Issues and Myths in Protected Area Conservation: Tradeoffs and Synergies (IMPACTS)

保护区通常被视为保护世界各地生态系统和野生动物的有效方式，而且正在迅速扩大。如果实现全球目标，它们将很快覆盖五分之一的陆地表面和十分之一的海岸和海洋，影响生活在其中和周围的数百万人的生活。这些地区的社会成本可能很高，从驱逐到资源使用限制，往往会影响到最依赖自然资源谋生的最贫穷的人。国际政策承诺强调，保护区至少不应加剧贫困，应由参与决策的当地人公平管理。许多保护组织现在不仅把他们的使命放在生物多样性上，而且还把重点放在减轻贫困和促进人类福祉上。但在通过保护创造积极社会影响方面取得的进展有限，成功涉及的因素复杂且不清楚。人们往往对保护区的社会和生态结果之间的关系作出简化的假设。例如，通过关注物质结果和补偿，人类幸福的其他方面，如人际关系和主观体验被忽视。只看平均影响，忽略了不同人群之间可能存在赢家和输家。人们普遍认为，保护政策和实践应该以证据为基础，但对保护区社会影响的现有证据进行整理的尝试侧重于量化数据。这可以简化在精细的历史、文化和体制进程、地方对正义和社会影响的理解以及生态效益之间往往是复杂的进程和动态关系。定性证据可以为社会影响所涉及的过程、社会和环境结果之间的关系如何随不同的背景因素而变化以及家庭内部、年龄和性别的影响差异提供重要的见解。考虑到这些细微差别并使用幸福和正义概念的证据正在从ESPA项目和其他项目中浮现出来。影响(保护区保护中的问题和误区：权衡和协同作用)项目旨在提高对保护区的社会影响以及它们反过来影响生态结果的方式的了解，以便为更多的社会和环境可持续治理提供信息。该项目将召集一个跨学科专家工作组，该工作组将协作审查和综合保护区的社会和环境成果的现有知识状况。它将涉及对各种不同的定量和定性证据类型的系统和全球审查，包括学术文献、非学术报告和ESPA项目，并使用创新的叙事合成方法来分析和展示结果。审查将确定在哪些情况下保护区的(减贫)和环境(生态系统服务)成果之间出现积极关系：什么起作用、在哪里起作用、如何起作用以及为什么起作用？通过讲习班、非技术性简报和会议与政策制定者、养护从业人员和捐助者接触，该项目将在更广泛的范围内为保护区和自然资源管理的政策和辩论提供信息，为决策者和当地社区提供知识，以倡导和实施能够提高社会和环境成果的管理。它还将通过确定证据基础中的差距和最需要研究的领域来使研究人员受益，并将生成一个全面的证据数据库，希望找到和使用保护区证据的研究人员可以公开访问该数据库。

Protected areas are often viewed as an effective way of conserving ecosystems and wildlife around the world, and are rapidly expanding. If global targets are achieved they will soon cover 1/5 of the land surface and 1/10 of the coasts and seas, influencing the lives of millions of people who live in and around them. The social costs of these areas can be high ranging from eviction to resource use restrictions, and can often impact the poorest people most reliant on natural resources for their livelihoods. International policy commitments emphasise that protected areas should at the very least not exacerbate poverty and should be equitably managed with local people involved in decision-making. Many conservation organisations now focus their mission not only on biodiversity but poverty alleviation and the promotion of human well-being. But progress on creating positive social impacts through conservation has been limited, and the factors involved in success complex and unclear. Often simplified assumptions are made about the relationships between social and ecological outcomes of protected areas. For example, by focusing on material outcomes and compensation, other aspects of human well-being such as relationships and subjective experiences are ignored. Looking at only average impacts ignores that there may be winners and losers across different groups of people. It is generally agreed that conservation policy and practice should be evidence-based, but attempts to collate current evidence on the social impacts of protected areas have focused on quantitative data. This can simplify what are often complex processes and dynamic relationships between fine-scaled historical, cultural and institutional processes, local understandings about justice and social impacts, and ecological effectiveness. Qualitative evidence can provide important insights into processes involved in social impacts, how relationships between social and environmental outcomes may vary with different contextual factors, and intra-household, age and gender differences in impacts. Evidence that considers these kinds of nuances, and uses concepts of well-being and justice is emerging from ESPA projects and beyond. The IMPACTS (Issues and Myths in Protected Area Conservation: Trade-offs and Synergies) project aims to enhance understandings of the social impacts of protected areas, and the ways they in turn influence ecological outcomes, in order to inform more socially and environmentally sustainable governance. The project will convene an interdisciplinary expert Working Group who will work collaboratively to review and synthesise the current state of knowledge on the social and environmental outcomes of protected areas. It will involve a systematic and global review of a variety of different quantitative and qualitative evidence types including from the academic literature, non-academic reports, and ESPA projects, and use innovative narrative synthesis methods to analyse and present the results. The review will identify circumstances under which positive relationships emerge between (poverty alleviation) and environmental (ecosystem services) outcomes of protected areas: what works, where, how and why? By engaging with policy-makers, conservation practitioners, and donors through workshops, non-technical briefings, and meetings, the project will inform policy and debate on protected areas and natural resource management more broadly, providing decision-makers and local communities with knowledge to advocate for and implement management that can enhance both social and environmental outcomes. It will also benefit researchers by identifying gaps in the evidence base, and areas most in need of research, and will generate a comprehensive database of evidence which will be openly accessible to researchers wanting to find and use evidence on protected areas.