Alatorre Andrea, Depenthal Johanna, Shapiro-Garza Elizabeth
Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
School of Forest, Fisheries, and Geomatics Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Conserv Biol. 2021 Oct;35(5):1451-1462. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13711. Epub 2021 Jun 24.
Integrated conservation approaches (ICAs) are employed by governments, communities, and nongovernmental organizations worldwide seeking to achieve outcomes with dual benefits for biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation. Although ICAs are frequently implemented concurrently, interactions among ICAs and the synergies or trade-offs that result are rarely considered during program design, implementation, and evaluation. In support of more deliberate and effective use of ICAs, we examined interactions among four well-known strategies: biosphere reserves (BRs), voluntary protected areas (VPAs), payments for ecosystem services (PES), and community forest management (CFM). Through a comparative case study, we analyzed interactions among spatially or temporally clustered ICAs implemented on communally held and managed lands in three ecologically and socioeconomically distinct regions of Mexico. Our research methods combined policy analysis with data gathered through participant observation and semistructured interviews (n = 78) and focus groups (n = 5) with government officials, implementers, and participants involved in ICAs in 28 communities. Despite the significant differences among the regions in which they were implemented, we found that key actors at each level of involvement generally perceived interactions among ICAs as synergistic. The PES programs were perceived to strengthen protected areas by reducing forest cover loss in and around BRs, fostering proconservation attitudes, and incentivizing the establishment of VPAs. Communities that invested PES income in CFM were motivated to conserve forests beyond the duration of PES programs, and CFM in buffer zones was perceived to strengthen BRs by maintaining forest cover and generating income for communities. We also identified key social and environmental factors that can influence these interaction effects among ICAs. Based on these findings, we recommend further study of ICA interactions and intentionally complementary policy design to maximize positive environmental and social outcomes.
综合保护方法(ICAs)被世界各地的政府、社区和非政府组织采用,旨在实现生物多样性保护和减贫双重效益的成果。尽管综合保护方法经常同时实施,但在项目设计、实施和评估过程中,很少考虑综合保护方法之间的相互作用以及由此产生的协同效应或权衡取舍。为了支持更审慎和有效地使用综合保护方法,我们研究了四种著名策略之间的相互作用:生物圈保护区(BRs)、自愿保护区(VPAs)、生态系统服务付费(PES)和社区森林管理(CFM)。通过比较案例研究,我们分析了在墨西哥三个生态和社会经济不同地区的社区所有和管理土地上实施的空间或时间上聚集的综合保护方法之间的相互作用。我们的研究方法将政策分析与通过参与观察收集的数据以及与28个社区中参与综合保护方法的政府官员、实施者和参与者进行的半结构化访谈(n = 78)和焦点小组(n = 5)相结合。尽管实施地区之间存在显著差异,但我们发现每个参与层面的关键行为者普遍认为综合保护方法之间的相互作用是协同的。生态系统服务付费项目被认为通过减少生物圈保护区内外的森林覆盖损失、培养支持保护的态度以及激励建立自愿保护区来加强保护区。将生态系统服务付费收入投资于社区森林管理的社区有动力在生态系统服务付费项目期限之外保护森林,缓冲区的社区森林管理被认为通过维持森林覆盖和为社区创收来加强生物圈保护区。我们还确定了可以影响综合保护方法之间这些相互作用效果的关键社会和环境因素。基于这些发现,我们建议进一步研究综合保护方法的相互作用以及有意互补的政策设计,以最大限度地提高积极的环境和社会成果。