Changes in protected area management effectiveness over time: A global analysisby Jonas Geldmann, Lauren Coad, Megan Barnes, Ian D. Craigie, Marc Hockings, Kathryn Knights, Fiona Leverington, Ivon C. Cuadros, Camilo Zamora, Stephen Woodley, Neil D. Burgess

Biological Conservation

About

Year
2015
DOI
10.1016/j.biocon.2015.08.029
Subject
Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics / Nature and Landscape Conservation

Text

fe n g, rsity of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, 2100 Copenhagen E, Denmark d Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, The Univ e ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook f School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Manage g Protected Area Solutions, Brisbane, Australia h World Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN, 64 Juniper R a r t i c l e i n f o

Management effectiveness tracking tool mixed model we tested the correlation between change in METT scores and matrices of 1) landscape and as been suggested as a rsity trajectories (Tarn Biological Diversity, terrestrial area is estiBiological Conservation 191 (2015) 692?699

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biological Co .eprotected areas coveringmore than 15.4% of the terrestrial land surface (Juffe-Bignoli et al., 2014). Despite this extensive coverage, biodiversity continues to decline (Butchart et al., 2010; Tittensor et al., 2014) and mated to be necessary to fully meet all elements of Target 11 (Butchart et al., 2015). However, coverage is only one aspect of protected area performance and effectiveness. Protected areas need toProtected areas are one of themost important conservation tools for protecting biodiversity and ecosystem services (Naidoo et al., 2006;

Rodrigues, 2006; Klein et al., 2007; Coad et al., 2008; Scharlemann et al., 2010). This has led to the development of a global network of

Expanding the coverage of protected areas h strategy to mitigate the present negative biodive get 11, Aichi Biodiversity Targets, Convention o 2010) and as much as a third of the total globalprotected area properties (i.e. topography and size), 2) human threats (i.e. road and human population density), and 3) socio-economics (i.e. infant mortality rate). Protected areas under greater threat and larger protected areas showed greatest improvements inMETT. Our results suggest that when funding and resources are targeted at protected areas under greater threat they have a greater impact, potentially including slowing the loss of biodiversity. ? 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction (Craigie et al., 2010; Laurance et al., 2012; Geldmann et al., 2013), or increases in human-caused pressure (Geldmann et al., 2014).protected areas are not immune to biodiv ? Corresponding author.

E-mail address: Jgeldmann@snm.ku.dk (J. Geldmann) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.08.029 0006-3207/? 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.ment effectiveness. Performancemetrics related to planning and context as well as monitoring and enforcement systems increased the most while protected area outcomes showed least improvement. Using a general linearArticle history:

Received 18 May 2015

Received in revised form 16 July 2015

Accepted 9 August 2015

Available online xxxx

Keywords:

Management effectiveness

Protected area

Aichi target 11

Governanceion Monitoring Centre, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK ersity of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia

University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia ment, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, Australia oad, Chelsea, QC J9B1T3, Canada a b s t r a c t

Protected area coverage has reached over 15% of the global land area. However, the quality of management of the vastmajority of reserves remains unknown, andmany are suspected to be ?paper parks?. Moreover, the degree to which management can be enhanced through targeted conservation projects remains broadly speculative.

Proven links between improved reserve management and the delivery of conservation outcomes are even more elusive. In this paper we present results on how management effectiveness scores change in protected areas receiving conservation investment, using a globally expanded database of protected area management effectiveness, focusing on the ?management effectiveness tracking tool? (METT). Of 1934 protected areas with

METT data, 722 sites have at least two assessments. MeanMETT scores increased in 69.5% of siteswhile 25.1% experienced decreases and 5.4% experienced no change over project periods (median 4 years). Low initial METT scores and longer implementation timewere both found to positively correlate with larger increases inmanage-b Environmental Change Institute, School of Geography, Unive c United Nations Environment Programme World Conservatrsity of Oxford, OX1 3QY, UKa Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, Natural History Museum of Denmark, UniveChanges in protected area management ef

A global analysis

Jonas Geldmann a,?, Lauren Coad b,c, Megan Barnes d, Ia

Fiona Leverington f,g, Ivon C. Cuadros g, Camilo Zamora j ourna l homepage: wwwersity and habitat loss .ctiveness over time:

D. Craigie e, Marc Hockings c,f, Kathryn Knights g,

Stephen Woodley h, Neil D. Burgess a,c nservation l sev ie r .com/ locate /b iocbemanaged effectivelywithin appropriate legal frameworks and governance structures to meaningfully contribute to halting the loss of biodiversity (Leverington et al., 2010; Watson et al., 2014). Given declines in biodiversity continue even within protected area boundaries (Butchart et al., 2010; Tittensor et al., 2014) it is probable that current levels of 693J. Geldmann et al. / Biological Conservation 191 (2015) 692?699management within protected areas at a global scale are insufficient to ?halt the loss of biodiversity? (Watson et al., 2014). Allocating conservation funds cost-effectively to achieve maximum conservation benefit is therefore a key question in conservation science (Wilson et al., 2006).

Measuring whether protected area management improves over time, aswell as understandingwhat external factors affect the observed changes in management, is a crucial benchmark for Aichi Target 11 and the overall delivery of the CBD Strategic Plan (Convention on Biological

Diversity, 2010). While tools such as the World Database on Protected

Areas (WDPA) provide information on the locations, number, and size of more than 210,000 protected areas, information on the quality of management, or biological outcomes within the same sites is much scarcer. Protected AreaManagement Effectiveness (PAME) assessments have been used in many countries to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of protected area management, and help guide improvement to the conservation delivery of these areas (Leverington et al., 2010). The