Introduction
Protected areas (PAs) constitute a major global effort to preserve nature and its biodiversity. Traditionally, their principal purpose has been to preserve iconic landscapes and seascapes, charismatic species and their habitats and biodiversity hotspots. Over the past few decades, countries worldwide have made significant efforts to establish new PAs at multiple spatial scales, and there is a political goal to protect 30% of the planet by 2030 (CBD 2020). Currently, 16.64% of land and inland water ecosystems and 7.74% of coastal waters and oceans have been globally designated as PAs (UNEP-WCMC & IUCN 2021). However, efforts to set aside new lands for conservation are compromised by the globally rising demand for agricultural and forestry commodities, creating trade-offs between lands dedicated to conservation versus food production (Smith et al. Reference Smith, Gregory, Van Vuuren, Obersteiner, Havlík and Rounsevell2010). For instance, developing countries in South America have among their priorities the reduction of poverty and the supply of food and commodities to their citizens. Thus, the conservation of PAs is not a top priority for some governments (López-Rodríguez & Rosado Reference López-Rodríguez and Rosado2017), yet developing a tourism industry based on PAs represents a golden opportunity for developing countries to grow their economy. This is the case for Ecuador, which has excellent conditions to become an important PA-based tourist destination because it is one of the most biodiverse countries in the world.
However, global biodiversity loss continues at an unprecedented rate (IPBES 2019), and there is ongoing debate about the contribution of PAs to biodiversity conservation and human well-being (Pullin et al. Reference Pullin, Bangpan, Dalrymple, Dickson, Haddaway and Healey2013). Many PAs contribute positively to the conservation of habitats and species (e.g., Feng et al. Reference Feng, Wang, Su, Pan, Sun and Zhu2021), but some fail to protect biodiversity due to inappropriate management (e.g., Wauchope et al. Reference Wauchope, Jones, Geldmann, Simmons, Amano and Blanco2022). Among the factors influencing the successful management of PAs are the lacks regarding the social inclusion of a wide diversity of local actors in management, sound policies and legislation, sustained investment and resources, development of individual and institutional capacities (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. Reference Borrini-Feyerabend, Dudley, Jaeger, Lassen, Pathak Broome, Phillips and Sandwith2013), scientific and technical support (Wauchope et al. Reference Wauchope, Jones, Geldmann, Simmons, Amano and Blanco2022) and cooperation across science, policy and society at different levels (López-Rodríguez et al. Reference López-Rodríguez, Castro, Jorreto and Cabello2015).
PA management needs to incorporate the concerns and needs of society (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. Reference Borrini-Feyerabend, Dudley, Jaeger, Lassen, Pathak Broome, Phillips and Sandwith2013). In particular, the establishment of PAs must ensure attention is given to the rights, livelihood needs and conservation capacities and contributions of people living in and around PAs, which is not always the case (O’Riordan & Stoll-Kleemann Reference O’Riordan and Stoll-Kleemann2002). For instance, Andrade and Rhodes (Reference Andrade and Rhodes2012) showed that PAs often fail to integrate important aspects of surrounding local communities in their management, such as cultural and traditional heritage aspects. One reason for this is that participatory mechanisms do not often fully enable stakeholders to engage with PA conservation decision-making (Andrade & Rhodes Reference Andrade and Rhodes2012). When this bias happens, the negative perceptions or attitudes of local communities towards conservation are reinforced, thus creating conservation conflicts (Engen et al. Reference Engen, Fauchald and Hausner2019). This highlights the importance of developing inclusive management practices for PAs, as they can shape local people’s attitudes and values towards nature conservation (Bragagnolo et al. Reference Bragagnolo, Malhado, Jepson and Ladle2016, Abukari & Mwalyosi Reference Abukari and Mwalyosi2020, Raymond et al. Reference Raymond, Cebrián-Piqueras, Andersson, Andrade, Schnell and Battioni Romanelli2022).
