An Outcome-Oriented, Social–Ecological Framework for Assessing Protected Area Effectiveness

Abstract

Both the number and the extent of protected areas have grown considerably in recent years, but evaluations of their effectiveness remain partial and are hard to compare across cases. To overcome this situation, first, we suggest reserving the term effectiveness solely for assessing protected area outcomes, to clearly distinguish this from management assessments (e.g., sound planning). Second, we propose a multidimensional conceptual framework, rooted in social–ecological theory, to assess effectiveness along three complementary dimensions: ecological outcomes (e.g., biodiversity), social outcomes (e.g., well-being), and social–ecological interactions (e.g., reduced human pressures). Effectiveness indicators can subsequently be evaluated against contextual and management elements (e.g., design and planning) to shed light on management performance (e.g., cost-effectiveness). We summarize steps to operationalize our framework to foster more holistic effectiveness assessments while improving comparability across protected areas. All of this can ensure that protected areas make real contributions toward conservation and sustainability goals.

Multiple anthropogenic pressures challenge the effectiveness of protected areas in western Tanzania

“…In the context of East Africa, scholars have mostly focused on two indicators for assessing the ecological effectiveness of PAs: land-use change in previously natural habitats (Riggio et al, 2019), and wildlife densities and their trends over time (Kiffner et al, 2020). Both indicators of PA effectiveness are important metrics for conservation management, but analyzing each in isolation provides only limited insights (Ghoddousi et al, 2022) because land-use change is not only an indicator of PA effectiveness, but could also be the main driver of wildlife declines (Pereira et al, 2012). Here, we looked into this relationship to understand whether and to what extent land-use change relates to wildlife population densities in western Tanzania.…”

Remotely sensed effectiveness assessments of protected areas lack a common framework: A review

“…As a result of the investigated diverse range of existing definitions, we propose our introduced understanding of protected area effectiveness as the effectiveness of (1) mitigating biodiversity and habitat loss, (2) providing ecosystem services for human well‐being, and (3) having a sustainable impact on the surroundings of the protected area by being a flagship region. Equally, this definition calls for subsequent research to define remotely sensed indicators depicting the socio‐ecological effectiveness of protected areas (e.g., Ghoddousi et al, 2021; Pettorelli et al, 2018).…”

“…The majority (41%) covered two of three factors. We thereby acknowledge that the concepts of socio‐ecological effectiveness shift toward more holistic approaches (e.g., Ghoddousi et al, 2021). Although several studies defined protected area effectiveness as being a composite of socio‐ and ecological factors, only few translated this definition explicitly into a corresponding set of socio‐ecological indicators (e.g., Huang et al, 2019; Nagendra et al, 2009).…”

“…Occasionally, researchers referred to earlier approaches of effectiveness research and mostly designed their own method to assess this vector, which made it difficult to compare different individual case studies; correspondingly, the findings also support the idea of developing a framework for evaluating effectiveness (Rasheed, 2020; Stephenson et al, 2015). To explore the socio‐ecological effectiveness of protected areas and their impact on habitat and species loss, ecosystem services and protection capacity (Beresford et al, 2018)—a more holistic and multi‐indicator‐based approach—should be considered (e.g., Ghoddousi et al, 2021). The effect of selecting the variables proves relevant, as it influences the results substantially (Beresford et al, 2018; Vanclay, 2001).…”

“…It has already been stressed that maintaining as well as establishing new protected areas on a global scale will not be sufficient to sustain biodiversity in the long term (Mora & Sale, 2011). Even after decades of addressing the challenge of establishing and managing protected areas that are fit for purpose, there is sparse information on their effectiveness regarding quantitative outcomes related to biodiversity conservation and ensuring the ongoing functioning of ecosystems (Ghoddousi et al, 2021). The recently published multidimensional framework to assess the socio‐ecological effectiveness of protected areas suggests to measure ecological and social outcomes as well as socio‐ecological interactions and indicates remote sensing as one promising method to advance these assessments (Ghoddousi et al, 2021).…”