Elsevier

Land Use Policy

Volume 30, Issue 1, January 2013, Pages 38-56
Land Use Policy

Protected areas within multifunctional landscapes: Squeezing out intermediate land use intensities in the tropics?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.02.006Get rights and content

Abstract

A protected area (PA) tends to be designated in an area where tracts of primary forest remain, often with poor accessibility due to terrain features and yet with some exposure to threats. Typically, a PA is at the start of a ‘forest transition’ gradient. The establishment of a PA influences the whole gradient. We analyzed the temporal patterns of land-use change inside and outside four PAs, with one located in each of Laos, Indonesia, Madagascar and Cameroon. In Laos, in the Viengkham landscape, the rates of conversion of natural forest increased after the designation of the PA and were higher than the spatial baseline predicted. In the three other landscapes, the policies associated with the implementation of PAs increased the conversion rate immediately outside the boundary of the PAs. In Indonesia, in the Bungo landscape, forms of land-use associated with multifunctional agroforestry activities involving rubber trees land-use became the target for conversion to oil palm and monoculture rubber tree crops when the rules on the protection of the remaining natural forest were tightened. We tested a new metric for the degree of integration of forest in multifunctional landscapes which recognizes the surrounding matrix, both as surrogate habitat and as a corridor for tree species. Two important findings were: (i) a ‘leakage’ zone of influence of at least 10 km around a PA needs to be included for quantification of the deforestation and degradation changes that may be due to forest protection inside the PA and (ii) agroforest and other mixed tree cover can maintain or increase the degree of integration of forest in the multifunctional landscape for biodiversity maintenance and conservation, while providing a source of livelihood for the local people.

Highlights

► Protection Area (PA) establishment increases vegetation contrast by slowing tree cover loss inside the PA and increasing it outside. ► Using this contrast to estimate PA effectiveness produces negative ‘leakage’ effects at least 10 km around a PA. ► Agroforestry systems surrounding a PA tend to disappear through conversion to more intensive land-use practices. ► Tree cover contrasts imply loss of ecological connectivity and the loss of agroforests induces an ‘island effect’. ► Forest gradient management can achieve conservation and development goals.

Introduction

At the tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2010, signatory countries committed to increase conservation by at least 17% in terrestrial, inland water, and coastal and marine areas by 2020. Biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services require comprehensive, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of effectively managed protected areas (PAs) (Hilty et al., 2006). However, due to limiting resources, it is necessary to identify priorities in terms of ecosystem, endemic species, human pressure (Rogers et al., 2010) and the types of management effort (Linkie et al., 2010).

The effectiveness of the gazettal of a certain area as a PA as a means of reducing deforestation and the spatial displacement of drivers of forest conversion have been studied extensively through meta-analysis (Nagendra, 2008), regional analysis (Joppa et al., 2008) and global analysis (Leverington et al., 2010), as well as via PA case studies in particular regions (for example, Gaveau et al., 2009, Nagendra et al., 2009, Htun et al., 2009, Oliveira et al., 2007, Wear and Murray, 2004, Andam et al., 2008). The findings are almost unanimous that deforestation inside PAs is lower than outside, but this contrast may be enhanced by the spatial displacement of forest conversion to ‘control’ areas outside the PA. The inclusion of buffer areas outside a PA when analyzing the effectiveness of a PA is important to mitigate the displacement of deforestation from the PA to other parts of the landscape. In nine cases, the deforestation was higher before PA establishment compared to after, but in five cases, deforestation was higher after PA establishment (Nagendra, 2008). These changes in deforestation trends can be attributed to a large extent to the establishment of the PA. The conditions that led to and preceded the establishment of the PA probably need to be taken into account, as some immediacy of ‘threat’ is usually an argument for PA designation. Wittemyer et al. (2008) found that PA designation tended to induce in-migration to the surrounding area due to international aid and also national investment along with PA establishment; there was a doubling in the population growth rate in the PA border area compared to the average area elsewhere in the country that can reduce PA effectiveness and biodiversity conservation.

The effectiveness of PA establishment can be compared with that of alternatives such as support for community management of the forest (Porter-Bolland et al., 2011). Most quantitative studies use deforestation as an indicator of the effectiveness of PA. Forest cover changes are now widely understood to have nonlinear dynamics (Rudel et al., 2005, Meyfroidt and Lambin, 2011), implying that simple linear extrapolation of trends in forest cover can produce suspect results. Rather than applying a dichotomy of forest versus non-forest, capturing the dynamics of land-use/land-cover requires a more detailed legend of land-cover types and their consequences for environmental services, such as biodiversity and carbon stock, as well as provision of human livelihoods. PAs remain a cornerstone of biodiversity conservation policy, but the condition of the matrix between the PAs will be increasingly important as climate shift will necessitate a dynamic rather than a static, biogeographical perspective in conservation planning. PAs alone, despite their growing extent, are not sufficient to conserve biodiversity and other ecosystem services, especially under increasing population pressures (Brudvig et al., 2009, Beier and Brost, 2010). Wittemyer et al. (2008) used global data to show that a PA did induce in-migration to the bordering areas. In many cases in developing countries, the delineation of PAs involves the recognition of enclaves for places with decades or centuries of inhabitation by indigenous people. Exclusion of the indigenous population from their traditional land due to newly established conservation areas raises the issue of human rights (Goldman, 2011). The integration of PAs in a wider landscape and seascape remains a key issue in achieving conservation and development goals. Porter-Bolland et al. (2011) suggested a wider, regional approach that takes into account the portfolio of land-uses as a reflection of the demands of the local community to meet their social and economic needs. Such an approach will increase the robustness and resilience of a forest conservation strategy—it will essentially ‘manage the gradient’ rather than the ‘protected area’. A combination is needed of options that singly propose to ‘segregate’ or ‘integrate’ to achieve landscape multifunctionality (Van Noordwijk et al., 1997, Swift et al., 2004). The major opportunity for maintaining both environmental services and biodiversity outside conservation areas lies in promoting a diversity of land uses at the landscape scale rather than the plot scale.

