Even though most population resides in cities, people affect nature significantly, causing various environmental problems. That is why multiple policies, procedures, and interventions emerge to limit this negative impact, and establishing protected areas (PAs) is among them. Thus, the given essay will rely on credible data from scientific sources to comment on why PAs exist, how they impact local communities, and what approaches are now available to manage this phenomenon.
To begin with, one should explain what PAs are and why they exist. According to Adams and Hutton (2007), they are the principal approach to biodiversity conservation worldwide and are the most extensive planned land use in history. The UNEP-WCMC, IUCN, and NGS (2018, p. 5) stipulate that in 2018, PA terrestrial coverage was 14.9%, while marine one accounted for 16.8% of the planet’s surface. These areas exist because they offer essential benefits for flora and fauna. For example, Xu et al. (2017) indicate that PAs secure ecosystem services and protect biodiversity. It happens because human activities are usually prohibited within these zones. Consequently, this approach creates natural territories that promote ecotourism (Ghosh-Harihar et al., 2019). Yellowstone National Park was established in 1872, and it is a suitable example of a PA.
Irrespective of this information, it is not impossible to ignore PAs’ harmful effects. These areas have historically used exclusion, eviction, and displacement tactics to prevent extractive use of natural resources by local communities, which caused severe impacts on their livelihoods. For instance, Yellowstone National Park sought to exclude people in order to preserve nature through isolation, and it mainly affected indigenous Americans of the Shoshone tribes. The following paragraph will comment on the specific impact of this phenomenon.
It is possible to present many adverse effects of using PAs. Firstly, Brandon and Wells (1992) admit that it is politically infeasible and ethically unjustifiable to exclude people from such territories. The rationale behind this claim is that this approach deprives the population of their homes, contributing to landlessness and poverty. Secondly, communities that live on the edge of a park also experience harmful effects because they are unable to hunt, fish, and farm in suitable territories as they did it before (Brockington and Igoe, 2006). Thirdly, Poudyal et al. (2018) admit that forest conservation is performed at a local cost since aboriginal people face financial issues because of this process. It happens because affected households do not receive adequate compensation. Finally, Brockington and Igoe (2006) stipulate that the process under analysis implies social and historical disadvantages because people lose their ancestral homes, memory, and culture. It is impossible to ignore this adverse impact of PAs.
The findings above brought the necessity to reconsider attitudes toward establishing PAs. Since it is necessary to balance protecting biodiversity with acknowledging the local community’s needs, multiple governance systems can be used. Originally, PAs were strict sites where specific government authorities or officials were responsible for maintaining order. However, a shift occurred in this system when there appeared a distinction between core PAs and multiple-use buffer zones (Wells and McShane, 2004). This effort is aimed at ensuring that various stakeholders can benefit from using the areas under analysis (Dudley et al., 2014). It denotes that the territories are shared between government or private entities and local communities.
Simultaneously, a specific system has been developed to ensure that the balance above is achieved. For that purpose, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has developed six categories that determine the required level of protection and human involvement in separate PAs (Dudley, 2008). For example, “Category Ia: Strict nature reserve” includes territories “set aside to protect biodiversity and also possibly geological/geomorphological features, where human visitation, use, and impacts are strictly controlled and limited” (Dudley, 2008, p. 13). Simultaneously, “Category VI: Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources” emphasizes the need to protect nature and support sustainable livelihoods in this territory (Dudley, 2008). It means that these six categories explain to what extent human activity is allowed in PAs.
In conclusion, the paper has commented on protected areas and how they impact society. Even though these territories are positive for nature, their establishment provides local communities with harmful effects. That is why it was necessary to reconsider traditional approaches to these territories. Consequently, multiple-use territories, various governance systems, and categories were created to ensure that the purpose of preserving biodiversity would not create fundamental problems for multiple local communities.
References
Adams, W. M. and Hutton, J. (2007) ‘People, parks, and poverty: political ecology and biodiversity conservation, Conservation and Society, 5(2), pp. 147-183.
Brandon, K. E. and Wells, M. (1992) ‘Planning for people and parks: design dilemmas’, World Development, 20(4), pp. 557-570.
Brockington, D. and Igoe, J. (2006) ‘Eviction for conservation: a global overview’, Conservation and Society, 4(3), pp. 424-470.
Dudley, N. (ed.) (2008) Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. Gland: IUCN.
Dudley, N. et al. (2014) ‘Where now for protected areas? Setting the stage for the 2014 World Parks Congress’, Oryx, 48(4), pp. 496-503.
Ghosh-Harihar, M. et al. (2019) ‘Protected areas and biodiversity conservation in India’, Biological Conservation, 237, pp. 114-124.
Poudyal, M. et al. (2018). ‘Who bears the cost of forest conservation?’ PeerJ, 6(e5106), pp. 1-30.
UNEP-WCMC, IUCN and NGS (2018) Protected planet report 2018. Gland: UNEP-WCMC, IUCN and NGS.
Wells, M. P. and McShane, T. O. (2004) ‘Integrating protected area management with local needs and aspirations, A Journal of the Human Environment, 33(8), pp. 513-519.
Xu, W. et al. (2017) ‘Strengthening protected areas for biodiversity and ecosystem services in China’, PNAS, 114(7), pp. 1601-1606.