The performance and potential of protected areas.

Originally conceived to conserve iconic landscapes and wildlife, protected areas are now expected to achieve an increasingly diverse set of conservation, social and economic objectives. The amount of land and sea designated as formally protected has markedly increased over the past century, but there is still a major shortfall in political commitments to enhance the coverage and effectiveness of protected areas. Financial support for protected areas is dwarfed by the benefits that they provide, but these returns depend on effective management. A step change involving increased recognition, funding, planning and enforcement is urgently needed if protected areas are going to fulfil their potential.

The case for embedding researchers in conservation agencies.

Although protected areas represent a pivotal response to escalating anthropogenic threats, they face many pressures, inside and outside their boundaries. Amid these challenges, effective conservation is guided by evidence-based decision making supported by dynamic processes of learning and knowledge exchange. Although different models promote knowledge exchange, embedding research scientists within conservation agencies is best suited to supporting evidence-based conservation. Based on available literature and our experiences on several continents, we considered the benefits, challenges, and opportunities associated with embedding research scientists within conservation agencies and the research required to better understand the effectiveness of the embedding model for evidence-based conservation. Embedded researchers provide long-term commitment to building social capital among academic and nonacademic stakeholders; act as skilled gatekeepers who increase 2-way flow of knowledge between scientists and managers; attract, coordinate, and support management-relevant external research projects; drive the design and maintenance of long-term monitoring; and align their research with information needs. Notwithstanding the many benefits, research capacity of conservation agencies is declining worldwide. A significant challenge is that the values, structures, functions, and effectiveness of the embedding model of knowledge exchange remain poorly evaluated and documented. Also, embedded researchers have to balance their desire for creativity and flexibility with the standardization and quality control required by their public sector agencies; may be perceived as not credible because they are not truly independent of their agency; and have to couple scientific productivity with skills for transdisciplinary research, social facilitation, and stakeholder engagement. Systematic research on embedding and other models of knowledge exchange, across different world contexts, is required to better understand the benefits, costs, and institutional arrangements associated with different models.

El Caso para la Incorporación de Investigadores en las Agencias de Conservación Resumen Aunque las áreas protegidas representan una respuesta crucial a las crecientes amenazas antropogénicas, estas enfrentan muchas presiones dentro y fuera de sus fronteras. En medio de estos desafíos, la conservación efectiva se guía por la toma de decisiones con base en evidencias respaldada por los procesos dinámicos de aprendizaje e intercambio de conocimiento. Mientras que diferentes modelos promueven el intercambio de conocimiento, la incorporación de investigadores científicos en las agencias de conservación es más adecuada para respaldar la conservación basada en evidencias. Con base en la literatura disponible y en nuestras experiencias en varios continentes consideramos los beneficios, desafíos y oportunidades asociadas con la incorporación de investigadores científicos en las agencias de conservación y la investigación requerida para entender de mejor manera la efectividad del modelo de incorporación para la conservación basada en evidencias. Los investigadores incorporados proporcionan un compromiso a largo plazo con la construcción de un capital social entre los accionistas académicos y no académicos; fungen como guardianes habilidosos que incrementan el flujo de dos vías de conocimiento entre los científicos y los administradores; atraen, coordinan y apoyan los proyectos de investigación externos relevantes para el manejo; llevan el diseño y el mantenimiento del monitoreo a largo plazo; y alinean su investigación con las necesidades de información. A pesar de los beneficios, la capacidad de investigación de las agencias de conservación está declinando a nivel mundial. Un desafío significativo es que los valores, estructuras, funciones y efectividad del modelo de incorporación del intercambio de conocimiento permanecen pobremente evaluados y documentados. Además, los investigadores incorporados tienen que balancear su deseo por ser creativos y flexibles con la estandarización y el control de calidad requeridos por sus agencias del sector público; pueden ser percibidos como no creíbles porque no son realmente independientes de su agencia; y tienen que emparejar la productividad científica con las habilidades de investigación transdisciplinaria, facilitación social y participación de los accionistas. Se requiere de la investigación sistemática sobre la incorporación y otros modelos de intercambio de conocimiento en diferentes contextos globales para entender de mejor manera los beneficios, costos y arreglos institucionales asociados con diferentes modelos.

