Sustainable protected areas: Synergies between biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic development

1. Reconciling conservation and socioeconomic development goals is key to sustainability but remains a source of fierce debate. Protected areas (PAs) are believed to play an essential role in achieving these seemingly conflicting goals. Yet, there is limited evidence as to whether PAs are actually achieving the two goals simultaneously. 2. Here, we investigate when and to what extent synergies or trade‐offs between biodiversity conservation and local socioeconomic development occur. To explore these relationships, we collected data across a wide range of socioeconomic settings through face‐to‐face survey with PA managers from 114 African and European PAs using structured questionnaire. 3. We found synergies between biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic development for 62% of the PAs, albeit with significant differences between African (55%) and European PAs (75%). Moreover, the sustainability of PAs in conserving biodiversity was strongly correlated with the empowerment of the PA management and the involvement of local communities in PA planning and decision‐making processes. 4. Our results demonstrate that for PAs to promote synergies between biodiversity conservation and local socioeconomic development, and to enhance their long‐term sustainability, they should invest in the empowerment of their respective management and involvement of local communities in their planning and management activities

Sustainable protected areas: Synergies between biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic development

1. Reconciling conservation and socioeconomic development goals is key to sus- tainability but remains a source of fierce debate. Protected areas (PAs) are be- lieved to play an essential role in achieving these seemingly conflicting goals. Yet, there is limited evidence as to whether PAs are actually achieving the two goals simultaneously. 2. Here, we investigate when and to what extent synergies or trade- offs between biodiversity conservation and local socioeconomic development occur. To ex- plore these relationships, we collected data across a wide range of socioeco- nomic settings through face-to-face survey with PA managers from 114 African and European PAs using structured questionnaire. 3. We found synergies between biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic development for 62% of the PAs, albeit with significant differences between African (55%) and European PAs (75%). Moreover, the sustainability of PAs in conserving biodiversity was strongly correlated with the empowerment of the PA management and the involvement of local communities in PA planning and decision-making processes. 4. Our results demonstrate that for PAs to promote synergies between biodiver- sity conservation and local socioeconomic development, and to enhance their long-term sustainability, they should invest in the empowerment of their respec- tive management and involvement of local communities in their planning and management activitie

Analysis of differences and commonalities in wildlife hunting across the Africa-Europe South-North gradient

Hunting and its impacts on wildlife are typically studied regionally, with a particular focus on the Global South. Hunting can, however, also undermine rewilding efforts or threaten wildlife in the Global North. Little is known about how hunting manifests under varying socioeconomic and ecological contexts across the Global South and North. Herein, we examined differences and commonalities in hunting characteristics across an exemplary Global South-North gradient approximated by the Human Development Index (HDI) using face-to-face interviews with 114 protected area (PA) managers in 25 African and European countries. Generally, we observed that hunting ranges from the illegal, economically motivated, and unsustainable hunting of herbivores in the South to the legal, socially and ecologically motivated hunting of ungulates within parks and the illegal hunting of mainly predators outside parks in the North. Commonalities across this Africa-Europe South-North gradient included increased conflict-related killings in human-dominated landscapes and decreased illegal hunting with beneficial community conditions, such as mutual trust resulting from community involvement in PA management. Nevertheless, local conditions cannot outweigh the strong effect of the HDI on unsustainable hunting. Our findings highlight regional challenges that require collaborative, integrative efforts in wildlife conservation across actors, while identified commonalities may outline universal mechanisms for achieving this goal.publishedVersio

The impact of the Ebola virus disease (EVD) epidemic on agricultural production and livelihoods in Liberia.

There is unequivocal evidence in the literature that epidemics adversely affect the livelihoods of individuals, households and communities. However, evidence in the literature is dominated by the socioeconomic impacts of HIV/AIDS and malaria, while evidence on the impact of the Ebola virus disease (EVD) on households' livelihoods remains fragmented and scant. Our study investigates the effect of the EVD epidemic on the livelihoods of Liberian households using the Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF). The study also explores the effect of the EVD epidemic on agricultural production and productive efficiency of farm households using Spatial Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SSFA). We collected data from 623 households across Liberia in 2015, using a systematic random sampling design. Our results indicated that the annual income of sample households from communities where EVD occurred did not differ from the annual income of households from communities where EVD did not occur. Nonetheless, the majority of sample households reported a decrease in their income, compared to their income in the year before the survey. This suggests that the impact of the EVD epidemic might not only have been limited to communities directly affected by the epidemic, but also it may have indirectly affected communities in areas where EVD was not reported. We also found that the community-level incidence of EVD negatively affected crop production of farm households, which may have exacerbated the problem of food insecurity throughout the country. Moreover, we found that the EVD epidemic weakened the society's trust in Liberian institutions. In a nutshell, our results highlight that epidemics, such as the recent EVD outbreak, may have long-lasting negative effects on the livelihoods of a society and their effect may extend beyond the communities directly affected by the epidemics. This means that the nation's recovery from the impact of the epidemic would be more challenging, and the social and economic impacts of the epidemic may extend well beyond the end of the health crisis

