A bottom-up practitioner-derived set of Essential Variables for Protected Area management
| Type | Article | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Language | English | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author(s) | Hummel Herman1, 2, 3, Kalle Valerie1, 2, Bienfait Louise1, 2, Boyer Yolande4, Heurich Marco6, Svajda Juraj7, Adamescu Mihai8, Cazacu Constantin8, Medina Felix Manuel9, Morkune Rasa10, Razinkovas-Baziukas Arturas10, Poursanidis Dimitris11, Tasevska Orhideja12, Al Malla Ajman13, Stritih Ana14, 15, Rossi Christian16, Arenas-Castro Salvador17, Carvalho-Santos Claudia17, 18, Smit Izak P. J.19, 20, Valentini Emiliana21, 22, Xuan Alessandra Nguyen22, Orenstein Daniel 23, Provenzale Antonello24, de Wit Rutger4, Hummel Christiaan1, 2, 5 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Affiliation(s) | 1 : Royal Netherlands Inst Sea Res, Yerseke, Netherlands. 2 : Utrecht University, Yerseke, the Netherlands 3 : Hummel Foundation for Sustainable Solutions (HuFoSS), Roosendaal, the Netherlands 4 : Centre for Marine Biodiversity, Exploitation and Conservation (MARBEC), University of Montpellier, France 5 : VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 6 : Nationalparkverwaltung Bayerischer Wald, Grafenau, Germany 7 : Matej Bel University, Banská Bystrica, Slovakia 8 : Research Center for Systems Ecology and Sustainability, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania 9 : Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Cabildo Insular de La Palma, Canary Islands, Spain 10 : Marine Research Institute, Klaipėda University, Klaipėda, Lithuania 11 : Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas, Iraklion, Crete, Greece 12 : Hydrobiological Institute, Ohrid, Macedonia 13 : Unit for Environmental Protection, Municipality of Resen, Macedonia 14 : Institute for Landscape and Spatial Development, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH), Planning of Landscape and Urban Systems (PLUS), Zürich, Switzerland 15 : WSL Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research (SLF), Davos Dorf, Switzerland 16 : Swiss National Park, Department of Geoinformation, Zernez, Switzerland 17 : Research Centre in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources (InBIO-CIBIO), University of Porto, Vairão, Vila do Conde, Portugal 18 : Centre of Molecular and Environmental Biology, Institute for Bio-Sustainability, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal 19 : Scientific Services, South African National Parks, Skukuza, 1350, South Africa 20 : Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa 21 : Institute of Polar Sciences, National Research Council (ISP CNR), Rome, Italy 22 : Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA), Rome, Italy 23 : Technion Socio-Ecological Research Group, Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel 24 : Institute of Geosciences and Earth Resources, National Research Council (IGG CNR), Pisa, Italy |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Source | Environmental And Sustainability Indicators (2665-9727) (Elsevier), 2022-06 , Vol. 14 , P. 100179 (14p.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| DOI | 10.1016/j.indic.2022.100179 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| WOS© Times Cited | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Keyword(s) | Essential variables, Ecosystem services, Protected areas, Ecosystem functions, Threats, Bottom-up procedure, Stakeholders | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract | Assessing the environmental status of Protected Areas (PAs) is a challenging issue. To indicate that status, the identification of a common set of variables that are scientifically sound, and easy to assess and monitor by the PA practitioners, is particularly important. In this study, a set of 27 Essential Variables (EVs) for PA management was selected in a bottom-up process from 67 harmonised variables that describe the status of Ecosystem Functions and Structures, Ecosystem Services, and Threats in PAs. This bottom-up process involved 27 internationally recognised PAs, mostly European, with different level of protection, different extent, and a wide range of human-nature interactions. The EVs were selected by more than 120 practitioners, i.e. PA managers and rangers, as well as scientists, working in terrestrial and aquatic PAs. Across both terrestrial and aquatic PAs, scientists and practitioners largely identified the same variables as important. Data availability for these 27 EVs varied between PAs and averaged 67% across all studied PAs. As this set of EVs for PAs is defined through a bottom-up approach considering variables already in use both in management and research, it is more than for previous EVs likely to be adopted, applied and developed to record the status and changes in the ecological and socio-economic conditions of PAs and to forecast future changes. Thereby, the EVs for PAs present a common vocabulary and tool to enhance in a uniform way the (inter)national communication, exchange and comparison of information on the status of PAs between policy makers, scientists and PA managers. The perceived status of the EVs, on an average 3.6 on a scale to a maximum of 5, indicates the surveyed PAs are in a moderate to good environmental condition. Moreover, the EVs for PAs form a cost- and time-efficient tool for PA managers to monitor developments in essential elements of their PAs, including the potential for Societal Goods and Benefits (SG&B), and to (pro-)actively tackle the potential threats that may arise in their area. Likewise, for policy makers EVs for PAs may support decision making on ecosystem management, spatial planning, and predictive modelling on the future status and requirements of PAs in their country or region.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Full Text |
|