Why do people respond to natural resource management in the ways they do?Why do people respond to natural resource management in the ways they do?Marc J. Stern, Assistant ProfessorMarc J. Stern, Assistant Professor

Department of Forestry, College of Natural Resources, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityDepartment of Forestry, College of Natural Resources, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

IntroductionConflicts between parks and the people that live around them are common around the world – ranging from illegal resource extraction and public protest to sometimes violent clashes between park officials and local people. Traditional strategies for mitigating these conflicts have centered upon strict enforcement of park regulations and/or providing economic, recreational, and ecological benefits to local people. This research tests the assumptions that under gird these strategies, exploring the underlying reasons for the persistence of natural resource conflicts, even in areas where enforcement is relatively strong and benefits are clearly provided.

420 scripted interviews were carried out with residents living within the immediate vicinities of three national parks: Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP) in NC and TN, USA, Virgin Islands National Park (VINP), U.S. Virgin Islands, and Podocarpus National Park (PNP), Loja and Zamora-Chinchipe, Ecuador. The author lived and employed participant observation in the communities surrounding each park over the duration of 10 months.

Active responses

Active support:Active support:

Donating, volunteering, publicly defending the park, changing behavior to comply

Active opposition:Active opposition: Illegal resource extraction, protest, vandalism, threats against park employees

Key independent variables

Rational assessments:Rational assessments: Respondents’ perceptions of the benefits vs. disadvantages of park presence

Trust assessments:Trust assessments:Respondents’ perceptions of the trustworthiness of park managers

Alternatives assessments:Alternatives assessments:Respondents’ evaluations of the alternatives to exploiting park resources

Rational trust:Rational trust:Based on consistent performance and expectations of benefits from relationship

Social trust:Social trust:Based on assumptions of shared values or identity and/or social connections

Figure 1 presents the results of linear regression on a 5-point variable representing the net active response of respondents (from strong support to strong opposition). It uses Type III sums of squares to show the relative importance of specific factors on local residents’ active responses toward each national park in the study. Trust for park managers proved the most consistently important predictor of active responses across the three parks, followed by rational assessments.

How does trust come about?

Results

Methods

Key concepts and definitions

Theoretical implications

Practical implications

Acknowledgements

Funding for this study came from the Canon National Parks Science Scholarship, a partnership between the National Park Service, AAAS, and Canon USA. The author would like to acknowledge Bill Burch, Lisa Curran, and Jonathan Reuning-Scherer for their valuable input.

The factors most powerfully associated with trust for park managers included local perceptions of park authorities’ degree of receptiveness to local input, of understanding of local cultures, and of meaningful engagement in local communities.

Further regression analyses revealed that social trust was a more powerful predictor than rational trust in all contexts, though rational trust shared nearly equal footing in areas of least economic stability. Moreover, social trust became a more powerful predictor relative to rational assessments and rational trust over time.

Figure 2 summarizes the central research findings, proposing a theory for further investigation in additional contexts. A key finding of the research is that perceptions of enforcement did not consistently deter would-be offenders of park regulations.

Results stress the importance of transparency in resource management and meaningful two-way communications between resource managers and neighboring populations in addition to enforcement, benefits provision and the existence of adequate alternatives to resource extraction.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

GSMNP

VINP

PNP

Trust assessment

Rational assessment

Receptiveness to local input

Personal relationship

Alternatives assessment

Figure 1. Relative importance of factors predicting active responses at each park.

Attitudes of peers

Environmental values

Benefits vs. disadvantages

Assessments of alternatives

Rational assessments

Trust assessments

Active responses

Managers’ receptiveness to local input

Cultural understanding/respect

Social connectedness

Park performance/consistency

Figure 2. A theory of local public response to protected areas.

Stronger

Weaker

Weakest

Lack of alternatives

Attitudes of peers

Environmental values

Benefits vs. disadvantages

Assessments of alternatives

Rational assessments

Trust assessments

Active responses

Managers’ receptiveness to local input

Cultural understanding/respect

Social connectedness

Park performance/consistency

Figure 2. A theory of local public response to protected areas.

Stronger

Weaker

Weakest

Lack of alternatives