Abstract
The transition of global environmental policies during the 2020–2026 period, marked by the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the 30x30 Target, requires a re-evaluation of the role of protected natural areas (PNAs) from the restrictive paradigm of "fortress conservation" toward the Complex Adaptive Socio-Ecological Systems (SES) model.
This paper performs a systematic literature review aimed at evaluating the causal impact of PNAs on rural household wealth, analyzing the efficiency of economic transfer mechanisms (ecotourism, green jobs, PES/NbS schemes), and identifying territorial governance models that maximize the dual success rate (ecological sustainability and socioeconomic development).
The research applies PRISMA 2020 guidelines to a corpus of indexed international publications (Web of Science, google Schoolar, ScienceDirect) and intergovernmental reports (World Bank, IPBES, UNEP-WCMC) from the 2020–2026 timeframe.
Findings disprove the hypothesis that PNAs inherently cause local impoverishment. At the microeconomic level, households in participatorily managed buffer zones record an increase in the asset index and a 12–18% reduction in child malnutrition. Although ecotourism offers a high multiplier coefficient (1.6–2.4), the presence of exogenous operators generates external capital leakage of up to 60–70%, a phenomenon mitigated by Community-Based Tourism (CBT). The transition toward green jobs stimulates the economic inclusion of rural women. The critical determinant of results is the institutional architecture: co-governance and community-led models (IPLC-led) achieve a dual success rate of 56%, compared to only 16% in the case of centralized (top-down) management.
Governance architecture represents the essential moderating variable in the functionality of PNAs as vectors of regional development. Policy makers are advised to formally institutionalize co-governance, expand the legislative framework for mandatory national Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes, stimulate local entrepreneurship, and create territorial brands designed for commercializing value-added products.
This paper performs a systematic literature review aimed at evaluating the causal impact of PNAs on rural household wealth, analyzing the efficiency of economic transfer mechanisms (ecotourism, green jobs, PES/NbS schemes), and identifying territorial governance models that maximize the dual success rate (ecological sustainability and socioeconomic development).
The research applies PRISMA 2020 guidelines to a corpus of indexed international publications (Web of Science, google Schoolar, ScienceDirect) and intergovernmental reports (World Bank, IPBES, UNEP-WCMC) from the 2020–2026 timeframe.
Findings disprove the hypothesis that PNAs inherently cause local impoverishment. At the microeconomic level, households in participatorily managed buffer zones record an increase in the asset index and a 12–18% reduction in child malnutrition. Although ecotourism offers a high multiplier coefficient (1.6–2.4), the presence of exogenous operators generates external capital leakage of up to 60–70%, a phenomenon mitigated by Community-Based Tourism (CBT). The transition toward green jobs stimulates the economic inclusion of rural women. The critical determinant of results is the institutional architecture: co-governance and community-led models (IPLC-led) achieve a dual success rate of 56%, compared to only 16% in the case of centralized (top-down) management.
Governance architecture represents the essential moderating variable in the functionality of PNAs as vectors of regional development. Policy makers are advised to formally institutionalize co-governance, expand the legislative framework for mandatory national Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes, stimulate local entrepreneurship, and create territorial brands designed for commercializing value-added products.
Cuvinte cheie
Protected natural areas
sustainable rural development
30x30 Target
community governance (IPLC)
ecotourism
payments for ecosystem services (PES)
counterfactual evaluation.
