Appendix 8. Supplementary Descriptive Statistics for ‘Views’ Review Screening at full text as part of the ‘views’ review identified 306 reports of people’s views about protected areas, and these are described below. Study Location for evidence of people’s views People’s views of protected areas have been conducted in 83 countries. The literature focuses largely on Africa and Asia, but also Europe and Latin America. Fewer studies were set in parks in Europe, Scandinavia, North America or Australasia. Figure A5.1 illustrates how often countries appeared in studies of people’s views. Reports were most often of studies conducted in India (30) and Nepal (28); followed by China (18), Tanzania (18), South Africa (17) and Uganda (17); then Kenya (13), Indonesia (11) and Botswana (10), with other countries appearing less and less often until 12 appear on only three reports, 18 in two and 31 in one. Figure A5.1. Countries hosting studies of people’s views in accepted articles: the size of the bubble represents the number of reports of studies set in each country. Map source: Tableau Software. Protected Areas Studied Between them, the reports named 435 different protected areas. The 13 most frequently reported protected areas are listed in Table A5.1. In addition to these, 11 areas appeared in three reports; 43 areas appeared in two reports; and 246 areas appeared in only one report. Table A5.1 Frequency of commonly studied protected areas appearing in accepted articles. Name of Protected Area Number of reports Royal Chitwan National Park (buffer zone) 8
Transcript
Appendix 8. Supplementary Descriptive Statistics for ‘Views’ Review Screening at full text as part of the ‘views’ review identified 306 reports of people’s views about protected areas, and these are described below. Study Location for evidence of people’s views People’s views of protected areas have been conducted in 83 countries. The literature focuses largely on Africa and Asia, but also Europe and Latin America. Fewer studies were set in parks in Europe, Scandinavia, North America or Australasia. Figure A5.1 illustrates how often countries appeared in studies of people’s views. Reports were most often of studies conducted in India (30) and Nepal (28); followed by China (18), Tanzania (18), South Africa (17) and Uganda (17); then Kenya (13), Indonesia (11) and Botswana (10), with other countries appearing less and less often until 12 appear on only three reports, 18 in two and 31 in one.
Figure A5.1. Countries hosting studies of people’s views in accepted articles: the size of the bubble represents the number of reports of studies set in each country. Map source: Tableau Software. Protected Areas Studied Between them, the reports named 435 different protected areas. The 13 most frequently reported protected areas are listed in Table A5.1. In addition to these, 11 areas appeared in three reports; 43 areas appeared in two reports; and 246 areas appeared in only one report. Table A5.1 Frequency of commonly studied protected areas appearing in accepted articles.
Name of Protected Area Number of reports
Royal Chitwan National Park (buffer zone) 8
Annapurna Conservation Area 7
Kruger National Park 7
Kibale National Park 6
Bwindi Impenetrable National Park 5
Cross River National Park 5
Mgahinga Gorilla national Park 5
Serengeti National Park 5
Komodo National Park 4
Maya Biosphere Reserve 4
Moremi Game Reserve 4
Ranomafana National Park 4
Royal Bardia National Park 4
The current IUCN categories for many of these protected areas could not be found (96 in total). Of those categorised, most were IUCN category II (134) followed by categories IV (34), VI (33) and V (18). In the main, these protected areas were established between 1960 and 2000, with peaks in the 1970s and 1990s (Figure A5.2).
Figure A5.2. Year of establishment for protected areas reported in accepted articles. Where the IUCN category could be found, the establishment of IUCN category II protected areas predominated in most decades, although there were growing numbers of category VI protected areas, with sustainable use of natural resources, from the 1970s, with over 20 being established in the 1990s (Figure A5.3).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Figure A5.3: Year of establishment for protected areas of different IUCN categories (Data missing where IUCN category is either not stated or unclear. Some reports included more than one protected area) Although the IUCN category for some protected areas changed sometime after they were established, a large number of areas have been protected within the same category assigned between the 1960s to 1990s (Figure A5.4).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
VI Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources
V Protected landscape/ Seascape
IV Habitat/ species management area
III Natural monument or feature
II National Park
Ib Wilderness area
Ia Strict nature reserve
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Figure A5.4: Date protected areas assigned current status Where the IUCN category was known, the status has been largely unchanged from the 1970s to the 1990s (category VI) or even earlier: the 1950s (category II), or 1960s (category IV) (Figure A5.5).
Figure A5.5: Date since agreed current status of protected areas. We only sought reports conducted since the Rio Summit in 1992, but most were conducted after 1996, with numbers reducing after 2008 (Figure A5.6).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80 VI Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources
V Protected landscape/ Seascape
IV Habitat/ species management area
III Natural monument or feature
II National Park
Ib Wilderness area
Figure A5.6 Year of data collection and frequency of reporting in accepted articles The time lapse between the last change in status and the date of data collection varied between a year and a century, although was rarely over 60 years. Most reports were of studies were conducted within 2-30 years since the last change in status (data not shown). These average figures hide a distinction between the three main categories studied. Most reports of protected areas in categories II and IV were conducted over 20 years after they were established, whereas most reports of protected areas in category IV were conducted less than 20 years after they were established (Figure A5.7).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Figure A5.7: Time lapse between protected area established and study data collection for accepted articles. The reports were fairly evenly split between the time following the Rio Summit (1992-2003) and the time following the Durban accord (2004- present) (Table A5.2). Table A5.2: Timing of data collection in relation to the Rio Summit and the Durban Accord. Totals are not mutually exclusive as some study periods spanned the two categories
Dat
e o
f d
ata
colle
ctio
n
Ia S
tric
t n
atu
re r
eser
ve
Ib W
ilder
nes
s ar
ea
II N
atio
nal
Par
k
III N
atu
ral m
on
um
en
t o
r fe
atu
re
IV H
abit
at/
spec
ies
man
agem
en
t ar
ea
V P
rote
cte
d la
nd
scap
e/
Seas
cap
e
VI P
rote
cte
d a
rea
wit
h
sust
ain
able
use
of
nat
ura
l
reso
urc
es
Pro
po
sed
Un
kno
wn
/ n
ot
rep
ort
ed
/
no
t ap
plic
able
Dates not reported 1 3 41 3 5 3 6 3 27
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50 U
p t
o 2
ye
ars
Ove
r 2
up
to
1
0
Ove
r 1
0 u
p
to 2
0
Ove
r 2
0 u
p
to 3
0
Ove
r 3
0 u
p
to 4
0
Ove
r 4
0 u
p
to 5
0
Ove
r 5
0 u
p
to 6
0
Ove
r 6
0 u
p
to 7
0
Ove
r 7
0 u
p
to 8
0
Ove
r 8
0 u
p
to 9
0
Ove
r 9
0 u
p
to 1
00
Ove
r 1
10
up
to
12
0
VI Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources V Protected landscape/ Seascape
Whose views were heard? The authorship of reports is shown in Table A5.3. Most reports had academic authors (273), although there were reports by authors with other affiliations: non-governmental organisations (39); protected area authorities (20); government departments (6); and commercial organisations (2). The affiliations of authors were unknown or unclear in 22 reports. Table A5.3: authorship of reports
Affiliations of authors Count
Academic authors 273
Non-governmental organisation 39
Park authority 20
Government Department 6
Commercial organisation 2
Affiliation of authors unclear 22
Most reports investigated the views of people living in or near protected areas (294). Most of these were ordinary residents living in (237) or near (74) protected areas, community leaders (44) and representatives of particular community groups, cooperatives and societies (17) (Table A5.4). Two reports were of people who used to live in protected areas, and two were of school children. Other viewpoints were offered in studies that included people associated with protected areas (101 reports): authorities and employees (73); volunteers (1) or experts in nature protection and regional development (14). The views of other stakeholders came from people associated with government (44), NGOs (27) or businesses (27). There were also reports of members of the public visiting protected areas (27). Table A5.4: Study populations in accepted articles. Some studies sought the views of more than one type of population or populations from more than one Protected Area.
Population Number of reports
people living in/ near protected areas 294
Residents 237
Non-residents 74
Ex-residents 2
Community leaders 44
Representatives of community groups, coops and societies 17
School children 2
people associated with parks 101
Park authorities and staff 73
Volunteers 1
Experts in nature protection and regional development 14
Other stakeholders
Government staff/officials 44
NGO staff/ officials 27
Businesses 27
Visitors 29
Other 7
The views of people living in or near protected areas were heard for all IUCN categories, with more studies focusing on their views about categories II, IV and VI (Figure A5.9).
Figure A5.9: Views of protected areas of different categories held by people living in or near protected areas. In contrast, the views of people associated with the protected areas through their work were heard mainly in reports about category II (Figure A5.10)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
School children
Representatives of community groups, coops and societies
Community leaders
Ex-residents
Non-residents
Residents
Figure A5.10: Views of protected areas of different categories held by people working in protected areas. Similarly, category II was the most frequent setting for reports of other stakeholders’ views of protected areas (Figure A5.11)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Experts in nature protection and regional development
Park authorities and staff
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Businesses
Other
Government staff/officials
NGO staff/ officials
Visitors
Figure A5.11: Views of categories of protected areas held by other stakeholders. Methods of the views studies Methods varied between the studies (Table A5.8). Most reports were of surveys, while others used more in-depth designs: case study, ethnography or participatory development. Table A5.8: Study designs in accepted articles.
Study design Ia S
tric
t n
atu
re r
eser
ve
Ib W
ilder
nes
s ar
ea
II N
atio
nal
Par
k
III N
atu
ral m
on
um
en
t o
r fe
atu
re
IV H
abit
at/
spec
ies
man
agem
en
t ar
ea
V P
rote
cte
d la
nd
scap
e/
Seas
cap
e V
I Pro
tect
ed
are
a w
ith
su
stai
nab
le u
se o
f n
atu
ral
reso
urc
es
Pro
po
sed
Un
kno
wn
/ n
ot
rep
ort
ed
/ n
ot
app
licab
le
Case study 0 1 13 2 3 3 6 2 7
Ethnography 0 1 10 0 4 2 2 0 10
Participatory development 0 0 8 0 2 0 1 0 2
Survey 3 5 120 7 29 16 32 4 83
Other 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 2
Data collection methods (Table A5.9) included surveys which varied in terms of their degree of structure, and focus groups. Methods for analysis were rarely reported but often apparent by the reporting of the findings. Table A5.9: Data collection methods in accepted articles.
The type of data collected by studies was quantitative, qualitative or mixed (Table A5.10). The quantitative data provided general descriptions of protected areas, usually in terms determined by the authors. These were often surveys of residents’ or visitors’ attitudes towards protected areas and
conservation. Qualitative research employed more open methods of data collection through interviews (formal unstructured interviews or focus groups), or discussions during researchers’ extended observations of the community; although their methods for analysis were rarely reported, 76 reports offered ‘thick’ or ‘rich’ qualitative findings to advance understanding of protected areas from different perspectives. Some studies collected both qualitative and quantitative data, to present an in-depth analysis from key informants, set in the context of a wider, descriptive analysis. Table A5.10: Type of data collected in accepted articles.
Type of data Ia S
tric
t n
atu
re r
eser
ve
Ib W
ilder
nes
s ar
ea
II N
atio
nal
Par
k
III N
atu
ral m
on
um
en
t o
r fe
atu
re
IV H
abit
at/
spec
ies
man
agem
en
t ar
ea
V P
rote
cte
d la
nd
scap
e/
Seas
cap
e V
I Pro
tect
ed
are
a w
ith
sust
ain
able
use
of
nat
ura
l re
sou
rces
Pro
po
sed
U
nkn
ow
n/
no
t re
po
rte
d/
no
t ap
plic
able
Mainly qualitative 1 2 23 2 9 3 3 2 17
Mixed qual/ quant 0 0 32 1 8 2 4 2 17
Mainly quantitative 2 3 80 5 18 13 27 2 62
Summary Since the Rio Summit in 1992, over 300 reports have included views about the impact of protected areas on human well-being, particularly in on Africa and Asia, but also Europe and Latin America. Some countries have been studied many times (most often appearing in reports about India and Nepal, then China, Tanzania, South Africa and Uganda). Three protected areas have appeared in seven or eight reports, and others a few, but the vast majority of areas appeared only in one report. IUCN categories II, IV and IV have attracted most reports. Although publications usually presented a full description of the setting of the study, what can be learnt from this literature is limited by the many publications that either did not report the category of area studied and we were unable to find the category elsewhere, or did not report the date of establishment or changes in category assignment. Where data were available, protected areas were mainly established between 1960 and 2000, with peaks in the 1970s and 1990s, with growing numbers of category VI protected areas from the 1970s. The time lapse between the last change in status and the date of data collection varied between a year and a century, although most reports were of studies conducted within 2-30 years since the last change in status: studies of protected areas in categories II and IV were usually over 20 years after they were established, whereas studies of protected areas in category VI were usually less than 20 years after they were established. Most were studies by academic authors, although there were studies by non-governmental organisations, protected area authorities, government departments, commercial organisations, and others. Most studies investigated the views of people living in or near protected areas. Other viewpoints were offered in studies that included people associated with protected areas, government, NGOs or businesses. There were also studies of members of the public visiting protected areas.
The views of people living in or near protected areas were heard for all IUCN categories, with more studies focusing on their views about categories II, IV and VI. In contrast, the views of people associated with the protected areas through their work and the views of other stakeholders were heard mainly in studies about category II. Thus a rounded picture of category IV is unlikely to be available. Most studies were surveys offering standardised descriptions of respondents’ perceptions of protected areas. Others used more in-depth designs such as case study, ethnography or participatory development to provide a greater understanding of those perceptions.
