scholarly journals Measuring benefits of protected area management: trends across realms and research gaps for freshwater systems

2015 ◽  
Vol 370 (1681) ◽  
pp. 20140274 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vanessa M. Adams ◽  
Samantha A. Setterfield ◽  
Michael M. Douglas ◽  
Mark J. Kennard ◽  
Keith Ferdinands
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Impact Evaluation ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
National Park ◽  
Protected Area Management ◽  
Time Lags ◽  
Research Gaps ◽  
Freshwater Systems ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Area Management

Protected areas remain a cornerstone for global conservation. However, their effectiveness at halting biodiversity decline is not fully understood. Studies of protected area benefits have largely focused on measuring their impact on halting deforestation and have neglected to measure the impacts of protected areas on other threats. Evaluations that measure the impact of protected area management require more complex evaluation designs and datasets. This is the case across realms (terrestrial, freshwater, marine), but measuring the impact of protected area management in freshwater systems may be even more difficult owing to the high level of connectivity and potential for threat propagation within systems (e.g. downstream flow of pollution). We review the potential barriers to conducting impact evaluation for protected area management in freshwater systems. We contrast the barriers identified for freshwater systems to terrestrial systems and discuss potential measurable outcomes and confounders associated with protected area management across the two realms. We identify key research gaps in conducting impact evaluation in freshwater systems that relate to three of their major characteristics: variability, connectivity and time lags in outcomes. Lastly, we use Kakadu National Park world heritage area, the largest national park in Australia, as a case study to illustrate the challenges of measuring impacts of protected area management programmes for environmental outcomes in freshwater systems.

scholarly journals Assessing Local Indigenous Knowledge and Information Sources on Biodiversity, Conservation and Protected Area Management at Khuvsgol Lake National Park, Mongolia

Land ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher McCarthy ◽  
Hitoshi Shinjo ◽  
Buho Hoshino ◽  
Erdenebuyan Enkhjargal
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Indigenous Knowledge ◽  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
National Park ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Protected Area Management ◽  
Local Residents ◽  
Area Management

Indigenous knowledge about biodiversity and conservation is valuable and can be used to sustainably manage protected areas; however, indigenous communities continue to be marginalized due to the belief that their values and behaviors do not align with the overarching mission of conservation. This paper explores the extent of local knowledge and awareness of biodiversity, conservation and protected area management of indigenous communities at Khuvsgol Lake National Park, Mongolia. We investigate current levels of biodiversity awareness and explore perceptions toward conservation values and park management governance. Most respondents had a high awareness of existing biodiversity and held positive attitudes toward nature conservation and protected areas; however, insufficient knowledge of park rules and low levels of trust between local residents and park authorities may undermine conservation objectives in the long run. We identify an unequal share of economic benefits from tourism and preferential treatment toward elite business owners as a source of conflict. Limited information channels and poor communication between local residents and park authorities are also a source for low-level participation in conservation activities. Leveraging the increasing use of information communication technology, such as mobile phones, can serve as a new mechanism for improved information sharing and transparent reporting between local communities, conservationists and protected area authorities.

scholarly journals Measuring impact of protected area management interventions: current and future use of the Global Database of Protected Area Management Effectiveness

2015 ◽  
Vol 370 (1681) ◽  
pp. 20140281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren Coad ◽  
Fiona Leverington ◽  
Kathryn Knights ◽  
Jonas Geldmann ◽  
April Eassom ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
Protected Area Management ◽  
Management Effectiveness ◽  
Global Database ◽  
Management Interventions ◽  
Published Evidence ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Area Management

Protected areas (PAs) are at the forefront of conservation efforts, and yet despite considerable progress towards the global target of having 17% of the world's land area within protected areas by 2020, biodiversity continues to decline. The discrepancy between increasing PA coverage and negative biodiversity trends has resulted in renewed efforts to enhance PA effectiveness. The global conservation community has conducted thousands of assessments of protected area management effectiveness (PAME), and interest in the use of these data to help measure the conservation impact of PA management interventions is high. Here, we summarize the status of PAME assessment, review the published evidence for a link between PAME assessment results and the conservation impacts of PAs, and discuss the limitations and future use of PAME data in measuring the impact of PA management interventions on conservation outcomes. We conclude that PAME data, while designed as a tool for local adaptive management, may also help to provide insights into the impact of PA management interventions from the local-to-global scale. However, the subjective and ordinal characteristics of the data present significant limitations for their application in rigorous scientific impact evaluations, a problem that should be recognized and mitigated where possible.

