National Academies Press: OpenBook

Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas (1996)

Chapter:1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas

« Previous: Overview
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

I
GENERAL ISSUES OF CONSERVATION OF PROTECTED AREAS

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

THE BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY OF VEGETATIONAL LANDSCAPES: PROBLEMS WITH EVALUATION

Jerzy Solon

Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization

Polish Academy of Sciences

INTRODUCTION

In light of the drastic changes taking place in land use, the over-exploitation of resources on a global scale, and the far-reaching climatic changes now being predicted, one of the basic tasks facing scientists and decision-makers is elaborating directions of economic development that preserve to the greatest possible extent the existing richness of living forms and their assemblages. The central concept in the management of nature understood in this way is the concept of biological diversity or biodiversity.

Biodiversity in the widest sense is measured either by estimating richness (number of types of living organisms) in an area, or by one or more indices combining richness and relative abundance within an area. In some cases, instead of measuring diversity in an area, diversity within a typological unit of higher rank is measured (Wilson 1988).

It therefore appears that three separate approaches to the analysis of biodiversity may be taken. These are: (a) the biogeographic approach, which concentrates on actions on the global scale and on the identification of the areas which are richest from the point of view of the number of taxa (Grehan 1993; Platnick 1992), (b) the taxonomic approach, which operates by way of cladistic diagrams concerning the differentiation within systematic units (Williams et al. 1991), and (c) the ecological or ecological-landscape approaches, which focus on the determination of biodiversity on local and regional scales as well as the identification of the mechanisms of dependence between the number of species and the surrounding processes and conditions (Lubchenco 1991).

Where the first two approaches are concerned, one of the central issues in the maintenance of biological diversity is the relative importance for diversity of different areas, taxa, or ecosystems. However, this importance can be assessed in different, if related, ways. The first and most obvious way makes reference to "intrinsic" diversity and thus deems an area with higher diversity to be of greater importance than one with lower diversity. The second way involves attempts to

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

assess the contribution made by any given area to the overall diversity of a given geographic region. It is possible from this perspective that an area with lower intrinsic diversity may actually be more important than others with higher diversity (World Conservation … 1992).

The overwhelming majority of the work done has been concerned with the analysis of biodiversity in the global, biogeographical interpretation, or else within one ecosystem type. Far rarer are works treating biodiversity at the level of the landscape or region (Baker 1990).

The aim of this article is to present some of the relationships between aspects of diversity at different landscape levels and to highlight some of the misunderstandings and difficulties in interpretation which are connected with these approaches. The examples cited here are mainly derived from different regions of Poland and concern only the vegetation cover.

LEVELS OF DIVERSITY

In general, there are three classes of objects whose diversity is measured. These are genotypes, species, and communities (Gliwicz 1992). Each class can be related to either typological or spatial sequence and referenced to different areas (Table 1).

Many different factors are involved in determining both the biodiversity of species within communities and the typological diversity of ecosystems within landscapes or regions. The most important of these factors are the ones connected with location (in terms of geography, the history of an area and the differentiation of the abiotic environment) as well as biocoenotic factors (ecosystem type, type of usage, degree of anthropogenic transformation, reaction to stress and disturbance, etc.). Furthermore, relative diversity is very often dependent upon the scale of measurement: 1 m2 of xerothermic grassland has more species than 1 m2 of tropical forest, but the relationship is reversed if the area considered is increased to 1 km2 (Wilson 1988; World Conservation … 1992; O'Brien 1993; Huntley 1993; Solon 1993).

The diversity of vegetation cover within the landscape is a very complex phenomenon. Schematically, this may divided into three groups of phenomena (Table 1). The first group includes floristic diversity (species, growth forms, ecological groups, etc.). The second group includes synthetic characteristics which are the fundamental formal (numerical) descriptions of landscape diversity. In this interpretation, diversity signifies the physiognomic, ecological, and, above all, syntaxonomic differentiation of phytocoenoses in a given area. An important element in this group of characteristics is patchiness, or the overall number of patches (phytocoenoses). It is accepted that the greater the number of patches the greater the diversity (Baker 1989).

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

TABLE 1 Compilation of the Most Often Defined Aspects of Diversity at Different Organizational Levels of Animate Nature

OBJECT OF DIVERSITY

MEASURE

OBJECTS IN WHICH DIVERSITY IS DEFINED

REFERENCE AREA

Species level

a) SPECIES

a) NUMBER

a) ECOSYSTEM

a) WHOLE AREA

b) OTHER TAXA

(genera etc.)

b) PROPORTION

b) ECOSYSTEM TYPE

(1 m2, 1 km2 etc.)

b) UNIT OF AREA

c) OTHER GROUPINGS OF SPECIES

(growth forms, size classes, trophic levels, habitat requirement classes, range types, etc.)

c) REGION

(ecological, administrative, etc.)

c) NON-AREAL MEASURE

 

 

d) HIGHER-RANK TYPOLOGICAL CATEGORIES

 

 

Landscape level, aspects independent of location

a) ECOSYSTEMS

a) NUMBER

a) LANDSCAPE

a) WHOLE AREA

b) TYPES OF ECOSYSTEMS

b) PROPORTION

b) REGION (etc.)

b) UNIT OF AREA

Landscape level, aspects dependent on location

a) ECOSYSTEMS

a) CONTRAST

a) LANDSCAPE

a) WHOLE AREA

b) TYPES OF ECOSYSTEMS

b) NUMBER OF

BOUNDARIES

b) REGION (etc.)

 

 

c) SHAPE INDEX

 

 

The third group of characteristics influencing landscape diversity involves the spatial organization of phytocoenoses, the differentiation in their shapes and sizes, the degree of complexity of boundaries, and the number of neighboring patches, as well as the physiognomic, syntaxonomic, and usage contrasts between these patches.

In contrast to the features of the second group (synthetic characteristics), whose values may be determined on the basis of statistical data, determinations of the features from the third group require detailed analysis of the spatial relations between the different communities. They may therefore be referred to as a group of analytical components of the overall diversity of the landscape (Solon 1995).

There are two main factors which influence different aspects of vegetational diversity at the landscape level at the local scale. The first is the differentiation and spatial arrangement of habitats, which could be expressed in terms of potential vegetation; and the second is the land use structure and other anthropogenic

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

activities. So, landscape diversity must be viewed as resulting from the superimposition of two different vegetation patterns: (a) patterns related to the distribution of communities along gradients of limiting factors, and (b) patterns resulting from portions of the landscape being under different human influence and in different stages of recovery following disturbance. The relative contribution of these two kinds of pattern to overall landscape diversity is variable (Baker 1989, Solon 1990).

The different aspects of the biological diversity of vegetation in the landscape are to a significant extent independent of one another and are clearly not additive. They also react in various ways to the different anthropogenic factors. This is particularly clear when comparisons are made between the biodiversity of objects belonging to different levels of organization in nature, different trophic levels or different systematic groups.

In light of the aforementioned considerations, the well-known statement from Whittaker (1977) that ''a system made up of one herbivorous species and one predator species is more diverse than a system made up of two herbivores" does not represent a true assessment of the different systems. Evaluated jointly in this statement are the number of species and trophic levels, i.e., two different aspects of diversity which should be looked at separately. Using this method of evaluation, it may be asked which system is the more diverse: one containing ten herbivorous species, or one with two herbivores and one predator? An unequivocal answer cannot be given to questions formulated in this way.

In relation to taxonomic diversity, Prendergarst et al. (1993) give data for Great Britain which show that there is often a lack of coincidence between species-rich areas for different taxa and also that many rare species are absent from the areas with the highest species diversity.

THE INFLUENCE OF ANTHROPOGENIC ACTIVITIES ON DIVERSITY WITHIN VEGETATIONAL LANDSCAPES

It has been observed many times that conditions of moderately intensive anthropogenic activity sustain a greater spatial diversity of vegetation in the landscape than areas in which there is no such activity (Suffling 1988; Huston 1979). This is an analogous relationship to the change in the species richness described earlier for phytocoenoses. In the 1970s, Grime (1979) drew up a model in which the number of species, life strategies, total standing crops, and level of disturbance were all linked together. It was suggested in the model that moderate intensities of stress and/or disturbance increased species richness by reducing the vigour of potential dominants and thus allowing subsidiary species to coexist alongside them. However, the model went on to suggest that species richness declines once stresses and/or disturbances rise to extreme levels and as there arise conditions to which only a very small number of species are sufficiently well-adapted to survive (Grime 1979; Reader, Taylor, and Larson 1991).

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

In the conditions of Central Poland, the greatest values of indices for the diversity of phytocoenoses are noted in vegetational landscapes with average or moderately high levels of anthropogenic disturbance. This is particularly clear in the well-developed suburban zones. On the other hand, clearly lower values for indices of diversity are noted for both intensively-used agricultural landscapes and landscapes subject to low pressures from man and characterised by a significant proportion of near-natural communities (Fig. 1) (Solon 1995).

The actual level of diversity within different landscapes is also greatly dependent upon the history of the spatial system (Law & Morton 1993). Solon (1994) analysed the role of successive increases and decreases of anthropogenic

FIGURE 1 Relationships between the Anthropogenic Disturbance and Vegetation Diversity According to Maxwell Distribution Model for 29 Vegetation Microlandscapes in the vicinity of Wigry Lake. X axis - 0.1 × (number of houses); Y axis - actual vegetation diversity according to modified Shannon's formula 10 × [1-H(E)/H(E, P)] (after Solon 1995).

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

activity and was able to demonstrate that vegetational micro-landscapes presently characterised by the same level of anthropogenic disturbance have a vegetation cover of distinctly greater actual diversity if they had been subject to increasing pressure within the last thirty years. In contrast, micro-landscapes in which anthropogenic activities had experienced systematic decline had actual vegetational diversity that was lower.

In addition, a clear lack of an unequivocal relationship between different variables is observed within the analytical components of the total diversity of a vegetational landscape. It was concluded from detailed studies in the area of Lake Wigry (Table 2) that there were only weak and usually statistically-insignificant correlations between five characteristics of phytocoenoses (habitat type, degree of anthropogenic deformation, mean patch size, number of neighboring patches, and an index of shape). The type of habitat and the degree of anthropogenic deformation were found to have a significant influence on the mean sizes of patches of plant communities (correlation coefficient 0.43). However, this linkage is rather complicated. In general, the higher the level of anthropogenic deformation of the vegetation, the smaller the sizes of the different patches. However, at the same level of deformation, the patches of relatively the smallest size are those occurring in wet areas, while the largest ones are those in dry areas (Solon, in print).

