Evaluation of participatory planning: Lessons from Hungarian Natura 2000 management planning processes.

Stakeholder participation in nature conservation policies and especially in the management of protected areas has gained importance in the last decades. These changes are underlined by democratic principles and the perceived contribution of stakeholder involvement to the effectiveness of conservation management. Evaluating participatory processes is essential to learn about the past and thus increase the quality of future processes. The evaluation can be useful for the organisations responsible for planning and management, stakeholders and policy makers as well. The present paper shows the results of a systematic evaluation of 25 participatory processes related to the development of management plans for Natura 2000 sites in Hungary between 2007 and 2015. A conceptual framework was developed to evaluate the process and outcome of participatory management planning processes. Criteria were based on the scientific literature on public participation and tailored to conservation-related management planning and stakeholder involvement. Evaluated processes were grouped in three cases based on their time range and financial sources. Overall, the analysed processes scored at a medium level, showing better performance in the process criteria than in the outcome criteria. The best case scored significantly higher in four criteria compared to the other cases: representativeness, resource availability for facilitation, new, creative ideas and impact on the plan. The main factors behind the success were (1) embeddedness of the planning process in a larger project, where the plan was a tool for conservation, (2) carrying out only one process at a time, (3) previous experience of facilitators and planners with participatory planning and (4) the opportunity and capacity to propose a payment scheme as an incentive. But even this case received low scores in some criteria: conflict resolution, early involvement and well defined goals. Based on the results we suggest that more data is needed to evaluate the implementation of the plans and, in many cases, the impact of the process on the plan. Performance can be improved with the assistance of policy makers by further developing guidelines, harmonising payment schemes with the conservation measures of the plans and providing training on conflict resolution. The evaluation framework proved to be suitable for the assessment of a large set of conservation related management planning processes, but it also had some limitations, e.g. concerning the incorporation of stakeholders' views in the evaluation.

Landscape ethnoecological knowledge base and management of ecosystem services in a Székely-Hungarian pre-capitalistic village system (Transylvania, Romania).

BACKGROUND: Previous studies showed an in-depth ecological understanding by traditional people of managing natural resources. We studied the landscape ethnoecological knowledge (LEEK) of Székelys on the basis of 16-19(th) century village laws. We analyzed the habitat types, ecosystem services and sustainable management types on which village laws had focused. METHODS: Székelys had self-governed communities formed mostly of "noble peasants". Land-use was dominated by commons and regulated by village laws framed by the whole community. Seventy-two archival laws from 52 villages, resulting in 898 regulations, were analyzed using the DPSIR framework. Explicit and implicit information about the contemporary ecological knowledge of Székelys was extracted. We distinguished between responses that limited use and supported regeneration and those that protected produced/available ecosystem services and ensured their fair distribution. RESULTS: Most regulations referred to forests (674), arable lands (562), meadows (448) and pastures (134). Székelys regulated the proportion of arable land, pasture and forest areas consciously in order to maximize long-term exploitation of ecosystem services. The inner territory was protected against overuse by relocating certain uses to the outer territory. Competition for ecosystem services was demonstrated by conflicts of pressure-related (mostly personal) and response-related (mostly communal) driving forces. Felling of trees (oaks), grazing of forests, meadows and fallows, masting, use of wild apple/pear trees and fishing were strictly regulated. Cutting of leaf-fodder, grazing of green crops, burning of forest litter and the polluting of streams were prohibited. Marketing by villagers and inviting outsiders to use the ecosystem services were strictly regulated, and mostly prohibited. Székelys recognized at least 71 folk habitat types, understood ecological regeneration and degradation processes, the history of their landscape and the management possibilities of ecosystem services. Some aspects of LEEK were so well known within Székely communities that they were not made explicit in village laws, others remained implicit because they were not related to regulations. CONCLUSIONS: Based on explicit and implicit information, we argue that Székelys possessed detailed knowledge of the local ecological system. Moreover the world's first known explicit mention of ecosystem services ("Benefits that are provided by Nature for free") originated from this region from 1786.