The Baltic Region

2021 Vol. 13 №2

Back to the list Download an article

Depopulation of coastal rural Lithuania: do regional parks stabilise the situation?



Regional parks in Lithuania preserve the most valuable physical and cultural components of the landscape, NATURA 2000 habitats, etc. Usually, they are located in natural or semi-natural landscapes of rural areas. These territories, however, have a higher depopulation rate than urbanised districts. Still, conservation priority areas were expected to attract young families as permanent residents and make their population more stable. This study aims to investigate changes in the rural population in three regional parks of the Klaipėda county to determine the number of abandoned villages (with 0 residents) and vanishing ones (with a population < 5), as compared to territories with no conservation regime. The article examines migration as one of the determinants of depopulation. Analysis of national and local statistics, institutional documents, and structured interviews revealed that the conservation regime applied in regional parks did not necessarily encourage local people to stay or newcomers to arrive. Proximity to the sea and towns with developed social infrastructure remains a priority when looking for a residence in the countryside.


1. Güler, K., Kâhya, Y. 2019, Developing an Approach for Conservation of Abandoned Rural Settlements in Turkey, ITU A|Z Journal of Faculty of Architecture, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 97—115, doi: https://doi. org/10.5505/itujfa.2019.48991.

2. Martínez-Abraín, A., Jiménez, J., Jiménez, I., Ferrer, X., Llaneza, L., Ferrer, M., Palomero, G., Ballesteros, F., Galán, P., Oro, D. 2020, Ecological Consequences of Human Depopulation of Rural Areas on Wildlife: A Unifying Perspective, Biological Conservation, no. 252. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108860.

3. Aleknavičius, P., Aleknavičius, M., Akelaitytė, S. 2014, Lietuvos kaimo gyvenamųjų vietovių pokyčių tyrimai [Research of Changes of Rural Residential areas in Lithuania], Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, vol. 38, no. 2, p. 161—172. doi: 10.3846/20297955.2014.924284 (in Lithuanian).

4. Anokhin, A., Kropinova, E. G. 2020, Scientific and Practical Aspects of Organizing week-end Routes in the Natural Environment Using Technologies of Active tourism, Service and Tourism: Current Challenges, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 50—63. doi: 10.24411/1995-0411-2020-10205.

5. Bodesmo, M., Pacicco, L., Romano B., Ranfa, A. 2011, The role of environmental and socio-demographic indicators in the analysis of land use changes in a protected area of the Natura 2000 Network: the case study of Lake Trasimeno, Umbria, Central Italy, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 184. doi:10.1007/s10661-011-2004-z.

6. Brown, D. L., Schafft, K. A. 2011, Rural People and Communities in the 21st Century: Resilience and Transformation, Cambridge, Polity, 224 p. doi: https://doi. org/10.1093/sf/sos042.

7. Karlsson, I., Rydén, L., Sepp, K. 2012, Introduction. In: Karlsson, I., Rydén, L. Rural Development and Land Use, The Baltic University Programme, Uppsala University, p. 11—20, available at: (accessed 25 January 2021).

8. Pedroli, B., Correia, T. P., Primdahl, J. 2016, Challenges for a Shared European Countryside of Uncertain Future. Towards a Modern Community-based Landscape Perspective, Landscape Research, vol. 41, no. 4, p. 450—460. doi: 10.1080/01426397.2016.1156072.

9. Primdahl, J., Andersen, E., Swaffield, S., Kristensen, L. 2013, Intersecting Dynamics of Agricultural Structural Change and Urbanisation within European Rural Landscapes: Change Patterns and Policy Implications, Landscape Research, no. 38, p. 799—817.

10. van Vliet, J., de Groot, H. L. F., Rietveld, P., Verburg, P. H. 2015, Manifestations and Underlying Drivers of Agricultural Land use Change in Europe, Landscape and Urban Planning, no. 133, p. 24—36. doi: 10.1016/j. landurbplan.2014.09.001.

11. Woods, M. 2011, Rural geography: Processes, responses and experiences in rural restructuring, SAGE Publications Ltd. doi:

12. Zariņa, A., Vinogradovs, I., Šķiņķis, P. 2018, Towards (dis)continuity of Agricultural Wetlands: Latvia’s Polder Landscapes after Soviet Productivism, Landscape Research, vol. 43, no. 3, p. 455—469. doi: 10.1080/01426397.2017.1316367.

13. Hoffman, D. M. 2017, Parks, Proxies, and People Ideology, Epistemology, and the Measurement of Human Population Growth on Protected Area Edges. Environment and Society, Advances in Research, vol. 8, no 1., p. 161—179. doi: 10.3167/ares.2017.080108.

14. Joppa, L. 2012, Population Change in and around Protected Areas, Journal of Ecological Anthropology, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 58—64. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.5038/2162-4593.15.1.4.

15. Anokhin, A., Kropinova, E. 2020, Principles of Sustainable Development for Rural Tourism Synergy, E3S Web of Conferences, vol. 208, no. 05017. doi:

16. Kriaučiūnas, E. 2013, Lietuvos kaimo gyvenviečių tinklo kaitos ypatumai 1989—2011 metais, Kaimo raidos kryptys žinių visuomenėje [The Particularities of Lithuanian Rural Settlement Network Alternations during the Period 1989—2011. Trends of Rural Development in the Knowledge Society], no. 1, p. 53—60, available at: https://talpykla. elaba. lt/elaba-fedora/objects/elaba:6228361/datastreams/MAIN/content (accessed 7 August 2020) (in Lithuanian).

17. Bučienė, A., Gadal, S., Galinienė, J., Gailius, V. 2017, The geographic-retrospective analysis of landscape in Žemaičių Naumiestis ward, Geologija Geografija [Geology Geography], vol. 3, no. 1, p. 25—36.

18. Csapó, T., Balogh, A. 2011, Development of the Settlement Network in the Central European Countries: Past, Present, and Future, Springer Science & Business Media, 105 p.

19. Paniagua, A. 2018, Local people unprotected by protected (depopulated) natural areas: the case of Sierra Norte Guadalajara, Spain, GeoJournal, no. 83, p. 993—1004. doi: https://doi. org/10.1007/s10708-017-9813-8.

20. Rodríguez-Rodríguez, D., Larrubia, R., Sinoga, J. D. 2021, Are Protected Areas Good for the Human Species? Effects of Protected Areas on Rural Depopulation in Spain, Science of the Total Environment, vol. 763, p. 1—9. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2020.144399.

21. Baškytė, R. 2006, Saugomų teritorijų būklė ir jų ateitis, Lietuvos saugomos teritorijos [Status and future of protected territories, The protected territories of Lithuania], Vilnius, p. 320—325 (in Lithuanian).

22. Juknevičiūtė, A., Mierauskas, P. 2012, Saugomų teritorijų plėtra Lietuvoje: valdymo iššūkiai, Darnaus vystymosi strategija ir praktika [Development of protected areas in Lithuania: management challenges. Sustainable development strategy and practice], no. 1 (6), p. 78—92, available at: pdf (accessed 8 August 2020) (in Lithuanian).

23. Mierauskas, P. 2010, Suinteresuotų asmenų dalyvavimas Lietuvos saugomų teritorijų valdyme, Socialinių mokslų studijos [Stakeholder Participation in the Management of Lithuanian Protected Areas, Societal studies], no. 3 (7). p. 125—143, available at: (accessed 8 August 2020) (in Lithuanian).

24. Filipe, M., de Mascarenhas, J. M. 2011, Abandoned Villages and Related Geographic and Landscape Context: Guidelines to Natural and Cultural Heritage Conservation and Multifunctional Valorization, European Countryside, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 21—45. doi: https://doi. org/10.2478/v10091-011-0002-3.

25. Jaszczak, A., Kristianova, K., Vaznonienė, G., Žukovskis, J. 2018, Phenomenon of Abandoned Villages and its Impact on Transformation of Rural Landscapes, Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development, vol. 40, no. 4, p. 467—480. doi: 10.15544/mts.2018.43.

26. Daugirdas, V., Burneika, D., Kriaučiūnas E., Ribokas G., Stanaitis A., Ubarevičienė R. 2013, Lietuvos retai apgyvendintos teritorijos [Sparsely populated territories in Lithuania], Vilnius (in Lithuanian).

27. Kriaučiūnas, E., Ribokas, G. 2012, Šiaulių apskrities retai apgyvendintų teritorijų pokyčiai ir demografinės raidos ypatumai, Ekonomika ir vadyba: aktualijos ir perspektyvos [Peculiarities of changes and demographic development of sparsely populated territories in Šiauliai county. Economics and Management: Current Issues and Perspectives], no. 3 (27), p. 135—143, available at: (accessed 8 August 2020) (in Lithuanian).

28. Vaitekūnas, S., Čepienė, E. 2014, Lietuvos kaimų sistema: koncepcija, skaičius, dydis, tankumas, kaita, Tiltai [Lithuanian rural settlements system: conception, the number, size, density, location, changes, Bridges, no. 2, p. 53—74. doi: (in Lithuanian).

29. Baranauskienė, V. 2019, Kaimiškų teritorijų identifikavimo problema: Lietuvos seniūnijų atvejis, Geografijos metraštis [The Problem of Identification of Rural Areas: The Case of Lithuanian Elderships, The Geographical Yearbook], no. 52, p. 5—72. doi: (in Lithuanian).

30. Mlinkauskienė, A. 2010, Saugomų kaimo gyvenamųjų vietovių būklės pokyčiai regioniniuose parkuose. In: IV Lietuvos urbanistinis forumas, Urbanistinė drieka: miesto ir kaimo sandūra [Changes in the condition of protected rural settlements in regional parks. 4th Lithuanian Urban Forum. Urban sprawl: the junction of urban and rural], p. 46—54, available at: (accessed 7 August 2020) (in Lithuanian).

31. Carter, G. L. 2016, Population and society: an introduction, Cambridge, UK, Polity Press, p. 179—190.

32. Kavoliutė, F. 2017, Lietuvos gyvenamųjų vietovių vardų kaitos apžvalga (XX a. II pusė), ataskaita, Vilniaus Universitetas, Geomokslų institutas, Geografijos ir kraštotvarkos katedra, Vilnius [Overview of change of names of residential settlements of Lithuania in the II part of XX c., report, Department of Geography and Landscape management, Institute of Geosciences, Vilnius university], 42 p. (in Lithuanian).

33. Verkulevičiūtė-Kriukienė, D., Bučienė, A., Beteika, L. 2017, Changes in rural landscape status, functions and human factor: the case of transboundary Nemunas delta region, Area, Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers). doi:

34. Butkutė, J. 2014, Kaimo gyvenviečių ir gyventojų skaičiaus, lytinės sudėties kaita 2001—2011 metais, Geografija ir edukacija: mokslo almanachas [The variation of rural settlements and the number of residents as well as their composition by gender in 2001—2011, Geography and education: science almanac], no. 2, Vilnius, Lietuvos edukologijos universiteto leidykla, p. 21—34 (in Lithuanian).

35. Jurevičienė, J. 2010, Kaimo kultūrinio kraštovaizdžio vertė, Urbanistika ir architektūra [Cultural Value of Agrarian Landscape, Town Planning and Architecture], vol. 34. no. 3, p. 113—119. doi: (in Lithuanian).

36. Muller, S. 2002, Appropriate Agricultural Management Practices Required to Ensure Conservation, Biodiversity of Environmentally Sensitive Grassland Sites Designated under Natura 2000, Agriculture, Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, no. 89, p. 261—266, available at: (accessed 25 August 2021).

37. Halada, L., Evans, D., Carlos Romão, C., Petersen, J-E. 2011, Which Habitats of European Importance Depend on Agricultural Practices? Biodiversity and Conservation, no. 20, p. 2365—2378. doi: 10.1007/s10531-011-9989-z.

38. Lanier, P. 2014, The positive impacts of ecotourism in protected areas, WIT Transactions on Ecology and The Environment, no. 187, p. 199—209. doi:10.2495/ST140161.

39. Minciu, R., Pădurean, M., Popescu, D., Hornoiu, R. 2012, Demand for Vacations / Travel in Protected Areas — Dimension of Tourists’ Ecological Behavior, Amfiteatru Economic Journal, no. 14 (31), p. 99—113, available at: (accessed 26 January 2021).

40. Ristića, D., Vukoičića, D., Milinčić, M. 2019, Tourism and sustainable development of rural settlements in protected areas — Example NP Кopaonik (Serbia), Land Use Policy, no. 89, 104231, available at: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104231 (accessed 30 March 2021).

41. Stronza, A. L., Hunt, C. A., Fitzgerald, L. A. 2019, Ecotourism for Conservation?, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, no. 44, p. 229—5. doi: https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033046.

42. Zolfani, S. H., Sedaghat, M., Maknoon, R., Zavadskas, E. K. 2015, Sustainable tourism: a comprehensive literature review on frameworks and applications, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, vol. 28, no. 1, p. 1—30. doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2014.995895.

43. Abduganiev, O. I., Abdurakhmanov, G. Z. 2020, Ecological Education for the Purposes Sustainable Development, The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations, no. 2 (8), p. 280—284. doi:

44. Byström, J., Müller, D. K. 2014, Tourism labor market impacts of national parks. The case of Swedish Lapland, Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie, vol. 58, no. 2—3, p. 115—126.

45. Syssner, J., Meijer, M. 2017, Informal Planning in Depopulating Rural Areas. A Resource-based View on Informal Planning Practices, European Countryside, vol. 9, no. 3, p. 458—472. doi: 10.1515/euco-2017-0027.

46. Burinskienė, M., Lazauskaitė, D. 2010, Mažų miestelių, bažnytkaimių, kaimo gyvenviečių perspektyvos. In: IV Lietuvos urbanistinis forumas, Urbanistinė drieka: miesto ir kaimo sandūra [Perspectives of small towns, church villages and rural settlements. 4th Lithuanian Urban Forum. Urban sprawl: the junction of urban and rural], p. 34—39, available at: pdf (accessed 7 August 2020) (in Lithuanian).

47. Mickovic, B., Mijanovic, D., Spalevic, V., Skataric, G., Dudic, B. 2020, Contribution to the Analysis of Depopulation in Rural Areas of the Balkans: Case Study of the Municipality of Niksic, Montenegro, Sustainability, no. 12(8), p. 1—23. doi: 10.3390/su12083328.

48. Mehnen, N., Mose, I., Strijker, D. 2013, Governance and Sense of Place: Half a Century of a German Nature Park, Environmental Policy and Governance, no. 23, p. 46—62. doi: https://doi. org/10.1002/eet.1592.