94
The shaping of the global protected area estate
became to be seen as a public good, government departments were established and associated legislation put
in place to govern and expand the number of reserves.
This approach involved the adoption of a rational and
planned approach from which the idea of functional
reserve networks emerged.
The endeavour gained momentum during the 1970s
with the rise within international development agencies of science - based recreational resource management. Such planning was informed by multi - purpose
principles, whereby a dominant use co - exists with a
number of compatible, but subsidiary, uses so as to
maximize the use made of available land. These multi -
purpose principles, and the notions of effi ciency they
represent, infl uenced reserve selection in that it made
sense to identify sites that delivered more than one of
the conservation functions (above), as well as sites that
could support conservation - compatible uses such as
tourism, informal recreation, trophy hunting and,
more recently, sustainable utilization linked to local
livelihoods.
Under the rational resource planning approach (cf.
Colby, 1991 ), biogeographical and ecological science
was employed to assess the conservation value of lands
and the size and confi guration of sites required to
protect ecosystems services, to ensure the survival of
threatened or migratory species, to protect a set of
benchmark sites and so forth. The suitability of sites for
subsidiary uses was assessed subsequently, although,
for practical purposes, the starting point of network
planning was pre - existing reserve collections, some
of which may have been designated for reasons not
derived from scientifi c ecological analyses, e.g. for
reasons such as landscape beauty.
The challenge thus became to develop the principles
and methods needed to design coherent and effective
networks of protected areas, building on whatever pre -
existing network there might be for a given region. This
process has continued to the present day and will, no
doubt, continue into the future.
To address this challenge requires the various forms
of biogeographical data discussed in detail in Chapters
3 and 4 . It also requires a focus on identifying and
refi ning the goals of reserve networks as a whole.
Approaches to meeting such goals have varied over
time, and as implemented by different organizations
in differing geo - political contexts (below; Jepson &
Whittaker, 2002a,b ). While early approaches were
constrained in their sophistication by data limitations
and computer processing power, recent decades have
translated into social values and public policy goals
embracing the designation of protected areas and
enforcement of wildlife legislation. These measures
were designed to halt the needless slaughter of wildlife
and to save the natural beauty and tranquillity of the
countryside in the face of rapid industrialization and
development (Kalamandeen & Gillson, 2007 ). The
study of natural history was a passion of the era
and, prompted by threats to favoured excursion sites,
natural history societies in the UK began to include site
and species preservation among their objectives as
early as 1860 (Lowe, 1983 ).
Refl ecting these distinct but often interlinked concerns, the motivations for designating sites within
the fi rst protected area networks varied considerably
(Chapter 2 ; Jepson & Whittaker, 2002a ). For example,
we might identify:
• game reserves, managed for the maintenance of
game and their habitat for hunting (a concept pre -
dating the modern conservation movement);
• forest reserves, established to manage timber reserves
and other forest resources, motivated by utilitarian
rational resource planning;
• wildlife sanctuaries, motivated by the belief that
humanity has a moral obligation to ensure survival of
other life forms;
• naturdenkmal (roughly translated as nature monuments): places for the study and contemplation of
nature, motivated by the belief that monuments of
nature have value to human civilization, culture and
identity;
• national parks, in part motivated by the ideas of
promoting nation - building and patriotism through
romanticized pride in natural heritage;
• scientifi c benchmark sites: places representing
typical vegetation associations and thus providing
‘ type specimens ’ of natural ecosystems (lest this be
thought a recent invention, it is worth noting that
several such sites were established in Java in the fi rst
quarter of the 20th century);
• parks, state parks and country parks, motivated
by the desire to enhance the well - being and health
of urban residents by providing opportunities for
informal out door recreation (Open Spaces movement,
Chapter 2 ).
As the conservation movement developed over the
20th century, these earlier disparate strands and motivations were increasingly combined into schemes and
classifi cations that recognized and embraced different
types of protected area. Moreover, as protected areas
The shaping of the global protected area estate
became to be seen as a public good, government departments were established and associated legislation put
in place to govern and expand the number of reserves.
This approach involved the adoption of a rational and
planned approach from which the idea of functional
reserve networks emerged.
The endeavour gained momentum during the 1970s
with the rise within international development agencies of science - based recreational resource management. Such planning was informed by multi - purpose
principles, whereby a dominant use co - exists with a
number of compatible, but subsidiary, uses so as to
maximize the use made of available land. These multi -
purpose principles, and the notions of effi ciency they
represent, infl uenced reserve selection in that it made
sense to identify sites that delivered more than one of
the conservation functions (above), as well as sites that
could support conservation - compatible uses such as
tourism, informal recreation, trophy hunting and,
more recently, sustainable utilization linked to local
livelihoods.
Under the rational resource planning approach (cf.
Colby, 1991 ), biogeographical and ecological science
was employed to assess the conservation value of lands
and the size and confi guration of sites required to
protect ecosystems services, to ensure the survival of
threatened or migratory species, to protect a set of
benchmark sites and so forth. The suitability of sites for
subsidiary uses was assessed subsequently, although,
for practical purposes, the starting point of network
planning was pre - existing reserve collections, some
of which may have been designated for reasons not
derived from scientifi c ecological analyses, e.g. for
reasons such as landscape beauty.
The challenge thus became to develop the principles
and methods needed to design coherent and effective
networks of protected areas, building on whatever pre -
existing network there might be for a given region. This
process has continued to the present day and will, no
doubt, continue into the future.
To address this challenge requires the various forms
of biogeographical data discussed in detail in Chapters
3 and 4 . It also requires a focus on identifying and
refi ning the goals of reserve networks as a whole.
Approaches to meeting such goals have varied over
time, and as implemented by different organizations
in differing geo - political contexts (below; Jepson &
Whittaker, 2002a,b ). While early approaches were
constrained in their sophistication by data limitations
and computer processing power, recent decades have
translated into social values and public policy goals
embracing the designation of protected areas and
enforcement of wildlife legislation. These measures
were designed to halt the needless slaughter of wildlife
and to save the natural beauty and tranquillity of the
countryside in the face of rapid industrialization and
development (Kalamandeen & Gillson, 2007 ). The
study of natural history was a passion of the era
and, prompted by threats to favoured excursion sites,
natural history societies in the UK began to include site
and species preservation among their objectives as
early as 1860 (Lowe, 1983 ).
Refl ecting these distinct but often interlinked concerns, the motivations for designating sites within
the fi rst protected area networks varied considerably
(Chapter 2 ; Jepson & Whittaker, 2002a ). For example,
we might identify:
• game reserves, managed for the maintenance of
game and their habitat for hunting (a concept pre -
dating the modern conservation movement);
• forest reserves, established to manage timber reserves
and other forest resources, motivated by utilitarian
rational resource planning;
• wildlife sanctuaries, motivated by the belief that
humanity has a moral obligation to ensure survival of
other life forms;
• naturdenkmal (roughly translated as nature monuments): places for the study and contemplation of
nature, motivated by the belief that monuments of
nature have value to human civilization, culture and
identity;
• national parks, in part motivated by the ideas of
promoting nation - building and patriotism through
romanticized pride in natural heritage;
• scientifi c benchmark sites: places representing
typical vegetation associations and thus providing
‘ type specimens ’ of natural ecosystems (lest this be
thought a recent invention, it is worth noting that
several such sites were established in Java in the fi rst
quarter of the 20th century);
• parks, state parks and country parks, motivated
by the desire to enhance the well - being and health
of urban residents by providing opportunities for
informal out door recreation (Open Spaces movement,
Chapter 2 ).
As the conservation movement developed over the
20th century, these earlier disparate strands and motivations were increasingly combined into schemes and
classifi cations that recognized and embraced different
types of protected area. Moreover, as protected areas