Conservation efforts may exist beyond PAs. Areas such as sacred or spiritual sites considered by locals as ‘homes of the ancestors’ (Lowman & Sinu Reference Lowman and Sinu2017, Plieninger et al. Reference Plieninger, Quintas-Soriano, Torralba, Mohammadi Samani and Shakeri2020) and military areas with access barred for security reasons (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. Reference Borrini-Feyerabend, Dudley, Jaeger, Lassen, Pathak Broome, Phillips and Sandwith2013) contribute greatly to achieving the 2030 conservation target. Although these areas were not primarily designed or created for conservation purposes, they have traditionally not been subjected to human pressures and intense activities such as logging, agriculture and urban sprawl (Mascia et al. Reference Mascia, Symes, Rao and Carrasco2015). Therefore, they play a potentially important role in meeting conservation goals. Communities living near PAs often react with positive or negative attitudes depending on the benefits they obtain (Abukari & Mwalyosi Reference Abukari and Mwalyosi2020), the maintenance of livelihoods (Dewu & Roskaft Reference Dewu and Røskaft2018) and the rights gained in relation to the costs associated with conservation regimes (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. Reference Borrini-Feyerabend, Dudley, Jaeger, Lassen, Pathak Broome, Phillips and Sandwith2013). Incorporating local communities’ perceptions and diversity of values towards nature into PA management can help minimize conservation conflicts (Iñiguez-Gallardo et al. Reference Iñiguez-Gallardo, Halasa, Briceño, Iniguez-Gallardo, Halasa, Briceño, Sudarshana, Nageswara-Rao and Soneji2018). Three value types constitute ways of exploring how local people interact with nature (De Vos et al. Reference De Vos, Joana and Dirk2018). Instrumental values of ecosystems refer to the utilitarian values that are often measured in monetary terms (Chan et al. Reference Chan, Balvanera, Benessaiah, Chapman, Díaz and Gómez-Baggethun2016). By contrast, intrinsic values give value to the ecosystem for the simple fact of existing, without considering the economic benefits that can be obtained from them, and they are often represented as moral duties (Arias-Arévalo et al. Reference Arias-Arévalo, Gómez-Baggethun, Martín-López and Pérez-Rincón2018). Relational values are determined by relationships with nature (Chan et al. Reference Chan, Balvanera, Benessaiah, Chapman, Díaz and Gómez-Baggethun2016) and the responsibility of people for nature that derives from these relationships; they are expressed through elements such as individual identity, stewardship, social cohesion, cultural identity or local identity (Klain et al. Reference Klain, Olmsted, Chan and Satterfield2017). Relational values are important to human–nature connectedness (HNC; Roldán & Latorre Reference Roldán and Latorre2021, Riechers et al. Reference Riechers, Martín-López and Fischer2022); however, there is no understanding of how the diverse values of nature shape people’s connection to nature or how this connection might be modulated by access to nature, yet this can shed light on the long-term success of conservation targets in PAs. This study explores the role of relational values in shaping local communities’ connectedness to a PA in Ecuador that was subject to military use in the past and the implications for the communities’ well-being. We used social sampling to characterize the level of nature connectedness of communities surrounding the PA to examine the diverse values of nature in shaping their connectedness to nature, and we explore how nature’s values support different components of local communities’ well-being.
Materials and methods
Study area
Arenillas Ecological Reserve (AER) is 13 527.49 ha in area is located in south-western Ecuador (Fig. 1; Espinosa et al. Reference Espinosa, Jara-Guerrero, Cisneros, Sotomayor and Escribano-Ávila2016). It was established in 2012 (IUCN category Ia; IUCN 2008) and has since been managed by the Ministry of Environment, Water and Ecological Transition (MEWET 2015). In 1971, AER was owned by the Ecuadorian Armed Forces and was designated ‘El Oro Military Reserve’ because of its strategic location between Peru and Ecuador (RELCOM 2023). During the military mandate, this area was characterized by flows of people, trade in goods and illegal activities between the two countries (Espín Baquero Reference Espín Baquero2016). After that, in 1998 it was placed under the custody of the Ecuadorian government as a Military Ecological Reserve.
(a) Location of Arenillas Ecological Reserve (AER) in south-western Ecuador and (b) ecosystem types within AER and social sampling points.
AER includes the global biodiversity hotspots of Tumbes–Chocó–Magdalena and the tropical Andes (Mittermeier et al. Reference Mittermeier, Gil, Hoffmann, Pilgrim, Brooks and Mittermeier2005, MEWET 2021), which harbour several endemic bird species and high ecological diversity and provide multiple ecosystem services for maintaining human well-being (SNAP 2015, Molina et al. Reference Molina, Valencia, Pérez, Lavayen and Valverde2016). AER harbours diverse ecosystems such as the low forest and deciduous shrub (56.26% of the AER area), lowland deciduous forest (30.16%), mangroves (12.08%) and riparian lowland grasslands (1.50%; Fig. 1; SNAP 2015). The climate has alternating wet (January–June) and dry seasons (Székely et al. Reference Székely, Székely, Armijos-Ojeda, Jara-Guerrero and Cog&acaron;lniceanu2016).
