Applying Q-methodology to investigate the perception of the social and economic role of the national park by local stakeholders. Cases of national parks in the Carpathians

•High applicative value of Q-methodology in exploring perceptions of protected areas.•National Park (NP) as a stimulant, partner and chance, or constraint in local development.•Differences in stakeholders' perceptions determined mainly by local factors.•Disagreement on the vision of tourism development.•Consensus on future park-people partnership and integrative management model. The modern approach to the management of protected areas (PAs) introduces a holistic perspective on these areas, in which they are not seen as isolated conservation zones, but as units integrated with their natural, social and economic environment. They are expected to harmonize their protective role with tangible benefits for local communities. Fostering both social and economic development is particularly important in underdeveloped, peripheral areas. The efficacy of management within this novel paradigm relies heavily on the attitudes and perceptions of local communities towards the PAs. As a result, the research was undertaken to identify local stakeholders' perceptions of the social and economic role of national parks (NPs) in the Carpathian region of the European Union (EU). The study was based on 170 interviews conducted in eight NPs, among four stakeholder groups (NPs authorities, local authorities, representatives of the tourism sector, local residents). Q-methodology was applied to achieve a comprehensive understanding of respondents' perspectives, along with their nuanced opinions. This methodology enables a statistical analysis that leads to the identification of groups of opinions and the examination of differences between them. Based on it, three main groups of opinions (perspectives) were identified in which the national park was perceived as: I) a stimulant to sustainable local development, II) a partner and a chance for future local development and III) a constraint on local development. Perspective I was dominant (44.7% of respondents), being the most typical for Pieniny NP (Poland) and Aggtelek (Hungary), and - considering stakeholder groups - for national park authorities (the most homogeneous group in terms of opinions). Perspective II was characteristic mainly of Retezat NP (Romania) and Magura NP (Poland) and perspective III appeared most numerously in Poloniny (Slovakia), as well as in Piatra Craiului (Romania). The local context, related to a particular NP, differentiated opinions more strongly than the stakeholder group or country of origin. Opinions rega