Interface processes between protected and unprotected areas: A global review and ways forward

Abstract

Land‐use changes and the expansion of protected areas (PAs) have amplified the interaction between protected and unprotected areas worldwide. In this context, ‘interface processes' (human–nature and cross‐boundary interactions inside and around PAs) have become central to issues around the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services. This scientific literature review aimed to explore current knowledge and research gaps on interface processes regarding terrestrial PAs. At first, 3,515 references related to the topic were extracted through a standardized search on the Web of Science and analyzed with scientometric techniques. Next, a full‐text analysis was conducted on a sample of 240 research papers. A keyword analysis revealed a wide diversity of research topics, from ‘pure' ecology to sociopolitical research. We found a bias in the geographical distribution of research, with half the papers focusing on eight countries. Additionally, we found that the spatial extent of cross‐boundary interactions was rarely assessed, preventing any clear delimitation of PA interactive zones. In the 240 research papers we scanned, we identified 403 processes that were studied. The ecological effects of PAs were well documented and appeared to be positive overall. In contrast, the effects of PAs on local communities were understudied and, according to the literature focusing on these, were very variable according to local contexts. Our findings highlight key research advances on interface processes, especially regarding the ecological outcomes of PAs, the influence of human activities on biodiversity, and PA governance issues. In contrast, main knowledge gaps concern the spatial extent of interactive zones, as well as the interactions between local people and conservation actions and how to promote synergies between them. While the review was limited to terrestrial PAs, its findings allow us to propose research priorities for tackling environmental and socioeconomic challenges in the face of a rapidly changing world.

Protected areas and freshwater biodiversity: a novel systematic review distils eight lessons for effective conservation

“…Our novel application of the systematic review process has produced results that build on many previous works (e.g., Abell et al, 2017;Dudgeon et al, 2006;Fiedler & Karieva, 1997;Finlayson et al, 2018;Reis et al, 2017;Strayer & Dudgeon 2010) and our eight lessons reiterate and reinforce their essential messages. They complement the findings of a similar review of terrestrial protected area effectiveness, in particular the influence of human activities on biodiversity and governance issues (Blanco et al, 2019). The review has revealed evidence from quantitative case studies that not all protected areas have been effective for freshwater biodiversity conservation.…”

Assessment of a terrestrial protected area for the conservation of freshwater biodiversity

“…In addition, most studies that assess the relevance of PAs mostly focus on ‘outside’ vs. ‘inside’ comparisons, neglecting the importance of the edge effect (Herremans & Herremans‐Tonnoeyr, 2000). These border areas represent contact zones between protected and unprotected areas containing a vast range of interactions between nature and people (Blanco et al, 2019) and biodiversity should also be evaluated here.…”

The geography of publishing in the Anthropocene

“…The Global South, particularly the tropics, is home to many biodiversity hotspots and presents opportunities for large‐scale conservation (Brooks et al, 2006). Despite their high level of biodiversity, tropical regions are underrepresented in many aspects of ecological research including reviews of species' responses to climate change (Feeley, Stroud, & Perez, 2017), protected areas research (Blanco et al, 2020), and in biodiversity/ecosystem function (Clarke, York, Rasheed, & Northfield, 2017). Even within the tropics, there are publishing biases, for example, research locations in coral reef studies are positively correlated not with diversity, but with per capita income (Fisher et al, 2011).…”