Human Communities in Protected Natural Areas and Biodiversity Conservation

Abstract

Using socioecological concepts and within a historical biodiversity conservation context, this research study reviews the main interactions between human communities and protected natural areas (PNAs) to describe their different stages over time and assess the implications arising from climate change. The review suggests that both society and governments have raised awareness and interest regarding the importance of biodiversity conservation. The interactions of human communities in these areas have had different effects on biodiversity use, management, and conservation. Local communities have historically developed traditional uses of natural resources that allow them to remain over time and conserve them. Thus, the interest in PNAs as a conservation instrument has increased worldwide. Regarding climate change, this study found evidence indicating that PNAs may act as buffer barriers to prevent biodiversity loss and mitigate the impacts of extreme events; nevertheless, a great variation can be expected. The magnitude of the impacts on human communities, levels of vulnerability, and resilience capacity of PNAs facing climate change (CC) rely on many factors, such as location, extent, composition, management, and ecology of a given protected area. Therefore, the new scenarios that CC may bring are challenging current systematic conservation planning and traditional management methods of the natural resources that are vital for people. Finally, the authors suggest that society is increasingly aware of PNAs as one of the best tools humans have to prevent biodiversity loss, and potentially buffer the effects of CC. These increases in social awareness of biodiversity conservation importance and PNAs are gratifying and spread optimism about the future that next generations may face.

Approaches, Trends, and Gaps in Community-Based Ecotourism Research: A Bibliometric Analysis of Publications between 2002 and 2022

“…This is significantly relevant to local communities, as it directly influences their livelihoods [119]. Finally, the focus on community-based ecotourism potential is key as it allows for the gathering of information prior to the development of a CBET project, assessing the natural, cultural, economic, and social resources available to the community, including aspects such as infrastructure, connectivity, and accessibility [101], as well as the opportunities and tensions surrounding its implementation to identify its viability. In this way, involving the perspectives of host communities and experts in the field allows for reaching a consensus that can maximize community well-being without jeopardizing biodiversity [39].…”

“…Another significant aspect to highlight is that articles on CBET reflect that indigenous communities predominantly inhabit protected areas. This is because for centuries, various indigenous peoples have inhabited and preserved large expanses of natural areas [101], which are now recognized as protected areas. Thus, the territories of indigenous peoples are often distant from developed areas; they are typically located in conserved or pristine ecosystems because, from their worldview, nature is an integral part of their daily life, The predominance of studies in protected areas in the research on community-based ecotourism was also evident both in the word cloud (Figure 6) and the thematic map (Figure 7).…”