scholarly journals Conservation performance of tropical protected areas: How important is management?

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Schleicher ◽  
Carlos A. Peres ◽  
Nigel Leader‐Williams
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Is Management ◽  
Conservation Performance

scholarly journals Assessing the effectiveness of protected areas: paradoxes call for pluralism in evaluating conservation performance

2009 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 178-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Caro ◽  
Toby A. Gardner ◽  
Chantal Stoner ◽  
Emily Fitzherbert ◽  
Tim R. B. Davenport
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Conservation Performance

Is Management Science? So What's New?

1970 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 422-423
Author(s):  
ALBERT S. GLICKMAN
Keyword(s):  
Management Science ◽  
Is Management

Crossing Divides: Conducting Mixed Methods Research in Protected Areas

2018 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 291
Author(s):  
BIJAYASHREE SATPATHY
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Protected Areas ◽  
Mixed Methods Research

ESTIMATION OF ABOVE GROUND BIOMASS OF THE THREE SITES (GRAZED SITE, PROTECTED SITE AND SEED SOWN SITE) FOR COMPARING THEIR PRODUCTIVITY IN KASHMIR VALLEY

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
AFSHAN ANJUM BABA ◽  
SYED NASEEM UL-ZAFAR GEELANI ◽  
ISHRAT SALEEM ◽  
MOHIT HUSAIN ◽  
PERVEZ AHMAD KHAN ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Aboveground Biomass ◽  
Plant Biomass ◽  
Summer Season ◽  
Above Ground Biomass ◽  
Spring Season ◽  
Kashmir Valley ◽  
Ground Biomass ◽  
Maximum Value ◽  
Protected Site

The plant biomass for protected areas was maximum in summer (1221.56 g/m2) and minimum in winter (290.62 g/m2) as against grazed areas having maximum value 590.81 g/m2 in autumn and minimum 183.75 g/m2 in winter. Study revealed that at Protected site (Kanidajan) the above ground biomass ranged was from a minimum (1.11 t ha-1) in the spring season to a maximum (4.58 t ha-1) in the summer season while at Grazed site (Yousmarag), the aboveground biomass varied from a minimum (0.54 t ha-1) in the spring season to a maximum of 1.48 t ha-1 in summer seasonandat Seed sown site (Badipora), the lowest value of aboveground biomass obtained was 4.46 t ha-1 in spring while as the highest (7.98 t ha-1) was obtained in summer.

Characterising essential breeding habitat for whales informs the development of large-scale Marine Protected Areas in the South Pacific

2016 ◽  
Vol 548 ◽  
pp. 263-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
RE Lindsay ◽  
R Constantine ◽  
J Robbins ◽  
DK Mattila ◽  
A Tagarino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Marine Protected Areas ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
South Pacific ◽  
Breeding Habitat ◽  
The South

Modeling cetacean habitat use in an urban coastal area in southeastern Brazil

2020 ◽  
Vol 642 ◽  
pp. 227-240
Author(s):  
L Lodi ◽  
R Tardin ◽  
G Maricato
Keyword(s):  
Habitat Use ◽  
Protected Areas ◽  
Linear Models ◽  
Anthropogenic Activities ◽  
Buffer Zone ◽  
Humpback Whales ◽  
Southeastern Brazil ◽  
Major Influence ◽  
Cetacean Species ◽  
Few Data

Most studies of cetacean habitat use do not consider the influence of anthropogenic activities. We investigated the influence of environmental and anthropogenic variables on habitat use by humpback Megaptera novaeangliae and Bryde’s whales Balaenoptera brydei off the coast of the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro. Although there are 2 marine protected areas (MPAs) in this area, few data are available on cetacean habitat use or on the overlap of different cetacean species within these MPAs. Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of the MPAs and propose a buffer zone to better protect the biodiversity of the study area. We conducted systematic surveys and developed spatial eigenvector generalized linear models to characterize habitat use by the species in the study area. Habitat use by humpback whales was influenced only by depth, whereas for Bryde’s whales there was the additional influence of anthropogenic variables. For Bryde’s whales, which use the area for feeding, sea surface temperature and the distance to anchorages had a major influence on habitat use. We also showed that neither of the MPAs in the study area adequately protects the hotspots of either whale species. Most of the humpback whale grid cells with high sighting predictions were located within 2 km of the MPAs, while areas of high sighting prediction of Bryde’s whales were located up to 5 km from the MPAs, closer to beaches. Our findings provide important insights for the delimitation of protected areas and zoning of the MPAs.

Assessing Beneficiary Benefits for the Introduction of Payments for Ecosystem Services in Wetland Protected Areas

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 19-39
Author(s):  
Miju Kim ◽  
Chi-Ok Oh ◽  
Namhee Kim ◽  
Wooyeong Joo
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Protected Areas ◽  
Payments For Ecosystem Services
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document