Bas Verschuuren and Naoya Furuta (eds.), Asian Sacred Natural Sites: Philosophy and Practice in Protected Areas and Conservation

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 236-239
Author(s):  
Will Tuladhar-Douglas
2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 568-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
NIGEL DUDLEY ◽  
LIZA HIGGINS-ZOGIB ◽  
STEPHANIE MANSOURIAN

Oryx ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 485-490 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Dudley ◽  
Jeffrey D. Parrish ◽  
Kent H. Redford ◽  
Sue Stolton

AbstractThe global protected area estate is the world’s largest ever planned land use. Protected areas are not monolithic and vary in their purpose, designation, management and outcomes. The IUCN protected area category system is a typology based on management objectives. It documents protected area types and is increasingly used in laws, policy and planning. As its role grows, the category system must be reactive to opinions and open to modifications. In response to requests from members IUCN undertook a 4-year consultation and recently published revised guidelines for the categories. These made subtle but important changes to the protected area definition, giving greater emphasis to nature conservation, protection over the long term and management effectiveness. It refined some categories and gave principles for application. Debates during revision were intense and highlighted many of the issues and challenges surrounding protected areas in the early 21st century. There was a consensus on many issues including the suitability of different governance models (such as indigenous and community conserved areas), sacred natural sites, moving the emphasis of Category IV from habitat manipulation towards species and habitat protection, and recognition of legally defined zones within a protected area as different categories. However, there was considerable disagreement about the definition of a protected area, the appropriateness of some categories with extensive human use, the possibility of linking category classification with biodiversity outcomes, and recognition of territories of indigenous peoples. We map these debates and propose actions to resolve these issues: a necessary step if the world’s protected area network is to be representative, secure and well managed.


2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 102100
Author(s):  
Fabrizio Frascaroli ◽  
Piero Zannini ◽  
Alicia Teresa Rosario Acosta ◽  
Alessandro Chiarucci ◽  
Marco d'Agostino ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
AFSHAN ANJUM BABA ◽  
SYED NASEEM UL-ZAFAR GEELANI ◽  
ISHRAT SALEEM ◽  
MOHIT HUSAIN ◽  
PERVEZ AHMAD KHAN ◽  
...  

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.


2016 ◽  
Vol 548 ◽  
pp. 263-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
RE Lindsay ◽  
R Constantine ◽  
J Robbins ◽  
DK Mattila ◽  
A Tagarino ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 642 ◽  
pp. 227-240
Author(s):  
L Lodi ◽  
R Tardin ◽  
G Maricato

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document