Systematic reviewEffectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines
Introduction
Protected Areas (PAs) have long been regarded as an important tool for maintaining habitat integrity and species diversity (Brooks et al., 2004, Butchart et al., 2010, Coad et al., 2008, Rodrigues et al., 2004), covering more than 12.7% of the planet’s land surface (Bertzky et al., 2012). However, there is considerable debate on the extent to which PAs deliver conservation outcomes in terms of habitat and species protection (Brooks et al., 2006, Ferraro and Simpson, 2002, Meir et al., 2004). It has been suggested that many of the world’s PAs exist only as ‘paper parks’ (Dudley and Stolton, 1999), lacking effective management capacity, and unlikely to deliver effective conservation (Joppa et al., 2008).
PAs are often treated as a single conservation strategy. However, in reality they are established for a variety of reasons, with very different objectives and criteria for success. PAs have been set up for the conservation of ecosystems and their constituent species (Dudley, 2008), protection of specific threatened species (Liu et al., 2001), ecosystem services (Campos and Nepstad, 2006), or for cultural and social reasons (Coad et al., 2008). Understanding the conditions under which PAs deliver conservation benefits for habitats and species is essential for policy makers, managers and conservation advocates (Brooks et al., 2004, Kleiman et al., 2000, Margules and Pressey, 2000).
The success of PAs has generally been evaluated using measures such as the representativeness of PA networks in terms of their species diversity, or coverage of endemic and threatened species (Rodrigues et al., 2004), assuming that PAs provide effective protection once established. Alternatively, by investigating management ‘inputs’ – e.g. whether PAs have management plans, boundaries, staffing, and other management systems and processes (Jachmann, 2008), assuming that increased levels of management equates to successful protection. However, these analyses are not able to describe how conditions inside PAs change over time (Craigie et al., 2010), or evaluate the effectiveness of protection, by combining measures of inputs and measures of outcomes in a temporal framework; thus measuring how biodiversity outcomes change over time in relation to protection or implementation of management actions.
The objective of this paper is to use a ‘systematic review’ methodology (Pullin and Knight, 2009) to review the evidence that PAs deliver a positive change in two conservation outcomes: (a) habitat cover and (b) species populations, i.e. the ability of PAs to maintain or improve native habitat integrity, or native species populations, over time respectively. We further consider the impact of different PA management interventions, or characteristics, where measured, on biodiversity outcomes.
Section snippets
Search strategy
To locate relevant literature, we searched 14 databases, eight specialist sources and 13 websites in English (Table S1). We identified a list of relevant search terms and used Boolean operators and multi term searches (Table S2). Anonymous reviewers appraised the list of relevant search terms and the search strategy. The search was conducted between July and August 2010, covering all publications available up to that point. For a full description of the search strategy, search-terms, and
Results
Of the 2599 publications selected through the systematic search strategy, we found 51 publications on habitat cover and 35 publications on species population trends that fulfilled the inclusion criteria.
Within 13 of the 51 habitat change publications there were multiple counterfactual scenarios. When separated these yielded a total of 76 studies. Three population trend publications covered more than one evaluation of PA effectiveness, yielding 42 studies in total across the 35 publications.
Discussion
This review highlights the limited availability of evidence on the impact of PAs on habitats and fauna. Further, and more alarmingly, there is very little quantitative understanding of how, and under what conditions various PA management interventions improve PA effectiveness.
Analysis of 76 studies across local, regional, and global scales indicates that PAs experience lower rates of habitat loss than areas that are not protected. However, the majority of habitat studies suggest that the effect
Acknowledgements
We thank Professor A. Pullin and the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence for handling the systematic review, and the five reviewers, especially Dr. D. Dawson for invaluable feedback on the original manuscript. We also thank the three anonymous reviewers of this manuscript for valuable contributions and suggestions.
We thank the Danish National Research Foundation for financial support. We also thank the IUCN SSC/WCPA Joint Task-Force on Biodiversity and Protected Areas, UNEP–WCMC, WWF, and
References (88)
- et al.
Patterns and causes of deforestation in the Colombian Amazon
Ecol. Indic.
(2006) - et al.
Identifying the effectiveness and constraints of conservation interventions: a case study of the endangered lesser kestrel
Biol. Conserv.
(2009) - et al.
Large mammal population declines in Africa’s protected areas
Biol. Conserv.
(2010) - et al.
Can common species benefit from protected areas?
Biol. Conserv.
(2007) - et al.
Is community-based forest management more effective than protected areas?: a comparison of land use/land cover change in two neighboring study areas of the Central Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico
For. Ecol. Manage.
(2008) - et al.
Disappearance of the cascades frog Rana cascadae at the southern end of its range, California, USA
Biol. Conserv.
(1993) - et al.
Conservation and climate change: assessing the vulnerability of snow leopard habitat to treeline shift in the Himalaya
Biol. Conserv.
(2012) - et al.
Three decades of deforestation in southwest Sumatra: have protected areas halted forest loss and logging, and promoted re-growth?
Biol. Conserv.
(2007) - et al.
Establishing the causes of the roan antelope decline in the Kruger National Park, South Africa
Biol. Conserv.
(1999) - et al.
Land use and the conservation status of raptors in Botswana
Biol. Conserv.
(2000)
Monitoring law-enforcement performance in nine protected areas in Ghana
Biol. Conserv.
Avoiding deforestation in Panamanian protected areas: an analysis of protection effectiveness and implications for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation
Global Environ. Change
Doing more good than harm - Building an evidence-base for conservation and environmental management
Biol. Conserv.
Preservation of wide-ranging top predators by site-protection: black and red kites in Donana National Park
Biol. Conserv.
Conserving Africa’s rain forests: problems in protected areas and possible solutions
Biol. Conserv.
Nature-reserves and the conservation of Iberian shrubsteppe passerines – the paradox of nest predation
Biol. Conserv.
Predator-prey relationships and responses of ungulates and their predators to the establishment of protected areas: a case study of tigers, leopards and their prey in Bardia National Park, Nepal
Biol. Conserv.
Large scale predator control improves the productivity of a rare New Zealand riverine duck
Biol. Conserv.
Population dynamics and harvest characteristics of wolves in the Central Brooks Range
Alaska. Wildlife. Monogr.
Variations in landscape patterns and vegetation cover between 1957 and 1994 in a semiarid Mediterranean ecosystem
Landscape Ecol.
Public availability of published research data in high-impact journals
PLoS One
Edge effects and the impact of non-protected areas in carnivore conservation: leopards in the Phinda-Mkhuze Complex, South Africa
Anim. Conserv.
A global perspective on trends in nature-based tourism
PLoS Biol.
Protected planet report: tracking progress towards global targets for protected areas
The status of the Kaziranga Rhino population
Tiger Papers
Roadless wilderness area determines forest Elephant movements in the Congo Basin
PLoS One
Assessment of threat status and management effectiveness in Kakamega Forest, Kenya
Biodivers. Conserv.
Tropical deforestation, community forests, and protected areas in the Maya forest
Ecol. Soc.
The changing status of the Chalkhill Blue butterfly Polyommatus coridon in the UK: the impacts of conservation policies and environmental factors
J. Insect Conserv.
Coverage provided by the global protected-area system: is it enough?
Bioscience
Global biodiversity conservation priorities
Science
Quantitative changes in forest quality in a principal overwintering area of the monarch butterfly in Mexico, 1971–1999
Conserv. Biol.
Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity
Science
Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines
Science
Smallholders, the Amazon’s new conservationists
Conserv. Biol.
Densities of mammals in partially protected areas: the Katavi ecosystem of western Tanzania
J. Appl. Ecol.
Monitoring mammal populations in Costa Rican protected areas under different hunting restrictions
Conserv. Biol.
Progress towards the convention on biological diversity terrestrial 2010 and marine 2012 targets for protected area coverage
Parks
Lowland forest loss in protected areas of Indonesian Borneo
Science
Increasing islolation of protected areas in tropical forests over the past twenty years
Ecol. Appl.
Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories
Conversion of “Paper Parks” to Effective Management – Developing a Target
A seventy-year history of trends in Yellowstone’s northern elk herd
J. Wildlife Manag.
Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy
New Dir. Eval.
Cited by (662)
Agro–economic determinants of violations of protected areas in Western Africa
2024, Land Use PolicyConservation assessments using herbarium data reveal a genus at risk: The case of Cordia L. (Cordiaceae) in South America
2024, Journal for Nature ConservationPotential distribution and conservation of the hog-nosed skunk (genus Conepatus, Mammalia: Mephitidae)
2024, Journal for Nature Conservation