Forum Progress toward Equitably Managed Protected Areas in Aichi Target 11: A Global Survey Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/69/3/191/5253356 by guest on 27 September 2023 NOELIA ZAFRA-CALVO, ENEKO GARMENDIA, UNAI PASCUAL, IGNACIO PALOMO, NICOLE GROSS-CAMP, DANIEL BROCKINGTON, JOSE-ANTONIO CORTES-VAZQUEZ, BRENDAN COOLSAET, AND NEIL DAVID BURGESS The Convention on Biological Diversity Aichi Target 11 requires its 193 signatory parties to incorporate social equity into protected area (PA) management by 2020. However, there is limited evidence of progress toward this commitment. We surveyed PA managers, staff, and community representatives involved in the management of 225 PAs worldwide to gather information against 10 equity criteria, including the distribution of benefits and burdens, recognition of rights, diversity of cultural and knowledge systems, and processes of participation in decision-making. Our results show that more than half of the respondents indicated that there are still significant challenges to be addressed in achieving equitably managed PAs, particularly in ensuring effective participation in decision-making, transparent procedures, access to justice in conflicting situations, and the recognition of the rights and diversity of local people. Our findings are a first and fundamental contribution toward a global assessment of equitable management in PAs to report on Aichi Target 11 in 2020 and help define the next set of PA targets from 2020–2030. Keywords: Aichi Target 11, access to justice, decision-making, rights A ichi Target 11 (AT11) under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) promotes the establishment and management of protected areas (PAs) in a socially equi- and by whom decisions are taken about the distribution of burdens and sharing of benefits), and recognition (acknowl- edgment and representation of different local stakeholder’s table manner. Social equity is a multidimensional concept of ability to participate in decisions and have their rights, cul- ethical concerns that refers to fairness and is closely related tural identities, values, and knowledge systems recognized; to social justice (Friedman et al. 2018). Equity entails support see box 1). However, a global assessment of progress with for all members of society in proportion to what they initially regard to these equity dimensions in PAs, key to reporting on have or what they need to reach a target or minimum that CBD AT11, is still lacking. they are entitled to (Law et al. 2017). The CBD (2010) states Measuring equity in PA to report on AT11 faces a sig- that, as a minimum, “PAs should be established and managed nificant methodological challenge: Equity is associated in close collaboration with and through equitable processes with concepts of social justice and fairness, respecting that that recognize and respect the rights of indigenous and local diverse people could have different perceptions and views communities and vulnerable populations and such costs and about what is fair. Metrics must recognize that tolerable benefits of the areas are fairly shared.” The rationale behind and morally acceptable differences in society regarding equity concerns in PAs is that benefits arising from PAs are equity exist (Schlosberg 2007, Pascual et al. 2014, Martin experienced at multiple scales, including the global, whereas et al. 2015). The challenge has led to the development the burdens associated with PAs fall predominantly on local of a variety of methodologies and metrics employed in stakeholders (Adams et al. 2004). specific PAs assessments (see de Lange et al. 2016 for a Significant progress has been made to operationalize review of the methods of social impacts of PAs), which do frameworks to assess social equity in PAs (Sikor et al. 2014, not allow for standardization and comparison to facili- Schreckenberg et al. 2016, Dawson et al. 2017). Three tate reporting at the global level, as is required for AT11. dimensions of social equity are recognized in this literature: Social equity–related measures assessed by management distribution (of burdens and sharing of benefits from the effectiveness tracking tools (Leverington et al. 2010, Coad establishment and management of PAs), procedure (how et al. 2015) do not account for the multidimensional BioScience 69: 191–197. © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com doi:10.1093/biosci/biy143 Advance Access publication 2 January 2019 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience March 2019 / Vol. 69 No. 3 • BioScience 191 Forum Box 1. Social equity and its multiple dimensions in PAs. Notions of equity are constructed within historical and cultural contexts and often refer to fairness: A subjective or perception-oriented notion of what is “fair,” shaped by a range of social principles and considerations (Franks et al. 2018, Friedman et al. 2018). Equity is a concept deeply connected to issues of environmental justice (which emerged as a social movement in response to the disproportion- ate number of environmental burdens in communities