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?

Evidence for Biodiversity Conservation in Protected Landscapes

Equilibrium Research, 47 The Quays, Spike Island, Cumberland Road, Bristol BS1 6UQ, UK
School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
30 Painswick Road, Cheltenham GL50 2HA, UK
Conservation & Development, Bahnhofstr. 9, Laufenburg 79725, Germany
Oldtownhill Associates and IUCN-WCPA Protected Landscape Specialist Group, Newbury, MA 01951, USA
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: Jeffrey Sayer and Chris Margules
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)
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. View Full-Text
Keywords: protected landscape; IUCN category V; biodiversity conservation protected landscape; IUCN category V; biodiversity conservation
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.

AMA Style

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

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.

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

Article Access Map by Country/Region

Back to TopTop