Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Short-Term Projects versus Adaptive Governance: Conflicting Demands in the Management of Ecological Restoration
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
The Community-Conservation Conundrum: Is Citizen Science the Answer?
 
 
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Evidence for Biodiversity Conservation in Protected Landscapes

1
Equilibrium Research, 47 The Quays, Spike Island, Cumberland Road, Bristol BS1 6UQ, UK
2
School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
3
30 Painswick Road, Cheltenham GL50 2HA, UK
4
Conservation & Development, Bahnhofstr. 9, Laufenburg 79725, Germany
5
Oldtownhill Associates and IUCN-WCPA Protected Landscape Specialist Group, Newbury, MA 01951, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 20 September 2016 / Revised: 25 October 2016 / Accepted: 26 October 2016 / Published: 4 November 2016
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity in Locally Managed Lands)

Abstract

:
A growing number of protected areas are defined by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as protected landscapes and seascapes, or category V protected areas, one of six protected area categories based on management approach. Category V now makes up over half the protected area coverage in Europe, for instance. While the earliest category V areas were designated mainly for their landscape and recreational values, they are increasingly expected also to protect biodiversity. Critics have claimed that they fail to conserve enough biodiversity. The current paper addresses this question by reviewing available evidence for the effectiveness of category V in protecting wild biodiversity by drawing on published information and a set of case studies. Research to date focuses more frequently on changes in vegetation cover than on species, and results are limited and contradictory, suggesting variously that category V protected areas are better than, worse than or the same as more strictly protected categories in terms of conserving biodiversity. This may indicate that differences are not dramatic, or that effectiveness depends on many factors. The need for greater research in this area is highlighted. Research gaps include: (i) comparative studies of conservation success inside and outside category V protected areas; (ii) the contribution that small, strictly protected areas make to the conservation success of surrounding, less strictly protected areas—and vice versa; (iii) the effectiveness of different governance approaches in category V; (iv) a clearer understanding of the impacts of zoning in a protected area; and (v) better understanding of how to implement landscape approaches in and around category V protected areas.

1. Introduction

A growing number of protected areas, particularly—but by no means only in Europe, are defined by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as protected landscapes/seascapes, or more formally as category V protected areas; “where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant ecological, biological, cultural and scenic value: and where safeguarding the integrity of this interaction is vital to protecting and sustaining the area and its associated nature conservation and other values” [1]. IUCN identifies six different protected area management categories (see Table 1), of which category V, protected landscapes/seascapes, is the least strictly protected Category VI, the other less strict management regime, gives protection to broadly natural ecosystems which nonetheless provide a sustainable off-take, such as fish or rubber tapped from native trees.
Category V protected areas are neither natural ecosystems nor “wilderness” areas, but rather cultural landscapes that in spite of, or even because of, their long history of human use often contain important biodiversity. Over the past two decades, protected landscapes have increasingly been designated as protected areas in many parts of the world [2]. Currently, there are about 7.3 million km2 of protected areas reported under IUCN Category V, some 18% of total area of protected areas with an IUCN Category and a considerably higher proportion of terrestrial protected areas [3]. Governments are introducing new designations based on category V management objectives, using a range of governance types [4]. Since 1992 inclusion of a Cultural Landscape designation in the World Heritage Convention has led to the inscription of many World Heritage Cultural Landscapes, with considerable overlap between these sites and category V protected areas [5,6]. In parallel, conservation initiatives such Satoyama, a traditional form of land management originating in Japan and now promoted in other countries [7] and designations such as Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems are further advancing what might be referred to as a “protected landscape approach” [8], even if they are not all officially recognized as category V protected areas.
The earliest places now recognised as category V protected areas were established mainly to preserve scenic beauty, influenced by the aesthetics of Romanticism [9] and to provide urban populations with access to the countryside. The physical and political battles to access high moors above the cities of Sheffield and Manchester were an important stimulus for the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act and helped create the UK’s first protected landscape, the Peak District National Park, designated in 1951 [10]. Throughout Europe [11] and North America [12] the earliest national parks were promoted primarily on the basis of scenery, access and recreation, rather than wildlife conservation [13].
Over time the protected landscape concept has expanded to give greater prominence to nature conservation, cultural heritage, ecosystem services and sustainability models. As countries took a greater interest in biodiversity, managers of protected landscapes have investigated options for strengthening the conservation outcomes. The Satoyama Initiative, launched in Japan in 2010, aims to improve links between biodiversity conservation and cultural landscapes [14]. Natura 2000 legislation in the European Union means that many established protected landscapes are now required to deliver specific conservation objectives that were not always identified when they were first designated.
A seminal workshop held in 1987 in the English Lake District compiled a list of protected landscape values [15], which included the conservation of wild biodiversity; the relative importance of this aim has increased in the years since. A growing number of developing country governments are also attracted by the flexibility that category V offers, rather than more exclusionary conservation approaches, and because they can help to buffer or link more strictly protected areas [16,17]. While “national parks” are often seen in many countries as serving the interests of the rich at the expense of the poor, or as a vestige of colonial occupation, “protected landscapes” can claim to build more on local values and traditions and thus they often receive stronger support. In Madagascar, for instance, a “Malagasy-specific” definition of category V has been developed, suitable for the country’s particular cultural and social conditions [18]. As part of Ecuador’s new Law of Culture, the designation “Ecuadorian Heritage Cultural Landscape” has been proposed, based on values of Ecuadorian identity and sustaining biocultural diversity and heritage in the Andean sense of “patrimony” [19]. The province of Québec has created a designation called paysage humanisé (or “living landscape”), in keeping with category V and modelled after the Regional Nature Parks of France and Belgium, as a means of increasing biodiversity conservation while encouraging sustainable rural development [20].
The IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas has a Specialist Group focused on protected landscapes/seascapes, which serves as a platform for documenting and presenting experience worldwide, mobilizing global expertise, and developing guidance on protected landscapes. It was tasked with providing best practice guidance [21], documenting experience worldwide [8] and investigating different values of category V protected areas such as agrobiodiversity [22] and spiritual values [23].
But the concept has also had important detractors, claiming that protected landscapes are not sufficiently focused on delivering conservation benefits [24]. Critics have claimed that some governments see category V as an “easy option” that does not require major cost, and apply the concept casually and carelessly. In 2005, Locke and Dearden [25] argued that both protected landscapes and sustainable use reserves (IUCN category VI), whilst of cultural and often economic value, had no automatic biodiversity value and should not be “counted” as protected areas. These criticisms generated some considered responses [26], The ensuing debate helped to stimulate a thorough re-examination of the purpose and meaning of protected areas, including protected landscapes, and about the relative conservation benefits of different types of protected areas. Others have argued that the importance of protected landscapes in terms of conserving agro-biodiversity, cultural and spiritual values were additional reasons that justified the approach [22,23]. Critics of the category V protected area model remain sceptical about its value [27].
The biodiversity conservation effectiveness of category V protected areas is particularly important in those places where protected landscapes and seascapes make up a substantial proportion of the conservation estate. For example, in Europe over half the area of protected areas is designated as category V [11], If use of the protected landscape category does not conserve biodiversity then European conservation strategies are in deep trouble [28].

