Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 231–236 | Cite as

Evaluating the ecological performance of protected areas

  • Bernard W. T. Coetzee
Commentary
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Biodiversity protection and reserves

Abstract

While protected areas are a key component of the global conservation strategy, quantitative demonstrations of their positive ecological performance, meaning the extent to which they conserve the biodiversity features they were designated for, is broadly lacking. This commentary presents the emerging field of impact of evaluation of protected areas, with a focus on establishing their ecological performance. It highlights recent advances in protected area evaluations and explores the challenges remaining in developing a more credible evidence base to demonstrate the biodiversity conservation benefits of protected areas.

Keywords

Conservation evidence Counterfactual Impact evaluation Protected area efficacy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Kevin Gaston, Steven Chown and Melodie McGeoch are thanked for discussion and comments by Kristi Maciejewski improved the manuscript.

References

  1. Andam KS et al (2008) Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:16089–16094CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Butchart SHM et al (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328:1164–1168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Carranza T, Manica A, Kapos V, Balmford A (2014) Mismatches between conservation outcomes and management evaluation in protected areas: a case study in the Brazilian Cerrado. Biol Conserv 173:10–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coetzee BWT, Gaston KJ, Chown SL (2014) Local scale comparisons of biodiversity as a test for global protected area ecological performance: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 9:e105824CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Craigie ID, Baillie JEM, Balmford A et al (2010) Large mammal population declines in Africa’s protected areas. Biol Conserv 143:2221–2228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ferraro PJ (2009) Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy. In: Birnbaum M, Mickwitz P (eds) Environmental program and policy evaluation. New direction for evaluation, vol 122, pp 75–84Google Scholar
  7. Ferraro PJ, Hanauer MM (2015) Through what mechanisms do protected areas affect environmental and social outcomes? Philos Trans R Soc B 370:20140267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferraro PJ, Pattanayak SK (2006) Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biol 4:e105CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferraro PJ, Pressey RL (2015) Measuring the difference made by conservation initiatives: protected areas and their environmental and social impacts. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 370:20140270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fuller RA et al (2010) Replacing underperforming protected areas achieves better conservation outcomes. Nature 466:365–367CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gaston KJ, Jackson SF, Cantu-Salazar L, Cruz-Pinon G (2008) The ecological performance of protected areas. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 39:93–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gray CL et al (2016) Local biodiversity is higher inside than outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nat Commun 7:12306CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Joppa LN, Pfaff A (2009) High and far: biases in the location of protected areas. PLoS One 4:e8273CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Laurance WF et al (2012) Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical forest protected areas. Nature 489:290–294CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Leverington F, Hockings M, Costa KL (2008). Management effectiveness evaluation in protected areas—a global study. IUCN Available at (goo.gl/E1Ca0r)Google Scholar
  16. Mascia MB, Pailler S (2011) Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) and its conservation implications. Conserv Lett 4:9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rodrigues ASL et al (2004) Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428:640–643CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Tittensor DP et al (2014) A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science 346:241–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Watson JEM, Dudley Segan DB, Hockings M (2014) The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515:67–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Watson JEM et al (2016) Bolder science needed now for protected areas. Conservation Biology. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12645 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Organization for Tropical Studies, Scientific ServicesSkukuzaSouth Africa
  2. 2.Global Change and Sustainability Research InstituteUniversity of the WitwatersrandJohannesburg, WITSSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations