Submitted:
29 May 2024
Posted:
29 May 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area

2.2. Projects Related to Environmental Upgrade
- “LIFE09NAT/GR/000323”: «Demonstration of the Biodiversity Action Planning Approach, to Benefit Local Biodiversity on an Aegean Island, Skyros» (01/09/2010 – 28/02/2016).
- “PAMNATURA” (Participatory and Adaptive Management in NATURA areas): «Model Design for Participatory and Adaptive Management of Greek Natura 2000 sites» (27/08/2012- 26/08/2015).
2.3. Questionnaire’s Structure
2.4. Sampling–Data Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics
3.2. Acceptability of the LIFE Project Actions by Local People
3.3. The NEP Scores
| Responses (%)* | Mean | |||||
| Statement | SA | A | U | D | SD | |
| (%) | ||||||
| 1. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support | 18 | 33 | 14 | 26 | 9 | 3.25 |
| 2. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs | 1 | 4 | 7 | 37 | 51 | 4.33 |
| 3. When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences | 58 | 37 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 4.50 |
| 4. Human ingenuity will ensure that we do NOT make the earth unlivable | 6 | 13 | 23 | 38 | 20 | 3.50 |
| 5. Humans are severely abusing the environment | 35 | 52 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 4.13 |
| 6. The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them | 45 | 34 | 5 | 11 | 6 | 1.98 |
| 7. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist | 60 | 35 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 4.51 |
| 8. The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations | 2 | 7 | 13 | 48 | 30 | 3.97 |
| 9. Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature | 39 | 48 | 4 | 7 | 1 | 4.19 |
| 10. The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated | 12 | 16 | 16 | 39 | 17 | 3.34 |
| 11. The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources | 14 | 43 | 17 | 20 | 6 | 3.39 |
| 12. Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature | 4 | 10 | 14 | 49 | 24 | 3.80 |
| 13. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset | 31 | 49 | 9 | 9 | 2 | 3.99 |
| 14. Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it | 5 | 21 | 24 | 41 | 9 | 3.28 |
| 15. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe | 43 | 47 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 4.28 |
3.4. Correlation between Acceptability of the LIFE Project Actions and the Single NEP Scale Score
3.5. The Single NEP Score and the Acceptability of the LIFE Project Actions in Relation to the Characteristics of the Sample


4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments:
Conflicts of Interest
References
- McAllister, K. Understanding Participation: Monitoring and Evaluating Process, Outputs and Outcomes; International Development Research Centre: Ottawa, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Stoll-Kleemann, S. Barriers to nature conservation in Germany: a model explaining opposition to protected areas. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2001, 21, 369–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez, G.A.; Vargas-Chaves, I. Participation in environmental decision making as an imperative for democracy and environmental justice in Colombia. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 2018, 9, 145–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berry, L.H.; Koski, J.; Verkuijl, C.; Strambo, C.; Piggot, G. Making Space: How Public Participation Shapes Environmental Decision-Making; Stockholm Environment Institute: Stockholm, Sweden, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Carrick, J.; Bell, D.; Fitzsimmons, C.; Gray, T.; Stewart, G. Principles and practical criteria for effective participatory environmental planning and decision-making. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koontz, T.M. Citizen participation: conflicting interests in state and national agency policy making - Policy lessons for a new century. The Social Science Journals 1999, 36, 441–458. [Google Scholar]
- Ran, B. Evaluating public participation in environmental policy-making. Journal of US-China Public Administration 2012, 9, 407–423. [Google Scholar]
