Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect

Procedia Environmental Sciences 32 ( 2016 ) 70 – 79

International Conference – Environment at a Crossroads: SMART approaches for a sustainable future Assessing public perception on protected areas in Natural Park

Cristiana Maria Ciocăneaa*, Carmen Sorescub, Mirela Ianoșib, Vasile Bagrinovschia

aUniversity of Bucharest, Centre for Environmental Research and Impact Studies, N. Bălcescu, no.1, Sector 1, Bucharest, 010041, b Environmental Protection Agency Caras-Severin, Petru Maior, no.73, Resita, 320111, Romania

Abstract

Iron Gates Natural Park, situated in the south-western part of Romania is protected for its remarkable landscape, high biological diversity and unique habitats. The paper assesse the public perception on protected areas in Iron Gates Natural Park and explore perceptions of local residents and local authorities’ attitudes towards protected areas and conservation activities. Most respondents held a positive attitude towards protected areas and the analysis of their attitudes and perceptions revealed potential conflicts that might affect biodiversity conservation and protected area management. The main problems are the limited knowledge and a poor communication with authorities which implies a lack of local participation in conservation activities. Based on our studies, some recommendations are given for improvement of Iron Gates Natural Park management due to the importance of the local community involvement in conservation activities.

©© 2016 2016 The The Authors. Authors. Published Published by Elsevierby Elsevier B.V ThisB.V. is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (Peerhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/-review under responsibility of the organizing). committee of ECOSMART 2015. Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of ECOSMART 2015 Keywords: protected area; protected area management; public perception;

1. Introduction

Nowadays protected areas are the main tool for conserving biodiversity [1] and the area benefiting of legal protection has been increasing worldwide [2]. Aichi Biodiversity Targets of Convention on Biological Diversity and Habitats Directive were the key policy instruments to stimulate this increase [3]. The main objective of Habitats

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +04-724-581-047. E-mail address: [email protected]

1878-0296 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of ECOSMART 2015 doi: 10.1016/j.proenv.2016.03.013 Cristiana Maria Ciocănea et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 32 ( 2016 ) 70 – 79 71

Directive is to create network that will facilitate the preservation of species and habitats of European conservation concern [4]. After two decades of habitat Directive implemented, Europe attained the highest density of protected areas in the world: 23,814 terrestrial sites that cover 18.7% from its terrestrial surface. In this context Romania established 531 Natura 2000 sites (383 SCIs, and 148 SPAs) that cover 22.96% of its terrestrial surface [5, 6]. Although these efforts are encouraging public support is vital for successful conservation efforts, and the support for conservation efforts will only be engaged and maintained if the nature and goals of conservation activities are widely known, understood and accepted [7]. In many cases conservation aims creates conflicts with local community perceptions, needs and desires [8, 9, 10], because of poor communication between the and organizations designated for protected areas management. In Romania the conservation policies are implemented through management plans, by public or private organizations, appointed by Ministry of Environment for a 10 years period. In Iron Gates Natural Park the organization assigned for this task belongs to public sector and it’s provided by Iron Gates Natural Park Administration part of Romsilva – National Forest Administration since 2003. Perception and attitudes towards protected areas establish the degree of success when it comes to sustainable conservation planning [11, 12, 13], because conservation initiatives require an active participation of local communities in decision making processes and solutions to integrate local development with environmental conservation [14, 15, 16, 17]. According to several authors [18, 19, 20, 21] public perceptions, needs and preferences with regard to environmental quality should be added to any evaluation in order to produce and improve the planning process. Comprehensive and meaningful information on how local communities/residents perceive protected areas and their management is valuable and can be effectively used to plan a better environmental management and eventually develop sustainable tourism [22]. In this process is mandatory to understand that the perceptions can be influenced by socio-demographic factors as well as a variety of other psychological variables, which can be grouped into needs, personal values and personality [23]. Environmental socio-psychology studies conducted to evaluate the relationship between attitudes and behavior have found that attitudes are important determinants of environmentally oriented behavior [24]. Furthermore, an individual’s social context (e.g. age, gender, education level, and race) may influence their attitudes and beliefs regarding human and environment interactions, thereby shaping their behavioral intentions in a specific condition [25, 26]. This study evaluated social context variables, perceptions on protected areas and environmental attitudes of stakeholder groups (farmers, government staff, business persons, and tourists). The principal task was to explore perceptions of local residents and local authorities’ attitudes towards protected areas in Iron Gates Natural Park, in order to establish an efficient communication for improving conservation status of habitats and species. Specifically, our objective is to establish the information level of Iron Gates Natural Park residents on protected areas (1) and identify the socio-demographic determinants that affect public perception (2) in order to generate relevant information for protected area management. The paper will provide a short description of the study area, research methods, main results and conclusions. It is important to specify that until now, in Iron Gates Natural Park, never took place a similar survey with this magnitude, and the results are indispensable for all institution involved in protected areas management process for a successful sustainable conservation planning.

2. Study area

Iron Gates Natural Park, situated in the south-western part of Romania, covers the range of two counties Caras- Severin and Mehedinti, is protected for its remarkable landscape, high biological diversity (over 1600 vegetal taxa - superior plants and over 5200 fauna taxa) and unique habitats [27]. It’s part of European ecological network Natura 2000, Ramsar site, and site of Community Importance (ROSCI0206 – Iron Gate.

It also includes two Special Protection Areas (ROSPA0026 Bazias--Iron Gate and ROSPA0080 Almaj- Locvei Mountains) and it is well known that flood plain ecosystems are among the most productive landscapes on Earth, providing various direct and indirect goods and services to humans [28] as well as supporting diverse ecological communities. At this moment, 18 natural protected areas (mixt, botanical, paleontological, avifaunistic) are established within Iron Gates Natural Park, according to its natural, cultural and anthropic values. Its uniqueness 72 Cristiana Maria Ciocănea et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 32 ( 2016 ) 70 – 79

and complexity represents a heritage with an international reputation that needs all our support for a sustainable management.

3. Methods and results

3.1. Methods

Figure 1 shows the methodological design used to identify opinion groups and their correlation with the profile variables.

Fig. 1 Methodological overview

Survey data form contained 21 items regarding population interest concerning environmental issues, information level on local protected areas, national protected areas, Iron Gates Natural Park, protected species of birds and fishes from IGNP, changes towards landscape, plants and animals compared with previous years in the local horizon, protected area management, Natura 2000 network, attitudes towards protected areas and opinions on activities that should be allowed or prohibited in the Danube River area and its proximities. In order to ascertain the interviewee profile and their information sources regarding protected areas, a part of the survey was set for this task. 8 information sources were taken into account (personal experience, media, internet, official meetings, local authorities, relatives and friends, school, others) of which one offers the possibility of listing other sources than the ones already specified. The scale of assessment has 4 levels: 1 - most, 2 - some, 3 - few, 4 – none. This item offers vital information for authorities and administration institutions of protected areas, in order to plan the best ways to disseminate information about their conservation actions within Iron Gates Natural Park. Also, they will have better results when it comes to volunteer calls and inhabitants contribution to activities that aim biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of protected areas. The questionnaire was applied between October 2011 and March 2012 in 19 localities (Figure 2), 3 (28.37%) urban areas and 16 (71.63%) rural areas, in the range of Caras-Severin and Mehedinti counties. Cristiana Maria Ciocănea et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 32 ( 2016 ) 70 – 79 73

