Dataset Information

Do Protected Areas Matter? A Systematic Review of the Social and Ecological Impacts of the Establishment of Protected Areas.

ABSTRACT: There is growing interest in evaluating the effects of establishing protected areas (PAs). However, the mechanisms through which the establishment of PAs achieved significant positive effects remain unclear, and how different conservation mechanisms have achieved significant positive social and ecological benefits has also not been sufficiently studied. In this study, we systematically reviewed exemplary cases from Asia, Africa, and South America, using panel data to assess the conservation effectiveness of nature reserves and national parks. By surveying 629 literature samples reported in 31 studies, we found that the establishment of PAs has positive influences on poverty reduction, family incomes, household expenditure, employment, forest cover, biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and a reduction in forest fragmentation. Furthermore, we analyzed the specific aspects that influence the publication of a paper in a high-impact journal. We found that publication is more likely when the research uses panel data, matching methods of data analysis, large samples, and plots or PAs as research units and has significant evaluation results. Our results suggest that future studies should use panel data and matching method analysis to assess the impacts of PAs from multiple perspectives and focus on the effectiveness of specific conservation mechanisms in achieving positive effects.

SUBMITTER: Ma B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7579073 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Do Protected Areas Matter? A Systematic Review of the Social and Ecological Impacts of the Establishment of Protected Areas.

Ma Ben B Zhang Yuqian Y Hou Yilei Y Wen Yali Y

International journal of environmental research and public health 20201004 19

There is growing interest in evaluating the effects of establishing protected areas (PAs). However, the mechanisms through which the establishment of PAs achieved significant positive effects remain unclear, and how different conservation mechanisms have achieved significant positive social and ecological benefits has also not been sufficiently studied. In this study, we systematically reviewed exemplary cases from Asia, Africa, and South America, using panel data to assess the conservation effe ...[more]

PMID: 33020431

Similar Datasets

Project description:Marine protected areas (MPAs) are a primary tool for the stewardship, conservation, and restoration of marine ecosystems, yet 69% of global MPAs are only partially protected (i.e., are open to some form of fishing). Although fully protected areas have well-documented outcomes, including increased fish diversity and biomass, the effectiveness of partially protected areas is contested. Partially protected areas may provide benefits in some contexts and may be warranted for social reasons, yet social outcomes often depend on MPAs achieving their ecological goals to distinguish them from open areas and justify the cost of protection. We assessed the social perceptions and ecological effectiveness of 18 partially protected areas and 19 fully protected areas compared with 19 open areas along 7000 km of coast of southern Australia. We used mixed methods, gathering data via semistructured interviews, site surveys, and Reef Life (underwater visual census) surveys. We analyzed qualitative data in accordance with grounded theory and quantitative data with multivariate and univariate linear mixed-effects models. We found no social or ecological benefits for partially protected areas relative to open areas in our study. Partially protected areas had no more fish, invertebrates, or algae than open areas; were poorly understood by coastal users; were not more attractive than open areas; and were not perceived to have better marine life than open areas. These findings provide an important counterpoint to some large-scale meta-analyses that conclude partially protected areas can be ecologically effective but that draw this conclusion based on narrower measures. We argue that partially protected areas act as red herrings in marine conservation because they create an illusion of protection and consume scarce conservation resources yet provide little or no social or ecological gain over open areas. Fully protected areas, by contrast, have more fish species and biomass and are well understood, supported, and valued by the public. They are perceived to have better marine life and be improving over time in keeping with actual ecological results. Conservation outcomes can be improved by upgrading partially protected areas to higher levels of protection including conversion to fully protected areas.