There are 10 local communities with a total human population of c. 6140 people living in the AER surroundings (Fig. 1). The two largest communities are the ‘Chacras’, with 1500 people living in the low forest and shrubland ecosystem (Molina-Moreira & Alava Reference Molina-Moreira and Alava2019), and the ‘La Cuca’, with 1500 people living in the northern mangrove ecosystem. While economic activities are banned within AER, agricultural practices, fishing, timber extraction, shrimp farming, brick-making and informal tourism are allowed in the surrounding areas. Agricultural practices are dominant (e.g., short-cycle crops such as corn and rice) along with aquaculture and livestock. These activities negatively impact the secondary dry forest and mangrove ecosystems by altering the natural water flow through the human-made walls and canals of shrimp farms (Molina-Moreira & Alava Reference Molina-Moreira and Alava2019). Deforestation driven by timber extraction is a major conservation threat to AER, which has the second-highest deforestation rate in Ecuador (i.e., 6274 ha/year; MEWET 2015).
Social sampling strategy and questionnaire design
A survey campaign was administered during summer 2020 (Fig. 1). Using the online Sample Size Calculator from Survey Software, we concluded that a sample size of 400 respondents was sufficient, with a confidence interval of 95% and a margin of error of less than 5% (Castro et al. Reference Castro, Vaughn, Julian and García-Llorente2016). The sampled population was selected semi-randomly by quota in an effort to represent the heterogeneity of the local population (Castro et al. Reference Castro, Vaughn, Julian and García-Llorente2016, Quintas-Soriano et al. Reference Quintas-Soriano, Brandt, Running, Baxter, Gibson and Narducci2018). Data were collected through semi-structured face-to-face interviews with local people in the diverse populated centres of the study area. Individuals were randomly selected from the most populated areas, selecting these 10 sites as sampling points in AER (i.e., La Pitahaya, La Cuca, San Pedro, Palmales, El Progreso, Quebrada Seca, Carcabon, Guabillo, Balsalito and Chacras; Fig. 1). We interviewed a total of 400 participants distributed across the study area. At each site, respondents over the age of 18 years were randomly selected from public areas (such as main squares, bars or streets) and invited to answer questions that were developed in Spanish based on previous studies of social perceptions (Castro et al. Reference Castro, Vaughn, Julian and García-Llorente2016, Quintas-Soriano et al. Reference Quintas-Soriano, Brandt, Running, Baxter, Gibson and Narducci2018, Reference Quintas-Soriano, Torralba, García-Martín and Plieninger2023, El Ghafraoui et al. Reference El Ghafraoui, Quintas-Soriano, Pacheco-Romero, Murillo-López and Castro2023). The population sample consisted entirely of local residents. All data collected were anonymous, and we explained to respondents that there were no correct answers. Interviewers followed COVID-19 safety protocols and ethical guidelines from the University of Almería. Before beginning the survey, participants were informed of the objective of the study and the use that would be made of their responses. Informed consent was obtained before any information was collected.
The questionnaire was divided into three sections: (1) HNC towards AER; (2) social perception of AER; and (3) socio-demographic information (Appendix S1). We additionally used a panel with maps and images of the region to improve the understanding of the respondents regarding specific questions (Appendix S2; Quintas-Soriano et al. Reference Quintas-Soriano, Brandt, Running, Baxter, Gibson and Narducci2018).
Data processing and analysis
All statistical analyses were carried out using Excel 2019 software, and surveys were systematically collected in an anonymized database. During data entry, we verified that the responses to the questionnaire were complete; responses that were incomplete were excluded from analysis.
