Next Article in Journal
Assessment of the Impact of Business Activity in Sustainability Terms. Empirical Confirmation of Its Determination in Spanish Companies
Next Article in Special Issue
A Review of the Modelling of Thermally Interacting Multiple Boreholes
Previous Article in Journal
The Role of Deliberative Collaborative Governance in Achieving Sustainable Cities
Previous Article in Special Issue
Consistent Aggregation of Generalized Sustainable Values from the Firm Level to Sectoral, Regional or Industry Levels
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Sustainability 2013, 5(6), 2367-2388; doi:10.3390/su5062367

What Do the IUCN Categories Really Protect? A Case Study of the Alpine Regions in Spain

Department of Arctic and Marine Biology, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 27 February 2013 / Revised: 24 April 2013 / Accepted: 10 May 2013 / Published: 28 May 2013
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [366 KB, 24 February 2015; original version 24 February 2015]   |  

Abstract

Protected area (PA) coverage is used as an indicator of biodiversity protection worldwide. The effectiveness of using PAs as indicators has been questioned due to the diversity of categories encompassed by such designations, especially in PAs established for purposes other than biodiversity protection. Although international standards have been developed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the policies on the ground have been developed independently of the IUCN categories, thus making the IUCN categories dubious measures of biodiversity conservation. Management plans are crucial for the effective management of parks and for guidance on how biodiversity maintenance should be prioritized relative to other goals. We therefore analyzed the aims and regulations of the management plans of alpine PAs in Spain as a first step in evaluating conservation performance. We used content analysis and correspondence analysis of instrumental variables (CAiv) to assess how aims and regulations vary in relation to three explanatory factors: IUCN categories, vegetation zones and autonomous communities. We found that the aims of many parks were vague, without clear indications of how to prioritize biodiversity goals. Furthermore, only 50% of the parks studied had any management plan, which strengthens our argument concerning the lack of clear guidance in PA management. Although certain aims were correlated with the IUCN categories, the regulations showed no clear relationship to international policies, which indicates that these aims do not necessarily influence management practices. Devolution to autonomous communities could be one explanation for the large variation in management practices among parks. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of such management policies on biodiversity. View Full-Text
Keywords: protected areas; evaluation; management effectiveness; IUCN category; content analysis; CAiv; biodiversity; management plan; Spain; alpine protected areas; evaluation; management effectiveness; IUCN category; content analysis; CAiv; biodiversity; management plan; Spain; alpine
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 3.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Muñoz, L.; Hausner, V.H. What Do the IUCN Categories Really Protect? A Case Study of the Alpine Regions in Spain. Sustainability 2013, 5, 2367-2388.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Sustainability EISSN 2071-1050 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top