Design Protected Aea

Designing protected areas to conserve natural resources
Author(s): N. Leader-Williams, J. Harrison and M. J. B. Green

Source: Science Progress (1933-), Vol. 74, No. 2 (294) (1990), pp. 189-204
Published by: Science Reviews 2000 Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43423885
Accessed: 28-04-2017 19:10 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Science Reviews 2000 Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Science
Progress (1933-)
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.148 on Fri, 28 Apr 2017 19:10:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Sci. Progress
Oxford (1990) Designing protected areas to
74189-204
conserve natural resources
N. Leader -Williams, J. Harrison and

M. J. B. Green
Biologists view protected areas (PAs)

be protected to prevent extinctions
as natural areas established and arising from demographic or chance
managed primarily for the conser- causes. However , these theoretical
vation of nature. However , many ideals are difficult to put into practice ,
early PAs were established for particularly as PAs increasingly face
aesthetic or socio-economic reasons more immediate external threats. If
and received little scientific input to scientists are to influence future PA
their design. More recently , scientists
design , and if PAs are to succeed in
have identified gaps in PA networksthe long term , these concepts must be
and various contemporary PAs have
applied in practice. Therefore , sufficient
been established to provide for habitats
protection must be integrated with
and species in need of protection. human needs and aspirations in the
Scientists have also modelled minimum design of future protected areas.
areas and population sizes that should
Introduction
Conservation biologists define protected areas (PAs) as predominantly
natural areas established and managed in perpetuity through legal or custom-
ary regimes primarily for the conservation of biological diversity and natural
resources. However, many PAs were originally established for a variety of
aesthetic and socio-economic reasons, and received little or no scientific
input to their design. In this review, therefore, we take a pragmatic approach
and attempt to cast the design needs of PAs within a wider social context,
rather than simply discuss PAs in purely scientific terms. We confine our-
selves to terrestrial PAs and consider in turn the benefits and costs of PAs to
human society, why most PAs were originally established, the ways in which
scientists have improved PA design and, finally, how theoretical and practical
considerations must be reconciled in PA design. Because biological diversity
is under great threat in tropical areas, most of which are in developing
Dr N. Leader- Williams is in the Large Animal Research Group, Department of

Zoology, University of Cambridge, 34A Storey's Way, Cambridge CB3 ODT; Mr
J. Harrison and Dr M. J. B. Green are on the staff of the Protected Areas Data Unit,
World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3
ODL, U.K.
Designing protected areas 189
countries, the different implications for PA design between developed and
developing countries are explored. We conclude that PAs must accommo-
date human aspirations and needs if they are to succeed in conserving natural
resources in the long term.
Function of protected areas

A truly natural ecosystem can include man, but if present he should be totally
dependent on, and limited by, his environment.25 However, the profit motive
is pre-eminent in modern thinking, so net exports and imports of energy,
resources and goods occur from most areas now inhabited by man. As a
consequence mankind has been responsible, directly or indirectly, for
causing the partial or wholesale destruction of many habitats, and the extinc-
tion of at least 63 mammal species and 88 bird species since ad 1600, 21,26
together with many more unrecorded species in less well documented bio-
logical groups. The primary role of PAs, therefore, is to conserve a wide
variety of species and habitats and, where appropriate, the traditional way of
life of tribal peoples. The most fundamental ethic associated with conserva-
tion recognizes the intrinsic value of natural areas and wildlife, and casts
modern man in the role of caretaker of that heritage. 18,25
It is also worth stressing, that PAs can have an economic value and provide
a range of goods and services in addition to their primary conservation role. 14
Direct benefits of PAs include: (i) protecting renewable resources that are
harvested both within and beyond their boundaries; (ii) supporting a very
large and growing industry of nature-related recreation and tourism; and (iii)
protecting wild genetic resources that may be of potential future use, such as
crops or medicines. Indirect benefits of PAs include: (i) contributing to the
natural balance of surrounding areas, say as a refuge for birds that control
pests in adjacent farmland; (ii) stabilizing local and global climatic regimes,
particularly in tropical forest and polar regions; (iii) preventing erosion of
soils and coastlines and stabilizing water catchment areas; and (iv) providing
facilities for scientific research and education.
PAs and wildlife also have their costs. 14 Direct costs include prédation of
wildlife on humans or crop-raiding, whilst indirect costs include the lost
opportunities of developing land for alternative uses or of non-sustainable
exploitation of natural resources. However, benefits very often outweigh
costs if the economic value of natural resources are fully included in any long-
term analysis. Possibly the most important indirect cost relevant to long-term
success of PAs is the conflict that often arises between governments respons-
ible for establishing and maintaining PAs, and local people who traditionally
have lived off the land encompassed by PAs. Such conflicts stem from forced
resettlement or loss of traditional hunting rights during the establishment of
PAs, and the lack of recompense for local people from crop-raiding or
inequitable distribution of earnings and job opportunities arising from PAs
following their establishment.
Conflicts can be minimized and the impact of conservation measures
maximized if management plans for PAs take into account the conservation
values of particular landscapes, habitats and species, while at the same time
190 N. Leader-Williams et al.
Category Name Value
I Strict Nature Reserve ^ B I U s " I U s
II National Park (¡ ) e
o a
IV Managed Reserve o „
/' "
V Protected Landscape c a
a b
VIII Multiple-Use Management Area / £
V
Table 1. Range of the more commonly used IV CN Management Categories
accommodating national and local socio-economic needs. In order to demo

