Mariana Anélia Coelho Ferreira

Dissertaçao Final.Mariana.Ferreira.final.pdf
Documento PDF (1.2MB)

UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE ALAGOAS
INSTITUTO DE CIÊNCIAS BIOLÓGICAS E DA SAÚDE
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Diversidade Biológica e Conservação nos Trópicos

MARIANA ANÉLIA COELHO FERREIRA

CUSTOS E BENEFÍCIOS DE ÁREAS PROTEGIDAS: compreendendo as percepções dos
usuários para uma gestão territorial mais equilibrada

MACEIÓ - ALAGOAS
Fevereiro/2025

MARIANA ANÉLIA COELHO FERREIRA

CUSTOS E BENEFÍCIOS DE ÁREAS PROTEGIDAS: compreendendo as percepções dos
usuários para uma gestão territorial mais equilibrada

Dissertação apresentada ao Programa de Pós-Graduação
em Diversidade Biológica e Conservação nos Trópicos,
Instituto de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde. Universidade
Federal de Alagoas, como requisito para obtenção do
título de Mestre em CIÊNCIAS BIOLÓGICAS, área de
concentração em Conservação da Biodiversidade
Tropical.

Orientador(a): Prof. Dr. Rafael Ricardo
Vasconcelos da Silva
Co-orientador: Prof. Dr. Guilherme Ramos
Demétrio Ferreira

MACEIÓ - ALAGOAS
Fevereiro/2025

Catalogação na fonte
Universidade Federal de Alagoas
Biblioteca Central
Divisão de Tratamento Técnico
Bibliotecária: Helena Cristina Pimentel do Vale – CRB4/661
F383c

Ferreira, Mariana Anélia Coelho.
Custos e benefícios de áreas protegidas : compreendendo as percepções
dos usuários para uma gestão territorial mais equilibrada / Mariana Anélia
Coelho Ferreira. – 2025.
61 f : il.
Orientador: Rafael Ricardo Vasconcelos da Silva.
Coorientador: Guilherme Ramos Demétrio Ferreira.
Dissertação (mestrado em Ciências Biológicas) – Universidade
Federal de Alagoas. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde.
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Diversidade Biológica e Conservação
nos Trópicos. Maceió, 2025.
Inclui bibliografia.
Apêndices: f. 51-61.
1. Área de Proteção Ambiental Costa dos Corais, Brasil. 2. Percepção
ambiental.3. Preservação ambiental – Custo-benefício. 4. Proteção ambiental
– Participação do cidadão. 5. Área marinha protegida. I. Título.

CDU: 502.62(81)

Folha de aprovação
Mariana Anélia Coelho Ferreira
Custos e benefícios de áreas protegidas: compreendendo as
percepções dos usuários para uma gestão territorial mais equilibrada
Dissertação apresentada ao Programa de PósGraduação
em
Diversidade
Biológica
e
Conservação nos Trópicos, Instituto de Ciências
Biológicas e da Saúde da Universidade Federal de
Alagoas, como requisito para obtenção do título de
Mestre em CIÊNCIAS BIOLÓGICAS na área da
Biodiversidade.

Dissertação aprovada em 28 de fevereiro de 2025.

Dr. (a) – Rafael Ricardo Vasconcelos da Silva/UFAL - Orientador

Dr.(a) Guilherme Ramos Demétrio Ferreira - Coorientador

Dr. (a) – Patrícia Muniz De Medeiros

Dr.(a) – Alexandre Schiavetti

Dr. (a) – Vandick da Silva Batista

MACEIÓ - AL
Fevereiro/2025

AGRADECIMENTOS

Agradeço e dedico este trabalho a todas as pessoas que apoiaram e contribuíram com a
minha jornada acadêmica até o momento, em especial minha família e amigos. Também
agradeço a todos que me ajudaram durante o mestrado e que participaram da coleta de dados
em campo, especialmente Afonso Xavier, Alicia Torres, Bruna Barbosa, Daryelle de Melo,
Emilly Guedes, Luis Fernando Colin, Ingredy Silva, Noemi Castro, Priscilla Oliveira, Regina
Moreira e Thaila Myrella, pelo apoio e dedicação. Agradeço a todos pesquisadores que
contribuíram com o trabalho e pelas valiosas sugestões ao artigo e à Dissertação, em especial
meu orientador Rafael Ricardo Vasconcelos da Silva e ao meu coorientador Guilherme Ramos
Demétrio Ferreira. Gostaria de expressar minha gratidão especial a todas as pessoas que
gentilmente aceitaram participar do estudo. Agradeço o apoio logístico e financeiro do Projeto
Ecológico de Longa Duração – Costa dos Corais, Alagoas (PELD-CCAL), ao Programa de PósGraduação em Diversidade Biológica e Conservação nos Trópicos (DIBICT) e à CAPES.

RESUMO

A conservação ambiental é essencial para o desenvolvimento sustentável, pois contribui para a
mitigação das mudanças climáticas, a manutenção da biodiversidade e o bem-estar humano. As
Áreas Protegidas (APs) de uso sustentável desempenham um papel fundamental nesse contexto,
equilibrando a proteção dos ecossistemas com as demandas socioeconômicas. No entanto, sua
eficácia depende de uma governança participativa, capaz de reconhecer os impactos desiguais
das políticas de conservação sobre diferentes atores sociais. Assim, este estudo investiga como
fatores socioeconômicos e experiências de uso influenciam as percepções sobre diferentes
dimensões de custos e benefícios (econômicos; socioculturais; ecológicos; territoriais) da Área
de Proteção Ambiental Costa dos Corais (APACC), a maior Área Marinha Protegida do Brasil.
Para isso, foram realizadas 300 entrevistas com quatro grupos de usuários da APACC, sendo
estes: i) moradores locais não pescadores; ii) pescadores artesanais; iii) comerciantes e
empresários do setor turístico; iv) turistas e visitantes. As coletas ocorreram em três regiões da
APACC, sendo estas a Região Sul (Paripueira), Rota Ecológica (São Miguel dos Milagres e
Porto de Pedras), e Polo Turístico (Japaratinga e Maragogi), com 100 entrevistas por região.
Para analisar as influências das variáveis socioeconômicas e de experiência de uso sobre a
percepção de custos e benefícios, foram utilizados Modelos Mistos de Ligação Cumulativa
(CLMM), ajustando modelos separados para custos e benefícios. Os resultados indicaram que
pescadores artesanais e indivíduos com renda familiar abaixo de um salário mínimo perceberam
mais custos associados à APACC. Por outro lado, turistas e visitantes, assim como indivíduos
sem educação formal, demonstraram maior percepção dos benefícios. Em relação às dimensões,
os benefícios ecológicos e socioculturais foram amplamente reconhecidos, enquanto os custos
territoriais se destacaram, sobretudo entre pescadores artesanais, empresários e comerciantes
do turismo e moradores locais não pescadores. Os resultados sugerem que atividades
econômicas ligadas ao turismo e à pesca artesanal devem ser priorizadas na gestão da APACC,
sem negligenciar desigualdades na percepção dos custos. Além disso, é essencial que futuras
pesquisas e políticas de conservação proponham meios de reduzir os custos e ampliar os
benefícios, especialmente para comunidades tradicionais vulneráveis, fortalecendo a inclusão e
equidade social.
Palavras-chave: Percepção ambiental. Custo-benefício. Área Marinha Protegida.

ABSTRACT

Environmental conservation is essential for sustainable development, as it contributes to climate
change mitigation, biodiversity maintenance, and human well-being. Protected Areas (PAs) for
sustainable use play a fundamental role in this context, balancing ecosystem protection with
socioeconomic demands. However, their effectiveness depends on participatory governance,
capable of recognizing the unequal impacts of conservation policies on different social actors.
Thus, this study investigates how socioeconomic factors and user experiences influence
perceptions about different dimensions of costs and benefits (economic; sociocultural;
ecological; territorial) of the Costs dos Corais Environmental Protection Area (APACC), the
largest Marine Protected Area in Brazil. For this, 300 interviews were conducted with four
groups of APACC users: i) nom-fishing local dweller; ii) artisanal fisher; iii) tourism
entrepreneurs and traders; iv) tourists and visitors. The data collection took place in three
regions of APACC: South Region (Paripueira); Ecological Route (São Miguel dos Milagres e
Porto de Pedras); and Tourism Pole (Japaratinga e Maragogi), with 100 interviews per region.
To analyze the influences of socioeconomic variables and user experience on the perception of
costs and benefits, Cumulative Linkage Mixed Models (CLMM were used, adjusting separate
models for costs and benefits. The results indicated that artisanal fishers and individuals with a
family income below one minimum wage perceived higher costs associated with APACC. On
the other hand, tourists and visitors, as well as individuals without formal education,
demonstrated a greater perception of benefits. Regarding the dimensions, the ecological and
sociocultural benefits were widely recognized, while the territorial costs stood out, especially
among artisanal fishers and non-fishing local dweller. The results suggest that economic
activities linked to tourism and artisanal fishing should be prioritized in the management of
APACC, without neglecting inequalities in the perception of costs. Furthermore, it is essential
that future research and conservation policies propose ways to reduce costs and increase
benefits, especially for vulnerable traditional communities, strengthening inclusion and socio
equity.
Key-word: Environmental perception. Cost-benefit. Marine Protected Area.

LISTA DE FIGURAS

Figure 1. Costa dos Corais Environmental Protection Area and study area. ........................... 30
Figure 2. Socioeconomic characterization - Percentage of participants by socioeconomic
variable. .................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 3. Perception of costs and benefits by their respective categorical dimensions by
interviewee group. .................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 4. CLMM model coefficients and pairwise comparison: significant results of
socioeconomic variables in cost perception. ............................................................................ 40
Figure 5. CLMM Model Coefficients and Pairwise Comparison: Significant Results of
Socioeconomic Variables in Benefit Perception. ..................................................................... 42
Figure 6. Coefficients of CLMM Models for Costs and Benefits, and Pairwise Comparisons:
significant results of user experiences variables....................................................................... 44

LISTA DE TABELAS

Table 1. Number of interviewees per group and region of the study area. .............................. 31
Table 2. Aspects of each cost and benefit category covered in the interviews. ....................... 32
Table 3. Predictor variables description................................................................................... 33

SUMÁRIO
1. APRESENTAÇÃO ...........................................................................................................................7
2. REVISÃO DA LITERATURA .......................................................................................................9
2.1 Conservação ambiental e Desenvolvimento sustentável .................................................. 9
2.2 Áreas Protegidas ............................................................................................................. 11
2.3 Custos e Benefícios de Áreas Protegidas ........................................................................ 13
2.4 Percepção e Participação social nas Áreas Protegidas .................................................... 15
REFERÊNCIAS ..................................................................................................................................17
Perceptions of costs and benefits. Socioeconomic factors and user experiences shaping
perceptions of Brazil’s largest Marine Protected Area ...................................................................25
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................26
2. Methodology ....................................................................................................................................29
3. Results...............................................................................................................................................36
4. Discussion .......................................................................................................................................45
5. Final Conclusions ...........................................................................................................................47
References ............................................................................................................................................49
Supplementary material ......................................................................................................................56

1. APRESENTAÇÃO

A conservação ambiental vai muito além da proteção da natureza e de seus atributos
bióticos e abióticos. As medidas de conservação também são essenciais para o desenvolvimento
sustentável e para a garantia da qualidade de vida e o bem-estar humano (KUHLMAN &
FARRINGTON, 2010; DA SILVA et al., 2017; CARVALHO, 2023). Aparentemente, a
sensibilização sobre a responsabilidade ambiental e sua importância para o desenvolvimento
sustentável tem crescido ao longo do tempo. Dessa forma, as Áreas Protegidas (APs), a
depender do modelo de conservação, são ferramentas de proteção ambiental que podem atuar
em prol do desenvolvimento sustentável e dos valores culturais associados ao meio ambiente
(WELLS & MCSHANE, 2004; WYMAN et al., 2011; OPRŠAL et al., 2018; BHAMMAR et
al., 2021; GATISO et al., 2022; THAPA & DIEDRICH, 2023).
Além disso, quando bem geridas e com gestão participativa, as APs podem gerar
benefícios socioambientais, uma vez que, estas são espaços onde podem ocorrer interações
sociais, geração de renda, educação e sensibilização ambiental, desde de que essas ações
estejam alinhadas à proteção ambiental (BRASIL, 2000; WEST et al., 2006; GAMARRA et al.,
2019; MASUD et al., 2022; MESTANZA-RAMÓN et al., 2023). As experiências pessoais e
coletivas em ambientes naturais destinados à proteção ambiental podem reforçar o sentimento
de conexão com o meio ambiente e a intenção em protegê-lo, não apenas por seu valor
intrínseco, mas também pelo valor instrumental, ou seja, os benefícios que a natureza provê
para os seres humanos (BALLANTYNE et al., 2011; HAUSMANN et al., 2016; WEILER et
al., 2018; LIOBIKIENĖ & POŠKUS, 2019; ZHANG et al., 2020).
No entanto, para que as APs sejam bem sucedidas, diversos fatores devem ser levados
em consideração, como o planejamento, governança e gestão participativa (WELLS &
MCSHANE, 2004; WOODHOUSE et al., 2018; DE OLIVEIRA JÚNIOR et al., 2021).
Também é importante que haja o reconhecimento de que a conservação ambiental e o
desenvolvimento socioeconômico não são exclusivos, mas sim objetivos que podem estar
alinhados beneficiando um ao outro (OLDEKOP et al., 2016). Além disso, é necessário contar
com recursos financeiros e funcionários para que ocorra uma administração espacial eficiente
(CALDECOTT & JEPSON, 2014; JEPSON et al., 2017). Ao promover a proteção da
biodiversidade, dos ecossistemas e seus serviços ambientais e sociais, ou seja, os benefícios que
as pessoas capturam dos ambientes naturais (FU et al., 2012), as APs quando geridas através
do modelo de uso sustentável, podem estimular o desenvolvimento econômico local através de
7

atividades econômicas que geram empregos e renda para as comunidades locais, como o
turismo, a pesca artesanal e a agricultura (WYMAN et al., 2011; BHAMMAR et al., 2021;
THAPA et al., 2022; GAMARRA et al., 2023).
Mas embora as APs gerem diversos benefícios ambientais e sociais, quando
negligenciadas ou geridas apenas pela perspectiva ambiental sem a inclusão das pessoas como
parte atuante na natureza, estas podem gerar custos que excedem os benefícios (WYMAN et
al., 2011; MACKENZIE, 2012; WARD et al., 2018; ZHANG et al., 2020; THAPA &
DIEDRICH, 2023). Não são raras as situações em que medidas de proteção, como por exemplo
a restrição de uso de recursos naturais por comunidades locais, resultam em conflitos
socioambientais em APs (GARCÍA-FRAPOLLI et al., 2018; DE POURCQ et al., 2019). Assim,
as relações de custo-benefício resultantes da criação, gestão e objetivos das APs são complexas,
pois envolvem diferentes atores sociais, como, comunidades locais, visitantes e turistas,
empresários e comerciantes, cada um trazendo diferentes perspectivas (PEARCE et al., 2006;
HANLEY & BARBIER, 2009; SALA & GIAKOUMI, 2018; PICONE et al., 2020; THAPA et
al., 2022; RODRIGUES & ROUYER, 2023).
Nesses cenários, os custos e benefícios resultantes das APs tendem a ser percebidos de
forma desigual pelos diferentes grupos de pessoas que interagem com essas áreas e fazem uso
destas, podendo ser essas percepções influenciadas por fatores socioeconômicos e pelas
experiências de uso com o ambiente (MACKENZIE, 2012; TUAN, 2012; OLDEKOP et al.,
2016; WARD et al., 2018; WOODHOUSE et al., 2018; CEBRIÁN-PIQUERAS et al., 2020;
GULTE et al., 2023). Dessa forma, para que as APs sejam eficientes em promover o
desenvolvimento sustentável, é preciso considerar as diversas percepções dos custos e
benefícios que ocorrem e compreender os fatores que podem explicar essas diferentes
percepções.
Entretanto, apesar da importância de estudos que tratem das múltiplas perspectivas das
relações custo-benefício de APs, muitos focam exclusivamente nos prejuízos ou nos ganhos
para determinados perfis de usuários ou perspectivas econômicas (GAINES et al., 2010;
FERRARO & HANAUER, 2014; DAVIS et al., 2019; GAMARRA et al., 2023). Portanto, há
uma lacuna de conhecimentos sobre como os custos e os benefícios de uma AP afetam,
simultaneamente, os diferentes perfis de usuários e quais os principais fatores que explicam as
percepções. Assim, esta pesquisa busca conhecer os fatores que explicam as percepções de
custos e benefícios da conservação entre os diferentes perfis de usuários da Área de Proteção
Ambiental Costa dos Corais, que é a maior Área Marinha Protegida do Brasil.
8

