Legislative correlates of the size and number of protected areas in Canadian jurisdictions

Protected area legislation provides the statutory authority for the establishment and management of protected areas. Yet few studies have investigated the relationship between protected area legislation and those attributes of protected areas that are likely to affect their success in achieving biod...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Biological conservation 2015-11, Vol.191, p.375-382
Hauptverfasser: Leroux, Shawn J., Brimacombe, Chris, Khair, Shahira, Benidickson, Jamie, Findlay, C. Scott
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 382
container_issue
container_start_page 375
container_title Biological conservation
container_volume 191
creator Leroux, Shawn J.
Brimacombe, Chris
Khair, Shahira
Benidickson, Jamie
Findlay, C. Scott
description Protected area legislation provides the statutory authority for the establishment and management of protected areas. Yet few studies have investigated the relationship between protected area legislation and those attributes of protected areas that are likely to affect their success in achieving biodiversity conservation objectives. Here we investigate the association between the size and number of protected areas within Canadian provincial, territorial and federal jurisdictions and provisions of the corresponding legislation using a Before–After/Control–Impact design. We found that jurisdictions with legislation that includes explicit provisions for donations in cash or in-kind and many types of stakeholder involvement had, on average, larger (1.01× to 29.0×) protected areas after versus before legislation enactment, compared to those without such provisions. Jurisdictions with legislation that includes provisions for protected area co-management with local or aboriginal/indigenous communities also had, on average, a higher rate of park establishment after (0.17–23.7 protected areas/year) versus before (0.17–6.34 protected areas/year) legislation enactment, compared to those without such provisions (0.09–5.00 protected areas/year; 0.21–5.30 protected areas/year after and before respectively). Similar patterns were detected for jurisdictions with legislation that includes provisions for operating and/or capital cost recovery. Our results suggest that legislative provisions that facilitate stakeholder participation and cost recovery may contribute to the establishment of more and larger protected areas. As signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity attempt to expand protected area networks, they should consider including provisions concerning stakeholder involvement and cost recovery into protected areas legislation. •We study how protected area legislation influences the traits of protected areas.•We conducted a case study of Canadian provinces, territories and National parks.•Jurisdictions with legislated stakeholder involvement had larger protected areas.•Jurisdictions with legislated stakeholder involvement had more protected areas.•Our results suggest that a good legal process may lead to conservation benefits.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.07.016
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1762106239</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0006320715300197</els_id><sourcerecordid>1727696222</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-e087b34b333e5d91d32aeb6afb621bff989ccd23838d799b882f58aa6cfe5bd03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkE1LAzEQhoMoWKv_wEOOXnbNRzfZvQhS_IKCF714CfmY1ZRtUpNtQX-9KetZPM3MyzsvMw9Cl5TUlFBxva6NjzaGmhHa1ETWRTxCM9pKXrGOymM0I4SIijMiT9FZzusySi6aGXpbwbvPgx79HrCNKUHpIePY4_EDcPbfgHVwOOw2BtJB3qY4gh3BYZ1AZ-wDXuqgndcBr3fJZ-ft6GPI5-ik10OGi986R6_3dy_Lx2r1_PC0vF1Vlks2VkBaafjCcM6hcR11nGkwQvdGMGr6vms7ax3jLW-d7DrTtqxvWq2F7aExjvA5uppyy2WfO8ij2vhsYRh0gLjLisoSRATj3T-sTIpOMMaKdTFZbYo5J-jVNvmNTl-KEnWgrtZqoq4O1BWRqohl7WZag_Lx3kNS2XoIFpxPhZpy0f8d8APg2o4S</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1727696222</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Legislative correlates of the size and number of protected areas in Canadian jurisdictions</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Leroux, Shawn J. ; Brimacombe, Chris ; Khair, Shahira ; Benidickson, Jamie ; Findlay, C. Scott</creator><creatorcontrib>Leroux, Shawn J. ; Brimacombe, Chris ; Khair, Shahira ; Benidickson, Jamie ; Findlay, C. Scott</creatorcontrib><description>Protected area legislation provides the statutory authority for the establishment and management of protected areas. Yet few studies have investigated the relationship between protected area legislation and those attributes of protected areas that are likely to affect their success in achieving biodiversity conservation objectives. Here we investigate the association between the size and number of protected areas within Canadian provincial, territorial and federal jurisdictions and provisions of the corresponding legislation using a Before–After/Control–Impact design. We found that jurisdictions with legislation that includes explicit provisions for donations in cash or in-kind and many types of stakeholder involvement had, on average, larger (1.01× to 29.0×) protected areas after versus before legislation enactment, compared to those without such provisions. Jurisdictions with legislation that includes provisions for protected area co-management with local or aboriginal/indigenous communities also had, on average, a higher rate of park establishment after (0.17–23.7 protected areas/year) versus before (0.17–6.34 protected areas/year) legislation enactment, compared to those without such provisions (0.09–5.00 protected areas/year; 0.21–5.30 protected areas/year after and before respectively). Similar patterns were detected for jurisdictions with legislation that includes provisions for operating and/or capital cost recovery. Our results suggest that legislative provisions that facilitate stakeholder participation and cost recovery may contribute to the establishment of more and larger protected areas. As signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity attempt to expand protected area networks, they should consider including provisions concerning stakeholder involvement and cost recovery into protected areas legislation. •We study how protected area legislation influences the traits of protected areas.•We conducted a case study of Canadian provinces, territories and National parks.•Jurisdictions with legislated stakeholder involvement had larger protected areas.•Jurisdictions with legislated stakeholder involvement had more protected areas.•Our results suggest that a good legal process may lead to conservation benefits.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0006-3207</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-2917</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.07.016</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Biodiversity ; Communities ; Conventions ; Jurisdiction ; Legislation ; Management ; Park ; Parks ; Policy ; Recovery ; Reserve ; Systematic conservation planning ; Wildlife conservation</subject><ispartof>Biological conservation, 2015-11, Vol.191, p.375-382</ispartof><rights>2015 Elsevier Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-e087b34b333e5d91d32aeb6afb621bff989ccd23838d799b882f58aa6cfe5bd03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-e087b34b333e5d91d32aeb6afb621bff989ccd23838d799b882f58aa6cfe5bd03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.07.016$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3548,27922,27923,45993</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Leroux, Shawn J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brimacombe, Chris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khair, Shahira</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Benidickson, Jamie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Findlay, C. Scott</creatorcontrib><title>Legislative correlates of the size and number of protected areas in Canadian jurisdictions</title><title>Biological conservation</title><description>Protected area legislation provides the statutory authority for the establishment and management of protected areas. Yet few studies have investigated the relationship between protected area legislation and those attributes of protected areas that are likely to affect their success in achieving biodiversity conservation objectives. Here we investigate the association between the size and number of protected areas within Canadian provincial, territorial and federal jurisdictions and provisions of the corresponding legislation using a Before–After/Control–Impact design. We found that jurisdictions with legislation that includes explicit provisions for donations in cash or in-kind and many types of stakeholder involvement had, on average, larger (1.01× to 29.0×) protected areas after versus before legislation enactment, compared to those without such provisions. Jurisdictions with legislation that includes provisions for protected area co-management with local or aboriginal/indigenous communities also had, on average, a higher rate of park establishment after (0.17–23.7 protected areas/year) versus before (0.17–6.34 protected areas/year) legislation enactment, compared to those without such provisions (0.09–5.00 protected areas/year; 0.21–5.30 protected areas/year after and before respectively). Similar patterns were detected for jurisdictions with legislation that includes provisions for operating and/or capital cost recovery. Our results suggest that legislative provisions that facilitate stakeholder participation and cost recovery may contribute to the establishment of more and larger protected areas. As signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity attempt to expand protected area networks, they should consider including provisions concerning stakeholder involvement and cost recovery into protected areas legislation. •We study how protected area legislation influences the traits of protected areas.•We conducted a case study of Canadian provinces, territories and National parks.•Jurisdictions with legislated stakeholder involvement had larger protected areas.•Jurisdictions with legislated stakeholder involvement had more protected areas.•Our results suggest that a good legal process may lead to conservation benefits.</description><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Communities</subject><subject>Conventions</subject><subject>Jurisdiction</subject><subject>Legislation</subject><subject>Management</subject><subject>Park</subject><subject>Parks</subject><subject>Policy</subject><subject>Recovery</subject><subject>Reserve</subject><subject>Systematic conservation planning</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><issn>0006-3207</issn><issn>1873-2917</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkE1LAzEQhoMoWKv_wEOOXnbNRzfZvQhS_IKCF714CfmY1ZRtUpNtQX-9KetZPM3MyzsvMw9Cl5TUlFBxva6NjzaGmhHa1ETWRTxCM9pKXrGOymM0I4SIijMiT9FZzusySi6aGXpbwbvPgx79HrCNKUHpIePY4_EDcPbfgHVwOOw2BtJB3qY4gh3BYZ1AZ-wDXuqgndcBr3fJZ-ft6GPI5-ik10OGi986R6_3dy_Lx2r1_PC0vF1Vlks2VkBaafjCcM6hcR11nGkwQvdGMGr6vms7ax3jLW-d7DrTtqxvWq2F7aExjvA5uppyy2WfO8ij2vhsYRh0gLjLisoSRATj3T-sTIpOMMaKdTFZbYo5J-jVNvmNTl-KEnWgrtZqoq4O1BWRqohl7WZag_Lx3kNS2XoIFpxPhZpy0f8d8APg2o4S</recordid><startdate>201511</startdate><enddate>201511</enddate><creator>Leroux, Shawn J.