of poorest people). In PAs, it generally pertains to the idea that benefits from nature conservation are shared globally, whereas the burdens of conservation are felt locally. It is associated with the notion that PAs should, at least, have no negative impact on local people in their establishment and management (or it should be compensated) and, where possible, should contribute to a reduction in inequity experienced by vulnerable people within or around PAs (Convention on Biological Diversity 2010). Distributional equity refers to the fair distribution of benefits and burdens. Fairness about distribution is associated with a culturally specific idea of tolerable and morally acceptable differences in society. In the PAs context, it implies people agree on the scheme for Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/69/3/191/5253356 by guest on 27 September 2023 the sharing. Procedural equity refers to how agreements about distribution of benefits and burdens are decided, through formal and informal processes. In PAs these processes are associated with governance of PAs. Transparency, accountability in management actions, access to mechanisms of justice for solving conflicts and the people’s capacity for effective participation in decision-making are crucial for achieving procedural equity. Equity as recognition has a long philosophical and political history and it refers to the respect of identity and social and cultural differ- ences in society. In PAs, it entails the recognition of all stakeholder groups who could have a say in decision-making processes, and the acknowledgement and respect for their views and values, cultural identities, customary rights, understandings and practices of nature management and traditional knowledge. character of equitable management in PAs (Corrigan traditional knowledge systems. We created a questionnaire et al. 2017, Moreaux et al. 2018). to gather information about these 10 criteria of social equity Our aim in this study is to provide an initial contribution (for details about the creation of the metrics and the full to address the mentioned challenge through a global survey questionnaire, see Zafra-Calvo et al. 2017). The question- among key stakeholders involved in 225 PAs worldwide and naire was reviewed by 10 experts, policymakers associated to provide a preliminary multidimensional assessment of with the CBD, and conservationist NGOs. It was sent first social equity in PAs to report on AT11. First, we piloted a to a sample of 20 PAs. Then, an adjusted online version of survey about social equity to key stakeholders involved in the questionnaire in English, Spanish, and French was sent the management of 225 PAs worldwide. To do this, we devel- to stakeholders associated with PA management using the oped an online questionnaire based on 10 social equity crite- networks of the United Nations Environment Programme’s ria for PAs and distributed this to managers, governmental, World Conservation Monitoring Centre; the International and nongovernmental organization (NGO); PAs staff; com- Union for Conservation of Nature; private protected areas; munity representatives; and academics. Second, we used the indigenous and communities conservation areas; the results of the survey to explore whether the perception of the World Wildlife Fund; BirdLife International; the Wildlife respondents about the performance of social equity criteria Conservation Society; the Satoyama Initiative; Europarc differs across governance types in PAs, management catego- Federations; the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural ries, subsamples of stakeholders, and regions by continents. Organization; and the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, Third, we considered contextual factors at a national and and it was also spread via social media. We did not target regional level that could facilitate or hamper social equity specific people, and responses to the questionnaire were in PA management. On the basis of this analysis, we discuss on a voluntary basis. The questionnaire was sent to about some of the main challenges that remain for assessing social 4000 people, and we obtained 241 responses corresponding equity in PAs to report on AT11 by the 2020 deadline and to 225 PAs from 88 countries (see figure S1 and table S1 in suggest ways forward and targeted actions toward achieving supplemental appendix S1 for details; the responses were more equitably managed PAs. gathered from 1 June to 31 August 2016). Questionnaires were answered by 45 PA managers (government, private, Measuring progress towards equitably managed PAs and community-managed PAs), 16 representatives of local We used 10 criteria of multidimensional social equity in communities and indigenous people, 47 NGOs, 59 govern- our survey (Zafra-Calvo et al. 2017): sharing of benefits; ment staff working in PA management, 2 private organiza- actions to mitigate burdens; accountability; access to justice; tions running businesses in PAs, 34 academics conducting transparency; satisfaction with participation in decision- research in PAs, and 38 other PA staff such as consultants or making; free, prior, and informed consent mechanisms subcontractors. (FPIC); recognition of cultural diversity and values; respect For each social equity criterion, the questionnaire for statutory and customary rights; and recognition of local responses were scored according to the extent that the 192 BioScience • March 2019 / Vol. 69 No. 3 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience Forum factors that can influence social equity in any given sociocultural and economic context, as defined by Schreckenberg and colleagues (2016). These contex- tual factors included the Gini index of inequality (GINI), the International Property Rights Index (IPRI), the Rule of Law Index (RLI), the Corruption Index (CI), and the Freedom and Democracy Index (FDI; for details, see supplemental appendix S3). We used Kruskal–Wallis to test for statistically significant differ- Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/69/3/191/5253356 by guest on 27 September 2023 ences among the scores obtained for each criterion: among the four IUCN PAs governance types (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2013)—governed by government Figure 1. Mean and standard deviation of responses to the 10 criteria across the (97 PAs), shared governance (14), pri- three dimensions of social equity (n = 122). Social equity criteria were scored vately governed (seven), or governed by according to the responses to the questionnaire with a minimum value of 1 local communities (four)—and among (the establishment or management of the PA is perceived as not contributing to four IUCN management categories achieving a given social equity criteria), 2 (the establishment or management (Dudley 2008)—strict conservation of the PA is perceived as having a weak contribution toward achieving a given (categories Ia+Ib; 10 PAs), national park social equity criteria), to 3 (the establishment or management of the PA is (category II; 52), less restricted PAs with perceived as having a strong contribution toward achieving a given social sustainable use of natural resources or equity criteria). Columns present the distributions of the frequency of the protecting people–nature interactions responses as the percentage of the occurrences of each score (no contribution, in broader landscapes (categories V and weak, strong). VI; 33), and other categories (categories III and IV and unassigned to IUCN cat- management of the PA became more equitable (CBD 2010): egories; 27). We also used Kruskal–Wallis tests to identify 1, the establishment or management of the PA is perceived differences among the scores of the social equity criteria by the respondent as not contributing to achieving equi- among regions (United Nations Statistics Division 2014)— tably managed PAs; 2, the establishment or management Africa (21 PAs), America (32), Asia (23), Europe (40), of the PA is perceived as having a minimum contribution Oceania (6)—and among the diverse stakeholders who to achieving the criteria of equitably managed PAs (do not responded to the questionnaire (see details in appendix S2). harm); and 3, the establishment or management of the PA is All of our tests were performed in R using the rcorr func- perceived by the respondent as having a strong contribution tion in the package hmisc (Harrell et al. 2006), the cor.test to achieving equitably managed PAs. Additional comments function in the package psych of R (Revelle 2016), and the on the responses provided details about the score assigned function kruskal.test of the package stats in R (R Core Team to the criteria assessed in each of the PAs. Details about 2013), respectively. the systematized metrics selected to measure each of the criterion and its limits can be found in Zafra-Calvo and How far we are in achieving equitably managed PAs colleagues (2017). The mean and standard deviation of the scores obtained We calculated the mean and standard deviation of the from the survey for the 10 social equity criteria are illus- social equity scores from the questionnaires reaching at least trated in figure 1. Satisfaction with the decision-making a 50% completion threshold (n = 232) in order to present an processes received the lowest scores (decision-making, mean overall picture of the situation perceived by the respondents [M] = 1.45, SD = 0.73) with almost 70% of the respondents regarding each of the 10 social equity criteria. The sample indicating that the management of the assessed PAs did represents 0.11% of PAs worldwide and corresponds to a not contribute to a satisfactory decision-making. This was balanced proportion of existing IUCN categories and gover- followed by a perceived general loss of rights over natural nance types (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2016; for details, see resources by local stakeholders with the establishment of supplemental appendix S2). PAs (rights, M = 1.66, SD = 0.69), an inadequate access to We statistically explored the data using those question- mechanisms to solving disputes (access to justice, M = 