Ungulate management in European national parks

1. Primary objectives of national parks usually include both, the protection of natural processes and species conservation. When these objectives conflict, as occurs because of the cascading effects of large mammals (i.e., ungulates and large carnivores) on lower trophic levels, park managers have to decide upon the appropriate management while considering various local circumstances. 2. To analyse if ungulate management strategies are in accordance with the objectives defined for protected areas, we assessed the current status of ungulate management across European national parks using the naturalness concept and identified the variables that influence the management. 3. We collected data on ungulate management from 209 European national parks in 29 countries by means of a large-scale questionnaire survey. Ungulate management in the parks was compared by creating two naturalness scores. The first score reflects ungulate and large carnivore species compositions, and the second evaluates human intervention on ungulate populations. We then tested whether the two naturalness score categories are influenced by the management objectives, park size, years since establishment, percentage of government-owned land, and human impact on the environment (human influence index) using two generalized additive mixed models. 4. In 67.9% of the national parks, wildlife is regulated by culling (40.2%) or hunting (10.5%) or both (17.2%). Artificial feeding occurred in 81.3% of the national parks and only 28.5% of the national parks had a nonintervention zone covering at least 75% of the area. Furthermore, ungulate management differed greatly among the different countries, likely because of differences in hunting traditions and cultural and political backgrounds. Ungulate management was also influenced by park size, human impact on the landscape, and national park objectives, but after removing these variables from the full model the reduced models only showed a small change in the deviance explained. In areas with higher anthropogenic pressure, wildlife diversity tended to be lower and a higher number of domesticated species tended to be present. Human intervention (culling and artificial feeding) was lower in smaller national parks and when park objectives followed those set by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 5. Our study shows that many European national parks do not fulfil the aims of protected area management as set by IUCN guidelines. In contrast to the USA and Canada, Europe currently has no common ungulate management policy within national parks. This lack of a common policy together with differences in species composition, hunting traditions, and cultural or political context has led to differences in ungulate management among European countries. To fulfil the aims and objectives of national parks and to develop ungulate management strategies further, we highlight the importance of creating a more integrated European ungulate management policy to meet the aims of national parks

Map of Liberia showing county-level [33] and community-level EVD cases.

<p>Map of Liberia showing county-level [<a href="http://www.plosntds.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pntd.0006580#pntd.0006580.ref033" target="_blank">33</a>] and community-level EVD cases.</p

Sustainable protected areas: Synergies between biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic development

1. Reconciling conservation and socioeconomic development goals is key to sus- tainability but remains a source of fierce debate. Protected areas (PAs) are be- lieved to play an essential role in achieving these seemingly conflicting goals. Yet, there is limited evidence as to whether PAs are actually achieving the two goals simultaneously. 2. Here, we investigate when and to what extent synergies or trade- offs between biodiversity conservation and local socioeconomic development occur. To ex- plore these relationships, we collected data across a wide range of socioeco- nomic settings through face-to-face survey with PA managers from 114 African and European PAs using structured questionnaire. 3. We found synergies between biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic development for 62% of the PAs, albeit with significant differences between African (55%) and European PAs (75%). Moreover, the sustainability of PAs in conserving biodiversity was strongly correlated with the empowerment of the PA management and the involvement of local communities in PA planning and decision-making processes. 4. Our results demonstrate that for PAs to promote synergies between biodiver- sity conservation and local socioeconomic development, and to enhance their long-term sustainability, they should invest in the empowerment of their respec- tive management and involvement of local communities in their planning and management activitie

Sustainable protected areas: Synergies between biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic development

1. Reconciling conservation and socioeconomic development goals is key to sus- tainability but remains a source of fierce debate. Protected areas (PAs) are be- lieved to play an essential role in achieving these seemingly conflicting goals. Yet, there is limited evidence as to whether PAs are actually achieving the two goals simultaneously. 2. Here, we investigate when and to what extent synergies or trade- offs between biodiversity conservation and local socioeconomic development occur. To ex- plore these relationships, we collected data across a wide range of socioeco- nomic settings through face-to-face survey with PA managers from 114 African and European PAs using structured questionnaire. 3. We found synergies between biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic development for 62% of the PAs, albeit with significant differences between African (55%) and European PAs (75%). Moreover, the sustainability of PAs in conserving biodiversity was strongly correlated with the empowerment of the PA management and the involvement of local communities in PA planning and decision-making processes. 4. Our results demonstrate that for PAs to promote synergies between biodiver- sity conservation and local socioeconomic development, and to enhance their long-term sustainability, they should invest in the empowerment of their respec- tive management and involvement of local communities in their planning and management activitie

Determinants of agricultural production using SSFM.

<p>Determinants of agricultural production using SSFM.</p

Regression results for the impact of EVD on household income using spatial-lag models.

<p>Regression results for the impact of EVD on household income using spatial-lag models.</p