strate the range of management 'tools' available and to provide a means of
classifying PAs from around the world, the IUCN Commission on National
Parks and Protected Areas (CNPP A) has defined a series of PA managemen
categories that vary in objective from strict protection to sustainable use
(Table 1). The complete range of PAs presently runs frotn: I, a Strict Nature
Reserve that protects nature and maintains natural processes in an undis-
turbed state, and II, a National Park (NP) that protects natural and scenic
areas of national or international significance for scientific, educational and
recreational use, to VIII, a Multiple-Use Management Area that provides f
the sustained production of water, timber, wildlife, pasture, and outdoor
recreation with the conservation of nature primarily orientated to the suppo
of economic activities. This international classification of PAs does not
necessarily accord with national designations. Thus, the so-called NPs in
Britain are not in Category II, but instead are in Category V, as Protected
Landscapes. This category comprises nationally significant natural land-
scapes which are characteristic of the harmonious interaction of man and
land, while providing recreation and tourism within the normal lifestyle an
economic activity of these areas.
How protected areas were originally established

Historical perspective
Many PAs were established well before proposals for PA design began to
appear in the scientific literature. The New Forest in southern England, for
example, was legally established by King William I in 1079 as a hunting
preserve. PAs maintained by custom have an even longer history, for sacred
groves and elephant sanctuaries in India go back to the fourth century bc.
Here we discuss some of the factors that determined the siting and size of
early PAs in the modern era and the topics that contemporary scientists
interested in PA design now address.
Socio-economic and political factors

The siting of PA networks in both developed and developing countries has
seldom been determined by nature conservation priorities alone. The worl
first NP was established at Yellowstone in the U.S.A. in 1872, as a 'public
park or pleasuring ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people'. Soon
afterwards, four NPs were established around railways in scenic mountainous
areas in Canada on the initiative of railroad companies wishing to increase
their tourist traffic. These and several other Canadian NPs established
subsequently have not been removed from economic development, but

instead have been the focus for that development.3
Pragmatic and socio-economic considerations have frequently been the
most important motive in establishing and siting PAs.25 Farmers, for
example, tended to occupy the best land first and avoided areas with infertile
soils, difficult terrain or disease-transmitting insects such as tsetse flies. Land
not suited to intensive agriculture had three equally important properties that
were necessary to clinch negotiations to establish PAs. First, such land was
relatively cheap politically and economically for governments; second, it was
more likely to possess relatively undisturbed natural communities; third,
such areas often had other merits, such as scenic beauty or concentrations of
large mammals to attract visitors. Therefore, the siting of NP networks shows
a clear positive relationship with agricultural unsuitability in many countries
(Fig. 1).
PAs and networks established by default rarely afford comprehensive
coverage of a nation's biological diversity, and this has a number of
scientific implications which will be discussed later. Moreover, PAs with a
socio-economic basis to their establishment are inherently weak in their
provision for nature conservation, and conflicts can result between the need
to preserve and the need to make a profit.3
Coverage
PAs in IUCN Management Categories I-V were legally designated in
developed countries from the 1870s onwards and the rate of establishment
gained momentum during this century. Legal designation of PAs began later
Fig. 1. NPs have frequently been established in areas not suited to intensive agriculture ,
for example (a) on high ground that is scenically beautiful in England and Wales , or (b)
in tstetse fly -infested areas containing concentrations of large mammals in Zambia.
Fig . 2. World coverage of P As has strict protection in densely populated
increased dramatically in both developed Europe compared with the rest of the
and developing countries during this world. ( Developed countries are defined
century (updated from8), (a) Establish- as OECD countries plus South Africa ,
ment of P As in Categories I-V began and developing countries as the rest. Note
earlier in developed countries , but (b) PAs that the Greenland NP, covering 70
are generally larger in developing million ha and an order of magnitude
countries . (c, d) There are fewer options larger than any other PA in the world , has
available to establish PAs in categories of been excluded from the analysis.)
in developing countries but their numbers have increased rapidly this century
and now exceed those in developed nations (Fig. 2a). Despite the tremend-
ous increase in the number of PAs, their overall mean size has progressively
declined (Fig. 2b). This can be attributed largely to rising density of human
populations, with large expanses of undisturbed habitat becoming an increas-
ingly scarce resource. However, PAs established in developing countries
have tended to be larger than those in developed countries (Fig. 2b),
probably because of the formers' lower population densities, less intensive
agricultural practices and less effective political opposition from local
interests. The world is now covered by over 5000 legislated PAs in Categories
I-V, each exceeding 1000 ha in size. This network extends over some 3% of
the world's land surface,8'9 but is still considerably less than the conserva-
tionist rule of thumb that 10% of each of the world's major habitat types
should be included in the global PA network.15 The size of PAs also has
considerable scientific and practical implications.
How science can help in designing protected
areas and networks
Rationale
Scientists and conservationists have become greatly concerned at the increas-

ing loss of the world's biological diversity and natural resources. This has led
to the establishment of conservation biology as a distinct discipline, served by
the Society for Conservation Biology, by specialist journals, Biological
Conservation (established in 1968) and Conservation Biology (1987) and by
an increasing number of texts.7,21 25,26 Although the establishment of PAs is
not a guarantee of success, conservation biologists are still convinced that
PAs remain one of the main tools in the campaign to save the world's bio-
logical diversity.
Scientists studying threatened species or habitats have succeeded in setting
up particular PAs for specific needs, such as protecting orang-utans in
Tanjung Puting in Kalimantan. Areas threatened with development such as
dams or large-scale logging operations have also become a focus for scientific
involvement through pressure groups campaigning for establishment of PAs,
for example the Franklin River in Tasmania or Queen Charlotte Islands in
British Columbia. While additional PAs established for such reasons may
represent important additions to PA networks, this type of approach is fairly
ad hoc. There are two main areas where scientists have developed more
systematic approaches to PA and network designs. One, based on biogeo-
graphic principles, is concerned with identifying gaps in PA networks in order
to determine priorities for action and the second, a theoretical and largely
mathematical sub-discipline, bears upon the size and shape of areas and the
size of animal and plant populations that ought to be protected.
Protected area networks
The disciplines of taxonomy and biogeography together form the basis for
the systematic identification of gaps in PA networks. An example of a gap
would be a PA network established primarily on upland areas (Fig. la) which
lacks representative examples of species or habitats that occur in lowland
areas. A simple technique can be used to identify such gaps and this involves
obtaining accurate measures of the distribution of an array of species, habi-
tats, biomes or biogeographic provinces and comparing their overall distri-
butions with those included within existing PA networks. The technique has
been extended to include objective assessments of conservation value based
on more numerical criteria like diversity, rarity, ecological fragility and
representativeness.25 In practice, application of both techniques is hampered
for three reasons: (i) at least half the world's species have yet to be described;
(ii) reaching a consensus on taxonomie or biogeographic classifications is not
simple; and (iii) reliable estimates of distribution are not always available.
Given the rates at which man is destroying habitats and species, time is at
more of a premium than scientific precision. It is important, therefore, to
work within these limitations rather than to seek perfection.
Gaps in PA networks can be identified more precisely at local rather than
at global levels. The simplest approach is to identify areas where a single
'keystone' or 'flagship' species or species assemblage needs protection or
further representation in PA networks. Such species are usually either large
mammals or notable species of birds or plants. Mammals and birds, in particu-
lar, offer two main advantages: first, their distributions are generally better
known than less conspicuous species; second, being nearer the top of the
food chain, their presence suggests that their habitat with all its associated
species is relatively intact. Hence tiger distribution has formed a successful
basis for improving India's PA network, increasing protection of far more
biological diversity than simply the tiger. This approach is greatly enhanced if
the flagship species is an endemic species, confined to the locality. Thus, New
Guinea's avifauna, much of which is endemic, formed the basis for
recommendations to establish a whole new national network of PAs in Papua
New Guinea (Fig. 3a).
A slightly more complex approach involves using groups of species to
define and map centres of endemism and/or great biological diversity. In
Amazonia, for example, so-called Pleistocene refugia were mapped for birds,
lizards, butterflies and woody plants, and efforts to establish PAs were
concentrated on 30 areas where refugia for these different groups overlapped
(Fig. 3b). Similarly, habitat or natural region classifications, usually defined
geobotanically, can be used to identify areas where PA representation is
inadequate. In Canada and New Zealand, for example, earlier PAs were
established primarily in scenic and mountainous regions and some success
has attended more recent efforts to establish PAs in natural regions yet to be
included in their respective PA networks, such as the Canadian prairies and
New Zealand lowland forests. In Malawi, the mapping and measuring of
protected habitat shows quantitatively that certain habitats are over-
represented and, more importantly, that others are under-represented in the
PA network relative to their national coverage (Fig. 3c).
Analysis is necessarily crude at regional or global levels and classification is
a complex task which involves dividing the world into a manageable number
of meaningful units. The world's terrestrial ecosystems have been divided
into eight biogeographic realms, which are continent or continent-sized areas
with unifying features of geography and of floral and faunai assemblages.
Realms have been divided further into provinces, which are defined by
significant differences in flora, fauna or vegetation structure. Each province
has been characterized by one of 14 biomes, which are major regional eco-
logical communities of plants and animals extending over large natural areas.
A total of 193 biogeographical provinces are recognized in this system.24 The
boundaries of each province still need more accurate mapping to facilitate
comparisons with PA coverage (cf. the approach used for a single country in
Fig. 3c). However, 16 provinces contained no PAs in 1984 and these, together
with a further 33 inadequately represented provinces, were identified as
priority areas for establishing PAs.8 While the situation has since improved,
significant gaps remain both at global level and within individual realms such
as the Afrotropical and Australian Realms.13,25
Size of protected areas

