Understanding Public Participation and Perceptions of Stakeholders for a Better Management in Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (Romania)

  • M. N. Văidianu
  • M. C. Adamescu
  • M. Wildenberg
  • C. Tetelea
Chapter

Abstract

Community needs ask for local management approaches as a response to the structure and evolution of a specific environment. The importance of managerial ethics in individualizing operational entities in terms of sustainable development of increasingly tense spaces stands for an efficient design of socio-ecological systems, such as Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (DDBR). Such an approach helps people gain knowledge, values and the awareness they need to manage efficiently environmental resources and to take responsibility for maintaining environmental quality. This study examines the perceptions of local stakeholders in Sfantu Gheorghe, DDBR, Romania, with the aim of developing key concepts that will be used in future information and communication strategies regarding economic characteristics, sustainable development and biodiversity conservation in the area. For this 30 cognitive maps were developed together with stakeholders. Analysis reveals that DDBR Administration, county authorities and local authorities are substantially worried about the pollution and overfishing, while other social groups care more about touristic activities, accessibility degree, health system or financial resources. The lack of coordination and effective policies for the management of different sectors of activities were also identified as a common problem and have accentuated both environmental and socio-economic problems.

Supplementary material

304354_1_En_19_MOESM1_ESM.zip (31 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (zip 31 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Axelrod, R.: Structure of decision: the cognitive maps of political elites (Princeton University Press 1976)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bachhofer, M., Wildenberg, M.: FCMapper, http://www.fcmappers.net (2010)
  3. 3.
    Burns, R.C., Arnberger, A., von Ruschkowski, E.: Social carrying capacity challenges in parks, forests and protected areas. Int. J. Sociol. 40(3), 30–50 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gâstescu, P., Driga, B., Anghel, C.: Çaracteristicile morfohidrologice ale Deltei Dunării ca rezultat al modificărilor naturale si antropice actuale. Caracteristicile morfohidrologice ale Deltei Dunării ca rezultat al modificărilor naturale si antropice actuale. Hidrobiologia. 18 29–43, (1983)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ianos, I., Stoica, V., Tălângă, C., Văidianu, N.: Politics of tourism development in Danube Delta biosphere reserve. In: 12th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference, SGEM2012 Conference Proceedings. 4 1067–1075 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Isak, K.G.Q., Wildenberg, M., Adamescu, M., Skov, F., De Blust, G., Varjopuro, R.: A long-term biodiversity. manual for applying fuzzy cognitive mapping—experiences from ALTER-Net, ecosystem and awareness research network (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kafetzis, A., McRoberts, N., Mouratiadou, I.: Using fuzzy cognitive maps to support the analysis of stakeholders’ views of water resource use and water quality policy In: Glykas, M. (ed.). Fuzzy cognitive maps: advances in theory, methodologies, tools and applications. pp. 383–402. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Khan, M.S., Bhagwat, S.A.: Protected areas: a resource or constraint for local people? a study at Chitral Gol national park, North-West Frontier Province. Pak. Mt. Res. Dev. 30(1), 14–24 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kok, K.: The potential of fuzzy cognitive maps for semi-quantitative scenario development, with an example from Brazil. Glob. Environ. Change 19(1), 122–133 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kontogianni, A., Papageorgiou, E., Salomatina, L., Skourtos, M., Zanou, B.: Risks for the black sea marine environment as perceived by Ukrainian stakeholders: a fuzzy cognitive mapping application. Ocean Coast. Manag. 62, 34–42 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kontogianni, A.D., Papageorgiou, E.I., Tourkolias, C. How do you perceive environmental change? fuzzy cognitive mapping informing stakeholder analysis for environmental policy making and non-market valuation. Appl. Soft. Comput. Press (2012).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kosko, B.: Fuzzy cognitive maps. Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 24, 65–75 (1986)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lebel, L., Daniel, R., Badenoch, N., Garden, P., Imamura, M.: A multi-level perspective on conserving with communities: experiences from upper tributary watersheds in montane mainland Southeast Asia. Int. J. Commons 2(1), 127–154 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    MacLeod, M., Cooper, J.A.G.: In: Schwartz, M.L. (ed.) Carrying Capacity in Coastal Areas by Encyclopedia of Coastal Science, pp. 226. Springer, Dordrecht (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meliadou, A., Santoro, F., Nader, M.R., Dagher, M.A., Indary, S.A., Salloum, B.A.: Prioritizing coastal zone management issues through fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. J. Environ. Manage. 