THE ROLE OF PROTECTED AREAS IN CONSERVING …web.mnstate.edu/wisenden/TFB2013/Naughton-Treves...of protected areas should be. Twenty-ﬁve years ago, protected areas were largely the

7 Oct 2005 17:42 AR ANRV256-EG30-07.tex XMLPublishSM(2004/02/24) P1: KUV10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.164507

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005. 30:219–52doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.164507

Copyright c© 2005 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved

THE ROLE OF PROTECTED AREAS IN CONSERVING

BIODIVERSITY AND SUSTAINING LOCAL

LIVELIHOODS

Lisa Naughton-Treves,1,3 Margaret Buck Holland,2,3

Katrina Brandon3

1Department of Geography, 2Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies,University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706;email: [email protected], [email protected] for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International, Washington,District of Columbia 20036; email: [email protected]

Key Words national parks, conservation and development, deforestation, tropics

■ Abstract The world’s system of protected areas has grown exponentially over thepast 25 years, particularly in developing countries where biodiversity is greatest. Con-currently, the mission of protected areas has expanded from biodiversity conservationto improving human welfare. The result is a shift in favor of protected areas allowinglocal resource use. Given the multiple purposes of many protected areas, measuringeffectiveness is difficult. Our review of 49 tropical protected areas shows that parksare generally effective at curtailing deforestation within their boundaries. But defor-estation in surrounding areas is isolating protected areas. Many initiatives now aimto link protected areas to local socioeconomic development. Some of these initiativeshave been successful, but in general expectations need to be tempered regarding thecapacity of protected areas to alleviate poverty. Greater attention must also be paid tothe broader policy context of biodiversity loss, poverty, and unsustainable land use indeveloping countries.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220THE EXPANSION OF PROTECTED AREAS, 1980 TO 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

International Campaigns to Expand the Coverage of Protected Areas . . . . . . . . . . 222Geographic Variation and Gaps in Protected Area Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

A SHIFT TOWARD PEOPLE-CENTERED PROTECTED AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227International Agreements and Conventions Defining the Social and

Economic Agenda for Protected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227Creation of New Categories of Protected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

MEASURING PARK EFFECTIVENESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231Analysis of Deforestation Rates in and Around Protected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

1543-5938/05/1121-0219$20.00 219

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

7 Oct 2005 17:42 AR ANRV256-EG30-07.tex XMLPublishSM(2004/02/24) P1: KUV

220 NAUGHTON-TREVES � HOLLAND � BRANDON

Effectiveness of Protected Areas in Sustaining Local Livelihoods:The Experience of Integrated Conservation and Development Projects . . . . . . . . 239

Biodiversity Conservation and Poverty Alleviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241The Special Case of Indigenous People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR FUTUREPROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

Land-Use Zoning and the Creation of Ecological Corridors AroundProtected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

Protected Area Governance and the Importance of Strengthening Institutions . . . . 246

INTRODUCTION

Over the past 25 years, the area of land under legal protection has increased expo-nentially. As of today, >100,000 protected areas have been established encompass-ing 17.1 million km2, or 11.5% of the planet’s terrestrial surface (1). During thesame period, biodiversity, a term once solely considered by scientists, has moved tocenter stage of global environmental debates, most recently at the Seventh Meet-ing of the Conference of the Parties (COP-7) to the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD) in Kuala Lumpur in February 2004. The 157 representatives toCOP-7 agreed to establish and maintain “comprehensive, effectively managed,and ecologically representative systems of protected areas” that, collectively, willsignificantly reduce the rate of global biodiversity loss (2).

Most conservationists celebrate the expansion of protected area coverage andgreater attention to biodiversity. However, they often disagree regarding how best tomanage parks and reserves and, more fundamentally, what the underlying purposeof protected areas should be. Twenty-five years ago, protected areas were largelythe domain of ecologists, forestry officials, and the occasional land-use planner.Now, they are included in the international arena as part of the Millennium Devel-opment Goals (4), and their mission has broadened substantially: Protected areasare expected to directly contribute to national development and poverty reduction.

In this review, we examine the remarkable physical expansion of protectedareas during the past 25 years and draw attention to the equally significant expan-sion in the mission of parks and reserves. We describe the variation in protectedarea coverage between regions and habitats, as well as the different categories ofprotected areas, most notably sustainable-use management areas. We discuss theissue of measuring protected area effectiveness, which is becoming increasinglycomplex given the ever more ambitious (and fiercely disputed) agenda for parks.To highlight one important measure of effectiveness, we present a compilation ofempirical data from 21 studies of deforestation rates in and around 49 protectedareas in the tropics during the past ∼15 years. We draw out the authors’ conclu-sions regarding threats to forests and go on to draw broad inferences about thecapacity of parks to slow deforestation in different contexts.

We then discuss the effectiveness of protected areas in supporting local liveli-hoods, a far more difficult goal to measure and achieve. To start, we recognize that

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


GLOBAL EXPANSION OF PROTECTED AREAS 221

creating parks has sometimes undermined local incomes and security, particularlyin Africa where they are associated with exploitative colonial regimes. Urgentappeals to human rights concerns and equity have pushed a more people-centeredparadigm for parks. We then discuss the modest outcomes thus far of integratedconservation and development projects (ICDPs), the most widespread strategy tolink people and parks. We conclude our review by highlighting two major trendsin protected area management.

Throughout our review, we focus on protected areas in developing countriesbecause these regions hold the highest levels of biodiversity and they have ex-perienced much of the greatest expansion in parks and reserves over the past25 years (5). Managing protected areas in developing countries presents profoundchallenges, given widespread conditions of poverty, rapid population growth, andpolitical instability. Protected areas are buffeted by these local conditions as theyare by powerful international forces as well. Although globalization and neolib-eral reform have brought greater external funding to developing countries forprotected areas, these same reforms have also opened remote areas to logging, oilextraction, and mining (6). Conservationists thus struggle to build alliances withcommunities neighboring protected areas while simultaneously defending parksfrom industrial-scale resource extraction and promoting sustainability in nationalpolicies.

The campaign to protect biodiverse parks and reserves in developing coun-tries exposes political tensions that surface for other international environmentalproblems, such as climate change. How can local rights be balanced with globalenvironmental aims? What right do northern countries have in promoting certainenvironmental strategies for southern countries given the North’s disproportionateconsumption of the world’s resources? Yet, what sets the protected area debateapart and obliges conservationists to work across international boundaries is thatbiodiversity is not fungible. Biodiversity, by almost any definition, is tied to spe-cific places. Although there have been advances in ex situ conservation of singlespecies, biodiversity maintenance still requires in situ protection. For example, ifmountain gorillas are to survive, they must be protected in Africa’s Albertine Rift,a desperately impoverished and politically instable region. This reality compelsconservationists to focus on place-based interventions, namely, protected areas.

THE EXPANSION OF PROTECTED AREAS, 1980 TO 2005

To understand the forces driving the global expansion of protected areas, it is neces-sary to trace key events in the development of international environmental policyduring the past 25 years. During this period, consensus emerged that protectedareas were essential for maintaining biodiversity. There was also agreement thatprotected areas must address local communities’ concerns with development. Butconsiderable debate surfaced regarding the relative weight of social and economicobjectives versus biodiversity goals in protected area management.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



International Campaigns to Expandthe Coverage of Protected Areas

The campaign to expand protected areas began in earnest at the 1982 World ParksCongress in Bali, where delegates recommended that all nations strive to place 10%of their lands under protection (7). A decade later, protected areas were promotedagain in the landmark Rio Summit—or 1992 United Nations (UN) Conference onEnvironment and Development. Delegates came from around the world to discussthe meaning and importance of biodiversity and to formally endorse conservationprograms. In the end, 167 countries signed on to the CBD and pledged to createsystems of protected areas to conserve in situ biodiversity (29, Article 8a).

These high profile events and international conventions helped spur the expan-sion of protected areas, as did growing public concern over rain-forest destruction.Further driving the expansion was increased funding for protected area manage-ment. For example, several U.S. foundations increased their funding for interna-tional biodiversity sevenfold during the late 1980s (8). During the period 1990 to1997, U.S. government agencies, private foundations, and nongovernmental or-ganizations (NGOs) invested $3.26 billion in biodiversity conservation in LatinAmerica alone, with 35% of the total dedicated to protected area support (9). Thenumber of protected areas and their area of coverage has tripled over the past twodecades (Figures 1 and 2), and many countries have met or surpassed the 10%set-aside target [e.g., Venezuela 34.2%, Bhutan 29.6% (10)] (Table 1).

Geographic Variation and Gaps in Protected Area Coverage

The expansion of protected areas has been highly variable among world regions.Zimmerer et al.’s analysis (11) of data from 1985 and 1997 published by theWorld Conservation Union (IUCN) and the UN Environment Programme’s WorldConservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) revealed that the largest areas of landwere added to North and South American protected area systems (1,283,914 km2

and 1,148,567 km2, respectively), whereas the largest percent increases occurredin Middle America (composed of Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean)and Western/Mediterranean Europe (i.e., western Europe and the European sideof the Mediterranean), 10.38% and 10.28%, respectively (11). Russia, Central andSouth Asia, and Australia were among the regions lagging behind in protectedarea coverage (11).

The unevenness of protected area coverage has a number of possible explana-tions. Some posit that wealthy countries devote more land to parks because manyof their citizens hold postmaterialist values about protecting nature (116). Relatedresearch by Steinberg (12) highlights the political relationships shaping the geog-raphy of biodiversity investments. He suggests that countries more closely alignedwith the West (especially the United States) receive more funding for environmen-tal activities and thus set aside more land in protected areas. However, Venezuelaand Cuba are conspicuous counterexamples to Steinberg’s hypothesis because de-spite their problemmatic relationships with the United States, they have large areas

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



Fig

ure

1C

umul

ativ

egr

owth

inth

enu

mbe

rof

prot

ecte

dar

eas

wor

ldw

ide,

1900

–200

3.So

urce

:der

ived

from

data

avai

labl

eat

UN

Env

iron

men

tPro

gram

me’

sW

orld

Con

serv

atio

nM

onito

ring

Cen

tre

(UN

EP

WC

MC

)(5

),20

05.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



Fig

ure

2C

umul

ativ

egr

owth

inar

eaco

vere

dby

prot

ecte

dar

eas,

1900

–200

3.So

urce

:de

rive

dfr

omda

taav

aila

ble

atU

NE

PW

CM

C(5

),20

05.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



TABLE 1 Top 20 developing countries by percent territory in protected areas (PAs)a