PAs have, in effect, been increasingly established as islands in a sea of
Fig. 3. Planning future additions to PA Amazonia , Brazil has given greatest
networks can be achieved by several priority to establishing PAs where centres
methods, (a) The design of New Guinea's of Pleistocene endemismfor different
PA network is based on the distribution of groups overlap (modified from27); (c) in
avifaunal flagship species in Papua New Malawi mapping of different biotic
Guinea, but in neighbouring Irian J aya a communities over the whole country and
wide range of biological criteria have been within the PA network identifies shortfalls
used (modified from19'21); (b) within (data from5).
humanity, their size and shape being largely determined by social and political
factors, and also by topographical criteria convenient for siting of boundaries.
As with networks, the size and shape of PAs based on such criteria may not
be ideal and can result in loss of biological diversity. Scientists first became
involved in this debate after realizing that the theory of island biogeography
provided a framework for studying PA design in terms of species richness.6'20
This led on to the identification of the minimum size of PAs required to
maintain viable populations of essential component species for each ecotype.
Small islands are unable to support as many species as larger islands with
similar habitat and isolated islands support fewer species than islands close to
the mainland.12 Thus, an island can only support a limited number of species
and it was proposed that species numbers would return to this equilibrium
point, even after artificial attempts to enrich or impoverish the island fauna
by adding or removing species. This equilibrium was supposedly maintained
by a balance between species immigration and extinction, and these rates
were determined by island area and distance from a colonizing source (Fig.
4a). Theory predicted that, once cut off from similar habitat, PAs would be
unable to retain all their original species due to reduced immigration and that
the larger the reserve, the lower the intrinsic extinction rate. In order to
maximize the number of species in PAs, therefore, scientists first stressed the
need for big reserves (Fig. 4b: options CI and B1 rather than Al, A2 or A3).
This emphasis was questioned when it was realized that several small reserves
may include a wider range of habitats and therefore have more species at the
time of their establishment than a single reserve of the same area.25 So began
a debate known as SLOSS (single large or several small), in which it was
suggested that more smaller reserves may be preferable if the environment is
heterogenous (Fig. 4b: option B3).
The usefulness of applying island biogeography theory to PA design has
since been questioned for a variety of theoretical reasons.4,20,23 First,
empirical evidence for a dynamic equilibrium, one of the few testable predic-
tions of the model, are generally lacking. Second, while it is true that numbers
of species increase with area, there is no evidence to suggest that this is a
direct causal relationship: the area effect may be a function of many factors
including habitat diversity. Third, island biogeography cannot predict
accurately the number of species that will be retained in a PA system (other
than to say there will be fewer than at the start), which extant species are
likely to go extinct, or at what rate extinction will occur. Fourth, an implicit
and incorrect assumption of the theory is that all species face approximately
equal chances of extinction. The SLOSS debate, too, has died down because
it does not address the question of species extinctions after PAs have been set
up.23 In summary, island biogeography makes largely untested predictions
about one parameter, species richness, and its maximization on the basis of
PA size and degree of isolation. It is also clear that isolation is hard to define
and will vary with different species: mice live in hedgerows but red deer do
not.
As PAs are only successful to the degree that their contents retain their
integrity, the emphasis has now switched to considering what size PAs should
be to support minimum viable populations (MVP) of threatened species,
Fig. 4. Species stand a better chance of between rates of colonization and rates of
being conserved over time if P As are extinction (from12). Thus (b) the guiding
designed according to theoretical princi- principles for design of P As is that they
ples. (a) The relative number of species on should be large (CI), but subdivision into
small distant islands , small near islands , several smaller reserves (2-5) may have
large distant islands and large near islands other theoretical and management advan-
is supposedly governed by a balance tages ( modified from20) .
using the more testable theories of population biology.22 Extinction is a

