Conservation and social outcomes of private protected areas

Government administered protected areas (PAs) have dominated conservation strategies, discourse, and research, yet private actors are increasingly managing land for conservation. Little is known about the social environmental outcomes of these privately (PPAs). We searched global literature in English on PPAs their identified 412 articles suitable inclusion. Research was geographically skewed; more studies occurred United States. Environmental were mostly positive (89%), but reported less (12% all studies), mixed (65% positive). Private increased number or extent ecosystems, ecoregions, species covered by PAs (representativeness) PA network connectivity effectively reduced deforestation restored degraded lands. Few PPA owners negative outcomes, experienced improved capital, property value, a reduction taxes. Local communities benefited from employment, training, community-wide development (e.g., building schools), they capital no significant difference to household income. The causal mechanisms through which influence remain unclear, as does how political, economic, contexts shape mechanisms. Future research should widen geographical scope diversify types studied focus determining casual occur different contexts. propose an assessment framework that could be adopted facilitate this process. Conservación y Consecuencias Sociales de las Áreas Protegidas Privadas Las áreas protegidas administradas por el gobierno (APs) han dominado estrategias, discurso investigaciones la conservación pesar que los actores privados cada vez están administrando más tierras para conservación. Se conoce muy poco sobre consecuencias ambientales sociales estas privadamente (APPs). Realizamos una búsqueda en literatura inglés APPs sus e identificamos artículos apropiados inclusión. La investigación presentó un sesgo geográfico pues mayoría estudios se realizaron dentro Estados Unidos. fueron principalmente positivas (89%); mientras estuvieron menos reportadas todos estudios) resultaron generalmente mixtas positivas). privadas incrementaron número o extensión ecosistemas, ecoregiones especies cubiertas APs (representatividad) así como conectividad entre redes AP redujeron efectivamente deforestación restauraron suelos degradados. Fueron pocos dueños APP reportaron negativas, experimentaron incremento social, aumentaron valor su propiedad impuestos. comunidades locales beneficiaron con empleos, entrenamiento desarrollo nivel comunitario (p. ej.: construcción escuelas), aunque también reducción ninguna diferencia importante ingreso doméstico. Los mecanismos causales mediante cuales influyen todavía claros, manera contexto político, económico moldea estos mecanismos. siguientes deberían ampliar enfoque diversificar tipos estudiados, enfocarse determinar ocurren diferentes contextos. Proponemos marco trabajo análisis podría adoptarse facilitar este proceso. ??????????????????????, ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????, ????412?????????????????????????, ??????????????????????????? (89%) , ???????????? (????? 12%) ????????? (65%?????) ??????????????????????????????? (??????) ?????????, ????????????????????????????????????????????, ???????????, ???????, ????????????????????????? (?????) ?????, ????????????, ???????????????????????????????????, ?????????????????????????????????????????????, ???????????????????????????????????????????????????: ???; ??: ???? Biodiversity crisis, with extinction rates 1000 times higher than expected background (Diaz et al. 2019). In response, international community has explicitly included biodiversity protection expansion multiple agendas, including Aichi Targets Sustainable Development Goals. discourses, decades (Adams 2004; Watson 2014). However, variety actors, individuals, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), businesses, purchasing tracts These collectively (PPAs) highly diverse form, ownership, size, location. There numerous definitions (Holmes 2013), Stolton (2014) provide comprehensive widely accepted definition we use review: “a area, defined IUCN, under governance (i.e. individuals groups individuals; non-governmental organizations; corporations – both existing commercial companies sometimes set up manage PPAs; for-profit owners; entities (e.g. universities, field stations) religious entities).” contrast other forms PAs, received relatively little scholarly attention (Capano This despite being old approach; some countries Kingdom) established before state-governed (Hodge & Adams 2012). deserve greater because may increasing due rising trends neoliberal approaches role (Büscher Whande 2007) there pressing need help achieve goals (Kamal 2015). World Database Protected Areas (WDPA) reports 13,103 governed (UNEP-WCMC 2020). Yet, substantial underestimate only small proportion report WDPA also subset (Fitzsimons 2015; Bingham 2017). can potentially make contributions 2013) operate differently owner motivations incentives, access financial resources, levels accountability (Langholz Lassoie 2001). Existing reviews focused typologies 2001; Carter 2008; Kamal 2015), differences relative effective measures (Mitchell 2018), distribution (Stolton 2014; 2017), reporting (Clements 2019) management guidelines (Pasquini 2011; Mitchell 2018). Recent focusing specifically been region specific explore acquisitions forest States (Nolte regional persistence large- medium-sized mammals South Africa Brazil (Laurindo contribute ecosystem representativeness Victoria, Australia Wescott 2001), concessions America (Schleicher understanding people nature lacking. address gap synthesizing published describe geographic peer-reviewed literature, summarize measured, whether whom what, examine challenges measuring future needs. assessed ecological see what goals. it now do harm local communities. Social determine legitimacy level support receive therefore long-term effectiveness achieving meant achieve. important longevity PPAs. used PRISMA method (Moher 2009) conduct extensive searches Web Science, SCOPUS, first 500 Google Scholar October 2019. journals English. gray decided exclude its limited scope. Scholar, snowballing, searching NGO trust websites Nature Conservancy Land Trust). Much focuses defining 2014), managed where found American Bird 2013). (n = 2), center changes value following establishment easements 7). difficult systematically collate posed related quality potential duplication information (Oldekop 2016; Hajjar 2016). Although excluded our review, believe results, nonetheless, reflect gaps way key issues currently literature. Using International Union Conservation (IUCN) Privately compiled search terms cover diversity PPAs, (see Appendix S1 complete string). screened results 3-stage process based title, abstract, full text, according study inclusion criteria. To included, needed meet PPA. Confusion still exists exactly classifies PPA, boundaries between constitutes versus ambiguous. IUCN al 2014) define governance; primarily conservation; designated intent; afford legal means protection. Like Capano (2019), discarded surveys inside did not relate 15). coded landowner type, entity, mechanism. primary question asked further categorized 5 livelihoods assets sustainable (DFID 2000). increase, decrease, discernible effect outcome accrued. Our initial returned 1325 articles, 373 title abstract screening. selected 39 reference lists, resulting final sample articles. A overview methods reviewed available Supplementary Information. trend overall remained 412, Fig. 1) current 13,103). recently (Fig. 1). substantially skewed (perhaps sampling bias conducting English) 2); (Table 1); questions spatial scale at conducted. Most (SSG, tense) conducted subnational 261) national 78). contrast, landscape-level uncommon 21). (United 226, 31, 30, Chile 19), 2 Table marked overlap country type States). Marine largely absent 6). Studies drives establishment, locations, 2). given 3 considered 79 mainly coverage 37) 20). discussed 48 studies, majority 36). Results showed many particularly (increase n 35, decrease 2) 3). far mixed. researched benefitted skills training 6), infrastructure area 4), improvements economy 5), employment opportunities 9, improvement income 2, 5). Some feeling loss power cultural identity 9). Due individual landowners 1), general public lost tax revenue 4) open space landownership inequality 8), payments strengthened involvement, relations, networking study, few any impacts ecologically limited, reflecting skews studied, perhaps certain unique to, dominant in, Natural Heritage Reserves [Reservas Particulares Patrimônio Natural] [RPPNs] Brazil). bulk 216, 52% prominence large numbers 2018; UNEP-WCMC covenants contractually binding agreements third party trusts governments) dictate properties alongside (Merenlender 2004). Mexico, Canada, Colombia, Namibia, Spain, Finland growing networks attention. commissioned NGOs peer review Countries Kingdom exception. It 690), Limited 38% 155) investigated location ownership characteristics, exploratory agenda demonstrate heavily factors shaping aims (inputs), rather (outputs) (Tables 4). made targets overwhelmingly had (89%, 70). Globally, state account 82% total coverage, whereas approximately 7% added (additionality), much smaller PAs. 72% 13) discussing suggest add complementarity matrix ecoregions represented underrepresented remote agricultural urban (Pegas Castley De Vos Cumming protect recorded (Shanee Eighty percent 12) increase contiguity adjacent (Rissman Merenlender 2008) forming parts wildlife corridors (De remaining 20% 3) exclusively often border (Graves Overall, configurations lead varied each country, shaped monitored evaluated Those degree achieves successful own 5) analyzed reducing degradation 2017; Nolte Sixty-six examining landcover change nonforest areas. All assessing restoration 8) restoring wetlands wetland functionality, reduce pollution, flora fauna diversity, recovery greatest (Benson Half empirically prevention reductions half changes. 95% 34) outcomes. Empirical exploration PPAs’ ability species’ populations significantly bird compared unprotected sites (Tapp 2018) play Clements Model-based predict suggested (Copeland Only 1 explored spillage effects (Wu take forms, livelihood, echoed common PAs; however, nonprivate equivalents. Moreover, across NGO) vary widely. predominantly 73%). Eighty-two 9) communities, Sims (2019) 29% commenting median types. inequalities poorer households, those able capitalize tourism opportunities, living farther reserve others (Serenari Hora Eight (80%) quantifying benefit after designating Farja (2017) detrimental nonlandowners facilitating concentration exacerbating inequalities. Last, tourism, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Chile, impact economies. (where likely family ranches), (Crompton 2009). broader costs consequences livelihood shifts linked (Spierenburg Brookes Trade-offs exist gains costs. Two (66%) sense values cohesion. nonlocals move into introduce new cultures ideas, generate competition within Büscher redistribute political control over land. They perceived grabs, illegitimate harmful foreign elites Langholz 2000; Serenari nonwealthy members established. 6 who own, create, govern easements) obtain benefits networks) empowerment decisions [Rissman Sayre 2011]) maintain (Maynard 1998). Nine natural capital. Villamagna service offer all, disproportionately households beneficiaries services particular Crompton (2009) emerge serendipitously most accrue landowners. findings enhancing equity delivery will build them strategy efficacy. empirical magnitude sequestering carbon improving water quality, although Kreuter (2010) reserves exhibit critical conditions sustainability common-pool resources. creation driven REDD+ incentives claim services, such sequestration 100% investigating resources) paying visitors unclear owned access. 7) briefly mentioned physical human encourage developments roads schools) (Barany 2010; 2016), involved education staff (Hora rigor analysis Quasi-experimental designs measure assess resource interventions (Ferraro Hanauer aware one applied (Sims assessments interest, researchers either modeled projected Copeland case data Negroes 2011). Methods almost semistructured interviews mailed questionnaires. stakeholders government officials, owners, communities) interviewed respondents population size. 2017) out 36 combined sources triangulate raising strength conclusions regarding quasi-experimental techniques believed underestimation existence acknowledge good national-level [De 2019]), Canada [Stolton 2014]) publicly 2014]). point polygon variable, depending original source (Milam For example, mismatches actual locations points (with written attached) convey covers ground (Bingham rarely would allow detailed contribution landscape-scale conservation, beyond presence absence making additionality, complementarity, best guess. areas, Africa, fenced thus impermeable animal movements, limiting contiguity, (Jakes limitations outside comparison rely data, scarce regions. offers expanded non-English biases toward results. well underlying effective, insights maximize minimize include desired landscape poverty alleviated); institutions stakeholders, distributions agency accountable); (if any) shared among surroundings envisage self-report academics bodies objectively require strengthening collection efforts multidimensional surrounding PPAs) accompany rise approaches, qualitative initiatives intangible interventions. supported ESRC White Rose Doctoral Training Programme. Please note: publisher responsible content functionality supporting supplied authors. Any queries (other missing content) directed corresponding author article.