Fig. 2 Spatial distribution of sampling points in Iron Gates Natural Park

The responses where appreciated with Likert scale, having a 1-5 range (1-strong disagreement, 5-strong agreement). Minimum 8 subjects were sampled per locality, reaching a total of 733 respondents (586 residents and other local actors, 46 in town halls, 100 in schools and kindergartens). The sampling method is non-probabilistic and the error of the survey for a 95% confidence level is 3.7%. The method was partially a chain investigation. First, a person was choose randomly for the survey and after was asked to indicate another person that could be a candidate for our survey. In this chain we maximum interviewed 4 persons and after chose randomly another person at minimum 50 meters distance from the last interviewed. When we did not have a recommendation we choose randomly other person. The questions were asked without offering any clue about the answer (e.g. indicating species). Concerning the questions constructed on Likert scale (1 to 5), the interviewer took into account the most appropriate answer, and ask more information if necessary. Categorical variables were mostly obtained and the analysis applied was on frequencies [29]. The obtained frequencies were tabulated in contingency tables. Furthermore to analyse if there’s any relationships between tested variables the Pearson’s chi square test [30] was used. We considered 5 variables for analysing the associations with the rest of variables: gender, age, education, occupation and residence (urban, rural). Survey data were analysed with SPSS, version 19.0 at the significance level of p<0.05 Variables and their categories: - Gender – divide the respondents in 2 groups males and females, the difference between these two groups are represented by their interests and activities, females spend more time in the household while men are more interested in politics and administrative issues and spend more time in nature. - Age – here we have 6 groups (0-18; 18-29; 30-39; 40-49; 50-59, ≥60) with different information sources, different activities and occupations. - Education – 5 groups (elementary school, general school, professional school, high-school, university) were 74 Cristiana Maria Ciocănea et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 32 ( 2016 ) 70 – 79

listed because the level of education usually sets a stock of knowledge and forms a way of thinking since childhood, basis to which other factors add. - Occupation – 7 groups (public sector, private sector, unemployed, pensioner, student, entrepreneur, and housewife) were set due the fact that the field of work offer more or less information on protected areas, and change the way of thinking. - Residence - 2 groups (urban and rural) of individuals because their life style is different, they perceive nature and protected areas in different ways. For example urban residents have more information sources and education opportunities in contrast with the rural residents.

3.2. Results

Demographic variables. 415 women (56.6%) and 318 men (43.4%), with ages between 13 and 84 years old with an average of 41.32 were interviewed. The 30-49 year-old group was the largest one, followed by the 50-59, 60-84 and 13-18 groups. Regarding the education of the interviewed, 4.8% were educated to elementary school, 12.6% to general school, 10.2 % to professional school, 36.3% to high-school and 26.3% to university or higher (Table 1).

Table 1 Demographic data and characteristics of the sample

Characteristics Group Total Gender Females 415 (56.6%) Males 318 (43.4%) Valid answers 733(100%) Age 0-18 85(11.6%) 18-29 83(11.3%) 30-39 142(19.4%) 40-49 141(19.4%) 50-59 128(17.5%) ≥60 111(15.1%) Valid answers 692(94.2%) Education Elementary school 35(4.8%) General school 92(12.6%) Professional school 75(10.2%) High-school 266(36.3%) University 193(26.3%) Valid answers 661(90.2%) Occupation Public sector (budgetary) 242(33%) Private sector 100(13.5%) Unemployed 41(5.6%) Pensioner 126(17.2%) Student 96(13.1%) Employer/Entrepreneur 24(3.3%) Housewife 63(8.6%) Valid answers 692(94.2%) Residence Urban 218(29.7%) Rural 515(70.3%) Valid answers 733(100%) Locality Socol 31(4.2%) Baziaș 12(1.6%) Belobreșca 39(5.3%) Divici 19(2.6%) Pojejena 45(6.1%) Radimna 25(3.4%) Șușca 25(3.4%) Măcești 25(3.4%) Cristiana Maria Ciocănea et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 32 ( 2016 ) 70 – 79 75

Moldova Nouă 59(8%) 44(6%) Gornea 10(1.4%) Sichevița 43(5.9%) Liubcova 20(2.7%) 33(4.5%) Svinița 35(4.8%) Dubova 35(4.8%) Eșelnița 70(9.5%) Orșova 68(9.3%) Drobeta Tr. Severin 91(12.4%) Valid answers 733 (100%)

Interest concerning environmental issues. The analysis revealed a high interest of inhabitants towards environmental protection, 89.8% of population considering environmental protection a daily priority, mostly took in account waste management and resource saving. For 98% of respondent nature protection is important due to its health and welfare factor for present and future generations. A significant association between age, occupation, education and inhabitants daily environmental protection activities was identified (Age J2 =37.850, df=24, p=0.036; Occupation J2 =67.472, df=24, p < 0.001; Education J2 =50.596, df=16, p < 0.001). Thereby 100% of the 60-84 age group consider environmental protection is a daily priority in their life, while only 76.4% of the 13-18 years old consider the same thing; 78% of the unemployed consider environmental protection as a daily priority comparing with the interviewee working in the public sector summing 94.6 %; only 74.6 questioned people which graduated a School of Crafts and Trades consider environmental protection as a daily priority while 94.8% of the people with a superior education grant the same significance. Information level on protected areas. The majority of Iron Gates Natural Park inhabitants (77.4%) are informed about local protected areas. The chi square test revealed a significant association between level of information towards protected areas and age, occupation and education (Age J2 =47.419, df=12, p<0.001; Occupation J2=103.976, df=8, p < 0.001; Education J2 =36.526, df=8, p < 0.001). Thereby 100% of 60-84 years old group doesn’t know about the existence of local protected areas comparing with the other age groups that have a higher level of knowledge (60.4 - 85.9%); the questioned persons that are pensioners or housewives have the lower level of knowledge on local protected areas, 59.5% and 57.1%, while the interviewed ones that are working in the public sector have the highest level of knowledge towards local protected areas (95.5%); 4% of the people that graduate a professional school sustain that local protected areas are inexistent while the best informed respondents, 88.1%, graduate university or a higher education level. Regarding the knowledge of national protected areas, only 59.4% of respondents listed large Romanian protected areas (e.g. Biosphere Reserve, ). Significant association were identified between this item and age, occupation, education and locality type (Age J2 = 29.40, df=12, p=0.003; Occupation J2 = 65.052, df=12, p < 0.001; Education J2 = 52.426, df=8, p < 0.001, Residence J2 = 29.401, df=12, p=0.003). 60% of the elderly group doesn’t know national protected areas while 67.2% of 50-59 years old group is the best informed. The people working in public and private sector have the highest level of information, 76% and 70.8%, and the survey revelead the high educated persons are better informed about this topic, 75%. Also in urban areas the level of information is higher than the one in the rural areas, 69.7% compared to 55.1%. The analysis shows that the main reasons of protection are represented by the flora and fauna (91.8%) followed by landscape (57%), tourism development (53.1%), economic development of the area (33.7%), and water quality protection (5%). Knowledge of protected species from Iron Gates Natural Park. The inhabitants are well informed about protected species of fishes and birds, 71.9 % listed protected birds (e.g. swans, wild ducks, pygmy cormorant, great cormorant, Eurasian coot, white egret, and grey heron) and 68.8% were able to list protected fishes (e.g. sturgeons). Changes towards landscape, plants and animals compared with previous years in the local horizon. The results indicate a low perception of changes in the distribution of flora and fauna in the past years, only 24.3% of the respondents noticed the presence and appearance frequencies of protected species as Testudo hermanni, Vipera ammodytes; and invasive species – trees (e.g. black locust – Robinia pseudoacacia, tree of heaven - Ailanthus 76 Cristiana Maria Ciocănea et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 32 ( 2016 ) 70 – 79

altissima, staghorn sumac - Rhus thypina), aquatic plants and fishes (e.g.brown bullhead - Ameiurus nebulosus). Protected area management. 81.2% of the respondents know about the Iron Gates Natural Park, but they have difficulties in identifying the institution that manages it and its location, only 43.5% identified correctly this item. Significant correlations between the gender, age, occupation, education and the correct identification of administration institution and its location were identified (Gender J2 = 23.771, df=1, p<0.001; Age J2 = 50.649, df=6, p<0.001; Occupation J2 = 75.515, df=6, p < 0.001; Education J2 = 45.152, df=4, p < 0.001). The men are better informed on this topic (51.3%) then the women (33.3%). Attitudes towards protected areas. People perception of the protected area that includes Danube and its wetlands varies by social status and current occupation (Occupation J2 =58.86, df=24, p <0.001). 5.6% individuals consider a protected area as a disadvantage because is not profitable in economic terms and has too much restrictions, 11.5% say that the presence of protected area has no influence and 80.3% realize that protected area is an advantage of the entire region due to tourism opportunities, conservation activities of flora and fauna and landscape protection. Opinions on activities that should be allowed or prohibited in the Danube River area and its proximities. The population attitude towards allowed and prohibited activities in protected areas is complex (Table 3). Indicated activities that should be prohibited in protected areas are the ones that involve cutting trees (80.2%), hunting birds (78.7%), hunting other species (64.8%), stone quarry (64%) and off-road with motorcycle, ATV or car (55.7%). These activities are perceived as a negative influence on the nature. Among the permitted activities, the first place is represented by tourism (92.8%), followed by recreational fishing (89.1%), subsistence fishing (82.7%), aquaculture (72.3%) and house construction on the Danube shore (53.2%).

Table 2 Activities that should be allowed or prohibited in the Danube River area and its proximities chosen by locals

Activities Prohibited % Allowed % Hunting birds 78.7 19.8 Hunting other species 64.8 30.4 Recreational fishing 8 89.1 Subsistence fishing 13.4 82.7 Aquaculture 18.4 72.3 Tourism 1.5 92.8 Off-road with motorcycle, ATV, car 55.7 34.9 House construction on the Danube shore 39.7 53.2 Stone quarry 64 28.5 Cutting trees / Felling 80.2 11.7 Other activities 1.2 0.1

Information sources about Iron Gates Natural Park. Information sources of the respondent vary by age (J2 =60.19, df=18, p<0.001), education (J2 =39.57, df=12, p<0.001), social status and occupation (J2 =76.96, df=18 p<0.001). The elderly rely more on personal experience (23.7%) and media (21.2%), students on information received in educational institutions (40.5%) and internet (29.3%), the people working in institutions with activities connected with environmental protection rely on official meetings (54%) and local authorities (55.8%), and those with a low education level on information received from relatives and friends (35.2%) and also on media (42.4%). The survey results summarized in Table 4 shows that the population receive the most information about Iron Gates Natural Park from media (44.1%), personal experience (42.7%) and internet (35.1%). Cristiana Maria Ciocănea et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 32 ( 2016 ) 70 – 79 77

Table 3 Information sources of respondents about Iron Gates Natural Park

Personal Official Local Relatives, Media Internet School Others experience meetings authorities friends

Most 42.7% 44.1% 35.1% 9% 17.7% 25.6% 24% 1% Some 21.1% 23.9% 17.1% 12% 17.7% 28.4% 13.1% 1.6% Few 7.1% 9% 7.2% 13.5% 17.3% 15.6% 8.6% 3% None 1.8% 3.1% 17.9% 35.6% 23.9% 8.2% 19.8% 2.3%

4. Discussion

This paper makes a big contribution to the conservation planning process in a particular context, Iron Gates Natural Park. This study results shows the perception of Iron Gates Natural Park residents on protected areas, their information towards allowed and prohibited activities and their information sources. Some issues were revealed and they represent important starting points for the improvement of conservation status. An important issue is represented by the fact that 21.7% of the respondent declare that they don’t know about the existence of protected areas within Iron Gates Natural Park. Because when it comes to protected areas management the first step for a sustainable management is to know that the people are living in a protected area and they have to be informed about allowed and prohibited activities, also they need to trust the responsible institutions for environmental management and their effectiveness [31, 32]. They also have to be aware that the authorities can support the inhabitants in their activities, minimizing thereby the negative impact. The reason of poor knowledge of protected areas can be explained by the fact that the locals consider a protected area a very strict zone where all the activities are prohibited. Another concern is the fact that only 30% of the residents attended to activities related to environmental protection – information campaigns, geography contests and greening campaigns. This shows a weak involvement of the locals in a sustainable approach of protected areas. People who have participated in these activities are involved in the educational system (teachers, educators, students) or the nature of their job offers this possibility (employees of institutions that collaborate with the administration of Iron Gates Natural Park). Within future action plans and projects should be find a way to inform and involve more residents in these activities. The results revealed a poor knowledge about the existence of Natura 2000 network, only 22.6% of the respondents have heard at least once about it. These are working in public institutions (71.7%) that have activities linked with environmental protection (institution that conducts activities of forest management, resources administration, education). They should be the main vector of dissemination about the benefits and advantages of Natura 2000 network, by encouraging volunteering, attracting national and European funds. The management capacity of Iron Gates Natural Park Administration can be enhanced through transparency, communication, education and conflict resolutions. Although during the last 15 years Iron Gates Natural Park was the subject of numerous conservational projects with considerable improvements regarding the conservation status of endangered species as Testudo hermanni boettgeri, Vipera ammodytes, Pinus nigras ssp. banatica, where the communication and involvement of local population was an important objective, steps in this direction are still needed.

