A Methodology for Environmental Planning in Protected Natural Areas

Abstract

The primary objective of planning in protected natural areas should be the conservation of their inherent natural values. With this idea in mind, a proposal of an objective method for the environmental planning of a protected natural area is presented. The method used was principal components analysis, a multivariate analysis technique that integrates the natural value and the state of conservation (the degree of alteration due to human activity) of the main characteristics of the environment. The method is applied to the specific case of a protected natural area in the Comunidad de Madrid (Madrid Autonomous Region), Spain.

Disturbances to great bustards (Otis tarda) in central Spain: human activities, bird responses and management implications

“…This is because birds usually react to disturbances in a similar way as to predation risk (Frid and Dill 2002). Therefore, knowing the effects of human activities on wildlife is essential to design management plans for species or areas of special conservation interest (Ramírez Sanz et al 2000).…”

A procedure of landscape services assessment based on mosaics of patches and boundaries

“…A principal component analysis (PCA) was performed on this matrix. PCA is a commonly used technique in this type of study for integrating the partial values objectively, because it allows us to identify the trends in the variation of the partial land use values along the ordination axes (Montalvo et al, 1993;Ramírez-Sanz et al, 2000;Ruiz-Labourdette et al, 2010). Each axis is a linear combination of the partial land use values; thus, the coordinate of each land use k on axis j is given by…”

Appraising offsets as a tool for integrated environmental planning and management

“…Second, what key practices should the mechanism possess to deliver effective IEPM? Some IEPM related studies argue that the planning and management functions should be implemented using practices such as applying combinations of scientific and indigenous knowledge (Lane and McDonald, 2005), landscape level analyses (Ramírez-Sanz et al, 2000;Selman, 2004), and transparency in program designs (Born and Sonzogni, 1995;Selin and Chavez, 1995;Rydin and Pennington, 2000;Selman, 2004). Hence, identifying a construct that enables IEPM is an important theoretical and practical matter.…”

“…In addition to sharing objectives, this approach enabled inclusive application of scientific, indigenous and cultural knowledge in IEPM (Scott Slocombe, 1993;Rydin and Pennington, 2000;Lane and McDonald, 2005). Experts opined that IEPM must be founded on rigorous governance processes that evaluate environmental program costs, benefits and risks, having regard to available resources (Armitage, 1995;Ramírez-Sanz et al, 2000). Hence, IEPM should lever sustained improvements in socially-acceptable development…”