Finally, peer pressure can be more effective than prescription, and it will be easier to convince landowners of conserving their land when they witness others in their communities do so (10:+2). Factor 3 Factor summary: Factor 3 explains 7 % of the total variance and has an Eigen value of 1.98. Five respondents loaded on the factor, of which three were male and two were female. Three respondents were from the Natura 2000 site and two from the landscape park.
No respondent from the national park loaded on this factor. All five respondents were landowners and farmers. Interpretation of factor 3: The Uncertain—Private land can conserve biodiversity but can threaten landowners’ rights in the process Private land conservation, in its current state, doesn’t have any solution that will satisfy the interest of all stakeholders (6:+3). On the one hand, it is important to conserve private land, selleck compound especially if it holds important biological resources (1:+2). In such cases, it is not a choice between
nature and human needs, and conservation shouldn’t have to EPZ015938 price depend only on voluntary actions and a landowner’s managing capabilities (27:−1; 17:−1: 5:−2). On the Selleckchem Vorinostat other hand, conservation on private land threatens to infringe on a landowner’s property rights and change the primary functioning of his land significantly (15:+4; 14:−4). It does not allow for the landowner to continue the use of his land as he used to and even if it did, conservation measures do not benefit or complement his land use in any way (13:−4; 25:−3). Moreover, the restrictions of being part of a protected area will often Resminostat be in perpetuity and therefore a burden inherited by next generation of
landowners (4:+1). Along with lack of compensatory schemes, the top-down approach of site selection and designating private land as part of protected areas, has also made it conflict ridden (3:0; 35:+3). Even as a mixed model of public and private protected areas, it will not work efficiently as it will impose the same restrictions on the private property as that of the public protected area it is a part of (19:−3; 26:−1). Thus, private land conservation comes across as a tool that takes away a landowner’s authority over his own land (16:+1). Considering the current state of management structure and process in Poland, it is almost impossible to have effective private land conservation (8:+3). Decision making power should not lie in the hands of the managing authorities only and there is a need for stronger collaboration among local stakeholder groups and the managing authorities. (11:−2; 21:+1). There might be new income opportunities from private protected areas that can mitigate some of the challenges, but landowners need to be made aware of those potential opportunities (18:+1; 29:+1).