ll Review Multiple-use protected areas are critical to equitable and effective conservation Vanessa M. Adams,1,* Alienor L.M. Chauvenet,2 Natasha Stoudmann,1 Georgina G. Gurney,3 Dan Brockington,4,5 and Caitlin D. Kuempel6 1School of Geography, Planning, and Spatial Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia 2Centre for Planetary Health and Food Security, School of Environment and Science, Gold Coast, QLD 4222, Australia 3College of Arts, Society, and Education, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia 4Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Barcelona, Spain 5Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, 08010 Barcelona, Spain 6Coastal and Marine Research Centre, Australian Rivers Institute, School of Environment and Science, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia *Correspondence: vm.adams@utas.edu.au https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2023.08.011 SUMMARY Protected areas are widely used to stem biodiversity loss, with global conservation policy mandating their use in meeting area-based conservation targets, such as the recent target to protect 30% of Earth’s surface by 2030. Over the last two decades, the role of multiple-use and other protected areas in meeting conserva- tion targets has increased, now representing 55% of terrestrial and 75% of marine protected areas globally. Given their substantial contributions to meeting area-based targets, we review evidence of multiple-use pro- tected areas in meeting global policy goals. We found that multiple-use protected areas can be effective in conserving biodiversity and are more likely to be under equitable governance arrangements than their strict counterparts. Our results show that multiple-use and other protected areas provide important environmental and socio-economic benefits that are needed to achieve the 2030 target. Closing knowledge gaps around when and where they are most effective and equitable is needed to ensure that further growth in the protected and conserved estate meets global policy goals. INTRODUCTION a further 50% growth of terrestrial protected and conserved areas and further tripling of marine areas. Drawing from the stron- Protected areas are frequently called the ‘‘cornerstone’’ of global gest published evidence (impact evaluations and surveillance biodiversity conservation strategies. These areas represent one monitoring studies that endeavor to control for confounding fac- of the most significant resource use allocations on the planet and tors), the published literature suggests that protected areas can the largest planned land uses,1,2 covering approximately 17% of be effective in reducing threats5–7 and conserving biodiversity land mass and 9% of marine area.3 Over the last two decades, within their boundaries.8 However, their ability to do so varies there has been growth in global policy and commitments that significantly, and thus local variation in outcomes can be both emphasize the role of area-based measures in achieving global positive and negative for nature and people. Given this evidence biodiversity targets. For example, the area-based targets for of variable outcomes, it remains unclear if protected areas are 2010, 2020, and 2030 have sought to expand conservation fully delivering on their promises, let alone on the potential bene- extent as well as to recognize a larger set of governance mech- fits (or lack thereof) of such a speedy increase by 2030. Further- anisms for area-based conservation including both IUCN-class more, evidence on the relative benefits of different protected protected areas (termed protected) and other effective area- area types (i.e., strict IUCN I–IV vs. multiple-use IUCN V–VI) is based conservation measures (OECMs) (termed conserved). limited, with only a small number of studies designed to detect Since 2000, the overall coverage in protected and conserved relative impacts of each (e.g., Ferraro et al.,9 Gill et al.,10 and areas has seen a 50% growth on land and more than a 10-fold Nelson and Chomitz11). To guide global conservation policy that increase in the sea (Figure 1). Much of the growth in coverage ensures that the growth of protected and conserved areas is has come from multiple-use and other protected areas (those meaningful and delivers the desired outcomes, an understanding without an assigned IUCN category); today, these categories of the relative effectiveness of protected area types as well as the constitute 55% of protected and conserved areas on land and contexts in which they are most suitable is needed. 75% in the oceans (Figure 1). In this review, we take a data-driven approach to explore the The push over the coming 8 years to meet the ‘‘30 3 30’’ target current role that strict (IUCN categories I–IV) and multiple-use to protect 30% of the planet by 2030, as set in the Kunming- (IUCN V–VI) protected areas have played in terms of the growth Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF),4 would result in of the global protected area estate and the context in which One Earth 6, September 15, 2023 ª 2023 Elsevier Inc. 1173 ll Review Figure 1. Current global protected area estate across terrestrial and marine realms (A) Geographic distribution of protected areas by IUCN category. (B) Growth in terrestrial protected areas over time by IUCN category displayed as cumulative percentage protected. (C) Growth in MPAs over time by IUCN category displayed as cumulative percentage protected. In general, IUCN I–IV are considered strict protection, while V–VI are multiple-use zones. ‘‘Other’’ refers to protected areas without a nominated IUCN category. versity target adopted by the 7th Confer- ence of the Parties (COP) to the Conven- tion on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2002. Specifically, goal 1 had associated targets 1.1 and 1.2 that read the following: ‘‘At least 10% of each of the world’s ecological regions effectively conserved; and Areas of particular importance to biodiversity protected.’’ This goal formalized and extended the related aim in the Caracas Action Plan, a key outcome of the 1992 World Parks Congress, which called for the protected area network to cover at least 10% of each major biome by 2000. benefits (or harms) have been delivered to both nature and peo- In the subsequent two decades, further iterations on these goals ple. To this end, we synthesize key historical moments related to and targets have occurred alongside other hallmark policies and global protected area policy (such as the 2010, 2020, and 2030 public debates. We highlight here a brief history of major mo- area-based targets and their contexts), explore the relationship ments in global protected area policy (see Table S1 for a more that global policy has had with shaping protected area comprehensive list). We emphasize those policies that relate to growth, and then analyze patterns of growth in protected areas the interplay between environmental and social outcomes across IUCN categories and the evidence of impacts of these because these reflect current debates related to effective and on the environment and people. We draw upon the published equitable conservation and the roles of multiple-use protected literature and supplement this with re-analysis of global data areas, OECMs, and other alternatives to strict protected areas to compare the overall performance of protected areas across (e.g., those that countries choose to not match to an IUCN categories. We find that multiple-use (V–VI) and other (those category). without an assigned category) protected areas have grown The biodiversity target for 2010, adopted in 2002 at COP-7, substantially as a proportion of the global protected area estate. was ‘‘to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current Given their growing importance, in terms of meeting targets, rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level we further explore evidence of effectiveness and equity. as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life We find that multiple-use protected areas can deliver benefits on Earth.’’ This target attempted to resolve heated debates over to nature and people hand in hand, rather than in trade-off, the apparent trade-offs between development and conservation but that the evidence points to local variation in the nature of through its coupled articulation to reduce biodiversity loss and benefits and harms. Based on our findings, we look to the com- alleviate poverty.14 The following year, the 5th IUCN World Parks ing decade and what additional evidence is required to Congress 2003 was held in Durban. This meeting was notable, guide the proposed growth in global protected areas and as it attracted an unprecedented attendance of Indigenous and OECMs to ensure that they contribute to effective and equitable local community groups and representatives. The debate around conservation. the role and types of protected areas was at the forefront of this congress with a voiced concern that expansion of protected A SHORT HISTORY OF PROTECTED AREA DEBATES areas would exacerbate harms to local livelihoods already in play due to conservation.14 The growth of protected areas has slowly gathered momentum An important outcome from this public debate was the Durban over the twentieth century.12 A focus on protected areas at the Accord, which put forward a number of goals and actions to in- global level accompanied the birth of the UN and helped give crease the benefits of protected areas to society and to ensure rise to the IUCN in 1948.13 The centrality of protected areas as they contribute significantly to global agendas on sustainable a tool to address biodiversity loss (over the very many other development. Related to this, a resolution was passed asking available tools) was formalized in global policy in the 2010 biodi- the IUCN to update the IUCN protected area categories. 1174 One Earth 6, September 15, 2023 ll Review Published in 1994, the IUCN protected area category system has can be implemented to suit diverse contexts (see Box 1 for been widely used to guide policy, planning, and reporting. The ty- further discussion around complementarity of measures). pology is based on protected area management objectives and This short historical account of global protected area policy has six categories spanning a continuum of strictness in terms emphasizes that area-based targets have accelerated over the of allowed resource extraction: strict nature reserves (Ia), wilder- last two decades and that the types of area-based measures ness areas (Ib), national parks (II), natural monuments or features have diversified. Have these changes in policies influenced the (III), habitat/species management areas (IV), protected land- rate at which countries are protecting land and sea or the types scapes (V), and protected areas with sustainable use of natural of mechanisms they are using? Multiple-use and other protected resources (VI). At the 2004 World Conservation Congress, the areas (those without an assigned IUCN category) have grown conservation-poverty debate continued, and a resolution was substantially over the last two decades; today, these categories passed to undertake a 4-year consultation to identify points of constitute 55% of protected and conserved areas on land and contention and possible changes in the categories system. The 75% in the oceans (Figure 1; see Figure S1 for further details). definitions of, roles for, and management of IUCN categories V Using the concept of ‘‘hot moments,’’21 we explored the rate and VI protected areas (i.e., multiple-use protected areas) were of change of growth of protected areas and tested for hot mo- at the center of continued debate during this consultation pro- ments (time periods above the mean rate of increase) around cess.1 The debate emerging from the Durban Accord was about key policy time periods (Box 2). We found that the global pro- whether less strict forms of protection (i.e., multiple-use pro- tected area has grown substantially since 2000, and the majority tected areas) deserved the term ‘‘protected area.’’ In the end, of that growth has come from multiple-use and other protected the IUCN provided guidance stating that protected areas can area categories over the last decade, with these forms of pro- have multiple objectives but ‘‘in the case of conflict, nature con- tected areas forming the largest proportion of protected areas servation must be the priority.’’15 (Figure 1). There are significant differences in growth across The 2020 and 2030 CBD area-based conservation targets, terrestrial and marine protected area estates, and so we further Aichi target 1116,17 and GBF target 3,4 outline a role for both pro- consider these patterns specific to realm. tected areas and OECMs in meeting expanded area-based con- Within the terrestrial estate, considering cumulative growth by servation targets. Guidance for OECMs and their criteria were IUCN category, the proportion of area in IUCN II has had a linear adopted by CBD parties in 2018, and their contribution to targets rate of increase and in VI and other (those in the WDPA database are now formally tracked alongside protected areas18,19 (see with no IUCN category recorded) have had larger growth rates, Box 1 for a discussion on the role of OECMs and their key differ- and the remaining categories have been stable (Figure S1). ences from protected areas). Additionally, GBF target 3 explicitly Considering annual rates of change within the growth curves recognizes the role of Indigenous and traditional territories in by category, we found limited evidence of hot moments around meeting the target. This text was added during the 2022 COP global political landmarks, constrained primarily to IUCN V and in Montreal in response to concerns about the implications of VI and other protected areas in the 2000–2005 period (indicated the 30 3 30 for Indigenous peoples and local communities given by peaks in annual changes within shaded policy periods; that some protected areas have perpetuated colonial ideologies Figure 2; Box 2) and within IUCN II in the 2000–2005 and and resulted in injustices to these groups.20 Although the text 2018–2020 periods. falls short of Indigenous representatives’ call for their territories Within the marine estate, the proportion of area protected as to be a distinct category separate from protected areas and IUCN category I and III has been stable over the last two de- OECMs, the importance of recognizing these groups’ rights cades, but all other categories have had steep increases in and the role of their territories in meeting conservation outcomes area, with the largest growth occurring in IV–VI and other areas is clear in the target (representing a significant variation to previ- (Figure S1). Most IUCN categories also had some alignment ous iterations): with peaks in annual growth rates within policy periods, with the strongest evidence of hot moments being for Ib between Ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30% of terrestrial, 2018 and 2020 and for V and other peaking in 2008–2010, which inland water, and coastal and marine areas, especially align with the lead up to meeting global target dates of 2010 and areas of particular importance for biodiversity and 2020 (Figure 2; Box 2). ecosystem functions and services, are effectively Outside of the limited number of hot moments identified conserved and managed through ecologically representa- above, rates of change were highly stochastic and thus do not tive, well-connected, and equitably governed systems of support consistent identification of global-policy-driven hot mo- protected areas and other effective area-based conserva- ments. This is consistent with findings from Radeloff et al.21 and tion measures, recognizing Indigenous and traditional ter- suggests that while there are certainly hot moments in protected ritories where applicable, and integrated into wider land- area growth, global targets are not a direct primary driver. There scapes, seascapes, and the ocean while ensuring that is strong evidence in the literature of national priorities driving hot any sustainable use, where appropriate in such areas, is moments12,21,22; however, the role of global targets in driving na- fully consistent with conservation outcomes, recognizing tional priorities remains unclear. and respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities, including over their traditional territories. PROGRESS TOWARD GLOBAL TARGETS Target 3 reflects the continued move by the conservation community beyond a sole focus on strict protected areas toward If achieved, GBF target 3 will see a speedy increase in the pro- a range of complementary area-based protection measures that tection of 30% of land and sea by 2030. To draw lessons for One Earth 6, September 15, 2023 1175 ll Review Box 1. OECMs as area-based conservation policy tools Other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) first appeared in CBD policy in 2010, with Aichi target 11 specifying ‘‘17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas . are conserved through . protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures.’’ However, little attention was given to OECMs until 2018, when CBD parties adopted a formal definition for the policy tool as a geographically defined area other than a Protected Area, which is governed and managed in ways that achieve positive and sustained long-term outcomes for the in situ conservation of biodiversity with associated ecosystem functions and ser- vices and where applicable, cultural, spiritual, socio–economic, and other locally relevant values. Unlike protected areas, which must be ‘‘dedicated’’ or ‘‘designated or regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives,’’ according to definitions provided by the IUCN and CBD, OECMs are defined by effectiveness in conserving biodiver- sity rather than their objectives. The OECM policy tool thus provides opportunities to recognize or enhance existing or new managed areas that sustain biodiversity, irrespective of their objectives.88 Managed areas that could be recognized as OECMs are diverse and include lands and seas managed by Indigenous peoples and local communities, historic wreck reserves, sacred sites, and areas managed by production sectors such as fisheries and forestry. Designation of these managed areas as OECMs depends on the consent of relevant governing bodies and whether the area meets CBD’s definition for OECMs.89 The addition of OECMs to the conservation toolbox is suggested to advance two tenets for area-based conservation enshrined in Aichi target 11: equitable governance and biodiversity conservation effectiveness.18 By enabling recognition of the value of managed areas other than protected areas to sustaining biodiversity, the OECM tool enhances recognition equity, which relates to respect for socio-cultural diversity, including identities, rights, and values. While IUCN V and VI protected areas allow multiple uses, the IUCN guidelines for applying these management categories stipulate that ‘‘in the case of conflict, nature conservation will be the priority.’’15 This primacy of nature conservation can alienate and disempower actors who manage areas for other objectives or where definitions of what constitutes ‘‘nature’’ and what constitutes ‘‘conservation’’ differ. For example, it is suggested that even in the relatively successful case of Indigenous protected areas in Australia, misalignment of Indigenous values and those espoused by the IUCN protected area definition can undermine Indigenous power and authority.90 Advancing recognition equity paves the way for equity in distribution and procedure. Recognizing local governance via OECMs helps ensure that benefit-sharing mech- anisms and decision-making processes are suited to the socio-cultural context and are perceived as fair by local actors.91 At the level of the global conservation system, because the OECM policy can be used to recognize managed areas governed to meet local needs and values, they can help alleviate distributional inequities related to the burdens of conservation being experienced locally but the benefits shared globally. Further, OECMs can promote procedural equity by facilitating the participation of those groups who are governing areas that sustain biodiversity but who are not currently involved in conservation decision-making. Alongside protected areas, OECMs are expected to help bolster the effectiveness of the global conservation system in several ways.18 The OECM tool provides a means to support or develop management that is ‘‘fit’’ to the relevant social-ecological context, fostering local support, leadership, and compliance.20 By facilitating institutional fit, OCEMs provide new opportunities to support and incentivize management in working land and seascapes. Further, by increasing the coverage of managed areas delivering biodiversity benefits, OECMs can collectively yield cumulative conservation benefits, including the underachieved qualitative el- ements of Aichi target 11, for example, ecological connectivity and representativeness. Ensuring that OECM policy tool delivers on its purported promise to advance equitable and effective conservation will require ad- dressing several key concerns related to its implementation.18,92 In particular, these relate to misusing the tool to meet area-based conservation commitments without actually stemming biodiversity loss and recognition processes substantially altering or dis- placing existing governance, disempowering local actors. Addressing these concerns is of pressing importance as CBD parties move swiftly to incorporate OECMs into their conservation portfolios, with 817 cases documented in the World Database on OECMs as of November 2022. the coming decade, we review progress in meeting Aichi target ‘‘equity,’’ or ‘‘well-being’’ can be highly context specific, both 11, including its key subcomponents that persist in target 3 for biodiversity and for people. Nevertheless, to the extent that (namely coverage, representation, management effectiveness, comparison is possible, we seek better to evidence the roles connectivity, and equitable management). Alongside the review that each type have played to date and might be expected to of available evidence, we re-analyze data to draw inferences for play in meeting the 30 3 30 targets. Based on our analysis, we each of the target subcomponents across land and sea. Consid- discuss aspects that require further attention to create a ering the relative growth in multiple-use protected areas over the pathway for meeting target 3 and achieving broader desired out- past two decades, and the signals of hot moments within these comes for biodiversity and people. IUCN categories in the 2000–2005 policy period, we focus our analysis on comparisons across strict and multiple-use pro- Coverage and representation tected areas. These can be difficult to make because what The area-based protection elements of the 2020 target have different protected areas are trying to achieve can vary been met for terrestrial targets and have been close to being greatly in different circumstances. The meanings of ‘‘success,’’ met for marine areas: 16.98% terrestrial and 8.65% marine areas 1176 One Earth 6, September 15, 2023 ll Review Box 2. Do protected area debates motivate growth in the protected and conserved estate? The global discourse and policy settings for protected areas over the last two decades have emphasized protected areas as a central conservation mechanism, with a particular focus on codifying increasing protected area targets. This emphasis on target setting to achieve conservation activity leads to a natural question of have targets spurred the desired change in protected area designation? Alongside the increased protected area targets, there has been an evolving debate and a set of associated area- based mechanisms designed to address equitable management goals—in particular, the introduction of multiple-use IUCN cat- egories and the term ‘‘conserved’’ areas alongside ‘‘protected’’ as equal tools for achieving protected area targets. A secondary question is, then, has this period of debate resulted in greater support for, and thus an increase in, the declaration of multiple-use protected areas and their overall contributions to meeting global targets? In other words—are there observable changes in the rates of protected and conserved area growth and the type of areas declared that relate to these political debates and global targets? Our analysis of hot moments (based on slope of growth curves) finds that there is some evidence of hot moments for protected areas around political landmarks; however, these signals are stochastic, and evidence of hot moments is strongest in MPAs and in particular for categories V and VI and other protected areas (Figure 2). For example, IUCN V and VI and other protected areas (those in the WDPA database with no IUCN category recorded or nominated as OECMs) all had maximum rates of change for terrestrial protected areas in the 2000–2005 period and have had stochastic peaks and troughs in rates of change since then, with no major peaks in the 2010 or 2020 target due dates, and MPAs within these classes had hot moments in, or very close to, the 2010 target due date (Figure 2). Other classes are highly stochastic, such as IUCN II and III, which display frequent rate changes for terrestrial protected areas. Thus, while there are certainly peaks and troughs in rates of protected area growth, hot moments are only sparsely timed alongside global protected area policy periods. Our findings are consistent with, and confirm those of, Radeloff et al.,21 who also concluded that global factors are likely to have a limited direct role in driving protected area growth. These results point to the question of ‘‘how do global target-setting processes influence on-ground protected area activity, if at all?’’ The lack of direct influence of global tar- gets on protected area growth found in our analysis suggests a hypothesis that the distance is quite large between negotiators engaging in the global policy discussions, to policy makers aligning national policy with global obligations, and onward to the local communities that must then confront changes in their rights structures to deliver on these targets. Thus, ultimately translating a global target to a local action is not directly linked. This is particularly true for terrestrial protected areas. In the case of MPAs, often established in exclusive economic zonesfurther offshore and with fewer rightsholders outside of national governments that must be consulted or compensated, the distance from global target setting to local action is plausibly much shorter and hence why our evidence of global-policy-driven hot moments is much stronger. These are hypotheses worth testing, as answers to these ques- tions would highlight where conservation policy and practice can invest to truly influence growth of protected areas in effective and equitable ways. are currently protected and conserved3,23 (Figure 1A). However, nance modes that recognize and support existing governing ac- the overall representativeness of the protected area estate re- tors, especially rightsholders. This emphasizes the role that mul- mains low. At an ecoregion scale, only 44.5% terrestrial and tiple-use protected areas and OECMs can play in regions such as 47.4% marine ecoregions have met their protection targets of Africa, Asia, and Central America, where predicted overlap in 17% and 10%, respectively.3 Furthermore, some ecoregions conservation priority areas and human populations are particu- have been so seriously degraded that targets can only be met larly high.28 Considering these areas of high overlap, it is worth through restoration.24,25 noting that multiple-use and other types of protected areas are Considering the types of protected areas used across time, already a dominant form of terrestrial governance in some re- growth in the global protected area estate has been substantial gions, such as Africa, and they are the dominant form of marine over the last two decades, with particular growth in IUCN cate- governance in all regions (Figure 3). This suggests that further gory V and VI and other protected areas (Figures 1B and 1C). emphasis on other approaches to conservation outside of area- The relative use of strict, multiple-use, and other protected areas based mechanisms may be appropriate in these regions (e.g., varies regionally, with multiple-use and other types being a fishing industry regulations). dominant portion of protected areas (>50% of total area) in Af- rica, Europe, and Oceania (Figure 3). This increase in multiple- Management effectiveness use protected areas appears to accelerate around 2010.26 Within the existing protected and conserved estate, effective Outside the existing protected area estate, there is substantial management of protected areas is critical for combatting threats overlap between terrestrial areas important for biodiversity and to biodiversity.5–7 Management effectiveness is generally under- areas of human use,19 including Indigenous territories.27 Policy stood as whether protected and conserved areas make a posi- makers may decide to meet conservation goals by expanding tive difference on biodiversity or on some other metric of interest, the protected area estate in these places in order to meet area- and several broad approaches have been employed to assess it. based targets and to fill gaps in representation across both The agreed-upon approach for tracking progress toward the land and sea. If so, then this will require embracing management CBD area-based target at the global level is a protected area approaches that do not exclude existing human uses and gover- management effectiveness (PAME) evaluation, which is aligned One Earth 6, September 15, 2023 1177 ll Review Figure 2. Detecting hot moments based on annual rates of change for protected area growth Proportional annual rate of change scaled from 0 to 1 by realm and IUCN category where 0 = no in- crease in protected area for that year and max = maximum rate of change. Peaks in rate of change are relative growth periods, with peaks reaching maximum being particularly hot moments. Policy periods hypothesized to be hot moments are shaded in gray and include 2000–2005 due to large numbers of key events as discussed in the historical narrative, 2008–2010 as the leadup to the first target due date of 2010, and 2018–2020 as the leadup to the second target due date of 2020. In comparing the relative benefits to biodiversity from different protected area IUCN categories, our understanding of the relative impact of multiple-use areas is stymied by the lack of impact evaluation studies.31 But the welcome exception to this silence is the focus on studies of forest and tree cover loss. Those studies that have estimated the impact of different with broader program evaluation, focusing on context, planning, sorts of protected areas have found that while relative impacts inputs, processes, outputs, and outcomes. Only 18.29% of pro- vary by region, multiple-use protected areas can be more effec- tected areas have even completed management effectiveness tive at stemming deforestation than their strict counter- assessments according to the PAME database.3 The low rates parts.9,11,32,33 This finding has been attributed in part to place- of management effectiveness assessment completion are dis- ment—that multiple-use protected areas are more likely to be heartening, as completing an assessment is a very basic indica- placed in areas of higher deforestation pressure32—but also to tor of whether a protected area might be effectively managed. management capacity and the political will of stakeholders to The other two main approaches to assessing management comply with and enforce rules.34,35 Importantly, in some of these effectiveness are impact evaluation and surveillance monitoring, same protected areas, not only have the relative biodiversity applied either to biodiversity outcomes or to level of threats.29 An benefits (as measured by avoided deforestation) across IUCN impact evaluation approach involves estimating the impact of an categories been measured but so too have the relative benefits area in making a difference by comparing against a counterfac- to humans (as measured by reduced poverty).9,36,37 This empha- tual of an area with no protection or other types of protection sizes that multiple-use protected areas can deliver benefits to while controlling for confounding factors. While this approach nature and people hand in hand rather than in trade-off. provides the highest quality evidence, counterfactual data are An analog to tree cover in terrestrial parks is fish biomass in often not available, especially at a global level. Surveillance marine protected areas. One study has conducted a compre- monitoring is a commonly employed method that examines the hensive impact evaluation of 218 marine protected areas,10 tak- outcomes of protected areas but without comparing them to ing into consideration counterfactuals including protection alternative governance forms. It involves examining a metric of versus no protection as well as multiple-use marine protected interest over time within a protected or conserved area. Broadly, areas (MPAs) versus strict (no take) MPAs. The study finds that the literature employing these two approaches shows that pro- fish biomass was 1.6 times higher in MPAs than in matched tected areas can be effective in reducing threats5–7 and non-MPA areas but that fish biomass response to protection conserving biodiversity within their boundaries8 but that their was up to two times greater for strict protected areas relative ability to do so varies significantly, with important predictors to multiple-use areas. Similar to the terrestrial finding that including the level of permitted extraction, sufficient funding, so- management capacity strongly influences environmental out- cio-economic contextual characteristics, and good governance, comes,32 this study linked management processes and ecolog- including the degree to which stakeholders are meaningfully ical outcomes (in 62 MPAs) and found that adequate staff capac- engaged.30 For example, a study of 447 terrestrial protected ity followed by adequate budgets were the most important areas using a surveillance monitoring approach found that pro- factors in explaining fish responses.10 tected areas were maintaining populations of monitored birds A handful of studies have used a surveillance monitoring and mammals within their boundaries, with trends being more approach to examine the relative effectiveness of different pro- positive in countries with high development scores.8 In this tected areas with different IUCN categories. For example, Jones study, protected area design characteristics (size, shape, and et al.38 examined how human impacts within different categories IUCN management category) were not significantly related to of terrestrial protected areas changed over a single time step: bird or mammal populations in any of the models. 1993–2009. They found that for protected areas ratified before 1178 One Earth 6, September 15, 2023 ll Review Figure 3. Protected area growth by region and realm Breakdown of protected area growth by realm and by region for strict (IUCN I–IV), multiple-use (IUCN V and VI), and other (no IUCN category assigned) protected areas. pattern varies across regions, countries, and realms. Where trends were decreasing was primarily in multiple-use protected areas; for example, in terrestrial protected areas, the trend was decreasing for multi- ple-use protected areas in all regions except Asia and South America (where im- pacts were increasing slightly on average). In MPAs, the trend was close to 0 for most regions and categories but was slightly decreasing for multiple-use pro- tected areas in Asia and Europe (Box 3; Table S2). It is worth noting that we have not estimated the impact of protected areas on avoided human impacts (i.e., we have not compared to the counterfactual of no protection), and thus protected areas may still be effective in terms of avoiding loss. Connectivity and land and seascape context Connectivity is notoriously difficult to mea- sure. In general, the application of connec- 1992, more than half experienced increases in human pressure, tivity criteria is more advanced in land-based conservation41 rela- with lower increases in strict (defined by the authors as IUCN cat- tive to marine,42 but challenges still remain in bridging egories I and II) protected areas. Given the paucity of studies implementation and high-level conservation targets.43 As reported examining the relative effectiveness of different categories of pro- in the Protected Planet Report, in 2020, 7.84% of the world’s tected areas, we present a re-analysis of existing data to consider terrestrial surface was both protected and geographically con- the relative effectiveness of the various IUCN categories of pro- nected.3 While this estimates geographic connectivity of terrestrial tected areas across realms, in terms of reducing human impacts protected areas, it does not consider connectivity outside and be- within their boundaries (Box 3). We note that we do not expect tween protected areas or functional connectivity, all known to be protected areas to eliminate human impacts, particularly where critical for overall land and seascape health. Brennan et al.44 inves- human use is appropriate and consistent with conservation ob- tigated functional connectivity of global terrestrial protected areas jectives. However, we do expect that human impacts would be and found that the most important connectivity routes are currently either stable or reduce over time within protected areas where unprotected and remain threatened by conversion. Formal protec- management is effective. Importantly, we extend existing ana- tion in these areas, to create connectivity, could be contested or lyses, including Jones et al.,38 by considering both terrestrial have adverse impacts on human populations. Therefore, alterna- and marine areas (over the same period, treating available human tive conservation strategies that incorporate working lands or impact data similarly across both realms39,40) and by exploring broader landscape management consistent with existing land the variance in trends from 2009 to 2013 relative to the initial level uses are recommended. Supporting this, studies have found in 2009. These are important novelties in analyses that allow us to that private protected areas play an important role in improving further interpret the variable changes in protected areas across land-based connectivity of the protected and conserved estate.45 realms, IUCN categories, and regions. This emphasizes the relative importance of managing both within Across regions, in the marine estate, we found that at the start and outside of protected and conserved areas.46 of our analysis, in 2009, strict protected areas had higher cumula- Where connected conservation plans have been implemented, tive human impacts compared with multiple-use protected areas important ingredients of success include using a range of inter- (Figure 4; Box 3), while the opposite was found on land (Figure 5; ventions tailored to the context (for example, protected areas, Box 3). Europe and Asia had the highest human impacts in pro- wildlife tailored solutions, private land conservation), the exis- tected areas in 2009 in both terrestrial and marine realms. When tence of enabling legislation and policy, a transparent and repeat- considering changes in human impacts over 2009–2013, we able scientific approach, adequate funding, and appropriate pub- found that the trend was increasing in many areas but that this lic outreach.41 In particular, flexibility in governance and rapid One Earth 6, September 15, 2023 1179 ll Review Figure 4. Change in cumulative marine human impact (CHI) within strict, multiple-use, and other protected areas by region Size of bar represents the mean CHI in 2009 within protected areas, and color is the trend in change in CHI over the time period 2009–2013. (A) Positive changes over time (blue). (B) Negative changes over time (red). deployment of new conservation strategies and resourcing will be tivity to facilitate movement of species and flexible governance critical in the face of climate change.47,48 to support moveable or temporary protected areas are needed. In the marine realm, multiple-use and other protected areas While strict protection has been recognized as important for are the dominant IUCN categories currently employed, poten- climate resilience and is potentially easier to manage,50 multi- tially making MPAs more flexible forms of protection as climate ple-use MPAs (or OECMs, or temporary/dynamic sector clo- change warrants new and novel practices such as temporary sures) are likely to be deployed more quickly and to provide or dynamic arrangements to facilitate species migrations. In more flexibility to be relocated as steppingstones between Box 4, we find that many MPAs are exposed to high rates of strictly protected areas.48 Temporary or moveable (i.e., dynamic) climate velocity, the speed and direction a species would need protected areas are already deployed in some regions where to shift to maintain its environmental niche under climate customary approaches to sea country management include change.49 Species within smaller MPAs with faster climate ve- resting of areas or use of traditional fishing grounds such as locity are most exposed to these changes. Even if these species Tabus in Fiji.51 Expanding our conservation toolbox to support can adapt, their range is more likely to shift outside of these flexible governance arrangements through agile processes and small, static MPAs, thus losing any benefits of protection. Most funding is needed.52,53 of these highly vulnerable MPAs (smaller with faster velocity) were found in the Mediterranean and tropics and in areas of Equitable management and governance high endemicity for coral reefs (e.g., the coral triangle and the While Aichi target 11 called for equitable management, this sub- Caribbean; Figure 6; Box 4). In these contexts, including connec- component has been poorly defined and received little attention, 1180 One Earth 6, September 15, 2023 ll Review Figure 5. Change in cumulative terrestrial human footprint (HFP) within strict, multiple-use, and other protected areas by region Size bar represents the mean HFP in 2009 within protected areas, and color is the trend in change in HFP over the time period 2009–2013. (A) Positive changes over time (blue). (B) Negative changes over time (red). with no established global monitoring system. More emphasis agency, food security, cultural identity, subjective well-be- has been given to equity in the GBF, with target 3 calling for equi- ing,55,56 and, more recently, mental health.57,58 The most severe table governance, equity indicators for monitoring being speci- social impacts of protected areas tend to result from physical fied for the first time, and equity considerations being evident displacement—eviction,59 which can cause multiple harms.54 throughout, including in the implementation advice.20 Equity is Conversely, where people are part of the landscape, socio-eco- generally defined as what is right and fair and tends to be nomic benefits have been found to be more likely to arise.60,61 conceptualized by the conservation community, including by Importantly, impacts have been shown to be heterogeneous the CBD, as encompassing distribution of costs and benefits, across well-being domains, time, social subgroups, and gover- decision-making procedures, and recognition of socio-cultural nance and management approaches. For example, in Indonesia, diversity (e.g., identities, rights, values).54 Given that studies paired community comparisons of MPAs found that MPAs explicitly examining equity in area-based conservation are rare, generally appeared to contribute to the alleviation of multidimen- we focus on the outcomes for local actors, whether they be ben- sional poverty62 but that impacts were mixed according to efits or harms. poverty domain (e.g., positive impacts on material wealth and Research examining the impacts of protected areas on human negative impacts on governance aspects such as marine well-being paint a mixed picture, with protected areas being resource control). Benefits over time were also variable, with both beneficial and harmful across a range of human well- most positive impacts occurring during the implementation being domains, including livelihoods, living standards, health, period, after which management activities all but ceased and re- education, social relations, safety, property rights, political ductions in poverty did not continue to accrue. Impacts can also One Earth 6, September 15, 2023 1181 ll Review Box 3. Changes in cumulative human footprint within various categories of protected areas The evidence around the effectiveness and impacts of protected areas are mixed and are focused primarily on terrestrial protected areas. To complement the synthesis of the existing literature, we seek to answer the question: have protected areas been effective at reducing human pressures, and what is the relative effectiveness of different types of protected areas? We sought to quantify whether there are detectable changes in human pressures and, if so, how these compared across protected area types, with an expectation that effective management would result in either a stable or declining level of human pressures within protected areas. To address this, we use cumulative human impact data on land39 and in the sea40 to assess trends from 2009 to 2013 within es- tablished protected areas (including only protected areas established on or before 2009 to isolate effects of existing protected areas on changes). In analyzing existing data, we were able to complete this analysis for comparable time steps across both land and sea to allow for the opportunity for comparisons across regions, realms, and types of protected areas. We note that this is a key distinguishing feature of our analysis compared with other similar analyses38 that have summarized human impact within and outside of protected areas. In the marine realm, we found that the 2009 cumulative human footprint (which is primarily reflective of fishing pressures) was higher in strict protected areas compared with multiple-use areas in most regions and that it continues to increase (across 2009–2013) in strict protected areas in Europe and North America, while in multiple-use protected areas, changes are primarily neutral or slightly decreasing (Figure 4). On land, we found (Figure 5) that the 2009 human footprint (which is an aggregate of a range of terrestrial human impacts) was lower in strict protected areas compared with not strict and other protected areas. In contrast, strict protected areas had slightly increasing human footprint from 2009 to 2013. Not strict and other protected areas had slightly decreasing trends. vary substantially by social subgroup,63 with studies that We queried the database for those studies that have docu- examine the distribution of fortunes and misfortunes identifying mented social impacts and further extracted studies that docu- pockets of harm, often visited on already marginalized ment the ‘‘directionality’’ of outcomes, i.e., whether the authors peoples.64 reported positive, negative, or neutral social impacts from the Few studies have examined the relative impact of multiple-use studied activities. Outcomes were grouped by well-being protected areas on people. A key exception is Naidoo et al.’s65 domain.56 This resulted in 53 articles from 26 countries for a total global-scale analysis that found that households living near of 106 studies globally (articles often presented multiple studies). terrestrial multiple-use protected areas had a lower likelihood To visualize relationships between type of activity studied within of being poor (as measured by stunting in children under 5) as protected areas (e.g., agriculture, fishing, tourism) and impacts, compared with similar households living further than 10 km we plot the volume of studies for each activity-outcome pair and away. The authors hypothesized that the pathway for this the direction of outcome (positive, negative, neutral) (Figure 7). observed positive impact on household poverty is that multi- Most activities led to a mix of outcomes in terms of positive, ple-use protected areas lead to improved environmental condi- negative, or neutral. The exception to this is health (encompass- tions, and due to their accessibility (which is different from strict ing food security and treatment of ailments), which was uniformly protected areas), they allow people to benefit from this abun- positive, and human-wildlife interactions (within the ecological dance of plants and animals to take to market or to consume. health category), which were uniformly negative. Food security This global finding, comparing strict and multiple-use areas was shown to be improved by subsistence hunting within multi- quantitatively, supports the overall evidence that multiple-use ple-use protected areas in three articles.68–70 In contrast, hu- protected areas where management practices are more inclu- man-wildlife interactions were conflictual and therefore negative sive tend to produce more benefits for people and nature.66 regardless of type of activity being undertaken (Figure 7). This This understanding is supported by the results of a systematic may reflect the difficulties of using terms like positive and nega- review by Dawson et al.26; the authors found that most studies tive, as studies of human-wildlife coexistence often describe sit- that document positive outcomes for both well-being and uations of sustainable conflict, which do not present major conservation were cases where Indigenous people and local threats to either human communities or valued wildlife but which communities played a central role, such as having substantial are also not harmonious.71,72 influence over decision-making or a recognized role in the Tourism, recreation, agriculture, and forestry were the most governance of areas. Similarly, a review of MPAs found that common activities studied. Most articles that focused on tourism community-governed areas were more likely to yield positive or recreational activities found that they brought about positive outcomes for people than those under other governance ar- outcomes such as on education and economic improvements rangements, with 70% of documented impacts being positive to communities73–76; however, negative impacts included visi- for community-governed areas and just 41% for areas governed tors creating waste and pollution and increased crime. Even by states.56 within single-protected areas, these outcomes can be mixed; Given the paucity of studies examining multiple-use protected for example, an article in Belize found growth of ecotourism areas, we analyze the literature to identify the documented ben- within the multiple-use protected area to be associated with efits or harms that this type of protected areas have resulted in higher environmental awareness and increased employment as for local actors. We draw upon a systematically compiled data- a positive outcome, but it also led to a loss of sense of empow- base of existing literature on multiple-use protected areas.67 erment and cultural values as a negative outcome.77 Forestry 1182 One Earth 6, September 15, 2023 ll Review Box 4. Patterns of climate velocity in MPAs Connectivity is critical to sustain ecological processes, functions, and species movements, particularly in the face of climate change. This requires considering the status of conservation values within and around protected areas and engaging a range of stakeholders, which can be facilitated through a diverse set of conservation tools, governance approaches, and, ultimately, pro- cedural flexibility.47,93 In the marine realm, flexible arrangements to the establishment, movement, and overall governance of pro- tected areas may be more feasible due to use rights and overall management approaches. Temporary or moveable (i.e., dynamic) protected areas are already deployed in some regions where customary approaches to sea country management include resting of areas or use of traditional fishing grounds such as Tabus in Fiji.51 However, the extent to which these types of flexible or temporary governance measures are needed will largely depend upon the extent to which climate change impacts existing protected areas. To explore this, we quantified climate velocity within existing MPAs. We compared average climate velocity to the amount of area protected under the assumption that slower climate velocities within larger protected areas would allow for greater adaptation than faster climate velocities within smaller protected areas. We found that the majority of MPAs are predicted to experience faster climate velocity, in particular those near shore, while pelagic MPAs had on average lower velocity and were also larger and thus more able to facilitate adaptation in the face of climate change (Figure 6). and agricultural activities were documented as leading to de- Therefore, we further analyze the evidence specific to Brazil creases in availability or use of resources, e.g., the availability (Box 5). Brazil represents the country with the greatest number of non-timber forest products.78,79 of articles having studied the impacts of activities in multiple- While most of the studies in our database could make limited use protected areas on various socio-economic outcomes, inferences around the relative impacts of protected areas, due to with 15 articles having been identified and several of these hav- lack of baselines or paired control sites, we noted several exem- ing high-quality evidence-based results (as discussed above plar studies whose study designs supported further causal infer- and further described in Box 5). ence, many of which happened to be located in Brazil. These Our analysis emphasizes that both benefits and harms have studies find that while development, such as trade in non-timber eventuated from protected and conserved areas, across regions forest products, can coexist alongside conservation, these can and governance types. Even within relatively homogeneous con- have unforeseen impacts such as upon community resilience, texts, within single countries and types of protected areas, our cooperation, and community perceptions.80,81 analysis of the literature from multiple-use protected areas in To complement this broad overview of the literature across all Brazil (Figure 8; Box 5) demonstrates that outcomes can be countries, we consider whether patterns of outcomes remain heterogeneous, including positive outcomes in one domain of variable or become more consistent within a particular country well-being resulting in negative outcomes in another from sin- (where protected area context may become more uniform). gle-protected areas. Thus, while the evidence suggested that Figure 6. Climate velocity in MPAs Size of MPA against speed of velocity is plotted for the centroid of all MPAs. Blue indicates larger area and slower velocity, red indicates smaller area and faster velocity, purple indicates larger area and faster velocity, and mauve indicates smaller area and slower velocity. One Earth 6, September 15, 2023 1183 ll Review Figure 7. Documented relationships 80 between human well-being and allowed activities in multiple-use protected areas Activities, outcomes, and directionality of outcomes Agricultural of reviewed articles that examined the link between human well-being and allowed activities in multiple- use protected areas (53 articles). The y axis shows the number of studied protected areas (n = 106; Fishing some articles studied multiple protected areas, outcomes, or activities). Activities and outcomes are 60 Economic colored by direction of impact, where gray indicates Forestry mixed directional outcomes. Outcomes are group- ed by well-being domain, and activities and out- comes are colored by direction of impact, where gray indicates mixed directional outcomes. Note that NTFP refers to harvesting of non-timber forestry Hunting products. Impact Studies Negative 40 Neutral Health Positive impacts to well-being of local actors (both Social benefits and harms) across diverse con- NTFP texts,83 ideally through an integrated so- Governance cial-ecological systems approach (e.g., Culture see Gurney et al.84 in regard to the moni- 20 Prescribed burning toring of a multicountry coral reef conserva- Subjective wellbeing Recreational tion program). This may require regionally contextualized approaches to tracking progress that directly acknowledge Tourism Ecological health different forms of success and failures and the ways these eventuate. For OECMs, monitoring and evaluation approaches 0 Water collection could be codeveloped between governing Activity Outcome actors and conservation scientists, practi- tioners, and/or policymakers to ensure that all outcomes of interest and visions of multiple-use protected areas are most appropriate for ensuring success are included. The rapid planned expansion of the pro- equitable governance and social benefits to local actors, these tected estate to 30% of land and sea requires considering how still require careful design to fully deliver on both conservation to manage the land and sea outside of the protected and and social outcomes. conserved areas to ensure that the matrix surrounding these areas supports their overall management and effectiveness.46 CONCLUSIONS Our analysis contrasts the ways in which the different types of protected areas (strict, multiple use, other) have been used to Expansion of the global protected area system in recent de- date and reveals the growing role of multiple-use protected cades has seen a growth in multiple-use protected areas and areas in meeting current and future targets. This evidence sug- the introduction of OECMs. These areas collectively represent gests that further growth in the global conserved and protected an important set of tools in the protected and conserved toolbox areas will benefit from continued use of multiple-use protected to not only increase area-based coverage but to contribute to the areas or OECMs and their improved resourcing and political improved status of biodiversity and deliver benefits to right- and technical support. sholders and stakeholders, such as communities, private land- owners, and production industries. Our synthesis of available EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES analyses, as well as re-analysis of data, emphasizes that multi- ple-use protected areas are effective at conserving biodiversity Resource availability Lead contact (with many studies showing that they can have greater impact The lead contact for our data and code is Caitlin D. Kuempel. than their strict counterparts) and have recorded benefits to peo- Materials availability ple in many contexts. However, we caution that these are not im- This study did not generate new unique materials. mune to the recorded harms of protected areas and add our voi- Data and code availability While we did not generate new data, we did synthesize existing data into new ces to increasing calls for growth in the global protected and datasets as described here. All synthesized data and code are available at conserved estate to be underpinned by principles of equity https://github.com/cdkuempel/Adams_multiple_use_PAs. We detail each and justice (e.g., Gurney et al.20). synthesized dataset here. Our core data for all analyses was the cleaned WDPA data.85 Where ana- Lastly, given the prominence of protected areas in global con- lyses were completed by realm, we included only terrestrial protected areas servation policy, we need to get serious about tracking perfor- for terrestrial analyses and, similarly, only marine protected areas (MPAs) for mance measures in terms of biodiversity outcomes82 as well as marine analyses. 