IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i10p3608-d174588.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Social–Ecological Systems Framework as a Tool for Understanding the Effectiveness of Biosphere Reserve Management

Author

Listed:
  • Ana F. Ferreira

    (Center for Environmental and Sustainability Research (CENSE), NOVA School of Science and Technology, NOVA University Lisbon, Campus de Caparica, 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal
    Institute of Ecology, Faculty of Sustainability and Center for Methods, Leuphana University, Universitätsallee 1, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany)

  • Heike Zimmermann

    (Institute for Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research, Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University, Universitätsallee 1, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany)

  • Rui Santos

    (Center for Environmental and Sustainability Research (CENSE), NOVA School of Science and Technology, NOVA University Lisbon, Campus de Caparica, 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal)

  • Henrik Von Wehrden

    (Institute of Ecology, Faculty of Sustainability and Center for Methods, Leuphana University, Universitätsallee 1, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany)

Abstract

Biosphere reserves aim to reconciliate social and economic development with biodiversity conservation through complex spatial and governance arrangements. However, there is a generalized lack of information about how biosphere reserves are being managed and governed, and at what point their goals are being achieved, which limits a better understanding of the factors influencing biosphere reserve management effectiveness. Building on a systematic review of existing empirical studies, we developed a framework that identifies the main features related to biosphere reserve management effectiveness. We identified four main categories—context, inputs, process and outcomes—and 53 sub-categories, which interact at different scales and shape biosphere reserve effectiveness. We found that the capacity of biosphere reserves to achieve their goals is not only related to the way they are managed/governed, or to the inputs invested, but to many social and ecological contextual factors. We also identified benefits and impacts that were associated to biosphere reserves around the world. Comparing to other social–ecological system frameworks, ours provides a more inclusive approach, since it integrates the findings of studies with different research perspectives, considers a plurality of values attributed to natural resources, and the social–ecological system’s scales dynamics.