- Ghaffari, R.; Tonkaboni, M.A. Citizen participation policy making for environmental issues: A literature review. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University 2020, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kapoor, I. Towards participatory environmental management? Journal of Environmental Management 2001, 63, 269–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chambers, R. Paradigm shifts and the practice of participatory research and development. In Power and Participatory Development. Theory and Practice; Nelson, N., Wright, S., Eds.; Intermediate Technology Publications: London, UK, 1994; pp. 30–42. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, J.; Chen, L.; Lu, Y.; Fu, B. Local people’s perceptions as decision support for protected area management in Wolong Biosphere Reserve, China. Journal of Environmental Management 2006, 78, 362–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Birendra, K.C. Complexity in balancing conservation and tourism in protected areas: Contemporary issues and beyond. Tourism and Hospitality Research 2022, 22, 241–246. [Google Scholar]
- Linkov, I.; Satterstrom, F.K.; Kiker, G.; Batchelor, C.; Bridges, T.; Ferguson, E. From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: Recent developments and applications. Environment International 2006, 32, 1072–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aloni, C.; Daminabo, I.; Alexander, B.C.; Bakpo, M.T. The importance of stakeholders involvement in Environmental Impact Assessment. Resources and Environment 2015, 5, 146–151. [Google Scholar]
- Haddaway, N.R.; Kohl, C.; Rebelo da Silva, N.; Schiemann, J.; Spök, A.; Stewart, R.; Sweet, J.B.; Wilhelm, R. A framework for stakeholder engagement during systematic reviews and maps in environmental management. Environmental Evidence 2017, 6, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walkerden, G. Adaptive management planning projects as conflict resolution processes. Ecology and Society 2006, 11, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agrawal, A.; Gibson, C.C. Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource. Conservation World Development 1999, 27, 629–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geoghegan, T.; Renard, Y. Beyond community involvement: lessons from the insular Caribbean. Parks 2002, 12, 16–27. [Google Scholar]
- Shi, X.; Ling, G.H.T. Factors influencing collective action of gated communities: a systematic review using an SES framework. Open House International 2023, 48, 325–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castro, A.P.; Nielson, E. Indigenous people and co-management: implications for conflict management. Environmental Science and Policy 2001, 4, 229–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rao, K.S.; Maikhuri, R.K.; Saxena, K.G. Local people’s knowledge, aptitude and perceptions of planning and management issues in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India. Environmental Management 2003, 31, 168–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rechciński, M.; Tusznio, J.; Grodzińska-Jurczak, M. Protected area conflicts: a state-of-the-art review and a proposed integrated conceptual framework for reclaiming the role of geography. Biodiversity and Conservation 2019, 28, 2463–2498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IUCN. Conflict and Conservation Nature in a Globalised World; Report No.1; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Trakolis, D. Local people’s perceptions of planning and management issues in Prespes Lakes National Park, Greece. Journal of Environmental Management 2001, 61, 227–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kite-Powell, A.C.; Harding, A.K. Nitrate contamination in Oregon Well Water: Geologic variability and the public’s perception. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 2006, 42, 975–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kierman, L.; Ledwith, A.; Lynch, R. Design teams management of conflict in reaching consensus. International Journal of Conflict Management 2020, 31, 263–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newmark, W.D.; Leonard, N.L.; Sariko, H.I.; Gamassa, D.M. Conservation attitudes of local people living adjacent to five protected areas in Tanzania. Biological Conservation 1993, 63, 177–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agrawal, A. Adaptive management in transboundary protected areas: the Bialowieza National Park and Biosphere Reserve as case study. Environmental Conservation 2000, 27, 326–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trakolis, D. Perceptions, preferences, and reactions of local inhabitants in Vikos-Aoos National Park, Greece. Environmental Management 2001, 28, 665–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandara, R.; Tisdell, C. Comparison of rural and urban attitudes to the conservation of Asian elephant in Sri Lanka: empirical evidence. Biological Conservation 2003, 110, 327–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papageorgiou, K.; Vogiatzakis, I.N. Nature protection in Greece: an appraisal of the factors shaping integrative conservation and policy effectiveness. Environmental Science and Policy 2006, 9, 476–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allendorf, T.D. Residents’ attitudes toward three protected areas in southern Nepal. Biodiversity and Conservation 2007, 16, 2087–2102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Comerford, E. Understanding why landholders choose to participate or withdraw from conservation programs: A case study from a Queensland conservation auction. Journal of Environmental Management 2014, 141, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drescher, M.; Warriner, G.; Farmer, J.; Larson, B. Private landowners and environmental conservation: A case study of social-psychological determinants of conservation program participation in Ontario. Ecology and Society 2017, 22, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milán-García, J.; Uribe-Toril, J.; Ruiz-Real, J.L.; de Pablo Valenciano, J. Sustainable local development: An overview of the state of knowledge. Resources 2019, 8, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunlap, R.E. The New Environmental Paradigm scale: From marginality to worldwide use. The Journal of Environmental Education 2008, 40, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D.; Mertig, A.G.; Jones, R.E. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 2000, 56, 425–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D. The New Environmental Paradigm. The Journal of Environmental Education 1978, 9, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernstein, J. Renewing the New Environmental Paradigm Scale: the Underlying Diversity of Contemporary Environmental Worldviews. Ph.D. thesis, University of Hawaii at Mānoa, 2017; 117p. [Google Scholar]
- Ntanos, S.; Kyriakopoulos, G.; Skordoulis, M.; Chalikias, M.; Arabatzis, G. An application of the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scale in a Greek context. Energies 2019, 12, 239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mannigel, E. Integrating parks and people: How does participation work in protected area management? Society & Natural Resources 2008, 21, 498–511. [Google Scholar]
- Borrini-Feyerabend, G. Collaborative Management of Protected Area: Tailor the Approach to the Context; IUCN: Gland, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Pimbert, M.P.; Pretty, J.N. Parks, people and professionals: Putting ‘participation’ into protected area management. In Social Change and Conservation. Environmental Politics and Impacts of National Parks and Protected Areas; Ghimire, K.B., Pimbert, M.P., Eds.; Earthscan: London, 1997; pp. 297–330. [Google Scholar]
- Mattes, A. Partizipation der Bevölkerung am Management von zwei Ausgewählten Schutzgebieten in Minas Gerais, Brasilien. Der PRA-Ansatz als Beginn einer Zusammenarbeit Zwischen Schutzgebietsverwaltung und Bevölkerung in der Pufferzone; Diplomarbeit, Faculty of Forestry, Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg: Freiburg, Germany, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Diamond, N. Participatory Conservation for Protected Areas. An Annotated Bibliography of Selected Sources (1996–2001); World Bank: Washington, DC, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Chassany, J.-P.; Rulleau, B.; Salles, J.M. Evolution of Biodiversity Policies on the Territory of the Cevennes National Park (France): Some Contractual Approach Issues, Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute, 2004.
- Henle, K.; Alard, D.; Clitherow, J.; Cobb, P.; Firbank, L.; Kull, T.; McCracken, D.; Moritz, R.F.A.; Niemela, J.; Rebane, M.; Wascher, D.; Watt, A.; Young, J. Identifying and managing the conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe - A review. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 2008, 124, 60–71. [Google Scholar]
- Quetier, F.; Marty, P.; Lepart, J. Farmers management strategies and land use in an agropastoral landscape: roquefort cheese production rules as a driver of change. Agricultural Systems 2005, 84, 171–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barratt, L.; Bollen, A.; Delbaere, B.; Houston, J.; Sliva, J.; Velghe, D. Bringing Nature back through LIFE - The EU LIFE Programme’s Impact on Nature and Society; Delbaere, B., Ed.; European Commission, Environment Directorate-General, 2020.
- Siebert, R.; Toogood, M.; Knierim, A. Factors affecting European farmers’ participation in biodiversity policies. Sociologia Ruralis 2006, 46, 318–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hellenic Statistical Authority. Census 2011, https://www.statistics.gr/en/2011-census-pop-hous.
- Fotiadis, G.; Vrahnakis, Μ.S. Action Plan for Agropastoral Ecosystems. Final Report, LIFE09NAT/GR/000323 - “Demonstration of the Biodiversity Action Planning approach, to benefit local biodiversity on an Aegean island, Skyros», 81 p. (+ ANNEXES) (in Greek), 2012.
- Chouvardas, D.; Vrahnakis, M.S. A semi-empirical model for the near-future evolution of the lake Koronia landscape. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 2009, 10, 867–876. [Google Scholar]
- Vrahnakis, M.S.; Fotiadis, G.; Pantera, A.; Goudelis, G.; Papadopoulos, A.; Papanastasis, V.P. Floristic diversity of valonia oak silvopastoral woodlands in Greece. Agroforestry Systems 2014, 88, 877–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Guagnano, G.A. The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context. Environment and Behavior 1995, 27, 723–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kortenkamp, K.M.; Moore, C.F. Ecocentrism and anthropocentrism: Moral reasoning about ecological commons dilemmas. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2001, 21, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonaiuto, M.; Carrus, G.; Martorella, H.; Bonnes, M. Local identity processes and environmental attitudes in land use changes: The case of natural protected areas. Journal of Economic Psychology 2002, 23, 631–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schneider, J.; Ruda, A.; Blahová, M. Stakeholders’ Perception of the impact of the declaration of new protected areas on the development of the regions concerned, Case study: Czech Republic. Forests 2021, 12, 580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garrod, B. Local participation in the planning and management of ecotourism: A revised model approach. Journal of Ecotourism 2003, 2, 33–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoll-Kleemann, S.; O’Riordan, T. Enhancing biodiversity and humanity. In Biodiversity, Sustainability and Human Communities: Protecting Beyond the Protected; Riordan, T.O., Stoll-Kleemann, S., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2002; pp. 295–310. [Google Scholar]
- Bartkowski, B.; Bartke, S. Leverage points for governing agricultural soils: A review of empirical studies of European farmers’ decision-making. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faltaits, M. Skyrian Smihtes and Tsompanides, Publication of Historical and Folklore Society of Skyros, (in Greek), 1976.
- Kamilaki-Polymerou, A.; Karamanes, E. Folklore: Traditional Culture; Hellenic Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs: Athens, 2008. (In Greek) [Google Scholar]
- West, P.C.; Brechin, S.R. National parks, protected areas and resident peoples: a comparative assessment and integration. In Resident Peoples and National Parks, University of Arizona Press; West P.C., Brechin S.R., Eds.; Tucson, 1991.
- Kurek, W.; Faracik, R.; Mika, M. Ecological conflicts in Poland. GeoJournal 2001, 507, 507–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weladji, R.B.; Tchamba, M.N. Conflict between people and protected areas within the Bénoué Wildlife Conservation Area, North Cameroon. Oryx 2003, 37, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wittmer, H.; Rauschmayer, F.; Klauer, B. How to select instruments for the resolution of environment conflicts? Land Use Policy 2006, 23, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karadeniz, N.; Yenilmez Arpa, N. Guidelines for Engaging Stakeholders in Managing Protected Areas, FAO and MAF, Ankara 2022. [CrossRef]
- Reading, R.P.; Bedunah, D.J.; Amgalanbaatar, S. Conserving biodiversity on Mongolian rangelands: Implications for protected area development and pastoral uses. USDA Forest Service Proceedings 2006, RMRS-P-39, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
- Tamang, B.; Baral, N. Livestock depredation by large cats in Bardia National Park, Nepal: Implications for improving park–people relations. International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 2008, 4, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riginos, C.; Porensky, L.M.; Veblen, K.E.; Odadi, W.O.; Sensenig, R.L.; Kimuyu, D.; Keesing, F.; Wilkerson, M.L.; Young, T.P. Lessons on the relationship between livestock husbandry and biodiversity from the Kenya. Long-term exclosure experiment (KLEE). Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice 2012, 2, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Margalida, A.; Campión, D.; Donázar, J.A. Vultures vs livestock: conservation relationships in an emerging conflict between humans and wildlife. Oryx 2014, 48, 172–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, Y.; Li, C.; Zhao, M. Herders’ aversion to wildlife population increases in grassland ecosystem conservation: Evidence from a choice experiment study. Global Ecology and Conservation 2021, 30, e01777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sulli, C.; Latini, R.; D’ Amico, D.; Sammarone, L. Protocolo Operative Sperimentale per la Prevenzione e la Gestione del Fenomeno degli orsi Confidentie/o Problematici nell’ Area del Parco Nazionale D’ Abruzzo, Lazzio e Molise, LIFE09 NAT/IT/000160 project, 2012.
- Lopez, A.G.; Cuervo-Arango, M.A. Relationship among values, beliefs, norms and ecological behaviour. Psicothema 2008, 20, 623–629. [Google Scholar]
- Rauwald, K.S.; Moore, C.F. Environmental attitudes as predictors of policy support across three countries. Environment and Behavior 2002, 34, 709–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Connor, R.E.; Bord, R.J.; Fisher, A. Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Analysis 1999, 19, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schultz, P.W.; Zelezny, L.C. Values and proenvironmental behavior: A five-country survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 1998, 29, 540–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, C.; Dunlap, R.E.; Hong, D. Ecological worldview as the central component of environmental concern: Clarifying the role of the NEP. Society & Natural Resources 2019, 32, 53–72. [Google Scholar]
- Dunlap, R.E.; Jones, R. Environmental concern: Conceptual and measurement issues. In Handbook of Environmental Sociology; Dunlap, R.E., Michelson, W., Eds.; Greenwood Press: Westport, CT, 2002; pp. 482–542. [Google Scholar]
- McMillan, M.; Hoban, T.J.; Clifford, W.B.; Brant, P. Social and demographic influences on environmental attitudes. Southern Rural Sociology 1997, 13, 89–107. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, J.; Ouyang, Z.; Miao, H. Environmental attitudes of stakeholders and their perceptions regarding protected area-community conflicts: A case study in China. Journal of Environmental Management 2010, 91, 2254–2262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Denis, H.D.; Pereira, L.N. Measuring the level of endorsement of the new environmental paradigm: A transnational study. Dos Algarves: A Multidisciplinary e-Journal 2014, 23, 4–26. [Google Scholar]
- Atav, E.; Altunoğlu, B.D.; Sönmez, S. The determination of the environmental attitudes of secondary education students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 2015, 174, 1391–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiallo, E.A.; Jacobson, S.K. Local communities and protected areas: attitude of rural residence towards conservation and Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Environmental Conservation 1995, 22, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehta, J.N.; Heinen, J.T. Does community-based conservation shape favorable attitudes among locals? An empirical study from Nepal. Environmental Management 2001, 28, 165–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jim, C.Y.; Xu, S.S.W. Stifled Stakeholders and Subdued Participation: Interpreting Local Responses Toward Shimentai Nature Reserve in South China. Environmental Management 2002, 30, 327–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kleftoyanni, V.; Abakoumkin, G.; Vokou, D. Environmental perceptions of students, farmers and other economically active members of the local population near the protected area of Axios, Loudias, Aliakmonas estuaries, in Greece. Global Nest Journal 2011, 13, 288–299. [Google Scholar]
- Hazzah, L.; Dolrenry, S.; Kaplan, D.; Frank, L. The influence of park access during drought on attitudes toward wildlife and lion killing behaviour in Maasailand, Kenya. Environmental Conservation 2013, 40, 266–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ardoin, N.M.; Bowersd, A.W.; Gaillard, E. Environmental education outcomes for conservation: A systematic review. Biological Conservation 2020, 241, 108224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masona, D. The influence of environmental education on conservation in secondary schools in Mvomero District. East African Journal of Education Studies 2022, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
| Level | Description of participation |
|---|---|