1.67, naires in which all questions were answered (n = 122). SD = 0.70), and a lack of transparency in sharing informa- Spearman’s rank correlation tests were used to explore tion about how decisions were made (transparency, M = 1.68, associations among the social equity scores and to test the SD = 0.81). About 50% of the respondents perceived that the association between social equity scores and five contextual assessed PAs did not contribute to achieving these three https://academic.oup.com/bioscience March 2019 / Vol. 69 No. 3 • BioScience 193 Forum ability to access mechanisms to address conflicts and attain justice (access to justice, Kruskal–Wallis χ2 (122,3) = 9.52, p = .02). More strictly managed PAs performed worse in terms of these two criteria. None of the respondents con- sidered the current actions to mitigate burdens and access to justice in strict conservation PAs was contributing to achieving equitably managed PAs. We also found significant differences among PA governance type in the distribution Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/69/3/191/5253356 by guest on 27 September 2023 of burdens (Kruskal–Wallis χ2(122,3) = 8.13, p = .04). None of the respondents indicated that the current actions miti- gate burdens in community managed PAs enough to contribute to equitably managed PAs. Of the factors associated with the socioeconomic and institutional con- text, we found a negative weak asso- ciation (approximate rs = .2, p < .001) between transparency scores and all the contextual factors except the GINI index Figure 2. Spearman correlation coefficients show the association between the and between the Corruption Index and 10 criteria of social equity in PAs (n = 122). The values in the squares show access to justice, transparency, knowl- the correlation coefficients (rs) between two criteria of social equity. Where edge, and rights. We found geographical a statistically significant association exists (p < .05), the squares are shades differences in transparency (Kruskal– of gray (a higher correlation is shown as a darker shade of gray); where an Wallis χ2(122,4) = 15.95, p < .001), association is not statistically significant, the squares are white. FPIC (Kruskal–Wallis χ2(122,4) = 11.17, p = .02) and rights (Kruskal–Wallis χ2(122,4) = 11.01, p = .02) by conti- criteria of social equity. Sharing of benefits received the nent. FPIC and transparency performed best in Oceania highest score (benefits, M = 2.17, SD = 0.73), with about (specifically, Australia), whereas rights performed best in 80% of the respondents perceiving that PAs have shared the Europe and worst in Africa and Oceania. We also found benefits arising from their establishment and management. differences depending on the type of respondent regarding All correlations between social equity criteria were posi- FPIC (Kruskal–Wallis χ2(122,5) = 30.20, p = .00), with rep- tive, suggesting that an improvement in one score is linked resentatives of communities and managers reporting more to an improvement in another (figure 2). The strongest frequently that FPIC was not obtained for a given PA, and associations were between the recognition of the diversity of access to justice (Kruskal–Wallis χ2(5) = 11.40, p = .04). values and local cultures (culture) and the ability to satisfac- Academics, communities, and governmental staff more torily resolve disputes in relation to conflicts arising from PA ­frequently reported conflicts and difficulty in accesses mech- management (access to justice, rs = .47, p < .001). In addition, anisms of justice. Further details about social equity criteria increased conflict-resolving capacity by local stakeholders across management categories, governance types, subsamples (as access to justice) was positively associated with greater of stakeholders, regions by continents, and contextual factors transparency in the sharing of information about the man- are in appendix S2. agement of PAs (transparency, rs = .46, p < .001), people more satisfied about their participation in decision-making Coping with dynamic and multidimensional equity processes (decision-making, rs = .42, p < .001), and a higher Our data represent initial evidence for the complex picture of access to benefits derived from the PAs (benefits, rs = .40, social equity in PAs at the global level to report on AT11. The p < .001). Acknowledgement of the value of traditional particularity of our global assessment is that it addresses two knowledge systems was also positively correlated with the crucial challenges. The first challenge is the compensability recognition of local people’s rights (rights, rs = .47, p < .001). of the social equity criterion assessed (i.e., the assumption We found significant differences among PA manage- that a loss observed in one indicator can be compensated ment categories in relation to the distribution of burdens by a gain in another). To deal with this challenge, the per- (Kruskal–Wallis χ2(122,3) = 25.21, p = .00) and local people’s formance of each criterion has been assessed separately, 194 BioScience • March 2019 / Vol. 69 No. 3 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience Forum Box 2. Participation in decision-making, transparency, access to justice, and recognition of the culture and rights of local people underpin equitably managed PAs. Tanga Coelacanth Marine Park (Tanzania; 2090 square kilometers [km2]) aims to deliver benefits to communities through a range of income generating activities (Wells et al. 2006). However, responses to the questionnaire showed that illegal dynamite fishing still per- sist, with influential people behind it and villagers employed to do it. Peoples’ rights, in particular access to land to support their liveli- hoods are not respected by PA management authorities, even if villagers have lived there for centuries and have customary land rights recognized by law. Villagers are experiencing different forms of displacement without receiving proper compensation, not because of the PA establishment or management, but because of reported land speculation (a potential new port and oil pipeline). Villagers have much dissatisfaction about the evictions but they are too poor to protest and to access to the legal system. It has been also reported a lack of accountability, transparency and support to villagers by PA management authorities. Hin Nam No National Protected Area (Lao People’s Democratic Republic; 862 km2) is managed in a multilevel collaborative gover- Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/69/3/191/5253356 by guest on 27 September 2023 nance system that has been recently assessed to provide insights to assist other PAs to become more equitable and effective (de Koning et al. 2017). At Hin Nam No, the PA authority of the government officially delegated certain management tasks to so-called guardian villages. Through responses to the questionnaire, it has been reported that many consultative meetings took place to draft the coman- agement agreements, which were participatory, and the comanagement plan. There are official co-management committees that also represent the poor and vulnerable. However, one ethnic group is being excluded. Over the years, there has been an improvement in participation and decision-making, which is a huge step forward under current political circumstances. Guardian villages officially have access and use rights in the “controlled use zone,” although most benefits go for village rangers for their work on biodiversity monitoring and patrolling and to eco-tourism providers. avoiding the use of a synthetic index or aggregate value of about the 1%–2% of the total sample). In this sense, it will be social equity. In addition, disaggregated analysis of scores crucial to harmonize global rapid assessments, like the one and the percentages of responses falling in each of the ranks presented in this study, with site-specific, long-term social of equitably managed PAs have been shown. This means that equity assessments of PAs (Franks et al. 2018) to specifically polarized responses will not be cancelled out by calculating target such underrepresented stakeholders and social groups, average scores across multiple criteria. The second challenge including gender differentiation (Dawson et al. 2017). refers to the commensurability of the social equity criteria Despite these challenges and concerns, we argue that this assessed (i.e., the possibility to measure them through com- preliminary assessment provides relevant insights to sup- mon metrics). Different local stakeholders within a given port and guide policymakers and PA managers in address- PA and the same ones in different historical, social, political ing social concerns in the management of PAs to achieving and institutional contexts could hold different views about AT11 commitments. The finding that participation in deci- how much engagement is enough to deem a process equi- sion-making, transparency in sharing of information, and table (Phelps et al. 2017). To address this challenge, we have the existence of mechanisms to solve disputes get the lowest carefully elaborated the metrics (for details and limits, see scores is not surprising, but it needs to be tackled urgently. Zafra-Calvo et al. 2017) to focus on contribution of social Addressing these equity issues, however, could provide only equity criteria toward equitably managed PAs rather than a partial solution to achieving AT11. Our findings suggest establishing a normative state of social equity in PAs. that a lack of recognition and respect for the different cul- There are, however, a number of concerns regarding the tural identities and groups that exist in a given PA is posi- approach that need to be considered. Given the online and tively correlated with less access to justice to solve conflicts mostly self-assessment nature of our survey, there is a risk of and with a less satisfactory participation in decision-making. ending up with a picture of social equity in PAs that is biased, This result could illustrate the persistence of the historical because it represents the particular perception of individual exclusion of relevant social actors and local stakeholder respondents to the questionnaire (Bennett 2016). The met- groups in decisions related to the management of PAs rics that we employed to assess equity in PAs could be also (Brockington and Igoe 2006, Durand et al. 2014), which combined with factual metrics (e.g., an increased number leads to conflicts that hinder progress toward equitable of marginalized groups of local stakeholders included in the managed PAs (Reed 2008, Martin et al. 2016; see box 2). board of management of the PA) to help track equity in PA The results also suggest that more access to the resolution of performance and management. Furthermore, bias associated conflicts is perceived to be related to a more equitable shar- with the respondents’ profiles has to be considered; our data ing of benefits. Equitable benefit sharing is intimately linked did not include many potentially relevant stakeholders in to local stakeholders’ ideas of what is morally acceptable in each of the PAs assessed. The results should be considered terms of access and control over resources, which differs with caution, because some social groups are overrepresented by stakeholder group (Pascual et al. 2010). Benefit sharing (e.g., managers), whereas others (e.g., indigenous communi- is the social equity criterion that gets the highest scores in ties’ representatives) are not equally represented (they are our survey toward equitably managed PAs, likely because https://academic.oup.com/bioscience March 2019 / Vol. 69 No. 3 • BioScience 195 Forum the distribution of economic benefits has been historically socially equitable management in each of the existing PAs equated to equity in PAs (Ferranti et al. 2014). will be essential by 2020 and beyond. Our study also suggests that those PAs whose main management goal is the strict conservation of biodiversity Data availability and ecosystem services (IUCN categories Ia and Ib) do The data that support the findings of this study are available not have enough actions in place to mitigate the burdens from the corresponding author on reasonable request. on local stakeholder groups (e.g., restricting access and use of natural resources; Dahlberg et al. 2010). This is Supplemental material also highlighted in PAs managed by communities. Strict Supplemental data are available at BIOSCI online. PAs could also entail stronger enforcement that creates (real or perceived) challenges in mechanisms to managing Acknowledgments and solving conflicts (Challender and MacMillan 2014). We are thankful to Naomi Kingston, Phil Franks and Adrian Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/69/3/191/5253356 by guest on 27 September 2023 Achieving equitably managed PAs under all types of gov- Martin, who provided insightful comments on the manu- ernance, management goals, and associated categories script, and to all respondents to this questionnaire and all is a mandate of the CBD (2010). To operationalize this organizations that helped us to distribute it, especially to mandate, it is necessary to find ways to mitigate these Heather Bingham. This work is funded by the EU Horizon conservation-related burdens suffered by local stakeholders 2020 program under the MSCA grant agreement no. 659881 without compromising the conservation goals of different to NZ-C and supported by a JCFG from the Spanish MEC to categories of PAs (West et al. 2006, Lele et al. 2010, Dudley IP (IJCI-2016–28475). NZ-C and NDB also acknowledge the et al. 2016, Gray et al. 2016). A site-specific participatory DNRF for funding for CMEC, grant no. DNRF96. surveying approach is needed to provide a more detailed description of the status of each PA in terms of social equity. This would allow negotiating and elaborate targeted References cited Adams WM, Aveling R, Brockington D, Dickson B, Elliott J, Hutton J, Roe management options able to navigate trade-offs between D, Vira B, Wolmer, W. 2004. Biodiversity conservation and the eradica- conservation goals and social equity in each of the PAs tion of poverty. Science 306: 1146–1149. (Hirsch et al. 2011). Bennett NJ. 2016. Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation Finally, the contextual factors at the national scale have a and environmental management. Conservation Biology 30: 582–592. Borrini-Feyerabend G, Dudley N, Jaeger T, Lassen B, Pathak Broome N, generally weak association with the 10 equity criteria con- Phillips A, Sandwith T. 2013. Governance of Protected Areas: From sidered at PA level. This is in line with other studies showing Understanding to Action. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines that relationships between social and conservation issues series no. 20. IUCN. are dynamic and mostly locally specific (Upton et al. 2008, Brockington D, Igoe J. 2006. Eviction for conservation: A global overview. Brooks et al. 2012). Conservation and Society 4: 424–470. Brooks JS, Waylen KA, Mulder MB. 2012. How national context, proj- ect design, and local community characteristics influence success in Moving forward to engage PAs in equitable community-based conservation projects. Proceedings of the National management: Post-Aichi Targets Academy of Sciences 109: 21265–21270. Given the limited number of years left for the Aichi Targets Challender DWS, MacMillan CD. 2014. Poaching is more than an enforce- to be achieved, our initial findings might be useful for an ini- ment problem. Conservation Letters 7: 484–449. Coad L, Leverington F, Knights K, Geldmann J, Eassom A, Kapos V, tial reporting against the 2020 deadline for AT11 and helpful Kingston N, de Lima M, Zamora C, Cuardros I, Nolte C, Burgess in defining the role of social equity in the next CBD strategic ND, Hockings M. 2015. Measuring impact of protected area manage- plan from 2020–2030. To move forward with the assessment ment interventions: Current and future use of the Global Database of of agreed equity commitments in AT11, we suggest generat- Protected Area Management Effectiveness. Philosophical Transactions ing factual metrics of progress toward equitably managed of the Royal Society B 370 20140281. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2010. Aichi Target 11 - PAs that may be integrated in well-established assessments Technical Rationale Extended, COP/10/INF/12/Rev.1. https: //www. of the performance of PAs, such as PAME tools. Subsequent cbd.int/sp/targets/rationale/target-11/. efforts in perception-based surveys providing a global pic- Corrigan C, Robinson C, Burgess ND, Kingston N, Hockings M. 2017. ture of equity may focus on administering the survey to the Global review of social indicators used in protected area management full set of local stakeholders in each of the PAs assessed. It evaluation. Conservation Letters. doi:10.1111/conl.12397. Dahlberg A, Rohde R, Sandell K. 2010. National parks and environmental could be done every year to track progress. In the analysis justice: Comparing access rights and ideological legacies in three coun- of the PA, factual and several perception-based assess- tries. Conservation and Society 8: 209–224. ments could be combined in a systematic and transparent Dawson N, Martin A, Danielsen F. 2017. Assessing equity in protected area approach. This approach should be the starting point of PA governance: Approaches to promote just and effective conservation. managers engaging with participatory site-specific evalua- Conservation Letters. doi:10.1111/conl.12388. de Koning M, Nguyen T, Lockwood M, Sengchanthavong S, Phommasane tions able to better understand and interpret potential syn- S. 2017. Collaborative governance of protected areas: Success factors ergies, unavoidable trade-offs and conflicts in the equitable and prospects for Hin Nam No National Protected Area, Central Laos. management of PAs. Finally, putting in place mechanisms to Conservation and Society 15: 87–99. http://www.conservationandsoci- manage conflicts and elaborating targeted actions to reach ety.org/text.asp?2017/15/1/87/201396 196 BioScience • March 2019 / Vol. 69 No. 3 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience Forum de Lange E, Woodhouse E, Milner-Gulland EJ. 2016. Approaches used to Phelps J, Dermawan A, Garmendia E. 2017. Institutionalizing environmen- evaluate the social impacts of protected areas. Conservation Letters 9: tal valuation into policy: Lessons from 7 Indonesian agencies. Global 327–333. Environmental Change 43: 15–25. Dudley N, ed. 2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Reed MS. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: Categories. IUCN. A literature review. Biological Conservation 141: 2417–2431. Dudley N, Phillips A, Amend T, Brown J, Stolton S. 2016. Evidence for bio- Revelle W. 2016. Psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological diversity conservation in protected landscapes. Land Use 5: 38. http:// Research, Northwestern University, Evanston. dx.doi.org/10.3390/land5040038. R Core Team. 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical comput- Durand L, Figureueroa F, Trench T. 2014. Inclusion and exclusion in par- ing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN ticipation strategies in the montes Azules Biosphere Reserve, Chiapas, 3-900051-07-0. www.R-project.org Mexico. Conservation and Society 12: 175–189. Schlosberg D. 2007. Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, Ferranti F, Turnhout E, Beunen R, Behagel JH. 2014. Shifting nature con- and Nature. Oxford University Press. servation approaches in Natura 2000 and the implications for the roles Schreckenberg K, Franks P, Martin A, Lang B. 2016. Unpacking equity for of stakeholders. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management protected area conservation. Parks 22(2): 11–26. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/69/3/191/5253356 by guest on 27 September 2023 57: 1642–1657. Sikor T, Martin A, Fisher J, He J. 2014. Toward an empirical analysis of jus- Franks P, Broker F, Roe D. 2018. Understanding and assessing equity in tice in ecosystem governance. Conservation Letters 7: 524–532. protected area conservation: A matter of governance, rights, social [UNEP-WCMC and IUCN] United Nations Environment Programme impacts and human wellbeing. IIED Issue Paper. IIED. http://pubs.iied. World Conservation Monitoring Centre and International Union for org/14671IIED. Conservation of Nature. 