» Articles » PMID: 35145352

An Outcome-Oriented, Social-Ecological Framework for Assessing Protected Area Effectiveness

Overview
Journal Bioscience
Date 2022 Feb 11
PMID 35145352
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Both the number and the extent of protected areas have grown considerably in recent years, but evaluations of their effectiveness remain partial and are hard to compare across cases. To overcome this situation, first, we suggest reserving the term effectiveness solely for assessing protected area outcomes, to clearly distinguish this from management assessments (e.g., sound planning). Second, we propose a multidimensional conceptual framework, rooted in social-ecological theory, to assess effectiveness along three complementary dimensions: ecological outcomes (e.g., biodiversity), social outcomes (e.g., well-being), and social-ecological interactions (e.g., reduced human pressures). Effectiveness indicators can subsequently be evaluated against contextual and management elements (e.g., design and planning) to shed light on management performance (e.g., cost-effectiveness). We summarize steps to operationalize our framework to foster more holistic effectiveness assessments while improving comparability across protected areas. All of this can ensure that protected areas make real contributions toward conservation and sustainability goals.

Citing Articles

How effective are protected areas for reducing threats to biodiversity? A systematic review protocol.

Pulido-Chadid K, Virtanen E, Geldmann J Environ Evid. 2024; 12(1):18.

PMID: 39294743 PMC: 11378842. DOI: 10.1186/s13750-023-00311-4.


Cryptic species conservation: a review.

Hending D Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2024; 100(1):258-274.

PMID: 39234845 PMC: 11718601. DOI: 10.1111/brv.13139.


Reviewing the science on 50 years of conservation: Knowledge production biases and lessons for practice.

Dawson N, Coolsaet B, Bhardwaj A, Brown D, Lliso B, Loos J Ambio. 2024; 53(10):1395-1413.

PMID: 39023682 PMC: 11383897. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-024-02049-w.


Assessing the influence of landscape conservation and protected areas on social wellbeing using random forest machine learning.

Fisher J, Allen S, Yetman G, Pistolesi L Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):11357.

PMID: 38762670 PMC: 11102467. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-61924-4.


Tourists' valuation of nature in protected areas: A systematic review.

Gross M, Pearson J, Arbieu U, Riechers M, Thomsen S, Martin-Lopez B Ambio. 2023; 52(6):1065-1084.

PMID: 37071324 PMC: 10160295. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-023-01845-0.

References
1.
Joppa L, OConnor B, Visconti P, Smith C, Geldmann J, Hoffmann M . BIG DATA AND BIODIVERSITY. Filling in biodiversity threat gaps. Science. 2016; 352(6284):416-8. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf3565. View

2.
Gavin M, Solomon J, Blank S . Measuring and monitoring illegal use of natural resources. Conserv Biol. 2009; 24(1):89-100. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01387.x. View

3.
Zafra-Calvo N, Garmendia E, Pascual U, Palomo I, Gross-Camp N, Brockington D . Progress toward Equitably Managed Protected Areas in Aichi Target 11: A Global Survey. Bioscience. 2019; 69(3):191-197. PMC: 6429033. DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biy143. View

4.
Cumming G, Allen C . Protected areas as social-ecological systems: perspectives from resilience and social-ecological systems theory. Ecol Appl. 2017; 27(6):1709-1717. DOI: 10.1002/eap.1584. View

5.
Andam K, Ferraro P, Pfaff A, Sanchez-Azofeifa G, Robalino J . Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008; 105(42):16089-94. PMC: 2567237. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0800437105. View