Looking beyond protected area networks: a paradigm shift in approach for biodiversity conservation

Mathur, Pankaj; Sinha, Priya

doi:10.1505/ifor.10.2.305

Cited by 16 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is growing recognition in conservation circles that nature and culture are intricately linked and that traditional protected areas alone cannot halt global biodiversity loss (Phillips 1998, Brown et al 2005, Mathur and Sinha 2008, Mora and Sale 2011. In addition, global demand for food and other resources is on the rise, which calls for a more integrated approach to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (Mukherjee and Borad 2004, Iftekhar 2006, Harvey et al 2008.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drivers of Change in Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes: Implications for Better Management

Gu¹,

Subramanian²

2014

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The term socio-ecological production landscapes (SEPLs) has recently gained currency in conservation circles because of a recognized need to look beyond protected areas to the management of human-influenced landscapes and ecosystems. We have drawn on a variety of case studies from Asia and other parts of the world to understand the underlying driving forces that have led to the need for greater awareness and sustainable management of SEPLs. We have analyzed the drivers of these changes from sociopolitical, legal, economic, and socio-cultural perspectives. The analysis shows that SEPLs contribute to local, national, and global economies, and their production and harvesting processes are subject to external demands and pressures. Policy makers should recognize the wide range and diverse values of SEPLs and incorporate these values into broader policy considerations. We have also provided some suggestions for future studies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drivers of Change in Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes: Implications for Better Management

Gu¹,

Subramanian²

2014

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been suggested that avoidance of negative ecological effects should be the primary goal of conservation efforts that counter development effects that may threaten the environment (Cuperus et al 2001;Ten Kate et al 2004). Even so, avoidance of negative effects is rarely discussed or properly applied in the context of land-use planning in unprotected areas that are not perceived to hold any great ecological value (e.g., Maiorano et al 2008;Mathur & Sitha 2008;Chazdon et al 2009). Nevertheless, it is known that even partially degraded unprotected areas can provide ecosystem services or hold ecological value that substantially supplement conservation-area networks (e.g., Fischer & Lindenmayer 2002;Bengtson et al 2003;Laita et al 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although SCP methods provide a systematic protocol for defining goals and targets for conservation (Pressey & Bottrill 2008;Carwardine et al 2009), there is still uncertainty about whether the protected-area networks will ensure long-term persistence of populations and ecosystem functioning (e.g., Cabeza & Moilanen 2003;Kuussaari et al 2009;Laurance et al 2012). In response to this uncertainty, a shift in focus from the design of protected-area networks to more holistic approaches that cover the entire landscape have been suggested (e.g., Maiorano et al 2008;Mathur & Sitha 2008;Chazdon et al 2009). Tools have also been developed that integrate conservation planning with the needs of other land uses (e.g., Gordon et al 2009;Watts et al 2009;Willis et al 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of Inverse Spatial Conservation Prioritization to Avoid Biological Diversity Loss Outside Protected Areas

Kareksela

Moilanen

Tuominen

et al. 2013

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Globally expanding human land use sets constantly increasing pressure for maintenance of biological diversity and functioning ecosystems. To fight the decline of biological diversity, conservation science has broken ground with methods such as the operational model of systematic conservation planning (SCP), which focuses on design and on-the-ground implementation of conservation areas. The most commonly used method in SCP is reserve selection that focuses on the spatial design of reserve networks and their expansion. We expanded these methods by introducing another form of spatial allocation of conservation effort relevant for land-use zoning at the landscape scale that avoids negative ecological effects of human land use outside protected areas. We call our method inverse spatial conservation prioritization. It can be used to identify areas suitable for economic development while simultaneously limiting total ecological and environmental effects of that development at the landscape level by identifying areas with highest economic but lowest ecological value. Our method is not based on a priori targets, and as such it is applicable to cases where the effects of land use on, for example, individual species or ecosystem types are relatively small and would not lead to violation of regional or national conservation targets. We applied our method to land-use allocation to peat mining. Our method identified a combination of profitable production areas that provides the needed area for peat production while retaining most of the landscape-level ecological value of the ecosystem. The results of this inverse spatial conservation prioritization are being used in land-use zoning in the province of Central Finland.

show abstract

“…From a regulatory perspective, the 2003 amendments of the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 provide the basis by which state governments could be empowered to declare 'Commmunity Reserves' of such sites within zones of influence or connecting network corridors, by designating selected forests of high value for biodiversity conservation on nongovernment private or community lands. Additions to the PAs of the region, or designations of corridors and linkages to serve as a PAN, should also account for social and economic issues and resource needs of the Garo people (Mathur and Sinha 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Designing a protected area network for conservation planning in Jhum landscapes of Garo Hills, Meghalaya

Kumar

Marcot

Talukdar

2010

J Indian Soc Remote Sens

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We studied vegetation and land cover characteristics within the existing array of protected areas (PAs) in South Garo Hills of Meghalaya, northeast India and introduce the concept of protected area network (PAN) and methods to determine linkages of forests among existing PAs. We describe and analyse potential elements of a PAN, including PAs, reserved forests, surrounding buffers as zones of influence, and connecting forest corridors, which collectively can provide old-forest habitat for wildlife species linked across a landscape dominated by jhum (shifting cultivation) agriculture. ANOVA and Chisquare analyses of patch characteristics and forest tree diversity suggested the presence of equally species-rich and diverse old forest cover (tropical evergreen, semi-evergreen and deciduous forest types) in portions of unprotected private and community owned land, which could be designated as additions to, and network linkages among, existing PAs. Such additions and linkages would help provide for conservation of elephants and existing native forest biodiversity and would constitute a PAN in the region. Most (80%) of the total forest cover of the region belongs to private or community owned land. Therefore, such additions could be formally recognized under the aegis of the 2003 amendments of the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, which include provisions to designate selected forest patches within private lands as Community Reserves. 502

show abstract

Looking beyond protected area networks: a paradigm shift in approach for biodiversity conservation

Cited by 16 publications

References 13 publications

Drivers of Change in Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes: Implications for Better Management

Drivers of Change in Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes: Implications for Better Management

Use of Inverse Spatial Conservation Prioritization to Avoid Biological Diversity Loss Outside Protected Areas

Designing a protected area network for conservation planning in Jhum landscapes of Garo Hills, Meghalaya

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About