Building Stakeholder Awareness and Engagement Strategy to Enhance Biosphere Reserve Performance and Sustainability: The Case of Kien Giang, Vietnam.

Local application of the biosphere reserve concept in Kien Giang, Vietnam was examined to see how it compared with other biosphere reserves both in Vietnam and internationally and from that to assess the level of adoption and what could be limiting processes. This was undertaken mainly through qualitative document analysis, field surveys, and extensive interviews of stakeholders. While the designation the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve and establishment of the management regulation conformed with the conceptual model and criteria outlined by UNESCO, the practical implementation has been inadequate to achieve the desired outcomes of the biosphere reserve concept. There was limited public awareness and understanding of the biosphere reserve approach because of poorly developed communication channels. Top-down, state-control based on a strong sectoral approach to biosphere reserve planning and management hindered stakeholder and community participation. Weak engagement from the Province as the designated lead agency in biosphere reserve governance limited cross-sectoral collaboration in the delivery of the biosphere reserve mandated functions. External projects were perceived by community stakeholders to have only a temporary impact on biosphere reserve operation because of their small, short-term scale with the project maintaining control over funding and design of individual activities. Without proper investment in public awareness and improvement of Biosphere Reserve governance leadership, the desire for development of strategic public-private partnerships to support implementation remains unfulfilled and the Biosphere Reserve model will, as a consequence, contribute little to the long-term biodiversity conservation and socio-economic development in the region.

Understanding the effects of different social data on selecting priority conservation areas.

Conservation success is contingent on assessing social and environmental factors so that cost-effective implementation of strategies and actions can be placed in a broad social-ecological context. Until now, the focus has been on how to include spatially explicit social data in conservation planning, whereas the value of different kinds of social data has received limited attention. In a regional systematic conservation planning case study in Australia, we examined the spatial concurrence of a range of spatially explicit social values and land-use preferences collected using a public participation geographic information system and biological data. We used Zonation to integrate the social data with the biological data in a series of spatial-prioritization scenarios to determine the effect of the different types of social data on spatial prioritization compared with biological data alone. The type of social data (i.e., conservation opportunities or constraints) significantly affected spatial prioritization outcomes. The integration of social values and land-use preferences under different scenarios was highly variable and generated spatial prioritizations 1.2-51% different from those based on biological data alone. The inclusion of conservation-compatible values and preferences added relatively few new areas to conservation priorities, whereas including noncompatible economic values and development preferences as costs significantly changed conservation priority areas (48.2% and 47.4%, respectively). Based on our results, a multifaceted conservation prioritization approach that combines spatially explicit social data with biological data can help conservation planners identify the type of social data to collect for more effective and feasible conservation actions.

Biosphere reserves: Attributes for success.

Biosphere reserves established under the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Program aim to harmonise biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Concerns over the extent to which the reserve network was living up to this ideal led to the development of a new strategy in 1995 (the Seville Strategy) to enhance the operation of the network of reserves. An evaluation of effectiveness of management of the biosphere reserve network was called for as part of this strategy. Expert opinion was assembled through a Delphi Process to identify successful and less successful reserves and investigate common factors influencing success or failure. Ninety biosphere reserves including sixty successful and thirty less successful reserves in 42 countries across all five Man and the Biosphere Program regions were identified. Most successful sites are the post-Seville generation while the majority of unsuccessful sites are pre-Seville that are managed as national parks and have not been amended to conform to the characteristics that are meant to define a biosphere reserve. Stakeholder participation and collaboration, governance, finance and resources, management, and awareness and communication are the most influential factors in the success or failure of the biosphere reserves. For success, the biosphere reserve concept needs to be clearly understood and applied through landscape zoning. Designated reserves then need a management system with inclusive good governance, strong participation and collaboration, adequate finance and human resource allocation and stable and responsible management and implementation. All rather obvious but it is difficult to achieve without commitment to the biosphere reserve concept by the governance authorities.

Managing for climate change on protected areas: An adaptive management decision making framework.

Current protected area management is becoming more challenging with advancing climate change and current park management techniques may not be adequate to adapt for effective management into the future. The framework presented here provides an adaptive management decision making process to assist protected area managers with adapting on-park management to climate change. The framework sets out a 4 step process. One, a good understanding of the park's context within climate change. Secondly, a thorough understanding of the park management systems including governance, planning and management systems. Thirdly, a series of management options set out as an accept/prevent change style structure, including a systematic assessment of those options. The adaptive approaches are defined as acceptance of anthropogenic climate change impact and attempt to adapt to a new climatic environment or prevention of change and attempt to maintain current systems under new climatic variations. Last, implementation and monitoring of long term trends in response to ecological responses to management interventions and assessing management effectiveness. The framework addresses many issues currently with park management in dealing with climate change including the considerable amount of research focussing on 'off-reserve' strategies, and threats and stress focused in situ park management.

Bolder science needed now for protected areas.

Recognizing that protected areas (PAs) are essential for effective biodiversity conservation action, the Convention on Biological Diversity established ambitious PA targets as part of the 2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity. Under the strategic goal to "improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species, and genetic diversity," Target 11 aims to put 17% of terrestrial and 10% of marine regions under PA status by 2020. Additionally and crucially, these areas are required to be of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative, and well-connected and to include "other effective area-based conservation measures" (OECMs). Whereas the area-based targets are explicit and measurable, the lack of guidance for what constitutes important and representative; effective; and OECMs is affecting how nations are implementing the target. There is a real risk that Target 11 may be achieved in terms of area while failing the overall strategic goal for which it is established because the areas are poorly located, inadequately managed, or based on unjustifiable inclusion of OECMs. We argue that the conservation science community can help establish ecologically sensible PA targets to help prioritize important biodiversity areas and achieve ecological representation; identify clear, comparable performance metrics of ecological effectiveness so progress toward these targets can be assessed; and identify metrics and report on the contribution OECMs make toward the target. By providing ecologically sensible targets and new performance metrics for measuring the effectiveness of both PAs and OECMs, the science community can actively ensure that the achievement of the required area in Target 11 is not simply an end in itself but generates genuine benefits for biodiversity.

Measuring the accuracy of management effectiveness evaluations of protected areas.

Evaluating the effectiveness of protected area management to help improve management outcomes is becoming an increasingly common practice. The evaluation tools developed and implemented in over 100 countries generally rely on the expert judgements of protected area managers. Despite the growing collection and use of management effectiveness evaluation data, there have been no previous attempts to measure the accuracy of these data. We measured the accuracy of managers' judgements about the conditions in their reserves by collecting independent field data. We also assessed how accurately the evaluation tool reflected managers' views by conducting semi-structured interviews with 23 protected area managers from New South Wales, Australia. We found that managers made highly accurate judgements of the extent of a common weed species, Rubus fruticosus (blackberry), but often misinterpreted the scope, scale and timeframe of the evaluation. These framing effects can lead to error being introduced into the evaluation dataset, affecting the precision of evaluations such that they cannot be reliably compared among reserves. We suggest that the wording of evaluation questions needs to be explicit about the assessment frame to minimize the influence of framing effects on management effectiveness evaluations.

Managers consider multiple lines of evidence important for biodiversity management decisions.

Protected area managers often fail to use empirical evidence for their management decisions, yet it is unclear whether this arises from a lack of available data, difficulty in interpreting scientific information for management application, or because managers do not value science for their decisions. To better understand the use of evidence for management decisions, we asked protected area managers in Australia what information is important when making decisions, the types of evidence they find most valuable, and the types of evidence they have for their protected areas. Managers described a complex array of information needed for management decisions, with nine different factors representing decisions about individual management issues and how to prioritize management actions. While managers reported less access to empirical evidence than other sources, this is not because they do not value it, reporting it to be the most valuable source of evidence. Instead, they make up the shortfall in empirical evidence with experience and information synthesized from multiple lines of evidence, which can provide important context for their decisions. We conclude that managers value a diversity of evidence because they face complex conservation decisions. Therefore, while empirical evidence can play an important role, alone this cannot provide all the knowledge managers need.

Compliance of Australian threatened species recovery plans with legislative requirements.

Recovery plans are the main documents supporting management decision-making for threatened species. We evaluated Australian recovery plans to assess their appropriateness as conservation and management planning instruments. Six legislative requirements (species information and general requirements, species distribution and location, known and potential threats, objectives, performance criteria and actions, duration of the plan, and estimated costs of plan implementation) were used to assess the degree of compliance of recovery plans with the relevant legislation. We assessed all 236 official recovery plans which had been adopted as at January 2006. The results showed that plans were most compliant regarding the setting of objectives, performance criteria, recovery actions, and duration of plan. Most plans included a single performance criterion that was generally related to the population status of target species. Improvement is required in relation to identification of current threats and critical habitats, and the establishment of basic elements of monitoring and evaluation for measuring recovery progress. Gaps in ecological information are the main factors affecting adequate compliance with legislative requirements as opposed to managerial information (e.g. clarity in establishing the implementation schedule, costs and resource allocation). Planning deficiencies could be addressed by improving the recovery planning guidelines and more carefully reviewing the drafting and adoption of new plans.

A global analysis of protected area management effectiveness.

We compiled details of over 8000 assessments of protected area management effectiveness across the world and developed a method for analyzing results across diverse assessment methodologies and indicators. Data was compiled and analyzed for over 4000 of these sites. Management of these protected areas varied from weak to effective, with about 40% showing major deficiencies. About 14% of the surveyed areas showed significant deficiencies across many management effectiveness indicators and hence lacked basic requirements to operate effectively. Strongest management factors recorded on average related to establishment of protected areas (legal establishment, design, legislation and boundary marking) and to effectiveness of governance; while the weakest aspects of management included community benefit programs, resourcing (funding reliability and adequacy, staff numbers and facility and equipment maintenance) and management effectiveness evaluation. Estimations of management outcomes, including both environmental values conservation and impact on communities, were positive. We conclude that in spite of inadequate funding and management process, there are indications that protected areas are contributing to biodiversity conservation and community well-being.

Accountability, reporting, or management improvement? Development of a state of the parks assessment system in New South Wales, Australia.

Management effectiveness evaluation has been recognized as an important mechanism for both reporting on and improving protected area management. The Convention on Biological Diversity's program of work on protected areas calls on all countries to implement such systems. In 2004, the first whole of system assessment of park management effectiveness, based on the IUCN-WCPA Management Effectiveness Evaluation Framework, was undertaken in New South Wales, Australia as part of a State of the Parks reporting requirement. This article describes the development of the State of the Parks assessment tool, its elements, and how it addresses the management effectiveness difficulties associated with assessments conducted across an extensive and diverse range of park types. The importance of engaging staff, at all levels, throughout the process is highlighted, as well as the adjustments made to the assessment tool based on staff feedback. While some results are presented, the main purpose of the article is to identify and discuss important procedural and methodological considerations. These include balancing quantitative and qualitative assessment approaches, achieving a comprehensive understanding of the management processes, and responding to any problems associated with assessments.

Understanding local-scale drivers of biodiversity outcomes in terrestrial protected areas.

Conservation relies heavily on protected areas (PAs) maintaining their key biodiversity features to meet global biodiversity conservation goals. However, PAs have had variable success, with many failing to fully maintain their biodiversity features. The current literature concerning what drives variability in PA performance is rapidly expanding but unclear, sometimes contradictory, and spread across multiple disciplines. A clear understanding of the drivers of successful biodiversity conservation in PAs is necessary to make them fully effective. Here, we conduct a comprehensive assessment of the current state of knowledge concerning the drivers of biological outcomes within PAs, focusing on those that can be addressed at local scales. We evaluate evidence in support of potential drivers to identify those that enable more successful outcomes and those that impede success and provide a synthetic review. Interactions are discussed where they are known, and we highlight gaps in understanding. We find that elements of PA design, management, and local and national governance challenges, species and system ecology, and sociopolitical context can all influence outcomes. Adjusting PA management to focus on actions and policies that influence the key drivers identified here could improve global biodiversity outcomes.

Wildlife population trends in protected areas predicted by national socio-economic metrics and body size.

Ensuring that protected areas (PAs) maintain the biodiversity within their boundaries is fundamental in achieving global conservation goals. Despite this objective, wildlife abundance changes in PAs are patchily documented and poorly understood. Here, we use linear mixed effect models to explore correlates of population change in 1,902 populations of birds and mammals from 447 PAs globally. On an average, we find PAs are maintaining populations of monitored birds and mammals within their boundaries. Wildlife population trends are more positive in PAs located in countries with higher development scores, and for larger-bodied species. These results suggest that active management can consistently overcome disadvantages of lower reproductive rates and more severe threats experienced by larger species of birds and mammals. The link between wildlife trends and national development shows that the social and economic conditions supporting PAs are critical for the successful maintenance of their wildlife populations.

Measuring impact of protected area management interventions: current and future use of the Global Database of Protected Area Management Effectiveness.

Protected areas (PAs) are at the forefront of conservation efforts, and yet despite considerable progress towards the global target of having 17% of the world's land area within protected areas by 2020, biodiversity continues to decline. The discrepancy between increasing PA coverage and negative biodiversity trends has resulted in renewed efforts to enhance PA effectiveness. The global conservation community has conducted thousands of assessments of protected area management effectiveness (PAME), and interest in the use of these data to help measure the conservation impact of PA management interventions is high. Here, we summarize the status of PAME assessment, review the published evidence for a link between PAME assessment results and the conservation impacts of PAs, and discuss the limitations and future use of PAME data in measuring the impact of PA management interventions on conservation outcomes. We conclude that PAME data, while designed as a tool for local adaptive management, may also help to provide insights into the impact of PA management interventions from the local-to-global scale. However, the subjective and ordinal characteristics of the data present significant limitations for their application in rigorous scientific impact evaluations, a problem that should be recognized and mitigated where possible.

Protecting important sites for biodiversity contributes to meeting global conservation targets.

Protected areas (PAs) are a cornerstone of conservation efforts and now cover nearly 13% of the world's land surface, with the world's governments committed to expand this to 17%. However, as biodiversity continues to decline, the effectiveness of PAs in reducing the extinction risk of species remains largely untested. We analyzed PA coverage and trends in species' extinction risk at globally significant sites for conserving birds (10,993 Important Bird Areas, IBAs) and highly threatened vertebrates and conifers (588 Alliance for Zero Extinction sites, AZEs) (referred to collectively hereafter as 'important sites'). Species occurring in important sites with greater PA coverage experienced smaller increases in extinction risk over recent decades: the increase was half as large for bird species with>50% of the IBAs at which they occur completely covered by PAs, and a third lower for birds, mammals and amphibians restricted to protected AZEs (compared with unprotected or partially protected sites). Globally, half of the important sites for biodiversity conservation remain unprotected (49% of IBAs, 51% of AZEs). While PA coverage of important sites has increased over time, the proportion of PA area covering important sites, as opposed to less important land, has declined (by 0.45-1.14% annually since 1950 for IBAs and 0.79-1.49% annually for AZEs). Thus, while appropriately located PAs may slow the rate at which species are driven towards extinction, recent PA network expansion has under-represented important sites. We conclude that better targeted expansion of PA networks would help to improve biodiversity trends.

Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines.

In 2002, world leaders committed, through the Convention on Biological Diversity, to achieve a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. We compiled 31 indicators to report on progress toward this target. Most indicators of the state of biodiversity (covering species' population trends, extinction risk, habitat extent and condition, and community composition) showed declines, with no significant recent reductions in rate, whereas indicators of pressures on biodiversity (including resource consumption, invasive alien species, nitrogen pollution, overexploitation, and climate change impacts) showed increases. Despite some local successes and increasing responses (including extent and biodiversity coverage of protected areas, sustainable forest management, policy responses to invasive alien species, and biodiversity-related aid), the rate of biodiversity loss does not appear to be slowing.