2. Do Protected Landscapes Conserve Biodiversity Effectively?

There are actually two related questions: do category V protected areas have a unique role in protecting culturally adapted wild biodiversity; and do protected landscapes work effectively in protecting wild biodiversity? [29]. Although “biodiversity” is stressed here, implying all ecosystems, species and genetic diversity, it is noted that most studies focus on a few species or particular habitat types.

2.1. Do Category V Protected Areas Have a Unique Role in Conserving Culturally Adapted Wild Biodiversity?

Some researchers regard category V sites as places where wild plant and animal species are so adapted to human management patterns that they will decline if management is removed.
This assumes a unique role for protected landscapes that could not be duplicated in more strictly protected reserves, and remains controversial. For example, many ecologists believe that the millennia-old landscape mosaic of traditional farming in the Mediterranean is now an essential factor in maintaining its biodiversity values. They argue that it is richer in diversity than the original ecosystem [30] and that abandoning (or changing) existing management would reduce biodiversity [31], both of animals [32], and plants [33]. Santos and Thorne [34] identify multi-purpose management as a necessary conservation strategy to avoid “over-maturity” of woodlands and scrub invasion. However, others argue that the emphasis on cultural systems in the Mediterranean under-values ecosystems that develop naturally [35]: a less managed ecosystem will likely have different species but not necessarily of less conservation value. Whether or not cultural landscapes are essential to maintaining biodiversity is therefore partly dependent on the conservation objectives. Category V may have an important role in maintaining those land use systems that give rise to cultural landscapes which are valued for their biodiversity. Examples include: flower-rich chalk pastures grazed by sheep; some upland moorland grazing systems that support good bird habitat; seasonally grazed Alpine pastures with abundant wild flowers; and productive Mediterranean cork oak agro-sylvo-pastoral systems, for example the Iberian dehesa. The role of protected landscapes in sustaining genetic diversity in the form of agrobiodiversity has been documented [36].
Protected landscapes may be important here in providing a policy and economic framework to support these values. Maintaining traditional management to conserve associated biodiversity is only possible if people managing the land agree to adhere to those traditions. Drivers in maintaining traditional (and often economically inefficient) management systems include long-standing cultural expectations, a personal sense of stewardship, and financial or other incentives. Negotiating the various trade-offs involved is a key element of protected landscape management [37].