The shape index of phytocoenoses is clearly, though weakly, correlated with both the level of deformation and the number of neighbors. The higher the level of anthropogenic deformation of a given phytocoenosis, the lower the value of the shape index. This indicates, in other words, that patches have more regular shapes and are closer to squares. On the other hand, patches enclosed by a greater number

TABLE 2 Changes in the Vegetation Cover of Meadows in the Valley of the River Nida near Mlodzawy

Vegetation (Solon 1993)

1961r.

 

1985r.

Number of community types

14

 

13

Number of types common to both periods

6

 

6

Number of separate patches

21

 

17

Index of typological similarity*

 

0.44

 

Local flora (Roo-Zielinska 1993)

1961r.

 

1985r.

Number of specie

374

 

361

Number of species common to both periods

323

 

323

Index of typological similarity*

 

0.88

 

* Index of typological similarity calculated in accordance with the formula 2c/(a+b); where c = number of types common to both periods; a = number of types in the first period; b = number of types in the second period

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

of other communities are characterised by very irregular and most often elongated boundaries. In contrast, there is no significant correlation between the size of a patch and the shape index.

A separate issue is the independence of changes in biological diversity under the influence of anthropogenic activity taking place at various levels of organization. For example, drainage work carried out at the beginning of the 1960s led to changes in land use in the Nida Valley around Pinczow. This in turn led to changes in the actual vegetation and local flora (Table 3, Fig. 2). There were slight declines in both the number of inventoried plant communities and the overall species richness. Nevertheless, the changes in the vegetation were considerably greater than those in the flora, and it was therefore necessary to conclude that, beyond the changes in the inventory of communities, there had been fundamental changes in their distributions (Roo-Zielinska 1993; Solon 1993).

The results give a clear indication that the influence of anthropogenic activity on changes in components of the overall diversity of vegetational landscapes is multitracked and often leading in different directions. On the one hand, there may often be a rise in overall diversity (by way of an increase in the number of types of vegetation patch and/or the number of patches), but on the other hand there may be a reduction in the diversity (as a consequence of the simplification of the structure by which communities neighbour one another and a decline

TABLE 3 Correlations between Selected Surface Characteristics of Plant Communities in the Environs of Lake Wigry (Solon 1995)

VARIABLES

 

2

3

4

5

1

0.61***

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

-0.26*

3

 

 

0.52***

 

4

 

 

 

0.28*

5

 

 

 

 

6

 

0.43**

 

 

Significance level: ***0.001; **0.01; *0.05.

1-habitat type

2-anthropogenic deformation

3-patch size

4-number of neighboring patches

5-shape index

6-habitat and deformation together

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

FIGURE 2 Actual Vegetation of the Fragment of Nida Valley (after Solon 1993). A) in 1961, B) in 1985. 1) Caricetum ripariae; 2) Caricetum gracilis phragmitetosum; 3) Caricetum gracilis typicum; 4) Caricetum gracilis caricetosum nigrae; 5) Phragmitetum; 6) Caricetum paniculatae; 7) Caricetum acutiformis; 8) Carici-Agrostietum; 9) Caricion davallianae; 10) community intermediate between Caricion Molinion and Calthion; 13) Epilobio-Juncetum; 14) CirsioPolygonetum var. davallianae and Calthion; 11) Molinion; 12) community intermediate between with Lathyrus palustris; 15) Cirsio-Polygonetum var. with Cerastium arvense; 16) community intermediate between Cirsio- Polygonetum and Cirsium canum-Cirsium rivulare community; 17) Cirsium canum-Cirsium rivulare community, var. with Carex nigra; 18) Cirsium canum-Cirsium rivulare community, typical variant; 19) Arrhenatheretum; 20) Diantho-Armerietum; 21) Salici-Populetum; 22) Ribo-Alnetum; 23) other communities.

in the shape index). It would therefore seem that the current state of knowledge makes it difficult to anticipate the quantitative character of topological changes in components of diversity under the influence of changes in anthropogenic activity.

CONCLUSIONS

In many cases, and particularly in cultural landscapes which, after Naveh (1988), can be characterised as heterogenic, small-grained, and metastable agricultural landscapes, it is impossible to preserve all aspects of diversity

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

simultaneously. More than once this has led to serious conflicts in planning protective measures. These conflicts may be of different types, including those between the tendencies to renaturalize or conserve nature, those involving the protection of the diversity in one group at the expense of another, or those between the protection of diversity in one place and the reduction of diversity over considerably greater areas. Actions giving rise to increases in typological diversity in spatial units may, in extreme cases, lead to structural and functional chaos in the vegetation of a given landscape system.

One of the causes of such conflicts is the lack of an appropriate conceptual apparatus for the formal description, comparison, and evaluation of different structural and functional aspects of biological systems at the landscape level, which jointly make up its biodiversity.

A second cause is the joint treatment of different elements (aspects) of diversity, with no consideration given to their origins, ecological character, or qualitative variability.

The third and final cause is the identification of the diversity of ecosystems with their value. This often leads to great misunderstandings in the evaluation of the quality of landscape units.

In spite of the aforementioned limitations, there is a widespread tendency to treat biodiversity as an absolute and superior value, as the most important index in the planning of all activities related to nature conservation and the management of the environment. In the view of Bowman (1993) "… the word 'biodiversity' suffers the problem of reification, the treatment of an abstract idea as if it were a thing."

An approach based on the evaluation and protection of diversity cannot replace other traditional framework concepts on which nature conservation has been based. In reality, diversity and the threats to it should rather be one of many criteria aiding decision-making.

REFERENCES

Baker W.L., 1989, A Review of Models of Landscape Change, Landscape Ecology 2, 111-133.

Baker W.L. 1990, Species Richness of Colorado Riparian Vegetation, Journal of Vegetation Science 1: 119-124.

Bowman D.M. 1993, Biodiversity: Much More than Biological Inventory, Biodiversity Letters 1.6: 163-163.


Gliwicz J. 1992, Roznorodnosc Biologiczna: Nowa Koncepcja Ochrony Przyrody (Biological Diversity: A New Concept of Nature Conservation), Wiad. Ekol. 38.4: 211-219.

Grehan J.R. 1993, Conservation Biogeography and the Biodiversity Crisis: A Global Problem in Space/Time, Biodiversity Letters 1.5: 134 -140.

Grime J.P. 1979, Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes, J. Wiley & Sons, 222 pp.


Huntley B. 1993, Species-richness in North-Temperate Zone Forests, Journal of Biogeography 20: 163-180.

Huston M. 1979, A General Hypothesis of Species Diversity, Am. Naturalist 113: 81-101.


Law R., Morton R.D. 1993, Alternative Permanent States of Ecological Communities, Ecology 74(5): 1347-1361.

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

Lubchenco J., Olson A.M., Brubaker L.B., Carpenter S.R., Holland M.M., Hubbell S.P., Levin S.A., MacMahon J.A., Matson P.A., Melillo J.M., Mooney H.A., Peterson C.H., Pulliam H.R., Real L.A., Regal P.J., Risser P.G. 1991, The Sustainable Biosphere Initiative: An Ecological Research Agenda, Ecology 72, 2, 371-412.

Naveh Z. 1988, Biocybernetic Perspectives of Landscape Ecology and Management, Proc. of the First Symposium of the Canadian Society for Landscape Ecology and Management: 23-34, Polyscience Publications Inc.


O'Brien E.M. 1993, Climatic Gradients in Woody Plant Species Richness: Towards an Explanation Based on an Analysis of Southern Africa's Woody Flora, Journal of Biogeography 20:181-198.


Platnick N.I. 1992, Patterns of biodiversity, (in:) Eldredge N. (ed.), Systematics, Ecology and the Biodiversity Crisis, 15-24, Columbia University Press, New York.

Prendergast J.R., Quinn R.M., Lawton J.H., Eversham, B.C., Gibbons, D.W. 1993, Rare Species, The Coincidence of Diversity Hotspots and Conservation Strategies, Nature 365:335-337.


Reader R.J., Taylor K.C., Larson D.W. 1991, Does Intermediate Disturbance Increase Species Richness within Deciduous Forest Understory?, Modern Ecology. Basic and Applied Aspects, 363-373, Elsevier.

Roo-Zielinska E. 1993, The Current State and Changes in the Meadow Flora in the Nida Valley, S Poland, Fragm. Flor. Geobot. 38.2:581-592.


Solon J. 1990, The Spatial Distribution of Vegetation Units as a Result of Habitat and Synanthropization Pattern, Ekologia (CSFR) 9.4:383-393.

Solon J. 1993, Changes in the Vegetation Landscape in the Pinczow Environs (S Poland), Phytocoenologia 21.4:387-409.

Solon J. 1994, Vegetation Differentiation and its Changes in the Warsaw Suburban Zone - A General Review, Memorabilia Zoologica 49:99-113.

Solon J. 1995, Anthropogenic Disturbance and Vegetation Diversity in Agricultural Landscapes, Landscape and Urban Planning 31:171-180.

Suffling R. 1988, Catastrophic Disturbance and Landscape Diversity: Implications of Fire Control and Climate Change in Subarctic Forests, Proc. of the First Symposium of the Canadian Society for Landscape Ecology and Management: 111-120, Polyscience Publications Inc.


Whittaker R.H. 1977, Evolution of Species Diversity in Land Communities, Evol. Biol. 6: 1-67.

Williams P.H., Humphries C.J. & Vane-Wright R.I. 1991, Measuring Biodiversity: Taxonomic Relatedness for Conservation Priorities, Aust. Syst. Bot. 4:665-679.

Wilson E.O. (red.) 1988, Biodiversity, National Acad. Press, Washington D.C.

World Conservation Monitoring Centre 1992, Global Biodiversity: Status of the Earth's Living Resources (edited by B. Groombridge), Chapman & Hall, London, xx + 594pp.

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

RESTORATION ECOLOGY: SOME NEW PERSPECTIVES

Karen D. Holl

Stanford University

INTRODUCTION

Clearly, the ideal method of preserving biodiversity and concomitant ecosystem services is the preservation of minimally disturbed ecosystems. However, the impact of humanity on the environment has progressed at an unprecedented rate and scale in recent decades. Myers (1993) estimates that nearly 50% of tropical forests worldwide have been destroyed. While the clearing of tropical forests has received much notice, similarly staggering figures can be cited for the degradation of nearly any type of ecosystem in any region worldwide. For example, approximately half the forested area in Central Europe has been damaged by air pollution (Godzik and Sienkiewicz 1990). The current state of the global environment precludes the possibility of simply protecting minimally disturbed areas in an effort to conserve global biodiversity. Restoration of damaged ecosystems is a necessary additional strategy to further conservation efforts. This paper outlines an interdisciplinary approach to restoring damaged ecosystems that maximizes both ecological and human benefits.

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH

Bradshaw (1987) has suggested that restoration of damaged ecosystems is the "acid test" of our understanding of natural processes. An understanding and recognition of basic ecological principles in project design are essential if there is to be any hope of restoring disturbed ecosystems. Not surprisingly, most restoration projects have demonstrated the limited extent of our understanding of ecosystem processes. At the same time, such efforts have and will continue to increase our knowledge of ecosystem functioning in less disturbed systems.

Poor understanding of ecosystem processes is only one of the myriad ecological and social challenges to restoring damaged ecosystems. A few of the numerous ecological problems include mitigation of minimal soil nutrients, competition of native with invading non-native species, lack of reference systems as a source of floral and faunal propagules, and residual toxicity of soil or water. Lack of funding, restrictive legislation, and conflicting needs of landowners also

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

commonly encumber restoration efforts. Confronting such challenges and meeting the needs of numerous constituent groups necessitate an interdisciplinary decision-making approach. Such an approach is foreign to most people, who are trained in highly specialized disciplines. Basic understanding of natural sciences, economics, sociology, and law, and, more importantly, the ability to communicate with people of different backgrounds are absolutely essential to the success of restoration efforts.

The need for interdisciplinary cooperation is best illustrated by an example: the Roanoke Regional Landfill in western Virginia. A research project to investigate the use of native herbaceous species for restoring the landfill instead of the aggressive, non-native species currently used was initiated at the interest of a local councilman, the director of a regional historic theme park, and researchers at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. While such a strategy would have ecological and aesthetic benefits, the board overseeing landfill closure and the landfill operators were hesitant to adopt innovative restoration procedures because of the extra effort and cost and fear of not complying with landfill closure regulations. Researchers were confronted with strict regulations regarding plant rooting depth, although research suggests that roots do not penetrate landfill liners (Dobson and Moffat 1993), and with problems of methane emission, soil compaction, and variable soil nutrient levels. Clearly, each group involved had its own interests and concerns. After a great deal of negotiations, some of the native species that showed promising results in the pilot study are being included in the final closure plan.

While restoration efforts will be confronted by different obstacles, meeting the needs of a number of parties is a common theme. It is particularly important to recognize the need for an interdisciplinary approach to conservation in transboundary protected areas. In such areas, not only will cooperation between a number of groups in a single country be necessary, but also between different countries that may have different governing systems and financial resources and in which parks have varied levels of protection from human activity.

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

Goal Setting

Restoration projects can be loosely divided into a number of different stages, although there is clearly a great deal of overlap (Fig. 1). Goals must be clearly defined from the outset; otherwise, conflict throughout the project is inevitable. Most importantly, a mutually desirable endpoint for the ecosystem must

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

FIGURE 1 Stages in Restoration. (SOURCE: NRC 1992).

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

be agreed upon. Generally, three types of endpoints are considered for rehabilitation of disturbed ecosystems.

The first option is restoration of both predisturbance structure and function (Bradshaw 1984). It is highly debatable whether this goal is feasible due to the lack of reference systems, impossibility of recreating disturbance regimes, and continued stresses; however, some restoration efforts have resulted in ecosystems quite similar to those present prior to disturbance. For instance, prairie restoration efforts in the midwestern United States have succeeded in re-establishing much of the native flora (e.g., Howell and Jordan 1989; Mlot 1990; Trager 1990). Also, restored seagrass beds in a number of areas worldwide closely approximate the predisturbance ecosystems (Thorhaug 1990).

Although restoration to predisturbance condition is the most desirable endpoint for conservation of biodiversity, due to ecological and financial constraints, the goal of most large-scale restoration projects, especially in highly disturbed areas, is to restore certain structural or functional components of the predisturbance ecosystem. More often emphasis is on restoring certain functional characteristics. For example, mine reclamation legislation in the United State requires a certain percentage of ground cover and that maintenance of water quality be attained in order to secure bond release, while there are no strict requirements on the vegetational species used. Although fewer projects are focused on restoring individual species, there have been extensive efforts aimed at restoring threatened or endangered species (e.g., Harris and Feeney 1989; Short et al. 1992).

A third option for highly disturbed ecosystems is creation of an alternative type of ecosystem that is considered of higher value to nearby communities. While this option may seem ecologically less desirable, it may result in greater overall benefits to the entire landscape. For example, while wetlands are not common in the Appalachian region of the United States, they are increasingly being created on surface-mined areas to treat acid mine drainage, control runoff, and provide habitat for certain species, thereby facilitating conservation of the surrounding forest.

Clearly, after selecting a general endpoint for restoration, more specific goals must be determined, such as the actual structural and functional characteristics to be restored or the time scale in which a project will be completed. Other additional goals might include involving the community in the restoration project or furthering knowledge of certain ecosystem processes. Regardless, these goals must be agreed upon by all groups in order to facilitate subsequent stages of the project.

In all cases, selecting goals requires balancing ecological and human values (Fig. 2). As an example, for the landfill restoration project discussed previously, the ecologically most desirable endpoint would be to restore the predisturbance community by planting seedlings and covering the area with forest topsoil. However, the increased cost of these procedures would likely make this option unacceptable

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

to humans. Such needs are not always in conflict, though. For instance, installing a proper gas venting system would minimize risks to both humans and the flora and fauna. While Figure 2 illustrates human and ecological needs in two dimensions, it is important to recognize that the values of different groups involved, such as legislators, managers, and nearby communities, will usually vary greatly; likewise, it may not be clear what is the most ecologically desirable endpoint. Options must be weighed from the perspective of all parties affected by the outcome. Considerations include the costs and benefits of different options, the magnitude of disturbance and feasibility of recovery, and the effect of the endpoint of the ecosystem in consideration on other nearby systems. Usually, the solution falls in the B1 box (Fig. 2); the proposal is acceptable from a number of different perspectives, but is not necessarily the most desirable option for any single party.

Planning

The nature of the planning process will vary widely depending on the scale of the project, the severity of disturbance, and the type of ecosystem. However, it is necessary at the planning stage that specific procedures for ameliorating existing stresses, rehabilitating damaged areas, and monitoring the success of these procedures be detailed. For terrestrial systems, examples of factors to be considered include the type of plant species to be used (e.g., native vs non-native, annual vs perennial, early- vs late-successional), the method of revegetating (e.g., seeds, seedlings, or cuttings), and necessary soil amelioration (e.g., mulching or fertilizing). For aquatic systems decisions must be made about methods of stabilizing stream channels (e.g., planting vs structural methods) and reducing nutrient levels in lakes (e.g., source reduction, precipitation, or aeration), among many others. The suitability of introducing faunal species must be considered for all systems.

These decisions will be constrained by many factors, the most common of which are cost and availability of materials. For instance, seeds are only available commercially for a small percentage of plant species and there is usually little genetic variability. Collection of seeds from a nearby source would be ideal, but is extremely time consuming and often results in low germination rates. Because of the large number of options for restoration, a pilot project is advisable and can save a great deal of time and money. If a pilot project is not possible, a careful review of other similar projects may facilitate decision-making.

It is important that a detailed time schedule for both implementation and monitoring be outlined. The time of year of planting has a large impact on vegetational establishment as does the order of planting of different species. Most restoration projects consist of a single or a few closely spaced treatments. However,

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

FIGURE 2 Project Assessment Matrix. (SOURCE: NRC 1992).

a basic understanding of ecological succession would suggest that a longer term management plan is a more realistic approach.

Implementation

Implementation is not discussed in detail here as this stage is specific to the goals and plans decided upon for each individual project. While thorough goal setting and planning will facilitate implementation, unforeseen problems will always arise. Therefore, some flexibility in plans is essential. It is important to reemphasize that implementation is a multi-stage process that will overlap with

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

monitoring and maintenance. In other words, ecosystem restoration is a dynamic process that requires time.

Monitoring

Monitoring is often not included in an effort to minimize costs, but it is an essential component of any project to ensure that problems are corrected and to facilitate future work. Monitoring protocols must be outlined and criteria for success determined during the planning phase of the project, not after implementation. Traditionally, the success of restoration projects has been monitored using only a few criteria, over small spatial scales, and for a short period of time (Fig. 3), which precludes evaluating the role of restoration in conservation efforts.

Generally, only a few criteria are considered in measuring restoration success, such as vegetative biomass, soil or water nutrient levels, and soil erosion; in very few cases are floral and faunal community composition monitored. A variety of both functional and structural criteria should be considered in judging restoration success. Westman (1991) lists a number of such measures, including genetic diversity, pattern of local and regional distribution, and natality/mortality rates. Pielou (1986) suggests a simple way to quantify relative community diversity and compare restored and reference community composition.

FIGURE 3 Planning and Monitoring Ecosystem Restoration.

(SOURCE: NRC 1992)

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

Success of ecosystem restoration is normally evaluated after only a few years, even though recovery from natural disturbance in most ecosystems requires a much longer time. As a result, most restoration projects are aimed at achieving short-term goals, which may inhibit long-term ecosystem restoration. For example, aggressive, non-native, herbaceous species are often planted on reclaimed mined sites in the southeastern United State in an effort to minimize erosion and achieve 5-year cover requirements. However, these species have been shown to inhibit the long-term development of the vegetational communities (Brenner et al. 1984; Burger and Torbert 1990; Hughes et al. 1992). Clearly, short-term needs must be met, but more consideration must be given to maximizing long-term goals.

Ecosystem restoration must also be planned and monitored at larger spatial scales. Human actions often affect ecosystems over large areas. For instance, surface mining causes increased nutrient levels in entire watersheds (e.g., Matter and Ney 1981; Dick et al. 1986). Logging may cause changes in temperature and species composition far into the remnant patches of forest. Likewise, recovery of reclaimed areas is dependent on the composition of the surrounding landscape (e.g., Wolfe 1990; Nepstad et al. 1991; Anderson 1993). Therefore, it is essential that the surrounding landscape, and not just the area being restored, be considered in the planning and monitoring stages.

Maintenance

Ideally, maintenance will be minimal if the project has been well planned and implemented over an extended period of time. Problems observed during routine monitoring will dictate the need for further maintenance and changes in the original monitoring plan. One component of continuing any restoration program should be efforts to disseminate results. The failure of many groups involved in restoration to make their results widely available to others in the field has handicapped restoration ecology in general, and mistakes are therefore needlessly repeated.

EDUCATION

Education and community involvement are essential components of all stages of any restoration project for a number of reasons. Most importantly, one must remember that restoration of ecosystems is only an academic exercise unless the behaviors that resulted in the original disturbance are altered. In order to affect such a change, it is necessary that the general public understand the relationship between its actions and the resulting ecosystem degradation in order to modify behavior. For example, a large-scale tropical dry forest restoration program has been initiated in recent years in northwestern Costa Rica (Janzen 1988). A major obstacle to restoration in this area is the fires that spread rapidly

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

through deforested areas. These fires are normally started by landowners to ''clean" their land. The government has initiated a widespread publicity campaign to inform people of the problems caused by burning. Similarly, citizens of developed countries need to be better educated about the effects of automobile emissions on flora and fauna. Education does not insure changes in behavior, but it is a necessary first step.

Community involvement at early stages is necessary to address the needs and concerns of nearby communities, and community involvement throughout the process will help develop a sense of pride and respect for the restored area, giving incentive to further its protection. Berger (1987) cites numerous examples of individuals and communities that have been the driving force behind restoration efforts.

Finally, restoration projects provide excellent models for educating students at all levels and the general public about both ecosystem functioning and interdisciplinary decision-making. For example, high school students have been intimately involved in the landfill restoration project discussed previously. Not only have they tested many scientific hypotheses, such as the effect of temperature on plant establishment and the ability of different plant species to control erosion, they have also talked to local government officials, attended landfill board meetings, and visited the location of a landfill currently under construction. Interdisciplinary education is necessary to prepare our future leaders for the challenges they will face.

RESEARCH NEEDS

Much work in restoration ecology has been initiated in recent years, and restoration ecologists are constantly being confronted with new challenges. For this reason, research in all areas of restoration ecology is desperately needed. Currently, areas of pressing urgency include competition between native and invading non-native species, an obstacle to restoration in many ecosystems (e.g., Wingate 1985; Towns et al. 1990; Mills et al. 1992); the effect of landscape structure on restoration; and quantification of ecosystem services provided by restored areas in order to communicate the benefits of restoration to the general public.

As ecosystem restoration is increasingly cited as one strategy to preserve biodiversity (e.g., Jordan et al. 1988; Cairns 1988), it is essential that there be more study of the long-term effects of ecosystem restoration on regional conservation. Most research has consisted of one-time sampling of single sites. The few larger scale studies in regional conservation suggest that, as would be expected, restored areas favor generalist species (e.g., Engelmann and Weaks 1985; Holl 1994; Selser and Schramm 1990) and tend to host more homogeneous floral and faunal communities than reference systems (e.g., Allen and MacMahon 1985, Holl 1994). While study of the impact of restoration on conservation of species

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

diversity is lacking, the role of restoration in the conservation of genetic diversity has not been addressed at all.

CONCLUSION

This discussion has not presented an optimistic outlook toward the possibility of restoring damaged ecosystems. Restoration efforts face many ecological and socio-economic obstacles. However, these challenges can also be viewed as opportunities. The growing number of restoration projects initiated in the past few years will serve to further our understanding of ecosystem processes and provide valuable models for interdisciplinary decision-making. If we act quickly, restoration of degraded ecosystems in combination with lifestyle changes provides an opportunity to improve the state of the global environment.

REFERENCES

Allen, M. F. and J. A. MacMahon. 1985. Impact of Disturbance on Cold Desert Fungi: Comparative Microscale Dispersion Patterns. Pedobiologia 28: 215-224.

Anderson, A. N. 1993. Ants as Indicators of Restoration Success at a Uranium Mine in Tropical Australia. Restoration Ecology 1: 156-167.


Berger, J. J. 1987. Restoring the Earth. New York: Anchor Press.

Bradshaw, A. D. 1984. Land Restoration Now and in the Future. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 223: 1-23.

Bradshaw, A. D. 1987. Restoration: An Acid Test for Ecology. Pages 23-29 in: W. R. Jordan III, M. E. Gilpin, and J. D. Aber (eds.) Restoration Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brenner, F. J., M. Werner, and J. Pike. 1984. Ecosystem Development and Natural Succession in Surface Coal mine Reclamation. Minerals and Environment 6: 10-22.

Burger, J. A. and J. L. Torbert. 1990. Mined Land Reclamation for Wood Production in the Appalachian region. Pages 159-163 in: J. Skousen, J. Sencindiver, and D. Samuel Dave (eds.) Proceedings of the 1990 Mining and Reclamation Conference and Exhibition Vol. 1. Morgantown: West Virginia University.


Cairns, J., Jr. 1988. Increasing Diversity by Restoring Damaged Ecosystems. Pages 333-343 in: Wilson, E. O. (ed.) Biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.


Dick, W. A, J. V. Bonta, and F. Haghiri. 1986. Chemical Quality of Suspended Sediment from Watersheds Subject to Surface Coal mining. Journal of Environmental Quality 15: 289-293.

Dobson, M. C. and A. J. Moffat. 1993. The Potential for Woodland Establishment on Landfill Sites. London: Department of the Environment.


Engelmann, M. H. and T. E. Weaks. 1985. An Analysis of the Effects of Stripmining Disturbance on Bryophyte Species Diversity. Bryologist 88: 344-349.


Godzik, S. and J Sienkiewicz. 1990. Air pollution and Forest Health in Central Europe: Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the German Democratic Republic. Pages 155-170 in: W. Grodzinski, E. B. Cowling, and A. I. Breymeyer (eds.) Ecological Risks: Perspectives from Poland and the United States. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.


Harris, R. D. and L. Feeney. 1989. Restoration Habitat for Burrowing Owls (Athene cuniccularia). Pages 251-260 in: H. G. Hughes and T. M. Bonnicksen (eds.) Restoration '89: The New Management Challenge, First Annual Meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration. Oakland, California: Society for Ecological Restoration.

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

Holl, K. D. 1994. Vegetational and Lepidopteran Conservation in Rehabilitated Ecosystems. Ph.D. Dissertation. Blacksburg: Virginia Tech.

Howell, E. A. and W. R. Jordan III. 1989. Tallgrass Prairie Restoration in the North American Midwest. Pages 395-414 in: I. F. Spellerberg, F. B. Goldsmith, and M. G. Morris (eds.) The Scientific Management of Temperate Communities for Conservation. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.

Hughes, H. G., G. L. Storm, and B. E. Washburn. 1992. Establishment of Native Hardwoods on Mined Lands Revegetated under Current Regulations. Pages 601-606 in: Proceedings of the 9th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation . Princeton, WV: American Society of Surface Mining and Reclamation.

Janzen, D. H. 1988. Guanacaste National Park: Tropical Ecological and Biocultural Restoration. Pages 143-192 in: J. Cairns Jr. (ed.) Rehabilitating Damaged Ecosystems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Jordan, W. R., III, R. L. Peters, II, and E. B. Allen. 1988. Ecological Restoration as a Strategy for Conserving Biological Diversity. Environmental Management 12: 55-72.


Matter, W. J. and J. J. Ney. 1981. The Impact of Surface Mine Reclamation on Headwater Streams in Southwest Virginia. Hydrobiologia 78: 63-71.

Mills, E., C. Secor, J. Leach, and J. Carlton. 1992. Biological Pollution: A Constraint on Great Lakes Restoration. Page 144 in: Proceedings and Abstracts of the 54th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference.

Mlot, C. 1990. Restoring the Prarie. BioScience 40: 804-809.

Myers, N. 1993. Tropical Forests: The Main Deforestation Fronts. Environmental Conservation 20: 916.


National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Nepstad, D. C., C. Uhl, and E. A. S. Serrao. 1991. Recuperation of a Degraded Amazonian Landscape: Forest Recovery and Agricultural Restoration. Ambio. 20: 248-255.


Pielou, E. C. 1986. Assessing the Diversity and Composition of Restored Vegetation. Canadian Journal of Botany 64: 1344-1348.


Selser, E. J. and P. Schramm. 1990. Comparative Species Diversity and Distribution of Butterflies in Remnant and Restored Tallgrass Prairie Sites. Pages 63-66 in: D. Smith and C. A. Jacobs (eds.) Proceedings of the Twelfth North American Prairie Conference. Cedar Falls, IA: University of Northern Iowa.

Short, J., S. D. Bradshaw, J. Giles, R. I. T. Prince, and G. R. Wilson. 1992. Reintroduction of Macropods (Marsupialia: macropodoidea) in Australia: A Review. Biological Conservation 62: 189-204.


Thorhaug, A. 1990. Restoration of Mangroves and Seagrass: Economic Benefits or Fisheries and Mariculture. Pages 265-281 in: J. J. Berger (ed.) Environmental Restoration, Science and Strategies for Restoring the Earth. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Towns, D. R., Daugherty, C. H., and I. A. E. Atkinson (eds.) 1990 Ecological Restoration of New Zealand Islands. Conservation Sciences Publication No. 2. Wellington: Department of Conservation.

Trager, J. A. 1990. Restored Prairies Colonized by Native Prairie Ants (Missouri, Illinois). Restoration and Management Notes 8: 104-105.


Westman, W. E. 1991. Ecological Restoration Projects: Measuring their Performance. Environmental Professional 13: 207-215.

Wingate, D. B. 1985. The Restoration of Nonsuch Island as a Living Museum of Bermuda's Precolonial Terrestrial Biome. Pages 225-238 in: P. J. Moors (ed.) Conservation of Island Birds. Cambridge: International Council for Bird Preservation.

Wolfe, R. W. 1990. Seed Dispersal and Wetland Restoration. Pages 51-95 in: Accelerating Natural Processes for Wetland Restoration after Phosphate Mining. Bartow, Florida: Florida Institute of Phosphate Research.

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

DESIGN OF PROTECTED AREAS

Stanley L. Krugman

Forestry Specialist

INTRODUCTION

There are any number of different definitions for protected areas commonly based on their purpose and objectives. But generally, by protected area one means the maintenance of a specific natural landscape, forest, water area, and, more recently, a specific biological resource in a condition virtually unmodified by human activity. This, of course, is an ideal state, but one seldom obtained. This is especially true in Europe, where human activities have been underway for thousands of years. The temperate zone forests which once covered most of Europe in some form has supported an ever growing human population and as a result, these forests have become highly fragmented, greatly reduced in size, and, to some extent, reduced in biological richness. Even so there is still an urgent need to protect, maintain, and even restore that biological resource that remains. In many locations this is still possible and feasible.

JUSTIFICATION

There are essentially four principal reasons for establishing and maintaining protected areas: first, protected area management currently is the only scientifically, technically, and economically feasible means of conserving existing natural biological diversity. This form of nature protection, when done correctly, will maintain the natural evolutionary processes. By preserving the integrity of the biological resource of plant and animal species, protected areas are essential for the current and future replenishment of surrounding abandoned and degraded areas. Ecological restoration has in recent years become a serious science which is now being applied in a number of countries to restore once wild lands. In addition, by preventing the often irreversible loss of a sizable proportion of a region's biological resource, the current high rate of extinction is reduced. This is of direct importance to the economic welfare of modern agriculture and forestry, since there is an urgent need to maintain as broad a genetic base as possible to maintain productivity under changing environmental conditions.

A second value for many protected areas is that they provide an array of essential environmental and social services to society. Many protected areas, by

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

their large size, location, and not being greatly disturbed, minimize flooding, landslides, reduce erosion, and commonly contribute to improved water quality. These values are often overlooked and undervalued by society. Yet such services will become even more important in the future as population pressure on the landscape increases and more of the natural systems are utilized.

A third value for having protected areas, which is receiving more attention, is their contribution to the protection and maintenance of cultural values. In recent years a number of additional protected areas have been established and enlarged to include historical areas and religious relics as well as the biological resource.

A fourth value for having protected areas is their contribution to biological research. Many protected areas are excellent outdoor laboratories for the study of natural biological and ecological research issues. With the current interest in ecological management, protected systems are invaluable in the study of natural ecological processes. As such, protected areas are essential as natural benchmarks to compare the ability of managed areas to maintain sustainable biological productivity.

CATEGORIES

Currently in Europe there are 1,552 National Protected Systems covering an area of 33,340,000 ha, representing 7.1 percent of the land area. In the United States there are 970 National Protected Systems covering an area of 98,349 ha, representing 10.7 percent of the land area. While in Poland there are 78 National Protected Areas covering 2,230,000 ha or 7.3 percent of the land area. Neither the number of protected areas nor their coverage are really important. What is important is how representative they are in protecting the natural resources and how ecologically sustainable they are over time.

The title of protected area often can be misleading. There are a variety of categories from those that are strictly protected to multiple use areas in which a degree of protection is provided for selected resources. Strictly protected areas, such as Research Natural Areas in the United States and the Zapoveddniks in Russia, are among the most protected areas. In the United States Research Natural Areas range from 20-30 ha to 6,000 ha in size. In Russia the Zapovedniks are much larger, but still represent less than 2 percent of the ecosystem area in need of protection in terms of the wilderness concept. In the traditional Zapovednik, only the buffer zone is exposed to any human use. In the Research Natural Areas program, only none-manipulative research is allowed. There is no use by the public.

Among other forms of protected areas are the National Parks, Wilderness Areas, Biosphere Reserves, certain forms of scientific reserves such as Botanical Areas, Genetic Management Areas, and Biodiversity Management Areas, Protected Landscapes and Multiple Use Management Areas. The protection of the

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

resource is highly varied and often of marginal value to the maintenance of natural biodiversity. This certainly is very true for some of the National Parks world wide, where human use pressure has severely impacted the biological resources. There are, of course, some exceptions to this statement. There are some National Parks that in fact have identified the preservation of the biological resource as a high priority. But such National Parks are rare. All too often the proposed and even established protected areas are too small in size to adequately sustain the priority resource over time. This is a real danger that now must be faced as protected area management is expanded in scope world wide.

The choice of the category of protected area clearly depends upon the goals and objectives identified for priority management. It is for these reasons that several relatively new types of protected areas have been established in the last 30 years. There is a recognized need to protect (conserve) selected plant species as well as individual species populations, especially those of importance to agriculture and forestry. In Turkey, for example, an array of selected populations of wild relatives of important agricultural and forestry crops are being preserved in what are called Gene Management Zones (Genetic Management Areas). Some of the Gene Management Zones may contain only one priority species, but most of the Protected Areas do contain a number of different species. These Protected Areas will be managed solely to maintain the natural genetic integrity of the targeted species.

In the United States, somewhat similar areas have been established to conserve targeted forest tree species. Because of the complexity of the reproductive biology of forest trees, a broader ecosystem approach has been taken to conserve forest trees. There is a need to protect (manage) often large forested areas in such a manner that natural biological process can function. A number of associated woody and non-woody species are also conserved in this type of protected area. Depending on the species, a Genetic Management Area can be more than 1000 ha or as few as 3 to 5 ha. in size. Such forest genetic reserves are urgently needed within major forest areas of intense utilization to maintain a reliable and varied genetic reservoir for future genetic improvement, to provide standards for progress in breeding and tree improvement, and to perpetuate populations suitable for mass seed production for commercial forestry production.

CRITICAL ELEMENTS

In designing a protected area there are six major elements that must be clearly considered and these include: purpose, size, shape, location, management strategy, and legal basis.

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Purpose

The optimal size, management, and shape will depend in part on the purpose of the protected area. To strictly conserve a biological resource both the location and size will depend largely on the reproductive characteristics of the organisms involved. This is commonly expressed as maintaining the minimum viable population of the target organisms. In simple terms it is the smallest numbers of a species that can be expected to persist for a specific period of time. Often this is not fully known so commonly an attempt is made to maintain the minimum viable habitat, which is an area that is large enough to sustain a minimum viable population and has all the habitat characteristics necessary for the species to be protected. Habitat characteristics for many species often are known to a greater degree than species characteristics.

For National Parks and related multi-purpose areas for which biological protection is often secondary to other uses, such as recreation, the ideal system would be to have an area large enough to maintain the largest animal or the seasonal territories and migration routes of the largest local herbivores. In theory such a size most likely will conserve most of the ecological components and still provide an array of other uses if properly managed.

Size

Obviously the size of a proposed protected area should be sufficient to maintain the genetic structure of the species and their biological diversity. The reduction in area size and habitat diversity are frequently the most common cause of loss of biodiversity. In the temperate forests, such as in Europe, forest fragmentation has resulted in the rapid reduction and loss of sustainability of natural biodiversity. Forest fragmentation accelerates this process by increasing edge effects, reducing carrying capacity, and causing loss of habitat elements, which result in genetic loss and secondary extinction.

Other factors that must be considered in determining the appropriate size for a protected area include: rate of birth, mortality, mobility, and the degree of unplanned human intervention. In highly developed regions, consideration must be given to the degree of natural or man made habitat disturbances over time. The area should be sufficiently large to permit migration and eventual ecological restoration if required in the future.

In an ideal world the protected area should be as large as possible. It is far better to have one very large area rather than a series of small areas. Accepting the fact that forest ecosystems are dynamic, it is best to contain as many of the habitats in a large area. This would avoid the faults of forest fragmentation. The larger area permits a greater number of ecological relationships to fully function and this fact contributes greatly to sustainability.

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Shape

For very large areas the type of shape is not as important as it is for smaller areas. As noted earlier, there is a need to reduce the edge effects. There is some experience and limited experimental data that would support a more circular shape. The final shape is also determined by the location of the centers of endemisms. However the shape is often determined by the area that is available and proposed management options. If possible, the boundaries of the protected area should follow the natural surficial contours and features of the area, including local rivers, mountains, and watersheds, as well as containing complete ecosystems.

Location

An all too common failure for many protected areas is in their biologically hostile location. Often protected areas become small isolated islands within highly managed or disturbed ecosystems. Under such conditions the normal activities that maintain the biological resource can not properly function, which will eventually lead to the deterioration of the protected area. Investments in a poor location for conservation of biodiversity is a poor investment indeed. It is most desirable to seek areas of low human population densities and low future growth rates. Areas of low economic demand for forest and agricultural products and other resources as oil and coal should be considered.

Management

There is a common belief among some biologists that protected areas require no management. This is a serious mistake. To maintain protected areas requires carefully developed management plans carried out by a well trained professional staff with an adequate budget working on site. Management plans are necessary to provide a workable guide for the allocation of the limited financing and technical staff that would be available. Plans are needed to control the introduction of exotics plants and animals, which decreases natural species and genetic diversity. Management plans are often needed to restore, through ecological restoration, damaged or incomplete elements of the ecosystem. By means of ecological restoration, individual associations can be rebuild to ensure that critical habitats are sustainable.

Legal Consideration

To maintain their function over time, protected areas must have a solid legal foundation. Protected areas must be part of an overall national legal framework and be an accepted activity of both the national and local society. When possible protected areas should be officially designated by the government. To strengthen these goals, protected area management planning should be also incorporated

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

into both national and regional planning activities. With the current high interest in the protection of nature, the time is now appropriate to further strengthen the legal status of existing protected areas. As is always the case, the success of this effort will depend upon how well the protected area program fits into the overall national framework. Thus this activity will depend on an individual country's legal and policy requirements.

CONCLUSION

This has been a review of the major elements related to the design and establishment of protected areas. Local biological and physical conditions will determine the specific technical details for the establishment and maintenance of a given protected area. Today there is, however, sufficient scientific and technical information available to ensure that protected area programs have a sound foundation. There is also adequate field experience to supplement the scientific base, so there is no longer a justification for the delays in protecting the world's remaining natural biological resources.

REFERENCES

Botkin, D.B. and L.M. Talbot. 1992. Biological Diversity and Forests, pp. 47-74. In: Managing the World's Forests, N.P. Sharma ed. Hunt Publishing Co. Dubuque, Iowa.

Braatz, S., G. Davis, S. Shen and C. Rees. 1992. Conserving Biological Diversity. A Strategy for Protected Areas in the Asia-Pacific Region. World Bank Tech. Paper No. 193: 69 pp.


Decker, D.J., M.E. Krasny, G.R. Goff, C.R. Smith and D.W. Gross. 1991. Challenges in the Conservation of Biological Resources. A Practitioner's Guide. Westview Press, Inc. Boulder, Colo. 402 pp.


Harris, L.D. 1984. The Fragmented Forest. University of Chicago Press, London. 211 pp.


Krugman, S.L. 1979. Biosphere Reserves-Strategies for Conservation and Management of Forest Gene Pool Resources, pp. 123-127. In: Selection, Management and Utilization of Biosphere Reserves, J.F. Franklin and S.L. Krugman, eds. U.S. Dept. Of Agri., Forest Service Tech. Report PNW-82.

Krugman, S.L. 1984. Policies, Strategies and Means for Genetic Conservation in Forestry in Plant Genetic Resources, C.W. Yeatman, D. Kafton and G. Wilkeseds. Westview Press, Colo., pp. 71-78


Ledig, F.T. 1986. Conservation Strategies for Forest Gene Resources. For. Ecol. Manage. 14: 77-90.

Ledig, F.T. 1988. The Conservation of Diversity in Forest Trees. BioScience 38: 471-479.


National Research Council. 1991. Managing Global Genetic Resources - Forest Trees. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. 229 pp.


Riggs, L.A. 1990. Conserving Genetic Resources On-site in Forest Ecosystems. For. Ecol. Manage. 35: 45-68.


Wilson, E.O. 1992. Diversity of Life. Belknap Press of Harvard University, Cambridge Ma. 424 pp.

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

STREAMS AS INTEGRATORS OF ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROCESSES

Catherine M. Pringle

University of Georgia

"We all live downstream."

Unknown

INTRODUCTION

Since streams and rivers integrate processes occurring in the terrestrial and atmospheric environment, their consideration is integral to biodiversity conservation at a landscape level. Streams and associated riparian forests provide crucial habitat for a diversity of terrestrial species, and their protection is key to maintaining regional biodiversity (Naiman et al. 1993). Streams have been likened to blueprints of the terrestrial environment, reflecting the interaction of many different factors, including hydrologic modifications, changes in land use, point-source and non-point source pollutants, groundwater contamination, acid rain and deposition, introduction and proliferation of exotic species, and climate change (Pringle et al. 1993a).

Streams and rivers are not just reflections of the terrestrial environment that they drain (i.e., their immediate catchment or watershed), they also integrate processes occurring in other drainages as well. A case in point are the drainages within the transboundary protected area of Tatra Park in Poland and Slovakia, which are affected by industrial emissions (H2SO4 and NOx) from other countries in Europe.

CONCEPTUAL APPROACHES FOR AQUATIC CONSERVATION

Emerging conservation strategies for streams and their drainage areas are being developed around the following basic questions (e.g., Boon 1992): (1) What are we trying to conserve? (2) What priority should be given to the conservation of flora and fauna? and (3) How are we to assess the conservation potential of rivers?

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Streams as Four-Dimensional Environments

In order to address these questions we need a conceptual basis for viewing the stream. One approach is to see rivers as four dimensional environments involving processes that connect upstream-downstream, channel-groundwater, and channel-floodplain (riparian zones), and these dimensions differ temporally (Stanford and Ward 1993). The vertical dimension of river interactions (channel-groundwater) includes not only hydrological and chemical effects of groundwater on stream flow, but effects of the river itself on groundwater quality and quantity. Lateral connections between a river and its valley and floodplain are often overlooked by developers and, in many industrialized nations, floodplains have been so severely damaged that their prior significance cannot even be assessed. Natural and human disturbances interact to determine the probable biophysical state of the catchment ecosystem and biodiversity on all of these different planes of reference (i.e., longitudinal, lateral, vertical, and temporal). Clearly, management within catchment basins should be approached from an understanding of the natural connectivity and variability of structural and functional properties of riverine ecosystems.

Streams as Integrators of Ecological Properties and Socio-Economic Processes in the Landscape

Opportunities for sustaining humans and their environmental systems can be enhanced by examining how socio-economic/ecological processes are integrated at the landscape level (Lee et al. 1992). For instance, market processes and human institutions affect landscape properties, and landscape processes in turn affect the production of goods and services valued by human society (Lee et al. 1992). In southern Georgia in the United States, the advent of the center pivot irrigation system has resulted in higher crop yields. Regional implementation of this irrigation system was also accompanied by extensive removal of streamside riparian vegetation to facilitate movement of the center pivot in a large circular arc across the landscape. The loss of buffering capacity of streamside vegetation is resulting in extensive erosion in many areas and the direct input of nutrients and pesticides from agricultural runoff. Current studies are attempting to quantify these inputs.

Achieving a balance between human needs and environmental sustainability is the most important challenge facing environmental managers (Lubchenco et al. 1991). Given the increasing rate of anthropogenic alteration of local, regional, and global ecological properties of our environment (e.g., Turner et al. 1993), scientists involved in developing management/conservation strategies for aquatic ecosystems must understand underlying socio-economic factors.

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Regional Differences in the History of Human Effects on Rivers

Flowing water systems are a legacy of historical processes operating within the landscape (e.g., Decamps et al. 1988). The relative intensity and duration of interactions between humans and the watersheds in which they live has been greater in some areas of the world relative to others. Different geographic areas are affected by a diverse array of environmental problems that reflect both ecological properties and socio-economic processes. As stated by Boon (1992), populations grow, nations industrialize, global water demand increases, and thus the effects of man on rivers change in diversity extent and permanence. The historical sequence of river development in Europe (Petts 1987) from past to present includes: subsistence fishery, commercial fishery, recreational fishing, floodplain reclamation, navigation, pollution, dams, and now conservation. Some of these human activities that are potentially damaging to river systems have decreased in intensity or remained stable depending on the geographic area. In Britain for instance, construction of large dams passed through several decades of rapid growth, but now appears to be leveling off (Boon 1992). In rapidly developing countries (e.g., Brazil and India), pollutants that ''gradually" might have appeared in North American and European rivers over a century or more are rapidly building up in the compressed time frame of a few decades (Boon 1992). In Poland, where 60% of all lakes are severely polluted (Postel 1992), there has been a relatively long history of heavy human settlement in the landscape with a consequently longer period for cultural eutrophication to occur.

Key sociopolitical landmarks in the history of Central Europe have had a profound effect on the level of environmental degradation. As is the case for many Central European countries in transition, intensive development/industrialization during the Soviet Era resulted in the degradation of aquatic systems at a level of magnitude greater than what much of the western world has experienced. The post-World War II Era was characterized by a lack of science-based policy and environmental management.

In Poland, high quality drinking water has dropped from 32% to less than 5% during the last twenty years. Over half of Poland's river water is too contaminated even for industrial use (Postel 1992). Pollution in surface waters is increasing due to contamination by industry and municipal sewage discharges as well as by agricultural sources. Shortages of acceptable quality water also limit economic activity within Poland. Drainage projects have led to lowered groundwater tables and excessive drying of considerable areas of land, and increasing needs for water have led to further stresses on water supply. The area of excessively dried land in Poland amounts to approximately 4 million hectares. Increased drying of the central region of Poland is also associated with high degrees of deforestation, particularly in those area where forest cover is below 15% (Ryszkowski 1990). It has been noted that water quality problems in Poland resemble those that were familiar to the United States over two decades ago, before the U.S. undertook

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

massive water cleanup and sewage treatment programs (e.g., Hillbricht-Ilkowska 1990; Cooper 1990; Gromiec 1990).

EMERGING CONSERVATION STRATEGIES FOR AQUATIC SYSTEMS

Regional differences in emerging conservation and management strategies reflect the history of human effects on the environment and current socio-economic conditions. Szaro (1996, this volume), for example, relates the historical progression of national conservation strategies in the United States.

A feature of recent policy developments in river conservation in the western world is a broadening of views by scientists, managers, and conservationists. All of these different groups are expanding their perspective from a reductionist perspective to a landscape perspective. Reductionist science is now moving away from a stream segment approach to looking at the entire basin. River management policy makers are realizing that "everyone lives downstream," that downstream events/processes can affect areas upstream, and that events/processes in different catchments frequently affect upstream areas. Reductionist conservationists are now looking beyond the channel, and conservation organizations have moved away from their preoccupation with streams based solely on recreation and aesthetics.

Broader-based training for aquatic resource managers that encompasses an understanding of ecosystem connectivity and landscape linkages is becoming increasingly adopted within the United States, with strong proponents in both aquatic science and conservation biology (Doppelt 1993). In the United States, implementation of this broader-based thinking at the management level is being catalyzed by recent collaboration between conservation groups and aquatic scientists (Dewberry and Pringle 1994). Conservation groups have expanded their perspectives from addressing local issues at the scale of 'river reach' to recognizing the need for protection and restoration strategies that consider whole drainage basins or landscapes. Concurrently, scientists are expanding their focus from site-specific studies to drainage level studies and to the still larger landscape scale (e.g., Stanford and Ward 1993). Since successful development of a predictive science of ecological management must consider socio-economic and political realities, scientists can benefit from the broader perspective that conservation groups bring to the problem. With agreement among both scientists and conservation groups on the extent of the degradation of the North American river systems, there is common ground for addressing the needed changes in national policy (e.g., Coyle 1993; Doppelt et al. 1993; Anderson 1993; Brouha 1993; Pringle and Aumen 1993; Richter 1993; Woody 1993; Duff 1993).

Most countries in Central and Eastern Europe are moving to a full market economy. The dominant processes in this transitional period are economic openness, privatization, and restructuring. Despite many positive aspects, there is a concern that these processes may bring about negative effects for the natural environment (i.e., in the rush to achieve privatization, Central and Eastern

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

European countries might encourage unsustainable development: Is the model of the western consumer lifestyle a good option for sustainability?). The questions arise: How can this period of transition be used as an opportunity to carry out sustainable restructuring in an environmentally healthy manner? How can Central and Eastern European countries in transition benefit from emerging western conservation strategies? Projects such as the Green Lungs of Poland (GLP) and the Green Lungs of Europe (GLE) are addressing these questions by attempting to create a macro-regional network of protected regions (throughout Poland and Europe) that are rich in biodiversity.

As in the United States and Britain, increased collaboration between scientists and non-government organizations involved in conservation issues could be a powerful force in the development of environmental reforms in countries in transition in Central and Eastern Europe. While Polish scientists are well aware of the serious magnitude of the problems that face aquatic systems in their country, not only must the economic resources be developed to implement necessary changes, but internal public support must be developed for environmental remediation and environmentally sound legislation. As pointed out by the GLP, society's participation in the process of decision-making constitutes a challenge for nationals of countries who, for half a century, had no experience with such forms of governance and state functioning. However, as the magnitude and severity of regional environmental pollution in Central and Eastern Europe challenge conservation and management strategies developed in the West, scientists and NGOs in Central and Eastern Europe may devise drastic solutions for which public support will be difficult to obtain.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

To effectively address the serious environmental problems affecting the planet, massive collaboration clearly must be achieved on both local and regional levels. There is an urgent need for regional watershed-level management that transcends political boundaries. Cooperative arrangements between Central European nations in managing their transboundary protected areas can serve as a model for development of more complex international networks.

The Danube River is a dramatic example of the mismatch between the scale of ecological processes and the jurisdictional boundaries of management authority. It has a drainage area that spans at least 12 different nations covering 70% of Central Europe with a population of over 80 million people. Domestic and industrial wastes and the lack of primary sewage treatment in many large cities and towns throughout the drainage basin, in combination with severe economic problems, are among many formidable obstacles impeding the development of effective management and restoration strategies for the Danube River, its delta, and the receiving waters of the Black Sea (Pringle et al. 1993b). In the long run, only strong local and international cooperation will improve the environmental situation

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

of the Danube Delta. The environmental security for the entire Danube Basin depends on the health of the river and its Delta.

In conclusion, as increasing friction occurs between nations over water as a rare resource (Postel 1993), countries will increasingly find themselves in the situation of those in Central and Eastern Europe, which are developing conservation strategies which shift to conform to changing political boundaries and socio-economic conditions. It would behoove the international conservation community to closely observe and learn from this process and to facilitate it when possible.

REFERENCES

Anderson, H. M. 1993. Conserving America's Freshwater Ecosystems: The Wilderness Society's Approach. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12: 194-196.


Boon, P. J. 1992. Essential Elements in the Case for River Conservation, pp. 11-33. In: P. J. Boon, P. Calow and G. E. Petts. River Conservation and Management. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., NY.

Brouha, P. 1993. The Emerging Science-Based Advocacy Role of the American Fisheries Society. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12: 215-218.


Cohn, J. P. 1992. Central and Eastern Europe Aim to Protect their Ecological Backbone. BioScience 42: 810-814.

Cooper, W. E. 1990. Aquatic Research and Water Quality Trends in the United States and Poland, pp. 297-314. In: W. Grodzinski, E. B. Cowling and A. I. Breymeyer (eds.) Ecological Risks: Perspectives from Poland and the United States. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Coyle, K. J. The New Advocacy for Aquatic Species Conservation. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12: 185-188.


Decamps, H., M. Fortune, F. Gazelle, and G. Pautou. 1988. Historical Influence of Man on the Riparian Dynamics of a Fluvial Landscape. Landscape Ecology 1: 163-173.

Dewberry, T. C. and C. Pringle. 1994. Lotic Conservation and Science: Moving Towards Common Ground to Protect our Stream Resources. Journal of the North American Benthological Society (in press).

Doppelt, R. 1993. The Vital Role of the Scientific Community in New River Conservation Strategies. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12: 189-193.

Doppelt, B. M. Scurlock, C. Frissel, and J. Karr. 1993. Entering the Watershed. Island Press, Washington D.C.

Duff, D. A. 1993. Conservation Partnerships for Coldwater Fisheries Habitat. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12: 206-210.


Gromiec, M. J. 1990. River Water Quality Assessment and Management in Poland. pp. 315-332. In: W. Grodzinski, E. B. Cowling and A. I. Breymeyer (eds.) Ecological Risks: Perspectives from Poland and the United States. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.


Hillbricht-Ilkowska, A. 1992. Assessment of Trophic Impact on the Lake Environment in Poland: A Proposal and Case Study. pp. 283-296. In: W. Grodzinski, E. B. Cowling and A. I. Breymeyer (eds.) Ecological Risks: Perspectives from Poland and the United States. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.


Kajak, Z. 1992. The River Vistula and its Floodplain Valley (Poland): Its Ecology and Importance for Conservation. pp. 35-50. In: P. J. Boon, P. Calow, and G. E. Petts (eds.) River Conservation and Management. John Wiley and Sons, NY.


Lee, R. G., R. Flamm, M. G. Turner, C. Bledsoe, P. Chandler, C. DeFerrari, R. Gottfried, R. J. Naiman, N. Schumaker, and D. Wear. 1992. Integrating Sustainable Development and Environmental

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

Vitality: A Landscape Approach. pp 499-521. In: R. J. Naiman (editor) Watershed Management: Balancing Sustainability and Environmental Change. Springer-Verlag, NY.

Lubchenco, J., A. M. Olson, L. B. Brubaker, S. R. Carpenter, M. M. Holland, S. P. Hubbell, S. A. Levin, J. A. MacMahon, P. A. Matson, J. M. Melillo, H. A. Mooney, C. H. Peterson, H. R. Pulliam, L. A. Real, P. J. Regal, and P. G. Risser. 1991. The Sustainable Biosphere Initiative: An Ecological Research Agenda. Ecology 72: 371-412.

Naiman, R. J., H. Decamps, and M. Pollack. 1993. The Role of Riparian Corridors in Maintaining Regional Biodiversity. Ecological Applications 3: 209-212.


Petts, G. E. 1987. Ecological Management of Regulated Rivers; A European Perspective," Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 1: 358-363.

Postel, S. 1992. Last oasis: Facing Water Scarcity. The Worldwatch Environmental Alert Series. W. W. Norton and Company, NY.

Pringle, C. M., and N. G. Aumen 1993. Current Efforts in Freshwater Conservation. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12: 174-176.

Pringle, C. M., C. F. Rabeni, A. Benke and N. G. Aumen. 1993a. The Role of Aquatic Science in Freshwater Conservation: Cooperation between the North American Benthological Society and Organizations for Conservation and Resource Management. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12: 177-184.

Pringle, C. M., G. Vellidis, F. Heliotis, D. Bandacu, and S. Cristofor. 1993b. Environmental Problems in the Danube Delta. American Scientist 81: 350-361.

Richter, B. D. 1993. Ecosystem level Conservation at the Nature Conservancy: Growing Needs for Applied Research in Conservation Biology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12: 197-200.

Ryzkowski, L. 1990. Ecological Guidelines for Management of Rural Areas in Poland . pp. 249-264. In: W. Grodzinski, E. B. Cowling and A. I. Breymeyer (eds.) Ecological Risks: Perspectives from Poland and the United States. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.


Stanford, J. A. and J. V. Ward. 1993. An Ecosystem Perspective of Alluvial Rivers: Connectivity and the Hyporheic Corridor. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12: 48-60.


Tomialojcia, L. (ed.) 1993. Nature and Environment Conservation in the Lowland River Valleys of Poland. Instytutu Ochrony Przyrody (PAN).

Turner, B. L. W. C. Clark, R. W. Kates, J. F. Richards, J. T. Mathews, and W. B. Meyer (eds). 1993. The Earth as Transformed by Human Action: Global and Regional Changes in the Biosphere over the Past 300 years. Cambridge University Press, NY, 713 p.


Woody, T. 1993. Grassroots in Action: The Sierra Club's Role in the Campaign to Restore the Kissimmee River. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12: 201-205.

Wrobel, S. (Ed.) 1989. Zanieczyszczenia atmosfery a degradacja wod, Materialy sympozjum, Zaklad Ochrony Przyrody i Zasobow Naturalnych, Krakow.

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

PRESENT STATUS AND PERSPECTIVES OF MAB BIOSPHERE RESERVES

Boguslaw Bobek, Beata Kabza, Dorota Merta and Kajetan Perzanowski

Jagiellonian University

For the protection of valuable natural habitats, the concept of the Biosphere Reserve is rapidly developing. According to the authors of this paper, this development can be attributed to the fact that National Parks (until recently the basic structure protecting valuable natural habitats) have now fulfilled their historic mission and have exhausted the possible future options in nature conservancy as a result of various barriers to their development.

It is only in the last ten years or so that people have started to realize that natural ecosystems protected in National Parks are reduced to small islands isolated in an environment altered by man (Harris 1984, Verner et al. 1980, Gilbert and Dodds 1987). For example, recent studies on the home ranges and territories of large ungulates and predators have shown that only a few National Parks encompass a full-year's home range (Harestad and Bunnel 1979, Hemker 1984, Sweanor and Sandergreen 1991). Even such a large park as Yellowstone does not cover the whole home range of the local elk population, which has its winter range in the neighborhood of the park (Boyce and Hayden-Wing 1979). Furthermore, it is very rare for a park to overlap with the ranges of rare and protected populations of mammals and birds (Seitz and Loeschke 1991).

In light of this, it is clear that to assure the proper development of wildlife populations, it is necessary to make mutual contact possible by creating "ecological corridors" (Forman and Gordon 1986, Noss and Harris 1986). Some more realistically-thinking ecologists have realized that there are few if any future possibilities for the creation of new large protected areas by the extension of already existing ones or by establishing new units. Both cases entail large and unavoidable expenses from the state budget, as well as conflicts with local inhabitants, who, through democratic structures, may effectively influence political and economic decisions to protect their own economic or cultural interests.

Such a recognition has stimulated conceptual work on a new model of large protected areas. This "multiple use module" (Harris 1984) encompasses fragments of natural ecosystems, which should become the central "core" area, as well as ecosystems exploited or altered by man, which could play the role of buffer zones. Buffer zones are gradually becoming more and more frequent around National

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

Parks (Dasmann 1981), and good examples of such projects exist in Florida and southern Ohio (Noss 1987).

The creation of a model of large protected areas has also become the task of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) under the Man and Biosphere (MAB) program. From the beginning it was quite clear that effective nature protection over substantial areas would not be possible if the cooperation of local inhabitants were not assured. This cooperation could be achieved by the demonstration of the sustainable use of natural resources around the core area, i.e., buffer and transition zones. For example, in Africa the well-developed network of National Parks does not prevent densities of protected and threatened species from depending on cooperation with people inhabiting surrounding areas (Parker and Graham 1989). Unfortunately, such truths are often forgotten by enthusiasts of new or extended National Parks, who in effect aim at creating fictional systems of nature conservancy that exist only on paper. It is therefore important that the principles of Biosphere Reserves should be clearly explained in non-technical terms to local inhabitants, who are often against the very idea of nature conservancy due to a mistaken association of biospheres with the system of restrictions and prohibitions typical of national parks.

It is generally agreed that the overall goals of establishing and maintaining a Biosphere Reserve are:

  • The preservation of natural or little disturbed ecosystems in the core area;

  • The conservation or restoration of ecosystems in the buffer zone; and

  • The rational and sustainable use of resources, mostly in the transition zone.

Fulfilling the above tasks should be the duty of a specially-created administration of a Biosphere Reserve, together with scientific and educational teams. The growing necessity for the preservation of existing biodiversity and the need to slow down the deterioration of natural habitats requires research oriented towards practical aspects of resource management (UNESCO 1984, 1987). Therefore, the research team in a Biosphere Reserve should formulate specific tasks to be executed by the administration. Some tasks will differ for each Biosphere Reserves, but those common to all or most are:

  • The creation of a workplan for landscape management (tourist trails, roads, constructions, etc.) to minimize human pressure on the core area;

  • Management of the transition zone, with the implementation of modern methods, techniques, and models allowing for the sustainable use of natural resources by local people;

  • The education of local people and the restructuring of employment to reduce the unemployment rate in the transition zone to a minimum;

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
  • The coordination of economic development by attracting job creating enterprises and by marketing local products, as well as the coordination of scientific research; and

  • The launching of research projects important for all three zones of a Biosphere Reserve and the monitoring of pollution, endangered species, and fragile ecosystems.

At present, there are over 300 Biosphere Reserves around the world, and the number is still growing. However, analysis of the data on these reserves evokes doubts as to whether all fulfill the requirements laid down for this new conservation unit. According to UNESCO, people are an integral part of a Biosphere Reserve, with various forms of natural resource management being included in long-term plans for land use and with the resulting landscape patterns conserved and considered essential features of the Reserve. The direct involvement of local communities in the management of natural resources is crucial if society is to accept the requirements imposed by nature conservancy and if there is to be further successful development of a reserve. To ensure that this social acceptance is obtained, a Biosphere Reserve should evolve as economic and demographic changes proceed in the region, albeit with its protective functions maintained at the same time (von Droste and Gregg 1985; Kabza 1994).

A Biosphere Reserve should consist of three major zones: a centrally-located core area should usually offer strict protection to the most valuable and/or endangered habitats; a buffer zone should support most of the research projects, as well as the development and testing of new management approaches, educational programs, etc.; and finally the transition zone should typically serve as an area in which to integrate nature conservation with the sustainable use of natural resources (UNESCO 1987; Breymeyer 1994). Basically, a Biosphere Reserve should be beneficial to local communities in that it improves their social and economic status (Bobek et al. 1994). One of the essential functions of a Biosphere Reserve is also to provide educational and training opportunities for scientists, students, managers, and local people in both ecology and environment protection (UNESCO 1984).

Described above are the theoretical requirements for Biosphere Reserves. However, according to the environmental database on the scientific infrastructure of 175 Biosphere Reserves in 32 countries (Access 1993), research topics and the structure of management in most Biosphere Reserves do not differ fundamentally from those in National Parks. The reason is simply that as many as 107 (61%) of the Reserves are managed by National Park Administrations or similar services whose main function is the preservation and conservation of natural ecosystems. Research projects potentially beneficial to local communities are only carried out 62 biosphere reserves (35.4%), and only 17 biosphere reserves (about 10%) declare the existence of projects which could create a sustainable economy for the people inhabiting the transition zone. Quite surprising also is the number of biosphere reserves which consist of a core area only (Kabza 1994).

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

Thus, the rapid increase in the number of biosphere reserves around the world will not ensure credibility will unless programs meeting the requirements and needs of local people are introduced. The prevailing impression to date is that most biosphere reserves exist only formally or follow programs typical for National Parks. This is also the result of a the lack of legal status for biosphere reserves in most countries. Leaving the management of biosphere reserves to National Park Administrations has caused a loss of identity, with the created structures being neither National Parks nor Biosphere Reserves. It is not uncommon for the administration of the National Park managing the Biosphere Reserve to come to understand that the status of a biosphere reserve allows for the exploitation of natural resources through logging, the building of ski lifts, hunting etc. (Michalowski 1994). But the undertaking of such activities by them leads only to competition with local people, bringing them more losses than gains. One of the biosphere reserves of southern Poland may serve as on example here. The administration decided to buy a number of saddled horses for visitors to rent, along with a guide, in order to see the Park (the core area of the biosphere reserve) from horseback. At the same time, however, local stud owners living in the transition zone are only allowed to guide tourists around the Park after paying high fees and are therefore effectively eliminated from the tourist business in the area.

It would seems also that the very idea of biosphere reserves should be more widely and more effectively conveyed by the mass media. The majority of society is under-informed, associating biosphere reserves with structures protecting valuable natural areas, but at the same time regarding them as areas with more restrictions than National Parks. In countries where the name "Biosphere Reserves" has been translated badly, many local people even associate them with the Indian Reservations in North America.

CONCLUSIONS

  • Conferring the status of Biosphere Reserve upon a certain area should take place in those countries in which there is an established legal basis upon which they can function.

  • These countries having Biosphere Reserves without established legal status for them should be required by UNESCO to pass appropriate legislation and should have their nominations withdrawn if such a legal status for Biosphere Reserves is not enacted after a reasonable period of time.

  • National Parks should become only core areas of biosphere reserves. Suggested are revisions of Park boundaries to allow them to meet the criteria required for the core area. A rigorous principle of removal or restraint upon nominations should be applied to National Parks which do not care for the sustainable development of the surrounding regions and for the basic needs of the local population (Batisse 1992).

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
  • The future administration of Biosphere Reserves should include representatives of local communities and the important government institutions (like State Forest Administrations, branches of local government, etc.) involved within them. To improve the effectiveness of a biosphere reserve, its design should, if possible, recognize not only the most valuable natural habitats but also administrative boundaries.

  • It is necessary to review the administration of Biosphere Reserves in accordance with the basic rule that every biosphere reserve has to carry out scientific and training projects oriented not only to nature conservation but also recognizing the needs of local people regarding the achievement of a sustainable economy.

A serious problem for the effective operation of a Biosphere Reserve is the proper selection of its managerial staff. The multi-functional character of Biosphere Reserves requires a specific approach to the management of the area and involves such tasks for the staff as the development of educational and training programs for local communities, the creation of a sustainable economy within the transition zone, involvement in exchange programs, and research projects. So far, existing information on management and scientific activity is available for core areas only, and generally there is a total lack of publications on the role, tasks, perspectives and designs of biosphere reserves (MAB 1993, Gregg 1984).

Biosphere Reserves have a great chance to become a dominant structure in nature conservancy in the 21st century, but they may also end up in the lumber-room of history as another potentially good idea which did not achieve its full potential in practice.

REFERENCES

ACCESS. 1993. MAB. A Directory of Contacts, Environmental databases, and Scientific Infrastructure of 175 Biosphere Reserves of 175 Countries. Dept. of State Publ. 10059.


Battisse 1982. The Biosphere Reserve - A Tool for Environmental Conservation and Management. Env. Cons. 9,2: 101-111.

Bobek B., Kabza B., Merta D., and Perzanowski K. 1994. The Concept of the Eastern Carpathians Biosphere Reserve - Present Status and Perspectives. J.Wildl. Res. 1: 000-000 (in print).

Boyce M.S. and Hayden-Wing L.S.(eds.) 1979. North American Elk: Ecology, Behavior and Management. Univ. of Wyoming, Laramie.

Breymeyer A.(ed.) 1994. Rezerwaty Biosfery w Polsce. Polski Narodowy Komitet MAB. 156 pp.


Dasmann R.F. 1981. Wildlife Biology. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons. New York.


Forman R.T.T., and Gordon M. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley and Sons. New York.

Fritz S. H., and Mech L.D. 1981. Dynamics, Movements and Feeding Ecology of a Newly Protected Wolf population in Northwestern Minnesota. Wildl. Monographs 80: 1-79.


Gilbert F.F., and D.G. Dodds. 1987. The Philosophy and Practice of Wildlife Management. Robert E. Krieger Publ. Co., Malabar, Florida.

Gregg W.P. (jr.). 1984. The International Network of Biosphere Reserves: A New Dimension in Global Conservation. In: The Biosphere: Problems and Solutions. T.N. Veziroglu (ed.). Amsterdam.

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

Harestad A.S. and Bunnel F.L. 1979. Home Range and Body Weight-A Reevaluation. Ecology, 60: 389-402.

Harris L.D. 1984. The Fragmented Forests. Univ.Chicago Press. Chicago and London.

Hemker T.P., Linzey F.G., and Ackerman B.B. 1984. Population Characteristic and Movement Patterns of Cougars in Southern Utah . J.Wildl.Manage. 48: 1275-1284.


Kabza B. 1994. Biosphere Reserves in Poland: Expectation, Realisation and Projection. J.Wildl. Res. 1: 000-000 (in print).


MAB. 1993. Euro MAB IV. Conf. Rep. Zakopane.

Michalowski W. 1994. The International Biosphere Reserve ''Eastern Carpathians"-The Chance or the Threat for Bieszczady Mountains. J.Wildl. Res. 1: 000-000 (in print).


Noss R.F. 1987. Protecting Natural Areas in Fragmented Landscapes. Nat. Areas. J. 7: 1-13.

Noss R.F., and Harris L.D. 1986. Nodes, Networks and MUMs: Preserving Diversity at All Scales. Env. Manage. 10: 299-309.


Parker I.S.C., and Graham A.D. 1989. Men, Elephants and Competition. Symp. Zool. Soc. London 61: 241-252.


Seitz A., and Loeschke (eds.). 1991. Species Conservation: A Population Biological Approach.Birkhauser Vlg. Basel.

Sweanor P.Y., and Sandergren F. 1991. Migration Pattern of a Moose Population in Relation to Calf Recruitment. Proc. 18th IUGB Congr. Vol. 1: 631-634.


UNESCO. 1984. Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves. Nature and resources 20, 412 pp.

UNESCO. 1987. A Practical Guide to MAB. 40 pp.


Verner J., Morrison M.L., and Ralph C.J. (eds.). 1980. Wildlife 2000Modeling Habitat Relationship of Terrestial Vertebrates. Univ. of Wisconsin Press.

Von Droste B., and W.P. Gregg (jr.). 1985. Biosphere Reserves: Demonstrating the Value of Conservation in Sustaining Society. Parks 10,3: 2-5.

Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page13
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page14
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page15
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page16
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page17
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page18
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page19
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page20
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page21
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page22
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page23
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page24
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page25
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page26
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page27
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page28
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page29
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page30
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page31
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page32
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page33
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page34
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page35
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page36
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page37
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page38
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page39
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page40
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page41
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page42
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page43
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page44
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page45
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page46
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page47
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page48
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page49
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page50
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page51
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page52
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page53
Suggested Citation:"1 General Issues of Conservation of Protected Areas." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page54
Next: 2 Biodiversity Conservation in the Participating Countries »
Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $50.00 Buy Ebook | $39.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Recognizing the increasing rate of species loss on a global scale and that neither pollution nor ecosystems respects political boundaries, cooperation on many different levels is required to conserve biodiversity. This volume uses four protected areas that Poland shares with its neighbors as case studies to explore opportunities to integrate science and management in transboundary protected areas in Central Europe for the conservation of biodiversity. Specific topics include biodiversity conservation theories and strategies, problems of wildlife management, and impacts of tourism and recreational use on protected areas.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!