The implementation of protected areas (PAs) is considered the backbone strategy of efforts towards the conservation of biodiversity and natural resources. Currently, the global network of PAs covers approximately 18.8% of the planet (15.4% of terrestrial and inland water and 3.4% of marine and coastal areas, see Fig. 1), safeguarding millions of species and providing a series of important ecosystem services such as water regulation, carbon neutralization, food, climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as cultural and aesthetic services. Although many countries have committed themselves to increment the coverage of PAs in the upcoming years through international agreements, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (which aims to assure that by 2020, at least 17% of terrestrial and inland water and 10% of coastal and marine areas are covered by PAs), they never been so threatened as now! A current, and overlooked, practice known as protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) has become widespread in many countries, threatening and dismantling PAs everywhere due to economic interests such as mining, new power plant projects, etc.  (for more information and a global map see here; Also, a while ago, I wrote a post about PADDD in Brazil here). Thus, estimating the economic relevance of PAs and bringing this information to political and socioeconomic discussions has become an urgent task.

Protected areas of the World. Extracted from: Juffe-Bignoli et. al. (2014).

In a pioneering study, Andrew Balmford and colleagues have attempted to estimate annual numbers associated with PA visitation and their local and global economic impact. They compiled data from more than 500 terrestrial PAs from 51 countries and built regional and global models to estimate, among other things, the number of visitors, direct expenditure by visitors (calculated from expenditures with fees, travel, accommodation, etc.), consumer surplus (defined as the difference between what visitors would be prepared to pay for a visit and what they actually spend) and the effect of some explanatory variables, such as PA size, remoteness and national income, that might affect visitation rates. Based on these explanatory variables they could predict visit rates for roughly 100,000 PAs.

Their results demonstrate that PAs receive approximately 8 billion visits/yr. Visitation rates are predicted to be higher in Europe, where PAs would receive a combined total of 3.8 billion visits/yr, and lower in Africa (69 million visit/yr). Associations with individual explanatory variables varied regionally in their effect, but as one might expect, national income is a common factor affecting visitation rates in every region. PAs generate approximately US $600 billion/yr in direct expenditure and US $250 billion/yr in consumer surplus. An older estimative shows that less than U$10 billion/yr is spent in protecting and managing PAs, so if this number still roughly valid, for each dollar spent in maintaining them, we would profit ~ U$60, which makes it a hell of a good deal! It is important to note that, although this study seems to be the most comprehensive representation of the global economic significance of tourism associated with PAs, the authors themselves recognize that this number is likely to be an underestimate, so the direct economic return of investing in PAs might be much higher than that!

Now, consider that the economic value of PAs is much, much, higher if we take into account the value of other ecosystem services. A recent study published by Costanza et al. 2014 shows that the global annual economic value of services provided by natural ecosystems is ~U$125 trillion. The same study shows that in less than 15 yrs, changes in land use has promoted an annual loss of U$4.3–20.2 trillion in ecosystem services. Although I could not find a global indicator of the economic participation of PAs as providers of ecosystem services, it seems an obvious conclusion that in a time where natural landscapes are being altered, destroyed and fragmented at very fast rates, PAs will have an even greater importance in protecting the natural and economic wealth of the planet.

So even under the economic development argument, one is left to wonder how governments, politicians and some other sectors of society can consider PAs a “waste of land” and endorse practices such as PADDD?! I don’t really have an answer to this question, but studies like Balmford et al. will surely help conservation biologists to make their discipline more effective and guide society to take batter informed decisions.

References

Costanza, R., et al. 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change 26: 152-158. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002

Juffe-Bignoli, D., et. al. 2014. Protected Planet Report 2014. UNEP-WCMC. Available at <http://www.unep-wcmc.org/resources-and-data/protected-planet-report-2014>

Mascia, M. & Pailler, S. 2011. Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) and its conservation implications. Conservation Letters 4(1): 9–20. DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00147.x

March 11, 2015