Recognizing the contribution of Indigenous Protected Areas to marine protected area management in Australia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jackie Gould ◽  
Dermot Smyth ◽  
Whitney Rassip ◽  
Phil Rist ◽  
Katie Oxenham
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Marine Protected Area ◽  
Protected Area Management ◽  
Area Management

scholarly journals International funding agencies: potential leaders of impact evaluation in protected areas?

2015 ◽  
Vol 370 (1681) ◽  
pp. 20140283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian D. Craigie ◽  
Megan D. Barnes ◽  
Jonas Geldmann ◽  
Stephen Woodley
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Impact Evaluation ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Biodiversity Loss ◽  
Evaluation Methods ◽  
Protected Area Management ◽  
International Funding ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Potential Benefits

Globally, protected areas are the most commonly used tools to halt biodiversity loss. Yet, some are failing to adequately conserve the biodiversity they contain. There is an urgent need for knowledge on how to make them function more effectively. Impact evaluation methods provide a set of tools that could yield this knowledge. However, rigorous outcome-focused impact evaluation is not yet used as extensively as it could be in protected area management. We examine the role of international protected area funding agencies in facilitating the use of impact evaluation. These agencies are influential stakeholders as they allocate hundreds of millions of dollars annually to support protected areas, creating a unique opportunity to shape how the conservation funds are spent globally. We identify key barriers to the use of impact evaluation, detail how large funders are uniquely placed to overcome many of these, and highlight the potential benefits if impact evaluation is used more extensively.

Relationships between national-park affinity and attitudes towards protected area management of visitors to the Gesaeuse National Park, Austria

2012 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 48-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arne Arnberger ◽  
Renate Eder ◽  
Brigitte Allex ◽  
Petra Sterl ◽  
Robert C. Burns
Keyword(s):  
Protected Area ◽  
National Park ◽  
Protected Area Management ◽  
Area Management

scholarly journals The Importance of Partnerships for Effective Protected Area Management

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mirjam de Koning ◽  
Oliver Avramoski
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Civil Society Organizations ◽  
Protected Area Management ◽  
Western Balkans ◽  
Clear Vision ◽  
Communications Skills ◽  
To Come ◽  
Area Management

Protected areas work in complex environments in which they have to liaise with governments, scientific and civil society organizations, volunteers, local stakeholders, visitors, and funders. This requires next to thematic expertise on conservation, among others legal, management, financial, administrative and communications skills and capacities. Especially the smaller protected areas struggle to efficiently operate in all these specialized fields and often lack enough in-house capacity and resources. This chapter highlights the lessons learned and evolvement of various forms of partnerships in different countries on different continents (collaborative arrangement in Laos and different formal and informal arrangements in the Western Balkans). Core to the success is to build sufficient capacity within the protected area management authorities so they understand the priorities and the resources needed to fund, manage and implement these priorities. Specialized skills and capacities needed for effective protected area management are limited in most countries and it is inefficient and too expensive to build this capacity in-house. Having a clear vision on what needs to be done and building a strong cooperation between partners through effective communication is the key to success to come to more effective protected area management either on a national, regional or transboundary level.

scholarly journals Hitchhikers’ guide to the legal context of protected area management plans in South Africa

Bothalia ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Magda Goosen ◽  
Andrew C. Blackmore
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Management Plan ◽  
Protected Area Management ◽  
World Heritage Convention ◽  
Legal Context ◽  
The World ◽  
Management Plans ◽  
National Environmental ◽  
Area Management

Background: Although formal protected areas in South Africa date back to the turn of the 19th century, requirements for protected area management plans only became mandatory a century later. Prior to the promulgation of the World Heritage Convention Act 49 in 1999, and subsequently the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 in 2003, requirements for management plans were voluntary, and guidance to the plan’s content was fragmented across an array of international, national and provincial policy instruments.Objectives: As there has been little academic debate on the relevance and content of protected area management plans, an improved understanding of these plans, and the role they play in biodiversity conservation, is required.Method: This article explores the evolution of the management plan, revisiting its historical and current legal context at international and national scales.Results: Despite being the principal legislative framework for management plans, the World Heritage Convention Act and the National Environmental Management Protected Area Act did not consolidate the plethora of management plan requirements, and hence did not bring clarity when these conflicted or were ambiguous.Conclusion: Legal provisions for management plans are highly fragmented. This risks plans not being complete, falling short of the requirement to ensure that protected areas fulfil the purpose for which they were established. A consolidation of relevant provisions, as well as emerging best practices is recommended. This may require the revision of South Africa’s environmental law, to provide greater clarity on the contemporary understanding of the contribution of protected areas to conservation and the well-being of people (viz. the ‘purpose’).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document