Human–nature connectedness levels to AER
To explore HNC, we used the ‘inclusion of nature in self’ (INS) graphical scale of Schultz (Reference Schultz, Schmuck and Schultz2002); this represents ‘nature’ and ‘self’ within two circles with various levels of overlap, representing a respondent’s connection with nature. We asked respondents to select the level that best described their connection with AER’s nature (Pérez-Ramírez et al. Reference Pérez-Ramírez, García-Llorente, Saban de la Portilla, Benito and Castro2021, El Ghafraoui et al. Reference El Ghafraoui, Quintas-Soriano, Pacheco-Romero, Murillo-López and Castro2023, Otamendi-Urroz et al. Reference Otamendi-Urroz, Quintas-Soriano, Martín-López, Expósito-Granados, Alba-Patiño and Rodríguez-Caballero2023). Circle associations were presented on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 = strongly disconnected, 2 = somewhat disconnected, 3 = neutral, 4 = somewhat connected and 5 = strongly connected. The INS scale does not provide a pre-imposed definition of what can be considered as ‘nature’, so respondents could freely answer based on what they individually understood as AER’s nature. We calculated the relative frequencies of each connectedness level and HNC dimension to detect which were dominant in AER.
Values of nature attached to AER
We first categorized all responses of question 1a on ‘Why have you chosen this level of HNC?’ (Appendix S1) into the three types of values of nature, namely instrumental, intrinsic and relational (Chan et al. Reference Chan, Gould and Pascual2018). Each respondent was asked to freely provide as many arguments as they could as to the reason for their response; they could name more than one type of value of nature. For example, the same person could identify that AER offers spaces to visit the spectacular dry forest bloom (e.g., relational value) and at the same time consider that AER provides spaces to grow crops (e.g., instrumental value). Each response was coded between 0 and 1 for each value type, and the frequencies were depicted in a bar plot. Approximately 187 responses that were not sufficiently clear to be codified were not coded. Following Arias-Arévalo et al. (Reference Arias-Arévalo, Martín-López and Gómez-Baggethun2017), we also classified responses according to types of articulated values, as concrete expressions of value domains stemming from valuation processes as subcategories within the main value types (i.e., intrinsic, instrumental, relational). We explored the value types associated with different HNC levels through respondents’ choices on a specific level of connection to nature (Pérez-Ramírez et al. Reference Pérez-Ramírez, García-Llorente, Saban de la Portilla, Benito and Castro2021, Otamendi-Urroz et al. Reference Otamendi-Urroz, Quintas-Soriano, Martín-López, Expósito-Granados, Alba-Patiño and Rodríguez-Caballero2023). Relative frequencies were estimated in relation to each value type and across the different levels of HNC and the type of respondents’ linkage with the study area.
AER contribution to human well-being of local communities
Human well-being components were explored through an open question about the reasons for visiting AER (question 3a; see Appendix S1). Only 254 respondents who recognized in advance the existence of AER and had previously visited it were considered for this question; responses to this open-ended question were coded and reclassified within the main components of human well-being proposed by Fagerholm et al. (Reference Fagerholm, Martín-López, Torralba, Oteros-Rozas, Lechner and Bieling2020), along with the Rogers et al. (Reference Rogers, Duraiappah, Antons, Munoz, Bai, Fragkias and Gutscher2012) classification (Appendix S3). Categorization directly linked words mentioned by respondents with specific categories of human well-being. For instance, those responses related to the environment were reclassified within the main component ‘Ecosystems’ and subcomponent ‘nature’; social interactions were reclassified within the component ‘Social relationships’ and subcomponent ‘social interaction’; productive, labour and recreational activities were considered in the ‘Work and leisure’ component. Finally, those human well-being components mentioned by respondents that did not fit into the above eight categories were named as ‘Others’ (see Appendix S3 for further details on the coding classification). We then calculated the relative frequencies of the main categories of human well-being, which were later subdivided into subcomponents of human well-being based on Fagerholm et al. (Reference Fagerholm, Martín-López, Torralba, Oteros-Rozas, Lechner and Bieling2020). Relative frequencies were estimated as the percentages of responses and represented in a horizontal bar chart.
To explore relationships between the various types of values previously identified and the components of human well-being, a Sankey diagram was generated (https://sankeymatic.com/build/). We tested the independence between the type of values and the components of human well-being using Fisher’s exact test (‘fisher.test’ function in the R statistical package); this provided a yardstick for deciding whether differences in observed percentages between two categorical variables were significant (p < 0.05) or simply due to random noise in the data.
Results
Socio-demographic description of the sample
Overall, the number of respondents who were knowledgeable of AER was greater than the number of those who were not (Appendix S4). Some 63% of respondents were male and 37% were female, with an average age of 40 years. Approximately 80% of respondents expressed that they had undertaken a basic level of study (i.e., primary studies), while 12% indicated having undertaken university-level studies. Only 6% of respondents indicated not having undertaken any level of formal education. Regarding the main occupations of respondents, 32% were dedicated to domestic work, while 27% were dedicated to agricultural activities. Finally, regarding time spent outdoors, 49% of respondents indicated spending more than 4 h/day outdoors, while 14% reported spending between 0.5 and 2 h/day outdoors.