2016. Protected Planet Report 2016. UNEP- Friedman RS, Law E, Bennett NJ, Ives CD, Thorn J, Wilson K. 2018. WCMC and IUCN. How just and just how? A systematic review of social equity in United Nations 2014. United Nations Statistics Division . Standard Country conservation research. Environmental Research Letters https: //doi. and Area Codes Classifications (M49). https://unstats.un.org/unsd/ org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabcde. methods/m49/m49regin.htm. Gray CL, Hill SLL, Newbold T, Hudson LN, Börger L, Contu S, Hoskins Upton C, Ladle R, Hulme D, Jiang T, Brockington D, Adams WM. 2008. AJ, Ferrier S, Purvis A, Scharlemann JPW. 2016. Local biodiversity is Are poverty and protected area establishment linked at a national scale? higher inside than outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nature Oryx 42: 19–25. Communications 7. doi:10.1038/ncomms12306. West P, Igoe J, Brockington D. 2006. Parks and peoples: The social impact of Harrell FE Jr, with contributions from many other users. 2006. Harrell protected areas. Annual Review of Anthropology 35: 251–294. Miscellaneous. R package version 3.0-12. Wells S, Burgess N, Ngusaru A. 2006. Towards the 2012 marine protected Hirsch PD, Adams WM, Brosius JP, Zia A, Bariola N, Dammert JL. 2011. area targets in Eastern Africa. Ocean and Coastal Management 50: 67–83. Acknowledging Conservation Trade-Offs and Embracing Complexity. Zafra-Calvo N, Pascual U, Brockington D, Coolsaet B, Cortes-Vazquez JA., Conservation Biology 25: 259–264. Gross-Camp N, Palomo I, Burgess ND. 2017. Towards an indicator Law E, Bennett NJ, Ives C, Friedman R, Davis K, Archibald C, Wilson KA. system to assess equitable management in protected areas. Biological 2017. Equity trade-offs in conservation decision-making. Conservation Conservation 211: 134–141. Biology 32: 294–303. Lele S, Wilshusen P, Brockington D, Seidler R, Bawa K. 2010. Beyond exclusion: Alternative approaches to biodiversity conservation in the Noelia Zafra-Calvo (noelia.zafracalvo@bc3research.org) and Neil David developing tropics. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability Burgess are affiliated with the Center for Macroecology, Evolution, and 2: 94–100. Climate, at the Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Leverington F, Costa KL, Pavese H, Lisle A, Hockings M. 2010. A global Copenhagen, in Denmark. Zafra-Calvo, Eneko Garmendia, Unai Pascual, analysis of protected area management effectiveness. Environmental and Ignacio Palomo are affiliated with the Basque Centre for Climate Change Management 46: 685–698. (BC3), in the Parque Científico de UPV/EHU, in Leioa, Spain. EG is also Martin A, Akol A, Gross-Camp N. 2015. Towards an explicit justice fram- affiliated with the Department of Applied Economics I, at the University ing of the social impacts of conservation. Conservation and Society 13: of the Basque Country, in Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain. UP is also affiliated with 166–178. Ikerbasque, the Basque Science Foundation, in Bilbao, Spain, and with the Martin A, Coolsaet B, Corbera E, Dawson NM, Fraser JA, Lehmann I, Department of Land Economy at the University of Cambridge, in the United Rodriguez I. 2016. Justice and conservation: The need to incorporate Kingdom. IP is also affiliated with the Social–Ecological Systems Laboratory, recognition. Biological Conservation 197: 254–261. in the Department of Ecology, at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Moreaux C, Zafra-Calvo N, Vansteelant NG, Wicander S, Burgess ND. Spain. Nicole Gross-Camp and Brendan Coolsaet are affiliated with the School 2018. Can we track equitable management in Protected Areas (PAs) of International Development at the University of East Anglia, in Norwich, under Aichi Target 11 using existing PA assessment tools? Biological in the United Kingdom. BC is also affiliated with the European School of Conservation 224: 242–247. Political and Social Sciences, at Lille Catholic University, in Lille, France. Pascual U, Muradian R, Rodríguez LC, Duraiappah A. 2010. Exploring Daniel Brockington is affiliated with the Sheffield Institute for International the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental Development, at The University of Sheffield, in Sheffield, in the United services: A conceptual approach. Ecological Economics 69: 1237–1244. Kingdom. Jose-Antonio Cortes-Vazquez is affiliated with the Department Pascual U, Phelps J, Garmendia E, Brown K, Corbera E, Martin A, Gomez- of Sociology and Communication Sciences at the Universidade da Coruña, Baggethun E, Muradian R. 2014. Social equity matters in payments for Spain. NDB is also affiliated with the United Nations Environment World ecosystem services. BioScience 64: 1027–1036. Conservation Monitoring Centre, in Cambridge, in the United Kingdom. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience March 2019 / Vol. 69 No. 3 • BioScience 197