Global protected areas and IUCN designations: Do the categories match the conditions?

Leroux, Shawn J.; Krawchuk, Meg A.; Schmiegelow, Fiona K. A.; Cumming, Steven G.; Lisgo, Kim; Anderson, Lee G.; Petkova, Mirela

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.11.018

Cited by 115 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The lack of appropriate management plans calls for the use of approaches other than policy performance evaluation for the analysis of PA effectiveness. Some studies have focused on the level of human disturbances in PAs, such as the level of naturalness of the area [62][63][64][65] or the ecological integrity of the system [66,67]. However, these analyses must be applied carefully because such evaluations have sometimes been criticized for confusing terms such as "naturalness", "rarity" and "representativeness" and the use of overly broad concepts (e.g., genetic diversity, species diversity and ecosystem diversity) [68,69].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Do the IUCN Categories Really Protect? A Case Study of the Alpine Regions in Spain

Muñoz

Hausner

2013

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protected area (PA) coverage is used as an indicator of biodiversity protection worldwide. The effectiveness of using PAs as indicators has been questioned due to the diversity of categories encompassed by such designations, especially in PAs established for purposes other than biodiversity protection. Although international standards have been developed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the policies on the ground have been developed independently of the IUCN categories, thus making the IUCN categories dubious measures of biodiversity conservation. Management plans are crucial for the effective management of parks and for guidance on how biodiversity maintenance should be prioritized relative to other goals. We therefore analyzed the aims and regulations of the management plans of alpine PAs in Spain as a first step in evaluating conservation performance. We used content analysis and correspondence analysis of instrumental variables (CAiv) to assess how aims and regulations vary in relation to three explanatory factors: IUCN categories, vegetation zones and autonomous communities. We found that the aims of many parks were vague, without clear indications of how to prioritize biodiversity goals. Furthermore, only 50% of the parks studied had any management plan, which strengthens our argument concerning the lack of clear guidance in PA management. Although certain aims were correlated with the IUCN categories, the regulations showed no clear relationship to international policies, which indicates that these aims do not necessarily influence management practices. Devolution to autonomous communities could be one explanation for the large variation in management practices among parks. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of such management policies on biodiversity. OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2013, 5 2368

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Do the IUCN Categories Really Protect? A Case Study of the Alpine Regions in Spain

Muñoz

Hausner

2013

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We analysed climate and disturbance dependencies of tropical forest canopies distinguishing between protected and unprotected plots (Protection). We downloaded the World Database on Protected Areas (https://protectedplanet.net/, accessed 01/01/2016) and extracted for each plot its protection status, considering all types protected areas as equally important including IUCN protected areas (summarised in Leroux et al 2010).…”

Section: Environmental Predictors Of Canopy Structure Attributesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tropical forest canopies and their relationships with climate and disturbance: results from a global dataset of consistent field-based measurements

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Canopy structure, defined by leaf area index (LAI), fractional vegetation cover (FCover) and fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (fAPAR), regulates a wide range of forest functions and ecosystem services. Spatially consistent field-measurements of canopy structure are however lacking, particularly for the tropics. Methods: Here, we introduce the Global LAI database: a global dataset of field-based canopy structure measurements spanning tropical forests in four continents (Africa, Asia, Australia and the Americas). We use these measurements to test for climate dependencies within and across continents, and to test for the potential of anthropogenic disturbance and forest protection to modulate those dependences.

show abstract

“…Using internationally defined categories such as the IUCN categories allows for standardized reporting of protected areas, even though [27] suggest that the interpretation of IUCN classes can vary. We observed that the total size of protected areas differs among countries and that growing stocks are generally lower within protected areas, compared to the remaining forest areas.…”

Section: Environmental and Social Restrictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Joining Criteria for Harmonizing European Forest Available for Wood Supply Estimates. Case Studies from National Forest Inventories

Fischer

Gasparini

Nylander

et al. 2016

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For national and international reporting on forest available for wood supply (FAWS), harmonized data are needed. This information is required as forests provide goods for various sectors like the timber industry or the bioenergy sector. The effect of applying different thresholds to the three restriction classes (environmental, social and economic restriction) within the proposed reference definition for FAWS was evaluated. We applied the reference definition for FAWS to national data sets provided by five European National Forest Inventories using harmonized thresholds. The effects on FAWS area and growing stock were evaluated for each restriction and threshold. All countries within this study could report on protected areas. Social restrictions were not applied in any country, data on other restrictions are available but definitions vary. The application of common thresholds for restrictions proved difficult as effects vary between countries. The economic restriction is the most challenging to assess as many countries do not have corresponding data for direct calculation of, e.g., harvesting costs. Using proxies for harvesting costs was difficult, as common thresholds may not be applied in different countries. For standardized reporting, a FAWS definition should be developed that utilizes existing, harmonized indicators to describe restrictions.

show abstract

Global protected areas and IUCN designations: Do the categories match the conditions?

Cited by 115 publications

References 36 publications

What Do the IUCN Categories Really Protect? A Case Study of the Alpine Regions in Spain

What Do the IUCN Categories Really Protect? A Case Study of the Alpine Regions in Spain

Tropical forest canopies and their relationships with climate and disturbance: results from a global dataset of consistent field-based measurements

Joining Criteria for Harmonizing European Forest Available for Wood Supply Estimates. Case Studies from National Forest Inventories

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About