Socio-economic impacts on the attitudes towards conservation of natural resources: Case study from Serbia

Forest Policy and Economics 12 (2010) 157–162

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forest Policy and Economics j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / f o r p o l

Socio-economic impacts on the attitudes towards conservation of natural resources: Case study from Serbia Jelena Tomićević a,⁎, Margaret A. Shannon b,1, Marina Milovanović c,2 a b c

Department of Landscape Architecture and Horticulture, Faculty of Forestry, University of Belgrade, Kneza Viseslava 1, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia The Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, 333 George D. Aiken Center, 81 Carrigan Drive, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont 05405, USA Faculty for Civil Management, Union University, Cara Dusana 62-64, Belgrade, Serbia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 7 July 2008 Received in revised form 6 June 2009 Accepted 3 September 2009 Keywords: Tara National Park Local people Attitude Socio-economic variables Participatory approach

a b s t r a c t This paper presents data from a case study of local people in the village Rastiste within the boundaries of the Tara National Park. Since 1981 Tara National Park was established and from the time of its inception the local people were antagonistic towards it. Questionnaire survey data were used to examine peoples' attitudes towards the Tara NP. Local people's attitudes towards conservation area depend on some socio-economic variables. The results indicate that conservation attitudes were mainly influenced by education, age of respondents, gender and whether they have worked for national park or not. Education and awareness programmes should focus on local people to increase participation in conservation and management activities and improve attitudes. The findings indicate the need to implement participatory approaches as a means of promoting sustainable use of natural resources. © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction International experience in the management of protected areas over the last decade highlights the danger of excluding local people and shows that participation is fundamental to the successful management of protected areas with a residential population (Govan et al., 1998). In recent years several researchers have stressed the role of the local people in the successful management of protected areas. According to Wells & Brandon (1993), there is a growing recognition that the sustainable management of protected areas ultimately depends on the co-operation and support of the local people. Similarly, Kothari et al. (1995) argue that a protection strategy that alienates local communities from conservation is not only unjust to human rights but also harmful to conservation. Therefore, in order to achieve sustainable conservation, state authority and environmental planners should involve local people in management of protected areas and “need to identify and promote social processes that enable local communities to conserve and enhance biodiversity as a part of their livelihood system” (Pimbert & Pretty, 1997, p.307). These trends have encouraged the development of a new conservation paradigm, ‘community-based conservation’, emphasising management of biodi-

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.:+381 11 3 553 122(office), +381 64 11 77 435(mobile); fax: +381 11 2 54 54 85. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Tomićević), [email protected] (M.A. Shannon), [email protected] (M. Milovanović). 1 Tel.: +1 802 656 4280(office), fax: +1 802 656 8683. 2 Tel.: +381 11 2180 287; fax: +381 11 2180 013. 1389-9341/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2009.09.006

versity by, for, and with local communities (Gibbs & Bromely, 1990; Rao & Geisler, 1990; Western et al., 1994; Gibson & Marks, 1995). All policies and programmes implemented under the community-based conservation paradigm share the key assumption that biodiversity conservation will only succeed if local communities receive sufficient benefits, participate in management, and therefore, have a stake in conserving the resources (Gibson & Marks, 1995). Therefore, it is critical for policy makers and managers to understand local peoples' attitudes. Most importantly, this information can help identify what kinds of programs would facilitate increasing participation in resource management, thus developing community based management capacity. Our core assumption is that a conservation policy that integrated the underlying perceptions of local people is a key feature for integrating conservation with development. A more sustainable conservation strategy cannot be envisaged without all actors being involved in the continuing processes of learning. The professional challenge for protected-area management is to replace the top–down, standardized, simplified and short-term practices with local-level diversified, flexible and longterm natural resource management practices organized around a social learning paradigm (Pimbert & Pretty, 1997; Korten, 1990). In short, for any new concept and practice related to nature conservation to be implemented and effective, it needs to be relevant to the day-today life of the local people in the protected areas (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004a,b). Moving toward greater local community participation and cooperation is difficult in Serbia, because of a long history of centralised approaches to planning and management in protected

