What is Missing in Biosphere Reserves Accountability?

Abstract

The design of Biosphere Reserves (BR) poses an interesting problem for systematic planning. It entails a spatially explicitly compromise between economic, social, cultural and biodiversity protection objectives, in a sustainable development context. The global network of Biosphere Reserves includes 563 sites in 110 countries. Currently the spatial configuration of BRs follows a nested scheme, where different land use regimes are assigned to zones in an ad hoc fashion, which complicates the evaluation of their effectiveness. So far in the literature, have not been designed to achieve quantitative objectives, which could limit their value for sustainable development. Using the newly developed version of the software MARXAN © , we solve part of this problem enabling BRs to reach predefined set of spatially explicit quantitative targets, while minimizing the reserves' overall costs (i.e. opportunity, implementation, land value, etc.). Our case study is the Pantanal Biosphere Reserve (PBR), in Brazil. According to our results the PBR could substantially improve its effectiveness if a systematic review of its objectives and goals is performed. Rearrangements of all zones proved to be necessary. Core zones for example, composed of IUCN categories I to IV, increased from its current 1.5% of the BR area to 18.5% to reach all objectives. The absence of quantitative guidelines from UNESCO for the configuration of BRs has limited their effectiveness. Our quantitative systematic approach provided the first insights into potential requirements for zone partitioning, prescribing 22 ± 5% to be allocated in core zones, 22 ± 3% in buffer zones, and 33 ± 4% in transition zones. The most useful outcome, however, was the flexibility the software offered to reach multiple objectives simultaneously.

Analyzing temporal changes in urban forest structure and the effect on air quality improvement

“…However, humans still depend on nature as ever (Bolund & Hunhammar, 1999) and while urban dweller demands natural resources and ecosystem services (ES), there is no way to leave the urban lifestyle. In fact, urbanization is one of the main drivers of global environmental change and this increases the necessity of ES (Ayres & Van Den Bergh, 2005;Gómez-Baggethun & Barton, 2013;Guo, Zhang, & Li, 2010;Lourival et al, 2011). Without ES, human life in the cities would not be possible (Grunewald & Bastian, 2015;Guo et al, 2010) as the sustainability of cities depends on the benefits derived from the ecosystems within the urban landscapes, which are known as urban ecosystem services (UES) (Bolund & Hunhammar, 1999;Wang, Bakker, de Groot, & Wörtche, 2014).…”

Spatio-temporal analysis of land use/land cover pattern changes in Arasbaran Biosphere Reserve: Iran

“…Analyzing the land use change dynamic within biosphere reserve zones makes it possible to find out the plausible and potential future threats for the whole reserve as well as for each zone separately. According to the concept of BRs, the main mission of the biosphere reserve is to strengthen general awareness of mutual interrelations between humankind and the biosphere natural environment, improve monitoring, education and participation in biosphere reserves management (Lange 2011;Lourival et al 2011); so increasing the awareness and capacity building of people should go hand in hand with effective protection and then to reclaim the lost forest areas following successful conservation of remaining valuable land covers. Therefore, considering the dominant trend of deforesting it is vital to design and define different scenarios of land use changes.…”

“…BR is composed of and also organized into 3 interrelated zones; the core area, the buffer zone and transition area (Kušová et al 2008;Saricam and Erdem 2012). According to the BR model, core zones consist of areas designated to be strictly reserved and protected by surrounding buffer zones where traditional (low impact) land use practices are allowed and then with transition zones where more intensive land use practices are gradually permitted (Lourival et al 2011;Saricam and Erdem 2012). Based on this model of BR sustainable development is achieved while protection and conservation of natural resources also maintained; including biodiversity as well as land (Kušová et al 2008;Lange 2011).…”

UNESCO Transboundary Biosphere Reserves as laboratories of cross-border cooperation for sustainable development of border areas. The case of the Polish–Ukrainian borderland

“…It represents an innovative and integrated approach aiming to harmonise biodiversity protection with social and economic development in territorial processes through complex spatial and governance arrangements (Van Cuong et al, 2017;Ferreira et al, 2018). Thereby, UNESCO Biosphere Reserves constitute a spatially explicit "compromise between economic, social, cultural and biodiversity protection objectives, in a sustainable development context" (Lourival et al, 2011). Performing a combination of complementary and integrated functions, Biosphere Reserves can be considered a special category of conservation areas containing a combination of zones with differing degrees of conservation intensity and various management approaches (Fall, 1999).…”