Suchergebnisse

Protected areas (PAs) are the main strategy to conserve natural values and reduce biodiversity loss. However, with increasing global food requirements, using land for protecting landscapes and species is becoming increasingly difficult to justify. Here, we argue that framing PAs as spatial assets provides an ideal platform for generating investment and increasing their political/cultural resilience. Specifically, we define and characterize PAs in terms of their biophysical, human, infrastructure, institutional and cultural assets, making explicit the forms of value they create and for whom, and identifying types of investment needed to generate value in the medium and long term. These assets can be protected, managed and/or invested in to generate (monetizable and non-monetizable) forms of value. They can also be at risk from a variety of factors. Building on contemporary conservation policy, our asset framework provides an innovative approach to the development and management of PAs in the 21st Century.

A hundred research priorities of critical importance to protected area management were identified by a targeted survey of conservation professionals; half researchers and half practitioners. Respondents were selected to represent a range of disciplines, every continent except Antarctica and roughly equal numbers of men and women. The results analysed thematically and grouped as potential research topics as by both practitioners and researchers. Priority research gaps reveal a high interest to demonstrate the role of protected areas within a broader discussion about sustainable futures and if and how protected areas can address a range of conservation and socio-economic challenges effectively. The paper lists the hundred priorities structured under broad headings of management, ecology, governance and social (including political and economic issues) and helps contribute to setting future research agendas.

The leading policy to conserve forest is protected areas (PAs). Yet, PAs are not a single tool: land users and uses vary by PA type; and public PA strategies vary in the extent of each type and in the determinants of impact for each type, i.e. siting and internal deforestation. Further, across regions and time, strategies respond to pressures (deforestation and political). We estimate deforestation impacts of PA types for a critical frontier, the Brazilian Amazon. We separate regions and time periods that differ in their deforestation and political pressures and document considerable variation in PA strategies across regions, time periods and types. The siting of PAs varies across regions. For example, all else being equal, PAs in the arc of deforestation are relatively far from non-forest, while in other states they are relatively near. Internal deforestation varies across time periods, e.g. it is more similar across the PA types for PAs after 2000. By contrast, after 2000, PA extent is less similar across PA types with little non-indigenous area created inside the arc. PA strategies generate a range of impacts for PA types—always far higher within the arc—but not a consistent ranking of PA types by impact.

The leading policy to conserve forest is protected areas (PAs). Yet, PAs are not a single tool: land users and uses vary by PA type; and public PA strategies vary in the extent of each type and in the determinants of impact for each type, i.e. siting and internal deforestation. Further, across regions and time, strategies respond to pressures (deforestation and political). We estimate deforestation impacts of PA types for a critical frontier, the Brazilian Amazon. We separate regions and time periods that differ in their deforestation and political pressures and document considerable variation in PA strategies across regions, time periods and types. The siting of PAs varies across regions. For example, all else being equal, PAs in the arc of deforestation are relatively far from non-forest, while in other states they are relatively near. Internal deforestation varies across time periods, e.g. it is more similar across the PA types for PAs after 2000. By contrast, after 2000, PA extent is less similar across PA types with little non-indigenous area created inside the arc. PA strategies generate a range of impacts for PA types—always far higher within the arc—but not a consistent ranking of PA types by impact.

In this chapter, the challenges of protected area planning are explored by addressing the latter question. The chapter focuses on maintaining protected area values in face of increasing recreational pressure, although these general concepts and principles can be applied to other "threats" as well (Machlis and Tichnell 1985). First, the social and political contexts within which such planning occurs are outlined. It is to these complex contexts that an interactive, collaborative-learning based planning process would seem most appropriate. Next, an overview of eleven principles of visitor management is presented. These principles must be acknowledged and incorporated in any protected area planning system. Following this section, the conditions needed to implement a carrying capacity approach are reviewed; these requisite conditions lead us to conclude that, despite a resurgence of interest, the carrying capacity model does not adequately address the needs of protected area management. The final section briefly outlines the Limits of Acceptable Change planning system, an example of an approach that can incorporate the eleven previously described principles and has a demonstrated capacity to respond to the needs of protected area managers. The ideas in this chapter have been variously presented in Malaysia, Venezuela, Canada, and Puerto Rico (McCool 1996, McCool and Stankey 1992, Stankey and McCool 1993) and have benefited from the positive interactions and feedback received from protected area managers in those countries.

ABSTRACT Protected Areas (PA) represent an important biodiversity conservation strategy, but these areas are threatened by increasing human pressure and inefficient management. Thus, the objective was to analyze the management of PA in South America, a continent with particular characteristics in relation to the political and socioeconomic complexity that reflect the way each country manages its PA. The results showed that, although there is progress in establishing PAs, there is only effective protection when they have adequate size and management, and Protected Area Systems (PAS) are established. It was possible to observe the importance of the PAS, since, PA managed outside it have comprehensive norms, without defined criteria, with several organs operating without connection. For PA management, uniform and standardized actions are fundamental in order to allow a global network for biodiversity protection.

THOSE WHO STUDY CONFLICT MANAGEMENT HAVE DEBATED THE VIABILITY OF INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS TO MAINTAIN PEACE AND SECURITY. THIS ARTICLE EXPLORES WHETHER SUCH EFFORTS ARE USEFUL, LEGITIMATE, AND SUCCESSFUL IN DEFENDING DESIGNATED SAFE HAVENS, BUFFER ZONES, PROTECTED AREAS, AND FREE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS, AND OTHER ZONES OF PEACE. IN ORDER TO BETTER UNDERSTAND PEACE OPERATIONS AND THE CREATION OF PROTECTED AREAS, THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES THE CASE OF THE UN FORCE IN CYPRUS. IT EXAMINES PEACEKEEPING AS PEACE OBSERVATION, AS PEACE ENFORCEMENT, AND AS PEACEKEEPING. IT ALSO DEFINES WHAT IS MEANT BY ZONES OF PEACE, IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Examines the case of the UN Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP), which included peace monitoring, physical interposition between the combatants, creation of a buffer zone, and control and supervision of the buffer zone, 1964-97.