Area in protected areacategories I–Vb

Percent totalland areab

Categories I–VIand otherc

Percent totalland areasc

Venezuela 34.2 Colombia 72.3

Guadeloupe 31.4 Venezuela 70.4

Mauritius 29.8 Brunei Darussalam 56.2

Bhutan 29.6 Saint Pierre andMiquelon

50.9

Brunei Darussalam 23.9 Saudi Arabia 41.8

Tonga 23.7 Zambia 41.4

Dominican Republic 22.9 Tanzania 39.6

Cambodia 20.5 Guadeloupe 31.9

Saint Helena 19.8 Malaysia 30.5

Botswana 18.1 Bhutan 30.2

Equatorial Guinea 16.8 Botswana 30.2

French Guiana 15.4 Mauritius 29.8

Hong Kong 15.4 Ecuador 27

Tanzania 14.6 Sri Lanka 26.5

Congo 14.1 Uganda 26.4

Mongolia 13.5 Dominica 25.6

Dominica 13.3 Dominican Republic 24.5

Suriname 12.7 Hong Kong 24.4

Thailand 12.7 Tonga 23.7

Seychelles 12 Costa Rica 23.5

aSource: World Resources Institute (10).bThese data are based on protected areas officially designated as IUCN categories Ia, Ib, II, III, IV, and V.cThese data include all categories of protected areas, as recognized and listed by the IUCN.

under legal protection. Other observers point out that, for practical reasons, pro-tected areas are more likely to be established where land is inexpensive—oftenamidst vast expanses of sparsely inhabited frontier land. For example, looking atall parks in Latin America and the Caribbean that were established through 2002,the vast majority by number (85%) were inside the “human footprint”—areas de-fined as largely impacted by people (13, 14). However, in terms of area, only 24%of the total area of the reserves was in places of high human impact (13, 14).This indicates that many small reserves were established near people, likely inplaces containing species in decline or with opportunities for tourism or historicmonument preservation. But the largest protected areas, and hence those that aremost consistent with long-term biodiversity conservation, have been establishedin places where human impacts are low.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



Setting aside international variation in protected area coverage, the coverageof biomes varies widely. Tropical rain forests have received a disproportionateemphasis in conservation campaigns owing to their great species richness, butsome analysts worry that other goals may have been neglected in the “tyrannyof the rain forest” (Director K. Redford, Wildlife Conservation Society Institute,personal communication).

One prominent conservation strategy, first promoted in the mid-1980s by Britishecologist Norman Myers (14a), focuses on “biodiversity hotspots”—regions withexceptionally high concentrations of endemic species (those found nowhere else)and high habitat loss. An updated analysis released in February 2005 identified34 hotspots worldwide. These 34 regions contain 75% of all threatened mammals,birds, and amphibians within only 2.3% of the Earth’s surface (15). Hoekstraet al. (16) argue that if in place of species loss, conservationists were to focus onrates of land conversion (e.g., to agriculture or cities), their concern would shiftfrom tropical rainforests to Mediterranean forests or temperate grasslands. Onlya fraction of the original area of these biomes is under protection, and nearly halfof the area has been lost (16). Similarly, mangroves and tropical dry forests areunderrepresented in protected area networks. The hotspots approach has also beencriticized because it excludes areas with lower species richness that neverthelessprovide important ecological services (e.g., water capture or carbon sequestration)or scenic beauty (17).

Undoubtedly, the best solution would be to develop a network of parks andreserves sufficient to address all these concerns. But given the limited funding cur-rently available for protected areas, some international conservation organizationsare calling attention to current extinction rates to justify making species and habitatprotection a priority. Human activities have caused plant and animal extinctionsto reach rates ∼1000 times greater than background rates, perhaps comparable tothose experienced during the great mass extinctions of the past (18, 19). Someconservationists argue that these extinction rates justify an emphasis on protect-ing species and their habitats, an approach that also implicitly requires resourcetransfers from developed to tropical countries.

Despite disagreement about geographic priorities, most conservationists agreethat more land needs to be protected for several reasons. First, most parks are notlarge enough to maintain adequate populations of rare or far-ranging species norto maintain ecosystem-level processes that sustain biodiversity (e.g., natural fireregimes) (20). Most of the world’s protected areas are smaller than 10,000 hectare(ha) (approximately 80% of the global protected areas in IUCN categories I–VI)(5). Small parks have significant local importance, but research suggests that onlyparks >10,000 ha have the potential to slow long-term species loss (21). More-over, many sites of high endemism and/or species richness have no legal protection(22), and pressures to transform land, particularly to agriculture, are increasing.One third of the world’s land has already been transformed to agriculture or ur-ban areas, and projections suggest that an additional one third could be convertedwithin the next 100 years (23). Pressure on remaining natural habitats and the

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



biodiversity within them is likely to intensify from the combined impacts of pop-ulation growth, increased resource consumption in both rich and poor countries,civil conflict, climate change, expansion of large-scale development activities, anda doubling of food demand in the next 50 years (24). Building on these and otherfindings, delegates to the 2003 World Parks Congress, entitled “Benefits BeyondBoundaries” in Durban, South Africa, concluded that the global reserve systemmust be expanded if further extinctions are to be avoided (1). As efforts to conservebiodiversity are scaled up, human welfare and economic issues come to the fore.

A SHIFT TOWARD PEOPLE-CENTEREDPROTECTED AREAS

During the 1980s and 1990s, as the number of protected areas multiplied, con-ventional views on economic development shifted profoundly, with important im-plications for conservation. Much of the rhetoric on the fringes of mainstreamdevelopment theory in the late 1970s and early 1980s, such as appropriate andsmall-scale technologies, local empowerment, popular participation, democrati-zation, and devolution of power, moved to center stage. These perspectives fitwell with the need to internalize development concerns into the conservation de-bate, and their impact was apparent in formal international plans for protectingbiodiversity.

International Agreements and Conventions Definingthe Social and Economic Agenda for Protected Areas

At the 1982 World Parks Congress in Bali, the consensus emerged that “pro-tected areas in developing countries will survive only insofar as they addresshuman concerns” (25, p. 134). Delegates offered suggestions on how to supportcommunities’ neighboring parks, whether via sustainable development projects,education, tourism revenue sharing, or opening park resources to local use. De-spite a newfound commitment to human welfare, some delegates expressed doubtthat protected areas could deliver substantial economic benefits to the broad citi-zenry. Everyone agreed that parks and reserves had a fundamental role in protect-ing species from extinction and supporting natural ecological processes, but somewondered whether they could also provide a multitude of benefits at local, regionaland global scales.

The importance of integrating biodiversity conservation with sustainable eco-nomic development was underscored again in 1987, in the report issued by theWorld Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commis-sion) (26). At the 1992 World Parks Congress, the expectations of what parkscould accomplish were ratcheted up even further. Conservationists were called todevise “win-win” scenarios of conservation and development in which both ap-propriate human use of natural resources and the preservation of the same could

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



occur simultaneously (27). Congress delegates agreed that “protected areas mustbe managed so that local communities, the nations involved, and the world com-munity all benefit,” and some went on further to say that parks should become“demonstrations of how an entire country must be managed” (28).

A formal, international commitment to these goals was forged in the 1992 UNConference on Environment and Development—known as the Rio Earth Summit—when countries drafted the CBD (29) to address the loss of biodiversity and developmechanisms for funding. To date, the CBD has been ratified by 179 governmentsand has more signatories than most other international environmental agreements,despite the conspicuous absence of the United States as a signatory. The CBD hasthree primary objectives: (a) conservation of biological diversity, (b) sustainableuse of the components of biological diversity, and (c) fair and equitable sharing ofthe benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources (29, Article 1).

The creation of the CBD was not completely smooth, however, and there wasconsiderable debate over the precise meanings of many of the terms being used,e.g., sustainable use, fair and equitable sharing, and even biodiversity, reflectingthe competing interests among the wide range of actors, from indigenous peoples’leaders to pharmaceutical company representatives. These contested meaningshave profound implications for protected area management (30, 31). If biodiver-sity is defined to include human cultural diversity (28), park management becomesa much more complex endeavor. Ultimately, the CBD adopted the following, moreconventional definition of biological diversity: “the variability among living or-ganisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquaticecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includesdiversity within species, between species and of ecosystems” (29).

These treaties, and the attention given to biodiversity amid high threat, signaledthe beginning of a campaign to create protected areas where none existed, espe-cially in those countries regarded as having the highest levels of biodiversity thatwere under the greatest threat. Developed nations, through bilateral and multilat-eral organizations, restructured some of their development assistance to providethe financing for protected area expansion. However, both developed and develop-ing countries were eager to see this financing support conservation and economicdevelopment, whenever possible.

Creation of New Categories of Protected Areas

Conservationists worldwide were thus faced with the challenging task of rapidlyassembling a global protected area system where none existed, among disparatesociopolitical conditions and institutional settings from one region to the next. Inrecognition that different types of protected areas are better suited to different set-tings and that not all of these areas emphasize biodiversity conservation, the WorldCommission on Protected Areas developed six different management categorieswith two subcategories: (a) areas managed primarily for biodiversity conserva-tion (categories I and II) and (b) areas managed mainly for the sustainable use of

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



TABLE 2 The six categories of protected area recognized by the World ConservationUnion (IUCN)a

Category Description

I (a and b) Strict nature reserve, wilderness protection area, or wilderness area managedmainly for science or wilderness protection

II National park, managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation

III National monument, managed mainly for conservation of specific naturalfeatures

IV Habitat/species management area, managed mainly for conservation throughmanagement intervention

V Protected landscape/seascape, managed mainly for landscape/seascapeconservation or recreation

VI Managed resource protected area, managed mainly for sustainable use of naturalresources

aSource: derived from data available at UN Environment Programme’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre (5).

resources (categories III–VI) (Table 2). Within this same report, the IUCN re-leased its official definition of a protected area, a definition that reflects the changein conservation strategies of the time and the expansion and diversification of theoriginal protected area model: “An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated tothe protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associ-ated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means” (32).The vast majority of the world’s protected areas (84.5% of those with assignedIUCN categories) are open to some form of human use.

It is commonly believed that the global growth of protected areas between 1985and 1997 was focused within the managed-use categories of protected areas, i.e.,those with less strict levels of protection. Zimmerer et al. (11) tested this hypothesisby comparing the IUCN-WCMC protected area listings for both 1985 and 1997,grouping the categories into two divisions—strict protection (categories I–III)versus less strict protection or sustainable use (categories IV–VI), and analyzingchanges within the two groups for this same time period. Unexpectedly, theydiscovered only a weak shift to less strictly protected areas and concluded thatover the past two decades the growth in protected areas globally has maintaineda stable ratio between the amount of land placed under the stricter protectionafforded by IUCN categories I–III, and the emphasis on more sustainably utilizedland designated in protected area systems under categories IV–VI. They go on todescribe a strong shift toward strict protection in East Asia, and an opposite trendin Latin America and Western/Mediterranean Europe. It is worth noting that since1997, when this analysis ends, over 2.5 million km2 of land have been put intoapproximately 13,800 new protected areas, a change that merits a new analysis ofthese trends using more current data (Figure 3) (5).

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



Fig

ure

3G

row

thin

num

ber

ofpr

otec

ted

area

sw

orld

wid

eby

IUC

Nca

tego

ry,1

970–

2003

.Sou

rce:

UN

EP

WC

MC

(5).

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



A similar result emerged from a more detailed analysis of developments in theprotected area systems of Ecuador and Peru between 1980 and 2000 (44, 48). Thesetwo countries added greater land to their protected area system under categoriesI and II than under categories III–VI (those emphasizing sustainable use). Buttwo key lessons emerged from a subsequent series of interviews and fieldwork.First, the addition of two large (1million ha each) national parks in the Amazonfrontier swamped the analysis. Second, and perhaps more important, protectedarea managers were largely unconcerned with official IUCN categories; in fact,they all (understandably) struggled to recall the six-part nomenclature.

Categorization of protected areas is a dynamic process. Protected area bound-aries are often shifted, and multiple-use zones are frequently created within nationalparks. Some protected areas zoned for multiple-use areas are upgraded to core ar-eas. In Brazil, a key country for analysis given that it holds half the world’s rainforest, over twice as much state and federal protected land is open to sustainableuse (III–VI) compared to strictly protected (I and II) lands (34). If one includeslands belonging to indigenous peoples, which are managed for sustainable use, thefigure rises to nearly five times the area under strict protection. Globally, using themost recent data available, relatively few protected areas are managed with bio-diversity conservation as the primary objective; of the world’s 98,400 terrestrialprotected areas, only 8800 (8.9%) are listed under IUCN categories I or II (10).

MEASURING PARK EFFECTIVENESS

Evaluating the effectiveness of protected areas is difficult, especially given thepoor availability of data on ecological and social conditions and their change overtime. Evaluating park effectiveness is also a politically fraught endeavor giventhe ambitious and disparate agendas imposed on protected areas. For example, aconservation biologist may label a protected area as a conservation success only ifthe full suite of native wildlife species is present in viable populations, includinglarge and rare carnivores. An anthropologist viewing the same protected area maydeem it a failure if local citizens’ rights or livelihoods were undermined whenthe park was established. Thus, public discussions regarding the effectiveness ofprotected areas sometimes resemble the familiar blind-men-observing-an-elephantparable. For example, recently the Manager of Machalilla National Park in Ecuadorpublicly promised that this 39,000 ha protected area would serve as a maquinade dinero (money machine) for the surrounding province. In the same meeting,indigenous leaders testified that Machalilla was above all else a cultural homelandand “source of life” for the Agua Blanca people. Then an Ecuadorian botanistexplained that the park represented the last hope for sustaining endemic speciesfound in coastal dry forests (35).

Recognizing the lack of a unified measure of protected area effectiveness, weoffer two different analyses: (a) an empirical assessment of the ability of protectedareas to prevent forest conversion and (b) a broader discussion of the progress

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



made thus far in integrating local economic development with protected area man-agement.

Analysis of Deforestation Rates inand Around Protected Areas

Despite the “conceptual muddiness” regarding the mission of protected areas (36),persistent concern for species loss in developing countries has yielded several pub-lications evaluating conditions in tropical rain-forest parks. All these publicationspresent a litany of management problems and paint a potentially troubled futurefor parks. Conversely, many rain-forest parks appear to be slowing land conver-sion even though they have inadequate political and financial support and facesignificant threats (37). Avoiding deforestation is not the ultimate litmus test forparks; biodiversity can be significantly compromised by invisible threats, such ashunting (38). But intact forest is an important signal that protected areas are havingsubstantive results on land-use changes.

To investigate the effectiveness of protected areas in slowing land conversion,we compiled results from 20 recently published studies on deforestation rates at49 protected areas across the tropics (Table 3). To improve conformity betweenstudies and better reflect recent advances in remote-sensing technologies and anal-ysis, we used the following selection criteria: (a) published after 1998, (b) focusedon moist or wet tropical forest, and (c) offered analysis of deforestation rates overtime. Most of the studies focused on changes over the past two decades and reliedprimarily on Landsat satellite imagery, supplemented by analyses of aerial photos,SPOT, MODIS, IKONOS, or Corona images. Quality control was typically ensuredby field verification and ground truth techniques, with some studies using image-to-image referencing. The 19 teams of authors employed various sample designs.Some focused on assessing deforestation trends only within protected area bound-aries, and others compared deforestation within parks to outlying areas, rangingfrom less than 1 km to 15 km from the park boundary. More sophisticated analysesof forest conditions, including fragmentation and patch size, are becoming morecommon (39); however, given the criteria of this review, too few were available toyield substantive cross-site comparisons.

In the 36 cases for which authors explicitly compared deforestation rates out-side and within protected areas, in 32 the deforestation rates were faster outsideprotected area boundaries than within (range 0.1% to 14% faster outside), whereasin 4 cases the protected areas were ineffective (i.e., there was no difference in rates,or rates were actually faster inside the protected area) (Table 3). The small samplesize (36 sites) and variable methods limit rigorous analysis that might identify cor-relates of protected area effectiveness, but it appears that among the three tropicalregions, Latin American protected areas are fairing best in mitigating deforesta-tion. Curran et al.’s 2004 documentation (57) of forest degradation due to loggingin Indonesia’s protected areas dominate the sample of Asian parks. Research ondeforestation in African protected areas has been generally scarce, at least whencompared to Latin America.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



TA

BL

E3

Def

ores

tatio

nst

udie

sat

indi

vidu

alpr

otec

ted

area

s

Pro

tect

edar

ea(P

A)

Ref

eren

ceC

ount

ryY

ear

PAes

tabl

ishe

dSi

zeof

PA(h

a)a

IUC

NC

ateg

orya

Ele

vati

onw

ithi

nPA

(m)a

Ana

lyti

cal

desi

gna

Def

orin

vsou

ta

IsPA

repo

rted

tom

itig

ate

defo

r?a

Rep

orte

dT

hrea

tsto

PAa

Afr

ica

Abe

rdar

esFo

rest

Res

erve

40K

enya

1943

103,

316

II18

00–3

200

Def

orin

side

PAon

ly—

—L

og,c

harc

-fue

l,ag

-sub

sis,

graz

e,se

ttle

Bud

ongo

Fore

stR

eser

ve41

Uga

nda

1932

81,7

88un

set

700–

1270

Def

orou

tsid

ePA

only

——

Ag,

log,

war

,set

tle

Bug

oma

Fore

stR

eser

ve41

Uga

nda

1932

39,9

73un

set

990–

1295

Def

orou

tsid

ePA

only

——

Ag,

log,

war

,set

tle

Bw

indi

Impe

netr

able

Fore

stN

atio

nal

Park

41U

gand

a19

9132

,092

II11

90–2

607

Def

orou

tsid

ePA

only

——

Ag,

log,

war

,set

tle

Kag

ombe

Fore

stR

eser

ve41

Uga

nda

1953

30,0

63un

set

—D

efor

outs

ide

PAon

ly—

—A

g,lo

g,w

ar,s

ettle

Kal

inzu

-M

aram

agam

boFo

rest

Res

erve

41U

gand

a19

3258

,400

unse

t—

Def

orou

tsid

ePA

only

——

Ag,

log,

war

,set

tle

Kas

yoha

-Kito

mi

Fore

stR

eser

ve41

Uga

nda

1932

39,9

00un

set

975–

2136

Def

orou

tsid

ePA

only

——

Ag,

log,

war

,set

tle

Kib

ale

Nat

iona

lPa

rk42

Uga

nda

1932

76,6

00II

1110

–159

0D

efor

insi

devs

.out

side

PA+

Yes

Tea

plan

tatio

nsA

g

Kib

ale

Nat

iona

lPa

rk43

Uga

nda

1932

76,6

00II

1110

–159

0D

efor

insi

devs

.out

side

PA++

Yes

Cha

rc-f

uel

Lat

inA

mer

ica

and

the

Car

ibbe

anA

ltoM

ayo

Res

erve

44Pe

ru19

7918

2,00

0V

I50

0–15

00D

efor

insi

devs

.out

side

PA+

No

Hun

t,lo

g

Bah

uaja

Sone

neN

atio

nalP

ark

44Pe

ru19

771,

091,

416

II10

0–40

0D

efor

insi

devs

.out

side

PA+

Yes

Hun

t,lo

g,m

ine

(Con

tinu

ed)

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



TA

BL

E3

(Con

tinu

ed)

Pro

tect

edar

ea(P

A)

Ref

eren

ceC

ount

ryY

ear

PAes

tabl

ishe

dSi

zeof

PA(h

a)a

IUC

NC

ateg

orya

Ele

vati

onw

ithi

nPA

(m)a

Ana

lyti

cal

desi

gna

Def

orin

vsou

ta

IsPA

repo

rted

tom

itig

ate

defo

r?a

Rep

orte

dT

hrea

tsto

PAa

Bra

ulio

Car

rillo

Nat

iona

lPar

k45

Cos

taR

ica

1978

48,1

58II

500–

2900

Def

orin

side

vs.o

utsi

dePA

+Y

esA

g,lo

g

Caa

guaz

uN

atio

nalP

ark

46Pa

ragu

ay19

7616

,000

II25

0–30

0D

efor

insi

devs

.out

side

PA+

Yes

Ag,

settl

e,lo

g

Cab

oB

lanc

oB

iolo

gica

lR

eser

ve

45C

osta

Ric

a19

631,

172

Ia0

Def

orin

side

vs.o

utsi

dePA

0Y

esA

g,lo

g

Cah

uita

Nat

iona

lPa

rk45

Cos

taR

ica

1970

1,07

0II

10D

efor

insi

devs

.out

side

PA+

Yes

Ag,

log

Cal

akm

ulB

iosp

here

Res

erve

47M

exic

o19

9372

3,18

5U

NE

SCO

-M

AB

50–3

80D

efor

insi

devs

.out

side

PA+

Yes

Ag-

subs

is,l

og

Car

ara

Bio

logi

cal

Res

erve

45,4

8C

osta

Ric

a19

785,

312

II10

0–10

00D

efor

insi

devs

.out

side

PA++

Yes

Ag,

log

Cay

ambe

Coc

aR

eser

ve48

Ecu

ador

1970

403,

103

VI

600–

5790

Def

orin

side

vs.o

utsi

dePA

(−)

No

Hun

t,lo

g,gr

aze,

fire,

min

e,oi

lC

elaq

ueN

atio

nalP

ark

49H

ondu

ras

1987

27,0

00II

1800

–282

7D

efor

insi

devs

.out

side

PA+

Yes

Ag-

subs

is,l

og,

settl

eC

hirr

ipo

Nat

iona

lPar

k45

Cos

taR

ica

1975

51,6

41II

1220

–381

9D

efor

insi

devs

.out

side

PA+

Yes

Ag,

log

Cor

cova

doN

atio

nalP

ark

45C

osta

Ric

a19

7547

,563

II75

0D

efor

insi

devs

.out

side

PA+

Yes

Ag,

log,

hunt

,m

ine

Cor

cova

doN

atio

nalP

ark

50C

osta

Ric

a19

7547

,563

II75

0D

efor

insi

devs

.out

side

PA+

Yes

Ag,

log,

hunt

,m

ine

Gua

naca

ste

Nat

iona

lPar

k45

Cos

taR

ica

1991

38,4

61II

0D

efor

insi

devs

.out

side

PA+

Yes

Ag,

log

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



Hel

lshi

reH

ills,

Port

land

Big

htPA

51Ja

mai

ca19

996,

475

unse

t20

–700

Def

orin

side

vs.o

utsi

dePA

+Y

esC

harc

-fue

l,se

ttle,

ag-s

ubsi

s

Man

uelA

nton

ioN

atio

nalP

ark

45C

osta

Ric

a19

7268

2II

100

Def

orin

side

vs.o

utsi

dePA

++Y

esA

g,lo

g

May

aB

iosp

here

Res

erve

52G

uate

mal

a19

902,

112,

940

UN

ESC

O-

MA

B50

–636

Def

orin

side

PAon

ly—

—A

g-su

bsis

,log

,N

TFP

May

aB

iosp

here

Res

erve

53G

uate

mal

a19

902,

112,

940

UN

ESC

O-

MA

B50

–636

Def

orin

side

vs.o

utsi

dePA

+Y

esL

og

Mba

raca

yuFo

rest

Bio

sphe

reR

eser

ve

46Pa

ragu

ay20

0028

0,00

0U

NE

SCO

-M

AB

140–

450

Def

orin

side

vs.o

utsi

dePA

+Y

esA

g,se

ttle,

log

Mon

tes

Azu

les

Bio

sphe

reR

eser

ve

54M

exic

o19

7933

1,20

0U

NE

SCO

-M

AB

200–

1460

Def

orin

side

vs.o

utsi

dePA

+Y

esA

g-su

bsis

,log

Paca

yaSa

mir

iaR

eser

ve44

Peru

1940

2,08

0,00

0V

I12

5–80

0D

efor

insi

devs

.out

side

PA+

Yes

Hun

t,lo

g,fir

e

Podo

carp

usN

atio

nalP

ark

48E

cuad

or19

8214

6,28

0II

900–

3600

Def

orin

side

vs.o

utsi

dePA

+Y

esH

unt,

log,

graz

e,fir

eSa

nM

atia

,San

Car

los

Res

erve

44Pe

ru19

8714

5,81

8V

I—

Def

orin

side

vs.o

utsi

dePA

+N

oH

unt,

log

San

Raf

ael

Man

aged

Res

ourc

eR

eser

ve

46Pa

ragu

ay20

0270

,000

VI

300–

830

Def

orin

side

vs.o

utsi

dePA

+Y

esA

g,se

ttle,

log

Sang

ayN

atio

nal

Park

48E

cuad

or19

7551

7,72

5II

600–

5230

Def

orin

side

vs.o

utsi

dePA

+Y

esH

unt,

log,

graz

e

Tort

ugue

roN

atio

nalP

ark

45C

osta

Ric

a19

7518

,946

II29

9D

efor

insi

devs

.out

side

PA+

Yes

Ag,

log

(Con

tinu

ed)

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



TA

BL

E3

(Con

tinu

ed)

Pro

tect

edar

ea(P

A)

Ref

eren

ceC

ount

ryY

ear

PAes

tabl

ishe

dSi

zeof

PA(h

a)a

IUC

NC

ateg

orya

Ele

vati

onw

ithi

nPA

(m)a

Ana

lyti

cal

desi

gna

Def

orin

vsou

ta

IsPA

repo

rted

tom

itig

ate

defo

r?a

Rep

orte

dT

hrea

tsto

PAa

Vol

can

Are

nal

Nat

iona

lPar

k45

Cos

taR

ica

1991

12,0

10II

1000

–145

0D

efor

insi

devs

.out

side

PA+

Yes

Ag,

log

Vol

can

Teno

rio

Nat

iona

lPar

k45

Cos

taR

ica

1976

5,27

7II

—D

efor

insi

devs

.out

side

PA+

Yes

Ag,

log

Yan

acha

ga-

Che

mill

enN

atio

nalP

ark

44Pe

ru19

8612

2,00

0II

800–

3800

Def

orin

side

vs.o

utsi

dePA

+N

oH

unt,

log

Yas

unıN

atio

nal

Park

48E

cuad

or19

7998

2,30

0II

500–

600

Def

orin

side

vs.o

utsi

dePA

+N

oH

unt,

log,

oil

Asi

aB

ach

Ma

Nat

iona

lPar

k55

Vie

tnam

1991

22,0

31II

200–

1500

Def

orin

side

vs.o

utsi

dePA

+Y

esA

g-su

bsis

,log

,se

ttle

Buk

itB

aris

anSe

lata

nN

atio

nal

Park

56In

done

sia

1999

365,

000

II0–

1964

Def

orin

side

vs.o

utsi

dePA

(−)

No

Ag-

subs

is,s

ettle

,lo

g,fir

e

Gun

ung

Palu

ngN

atio

nalP

ark

57In

done

sia

1990

27,0

00II

0–11

60D

efor

insi

devs

.out

side

PA+

Yes

Log

,Ag,

ag-s

ubsi

s

Ker

inci

Sebl

atN

atio

nalP

ark

58In

done

sia

1982

1,36

8,00

0II

200–

3805

Def

orin

side

vs.o

utsi

dePA

0N

oL

og,a

g-su

bsis

Wol

ong

Nat

ure

Res

erve

59C

hina

1975

200,

000

V12

00–6

250

Def

orin

side

vs.o

utsi

dePA

+N

oSe

ttle,

ag-s

ubsi

s,lo

g,ch

arc-

fuel

a The

mea

ning

ofab

brev

iatio

nsan

dsy

mbo

lsar

eha

,hec

tare

;def

or,d

efor

estr

atio

n;+,

defo

rest

atio

nou

tsid

ePA

>in

side

PA;+

+,de

fore

stat

ion

outs

ide

PA>

insi

dePA

(with

>de

fore

stra

tion

atbo

unda

ry);

(−),

defo

rest

atio

nin

side

PA>

outs

ide

PA;0

,no

diff

eren

cebe

twee

nde

fore

stra

tion

insi

dean

dou

tsid

ePA

;Ag,

larg

e-sc

ale

agri

cultu

re;a

g-su

bsis

,sub

sist

ence

agri

cultu

re(s

lash

&bu

rn);

brow

se,b

row

sing

byla

rge

mam

mal

s(e

leph

ants

);ch

arc-

fuel

,cha

rcoa

lpro

duct

ion

and

fuel

woo

d;fir

e,cl

eari

ngfo

rag

ricu

lture

and

wild

fires

;gra

ze,l

ives

tock

graz

ing;

hunt

,hun

ting;

log,

logg

ing

(bot

hfo

rla

ndcl

eari

ngan

dla

rge-

scal

e);m

ine,

min

ing;

NT

FP,c

olle

ctio

nof

nont

imbe

rfo

rest

prod

ucts

;oil,

oile

xplo

ratio

nan

dex

trac

tion;

settl

e,en

croa

chm

entb

yhu

man

settl

emen

ts;

and

war

,des

truc

tion

ofha

bita

tdue

tow

ar/c

onfli

ct;U

NE

SCO

-MA

B,B

iosp

here

Res

erve

offic

ially

reco

gniz

edby

the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

Env

iron

men

tand

Scie

nce

Man

inth

eB

iosp

here

Prog

ram

me;

unse

t,IU

CN

cate

gory

ofpr

otec

ted

area

isno

tide

ntifi

ed;—

,unk

now

n.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



The size of the protected area does not appear to correlate with deforestationoutcomes. The category of a protected area might be relevant in that type V andVI protected areas appear to be less effective in mitigating deforestation than typeII protected areas, but again, firm conclusions are limited by the small samplesize and the rudimentary methods of measuring effectiveness. Human populationdensity has a potentially confounding affect on assessments of park effectiveness,especially given the contrast between sites. For example, remote protected areasin sparsely inhabited regions of the Amazon, such as Bahuaja-Sonene NationalPark in Peru where there are <10 people/km2, appear to have a minimal affect onslowing deforestation simply because land clearing is negligible around most oftheir boundaries. Conversely, protected areas in densely settled areas (e.g., KibaleNational Park in Uganda where there are ∼90 to 240 people/km2) may appearmore effective given that deforestation is much faster in the densely settled landbeyond the boundary, yet absolute deforestation rates are slower in Bahuaja-SoneneNational Park than in Kibale.

Comparing these studies is difficult given that many focus on only one aspectof forest-cover change or do not offer enough detail so as to allow transferabilityof methods and results. Because of the typically high cost of images and/or theproblems with cloud cover in humid regions, researchers often must design theiranalysis around the availability of their chosen satellite imagery, and this dictatesthe length of time period. Of the studies researched for this chapter, only twothat focused on inside and outside protected area change examined a time periodgreater than 20 years, with the average time period of analysis being slightly morethan 13 years. This leads us to question whether as researchers, we are allowing theavailability of high-quality data to dictate our research design too significantly. Asimages become more readily available and affordable, constraints on study designwill be partially alleviated.

Although all of the studies reviewed reported direct threats to biodiversity con-servation within each protected area (e.g., logging or agriculture), few included adiscussion of other socioeconomic, demographic, or biophysical factors that mightaid in establishing the correlation between forest-cover loss and human activityand influence. Meanwhile, the broader field of research on land use and land-cover change offers a far richer analysis on how direct factors as well as indirectfactors (investment patterns, development policies) relate to overall deforestationin tropical countries, (see References 60 and 61 for meta-analyses of forces be-hind tropical forest loss). Because it is well established that local communities arenot the only actors in effecting land-use change within and surrounding protectedareas, future studies of forest-cover loss for an individual protected area shouldconsider factors that extend across scales and can draw from the nonprotectedarea-specific analysis that already exists within the land-use and land-cover changeliterature.

Despite the spatially localized focus of the studies presented in Table 3 andthe challenge of exploring studies from authors of multiple academic disciplines,methodological and intellectual “cross-pollination” does appear to be growing.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



The more recent analyses implement an incremental buffer approach to assessforest loss, both within and outside of the protected area (43, 44, 48, 63). Thisapproach reveals more detailed patterns of deforestation, for example the rate ofobserved deforestation was greater in the buffered areas closer to the boundary ofseveral protected areas, rather than further away. Many interpret this phenomenonas an indication of increasing pressure on the protected area and a warning sign oflandscape fragmentation and ecological isolation (63). Mas (54) questions whetherthe approach of analyzing forest-cover change within a protected area and imme-diately without produces a biased result that exaggerates park effectiveness inmitigating deforestation. In a recent analysis of Calakmul Biosphere Reserve inMexico, he introduces a new methodological tool of including “complementary”or “similar” buffers in the analysis. The concept of complementarity in conserva-tion planning is also explored in depth by Margules & Pressey (64). We feel theseanalyses bring to light two important considerations for expanding the frontier ofresearch into protected area effectiveness and deforestation. The first is the con-cept of using “similar” areas as a pseudo-control for experimental analysis of theeffectiveness of a protected area in mitigating deforestation, as well as other extrac-tive or consumptive activities. The second is the need to study land-use dynamicsin areas adjacent to protected areas that are formally designated as buffer zones.Several of the studies listed in Table 3 reveal more intensive use in buffer zonesthan in areas further away from the protected area, but causal explanations for thispattern of intensive use are weak or absent. Finally, few studies attempt to inte-grate quantitative satellite image analysis with field mapping of invisible threats toprotected areas, such as hunting. Those that do (44, 48) confirm that deforestationpatterns offer a conservative view of the extent of human activities in protectedareas.

A new trend in assessing protected area effectiveness centers on regional-scaleassessments using lower resolution and more regularly available imagery, such asMODIS. These studies offer a first-cut analysis of trends in the relative isolationof protected areas in particular regions. Most recently, DeFries et al. (65) releasedan analysis of 198 strictly protected areas (IUCN categories I and II) worldwide,using MODIS satellite imagery, over the past two decades. The 50 km buffersurrounding each protected area was significantly larger than any used in thestudies listed in Table 3, thus allowing DeFries et al. (65) to draw regional andsubregional conclusions about the level of isolation of protected areas. This typeof regional study creates a solid base for launching higher resolution and morefocused studies regarding the temporal and spatial trends related to forest-coverloss within and outside protected areas.

Ultimately, it is encouraging that the majority of protected areas studied(Table 3) appear to be significantly slowing deforestation within their boundaries,despite inadequate funding and weak institutions. This accords with Bruner et al.’s2001 (66) conclusions based on surveys with managers of 93 parks in developingcountries. But this apparent success could also be interpreted as a warning sig-nal. Many authors indicated that the protected areas were becoming increasingly

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



isolated as forest clearing pushed right up to their boundaries. To some observers,sharp park boundaries (e.g., Figure 4) serve as a reminder of the dismal fate offorests under conventional development scenarios; in essence, they are a “linedrawn in the sand” against habitat conversion (67). By contrast, others view sharpboundaries as a sign that protected areas are failing in their mission of sustain-able development. Some critics would even view sharpening boundaries as evi-dence that protected areas are accelerating deforestation, whether by displacingand intensifying forest extraction elsewhere (68) or by perpetuating neglect amongconservationists for environmental quality outside of protected areas (69, 70),but see Waller (71) for a rebuttal. Ultimately, although each assertion contains atleast a grain of truth, proving or disproving them would require a much broaderanalysis. Protected areas remain our best hope for conserving substantial tracts ofhabitat, but only in recent years have some protected areas begun to foster betterenvironmental stewardship in the surrounding region.

Effectiveness of Protected Areas in SustainingLocal Livelihoods: The Experience of IntegratedConservation and Development Projects

By global mandates, protected areas are now supposed to do far more than con-serve biological diversity. These areas are charged with improving social welfare,guarding local security, and providing economic benefits across multiple scales,objectives traditionally relegated to the development sector. These goals are vitallyimportant and are founded on the truth that amidst desperate poverty the long-termprospect for biodiversity conservation is poor. But as expectations for protectedareas have multiplied, confusion has ensued about what makes an effective parkand how to operationalize the plurality of objectives.

Conservationists, although often accused of being unconcerned with socialissues, have significantly altered their approach in an attempt to meet the newmandate for protected areas. In many cases, conservation organizations formednew partnerships with development agencies and institutions, as well as citizens’groups. Together they have pursued an array of strategies linking conservation withdevelopment that generally fall into three broad groups: community-based naturalresource management, community-based conservation, and integrated conserva-tion and development projects (ICDPs). Unlike community-based conservation orcommunity-based natural resource management, ICDPs focus primarily on pro-tected areas and thus deserve special attention in this review.

The term ICDP was introduced in a study of 23 projects linking developmentactivities to conservation at 18 parks in 14 countries (72). Since then ICDPs haveproliferated around parks scattered throughout developing countries, and they havecaptured a sizeable portion of support for conservation (73). ICDPs vary consid-erably in form and size between sites, but the underlying model throughout is toestablish “core” protected areas in which uses are restricted and, in the surround-ing areas (often labeled “buffer zones”), promote socioeconomic development

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



and income generation compatible with park management objectives. Specificeconomic activities promoted in ICDPs range from ecotourism to agroforestryto sustainable harvest of biological resources. Some ICDPs have made notableachievements in improving forest management outside parks and raising supportfor conservation among specific communities (74). However, reviews of ICDPsconsistently have found that despite their appeal, it is hard to identify substantialachievements either in improving social welfare or in protecting biodiversity (75).Explanations for the limited success of these projects vary considerably. Politicalecologists have harshly criticized these projects on the grounds that ICDPs do notinvite true local participation in environmental management, but rather constitutecoercive forms of conservation practice, which resemble “ill-fated colonial effortsto convert shifting cultivators into progressive farmers” (76, p. 564). By this view,to succeed, ICDPs need to truly devolve authority to communities over biologicalresources so that they have a vested interest in protecting them. Political ecolo-gists also call for more open, fair negotiation regarding the placement of less rigidand more “dynamic” protected area boundaries (77, p. 363). By contrast, someconservation biologists argue that development and conservation are ultimatelyincongruent goals (78). On a more encouraging note, other conservation biolo-gists believe that development and conservation are intertwined goals, but theirscale of integration is inappropriate in ICDPs (79). Robinson & Redford (79) ex-plain that the concept of scale involves two dimensions, extent and grain. In thecontext of ICDPs, extent refers to the total area to be considered for the integrationof conservation and development (e.g., a bioregion), whereas grain is a smaller unitof analysis in which certain activities will be implemented. Instead of attempting topromote integrated conservation and development throughout the total area underconsideration, success is more likely if smaller units of land are devoted primarilyto conservation aims or economic activities, depending on the productive capacityof the soil and ecosystem. For example, in Zambia, commercial trophy huntingappeared to be more sustainable and profitable in community-managed areas thatwere located adjacent to national parks. These national parks served as “sources”(sensu) (81) that replenished game populations when harvest rates in communityareas were not sustainable (82).

Recent reviews of ICDPs have found that although there has been an evolutionin the scale of projects and how they are conceptualized, most of the projectsare still hampered by implementation problems similar to those associated withrural development projects (27, 83, 84). ICDPs have “become all things to allpeople” (83), and what is now called an ICDP is often any conservation projectthat deals with people. A recent book on ICDPs found that both conservationorganizations and funding agencies are identifying serious problems with the ICDPapproach (73). Some are turning toward more direct strategies, such as conservationconcessions, whereby donors pay to have land managed for biodiversity (85).But most conservation agencies remain broadly committed to ICDP approaches,with some attempting to shift both the focus and scale of these efforts, describedbelow.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



Biodiversity Conservation and Poverty Alleviation

Beyond small-scale efforts to incorporate local communities in protected areamanagement, biodiversity conservation today is challenged to engage with themost important UN Millenium Goal, which is to eradicate extreme poverty andend hunger. As the development community has increasingly focused on this goal,biodiversity funding has been linked more often, and more directly, to povertyalleviation (86). In entering this arena, conservationists face formidable challenges,given the uneven record of poverty alleviation projects promoted over the past halfcentury by agencies and organizations exclusively devoted to this task (87).

Worldwide, between 1970 and 1990, the rate of poverty alleviation was the mostrapid and extensive in recent history—even with significant population growth—showing that advances in poverty alleviation are possible. According to the UN’sInternational Fund for Agricultural Development’s Rural Poverty Report from2001, the majority of areas affected in those two decades of increased povertyalleviation were rural. However, the report also notes that since 1990, the rate ofalleviation has slowed considerably, and international aid for agricultural and ruralpurposes has, in many cases, reached an all-time low (88). Although society asa whole becomes more urban, poverty remains concentrated in rural areas, hometo half of the world’s poor, and 75% of the people are considered “extremelypoor” (89). Despite projected gains in poverty alleviation, in absolute terms, over60% of the world’s absolute poor will live in rural areas by 2025 (89). As wehave seen from the impact of the recent Asian tsunami, the numbers of poor canchange very quickly owing to natural disasters, war, and economic shocks. Thepoor who possess assets (e.g., small farmers with shelter and wells) can rapidlybecome poor with nothing (e.g., refugees). There is also evidence that there maybe spatial overlaps of poverty, inequality and biodiversity: “under-nutrition ratesin several large countries—including Mexico, Guatemala, Brazil, Peru, Ecuador,China, Indonesia and Vietnam—are much higher in the vicinity of biodiversityhotspots than for the country as a whole” (90). Spatially, rural poverty may behighest in the places where biodiversity is greatest, i.e., the “Rich Forests, PoorPeople” syndrome (91).

There is considerable debate regarding the causal explanations for the overlapof high biodiversity and poverty, and this leads to very different opinions abouthow to address rural poverty in areas of high biodiversity. But from the mid-1990son, the development community has continually pushed poverty alleviation goalsinto conservation funding and action: “Conservation programmes are only validand sustainable when they have the dual objective of protecting and improvinglocal livelihoods and ecological conditions” (92). Folded together in this mandateare moral arguments and practical puzzles. This is often the case when win-winscenarios are presented. Seldom do policy analysts acknowledge that the impactof raising incomes on biodiversity is shaped by complex sociopolitical and eco-logical conditions. One revealing study demonstrated that biodiversity outcomesof increased incomes can vary even within the same Amazonian community, e.g.,

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



increased income led some households to diminish their extraction of forest prod-ucts and invest in agroforestry gardens, whereas others bought chain saws andcleared forest even faster (93).

The fact that many parks today retain higher levels of biological resources thansurrounding areas has led some prominent development groups to call on theseareas to contribute substantially, and directly, to rural poverty alleviation [e.g.,the U.K. Department for International Development (94)]. These arguments gaingreater significance as the area under protection expands. Yet some conservationistsfear this will lead to cashing in on park resources, and they believe there shouldbe more attention toward effective management outside of parks by communities,indigenous peoples, private sector, or other interests. If parks are viewed as partof a broader landscape of initiatives that work with one another, such as corridor,ecoregional, and landscape scales, then they can be viewed as an “intact” areathat can provide vital ecosystem services and help contribute to the quality andrestoration of surrounding areas. In other words, it is equally urgent to promotethe environmental agenda beyond protected area boundaries as it is to promoteeconomic development inside parks (95, 96).

Even conservation actions that may not appear to be directly linked to povertyalleviation may contribute because the poor are most reliant on natural and wildresources. If the ecological base upon which the rural poor depend becomes seri-ously degraded, then their livelihoods are likely to diminish as well. Only recentlyhave studies emerged showing the tangible economic benefits of protected areas.One study of 41 reserves, covering approximately 1.5 million ha in Madagascar,found that the economic rate of return of the protected area system was 54% (97).The main benefits were from watershed protection, although ecotourism benefitswere significant and expected to increase over time, providing greater returns tosurrounding communities. The study also confirmed other findings, e.g., there areoften winners and losers from conservation, even among groups of poor. In thisexample, 265,000 poor rice-farming households (average of 1.5 ha per household)benefited, as did the 25,000 urban households receiving potable water. But 50,000shifting agriculturalists (also known as “slash-and-burn” farmers) were deprivedof the land within the parks. Conservationists have also been working to demon-strate tangible economic benefits of conservation outside of protected areas. InSouth Africa, the Working for Water Program, is enhancing water security andimproving ecological integrity by eliminating invasive species, restoring degradedlands, and promoting sustainable use of natural resources (98). It has employedover 42,000 people in less than four years. The landless movement in the AtlanticForest of Brazil has stopped targeting reserves and remaining forest lands for inva-sion, recognizing their low value for agriculture and ecological degradation; manyformerly landless are supporting restoration activities (99).

Yet there are important semantic differences that relate to what expectationsare realistic from parks specifically, and the conservation sector, more generally.The development community asks the conservation sector to alleviate poverty, toessentially buy into their mission. The development community often assumes

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



that sustainable use of biotic resources can lift people from poverty. Sustainablemanagement of biotic resources, such as nontimber forest products, fish, wildlifeand other resources, can support rural lives and livelihoods, but it rarely provides asufficient surplus to allow the poor to move out of poverty. Broader investmentsand reforms are needed (100). Local projects in and around protected areas cannotalleviate poverty for a substantial number of people if they are in fact made poor bythe workings of a broader economic system that constrains their ability to acquiregoods (101). Similarly, improving the security of the rural poor may entail re-form in government policies favoring powerful interest groups (e.g., subsidies forindustrial soybean farming in the Amazon). Protected areas in Madagascar safe-guard the agricultural practices and provide employment from tourism for manypeople—very successfully. But are they to provide the development interventionsthat are often most important: education for women, health care, and infrastruc-ture? Conservation cannot solve poverty, but it can significantly help to preventand reduce poverty by maintaining ecosystem services and supporting livelihoods.

More fundamentally, there is a need to take a look at the serious set of problemsthat plague the rural sector in most tropical countries (13, 27, 102). The emphasis onthe conservation sector has shifted attention away from the large-scale actors andpolicies that often lead to biodiversity loss and greater poverty. “Without reshapingpoverty alleviation strategies, biodiversity will pay the price for development yetagain. . .” (103, p. 389). For these reasons, the current trend of having conservationprograms and policies shaped and funded primarily through a poverty lens mustbe reversed. Instead, the development community must make significant and tar-geted investments to improve environmental sustainability beyond protected areaboundaries (102).

The Special Case of Indigenous People

Globally, lands managed by indigenous peoples often have retained high levels ofbiodiversity. Although these lands are not necessarily officially protected areas,and a treatment of this is well beyond the scope of this paper, it is essential tostress the contributions these areas make to biodiversity conservation. There hasbeen active engagement of indigenous peoples in discussions about protected ar-eas and biodiversity conservation, both at national scales and in international fora.At national scales, there have been numerous examples of protected areas estab-lished by indigenous peoples within their territories, and these peoples have thensought to have the areas nationally recognized, integrated into national protectedarea systems (on the condition that their rights are not affected), and supportedby national or international donors. One well known example is that of Kaa-Iyadel Gran Chaco National Park in Bolivia. The Capitanıa del Alto y Bajo Isoso,representing the Guarani-Izoceno peoples, promoted the creation of Kaa-Iya Parkadjacent to their territory and assumed financial responsibility and managementauthority for the park. This was essential to buffer their own territory from exter-nal threats and to manage the park so that it supported sustainable resource use on

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



their own territory. Combined, the Kaa-Iya National Park and the Guarani-Izocenoterritory represent 5% of Bolivian lands.

In other cases, indigenous peoples have maintained control over their territo-ries and have strongly defended them from outside interests. This is the case inBrazil, where indigenous reserves now cover 12% of Brazil’s total land area andapproximately 21% of the Amazon. A prime example of territorial defense is ofthe Kayapo Indians, who legally and physically control a continuous block of theAmazonian forest totaling 28.4 million acres (11.5 million ha)—by far the planet’slargest block of tropical forest protected by a single indigenous group (104). Therelated Panara group controls an adjacent 1.2-million-acre (500,000 ha) area. Con-servationists agree that the fate of the Amazon may well depend on how indigenouslands are managed.

Although the explicit interest of indigenous peoples is not biodiversity con-servation per se, the coincidence of interests between indigenous peoples andconservationists, especially given large-scale external threats, is high, even thoughcritics of such alliances abound (105). Yet the reality is that both sides have farmore to gain working jointly, especially recognizing that the greatest threats toboth indigenous territories and protected areas are from mineral and energy explo-ration and large-scale infrastructure development. As a result, indigenous peopleshave taken an important role in recent international conservation meetings, suchas the fifth World Parks Congress in 2003 and the World Conservation Congressin 2004 (2). Strengthened alliances between indigenous peoples and conservationorganizations are likely in the future, as both sides better understand and respectmutual positions, and as a common set of external threats increases in scope andscale.

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR FUTUREPROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT

The remarkable physical expansion of protected areas during the past 25 yearsis a notable success for conservation, and it signals an international commitmentto protecting biological diversity. Similarly, the group of advocates for protectedareas has grown far beyond ecologists, foresters, and recreational land-use plannersto include development agencies, indigenous people’s leaders, rural union leaders,water managers, and advocates for the poor. This groundswell of support has lead toan ever more ambitious agenda for protected areas. By global mandate, in additionto conserving biological diversity, protected areas are to provide economic benefitsat multiple scales, alleviate poverty, protect threatened cultures, and promote peace.The challenge for protected area management over the next 25 years will be toimplement these multiple and often ambiguous aims as conservation strategies inthe face of population growth, ever increasing resource demands by northern andsouthern countries, and political instability.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



The expansion of the protected area system has outpaced institutional and fi-nancial capacity for actual management (106), and even if there were a tremendousinfusion of financial resources toward protected areas, managing protected areaswould still be profoundly difficult, given the multiple and at times ambiguousmandates for parks and reserves. Fortunately, there are energetic and committedscholars and activists working to improve protected area management, not onlyby appealing for more funds, but also by experimenting with new forms of pro-tected areas and institutional arrangements for governing protected areas. It is alsoencouraging to note that international discussions and deliberations regarding pro-tected areas are moving beyond divisive pro- or antipark debates. Rather, there is anactive exploration of how to design protected areas and park governance regimesto better reflect the local context. To conclude, we highlight two key efforts in thisregard.

Land-Use Zoning and the Creation of EcologicalCorridors Around Protected Areas

Faced with an overwhelming challenge to promote environmental protection whileimproving local lives and livelihoods across large or newly expanded protectedareas, managers and agencies are increasingly turning to land-use zoning. Ideally,these zoning projects provide a means to balance conservation aims with economicdevelopment goals across large areas and among diverse stakeholders. Many ofthese projects center on creating buffer or multiple-use zones to soften the linebetween nature preservation and resource extraction (77). Others seek to establishecological corridors or no-take zones amidst areas of resource extraction, so thatbiodiversity can be sustained in these zones and can replenish surrounding areas(107). These landscape-level initiatives represent a more appropriate scale forreconciling biodiversity conservation and rural development.

Zoning represents an advance for high-conflict situations or cases where actualland use differs significantly from legal conservation mandates. But the blandterms used in project documents (e.g., buffer zones and stakeholder analysis) beliethe intensely political nature of demarcating territories for conservation and/orresource exploitation. Not surprisingly, zoning projects have stirred criticisms fromvarious perspectives.

Some conservation biologists fear that land-use zoning projects will compro-mise ecosystem integrity if parkland is rezoned for multiple use. Accordingly,because many parks are already small and poorly protected, conservation biolo-gists call on park managers to “draw a line in the sand” and “hold ground” againstpowerful economic interests (21, 108, 109). Meanwhile, political ecologists gener-ally view many rezoning efforts as but a new incarnation of coercive conservationin which the state expands its authority and further displaces local people fromvital resources (76, 77). These critics doubt project leaders’ claims of communityparticipation, and assert that as long as state agencies or externally funded con-servation NGOs direct rezoning projects, local citizens will lose out. Aside from

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



political dilemmas, zoning exercises have suffered from problems of implemen-tation. Considerable time and money have been invested in overly elaborate plans(e.g., laying out 20 or more categories of land use) that are far beyond the localmanagerial capacity. Other times, zoning only perpetuates ambiguity in protectedarea objectives. For example, a Peruvian manager explained that she was unsurehow to enforce a large zone designated in her protected area for “economic de-velopment harmonious with biodiversity conservation.” Such vague designationsreflect the political advantages of avoiding difficult decisions about priority landuses; public consensus on zoning plans is more feasible when the managementobjectives for contested zones remain vague.

Zoning efforts are most likely to be effective if they are scaled to managerialcapacity and are viewed as legitimate by local citizens and key stakeholder groups(note that not all stakeholders will be winners). Research in Latin America hasshown that the very notion of park zoning and management can be co-opted bylocal elites or outside interest groups, who can wrap themselves in the cloak ofconservation and maneuver both zoning and enforcement to limit access to othergroups, especially when the actions of other groups may restrict or diminish theirlivelihood resources (110). Given the expansion of biosphere reserves and othercategories that allow for complex zoning, it is likely that what is contested will shiftfrom “people versus parks” to “park insiders versus outsiders” (95). In many places,both participatory legislation and participatory zoning allow needed flexibility indrawing boundaries that are more realistic given the current sociopolitical andecological landscape surrounding each protected area.

Protected Area Governance and the Importanceof Strengthening Institutions

An important trend in protected area policy circles is greater attention to envi-ronmental governance (111). Beyond elaborating what type of protected area isappropriate for a given place (e.g., type Ia, III, or VI), conservationists are ad-dressing who should have responsibility for management of individual protectedareas. Barrett et al. (112) noted that local communities have become the “defaultlocus of most tropical conservation activity,” owing in large part to recognizedfailures with the “fences and fines” approach to conservation management fromcentralized institutions, as well as pressure to integrate community developmentand poverty reduction with conservation action (112). The difficulty here is that, inthis shift to community-based management of the area and natural resources, thebulk of the economic burden and responsibility of management has fallen to thecommunity itself, and other institutions and stakeholder groups have either dis-appeared or maintained minimal roles. Although this may offer validation to thelocal community of the importance of its direct and present relationship with theprotected area, the management arrangement as such fails to recognize the com-plex web of relationships that connect other groups with the protected landscapeand resources.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



This web of connections to the area and the resources can be mapped acrossspatial and temporal scales. These scales can include not only local communitiesthat directly depend on the area for sustaining household livelihoods, but thesecan also aid regional and national constituencies, such as, for example, effectivelymanaging resources to provide clean water to larger portions of the population.The connection then extends even further to international institutions and treaties,including those focused on mitigating the effects of global warming to provide abetter outlook for future generations.

When considering the web of institutional and group connections to a protectedarea, it becomes imperative to look through an economic lens and define the costsand benefits, both direct and passive, that each group maintains with the landscapeand resources of the area (113). This type of analysis is challenging, but many arguethat the exercise is a necessary step in the development of a more complex andintegrated management order. In failing to do so, either local communities orweakened state institutions will continue to bear the brunt of the economic burdenof maintaining these areas when international institutions and donors in particularcould do much to alleviate it.

Finally, recent publications have illustrated that too little is known about na-tional and regional institutional landscapes and that this research is imperative be-fore conservation managers can effectively create a management “menu,” whichassigns responsibility to an array of stakeholder groups at varying levels (112). Fur-thermore, practitioners must not impose uniform conservation strategies across thedeveloping world. Rather, they must recognize the substantial and complex differ-ences in institutional roles and power between Latin America, Africa, and Asia ortheir subregions.