2.2. Do Protected Landscapes Work Effectively in Protecting Wild Biodiversity?

A more fundamental issue is whether or not a protected landscape approach can help to maintain or restore wild biodiversity in a more general sense. This is particularly important because if a protected landscape is to be recognised as a protected area by IUCN, it must be managed in ways that give priority to the conservation of nature—though “nature” in this context includes geodiversity as well as biodiversity. It is known that protected areas do not invariably protect large mammals [38], but that well-managed protected areas are more effective conservation tools than most other management approaches [39,40]. However, relatively few comparative studies of effectiveness have addressed protected landscapes [41] or compared effectiveness across different IUCN categories.
Category V has to date been relatively under-represented in management effectiveness studies. To compound the problem, most management effectiveness methodologies are weakest in relation to reflecting biodiversity outcomes [42]. Moreover, some of the commonest assessment methods, such as the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool, METT [43] and RAPPAM [44], base assessment mainly on the opinions of key stakeholders (usually the protected area manager and staff). Many academics, NGOs and governments assume that category V (and category VI) protected areas are less effective in conserving biodiversity than stricter approaches in protected areas [45,46]. NGOs like WWF and Conservation International often simply omit categories V and VI from ecoregional plans and gap analyses, at least in the tropics.
However, a series of meta-studies and individual research projects have suggested that “softer”, more community-based approaches can be more effective in conserving biodiversity, at least in some situations, than “harder”, exclusionary conservation management.
A study from the World Bank used fire occurrence as a surrogate for deforestation and found that strict protected areas substantially reduced fire incidence in Asia and Latin America, but that multiple use protected areas, including indigenous peoples’ reserves, were even more effective [47]. A recent meta-analysis comparing strictly protected areas with community-managed forests (a number of which were also defined as category V protected areas) suggested that the latter had lower and less variable annual deforestation rates [48]. A study across 49 protected areas in 22 countries found protected area category to be insignificant in predicting amount of land clearing [49]. Analysis of 1788 protected areas in Latin America found category V protected areas around the median of all categories in terms of vegetation loss [50]. Joppa et al. [51] looking at natural vegetation cover in protected areas found little difference between different categories, except in West Africa where categories V and VI performed less well than stricter forms of protection. A recent study of species richness and abundance inside and outside protected areas found no significant difference between different groups of categories [52]. The most recent global analysis of protected area performance based on individual management effectiveness studies considered over 8000 assessments of protected areas [53]. Although 86 per cent of protected areas surveyed showed at least some level of effective functioning, this global analysis did not attempt a detailed breakdown of effectiveness by category.
This generally positive link with protected landscapes has not been found in all studies. Andam et al. [54] found deforestation less in category I and II protected areas than in other categories and Bradshaw et al. [46] report that stricter protection is more effective, as did Coetzee et al. [40]. Analysis of threatened species in Australia found that species overlapping category I–IV protected areas had a high number of stable or increasing populations, but found no comparable change in categories V and VI [55]. Comparison of categories in protected areas in four countries—Indonesia, Thailand, Costa Rica and Bolivia—found stricter protection reduced forest loss more than less strict protection, but the differences were not large and sometimes a function of site selection. The authors concluded that strictness of protection is not always more effective [56]. Finally research using the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool identified a highly significant association between category and management effectiveness, with more strictly protected areas having higher scores for biodiversity conservation—categories Ia, Ib and II being most effective, III and IV in the middle and V and VI least effective [57]. The limitations here are that, as noted above, the METT is relatively weak at measuring biodiversity outcomes; also the proportion of category V protected areas in the sample was very small. METT data therefore need to be treated with some caution here.
Information is even more limited for marine environments. Research on sharks in the Australian Great Barrier Reef Marine Park found that they were only being effectively conserved in the strictly protected (category Ia) zones of the reserve [58]. On the other hand, an analysis of marine protected area (MPA) effectiveness throughout Australia discovered little difference between the categories [59]. A review of over a hundred studies showed strikingly higher fish populations inside the no-take reserves compared with surrounding areas [60], although no-take zones can be, and are, designated within category V MPAs. Effectiveness in MPAs has also been linked to a combination of strong governance structures and community engagement [61] suggesting that management objectives may be less influential than effectiveness of governance.
It should be noted that many studies are limited in the types of biodiversity that they consider, often focusing on forest cover or a few species. Many also tend to concentrate on ecosystems under stress, such as tropical forests, and thus do not provide an unbiased sample of conditions around the world. Furthermore, categories V and VI are assessed together in some studies, although they are markedly different management regimes. All these factors highlight the need for more detailed studies.
There is also a small but growing number of studies of individual category V protected areas. Research in Catalonia, Spain found that protected landscapes provided habitat for rare species, including predators like bear and lynx [62]. Studies by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in the UK found that there were quantifiable benefits for wild species in British category V protected areas [63]. Evidence on the positive role of traditional farming methods in conservation has long existed in the Mediterranean region [64]. Research in the Lombardy plain in Italy found that natural habitats declined less, and bird diversity was significantly higher, in protected landscapes than in areas outside protection [65]. The protected landscape approach has more generally been used successfully as the basis for species conservation strategies under the European Union’s Natura 2000 network, particularly in the Mediterranean, including maintaining corridors between more strictly protected areas [66]. Dudley and Stolton [67] collected case studies that describe in detail links between protected landscapes and wild biodiversity conservation around the world (Table 2).

