A Tale of Two Protected Areas: “Value and Nature Conservation” in Comparable National Parks in Estonia and Russia

Henri Järv, Anton Shkaruba, Olga Likhacheva, Viktar Kireyeu, Raymond Ward and Kalev Sepp
Additional contact information
Henri Järv: Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 1, 51006 Tartu, Estonia
Anton Shkaruba: Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 1, 51006 Tartu, Estonia
Olga Likhacheva: Department of Botany and Plant Ecology, Pskov State University, Lenin Square, 2, 180000 Pskov, Russia
Viktar Kireyeu: Ecological Safety & Sustainable Development of Regions, Saint Petersburg State University, University Emb. 7/9, 199034 St. Petersburg, Russia
Raymond Ward: Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 1, 51006 Tartu, Estonia
Kalev Sepp: Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 1, 51006 Tartu, Estonia

Land, 2021, vol. 10, issue 3, 1-20

Abstract: This study explores how local communities reflect on institutional frameworks and protected area governance in two national parks (NPs) with similar nature values in Estonia and Russia, and aims to understand the role of value systems in these interactions. It is based on 50 in-depth interviews with a broad range of stakeholders, and a desktop analysis of relevant regulation and plans. Interview questions reflect on various aspects of well-being (including fairness of governance solutions), awareness of NPs’ function and restrictions, related value aspects, and covered basic personal data needed to interpret the interviews. The study reconfirms the pivotal role of social justice as a driver of wellbeing. In particular, it articulates the significance of value systems playing the role of filters between governance inputs and specific management activities of communities. It underlines the vulnerability of such systems at a community level, most of all to the impacts related to various instances of “centralization”. They are manifested through the choice of restrictive measures and top-down arrangements at the expense of transparency and inclusiveness (in Russia), as well as through the removal of governance autonomy from NPs and transferring monitoring and enforcement functions to local communities without clear mandates or sufficient capacity (in Estonia).

Keywords: national parks; wellbeing; governance of protected areas; local communities; cultural landscapes; management of protected areas; Russia; Estonia; post-Soviet (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q15 Q2 Q24 Q28 Q5 R14 R52 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/3/274/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/3/274/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:3:p:274-:d:512486

Access Statistics for this article

Land is currently edited by Ms. Carol Ma

More articles in Land from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().