| Literature DB >> 34989447 |
Chun-Ting Feng1,2, Ming Cao1,2, Fang-Zheng Liu1,2, Yue Zhou1,2, Jin-Hong Du1,2, Li-Bo Zhang1,2, Wen-Jie Huang1,2, Jian-Wu Luo1,2, Jun-Sheng Li1,2, Wei Wang1,2.
Abstract
Previous assessments of the effectiveness of protected areas (PAs) focused primarily on changes in human pressure over time and did not consider the different human-pressure baselines of PAs, thereby potentially over- or underestimating PA effectiveness. We developed a framework that considers both human-pressure baseline and change in human pressure over time and assessed the effectiveness of 338 PAs in China from 2010 to 2020. The initial state of human pressure on PAs was taken as the baseline, and changes in human pressure index (HPI) were further analyzed under different baselines. We used the random forest models to identify the management measures that most improved effectiveness in resisting human pressure for the PAs with different baselines. Finally, the relationships between the changes in the HPI and the changes in natural ecosystems in PAs were analyzed with different baselines. Of PAs with low HPI baselines, medium HPI baselines, and high HPI baselines, 76.92% (n=150), 11.11% (n=12), and 22.86% (n=8) , respectively, showed positive effects in resisting human pressure. Overall, ignoring human-pressure baselines somewhat underestimated the positive effects of PAs, especially for those with low initial human pressure. For PAs with different initial human pressures, different management measures should be taken to improve effectiveness and reduce threats to natural ecosystems. We believe our framework is useful for assessing the effectiveness of PAs globally, and we recommend it be included in the Convention on Biological Diversity Post-2020 Strategy.Entities:
Keywords: baseline-plus-change framework; conservation effectiveness; ecosistemas naturales; efectividad de la conservación; efectividad de la gestión; human pressure index; management effectiveness; marco de trabajo de línea base más cambios; natural ecosystems; índice de presión humana
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 34989447 PMCID: PMC9543372 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13887
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Conserv Biol ISSN: 0888-8892 Impact factor: 7.563
FIGURE 1The baseline‐plus‐change framework for assessing the effectiveness of protected areas (PAs) in resisting human pressure (HPI, human pressure index; L, low; M, medium; H, high; +, PAs with positive effects in resisting human pressure over the past 10 years; –, PAs with negative effects in resisting human pressure over the past 10 years; /, PAs with nonsignificant effects in resisting human pressure over the past 10 years)
FIGURE 2In China (a) spatial distribution of protected areas (PAs) with different human pressure index (HPI) values and (b) changes in and status of the HPI in PAs compared with matched control sites under different baselines (numbers in parentheses and in pie charts, number of PAs; red, number of PAs with significantly lower human pressure [L‐HPI] compared with their matched control sites in 2020; blue, number of PAs with significantly higher human pressure [H‐HPI]; gray, number of PAs with no significant differences in human pressure [M‐HPI] compared with their matched control sites in 2020; horizontal lines, standard deviation)
FIGURE 3Relative importance of different management measures in resisting human pressure in protected areas (PAs) with (a) low baseline of human pressure index (HPI) (area under the curve [AUC]=0.8784; out‐of‐bag error [OBB]= 26.67%), (b) medium baseline of HPI (AUC = 0.6786, OBB = 27.78%), and (c) high baseline HPI based on the results of the random forest model (AUC = 0.75, OBB = 31.58%) (ST, adequate numbers of skilled staff from an independent management institution; TR, control of illegal threats; PS, patrol and surveillance; SR&M, scientific research and monitoring; FU, funding; NV, clear demonstration of the values of associated biodiversity and ecosystem services; IN, adequate, functional, and safe equipment and infrastructure; B<, clear identification of boundary and land tenure; ED, education and public awareness programing; MP, master plan development and implementation)
FIGURE 4Relationship between changes in human pressure and changes in (a) forest, (b) wetland, (c) grassland, and (d) desert in protected areas (PAs) with different human‐pressure baselines (lines, simple linear regressions; shading, 95% confidence intervals; pink, PAs with significantly lower human pressure; blue, PAs with significantly higher human pressure; gray, PAs with no significant differences in human pressure compared with their matched control sites)