3. Discussion

Given the importance attached to protected landscapes and seascapes as conservation vehicles, for example in Europe where they make up over half the protected area estate [11], it is surprising and rather alarming how comparatively few attempts have been made to assess their effectiveness. Furthermore, many of the studies that have taken place are simple comparisons of biodiversity (usually species or ecosystem types) inside and outside protected areas, without taking account of other potential variables. Lack of consideration of counterfactuals further limits confidence in the conclusions. Apart from a few very regionally specific studies, there is still insufficient quantitative evidence about whether or not protected landscapes and seascapes are successful in protecting threatened biodiversity. Even those studies that use the IUCN categories in analysing management effectiveness generally do so by using groups of categories rather than considering individual ones, such as protected landscapes. While the examples collected here show that there are clearly cases where a protected landscape approach has likely been successful (and successful where other stricter approaches would probably have failed), there is also evidence which suggests that this is not always the case. Unless a clearer picture is developed of what is happening in protected landscapes and why, what works and does not work, and the steps that can help to improve the chances of success, there is a risk of seeing further decline in biodiversity.
A series of research projects are needed to fill gaps in knowledge. Amongst the issues that need to be addressed are the following [41]:
(i)
comparative studies of conservation success inside and outside established protected landscapes and seascapes, including comparisons with analogous protected areas in more restrictive management categories;
(ii)
identifying the contribution that small, strictly protected areas or core zones make to the conservation success of surrounding, less strictly protected areas—and vice versa;
(iii)
comparison of the effectiveness of different governance types and governance approaches within protected landscapes with respect to both effectiveness of conservation and long-term motivation to protect biodiversity;
(iv)
a clearer understanding of the impacts of zoning within a protected area; and
(v)
a better understanding of how to implement landscape approaches [68]: within protected landscapes and seascapes; between category V protected areas and other protected areas in different categories; and between category V protected areas and surrounding management types which are not protected areas.
(vi)
the specific legal and technical tools, including dedicated monitoring programmes, which are required for protected landscapes management. See Mallarach et al. [26].
This research needs to be conducted in parallel with other actions to strengthen information about protected areas of all kinds. One issue, well recognized but poorly quantified, is that countries apply protected area categories in different ways; some places that are designated as category II are managed more like category V for example, further confusing attempts at understanding relative effectiveness.
While all these analyses will be challenging, none should be impossible. The fact that many protected landscapes are found in the richer countries means that time-series data will often already be present, enabling mapping of the relative success of bird and plant conservation inside and outside protected areas, even at a fine scale. The growing interest in “other effective area-based conservation measures”, following their emergence as a topic of investigation from within the Convention on Biological Diversity, means that many governments are adopting more imaginative ways of addressing conservation [69].
In building a research portfolio, category V protected areas offer additional options for working with resident communities in data collection, both in deciding what to measure and how. Recognising that long settled local communities and indigenous peoples often know more about resident wild species than incoming scientists, collaborative approaches that incorporate traditional ecological knowledge will be key. The role of community monitoring in category V protected areas is being developed and refined [70], with work focusing on the best indicators related to particular knowledge within communities [71] and the social process of agreeing indicators [72]. Such monitoring will only be successful if stakeholders are comfortable about sharing information [73], which in turn relates to the overall governance structure, power relations and social interactions within the landscape. The process of deciding what data to collect can itself be a valuable learning process for managers and communities, as has been recognised in Australia [74].
This review also suggests that there is still much to be learned about management of protected landscapes and that some traditional ideas may need to be modified. “Safeguarding the integrity of the interaction” means more than simply freezing things as they are. It would be fair to say that managing change in protected landscapes remains a challenge that has still to be successfully addressed by many managers and policy makers. In changing conditions, managers might take the cultural landscape as a starting point but then build in deliberate interventions to increase the chances of particular species and groups surviving, whilst acknowledging that management will change over time—as will the biodiversity features. Instead of halting management at a particular historical juncture, innovative category V plans will need to acknowledge that management within a landscape will change and that managers must work, often with many different types of landowners, to implement a landscape approach to conservation: for example altering grazing patterns, retaining old trees, conversely opening up woodland habitats, restoring wetlands, replanting slopes and so on. Protected landscapes play a role here, both within the wider landscape approaches and by providing exemplars of how conservation might take place in other places with longstanding cultural management traditions. The fact that so little is known about the conservation benefits from such sites is a cause for concern. Filling these knowledge gaps needs to be a priority for conservation research over the next few years.

4. Conclusions

The rather limited data available on the effectiveness of protected landscapes and seascapes gives results that suggest variously that they are better than, worse than or the same as more strictly protected categories in terms of conserving wild biodiversity. This may imply that differences are not particularly dramatic, or that effectiveness varies depending on many other factors such as biome, the particular management regime in place, or the attitudes of resident and nearby human communities. It is also clear from this survey that decisive evidence is still lacking.
Category V protected landscapes are often applied in situations where stricter forms of protection are politically or socially impossible; to some extent comparing them with strict reserves is irrelevant because in many cases the choice will be between category V and no protected area at all. Nonetheless, as long as national and regional conservation strategies rely on category V for biodiversity conservation strategies it remains important to know how well they perform at this particular task.
The research gaps identified in the discussion section above, relating to comparative effectiveness of category V, role of smaller reserves, impacts of governance and the most effective management frameworks, all need to be addressed with some urgency. Other issues, such as the potential for protected landscapes to provide connectivity, for instance along migration routes, and the potential for category V areas to enhance socio-ecological resilience in the face of climate and other changes might also usefully be explored. At least some of the information required to build a more complete picture of the role of protected area landscapes and seascapes is probably already available, but—it seems—still needs to be fine-tuned, brought together and analysed. Doing so should help to strengthen management in a type of a protected area that is being used more and more.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) for funding the set of case studies outlined in Table 2, and to José Alba, David Barton Bray, Fikret Berkes, Miguel Neema Pathak Broome, Brioes-Salas, Elvira Duran, Goran Gugic, Nandita Hazarika, Ben Hoffmann, Jörg Liesen, Rito Mabunda, Agnieszka Pawlowska, Martina Porzelt, Julia Premauer, James Robson, Steve Roeger, Phil Wise, Dijana Zupan and Irina Zupan for preparing the studies. We are also grateful to the members of the World Commission on Protected Areas Protected Landscapes Specialists Group for many discussions on these issues over the last decade. No funding was received for the current paper.

Author Contributions

N.D. wrote the initial text, which was then edited and modified by A.P., T.A., J.B. and S.S.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Dudley, N. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories; International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN): Gland, Switzerland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  2. Juffe-Bignoli, D.; Burgess, N.D.; Bingham, H.; Belle, E.M.S.; de Lima, M.G.; Deguignet, M.; Bertzky, B.; Milam, A.N.; Martinez-Lopez, J.; Lewis, E.; et al. Protected Planet Report 2014; United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC): Cambridge, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  3. UNEP-WCMC; IUCN. Protected Planet Report 2016; UNEP-WCMC: Cambridge, UK; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, J. Bringing together nature and culture: Integrating a landscape approach in protected areas policy and practice. In Nature Policies and Landscape Policies: Towards an Alliance; Gambino, R., Peano, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Germany, 2015; pp. 33–42. [Google Scholar]
  5. Phillips, A. Cultural landscapes: IUCN’S changing vision of protected areas. In Cultural Landscapes: The Challenges of Conservation; Rössler, M., Ed.; World Heritage Centre: Paris, France, 2003; pp. 40–49. [Google Scholar]
  6. Finke, G. Landscape Interfaces: World Heritage Cultural Landscapes and IUCN Protected Areas; International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN): Gland, Switzerland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  7. Takeuchi, K.; Ichikawa, K.; Elmqvist, T. Satoyama landscape as social-ecological system: Historical changes and future perspective. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2016, 19, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Brown, J.; Mitchell, N.; Beresford, M. The Protected Landscape Approach: Linking Nature, Culture and Community; International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN): Gland, Switzerland, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  9. Hourahane, S.; Stolton, S.; Falzon, C.; Dudley, N. Landscape aesthetics and changing cultural values in the British national parks. In Protected Landscapes and Cultural and Spiritual Values; Mallarach, J.M., Ed.; Kasparek Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; Volume 2, pp. 177–189. [Google Scholar]
  10. Hey, D. Kinder scout and the legend of the mass trespass. Agric. Hist. Rev. 2011, 59, 199–216. [Google Scholar]
  11. Gambino, R.; Talamo, D.; Thomasset, F. Parchi d’europa. Verso una Politica Europea per le aree Protette; ETS Edizioni: Pisa, Italy, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  12. Center, H.F. The National Parks: Shaping the System; National Park Service, Department of the Interior: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
  13. Burchardt, J. Paradise Lost: Rural Idyll and Social Change since 1800; I.B. Taurus: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  14. Kadoya, T.; Washitani, I. The satoyama index: A biodiversity indicator for agricultural landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 140, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lucas, P.H.C. Protected Landscapes: A Guide for Policy Makers and Planners; Chapman and Hall: London, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  16. Sarmiento, F.O.; Rodríguez, G.; Argumedo, A. Cultural landscapes of the Andes: Indigenous and colono culture, traditional knowledge and ethno-ecological heritage. In The Protected Landscape Approach: Linking Nature, Culture and Community; Brown, J., Mitchel, N., Beresford, M., Eds.; International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN): Gland, Switzerland; Cambridge, UK, 2005; pp. 143–156. [Google Scholar]
  17. Jones, B.T.B.; Okello, M.; Wishitemi, B.E.L. Pastoralists, conservation and livelihoods in east and southern Africa: Reconciling continuity and change through the protected landscape approach. In The Protected Landscape Approach: Linking Nature, Culture and Community; Brown, J., Mitchell, N., Beresford, M., Eds.; International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN): Gland, Switzerland, 2005; pp. 107–118. [Google Scholar]
  18. Borrini-Feyerabend, G.; Dudley, N. Elan durban: Nouvelles Perspectives pour les aires Protégées à Madagascar; International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN); World Commisson on Protected Areas (WCPA); Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP): Gland, Switzerland, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  19. Sarmiento, F.; Viteri, X. Discursive heritage: Sustaining Andean cultural landscapes amidst environmental change. In Conserving Cultural Landscapes: Challenges and New Directions; Taylor, K., Mitchell, N.J., St. Clair, A., Eds.; Routledge Press: London, UK; Taylor & Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 309–324. [Google Scholar]
  20. Blattel, A.; Gagnon, G.; Côté, J.; Brown, J. Conserving agro-biodiversity on the gaspé peninsula of Québec, Canada: A potential role for paysage humanisé designation. In Protected Landscapes and Agro-Biodiversity Values; Amend, T., Brown, J., Kothari, A., Phillips, A., Stolton, S., Eds.; Kasparek Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 96–104. [Google Scholar]
