A network approach for understanding opportunities and barriers to effective public participation in the management of protected areas

  • Andreea NitaEmail author
  • Cristiana M. Ciocanea
  • Steluta Manolache
  • Laurentiu Rozylowicz
Original Article


Generally, the management of protected areas is accepted to have conflicts, particularly between stakeholders and public agencies. NGOs may be viewed as the key players in implementing management systems, offering essential organizational support, and ensuring information flow within the entire network. Non-participative protected area management often leads to conflicts, particularly between stakeholders and administrative public agencies. Involving NGOs in management decisions can play an essential role in the successful enforcement of conservation programs. In this paper, we merge public perception with social network analysis to identify the network management structure of Iron Gates Natural Park, a Natura 2000 protected area in Romania. By conducting surveys of the local population in 2012 and 2016, we observed an increasing trend in awareness regarding the protected area and conservation methods conducted by the area’s administration. Subsequently, we identified lower percentages of participation by the local population in these activities. The social network analysis applied to management actors and relationships among them revealed a marginal position of NGOs in park management, including a lack of coordination between these NGOs. The network analyses draw attention to the outdated Romanian management system, which essentially works only in theory and is often based on outdated legislation. Our conclusions illustrate the actual collaborative relationships between stakeholders and offer significant recommendations for achieving established management objectives. Public bodies and NGOs should together address ecological and societal issues in the management of Natura 2000 to ensure sustainability, improve trust, and establish long-term viability of natural and cultural heritage.


Hotspots of collaboration Reciprocity Participatory management Natura 2000 



This work was supported by a grant from the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research, CNCS—UEFISCDI (, PN-III-P4-ID-PCE-2016-0483.

Supplementary material

13278_2018_509_MOESM1_ESM.docx (533 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 533 kb)
13278_2018_509_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (22 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 22 kb)


  1. Alexander SM, Andrachuk M, Armitage D (2016) Navigating governance networks for community-based conservation. Front Ecol Environ 14:155–164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angelstam P, Elbakidze M, Axelsson R et al (2013) Maintaining cultural and natural biodiversity in the Carpathian Mountain ecoregion: need for an integrated landscape approach. In: Kozak J, Ostapowicz K, Bytnerowicz A, Wyżga B (eds) The Carpathians: integrating nature and society towards sustainability. Environmental science and engineering. Springer, Berlin. ​ CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ban NC, Mills M, Tam J et al (2013) A social-ecological approach to conservation planning: embedding social considerations. Front Ecol Environ 11:194–202. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berardo R, Heikkila T, Gerlak AK (2014) Interorganizational engagement in collaborative environmental management: evidence from the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. J Public Adm Res Theor 24:697–719. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bixler RP, Wald DM, Ogden LA et al (2016) Network governance for large-scale natural resource conservation and the challenge of capture. Front Ecol Environ 14:165–171. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Block P (2015) Reciprocity, transitivity, and the mysterious three-cycle. Soc Netw 40:163–173. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bodin Ö (2017) Collaborative environmental governance: achieving collective action in social–ecological systems. Science 315:eaan1114. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bodin Ö, Crona BI (2009) The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what relational patterns make a difference? Glob Environ Change 19:366–374. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bodin Ö, Robins G, McAllister RRJ et al (2016) Theorizing benefits and constraints in collaborative environmental governance: a transdisciplinary social-ecological network approach for empirical investigations. Ecol Soc 21:art40. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borgatti SP (2002) Netdraw network visualisation. Analytic Technologies, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  11. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (2002) Ucinet for Windows: software for social network analysis.  Analytic Technologies, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  12. Cazabet R, Takeda H, Masahiro H (2015) Characterizing the nature of interactions for cooperative creation in online social networks. Soc Netw Anal Min 5:1–17. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chrobot-Mason D, Gerbasi A, Cullen-Lester KL (2016) Predicting leadership relationships: the importance of collective identity. Leadersh Quart 27:298–311. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ciocanea CM, Sorescu C, Ianosi M, Bagrinovschi V (2016) Assessing public perception on protected areas in Iron Gates Natural. Procedia Environ Sci 32:70–79. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dávid B, Huszti E, Barna I, Fu Y (2016) Egocentric contact networks in comparison: Taiwan and Hungary. Soc Netw 44:253–265. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Everett MG, Borgatti SP (2014) Networks containing negative ties. Soc Netw 38:111–120. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gesell SB, Barkin SL, Valente TW (2013) Social network diagnostics: a tool for monitoring group interventions. Implement Sci 8:1–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glucker AN, Driessen PPJ, Kolhoff A, Runhaar HAC (2013) Public participation in environmental impact assessment: why, who and how? Environ Impact Assess Rev 43:104–111. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gorriz-Mifsud E, Secco L, Da R et al (2017) Structural social capital and local-level forest governance: do they inter-relate? A mushroom permit case in Catalonia. J Environ Manag 188:364–378. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hâncean M-G, Perc M (2016) Homophily in coauthorship networks of East European sociologists. Sci Rep 6:36152. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanneman R, Riddle M (2005) Introduction to social network methods. ​University of California, RiversideGoogle Scholar
  22. Hossu CA, Ioja IC, Nita MR et al (2017) Need for a cross-sector approach in protected area management. Land Use Policy 69:586–597. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hossu CA, Ioja IC, Susskind LE et al (2018) Factors driving collaboration in natural resource conflict management: evidence from Romania. Ambio. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huitsing G, van Duijn MAJ, Snijders TAB et al (2012) Univariate and multivariate models of positive and negative networks: liking, disliking, and bully-victim relationships. Soc Netw 34:645–657. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. IGNPA (2013) Iron Gates Natural Park Management Plan. RNP Romsilva-Administratia Parcului Natural Portile de Fier, OrsovaGoogle Scholar
  26. Ioja IC, Hossu CA, Nita MR et al (2016) Indicators for environmental conflict monitoring in Natura 2000 sites. Procedia Environ Sci 32:4–11. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kamphorst DA, Bouwma IM, Selnes TA (2017) Societal engagement in Natura 2000 sites. A comparative analysis of the policies in three areas in England, Denmark and Germany. Land Use Policy 61:379–388. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Karsai M, Perra N, Vespignani A (2014) Time varying networks and the weakness of strong ties. Sci Rep 4:4001. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kronenberg J, Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska A, Zbieg A, Żak B (2015) Wasting collaboration potential: a study in urban green space governance in a post-transition country. Environ Sci Policy 62:69–78. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lazega E, Quintane E, Casenaz S (2017) Collegial oligarchy and networks of normative alignments in transnational institution building. Soc Netw 48:10–22. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leadley PW, Krug CB, Alkemade R, et al (2013) Progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets : an assessment of biodiversity trends, policy scenarios and key actions (Global Biodiversity Outlook 4: Technical Report). Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  32. Lemos MC, Agrawal A (2006) Environmental governance. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:297–325. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Li W, Liu J, Li D (2012) Getting their voices heard: three cases of public participation in environmental protection in China. J Environ Manag 98:65–72. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Llopis-Albert C, Palacios-Marques D, Soto-Acosta P (2015) Decision-making and stakeholders’ constructive participation in environmental projects. J Bus Res 68:1641–1644. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lubell M, Robins G, Wang P (2014) Network structure and institutional complexity in an ecology of water management games. Ecol Soc 19(4):23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Manolache S, Ciocanea CM, Rozylowicz L, Nita A (2017) Natura 2000 in Romania—a decade of governance challenges. Eur J Geogr 8:24–34Google Scholar
  37. Manolache S, Nita A, Ciocanea CM et al (2018) Power, influence and structure in Natura 2000 governance networks. A comparative analysis of two protected areas in Romania. J Environ Manag 212:54–​64. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mbaru EK, Barnes ML (2017) Key players in conservation diffusion: using social network analysis to identify critical injection points. Biol Conserv 210:222–232. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mills M, Álvarez-Romero JG, Vance-Borland K et al (2014) Linking regional planning and local action: towards using social network analysis in systematic conservation planning. Biol Conserv 169:6–13. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nita MR, Niculae MI, Vânău GO (2015a) Integrating spatial planning of protected areas and transportation infrastructures. In: Ocalir-Akunal EV (ed) Using decision support systems for transportation planning efficiency. IGI Global Press, Hershey. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nita A, Buttler A, Rozylowicz L, Patru-Stupariu I (2015b) Perception and use of landscape concepts in the procedure of environmental impact assessment: case study—Switzerland and Romania. Land Use Policy 44:145–152. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nita A, Rozylowicz L, Manolache S et al (2016) Collaboration networks in applied conservation projects across Europe. PLoS ONE 11:1–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nita A, Manolache S, Ciocanea CM, Rozylowicz. L (2017) A social network approach to diagnose public participation in protected areas management. Insights from a Natura 2000 case study. In: The 2017 IEEE/ACM international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining, pp 771–774.
  44. Opsahl T, Agneessens F, Skvoretz J (2010) Node centrality in weighted networks: generalizing degree and shortest paths. Soc Netw 32:245–251. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325:419–422. ​ MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. Popescu VD, Rozylowicz L, Niculae IM et al (2014) Species, habitats, society: an evaluation of research supporting EU’s Natura 2000 network. PLoS ONE 9:e113648. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Cons 141:2417–2431. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Robins G, Bates L, Pattison P (2011) Network governance and environmental management: conflict and cooperation. Public Adm 89:1293–1313. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Secco L, Favero M, Masiero M, Pettenella DM (2017) Failures of political decentralization in promoting network governance in the forest sector: observations from Italy. Land Use Policy 62:79–100. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stanciu E, Ionita A (2014) Governance of protected areas in Eastern Europe: overview on different governance types, case studies and lessons learned. Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN), BonnGoogle Scholar
  51. Tortajada C (2016) Nongovernmental organizations and influence on global public policy. Asia Pac Policy Stud 3:266–274. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ulibarri N, Scott TA (2017) Linking network structure to collaborative governance. J Public Adm Res Theor 27:163–181. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84:523–538. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Environmental Research and Impact Studies, University of BucharestBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations