Meaning of transnational natural parks for the development of territorial communities

Abstract

The article presents the results of the study on status, peculiarities, and further perspectives for the development of transnational nature parks. The impact of natural reserves on the economy and well-being of close local communities is assessed. The study relies on a comparative analysis of natural areas of the Eastern Carpathian Biosphere Reserve, which is located on the border of Poland, the Slovak Republic, and Ukraine. The purpose of the study is to substantiate the social and economic role of transnational nature reserves for the development of the tourism industry and frontier communities. The number of relevant indicators has been chosen for the comparative analysis of the impact of transnational nature reserves on tourism, the local economy, and the environment. Area of ​​nature reserves, participating states, UNESCO nature reserve status time, impact on a local economy (like revenues to a community’s budget due to activities carried out in a nature reserve site), the number and origin of visitors, the main purpose of a site's reservation in accordance with a statute and regional plans and strategies of local development, and the cost/benefit ratio are the appropriate variables for the comparative study. Indicators on the environment, number of tourists, incomes, and employment of inhabitants are parameters to assess the economic capacity of nature reserves, either current or future. It is concluded that the low incomes from tourism and recreation carried out in the national natural parks of the East Carpathian Biosphere Reserve define why the impact of these nature sites on the well-being of local communities is limited. This evidences that the great natural value of a site and its UNESCO international nature conservation status are not enough to provide substantial economic benefits for communities. It contradicts earlier findings that usually border communities have much greater capacity for development compared to remote ones. It also denies the idea that the location of a natural park or reserve within the territory of a community is a significant economic and social advantage, since income from tourism and recreation means revenues to local budgets.