5. Conclusion

Information level on protected areas is not uniformly distributed within the social categories and vary by level of education (people with a higher level of education are better informed than other categories) and occupation (people working in departments connected with environmental protection or related domains in city halls, forest management departments, schools, kindergartens have better information in this domain, mainly due to their trainings and information sources). 78 Cristiana Maria Ciocănea et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 32 ( 2016 ) 70 – 79

Limited knowledge, information sources and carried activities in protected area lead to a deformed perception on protected areas. These represent real challenges for authorities and administrative institution involved in protected areas management that should straighten their objectives to a better communication and collaboration with the residents of Iron Gates Natural Park, because it is essential to encourage public participation and deliberation to achieve a sustainable management of protected areas.

Acknowledgements

This work was carried out within the framework of the project LIFE10 NAT/RO/000740 – Improving the conservation status for the priority species and habitats in the Iron Gates wetlands, project financed by the EU – DG Environment.

References

1. Society for Ecological Restoration International and IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, Ecological Restoration, a means of conserving biodiversity and sustaining livelihoods. 2004, Society for Ecological Restoration International, Tucson, Arizona, USA and IUCN, Gland, Switzerland 2. Boitani L., Falcucci A., Maiorano L., Rondinini C., Ecological networks as conceptual frameworks or operational tools in conservation. Conservation Biology 2007 21:1414-1422. 3. Tittensor D. P., Walpole M., Hill S. L. L, Boyce D. G., Britten G. L., Burgess N. D., Butchart S. H. M., Leadley P. W., Regan E. C., Alkemade R., Baumung R., Bellard C., Bouwman L., Bowles-Newark N. J., Chenery A. M., Cheung W. W. L., Christensen V., Cooper H. D., Crowther A. R., Dixon M. J. R., Galli A., Gaveau V., Gregory R. D., Gutierrez N. L., Hirsch T. L., Höft R., Januchowski-Hartley S. R., Karmann M., Krug C. B., Leverington F. J., Loh J., Lojenga R. K., Malsch K., Marques A., Morgan D. H. W., Mumby P. J., Newbold T., Noonan-Mooney K., Pagad S. N., Parks B. C., Pereira H. M., Robertson T., Rondinini C., Santini L., Scharlemann J. P. W., Schindler S., Sumaila U. R., The L. S. L., van Kolck J., Visconti P., Ye Y., A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science 2014 346 :241-244. 4. Hochkirch, A., Schmitt T., Beninde J., Hiery M., Kinitz T., Kirschey J., Matenaar D., Rohde K., Stoefen A., Wagner N., Zink A., Lotters S., Veith M., Proelss A., Europe needs a new vision for a Natura 2020 network. Conservation Letters 2013 6:462-467. 5. Ioja, C. I., Patroescu M., Rozylowicz L., Popescu V. D., Verghelet M., Zotta M. L., Felciuc M., The efficacy of Romania's protected areas network in conserving biodiversity. Biological Conservation 2010 143 :2468-2476 6. European Commission, Natura 2000 barometer. Pages 8-9 Natura 2000. Nature and Biodiversity Newsletter. 2013, European Commission, Brussels. 7. Booth J.E., Gaston K.J., Armsworth P.R., Public understanding of protected area designation, Biological Conservation, 2009 142, p 3196- 3200. 8. Bartlett C.Y.,Maltali T., Petro G., Valentine P., Policy implications of protected area discourse in the Pacific islands. Marine Policy 2010 34, 99-104. 9. Primack R.B., Essentials of Conservation Biology, 2006 4th ed. Sinauer Associates, Massachusetts. 10. Rosa H.D., da Silva J.M., From environmental ethics to nature conservation policy: Natura 2000 and the burden of proof. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2005 18, 107- 130. 11. Durrant J.O., Shumway J.M., Attitudes toward wilderness study areas: a survey of six Southeastern Utah countries. Environmental Management 2004 33, 271-283. 12. Eben M., Public participation during site selections for Natura 2000 in Germany: the Bavarian Case. Stoll- Kleemann S., Welp M.(Eds.),Stakeholder Dialogues in Natural Resources Management. 2007, Springer, NewYork, 261-278. 13. Faasen H.,Watts S., Local community reaction to the ‘no-take’ policy on fishing in the Tsitsikamma National Park, South Africa. Ecological Economics 2007 64, 36-46. 14. Gerhardinger L.C., Godoy E.A.S., Jones P.J.S., Local ecological knowledge and the management of marine protected areas in Brazil. Ocean and Coastal Management 2009 52, 154-165. 15. Gillingham S., Lee P.C., The impact of wildlife-related benefits on the conservation attitudes of local people around the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Environmental Conservation 1999 26, 218-228. 16. Hiedanpaa J., The edges of conflict and consensus: a case for creativity in regional forest policy in Southwest Finland. Ecological Economics 2005 55, 485-498. 17. Xu J., Chen L.,Lu Y., Fu B., Local people’s perceptions as decision support for protected area management in Wolong Biosphere Reserve. Journal of Environmental Management 2006 78, 362-372. 18. Cihar M., Stankova J., Attitudes of stakeholders towards the Podyji/Thaya River Basin National Park in the Czech Republic. Journal of Environmental Management, 2006, 81, p 273-285. 19. Daily G.C., (Ed.) Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems, 1997, Washington: Island Press. 20. Priskin J., Tourist perceptions of degradation caused by costal nature-based recreation, Environmental Management 2003, 32, p 189-204. 21. Bennett N.J., Dearden P., Why local people do not support conservation: Community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand, Marine Policy 2014 44: 107-116. 22. Roca E., Villares M., Ortego M.I., Assessing public perceptions on beach quality according to beach users’ profile: A case study in the Costa Brava (Spain), Tourism Management 2009, 30, p 598-607 Cristiana Maria Ciocănea et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 32 ( 2016 ) 70 – 79 79

23. Galloway G., Psychographic segmentation of park visitor markets: evidence for the utility of sensation seeking, Tourism Management 2002, 23, p 581-596. 24. Glasman, L.R., Albarracin, D., Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: a meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychological Bulletin 2006, 778-822. 25. Dunlap, R.E., Liere, K.D.V., Mertig, A.G., Jones, R.E., Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 2000 56 (3),425-442. 26. Stern, P., Dietz, T., Guagnano, G., The new ecological paradigm in socialpsychological context. Environment and Behavior 1995 27 (6), 723. 27. Management Plan of Iron Gates Natural Park, 2013, approved by H.G. 1048/2013 published in M.O. no. 119 (I) of February 11, 2014 28. Tockner K., Uehlinger U., Robinson C.T., Siber R., Tonolla D., Peter F.D. Rivers of Europe – Introduction to European Rivers, 2008, Elsevier/Academic Press, San Diego 29. Heiman G.W. Basic Statistics for the Behavioral Science, 6th Edition, 2011, Wadsworth, USA. 30. Balakrishnan N., Voinov V., Nikulin M.S., Chi-Squared Goodness of Fit Tests with Applications, 2013, Elsevier, Chapter 9:197-213. 31. Bogaert D., Cliquet A.,Maes F., Designation of marine protected areas in Belgium: a legal and ecological success? Marine Policy 2009 33, 878-886. 32. Kim T.G., Efficient management of marine resources in conflict: an empirical study of marines and mining, Korea. Journal of Environmental Management 2009 91, 78-86.