Human–nature connectedness levels
Respondents indicated high and very high levels of connectedness towards AER (Fig. 2). Most of the respondents (63%) felt somewhat or strongly connected to AER’s nature (58.3% and 67.8%, respectively). Approximately 28% of respondents indicated that they felt neither connected nor disconnected with nature, whereas only 9% of respondents indicated a weak or no connection to nature (6.2% and 11.9%, respectively).
Human–nature connectedness levels in Arenillas Ecological Reserve. The vertical axis represents the percentages of the responses. The horizontal axis represents the levels of human–nature connectedness.
Nature’s values underpinning connectedness to nature
When respondents were asked to identify reasons for their connection with AER’s nature, 69% of them identified relational values as their main link with the Reserve (Fig. 3a). Instrumental values were mentioned by 28% of respondents, whereas only 3% of the respondents indicated intrinsic values. This result holds when dividing the sample by HNC level (Fig. 3b): 67% of respondents who felt somewhat or strongly connected with nature identified relational values as the main form of interaction with AER. Intrinsic values were only mentioned by those respondents who also felt somewhat or strongly connected with nature, whereas they were not mentioned by respondents reporting other HNC levels.
(a) Instrumental, intrinsic and relational values of nature associated with Arenillas Ecological Reserve. (b) Variations in these values across the different levels of human–nature connectedness (based on Pérez-Ramírez et al. Reference Pérez-Ramírez, García-Llorente, Saban de la Portilla, Benito and Castro2021) in Arenillas Ecological Reserve. The vertical axis represents the percentages of the responses. The horizontal axis in (b) represents the levels of human–nature connectedness.
Respondents expressed various answers that cover the three types of values divided into subcategories (Table 1). Amongst the articulated values that make up relational values, sense of place represented 30% of responses, and respondents linked their answers to their attachment to AER, stating, for example, ‘Because I live near the reserve’ (respondent #122). Other important articulated values from the relational category were general well-being (9% of responses) and meaningful occupation (9%), referring to the occupations related to biodiversity and ecosystems that allow people to fulfil a ‘good human life’ (Table 1). Intrinsic values were associated only with 3% of the responses, such as ‘Nature is part of our life, without it there would be no clean air’ (respondent #332). Finally, instrumental values were associated with 28% of responses and referred to monetary value and how biodiversity and ecosystem contributions to utility were measured through prices, with respondent #54 stating, ‘I work in the field, in agriculture.’
Type of value associated with the articulated values proposed by Arias-Arévalo et al. (Reference Arias-Arévalo, Martín-López and Gómez-Baggethun2017). Absolute frequency (n), relative frequency (%) and examples of quotes about human–nature connection from the local communities sampled in Arenillas Ecological Reserve are shown.
Perceived human well-being contributions from AER
The human well-being component that respondents identified as the most supported was work and leisure (61%; Fig. 4a), specifically subcategories such as tourism (26%) and leisure (13%; Fig. 4b). From the education (15%) component, only learning from nature (15%) was mentioned. In the ecosystems component (13%), the most frequent subcomponent was nature (5%). Physical and economic security and agency and political voice were only marginally represented.
Components of human well-being reinforced by visiting Arenillas Ecological Reserve: (a) the seven main categories of well-being and (b) stated relative importance of subcategories of well-being.
The respondents who identified relational values also showed a preference for the leisure well-being component (37% of respondents; Fig. 5). Secondarily, relational values showed connection with ecosystems (10%) and education (9%). Instrumental values were mostly linked to leisure (12%) and education (5%), whereas intrinsic values were marginally related to leisure (2%) and ecosystems (2%). Respondents’ selection of well-being components was not influenced by their preference for the type of values (Fisher’s exact test, two-tailed, p = 0.42, based on 2000 replicates).
Sankey diagram showing the links between value types and main components of human well-being. The thickness of a flows proportional to the number of responses that involved a value type and a human well-being component. The absolute frequencies of each value and component are shown separately.
Discussion
Role of relational values in shaping connectedness to nature
Relational values were identified as the basis for local communities’ connectedness with the nature of AER. Specifically, our results highlight that AER’s local communities value the Reserve through the diverse interactions and relations they form with it, choosing the natural (intrinsic) or economic (instrumental) values less frequently (Chan et al. Reference Chan, Balvanera, Benessaiah, Chapman, Díaz and Gómez-Baggethun2016, De Vos et al. Reference De Vos, Joana and Dirk2018). Despite extensive evidence of the importance of relational values in shaping HNC (Roldán & Latorre Reference Roldán and Latorre2021, Riechers et al. Reference Riechers, Martín-López and Fischer2022), this is the first study to show this for the PAs of Ecuador. Since the origin of the relational values concept proposed by Chan et al. (Reference Chan, Balvanera, Benessaiah, Chapman, Díaz and Gómez-Baggethun2016), the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has proposed a new framework to further improve valuation and address barriers to uptaking the incorporation of relational values in conservation and ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just and sustainable futures (Pascual et al. Reference Pascual, Balvanera, Anderson, Chaplin-Kramer, Christie and González-Jiménez2023). Understanding of the multiple values of nature is crucial to determining why biodiversity loss is still occurring in spite of the conservation efforts that are being made all over the world (IPBES 2022). Our results are corroborated by several other reports of the importance of relational values over intrinsic and instrumental values. For instance, Jax et al. (Reference Jax, Calestani, Chan, Eser, Keune and Muraca2018) found that some types of relational value can be connected to the responsibility to care for ecosystems and guaranteeing a healthy natural environment for present and future generations. This finding is particularly important for making visible the emotional links established between people and nature and the moral responsibilities of people towards natural components (Chan et al. Reference Chan, Balvanera, Benessaiah, Chapman, Díaz and Gómez-Baggethun2016), as well as to motivate people to exercise equity and justice and feel a sense of belonging to natural areas (Schröter et al. Reference Schröter, Başak, Christie, Church, Keune and Osipova2020).
However, despite recognizing the multiple ways in which people think about, value and behave towards nature, we acknowledge that the accounting of relational values is not free of biases, and questions exist regarding the conceptual and pragmatic worth of this new category of nature’s value (Feucht et al, Reference Feucht, Dierkes and Kleespies2023). For instance, a study in Chile demonstrated that relationality is inherent to held, instrumental and intrinsic values (Luque-Lora, Reference Luque-Lora2023). Since values arise from different interactions between individuals and nature, thus making possible the conjugation of several values attached to nature, we acknowledge the difficulty of distinguishing relational values and argue that the values that people assign, form or develop in and with nature can be multiple and simultaneous (Stålhammar & Thorén Reference Stålhammar and Thorén2019). We believe that our results demonstrate that multiple values of nature can be identified simultaneously and can be used to obtain a deeper understating of the multiple ways in which people connect with and value nature (El Ghafraoui et al. Reference El Ghafraoui, Quintas-Soriano, Pacheco-Romero, Murillo-López and Castro2023).
Past military use may influence the intrinsic and instrumental value of AER
Although our results do not directly show how AER’s past military use explains the limited role of intrinsic and instrumental values in shaping the connectedness of local communities with nature in AER, research in other regions may offer ways to interpret it. AER was declared in 1971 as ‘El Oro Military Reserve’ and in 1998 as a Military Ecological Reserve. In 2012, it was declared as an Ecological Reserve by the Ecuadorian Ministry of the Environment in order to preserve these ecosystems in perpetuity (Briceño et al. Reference Briceño, Iñiguez-Gallardo and Ravera2016).
Former military PAs may have significant implications for conservation, both positive and negative, which in turn may translate into changes in the diverse values that people hold with and in nature (Briceño et al. Reference Briceño, Iñiguez-Gallardo and Ravera2016).
Intrinsic value of AER is often related to the natural, cultural or spiritual worth of the region, but our results indicated that local communities did not identify AER’s inherent beauty, biodiversity or cultural significance as explaining their connection with nature. This is perhaps due to the former military activities in AER that resulted in increased deforestation, the destruction of sensitive habitats and a limited ability of local communities to access AER. Additionally, we argue that almost 30 years of military management influenced and limited the general knowledge of local communities about this Reserve and about the dry forest that dominates the south of AER. Muñoz et al. (Reference Muñoz, Hausner, Brown, Runge and Fauchald2019) found negative attitudes amongst local people towards the intrinsic value of a PA in a northern European forest. The limited role of instrumental value found in shaping connectedness to AER might also be explained by poor conservation practices during its past military use, which shaped the perception of this Reserve as a restricted-access site due to patrolling activities by customs personnel to control smuggling (Briceño et al. Reference Briceño, Iñiguez-Gallardo and Ravera2016).
