Effectiveness of Parks in Protecting Tropical Biodiversity
Tóm tắt
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
J. Baillie B. Groombridge Eds. 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals [IUCN (World Conservation Union)/Species Survival Commission Gland Switzerland 1996].
IUCN UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living (IUCN/UNEP/WWF Gland Switzerland 1991).
K. Redford K. Brandon S. E. Sanderson in Parks in Peril: People Politics and Protected Areas K. Brandon K. H. Redford S. E. Sanderson Eds. (Nature Conservancy/Island Press Washington DC 1998) pp. 455–464.
K. B . Ghimire M. P. Pimbert Eds. Social Change and Conservation: Environmental Politics and Impacts of National Parks and Protected Areas (Earthscan London 1997).
M. Hocking S. Stolton N. Dudley Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing Management of Protected Areas [IUCN Gland Switzerland and Cambridge UK 2000); available at .
M. J. B. Green M. G. Murray G. C. Bunting J. R. Paine Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in the Tropics [WCMC (World Conservation Monitoring Centre) Biodiversity Bulletin No. 1 Cambridge UK 1996].
J. A. McNeely Ed. Expanding Partnerships in Conservation (Island Press Washington DC 1995).
L. V. Ferreira et al. Áreas Protegidas ou Espaços Ameaçados? Relatório do WWF sobre o Grau de Implementação e Vulnerabilidade das Unidades de Conservação Federais Brasileiras de Uso Indireto (WWF Brasilia Brazia 1999).
But see IUCN “Threats to Forest Protected Areas: A survey of 10 countries carried out in association with the World Commission on Protected Areas” [Research Report from IUCN–The World Conservation Union for The WWF/World Bank Alliance for Conservation and Sustainable Use (1999)]; available at www-esd.worldbank.org/wwf/paperreport.pdf.
See also S. Singh “Assessing Management Effectiveness of Wildlife Protected Areas in India” (Indian Institute of Public Administration New Delhi India 1999); available at www.iucn.org/themes/forests/protectedareas/India.PDF.
Park managers or park staff constituted 56% of respondents; nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and researchers constituted 30%; and central protected area agencies constituted 14%.
Hannah L., Lohse D., Hutchinson C., Carr J., Lankerani A., AMBIO 23, 246 (1994).
We used the “global natural areas map” created by Hannah et al. (14) to select parks in areas of anthropogenic threat. The map divided the world into three categories: natural partly natural and human dominated. We chose parks in “partly natural” and “human dominated” areas. One hundred and eighty-one parks covering 49 854 888 ha met our other criteria (see text) but were excluded because they are located in “natural” areas and are therefore likely protected by isolation.
IUCN Categories I and II. Category I protected areas are defined as Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area—protected area managed mainly for science or wilderness protection. Category II areas are National Parks—protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation.
Source: IUCN CNPPA (Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas) WCMC Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories (IUCN Gland Switzerland 1994).
Five hundred and twenty parks met our criteria. However because protected areas in Laos [National Biodiversity Conservation Areas (NBCAs)] cannot be accurately described by an IUCN category they were initially excluded. On the recommendation of experts we included 15 parks from Laos in the group of parks from which we selected our sample. Five NBCAs were ultimately included in the study. See supplementary data (20) for a list of parks included in this study and their characteristics.
We did not attempt to draw a statistically random sample because this would have been impractical given the difficulty of gathering data. Instead we consulted in-country specialists to help us choose a representative sample of parks. The resulting sample was generally similar to the universe of parks with respect to age (universe median = 22 years sample median = 23 years 0.25 > P > 0.1; χ 2 = 9.8 df = 7) geographical distribution (universe: Africa 27% Americas 32% Asia 41%; sample: Africa 34% Americas 37% Asia 29% 0.1 > P > 0.05; χ 2 = 5.5 df = 2) and IUCN Category (universe: Category I = 15% Category II = 85%; sample: Category I = 14% Category II = 85% P > 0.25 χ 2 = 0.7 df = 1). However the parks in our sample were significantly larger than the group as a whole (universe median = 50 000 ha; sample median = 80 000 ha 0.025 < P < 0.05 χ 2 = 17.1 df = 8). Conservation International is active to varying degrees in 10 of the 93 parks that were selected for study. See supplementary data (20) for a detailed comparison of these sample and universe characteristics.
Supplementary data are available on Science Online at www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5501/125/DC1.
Six of the 93 parks included in this study were not from the universe of parks: 2 from Colombia were in “natural” areas 1 from the Philippines was created in 1997 and 3 from Ghana were not in the initial database from which the universe was selected.
Belize Brazil Cambodia Colombia Cote d'Ivoire Ecuador Ghana Honduras Indonesia Laos Liberia Madagascar Mexico Paraguay Peru Philippines Senegal Tanzania Thailand Togo Uganda and Vietnam. See supplementary data (20) for names and descriptions of parks.
Original questionnaire data are available from authors upon request.
Although the lowest response category for this question was 0 to 3 km where respondents marked this category and indicated in other responses that there were major access points to the park we assumed that there was a major road or river at or within the border (0 km).
A. N. James M. J. B. Green J. R. Paine Global Review of Protected Area Budgets and Staff (WCMC Cambridge UK 1999).
A principle components analysis on the correlation matrix of the factors showed little underlying structure among the attributes tested. The first axis accounted for only 19% of the variation in the data set and the second axis for only 11%. The following variables were significantly correlated with the first component: total density of people in the park total funding per hectare number of guards per hectare and total economic and development staff. Only one of these variables—number of guards per hectare—correlated with park effectiveness.
We thank the many people who contributed the information used in this report those individuals from both government agencies and NGOs who coordinated responses for entire countries and the Conservation International staff who managed this project in the field. We also thank P. Benson T. Brooks S. Edwards C. Gascon J. Ginsberg J. Hardner D. Repasky A. Rylands C. Short and J. Waugh for valuable comments and discussions.