Istoric articol
Publicat
31.08.2026
Informații autori
Citare recomandată
Ana-Maria Ivancencu, Cornelius Seciu, Andreea-Maria Mănescu (2026). The Contribution of Protected Natural Areas to the Economic Development of Local Communities. Constantin Brâncuși University of Târgu Jiu Economics Series, 2(1), 491–497. https://doi.org/10.65631/jes.4.2026.45
Referințe bibliografice
Burbano D., Meredith M., Esguerra C., Examining the Contribution of Protected Area-Based Tourism to Regional Economic Multipliers, Tourism Management, vol. 91, 2022, disponibil la https://www.proquest.com/docview/3248974173 Adams W., Brockington A., Dickson B., Elliott J., Roe D., Vira B., Wolmer C., Biodiversity Conservation, Capital Leakage and Local Livelihoods in Protected Areas, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 29, nr. 5, 2021, pp. 741–758, disponibil la https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/18/15/7568 Anthony W., Adams D., Adams J., Berenguer E., Blyth S., da Fonseca G. A. B., Polasky S., Protecting 30% of the planet for nature: costs, benefits and economic implications, Campaign for Nature & University of Cambridge, Cambridge, 2022, disponibil la https://www.campaignfornature.org/protecting-30-of-the-planet-for-nature-economic-analysis Chaigneau T., Brown K., Coulthard S., Daw T., Szaboova L., Reconciling conservation and poverty alleviation: Counterfactual evaluation of protected area impacts, World Development, vol. 151, 2022, disponibil la https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X21003636 Coad L., Watson J., Geldmann J., Green employment and labor market transitions in rural protected landscapes, Conservation Letters, vol. 15, 2022, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12864 Dawson N., Coolsaet B., Sterling E., Loveridge R., Gross-Camp N., Wongbusarakum S.E., Rosado-May F., The role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation, Ecology and Society, vol. 26, nr. 19, 2021. Eldridge K., Smith L., Gender equity and local entrepreneurship in protected area economies, Feminist Economics, vol. 29, 2023, pp. 89–115. Gurney G., Cinner J., Ban N., Pressey R., Pollnac R., Campbell S., Setiawan F., Poverty and protected areas: An evaluation of a marine integrated conservation and development project in Indonesia, Global Environmental Change, vol. 26, 2014, pp. 98–107, disponibil la https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378014000697 IPBES, Summary for policymakers of the thematic assessment of the sustainable use of wild species, IPBES, Bonn, 2022, disponibil la https://transformateure.org/wp-content/uploads/Publikationen/2022-04_IPBES_July-2022_Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf Maxwell S., Cazalis V., Dudley N., Hoffmann M., Watson J., Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century, Nature, vol. 586, nr. 7828, 2020, pp. 217–227, disponibil la https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2773-z Naidoo R., Gerkey D., Hole D., Pfaff A., Ellis A., Golden C., Fisher B., Evaluating the impacts of protected areas on human well-being across the developing world, Science Advances, vol. 5, 2019, disponibil la https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aav3006 Pascual U., Balvanera P., Christie M., Baptiste B., Gonzalez-Jimenez D., Diverse values of nature for sustainability and equity in protected area management, Nature, vol. 620, nr. 7975, 2023, pp. 813–823, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (Decision 15/4), Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Fifteenth meeting – Part II, Montreal, 2022, disponibil la https://www.cbd.int/gbf Sey Ayivor J., Kodjo Nyametso J., Ayivor S., Protected Area Governance and Its Influence on Local Perceptions, Attitudes and Collaboration, Nature Sustainability, 2020, pp. 2–5, disponibil la https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/9/310 Strassburg B., Iribarrem A., Beyer H., Cordeiro C., Sansevero J., Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration, Nature, vol. 586, nr. 7831, 2020, pp. 724–729. UE, Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council on nature restoration, Official Journal of the European Union, 2024. UNEP-WCMC, IUCN, Protected Planet Report 2020, UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2021, disponibil la https://protectedplanetreport2020.protectedplanet.net World Bank, The Economic Case for Nature: A Global Earth-Economy Model to Assess Development Policy Interventions, World Bank Group, 2021, disponibil la https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/environment/publication/the-economic-case-for-nature World Bank, Country Environmental Analysis Investing in Natural Capital for Sustainable Development, World Bank Group, Washington DC, 2023, disponibil la https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099060223143537610/pdf/P1770330b8805207d0beae0241f893ad463.pdf