matter of risk and time to extinction is likely to be shorter for smaller popula-
tions. Intrinsic and extrinsic factors are believed to contribute to extinctions
in small populations. Intrinsic factors include demographic stochasticity (the

increased probability that all individuals in a particular generation will, say,
be male in populations of less than 50 individuals) and genetic deterioration
(the loss of genetic heterozygosity (or variability) and inbreeding that can
result in increased mortality and reduce long-term adaptability). External
factors such as disturbances, contagious diseases, environmental variables
and catastrophes can also be serious especially in single, small populations.
The provision of more than one PA sufficient for the MVP is therefore highly
desirable, if not a design imperative (Fig. 4b: options C2, B3, etc).
The exact size of an MVP has not been determined and, indeed, is likely to
be unique for each species in each location. However, current consensus is
that an MVP should consist of at least 500 genetically effective individuals,
which translates into a total population of around 1000 individuals to include
juveniles and other non-breeders.22 23 Three steps are necessary to convert
the concept of an MVP to PA size: (i) identify a flagship species whose dis-
appearance would significantly decrease the value or the species diversity of
the PA; (ii) determine the minimum number of individuals in a population
198 N. Leader -Williams et al.
needed to guarantee a high probability of survival; (iii) use known densities
or ranging patterns to estimate the size of the area necessary to sustain the
minimum number. Therefore, the ideal size of PAs will vary relative to the
key species under protection, as is being shown in Brazil.21 However, it is
clear that many PAs are too small to encompass MVPs. For example, the
legal boundaries of the world's first NP, Yellowstone, need to be extended
considerably in order to protect an MVP of 500 grizzly bears (Fig. 5a).
" Park boundary

(a) Yellowstone -Grand Teton
/' ' (b) Luangwa Valley
(in '' ^i i /~yn

' ' ¡> / / ?
' / ? '00
km
' J
Fig. 5. The interface between theory and MVP of 500 grizzly bears (modified
practice of conservation is complex and from'7), but in contrast , (b) resources to
may differ between developed and protect black rhinos in the 1980s were
developing countries, (a) NP boundaries sufficient only to cover a small area of
in Yellowstone-Grand Teton assemblage , Luangwa Valley , Zambia (data from'0).
USA , need to be enlarged to encompass a
The approach of focusing on flagship species might appear to detract from

the goal of conserving whole ecosystems. In fact, as with the siting of new PA
networks (Fig. 3a), species- and habitat-orientated goals are usually comple-
mentary in that the persistence of flagship species is critical to the survival of
ecosystems. However, in practice, the establishment of one or more large
PAs may not be the answer for social or political reasons, and use must be
made instead of a range of management tools. Thus, a theoretical study
showing that the legal boundaries of a NP in a developed country needed to
be greatly extended (Fig. 5a) is unlikely to be implemented at policy level
because of the financial and political costs of appropriating and managing the
necessary land. Even where large PAs, sufficient to hold several MVPs of
rhinos and elephants, were established in Africa, many countries have lacked
the resources since independence to manage such areas (Fig. 5b). This leads
us to discuss how applied aspects of PA design can affect their success in
conserving natural resources.
Practical considerations
Rationale
PAs do not guarantee successful conservation of natural resources, even with

a well ordered set of national and international legislation.11 PAs face the
major problem of being considered as common property resources at local,
national and international levels. Thus, PAs are subject to abuse and threats
from all levels, that cannot be resolved by legal or customary frameworks
alone. The majority of people at each level must take on the necessary social,
political and economic responsibilities before PAs can succeed. Therefore,
whilst theoreticians focus on PA design in terms of extinctions over the next
several hundred generations, their more applied colleagues have documented
the immediate threats faced by PAs and, where possible, incorporated theory
into PA designs that meet human needs and aspirations.
Threats, shape and economics

