Evidence for Biodiversity Conservation in Protected Landscapes

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.

Biodiversity in Locally Managed Lands

“…We have encountered numerous examples of community organizations who claim that local management provides the best option for conserving biodiversity, but we have found very few scientific studies in the peer-reviewed literature that substantiate these claims. The evidence available is unclear and can be contradictory [2,7]. The objective of this special issue is emphatically not to take a position opposing local forest management.…”

“…The past decade has seen a powerful tendency to pass control of forests and forested landscapes from central government authorities to administrations at more local scales. There has been a rapid expansion of indigenous reserves, community forests, protected landscapes, managed resource areas, and other forms of local management systems that apply at sub-national scales [2,3]. In Indonesia, for example, these might be provinces, districts within provinces, or regencies within districts.…”

“…However, this target is being met not through expansion of national parks and strict nature reserves but by designating many areas where humans practice agriculture and other economic activities as IUCN category V protected areas; protected landscapes and seascapes. Dudley et al [2] reviewed published information and case studies in an effort to determine the extent to which such areas protect biodiversity. Their evidence is limited and contradictory.…”

Will Biodiversity Be Conserved in Locally-Managed Forests?

“…There is a long and mixed history of attempts to promote local development around protected areas in order to reduce pressures on those areas [33]. The recent interest in conservation landscapes provides another example of constructive interactions between conservation biologists and local communities [34]. Conservation landscapes are now included in international lists of protected areas maintained by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, but as the paper by Dudley et al [34].…”

“…The recent interest in conservation landscapes provides another example of constructive interactions between conservation biologists and local communities [34]. Conservation landscapes are now included in international lists of protected areas maintained by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, but as the paper by Dudley et al [34]. in this volume shows, there is no systematic effort to assess their biodiversity benefits.…”