Advertisement

Assessing protected area effectiveness using surrounding (buffer) areas environmentally similar to the target area

  • Jean-François MasEmail author
Article

Abstract

Many studies are based on the assumption that an area and its surrounding (buffer) area present similar environmental conditions and can be compared. For example, in order to assess the effectiveness of a protected area, the land use/cover changes are compared inside the park with its surroundings. However, the heterogeneity in spatial variables can bias this assessment: we have shown that most of the protected areas in Mexico present significant environmental differences between their interior and their surroundings. Therefore, a comparison that aims at assessing the effectiveness of conservation strategies, must be cautioned. In this paper, a simple method which allows the generation of a buffer area that presents similar conditions with respect to a set of environmental variables is presented. The method was used in order to assess the effectiveness of the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve, a protected area located in the south-eastern part of Mexico. The annual rate of deforestation inside the protected area, the standard buffer area (based upon distance from the protected area only) and the similar buffer area (taking into account distance along with some environmental variables) were 0.3, 1.3 and 0.6%, respectively. These results showed that the protected area was effective in preventing land clearing, but that the comparison with the standard buffer area gave an over-optimistic vision of its effectiveness.

Keywords

buffer areas change assessment GIS Mexico protected area effectiveness spatial heterogeneity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Apan, A. A. and Peterson, J. A.: 1998, ‘Probing tropical deforestation’, Appl. Geogr. 18(2), 137–152.Google Scholar
  2. Bruner, A. G., Gullison, R. E., Rice, R. E. and da Fonseca, G. A. B.: 2001, ‘Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity’, Science 291, 125–128.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Caro, T. M.: 2001, ‘Species richness and abundance of small mammals inside and outside an African national park’, Biol. Conserv. 98(3), 251–257.Google Scholar
  4. Caro, T. M.: 2003, ‘Umbrella species: Critique and lessons from East Africa’, Animal Conserv. 6(2), 171–181.Google Scholar
  5. CONANP (Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas): 2003, Retrieved from http://conanp.gob.mx.
  6. East, J. and Wood, M.: 1998, ‘Landcare GIS: Evaluating land management programs in Australia’, Environ. Monit. Assess. 50(3), 201–216.Google Scholar
  7. E1-Raey, M., Fouda, Y. and Gal, P.: 2000, ‘GIS for environmental assessment of the impacts of urban encroachment on rosetta region, Egypt’, Environ. Monit. Assess. 60(2), 217–233.Google Scholar
  8. Groombridge, B. and Jenkins, M. D.: 2000, Global Biodiversity: Earth’s Living Resources in the 21st Century, United Nations Environment Programme (ed.), 246 p.Google Scholar
  9. Ibáñez, R., Condit, R., Angehr, G., Aguilar, S., García, T., Martínez, R., Sanjur, A., Stallard, R., Wright, S. J., Rand, A. S. and Heckadon, S.: 2002, ‘An ecosystem report on the Panama Canal: Monitoring the status of the forest communities and the watershed’, Environ. Monit. Assess. 80(1), 65–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kinnaird, M. F., Sanderson, E. W., O’Brien, T. G., Wibisono, H. T. and Woolmer, G.: 2003, ‘Deforestation trends in a tropical landscape and implications for endangered large mammals’, Conserv. Biol. 17(1), 245–257.Google Scholar
  11. Liu, J., Linderman, M., Ouyang, Z., An, L., Yang, J. and Zhang, H.: 2001, ‘Ecological degradation in protected areas: The case of Wolong nature reserve for giant pandas’, Science 292, 98–101.PubMedMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Loomis, J. and Echohawk, J. C.: 1999, ‘Using GIS to identify under-represented ecosystems in the National Wilderness Preservation System in the U.S.A.’ Environ. Conserv. 26, 53–58.Google Scholar
  13. Lugo Hubp, J. I.: 1988, Elementos de Geomorfolog’ia Aplicada (Métodos cartográficos), Instituto de Geografía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, 128 p.Google Scholar
  14. Margules, C.-R. and Pressey, R.-L.: 2000, ‘Systematic conservation planning’, Nature 405, 243–253.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Mas, J. F. and Puig, H.: 2001, ‘Modalités de la déforestation dans le Sud-ouest de l’Etat du Campeche, Mexique’, Can. J. Forest Res. 31(7), 1280–1288.Google Scholar
  16. Mas, J. F., Velázquez, A., Díaz-Gallegos, J.-R., Mayorga-Saucedo, R., Alcántara, C., Bocco, G., Castro, R., Fernández, T., and Pérez-Vega, A.: 2004, ‘Assessing land use/cover changes: A nationwide multidate spatial database for Mexico’, Int. J. Appl. Earth Observ. Geoinform. 5(4), 249–261.Google Scholar
  17. Ochoa-Gaona, S. and González-Espinosa, M.: 2000, ‘Land use and deforestation in the highlands of Chiapas, Mexico’, Appl. Geog. 20, 17–42.Google Scholar
  18. Ozcan, H., Cetin, M. and Diker, K.: 2003, ‘Monitoring and assessment of land use status by GIS’, Environ. Monit. Assess. 87(1), 33–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Pressey, R. L., Whish, G. L., Barret, T. W. and Watts, M. E.: 2002, ‘Effectiveness of protected areas in north-eastern New South Wales: Recent trends in six measures’, Biol. Conserv. 106, 57–169.Google Scholar
  20. Sader, S. A. and Joyce, A. T.: 1988, ‘Deforestation rates and trends in Costa Rica, 1940 to 1983’, Biotropica 20(1), 11–19.Google Scholar
  21. Samways, M. J. and Kreuzinger, K.: 2001, ‘Vegetation, ungulate and grasshopper interactions inside vs. outside an African savanna game park’, Biodivers. Conserv. 10(11), 1963–1981.Google Scholar
  22. Sánchez-Azofeifa, G. A., Quesada-Mateo, C., Gonzalez-Quesada, P., Dayanandan, S. and Kamaljit S. B.: 1999, ‘Protected areas and conservation of biodiversity in the tropics’, Conserv. Biol. 13(2), 407–411.Google Scholar
  23. Sánchez-Azofeifaa, G. A., Dailyb, G. C., Pfaffc, A. S. P. and Buschd, C. C.: 2003, ‘Integrity and isolation of Costa Rica’s national parks and biological reserves: Examining the dynamics of land-cover change’, Biol. Conserv. 109(1), 123–l35.Google Scholar
  24. Soares-Filho, B., Assunção, R. M. and Pantuzzo, A. E.: 2001, ‘Modeling the spatial transition probabilities of landscape dynamics in an Amazonian colonization frontier’, BioScience 51(12), 1059–1066.Google Scholar
  25. Vanclay, J. R.: 2001, ‘The effectiveness of parks’, Science 293, 1007a.Google Scholar
  26. Wood, A., Stedman-Edwards, P. and Mang, J.: 2000, The Root Causes of Biodiversity Loss, Earthscan Publications Ltd., U.K., 399 p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Geografía, UNAMUnidad Foránea MoreliaMorelia, MichoacánMexico

Personalised recommendations