158

J. Tomićević et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 12 (2010) 157–162

areas. In particular, national park planning and management has typically been characterised by a top–down approach. National Park Tara was chosen as a case study to examine the local people living within the Park boundaries and to better understand their relationship to Tara National Park management and administration. To further focus this research, we chose the village Rastište because it is fully enclosed within the Park and is fully dependent upon land and resources within the Park. Тhis study describes the socio-economic conditions of the local people living in Rastište, their relationships with resource use, their participation in management, and their attitudes about National Park conservation. 1.1. Applying the sustainable livelihoods conceptual framework How to integrate sustainable livelihoods with both nature conservation and sustainable development objectives is the central problem facing Tara National Park. The concept of ‘livelihood strategies’ is widely understood in terms of ‘capitals.’ So achieving sustainable livelihoods means integration of their livelihood assets. These assets are generally thought of as ‘capitals’, and include: human, social, physical, natural, and financial capitals (Messer and Townsley 2003). Jeanrenaud (1999) connects sustainability at the household level with the ability to conserve nature. Thus, the sustainable livelihoods approach emphasizes the necessity of considering people first by examining how they manipulate and combine different aspects of the capitals available to them. Biodiversity represents a key element of natural capital. Thus, one might reason that in a situation of high biodiversity, there is an opportunity for sustainable livelihoods. However, this potential can only be realized if there is sufficient human capital in the form of education and a skilled labor force. In addition, there must be social capital which includes how people work together, within the household and among households, and a vibrant community of relationships. Supporting these components of livelihood capitals is the existence of both physical capital in the form infrastructure, such as roads and markets, and financial capital so as to own sufficient land for production and be able to hold and transform products into cash. Thus, for National Park Tara to be a sustainable region, its natural capital in the form of biodiversity needs to be integrated into sustainable rural livelihoods. The aim of this study was to investigate livelihood capitals of the local people in the Tara National Park region, including their relationship with Park management and administration. 2. Methods 2.1. The study area Tara National Park was proclaimed a protected natural resource area in 1981 by the First Regulation on the National Park (Official Gazette of RS no. 41/81). According to the Regulation on National Parks of Serbia (Official Gazette of RS no. 39/93), a public enterprise, ‘National Park Tara’, was founded, with full responsibility for the management of the park (PE, National Park Tara, 2002). Tara National Park is situated in west Serbia (Fig. 1), the coordinates, according to Greenwich lie between 43o51′ and 43o57′ north, and 17o03′ and 17o11′ east (PE, National Park Tara, 2002). The region of Tara National Park extends over an area of 19,175 ha. It contains most of Tara Mountain and the region bordered by the elbow-shaped course of the River Drina, between Višegrad and Bajina Bašta, thus belonging to a part of Starovlaške mountains (Gajić, 1989). Tara National Park incorporates the region belonging to the Bajina Bašta municipality. According to the methodology of the Serbian Republic Institute of Statistics (http://www.stat.gov.rs), the Republic of Serbia is divided into three main territories — Central Serbia, Vojvodina and Kosovo and Metohija. These territories are divided into administrative

Fig. 1. Geographic position of Tara in the Republic of Serbia.

districts and the administrative districts are divided into municipalities. Within municipalities there are smaller settlements or villages. Thus, in this study, we are focused communities of place and geographic region. Thus, the term community in this paper is synonymous with that of settlements or villages depending on the words used by interviewees in this study. Two local settlements, namely Jagoštica and Rastište are situated entirely in the national park territory, while eight other settlements lie only partly within the park's boundaries (Perućac, Beserovina, Zaovine, Rača, Mala Reka, Solotuša, Zaugline and Konjska Reka) (Gajić, 1989). The Tara Mountain region is an area of relict mixed forests of beech, fir, spruce, Panchich's spruce, Austrian and Scotch pine, which represent the basic vegetative composition of the Park. Also, the forest ecosystems of Tara Mountain are among the most biodiverse and the most intact forests in Europe. Furthermore, the vascular flora of Serbia contains 3662 taxa, of which 1000 plant species have been identified in this region, or one third of the total flora of Serbia making Tara National Park the most important national area for preservation of biodiversity. The Tara Mountain possesses a rich cultural and historical heritage. Various natural values in Tara National Park, namely specific geomorphological units, good climate and unique vegetation, are a basis for the development of appropriate tourism activities. All of these characteristics led Tara Mountain to be named a National Park in 1981. At the same time, the unique natural and cultural heritage of Tara NP placed this mountain into the proposal for designation as an International Biosphere Reserve. In 2003, a Serbian Institute for Nature Protection proposed Tara National Park for designation as a Biosphere Reserve. However, this protected area designation as a Biosphere Reserve posed new questions in relation to the role of the local communities in the national park, because of the central place of social and economic capacity building as part of biosphere management. The village Rastište lying not only fully within the boundaries of park area, but also at the end of a very rugged road providing difficult access to the village, was marginalized in the decision making process of establishment of Tara National Park. Indeed, the centralized top– down approach that government used to designate Tara as a National

