Abstract
Generally, the management of protected areas is accepted to have conflicts, particularly between stakeholders and public agencies. NGOs may be viewed as the key players in implementing management systems, offering essential organizational support, and ensuring information flow within the entire network. Non-participative protected area management often leads to conflicts, particularly between stakeholders and administrative public agencies. Involving NGOs in management decisions can play an essential role in the successful enforcement of conservation programs. In this paper, we merge public perception with social network analysis to identify the network management structure of Iron Gates Natural Park, a Natura 2000 protected area in Romania. By conducting surveys of the local population in 2012 and 2016, we observed an increasing trend in awareness regarding the protected area and conservation methods conducted by the area’s administration. Subsequently, we identified lower percentages of participation by the local population in these activities. The social network analysis applied to management actors and relationships among them revealed a marginal position of NGOs in park management, including a lack of coordination between these NGOs. The network analyses draw attention to the outdated Romanian management system, which essentially works only in theory and is often based on outdated legislation. Our conclusions illustrate the actual collaborative relationships between stakeholders and offer significant recommendations for achieving established management objectives. Public bodies and NGOs should together address ecological and societal issues in the management of Natura 2000 to ensure sustainability, improve trust, and establish long-term viability of natural and cultural heritage.
References
Alexander SM, Andrachuk M, Armitage D (2016) Navigating governance networks for community-based conservation. Front Ecol Environ 14:155–164. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1251
Angelstam P, Elbakidze M, Axelsson R et al (2013) Maintaining cultural and natural biodiversity in the Carpathian Mountain ecoregion: need for an integrated landscape approach. In: Kozak J, Ostapowicz K, Bytnerowicz A, Wyżga B (eds) The Carpathians: integrating nature and society towards sustainability. Environmental science and engineering. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12725-0_28
Ban NC, Mills M, Tam J et al (2013) A social-ecological approach to conservation planning: embedding social considerations. Front Ecol Environ 11:194–202. https://doi.org/10.1890/110205
Berardo R, Heikkila T, Gerlak AK (2014) Interorganizational engagement in collaborative environmental management: evidence from the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. J Public Adm Res Theor 24:697–719. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu003
Bixler RP, Wald DM, Ogden LA et al (2016) Network governance for large-scale natural resource conservation and the challenge of capture. Front Ecol Environ 14:165–171. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1252
Block P (2015) Reciprocity, transitivity, and the mysterious three-cycle. Soc Netw 40:163–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2014.10.005
Bodin Ö (2017) Collaborative environmental governance: achieving collective action in social–ecological systems. Science 315:eaan1114. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan1114
Bodin Ö, Crona BI (2009) The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what relational patterns make a difference? Glob Environ Change 19:366–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.05.002
Bodin Ö, Robins G, McAllister RRJ et al (2016) Theorizing benefits and constraints in collaborative environmental governance: a transdisciplinary social-ecological network approach for empirical investigations. Ecol Soc 21:art40. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-08368-210140
Borgatti SP (2002) Netdraw network visualisation. Analytic Technologies, Harvard
Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (2002) Ucinet for Windows: software for social network analysis. Analytic Technologies, Harvard
Cazabet R, Takeda H, Masahiro H (2015) Characterizing the nature of interactions for cooperative creation in online social networks. Soc Netw Anal Min 5:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-015-0284-y
Chrobot-Mason D, Gerbasi A, Cullen-Lester KL (2016) Predicting leadership relationships: the importance of collective identity. Leadersh Quart 27:298–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.003
Ciocanea CM, Sorescu C, Ianosi M, Bagrinovschi V (2016) Assessing public perception on protected areas in Iron Gates Natural. Procedia Environ Sci 32:70–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.03.013
Dávid B, Huszti E, Barna I, Fu Y (2016) Egocentric contact networks in comparison: Taiwan and Hungary. Soc Netw 44:253–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2015.10.001
Everett MG, Borgatti SP (2014) Networks containing negative ties. Soc Netw 38:111–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2014.03.005
Gesell SB, Barkin SL, Valente TW (2013) Social network diagnostics: a tool for monitoring group interventions. Implement Sci 8:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-116
Glucker AN, Driessen PPJ, Kolhoff A, Runhaar HAC (2013) Public participation in environmental impact assessment: why, who and how? Environ Impact Assess Rev 43:104–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.06.003
Gorriz-Mifsud E, Secco L, Da R et al (2017) Structural social capital and local-level forest governance: do they inter-relate? A mushroom permit case in Catalonia. J Environ Manag 188:364–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.072
Hâncean M-G, Perc M (2016) Homophily in coauthorship networks of East European sociologists. Sci Rep 6:36152. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep36152
Hanneman R, Riddle M (2005) Introduction to social network methods. University of California, Riverside
Hossu CA, Ioja IC, Nita MR et al (2017) Need for a cross-sector approach in protected area management. Land Use Policy 69:586–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.012
Hossu CA, Ioja IC, Susskind LE et al (2018) Factors driving collaboration in natural resource conflict management: evidence from Romania. Ambio. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1016-0
Huitsing G, van Duijn MAJ, Snijders TAB et al (2012) Univariate and multivariate models of positive and negative networks: liking, disliking, and bully-victim relationships. Soc Netw 34:645–657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2012.08.001
