Opinion
Does research help to safeguard protected areas?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.01.017Get rights and content

Although many protected areas are foci for scientific research, they also face growing threats from illegal encroachment and overharvesting. Does the presence of field researchers help to limit such threats? Although evidence is largely anecdotal, researchers do appear to provide some protective effects, both actively (such as by deterring poachers) and passively (such as by benefiting local communities economically and thereby generating support for protected areas). However, much remains unknown about the generality and impacts of such benefits. A key priority is to develop a better understanding of the advantages and limitations of field research for aiding protected areas and their biodiversity.

Highlights

► Field research in protected areas generally appears to aid park conservation. ► Poachers and encroachers tend to avoid areas frequented by scientists. ► Much remains unknown about the generality of this ‘science-safeguarding effect’.

Section snippets

Are protected areas protected?

In a world beset by environmental challenges, protected areas are seen as a cornerstone of efforts to sustain the biodiversity and natural ecosystem processes of the Earth. The good news is that we have more protected areas than ever: since 1985, the total land area with at least some legal protection has more than tripled, now totaling 13% of the global terrestrial surface [1].

The bad news, however, is that many protected areas are under threat (Figure 1) 2, 3, 4, 5. Some areas are plagued by

Apparent advantages of researcher presence

If protected areas benefit from a science-safeguarding effect, an ancillary and sometimes hidden benefit of research may be promoting nature conservation. What is the evidence? In the most direct sense, several ‘conservation heroes’ have battled to establish or sustain protected areas (Table 1). Obvious examples include Dian Fossey in Rwanda [10], Daniel Janzen in Costa Rica, Patricia Wright in Madagascar, and Sir Ghillean Prance in Argentina [11]. Scientists employed by conservation

Limitations of science safeguarding

Despite such apparent successes, the science-safeguarding effect seems partial at best. In response to burgeoning Asian demands for ivory and rhino horn, Africa is the midst of an epic elephant [26] and black rhino [27] slaughter by armed poachers, rebels, and even the military that scientists and park managers have largely been unable to stop. At Los Amigos Biological Station in Peru, illegal gold miners threatened to burn down the research station when scientists tried to halt their

Concluding remarks

It is remarkable that the effects of field research on the conservation values of protected areas have yet to be assessed systematically. To what degree does research benefit or harm park values? Can research activity be optimized in space and time to maximize its benefits for conservation? Are heavily studied areas, such as the vicinities of popular research centers, biased biologically because their faunal communities have been altered by researcher activity? These are but a sampling of

Acknowledgments

I thank John Terborgh, Jeff Sayer, Fiona Maisels, Stuart Pimm, Patricia Wright, Mika Peck, Nandini Velho, Nigel Pitman, Chuck Cannon, Andrew Marshall, Carlos Peres, Joe Wright, Stephen Blake, Susan Laurance, David Lindenmayer, David Edwards, John Fa, Corey Bradshaw, Vojtech Novotny, and Rhett Butler for many useful thoughts. John Terborgh, Tom Lovejoy, Ghillean Prance, David Edwards, Reuben Clements, and two anonymous referees commented on the manuscript.

References (49)

  • C.A. Kirkby

    The market triumph of ecotourism: an economic investigation of the private and social benefits of competing land uses in the Amazon

    PLoS ONE

    (2010)
  • R.C. Buckley

    A population accounting approach to assess tourism contributions to conservation of IUCN-Redlisted mammal species

    PLoS ONE

    (2012)
  • D. Fossey

    Gorillas in the Mist

    (1983)
  • W.F. Laurance

    Adopt a forest

    Biotropica

    (2008)
  • G. Campbell

    Long-term research sites as refugia for threatened and overharvested species

    Biol. Lett.

    (2011)
  • B. Hoppe-Dominik

    Long-term monitoring of large rainforest mammals in the biosphere reserve of Tai National Park, Côte d’Ivoire

    Afr. J. Ecol.

    (2011)
  • P.K. N’Goran

    Hunting, law enforcement, and African primate conservation

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2012)
  • F. Maisels et al.

    Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park, Republique du Congo Management Plan 2001–2006

    (2001)
  • W.F. Laurance et al.

    Driving a wedge into the Amazon

    Nature

    (2007)
  • E.J. Milner-Gulland et al.

    A model of incentives for illegal exploitation of black rhinos and elephants: poaching pays in Luangwa Valley, Zambia

    J. Appl. Ecol.

    (1992)
  • N. Leader-Williams et al.

    Policies for the enforcement of wildlife laws: the balance between detection and penalties in Luangwa Valley, Zambia

    Conserv. Biol.

    (1993)
  • J.M. Rowcliffe

    Do wildlife laws work? Species protection and the application of a prey choice model to poaching decisions

    Proc. R. Soc. B

    (2004)
  • W.F. Laurance

    Impacts of roads and hunting on central-African rainforest mammals

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2006)
  • Wright, P.C. et al. Lemurs and tourism in Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar: economic boom and other consequences....
  • Cited by (68)

    • No visit, no interest: How COVID-19 has affected public interest in world's national parks

      2021, Biological Conservation
      Citation Excerpt :

      Protected areas are the most important tool for conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services (Bruner et al., 2001), but may be especially vulnerable to the effects of reducing public mobility such as occurred in response to COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to lower levels of enforcement due to restricted work practices of park employees, there may also be fewer visits by environmental NGO staff and researchers whose presence has a safeguarding effect (Piel et al., 2015; Laurance, 2013). Moreover, for PA designations such as National Parks that encourage public visitation, reductions in public mobility may affect park revenues and significantly reduce the multiple contributions (monetary and non-monetary) that parks make to societies (Jepson et al., 2017; King and Stewart, 1996).

    • Are protected areas effective in preserving anurans and promoting biodiversity discoveries in the Brazilian Cerrado?

      2019, Journal for Nature Conservation
      Citation Excerpt :

      Thus, protected areas have also an important scientific role in reducing biodiversity knowledge shortfalls (Barata, Correia, & Ferreira, 2016). Indeed, the conservation and scientific roles mutually promote each other; while PAs favor researchers to improve biodiversity knowledge from pristine landscapes, the presence of field researchers benefit PAs by inhibiting improper users, such as poachers and encroachers (Laurance, 2013). In Brazil, the number and coverage of PAs have progressively grown over recent decades, but particularly restricted to the Amazon domain (Araújo, 2007; Cabral & Brito, 2013; Jenkins & Joppa, 2009).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text