Local Attitudes on Protected Areas : Evidence from Sumava National Park and Sumava Protected Landscape Area

The present article aims to describe perceptions and awareness of local residents in two categories of the Sumava region protected areas–National Park (NP) and Protected Landscape Area (PLA). The survey explores perceptions of individuals on nature protection, protected area management, tourism and related issues. Differences between these two research areas are also explored. Standardised personal interviews were conducted during the summer season of 2008. The study took place in six municipalities in NP (Borova Lada, Srni, Prasily, Kvilda, Horska Kvilda and Modrava; 183 questionnaires in total) and in three municipalities in PLA (Kasperske Hory, Hojsova Straz and Cachrov; 138 questionnaires in total). According to the results of the study, there were more natives and indigenous residents in NP than PLA. Similarly, local people in NP were working more often in the public sector and less in the private sector and they had more benefits from tourism. Residents in PLA were less informed about Administration activities, more satisfied with topical nature conservation level and against expansion of NP to their place of residence. Also, a significant finding of the study is that residents (especially in PLA) were supportive of some forms of participatory management. They are interested in the advancement of the area, mostly in the form of improvement of tourism-related facilities. They love this region and also call for better communication with NP/PLA Administration.


Introduction
Protected areas (national parks, landscape areas, nature reserves, etc.) represent the most widely accepted means of biodiversity conservation on a national and international level (Sekhar, 2003).Local communities could be affected by the creation of protected areas due to restricted use of local resources.This is a problem particularly in developing countries (loss of access to resources-fuelwood, fodder, etc.), but also in other countries (constraint on land use and management practices-agriculture, fishing and hunting) (Brandon, Gorenflo, Rodrigues, & Waller, 2005).Thus, conservation activities and management have frequently conflicted with local community attitudes, needs and desires (Bartlett, Maltali, Petro, & Valentine, 2010).In many cases, the "top-down" approach is used-protected areas and their conservation strategies are established without consultation of the local people.But in order to reach sustainable development in these areas it is necessary to value people's attitudes and knowledge and give them the opportunity to express their opinions on management of protected areas.Therefore, the term participation is used (Pimbert & Pretty, 1997).This "bottom-up" approach means that local communities and agencies are actively involved in the decision-making process (Wallner, Bauer, & Hunziker, 2007).Local people, especially those living in the protected areas, have important and long-standing relationships with these localities.Thus, their needs and attitudes should be taken into account by management of these areas (Xu, Chen, Lu, & Fu, 2006).Studies dealing with attitudes of participants may improve protected area management, and help to identify the problems and to recognise potential solutions for appropriate developing strategy (Sewell, 1973).Most common factors affecting residents' perceptions are the level of trust towards institutions responsible for environmental management (Kim, 2009), the changes imposed during the designation of a protected area (Garcia-Frapolli, Ramos-Fernandez, Galicia, & Serrano, 2009) and the level of awareness among citizens (Petrosillo, Zaccarelli, Semeraro, & Zurlini, 2009).
occur.The strictest level of conservation applies to national parks.These are defined in Act No. 114/1992 Coll. on the protection of nature and landscapes as "extensive territories, unique on a national or international scale, a considerable part of which is covered by natural ecosystems or ecosystems little effected by human activities, where plants, animals, and abiotic nature are of an exceptional scientific and educational importance".According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Czech national parks (except Krkonose NP) belong to Category II National Parks (IUCN 1994).The second category, protected landscape areas (PLA), are defined in the Act as "extensive territories with a harmoniously formed landscape, a characteristically developed relief, a significant proportion of natural ecosystems of forests and permanent grasslands, with abundant presence of woody plants, or, optionally, with preserved monuments of historical settlement" (Act No. 114/1992).PLA in the Czech Republic fall into the IUCN Category V Protected Landscape (IUCN 1994).
Most of the sociological studies in protected areas of the Czech Republic are focused on visitors and their quantitative (amounts) and qualitative (questionnaires) monitoring (e.g.Cihar & Trebicky, 1997;Cihar, Stursa, & Trebicky, 2002;Stursa, 2002;Suchy, 2002).The monitoring of local communities in Czech protected areas is located mostly in the national parks and Biosphere Reserves (Cihar & Stankova, 2006;Kusova, Tesitel, Matejka, & Bartos, 2008).Other studies cover several types of protected areas; Cudlinova, Lapka, and Bartos (1999) monitored the attitudes of farmers in the whole Sumava region, which includes Sumava NP, Sumava PLA and unprotected areas in the foothills.Bartos and Cihar (2011) conducted a survey amongst the inhabitants of the Sumava NP and in the closely located Nove Hrady Mountains, an area designated as a Nature Park.Nevertheless, these studies were focused primarily on regional differences but not on another level of nature protection of these areas.
The aim of this paper is monitoring of residents' characteristics in Sumava NP and PLA.This is the first study in the Czech Republic that is primarily focused on local people in neighbouring protected areas that differ from the level of nature protection.Most previous sociological studies in this area took place only in NP, as a well-known and traditional tourist destination.Nevertheless, PLA is much more populated (21000 inhabitants apart from 1000 residents in NP) and local nature protection regime influences more people in their daily lives.Characteristics and attitudes of PLA residents could be slightly or significantly different from their neighbours in NP.This paper compares these two protected areas from residents' points of view and describes the variations and their reasons.

Study Area
The first colonisation of the Sumava region dates back to the end of the twelfth century.Up to the eighteenth century, the whole area was covered by virgin primeval forests forming a part of the boundary woodland.Later colonisation linked to the development of glass manufacture, logging and pasturing played an important part in creating the current ecosystems (disappearance of primeval forests, establishment of new settlements, preference of spruce monocultures in artificial planting, forest calamities, continuing grazing on vast meadows).
Before and after the Second World War, the region was affected by major political changes that considerably influenced the structure, number and social composition of the local population.The region was part of the Sudetenland, located on the Czechoslovakian border with Germany and Austria, which had a majority of ethnic German inhabitants.This area was incorporated into the Reich in 1938.At the end of the war, Germans were subjected to restrictive measures and by the end of 1946, some 1.7 million Germans had been resettled.The current inhabitants represent only 12% of the original population of 1930 (Kusova, Bartos, & Tesitel, 1999).After February 1948, radical Communists took power.The establishment of the 'Iron Curtain' between Western Europe and Communist Eastern Europe, and the associated military training areas in Sumava, increased the isolation of the region.People live less than 2 km from the border were resettled from this area, while residents living in the 6 km buffer zone (area of current NP) from the border were heavily restricted in their movements.The situation far from the border (area of current PLA) was more favourable for those staying there.Nevertheless, the settlement of the Sumava region in this time was similar to the conditions in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (Kluvankova-Oravska, Chobotova, Banaszak, Slavikova, & Trifunovova, 2009;Kusova et al., 1999).
In 1989, the Velvet Revolution introduced democratic changes in Czechoslovakia, opening borders and resulting in completely new opportunities: Sumava became a popular tourist destination and underwent intensive socio-economic development.This fast transition from a state-planned to a free market economy created tensions regarding sustainable development programmes in the region (Cihar & Stankova, 2006).At present, the Sumava region is facing both the positive and negative effects of tourism.Thus, the main goal for management today is All completed questionnaires were processed in the form of database files using Microsoft Access.The frequencies and results of filtering were also transferred to MS Excel, in order to create the tables and charts.Statistical Programme SPSS, version 16.0 was used for statistical evaluation of these data.We used the chi square test χ 2 at the significance level of 0.05 (Freund & Wilson, 2003) for evaluating cases where results differed between two categories of protected areas.

Results
The total samples consisted of 183 questionnaires from NP municipalities (17.3% of all residents) and 138 from PLA (0.7% of all residents).Only permanent residents completed the questionnaires.Weekenders, long-term visitors and seasonal workers were excluded.The response rate was 83.6% in NP and 84.8% in PLA.All hodnocenych questions are summarized in Table 1.

Sociodemography
The first thematic block in the questionnaire deals with the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents.Significant differences were detected only in the age group of residents (p=0.021).In both protected areas the majority of respondents were people between 40 and 59 years followed by the 25-39 age group.Young people aged 18-24 years had a higher representation in PLA (18.1%) compared with NP (8.7%).As regards education and occupation, there was no significant difference between the groups.However, the survey detected significant variance in employment in the private/public sector (p=0.000):65.9% of PLA respondents were employed in the this region.People in PLA should be better informed, e. g. by means of a periodic newsletter issued by the Administration and distributed to each household.Apart from knowledge, similar values setting could also be important.In Sumava, especially, since establishing the NP, there have been controversies in forest management, particularly whether the National Park mission should include felling trees affected by the bark beetle.This management approach has changed from interventionist (cutting and removal of invaded tress) to natural (self-regeneration of the forest) (Petrova, Cihar, & Bouzarovski, 2011).
People in both protected areas were well informed about ecological problems in the region.They reported the highest knowledge of a specific ecological problem from all the monitored protected areas in the Czech Republic.To compare, in Krkonose NP 57.1% of locals knew about an environmental problem; in the Podyji NP this was 48.3% and in Novohradske hory nature park only 24.7% (Bartos & Cihar, 2011).The most frequently mentioned ecological problem was bark beetle.The activities of the Administration against this pest could also influence the attitudes of locals towards this institution.Evaluation of the Administration of the neighbouring Bavarian Forest NP (Germany) by locals worsened in the mid 1980s when NP management left affected forests to self-regeneration.Residents perceived damaged forests as a "brake" in tourism development and they actively fought against NP enlargement in the 1990s (Ruschkowski & Mayer, 2011).The situation on the Czech side of the same mountain looks better in this regard.
Significantly fewer respondents in NP chose the answer "the environmental conditions have become better".Most of the forests affected by bark beetle stand in NP area.Local perceptions are also influenced by the media image of NP.Newspapers often criticised the NP Administration for management of the park, especially for the poor condition of protected forest growth (Kusova, Tesitel, & Bartos, 2005).Due to this fact, locals did not have to perceive environmental conditions on the basis of their own observations but by means of the media.
Most respondents, especially in PLA, were not concerned about the number of visitors in the region.Locals in PLA often wished tourism could increase in their region.One possibility is to move certain tourism facilities from NP to PLA.The natural potential of the landscape is similar to NP; the development, for example, of the water areas and rivers which are suitable for recreation and water sports (the Lipno reservoir and the Vltava, Otava and Uhlava rivers).There are some highly developed facilities for winter sports, as well as for fishing, hunting and other activities.The opportunities for agro-tourism are also growing.Locals in PLA also frequently mentioned the need for tourism infrastructure development.Enlargement of tourism into the broader area would, for this reason, increase the income of locals in PLA.It would improve the local perception of the protected area in the region, as demonstrated, for example, by Sekhar (2003).
This study also proved that there is very low local awareness of the existence of a biosphere reserve in the PLA region.Nevertheless, the existence of this type of protected area would be suitable advertising for the region primarily among foreign visitors.The PLA also offers better opportunities in new forms of tourism development like horse-riding, paragliding, in-line skating and Nordic walking.Prospective construction of new tourism facilities would increase the pressure on the local environment.On the other hand, revenues from the tourism industry would increase and this sustainable development would be a better alternative for the region than unsustainable use of the area (logging and gold mining near Kasperske Hory).
A better economic situation was detected in NP-more people benefited economically from the tourism and assessed job opportunities more positively.However, according to NP residents, the presence of tourists is more likely to or definitely raises the cost of living (services and shop prices) in comparison with other regions.In general, prices in shops in tourist areas are higher than prices in other regions due to high demand and low competition.
It is worth mentioning that the communities in the Sumava cannot be seen as a homogenous group.Focused on the NP, there were communities (e.g.Modrava, Prasily) that respected the existence of the NP (increasing interest of tourists, better socio-economic development).On the other hand, the communities with high unemployment (Borova Lada) perceived the existence of NP as very limiting.These results were also confirmed by the study of Nolte (2004).
Summed up, the outputs of this study should contribute to understanding local people's attitudes in Sumava region.According to this work, it is not possible to apply the results from regular monitoring of NP residents' opinions to the PLA area.Locals in PLA have different attitudes to tourism, economic situation and also in nature protection management.They are, just as locals in NP, supportive of protected areas and present relatively high levels of knowledge of environmental issues.However, environmental awareness, in comparison with NP residents, is not accompanied by active participation in the solution of environmental problems.PLA residents are deeply rooted in the territory (great part of them have longer generation ties here; they don't want to move out of the area at all) and perceive the NP as a challenge for the further development of the whole region.But they are very concerned about employment opportunities and they wish tourism increase in their region.Economic incentives and tools should be found to create advantages for these people (e. g. selling local products with eco-labels, involving locals as tourist guides).More effective management is required to attract tourists to visit PLA more frequently.One of the possibilities could be emphasizing the existence of Biosphere Reserve in the territory.BRs are not recognized as a legal category of protected area in the Czech Republic but as an international concept it could attract especially foreign visitors.
Moreover, some gaps were found in the level of communication between locals in PLA and NP/PLA Administration.Better communication mechanism between these subjects should be developed to share main ideas on how protected area can be viewed as a benefit.Regular meetings or working groups could be a good starting point to listen to each other.At the moment we mention the existence of Biosphere Reserve again -its main goal is to promote sustainable development in terms of participation of the NP/PLA Administration in the life of local people.
At the very end, there is a need for improving the standard of living of local people and increasing their pride in living in a protected area.It is a generally accepted fact that locals need to be educated, informed and encouraged to participate in the management and development of their region.If resident's interest were marginalized for a long period, they could adopt actions detrimental to the goal of conservation of the area.

Table 1 .
Comparison of characteristics and attitudes of NP and PLA residents (chi square test χ 2 at the significance level of 0.05)