| A | Minimal or nominal participation, where almost no interaction occurs between local stakeholders and managing institutions. |
| B | Informing or passive, where information receiving is a unilateral interaction. |
| C | Information seeking or informing represents the canvassing of local stakeholders for factual information by the institution. |
| D | Actively consulting or giving of opinions/views is an engaged interaction with the active exchange of views and opinions. Decisions are made by the managing institution alone. |
| E | Negotiation or active=functional participation where local stakeholders are able to take part in decision-making to some extent. |
| F | Sharing of authority or interactive participation where formalized decision-making structures such as management councils involve local stakeholders and meet on a regular basis. |
| G | Transferring authority or taking over of the responsibility, in which local stakeholders assume primary management responsibility. |
| Social characteristics | (%) |
| Gender | |
| Male | 63 |
| Female | 37 |
| Age | |
| 18- 30 | 25 |
| 31-40 | 29 |
| 41-50 | 29 |
| 50-60 | 12 |
| >60 | 5 |
| Education | |
| Compulsory | 15 |
| Post compulsory | 53 |
| Higher, Post graduate | 32 |
| Occupation | |
| Primary sector (farmers, shepherds, fishermen) | 20 |
| Primary in parallel with another sector | 11 |
| Public sector | 19 |
| Private sector | 37 |
| Education | 6 |
| Unemployed, Retired | 7 |
| Responses (%)* | Mean | ||||||
| Category | SA | A | U | D | SD | ||
| Proposed Action | |||||||
| Nature protection | |||||||
| Zoning of tourist activity in order to minimize impacts on the natural environment of the irrational tourism development | 32 | 47 | 15 | 4 | 1 | 4.06 | |
| Integration of Mount Kohylas areas into a protection scheme with stricter regulations | 40 | 37 | 15 | 5 | 3 | 4.06 | |
| Creation of zones exclusively for the Skyrian horse | 42 | 39 | 12 | 4 | 3 | 4.13 | |
| Delineation, protection and enhancement of wetlands for the benefit of migratory birds and riparian vegetation | 40 | 47 | 12 | 0 | 1 | 4.24 | |
| Agro-pastoralism | |||||||
| Exploitation of abandoned terraces | 27 | 55 | 13 | 4 | 1 | 4.04 | |
| Gradual reduction in the number of sheep until it reaches about 75% of the current number | 34 | 39 | 16 | 7 | 5 | 3.90 | |
| Re-cultivation of local traditional varieties (e.g., fava beans) | 55 | 42 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4.49 | |
| Re-cultivation of traditional varieties of fodder crops | 52 | 45 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4.48 | |
| Application of grazing system with changes in time | 44 | 43 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 4.26 | |
| Activation of Local Shepherd cooperative | 58 | 36 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 4.50 | |
| Ecotourism | |||||||
| Removal of debris from wetlands of the island, such as Kalamitsa and Aspous to upgrade the landscape | 61 | 35 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 4.56 | |
| Emergence of wetland Kalamitsa, creating ecotourism routes | 50 | 41 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 4.38 | |
| Further enhancement of Skyrian horse, to promote agro-and eco-tourism activities | 51 | 39 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 4.38 | |
| Category | Cronbach alpha | Mean | SD |
| Nature Protection | 0.78 | 4.12 | 0.7 |
| Agro-Pastoralism | 0.69 | 4.28 | 0.5 |
| Ecotourism | 0.69 | 4.43 | 0.6 |
| NEP scale | 0.63 | 3.76 | 0.4 |
| Nature protection | Agro-pastoralism | Ecotourism | |
| Single NEP score | 0.423*** | 0.392*** | 0.275*** |
| Single NEP score | Nature protection | Agro-pastoralism | Ecotourism | |
| Education | 0,230** | 0,174* | 0,191* | 0,114 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).