Protected Area Assessments in Perspective

By J. Ervin. 2003

160 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The Wildlife Picture Index: monitoring top trophic levels (2010, background): “, 2005; Joppa, Loarie & Pimm, 2008) and this information is often contested (Bruner et al., 2001a,b; Vanclay, 2001; Ervin, 2003).”
Research priorities in park tourism (2014, background): “The World Wildlife Fund (Erwin, 2003) rapid assessment and prioritization methodology does not mention management capacity directly, but adopts the approach of assessing inputs to management.”
Ongoing global biodiversity loss and the need to move beyond protected areas: a review of the technical and practical shortcomings of protected areas on land and sea (2011, background): “…most significant human resource use allocations on the planet’ (Chape et al. 2005, p. 463) and ‘…the past century’s most notable conservation success’ (Ervin 2003, p. 819) and although we would certainly be worse off in several ways without them, it is clear that our use of PAs is not, by…”
A Global Analysis of Protected Area Management Effectiveness (2010, methodology): “The most commonly applied methodologies we recor- ded were: • RAPPAM (Ervin 2003b) which measures effectiveness across a group of protected areas in a region or country and has assessed over 1600 protected areas in 49 countries across the world • The Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (Stolton a”