RESUMO
Protected areas are intended to safeguard biodiversity in perpetuity, yet evidence suggests that widespread legal changes undermine protected area durability and efficacy. We documented these legal changes-protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) events-in the United States and Amazonian countries and compiled available data globally. Governments of the United States and Amazonian countries enacted 269 and 440 PADDD events, respectively. Between 1892 and 2018, 73 countries enacted 3749 PADDD events, removing 519,857 square kilometers from protection and tempering regulations in an additional 1,659,972 square kilometers; 78% of events were enacted since 2000. Most PADDD events (62%) are associated with industrial-scale resource extraction and development, suggesting that PADDD may compromise biodiversity conservation objectives. Strategic policy responses are needed to address PADDD and sustain effective protected areas.
Assuntos
Biodiversidade , Conservação dos Recursos Naturais/legislação & jurisprudência , Indústrias , Políticas , América do Sul , Incerteza , Estados UnidosRESUMO
Protected areas are a crucial tool for halting the loss of biodiversity. Yet, the management of protected areas is under resourced, impacting the ability to achieve effective conservation actions. Effective management depends on the application of the best available knowledge, which can include both scientific evidence and the local knowledge of onsite managers. Despite the clear value of evidence-based conservation, there is still little known about how much scientific evidence is used to guide the management of protected areas. This knowledge gap is especially evident in developing countries, where resource limitations and language barriers may create additional challenges for the use of scientific evidence in management. To assess the extent to which scientific evidence is used to inform management decisions in a developing country, we surveyed Brazilian protected area managers about the information they use to support their management decisions. We targeted on-ground managers who are responsible for management decisions made at the local protected area level. We asked managers about the sources of evidence they use, how frequently they assess the different sources of evidence and the scientific content of the different sources of evidence. We also considered a range of factors that might explain the use of scientific evidence to guide the management of protected areas, such as the language spoken by managers, the accessibility of evidence sources and the characteristics of the managers and the protected areas they manage. The managers who responded to our questionnaire reported that they most frequently made decisions based on their personal experience, with scientific evidence being used relatively infrequently. While managers in our study tended to value scientific evidence less highly than other sources, most managers still considered science important for management decisions. Managers reported that the accessibility of scientific evidence is low relative to other types of evidence, with key barriers being the low levels of open access research and insufficient technical training to enable managers to interpret research findings. Based on our results, we suggest that managers in developing countries face all the same challenges as those in developed countries, along with additional language barriers that can prevent greater use of scientific evidence to support effective management of protected areas in Brazil.