97, 56–68 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Merciu, F.C., Cercleux, A.L., Peptenatu, D., Văidianu, N., Pintilii, R.D., Draghici, C.: Tourism—an opportunity for the invigoration of rural area’s economy in Romania? Annals of the University of Bucharest—Geography Series LX 75–90 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mouratiadou, I., Moran, D.: Mapping public participation in the water framework directive: a case study of the Pinios river basin. Greece. Ecol. Econ. 62, 66–76 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ozesmi, U., Ozesmi, S.: Ecological models based on people’s knowledge: a multi-step fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Ecol. Model. 176, 43–64 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ozesmi, U.: Ecosystems in the mind: fuzzy cognitive maps of the Kizilirmak delta Wetlands in Turkey (PhD Dissertation titled conservation strategies for sustainable resource use in the Kizilirmak delta - Turkey), University of Minnesota, (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Papageorgiou, E., Kontogianni, A.: Using fuzzy cognitive mapping in environmental decision making and management: a methodological primer and an application. In: Young, S.S., Silvern, S.E (eds.) International Perspectives on Global Environmental Change. pp. 427–450. InTech (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Papageorgiou, E.I., Markinos, A.T., Gemtos, T.A.: Fuzzy cognitive map based approach for predicting yield in cotton crop production as a basis for decision support system in precision agriculture application. Appl. Soft Comput. 11, 3643–3657 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Papageorgiou, E.I.: A review of fuzzy cognitive maps research during the last decade. In: Glykas, M. (eds.) Business Process Management. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol. 444, pp. 281–298. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peres, C.A., Lake, I.R.: Extent of non-timber resource extraction in tropical forests: accessibility to game vertebrates by hunters in the Amazon basin. Conserv. Biol. 17(2), 521–535 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Perusich, K.: Fuzzy cognitive maps for policy analysis. In: Technology and Society Technical Expertise and Public Decisions, International Symposium Proceedings (1996)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Petrisor, A.I., Ianos, I., Iurea, D., Văidianu, N.: Applications of principal component analysis integrated with GIS. Procedia Environ. Sci. 14, 247–256 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Prato, T.: Fuzzy adaptive management of social and ecological carrying capacities for protected area. J. Environ. Manage. 90, 2551–2557 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Prato, T.: Increasing resilience of natural protected areas to future climate change: a fuzzy adaptive management approach. Ecol. Model. 242, 46–53 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Prigent, M., Fontenelle, G., Rochet, M.J., Trenkel, V.M.: Using cognitive maps to investigate fisher’s ecosystem objectives and knowledge. Ocean Coast. Manag. 51(6), 450–462 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rao, K.S., Nautiyal, S., Maikhuri, R.K., Saxena, K.G.: Management conflicts in the Nanda Devi biosphere reserve. India. Mt. Res. Dev. 20(4), 320–323 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Salonen, M., Toivonen, T., Cohalan, J.M., Coomes, O.T.: Critical distances: comparing measures of spatial accessibility in the riverine landscapes of Peruvian Amazonia. Appl. Geogr. 32(2), 501–513 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Văidianu, N., Iosub, F.: Implications of accessibility degree in Danube Delta human community. In: Proceedings of CoastGIS 2011: 10th International Symposium on GIS and Computer Mapping for Coastal Zone Management, Subtitle: Marine and Coastal Spatial Planning. Romania, 1, 68–73 (2011)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Văidianu, N.: Designing the development of human settlements in a restrictive space: the Danube Delta biosphere reserve (in Romanian). Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Bucharest (2011)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Van Vliet, M., Kok, K., Veldkamp, T.: Linking stakeholders and modelers in scenario studies. the use of Fuzzy cognitive maps as a communication and learning tool. Futures 42(1), 1–14 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Voinov, A., Bousquet, F.: Modelling with stakeholders. Environ. Model. Softw. 25, 1268–1281 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wildenberg, M., Bachhofer, M., Adamescu, M., De Blust, G., Diaz-Delgadod, R., Isak, K.G.Q., Skov, F., Riku, V.: Linking thoughts to flows: fuzzy cognitive mapping as tool for integrated landscape modeling. In: Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on integrative landscape modeling: linking environmental, social and computer science vol. 3–5 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. N. Văidianu
    • 1
  • M. C. Adamescu
    • 2
  • M. Wildenberg
    • 3
  • C. Tetelea
    • 4
  1. 1.CICADITUniversity of BucharestBucharestRomania
  2. 2.Department of Systems Ecology and SustainabilityUniversity of BucharestBucharestRomania
  3. 3.UmweltforschungsinstitutGLOBAL 2000ViennaAustria
  4. 4.WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme RomaniaBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations