7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Progress toward Equitably Managed Protected Areas in Aichi Target 11: A Global Survey

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The Convention on Biological Diversity Aichi Target 11 requires its 193 signatory parties to incorporate social equity into protected area (PA) management by 2020. However, there is limited evidence of progress toward this commitment. We surveyed PA managers, staff, and community representatives involved in the management of 225 PAs worldwide to gather information against 10 equity criteria, including the distribution of benefits and burdens, recognition of rights, diversity of cultural and knowledge systems, and processes of participation in decision-making. Our results show that more than half of the respondents indicated that there are still significant challenges to be addressed in achieving equitably managed PAs, particularly in ensuring effective participation in decision-making, transparent procedures, access to justice in conflicting situations, and the recognition of the rights and diversity of local people. Our findings are a first and fundamental contribution toward a global assessment of equitable management in PAs to report on Aichi Target 11 in 2020 and help define the next set of PA targets from 2020–2030.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty.

          It is widely accepted that biodiversity loss and poverty are linked problems and that conservation and poverty reduction should be tackled together. However, success with integrated strategies is elusive. There is sharp debate about the social impacts of conservation programs and the success of community-based approaches to conservation. Clear conceptual frameworks are needed if policies in these two areas are to be combined. We review the links between poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation and present a conceptual typology of these relationships.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Parks and Peoples: The Social Impact of Protected Areas

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              Defining Environmental Justice

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Bioscience
                Bioscience
                bioscience
                Bioscience
                Oxford University Press
                0006-3568
                1525-3244
                01 March 2019
                02 January 2019
                02 January 2019
                : 69
                : 3
                : 191-197
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Center for Macroecology, Evolution, and Climate, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
                [2 ]Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), Parque Científico de UPV/EHU, Leioa, Spain
                [3 ]Department of Applied Economics I, University of the Basque Country, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
                [4 ]Ikerbasque, the Basque Science Foundation, Bilbao, Spain
                [4a ]Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
                [5 ]Social–Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain
                [6 ]School of International Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom
                [7 ]European School of Political and Social Sciences, Lille Catholic University, Lille, France
                [8 ]Sheffield Institute for International Development, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
                [9 ]Department of Sociology and Communication Sciences, Universidade da Coruña, Spain
                [10 ]United Nations Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3350-0784
                Article
                biy143
                10.1093/biosci/biy143
                6429033
                30914829
                2586c620-0c9e-4d2a-845d-5ad866172a05
                © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@ 123456oup.com

                History
                Page count
                Pages: 7
                Funding
                Funded by: Multiple Sclerosis Center of Atlanta 10.13039/100003973
                Award ID: 659881
                Funded by: Jeffrey Cheah Foundation 10.13039/501100010799
                Award ID: IJCI-2016–28475
                Funded by: Center for Macroecology and Evolution 10.13039/501100005193
                Award ID: DNRF96
                Categories
                Forum

                aichi target 11,access to justice,decision-making,rights

                Comments

                Comment on this article