Threats encompass conditions of either human or natural origin that cause
significant damage to PA resources, or are in serious conflict with the object-
ives of PA management. 16 Threats like poaching or loss of habitat can arise
directly from man's activities whilst indirect threats include soil erosion,
prédation by exotic species or chemical pollution. Some threats to PAs, such
as lack of personnel and loss of habitat, prevail in countries at all stages of
economic development. However, the types and intensity of other threats
reflect the economic development status of the region. Thus, conflicting
demands, fire and poaching are more commonly reported in less developed
countries, whilst exotic plants and chemical pollution are of greater concern
in more developed countries (Fig. 6).
Sufficient protection and management must be incorporated into PA design
to counter many of these threats. Invasion of exotics and other outside inter-
ferences can be minimized if appropriate use is made of natural boundaries,
and also if PA perimeter is minimized relative to area, and the area of 'edge
zone' is minimized relative to 'interior zone'. The latter precautions provide
further good reasons for having large PAs, and the best reason for circular
rather than oblong boundaries, especially for small PAs (Fig. 4b: option C5
rather than B5 or A5). Circular boundaries are also advantageous for those
PAs best policed around their perimeters against poaching or human
encroachment, again because perimeter: areas ratios are minimized.
Macroeconomics also have a vital role to play in national attempts to main-
tain biological diversity. The success of national efforts to prevent flagship
species like rhinos and elephants disappearing throughout much of Africa are
directly related to resources available to police PAs against poachers supply-
ing international markets with valuable trophies (Fig. 7a). Tropical rainforests
are being logged to supply the international timber trade and to clear land for
export-related agriculture, and rates of deforestation in different countries
are directly related to national macroeconomics (Fig. 7b). Both these
examples demonstrate the clear need for the international community to
shoulder economic responsibility for contributing to the effective conserva-
Fig. 6. Threats to NPs perceived by managers vary between countries at different stages
of economic development (data from16).
Fig. 7. Macroeconomics and funds for expenditure on conseration areas (from10),

conservation play an important role in and (b) rates of deforestation in tropical
protection of natural resources. During countries were related to their burden of
the 1980s (at) rates of loss of black rhinos external debt (from1).
in African countries were related to their
tion of natural resources that occur within national boundaries, but which are
necessary, or of value, to the international community.
Reconciling humans, development and protected areas