1184 One Earth 6, September 15, 2023 ll Review 25 Figure 8. Documented relationships between human well-being and allowed Agricultural activities in multiple-use protected areas in Brazil Fishing Activities, outcomes, and directionality of outcomes 20 of reviewed articles that examined the link between Economic human well-being and allowed activities in multiple- use protected areas in Brazil (15 articles). The y axis shows the number of protected areas studied (n = Forestry 24; some articles studied multiple protected areas, 15 outcomes, or activities). Outcomes are grouped by Impact well-being domain, and activities and outcomes are Studies Negative colored by direction of impact, where gray indicates Health Neutral mixed directional outcomes. Note that NTFP refers Positive to harvesting of non-timber forestry products. 10 Hunting Social Subjective wellbeing 5 Ecological health NTFP 0 Activity Outcome Box 5. Multiple-use protected areas in Brazil as a case study The implementation of multiple-use protected areas has been geographically clustered, with some countries heavily contributing to the overall growth of IUCN categories V and VI. In particular, Brazil has a large proportion of multiple-use protected areas (Figure 1). To understand the types of socio-economic outcomes in a country-specific context, we therefore further analyzed the literature specific for Brazil. Overall, most articles found activities to result in positive outcomes (60% positive, 26.7% negative, and 13.4% neutral) (Figure 8). The most frequently researched outcome related to the economic impact of sanctioned activities within protected areas, with all activities being represented and all having found either a positive or neutral impact. Hunting was a dominant sanctioned activity, consistent with the context of these multiple-use protected areas within Brazil, and the impacts of hunting on social outcomes were positive. Two articles found that subsistence hunting contributed to food security,68,69 and one of these also found that hunting for medicinal resources plays an important role for communities.68 When looking at human interactions, hunting and related meat sharing was found to strengthen social bonds in one article.94 The other dominant sanctioned activity studied was forestry, which, in contrast to hunting, had predominantly negative or neutral impacts. For example, one article found logging to lower the avail- ability of non-timber forest products as well as decrease hunting rates,79 and another found that participating in logging projects was associated with lower levels of well-being.81 When considering those studies that met the highest quality standards, via study design such as employing before-after control- impact (BACI) designs, these were primarily within Brazil. Rizek and Morsello’s80 article was interested in determining whether trade in non-timber forest products affected cooperation among community households of Brazilian Amazon Caboclos. The au- thors compared the frequency of cooperation within two communities, one engaging in non-timber forest product trade and the other not. They used a variety of control variables including other forms of income, demographic factors such as household size, years of residence, and time spent in collective activities. Their dependent variable was the amount of goods obtained through household cooperation. The results showed that goods were acquired less frequently by cooperation in the community that commercialized non-timber forest products, due to multiple factors including increased income inequality, population growth, and a decrease in non-timber forest product transfers. The authors warn that conservation and development projects may reduce community resilience by making certain households more vulnerable to food shortages. Cooper et al.81 assessed the impact of timber commercialization within the Brazilian Reserva Extrativista Chico Mendes on well- being through residents’ perspectives. The study considered household participation and perceptions of a logging project, comparing participating and non-participating households, supporters and non-supporters, and men and women. The authors conclude that although logging is often seen as a way to improve human well-being while meeting conservation targets within pro- tected areas, their results showed that residents perceived the decision to log or not as a trade-off between conservation or well- being (through income generation). However, logging was perceived as conflicting with non-timber forest product harvesting and the ideology upon which the park was established. Our focused analysis of the demonstrated social impacts of sanctioned activities within multiple-use protected areas in a single country, Brazil, emphasizes that there are a range of variable outcomes depending on context as well as activities. This empha- sizes the importance of context when designing and implementing protected areas and the potential for negative outcomes even where ongoing use of areas is designed as part of a multiple-use designation. One Earth 6, September 15, 2023 1185 ll Review To consider changes in human influences within protected areas, we used our review, where we consider differences across I–IV, V–VI, other, and human footprint data for land and sea. On land, we used the terrestrial human OECMs). Third, previous analyses have used a human footprint dataset with footprint dataset from Mu et al.39 that quantifies a cumulative pressure index only two time steps (1993 and 2009) and inferred those changes as human across eight variables (pasture, roads, railways, population density, navigable footprints within protected areas to be related to management effectiveness. waterways, night-time light, built environment, and cropland). We used the full We felt that was not accurate given that many protected areas would have range of pressures in this analysis under the assumption that terrestrial pro- been declared during that time frame. We chose human footprint datasets tected areas could reduce intensity across all pressures. for land and sea with further time steps and limited our change analysis to a Marine cumulative impacts were quantified using data from Halpern et al.40 more contemporary time period, which allowed us to use the exact same that assessed the pace of change in human impacts of 14 human stressors time frame across land and sea (2009–2013).39,40 across 21 marine ecosystems. For our analysis, we only included marine hu- Using our modified human footprint data, we calculated cumulative human man pressures that could be abated by MPAs, with a particular emphasis on impact for the relevant subset of pressures across all years on land and sea. fishing as direct extraction from MPAs. This included all measures of fishing The trend was estimated within each raster cell using linear regression across pressure (6 pressures) and shipping (1 pressure) for a total of 7 pressures. all 5 years to determine the magnitude, direction, and significance of change We excluded pressures related to climate change and land-based impacts. using the methods and code from Halpern et al.40 We averaged the cumulative To consider connectivity and relative influence of climate change, we calcu- human impact and trend results across cells within protected area IUCN cat- lated climate velocity for marine areas. Climate velocity is a metric that de- egories in each country. Strict protected areas were considered IUCN cate- scribes the ‘‘speed and direction that a species at a given point would need gories I–IV, non-strict was IUCN V–VI, and other for the remaining categories to move to remain within its climatic niche.’’52 We calculated climate velocity (not reported, etc.). We plot variance in what happened from 2009 to 2013 rela- (km/year) within MPAs using the VoCC R package86 using sea surface temper- tive to the initial level of human footprint in 2009. Results by realm, protected ature data from 1901–2020.87 area type, and country are presented in Box 3. Summaries by region are pre- sented in Table S2. Protected area policies We reviewed and compiled a list of key protected area policy dates and events Marine climate velocity and size of protected area from 2000 to 2022 relating to conservation and development. The full list is We set the minimum observations of climate velocity within MPAs to calculate detailed in Table S1 and is the basis for the narrative of recent protected a trend to 10 and a lower threshold of 0.0001 for truncating the spatial gradient. area debates in this review. From this summary, we identify 2000–2005, We compared average climate velocity to the amount of area protected within 2008–2010, and 2018–2020 as key policy periods to expect hot moments in each MPA under the assumption that slower climate velocities within larger protected area growth, in particular for multiple-use areas and OECMs. These protected areas would allow for greater adaptation than faster climate veloc- periods are further plotted against growth curves by IUCN category of pro- ities within smaller protected areas. tected area (Figure S1). SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Hot moments To test for hot moments in protected area growth related to global target pol- Supplemental information can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j. icies, we plotted cumulative growth curves by IUCN category alongside key oneear.2023.08.011. policy time periods identified in the review: 2000–2005 due to large numbers of key events as discussed in the historical narrative, 2008–2010 as the leadup to the first target due date of 2010, and 2018–2020 as the leadup to the second ACKNOWLEDGMENTS target due date of 2020. We then plotted changes in slope in the growth curves to detect potential hot moments. Where there is a peak in annual rate of V.M.A. gratefully acknowledges support from the Australian Research Council change aligned within the noted policy periods, we infer a potential global through a Future Fellowship Award (FT220100210). G.G.G. gratefully acknowl- hot moment. Where there is a lack of peaks within policy periods, we identify edges support from the Australian Research Council through a Discovery Early a lack of support for global hot moments, indicating that while there is certainly Career Award (DE210101918). D.B. gratefully acknowledges the support of an global interest in setting targets, as evidenced by country investment in and Academies Partnership in Supporting Excellence in Cross-disciplinary engagement with the CBD target setting process, this does not necessarily research (APEX) award, generously funded by the Leverhulme Trust translate to on-the-ground protected area declarations that are significantly (APX\R1\191094) and a European Research Council Advanced Investigator different from natural rates of protected area growth. Award, number 101054259. Views and opinions expressed are, however, those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Trends in human impact Union or the European Research Council Executive Agency. Neither the Euro- To provide a globally consistent approach to measuring effectiveness of pro- pean Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. For tected areas in reducing human impacts across protected area types and D.B., this work also contributes to ICTA-UAB ‘‘Marı́a de Maeztu’’ Programme realms, we sought to answer the question ‘‘have protected areas been effec- for Units of Excellence of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation tive in reducing human pressures?’’ To answer this, we drew upon human foot- (CEX2019-000940-M). print data mapped consistently across time steps and with methods specific to land39 and sea.40 To harmonize the data approaches across land and sea, we DECLARATION OF INTERESTS segmented the data to consider only human impacts that a protected area can plausibly reduce (as detailed in data and code availability). The authors declare no competing interests. Our analysis differs from other surveillance monitoring studies using human footprint data in protected areas, such as Jones et al.,38 in nuanced, but very important, ways. Previous analyses have largely sought to answer the question REFERENCES ‘‘how does the human footprint vary inside protected areas compared with un- protected areas and across IUCN categories?’’ This is answered by simply 1. Dudley, N., Parrish, J.D., Redford, K.H., and Stolton, S. (2010). The revised comparing the average human footprint for various categories of the land- IUCN protected area management categories: the debate and ways for- scape. For our analysis, we wished to explore the changes in human footprint ward. Oryx 44, 485–490. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605310000566. relative to their starting condition across time. Therefore, our analyses are 2. Chape, S., Harrison, J., Spalding, M., and Lysenko, I. (2005). Measuring quite different from those currently available in the literature. For example, a the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting protected area may be wrongly inferred as ineffective if we simply rely on a global biodiversity targets. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 360, 443–455. data signal that says there are human impacts within its boundaries. However, 3. UNEP-WCMC, and IUCN (2020). Protected Planet Report 2020. https:// even where protected areas allow human use or have visible human impacts, livereport.protectedplanet.net/. we do expect those impacts to be either stable or decreasing over time if pro- 4. CBD (2022). Kunming-Montreal post-2020 Global Biodiversity Frame- tected area management is effective. Thus, we focused on the change in hu- work. CBD/COP/DEC/15/4. Convention on Biological Diversity. https:// man footprint relative to initial conditions in 2009 and therefore included pro- www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-04-en.pdf. tected areas established on or before 2009 to align with human footprint 5. Geldmann, J., Manica, A., Burgess, N.D., Coad, L., and Balmford, A. data. Second, we define strict as categories I–IV throughout our analysis, while (2019). A global-level assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas other analyses such as Jones et al.38 define strict as categories I and II at resisting anthropogenic pressures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116, (rendering it impossible to draw upon their conclusions for the purposes of 23209–23215. 1186 One Earth 6, September 15, 2023 ll Review 6. Geldmann, J., Coad, L., Barnes, M., Craigie, I.D., Hockings, M., Knights, 27. Garnett, S.T., Burgess, N.D., Fa, J.E., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Molnár, K., Leverington, F., Cuadros, I.C., Zamora, C., Woodley, S., and Burgess, Z., Robinson, C.J., Watson, J.E.M., Zander, K.K., Austin, B., Brondizio, N.D. (2015). Changes in protected area management effectiveness over E.S., et al. (2018). A spatial overview of the global importance of Indige- time: A global analysis. Biol. Conserv. 191, 692–699. nous lands for conservation. Nat. Sustain. 1, 369–374. https://doi.org/ 7. Geldmann, J., Coad, L., Barnes, M.D., Craigie, I.D., Woodley, S., Balm- 10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6. ford, A., Brooks, T.M., Hockings, M., Knights, K., Mascia, M.B., et al. 28. Allan, J.R., Possingham, H.P., Atkinson, S.C., Waldron, A., Di Marco, M., (2018). A global analysis of management capacity and ecological out- Butchart, S.H.M., Adams, V.M., Kissling, W.D., Worsdell, T., Sandbrook, comes in terrestrial protected areas. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12434. C., et al. (2022). The minimum land area requiring conservation attention 8. Barnes, M.D., Craigie, I.D., Harrison, L.B., Geldmann, J., Collen, B., Whit- to safeguard biodiversity. Science 376, 1094–1101. mee, S., Balmford, A., Burgess, N.D., Brooks, T., Hockings, M., and 29. Mascia, M.B., Pailler, S., Thieme, M.L., Rowe, A., Bottrill, M.C., Danielsen, Woodley, S. (2016). Wildlife population trends in protected areas predicted F., Geldmann, J., Naidoo, R., Pullin, A.S., and Burgess, N.D. (2014). Com- by national socio-economic metrics and body size. Nat. Commun. monalities and complementarities among approaches to conservation 7, 12747. monitoring and evaluation. Biol. Conserv. 169, 258–267. 9. Ferraro, P.J., Hanauer, M.M., Miteva, D.a., Canavire-Bacarreza, G.J., Pat- 30. Grorud-Colvert, K., Sullivan-Stack, J., Roberts, C., Constant, V., Horta e tanayak, S.K., and Sims, K.R.E. (2013). More strictly protected areas are Costa, B., Pike, E.P., Kingston, N., Laffoley, D., Sala, E., Claudet, J., not necessarily more protective: evidence from Bolivia, Costa Rica, et al. (2021). The MPA Guide: A framework to achieve global goals for Indonesia, and Thailand. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 025011. https://doi.org/ the ocean. Science 373, eabf0861. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. 10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/025011. abf0861. 10. Gill, D.A., Mascia, M.B., Ahmadia, G.N., Glew, L., Lester, S.E., Barnes, M., 31. Zhang, Y., West, P., Thakoli, L., Suryawanshi, K.R., Supuma, M., Straub, Craigie, I., Darling, E.S., Free, C.M., Geldmann, J., et al. (2017). Capacity D., S. Sithole, Sharma, R., Schleicher, J., Ruli, B., et al. (In review). Gover- shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally. Na- nance and Conservation Effectiveness in Protected Areas and Indigenous ture 543, 665–669. and Locally Managed Areas. 11. Nelson, A., and Chomitz, K.M. (2011). Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple 32. Pfaff, A., Robalino, J., Lima, E., Sandoval, C., and Herrera, L.D. (2014). use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: A global analysis us- Governance, location and avoided deforestation from protected areas: ing matching methods. PLoS One 6, e22722. https://doi.org/10.1371/jour- Greater restrictions can have lower impact, due to differences in location. nal.pone.0022722. World Dev. 55, 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.011. 12. Brockington, D., Duffy, R., and Igoe, J. (2008). Nature Unbound: Conser- 33. Schleicher, J., Peres, C.A., Amano, T., Llactayo, W., and Leader-Williams, vation, Capitalism and the Future of Protected Areas (Earthscan). N. (2017). Conservation performance of different conservation governance regimes in the Peruvian Amazon. Sci. Rep. 7, 11318. https://doi.org/10. 13. Holdgate, M. (2014). The Green Web: A Union for World Conservation 1038/s41598-017-10736-w. (Routledge). 34. Blackman, A. (2015). Strict versus mixed-use protected areas: Guatema- 14. Roe, D. (2008). The origins and evolution of the conservation-poverty la’s Maya Biosphere Reserve. Ecol. Econ. 112, 14–24. https://doi.org/10. debate: a review of key literature, events and policy processes. Oryx 42, 1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.009. 491–503. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605308002032. 35. Radachowsky, J., Ramos, V.H., McNab, R., Baur, E.H., and Kazakov, N. 15. Dudley, N. (2008). Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management (2012). Forest concessions in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala: Categories (IUCN). A decade later. For. Ecol. Manage. 268, 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 16. CBD (2010). Convention on Biological Diversity - Aichi Biodiversity Tar- foreco.2011.08.043. gets. http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/. 36. Ferraro, P.J., and Hanauer, M.M. (2014). Quantifying causal mechanisms 17. Lopoukhine, N., and de Souza Dias, B.F. (2012). What does Target 11 to determine how protected areas affect poverty through changes in really mean. Parks 18, 5. ecosystem services and infrastructure. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 18. Gurney, G.G., Darling, E.S., Ahmadia, G.N., Agostini, V.N., Ban, N.C., 4332–4337. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1307712111. Blythe, J., Claudet, J., Epstein, G., Himes-Cornell, A., Himes-Cornell, A., 37. Oldekop, J.A., Sims, K.R.E., Karna, B.K., Whittingham, M.J., and Agrawal, et al. (2021). Biodiversity needs every tool in the box. use OECMs 595, A. (2019). Reductions in deforestation and poverty from decentralized for- 646–649. est management in Nepal. Nat. Sustain. 2, 421–428. https://doi.org/10. 19. Jonas, H.D., Ahmadia, G.N., Bingham, H.C., Briggs, J., Butchart, S.H., 1038/s41893-019-0277-3. Cariño, J., Chassot, O., Chaudhary, S., Darlling, E., Degemmis, A., and 38. Jones, K.R., Venter, O., Fuller, R.A., Allan, J.R., Maxwell, S.L., Negret, P.J., Dudley, N. (2021). Equitable and effective area-based conservation: to- and Watson, J.E.M. (2018). One-third of global protected land is under wards the conserved areas paradigm. Parks: The International Journal intense human pressure. Science 360, 788–791. of Protected Areas and Conservation 27, 71–84. 39. Mu, H., Li, X., Wen, Y., Huang, J., Du, P., Su, W., Miao, S., and Geng, M. 20. Gurney, G.G., Adams, V.M., Álvarez-Romero, J.G., and Claudet, J. (2023). (2022). A global record of annual terrestrial Human Footprint dataset from Area-based conservation: Taking stock and looking ahead. One Earth 2000 to 2018. Sci. Data 9, 176. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022- 6, 98–104. 01284-8. 21. Radeloff, V.C., Beaudry, F., Brooks, T.M., Butsic, V., Dubinin, M., Kuem- 40. Halpern, B.S., Frazier, M., Afflerbach, J., Lowndes, J.S., Micheli, F., merle, T., and Pidgeon, A.M. (2013). Hot moments for biodiversity conser- O’Hara, C., Scarborough, C., and Selkoe, K.A. (2019). Recent pace of vation. Conserv. Lett. 6, 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X. change in human impact on the world’s ocean. Sci. Rep. 9, 11609. 2012.00290.x. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47201-9. 22. Adams, W.M., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B., Elliott, J., Hutton, 41. Keeley, A.T.H., Beier, P., Creech, T., Jones, K., Jongman, R.H., Stoneci- J., Roe, D., Vira, B., and Wolmer, W. (2004). Biodiversity conservation and pher, G., and Tabor, G.M. (2019). Thirty years of connectivity conservation the eradication of poverty. Science 306, 1146–1149. https://doi.org/10. planning: an assessment of factors influencing plan implementation. Envi- 1126/science.1097920. ron. Res. Lett. 14, 103001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab3234. 23. Secretariat, C.B.D. (2020). Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. https://www. 42. Balbar, A.C., and Metaxas, A. (2019). The current application of ecological cbd.int/gbo5. connectivity in the design of marine protected areas. Global Ecology and Conservation 17, e00569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00569. 24. Chauvenet, A.L., Watson, J.E., Adams, V.M., Di Marco, M., Venter, O., Da- vis, K.J., Mappin, B., Klein, C.J., Kuempel, C.D., and Possingham, H.P. 43. Beger, M., Metaxas, A., Balbar, A.C., McGowan, J.A., Daigle, R., Kuempel, (2020). To achieve big wins for terrestrial conservation, prioritize protection C.D., Treml, E.A., and Possingham, H.P. (2022). Demystifying ecological of ecoregions closest to meeting targets. One Earth 2, 479–486. https:// connectivity for actionable spatial conservation planning. Trends Ecol. doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.04.013. Evol. 37, 1079–1091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2022.09.002. 25. Kuempel, C.D., Chauvenet, A.L.M., and Possingham, H.P. (2016). Equi- 44. Brennan, A., Naidoo, R., Greenstreet, L., Mehrabi, Z., Ramankutty, N., and table representation of ecoregions is slowly improving despite strategic Kremen, C. (2022). Functional connectivity of the world’s protected areas. planning shortfalls. Conserv. Lett. 9, 422–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/ Science 376, 1101–1104. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abl8974. conl.12298. 45. Palfrey, R., Oldekop, J.A., and Holmes, G. (2022). Privately protected 26. Dawson, N.M., Coolsaet, B., Sterling, E.J., Loveridge, R., Gross-Camp, areas increase global protected area coverage and connectivity. Nat. N.D., Wongbusarakum, S., Sangha, K.K., Scherl, L.M., Phan, H.P., Za- Ecol. Evol. 6, 730–737. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01715-0. fra-Calvo, N., et al. (2021). The role of Indigenous peoples and local com- 46. Kremen, C., and Merenlender, A.M. (2018). Landscapes that work for munities in effective and equitable conservation. Ecol. Soc. 26, 19. https:// biodiversity and people. Science 362, eaau6020. https://doi.org/10. doi.org/10.5751/ES-12625-260319. 1126/science.aau6020. One Earth 6, September 15, 2023 1187 ll Review 47. Rhodes, J.R., Armsworth, P.R., Iacona, G., Shah, P., Gordon, A., Wilson, affecting the outcomes of terrestrial multiple-use protected areas. One K.A., Runting, R.K., and Bryan, B.A. (2022). Flexible conservation deci- Earth 6, 492–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2023.04.005. sions for climate adaptation. One Earth 5, 622–634. https://doi.org/10. 68. Barros, F.B., Pereira, H.M., and Vicente, L. (2011). Use and knowledge of 1016/j.oneear.2022.05.010. the razor-billed curassow by a riverine community of the Oriental Amazo- 48. Tittensor, D.P., Beger, M., Boerder, K., Boyce, D.G., Cavanagh, R.D., Co- nia, Brazil. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 7, 1–11. sandey-Godin, A., Crespo, G.O., Dunn, D.C., Ghiffary, W., Grant, S.M., 69. Bizri, A.E., Hani, R., Thaı́s, Q., José, C., Neto, V., and Carlos, F.A. (2020). et al. (2019). Integrating climate adaptation and biodiversity conservation Social and Biological Correlates of Wild Meat Consumption and Trade by in the global ocean. Sci. Adv. 5, eaay9969. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv. Rural Communities in the Jutaı́ River Basin , Central Amazonia Social and aay9969. Biological Correlates of Wild Meat Consumption. J. Ethnobiol. 40, 49. Loarie, S.R., Duffy, P.B., Hamilton, H., Asner, G.P., Field, C.B., and Ack- 183–201. erly, D.D. (2009). The velocity of climate change. Nature 462, 1052– 70. Gardner, C.J., and Davies, Z.G. (2014). Rural bushmeat consumption 1055. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08649. within multiple-use protected areas: Qualitative evidence from Southwest 50. Hopkins, C.R., Bailey, D.M., and Potts, T. (2016). Perceptions of practi- Madagascar. Hum. Ecol. 42, 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013- tioners: Managing marine protected areas for climate change resilience. 9629-1. Ocean Coast Manag. 128, 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman. 71. Marino, A., Blanco, J., Cortes-Vazquez, J., López-Bao, J., Bosch, A., and 2016.04.014. Durant, S. (2022). Environmentalities of coexistence with wolves in the 51. Clarke, P., and Jupiter, S.D. (2010). Law, custom and community-based Cantabrian mountains of Spain. Conserv. Soc. 20, 345–357. natural resource management in Kubulau District, Republic of Fiji Islands. 72. Hussain, S. (2019). The Snow Leopard and the Goat: Politics of Conserva- Environ. Conserv. 37, 98–106. tion in the Western Himalayas (The University of Washington Press). 52. Arafeh-Dalmau, N., Brito-Morales, I., Schoeman, D.S., Possingham, H.P., 73. Alexander, S.E., and Whitehouse, J.L. (2004). Challenges for balancing Klein, C.J., and Richardson, A.J. (2021). Incorporating climate velocity into conservation and development through ecotourism: insights and implica- the design of climate-smart networks of marine protected areas. Methods tions from two Belizean case studies. Sustainable Tourism 9, 129–142. Ecol. Evol. 12, 1969–1983. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13675. 74. Buyinza, M., and Acabo, J.T. (2009). Ecotourism for environmental conser- 53. Cashion, T., Nguyen, T., ten Brink, T., Mook, A., Palacios-Abrantes, J., and vation and community livelihoods around Budongo Forest in Masindi Dis- Roberts, S.M. (2020). Shifting seas, shifting boundaries: Dynamic marine trict, Western Uganda. Res. J. Appl. Sci. 4, 160–165. protected area designs for a changing climate. PLoS One 15, e0241771. 75. Knezevic  , R., Zikovi , R.G., and Magdic c , M. (2011). Factors of sustainable https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241771. tourism development in the Ogulin-Plaski micro region. Sustainable 54. Schreckenberg, K., Franks, P., Martin, A., and Lang, B. (2016). Unpacking Tourism: Socio-Cultural, Environmental and Economics Impact, 187–203. equity for protected area conservation. Parks 22, 11–28. 76. Maldonado-Oré, E.M., and Custodio, M. (2020). Visitor environmental 55. McKinnon, M.C., Cheng, S.H., Dupre, S., Edmond, J., Garside, R., Glew, impact on protected natural areas: An evaluation of the Huaytapallana L., Holland, M.B., Levine, E., Masuda, Y.J., Miller, D.C., et al. (2016). What Regional Conservation Area in Peru. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and are the effects of nature conservation on human well-being? A systematic Tourism 31, 100298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2020.100298. map of empirical evidence from developing countries. Environ. Evid. 5, 77. Alexander, S.E. (2000). Resident attitudes towards conservation and black 8–25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-016-0058-7. howler monkeys in Belize: the Community Baboon Sanctuary. Environ. 56. Ban, N.C., Gurney, G.G., Marshall, N.A., Whitney, C.K., Mills, M., Gelcich, Conserv. 27, 341–350. S., Bennett, N.J., Meehan, M.C., Butler, C., Ban, S., et al. (2019). Well-be- 78. Assalé, A.A., Barima, Y.S., Sangne, Y.C., Bleu, D.K., and Kpangui, K.B. ing outcomes of marine protected areas. Nat. Sustain. 2, 524–532. https:// (2020). Évaluation des services d’approvisionnement fournis par les espa- doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0306-2. ces domaniaux anthropisés : cas de la forêt classée du Haut-Sassandra 57. Buckley, R., Brough, P., Hague, L., Chauvenet, A., Fleming, C., Roche, E., (Centre-Ouest de la Côte d’Ivoire). Can. J. For. Res. 50, 1002–1011. Sofija, E., and Harris, N. (2019). Economic value of protected areas via https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2019-0443. visitor mental health. Nat. Commun. 10, 5005. https://doi.org/10.1038/ 79. Menton, M.C. (2003). Effects of logging on non-timber forest product s41467-019-12631-6. extraction in the Brazilian Amazon : community perceptions of change. 58. Buckley, R.C., and Chauvenet, A.L. (2022). Economic value of nature via int. forest. rev. 5, 97–105. healthcare savings and productivity increases. Biol. Conserv. 272, 80. Rizek, M.B., and Morsello, C. (2012). Impacts of trade in non-timber forest 109665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109665. products on cooperation among Caboclo households of the Brazilian 59. Brockington, D., and Igoe, J. (2006). Eviction for conservation: a global Amazon. Hum. Ecol. 40, 707–719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-012- overview. Conserv. Soc. 4, 424–470. 9506-3. 60. Andam, K.S., Ferraro, P.J., Sims, K.R.E., Healy, A., and Holland, M.B. 81. Cooper, N.A., and Kainer, K.A. (2018). To log or not to log: local percep- (2010). Protected areas reduced poverty in Costa Rica and Thailand. tions of timber management and its implications for well-being within a Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 9996–10001. https://doi.org/10.1073/ sustainable-use protected area. Ecol. Soc. 23, art4. https://doi.org/10. pnas.0914177107. 5751/ES-09995-230204. 61. Sims, K.R. (2010). Conservation and development: Evidence from Thai 82. Adams, V.M., Visconti, P., Graham, V., and Possingham, H.P. (2021). Indi- protected areas. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 60, 94–114. https://doi.org/ cators keep progress honest: A call to track both the quantity and quality of 10.1016/j.jeem.2010.05.003. protected areas. One Earth 4, 901–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear. 2021.06.014. 62. Gurney, G.G., Cinner, J., Ban, N.C., Pressey, R.L., Pollnac, R., Campbell, 83. Brockington, D., and Wilkie, D. (2015). Protected areas and poverty. S.J., Tasidjawa, S., and Setiawan, F. (2014). Poverty and protected areas: Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 370, 20140271. An evaluation of a marine integrated conservation and development proj- ect in Indonesia. Global Environ. Change 26, 98–107. https://doi.org/10. 84. Gurney, G.G., Darling, E.S., Jupiter, S.D., Mangubhai, S., McClanahan, 1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.003. T.R., Lestari, P., Pardede, S., Campbell, S.J., Fox, M., Naisilisili, W., et al. (2019). Implementing a social-ecological systems framework for con- 63. López-Angarita, J., Tilley, A., Dı́az, J.M., Hawkins, J.P., Cagua, E.F., and servation monitoring: lessons from a multi-country coral reef program. Roberts, C.M. (2018). Winners and losers in area-based management of Biol. Conserv. 240, 108298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019. a small-scale fishery in the Colombian Pacific. Front. Mar. Sci. 5. 108298. 64. Brockington, D. (2002). Fortress Conservation: The Preservation of the 85. Hanson, J.O. (2022). wdpar: Interface to the World Database on Protected. Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania (Indiana University Press). Areas. R package version 1.3.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/ 65. Naidoo, R., Gerkey, D., Hole, D., Pfaff, A., Ellis, A.M., Golden, C.D., Her- package=wdpar. rera, D., Johnson, K., Mulligan, M., Ricketts, T.H., and Fisher, B. (2019). 86. Garcı́a Molinos, J., Schoeman, D.S., Brown, C.J., and Burrows, M.T. Evaluating the impacts of protected areas on human well-being across (2019). VoCC: An r package for calculating the velocity of climate change the developing world. Sci. Adv. 5, eaav3006. https://doi.org/10.1126/ and related climatic metrics. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 2195–2202. https:// sciadv.aav3006. doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13295. 66. Oldekop, J.A., Holmes, G., Harris, W.E., and Evans, K.L. (2016). A global 87. Rayner, N.A., Parker, D.E., Horton, E.B., Folland, C.K., Alexander, L.V., assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas. Rowell, D.P., Kent, E.C., and Kaplan, A. (2003). Global analyses of sea sur- Conserv. Biol. 30, 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12568. face temperature, sea ice, and night marine air temperature since the late 67. Stoudmann, N., Savilaakso, S., Waeber, P.O., Wilmé, L., Garcia, C., Byrne, nineteenth century. J. Geophys. Res. 108, 4407. https://doi.org/10.1029/ J., and Adams, V.M. (2023). Overview of evidence on mechanisms 2002JD002670. 1188 One Earth 6, September 15, 2023 ll Review 88. Jonas, H.D., Barbuto, V., Jonas, H.C., Kothari, A., and Nelson, F. (2014). tional justice principles in marine co-management. Environ. Sci. Pol. 124, New steps of change: looking beyond protected areas to consider other 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.05.022. effective area-based conservation measures. Parks 20, 111–128. 92. Claudet, J., Ban, N.C., Blythe, J., Briggs, J., Darling, E., Gurney, G.G., Pal- 89. IUCN (2019). IUCN-WCPA Task Force on OECMs: Recognising and re- ardy, J.E., Pike, E.P., Agostini, V.N., Ahmadia, G.N., et al. (2022). Avoiding porting other effective area-based conservation measures. IUCN. the misuse of other effective area-based conservation measures in the https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2019.PATRS.3.en. wake of the blue economy. One Earth 5, 969–974. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.oneear.2022.08.010. 90. Lee, V.H.F., Chan, W.W.L., Lee, E.Y.P., Choy, T.S., Ho, P.P.Y., Leung, 93. McGuire, J.L., and Shipley, B.R. (2022). Dynamic priorities for conserving D.K.C., Lam, K.O., Kwong, D.L.W., Leung, T.W., and Khong, P.L. (2016). species. Science 376, 1048–1049. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. Protected areas, country and value: The nature–culture tyranny of the abq0788. IUCN’s protected area guidelines for Indigenous Australians. Antipode 39, 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12180. 94. Valle Nunes, A., Guariento, R.D., Santos, B.A., and Fischer, E. (2019). Wild meat sharing among non-indigenous people in the southwestern Amazon. 91. Gurney, G.G., Mangubhai, S., Fox, M., Kiatkoski Kim, M., and Agrawal, A. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 73, 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-018- (2021). Equity in environmental governance: perceived fairness of distribu- 2628-x. One Earth 6, September 15, 2023 1189