J. Tomićević et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 12 (2010) 157–162

Park did not rely upon or include, despite the fact that local people own private land within the boundaries of Tara area. The village Ratište consists of a dispersed group of hamlets and represents the biggest and most scattered village in the Tara region. In the period 1948–1981, the population of the Tara region decreased to 5000 people, of which 900, or 17.2%, live within the national park. Rastište village has 107 households and 285 inhabitants3. The main occupations of the inhabitants of this region are agriculture and forestry, with only a few people employed outside of the household, for example, the teacher. Since the possibility of employment in other activities is limited, the region has long been experiencing a outmigration, which along with a low birth rate means that the population is in decline (Gajić, 1989). The dwindling population is a consequence of the lack of opportunity for employment in the region, thus leading primarily the younger people to migrate to more developed areas4, leaving the village with increasing proportion of elderly and less educated people. 2.2. Household interviews In order to understand how local people integrate the available livelihoods assets (human, natural, social, physical as well as financial capital), we used households as the unit of analysis and conducted household interviews. From these interviews, we were able to learn how households combine their capabilities, skills and knowledge with the different available resources and how their livelihood assets influence them and help create their attitudes towards protected area. Furthermore, we tried to explore in the household questionnaire what activities might lead to improvement of local attitudes towards Tara National Park administration as well how to increase involvement of local people in management of the natural resources in Tara area. The questionnaire was very carefully prepared, bearing in mind the past antagonism towards the protected area and dominance of traditional family structures, especially elderly heads of households. The wording and order of the questions was carefully thought out to ensure that responses of interviewees were not biased by answers to earlier questions (Lofland, 1971). For example, participants were asked ‘do you have any conflicts with the national park?’ at the very end of the interview, to avoid possibly ‘directing’ their responses to earlier questions. On average, each interview took between approximately forty minutes to one hour to complete. Participants were chosen on the basis of the order in which they were met as we walked through the villages. Only one adult member of any one household was interviewed. According to the census from the year 2002, 107 households were registered in Rastište The total number of interviewed households in Rastište was 65, which represents 60% of the total number of registered households. The respondents were first asked to provide some demographic, socio-economic and the general characteristics of the household. Then we explored: life in the village, their perceptions of natural resources available or not available to them, what kinds of production they are involved in, their relationship to the National Park, and finally questions regarding their interests in cooperation with the Park. The final questions posed dealt with their predictions for the future of their village in the Tara National Park. The survey questionnaire included a mixture of open, fixedresponse and multiple-response questions. This combination was used to examine the various dimensions of their responses, for example if we chose only the multiple-choice answers we may artificially confine the interviewees to a preconceived set of answers, thus preventing them from expressing their opinions in their own words, and in the context of their own situation. Therefore, we used a 3

Census in 2002. Institute for Nature Conservation, 2003. Proposal to support the Tara Mountain Biosphere Reserve nomination, Belgrade. 4

159

variety of question formats based upon the type of information we sought. 2.3. Analysis The analysis of the interviews identified patterns within the data gathered from the interviews. The data acquired from the household interviews were analyzed in two phases. In the first phase, the interviews were transcribed and all of the 65 interviews were processed in MSWord. In the second phase, the statistics programme SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) version 10.0 was used. The collected data were processed using the descriptive statistics and correlation methods. In the second phase, the concepts of the livelihood capitals were used to analyze the interview data and more deeply understand relationships within the households, within the village, and with the National Park. Several social-economic variables were measured in the questionnaire, and they included: the gender and age of the interviewee, level of education, occupation, and income. In addition, the relationship to the Park, for example whether anyone in the household was employed by the Park, or what their relationship was with the National Park, and if they had any conflicts with the Park. Finally, analysis of correlation between the variables was conducted using nonparametic methods of rank correlation with Spearman's rank coefficient.(by applying Kendal's rank coefficient the same conclusions about the importance of the variables can be reached (Tenjović, 2000)). We chose this test based upon its applicability for qualitative interview data (Vuković, 1997). 3. Results 3.1. Demographic data A characteristic of the populations of the village is long term outmigration, as indicated by the Serbian Republic Institute for Statistics register of citizens covering the period 1961–2002, there has been a decline from 1961 of 819 people to only 285 people in 2002 (Tomicevic 2005: 98). In addition to outmigration, the problem of natural depopulation is leading to this population decline. There is one elementary school with only four forms in the village, because 86% of households have no children in school. Higher education is possible only in areas near cities. Like many rural areas, the population of the village is getting older, which is characteristic of areas with low birth rates and outmigration of young and working age people. The answers provided to question (‘Age-groups in the household’) reveal that 46.2% of the people are ‘over 64 years of age’ (Tomicevic 2005: 103). Because the questionnaire was formally administered to the ‘head of household,’ this means that 52 of the 65 interviews were with men. There were times where the woman was the head of household (widows, for example) and then they were interviewed. However, generally the whole family sat around the table for the interview process and often discussed the answers to the questions together. In this way, the voices and thoughts of women were included, however, women were often reluctant to speak first and sometimes had a lack of confidence in answering the questions because the national park is part of male relationships, not female. 3.2. Socio-economic status All of the inhabitants interviewed were primarily engaged in cattle breeding, agriculture and fruit production. Of interest, then was the number of inhabitants employed outside the household (question: ‘Work outside of the household’). The results show the only employment outside of household is with the National Park and 23 individuals of the 65 households studied are employed by the

160

J. Tomićević et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 12 (2010) 157–162

National Park. These are generally skilled jobs, logging with horses (this means they must own a horse) or other forestry activities. Most households are supported by subsistence farming and grazing and these agricultural activities are supported on very small landholdings of between one and fifteen hectares. This is a critical factor. After the occupation of the country in WWII, people who managed to accumulate financial capital were named ‘enemies of the nation.’ In 1945, 303 ha of cultivated land was confiscated in this area and placed in a communal fund or given to poor peasants for cultivation. Again 1954, another 855 ha of land were taken from 272 wealth peasants (Ignjić, 1986). The result is that the households no longer own sufficient land to support themselves, educate their children, or plan for the future. Livestock is a very important indicator of the economic power of a household. A survey of the livestock was carried out in the village during the period 1981–2002 (Fig. 2), and shows declining numbers of livestock of all kinds. The answers given by the respondents in relation to these changes include the following: ‘the changes have been negative’, ‘prices and markets are a problem’, ‘children left, so there is less production’. The survey suggests that the high number of old people who now inhabit the village leads to low productivity of the agricultural activities and livestock production. Respondents were asked, “What are the main difficulties in agriculture and livestock production?” In Rastište, 58 interviewees named the problem of finding a market for products as the greatest problem, 51 mentioned the problems of labour force (only old people remain in the village), 37 poor infrastructure, 17 the lack of equipment and 10 interviewees complained of wild animals (for example: wild boar, fox, wolf, bear and others) (Tomicevic 2005: 112). However, very importantly, the National Park is not considered as a limit on for agriculture and livestock production. The agricultural sector, which has a deep cultural roots in the community life, remains central to the livelihoods of the people, but the ability of this sector to sustain the village is severely limited. First, human capital is limited due to the loss of young and middle aged people and this has caused low productivity of the agricultural activities. In addition, the physical capital in terms of infrastructure is limited, especially finding a market for produce and lack of good transportation. These low capitals inhibit adaptation because cattle and sheep are important in the daily life of the community as well as a major part of household production system (e.g. milk, meat, wool). One potential solution to the problem of markets for local produce is to develop cooperative relationships between the village producers and the National Park. When asked the question, “Would you cooperate with the National Park authorities if they guarantee they will buy your products at appropriate prices?, 51 out of 65 interviewees in Rastiste

Fig. 2. Livestock production in Rastiste village in 1981, 1991 and 2002. Source: Republic Institute for Statistics in Belgrade, Census of 1981, 1991 and 2002.

answered ‘yes’, a total of 78.5%. This kind of business relationship between the National Park and local people might seem unusual, but is well within the responsibilities of the Park because it is a public enterprises that was once strongly forestry oriented and now has incorporated nature protection as well. The the Park administration is reponsible for all kinds of activities within the National Park. These results suggest that if local communities couldorganise a system of cooperation enabling secure agricultural production with predictable markets and transportation, it is possible that more sustainable livelihoods could evolve in the local communities. 3.3. Attitudes towards conservation Given the history of the region and the confiscation of private lands during the 1940 s and 1950 s, whether local people are willing to see the National Park, which was established in 1981, as a partner in order to seek greater opportunity for sustainable development is a question. Have the demographic and socio–economic conditions, which have changed in this region since the post-WWII years and since the establishment of the Park, influenced people's attitudes towards the National Park and conservation as well as their attitudes towards the future of their lives in Tara National Park. For the analysis to determine which demographic and socio-economic variables could help to explain why some respondents hold more positive attitudes towards conservation and the future for life in Tara National Park, the nonparametric test of rank correlation was applied together with the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. The variables gender, age, education, work for the National Park were correlated with the combined variable of “having a relationship with the National Park” and “attitudes toward conservation.” These two variables are strongly correlated with each other and vary together, and so were combined for this analysis. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient between the gender of respondents and relationship with the NP is −.251 (df = 65, p < .05), showing that women have a poor relationship with the NP, and thus a negative attitude towards conservation. Males have a more positive attitude towards the National Park and towards conservation than women. We need to note here, however, that the women respondents tended to be older and widowed. Thus, this finding is not surprising, however, since it is the men who are actively connected to the National Park through employment or other relationships, it is important to note that they tend to hold a positive attitude toward working with the National Park and to conservation. The age of respondents and the variable relationship with NP is −.353 (df = 65, p < .01) showing that older people have a poor relationship with the NP, and a more negative attitude towards conservation. This means, of course, that younger people have more positive attitudes towards conservation than older people. Again, this is a critical point since the number of young people is declining through outmigration to employment opportunities and education and the birth rate is low. The variable education and relationship with the NP is .348 (df = 65, p < .01 clearly shows that education has a significant influence on having a positive attitude towards conservation. The respondents who work for the NP tend to have a good relationship with the NP and a positive attitude towards conservation, and thus their correlation coefficient is .841 (df = 65, p < .01). In summary, the findings of this study show that the level of education, age, gender, and current employment all positively influence the attitudes towards the conservation. Not surprisingly, education has a powerful effect on attitudes towards conservation (Fiallo & Jacobson, 1995; Gillingham & Lee, 1999). Positive attitudes towards Tara National Park and conservation in the village were also significantly influenced by the age of the respondents and whether or not they worked for the National Park. The employment in the National Park variable was found to have a

J. Tomićević et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 12 (2010) 157–162

161

significant influence on attitudes towards conservation, possibly the result of benefits received from the Tara National Park Public Enterprise. The findings suggest that benefits are an incentive for people to perceive conservation positively. A correlation between benefits and positive attitudes has been confirmed in many cases (de Boer & Baquete, 1998; Gillingham & Lee, 1999; Hamilton et al., 2000; Abbot et al., 2001; Mehta & Heinen, 2001). Surprisingly, only 13.8% of the population of Rastište village were opposed to Tara National Park or were in conflict with the National Park. However, there were complaints made in relation to the Park's restrictions on the use of natural resources, for example, the prohibition of limekilns or limits on woodcutting. Some of these responses regarding conflicts did include statements of resentment regarding the confiscation of lands in the post-war period. Therefore, increasing local people's involvement in the management of national parks may enhance their support and promote the sustainability of Tara National Park. Nonetheless, the results indicate that respondents who have a good relationship with the National Park or a positive attitude towards conservation are not in conflict with the National Park in any way. The findings of the study show that local people have positive attitudes towards cooperation and participation with the National Park authorities and 78.5% expressed a desire to be included in the management of Tara National Park (Tomicevic 2005: 121). To be included in management means to be asked to participate, to be involved in the activities of the Park, to be engaged in more collaboration with Park managers, and to have improved communication with the Park managers (Tomicevic 2005: 129). The expected outcomes of this inclusion would be improvement in infrastructure (better roads) and access to markets (locally and in the tourist hotels) in the area. In addition, they expect to get more jobs in the Tara Public Enterprise. There are many potential opportunities for greater involvement between the local people and the Park, including employment in infrastructure constructions, maintenance and protection work, or to collect medicinal plants. Indeed, the collection of medicinal plants is one of the major sources of household cash income and not only could some of medical plants be grown by farmers themselves in their own fields with technical and financial assistance from the park management authorities, the local knowledge of how to maintain and sustain these plants could be of significant assistance to the Park in conserving them and protecting biodiversity. These types of results are commonly noted by number of authors studying the participation of local communities as key to a successful conservation strategy (Kiss, 1990; Durbin & Ralambo, 1994; Happold, 1995; Rihoy, 1995; Alpert, 1996; Heinen, 1996), although documenting actual successes is less common (Sibanda, 1995; Richards, 1996).