Opportunities to modify existing PA systems and to establish new PAs are
becoming increasingly few as land is converted or becomes occupied by
expanding human populations. Thus, few completely new networks of PAs
have been established within categories of strict protection in recent years.
One such network has been designed for Irian Jaya and is being implemented
by the Indonesian government, but at the political cost of appropriating land
from local people. In contrast, a complementary network of PAs in which
local land tenure rights are respected, is taking much longer to establish over
the border in Papua New Guinea (Fig. 3a). Problems such as these have
resulted in a pragmatic shift in the way PAs are set up in many countries,
towards allowing for more involvement by local people in the management
and use of resources.26 This is evident from the much greater proportion Qf
protected landscapes (Category V) to NPs (Category II) in the more densely
populated Europe compared with the rest of the world (Fig. 2 c, d). In repent
years PAs have also increasingly been established as multiple-use areas
(Category VIII), a trend that is especially noticeable in developing countries
where the use of natural, rather than agricultural or manufactured, products
still plays an important role in human societies.
A balance between strict protection and sustainable use (Table 1) forms
the basis of the Biosphere Reserve (BR) concept first launched in 1971. A
global network of BRs, representative of natural ecosystems, is being set.up
to conserve genetic diversity and to promote conservation activities such as
monitoring, research and training. Emphasis is given to restoring degraded
ecosystems, integrating traditional land-use patterns within a conservation
framework, and involving local people in conservation planning. This is
being implemented in BRs established to date (285 by March 1990) by zoning
reserves into areas of different use (Fig. 8). Given the demand fpr land and
the indirect political costs of establishing strict PAs, it seems likely that an
integrated approach to land management provides the most pragmatic option
for future PA development. Thus, a strict PA too small to hold an MVP of a
flagship species and that cannot be enlarged, or small patches of habitat not
yet included in the PA network, could be incorporated into a multiple-use
Fig. 8. The role of BRs is to integrate the reserves into core areas , buffer zones , and
conservation of genetic resources and eco- traditional use , rehabilitation and transi-
systems with provision for an international tion areas , all of which can provide facili-
network of areas for research and moni- ties for research , education , monitoring
toring , and for sustainable use of natural and tourism (modified from2).
resources. This is achieved by zoning
area affording options for integrated management (Fig. 4b: options C2, C3,
C4). Appropriately managed zones could either provide corridors for dis-
persion between small core areas or could allow translocation of individuals
between PAs, thereby facilitating gene transfer and preventing inbreeding.
If biological diversity is to be sustained in perpetuity man must also benefit
at local and national levels from PAs. There have been some recent and
spectacular successes in achieving conservation objectives by providing direct
benefits and incentives to local people to conserve natural resources14 and
this approach offers the best option for large PAs in developing countries
where funds necessary for their management are currently lacking. These
successes are resulting in rethinking of traditional approaches, witnessed by
the inclusion of PAs as a tool in land-use planning, IUCN/CNPPA's ongoing
review of PA categories, and the move towards referring to PAs as 'conserva-
tion areas' to offset the notion of strict protection or taboo. It is to be hoped
that such pragmatism will result in the increased success of conservation
areas in achieving their objectives over the short term.
Conclusion
In this review, we have shown that there are a few universal guidelines which
can be applied to the design of PAs. Science certainly has a contribution to
make to the design of PAs and networks, but this has to be reconciled with
aesthetic and socio-economic interests. The concept of PAs as wholly
defensible treasure houses is becoming a thing of the past but this does not
necessarily mean that conservation principles are being compromised.
Planners and managers have to be pragmatic in achieving defined objectives,
and utilize the various available land management tools. The concept of
'protected' areas is already being replaced by 'conservation' areas as attitudes
to the value of such areas change. In time, even this concept may become
outmoded as the pattern of conservation islands in a sea of humanity is
replaced, hopefully, by one of harmoniously integrated land use, which
satisfies the requirements of both people and wildlife. The diversity and
abundance of biological resources that is bequeathed to future generations,
largely through the appropriate design and management of PAs, will define
their range of options.26
Acknowledgments
We thank M. B. Usher, J. A. McNeely, R. E. Bodmer and A. C. J. Vincent
for their helpful comments on the manuscript.
References
1. Ayres J. M. (1989) Debt-for-equity concept. Nature and Resources 12,
swaps and the conservation of 2-11.
tropical rainforests. Trends Ecol. 3. Bella L. (1987) Parks for Profit ,

Evol. 4, 331-332. p. 216. Harvest House, Montreal.
2. Bâtisse M. (1986) Developing and 4. Burgmann M. A., Akcakaya R.S. &
focusing the biosphere reserve Loew S.S. (1988) The use of extinc-
tipn models for species conservation. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Biol. Conserv. 43, 9-25. Washington DC.
5. Clarke J. E. & Bell R.H.V. (1986) 16. Machlis G.E. & Tichnell D.L. (1985)
Representation of biotic commun- The State of the Worlďs Parks: an
ities in protected areas; a Malawian International Assessment for
case study. Biol. Conserv. 35, Resource Management, Policy and
293-311. Research , p. 131. Westview Press,
6. Diamond J. M. (1975) The island Boulder, Colorado.
dilemma: lessons of modern bio- 17. Newmark W.D. (1985) Legal and
geographic studies for the design of biotic boundaries of western North
nature reserves. Biol. Conserv. 7, American National Parks: problems
3-15. of congruence. Biol. Conserv. 33,
7. Frankel O. & Soulé M. E. (1981) 197-208.
Conservation and Evolution , p. 327. 18. Norton B.G. (Ed.) (1986) Preserva-
Cambridge University Press, tion of Species: The Value of Bio-
Cambridge. logical Diversity , p. 305. Princeton
8. Harrison J., Miller K.R. & McNeely University Press, Princeton, New
J. (1984) The world coverage of Jersey.
protected areas: development goals 19. Petocz R.G. (1984) Conservation and
and environmental needs. Ambio 11, Development in Irian Jay a: A
238-245. Strategy for Rational Resource Util-
9. IUCN (1990) 1989 United List of isation , p. 279. Directorate General
National Parks and Protected Areas. of Forest Protection and Nature
International Union for Conserva- Conservation, Bogor.
tion of Nature and Natural 20. Soulé M. E. (1983) Applications of
Resources, Gland and Cambridge (in genetics and population biology: the
press). what, where and how of nature
10. Leader-Williams N. & Albon S.D. reserves. In: Conservation , Science
(1988) Allocation of resources for and Society , pp. 252-264. UNESCO-
conservation. Nature , Lond. 336, UNEP.
533-536. 21. Soulé M. E. (Ed.) (1986a) Conserva-
1 1 . Lyster S. (1985) International Wild- tion Biology: The Science of Scarcity
life Law: an Analysis of International and Diversity , p. 584. Sinauer,
Treaties Concerned with the Con- Sunderland, Massachusetts.
servation of Wildlife, p. 470. Grotius 22. Soulé M. E. (Ed.) (1986b) Viable
Publications, Cambridge. Populations for Conservation , p. 189.
12. MacArthur R.H. & Wilson E.O. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
(1967) The Theory of Island Biogeo- bridge.
23. Soulé M. E. & Simberloff D. (1986)
graphy , p. 203. Princeton University
Press, Princeton, New Jersey. What do genetics and ecology tell us
13. MacKinnon J. & MacKinnon K. about the design of nature reserves?
(1986) Review of the Protected Area Biol. Conserv. 35, 19-40.
System in the Afrotropical Realm , 24. Udvardy M.D.F. (1975) A classifica-
p. 259. International Union for tion of the biogeographical provinces
Conservation of Nature and Natural of the world. IUCN Occasional
Resources, Gland and Cambridge. Paper , 18.
14. McNeely J. A. (1988) Economics and 25. Usher M.B. (Ed.) (1986) Wildlife
Biological Diversity: Developing and Conservation Evaluation , p. 394.
Using Economic Incentives to Chapman & Hall, London.
Conserve Biological Resources , 26. Western D. & Pearl M. (Eds.) (1989)
p. 236. International Union for Conservation for the Twenty -first
Conservation of Nature and Natural Century , p. 365. Oxford University
Resources, Gland. Press, New York and Oxford.
15. McNeely J. A. & Miller K.R. (Eds) 27. Wetterberg G. B., Prance G. T. &
(1984) National Parks , Conservation Lovejoy T.E. (1981) Conservation
and Development: the Role of Protected progress in Amazonia: a Structural
Areas in Sustaining Society , p. 825. Review. Parks 6, 5-10.

Design Protected Aea

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design Protected Aea

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design Protected Aea

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Designing protected areas to conserve natural resources

Author(s): N. Leader-Williams, J. Harrison and M. J. B. Green

N. Leader -Williams, J. Harrison and

Biologists view protected areas (PAs)

Dr N. Leader- Williams is in the Large Animal Research Group, Department of

Designing protected areas 189

Function of protected areas

190 N. Leader-Williams et al.

I Strict Nature Reserve ^ B I U s " I U s

Table 1. Range of the more commonly used IV CN Management Categories

accommodating national and local socio-economic needs. In order to demo

How protected areas were originally established

Socio-economic and political factors

Designing protected areas 191

subsequently have not been removed from economic development, but

192 N. Leader-Williams et al.

Designing protected areas 193

Scientists and conservationists have become greatly concerned at the increas-

Protected area networks

194 N. Leader-Williams et al.

Size of protected areas

Designing protected areas 195

196 N. Leader-Williams et al.

Designing protected areas 197

using the more testable theories of population biology.22 Extinction is a

in small populations. Intrinsic factors include demographic stochasticity (the

198 N. Leader -Williams et al.

" Park boundary

/' ' (b) Luangwa Valley

(in '' ^i i /~yn

The approach of focusing on flagship species might appear to detract from

Designing protected areas 199

PAs do not guarantee successful conservation of natural resources, even with

Threats, shape and economics

200 N. Leader-Williams et al.

Fig. 7. Macroeconomics and funds for expenditure on conseration areas (from10),

Reconciling humans, development and protected areas

Designing protected areas 201

202 N. Leader-Williams et al.

tropical rainforests. Trends Ecol. 3. Bella L. (1987) Parks for Profit ,

Designing protected areas 203

204 N. Leader-Williams et al.

You might also like