Environmentalists now face a time of “tragic choices and creative compromises”(W. Cronon, personal communication). Protected areas on their own are unlikelyto lift millions of people out of poverty in developing countries. And biodiversitywill likely continue to be compromised in many protected areas that remain vul-nerable to local, national, and international economic forces. Just as is the case forsustainable development (a mission with “broad appeal and plurality of purpose”(114), greater clarity is needed on the mission of parks, with corresponding sup-port to manage them so that they can effectively meet their assigned mission. Atbroad scales, it is possible for protected areas to maintain both biological diversityand to set the stage for better environmental stewardship in surrounding lands, anecessity if lasting poverty-reduction is to be achieved.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Field research for this manuscript was conducted while Lisa Naughton-Treves wasa Fellow at the Princeton Environmental Institute of Princeton University. Supportfor Katrina Brandon’s and Margaret Buck Holland’s contributions to this articlewas made possible by the Moore Family Foundation, the Gordon and Betty MooreFoundation, and several other generous donors.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



The Annual Review of Environment and Resources is online athttp://environ.annualreviews.org

LITERATURE CITED

1. World Conserv. Union (IUCN). 2004.The Durban Action Plan (revised ver-sion). Presented at IUCN 5th World ParksCongr., Durban S. Afr.

2. Secretariat Conv. Biol. Divers. 2004.Cross-cutting issue: protected areas, in-troduction. Presented at 7th Meet. Conf.Parties Conv. Biol. Divers. (CoP 7) Feb.9–20, Kuala Lumpur, accessed on June6, 2005. http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/cross-cutting/protected/default.asp

3. Deleted in proof4. UN Dev. Programme. 2000. United Na-

tions Millennium Declaration, resolu-tion 55/2. http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm

5. UN Environ. Programme World Con-serv. Monit. Cent. 2005. World databaseon protected areas, accessed on June 6.http://sea.unep-wcmc.org/wdbpa/

6. Bowles I, Rosefeld A, Sugal C, Mitter-meier R. 1998. Natural Resource Extrac-tion in the Latin American Tropics. Wash-ington, DC: Conserv. Int.

7. Miller K. 1984. The Bali action plan:a framework for the future of protectedareas. In National Parks Conservation,and Development, ed. JA McNeely, KRMiller, pp. 756–64. Washington, DC:Smithson. Inst. Press

8. Abramovitz J. 1991. Investing in Biolog-ical Diversity: U.S. Research and Con-servation Efforts in Developing Coun-tries. Washington, DC: World Resour.Inst.

9. Castro I, Locker G. 2000. Mapping Con-servation Investments: An Assessment ofBiodiversity Funding in Latin Americaand the Caribbean. Washington, DC: Bio-divers. Support Program

10. World Resour. Inst. 2005. Earth TrendsData Tables: Biodiversity and Protected

Areas. Washington, DC: World Resour.Inst.

11. Zimmerer KS, Galt RE, Buck MV. 2004.Globalization and multi-spatial trendsin the coverage of protected-areas con-servation (1980–2000). Ambio 33:520–29

12. Steinberg PF. 1998. Defining the globalbiodiversity mandate: implications for in-ternational policy. Int. Environ. Aff. 10:113–30

13. Gorenflo L, Brandon K. 2005. Agricul-tural capacity and conservation in highbiodiversity forest ecosystems. Ambio34:199–204

14. Sanderson EW, Jaiteh M, Levy MA, Red-ford KH, Wannebo AV, Woolmer G. 2002.The human footprint and the last of thewild. BioScience 52:891–904

14a. Myers N. 1993. Tropical forests: the maindeforestation fronts. Environ. Conserv.20:9–16

15. Mittermeier RA. 2004. Hotspots Revis-ited. Mexico City: CEMEX

16. Hoekstra JM, Boucher TM, Ricketts TH,Roberts C. 2005. Confronting a biome cri-sis: global disparities of habitat loss andprotection. Ecol. Lett. 8:23–29

17. Kareiva P, Marvier M. 2003. Conservingbiodiversity coldspots. Am. Sci. 91:344–51

18. Pimm SL, Ayres M, Balmford A, BranchG, Brandon K, et al. 2001. Can wedefy nature’s end? Science 293:2207–8

19. Pimm SL, Russell GJ, Gittleman JL,Brooks TM. 1995. The future of biodi-versity. Science 269:347–50

20. Newmark W. 1996. Insularization of Tan-zanian Parks and the local extinction oflarge mammals. Conserv. Biol. 10:1549–56

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



21. Terborgh J, van Schaik C. 1997. Minimiz-ing species loss: the imperative of protec-tion. See Ref. 115, pp. 15–35

22. Rodrigues ASL, Andelman SJ, BakarrMI, Boitani L, Brooks TM, et al. 2004.Effectiveness of the global protected areanetwork in representing species diversity.Nature 428:640–43

23. Wood S, Sebastian K, Scherr SJ. 2001. Pi-lot Analysis of Global Ecosystems: Agroe-cosystems. Washington, DC: World Re-sour. Inst. Int. Food Policy Res. Inst.

24. UN Popul. Div. 1999. Long-Range WorldPopulation Projections Based on the 1998Revision. New York: UN

25. Western D, Pearl M, eds. 1989. Conser-vation for the Twenty-first Century. NewYork: Oxford Univ. Press

26. Brundtland C. 1987. The Report of theBrundtland Commission Our CommonFuture. London: Oxford Univ. Press

27. Brandon K, Redford KH, Sanderson SE,eds. 1998. Parks in Peril: People, Poli-tics and Protected Area. Washington, DC:Island

28. Barzetti V, ed. 1993. Parks and Progress.Washington, DC: IUCN

29. Secretariat Conv. Biol. Divers. 1992.Convention on Biological Diversity,accessed on June 6, 2005. http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles/asp?lg/0&a/cbd-08

30. Blaikie P, Jeanrenaud S. 1997. Biodiver-sity and human welfare. See Ref. 92, pp.46–70

31. Sanderson S, Redford KH. 1997. Biodi-versity politics and the contest for own-ership of the world’s biota. See Ref. 115,pp. 115–32

32. World Conserv. Union (IUCN). 2003.World Commission on Protected Areas.Gland Switz. http://www.iucn.org/themeswcpa

33. Deleted in proof34. Rylands A, Brandon K. 2005. Brazilian

protected areas. Conserv. Biol. 19:612–18

35. Fiallo E, Naughton-Treves L. 1998.

Ecuador: Machalilla National Park. SeeRef. 27, pp. 249–87

36. Sanderson S, Bird S. 1998. The new pol-itics of protected areas. See Ref. 27, pp.441–54

37. Bruner A, Gullison R, Rice R, Fonseca G.2001. Effectiveness of parks in protectingtropical biodiversity. Science 291:125–28

38. Redford KH. 1992. The empty forest. Bio-Science 42:412–22

39. Kremen C, Razafimahatratra V, GuilleryR, Rakotomalala R, Weiss J, Ratsisompa-trarivo A. 1999. Designing the MasoalaNational Park in Madagascar based onbiological and socioeconomic data. Con-serv. Biol. 13:1055–68

40. Ochego H. 2003. Application of remotesensing in deforestation monitoring: acase study of the Aberdares (Kenya). Pre-sented at 2nd Fed. Int. Geom. Reg. Conf.,Dec. 2–5, Marrakech Moroc.

41. Laporte N, Lin T, Plumptre A. 2003. Landuse land cover change in the Albertine Riftof Uganda. Presented at IUCN 5th WorldParks Congr., Durban S. Afr.

42. Mulley B, Unruh J. 2004. The role ofoff-farm employment in tropical forestconservation: labor, migration, and small-holder attitudes towards land in westernUganda. J. Environ. Manag. 71:193–205

43. Naughton-Treves L, Chapman C, Kam-men D. 2005. Burning biodiversity: com-mercial and subsistence use of woodybiomass in western Uganda. Biol. Con-serv. In press

44. Bruner A, Naughton-Treves L, Treves A,Gullison T, Harper G, et al. 2004. Manejode Ocho Areas Protegidas del Peru: Usode la Tierra, Zonificacion y Costos deManejo. Washington, DC: Cent. Appl.Biodivers. Sci. Conserv. Int.

45. Sanchez-Azofeifa A, Daily GC, PfaffASP, Busch C. 2003. Integrity and isola-tion of Costa Rica’s national parks and bi-ological reserves: examining the dynam-ics of land-cover change. Biol. Conserv.109:123–35

46. Townshend JR, Altstatt A, Sunghee K,

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



Song K. 2004. Change in the Subtropi-cal Forest of Eastern Paraguay During the1990s. College Park, MD: Global LandCover Facil.

47. Mendoza E, Dirzo R. 1999. Deforesta-tion in Lacandonia (southeast Mexico):evidence for the declaration of the north-ernmost tropical hot-spot. Biodivers. Con-serv. 8:1621–41

48. Bruner A, Naughton-Treves L, GullisonT, Treves A, Saenz M, et al. 2004. Manejode Ocho Areas Protegidas del Ecuador:Uso de la Tierra Zonificacion y costosde Manejo. Washington, DC: Cent. Appl.Biodivers. Sci. Conserv. Int.

49. Southworth J, Nagendra H, Carlson LA,Tucker C. 2004. Assessing the impact ofCelaque National Park on forest fragmen-tation in western Honduras. Appl. Geogr.24:303–22

50. Sanchez-Azofeifa GA, Rivard B, Calvo J,Moorthy I. 2002. Dynamics of tropical de-forestation around national parks: remotesensing of forest change on the Osa Penin-sula of Costa Rica. Mt. Res. Dev. 22:352–58

51. Tole L. 2002. Habitat loss and anthro-pogenic disturbance in Jamaica’s Hell-shire Hills area. Biodivers. Conserv. 11:575–98

52. Hayes DJ, Sader SA, Schwartz NB. 2002.Analyzing a forest conversion historydatabase to explore the spatial and tem-poral characteristics of land cover changein Guatemala’s Maya Biosphere Reserve.Landsc. Ecol. 17:299–314

53. Sader SA, Hayes DJ, Hepinstall JA. 2001.Forest change monitoring of a remote bio-sphere reserve. Int. J. Remote Sens. 22:1937–50

54. Mas J-F. 2005. Assessing protected areaeffectiveness using surrounding (buffer)areas environmentally similar to the tar-get area. Environ. Monit. Assess. 105:69–80

55. Phong LT. 2004. Analysis of forest coverdynamics and their driving forces in BachMa National Park and its buffer zone us-

ing remote sensing and GIS. MSc thesis.Int. Inst. Geoinf. Sci. Earth Obs. (ITC),Enschede Neth. 66 pp.

56. Kinnaird MF, Sanderson EW, O’BrienTG, Wibisono HT, Woolmer G. 2003.Deforestation trends in a tropical land-scape and implications for endangeredlarge mammals. Conserv. Biol. 17:245–57

57. Curran LM, Trigg SN, McDonald AK,Astiani D, Hardiono YM, et al. 2004.Lowland forest loss in protected areas ofIndonesian Borneo. Science 303:1000–3

58. Linkie M, Smith RJ, Leader-Williams N.2004. Mapping and predicting deforesta-tion patterns in the lowlands of Sumatra.Biodivers. Conserv. 13:1809–18

59. Liu JG, Linderman M, Ouyang ZY, AnL, Yang J, Zhang HM. 2001. Ecologicaldegradation in protected areas: the case ofWolong Nature Reserve for giant pandas.Science 292:98–101

60. Lambin EF, Geist HJ, Lepers E. 2003. Dy-namics of land use and land cover changein tropical regions. Annu. Rev. Environ.Resour. 28:205–41

61. Lambin EF, Turner BL, Geist HJ. 2001.The causes of land-use and land-coverchange: moving beyond the myths. GlobalEnviron. Change 11:261–69

62. Deleted in proof63. Sanchez-Azofeifa A, Daily GC, Pfaff

ASP, Busch C. 2003. Integrity and isola-tion of Costa Rica’s national parks and bi-ological reserves: examining the dynam-ics of land-cover change. Biol. Conserv.109:123–35

64. Margules CR, Pressey RL. 2000. System-atic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–53

65. DeFries R, Hansen A, Newton AC,Hansen MC. 2005. Increasing isolation ofprotected areas in tropical forests over thepast twenty years. Ecol. Appl. 15:19–26

66. Bruner AG, Gullison RE, Rice RE, Fon-seca GAB. 2001. Effectiveness of parksin protecting tropical biodiversity. Science291:125–28

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



67. Terborgh J. 1999. Requiem for Nature.Washington, DC: Island/Shearwater

68. Ghimire K. 1994. Parks and people: liveli-hood issues in national parks managementin Thailand and Madagascar. Dev. Change25:195–229

69. Vandermeer J, Perfecto I. 1995. Breakfastof Biodiversity. Oakland, CA: Inst. FoodDev. Policy

70. Cronon W. 1995. The trouble with wilder-ness; or getting back to the wrong nature.In Uncommon Ground, ed. W Cronon,pp. 69–90. New York: Norton

71. Waller D. 1998. Getting back to the rightnatures: a reply to Cronon’s “The trou-ble with wilderness.” In The Great NewWilderness Debate, ed. JB Callicott, MPNelson, pp. 540–84. Athens: Univ. Geor-gia Press

72. Wells M, Brandon K. 1992. People andParks: Linking Protected Area Manage-ment with Local Communities. Washing-ton, DC: World Bank

73. McShane T, Wells M. 2004. Getting Bio-diversity Projects to Work: Towards MoreEffective Conservation and Development.New York City: Columbia Univ. Press

74. Chicchon A. 2000. Conservation theorymeets practice. Conserv. Biol. 14:138–39

75. Kiss A. 2004. Making biodiversity con-servation a land use priority. See Ref. 73,pp. 98–123

76. Neumann R. 1997. Primitive ideas: pro-tected area buffer zones and the politicsof land in Africa. Dev. Change 28:579–82

77. Zimmerer K. 2000. The reworking of con-servation geographies: nonequilibriumlandscapes and nature-society hybrids.Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 90:356–69

78. Oates J. 1999. Myth and Reality in theRain Forest: How Conservation Strate-gies Are Failing in West Africa. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press

79. Robinson JR, Redford KH. 2004. Jack ofall trades, master of none. See Ref. 73, pp.10–34

80. Deleted in proof

81. Novaro A, Redford K, Bodmer R. 2000.Effect of hunting in source-sink systemsin the neotropics. Conserv. Biol. 14:713–21

82. Lewis DM, Alpert P. 1997. Trophy hunt-ing and wildlife conservation in Zambia.Conserv. Biol. 11:59–68

83. Sanjayan M, Shen S, Jansen M. 1997.Experiences with integrated-conservationdevelopment projects in Asia. World BankTech. Pap. 388, World Bank, Washington,DC

84. Larson P, Freudenberger M, Wyckoff-Baird B. 1998. WWF Integrated Con-servation and Development Projects: TenLessons from the Field 1985–1996. Wash-ington, DC: World Wildlife Fund.

85. Ferraro P, Kramer R. 1997. Compensationand economic incentives: reducing pres-sure on protected areas. See Ref. 115, pp.187–211

86. Lapham N, Livermore M. 2003. Striking aBalance: Ensuring Conservation’s Placeon the International Biodiversity Assis-tance Agenda. Washington, DC: Conserv.Int.

87. Sanderson S. 2004. Poverty and conser-vation: the new century’s “peasant ques-tion”? World Dev. 33:323–32

88. Int. Fund Agric. Dev. 2001. Rural PovertyReport 2001: The Challenge of EndingRural Poverty. Oxford: IFAD

89. World Bank. 2000. World DevelopmentReport. Washington, DC: World Bank

90. McNeely J, Scherr SJ. 2001. CommonGround Common Future: How Ecoagri-culture can Help Feed the World andSave Wild Biodiversity. Washington, DC:IUCN

91. Peluso N. 1994. Rich Forests, Poor Peo-ple: Resource Control and Resistance inJava. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

92. Ghimire KB, Pimbert MP, eds. 1997. In-troduction. In Social Change and Conser-vation. London: Earthscan

93. Coomes O, Grimard F, Burt GJ. 2000.Tropical forests and shifting cultivation:secondary forest fallow dynamics among

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



traditional farmers of the Peruvian Ama-zon. Ecol. Econ. 32:109–24

94. Dep. Int. Dev. 2002. Wildlife and PovertyStudy. London: DFID

95. Brandon K. 1994. Perils to parks: the so-cial context of threats. See Ref. 27, pp.415–40

96. Brandon K. 1997. Policy and practicalconsiderations in land-use strategies forbiodiversity conservation. See Ref. 115,pp. 90–111

97. Carret J-C, Loyer D. 2003. Madagas-car protected area network sustainable fi-nancing, economic analysis perspective.Presented at 5th World Parks Congr., Dur-ban S. Afr.

98. Work. Water (WFW). 2005. The Workingfor Water Programme. Cape Town S. Afr.htttp://www-dwaf.pwv.gov.za/wfw

99. Cullen L, Alger K, Rambaldi DM. 2005.Land reform and biodiversity conserva-tion in Brazil in the 1990s: conflict andthe articulation of mutual interests. Con-serv. Biol. 19:747–55

100. Arnold B. 1999. What future for rainforestpeoples? World Dev. 27:789–805

101. Sen AK. 1981. Poverty and Famines: AnEssay on Entitlements and Deprivation.Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press

102. Brandon K. 2000. Moving beyond in-tegrated conservation and developmentprojects (ICDPs) to achieve biodiver-sity conservation. In Tradeoffs or Syn-ergies? Agricultural Intensification, Eco-nomic Development and the Environment,ed. DCB Lee, pp. 417–32. Wallingford,UK: CAB Int.

103. Sanderson SE, Redford KH. 2003. Con-tested relationships between biodiver-sity conservation and poverty alleviation.Oryx 37:389–90

104. Schwartzmann S, Zimmerman B. 2005.Conservation alliances with indigenouspeoples of the Amazon. Conserv. Biol. 19:721–27

105. Chapin M. 2004. A challenge to con-servationists. World Watch Mag. (Nov./Dec.):17–31

106. Bruner A, Gullison R, Balmford A. 2004.Financial costs and shortfalls of man-aging and expanding protected-area sys-tems in developing countries. BioScience54:1119–26

107. Peres C. 2005. Why we need mega-reserves in Amazonia. Conserv. Biol. 19:728–33

108. Redford KH, Brandon K, Sanderson SE.1998. Holding ground. See Ref. 27, pp.455–63

109. Terborgh J, van Schaik C. 1997. Minimiz-ing species loss: the imperative of protec-tion. See Ref. 115, pp. 15–35

110. Fiallo E, Naughton-Treves L. 1998.Ecuador: Machalilla National Park. SeeRef. 27, pp. 249–87

111. Borrini-Feyerabend G. 1996. Collabora-tive Management of Protected Areas: Tai-loring the Approach to the Context. GlandSwitz.: IUCN

112. Barrett CB, Brandon K, Gibson C, Gjert-sen H. 2001. Conserving tropical bio-diversity amid weak institutions. Bio-Science 51:497–502

113. Balmford A, Whitten T. 2003. Whoshould pay for tropical conservation andhow could the costs be met? Oryx 37:238–50

114. Parris TM, Kates RW. 2003. Charac-terizing and measuring sustainable de-velopment. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.28:559–86

115. Kramer R, van Schaik C, Johnson J, eds.1997. Last Stand: Protected Areas andthe Defense of Tropical Biodiversity. NewYork: Oxford Univ. Press

116. Manfredo MJ, Brown P. 2004. The growthof a human dimensions perspective inpark and protected area management.Presented at IV Congr. Brasileiro de Unid.de Conservacao, Curitiba, Braz.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

GLOBAL EXPANSION OF PROTECTED AREAS C-1

Figure 4 Aerial view of the eastern boundary of Aberdares National Park, Kenya,2004 (photo by Peter Witucki).

HI-RES-EG30-07-Naughton.qxd 10/7/05 6:13 PM Page 1

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

P1: JRX

September 27, 2005 15:29 Annual Reviews AR256-FM

Annual Review of Environment and ResourcesVolume 30, 2005

CONTENTS

I. EARTH’S LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS

Regional Atmospheric Pollution and Transboundary Air QualityManagement, Michelle S. Bergin, J. Jason West, Terry J. Keating,and Armistead G. Russell 1

Wetland Resources: Status, Trends, Ecosystem Services, and Restorability,Joy B. Zedler and Suzanne Kercher 39

Feedback in the Plant-Soil System, Joan G. Ehrenfeld, Beth Ravit,and Kenneth Elgersma 75

II. HUMAN USE OF ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES

Productive Uses of Energy for Rural Development,R. Anil Cabraal, Douglas F. Barnes, and Sachin G. Agarwal 117

Private-Sector Participation in the Water and Sanitation Sector,Jennifer Davis 145

Aquaculture and Ocean Resources: Raising Tigers of the Sea,Rosamond Naylor and Marshall Burke 185

The Role of Protected Areas in Conserving Biodiversity and SustainingLocal Livelihoods, Lisa Naughton-Treves, Margaret Buck Holland,and Katrina Brandon 219

III. MANAGEMENT AND HUMAN DIMENSIONS

Economics of Pollution Trading for SO2 and NOx , Dallas Burtraw,David A. Evans, Alan Krupnick, Karen Palmer, and Russell Toth 253

How Environmental Health Risks Change with Development: TheEpidemiologic and Environmental Risk Transitions Revisited,Kirk R. Smith and Majid Ezzati 291

Environmental Values, Thomas Dietz, Amy Fitzgerald, and Rachael Shwom 335

Righteous Oil? Human Rights, the Oil Complex, and Corporate SocialResponsibility, Michael J. Watts 373

Archaeology and Global Change: The Holocene Record,Patrick V. Kirch 409

ix

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

P1: JRX

September 27, 2005 15:29 Annual Reviews AR256-FM

x CONTENTS

IV. EMERGING INTEGRATIVE THEMES

Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems,Carl Folke, Thomas Hahn, Per Olsson, and Jon Norberg 441

INDEXES

Subject Index 475Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 21–30 499Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 21–30 503

ERRATA

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Environment andand Resources chapters may be found at http://environ.annualreviews.org

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

005.

30:2

19-2

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Min

neso

ta -

Tw

in C

ities

- W

ilson

Lib

rary

on

12/1

4/11

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Documents

THE ROLE OF PROTECTED AREAS IN CONSERVING …web.mnstate.edu/wisenden/TFB2013/Naughton-Treves...of protected areas should be. Twenty-ﬁve years ago, protected areas were largely the