Description
Transboundary nature protected areas (TNPAs) contribute to human welfare in Europe. However, their economically optimal allocation and management are complicated with the issues of cross-border nature as well as with lack of appropriate expertise. The study aims to find out empirically whether TNPAs located at EU’s outer borders are international public goods, by investigating people’s stated preferences and behaviour. The project will provide insights into how preferences towards TNPAs of the EU and non-EU citizens are shaped. At least two articles will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals; key findings, conclusions and political implications of the study will be communicated to concerned institutions, experts and public. Analysts and public servicemen will benefit directly, whilst the entire society would benefit in a wider context from economic optimisation of wildlife conservation. The partners will co-operate at all the project stages - consultations, information sharing, mutual assistance in expertise and joint research efforts. Partnership will facilitate research in a comparative setting, thus increasing explanatory power of the study.
Summary of project results
The project aimed at finding out if widely contemplated cross-border co-operation in management and governance of the transboundary nature protected areas indeed is an economically optimal and socially desirable strategy, i.e. in economic wording if transboundary NPAs are international public goods according to people’s preferences. As a result, the main study hypothesis has been rejected. The survey scenario based upon ideas of passive protection and rewilding of human transformed forest ecosystems has been developed together with the appropriate survey questionnaire. Valuation studies of the two transboundary NPAs located at the EU outer borders – the Białowieża Forest in between Poland and Belarus and Fulufjellet in between Norway and Sweden have been conducted following the discrete choice experiment methodology. With this purpose, surveys of the representative samples of the four countries involved comprising at least 1000 interviews have been conducted and yielded four country-specific datasets. People’s stated preferences towards transboundary NPAs, their passive protection and cross-border co-operation as well as their possible drivers have been scrutinised. Results of their econometric analyses, following the Random Utility Modelling methods have been communicated to the professional community, stakeholders and general public, so the economically optimal management of the sites under consideration can be achieved/maintained. The current low level of cross-border co-operation for transboundary NPAs appeared economically optimal and socially desirable strategy. Preferences in Scandinavia, where the difference in regulations (including border regime) are much lower as compared with the EU eastern border, the preferences appeared mutually co-operative. On the contrary, both Poles and Belarusians derive disutility out of prospects of bilateral conservation action. While spatial extension of the domestic passive protection appeared socially desirable in Poland, Belarusians seem to be satisfied with the current status quo. If the transboundary co-operation is still a desirable option contemplated by experts, an appropriate effort should be made in order to inform general people and convince them of desirability of cross-border co-operation in favour of transboundary NPAs.
Summary of bilateral results
The bilateral partnership has allowed for running two site-specific choice experiments within a similar general approach, for two cases of transboundary nature protected areas (NPAs). This, in turn, has made possible to compare related preferences of EU and non-EU citizens. This is important because the phenomenon of transboundary NPAs is one of global nature and the implications of the research can be of interest for institutions of both in and outside Europe. Project partners’ relevant contextual knowledge about the sites under study were key to promptly identify the challenges of developing a scenario that could be applied at both cases. The level of knowledge exchange, including joint scientific meetings, seminars, workshops and the visitation of the sites under study would not have been possible without the funds obtained through the bilateral programme. Although no future projects have been planned, collaboration within the TRANPAREA project has contributed to build up links between the project partners and other stakeholders involved as well as to set up the basis for future knowledge exchange. The consideration of different perspectives in the scenario and survey development was facilitated through the varied and wide expertise of project’s partners and their respective professional networks. This contributes also to the dissemination of the projects’ results among a wider audience and stakeholders who hold different interests when it comes to the protection of nature.