Are We Conserving What We Say We Are? Measuring Ecological Integrity within Protected Areas

Abstract

Managers of protected areas are under increasing pressure to measure their effectiveness in conserving native biological diversity in ways that are scientifically sound, practical, and comparable among protected areas over time. The Nature Conservancy and its partners have developed a "Measures of Success" framework with four core components: (1) identifying a limited number of focal conservation targets, (2) identifying key ecological attributes for these targets, (3) identifying an acceptable range of variation for each attribute as measured by properly selected indicators, and (4) rating target status based on whether or not the target's key attributes are within their acceptable ranges of variation. A target cannot be considered "conserved" if any of its key ecological attributes exceeds its acceptable range of variation. The framework provides a rigorous basis not only for measuring success but for setting conservation objectives, assessing threats to biodiversity, identifying monitoring and research needs, and communicating management information to nonspecialists.

A landscape index of ecological integrity to inform landscape conservation

“…Coarse-filter ecological assessments are increasingly used by conservation organizations to evaluate ecological impacts and guide conservation planning, although there appears to be no consensus yet on a preferred approach (e.g., Andreasen et al 2001, Parrish et al 2003, Tierney et al 2009, Beier et al 2015. We developed an approach that has been used in several real-world applications (see below) that is distinctive in several ways.…”

“…Second, our approach embraces the concept of ecological integrity, but defined in a manner that makes it less subject to the criticisms often leveled against the use of ecological integrity (Brown and Williams 2016). In particular, our approach does not require the establishment of a 485 reference condition or natural range of variation for each of the metrics as is customary for definitions of ecological integrity (Parrish et al 2003), which we purport is exceedingly difficult or even impossible to do in most applications. Instead, we compare each cell to other cells in a similar ecological setting or ecosystem, or each cell to itself at a different point in time, to derive an index of relative integrity.…”

Evolução e implementação dos planos de manejo em parques nacionais no estado do Rio de Janeiro

“…A sua implementação, sem os instrumentos adequados de planejamento e gestão, compromete as finalidades para a qual ela foi criada (ERVIN, 2004). O estabelecimento de sistemas de avaliação da efetividade e da abrangência das áreas protegidas tem sido sistematicamente desenvolvido em todo o mundo, como forma de melhorar esse processo (HOCKINGS, 2003;PARRISH et al, 2003;BROOKS et al, 2003).…”

From numbers to ecosystems and biodiversity: A mechanistic approach to monitoring

“…The approach can allow for appropriate management of biological diversity of ecosystems, species and genetic resources -the primary mandate of conservation agencies -within the constraints of tourist, stakeholder and economic expectations (Lindenmayer, Franklin & Fischer 2006;McNeely 1994;Slocombe 1998). Ecosystem management involves two essential elements, namely integration of scientific knowledge and maintenance of evolutionary potential (Bocking 1994;Parrish, Braun & Unnasch 2003;Rodrigues et al 2004;Sale et al 2005;Simberloff 1999). The latter focuses on facilitating, maintaining or restoring ecological processes (e.g.…”