Balancing private and public interests: a comparative analysis of Lombardy protected areas policy networks

Protected areas’ policies and governance have evolved significantly over the years. Initially conceived as “wilderness areas” to be preserved without human interactions, they have transformed into places where multiple interests – such as conservation, agriculture, fishery, hunting, tourism – must coexist. In an era characterized by profound ecological, social and cultural crises protected areas should play a central role. Their management strategies should be characterized by a variety of goals, and they must serve as key instruments for advancing biodiversity conservation, promoting sustainable development, preserving ecosystem services, and supporting local communities. Therefore, they should be seen as laboratories for best practices, where innovative actions and alternative solutions are tested with the aim of offering different choices that can be implemented both within their boundaries and beyond. Contrary to what they should be, policy processes in protected areas struggle to drive real interest, and they are often neither rational nor solution-oriented but instead driven by interest groups partially integrated with the scopes of parks. In practice, the majority of protected areas have become obstacles or sources of conflict. Over time their role has diminished, and they have become “paperwork machines”, with a focus on recreational and educational, sectorial programs that typically target schoolchildren, rather than actively engaging with the complex challenges of biodiversity conservation and sustainable management. It is within this context that my thesis will be conducted, aiming to analyze the real policies that are being implemented within 3 different regional protected areas in Lombardy. The goal is to make a reflection, forty years after the adoption of the Lombardy regional law on protected areas, on the balance between public and private interest within regional parks and the distribution of power. In order to put into practice these theories I will adopt a comparative historical methodology (CHA), that will allow me to have a deeper understanding of the regional policies through the following sources of information: documental analysis, semi-structed interviews and field observations.