Search

How often do people visit the world's protected areas (PAs)? Despite PAs covering one-eighth of the land and being a major focus of nature-based recreation and tourism, we don't know. To address this, we compiled a globally-representative database of visits to PAs and built region-specific models predicting visit rates from PA size, local population size, remoteness, natural attractiveness, and national income. Applying these models to all but the very smallest of the world's terrestrial PAs suggests that together they receive roughly 8 billion (8 x 109) visits/y-of which more than 80% are in Europe and North America. Linking our region-specific visit estimates to valuation studies indicates that these visits generate approximately US $600 billion/y in direct in-country expenditure and US $250 billion/y in consumer surplus. These figures dwarf current, typically inadequate spending on conserving PAs. Thus, even without considering the many other ecosystem services that PAs provide to people, our findings underscore calls for greatly increased investment in their conservation.

Background: In the wake of the 'bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis' there was renewed interest in how those responsible for public health could take account of public views, both to 'democratize' policy making and to increase the likelihood of information about health risks resonating with public concerns. This study explored how members of the public in four European countries (Finland, Germany, Italy and the UK) understood food risks in general, and risks arising from BSE in particular. The aims were to identify the sources of knowledge used and trusted by the public and to explore how public views could be accessed for public health information policy., Methods: Thirty-six focus group interviews were held using a common protocol across the four countries, including people from four life-cycle stages., Results: The study demonstrated the utility of using focus groups as a relatively efficient method for accessing public views, and the feasibility of cross-national qualitative research on public views. We found that public views of food risks are neither irrational nor naïve, but that they do need to be interpreted in the context of everyday food purchasing decisions, in which particular food risks are unlikely to have the same salience as they do for experts., Conclusions: Focus groups are a feasible method for accessing public knowledge on public health risks to inform information strategies.