2. REVISÃO DA LITERATURA

2.1 Conservação ambiental e desenvolvimento sustentável

A degradação ambiental exerce grande pressão sobre os modos de vida atuais, afetando
as populações de diversas maneiras, desde a escassez de recursos naturais até o aumento de
desastres naturais e mudanças climáticas. Além disso, esses impactos não se restringem apenas
ao presente, mas comprometem a qualidade de vida das gerações futuras (KUHLMAN &
FARRINGTON, 2010; AYE, 2019; POOJA, 2023). Ao longo dos últimos séculos, a ideia de
que a natureza é um bem a ser dominado pela humanidade gerou impactos ambientais
alarmantes e de efeitos duradouros, como o desmatamento acelerado, poluição dos oceanos, a
perda da biodiversidade e o esgotamento de recursos naturais não renováveis, essenciais para a
manutenção ambiental (ZIMMERMAN, 2004; KUHLMAN & FARRINGTON, 2010;
CLAYTON et al., 2013; LOREAU, 2014; MACE, 2014; ISLAM, 2024).
Dessa forma, para mitigar esses danos e promover um equilíbrio entre o
desenvolvimento socioeconômico e proteção ambiental, surge a conservação ambiental como
uma abordagem multidisciplinar. A conservação não envolve apenas a biologia e ecologia, mas
também aspectos sociais, econômicos e culturais, buscando proteger o meio ambiente por seu
valor intrínseco e promover uma relação mais harmoniosa entre a sociedade e a natureza
(KUHLMAN & FARRINGTON, 2010; PRETTY, 2011; WOOD & DECLERCK, 2015;
ISLAM, 2024). Com isso, para que o desenvolvimento sustentável seja efetivo, ele precisa estar
alinhado à conservação ambiental, integrando a manutenção dos ecossistemas e seus serviços,
a proteção da biodiversidade o uso responsável dos recursos naturais, além da promoção do
bem-estar humano e justiça social (WOOD & DECLERCK, 2015; KETSCHAU, 2017; TONG,
2024).
A destruição de ecossistemas e sua biodiversidade afeta diretamente os serviços
ambientais essenciais, como a regulação do clima, abastecimento de água, segurança alimentar
e bem-estar humano (PRETTY, 2011; CLAYTON et al., 2013; ACHEAMPONG & OPOKU,
2023; UMAR et al., 2024). Esses serviços são fundamentais para a prosperidade a longo prazo
da sociedade. Segundo Kuhlman e Farrington (2010), o desenvolvimento sustentável pode ser
interpretado por três dimensões principais: desenvolvimento econômico, desenvolvimento
social e proteção ambiental. Contudo, a desigualdade social e o acesso desigual aos recursos
naturais reforçam desafios que se opõem ao desenvolvimento sustentável.
9

A disparidade no consumo de recursos e impactos ambientais entre países desenvolvidos
e em desenvolvimento são evidentes, refletindo desigualdades socioeconômicas que
comprometem a sustentabilidade (BOILLAT et al., 2018; FENG et al., 2023). Países
industrializados, ricos em produtos naturais e com alto Produto Interno Bruto (PIB) apresentam
níveis de consumo e degradação ambiental consideravelmente mais elevados do que países do
Sul Global, além de exportarem seus impactos ambientais derivados do consumo para nações
menos desenvolvidas, contribuindo para a degradação ambiental e suprimindo oportunidades
de consumo de recursos nos países explorados (JORGENSON et al., 2009; BOILLAT et al.,
2018; CUMMING & VON CRAMON-TAUBADEL, 2018; ACHEAMPONG & OPOKU,
2023; FENG et al., 2023).
Embora a Curva Ambiental de Kuznets aponte que a degradação ambiental tende a
diminuir à medida que a renda per capita aumenta, essa hipótese não se aplica uniformemente,
especialmente em países em desenvolvimento, que frequentemente carecem de recursos e
instituições para mitigar os impactos ambientais, que eventualmente comprometem o
desenvolvimento econômico (DINDA, 2004; STERN, 2017; SIRAG et al., 2018; CAHYADIN
et al., 2021; ACHEAMPONG & OPOKU, 2023; FENG et al., 2023). Essa lógica de
desigualdade também se aplica em uma escala mais regional, como no Brasil, onde
comunidades tradicionais e populações vulneráveis frequentemente arcam com os maiores
custos ambientais e sociais da exploração de recursos naturais (KALTENBORN et al., 2017;
QIAN et al., 2018).
Povos tradicionais que historicamente mantêm modos de vida sustentáveis e dependem
diretamente dos recursos naturais, sofrem diretamente com os impactos ambientais, sendo
expostos a conflitos sociais e políticos em razão ao uso dos recursos naturais, além de serem
frequentemente deslocados ou terem seus territórios degradados por atividades econômicas de
grande impacto ambiental (CLAYTON et al., 2013; KALTENBORN et al., 2017; ANAYA &
ESPÍRITO-SANTO, 2018; QIAN et al., 2018; SCHEIDEL et al., 2023). A sustentabilidade no
Brasil, portanto, depende do reconhecimento dessas desigualdades e da implementação de
estratégias que conciliam a conservação ambiental com a justiça social e a valorização dos
modos de vida de comunidades tradicionais e seus conhecimentos (PRETTY, 2011; ANAYA
& ESPÍRITO-SANTO, 2018; TONG, 2024).
Nesse sentido, integrar a conservação ambiental ao desenvolvimento econômico e social
de forma justa é indispensável para garantir a sustentabilidade a longo prazo. As políticas
públicas precisam considerar as variações regionais e as diferentes percepções sobre a natureza.
10

Estratégias como o ecoturismo e ações de educação ambiental podem ser eficazes para ampliar
os benefícios ambientais e econômicos para as comunidades locais, ao mesmo tempo que
promovem a conservação ambiental (STEM et al., 2003; HUNT et al., 2015; BOCA &
SARAÇLI, 2019; LIOBIKIENĖ & POŠKUS, 2019; ARDOIN et al.,2020).

2.2 Áreas Protegidas

No século XVIII, com o Iluminismo e a Revolução industrial, os recursos naturais
passaram a ser mais explorados e os impactos ambientais tornaram-se mais evidentes. Tal
acontecimento impulsionou o fortalecimento e a visibilidade da abordagem de conservação
ambiental. Dessa forma, a intenção em preservar as paisagens de beleza cênica e a
biodiversidade culminou na criação do Parque Nacional de Yellowstone em 1872 nos Estados
Unidos da América, sendo este o primeiro parque nacional do mundo, marcando o início da
história das Áreas Protegidas (APs) (HEINEN, 2012; TOZZO & MARCHI, 2014). A partir
desta iniciativa, surgiram outras áreas protegidas, ampliando as preocupações com o meio
ambiente.
Já a partir do século XX, questões como a conservação ambiental e a consolidação das
APs têm sido cada vez mais pautadas no objetivo de se criar estratégias que promovam o
desenvolvimento sustentável e a proteção do patrimônio natural mundial (MEDEIROS et al,
2004; MACE, 2014; WATSON et al., 2014). A União Internacional para a Conservação da
Natureza (IUCN) define as APs como “espaços geográficos claramente definidos,
reconhecidos, dedicados e geridos, através de meios legais ou outros meios eficazes, para
alcançar a conservação a longo prazo da natureza com serviços ecossistêmicos e valores
culturais associados” (DUDLEY, 2008). Nesse contexto, as APs são ferramentas que podem
conciliar a conservação ambiental com o uso sustentável dos recursos naturais, sendo
importantes estratégias para incluir as comunidades locais na gestão do território e promover o
bem-estar social e econômico das populações que vivem nessas regiões (CALDECOTT &
JEPSON, 2014; WATSON et al., 2014; MCNEELY, 2020; DA ROCHA et al., 2025).
Atualmente, as APs estão distribuídas globalmente, cobrindo aproximadamente 15% do
território terrestre e 7% do marinho (WATSON et al., 2014; VISCONTI et al., 2019). No
entanto, esses números ainda estão abaixo da Meta 30x30 do Kunming-Montreal Global
Biodiversity Framework, que busca proteger 30% de áreas terrestres, águas doce e oceanos até
2030 (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2022). Além disso, a distribuição
11

e gestão das APs não é homogênea. Muitas são geridas de forma desigual e estão em áreas de
difícil acesso, com poucos conflitos de uso, enquanto ecossistemas altamente ameaçados se
encontram desprotegidos (MAMMIDES et al., 2021). Essa desigualdade também pode ser
observada no Brasil, onde apesar do país possuir uma das maiores redes de APs do mundo,
grande parte dessas áreas se concentram na Amazônia, enquanto biomas altamente ameaçados
e degradados, como o Cerrado, a Mata Atlântica e a Caatinga, têm uma cobertura de proteção
muito menor (BERNARD et al., 2014; CAMPOS et al., 2016; CANTINHO et al., 2021;
TEIXEIRA et al., 2021; VIEIRA et al., 2022).
No Brasil as APs são regulamentadas principalmente pelo Sistema Nacional de
Unidades de Conservação (SNUC; Brasil, Lei 9.985/2000) e classificadas em dois grandes
grupos, sendo estes as Unidades de Conservação (UCs) de Proteção Integral, que visam à
preservação da natureza e permitem apenas o uso indireto dos recursos naturais, e as UCs de
Uso Sustentável, que permitem atividades humanas compatíveis com a conservação, com
exploração do ambiente sem comprometer a perenidade dos recursos naturais renováveis e dos
processos ecológicos. No grupo de UCs de Proteção Integral temos: Estação Ecológica; Reserva
Biológica; Parque Nacional; Monumento Natural; Refúgio de Vida Silvestre; Reservas
Particulares do Patrimônio Natural. Já dentre as UCs de Uso Sustentável se encontram as
categorias de: Área de Proteção Ambiental (APA); Área de Relevante Interesse Ecológico;
Floresta Nacional; Reserva Extrativista; Reserva de Fauna; Reserva de Desenvolvimento
Sustentável.
No cenário desigual que as APs enfrentam, principalmente as de Uso Sustentável, a
gestão dessas áreas ainda lida com pressões associadas à conflitos de interesse sobre uso dos
recursos naturais, especialmente em regiões de forte pressão econômica (JEPSON et al., 2017;
JONES et al., 2022; FISHER et al., 2023; DA ROCHA et al., 2025). Esses conflitos são ainda
mais intensos quando populações locais dependem desses recursos para sua subsistência. Além
da participação das comunidades locais, esse grupo de APs precisam de investimentos
financeiros para infraestrutura e fiscalização, apoio político e público, programas de
sensibilização ambiental e estratégias eficientes para mitigar conflitos e garantir seu papel frente
à sustentabilidade a longo prazo (CALDECOTT & JEPSON, 2014; KOLAHI et al., 2012;
JEPSON et al., 2017; JONES et al., 2022). Com isso, para que a implementação das APs de
Uso Sustentável seja efetiva, é indispensável que se evidenciem os benefícios diretos e indiretos
dessas áreas, tanto para a conservação ambiental quanto para o desenvolvimento sustentável
(GAMARRA et al., 2019b).
12

Instrumentos como o Plano de Manejo, que estabelece diretrizes e ações específicas para
cada área, e os conselhos gestores, que promovem a participação de comunidades locais e outros
atores na tomada de decisões, são fundamentais para garantir que essas áreas sejam
administradas de forma equilibrada e democrática e para evidenciar os benefícios associados a
estas (BRAGAGNOLO et al., 2016; DA ROCHA et al., 2025). Dessa forma, a participação
ativa da sociedade é essencial para fortalecer a governança dessas APs, além de contribuir para
a valorização das comunidades tradicionais e para o desenvolvimento de benefícios sociais,
como o turismo sustentável, que pode gerar renda e incentivar a conservação ambiental
(ESFANDIAR et al., 2022).
No entanto, apesar de todos benéficos das APs, essas também podem gerar impactos
negativos se não forem bem planejadas e implementadas. A exemplo, restrições no uso dos
recursos naturais podem acentuar desigualdades socioeconômicas, reforçando armadilhas de
pobreza e intensificando conflitos entre diferentes grupos de usuários (ADAMS & HUTTON,
2007; BROCKINGTON & WILKIE, 2015; BRAGAGNOLO et al., 2016). Dessa forma,
garantir que os benefícios das APs sejam distribuídos igualitariamente entre os diferentes atores
sociais que fazem uso dessas áreas, e que os direitos e necessidades das populações locais sejam
respeitados é um desafio complexo, mas que precisa ser superado para a efetividade das APs.

2.3 Custos e benefícios de Áreas Protegidas

As APs quando bem geridas e manejadas pela perspectiva de uso sustentável, podem
promover uma série de benefícios socioambientais. Os benefícios das APs são amplamente
documentados na literatura, principalmente sob o aspecto ecológico, incluindo a proteção da
biodiversidade, dos ecossistemas e dos seus serviços de regulação (DUDLEY et al., 2010;
BERNARD et al., 2014). Essas áreas representam ambientes de relevância econômica ao
impulsionar atividades sustentáveis, como o ecoturismo, a pesca artesanal e o extrativismo
florestal, que geram empregos e fomenta a economia local (WATSON et al., 2014; MCNEELY,
2020; THAPA et al., 2022; GAMARRA et al., 2023). Além disso, as APs possuem um
importante papel na manutenção dos modos de vida tradicionais e no fortalecimento da
identidade cultural das comunidades tradicionais (LANGTON et al., 2014; GAMARRA et al.,
2023).
Por outro lado, a implementação das APs também pode levar a custos significativos,
que podem afetar a inclusão social e o desenvolvimento sustentável. A imposição de restrições
13

ao uso do território, por exemplo, é uma estratégia que gera benefícios ambientais, mas que por
outro lado, pode desencadear conflitos locais, resultar na desapropriação de terras, levar à
marginalização das comunidades tradicionais e comprometer a segurança alimentar e os meios
de subsistência de populações tradicionais (COAD et al., 2008; ANAYA & ESPÍRITOSANTO, 2018). Além disso, o alto custo de manutenção das APs, incluindo investimentos em
fiscalização, infraestrutura e gestão participativa, pode representar custos financeiros para a
gestão dessas áreas (CALDECOTT & JEPSON, 2014; CRAIGIE & PRESSEY, 2022).
Neste contexto, as relações custo-benefício das APs podem variar significativamente
entre os diferentes tipos de atores sociais que interagem com esses territórios. Para comunidades
locais, os benefícios podem incluir a manutenção dos recursos naturais, garantindo a renovação
e uso sustentável destes, a participação em programas de manejo sustentável e geração de renda
através de atividades econômicas sustentáveis (MACKENZIE, 2012; OLDEKOP et al., 2016;
THAPA et al., 2022). No entanto, quando as APs são implementadas em um modelo de proteção
integral, esses grupos podem sofrer com restrições de acesso a territórios historicamente
ocupados (ANAYA & ESPÍRITO-SANTO, 2018). Contudo, ainda há lacunas na mensuração
desses benefícios e na integração dos custos associados em modelos tradicionais de gestão
(DIXON & SHERMAN, 1990; CALDECOTT & JEPSON, 2014; WATSON et al., 2014;
DAVIS et al., 2019).
No aspecto social e cultural, o apoio às APs depende da forma como essas áreas são
geridas e ao grau de participação das populações locais em sua governança. Além disso,
políticas de gestão inclusivas potencializam os benefícios gerados por essas áreas, fortalecendo
sua valorização como instrumentos de bem-estar coletivo (ANDRADE & RHODES, 2012;
BRAGAGNOLO et al., 2016; WARD et al., 2018; DE OLIVEIRA JÚNIOR et al., 2021). No
entanto, quando a governança é excludente e negligente, as APs podem intensificar
desigualdades sociais, conflitos territoriais e afetar desproporcionalmente atores sociais em
maior vulnerabilidade social, intensificando os custos socioeconômicos associados a estas áreas
(OLDEKOP et al., 2016; BOILLAT et al., 2018; WARD et al., 2018; WOODHOUSE et al.,
2018).
Essas dinâmicas conflitantes tornam a gestão e aceitação das APs um desafio complexo,
exigindo abordagens que conciliam a conservação ambiental com a justiça social. Com isso, é
importante que os custos e benefícios dessas áreas sejam debatidos de maneira ampla e
inclusiva, considerando a diversidade de atores sociais envolvidos e suas distintas formas de
interação com esses territórios. Contudo, ainda existem lacunas científicas que precisam ser
14

exploradas, uma vez que a maioria dos estudos se concentra nos aspectos ecológicos e
econômicos das APs, enquanto efeitos sociais e culturais são pouco trabalhados (NAIDOO &
RICKETTS, 2006; GAINES et al., 2010; FERRARO & HANAUER, 2014; DAVIS et al.,
2019).

2.4 Percepção e participação social nas Áreas Protegidas

Tendo em vista que o desenvolvimento sustentável é fundamental para se
encontrar soluções duradouras para os problemas ambientais, antes é preciso compreender o
papel da sociedade perante o meio ambiente (HTAY et al., 2022). Diferentes processos
psicológicos e sociais se relacionam e influenciam as ações humanas sobre a conservação
ambiental, e a percepção é a base desse processo. A percepção é o processo de construir
representações sobre algo a partir da captação de estímulos pelos sentidos e da interpretação
desses estímulos com base em referências internas e externas (TUAN, 2012; GIBSON, 2014).
Nesse sentido, a percepção é capaz de influenciar como as pessoas interpretam e reagem às
mudanças ambientais, além de poder determinar o nível de engajamento das pessoas na
proteção ambiental (CEBRIÁN-PIQUERAS et al., 2020).
As percepções podem gerar impactos ambientais ou, ao contrário, incentivar o
engajamento em ações sustentáveis. A maneira como uma pessoa enxerga e atribui significado
ao ambiente depende de suas experiências vivenciadas e seus conhecimentos (HTUN et al.,
2012; CEBRIÁN-PIQUERAS et al., 2020). Com o tempo, a percepção se transforma em
opinião à medida que os indivíduos interpretam e avaliam as informações que absorvem. E as
opiniões, quando consolidadas, dão origem às atitudes, que são predisposições relativamente
estáveis para reagir de forma positiva ou negativa a determinado tema. As atitudes, por sua vez,
influenciam diretamente o comportamento, determinando ações que podem apoiar ou
comprometer a conservação ambiental (TUAN, 2012; BOSNJAK et al., 2020).
A percepção não apenas reflete a relação das pessoas com o meio ambiente, mas também
pode ser utilizada como um indicador de aceitação ou rejeição das medidas de conservação. Se
a percepção sobre as APs for negativa, as chances de apoio às políticas ambientais também
diminuem (PIETRZYK-KASZYŃSKA et al., 2012; BENNET, 2016; CIOCĂNEA et al.,
2016). Nesse sentido, a comunicação e a sensibilização ambiental tornam-se ferramentas
fundamentais para reverter percepções equivocadas e fortalecer o engajamento ambiental

(FERNANDES et al., 2004; BRAGAGNOLO et al., 2016; BOCA & SARAÇLI, 2019;
LIOBIKIENĖ & POŠKUS, 2019).
O engajamento ambiental é particularmente importante no contexto das APs por serem
territórios com dinâmicas socioambientais complexas, cuja efetividade na conservação
ambiental depende do suporte político e do apoio público. Entretanto, a gestão dessas áreas, ou
ausência dela, pode fazer com que os custos e benefícios sejam percebidos e distribuídos de
forma desigual entre os diferentes atores sociais que fazem uso desses espaços (MACKENZIE,
2012; OLDEKOP et al., 2016). Enquanto alguns percebem as APs como uma oportunidade para
o desenvolvimento sustentável e para a melhoria do bem-estar local, outros as veem como uma
restrição às suas atividades econômicas e culturais (MACKENZIE 2012; NSUKWINI & BOB,
2019). Essa diversidade de percepções reforça a importância da participação social na gestão
ambiental, uma vez que processos inclusivos e transparentes podem reduzir conflitos
socioambientais (VODOUHÊ et al.,2010; CIOCĂNEA et al., 2016; MASUD et al., 2022).
Dessa forma, conselhos gestores, consultas públicas e mecanismos de gestão
participativa são importantes estratégias em APs, principalmente por abrirem espaço para que
diferentes atores sociais expressam suas percepções e sejam incluídos em tomadas de decisões.
Além disso, tendo em vista que a conservação acontece de fato em nível local, também se faz
necessário compreender a percepção das comunidades locais e das demais partes interessadas,
levando em conta seus interesses e prioridades (VODOUHÊ et al.,2010; KUSUMAWATI &
HUANG, 2015; GULTE et al., 2023). A eficácia de tal abordagem é corroborada por diferentes
estudos, que mostram que a incorporação da percepção de comunidades locais na gestão de APs
resulta em uma maior adesão às regras de conservação, redução de conflitos socioambientais e
apoio à conservação (VODOUHÊ et al.,2010; MASUD et al., 2022; GULTE et al., 2023).

REFERÊNCIAS

ACHEAMPONG, Alex O.; OPOKU, Eric Evans Osei. Environmental degradation and
economic growth: Investigating linkages and potential pathways. Energy Economics, v. 123,
p. 106734, 2023.
ADAMS, William M.; HUTTON, Jon. People, parks and poverty: political ecology and
biodiversity conservation. Conservation and society, v. 5, n. 2, p. 147-183, 2007.
ANAYA, Felisa C.; ESPÍRITO-SANTO, Mario M. Protected areas and territorial exclusion of
traditional communities. Ecology and Society, v. 23, n. 1, 2018.
ANDRADE, Gustavo SM; RHODES, Jonathan R. Protected areas and local communities: an
inevitable partnership toward successful conservation strategies?. Ecology and society, v. 17,
n. 4, 2012.
ARDOIN, Nicole M.; BOWERS, Alison W.; GAILLARD, Estelle. Environmental education
outcomes for conservation: A systematic review. Biological conservation, v. 241, p. 108224,
2020.
AYE, Maung Maung. The Nexus Between Population, Development and the Environment:
Critical to Determining Quality of Life on Earth. Population, Development, and the
Environment: Challenges to Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in the Asia
Pacific, p. 11-20, 2019.
BALLANTYNE, Roy; PACKER, Jan; FALK, John. Visitors’ learning for environmental
sustainability: Testing short-and long-term impacts of wildlife tourism experiences using
structural equation modelling. Tourism management, v. 32, n. 6, p. 1243-1252, 2011.
BENNETT, Nathan James. Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and
environmental management. Conservation biology, v. 30, n. 3, p. 582-592, 2016.
BERNARD, Enrico; PENNA, Luan AO; ARAÚJO, Elis. Downgrading, downsizing,
degazettement, and reclassification of protected areas in Brazil. Conservation Biology, v. 28,
n. 4, p. 939-950, 2014.
BHAMMAR, Hasita et al. Framework for sustainable recovery of tourism in protected
areas. Sustainability, v. 13, n. 5, p. 2798, 2021.
BOCA, Gratiela Dana; SARAÇLI, Sinan. Environmental education and student’s perception,
for sustainability. Sustainability, v. 11, n. 6, p. 1553, 2019.
BOILLAT, Sébastien et al. Distant interactions, power, and environmental justice in protected
area governance: A telecoupling perspective. Sustainability, v. 10, n. 11, p. 3954, 2018.
BOSNJAK, Michael; AJZEN, Icek; SCHMIDT, Peter. The theory of planned behavior:
Selected recent advances and applications. Europe's journal of psychology, v. 16, n. 3, p. 352,
2020.
17

BRAGAGNOLO, Chiara et al. Proposta metodológica para padronização dos estudos de
atitudes em comunidades adjacentes Ã s unidades de conservação de proteção integral no
Brasil. Biodiversidade Brasileira, v. 6, n. 1, p. 190-208, 2016.
BRASIL. Lei n.º 9.985, de 18 de julho de 2000. Institui o Sistema Nacional de Unidades de
Conservação da Natureza (SNUC). Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, 19 jul. 2000.
Disponível em: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9985.htm. Acesso em: 21 jan.
2025.
BROCKINGTON, Daniel; WILKIE, David. Protected areas and poverty. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, v. 370, n. 1681, p. 20140271, 2015.
CAHYADIN, Malik; SARI, Vita Kartika; JUWITA, Aulia Hapsari. New evidence of
environmental kuznets curve hypothesis in developing countries. Jurnal Ekonomi
Pembangunan: Kajian Masalah Ekonomi Dan Pembangunan, v. 22, n. 2, p. 251-262,
2021.
CALDECOTT, Ben; JEPSON, Paul. Towards a framework for Protected Area asset
management. Recapitalising Conservation Project, 2014.
CAMPOS, F. S. et al. Protected areas network and conservation efforts concerning threatened
amphibians in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Web Ecology, v. 16, n. 1, p. 9-12, 2016.
CANTINHO, Roberta Zecchini et al. Protected areas in Brazil: evolution, land use and cover,
and impact on emissions inventory. Floresta, v. 51, n. 1, 2021.
CARVALHO, Paul. The Importance of Environmental Conservation and Resource
Efficiency. Journal of Geography & Natural Disasters, v. 13, n. 2, p. 1–2, 2023.
CEBRIÁN-PIQUERAS, Miguel A. et al. Scientific and local ecological knowledge, shaping
perceptions towards protected areas and related ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology, v.
35, n. 11, p. 2549-2567, 2020.
CIOCĂNEA, Cristiana Maria et al. Assessing public perception on protected areas in Iron
Gates Natural Park. Procedia Environmental Sciences, v. 32, p. 70-79, 2016.
CLAYTON, Susan; LITCHFIELD, Carla; GELLER, E. Scott. Psychological science,
conservation, and environmental sustainability. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,
v. 11, n. 7, p. 377-382, 2013.
COAD, Lauren et al. The costs and benefits of protected areas for local livelihoods: a review
of the current literature. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK,
2008.
CRAIGIE, Ian D.; PRESSEY, Robert L. Fine-grained data and models of protected-area
management costs reveal cryptic effects of budget shortfalls. Biological Conservation, v.
272, p. 109589, 2022.
CUMMING, Graeme S.; VON CRAMON-TAUBADEL, Stephan. Linking economic growth
pathways and environmental sustainability by understanding development as alternate social–
18

ecological regimes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 115, n. 38, p.
9533-9538, 2018.
DA ROCHA, Alícia Helena Torres et al. What threats do Brazilian National parks
face?. Journal for Nature Conservation, v. 84, p. 126813, 2025.
DA SILVA, Ramon Felipe Bicudo et al. Perspectives for environmental conservation and
ecosystem services on coupled rural–urban systems. Perspectives in Ecology and
Conservation, v. 15, n. 2, p. 74-81, 2017.
DAVIS, Katrina J. et al. Estimating the economic benefits and costs of highly‐protected
marine protected areas. Ecosphere, v. 10, n. 10, p. e02879, 2019.
DE OLIVEIRA JÚNIOR, José Gilmar Cavalcante; CAMPOS-SILVA, João V.; DA SILVA
BATISTA, Vandick. Linking social organization, attitudes, and stakeholder empowerment in
MPA governance. Marine Policy, v. 130, p. 104543, 2021.
DINDA, Soumyananda. Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecological
economics, v. 49, n. 4, p. 431-455, 2004.
DIXON, John A.; SHERMAN, Paul B. Economics of protected areas: A new look at benefits
and costs. 1990.
DUDLEY, Nigel (Ed.). Guidelines for applying protected area management categories.
Iucn, 2008.
DUDLEY, Nigel et al. Natural solutions: Protected areas helping people cope with climate
change. 2010.
ESFANDIAR, Kourosh et al. Pro-environmental behaviours in protected areas: A systematic
literature review and future research directions. Tourism Management Perspectives, v. 41,
p. 100943, 2022.
FENG, Yanchao et al. Bridging resource disparities for sustainable development: A
comparative analysis of resource-rich and resource-scarce countries. Resources Policy, v. 85,
p. 103981, 2023.
FERNANDES, Roosevelt S. et al. Uso da percepção ambiental como instrumento de gestão
em aplicações ligadas às áreas educacional, social e ambiental. Encontro nacional de pósgraduação e pesquisa em ambiente e sociedade, v. 2, n. 1, p. 1-15, 2004.
FERRARO, Paul J.; HANAUER, Merlin M. Quantifying causal mechanisms to determine
how protected areas affect poverty through changes in ecosystem services and infrastructure.
Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, v. 111, n. 11, p. 4332-4337, 2014.
FISHER, Joshua et al. Protected areas under pressure: An online survey of protected area
managers regarding social and environmental conservation target attainment and stakeholder
conflicts. World Development Sustainability, v. 3, p. 100084, 2023.
FU, Bojie et al. Linking ecosystem processes and ecosystem services. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, v. 5, n. 1, p. 4-10, 2013.
19

GAINES, Steven D. et al. Designing marine reserve networks for both conservation and
fisheries management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 107, n. 43, p.
18286-18293, 2010.
GAMARRA, Norah C. et al. The contribution of fishing to human well-being in Brazilian
coastal communities. Marine Policy, v. 150, p. 105521, 2023.
GAMARRA, Norah Costa et al. Are protected areas undervalued? An asset-based analysis of
Brazilian protected area management plans. Journal of environmental management, v. 249,
p. 109347, 2019a.
GAMARRA, Norah Costa et al. Assets em Áreas Protegidas: Estudo de Caso em Áreas
Úmidas. Biodiversidade Brasileira, n. 2, p. 3-18, 2019b.
GATISO, Tsegaye T. et al. Sustainable protected areas: Synergies between biodiversity
conservation and socioeconomic development. People and Nature, v. 4, n. 4, p. 893-903,
2022.
GIBSON, James J. The ecological approach to visual perception: classic edition.
Psychology press, 2014.
GULTE, Endaylallu et al. Perception of local communities on protected areas: lessons drawn
from the Bale Mountains National Park, Ethiopia. Ecosystems and People, v. 19, n. 1, p.
2227282, 2023.
HANLEY, Nick; BARBIER, Edward B. Pricing nature: cost-benefit analysis and
environmental policy. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009.
HAUSMANN, Anna et al. The ecosystem service of sense of place: benefits for human wellbeing and biodiversity conservation. Environmental conservation, v. 43, n. 2, p. 117-127,
2016.
HEINEN, Joel. International trends in protected areas policy and management. Protected
area management, p. 1-18, 2012.
HTAY, Thazin et al. Factors influencing communities’ attitudes and participation in protected
area conservation: a case study from Northern Myanmar. Society & Natural Resources, v.
35, n. 3, p. 301-319, 2022.
HTUN, Naing Zaw; MIZOUE, Nobuya; YOSHIDA, Shigejiro. Determinants of local people's
perceptions and attitudes toward a protected area and its management: A case study from
Popa Mountain Park, Central Myanmar. Society & Natural Resources, v. 25, n. 8, p. 743758, 2012.
HUNT, Carter A. et al. Can ecotourism deliver real economic, social, and environmental
benefits? A study of the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. Journal of sustainable tourism, v. 23, n.
3, p. 339-357, 2015.
ISLAM, Md Rafiqul. A Study of Deep Ecology and Environmental Sustainability: Through an
Eco-Feminist Lens. Sudurpaschim Spectrum, v. 2, n. 1, p. 105-122, 2024.
20

JEPSON, Paul R. et al. Protected area asset stewardship. Biological Conservation, v. 212, p.
183-190, 2017.
JONES, Nikoleta et al. Understanding public support for European protected areas: a review of
the literature and proposing a new approach for policy makers. Land, v. 11, n. 5, p. 733, 2022.
JORGENSON, Andrew K.; AUSTIN, Kelly; DICK, Christopher. Ecologically unequal
exchange and the resource consumption/environmental degradation paradox: a panel study of
less-developed countries, 1970—2000. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, v.
50, n. 3-4, p. 263-284, 2009.
KALTENBORN, Bjørn P. et al. Ecosystem services and cultural values as building blocks for
‘the good life’. A case study in the community of Røst, Lofoten Islands, Norway. Ecological
Economics, v. 140, p. 166-176, 2017.
KETSCHAU, Thilo J. Social sustainable development or sustainable social development-two
sides of the same coin? the structure of social justice as a normative basis for the social
dimension of sustainability. International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics,
v. 12, n. 3, p. 338-347, 2017.
KOLAHI, Mahdi et al. Challenges to the future development of Iran’s protected areas
system. Environmental management, v. 50, p. 750-765, 2012.
KUHLMAN, Tom; FARRINGTON, John. What is sustainability?. Sustainability, v. 2, n. 11,
p. 3436-3448, 2010.
KUSUMAWATI, Ika; HUANG, Hsiang-Wen. Key factors for successful management of
marine protected areas: A comparison of stakeholders‫ ׳‬perception of two MPAs in Weh
island, Sabang, Aceh, Indonesia. Marine Policy, v. 51, p. 465-475, 2015.
LANGTON, Marcia; PALMER, Lisa; RHEA, Zane Ma. Community-oriented protected areas
for indigenous peoples and local communities. Indigenous peoples, national parks, and
protected areas: A new paradigm linking conservation, culture, and rights, v. 84, 2014.
LIOBIKIENĖ, Genovaitė; POŠKUS, Mykolas Simas. The importance of environmental
knowledge for private and public sphere pro-environmental behavior: modifying the valuebelief-norm theory. Sustainability, v. 11, n. 12, p. 3324, 2019.
LOREAU, Michel. Reconciling utilitarian and non-utilitarian approaches to biodiversity
conservation. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, v. 14, n. 1, p. 27-32, 2014. doi:
10.3354/esep00149.
MACE, Georgina M. Whose conservation?. Science, v. 345, n. 6204, p. 1558-1560, 2014.
MACKENZIE, Catrina A. Accruing benefit or loss from a protected area: Location matters.
Ecological Economics, v. 76, p. 119-129, 2012.
MAMMIDES, Christos et al. Designing an ecologically representative global network of
protected areas requires coordination between countries. Environmental Research Letters,
v. 16, n. 12, p. 121001, 2021.
21

MASUD, Muhammad Mehedi et al. Co-management approach to sustainable management of
marine protected areas: The case of Malaysia. Marine Policy, v. 138, p. 105010, 2022.
MCNEELY, Jeffrey A. Today's protected areas: supporting a more sustainable future for
humanity. Integrative zoology, v. 15, n. 6, p. 603-616, 2020.
MEDEIROS, R. A política de criação de áreas protegidas no Brasil: evolução, contradições e
conflitos. Anais do IV Congresso Brasileiro de Unidades de Conservação, vol 1. Curitiba:
Fundação O Boticário de Proteção à Natureza & Rede Pró Unidades de Conservação, 2004.
MESTANZA-RAMÓN, Carlos et al. A review to update the Protected Areas in Ecuador and
an analysis of their main impacts and conservation strategies. Environments, v. 10, n. 5, p.
79, 2023.
NAIDOO, Robin; RICKETTS, Taylor H. Mapping the economic costs and benefits of
conservation. PLoS biology, v. 4, n. 11, p. e360, 2006.
NSUKWINI, Sakhile; BOB, Urmilla. Protected areas, community costs and benefits: a
comparative study of selected conservation case studies from Northern Kwazulu-Natal, South
Africa. Geojournal of Tourism and Geosites, v. 27, n. 4, p. 1377 - 1391, 2019.
OLDEKOP, Johan A. et al. A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of
protected areas. Conservation Biology, v. 30, n. 1, p. 133-141, 2016.
OPRŠAL, Zdeněk et al. What factors can influence the expansion of protected areas around
the world in the context of international environmental and development goals?. Problemy
Ekorozwoju, v. 13, n. 1, p. 145-157, 2018.
PEARCE, David; ATKINSON, Giles; MOURATO, Susana. Cost-benefit analysis and the
environment: recent developments. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
development, 2006.
PICONE, F. et al. Marine protected areas overall success evaluation (MOSE): a novel
integrated framework for assessing management performance and social-ecological benefits
of MPAs. Ocean & Coastal Management, v. 198, p. 105370, 2020.
PIETRZYK-KASZYŃSKA, Agata et al. Factors influencing perception of protected areas—
The case of Natura 2000 in Polish Carpathian communities. Journal for Nature Conservation,
v. 20, n. 5, p. 284-292, 2012.
POOJA. Environmental Degradation: Causes, Impacts and Mitigation. Journal of Advances
in Science and Technology, v. 20, n. 1, p. 220-223, 2023. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29070/94vmdz61
PRETTY, Jules. Interdisciplinary progress in approaches to address social-ecological and
ecocultural systems. Environmental Conservation, v. 38, n. 2, p. 127-139, 2011.
QIAN, Shenhua et al. Conservation and development in conflict: regeneration of wild Davidia
involucrata (Nyssaceae) communities weakened by bamboo management in south-central
China. Oryx, v. 52, n. 3, p. 442-451, 2018.
22

RODRIGUES, Ana SL; ROUYER, Marie-Morgane. Measuring the ecological benefits of
protected areas. Nature, v. 622, p. 39-40, 2023.
SALA, Enric; GIAKOUMI, Sylvaine. No-take marine reserves are the most effective
protected areas in the ocean. ICES Journal of Marine Science, v. 75, n. 3, p. 1166-1168,
2018.
SCHEIDEL, Arnim et al. Global impacts of extractive and industrial development projects on
Indigenous Peoples’ lifeways, lands, and rights. Science Advances, v. 9, n. 23, p. eade9557,
2023.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2022). Kunming-Montreal Global
Biodiversity Framework. Disponível em: https://www.cbd.int/gbf/targets/3. Acesso em 29 de
jan. 2025.
SIRAG, Abdalla et al. Does environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis exist? Evidence from
dynamic panel threshold. Journal of environmental economics and policy, v. 7, n. 2, p. 145165, 2018.
STEM, Caroline J. et al. Community participation in ecotourism benefits: The link to
conservation practices and perspectives. Society &Natural Resources, v. 16, n. 5, p. 387-413,
2003.
STERN, David I. The environmental Kuznets curve after 25 years. Journal of Bioeconomics,
v. 19, p. 7-28, 2017.
TEIXEIRA, Lucas Peixoto et al. How much of the Caatinga is legally protected? An analysis
of temporal and geographical coverage of protected areas in the Brazilian semiarid region. Acta
Botanica Brasilica, v. 35, p. 473-485, 2021.
THAPA, Kamal et al. Nature-based tourism in protected areas: a systematic review of socioeconomic benefits and costs to local people. International Journal of Sustainable
Development & World Ecology, v. 29, n. 7, p. 625-640, 2022.
THAPA, Kamal; DIEDRICH, Amy. Beyond conservation: Assessing broader development
outcomes of protected areas in Nepal. Journal of Environmental Management, v. 339, p.
117890, 2023.
TONG, Nian. Environmental Ethics and Ecological Preservation: Integrating Social Justice
for Sustainable Development. International Journal of Religion, v. 5, n. 10, p. 5211-5218,
2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61707/cv5z7t02
TOZZO, R., MARCHI, E. Unidades de Conservação no Brasil: Uma visão conceitual, histórica
e legislativa. Revista Meio Ambiente e Sustentabilidade, v. 6, n. 3, p. 508 – 523, 2014.
TUAN, Yi-Fu. Topofilia: um estudo da percepção, atitudes e valores do meio ambiente.
Scielo-Eduel, 2012.
UMAR, Risa Bernadip. The Environmental Degradation on Human Health and
Welfare. International Journal of Health Sciences, 2(2), 705–715, 2024. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59585/ijhs.v2i2.367
23

UPRETI, Gopi. Environmental conservation and sustainable development require a new
development approach. Environmental Conservation, v. 21, n. 1, p. 18-29, 1994.
VIEIRA, Leandro TA et al. Reviewing the Cerrado's limits, flora distribution patterns, and
conservation status for policy decisions. Land Use Policy, v. 115, p. 106038, 2022.
VISCONTI, Piero et al. Protected area targets post-2020. Science, v. 364, n. 6437, p. 239241, 2019.
VODOUHÊ, Fifanou G. et al. Community perception of biodiversity conservation within
protected areas in Benin. Forest Policy and Economics, v. 12, n. 7, p. 505-512, 2010.
WARD, Caroline; HOLMES, George; STRINGER, Lindsay. Perceived barriers to and drivers
of community participation in protected‐area governance. Conservation Biology, v. 32, n. 2,
p. 437-446, 2018.
WATSON, James EM et al. The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature, v. 515,
n. 7525, p. 67-73, 2014.
WEILER, Betty et al. Generation Y and protected areas: A scoping study of research, theory,
and future directions. Journal of Leisure Research, v. 49, n. 3-5, p. 277-297, 2018.
WELLS, Michael P.; MCSHANE, Thomas O. Integrating protected area management with
local needs and aspirations. AMBIO: a Journal of the Human Environment, v. 33, n. 8, p.
513-519, 2004.
WEST, Paige; IGOE, James; BROCKINGTON, Dan. Parks and peoples: the social impact of
protected areas. Annu. Rev. Anthropol., v. 35, p. 251-277, 2006.
WOOD, Sylvia LR; DECLERCK, Fabrice. Ecosystems and human well‐being in the
Sustainable Development Goals. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, v. 13, n. 3, p.
123-123, 2015.
WOODHOUSE, Emily et al. Social impacts of protected areas: Exploring evidence of tradeoffs and synergies. In: Ecosystem Services and Poverty Alleviation (OPEN ACCESS).
Routledge, 2018. p. 222-240.
WYMAN, Miriam et al. Best practices for tourism concessions in protected areas: a review of
the field. Forests, v. 2, n. 4, p. 913-928, 2011.
ZHANG, Yuling et al. How important is community participation to eco-environmental
conservation in protected areas? From the perspective of predicting locals' pro-environmental
behaviours. Science of the Total Environment, v. 739, p. 139889, 2020.
ZIMMERMAN, Michael E. Humanity's Relation to Gaia: Part of the Whole, or Member of the
Community?. The Trumpeter, v. 20, n. 1, 2004.

Perceptions of costs and benefits. Socioeconomic factors and user experiences shaping
perceptions of Brazil’s largest Marine Protected Area

Abstract:
The establishment and maintenance of IUCN Category V Protected Areas (PAs) are essential for
biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. However, these areas face challenges in
implementing territorial management that effectively balances environmental conservation with
the demands of various Category V PAs user groups. Perceptions of the costs and benefits of this
areas tends to vary according to socioeconomic factors, such as income, education, and occupation,
as well as usage experiences within these areas, including resource extraction or recreational
visitation. This study investigated variations in cost-benefit perceptions among different user
groups of the Costa dos Corais Environmental Protection Area (APCC), a Marine Protected Area
(MPA) that plays a significant role in marine biodiversity conservation in Brazil and in the
socioeconomic dynamics of its territory. The study’s hypotheses were: (i) users in more vulnerable
socioeconomic conditions tend to perceive the costs of APACC more strongly than its benefits; (ii)
users whose primary connection to the area is associated with leisure demonstrate a more favorable
perception, emphasizing benefits over costs. To test these hypotheses, structured questionnaire
interviews were conducted with 300 people, 75 individuals for each APACC user group.
Subsequently, the data were submitted to Cumulative Linkage Mixed Models (CLMM), fitting
separate models for costs and benefits to analyze the influences of socioeconomic variables and
user experience on the perception of costs and benefits. The results showed that users with greater
socioeconomic vulnerability, such as fishers and residents with low family income, perceived more
costs related to APACC, particularly territorial costs. In contrast, tourists and individual without
formal education identified more benefits. These findings corroborate the hypotheses of the work
and reinforce the need for management policies that integrate local socioeconomic demands,
promote sustainable tourism and artisanal fishing, and adopt inclusive governance, aiming to
reduce costs and maximize the benefits of Category V PAs, especially among traditional
communities such as artisanal fishers, who are typically more impacted by the costs associated with
MPAs.
Key-words: Socioenvironmental impacts. Environmental perception. Cost-benefit relations.

1. INTRODUCTION
Due to human actions and different forms of environmental impacts, environmental
conservation has become vital for a lasting and sustainable future. In this scenario, Protected Areas
(PAs) have been an important strategy for conserving biodiversity and natural ecosystems
(WATSON et al., 2014; SCHLEICHER, 2018). These areas are designated to protect species,
ecosystems, and landscapes (WATSON et al., 2014). Among the different PA categories
established by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Category V (Protected
Landscapes/Seascapes) allows for human occupation and sustainable use of natural resources,
integrating conservation with local development (DUDLEY, 2008). In addition, they can help to
strengthen traditional and local communities through the sustainable use of nature resources,
supporting community-based tourism or other services that foster local socioeconomic
development in conjunction with environmental conservation (BERNARD et al., 2014; WATSON
et al., 2014).
However, PAs face numerous anthropogenic pressures and conflicts of interest between the
goals of conservation, human well-being, and land use (LIU et al., 2010; OLDEKOP et al., 2016;
QIAN et al., 2018; FRANÇA, 2019; ERASO, 2021). This is particularly relevant in PAs classified
under IUCN Category V, such as Environmental Protection Areas (APAs) in Brazil, where multiple
land uses coexist (BRASIL, 2000; DUDLEY, 2008). In this context, social participation decisionmaking in these areas is widely debated. While some approaches advocate for limiting human
interaction within PAs (WILSHUSEN et al., 2002; WUERTHNER et al., 2015), others suggest
that environmental conservation needs to be more inclusive, integrating relationships between PAs
and the different social actors that use their territory (LIU et al., 2010; OLDEKOP et al., 2016;
CARIÑO & FERRARI, 2021; GAMARRA et al., 2023).
The ties between people and PAs are based on the use of nature, either directly or indirectly.
As a result, different social actors have varying ties to the costs and benefits defined by PAs, which
can be understood through different perspectives, such as economic, social, and environmental
(NAIDOO & ADAMOWICZ, 2005; NAIDOO & RICKETTS, 2006; MCSHANE et al., 2011; DE
GROOT et al., 2013). This highlights the issue of the cost-benefit relationships of PAs. Among the
benefits derived from Category V Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), various ecosystem services
stand out, such as scenic landscape enjoyment, recreation, and tourism (RAYMOND et al., 2009);
26

improvement in the health and resilience of marine ecosystems (DOUVERE, 2008; WOOD et al.,
2008; SALA & GIAKOUMI, 2018); promotion of scientific research in ecology
(KATSANEVAKIS et al., 2017); and revenue and job generation through eco-tourism (SALA &
GIAKOUMI, 2018). However, conservation benefits can also be seen as costs depending on the
relationships of use and user profiles.
For instance, restrictions on direct use of natural resources, such as fishing, may generate
environmental benefits but result in economic losses for local communities that directly depend on
these resources for income and subsistence (ADAMS et al., 2004; WELLS & MCSHANE, 2004;
SIMS, 2010; MACKENZIE, 2012; NSUKWINI & BOB, 2019). Such measures can lead to
conflicts of interest and challenges in dealing with unregulated activities and resource use
(BELSOY et al., 2012; ARIAS et al., 2015). A better understanding of how different social actors
perceive the costs and benefits of MPAs can provide a foundation for more informed decisionmaking in territorial management, conflict mediation, and adjustment of conservation strategies.
Perception is a cognitive process through which individuals interpret and assign meaning
to the environment around them, which can vary according to socioeconomic and cultural factors,
experiences, beliefs and values (GIBSON, 1979; BERKES, 2012; TUAN, 2012). In the socioenvironmental context, perceptions influence how people interact with nature and respond to
environmental interventions, forming opinions and attitudes toward conservation (FERNANDES
et al., 2004; PICKENS, 2005; TUAN, 2012). While attitudes, which are a relatively stable
evaluative predispositions (AJZEN & FISHBEIN, 1970; TUAN, 2012), and behavior, which
represents the concrete expression of perceptions and attitudes in actions (HEIMLICH &
ARDOIN, 2008), perception is dynamic and sensitive to individual and collective experiences
(FERNANDES et al., 2004).
This perception-based approach is particularly relevant in the context of PAs under IUCN
Category V, where the costs and benefits of their existence are experienced and evaluated
differently by different user profiles, with implications for the territorial management of these areas
and for conservation policies (MACKENZIE, 2012; RODRÍGUEZ-RODRÍGUEZ, 2012;
KARANTH & NEPAL, 2012; HTAY et al., 2022). While some groups of users predominantly
perceive the environmental, socioeconomic, and cultural benefits of Category V PAs, others
emphasize the restrictions and impacts on their livelihoods. For example, individuals with lower
socioeconomic vulnerability, i.e., higher income and education levels, tend to recognize the broader
27

benefits of conservation for health, well-being, and the economy, assigning greater value to
environmental protection (OLDEKOP et al., 2016). Additionally, groups geographically distant
from protected areas may also emphasize potential benefits, including tourism and biodiversity
protection (SIMS, 2010; GHOSH & GHOSH, 2019). In contrast, communities with more
precarious socioeconomic conditions, especially those living in the vicinity of Category V PAs,
often perceive the protected areas costs more intensely, such as restricted access and limitations on
local economic activities (ANAYA & ESPÍRITO-SANTO, 2018).
Furthermore, the type of use experience directly influences the perception of costs and
benefits in Category V PAs. People who seek these areas for leisure and recreation, as visitors and
tourists, tend to have a more favorable perception of them, emphasizing the cultural, structural, and
aesthetic benefits provided by these areas, such as trails, diving, sports, beach tourism, and local
gastronomy (DIAZ-CHRISTIANSEN et al., 2016; BLANCO-SALAS et al., 2019; CAPARRÓSMARTÍNEZ et al., 2022). Those with greater familiarity and interest in activities like ecotourism
and wildlife observation show a more pronounced appreciation for environmental conservation
(OCAMPO-PEÑUELA & WINTON, 2017; HAUSMANN et al., 2018). Understanding how
different factors explain perceptions of costs and benefits among various social actors can
contribute to the success of conservation policies and territorial management strategies for
Category V PAs, as public support for conservation can reduce conflicts of interest (MACKENZIE,
2012; RODRÍGUEZ-RODRÍGUEZ, 2012).
Thus, we seek to answer the following question: how do perceptions of the costs and
benefits of a Category V Protected Area vary according to socioeconomic profiles and use
experiences? To this end, we focus on the Costa dos Corais Environmental Protection Area
(APACC), a MPA located in the state of Alagoas, Brazil. We assume two hypotheses: i) users in
more vulnerable socioeconomic situations (e.g., lower income, occupations related to resource use
in the MPA, lower education levels, among others) tend to perceive the costs of the AMP more
acutely than its benefits; ii) users whose primary connection with the area is leisure-related tend to
have a more favorable perception, emphasizing benefits over costs.

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. Study area
The Costa dos Corais Environmental Protection Area (APACC) (9◦14’23.19"S and
35◦12’9.61"W) is one of the most important sustainable-use IUCN Category V PAs in Brazil, and
the largest MPA in the country, covering approximately 413,000 hectares along the coast of
Alagoas and Pernambuco, and about 120 km of beaches and mangroves (ICMBio). APACC has a
great diversity of marine ecosystems, such as coral reefs, mangroves, and beaches, which provide
habitat for a wide variety of species (ARAÚJO & BERNARD, 2016; PEREIRA et al., 2022). This
environmental and biological wealth gives the PA a crucial role in the conservation of marine
biodiversity in Brazil. In addition, APACC plays an important socioeconomic role in the region.
Also, APACC have contributed to the strengthening of traditional and local communities, primarily
through artisanal fishing and the promotion of community-based tourism (GERHARDINGER et
al., 2009; ARAÚJO & BERNARD, 2016; GAMARRA et al., 2023).
Our study was conducted in five municipalities, selected from the 11 that make up the
APACC (Figure 1). These municipalities include Paripueira (9°27'55''S and 35°33'8''W) in the
South Region of APACC, São Miguel dos Milagres (9°15'54''S and 35°22'18''W) and Porto de
Pedras (9°9'29'' S and 35°17'46''W) in the Ecological Route region, and finally, Japaratinga
(9°5'16''S and 35°15'33''W) and Maragogi (9°0'46''S and 35°13'17''W), located in a Tourism Pole
region (DE OLIVEIRA JÚNIOR et al., 2021). These municipalities, located in the Alagoas portion
of APACC, were chosen due to their shared characteristics, including a strong presence of tourism,
which occurs in the region mainly due to the beaches, natural pools, community-based tourism,
inns and hotels, rich gastronomy, and a wide variety of tours such as buggy rides, boat trips, and
speedboat rides (GLASER et al., 2018; DE OLIVEIRA JÚNIOR et al., 2021).

Figure 1- Costa dos Corais Environmental Protection Area and study area.

Source: Author, 2025.

Besides tourism, artisanal fishing is also present in all five municipalities included in the
study (DE OLIVEIRA JÚNIOR et al., 2021; GAMARRA et al., 2023). However, despite sharing
these common activities, the intensity and characteristics of both tourism and fishing vary across
the regions. The Tourism Polo stands out due the strong presence of tourists, with significant
infrastructure supporting it, such as inns, hotels and restaurants. In contrast, the Ecological Route
is characterized by community-based tourism and ecotourism. The South Region, on the other
hand, exhibits limited tourism activities, where artisanal fishing remains the predominant economic
activity.

2.2. Data collection
The sample used was non-random, quota-based. Interviews were conducted with four user
groups of APACC: (1) artisanal fisher; (2) non-fishing local dweller; (3) tourism entrepreneurs and
traders (which includes streets vendors, tour guides, commercial employees focused on tourism,
hotels and restaurants); (4) tourists and visitors. For each region of the study area (South Region,

Ecological Route, Tourism Pole), 100 interviews were conducted, totaling 300, with 25 interviews
per group per region (Table 1).

Table 1- Number of interviewees per group and region of the study area.
Interviewee Group
Artisanal fisher
Non-fishing local dweller
Tourism entrepreneurs and traders
Tourists and visitors
Total

South Region
25
25
25
25
100

Ecological Route
25
25
25
25
100

Tourism Pole
25
25
25
25
100

Source: Author, 2025.

The interviews took place between March and April 2024, and the respondents were
approached accidentally and invited to participate in the research. Initially, participants were
informed about the research objectives and invited to complete a structured questionnaire and sign
the Informed Consent Form (ICF), which emphasized that the information provided by the
participants would be kept confidential, in accordance with the model approved by Ethics
Committee of Federal University of Alagoas (CEP: 6.624.270). The research was registered with
the Biodiversity Authorization and Information System (SISBio: 92248-1).
The first section of the questionnaire (See Supplementary Material – APPENDIX A)
contained questions for the socioeconomic characterization of the respondents (e.g., age, gender,
education, place of residence, profession and/or main occupation, income). The second section
included questions to identify the respondents’ usage experiences in APACC (e.g., frequency of
visits, purpose of use, interest in appreciating natural beauty, knowledge about the environmental
and economic services of APACC). The region where the interview took place was also considered
a variable in usage experience. Finally, the last section of the questionnaire presented statements
highlighting potential costs and benefits of a PA, where respondents indicated whether they agreed
or disagreed with the statements, using a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 represents
“strongly disagree” and 5 represents “strongly agree”. Both costs and benefits were selected based
on economic, sociocultural, ecological, and territorial management aspects (Table 2).

Table 2. Aspects of each cost and benefit category covered in the interviews.
Cost and Benefit Categories
Economic
Sociocultural
Ecological
Territorial management

Covered aspects
Economic costs and benefits of APACC on local sources of income and livelihoods,
cost of living, employment opportunities and economic growth of the region.
APACC costs and benefits on the local lifestyle and traditions, appreciation of local
culture, needs of the local community, contemplation of nature and well-being.
Costs and benefits of APACC on nature conservation and local landscape, influence
of tourism on the local environment, local pollution and environmental awareness.
APACC costs and benefits on access to the sea and other places, rights of local
communities, infrastructure for recreation and comfort and local conflicts.

Source: Author, 2025.

To try to reduce the potential influence of response bias, that is, the tendency to agree with
statements presented by the interviewer, the questionnaire was designed to intersperse statements
in positive and negative form. For example, while some items emphasized the benefits of the
APACC (e.g., “Environmental protection helps generate income for fishing communities and local
residents”), others highlighted potential costs (e.g., “Environmental protection in this region causes
harm to fishing communities and local residents”). Additionally, contradictory statements such as
“Environmental protection does not help reduce waste and local pollution” were included to
balance the scale and encourage respondents to think more critically about their answers.

2.3. Data analysis

2.3.1. Diagnostic procedures and data preparation
To ensure the adequacy of the statistical tests applied to the data, a normality analysis of
the ordinal variable “perception of costs and benefits” was conducted. This variable was
characterized by the Likert scale value attributed by each interviewee for each cost and benefit
statement present in the questionnaire (APPENDIX A). Also, because this variable was composed
of statements that emphasize both the benefits (e.g., “Environmental protection helps generate
income for fishing communities and local residents”) and costs (e.g., “Environmental protection in
this region causes harm to fishing communities and local residents”) of PA depending on the
sentence structure, the same Likert value scale could not be used for both models (costs and
benefits), thus, the Likert scale was recoded as follows: i) Values 1 and 2 were assigned to
responses representing perceptions favorable to costs; ii) Values 4 and 5 were assigned to
32

perceptions favoring benefits; and the value 3 remained the same, representing responses “neither
agree or disagree”.
At first, we ran the Anderson-Darling test to see if the data followed a normal distribution.
The data exhibited a non-normal distribution (A = 1145.2, p < 2.2e-16). The test revealed a very
low p-value (p < 2.2e-16), which is below the significance level of 0.05. This indicates that
responses are not uniformly distributed across categories, meaning that most perceptions tend to
concentrate in specific categories of the scale. Next, a Chi-Square test was used to check if the
distribution of responses in the Likert scale was uniform. Since the data did not show a normal or
uniform distribution, non-parametric statistical methods were employed. In this context, we applied
the Kruskal-Wallis test to compare differences in perceptions among the respondent groups. The
Kruskal-Wallis test yielded a result significantly than the 0.05 threshold (p = 5.9999e-08),
indicating statistically significant differences between groups, meaning that perceptions vary
according to the respondents’ category of belonging.
In addition, to assess the presence of collinearity between the predictor variables used in
the study (Table 3), the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) analysis was performed, since collinearity
between variables can compromise and reduce the accuracy of the model. Initially, two VIF models
were adjusted, one containing the socioeconomic variables and other containing the user
experience variables. For each set of variables, we calculated the VIF values and established a
threshold for identifying severe collinearity, adopting the criterion of VIF > 10 as indicative of
excessive collinearity.
Table 3. Predictor variables description.
CATEGORY
Socioeconomic

PREDICTOR VARIABLES
Interviewee Group; Age; Gender; Education; Local Economy; Personal Economy;
Occupation; Monthly Income; Family Income.

User experiences

Interview Region; Knowledge about local environmental protection; Main use of
APACC; Knowledge about local environmental changes; Participation in courses
on local ecological knowledge; Use of infrastructures intended for leisure; Need for
improvements in local infrastructures; Conflicts with other APACC users;
Experienced any unpleasant situations using local nature; Experienced pleasant
situations using local nature

Source: Author, 2025.

In the VIF model that evaluated the socioeconomic variables, it was observed that the
variables ‘occupation’ (VIF = 70.60) and ‘monthly income’ (VIF = 21.32) presented extremely
high values, indicating strong collinearity. Consequently, these variables were excluded from
subsequent analyses. The other socioeconomic variables presented acceptable VIF values, ranging
from 1.08 to 3.37. Regarding the model that evaluated the user experiences variables (Table 3), the
VIF values were all lower than 1.40, suggesting the absence of severe collinearity between these
variables. In addition to the VIF, collinearity between the categorical variables was verified using
Cramér’s V coefficient, which allows to identify significant associations between pairs of
qualitative variables. High coefficients (≥ 0.5) were identified for the combinations ‘Interviewee
Group’ vs. ‘Occupation’ (V = 0.64) and ‘Monthly income’ vs. ‘Family income’ (V = 0.51),
reinforcing the exclusion of ‘Occupation’ and ‘Monthly income’ variables, already indicated by
the VIF analysis. All analyses were conducted in the RStudio 4.3.2 environment.

2.3.2. Cumulative Link Mixed Models analysis

To investigate the factors that influence perceptions of the costs and benefits of APACC,
we used Cumulative Link Mixed Models (CLMM), testing the effects of socioeconomic variables
and usage experiences on perceptions of costs and benefits. We choice CLMM for its robustness
in handling ordinal response variables, such as the Likert scale used in this study. CLMM allows
for handling data dependency and incorporating random effects, given that each respondent
provided multiple perception assessments (CHRISTENSEN, 2018). It is noteworthy that when
dealing with explanatory variables with multiple levels, the model uses one level as a base to
calculate the coefficients for other levels in comparison to this baseline category. This approach
simplifies the interpretation of results by avoiding redundancy. The models were fitted using the
clmm() function from the ordinal package in RSudio version 4.3.2, with the maximum likelihood
configuration via the link function (link = “logit”). The response variable was the perception of
costs and benefits, obtained on a five-point ordinal scale (1 to 5).
To test the first hypothesis “users in more vulnerable socioeconomic situations tend to
perceive the costs of the Protected Area more acutely than its benefits”, the model was specified
with the response variable Perception as a function of the predictors respondent group, age, gender,
education, local economy, personal economy, occupation, monthly income, family income, and a
34

random effect for the respondents (ID). The random effect was used to capture variations in
perceptions not explained by the predictors and reflects individual differences among respondents.
This allowed modeling variability among individuals, recognizing that responses may be
influenced by unobserved factors in addition to fixed variables. The model specification is
expressed by Equation 1.
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ∼ 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑤𝑒𝑒 𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝 + 𝐴𝑔𝑒 + 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 + 𝐸𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 + 𝐿𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑦
+ 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑦 + 𝑂𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 + 𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑙𝑦 𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 + 𝐹𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑦 𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒
+ (1 ∣ 𝐼𝐷)

Eq.1

To test the second hypothesis “users whose primary connection with the area is leisurerelated tend to have a more favorable perception, emphasizing benefits over costs”, the Perception
variable was used as the response variable, with usage experience as the predictor variable. The
respondent’s ID was also included as a random effect. The model specification is expressed by
Equation 2.

𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ~ 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑤 𝑅𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛 + 𝐾𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑙𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑛𝑣𝑖𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 +
𝑀𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐴𝑃𝐴𝐶𝐶 + 𝐾𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑙𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑛𝑣𝑖𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑠 +
𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑙𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒 +
𝑈𝑠𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑙𝑒𝑖𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 +
𝑁𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 +
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝐴𝑃𝐴𝐶𝐶 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑠 +
𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑢𝑛𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 +
𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 + (1 | 𝐼𝐷)

Eq.2
The models were fitted using the clmm.control() function, with a maximum number of 1000
interactions and a gradient tolerance of 1x10-4. We used α = 0.05 for statistical significance.
Additionally, the models were simplified to their most parsimonious form using a stepwise
procedure. When significant predictor variables had more than one level, multiple comparison
analyses were conducted to identify differences among groups. Multiple comparison analyses were
performed using marginal means estimation with adjustments for multiple comparisons. The
emmeans () function from the emmeans package was used to calculate adjusted marginal means.
The formulation uses for pairwise comparisons followed the structed of Equation 3.

𝑒𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛𝑠(𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑜, 𝑝𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒 ∼ 𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖á𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑎 ∣ 𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖á𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑎, 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒 = "𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏")

Eq.3

Statistical analysis was performed in RStudio, and additional analyses were conducted in
spreadsheets for data tabulation and organization.

3. RESULTS

3.1. Socioeconomic Characterization
The sample was composed mostly by men (66%), while women represented 34% of the
interviewees (Figure 2). Regarding age range, the interviewees were relatively well distributed
among the age groups, with a greater concentration in the 18 to 30 age range (23%) and between
41 to 50 (21%), followed by those between 51 and 60 years old (20%). Family income varied
among different categories, being more frequent among those who family’ earn between one and
two minimum wages (27%), above five minimum wages (19%) and between two and three
minimum wages (18%). Individuals without a fixed family income corresponded 12% of the
sample, followed by those with family income below one minimum wage (13%). Regarding
education, the interviewees had different levels of education. The most representative category was
that of individuals with complete high school (27%), followed by those with incomplete basic
education (24%) and complete higher education (22%). The lowest proportion was observed
among those without formal schooling (4%) and with incomplete higher education (4%).

Figure 2. Socioeconomic characterization – Percentage of participants by socioeconomic variable.

4%
10%

22%

12%

19%
18%

23%
13%

34%

11%

24%

4%
66%

20%

18%

8%
18%

21%

27%

Source: Author, 2025.

3.2. Characterization of user experiences
The interview region variable showed a balanced distribution among respondents due to the
methodology used in this study, where 25 individuals from each user group were interviewed in
each region. Recreation and leisure were the primary uses of APACC among respondents,
mentioned by 62% of participants (x̄ = 15.5%, SD = 8.59), with greater emphasis among tourists
(24.7%) and non-fisher local dweller (20.3%). Knowledge about local environmental protection
was also a relevant aspect, with 61.7% of respondents reporting familiarity with the topic (x̄ =
15.4%, SD = 5.6). Among the respondent groups, artisanal fishers (20.3) and tourism entrepreneurs
(18.3%) had the highest percentages of affirmative responses.
37

Perceptions of environmental changes in the region over the years were reported by 63.7%
of respondents (x̄ = 15.9%, SD = 6.9), being most prominent among artisanal fishers (21.3%) and
non-fishing local dweller (19.3%), while tourists had the lowest recognition rate (5.3%). The need
for improvements in APACC’s infrastructure was also a key point, highlighted by 85.7% of
respondents (x̄ = 21.4%, SD = 2.4), with the highest emphasis among tourism entrepreneurs
(23.3%), non-fishing local dweller (22%), and artisanal fishers (22.7%).
Participation in formal and informal environmental education activities was low, with only
33.3% of respondents reporting involvement in ecological knowledge learning sessions (x̄ = 8.3%,
SD = 4.3). Finally, 80% of respondents reported experiencing something positive and enjoyable
when engaging with the local environment (x̄ = 20%, SD = 1.9), while negative experiences were
mentioned by 23.7% (x̄ = 5.9%, SD = 3.7), and conflicts among PA users were reported by 14.3%
of respondents (x̄ = 3.6%, SD = 2.3). It should be noted that the percentage of each user experience
variable for each group of respondents was calculated based on a total of 75 individuals per group,
representing 25% of the sample in each category of variables, and the total sample size of the study
was 300 respondents.

3.3. Perception of costs and benefits by dimension (economic, ecological, sociocultural,
territorial)
Overall, benefits were widely recognized across all analyzed dimensions – economic,
sociocultural, ecological, and territorial – while costs were more intensely perceived by fishers and
local residents (Figure 3). In the economic dimension, benefits were broadly perceived by all
groups, ranging from 64% among artisanal fishers to 75% among tourists. Tourism entrepreneurs
and non-fisher local dweller had similar perceptions (72% and 73%, respectively). In contrast,
economic costs were reported with lower intensity, being highest among fishers (30%) and nonfisher local dweller (24%), while tourists reported the lowest costs (14%).
In the sociocultural dimension, the perception of benefits was high, exceeding 66% in all
respondent groups, with tourists recognizing the most benefits (79%), followed by tourism
entrepreneurs and non-fisher local dweller. Sociocultural costs were perceived less frequently,
being most significant among fishers (26%). In ecological dimension, benefits were the most
recognized across all dimensions, ranging from 81% (tourists) to 83% (fishers and tourism
38

entrepreneurs). Conversely, the perception of ecological costs was low, ranging from 11%
(tourists) to 15% (local dweller). Finally, the territorial dimension exhibited the greatest contrasts
between costs and benefits. Territorial costs were the most prominent among all analyzed
dimensions, being most intensely perceived by fishers (56%) and local dweller (46%). Though
other groups, such as tourism entrepreneurs and tourists, also reported significant territorial costs.
Figure 3. Perception of costs and benefits by their respective categorical dimensions by interviewee
group.

Source: Author, 2025.

3.4. Socioeconomic variables on the perception of costs and benefits – CLMM

3.4.1. Socioeconomic variables on cost perception
The CLMM analysis indicated that the perception of costs was influenced by the variables
‘interviewee group’ and ‘family income’ (Figure 4). The interviewees corresponding to the group
of artisanal fishers showed statistical significance in the perception of costs (p = 0.04), as well as
those with family income of one minimum wage (p = 0.05). Regarding the pairwise analysis,
39

among the significant socioeconomic variables, a significant difference was found in the perception
of costs only between the category of the variable group of interviewees ‘Artisanal fishing’ and
‘Tourists and visitors’ (β = 0.13, p = 0.01).
Figure 4. CLMM model coefficients and pairwise comparison: significant results of socioeconomic
variables in cost perception.

Source: Author, 2025.
Note: The CLMM model coefficients represent comparisons with following reference categories: for the family
income variable (Non-fixed income; 3-5 wages; 2 - wages; 1-2 wages; ≤ 1 wage), the reference category is income >
5 wages; for the interviewee group variable (Tourists and visitors; Artisanal fisher; Non-fishing local dweller), the
reference category is Tourism entrepreneurs and traders. All estimates indicate the relative effect compared to these
categories. The pink bars represent the estimated CLMM coefficients for each socioeconomic variable. The blue bars
represent the estimated Pairwise Comparison coefficient for the interviewee group variable. The red circles highlight
the p-value ≤ 0.05. The black line illustrates the standard error range for each variable.

The complete table with all the results of the CLMM costs model is available in the
supplementary material (APPENDIX B), and the simplified version, obtained by the stepwise
procedure can be found in Appendix D. As for the results of the pairwise analysis, these are
available in Appendix E.
3.4.2. Socioeconomic variables on benefits perception

The CLMM analysis indicated that the socioeconomic variable corresponding to tourists
and visitors has statistical significance regarding the perception of the protected area benefits (p =
0.02) (Figure 5). However, no significance was found for local dwellers and artisanal fishers.
Regarding education, the variable ‘no formal education’ was significant in benefit perception (p =
0.02). Other education categories did not show significant influence on benefit perception
(Appendix C).
Pairwise analysis revealed significant differences in APACC benefit perception between
local dwellers and artisanal fishers, with local dwellers perceiving fewer costs than fishers (β = 0.07, p = 0.009). A statistically significant difference was also found in benefit perception between
artisanal fishers and tourists/visitors, with the former perceiving more costs than the latter (β =
0.09, p = 0.002).

Figure 5. CLMM Model Coefficients and Pairwise Comparison: Significant Results of Socioeconomic
Variables in Benefit Perception.

Source: Author, 2025.
Note: The CLMM model coefficients represent comparisons with following reference categories: for the
education level variable (Incomplete Higher Education; Complete Higher Education; Incomplete High
School; Complete High School; Incomplete Basic Education; Uneducated), the reference category is
complete basic education; and for the interviewee group variable (Tourists and visitors; Artisanal fisher;
Non-fishing local dweller), the reference category is Tourism entrepreneurs and traders. All estimates
indicate the relative effect compared to these categories. The green bars represent the estimated CLMM
coefficients for each socioeconomic variable. The yellow bars represent the estimated Pairwise Comparison
coefficient for the interview region variable. The red circles highlight the p-value ≤ 0.05. The black line
illustrates the standard error range for each variable.

3.5. User experiences on the perception of costs and benefits
The CLMM analysis revealed that two user experience variables were significantly
associated with the perception of APACC costs (Figure 6). Knowledge of local environmental
changes had a coefficient of β = -0.50 (p = 0.00003), indicating that a greater understanding of
local environmental changes was related to a reduced perception of costs compared to those
unaware of these changes (Appendix G). Additionally, recognizing the need for local infrastructure
42

improvements was also a significant variable in cost perception, with costs being less perceived by
those who recognized this need (β = -0.43, p = 0.01).
Regarding user experience variables and their association with APACC benefit perception,
the results indicate a significant influence of the interview region variable and different area uses
on benefit perception (Figure 6). The user experience variable ‘South Region’ showed statistical
significance in the perception of the protected area benefits (p = 0.002). Moreover, the primary use
of APACC related to visitation, recreation, and leisure was also significant for benefit perception
(p = 0.02). Finally, the multiple comparison analysis (Appendix H) revealed that respondents from
the Tourism Pole recognized fewer costs than those from the South Region (β = -0.06, p = 0.005).
In contrast, respondents from the South Region perceived more costs than those from the
Ecological Route (β = 0.06, p = 0.01). Additionally, differences in perceptions were observed
between individuals who use the protected area from commercial fishing and those who use it for
recreation and leisure, with the former group perceiving more costs (β = 0.08, p = 0.001).

Figure 6. Coefficients of CLMM Models for Costs and Benefits, and Pairwise Comparisons:
significant results of user experiences variables.

Source: Author, 2025.
Note: The CLMM model coefficients represent comparisons with following reference categories: for the interview
region variable (South Region; Ecological Route), the reference category is Tourism Polo; for the main use of
APACC variable (Commercial Fishing; Recreation and leisure; Other Uses), the reference category is economic
activities of tourism; for the Knowledge about local environmental changes (Yes) variable, the reference category
is No; and for the Need for improvements in local infrastructures (Yes) variable, the reference category is No. All
estimates indicate the relative effect compared to these categories. The green bars represent the estimated CLMM
Model Coefficients Benefits for each User Experience Variable. The pink bars represent the estimated CLMM Model
Coefficients Costs for each User Experience Variable. The yellow bars represent the estimated Pairwise Comparison
coefficient for the interview region variable and the blue bars for the main use of APACC variable. The red circles
highlight the p-value ≤ 0.05. The black line illustrates the standard error range for each variable.

4. DISCUSSION
The results of this study provide important insights into user perceptions of the costs and
benefits of protected areas. Regarding the first hypothesis, which suggests that users in more
vulnerable socioeconomic situations tend to perceive costs more than benefits, our results support
this premise. The perception of costs was influenced by the respondents’ family income, with a
greater impact among those families that earn up to a minimum wage. In addition, interviewees
belonging to the artisanal fisher group perceived higher costs than the other groups.
Among fishers, in particular, the APACC has been associated with higher economic and
territorial costs, such as the loss of access to fishing zone and increased conflicts with the tourism
sector, a scenario already reported in other studies (SIMS, 2010; MACKENZIE, 2012; GUARDA
& VILA, 2020; RODRÍGUEZ-RODRÍGUEZ & LÓPEZ, 2020). However, the fact that fishers do
not perceive many benefits of the MPA raises important questions. If environmental protection in
MPAs should favor the recovery of biomass and, consequently, fishing activity (DI LORENZO et
al., 2016), why does this perception not occur? Could the design of the APACC be failing to
generate effective recovery? Are there gaps in management communication with traditional
communities?
The second hypothesis, which proposed that users using the area for recreational purposes
would show a more favorable perception focused on benefits, was also confirmed. Our results also
showed the individuals more involved in the tourism sector, such as tourists and visitors, perceived
significantly more benefits associated with MPA, and perceived more benefits than artisanal
fishers. Furthermore, respondents not involved in fishing, such as non-fishing local dwellers and
tourists and visitors, perceived more ecological and sociocultural benefits, such as the appreciation
of nature and the preservation of landscapes. These groups, who do not directly depend on natural
resources for subsistence, possible associate environmental protection with the maintenance of
recreational and tourism activities, which aligns with the literature (DIAZ-CHRISTIANSEN et al.,
2016; BLANCO-SALAS et al., 2019; MALLETTE et al., 2021; CAPARRÓS-MARTÍNEZ et al.,
2022).
The interview region also emerged as a significant variable in analyzing perceptions of the
costs and benefits associated with the protected area. In areas with greater tourism intensity, such
as the Tourism Pole and the Ecological Route (DE OLIVEIRA JÚNIOR et al., 2021), the benefits
45

of the protected area were more pronounced than in the South Region, which is mainly
characterized by a strong presence of artisanal fishing and few tourist activities. This result may
have been influenced by employment opportunities, recreation and leisure attractions and
infrastructure more focused on sea and beach tourism present in the Tourism Polo and Ecological
Route. The Ecological Route region has a beach certified with a Blue Flag, which reinforces the
positive perception of environmental conservation and its economic impacts. Additionally,
community and environmental education initiatives, such as the Peixe-Boi (Manatee) Association,
highlight the role of local partnerships in promoting conservation (HUNT et al., 2015; ARDOIN
et al., 2020; DE OLIVEIRA JÚNIOR et al., 2024).
The perception of environmental changes in the region also proved to be a relevant aspect.
In general, interviewees who noticed changes in the environment tended to recognize fewer costs
associated with the protected area. However, it is important to consider that this perception may
vary according to the experience of each group (FERNANDES et al., 2004). While residents and
fisherman have observed the changes over decades, tourists and visitors have a more specific
contact with the region, which may influence the way they evaluate the effects of conservation.
This may lead them to see conservation as a necessary benefit, reducing the perception of costs.
On the other hand, the lack of perception of environmental changes may make it difficult to
recognize negative impacts and compromise community participation in conservation management
(DU et al., 2018; WAEBER et al., 2018; LO et al., 2022).
Interestingly, costs perceptions were also shaped by how individuals viewed local
infrastructure. Those who identified a need for local for improvements in recreational and leisure
infrastructure perceived higher costs associated with the MPA than those who did not perceive
such improvements needs. This seemingly counterintuitive result suggests may have been
influenced by other factors that were not measured by the study, such as expectations about future
investment in the region. In contrast, individuals who did not perceive such infrastructure deficits
had stronger cost perceptions.
Another important point was the relationship between low recognition of the benefits of
territorial management and conflicts between fishers and tourism entrepreneurs. While tourism
brings economic benefits, it also exerts pressure on natural resources and replaces artisanal fishing
with more profitable tourism activities, affecting fishing culture and traditional knowledge
(LÓPEZ-MARTÍNEZ & ESPESO-MOLINERO, 2020; MANGUNJAYA et al., 2021; SILVEIRA
46

& FERREIRA, 2024). This suggest that, despite conservation efforts, there are still challenges in
mediating conflicts and addressing the needs of local communities. The socioeconomic analysis
reinforces these trends. Fishers interviewed tended to be older and have lower levels of education,
while tourism entrepreneurs and tourists were predominantly younger and more educated. This
dynamic of age inversion observed illustrates the phenomenon known as the “Graying of the fleet”,
which describes the migration of younger generations into the tourism sector in response to the
economic challenges of artisanal fishing (DONKERSLOOT & CAROTHERS, 2016; CRAMER et
al., 2018).
Regarding education, although other studies indicate that individuals with higher
educational levels tend to recognize more benefits from PAs (OLDEKOP et al., 2016; WARD et
al., 2018; SHAHI et al., 2023; THAPA & DIEDRICH, 2023), our results suggest a more complex
scenario. Education may not only influence environmental perception but also reflect structural
inequalities in access to resources and opportunities (LIU et al., 2010; SENA-VITTINI et al., 2023,
DE OLIVEIRA JÚNIOR et al., 2024). Individuals with lower income reported more costs, while
those with higher income perceived more benefits, reflection greater access to recreational and
tourism opportunities. Thus, perceptions of protected areas are shaped by both environmental
knowledge and broader socioeconomic factors (ALLENDORF et al., 2006; TUAN, 2012;
BELKAYALI et al., 2016; MARTÍNEZ & MANZANO-GARCÍA, 2016; MALLETTE et al.,
2021).
5. CONCLUSIONS

For a more balanced distribution of costs and benefits associated with Category V PAs, it
is crucial that these areas implement more inclusive governance strategies sensitive to social
dynamics. Additionally, the recognition of tourism and leisure activities in local economic
development should be incorporated into governance strategies for MPAs. Our study showed that
individuals whose experiences in the APACC are related to tourism and leisure tend to perceive
more conservation benefits. This finding backs up the idea that management policies that promote
sustainable tourism and inclusive leisure can strengthen socio and economic support for Category
V PAs, benefiting both users and conservation efforts. Furthermore, the formulation of
management plans should integrate social, economic, and ecological dimensions to ensure the
47

sustainability of protected areas. Sustainable tourism and the promotion of artisanal fishing should
be prioritized as development sources in MPAs, provided they are accompanied by strategies to
mitigate conflicts between these sectors, ensuring social cohesion and management effectiveness.
Future research should deepen the analysis of the impacts of Category V PAs on the groups that
perceive the most costs, particularly socioeconomically vulnerable traditional communities. This
will enable the development of more effective solutions to reduce inequalities and strengthen social
inclusion in the management of Category V PAs.

ACKNOWLEDMENTS

We would like to express our gratitude to all those who participated in the field data
collection, especially Afonso Xavier, Alicia Torres, Bruna Barbosa, Daryelle de Melo, Emilly
Guedes, Fernando, Ingredy Silva, Noemi Castro, Priscilla Oliveira, Regina Moreira and Thaila
Myrella, for their support and dedication. We thank the researchers Ana Claudia Malhado,
Alexandre Schiavetti, Francisco d’Albertas, José Gilmar Cavalcante, Patrícia Muniz and for their
valuable suggestions to the article and the Dissertation, which significantly enriched this work. We
would also like to thank Élida Monique, Gilberto Costa, Jhonatan Guedes, Nidia Fabre, Márcio
Amorim Efe and Vandick Batista for their fundamental contributions to the success of this research.
We would like to express our special gratitude to all the people who kindly agreed to participate in
the study, as well as to the fishermen, local residents, tourists and traders, who made this research
possible with their availability and trust. We thank the logistical and financial support of the LongTerm Ecological Project – Costa dos Corais, Alagoas (PELD-CCAL), the Student Financial Aid
(23065.034079/2023-18), and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education
(CAPES), which were essential for carrying out the field activities. This work is part of the LongTerm Ecological Research – Brazil site PELD-CCAL (Projeto Ecológico de Longa Duração -Costa
dos Corais, Alagoas) funded by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological
Development CNPq – (#442237/2020-0), and FAPEAL -Research Support Foundation of the State
of Alagoas (#PLD2021010000001).

REFERENCES

ADAMS, William M. et al. Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science, v.
306, n. 5699, p. 1146-1149, 2004.
AJZEN, Icek; FISHBEIN, Martin. The prediction of behavior from attitudinal and normative
variables. Journal of experimental social Psychology, v. 6, n. 4, p. 466-487, 1970.
ALLENDORF, Teri et al. Community attitudes toward three protected areas in Upper Myanmar
(Burma). Environmental Conservation, v. 33, n. 4, p. 344-352, 2006.
ANAYA, Felisa C.; ESPÍRITO-SANTO, Mário M. Protected areas and territorial exclusion of
traditional communities: analyzing the social impacts of environmental compensation strategies
in Brazil. Ecology and Society, v. 23, n. 1, 2018.
ARAÚJO, Júlio L.; BERNARD, Enrico. Management effectiveness of a large marine protected
area in Northeastern Brazil. Ocean & Coastal Management, v. 130, p. 43-49, 2016.
ARDOIN, Nicole M.; BOWERS, Alison W.; GAILLARD, Estelle. Environmental education
outcomes for conservation: A systematic review. Biological conservation, v. 241, p. 108224,
2020.
ARIAS, Adrian et al. Levels and drivers of fishers’ compliance with marine protected areas.
Ecology and Society, v. 20, n. 4, 2015.
BALLANTINE, Bill. Fifty years on: lessons from marine reserves in New Zealand and principles
for a worldwide network. Biological conservation, v. 176, p. 297-307, 2014.
BELKAYALI, Nur; GÜLOĞLU, Yavuz; ŞEVIK, Hakan. What affects perceptions of local
residents toward protected areas? A case study from Kure Mountains National Park,
Turkey. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, v. 23, n. 2, p.
194-202, 2016.
BELSOY, Josphat et al. Environmental impacts of tourism in protected areas. Journal of
Environment and Earth Science, v. 2, n. 10, p. 64-73, 2012.
BERKES, Fikret. (2012). Sacred Ecology (3rd ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203123843.
BERNARD, Enrico; PENNA, Luan AO; ARAÚJO, E. Downgrading, downsizing,
degazettement, and reclassification of protected areas in Brazil. Conservation Biology, v. 28, n.
4, p. 939-950, 2014.
BLANCO-SALAS, Jose et al. Wild plants potentially used in human food in the Protected Area"
Sierra Grande de Hornachos" of Extremadura (Spain). Sustainability, v. 11, n. 2, p. 456, 2019.

BRASIL. Lei n.º 9.985, de 18 de julho de 2000. Institui o Sistema Nacional de Unidades de
Conservação da Natureza (SNUC). Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, 19 jul. 2000.
Disponível em: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9985.htm. Acesso em: 21 jan. 2025.
CAPARRÓS-MARTÍNEZ, José Luis; MARTÍNEZ-VÁZQUEZ, Rosa María; DE PABLO
VALENCIANO, Jaime. Analysis and global research trends on nautical tourism and green
coastal infrastructures: The case of coral reefs and seagrass meadows. Environmental Sciences
Europe, v. 34, n. 1, p. 1-13, 2022.
CARIÑO, Joji; FERRARI, Maurizio Farhan. Negotiating the futures of nature and cultures:
Perspectives from Indigenous peoples and local communities about the post-2020 global
biodiversity framework. Journal of Ethnobiology, v. 41, n. 2, p. 192-208, 2021.
CHRISTENSEN, Rune Haubo B. Cumulative link models for ordinal regression with the R
package ordinal. Submitted in J. Stat. Software, v. 35, 2018.
CRAMER, Lori A. et al. Graying of the fleet: perceived impacts on coastal resilience and local
policy. Marine Policy, v. 96, p. 27-35, 2018.
DAVIS, Katrina J. et al. Estimating the economic benefits and costs of highly‐protected marine
protected areas. Ecosphere, v. 10, n. 10, p. e02879, 2019.
DE GROOT, Rudolf S. et al. Benefits of investing in ecosystem restoration. Conservation
Biology, v. 27, n. 6, p. 1286-1293, 2013.
DE OLIVEIRA JÚNIOR, José Gilmar Cavalcante et al. Local attitudes towards conservation
governance in a large tropical multiple-use Marine Protected Area in Brazil. Ocean & Coastal
Management, v. 248, p. 106974, 2024.
DE OLIVEIRA JÚNIOR, José Gilmar Cavalcante; CAMPOS-SILVA, João V.; DA SILVA
BATISTA, Vandick. Linking social organization, attitudes, and stakeholder empowerment in
MPA governance. Marine Policy, v. 130, p. 104543, 2021.
DE POURCQ, Kobe et al. Exploring Park–People Conflicts in Colombia through a Social Lens.
Environmental Conservation, v. 46, p. 103–110, 2019. doi: 10.1017/S0376892918000413
DI LORENZO, Manfredi; CLAUDET, Joachim; GUIDETTI, Paolo. Spillover from marine
protected areas to adjacent fisheries has an ecological and a fishery component. Journal for
Nature Conservation, v. 32, p. 62-66, 2016.
DIAZ-CHRISTIANSEN, Suleen et al. Wetland tourism in natural protected areas: Santay Island
(Ecuador). Tourism Management Perspectives, v. 20, p. 47-54, 2016.
DONKERSLOOT, Rachel; CAROTHERS, Courtney. The graying of the Alaskan fishing
fleet. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, v. 58, n. 3, p. 30-42,
2016.

DOUVERE, Fanny. The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based
sea use management. Marine policy, v. 32, n. 5, p. 762-771, 2008.
DU, Yi et al. Changes in environmental awareness and its connection to local environmental
management in water conservation zones: The case of Beijing, China. Sustainability, v. 10, n. 6,
p. 2087, 2018.
DUDLEY, Nigel (Ed.). Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. Iucn,
2008.
ERASO, Janeth Patricia Muñoz. The integrated model of territorial management: A bet for public
management. Revista Brasileira de Gestao e Desenvolvimento Regional, v. 17, n. 3, 2021.
FERNANDES, Roosevelt S. et al. Uso da percepção ambiental como instrumento de gestão em
aplicações ligadas às áreas educacional, social e ambiental. Encontro Nacional de PósGraduação e Pesquissa em Ambiente e Sociedade, v. 2, n. 1, p. 1-15, 2004.
FERRARO, Paul J.; HANAUER, Merlin M. Quantifying causal mechanisms to determine how
protected areas affect poverty through changes in ecosystem services and infrastructure.
Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, v. 111, n. 11, p. 4332-4337, 2014.
FRANÇA, Eduina Bezerra. Ordenamento territorial e gestão em unidades de conservação de
ambientes costeiros (territorial planning and management in protected areas of coastal
environments). Revista GeoNordeste, n. 1, p. 200-219, 2019.
GAINES, Steven D. et al. Designing marine reserve networks for both conservation and fisheries
management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 107, n. 43, p. 18286-18293,
2010.
GAMARRA, Norah C. et al. The contribution of fishing to human well-being in Brazilian coastal
communities. Marine Policy, v. 150, p. 105521, 2023.
GARCÍA-FRAPOLLI, Eduardo et al. Different approaches towards the understanding of socioenvironmental conflicts in protected areas. Sustainability, v. 10, n. 7, p. 2240, 2018.
GERHARDINGER, Leopoldo C. et al. Local ecological knowledge and the management of
marine protected areas in Brazil. Ocean & Coastal Management, v. 52, n. 3-4, p. 154-165,
2009.
GHOSH, Priyanka; GHOSH, Aditya. Is ecotourism a panacea? Political ecology perspectives
from the Sundarban Biosphere Reserve, India. GeoJournal, v. 84, n. 2, p. 345-366, 2019.
GIBSON, James J. The ecological approach to visual perception. Moughton Mifflin, 1979.
GLASER, Marion et al. Analysing ecosystem user perceptions of the governance interactions
surrounding a Brazilian near shore coral reef. Sustainability, v. 10, n. 5, p. 1464, 2018.

GUARDA, Belén; VILA, Alejandro. Estudio de percepción de pescadores artesanales sobre
aspectos de conservación marina y áreas marinas protegidas en la región de Magallanes.
In:GAINES Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia. Universidad de Magallanes, 2020. p. 7-21.
HAUSMANN, Anna et al. Social media data can be used to understand tourists’ preferences for
nature‐based experiences in protected areas. Conservation Letters, v. 11, n. 1, p. e12343, 2018.
HEIMLICH, Joe E.; ARDOIN, Nicole M. Understanding behavior to understand behavior
change: A literature review. Environmental education research, v. 14, n. 3, p. 215-237, 2008.
HTAY, Thazin et al. Factors influencing communities’ attitudes and participation in protected
area conservation: a case study from Northern Myanmar. Society & Natural Resources, v. 35, n.
3, p. 301-319, 2022.
HUNT, Carter A. et al. Can ecotourism deliver real economic, social, and environmental
benefits? A study of the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. Journal of sustainable tourism, v. 23, n. 3,
p. 339-357, 2015
ICMBio - Área de Proteção Ambiental Costa dos Corais - Apa Costa dos Corais.
Icmbio.gov.br. Disponível em: https://www.icmbio.gov.br/apacostadoscorais/. Acesso em:
7 fev. 2025.
KARANTH, Krithi K.; NEPAL, Sanjay K. Local residents perception of benefits and losses from
protected areas in India and Nepal. Environmental management, v. 49, p. 372-386, 2012.
KATSANEVAKIS, Stelios et al. Advancing marine conservation in European and contiguous
seas with the MarCons Action. Research Ideas and Outcomes, v. 3, p. e11884, 2017.
LIU, Jing; OUYANG, Zhiyun; MIAO, Hong. Environmental attitudes of stakeholders and their
perceptions regarding protected area-community conflicts: A case study in China. Journal of
environmental management, v. 91, n. 11, p. 2254-2262, 2010.
LIU, Wei et al. Drivers and socioeconomic impacts of tourism participation in protected
areas. PloS one, v. 7, n. 4, p. e35420, 2012.
LO, Veronica BPG et al. How stable are visions for protected area management? Stakeholder
perspectives before and during a pandemic. People and Nature, v. 4, n. 2, p. 445-461, 2022.
LÓPEZ-MARTÍNEZ, Gabriel; ESPESO-MOLINERO, Pilar. Pesca artesanal, patrimonio cultural
y educación social.: El pescador murciano como transmisor cultural. Revista murciana de
antropología, n. 27, p. 11-32, 2020.
MACKENZIE, Catrina A. Accruing benefit or loss from a protected area: Location matters.
Ecological Economics, v. 76, p. 119-129, 2012.