IGNPA (2013) Iron Gates Natural Park Management Plan. RNP Romsilva-Administratia Parcului Natural Portile de Fier, Orsova
Ioja IC, Hossu CA, Nita MR et al (2016) Indicators for environmental conflict monitoring in Natura 2000 sites. Procedia Environ Sci 32:4–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.03.007
Kamphorst DA, Bouwma IM, Selnes TA (2017) Societal engagement in Natura 2000 sites. A comparative analysis of the policies in three areas in England, Denmark and Germany. Land Use Policy 61:379–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.11.019
Karsai M, Perra N, Vespignani A (2014) Time varying networks and the weakness of strong ties. Sci Rep 4:4001. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04001
Kronenberg J, Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska A, Zbieg A, Żak B (2015) Wasting collaboration potential: a study in urban green space governance in a post-transition country. Environ Sci Policy 62:69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.06.018
Lazega E, Quintane E, Casenaz S (2017) Collegial oligarchy and networks of normative alignments in transnational institution building. Soc Netw 48:10–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2016.08.002
Leadley PW, Krug CB, Alkemade R, et al (2013) Progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets : an assessment of biodiversity trends, policy scenarios and key actions (Global Biodiversity Outlook 4: Technical Report). Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal
Lemos MC, Agrawal A (2006) Environmental governance. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:297–325. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.31.042605.135621
Li W, Liu J, Li D (2012) Getting their voices heard: three cases of public participation in environmental protection in China. J Environ Manag 98:65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.12.019
Llopis-Albert C, Palacios-Marques D, Soto-Acosta P (2015) Decision-making and stakeholders’ constructive participation in environmental projects. J Bus Res 68:1641–1644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.02.010
Lubell M, Robins G, Wang P (2014) Network structure and institutional complexity in an ecology of water management games. Ecol Soc 19(4):23. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06880-190423
Manolache S, Ciocanea CM, Rozylowicz L, Nita A (2017) Natura 2000 in Romania—a decade of governance challenges. Eur J Geogr 8:24–34
Manolache S, Nita A, Ciocanea CM et al (2018) Power, influence and structure in Natura 2000 governance networks. A comparative analysis of two protected areas in Romania. J Environ Manag 212:54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.01.076
Mbaru EK, Barnes ML (2017) Key players in conservation diffusion: using social network analysis to identify critical injection points. Biol Conserv 210:222–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.03.031
Mills M, Álvarez-Romero JG, Vance-Borland K et al (2014) Linking regional planning and local action: towards using social network analysis in systematic conservation planning. Biol Conserv 169:6–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.10.015
Nita MR, Niculae MI, Vânău GO (2015a) Integrating spatial planning of protected areas and transportation infrastructures. In: Ocalir-Akunal EV (ed) Using decision support systems for transportation planning efficiency. IGI Global Press, Hershey. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-8648-9.ch012
Nita A, Buttler A, Rozylowicz L, Patru-Stupariu I (2015b) Perception and use of landscape concepts in the procedure of environmental impact assessment: case study—Switzerland and Romania. Land Use Policy 44:145–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.12.006
Nita A, Rozylowicz L, Manolache S et al (2016) Collaboration networks in applied conservation projects across Europe. PLoS ONE 11:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164503
Nita A, Manolache S, Ciocanea CM, Rozylowicz. L (2017) A social network approach to diagnose public participation in protected areas management. Insights from a Natura 2000 case study. In: The 2017 IEEE/ACM international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining, pp 771–774. https://doi.org/10.1145/3110025.3110124
Opsahl T, Agneessens F, Skvoretz J (2010) Node centrality in weighted networks: generalizing degree and shortest paths. Soc Netw 32:245–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2010.03.006
Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325:419–422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133
Popescu VD, Rozylowicz L, Niculae IM et al (2014) Species, habitats, society: an evaluation of research supporting EU’s Natura 2000 network. PLoS ONE 9:e113648. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113648
Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Cons 141:2417–2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014
Robins G, Bates L, Pattison P (2011) Network governance and environmental management: conflict and cooperation. Public Adm 89:1293–1313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01884.x
Secco L, Favero M, Masiero M, Pettenella DM (2017) Failures of political decentralization in promoting network governance in the forest sector: observations from Italy. Land Use Policy 62:79–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.11.013
Stanciu E, Ionita A (2014) Governance of protected areas in Eastern Europe: overview on different governance types, case studies and lessons learned. Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN), Bonn
Tortajada C (2016) Nongovernmental organizations and influence on global public policy. Asia Pac Policy Stud 3:266–274. https://doi.org/10.1002/app5.134
Ulibarri N, Scott TA (2017) Linking network structure to collaborative governance. J Public Adm Res Theor 27:163–181. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw041
van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84:523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by a grant from the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research, CNCS—UEFISCDI (http://www.uefiscdi.ro), PN-III-P4-ID-PCE-2016-0483.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nita, A., Ciocanea, C.M., Manolache, S. et al. A network approach for understanding opportunities and barriers to effective public participation in the management of protected areas. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 8, 31 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-018-0509-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-018-0509-y