Suggested Citation

  • Ana F. Ferreira & Heike Zimmermann & Rui Santos & Henrik Von Wehrden, 2018. "A Social–Ecological Systems Framework as a Tool for Understanding the Effectiveness of Biosphere Reserve Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-26, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:10:p:3608-:d:174588
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3608/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3608/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lyon, Andrew & Hunter-Jones, Philippa & Warnaby, Gary, 2017. "Are we any closer to sustainable development? Listening to active stakeholder discourses of tourism development in the Waterberg Biosphere Reserve, South Africa," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 234-247.
    2. Velez, Mariana & Adlerstein, Sara & Wondolleck, Julia, 2014. "Fishers' perceptions, facilitating factors and challenges of community-based no-take zones in the Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve, Quintana Roo, Mexico," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 171-181.
    3. Luederitz, Christopher & Brink, Ebba & Gralla, Fabienne & Hermelingmeier, Verena & Meyer, Moritz & Niven, Lisa & Panzer, Lars & Partelow, Stefan & Rau, Anna-Lena & Sasaki, Ryuei & Abson, David J. & La, 2015. "A review of urban ecosystem services: six key challenges for future research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 98-112.
    4. Schultz, Lisen & Duit, Andreas & Folke, Carl, 2011. "Participation, Adaptive Co-management, and Management Performance in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 662-671, April.
    5. Agarwal, Bina, 2001. "Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry, and Gender: An Analysis for South Asia and a Conceptual Framework," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(10), pages 1623-1648, October.
    6. Pool-Stanvliet, Ruida & Stoll-Kleemann, Susanne & Giliomee, Jan H., 2018. "Criteria for selection and evaluation of biosphere reserves in support of the UNESCO MAB programme in South Africa," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 654-663.
    7. Katharina J. Srnka & Sabine t. Koeszegi, 2007. "From Words to Numbers: How to Transform Qualitative Data into Meaningful Quantitative Results," Schmalenbach Business Review (sbr), LMU Munich School of Management, vol. 59(1), pages 29-57, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sena-Vittini, Mildred & Gomez-Valenzuela, Victor & Ramirez, Katerin, 2023. "Social perceptions and conservation in protected areas: Taking stock of the literature," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    2. Sri Astutik & Jürgen Pretzsch & Jude Ndzifon Kimengsi, 2019. "Asian Medicinal Plants’ Production and Utilization Potentials: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-33, October.
    3. Mónica de Castro-Pardo & Fernando Pérez-Rodríguez & José María Martín-Martín & João C. Azevedo, 2019. "Planning for Democracy in Protected Rural Areas: Application of a Voting Method in a Spanish-Portuguese Reserve," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-17, October.
    4. Georgina V. E. Wilson & Brandon P. Anthony, 2023. "Opportunities and Barriers to Monitoring and Evaluating Management Effectiveness in Protected Areas within the Kruger to Canyons Biosphere Region, South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, March.
    5. Ana Filipa Ferreira & Heike Zimmermann & Rui Santos & Henrik von Wehrden, 2020. "Biosphere Reserves’ Management Effectiveness—A Systematic Literature Review and a Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-32, July.
    6. Itai Beeri & Dan Gottlieb & Ido Izhaki & Tzipi Eshet & Noam Cohen, 2020. "The Impact of Training on Druze Entrepreneurs’ Attitudes Towards and Intended Behaviors Regarding Local Sustainability Governance: A Field Experiment at the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-19, June.
    7. Alessandro Scuderi & Luisa Sturiale & Giuseppe Timpanaro & Agata Matarazzo & Silvia Zingale & Paolo Guarnaccia, 2022. "A Model to Support Sustainable Resource Management in the “Etna River Valleys” Biosphere Reserve: The Dominance-Based Rough Set Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.
    8. A. T. Shruthi Gopirajan & Praveen Kumar & P. K. Joshi, 2022. "Unraveling the complex and dynamic Himalayan socio-ecological systems: a systematic review," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1532-1559, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aida Mammadova & Christopher D. Smith & Tatiana Yashina, 2021. "Comparative Analysis between the Role of Local Communities in Regional Development inside Japanese and Russian UNESCO’s Biosphere Reserves: Case Studies of Mount Hakusan and Katunskiy Biosphere Reserv," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-23, September.
    2. Bettina Hedden-Dunkhorst & Florian Schmitt, 2020. "Exploring the Potential and Contribution of UNESCO Biosphere Reserves for Landscape Governance and Management in Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-27, July.
    3. Lee, Jae-hyuck, 2019. "Analyzing local opposition to biosphere reserve creation through semantic network analysis: The case of Baekdu mountain range, Korea," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 61-69.
    4. Lauren Pandolfelli & Ruth Meinzen-Dick & Stephan Dohrn, 2008. "Gender and collective action: motivations, effectiveness and impact," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 1-11.
    5. Pandit, Ram & Bevilacqua, Eddie, 2011. "Forest users and environmental impacts of community forestry in the hills of Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 345-352, June.
    6. Alkire, Sabina & Meinzen-Dick, Ruth & Peterman, Amber & Quisumbing, Agnes & Seymour, Greg & Vaz, Ana, 2013. "The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 71-91.
    7. repec:kap:iaecre:v:15:y:2009:i:2:p:178-185 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    9. Nandigama, Sailaja, 2020. "Performance of success and failure in grassroots conservation and development interventions: Gender dynamics in participatory forest management in India," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    10. Hao, J., 2018. "Cooperative member commitment, trust and social pressure -- the role of members’ participation in the decision-making," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 275881, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Prakash Kashwan, 2016. "Integrating power in institutional analysis: A micro-foundation perspective," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(1), pages 5-26, January.
    12. Sirakaya, Aysegül & Cliquet, An & Harris, Jim, 2018. "Ecosystem services in cities: Towards the international legal protection of ecosystem services in urban environments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 205-212.
    13. Murat Sartas & Piet van Asten & Marc Schut & Mariette McCampbell & Moureen Awori & Perez Muchunguzi & Moses Tenywa & Sylvia Namazzi & Ana Sole Amat & Graham Thiele & Claudio Proietti & Andre Devaux & , 2019. "Factors influencing participation dynamics in research for development interventions with multi-stakeholder platforms: A metric approach to studying stakeholder participation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-20, November.
    14. Dennis, Matthew & James, Philip, 2017. "Ecosystem services of collectively managed urban gardens: Exploring factors affecting synergies and trade-offs at the site level," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 17-26.
    15. Ghazala Mansuri, 2004. "Community-Based and -Driven Development: A Critical Review," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 19(1), pages 1-39.
    16. Salazar, César A. & Jaime, Mónica M., 2009. "Participación en Organizaciones de la Sociedad Civil en Chile. ¿Una Alternativa para Mejorar el Bienestar Económico? [Participation in Civil Society Organizations in Chile. Is it an Alternative to ," MPRA Paper 12797, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Barbara Quimby & Arielle Levine, 2018. "Participation, Power, and Equity: Examining Three Key Social Dimensions of Fisheries Comanagement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    18. Evan Elderbrock & Chris Enright & Kathryn A. Lynch & Alexandra R. Rempel, 2020. "A Guide to Public Green Space Planning for Urban Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-23, October.
    19. Pires, Aliny P.F. & Rodriguez Soto, Clarita & Scarano, Fabio R., 2021. "Strategies to reach global sustainability should take better account of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    20. Lang, Le Dang & Tiwari, Aviral Kumar & Hieu, Hoang Ngoc & Ha, Nguyen Minh & Gaur, Jighyasu, 2023. "The role of structural social capital in driving social-oriented sustainable agricultural entrepreneurship," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    21. Nieto-Romero, M. & Parra, C. & Bock, B., 2021. "Re-building historical commons: How formal institutions affect participation in community forests in Galicia, Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:10:p:3608-:d:174588. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.