</creator><creator>Brimacombe, Chris</creator><creator>Khair, Shahira</creator><creator>Benidickson, Jamie</creator><creator>Findlay, C. Scott</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201511</creationdate><title>Legislative correlates of the size and number of protected areas in Canadian jurisdictions</title><author>Leroux, Shawn J. ; Brimacombe, Chris ; Khair, Shahira ; Benidickson, Jamie ; Findlay, C. Scott</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-e087b34b333e5d91d32aeb6afb621bff989ccd23838d799b882f58aa6cfe5bd03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Communities</topic><topic>Conventions</topic><topic>Jurisdiction</topic><topic>Legislation</topic><topic>Management</topic><topic>Park</topic><topic>Parks</topic><topic>Policy</topic><topic>Recovery</topic><topic>Reserve</topic><topic>Systematic conservation planning</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Leroux, Shawn J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brimacombe, Chris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khair, Shahira</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Benidickson, Jamie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Findlay, C. Scott</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Biological conservation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Leroux, Shawn J.</au><au>Brimacombe, Chris</au><au>Khair, Shahira</au><au>Benidickson, Jamie</au><au>Findlay, C. Scott</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Legislative correlates of the size and number of protected areas in Canadian jurisdictions</atitle><jtitle>Biological conservation</jtitle><date>2015-11</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>191</volume><spage>375</spage><epage>382</epage><pages>375-382</pages><issn>0006-3207</issn><eissn>1873-2917</eissn><abstract>Protected area legislation provides the statutory authority for the establishment and management of protected areas. Yet few studies have investigated the relationship between protected area legislation and those attributes of protected areas that are likely to affect their success in achieving biodiversity conservation objectives. Here we investigate the association between the size and number of protected areas within Canadian provincial, territorial and federal jurisdictions and provisions of the corresponding legislation using a Before–After/Control–Impact design. We found that jurisdictions with legislation that includes explicit provisions for donations in cash or in-kind and many types of stakeholder involvement had, on average, larger (1.01× to 29.0×) protected areas after versus before legislation enactment, compared to those without such provisions. Jurisdictions with legislation that includes provisions for protected area co-management with local or aboriginal/indigenous communities also had, on average, a higher rate of park establishment after (0.17–23.7 protected areas/year) versus before (0.17–6.34 protected areas/year) legislation enactment, compared to those without such provisions (0.09–5.00 protected areas/year; 0.21–5.30 protected areas/year after and before respectively). Similar patterns were detected for jurisdictions with legislation that includes provisions for operating and/or capital cost recovery. Our results suggest that legislative provisions that facilitate stakeholder participation and cost recovery may contribute to the establishment of more and larger protected areas. As signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity attempt to expand protected area networks, they should consider including provisions concerning stakeholder involvement and cost recovery into protected areas legislation. •We study how protected area legislation influences the traits of protected areas.•We conducted a case study of Canadian provinces, territories and National parks.•Jurisdictions with legislated stakeholder involvement had larger protected areas.•Jurisdictions with legislated stakeholder involvement had more protected areas.•Our results suggest that a good legal process may lead to conservation benefits.</abstract><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.biocon.2015.07.016</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0006-3207
ispartof Biological conservation, 2015-11, Vol.191, p.375-382
issn 0006-3207
1873-2917
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1762106239
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete - AutoHoldings
subjects Biodiversity
Communities
Conventions
Jurisdiction
Legislation
Management
Park
Parks
Policy
Recovery
Reserve
Systematic conservation planning
Wildlife conservation
title Legislative correlates of the size and number of protected areas in Canadian jurisdictions
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T11%3A12%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Legislative%20correlates%20of%20the%20size%20and%20number%20of%20protected%20areas%20in%20Canadian%20jurisdictions&rft.jtitle=Biological%20conservation&rft.au=Leroux,%20Shawn%20J.&rft.date=2015-11&rft.volume=191&rft.spage=375&rft.epage=382&rft.pages=375-382&rft.issn=0006-3207&rft.eissn=1873-2917&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.07.016&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1727696222%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1727696222&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0006320715300197&rfr_iscdi=true