Policy use indicators in impact for evaluations of protected areanetworks Ecological Indicators

(1)

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators

j ou rn a l h om ep a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e /e c o l i n d

Policy indicators for use in impact evaluations of protected area networks

Vera H. Hausner

^∗

, Sigrid Engen, Ellen K. Bludd, Nigel G. Yoccoz

DepartmentofArcticandMarineBiology,UiT—TheArcticUniversityofNorway,N-9037Tromsø,Norway

a r t i c l e i n f o

Articlehistory:

Received27May2016

Receivedinrevisedform9December2016 Accepted12December2016

Availableonline4January2017

Keywords:

Impactevaluations Protectedareas Giﬁsystem Alpine IUCN Aichitarget

Managementeffectiveness PADDD

Norway BritishColumbia

a b s t r a c t

Thenumberofprotectedareas(PAs)hassteadilyincreasedinthepast20years,buttheireffectivenessto meetconservationtargetsisconsistentlyquestioned.Mostconservationimpactevaluationsofprotected areasassumethatformaldesignations,likethatofIUCNcategories,reflectsite-specificconservation rules,butthisisnotalwaystrue.Inthispaperweillustratehowconservationrulescouldbeempirically assessedbyuseofcontentanalysiscombinedwithoptimalscaling.Thisflexiblemethodologyallows ustoquantitativelyassessstrictnesslevelsforuseinconservationimpactevaluations.Thestrictness measurescouldalsoindicatewhetherconservationrulesareconsistentlyappliedinthedifferentIUCN categoriestherebyprovidingguidanceforfutureassignmentofPAstotheIUCNprotectedareamanage- mentcategories.Weillustratehowpolicyindicatorsbasedonconservationrulescouldbedevelopedin twocontrastingmountainprotectedareanetworksinNorwayandinBritishColumbia(BC),including atotalof48PAsinNorwayand51inBC.Conservationrulesforrecreationaluse,motorizedaccessand resourceusewerequantitativelyassessed,thusprovidingameasureofhowstrictlyPAsregulatethe differenthumanactivities.Ourresultsshowthatthemaindifferencesinstrictnessarebetweenthetwo countries,followedbythecontrastbetweennationalparksandprovincialparksinBC.Overall,Norway hasamoreliberalconservationpolicythanBCandoldernationalparksinBChaveamuchstrictercon- servationpolicythanmostoftheotherPAsinthisstudy.Overarchingconservationobjectivesdidnot reflectthelevelofstrictness(theconservationrules)thatguidethedailymanagementofindividual PAs.Thisappliestobothcountries.Werecommendtoempiricallyinvestigatesite-specificconservation rulestoincludedefactomanagementofhumanactivitiesinconservationpolicyimpactevaluations.The methodologyisalsousefulformonitoringdowngradingoftheprotectedareastatus,whichisaresultof authorizinghumanactivitiesthatarenotconsistentwithconservationobjectives.

1. Introduction

Protected areas (PAs) have long been the cornerstone for preservingbiodiversity,ecosystemservicesandotherglobalenvi- ronmentalbeneﬁts(Chapeet al.,2005).Despite theincrease in numbersandcoverageofPAs,theworld’sbiodiversityandother ecosystemservicescontinuetodecline,alsowithinparkbound- aries(Geldmannetal.,2013;MacKinnonetal.,2015;Presseyetal., 2015).The10thConferenceoftheParties(COP)totheConvention onBiologicalDiversity(CBD)adoptedanewStrategicPlanforBio- diversity2011–2020includingwhatiscommonlyknownasthe20 Aichitargets.Aichitarget11states:

∗Correspondingauthor.

E-mailaddress:[email protected](V.H.Hausner).

“By2020,atleast17percentofterrestrialandinlandwater,and10 percentofcoastalandmarineareas,especiallyareasofparticular importanceforbiodiversityandecosystemservices,areconserved througheffectivelyandequitablymanaged,ecologicallyrepresen- tativeandwellconnected systemsof protectedareas andother effectivearea-basedconservationmeasures, andintegratedinto thewiderlandscapesandseascapes”(CBD,2010).

Aichitarget11acknowledgesthatareacoverageisnotsufﬁ- cient forhalting biodiversity declines.Many ofthe world’sPAs offerweakprotectionagainstthehumanactivitiesthatcausethe declinesofbiodiversityandecosystemservices(Leveringtonetal., 2010;Watsonetal.,2014).Thereisthereforea growingaware- nessoftheneedtoinvestmoreinthedesignandmanagementof protectedareanetworks.

Akeyquestionthathassurfacedinglobalimpactevaluations ofPAsiswhetherstrictversusmultipleusePAsaremoreeffective atprotectingbiodiversityandecosystemservices(Ferraroetal.,

(2)

2013;Nolteetal.,2013).Strictlyprotectedareasthatpermitfew extractiveusesandwhereaccessislimitedhavelongbeenargued asnecessaryforachievingconservationtargets(e.g.Hilbornetal., 2006;LockeandDearden,2005;Terborgh,2004).Othersmaintain thatmoreinclusionaryapproacheslikecommunity-basedconser- vationthatallowsustainableuseinPAscouldbemoreeffective at meeting both conservationand developmentobjectives(e.g.

Berkes,2004;NelsonandChomitz,2011;Tallisetal.,2008).The proponentsof multipleusePAsargue that less strictprotected areascouldreduceconﬂictlevels,increasecomplianceandlower thecostsofoverallenforcement.PermittingsustainableusesinPAs couldalsoleveragelocalsupportforprotectionagainstlarge-scale developmentinterestssuchaslogging,miningandoilextraction (Ferraroet al.,2013; Naughton-Treveset al.,2005;Nolte etal., 2013).

Mostprotectedareaevaluationsusethesixmanagementcat- egoriesdevelopedbytheInternationalUnionforConservationof NaturetodistinguishbetweenstrictversusmultipleusePAs(IUCN;

e.g.Ferraroetal.,2013;JoppaandPfaff,2011;Nolteetal.,2013).

StrictprotectionfallsundertheIUCNcategoriesI–IV,whichpri- oritizebiodiversityconservationoveruse.IUCNcategoriesVand VIarelessstrictlyprotectedmultipleuseareasandculturalland- scapesshapedbyhumandisturbanceovertime(Dudley,2008).A numberofresearchershavequestionedtheuseofIUCNcategories asameasureofstrictnessastheywerenotoriginallydesignedfor thatpurpose(Dudleyetal.,2010).Theconcernshavebeenunder- scoredbyrecentpublicationswhichshownoclearcorrespondence betweentheIUCNdesignationsandtheirlevelofprotection(e.g.

Joppaetal.,2008;Lerouxetal.,2010;Mu ˜nozandHausner,2013).

Ferraroetal.(2013)distinguishbetweendejureprotected area rules−legalregulations,anddefactomanagement—management inpractice,forevaluatingstrictnesslevelsinPAs.IndeedPAscould bestrictlyprotectedthroughlegislation,butpoorlyenforced,orvice versa,weaklyregulatedbutstrictlymanaged(ChhatreandAgrawal, 2008).Ostrometal.(1994)alsodistinguishesbetweenlegalrules, rules-in-useandpracticetoexplainmanagementoutcomes.The conservationrules in protected areanetworksare aproduct of decision-makingandnegotiationatdifferentlevelsoforganization.

Totrulyincludestrictnesslevelinimpactevaluationsweneedto examinehowprotectedareasareassignedtotheIUCNcategories, andhowruleshavebeenadjustedtothespeciﬁcconditioninthe individualPAs(Hirschnitz-GarbersandStoll-Kleemann,2011).

Inthispaperweﬁrstelaboratewhyweneedtoconsidersite- speciﬁc conservation rules in conservation impact evaluations.

Secondly,weillustratehowpolicyindicatorsbasedonconserva- tionrulescouldbeevaluatedintwoprotectedareanetworks—one inNorwayandoneinBritishColumbia,byuseofcontentanalysis, optimalscalinganddatavisualizationtools.Weanalyzetheconsis- tencyofconservationrulesforthedifferentIUCNcategoriesacross countries/regionsandPAageandsize.Finally,wediscusshowpol- icyindicatorsofsite-speciﬁcconservationrulescouldbeusedin conservationimpactevaluations.

1.1. Conservationrulesinprotectedareas

Humanactivitiesinprotectedareasareregulatedbyruleswhich are“generallyagreed-uponandenforcedprescriptionsthatrequire, forbid,orpermitspecificactions”(Ostrom,1986).Conservationrules foreachindividualPAarenotnecessarilythesameasformallegal rulesthatareusuallydecideduponatahigherlevelofdecision making(Ostrometal.,1994).Conservationrulesdependonhow decisionmakersunderstand,translateandenforcerules ineach individualPA.Theyareinfluencedbynormsandpracticesspecific tostakeholdersandthemanagersofthePAs.Recentstudieshave shownhowinternationalconservationpoliciesinfluencedomes- ticlegislationandmanagementmodelsdifferentlydependingon

nationalnormsandpractices(Fauchaldetal.,2014;Hongsloetal., 2015).Pressey et al. (2015) refer tothe “the tyranny of small decisions”todescribehowdecisionsondifferentlevelsresultin pooralignmentbetweenpolicies,managementandconservation impacts. For example, conservationplanning hassuffered from theestablishmentofprotected areasinremotelocationswhere therearenorealthreatstobiologicaldiversity(Joppaand Pfaff, 2009;Tsianouet al.,2013).Atthesite level,Coad etal.(2015) arguethat globalprotectedareaevaluationsneedtogobeyond thearea-basedtargetsetinAichiTarget11toalsoincludemea- suresofeffectiveplanningandmanagement ofprotectedareas.

Thequalityofprotectedareamanagementratherthanformaldes- ignationsdecideshowwellprotectedareasperform.Furthermore, theincreasedmulti-linkagenatureofconservation,wherepower isdispersed overseverallevelsof managementwithstakehold- ersparticipatingatthevariousstepsofrule-making(seeBerkes, 2004;Deardenetal.,2005),islikelytocreateamosaicofPAswith differentconservationruleswhichmustbeevaluatedempirically.

Conservationrulesareusuallyreflectedinthemanagementplan whichoperationalizesandadjustslawsandpoliciesmadeathigher levelstothespecificsites(Eaglesetal.,2014).Amanagementplan isdefinedasa“documentthatsetsoutthemanagementapproachand goals,togetherwiththeframeworkfordecisionmaking,thatshouldbe appliedintheprotectedareaoveragivenperiodoftime”(Thomasand Middelton,2003).Themanagementplanshouldsupportdailydeci- sionmakingbycompilingallpoliciesthatapplytothespecificPAs, includingclearlydefinedoverarchinggoalsandsite-specificrules (Eaglesetal.,2014).Ideally,themanagementplanshoulddescribe anylaws,normsandagreementsthatdefinetheconservationrules inthepark.Clearlystatedmanagementobjectives,andthetypeand extentofthehumanactivitiesallowed,areconsideredcrucialfor effectivemanagement.

Eaglesetal.(2014)showedthattheplanqualityforvisitorman- agementfor differentcategoriesofPAsdiffered substantiallyin OntarioProvincialParks,withsomePAshavinglessdetailedplans formanagementthanothers,andsomeplansnotevenmentioning theusesandthelevelofuseallowedinthepark.Theyalsofound weakpolicycoherencebetweensite-levelandprovinciallevelpoli- cies.Similarly,Mu ñozandHausner(2013)foundalpinePAsinSpain tohavevaguegoalsforprioritizingbiologicaldiversity.Conserva- tionrulesweredependentonthespecificautonomousregionsand showedlimitedcorrespondencewithnationalpoliciesorIUCNcat- egories.Inthisstudy,lessthan50%ofthePAshadamanagement plan.Similarresultshavealsobeenfoundforotherprotectedareas inSpain(Rodríguez-RodríguezandMartínez-Vega,2013),Greece (Vokouetal.,2014)andotherEuropeancountries(Stoll-Kleemann, 2010).Giventhelackofcoherencewithbothnationalandinter- nationalpolicies,andthestrongregionalinfluenceofsite-specific management of PAs,itis crucial toevaluateconservationrules beforeevaluatinghowprotectedareasperform.

Thereseemstobeadiscrepancybetweenformulationsofobjec- tivesandconservationrules.Forexample,wildernessobjectives arestated asaprimary aiminmanyEuropeanPAsbut conser- vationrulescontinuetosupporttraditionalresourceusessuchas grazing,mowing,huntingandfishing(Hausner,2005;Linnelletal., 2015).Tsiafoulietal.(2013)demonstratedthathumanactivitiesare highlypresentintheNatura2000protectedareanetworkinEurope (N=14727).Asmuch as86.5%oftheNatura 2000sitespermit agricultureand forestry,52.7% allowfishing,huntingand gath- ering,48.8%ofthesiteshavetransportationandcommunication infrastructure,while17.6% permitminingand extractionactivi- ties.Theyalsofoundalargevariationinpermittedhumanactivities dependingonnormsandpracticesofthedifferentMemberStates intheEU.Theirstudybenefitedfromapubliclyavailabledataset onhumanactivitiesrecordedbyexpertsoneachNatura2000site.

Suchdatabasesaregenerallynotavailableforprotectedareanet-

(3)

works.Thus,acost-effectivealternativeforempiricalassessment ofhumanactivitiesinprotectedareanetworksiscontentanalysis ofconservationrules.

2. Methods

Thetwoprotectedareanetworkswereselectedbecauseofthe expectedhighcontrastinconservationrules,butlowcontrastin biophysicalconditions,populationnumbersandhumandevelop- ment,inadditiontosimilaritiesinuseandactivitiesaccessibleto theusersofthePAs.ConservationpracticesinEuropeandNorth Americaareknowntodifferwithrespecttohowpeopleandnature interactionsareframedandmanaged(Linnelletal.,2015),andthe networksarethereforesuitableforillustratingourmethod.Thefol- lowingstepsweretakentomeasurehowstrictlyhumanactivities areregulatedinthetwoprotectedareanetworks:

1.SelectionofPAnetworks.

2.Contentanalysisofmanagementplans,directionstatementsor protectionregulationsforeachPA:

a. Coding of management objectives as deﬁned in the IUCN guidelines(Dudley,2008)

b.Codingofconservationrulesinorderedcategoriesaccording tohowstrictlyhumanactivitiesareregulated.

3.Multivariateanalysisofstrictnesslevelofconservationrulesand theiralignmentwithconservationobjectivesusingoptimalscal- ing.

2.1. SelectingPAs

Our main purposewas toquantitatively assess how strictly activitiesareregulated.Wethereforehadtoconfineouranalyses tosimilarbiogeographicalregions,otherwise,ouranalysiswould bedominatedbydifferencesinusepatternsratherthanstrictness levelsperse(e.g.rulesforloggingarerelevantinforestedbutnot inalpineareas).Weusedthe3rdeditionoftheBritishColumbia EcoregionClassificationtoidentifyalpine PAsinBC (Demarchi, 2011),andthePan-EuropeanLandscapeDatabasetoselectPAsin alpineareasinNorway(Metzgeretal.,2005).OnlyPAslargerthan 10km²withmorethan50%inthealpinezonethathaveamanage- mentplanoradirectionstatementwereincluded.Protectedareas smallerthan10km²arelesslikelytovarymuchwithregardtosite- specificconservationrulesastheyaredesignedforaveryspecific purpose.SmallPAsoftenalsolackmanagementplans.

Toincludeasufﬁcient numberofsitesthat areprotectedby federaljurisdiction,weincludedallthenationalparksinthemoun- tainrangeborderingBC,eventhoughsomeofthemwerelocated inAlberta.Forsimplicity,thesearedenotedprotectedareasinBC (CanadaIUCNII).AlltheprovincialparksinBCthatmetthecri- teriawereincluded(BC IUCNIandBC IUCNII).Bothprovincial and nationalparks in BC are classiﬁedasIUCN II.Norway is a unitarianstateandonlyhavenationallevel legislation.Approx- imately 17% of mainland of Norway is protected, and this is dominatedbynationalparks(9.7%)andprotectedlandscapes(5.4%;

Environment.no,2016).ToavoidaverylowsampleofPAsfora givenIUCN categorywe didnot includeIUCN categoriesrepre- sentedbyfewerthanthreePAs.

2.2. contentanalysis

Contentanalysiswasusedtoquantitativelyassessthelevelof strictnessoftheconservationrulesandhowthesealignwiththe overarchingobjectivesrelatingtonationalandIUCNdesignations.

Thetextfrommanagementplans/directionstatementsandprotec- tionregulationswascodeddeductivelyusingpriorcodingschemes

(Morgan, 1993).Aquantitative approachusing prior codes was appropriate forour analysissince weprimarilycoded manifest contentwhichwaseasilyinterpretedfromthedocuments(e.g.an activitywaspermittedornot).WeusedtheIUCNguidelinesfor protectedareamanagement(Dudley,2008)todefineobjectivesin thecodingscheme.Forsomeoftheconservationobjectiveswehad toreviseourpriorcodesanddevelopcodingschemesiterativelyas thetargetssetintheprotectedareaswerevagueorthewording didnotfullycorrespondtothedefinitionsintheIUCNguidelines (seebelowandTable1).Wefocusedonpublicaccessandconsump- tiveresourceuses,whichintheconservationliteratureisassumed toleverage supportfor protectionagainstlarger-scale develop- mentsuchasmineralextraction,commercialtourismandproperty development(Duránetal.,2013;NolteandAgrawal,2013).These activitiesarealsomoreopenforvaluejudgementatsite-level,and wethereforeexpectedconservationrulestovarymoredepending onsite-specificnormsandconservationpractices.

2.2.1. a)Codingschemesforconservationobjectives

Conservationobjectivesarefundamentaltotheclassiﬁcationof theIUCNcategories,andwethereforeexpectedtoobserveacovari- ancebetweentheobjectivesandthelevelofstrictnessfordifferent types of activities. We made a list over overarching manage- mentobjectivesfollowingIUCNcategories(Dudley,2008),which consisted of eight objectives; species, connectivity, biodiversity, wilderness,recreation,heritage,culturallandscape,andsustainable use(seeTable1a).Wecodedthepresenceoftheseobjectivesin themanagementplansand/ordirectionstatements.Wildernessis aconceptthatisrarelyusedinNorway,butnationalparksareusu- allyestablishedto“protectlargeandrelativelyuntouchedareas”, whichwecodedasthepresenceofawildernessobjective.Wecoded theobjectivebiodiversityforPAspreservingecosystemsorbiodi- versityingeneral,includingrepresentativeecosystems,ecosystem functions,and ecologicalintegrity.Thisobjectiveistheprimary objectiveofIUCNIaandII,butshouldalsobepresentintheother IUCNcategories.Wedecidedtoseparatetheconservationofspe- ciﬁcspeciesandtheirhabitats(speciesobjective)fromthebroader conceptsofbiodiversity protectionandecosystemconservation.

Toprotectparticularspeciesorhabitatsofinternational,national orlocalconcernisthemaincharacteristicofstrictnaturereserves (IUCNIa)andhabitat/speciesmanagementareas(IUCNIV).Estab- lishingnetworksof PAsforthe protectionofwide-ranging and migratory species has been strongly emphasised in later years (Woodleyetal.,2012).Wethereforecodedconnectivityspeciﬁcally.

Objectivesthat mentiontheneedtoconnecttootherPAsorto createbufferzonestoprotectwide-rangingandmigratoryspecies werecodedasconnectivity.Theheritageobjectivewascodedas presentwhenconservinghistoricallyimportantvaluesandfeatures typicalofnaturalmonuments(IUCNIII)werementionedasanover- allobjective(e.g.geologicalfeatures,archeologicalremains,sacred sites, and historic sites). Cultural landscape includes protection oftraditionalmanagementpracticesforpreservingcharacteristic landscapevaluestypicalofIUCNV,andsustainableusereferstosus- tainablemanagementofresources,anobjectiveusuallyincludedin indigenoususeareas(IUCNVI).

2.2.2. Codingschemesforconservationrules(publicaccessand consumptiveuses)

Weﬁrstscannedthemanagementplans/directionstatements toidentifythehumanactivitiesthatwereconsideredimportant formanagingPAsinthealpine regions.Wefoundthree setsof conservationruleswedeemedapplicableforthis cross-national analysis i.e. that are comparable within and between the PA networks,namelyconsumptive resourceuse, motorized-vehicle useandrecreationaluse(Table1b).1.Consumptiveresourceuse includesregulationsofconsumptive resourceusesuchashunt-

(4)

Table1

Codingschemeofa)conservationobjectivesasstatedintheIUCNguidelinesforprotectedareamanagement(Dudley,2008),b)conservationrulesforresourceuse,recreation andmotorizedaccessandc)predictorspotentiallyexplainingdifferencesinsite-speciﬁcconservationrules.

a)Objectives Codingscheme(Yes/No)

Species Toprotectspeciﬁcﬂoraandfaunaspeciesandtheirhabitats

Connectivity Toprotectconnectivityforwide-rangingand/ormigratoryspeciesthatcannotbeconservedentirelywithinasingle protectedarea.

Biodiversity Toprotectnaturalbiodiversityalongwithitsunderlyingecologicalstructureandsupportingenvironmentalprocesses Wilderness Toprotectlargeunmodifiedorslightlymodifiedareas,retainingtheirnaturalcharacterandinfluence.

Recreation Toprovideenvironmentallyandculturallycompatiblerecreationand/oreducationopportunities Heritage Toprotectnatural–orculturalsitesthatareofhistoricalimportance,incl.spiritualandculturalvalues.

CulturalLandscape Toprotectandsustainimportantlandscapesandtheassociatednatureconservationandothervaluescreatedby interactionswithhumansthroughtraditionalmanagementpractices

SustainableUse Topromotesustainableuseofnaturalresources,consideringecological,economicandsocialdimensions;usually aimstoprotecttraditionallocalandindigenouslivelihoods.

b)Rules Codingscheme(0=notallowed,1=permits,2=restrictionsand3=allowed) Consumptive

resourceuse

Rulesforconsumptiveresourceusesreferstonon-commercialharvestofresourcessuchashunting,ﬁshing,trapping, collectingofberries,mushrooms,herbsandotherplantmaterials,cuttingﬁrewoodandlivestockgrazing.Non-renewable resourcesortheequipmentusedtoharvestresourceswerenotincludedhere.

Recreationaluse Rulesfornon-consumptiveandsmall-scalerecreationaluseinthePAs,includingthepossibilitytomakeandcollect ﬁrewoodforcampﬁres,tenting,horse-riding,biking,dogs.AccessbyfootorskihasnotbeenregulatedinNorway,and inBCtherearealsofewrestrictions.Wethereforeexcludedrulesforaccessbyfootorskifromtheanalysis.

Motorizedaccess RulesformotorizedaccesstoPAs.Powerboat=motorizedvesselfortravellingonwater.Road/ATV=accessbyroador motorizedvehiclesintendedforuseoffpublicroadwaysduringthesnow-freeseason.Snowmobiling=motorized vehiclesusedfortravellingonsnow.Air=accessbyhelicoptersorﬁxed-wingaircrafts.Heli-sports=skiingorhiking assistedbyhelicopteroraircrafts(notonlytransport).

c)Predictors

Country/region Areconservationrulespredictedbythedifferencesbetweencountries/regions(i.e.BCandNorway)?

IUCNcategories AreconservationrulespredictedbythestrictnesslevelsasindicatedbyIUCNcategories?

Size(km²) DorulesdifferdependingonthesizeofthePAs?E.g.DolargerPAsallowmultipleuses?

Yearestablished ArerulesinolderPAsmorestrictthanmorerecentlyestablishedPAs?

ing,fishing, trapping,collecting, cuttingfirewoodand livestock grazing;2.Motorizeduseincludesrestrictionsonall-terrainvehi- cles(ATV)/cars,snowmobiles,helicopters,−and othermeansof aerialtransportationandpowerboats;3.Recreationaluseincludes restrictionsoncamping,campfires,collectionoffirewoodforcamp- ing,horseback riding, and biking.The strictness levelfor these conservationruleswascodedinfourordinallevels:

0=Notallowed

1=Activitiesregulatedbypermits

2=Spatialortime-limitedrestrictionsofactivities 3=Allowed

Whiletheselevelscouldbenuanced,for instancebyadding anotherlevelformulti-yearpermitsandlicenses,andbyseparating spatial−andtime-limitedrestrictions,wedecidedtokeepitsimple toavoidtoomanycategoriesforanalyzingarelativelylimitedsetof PAs.Theclassiﬁcationofconservationruleswasparticularlysim- pleinBC,asthemanagementplansusuallyincludedatableinthe endprovidinganoverviewoverthestrictnesslevelforthedifferent humanactivities.Inadditiontothefourlevelsalreadymentioned, namelynot allowed, permits, spatial −and time-limitation and allowed,BCplansincludethecategory“normallynotallowedbut theactivityispresentandisallowedtocontinue”.Wecodethese casesaspermits.AsimilarpracticeoccursinNorwegianPAswhere therelativelynumerousright-holders,particularlyconnectedto sheepandreindeerhusbandry,cabins,andlocalhuntingandﬁshing facilitiesaregivenmoreelaborateduserprivileges(theiractivities areallowedtocontinueasexceptionstothegeneralprohibitions) thanregularvisitors.

Indigenoususes,commercialtourismandminingwereleftout ofthe analysis.Instead,we providedescriptive statistics ofthe portionofPAsinoursamplethathavesuchuses/restrictionsof use(Table2c). Large-scaleencroachmentslikeextractiveactivi- ties,industrial-,residential-andsecond-homedevelopmentinside PAsareoftenrelativelyfewinnumber,buttendtoinvolveasub- stantialcaseadministration(environmentalimpactassessments,

zoningplansetc.).Acase studyapproachthatanalyzedecision- makinginthefewPAswheresuchactivitiesoccurismoresuitable thanmappingconservationrulesforentirenetworks.

Commercialtourismsuchaspermitsfortouristbusinessesand visitorfacilitiesismanagedquitedifferentlyinBCandinNorway.

InBC,trade-offsbetweenpotentiallyconflictingobjectives,such asbetweentourismuseandconservationvalues,aremanagedby zoning(Thedeetal.,2014).Visitorfacilitiesareusuallypresentin thefrontcountryinBC.Itis definedasonekilometreoneither sideoftheparkroadorahighway,andoffersdevelopedcampsites, tourist−andrecreationfacilities.Frontcountrytourism,includ- ingthecollectionoffees,hasbeendevolvedtoprivatecompanies whoprovidetouristfacilitiesandactivities(i.e.publicandfor-profit model;Eaglesetal.,2012).Zonesforbackcountryrecreationare mostlyintendedforbackpackingandwildernessexperiences.In Norway,thepublicrightofaccessallowseveryonetherighttohike, fish,bathe,ski,camp,pickberriesetc.,evenonprivatelyowned land(Kaltenbornetal.,2001).Feescanbecollectedfordrivingon roads,butnotforentrance.Visitorfacilitiesareusuallyplacedout- sidethePAboundaries,andmostofthePAsaremainlyaccessible byfootorski,withbackcountrycabinsavailableforovernightstays (Table2b).

IndigenoususesbySamiin NorwayandbyFirstNationsare generallyallowedintheformoftraditionalhunting,ﬁshing,pas- tureandcampgrounds,andadifferentsetofcoding(ormethod)is neededtocapturemoresubtledifferencesinindigenousresource rightsbetweenthetworegions.

2.3. Giﬁsystemforoptimalscaling

Thecodingofconservationrulesprovidedadatasetwithordinal strictness levels that are nonnumeric and nonlinear in charac- ter.CorrespondenceAnalysisonInstrumentalVariables(CAiv)has previously been used to explain the policy differences among autonomousregionsinalpineareasinSpain(Mu ˜nozandHausner,

(5)

Table2

Descriptivestatisticsofa)thenumberofPAscategorizedbymanagementobjectives(IUCNclassiﬁcation)andthemedianageandaveragesizeforthesegroupsofPAsb) thepercentageofparkswithvisitorfacilitiesandcaraccesswithina5kmbufferzonefromparkbordersandtentcampsinthebackcountryc)thepercentageofPAswith ongoingminingactivitiesinsidePAborders,withrestrictionsoncommercialtourism(guidedtoursetc.notfacilities),thataccommodatesindigenoususerightsandwith on-footrestrictionswiththeobjectivetoprotectconservationqualities.

BritishColumbia Norway

BCIUCNI BC IUCNII Canada IUCNII IUCNII IUCNV

a) #Protectedareas 11 33 7 19 29

MedianAge 1980 1970 1901 1990 1997

Averagesizekm² 1709.9 1140.9 2621.5 1134.5 324.3

b) %Caraccess 81.8 84.8 100 89.5 93.1

%Carcamping 27.3 36.4 83.3 73.7 55.2

%Accomodation 18.2 27.3 83.3 73.7 72.4

%Infocenter 45.5 42.4 83.3 68.4 58.6

%Tentcamp 54.5 54.5 100 0 0

c) %Miningactivities 0 0 0 0 6.9

%Commercialtourismrestrictions 91 87.9 100 57.9 34.5

%Indigenoususerights 72.7 81.8 28.6 57.9 10.3

%On-footaccessrestrictions 0 3 71 5.3 3.4

2013).However,ourapproachgoesfurtherasweusedGifisys- temforOptimalScaling(alsoknownasHomogeneityAnalysis;Gifi, 1990)thatallowedustopreservetheordinalnatureofstrictness levels.OptimalscalinghasasimilarobjectiveasPCA;toreduce anumberofvariablestofewerdimensionsthatcapturemostof thevariationin thedata.In this case,theresulting dimensions reflectedvariationinstrictnesslevels.Theorderedstrictnesslev- elswere assigned numericalscores byoptimal scalingthrough an iterative process that selected themain dimensions by the minimizationofaleast-squareslossfunction.Forordinalstrict- ness levels the analysis is constrained so that a category will alwaysbelessthan orequal tothequantification forthecate- gorythathasahigherranknumberintheoriginaldata(e.g.Not allowed<Restrictions<Permits<Allowed).

We analysed objectives and rules associated withthe three differentsetsof restrictions,namelyconsumptive resourceuse, motorizeduseandrecreationaluse.IUCNcategories,BCvsNorway, sizeandagewereusedassupplementaryvariablestoinvestigate whetherthepolicydifferencesareassociatedwiththesevariables.

Theywerenotusedtodeﬁnetheoptimalscalingdimensions.In otherwords,thestrictnessscoresalongthedifferentdimensions intheoptimalscalingwereonlydeterminedbytheconservation rules,which werethereaftercomparedtotheexplanatoryvari- ables.IUCN categories wereincludedsince theywereexpected torepresentlevelsofstrictness.LargerPAscouldbeassumedto havemorespatialrestrictions(Lerouxetal.,2015),whiletheage ofestablishmentmaymatterduetothelowerweightassignedto humanusesfortheﬁrstPAsestablished(Palomoetal.,2014).

Toselectthenumber ofdimensions retainedand assessthe resultsoftheoptimalscaling,weusedtheclassificationratescal- culatedforeachvariable.Classificationratesgavethepercentage ofobservationscorrectlypredictedbythescalinganalysis,andwe comparedthosetowhatwouldbeobtainedbyarandomclassifi- cation(thesewillvaryfromvariabletovariabledependingonthe numberofcategoriesandproportionsineachcategory).Wechose thenumberofdimensionsthatrepresentedatrade-offbetween parsimonyandachievinggoodclassificationrates.Aperfectclassi- ficationwouldcorrespondtocategorieswithnooverlap(i.e.a100%

classiﬁcationrate;deLeeuwandMair,2009).

Allstatisticalanalyseswereperformedintheopensourcesoft- wareRversion3.2.2(RDevelopmentCoreTeam,2016).Weusedthe Kruskal-WallisHtestfollowedbyamultiplepairwisecomparison usingtheDwass,Steel,Critchlow,FlignerprocedureintheNSM3 packagetotestdifferences insingularobjectivesrelated tofor- maldesignations(Schneideretal.,2015).Optimalscalingonrules wascarriedoutintheHomalspackage(deLeeuwandMair,2009).

Thedatavisualizationtoolsusedtopresentourresultsincludea

two-wayboxplotofobjectivesandaheatmapofrulesusingthe Rpackageggplot2(Wickham,2009).WeusedstarplotsintheR packageade-4toconnectthescoresofprotectedareaswiththeir categorycentroidtodisplayresultsoftheoptimalscaling.

3. Results

Atotalof48PAsinNorwayand51inBCmetourselectioncrite- ria.BChasmainlyusedthetwostrictestcategories(BCIUCNIand II)inthealpineregion,whereasNorwayhasfavoredtheestab- lishmentofsmallerprotected landscapesin lateryears (IUCNV, Table2a).Nationalparks(seeCanadaIUCNII,Table2)wereestab- lishedbetween1886and1920,andtrulystandoutwithregardtoa highpresenceofvisitorfacilities.Norwayalsoenjoyshighlevelsof accessbycarandlodgingsnearorwithinthePAs.ManyPAsinthe backcountryofNorwaydepartfromprovincialparksinBCasthey allowtouristcabins.TherearenotentcampsinNorwayastenting isintegraltotherightofpublicrightofaccessandallowedinmost places.ManyoftheprovincialparksandnaturereservesinBCare remoteanddonothavevisitorfacilitiesnearby(Table2b).Com- mercialtourismthatdoesnotinvolveorganizedactivities(guiding etc.)isgenerallyregulatedbypermitsinmostPAs,butorganized activitiesareless frequentlyrestrictedtheNorwegianprotected landscapes.Miningactivitieswithinparkbordersarerareandonly occurredintwoprotectedlandscapesinNorway.Indigenoususes areaccommodatedinmostPAsinBCandinthePAsinNorwaywith Samilanduse,whichismainlyinthenorthandinthemiddlepart ofthecountry.Restrictionsplacedonaccessonfootthatpoten- tiallycoulddisturbwildlifeordamageotherprotectionqualities aremainlylimitedtotheBCnationalparks(Table2c).

Protectionofspeciesandbiodiversityarestatedasobjectivesfor mostPAs,andwedidnotﬁndanysigniﬁcantdifferencesbetween formaldesignationsassociatedwiththesetwoobjectives(Fig.1).

Themultiplepairwisecomparisonoftheformaldesignations(not reportedhere)showedthatit wasmostlyprotected landscapes (IUCNV)thatdifferedsigniﬁcantlyinmanagementobjectivesfrom theotherdesignationsbyprioritizingculturallandscaperatherthan wildernessandbackcountryrecreation.Sustainableuserelatedto reindeerherdingisalsoaprimaryconservationobjectiveinsome ofthenationalparksinNorway.

In mostNorwegian PAs,consumptive resource uses suchas hunting,trapping,ﬁshing,grazing,andcollectionofberries,mush- roomandplantsareallowed.Thisstandsinstarkcontrasttothe nationalparks inCanadathatdo notgenerally allowconsump- tiveresourceuse(seeFig.2).Norwayhasmoreliberalconservation rulesforcampingandforcollectingwoodforbonﬁres,anduseper- mitsforregulatingmotorizeduse.Heli-sportistheonlyactivity

(6)

Fig.1. Atwo-waybarplotshowingthepercentageofPAsforthegivenIUCNandcountrycombinationwherethedifferentmanagementobjectivesarespeciﬁedinmanagement plansand/ordirectionstatements.DesignationswithlessthanthreePAs(e.g.IUCNIV)werenotincludedinthisplot.Higherpercentagesarerepresentedbylargertiles.For exampleconnectivity,biodiversity,recreationandheritagearestatedasmanagementobjectivesinallPAsinCanadianIUCNIIandthelargestsizesofthetilesaretherefore scaledto100%.Absenceofmanagementobjectivesisrepresentedbynotileatall.

Fig.2.Heatmapillustratinghowthedifferenthumanactivitiesareregulatedintheprotectedareanetworks.Thehumanactivitieswecomparedinthetwonetworksare listedontheX-axis.Darkercoloursmeansstricterrulesfortheassociatedhumanactivities.FormaldesignationsarerepresentedbydifferenttextcoloursontheY-axis(Dark blue=NorwayIUCNV,Blue=NorwayIUCNII,Red=CanadianIUCNII,Pink=BCIUCNII,andPurple=BCIUCNI).

thatconsistentlyismorestrictlyregulatedinNorwaythaninBC.

Thereseemedtobemuchvariationinconservationrulesbetween provincialparksinBC(Fig.2).

ThelargecontrastinconservationrulesbetweenPAsinNorway andBCwasalsoevidentusingoptimalscaling.Thetwofirstdimen- sions of strictness scores obtained by optimal scaling account formostofthevariationamongPAs(Table3).The100%classi- fication rateof BC and Norway using thefirst two dimensions fromthe optimalscaling indicated a limited degree of overlap betweencountriesconcerningconservationrules.IUCNcategories,

sizeandyearestablisheddidnotinfluenceconservationrulesas strongly asthecontrastbetweenNorway andBC. Forexample, theIUCNcategoriesdidnotexplainmorethantherandomclas- sificationalong thefirsttwodimensions(42ascomparedto44 byrandomclassification),butincreasedmarginallytoa classifi- cationrateof58%byaddinga3rddimension.Dimension3was stronglyassociatedwithconservationobjectivesstatedintheplans (i.e.biodiversity,wilderness,recreationandculturallandscapes), but not as much with theconservation rules (with the excep- tionofaccessbyairandsnowmobiles).Asmallsetofprotected

(7)

Table3

Classificationrates(CR)givingthepercentageofobservationsthatarecorrectly predictedasafunctionofthenumberofaxesretainedintheoptimalscalinganaly- sis.Classificationrateswerecomparedtotherandomclassificationwhichdepends onnumberofcategoriesandtheirproportion(e.g.“Country”hastwocategories, NorwayandBC,eachrepresenting50%oftheprotectedareas).Theshadedareas visualizeasubstantialincreaseinclassificationratesfromtherandomCRto2(%

CR2)andfurtherfrom2to3(%CR3)and3-4(%CR4)dimensions.Thenon-active variablesdidnotdeﬁnethedimensions,buttheirclassiﬁcationrateallowsusto checkthecorrespondencewithaimsandstrictnesslevels.

Fig.3.Strictnessscoresfortheformaldesignationsondimension1(±SE).

landscapes in Norway (Engdalen, Fokstugu, Ledalen, Møsvatn- Austfjell,Skaupsjøen-Hardangerjøkulen,andVesleHjerkinn)that allowmotorizedusewasimportantfor thevariation along this dimension.

Weplottedthestrictnessscoresalong thefirstdimensionto showthatthestricterrules,especiallyforresourceuseandpublic access,definesthedifferencesbetweenBCandNorway(Fig.3).The nationalparksinBCaremorestrictlyprotectedthantheprovincial parks,whiletheprotectedlandscapes(IUCNV)inNorwayallows themosthumanuses.To furtherexplore differencesinspecific conservationrules wemadea starplotofthefirst twodimen- sions,whichshowsthat theNorwayandBCsetsofPAsarenot overlapping(Fig.4).TheNorwaysetcorrespondstotherighthand sideofallfiguresshowingthatmanyactivitiesareallowedinthe PAs(Lightercolours,Allowed=3).Thestarplotshowsthatthepro- tectedareanetworkinNorwayhasmoreliberalruleswithregard tomosthumanactivitieswiththeexceptionofheli-sport.Thesec- onddimensiondifferentiatesamongthenationalparksthatwere establishedearly(i.e.,ageofparksmatters)andtheprovincialparks inBC.Canadiannationalparksaregenerallystricterandaremore targetedtowardsconnectivityamongPAs.Thereisahighoverlap betweenBCIUCNIandIIandIUCNIIandV,indicatingthatIUCN categoriesdonotmattermuchforconservationrules.

4. Discussion

Wehavedemonstratedhowconservationrulescouldbeinves- tigated for entire protected areanetworks by content analysis, optimalscaling,anddatavisualizationtoolsin51PAsinBCand 48inNorway.Ourquantitativeassessmentsupportsthestudyof Linnelletal.(2015)suggestingthatEuropeanprotectedareasare morealignedwiththe“peopleandnature”viewthanthe“nature foritself”viewpromotedintheYellowstonemodel(seealsoMace, 2014).Many recent studiesthatanalyzeconservationeffective- nessassumethatstricterrulesapplyforIUCNcategoriesIandIIor nationaldesignations(Ferraroetal.,2013;Joppaetal.,2008;Leroux etal.,2010;Nolteetal.,2013),butweshowthatconservationrules thatguidethedaily,site-speciﬁcmanagement,donotnecessarily meetsuchexpectations.Themaindifferenceinconservationrules isassociatedwiththedifferentnormsandpracticesbetweenBC andNorway,andbetweenthenationalparksandprovincialparks inBC.ConservationobjectivescorrespondtoIUCNcategories,but theconservationrulesdonotreﬂecttheseformaldesignations.

Weweremainlymotivatedbytherecentcallforempiricaleval- uationofpolicyimpactsonbiologicaldiversity(Baylisetal.,2015;

Presseyetal.,2015).Arecurringtopicintheconservationliterature istheimpactofstrictprotectionismversusmultipleuseprotected areasonecologicalandsocialoutcomes(e.g.Ferraroetal.,2013;

Nolteetal.,2013).Allowingsmall-scaleusesisexpectedtoincrease

(8)

fishing

0 1

2 3

trapping

0 2 1

3

hunting

0

1 2 3

collect 0

2 3

wood

0 1 2 3

grazing

0 1

2 3

powerboat

0 1 2 3

atv.cars

0 1 2

3

snowmobile

0 1

2 3

air

0 1 2

3

helisports

0 1

fires

0 1

2 3

campwood

0 2 3

tent

0 1

2 3

horses

1 0 2 3

biking

0 2

3

country

Canada Norway

IUCN

BC_IUCN1 BC_IUCN2 Canada_IUCN2

Norway_IUCN2 Norway_IUCNV

after1990

no yes

Fig.4.Starplotsofthenumericalscoresofthefirsttwodimensionsobtainedbyoptimalscaling.Largerdistancesbetweenscoresreflectgreaterdifferencesinrules.Therow furthesttotherightshowsnooverlapinscoresbetweenBCandNorwayalongthefirstdimension.OntheseconddimensionthereisacontrastbetweenthefederalIUCNII categories(CanadaIUCNII)andtheprovincialparks(BCIUCNIandII).Thestrictnesslevelsofrulescorrespondingtothesedifferencesareplottedonthefirstthreerowsto theleft(0=Notallowed,1=Permits,2=Restrictions,3=Allowed);resourceuse(Green),motorizeduse(Red)andrecreationaluse(Blue).

thesupportforconservation,therebypreventinglargescaledevel- opment,deforestation,and extractiveindustriesthatpotentially havemuchhigherimpactsonconservationvalues.Analyzingcon- servation rules providesa measure of degree of protectionism originating from de facto management, knowledge that can be usedin combination withremote sensing and variance match- ingtoassesswhetheravoidedlandusechangescanbeattributed toconservation(Andametal.,2008;Huttonetal.,2005;Nelson andChomitz,2011).Thepolicyindicatorscouldbedirectlylinked tohabitatlossandspeciestrendstoanalyzewhybiodiversityis decliningwithinprotectedareasborders(Geldmannetal.,2013), forexamplebylinkingretrospectivepolicyanalysestopopulation trends(DiMarcoetal.,2014;Hausneretal.,2011).

Wedevelopedthisstudywiththestrictprotectionismandthe resourceutilizationhypothesesinmind,butthemultivariateanal- ysis could also inform governments as they assignPAs tothe differentIUCNcategories.TheIUCNclassificationsystemissup- posedtobeauniversalclassificationsystem,withhigherlevels (I–IV)allowinglessusethanthelowercategories(V,VI),butasevi- dentfromourresults,thisisnotnecessarilytrue.Itiswellknown thatcountry-specificconservationnormsinfluenceshowprotected areasaremanagedandunderstood(Fauchaldetal.,2014;Hongslo etal.,2015),andasexpectedtheconservationrulesreflecttheright ofpublicaccessandthesubsistenceharvestcultureinNorway,

whilewildernessnormsdominateinBC.Optimalscalingofconser- vationrulesalsomapthedeviationsfromcountry-speciﬁcpatterns, andidentiﬁesthePAsthatdoordonotmeetthenational-andinter- nationalstandardsforPAcategories.Forexample,protectedareas intheIUCNcategoryIbareexpectedtoprotectecosystemsofhigh degreeofintactnessandencouragesimple,quietandnonintrusive use(Dudley,2008).Motorizedaccessshouldpreferablybeabsent orhighlyrestricted,butmotorizedrecreationalactivitiessuchas snowmobilingandheli-sportsarepresentinabouthalfofthePAs interpretedasIUCNcategory1binBC.

Asprotectedareacoveragehasexpandedthelastdecades,so hasthediversityof objectivesthat needtobefulﬁlled, making ituncleartowhatextentbiodiversityconservationisprioritised (MacKinnon etal., 2015;Watson et al.,2014).Recentevidence showsthatdowngrading,deﬁnedas“thelegalauthorizationofan increaseinthenumber,magnitude,orextentofhumanactivitiesin protectedareas”isawidespreadphenomenon(MasciaandPailler, 2011).A continuingtrendtowardsmultilevel managementthat involvesadiversesetofstakeholdersinthedifferentstepsofrule- makingwillmostlikelyresultinalargervariationofconservation objectivesandrulesinPAs.Itisthereforeimportanttodevelopcon- servationtoolsthatcouldmonitordowngrading(orupgrading)of protectedareastatusandpermittedusesatsitelevel.Crowdsourc- ingtoolssuchasthePADDDtracker(http://www.padddtracker.

(9)

org/)isoneoption,butonethatishighlydependentonthevolun- tarycontributionsofdowngradingeventstothewebsite.Empirical assessmentofconservationrulesoffersasystematictoolforevalu- atingentireprotectedareanetworks,whichcouldbedirectlyused inconservationplanning.Forexample,thestrictnessmeasuresof PAscouldbeoverlaidmapsofvulnerableareasandbiodiversity hotspotstoevaluatewhethertheseareasaresufﬁcentlyprotected againsthigh-impacthumanactivities.

4.1. Limitationsandfurtherimprovementofpolicyindicatorsfor useinprotectedareaimpactevaluations

Overthepastdecades,therehasbeenagrowingdemandfor compositeindicatorstolinksciencewithmanagementorpolicy (Lundetal.,2009).Theseindicesaggregatenumerousvariablesinto asinglemetrictoe.g.rankenvironmentalperformanceofdifferent countries(Bondarchiketal.,2016),monitortheconservationsta- tusofecosystems(Stephensetal.,2015;Yoccozetal.,2001),or assesstheprotectedareamanagementeffectivenessatindividual PAs(Hockingsetal.,2004).Ourworkmustbeseenasﬁrststep towardsbuildingacompositeindicatorthatcouldreﬂectconser- vationpolicypracticesinmultipleprotectedareanetworksforthe purposeofimpactevaluations.

Priortothedevelopmentofcompositeindicators,itisimportant tocarefullyselectindicatorsaccordingtoatheoreticalframework andstatisticallydeterminethestructureofthedataset(Dobbie andDail,2013).Thechoiceofindicatorsinourcasewasguided bytheorysuggestingthatsmallscaleusesandphysicalaccessto protectedareaswillbeneﬁtconservationinthelongrun.Thethree setsofindicatorsreﬂectingconsumptiveresourceuse,motorized accessandrecreationwereselectedthroughaniterativeprocess wherethepurposewastoincludeallvariablesthatwerecompa- rableinthetwoprotectedareanetworks.Byuseofoptimalscaling wefoundthatthe16policyindicatorsdisplayedsimilarstrictness patterns,whichmeansthatasingularcompositepolicyindicator couldbeusedforcomparingthetwocountries.Addingprotected areanetworksfromothercountriescouldpotentiallyrevealmore complexpatterns.Weasssumedequalweightsofthedifferentpol- icyindicators,discountingthefactthatsomehumanactivitiesmay poselargerthreatstoconservationstatusthanothers.Oftensuch weightsareassignedbyexpertssuchasintheSystemfortheInte- gratedAssessmentofProtectedAreas(SIAPA;Rodríguez-Rodríguez andMartínez-Vega,2012).Addingweightsbasedonconservation threatsiscomplicated giventhenon-linear behaviourthatsuch indicatorsmayexhibit(e.g.alow-levelofgrazingmaysupportthe objectives,buttoohighdensitiesoflivestockcouldunderminethe conservationvalues).Astherearenouniversallyacceptablewaysof assigningweightsdependingonconservationthreats,anempirical, data-drivenapproachseemsappropriate(DobbieandDail,2013;

Paruoloetal.,2013).Multivariateanalyzis,suchasoptimalscal- ing,isarelativelyobjectivewaytoselectweightsforuncovering therelativeimportanceofthepolicyindicators,andtoreﬂectthe underlyingdatastructurefortheappropriateuseofcompositeindi- cators(i.ewhichpolicyindicatorsrespondsimilarlytoexplanatory variables;Rodríguez-RodríguezandMartínez-Vega,2012).

Thismethodologycouldeasilybeadaptedtootherecoregionsor policy-relevantquestions.Inanycase,thepolicyindicatorsselected forcross-nationalanalysisneedtobecomparable. Forexample, acomplete policyanalysisof conservationpracticesinthepro- tectedareasnetworksinNorwayandBCsufferedfromthelackof comparabilityofmining-andtourismactivities.Acodingscheme speciﬁcallyadapted forpermitanalysesmaybemoreappropri- ateforlarge-scaleinterventionsbytakingasubsetofthenetwork where suchactivities exist or where there is highdemand for resourceextractionortourism.

Another challenge for cross-national analysis is between- countrydifferencesinthetoolsusedforregulatinghumanactivity.

ZoningisusedinBCtospatiallyseparateincompatibleusesinthe PAs(Thedeetal.,2014),whereasNorwayusespermitstoregulate accessanduseofPAs.Toevaluatespatialdifferencesinconserva- tionpolicyataﬁnerscale,zonesandpermitshavetobeanalysed separatelyandpermitsshouldbetiedtotheirspatiallocation.After assigningrulestospatiallocationswiththePAboundaries,zones couldbeanalyzed separately,orasin Rodríguez-Rodríguezand Martínez-Vega,(2012),greaterweightscouldbeassignedtocore conservationzonescomparedwithtransition−andbufferzones beforeprovidingasingularvalue.

Finally,wecoulddomoretoanalyzethestrictnessscoresfrom theoptimalscaling.Wecouldincludeotherpredictors thatcan explainfurtherthevariationinconservationrulesatthesite-level, suchaspopulationdensity,accessibility,ordegreeofinvolvment ofusergroupsinmanagement.Explainingwhysite-speciﬁcrules havebeenassignedcouldalsohelpusunderstandhowthedifferent countriesinterprettheIUCNclassiﬁcationsystem.

Acknowledgements

WeappreciatevaluablecommentsfromLorenaMunozandthe two anonymous reviewers. Funding: Our work was funded by CultES—Assessingspatiallyexplicitculturalecosystemservicesfor adaptivemanagementintheAlpineNorth,EnvironmentalResearch Program,NorwegianResearchCouncil.

AppendixA. Supplementarydata

Supplementarydataassociatedwiththisarticlecanbefound, intheonlineversion,athttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.

12.026.

Thesupplementarymaterialincludestherawdatafromthecon- tentanalysisofconservationobjectivesandstrictnesslevelscoded for48parksinNorwayandthe51parksinBCandther-scriptfor optimalscaling(AppendixA).Theauthorsaresolelyresponsiblefor thecontentandfunctionalityofthismaterial.Queries(otherthan absenceofthematerial)shouldbedirectedtothecorresponding author.

References

Andam,K.S.,Ferraro,P.J.,Pfaff,A.,Sanchez-Azofeifa,G.A.,Robalino,J.,2008.

Measuringtheeffectivenessofprotectedareanetworksinreducing deforestation.Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.S.A.105,16089–16094,http://dx.doi.

org/10.1073/pnas.0800437105.

Baylis,K.,Honey-Rosés,J.,Börner,J.,Corbera,E.,Ezzine-de-Blas,D.,Ferraro,P.J., Lapeyre,R.,Persson,U.M.,Pfaff,A.,Wunder,S.,2015.Mainstreamingimpact evaluationinnatureconservation.Conserv.Lett.,http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/

conl.12180,n/a-n/a.

Berkes,F.,2004.Rethinkingcommunity-basedconservation.Conserv.Biol.18, 621–630,http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00077.x.

Bondarchik,J.,Jabło ´nska-Sabuka,M.,Linnanen,L.,Kauranne,T.,2016.Improving theobjectivityofsustainabilityindicesbyanovelapproachforcombining contrastingeffects:happyplanetindexrevisited.Ecol.Indic.69,400–406, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.04.044.

CBD,2010.X/2.TheStrategicPlanforBiodiversity2011–2020andtheAichi BiodiversityTargets.

Chape,S.,Harrison,J.,Spalding,M.,Lysenko,I.,2005.Measuringtheextentand effectivenessofprotectedareasasanindicatorformeetingglobalbiodiversity targets.Philos.Trans.R.Soc.BBiol.Sci.360,443–455,http://dx.doi.org/10.

1098/rstb.2004.1592.

Chhatre,A.,Agrawal,A.,2008.Forestcommonsandlocalenforcement.Proc.Natl.

Acad.Sci.U.S.A.105,13286–13291,http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.

0803399105.

Coad,L.,Leverington,F.,Knights,K.,Geldmann,J.,Eassom,A.,Kapos,V.,Kingston, N.,Lima,M.,De,Zamora,C.,Cuardros,I.,Nolte,C.,Burgess,N.D.,Hockings,M., Kapos,V.,2015.Measuringimpactofprotectedareamanagement

interventions:currentandfutureuseoftheGlobalDatabaseofProtectedArea ManagementEffectiveness.10.1098/rstb.2014.0281.