Community perception of well-being associated with AER
Our results showed that leisure was recognized as by far the most important well-being component supported by AER. Well-being and derived physical and psychological benefits are often linked to recreational activities in nature (Ocelli Pinheiro et al. Reference Ocelli Pinheiro, Triest and Lopes2021). Duku et al. (Reference Duku, Dzorgbe Mattah and Angnuureng2022) highlighted that local people recognized access to employment opportunities related to fishing, agriculture and gathering firewood to be the most critical components provided by nature.
In contrast, Hori and Makino (Reference Hori and Makino2018) identified components such as food, housing, clothing or access to goods as more important than employment or recreational activities. People’s perceptions regarding well-being are evidently context-dependent and influenced by their environment and local setting (Beauchamp et al. Reference Beauchamp, Woodhouse, Clements and Milner-Gulland2018). For example, people living in a high-stress environment might place a higher value on mental health, whereas those living in rural areas might prioritize access to fresh food or firewood. For the case of local communities surrounding AER, our findings indicated a strong preference for leisure. The military past of this PA, which involved restrictions on access, may have caused local communities not to perceive it as a source of food, housing or goods. However, the declaration in 2012 of AER as a new PA might have promoted local people to engage in outdoor activities such as hiking, camping or fishing, which in turn might impact on their overall health and well-being. For instance, the COVID-19 pandemic showed how spending time in natural settings provided a sense of connection to nature and provided opportunities for individuals to connect with others and build a sense of community (Almeida et al. Reference Almeida, Lopes, Pedroso and Gaspar2023).
Community engagement for management of and decision-making regarding AER
We show for the first time how relational values can shape interactions between nature and human well-being as perceived by local communities in AER, and this finding could encourage AER’s decision-makers to enhance social participation and engagement and to make visible the community’s values attached to AER.
This could serve as a first step towards framing and designing conservation communication strategies by the management committee of AER (the consultative body promoting the participation and cooperation of representatives of public and private sectors with a stake in AER) to achieve conservation targets (MEWET 2017). Since people differ in how they interact with nature, opening up participatory governance processes to various stakeholders that represent different value orientations or knowledge systems is increasingly advocated (IPBES 2022). Inclusive public participatory processes can facilitate stronger and longer-term outcomes in conservation (Andrade & Rhodes Reference Andrade and Rhodes2012, Htay et al. Reference Htay, Htoo, Mbise and Røskaft2022, Inoue et al. Reference Inoue, Terauchi, Fujii, Tsunoda, Okubo and Takamura2022). In addition, involving communities in the management process of a PA requires environmental education and the development of local projects that achieve benefits both for the community and for conservation (Fonseca et al. Reference Fonseca, Arroyo and Castellanos2022, Ortiz & Bastidas Reference Ortiz and Bastidas2023). We argue that stakeholder pluralism in AER management can be beneficial in various ways, including exchange of knowledge and generating dialogue to reflect on and learn about conservation challenges in PAs. It could create new understandings about problems and solutions in AER management, build capacity to promote well-informed people and facilitate democratic participation and promote innovative action (López-Rodríguez et al. Reference López-Rodríguez, Ruiz-Mallén, Oteros-Rozas, March, Keller and Lo2020). In Yucatán, upon being involved in the management of the area, and motivated by the relational values derived from their connection with nature, local communities created a support network to strengthen care and promote environmentally friendly practices, with the communities being the protagonists of such change (López Barreto & Pinkus Rendón 2020).
Conclusions
We demonstrate the role of relational values in shaping community connectedness to nature in the AER in Ecuador, where intrinsic and instrumental values were much less important, perhaps related to the past military use of this PA. We argue that conservation efforts should be established on the basis of participatory actions that capture and integrate the multiple values that communities assign, form or develop in and with nature.
Supplementary material
To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892923000322.
Acknowledgements
CA thanks the editor and reviewers for their comments and suggestions that helped improve the manuscript.
Financial support
CQ-S acknowledges European Union funding through the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant (number 101031168). JMR-M acknowledges support from the María Zambrano Program, which is funded by the University of Almería through the Spanish Ministry of Universities.
Competing interests
The authors declare none.
Ethical standards
None.
Open access
