Navigating divergent perspectives on critical habitat designation: Insights from the little bustard (Tetrax tetrax) conservation in Spain
The designation of critical habitats is a conservation tool extensively used worldwide. Although the effectiveness of this tool has been proved globally, its implementation in Spain is scarce, probably due to the ambiguous character of its definition in policy and other related problems. This study...
| Autores: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2024 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat de Lleida (UdL) |
| Repositorio: | Repositori Obert UdL |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositori.udl.cat:10459.1/465865 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2024.126633 https://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/465865 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Effective management Protected area designation Recovery planning Species restoration Stakeholder consultation |
| Sumario: | The designation of critical habitats is a conservation tool extensively used worldwide. Although the effectiveness of this tool has been proved globally, its implementation in Spain is scarce, probably due to the ambiguous character of its definition in policy and other related problems. This study provides insight into some of these aspects and how different groups of experts interpret the concept of critical habitat. We used the little bustard (Tetrax tetrax) as a case study of an endangered species for which critical habitats must be designated. We interviewed 47 experts of the species, from researchers to environmental agency technicians, about the objectives that critical habitats should address, and which facilitating and constraining aspects should be considered in such designation. By grouping the answers in different categories and running ordination analyses (Non-Metric Multidimensional Scaling) we found that researchers mainly focused on ecological objectives for critical habitats, compared to the rest of the respondents who also considered socioeconomic aspects as basic objectives for critical habitats. Only 36% of the experts mentioned ecological factors as constraints to such designation, while socioeconomic constraints were mentioned by all but two of the experts (96%). These results suggest differences in the conceptualization of critical habitat between scientists and managers, from pure ecological requirements of the species to the actual implications and socioeconomic constraints of its implementation, respectively. Integrating multiple stakeholders and views will reflect these differences into the operational understanding of critical habitats and will ensure that future critical habitat designations are effective management tools. |
|---|