Social Value of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas in England and Wales.

The U.K. government is committed to establishing a coherent network of marine protected areas by 2012 and the recentMarine and Coastal Access Act, 2009 will designate marine conservation zones and provide wider access rights to the coast. To fulfill these goals, this article argues the need for a clearer, shared understanding of the social value of protected areas in creating new designations and managing existing ones. Although marine and coastal environments attract many people and are vitally important in terms of realized and potential social value, the majority of the public in the United Kingdom lacks understanding and awareness regarding them. Combined with this, the social value of marine and coastal protected areas (MCPAs) have been largely ignored relative to conservation and economics, with the latter invariably taking precedence in environmental policymaking. Social value reflects the complex, individual responses that people experience in a given place. Many reasons determine why one area is valued above another, and this research investigates the social value of MCPAs from a practitioner’s perspective through a series of interviews. Understanding why we “socially” value MCPAs will ultimately equip managers with an informed understanding of these spaces, influence management decisions, and, potentially, policymaking. This article defines social value in the context of MCPAs in England and Wales from a practitioner perspective, explores key concepts, and suggests possible improvements in decision-making

Introducing New Guidelines on Geoheritage Conservation in Protected and Conserved Areas

The Cultural Heritage Administration, Republic of Korea, funded the design and publication of the Guidelines on which this paper is based.This paper introduces newly published guidelines on geoheritage conservation in protected and conserved areas within the “IUCN WCPA Best Practice Guidelines” series. It explains the need for the guidelines and outlines the ethical basis of geoheritage values and geoconservation principles as the fundamental framework within which to advance geoheritage conservation. Best practice in establishing and managing protected and conserved areas for geoconservation is described with examples from around the world. Particular emphasis is given to the methodology and practice for dealing with the many threats to geoheritage, highlighting in particular how to improve practice for areas with caves and karst, glacial and periglacial, and volcanic features and processes, and for palaeontology and mineral sites. Guidance to improve education and communication to the public through modern and conventional means is also highlighted as a key stage in delivering effective geoconservation. A request is made to geoconservation experts to continue to share best practice examples of developing methodologies and best practice in management to guide non-experts in their work. Finally, a number of suggestions are made on how geoconservation can be further promoted.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Conserving plants within and beyond protected areas - still problematic and future uncertain

Against a background of continuing loss of biodiversity, it is argued that for the successful conservation of threatened plant species we need to ensure the more effective integration of the various conservation actions employed, clarify the wording of the CBD targets and provide clearer operational guidance as to how they are to be implemented and their implementation monitored. The role and effectiveness of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and in particular plant species are discussed as are recent proposals for a massive increase of their extent. The need for much greater effort and investment in the conservation or protection of threatened species outside protected areas where most plant diversity occurs is highlighted. The difficulties involved in implementing effective conservation of plant diversity both at an area- and species/population-based level are discussed. The widespread neglect of species recovery for plants is noted and the desirability of making a clearer distinction between species recovery and reintroduction is emphasized. Key messages from a global overview of species recovery are outlined and recommendations made, including the desirability of each country preparing a national species recovery strategy. The projected impacts of global change on protected areas and on species conservation and recovery, and ways of addressing them are discussed

Mediterranean bioconstructions along the Italian coast

Marine bioconstructions are biodiversity-rich, three-dimensional biogenic structures, regulating key ecological functions of benthic ecosystems worldwide. Tropical coral reefs are outstanding for their beauty, diversity and complexity, but analogous types of bioconstructions are also present in temperate seas. The main bioconstructions in the Mediterranean Sea are represented by coralligenous formations, vermetid reefs, deep-sea cold-water corals, Lithophyllum byssoides trottoirs, coral banks formed by the shallow-water corals Cladocora caespitosa or Astroides calycularis, and sabellariid or serpulid worm reefs. Bioconstructions change the morphological and chemicophysical features of primary substrates and create new habitats for a large variety of organisms, playing pivotal roles in ecosystem functioning. In spite of their importance, Mediterranean bioconstructions have not received the same attention that tropical coral reefs have, and the knowledge of their biology, ecology and distribution is still fragmentary. All existing data about the spatial distribution of Italian bioconstructions have been collected, together with information about their growth patterns, dynamics and connectivity. The degradation of these habitats as a consequence of anthropogenic pressures (pollution, organic enrichment, fishery, coastal development, direct physical disturbance), climate change and the spread of invasive species was also investigated. The study of bioconstructions requires a holistic approach leading to a better understanding of their ecology and the application of more insightful management and conservation measures at basin scale, within ecologically coherent units based on connectivity: the cells of ecosystem functioning

Expanding the protected area network in Antarctica is urgent and readily achievable

The terrestrial protected areas of Antarctica are generally small, unrepresentative of the continent's biodiversity, and at risk from a range of pressures. While some consider the whole Antarctic region as a protected area, we demonstrate that the evidence does not support this view. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty recognizes that a systematic environmental-geographical framework provides a quantitative approach to inform expansion of the current Antarctic Specially Protected Area (ASPA) network. We review the progress thus far and challenges facing the establishment of protected areas in terrestrial Antarctica when adopting best practice approaches, an assessment that is lacking for the region to date. Encouragingly, because of the historical investment in Antarctic biodiversity science, and the existence and implementation of defined processes to identify and designate ASPAs, the opportunity exists to rapidly expand the current ASPA network. However, challenges remain. Foremost amongst these is the adoption of a comprehensive systematic conservation plan by stakeholders. We outline a strategy for the Antarctic Treaty Parties to provide the equitable, effective, transparent and scientifically founded expansion of protected areas that Antarctica urgently requires. We also highlight where opportunities for co-learning may lie in conservation planning and policy development in the Antarctic and other commons or commons-like areas

The relative conservation impact of strategies that prioritize biodiversity representation, threats, and protection costs

Despite exponential increases in the coverage of protected areas (PAs) overrecent decades, global biodiversity continues to decline. One explanation for this lack of success is that the efficacy of conservation prioritization strategies is rarely measured in terms of conservation “impact,”which requires comparing proposed PA networks to a counterfactual scenario in which no intervention is applied. This approach contrasts with measuring efficacy using surrogates for conservation impact, such as the extent, total biodiversity value,or representativeness of a proposed PA network. However, implementing an experimental counterfactual scenario is difficult because of time, funding, and ethical constraints. Here, we use an alternative and complementary approach: an ex-postanalysis with counterfactual outcomes measured using historical empirical data on changes in biodiversity in unprotected landscapes. This approach allows for the comparison of different retrospectively implemented prioritization strategies to a real counterfactual outcome. In our analysis, we predict the impact of several alternative PA prioritization strategies in Queensland, Australia, using high-resolution datasets of vegetation clearing, habitat type, and land acquisition cost. Our results show that achieving conventional conservation targets does not equate to achieving impact, and that alternative,and relatively simple, prioritization strategies can achieve far greater impact