Community Attitudes

Methods

To track changes in local peoples’ attitudes to protected areas, surveys were run in 2018, 2020 and 2022. A Drop-Off-Pick-Up method was used to collect baseline data in 2018 (Aastrup, 2020). Data in 2020 and 2022 were collected through an electronic version of the survey. Respondents were randomly selected and invited to participate in the study by completing the survey with the guidance of a field agent. A total of 1,494 randomly selected residents from Arges, Brașov, Sibiu and Vâlcea participated in the study (644 in 2018, 550 in 2020, and 300 in 2022). 56% of the respondents were female and 44% were male.

Structured questionnaires containing closed-ended questions were used. Participants were asked to respond to statements using a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The questionnaire focused on understanding local community resident attitudes, beliefs and behavioural intentions (willingness to support protected areas, and acceptance that benefits outweigh costs). Topics included:

• Demographic characteristics (to better understand who was completing the survey)
• Environmental values, using the New Ecological Paradigm Scale (Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978; Dunlap, 2008). This explored attitudes across three categories – environmental concern, awareness of ecological limits, and sense of human dominance over nature
• Attitudes toward nature conservation
• Attitudes toward the creation of a Făgăraș Mountains National Park
• Acceptability of potential management options for the National Park
• Perceptions of cost and benefits of a National Park

Results

Environmental values:
Environmental values were assessed in 2020 and 2022. On average, respondents held positive environmental concern beliefs, and were neutral to slightly negative about domination and ecological limits. In 2022, however, respondents were slightly less likely to express environmental concern than in 2020, although responses were still very positive. Respondents in 2022 were also slightly less likely to show strong awareness of ecological limits (around the effects and magnitude of human impacts on the environment). No significant change was observed for domination beliefs (around people’s rights and abilities to control and manipulate nature, and responsibilities to protect it).

Attitudes to nature conservation:
On average, respondents from 2020 and 2022 agreed nature conservation is about protecting forests and wildlife as much as it about protecting livelihoods, that changes in human behaviors are needed, and that we need to conserve the environment for future generations (Fig. 1). Respondents disagreed that investing in conservation is a waste of time and money, and that they have more important things to worry about than protecting the environment. Statistically significant differences were observed between the two samples, with respondents in 2022 expressing slightly fewer positive attitudes toward nature conservation than people in 2020 (Fig. 1).

Figure 1: Attitudes towards nature conservation. Scores are on a Likert scale ranging from Strongly disagree (1) to Strongly agree (5).

Attitudes to creation of a Făgăraș Mountains National Park:
There was no significant overall change in attitudes to the creation of a Făgăraș Mountains National Park between 2018 and 2022 (Fig. 2).

Figure 2: Attitudes towards the creation of a Făgăraș Mountains National Park. Scores were on a Likert scale ranging from Very bad (1) to Very good (5).

Management options for the National Park:
On average, a decline in support for restricting hunting was observed between 2018 and 2020, although support increased again in 2022 (Fig. 3). There was also a decline in support for restricting wood cutting between 2018 and 2022. In contrast, support for restricting berry and mushroom picking and sheep herding increased during the period.

Figure 3: Acceptability of restricting different activities inside the proposed National Park. Scores were on a Likert scale ranging from Extremely unacceptable (1) to Extremely acceptable (5).

Costs and benefits of a National Park:
There were no statistically significant changes in perceptions of benefits of the National Park. In terms of costs, in 2022 respondents were less likely to believe that a National Park would restrict wood cutting, grazing or hunting, but more likely to believe it would restrict berry and mushroom picking.