associated with livelihood resilience in a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    8. Maeda, Eduardo Eiji & Clark, Barnaby J.F. & Pellikka, Petri & Siljander, Mika, 2010. "Modelling agricultural expansion in Kenya's Eastern Arc Mountains biodiversity hotspot," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(9), pages 609-620, November.
    9. Chomitz, Kenneth M. & Thomas, Timothy S. & Brandão, Antônio Salazar P., 2005. "The economic and environmental impact of trade in forest reserve obligations: a simulation analysis of options for dealing with habitat heterogeneity," Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural (RESR), Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural, vol. 43(4), January.
    10. Elisa Barbour & Lara Kueppers, 2012. "Conservation and management of ecological systems in a changing California," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 111(1), pages 135-163, March.
    11. van der Hoff, Richard & Nascimento, Nathália & Fabrício-Neto, Ailton & Jaramillo-Giraldo, Carolina & Ambrosio, Geanderson & Arieira, Julia & Afonso Nobre, Carlos & Rajão, Raoni, 2022. "Policy-oriented ecosystem services research on tropical forests in South America: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    12. Brendan Fisher & Stephen Polasky & Thomas Sterner, 2011. "Conservation and Human Welfare: Economic Analysis of Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 151-159, February.
    13. Pütz, S. & Groeneveld, J. & Alves, L.F. & Metzger, J.P. & Huth, A., 2011. "Fragmentation drives tropical forest fragments to early successional states: A modelling study for Brazilian Atlantic forests," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(12), pages 1986-1997.
    14. Stephanie D. Maier & Jan Paul Lindner & Javier Francisco, 2019. "Conceptual Framework for Biodiversity Assessments in Global Value Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-34, March.
    15. Sehgal, Shaina & Babu, Suresh, 2021. "Economic Transformation of the Nicobar Islands Post-tsunami: A Material Import–Export Analysis," Ecology, Economy and Society - the INSEE Journal, Indian Society of Ecological Economics (INSEE), vol. 4(02), July.
    16. Poonam Tripathi & Mukund Dev Behera & Partha Sarathi Roy, 2017. "Optimized grid representation of plant species richness in India—Utility of an existing national database in integrated ecological analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-13, March.
    17. Davis, Katrina & Pannell, David J. & Kragt, Marit & Gelcich, Stefan & Schilizzi, Steven, 2014. "Accounting for enforcement is essential to improve the spatial allocation of marine restricted-use zoning systems," Working Papers 195718, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    18. Juliana Silveira dos Santos & Fausto Miziara & Hayla da Silva Fernandes & Renato Cezar Miranda & Rosane Garcia Collevatti, 2021. "Technification in Dairy Farms May Reconcile Habitat Conservation in a Brazilian Savanna Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-15, May.
    19. Vainio, Annukka & Paloniemi, Riikka, 2014. "The complex role of attitudes toward science in pro-environmental consumption in the Nordic countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 18-27.
    20. Ariane Amin & Johanna Choumert, 2015. "Development and biodiversity conservation in Sub-Saharan Africa: A spatial analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(1), pages 729-744.

    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:99:y:2020:i:c:s0264837720300478. 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.