the agricultural sector as well as the livestock sector. The importance of the agricultural sector can at least be seen from two aspects, namely agriculture as a landscaping factor and as a major source of sustenance for the local community. But, we found from the survey that the low economic benefit from agricultural activities is linked both to the availability of land and the loss of the work force. Nonetheless, perhaps contrary to expectation, the local people remain motivated to seek opportunities for achieving sustainable development in the context of the National Park. This is indicated by their willingness to cooperate in implementing any idea of economic improvements, for example ecotourism and growing organic vegetables for local and tourist consumption. Apart from the economic motivation, another aspect that motivates them to support nature conservation is their memory of how their ancestors always had their customs to maintain good relations between human beings and their environment. But, in terms of motivation, economic aspects remain to be their main focus. The major challenge facing protected areas in Serbia is to develop management systems that deliver both environmental sustainability and tangible long-term benefits for the local people. In case of Tara National Park we identify which elements are important for achieving the sustainable management of protected areas. A large body of literature supports community management processes (Mukherjee & Gangopadhyay, 1997; Nhira et al., 1998; Pratima & Jattan, 1999; Wily et al., 2000), and the successful empowerment of rural communities to manage their natural resources sustainably lies in the governments' ability to devolve management to the local level (Murphree, 2000; Wily & Mbaya, 2001). However, these processes are often complex, thus the level of human and social capacity it critical to the success of participation of local communities in the management of natural resources and nature conservation. Our results show that socioeconomic factors, such us gender, age of respondents, education and work for the National Park build the capacity to support nature conservation as well as strengthen positive attitudes toward nature conservation. Males and the people who are more educated had more positive attitudes towards conservation than females and the people with lower educational levels. The younger people and the people who worked for the National Park were more likely to have a positive attitude toward nature conservation. A majority of people (78.5%) agreed that they would like to participate and cooperate with National Park authorities. Therefore, it is apparent that a participatory management program should reach out to the younger people and those already connected to the National Park in order to develop plans for increased community participation in the management of National Park Tara Public Enterprise.

4. Discussion

5. Conclusion and recommendation

The results of this study indicate that conservation attitudes are influenced mainly by education, age of respondents, gender, and employment by the National Park. Local people were found to hold relatively positive perceptions of Tara National Park, despite experiencing serious economic losses and deprivation since its establishment. This can partly be explained by the recognition by the local population of the intrinsic value of Tara's natural resources, and also by access to certain benefits from the Tara National Park Enterprise. According to the survey results relating to issue of migration, we found that in the village the trend of outmigration of local people continues. Furthermore, we found that an aging population combined with a decreasing number of educated people is a very important factor that leads to the low quality of human capital in the Tara area. The quality of human capital is an essential component for achieving sustainable development. There is no doubt that education increases the quality of human capital of the local people. There are at least two development sectors that must get special attention to achieve sustainable development in Tara area, namely,

A successful participatory management process could go a long way towards improving sustainable livelihoods for the local people by building on the physical, human, social, financial, and natural capitals already present in the village. Since sustainability of the National Park is linked to the sustainability of the livelihoods of the people living within its borders, continuous involvement of local people in conservation activities can lead to sustainable development. It is clear that understanding the relationships between local people and protected areas, as well as knowledge of conflicts between people and protected areas, is required for the design of sustainable conservation strategies for the management of most protected areas. Ensuring local support for protected areas is increasingly viewed as an important element of biodiversity conservation. Furthermore, participation by local communities in management is widely considered a means of sustaining protected areas. Further, new policies have emerged, seeking to promote public participation in planning, decision-making and management of protected areas. Thus, the attitudes of the local people in a conservation area are an important

162

J. Tomićević et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 12 (2010) 157–162

elements for sustainable conservation. Therefore, in this study, we focused on the local people from the Tara National Park. The main conclusion and recommendation of the research is the necessity for a participatory process to support and build the necessary capitals for sustainable livelihoods in order to achieve sustainable conservation management in Tara National Park. Despite having positive attitudes towards Tara National Park, the local population's perceptions of the future for life in the Tara area reflects the influence of their poor socio-economic circumstances in the village and in the country, which is in a very turbulent process of transition. The primary reasons, however, were the demographic changes influenced by the outmigration of local people. Therefore, the findings of our study shows that positive attitudes of local people toward the Park can be a source of increased hopefulness about their future, if they are engaged with the management and decision making for the National Park through a more participatory process. Acknowledgements I want to thank to the people I met during my field-work period in Tara National Park. I am especially grateful to all my interviewees in the village Rastiste who shared their time and explained their opinion to me. In particular, I would like to thank my colleagues and managers from public enterprises NP Tara, for helping me in establishing contacts with my interviewees and for kindly sharing knowledge on the Tara area. Finally, I want to thank to the DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service) for providing funding for the PhD research study at the Faculty of Forest and Environmental Science of the University of Freiburg. References Abbot, J.I.O., Thomas, D.H.L., Gardner, A.A., Neba, S.E., Khen, M.W., 2001. Understanding the links between conservation and development in the Bamenda highlands, Cameroon. World Development 29, 1115–1136. Alpert, P., 1996. Integrated conservation and development projects. Bioscience 46 (11), 845–855. Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Kothari, A., Oviedo, G., 2004a. Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas, Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/pubs/ pdfs/guidelinesindigenouspeople.pdf. Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Pimbert, M., Farvar, M.T., Kothari, A., Renard, Y., 2004b. Sharing Power: Learning by Doing in Co-management of Natural Resources throughout the World. IIED and IUCN/CEESP/CMWG, Cenesta, Tehran. http://www.iucn.org/ themes/ceesp/Publications/sharingpower.htm. De Boer, W.F., Baquete, D.S., 1998. Natural resource use, crop damage and attitudes of rural people in the vicinity of the Maputo Elephant Reserve, Mozambique. Environmental Conservation 25, 208–218. Durbin, J.C., Ralambo, J.A., 1994. The role of local people in the successful maintenance of protected areas in Madagascar. Environmental conservation 21 (2), 115–120. Fiallo, E.A., Jacobson, S.K., 1995. Local communities and protected areas: attitudes of rural residents towards conservation and Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Environmental Conservation 22, 241–249. Gajić, M., 1989. Flora Nacionalnog Parka Tara. Šumarski fakultet i Šumarska sekcija Bajina Bašta, Beograd. Gibbs, C.J., Bromely, D.W., 1990. Institutional arrangements for management of rural resources: community-property regimes. In: Berkes, F. (Ed.), Common property resources: ecology and community-based sustainable development. Belhaven Press, London, pp. 22–33. Gibson, C.C., Marks, S.A., 1995. Transforming rural hunters into conservationists: an assessment of community-based wildlife management programs in Africa. World Development 23 (6), 941–957. Gillingham, S., Lee, Ph.C., 1999. The impact of wildlife-related benefits on the conservation attitudes of local people around the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Environmental Conservation 26 (3), 218–228.

Govan, H., Inglis, A., Pretty, J., Harrison, M., Wightman, A., 1998. Best Practice in Community Participation for National Parks. Scottish Natural Heritage 107, Edinburgh, Scotland. Hamilton, A., Cunningham, A., Byarugaba, D., Kayanja, F., 2000. Conservation in a region of political instability: Bwindi impenetrable forest, Uganda. Conservation Biology 14, 1722–1725. Happold, D.C.D., 1995. The interaction between humans and mammals in Africa in relation to conservation: a review. Biodiversity and Conservation 4, 395–414. Heinen, J.T., 1996. Human behavior, incentives and protected area management. Conservation Biology 10, 681–684. Ignjić, S., 1986. Bajina Bašta i Okolina, treća knjiga. Narodna matična biblioteka u Bajinoj Bašti, Radnički Univerzitet ,,Miloš Trebinjac’’ u Bajinoj Bašti i Opštinska konferencija SSRN u Bajinoj Bašti, Bajina Bašta. Jeanrenaud, S., 1999. People-oriented conservation: progress to date. In: Stolton, S., Dudley, N., (eds) Partnerships for Protection, New Strategies for Planning and Management for Protected Areas. WWF and IUCN, Earthsccan Publication Ltd., London, UK, pp.126–134. Kiss, A., 1990. Living with wildlife, wildlife resource management with local participation in Africa. World Bank Technical Paper 130. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA. Korten, D.C., 1990. Getting to the 21st. century, voluntary action and the global agenda. Kumarian Press, West Hartford. Kothari, A., Suri, S., Singh, N., 1995. People and protected areas-rethinking conservation in India. The Ecologist 25 (5), 188–194. Lofland, J., 1971. Analyzing social settings, a guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc, Belmont, California. Mehta, J.N., Heinen, J.T., 2001. Does community-based conservation shape favorable attitudes among locals? An empirical study from Nepal. Environmental Management 28, 165–177. Messer, N., Townsley, Ph., 2003. Local institutions and livelihoods: guidelines for analysis. Rural Development Division, FAO, Rome. Mukherjee, S.D., Gangopadhyay, P.B., 1997. Is handing over forests to local communities a solution to deforestation? Experience in Andhra Pradesh, India. Indian Forester 123, 460–471. Murphree, M.M., 2000. Community-based conservation: old ways, new myths and enduring challenges. Keynote paper, Conference on African Wildlife Management in the New Millennium. 13–15 December 2000. College of African Wildlife Management, Mweka, Tanzania. Nhira, C., Baker, S., Gondo, P., Mangono, J.J., Marunda, C., 1998. Contesting Inequality in Access to Forests, Policy that Works for Forests and People Series No. 5: Zimbabwe. Centre for Applied Social Services and Forestry Commission, Harare and International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK. PE, National Park Tara, 2002. Program zaštite i razvoja područja Nacionalnog parka Tara za period od 2002–2006 godina, Javno preduzeće Nacionalni park Tara, Bajina Bašta. Pimbert, M.P. and Pretty J.N. 1997. Parks, People and Professionals Putting ‘Participation’ into Protected Area Management. In: Ghimire, K.B., Pimbert, M.P., (eds.) 1997. Social Change and Conservation: Environmental Politics and Impacts of National Parks and Protected Areas. UNRISD and Earthscan, London, pp.297–330. Pratima, P., Jattan, S.S., 1999. Participatory forest management to meet basic needs of forest dependent communities. Indian Forester 125, 895–902. Rao, K., Geisler, C., 1990. The social consequences of protected areas development for resident populations. Society and Natural Resources 3, 19–32. Richards, M., 1996. Protected areas, people and incentives in the search for sustainable forest conservation in Honduras. Environmental Conservation 23, 207–217. Rihoy, E., 1995. The commons without the tragedy? Strategies for community based natural resources management in Southern Africa: Southern African Development Community, Wildlife Technical Coordination Unit, Lilongwe. Sibanda, B.M.C., 1995. Wildlife, conservation and the Tonga in Omay. Land Use Policy 12, 69–85. Tenjović, L., 2000. Statistika u Psihologiji. Centar za primenjenu psihologiju, Beograd. Tomićević, J., 2005. Towards participatory management: linking people, resources and management. A Socio-Economic Study of Tara National Park: Culterra, Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Landespflege der Albert–Ludwigs–Universität Freiburg, Heft, vol. 43, p. 186. Vuković, N., 1997. PC Verovatnoća i Statistika. Fakultet organizacionih nauka, Beograd. Wells, M.P., Brandon, K.B., 1993. The principle and practice of buffer zones and local participation in biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22 (2), 157–162. Western, D., Wright, R.M., Strum, S.C., 1994. Natural connections: perspectives in community-based conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA. Wily, L.A., Mbaya, S., 2001. Land, people and forests in eastern and Southern Africa at the beginning of the 21st century. IUCN, Nairobi, Kenya. Wily, L.A., Akida, A., Haule, O., Haulle, H., Hozza, S., Kavishe, C., Luono, S., Mamkwe, P., Massawe, P., Mawe, S., Ringo, D., Makiya, M., Minja, M., Rwiza, A., 2000. Community management of forests in Tanzania: a status report at the beginning of the 21st century. Forest, Trees and People 42, 36–45.