Addressing Present Challenges in the Life-Cycle of Wetlands Management to Successfully Integrate Sustainability and Good Governance

Abstract

The assessment of management effectiveness during the whole life-cycle process of protected areas (PAs) has become increasingly important, due to the lack of holistic background assessment work on management processes leading to a deeper knowledge of sustainable development (SD) principles. This paper aims to serve as a practical guide through a gradation model of integrated protected area management (IPAM) by carrying out an exhaustive trans-dimensional assessment of management effectiveness, identifying a critical field of activities and developing a framework mix of strategic recommendations leading to the implementation of an effective planning process. Our results could aid in the prioritisation of key decisions towards a more in-depth understanding of how to set up a balanced IPAM, as well as to enable managers and decision-makers to focus on activities that can further pre-established aims and reach the goal of five-dimensional sustainability in terms of SD and good governance.

Organizing for Sustainable Development

“…4 Economic, social, environmental/ ecological, institutional (Ávila et al, 2017;Hersen et al, 2019;Laxe et al, 2017;Lizama-Pérez et al, 2018;Londoño-Pineda et al, 2021;Spangenberg, 2004;Toumi et al, 2017;UN-CSD, 2007;Valentin & Spangenberg, 2000) Economy, society, environment, coordination Economic, social, environmental, security (Koff et al, 2022) Environmental, economic, social, transportation efficiency (Ke et al, 2021) Economic, ecological, environmental, multidimensions (Cheng et al, 2009) Economic, social, ecological, political -institutional (Gallopín et al, 2014) Social, economic, environmental, cultural-historical (R. Najjar, 2022) 5 Economic, social, ecological, the built environment, political (Allen, 2009) Economic, social/ethical, environmental, technical and institutional (Bhattacharyya, 2012;Ebrahimi & Rahmani, 2019;Iddrisu & Bhattacharyya, 2015;Ilskog, 2008) New five-dimensional sustainability triangle: Place, Permanence, Persons (Iribarnegaray & Seghezzo, 2012;Seghezzo, 2009) Ecological, social, economic, cultural, safety (Tomaškinová et al, 2019(Tomaškinová et al, , 2021 6 Moral, ecological, social, economic, legal, technical, political (Pawłowski, 2008) 7 Ecological, political, ethical, socio-economic, democratic, cultural, theological Vogt and Weber (2019) Economic, social, environmental, legal, political, ethical and cultural (González et al, 2021) Source: Own elaboration.…”

“…Other authors have also written about the need to address the five dimensions of sustainability, in different contexts and industries (Allen, 2009;Bhattacharyya, 2012;De Carvalho et al, 2015;Ebrahimi & Rahmani, 2019;Iddrisu & Bhattacharyya, 2015;Ilskog, 2008;Tomaškinová et al, 2021).…”

“…On the other hand, in the context of protected area management strategies (Tomaškinová et al, 2021), it was emphasised that the development of protected areas towards sustainability requires new features, improved concepts and tools for new ways of planning. The authors highlight that protected area management strategies must take into account five dimensions of sustainable development, which cover a broad portfolio of scientific disciplines: ecological, social, cultural, economic and security (Tomaškinová et al, 2019). The authors believe that the benefits of sustainably integrating each dimension are so universal that they can apply to many sectors (Tomaškinová et al, 2021).…”

“…The authors highlight that protected area management strategies must take into account five dimensions of sustainable development, which cover a broad portfolio of scientific disciplines: ecological, social, cultural, economic and security (Tomaškinová et al, 2019). The authors believe that the benefits of sustainably integrating each dimension are so universal that they can apply to many sectors (Tomaškinová et al, 2021).…”