  21. Phillips, A. Management Guidelines for Category V Protected Areas–Protected Landscapes and Seascapes; International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN): Gland, Switzerland; Cambridge, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  22. Amend, T.; Brown, J.; Kothari, A.; Phillips, A.; Stolton, S. Protected Landscapes and Agrobiodiversity Values; Kasparek Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  23. Mallarach, J.M. Protected Landscapes and Cultural and Spiritual Values; Kasparek Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  24. McEwen, A.; McEwen, M. National Parks: Conservation or Cosmetics? George Allen and Unwin: London, UK, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  25. Locke, H.; Dearden, P. Rethinking protected area categories and the new paradigm. Environ. Conserv. 2005, 32, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mallarach, J.M.; Morrison, J.; Kothari, A.; Sarmiento, F.; Atauri, J.A.; Wishitemi, B. In defense of protected landscapes: A reply to some criticisms of category v protected areas and suggestions for improvement. In Defining Protected Areas: An International Conference in Almeria, Spain; Dudley, N., Stolton, S., Eds.; International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN): Gland, Switzerland, 2008; pp. 31–37. [Google Scholar]
  27. Shafer, C.L. Cautionary thoughts on IUCN protected area management categories v–vi. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2015, 3, 331–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dudley, N.; Stolton, S. An assessment of the role of protected landscapes in conserving biodiversity in Europe. In Nature Policies and Landscape Policies: Towards an Alliance; Gambino, R., Peano, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Germany, 2015; pp. 315–322. [Google Scholar]
  29. Dudley, N. Why is biodiversity conservation important in protected landscapes? George Wright Forum 2009, 26, 31–38. [Google Scholar]
  30. Atauri, J.A.; de Lucio, J.V. The role of landscape structure in species richness distribution of birds, amphibians, reptiles and lepidopterans in mediterranean landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 2001, 16, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. González Bernáldez, F. Ecological consequences of the abandonment of traditional land use systems in central Spain. In Land Abandonment and Its Role in Conservation; Baudry, J., Bunce, R.G.H., Eds.; Options Méditerranéennes: Série A. Séminaires Méditerranéens; CIHEAM: Zaragoza, Spain, 1991; Volume 15, pp. 23–29. [Google Scholar]
  32. Pino, J.; Rodà, F.; Ribas, J.; Pons, X. Landscape structure and bird species richness: Implications for conservation in rural areas between natural parks. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2000, 49, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rescia, A.J.; Schmitz, M.F.; Martín de Agar, P.; de Pablo, C.L.; Atauri, J.A.; Pineda, F.D. Influence of landscape complexity and land management on woody plant diversity in Northern Spain. J. Veg. Sci. 1994, 5, 505–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Santos, M.J.; Thorne, J.H. Comparing culture and ecology: Conservation planning of oak woodlands in Mediterranean landscapes of portugal and california. Environ. Conserv. 2010, 37, 155–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Schnitzler, A.; Génot, J.C.; Wintz, M.; Hale, B.W. Naturalness and conservation in France. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2008, 21, 423–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Brown, J.; Kothari, A. Traditional agricultural landscapes and community conserved areas: An overview. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2011, 22, 139–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Maginnis, S.; Jackson, W.; Dudley, N. Conservation landscapes: Whose landscapes? Whose trade-offs? In Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work; McShane, T.O., Wells, M.P., Eds.; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 321–339. [Google Scholar]
  38. Craigie, I.D.; Baillie, J.E.M.; Balmford, A.; Carbone, C.; Collen, B.; Green, R.E.; Hutton, J.M. Large mammal population declines in Africa’s protected areas. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 2221–2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Geldmann, J.; Barnes, M.; Coad, L.; Craigie, I.D.; Hockings, M.; Burgess, N.D. Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 161, 230–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Coetzee, B.W.T.; Gaston, K.J.; Chown, S.L. Local scale comparisons of biodiversity as a test for global protected area ecological performance: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e105824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Dudley, N.; Stolton, S. Protected area diversity and potential for improvement. In Protected Areas: Are They Safeguarding Biodiversity? Joppa, L., Baillie, J.E.M., Robinson, J.G., Eds.; Wiley Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2016; pp. 34–48. [Google Scholar]
  42. Hockings, M.; Stolton, S.; Dudley, N.; James, R. Data credibility: What are the “right” data for evaluating management effectiveness of protected areas? New Dir. Eval. 2009, 2009, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Stolton, S.; Hockings, M.; Dudley, N.; MacKinnon, K.; Whitten, T.; Leverington, F. Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool: Reporting Progress at Protected Area Sites; World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF): Gland, Switzerland; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  44. Ervin, J. Rapid assessment of protected area management effectiveness in four countries. BioScience 2003, 53, 833–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gardner, T.A.; Caro, T.I.M.; Fitzherbert, E.B.; Banda, T.; Lalbhai, P. Conservation value of multiple-use areas in East Africa. Conserv. Biol. 2007, 21, 1516–1525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Bradshaw, C.J.A.; Craigie, I.; Laurance, W.F. National emphasis on high-level protection reduces risk of biodiversity decline in tropical forest reserves. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 190, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Nelson, A.; Chomitz, K.M. Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: A global analysis using matching methods. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e22722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Porter-Bolland, L.; Ellis, E.A.; Guariguata, M.R.; Ruiz-Mallén, I.; Negrete-Yankelevich, S.; Reyes-García, V. Community managed forests and forest protected areas: An assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 268, 6–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Nagendra, H. Do parks work? Impact of protected areas on land cover clearing. Ambio J. Hum. Environ. 2008, 37, 330–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Leisher, C.; Touval, J.; Hess, S.; Boucher, T.; Reymondin, L. Land and forest degradation inside protected areas in Latin America. Diversity 2013, 5, 779–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Joppa, L.N.; Loarie, S.R.; Pimm, S.L. On the protection of “protected areas”. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 6673–6678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Gray, C.L.; Hill, S.L.L.; Newbold, T.; Hudson, L.N.; Borger, L.; Contu, S.; Hoskins, A.J.; Ferrier, S.; Purvis, A.; Scharlemann, J.P.W. Local biodiversity is higher inside than outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  53. Leverington, F.; Lemos Costa, K.; Courrau, J.; Pavese, H.; Nolte, C.; Marr, M.; Coad, L.; Burgess, N.; Bomhard, B.; Hockings, M. Management Effectiveness Evaluation in Protected Areas—A Global Study; The University of Queensland: Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  54. Andam, K.S.; Ferraro, P.J.; Pfaff, A.; Sanchez-Azofeifa, G.A.; Robalino, J.A. Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 16089–16094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Taylor, M.F.J.; Sattler, P.S.; Evans, M.; Fuller, R.A.; Watson, J.E.M.; Possingham, H.P. What works for threatened species recovery? An empirical evaluation for Australia. Biodivers. Conserv. 2011, 20, 767–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Paul, J.F.; Merlin, M.H.; Daniela, A.M.; Gustavo Javier, C.B.; Subhrendu, K.P.; Katharine, R.E.S. More strictly protected areas are not necessarily more protective: Evidence from Bolivia, Costa Rica, Indonesia, and Thailand. Environ. Res. Lett. 2013, 8, 025011. [Google Scholar]
  57. Dudley, N. Tracking Progress in Managing Protected Areas around the World: An Analysis of Two Applications of the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool Developed by WWF and the World Bank; World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF): Gland, Switzerland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  58. Robbins, W.D.; Hisano, M.; Connolly, S.R.; Choat, J.H. Ongoing collapse of coral-reef shark populations. Curr. Biol. 2006, 16, 2314–2319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Edgar, G.J.; Stuart-Smith, R.D. Ecological effects of marine protected areas on rocky reef communities—A continental-scale analysis. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2009, 388, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Halpern, B.S. The impact of marine reserves: Do reserves work and does reserve size matter? Ecol. Appl. 2003, 13, 117–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Pillans, S.; Ortiz, J.C.; Pillans, R.D.; Possingham, H.P. The impact of marine reserves on nekton diversity and community composition in subtropical eastern Australia. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 136, 455–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mallarach, J.M.; Varga, J.V. Evaluation of Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas in Catalonia (ei pein deu anys Després: Balanç i Perspectives, Diversitas: 50); Universitat de Girona: Girona, Italy, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  63. Robins, M. Protected landscapes: Sleeping giants of English biodiversity. ECOS 2008, 29, 74–86. [Google Scholar]
  64. Beaufoy, G.; Baldock, D.; Clark, J. The Nature of Farming: Low Intensity Farming Systems in Nine European Countries; Institute for European Environmental Policy: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  65. Canova, L. Protected areas and landscape conservation in the Lombardy plain (northern Italy): An appraisal. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 74, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. De La Guerra, M.M.; Fernández, J.; Alandi, C.; Olmos, P.; Atauri-Mezquida, J.; Montes del Olmo, C. Territorial Integration of Natural Protected Areas and Ecological Connectivity within Mediterranean Landscapes; Junta de Andalucía and Red des Espacios Naturales Protegidos de Andalucía: Seville, Spain, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  67. Dudley, N.; Stolton, S. Protected Landscapes and Wild Biodiversity; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  68. Sayer, J.; Sunderland, T.; Ghazoul, J.; Pfund, J.L.; Sheil, D.; Meijaard, E.; Venter, M.; Boedhihartono, A.K.; Day, M.; Garcia, C.; et al. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 8349–8356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Jonas, H.D.; Barbuto, V.; Jonas, H.C.; Kothari, A.; Nelson, F. New steps of change: Looking beyond protected areas to consider other effective area-based conservation measures. Parks 2014, 20, 111–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Danielsen, F.; Burgess, N.D.; Jensen, P.M.; Pirhofer-Walzl, K. Environmental monitoring: The scale and speed of implementation varies according to the degree of peoples involvement. J. Appl. Ecol. 2010, 47, 1166–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Karim, N. Local knowledge of indicator birds: Implications for community-based monitoring in Teknaf Game Reserve. In Connecting Communities and Conservation: Collaborative Management of Protected Areas in Bangladesh; Fox, J., Bushley, B.R., Miles, W.B., Quazi, S.A., Eds.; Robbins East-West Centre: Honolulu, HI, USA; Nishorgo Support Project, Bangladesh Forest Department: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2009; pp. 139–160. [Google Scholar]
  72. Steinmetz, R. Ecological Surveys, Monitoring and the Involvement of Local Peoples in Protected Areas in Lao PDR; International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED): London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  73. Neurauter, J.; Lui, X.; Liao, C. The role of Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Protected Area Management: A Case Study of Guanyinshan Nature Reserve, Shaanxi, China; Curtin University of Technology: Perth, WA, Australia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  74. Izurieta, A.; Sithole, B.; Stacey, N.; Hunter-Xenie, H.; Campbell, B.; Donohoe, P.; Brown, J.; Wilson, L. Developing indicators for monitoring and evaluating joint management effectiveness in protected areas in the northern territory, Australia. Ecol. Soc. 2011, 16, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Protected Area Management Categories. Source: Dudley, 2008 [1].
Table 1. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Protected Area Management Categories. Source: Dudley, 2008 [1].
No.NameDescription
IaStrict nature reserveStrictly protected areas set aside to protect biodiversity and also possibly geological/geomorphological features, where human visitation, use and impacts are strictly controlled and limited to ensure protection of the conservation values.
IbWilderness areaUsually large unmodified or slightly modified areas, retaining their natural character and influence, without permanent or significant human habitation, which are protected and managed so as to preserve their natural condition.
IINational parkLarge natural or near natural areas set aside to protect large-scale ecological processes, along with the species and ecosystems characteristic of the area, which also provide a foundation for environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities.
IIINatural monument or featureAreas set aside to protect a specific natural monument, which can be a landform, sea mount, submarine cavern, geological feature such as a cave or even a living feature such as an ancient grove.
IVHabitat/species management areaAreas that aim to protect particular species or habitats and where management reflects this priority. Many category IV protected areas will need regular, active interventions to address the requirements of particular species or to maintain habitats, but this is not a requirement of the category.
VProtected landscape or seascapeAn area where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant ecological, biological, cultural and scenic value: and where safeguarding the integrity of this interaction is vital to protecting and sustaining the area and its associated nature conservation and other values.
VIProtected areas with sustainable use of natural resourcesAreas which conserve ecosystems and habitats, together with associated cultural values and traditional natural resource management systems. They are generally large, with most of the area in a natural condition, where a proportion is under sustainable natural resource management and where low-level non-industrial use of natural resources compatible with nature conservation is seen as one of the main aims of the area.
Table 2. Examples of protected landscapes and seascapes conserving wild biodiversity. Source: Dudley and Stolton, 2012 [67].
Table 2. Examples of protected landscapes and seascapes conserving wild biodiversity. Source: Dudley and Stolton, 2012 [67].
CountryProtected AreaEcology and ManagementKey Species
CroatiaLonjske Polje Nature ParkSemi-natural floodplains, with pastures, ecotourism connected with storks nestingMany birds, black stork (Ciconia nigra), Eurasian spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia).
SpainSomiedo Natural ParkMountain pasture, upland agriculture and grazing, ecotourismNatural forests preventing fragmentation; brown bear (Ursus arctos arctos) and capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus).
GermanyLüneburger Heath Nature ParkHeathland areaBlack grouse (Tetrao tetrix).
MozambiqueMatibane Forest ReserveCoastal forest areaThreatened forest, especially endemic tree Icuria dunensis.
ColombiaMakuira National ParkConserving forest partly through conservation of sacred places and tabooImportant biogeographical island with high levels of biodiversity, numerous forests including cloud forest.
MexicoOaxaca community conservation areasWide variety of vegetation types scattered throughout the stateAround 70% of mammal species found in community areas (compared to 60% in strictly protected national parks).
IndiaKhonoma Nature Conservation and Tragopan SanctuarySmall area of forest conserved at village edgeIncluded in an Important Bird Area, species including Blyth’s tragopan (Tragopan blythii) and mammals such as clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa).
CanadaPoplar River InitiativeSustainable hunting reserve of First Nations, aimed for long-term management of beaver and other fur speciesBeaver (Castor canadensis), lynx (Lynx canadensis) and wolf (Canis lupus).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dudley, N.; Phillips, A.; Amend, T.; Brown, J.; Stolton, S. Evidence for Biodiversity Conservation in Protected Landscapes. Land 2016, 5, 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/land5040038

AMA Style

Dudley N, Phillips A, Amend T, Brown J, Stolton S. Evidence for Biodiversity Conservation in Protected Landscapes. Land. 2016; 5(4):38. https://doi.org/10.3390/land5040038

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dudley, Nigel, Adrian Phillips, Thora Amend, Jessica Brown, and Sue Stolton. 2016. "Evidence for Biodiversity Conservation in Protected Landscapes" Land 5, no. 4: 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/land5040038

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop