The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rethinking protected area categories and the new paradigm
Abstract
The World Conservation Union (IUCN) plays a global leadership role in defining different types of protected areas, and influencing how protected area systems develop and are managed. Following the 1992 World Parks Congress, a new system of categorizing protected areas was developed. New categories were introduced, including categories that allowed resource extraction. Since that time there has been rapid growth in the global numbers and size of protected areas, with most growth being shown in the new categories. Further-more, the IUCN has heralded a ‘new paradigm’ of protected areas, which became the main focus of the 2003 World Parks Congress. The paradigm focuses on benefits to local people to alleviate poverty, re-engineering protected areas professionals, and an emphasis on the interaction between humans and nature through a focus on the new IUCN protected area categories.The purpose of this paper is to examine critically the implications of the new categories and paradigm shift in light of the main purpose of protected areas, to protect wild biodiversity. Wild biodiversity will not be well served by adoption of this new paradigm, which will devalue conservation biology, undermine the creation of more strictly protected reserves, inflate the amount of area in reserves and place people at the centre of the protected area agenda at the expense of wild biodiversity. Only IUCN categories I–IV should be recognized as protected areas. The new categories, namely culturally modified landscapes (V) and managed resource areas (VI), should be reclassified as sustainable development areas. To do so would better serve both the protection of wild biodiversity and those seeking to meet human needs on humanized landscapes where sustainable development is practised.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity
Rodrigues, A. S. L., Andelman, S. J., Bakarr, M. I., Boitani, L., Brooks, T. M., Cowling, R. M., Fishpool, L. D. C., da Fonseca, G. A. B., Gaston, K. J., Hoffmann, M., et al. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02422 · Cited by 1,525
Cited by
Gedan, K. B., Kirwan, M. L., Wolanski, E., Barbier, E. B., & Silliman, B. R. (2011) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-010-0003-7 · Cited by 1,016
Hayes, T. M. (2006) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.03.002 · Cited by 353
De Santo, E. M. (2013) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.033 · Cited by 209
Conservation of birds in fragmented landscapes requires protected areas
Timmers, R., van Kuijk, M., Verweij, P. A., Ghazoul, J., Hautier, Y., Laurance, W. F., Arriaga‐Weiss, S. L., Askins, R. A., Battisti, C., Berg, Å., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1002/fee.2485 · Cited by 79
“Fixing” the Forest: The Spatiality of Conservation Conflict in Thailand
Roth, R. J. (2008) · Annals of the Association of American Geographers · doi:10.1080/00045600801925557 · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- LOCKE, H., & DEARDEN, P.
- Venue
- Environmental Conservation
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2005-03
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-10
- ISSN
- 0376-8929 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-4387
- OpenAlex
- W2027289485
- Cited by
- 365
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 14.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Rethinking protected area categories and the new paradigm. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0376892905001852
- The paper
- LOCKE, H., & DEARDEN, P. (2005). Rethinking protected area categories and the new paradigm. Environmental Conservation. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0376892905001852
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.