Project description:BackgroundThere is global pressure to protect more of the world's oceans, primarily to protect biodiversity, and to fulfill the "30 by 30" goal set by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) that has recently been ratified under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework at the fifteenth Conference of Parties (COP-15). Fully protected marine protected areas (MPAs) provide the highest level of protection for biodiversity from destructive or extractive practices and may limit access to the area itself. Fully protected MPAs (also commonly referred to as 'no-take MPAs') ban all fishing activities, thereby removing the realisation of direct economic and social benefits from resource extraction within these areas. However, fully protected MPAs can still act as source of productivity to surrounding areas, while also providing an important scientific reference role for off-reserve management thereby providing indirect economic and social outcomes, as well as biodiversity benefits. Sustainable marine resource management strives to achieve 'triple-bottom line' benefits, where economic, social, and biodiversity benefits are maximised in managed areas of the ocean. Implementing 'partially protected' areas (PPAs) in areas of high biodiversity value (i.e., inshore, productive areas of the ocean) that allow for some extractive activities, may allow us to supplement fully MPAs to meet IUCN conservation goals, while maximising social and economic benefits. However, our current understanding lacks explicit quantitative assessments of whether and how PPAs can benefit (or otherwise) biodiversity, while also providing economic and social benefits. This study provides a method to systematically review the scientific and legislative literature to understand how PPAs may contribute to conserving biodiversity while also providing social and economic benefits to Australia.Methods and expected outputsThe implementation of partially protected areas (PPAs) requires careful consideration of many potentially competing factors, and an understanding of the types of partial protection already in place in a region. We have developed a systematic literature review protocol focussing on the primary research question: "What is the current state of partially protected area (PPA) implementation across Australian marine areas?". The aim of the review is to provide marine resource managers with a comprehensive overview of PPAs in Australia, including associated goals and stated management strategies to achieve these goals, and a methodological approach that may be utilised globally. The review protocol was designed by the research team for a Fisheries Resource and Development Corporation (FRDC) strategic research grant and will seek input from a project steering committee for the project on aggregation of the initial results. The steering committee is made up of stakeholders from a wide range of backgrounds and interests, covering marine conservation, fisheries management, Indigenous values, and academic research in Australia. Multiple academic databases, alongside Australian Federal, State, and Territory legislation and related policies will be reviewed using Boolean keyword search strings for both academic databases and relevant grey literature. Results from eligible documents will be compiled and insights from the review collated to provide information on the status of PPA implementation in Australia.

Project description:Nature-based tourism has the potential to enhance global biodiversity conservation by providing alternative livelihood strategies for local people, which may alleviate poverty in and around protected areas. Despite the popularity of the concept of nature-based tourism as an integrated conservation and development tool, empirical research on its actual socioeconomic benefits, on the distributional pattern of these benefits, and on its direct driving factors is lacking, because relevant long-term data are rarely available. In a multi-year study in Wolong Nature Reserve, China, we followed a representative sample of 220 local households from 1999 to 2007 to investigate the diverse benefits that these households received from recent development of nature-based tourism in the area. Within eight years, the number of households directly participating in tourism activities increased from nine to sixty. In addition, about two-thirds of the other households received indirect financial benefits from tourism. We constructed an empirical household economic model to identify the factors that led to household-level participation in tourism. The results reveal the effects of local households' livelihood assets (i.e., financial, human, natural, physical, and social capitals) on the likelihood to participate directly in tourism. In general, households with greater financial (e.g., income), physical (e.g., access to key tourism sites), human (e.g., education), and social (e.g., kinship with local government officials) capitals and less natural capital (e.g., cropland) were more likely to participate in tourism activities. We found that residents in households participating in tourism tended to perceive more non-financial benefits in addition to more negative environmental impacts of tourism compared with households not participating in tourism. These findings suggest that socioeconomic impact analysis and change monitoring should be included in nature-based tourism management systems for long-term sustainability of protected areas.

Dataset Information

Do Protected Areas Matter? A Systematic Review of the Social and Ecological Impacts of the Establishment of Protected Areas.

Publications

Do Protected Areas Matter? A Systematic Review of the Social and Ecological Impacts of the Establishment of Protected Areas.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets