Does stakeholder participation increase the legitimacy of nature reserves in local communities? Evidence from 92 Biosphere Reserves in 36 countries

Figures & data

Table 1. BR support and stakeholder participation, by levels of participation and types of stakeholders.

	Support for BR in community
	Model 1	Model 2
Δ Representation	0.033
	(0.42)
Δ Involvement	0.041
	(0.59)
Δ Implementation	0.110
	(1.33)
Δ Information	0.259
	(3.35)**
Δ Scientists		−0.256
		(2.18)*
Δ NGOs		−0.114
		(0.65)
Δ Resource users		0.491
		(3.92)**
Δ Locals		0.263
		(1.84)
Δ Local administration		0.227
		(2.50)*
BR age	0.009	−0.005
	(0.46)	(0.23)
Income (country)	−0.547	−0.424
	(2.17)*	(1.60)
Pristine (dummy)	−0.855	−0.389
	(1.52)	(0.86)
Size of BR	−0.000	−0.000
	(1.64)	(0.83)
Constant	2.372	1.960
	(1.99)	(1.61)
R^2	0.29	0.39
N	92	92

Note: Table shows regression coefficients and clustered (by country) standard errors.

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Table 2. BR legitimacy and participation among stakeholder categories.

	Model 6 (Scientists)	Model 7 (NGOs)	Model 8 (Inhabitants)	Model 9 (Users)	Model 10 (Administration)
ΔRepresentation	1.331	1.144	1.700	1.484	1.684
	(1.28)	(0.60)	(2.21)*	(1.36)	(1.99)*
ΔInvolvement	0.948	1.600	1.587	1.426	1.132
	(0.22)	(1.75)	(1.98)*	(1.43)	(0.38)
ΔImplementation	0.909	1.123	1.014	1.850	1.298
	(0.46)	(0.61)	(0.08)	(3.02)**	(1.52)
ΔInformation	1.918	1.702	2.326	1.920	3.005
	(1.83)	(1.40)	(2.26)*	(1.51)	(3.16)**
N	92	92	92	92	92
Wald χ^2	7.19	11.43*	21.99**	18.18**	33.12**
Pseudo R^2	.023	.052	.095	.158	.126

Note: Table shows odds ratios and robust standard errors.

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

Table 3. Frequency of unsatisfied (U) and positive (P) evaluations of participation by stakeholder type and form of participation.

	Information	Implementation	Involvement	Representation
	U, P	U, P	U, P	U, P
Managers	2, 4	3, 2	1, 3	3, 3
NGOs	5, 7	1, 3	0, 3	2, 2
Scientists	2, 4	1, 1	1, 1	3, 2
Administration	3, 5	1, 1	1, 1	2, 1
Inhabitants	1, 2	0, 3	1, 1	1, 1
Users	3, 6	8, 9	1, 0	3, 3
TOTAL	16, 28	14, 19	5, 9	14, 12