MALLETTE, Angela; PLUMMER, Ryan; BAIRD, Julia. Seeing things differently: How are
environmental conditions perceived and why does it matter?. In: Parks Stewardship Forum.
2021.
MANGUNJAYA, Fachruddin Majeri et al. Transformation of local knowledge of Lubuk
Larangan toward fishing tourism. Harmoni Sosial: Jurnal Pendidikan IPS, v. 8, n. 2, p. 57-65,
2021.
MARTÍNEZ, Gustavo J.; MANZANO-GARCÍA, Jessica. Estilos de percepción de la
biodiversidad y su conservación en actores sociales de áreas protegidas de Córdoba. Revista del
Museo de Antropología, v. 9, n. 2, p. 135-152, 2016.
MCSHANE, Thomas O. et al. Hard choices: Making trade-offs between biodiversity
conservation and human well-being. Biological Conservation, v. 144, n. 3, p. 966-972, 2011.
NAIDOO, Robin; RICKETTS, Taylor H. Mapping the economic costs and benefits of
conservation. PLoS biology, v. 4, n. 11, p. e360, 2006.
NSUKWINI, Sakhile; BOB, Urmilla. Protected areas, community costs and benefits: a
comparative study of selected conservation case studies from Northern Kwazulu-Natal, South
Africa. Geojournal of Tourism and Geosites, v. 27, n. 4, p. 1377 - 1391, 2019.
OCAMPO-PEÑUELA, Natalia; WINTON, R. Scott. Economic and conservation potential of
bird-watching tourism in postconflict Colombia. Tropical Conservation Science, v. 10, p.
1940082917733862, 2017.
OLDEKOP, Johan A. et al. A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of
protected areas. Conservation Biology, v. 30, n. 1, p. 133-141, 2016.
PEREIRA, Pedro et al. Mesophotic Reefs of the Largest Brazilian Coastal Protected Area:
Mapping, Characterization and Biodiversity. Diversity, v. 14, n. 9, p. 760, 2022.
PICKENS, Jeffrey. Attitudes and perceptions. Organizational behavior in health care, v. 4, n.
7, p. 43-76, 2005.
QIAN, Shenhua et al. Conservation and development in conflict: regeneration of wild Davidia
involucrata (Nyssaceae) communities weakened by bamboo management in south-central China.
Oryx, v. 52, n. 3, p. 442-451, 2018.
RAYMOND, Christopher M. et al. Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem
services. Ecological economics, v. 68, n. 5, p. 1301-1315, 2009.
RODRIGUEZ-RODRIGUEZ, David. Perception, use and valuation of protected areas by local
populations in an economic crisis context. Environmental conservation, v. 39, n. 2, p. 162-171,
2012.
RODRÍGUEZ-RODRÍGUEZ, David; LÓPEZ, Iván. Socioeconomic effects of protected areas in
Spain across spatial scales and protection levels. Ambio, v. 49, n. 1, p. 258-270, 2020.
53

SALA, Enric; GIAKOUMI, Sylvaine. No-take marine reserves are the most effective protected
areas in the ocean. ICES Journal of Marine Science, v. 75, n. 3, p. 1166-1168, 2018.
SCHLEICHER, Judith. The environmental and social impacts of protected areas and
conservation concessions in South America. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, v. 32, p. 1-8, 2018.
SENA-VITTINI, Mildred; GOMEZ-VALENZUELA, Victor; RAMIREZ, Katerin. Social
perceptions and conservation in protected areas: Taking stock of the literature. Land Use Policy,
v. 131, p. 106696, 2023.
SHAHI, Kabindra et al. What drives local communities' attitudes toward the protected area?
Insights from Bardia National Park, Nepal. Conservation Science and Practice, v. 5, n. 2, p.
e12883, 2023.
SILVEIRA, Mariana Ferreira da; FERREIRA, Beatrice Padovani. Temporal changes in a smallscale artisanal reef fishery in Brazil: Coastal development and its impacts. Marine Policy, v. 165,
p. 106186, 2024.
SIMS, Katharine RE. Conservation and development: Evidence from Thai protected areas.
Journal of environmental economics and management, v. 60, n. 2, p. 94-114, 2010.
THAPA, Kamal; DIEDRICH, Amy. Beyond conservation: Assessing broader development
outcomes of protected areas in Nepal. Journal of Environmental Management, v. 339, p.
117890, 2023.
TUAN. Yi-Fu. Topofilia: um estudo da percepção, atitudes e valores do meio ambiente.
Trad.: Lívia de Oliveira. Londrina: Eduel, 2012.342p.1980-2012.
WAEBER, Patrick O. et al. Local awareness and perceptions: consequences for conservation of
marsh habitat at Lake Alaotra for one of the world's rarest lemurs. Oryx, v. 52, n. 4, p. 677-686,
2018.
WARD, Caroline; HOLMES, George; STRINGER, Lindsay. Perceived barriers to and drivers of
community participation in protected‐area governance. Conservation Biology, v. 32, n. 2, p.
437-446, 2018.
WATSON, James E. M. et al. The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature, v. 515,
n. 7525, p. 67-73, 2014.
WELLS, Michael P.; MCSHANE, Thomas O. Integrating protected area management with local
needs and aspirations. AMBIO: a Journal of the Human Environment, v. 33, n. 8, p. 513-519,
2004.
WILSHUSEN, Peter R. et al. Reinventing a square wheel: Critique of a resurgent" protection
paradigm" in international biodiversity conservation. Society & natural resources, v. 15, n. 1, p.
17-40, 2002.
54

WOOD, Louisa J. et al. Assessing progress towards global marine protection targets: shortfalls in
information and action. Oryx, v. 42, n. 3, p. 340-351, 2008.
WUERTHNER, George; CRIST, Eileen; BUTLER, Tom (Ed.). Protecting the wild: Parks and
wilderness, the foundation for conservation. Island Press, 2015.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
APPENDIX A - Questionnaire
Socioeconomic characterization
1. Interviewee Name:

8. Where do you live (state/city/neighborhood, town)?

2. Age:

9. How long have you lived in your place of
residence?

3. What is your gender?
( ) Female
( ) Male
( ) Would prefer not to answer
Other:
4. What is your level of education?
1. ( ) No formal education
2. ( ) Incomplete elementary school
3. ( ) Complete elementary school
4. ( ) Incomplete high school
5. ( ) Complete high school
6. ( ) Incomplete higher education
7. ( ) Complete higher education
8. ( ) Incomplete postgraduate degree
9. ( ) Complete postgraduate degree
5. What is your religion/belief?
1. ( ) Catholic
2. ( ) Evangelical
3. ( ) Spiritism
4. ( ) Candomblé
5. ( ) Umbanda
6. ( ) Jehovah's Witnesses
7. ( ) Indigenous/traditional religions
8. ( ) No religion
9. ( ) I would prefer not to answer
10. Other:

If you are in the region only for tourism, how long
have you been visiting the region?
10. How many people live in your home?
11. Do you have access to the following services:
( ) Basic sanitation
( ) Electricity
( ) Health
12. Do you receive any type of government
assistance?
( ) No
( ) Bolsa Família
( ) Unemployment insurance
( ) Fishing/closed season insurance
( ) Other social assistance programs, which ones?
13. What is your main occupation (profession/job)?
[If you answered “fisherman” in the previous
question] Do you come from a family of fishermen?
( ) Yes ( ) No
14. What are the main sources of income for the
people who live with you in your house?
15. How much is your monthly income?

6. What do you think of the economic situation in
your region?
( )terrible ( )bad ( )fair ( )good ( )excellent

16. What is the monthly family income (including the
income of the people who live in the same house)?

7. What do you think of your economic (or financial,
or income) situation?
( )terrible ( )bad ( )fair ( )good ( )excellent

User experiences
1. In your opinion, what is most important for the region (e.g. sea and beach)?
( ) Nature protection (e.g. marine animals, corals, etc.)
( ) Tourism (related answers)
( ) Fishing (related answers)
( ) Other, which one?
2. Would you be able to inform me if this region of sea and beach receives any type of environmental
protection? ( ) No ( ) Yes, which one?
3. Are you aware of any rules or regulations established for environmental protection in the region?
( ) No ( ) Yes, which one?
4. What purpose do you use the sea and beach in the region for?
( ) visiting, recreation, leisure, contemplation of nature
( ) commercial fishing
( ) economic activities focused on tourism
( ) Other, which one?
5. What are the places in the region that you most like to go to or would like to visit?
.
6. What are the things that interest you most about the sea and beaches in this region?
.
7. Have you noticed any changes in the sea, beaches and landscape of this region over the years?
( ) No ( ) Yes, which ones?
[If you answered “yes” to the previous question] In your opinion, what caused/provoked these changes?
8. Have you ever participated in classes (lectures, courses) or things that teach about the sea or nature in the
region? (This can also be teaching about local nature through tourist guides in the region)
( ) No ( ) Yes, which ones?
9. Have you ever used any infrastructure in the region specifically for tourism and leisure in nature? (for
example: viewpoints, visitor centers, trails) ( ) No ( ) Yes, which ones?
10. Do you think there needs to be more infrastructure in the region's sea and beach areas for residents and
tourists? (e.g. bathrooms, squares, fishing market, information signs, trails, etc.) ( ) No ( ) Yes, which ones?
11. Have you ever had any problems with other people in the region? (e.g. tourists, merchants,
businesspeople, fishermen or non-fishermen residents, employees of the AP or environmental agencies)?
( ) No ( ) Yes, which ones?
12. Have you ever experienced any problems or unpleasant situations when using the sea or beach (nature)
to do something? (such as fishing, leisure, sports, tourism) ( ) No ( ) Yes, which ones?
13. Have you ever experienced anything good when using the sea or beach in the region to do something?
(e.g.: seeing a beautiful animal or one that is not common in the region; making friends; having an
unforgettable experience) ( ) No ( ) Yes, which one?
14. What is your opinion on the importance of protecting the nature of this region for the local population?
.
15. What is your opinion on the importance of protecting the nature of this region for local tourism?
57

Costs and benefits of environmental conservation in the Protected Area
Regarding the following statements, answer: (5) I completely agree; (4) I agree; (3) I neither agree
nor disagree; (2) I disagree; (1) I completely disagree.
Statements
Economic costs and benefits
Environmental protection in this region causes harm to fishing communities and local residents
Environmental protection helps generate income for fishing communities and local residents
Environmental protection in the area does not help generate formal jobs (with a formal
contract) for local residents
Environmental protection helps the region grow economically
The existence of environmental protection in the region increases the local cost of living
Sociocultural costs and benefits
Environmental protection in the region helps the local community maintain its lifestyle
Environmental protection in the region attracts tourists and negatively affects the lifestyle of
local residents
Environmental protection in the region helps to enhance the culture and traditions of the local
community
Environmental protection in the region does not meet the needs of the local community, but
rather of businesspeople and tourists
Environmental protection in the region helps people appreciate nature and feel good
Ecological costs and benefits
Environmental protection is necessary to preserve nature in the region
Tourism in the region causes damage to nature
Environmental protection helps preserve the region's landscapes
Environmental protection does not help reduce waste and local pollution
Environmental protection in the region strengthens environmental education and the
importance of nature
Territorial management costs and benefits
Environmental protection makes access to the sea and other places in the region more difficult
Environmental protection in the region is good for nature and for all people in the region
equally
The region does not have spaces, places and specific infrastructures for fun, recreation and
comfort in nature
If there were no environmental protection the region would not be very different, there would
not be many problems for nature and the local community
The rules and restrictions imposed for environmental protection in the region increase the
chances of conflicts occurring in the area

Notes
-------

-------

APPENDIX B – CLMM Model Results: socioeconomic variables in the costs perception

Variable
Interviewee
group
Sex

Education
Level

Age

Family
income

Personal
economic
situation
Local
economic
situation

Category
Local dweller
Artisanal fisher
Tourists and visitors
Female
Uneducated
Incomplete Basic Education
Complete High School
Incomplete High School
Complete Higher Education
Incomplete Higher
Education
31 – 40
41 – 50
51 – 60
> 61
Non-fixed income
≤ 1 wage
1 - 2 wages
2 - 3 wages
3 - 5 wages
Terrible
Bad
Average
Excellent
Terrible
Bad
Average
Excellent

Reference
category
Tourism
entrepreneurs
and traders
Male

Complete
basic
education

18 – 30

> 5 wages

Good

Estimate (β)

Std. Error

Z value

P-value

-0.0788214
-0.3985053
0.3307262
-0.1270354
0.3551080
-0.0417289
-0.4040637
0.0540641
-0.1423354

0.1670087
0.1882758
0.2088440
0.1370596
0.3369046
0.2120202
0.2202526
0.2665601
0.2589872

-0.472
-2.117
1.584
-0.927
1.054
-0.197
-1.835
0.203
-0.550

0.6370
0.0343
0.1133
0.3540
0.2919
0.8440
0.0666
0.8393
0.5826

-0.2297555

0.3384425

-0.679

0.4972

-0.0014457
-0.3376285
-0.3289851
-0.3168016
-0.0642971
-0.5158892
-0.1748085
-0.2882461
-0.3246872
-0.2728406
-0.0379520
-0.0257425
-0.2950238
-0.0735165
-0.2226359
-0.0006838
0.3215930

0.1871060
0.1878559
0.1854534
0.2059938
0.2678826
0.2641049
0.2441510
0.2347452
0.2367194
0.7221700
0.2189073
0.1299864
0.3010218
0.2709612
0.1949905
0.1353814
0.3035424

-0.008
-1.797
-1.774
-1.538
-0.240
-1.953
-0.716
-1.228
-1.372
-0.378
-0.173
-0.198
-0.980
-0.271
-1.142
-0.005
1.059

0.9938
0.0723
0.0761
0.1241
0.8103
0.0508
0.4740
0.2195
0.1702
0.7056
0.8624
0.8430
0.3270
0.7861
0.2535
0.9960
0.2894

APPENDIX C – CLMM Model Results: socioeconomic variables in the benefits perception

Variable
Interviewee
group
Gender

Education
Level

Age

Family income

Personal
economic
situation
Local economic
situation

Category
Local dweller
Artisanal fisher
Tourists and visitors
Female
Uneducated
Incomplete Basic
Education
Complete High School
Incomplete High
School
Complete Higher
Education
Incomplete Higher
Education
31 – 40
41 – 50
51 – 60
> 61
Non-fixed income
≤ 1 wage
1 - 2 wages
2 - 3 wages
3 - 5 wages
Terrible
Bad
Average
Excellent
Terrible
Bad
Average
Excellent

Reference
category
Tourism
entrepreneurs
and traders
Male

Complete
basic
education

18 – 30

> 5 wages

Good

Estimate (β)

Std. Error

Z value

P-value

0.27017
-0.20246
0.45517
0.01894
0.72014

0.16762
0.17791
0.21422
0.13839
0.34552

1.612
-1.138
2.125
0.137
2.084

0.1070
0.2551
0.0336
0.8911
0.0371

0.23058

0.19439

1.186

0.2356

0.23852

0.20910

1.141

0.2540

0.12777

0.24466

0.522

0.6015

0.42389

0.25477

1.664

0.0961

0.51231

0.35683

1.436

0.1511

-0.19443
-0.08092
-0.13113
-0.13510
0.05072
0.27416
-0.00586
0.03286
0.27577
-1.02182
0.11352
0.13554
0.25268
-0.32479
-0.17446
-0.12424
0.19668

0.18325
0.18827
0.18346
0.20424
0.26309
0.26983
0.24448
0.23787
0.25019
0.76484
0.20938
0.12914
0.29897
0.25563
0.19098
0.13463
0.31984

-1.061
-0.430
-0.715
-0.661
0.193
1.016
-0.024
0.138
1.102
-1.336
0.542
1.050
0.845
-1.271
-0.914
-0.923
0.615

0.2887
0.6673
0.4748
0.5083
0.8471
0.3096
0.9809
0.8901
0.2704
0.1816
0.5877
0.2939
0.3980
0.2039
0.3610
0.3561
0.5386

APPENDIX D – Simplified CLMM Model Results (Stepwise): Significant socioeconomic
variables in costs and benefits perception

Variable