Integrated Development and Conservation Projects (Garnett et al., 2007) have focused on the spatial context of PAs. Broader views on multifunctional landscapes, as a modality to achieve both conservation and development objectives simultaneously in integrated landscapes, stem from the traditional European management of landscapes (Jones-Walters, 2008) and that has then been adopted widely (Pfund, 2010). The segregation of landscapes into protected areas on which strict rules of access are imposed, and open, self-organized areas does not prevail, especially in a tropical landscape with a medium-to-high population density. This segregation approach leads to isolated patches or islands of protected forests. Adopting an approach based on dichotomy between protected versus unprotected management areas to assess the contribution of a particular landscape to an overall conservation goal leads to an underestimation of the conservation values and threats, and an overestimation of the conservation costs (Wilson et al., 2010).

Several empirical studies have shown that the area surrounding a PA becomes increasingly fragmented, which reduces the functioning of ecological corridors (Nagendra et al., 2009) and causes the PA to become more isolated. The need to integrate PAs within a larger region is imperative (Curran et al., 2004, deFries et al., 2005). The importance has been realized (Lindenmayer and Franklin, 2002) of managing the matrix, that is, the constituents outside the PAs that play ecological roles for forest biodiversity conservation and other environmental services, as well as providing livelihoods for the local people. The connectivity of habitat beyond target areas as an important part of the landscape level of biodiversity conservation has been discussed widely (Brudvig et al., 2009). Finding the right balance between spatial segregation and integration in a multifunctional landscape is necessary to achieve integrated natural resource management objectives (van Noordwijk et al., 2001).

Meta-analysis of 69 agroforestry systems across 14 countries found that the richness of bird, insect, mammal and plant species in agroforestry systems could be quite high; common species found in agroforest and natural forest ranged from 25 to 69% (Bhagwat et al., 2008). Agroforestry systems also maintain belowground biodiversity (Giller et al., 2005). Yet, most species shared between agroforests and forests are habitat generalists (see Uezu, 2008, for birds in agroforest woodlots in Brazil; O’Connor et al., 2006, for birds in coffee agroforests in Indonesia; Murdiyarso et al., 2002, Joshi et al., 2003, Rasnovi, 2006, for trees in rubber agroforests in Indonesia) or those perceived as being valuable by farmers. Recognizing the roles of such land-use systems that compose and configure a forested landscape is crucial in assessing the multifunctionality of a landscape.

Working examples of multifunctional landscapes in the tropics and comparisons across landscapes (meta- and regional analyses) are scarce. The need for rich and long-term datasets, detailed complex processes and drivers, and intricate patterns often obstruct the conception of a bigger picture and framework in linking multiple scales. This hinders the formulation of general principles and the development of policy and action recommendations that suit specific local conditions while being properly contextual to regional and global issues. The objectives of this paper were to:

  • 1.

    Test the hypotheses (using the four studied landscapes) that the enforcement of the protection status in a portion of the landscape: (i) is effective in reducing deforestation and degradation inside the PA and (ii) does not induce any displacement of activities to the surrounding areas;

  • 2.

    Characterize changes in the integration-segregation continuum of multifunctional landscapes as consequences of land-use changes.

  • 3.

    Develop a framework to analyze trade-offs between conservation and land-based sector development within a landscape and develop ways to promote the multifunctionality of landscapes that are composed of mosaics of land-uses and functions, including protected areas.

Section snippets

Forest fragmentation in multifunctional landscapes

Managing a landscape that is composed of various land-use systems (including forests and mixed tree systems) can help to reduce climate change impacts and increase the capacity for adaptation through: (i) better protection from pests and diseases, (ii) providing a safety net based on tree crops if the annual non-tree crop fails, (iii) reducing landslides resulting from extreme rainfall events, (iv) regulating the hydrological cycle and (v) acting as potential storage sites for the genetic

General characteristics of the study sites

This study addressed the landscape dynamics over time and space in four areas: Bungo in Indonesia, Viengkham in Laos, Manompana in Madagascar and Takamanda in Cameroon. Fig. 1 shows the location of each landscape and Table 1 summarizes each landscape. More detailed descriptions on the landscapes, the rationale of landscape selection and the drivers of land-use change and the dominant agroforestry systems can be found in Pfund et al. (2008) and Pfund et al. (2011), while land-use and land-cover

Remote-sensing data

Medium-resolution satellite imagery (Landsat MSS, TM and ETM) was the primary source of data to produce the multi-temporal land-cover maps for the study areas. The choices of acquisition years were very much driven by the availability of cloud-free imagery, however, where there was minor cloud and shadow, such areas were treated as having no-data available across the entire time series to avoid any inconsistencies in the calculations of the area-based rates and proportions. The boundaries of

Conclusions

In achieving conservation and development objectives in multifunctional landscapes, it is recognized that some areas should be strictly allocated for development or conservation, but in most rural landscapes there is plenty of room to consider opportunities where the intermediate land-use/land-cover and tree cover can be negotiated in terms of extent and configuration within the landscape planning. As a means of comprehending the leakage/displacement of activities, it is imperative to observe

Acknowledgements

The research was conducted as part of the Landscape Mosaics project funded by the Swiss Development Cooperation. The authors would like to thank the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) and the Centre for International Forestry Research for the co-funding. The authors are very grateful for the useful comments provided by Dr. Heini Vihemaki, Dr. Catherine Muthuri, Dr. Terry Sunderland and anonymous reviewers.

References (72)

  • R. Akiefnawati et al.

    Stewardship agreement to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD): a case study from Lubuk Beringin's Hutan Desa, Jambi Province, Sumatra, Indonesia

    The International Forestry Review

    (2010)
  • M.Y. Alimi

    Land disputes and Mesuji violence

    (2011)
  • K.S. Andam et al.

    Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

    (2008)
  • Baldauf, T., Plugge, D., Rqibate, A., Köhl, M. 2009. Case studies on measuring and assessing forest degradation....
  • P. Beier et al.

    Use of land facets to plan for climate change: conserving the arenas, not the actors

    Conservation Biology

    (2010)
  • T.M. Brooks et al.

    Evaluating the success of conservation actions in safeguarding tropical forest biodiversity

    Conservation Biology

    (2009)
  • L.A. Brudvig et al.

    Landscape connectivity promotes plant biodiversity spillover into non-target habitats

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

    (2009)
  • L.M. Curran et al.

    Lowland forest loss in protected areas of Indonesian Borneo

    Science

    (2004)
  • I.K. Dawson et al.

    Climate change and tree genetic resource management: maintaining and enhancing the productivity and value of smallholder tropical agroforestry landscapes: a review

    Agroforesty Systems

    (2010)
  • Definiens

    Developer 7 Reference Book

    (2007)
  • R. deFries et al.

    Increasing isolation of protected areas in tropical forests over the past twenty years

    Ecological Applications

    (2005)
  • Dewi, S., Ekadinata, A. 2010. Landscape dynamics over time and space from an ecological perspective. Working paper 103,...
  • A. Ekadinata et al.

    Rubber agroforests in a changing landscape: analysis of land-use/cover trajectories in Bungo district, Indonesia

    Forests, Trees and Livelihoods

    (2011)
  • L. Fahrig

    Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity

    Annual Review in Ecology and Evolution

    (2003)
  • L. Feintrenie et al.

    Sumatra's rubber agroforests: advent, rise and fall of a sustainable cropping system

    Small-scale Forestry

    (2009)
  • L. Feintrenie et al.

    Why do farmers prefer oil palm? Lessons learnt from Bungo district, Indonesia

    Small-scale Forestry

    (2010)
  • Fitriana, Y.R. 2008. Landscape and farming systems in transition: Case study in Viengkham district, Luang Prabang...
  • S.T. Garnett et al.

    Improving the effectiveness of interventions to balance conservation and development

    Ecology and Society

    (2007)
  • D.L.A. Gaveau et al.

    Evaluating whether protected areas reduce tropical deforestation in Sumatra

    Journal of Biogeography

    (2009)
  • J. Ghazoul et al.

    REDD light for wildlife-friendly farming

    Conservation Biology

    (2010)
  • K.E. Giller et al.

    Soil biodiversity in rapidly changing tropical landscapes: scaling down and scaling up

  • M.J. Goldman

    Strangers in their own land: Masai and wildlife conservation in Northern Tanzania

    Conservation and Society

    (2011)
  • A. Gouyon et al.

    Does ‘jungle rubber’ deserve its name? An analysis of rubber agrorestry system in Southeast Sumatra

    Agroforestry systems

    (1993)
  • J.A. Hilty et al.

    Corridor Ecology: The Science and Practice of Linking Landscapes for Biodiversity Conservation

    (2006)
  • M. Hockings et al.

    Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing Management Effectivenss of Protected Areas

    (2006)
  • N.Z. Htun et al.

    Deforestation and forest degradation as measures of Popa Mountain Park (Myanmar) effectiveness

    Environmental Conservation

    (2009)
  • Cited by (68)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text