Table 2.

Local governments’ opinions about the proposed Natura 2000 sites. Assessment of the sites and categories of arguments. Table presents % of the municipalities

	Continental local governments (%)	Alpine local governments (%)
Opinions on the proposed areas:
Positive opinion	19	20
Negative opinion	42	64
Request to alter borders	14	8
Neutral opinion / no comment	17	7
No comment possible on the basis of provided materials	9	0
Conflicts indicated: (total)	34	39
On the basis of ownership of the areas	5	8
On the development of infrastructure	7	8
On actual and planned businesses	8	15
On building extensions	14	8
Types of arguments given:
(a) Economic, including:	51	59
extension of procedures and rise in costs	11	18
procedural inconsistencies	3	–
restricting the development of tourism	11	23
restricting the development of enterprise, encompassing industrial land (e.g. mines)	15	13
hindering and restricting the development of agriculture	8	5
hindering and restricting the development of fishing	3	–
(b) Relating to the development of infrastructure, including: (total)	36	56
Energy	3	3
Roads	10	10
Flood defence	9	5
Tourism	8	33
Sewage systems	6	5
(c) Conflicts indicated with existing development plans:	24	41
(d) Environmental, including: (total)	20	30
indicating the non-occurrence of given species and habitats	8	10
current protection is sufficient	11	15
imposing the sites will cause problems	1	5
(e) Procedural, including: (total)	21	26
lack of agreement with the local governments	4	8
lack of agreement with local naturalists	3	5
erroneously mapped out / on incorrect maps and templates	14	13
(f) Social (unemployment, migration of young people, impoverishment of society):	12	18
(g) Conflicts indicated with existing development plans for the sustainable development of the municipality	8	21