The planet is facing an alarming rate of biodiversity loss, with approximately one in eight plant and animal species currently threatened with extinction. In response to this urgent crisis, scientists have called for the protection of 30 % of land, inland waters and seas by 2030, a goal known as "30 x 30". This ambitious target was recently ratified by 195 countries and the European Union with the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) in December 2022. However, achieving this target requires unprecedented efforts and a significant expansion of protected areas, as currently only 17.6 % of land and 8.6 % of marine areas are protected globally.

The expansion of protected areas entails extensive resource demands and potential conflicts between conservation, social and economic interests. The successful implementation of such measures depends on political feasibility, a key aspect of which is public opinionThe new study surveyed public opinion in eight countries across five continents (Argentina, Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and the United States) to understand the level of support and how it is influenced by policy design.

Strong public support for the 30 x 30 goal

The main finding studies is that the general public in these eight countries strongly supports the “30 x 30” goalIn the aggregate sample, 82.4% of respondents are for the goal, while only 6.6 % are against and 11 % are indifferent. Support is strong in all countries surveyed, with the strongest support in Argentina (87.9 %) and Brazil (90 %) and slightly lower but still strong support in Sweden (66.3 %) and the United States (71.2 %). These findings suggest that public opinion is not currently an obstacle to expanding biodiversity protection.

Individual-level factors influencing support are generally similar to those seen for other environmental policies. Higher overall support is shown by women, people interested in the environment, those who support income redistribution, and those with higher trust in governmentConversely, age is negatively associated with support, while urban location, education level, and income are not significant predictors in most countries.

Impact of the policy proposal on support

The study experimentally tested how differences in policy design can strengthen or dampen support, both at the international and domestic levels.

On international level respondents prefer expansion regimes that:

• Rich countries bear a higher share of the costs associated with the expansion of global protected areas. Compared to a regime where countries pay their own costs, higher payment by rich countries leads to an average of 4.4 % higher preference for the regime. If only rich countries pay, this is preferred over equal cost sharing.
• All countries have equal responsibility for protecting areas.
• Placement trading is not allowed. protected areas (the possibility for countries to pay for placement abroad), with the exception of respondents from India and the USA, who are not deterred by this.
• More countries are actively contributing to global expansion, with increasing the number of contributing countries from one-third to two-thirds increasing the regime's preference by 3.1 %.

On domestic level preferences for political positions are generally weaker and there is greater heterogeneity between countries. Nevertheless, key influences have been identified:

• Prioritizing natural values in the location and expansion of protected areas. A regime prioritizing nature is 5.1 % more likely to be preferred than a regime prioritizing economic values and 2.8 % more likely to be preferred than a regime prioritizing social values. This suggests that people do not want “paper parks” but consider the environment to be essential.
• Financing through taxes on activities damaging biodiversity or shifting funds from environmental or social investments is generally preferred over general tax increases. However, there are exceptions, for example in South Africa, new taxes on biodiversity-damaging activities are associated with lower preference.
• The possibility that protected areas will be manage private companies, discourages respondents from India, Indonesia, Sweden and the US, compared to government. Restrictions on access to protected areas generally do not have such an impact on preferences, with the exception of Sweden and the United States.
• Respondents who oppose the 30×30 target and respondents from rural areas place a higher value on milder access restrictions (enabling sustainable business activity).

Conclusions for policymakers

The study results provide valuable insights for policymakers in designing effective and politically feasible strategies to achieve the 30 x 30 target. Given the strong and consistent public support, expanding protected areas through politically feasible effortsThe key is to design policies that respect citizens' preferences:

• Ensure that rich countries bear most of the financial costs for global expansion.
• Prioritize the placement of protected areas in a way that benefits nature, and not primarily social or economic interests.
• Choose financing mechanisms that rely on budget redistribution or specific taxes from activities damaging biodiversity, before a general tax increase.
• Take into account lower support for privately managed protected areas in most countries.
• When adapting policies for rural areas, consider less strict access restrictions.

While the study presents valuable insights, it is important to note that the initial views of respondents may be tentative and may evolve as knowledge increases and the issue becomes potentially politicized. Future research should explore local contexts and the attitudes of organized groups that may perceive protected areas as harmful. Overall, however, the study confirms that designing viable expansion policies is essential and achievable based on favorable public opinion. JRi