Wildlife conservation programs: a review and analysis

Authors

  • Juan Francisco López Lucero Universidad Autónoma de Baja California
  • Luis Antonio Tarango Arámbula Colegio de Postgraduados Campus San Luis Potosí
  • Diego Valdez Zamudio Universidad de Sonora
  • Roberto Martínez Gallardo Universidad Autónoma de Baja California
  • J. Mario Vargas Yáñez Universidad de Málaga, España
  • Joaquín Contreras Gil Universidad Autónoma de Baja California
  • Raúl Romo León Universidad de Sonora

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22231/asyd.v14i4.696

Keywords:

conventions, strategies, legal framework, natural resources

Abstract

Natural resources are important for the development of communities because of the generation of goods, services and jobs. The strategies for protection and exploitation of wildlife at the international level are specified in conventions, agreements and treaty signatures. However, an evaluation and analysis of these is required to understand their effectiveness. The purpose of this study was to carry out a literature review about the conservation strategies during 1970-2010; to this aim, information was sought, organized and analyzed related to scientific articles, legal framework and electronic books elaborated by International Organizations. The information was organized by developed countries (n=7) and developing countries (n=7). In the 113 evidences analyzed it was found that the strategies conclude with the signature, execution of conventions and international agreements; however, only 5 % of the documents are related to the evaluation, analysis of the effectiveness and performance of those programs, highlighting that in their majority they refer to developing countries. This document emphasizes that in order for conservation strategies to be successful, they should be elaborated based on principles, criteria, indicators and verifiers of social, economic, political and ecologic type.

References

Brooks, J. S., Franzen, M. A., Holmes, C. M., Grote, M. N., and Mulder, M. B. 2006.Testing Hypotheses for the Success of Different Conservation Strategies. Conservation Biology, Volume 20, Issue 5. pp: 1528–1538.

Cadena-Iñiguez, J., Becerril-Román, A.E. 2016. Generación y reporte de casos de éxito en el sector rural. Agroproductividad. Volumen 9. pp: x-xvii.

Choi, B., Pang, T., Lin, V., Puska, P., Sherman, G., Goddard, M. Ackland, M., Sainsbury, P., Stachenko, S. Morrison, H., and Clottey, C. 2005. Can scientists and policy makers work together? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. Volume 59, Issue 8, pp: 632-637.

Clark, T. W. 1996. Appraising threatened species recovery efforts: practical recommendations. Pages 1-22 in Sthephens and S. Maxwell, editors. Back from the brink: refining the threatened species recovery process. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, New South Wales, Australia.

CONABIO. 2012. Proyecto de Evaluación de las Unidades de Manejo para la Conservación de la Vida Silvestre (UMA) (1997-2008). Resultados de la Fase I: Gestión y Administración. Proyectos CONABIO: HV003, HV004, HV007, HV012 y HV019. México.

CONABIO. 2000. Estrategia nacional sobre la biodiversidad de México. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, México.

Corraliza, J. 1996. Educación ambiental: Conceptos y propuestas. Editorial CCA. España. 116 p.

Davies, T.E., Fazey, I.R.A., Cresswell, and W. Pettorelli, N. 2013. Missing the trees for the wood: why we are failing to see success in pro-poor conservation. Animal Conservation. Volume 17, issue 4. pp: 303-312.

Eigenbrod, F., Anderson, B. J., Armsworth, P. R., Heinemeyer, A., Gillings, S., Roy, D. B., Thomas, C. D., and Gaston, K. J. 2010. Representation of ecosystem services by tiered conservation strategies. Conservation letters. Volume 3. Issue 3.pp: 184-191.

Ferraro, P. J., and Pattanayak, S. 2006. Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. Plos Biol. Volume 4. Issue 4:e105.

García-Marmolejo, G., Escalona-Segura, G., and Van der Wal, H. 2008. Multicriteria evaluation of wildlife management unit in Campeche, México. Journal of wildlife management. Volume 72. Issue 5. pp: 1194-1202.

Kleiman, D. G., Reading, R. P., Miller, B. J., Clark, T. W., Scott, M., Robinson, J., Wallace, R. L., Cabin, R. J., and Felleman, Fred. 2000. Improving the evaluation of conservation programs. Conservation Biology. Volume 14. Issue 2: pp: 356-365.

Landry, R., Larami, M., and Amara, N. 2003. The extent and determinants of the utilization of university research in government agencies. Public Administration Review. Volume 63. Issue 2. pp: 192-205.

LGEEPA. 2016. Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente. Ultima reforma en el Diario Oficial de la Federación. http://www.diputados.gob.mx/Leyes Biblio/pdf/148_130516.pdf.

LGVS. 2016. Ley General de Vida Silvestre. Ultima reforma en el Diario Oficial de la Federación. http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/146_130516.pdf.

Miteva, D. A., Pattanayak, S. K., and Ferraro, P. J. 2012. Evaluation of biodiversity policy instruments: what works and what doesn’t?. Journal Oxford review of economic policy. Volume 28, issue 1. pp: 69-92.

Ortega-Argueta, A. González-Zamora, and A. Contreras-Hernández, A. 2016. A framework and indicators for evaluating policies for conservation and development: The case of wildlife management units in Mexico. Envionmental Science & Policy. Volume 63. pp: 91-100.

Ortega-Rubio, A. and Castellanos-Vera, A. 1995. La Isla Socorro, Archipiélago Revillagigedo, México. Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste S.C. Publicación No. 8. 359 p.

Rosas-Rosas, O. C., Hernández-Saint Martin, A. D., Olvera Hernández, J. I., Guerrero-Rodríguez, J. D., Aceves-Ruiz, E., Tarango-Arámbula, y L. A. 2015. Monitores comunitarios para la conservación e investigación participativa en áreas naturales protegidas. Agroproductividad. Volumen 8. Número 5. pp: 56-61.

Salafsky, N., Margoluis, R., Redford, K., and Robinson, J. 2002. Improving the practice of conservation: a conceptual framework and research agenda for conservation science. Conservation Biology. Volume 16. Issue 6. pp: 1469-1479.

Sánchez-Cordero, V., Figueroa, F. 2007. La Efectividad de las reservas de la biosfera en México para contener procesos de cambio de uso de suelo y la vegetación, en G. Halfter, S. Guevara y A. Melic (eds.), Hacia una cultura de conservación de la diversidad biológica. Monografías Tercer milenio. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Zaragoza. pp: 161-171.

SHCP (Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público), 2008. Sistemas de evaluación del desempeño. Secretaria de Hacienda y Crédito Público. México. D.F. Consultado (04 Mayo de 2015).

http://www.transparenciapresupuestaria.gob.mx/work/models/PTP/Presupuesto/Seguimiento/Acuerdo_SED.pdf

Stem, Caroline, Margoluis, R., Salafsky, N., and Brown, M. 2005. Monitoring and evaluation in Conservation: a Review of trends and approaches. Conservation Biology Volume 19. Issue 2. pp: 295-309.

Strange, N., Theilade, Ida, Thea, So, Sloth, Arvid, Helles, Finn. 2007. Integration of species persistence, costs and conflicts: An evaluation of tree conservation strategies in Cambodia.Biological Conservation. Volume 137. Issue 2. pp: 223-236.

Susskind, L. E., Jan, R. K., Martnyniuk, A. O. 2001. Better environmental policy studies: How to design and conduct more effective analyses. Island Press, Washington, D. C.

The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife fund, Wildlife Conservation Society, Conservation International and Birdlife international. 2003. A resource guide to terrestrial conservation planning at regional scale. Arlington, Virginia, USA.

UICN. 1980. Estrategia mundial para la conservación. Consultado (12 de Abril de 2015) https://portals.iucn. org/library/efiles/edocs/WCS-004-Es.pdf United Nations Educational, Science and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (http://es.unesco.org/).

Downloads

Published

2017-12-31

How to Cite

López Lucero, J. F., Tarango Arámbula, L. A., Valdez Zamudio, D., Martínez Gallardo, R., Vargas Yáñez, J. M., Contreras Gil, J., & Romo León, R. (2017). Wildlife conservation programs: a review and analysis. Agricultura, Sociedad Y Desarrollo, 14(4), 565–575. https://doi.org/10.22231/asyd.v14i4.696

Issue

Vol. 14 No. 4 (2017): Agricultura Sociedad y Desarrollo

Section

Artículos

License

Authors who publish in this journal accept the following conditions:

 

  1. The authors retain the copyright and transfer to the magazine the right of the first publication, with the work registered with the Creative Commons attribution license, which allows third parties to use what is published as long as they mention the authorship of the work and the first publication in this magazine.
  2. Authors may make other independent and additional contractual arrangements for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the article published in this journal (e.g., including it in an institutional repository or publishing it in a book) as long as they clearly indicate that the work It was first published in this magazine.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to publish their work on the Internet (for example on institutional or personal pages) before and during the review and publication process, as it can lead to productive exchanges and greater and faster dissemination of the work. published (see The Effect of Open Access).

Most read articles by the same author(s)