Hi everyone, I'm making an index that requires the use of protected area categories to be ranked in terms of their abilities to protect threatened species.
The categories are:
- Category Ia: Strict Nature Reserve.
- Category Ib: Wilderness Area.
- Category II: National Park.
- Category III: Natural Monument or Feature.
- Category IV: Habitat/Species Management Area.
- Category V: Protected Landscape/Seascape.
- Category VI: Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources.
In terms of actual biodiversity conservation the order of these categories seems to be a bit arbitrary. How would you rank the IUCN Protected Area Categories from highest to lowest protection for threatened species? I have searched numerous sources and all of them seem to have had the same complaint, and suggest the categories should be revised, but don't actually provide any recommendations on the proper order.
Any help appreciated!
I think that is going to be an impossible task because the ability of each category to protect a threatened species is going to be entirely dependent on the laws (and the enforcement of those laws) that apply to each category in each country as well as the species in question and the threats that it faces.
For example, if you have a rare bat in a national park in the United States it is going to be protected from being killed outright, but if the biggest threat to that bat is human disturbance in caves during sensitive seasons then the National Park designation is irrelevant unless there are specific regulations for that park that keep people out of specific caves at specific times of the year. Even then, unless active management is taking place for that species (posting signs at caves or constructing bat gates), then the regulation won't do much.
Or how about a fire-dependent threatened species in a U.S. wilderness area that just isn't burning as much as it was in the past and in which prescribed fire is not really possible since you can't easily develop firelines? In that case the species may be better off in a more managed protected area.
It would be tough to use this categorical system as a hierarchy for levels of protection of threatened species. It might work somewhat in some countries, but cross-country comparisons could be very difficult. Also, the mean patch size varies a lot between these categories. "Strict nature reserves" are often small and are often intended to be visited by people and can be concentrated near population centers. If well protected and not visited often, "wilderness areas" should be ranked number 1 in most situations. Their size is often in the thousands of hectares and at least portions generally contain areas with no roads or trails.
Good points from both of you, While I am trying to find something general, I can't ignore confounding factors like these so I will have to revisit the way I think about it before making a decision.
Just another note. Your criteria for ranking, 'abilities to protect threatened species" could relate well with patch size. While many confounding variables can't be controlled (e.g. level of protection, laws, "paper only" parks vs. parks with active protection), it might be possible to obtain an average size for these categories and use that in the ranking system.
This was something we considered as well. Possibly via "in-tact forest areas" via global forest watch. Would definitely be useful since the ability to disperse for our species is entirely dependent on tree cover connectivity.
A case study of possible incongruities between the 'official' IUCN PA categories (i.e., in order to have a PA classified as a Category 'x', IUCN-recognized PA) comes from Madagascar, where the government's NPA ('New Protected Area') program, which seeks to integrate local, community-managed conservation of sensitive habitat, has not received international legitimization -- e.g., see: Gardner (2011), "IUCN management categories fail to represent new, multiple-use protected areas in Madagascar". Oryx vol. 45:
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/IUCN-management-categories-fail-to-represent-new%2C-Gardner/109915e025031c45d0f1db12135ec4c92bac29b3
Ian Colquhoun thanks Ian! This was definitely one that I overlooked. I will see if its possible to replicate this categorization technique for my extent.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology