Next Article in Journal
Near-Term Effects of Perennial Grasses on Soil Carbon and Nitrogen in Eastern Nebraska
Previous Article in Journal
A Review of Control Charts and Exploring Their Utility for Regional Environmental Monitoring Programs
Previous Article in Special Issue
Soil Loss Analysis of an Eastern Kentucky Watershed Utilizing the Universal Soil Loss Equation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Environments
Volume 10
Issue 5
10.3390/environments10050079
environments-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Review to Update the Protected Areas in Ecuador and an Analysis of Their Main Impacts and Conservation Strategies

by
Carlos Mestanza-Ramón
1,*,
Joel Monar-Nuñez
2,
Paola Guala-Alulema
2,
Yuri Montenegro-Zambrano
2,
Renato Herrera-Chávez
3,
Celene B. Milanes
4,5,*,
Carla Arguello-Guadalupe
6,
Pamela Buñay-Guisñan
7 and
Marco Toledo-Villacís
8,9
1
Departamento Economía Financiera y Dirección de Operaciones, Universidad de Sevilla, 41018 Sevilla, Spain
2
Green Amazon, Research Center, Nueva Loja EC-210150, Ecuador
3
Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Administrativas, Universidad Nacional del Chimborazo, Av. Antonio José de Sucre Km 1 1/2 vía a Guano, Riobamba EC-060155, Ecuador
4
GeMarc Research Group, Civil and Environmental Department, Universidad de la Costa, Street 58 # 55–66, Barranquilla 080002, Colombia
5
Coiba Scientific Station (Coiba AIP), City of Knowledge, Clayton, Panama City 0801, Panama
6
Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo, Riobamba EC-060104, Ecuador
7
Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional del Chimborazo Av. Antonio José de Sucre Km 1 1/2 vía a Guano, Riobamba EC-060155, Ecuador
8
Instituto Superior Tecnológico Universitario Oriente, La Joya de los Sachas EC-220101, Ecuador
9
Research Group YASUNI-SDC, Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo, Sede Orellana, Riobamba EC-220001, Ecuador
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Environments 2023, 10(5), 79; https://doi.org/10.3390/environments10050079
Submission received: 14 March 2023 / Revised: 19 April 2023 / Accepted: 25 April 2023 / Published: 5 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Land Use Change in the Changing Environment II)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Establishing new protected areas (PAs) is one of the first steps needed to reduce habitat loss and fragmentation, protect ecosystems that are of vital importance to conserve biodiversity, and even protect traditional cultures. The correct management of a PA can be beneficial for the different forms of life found within it and can provide multiple benefits to humanity and to the continued functioning of productive ecosystems. Protected Areas act as buffers for life while serving as sanctuaries and strongholds for species in the face of climate change. Within these areas, genetic diversity is enabled to evolve in response to the pressures of natural selection. The causes of biodiversity loss include changes in land use due to agriculture and urbanization, invasive species, overexploitation, and pollution. As stipulated, the current study aims to update the National System of Protected Areas (SNAP) by applying a review of scientific and gray literature. This review presents updated information; Ecuador currently has 74 protected areas, with state, decentralized autonomous, community, and private subdivisions. The main social and environmental impacts found in the protected areas included in the SNAP are presented in a review of the existing literature. Finally, strategies are proposed to improve the management of the protected areas of the SNAP focused on strengthening the conservation of their different life forms and the responsible use of their ecosystem services through more efficient and productive spaces.

1. Introduction

On the 18th July each year, Ecuador celebrates the anniversary of the National System of Protected Areas (SNAP), a system integrated by spaces which mainly aim to protect biodiversity, ecosystems, and landscapes, as well as preserve cultural diversity [1]. Protected areas (PAs) were created with preservation, care, and the want to stop environmental deterioration in mind, but they are also important for the value they provide to the public, as we make use of their services (such as the use of water for the population, energy, and generating sustainable development alternatives regarding tourism, food sources, and climate regulation) [2]. However, it is important to emphasize that their effectiveness will depend on proper management, since their mere existence does not guarantee any of the aforementioned benefits. In addition, PAs are important for scientific research, environmental education, and human health [3]. Currently, the Ministry of Environment, Water and Ecological Transition is the state entity responsible for the administration of the SNAP, through the National Directorate of Biodiversity and PAs [4,5].
Biodiversity conservation has focused on the human interest in securing the ecosystem services provided by the natural environment [6,7]. These services provide benefits for human well-being, including tangible and intangible material goods [8,9]. They are divided into four types: provisioning services, regulating services, cultural services, and supporting services, achieving quality outcomes in different areas, such as sustainable agriculture, water, pollination, purified air, recreational enjoyment, sustainable forest management, and aesthetic values, through appropriate practices that address the use of the environment [10,11]. All components of ecosystem services aim to form a basis for the harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature. Today, this concept is increasingly used to inform land use planning, economic decision making, and biodiversity conservation in a specific territory or on a global scale [10,12].
PAs are one of the most important instruments for nature conservation and landscape management. The protection of an area contributes directly to the conservation of species and their habitats [13,14]. Conservation objectives can be achieved with the different categories of PAs. In nature and environmental contexts, PAs are created for a specific purpose or are under special protection so that other uses are regulated or excluded by the state. Finding effective conservation strategies has become one of the greatest challenges facing society today. These areas act as buffers for life while serving as sanctuaries and strongholds for species in the face of climate change. Within these areas, genetic diversity is allowed to evolve in response to the pressures of natural selection [10,12]. The rapid advance in the implementation of globalized development models, for the most part, has not kept pace with environmental realities, making this work vital for the future of conservation [15,16].
The criteria of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classify PAs according to their management objectives. The categories are recognized by international bodies such as the United Nations and many national governments as the global standard for defining and mapping PAs and, as such, are increasingly incorporated into state legislation. The objectives of these areas focus on managing and preserving ecosystems, species, and geodiverse features, as well as minimizing disruption through careful planning, conducting research and other authorized activities, and preserving the cultural and spiritual values associated with nature [17,18]. At the global level, the Aichi Biodiversity Conservation Targets and the Global Biodiversity Framework emphasize the importance of connectivity in PAs. Their respective aims call for 17% and 30% of the world’s land area to be conserved through well-connected PAs and other effective area-based conservation measures.
Ecuador has 250,000 km2 of territory, i.e., 1.5% of South America, yet is one of the countries with the greatest biodiversity on Earth, both in absolute number of species and in number of species per unit of surface area [19]. The country covers two of the five biodiversity hotspots in South America: the tropical Andes and the Tumbes—Chocó—Magdalena Hotspot. Ecuador is a biodiversity hotspot for endemic vertebrates, particularly for amphibians and reptiles, which constitute approximately 45% of the local species and for endemic vascular plant species, which constitute approx. 26%. In addition, continental Ecuador contains a variety of different ecosystems, such as paramo (alpine tundra), mangroves, cloud forests, and tropical rainforests; this includes three biomes: the Coast, the Andes, and the Amazon [20,21,22]. Despite these conservation efforts, Ecuador has the country with the second highest number of threatened species in the world, with a total of 2501 species, including 47 mammals, 86 reptiles, 169 amphibians, 1102 birds, 70 invertebrates, 66 fish, and 1954 endangered plant species. PAs are a key concept for safeguarding the integrity of natural habitats and their respective biodiversity [23,24]. That is why humanity decided to respect these spaces full of life and prosperity, through PAs programs. Ecuador’s first PAs was the Galapagos National Park, which was established in 1959, and is now included on the UNESCO World Heritage list [25].
The causes of biodiversity loss are changes in land use due to agriculture and urbanization, invasive species, overexploitation, and pollution. Additionally, within South America, Ecuador is one of the countries that has developed the most infrastructure in and around its PAs, which could generate high pressure on PAs and their fragmentation into isolated habitats. Worse still, 72% of the 4437 endemic vascular plants and about 10% of threatened amphibian species in Ecuador are not protected because they are found outside PAs. In addition, climate change is increasing pressure on biodiversity and ecosystem services in Ecuador [20,26].
However, every year, new areas are catalogued for protection, so society does not usually have a reliable source allowing them to know what is happening within the areas, much less to know the exact number of PAs in the country. Although this process should be effectively managed by the Ministry of Environment, Water and Ecological Transition, it has been observed that the information they provide is generally outdated. In this context, the present study focused on consolidating the total PAs of the SNAP in Ecuador as of March 2023 and identifying the main threats and their potential impacts in the economic, social, and environmental spheres. To meet these objectives, the methodology used was based on a bibliographic review of the scientific literature in databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, and regional databases, as well as the use of gray literature, which corresponds to documents that have not undergone a rigorous scientific review process (such as Regulations, Laws, Policies, Resolutions, Ministerial Agreements, among others).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Protected Areas Update

In order to respond to the first objective of the study on the update of the total number of PAs of the SNAP, a bibliographic review of the scientific and gray literature was conducted. Initially, a search of the scientific literature was performed in the Scopus and Web of Science databases, for which the following search parameters were applied: “National System of Protected Areas”/“Protected Areas” + “Ecuador.” These parameters facilitated the acquisition of 21 and 81 documents, respectively. To eliminate duplicate documents and those not related to the topic of study, titles and abstracts were perused and filtered. Subsequently, 12 documents were finally considered [4,27,28,29,30,31]. This filtering process ensured that we had a reliable dozen of documents that detailed, in a consolidated manner, the total number of PAs. With this information, and in order to update the total number of PAs as of April 2023, a gray literature search was carried out, which consisted of accessing the repositories of ministerial agreements in the last 4 years to ensure we had reliable data on the total number of PAs in Ecuador.
Regarding the complementary gray literature, a search of the web pages for the Ministry of Environment, Water and Ecological Transition (MAATE)—the highest national environmental authority—repositories, and Ministerial Agreements was conducted. The latest ministerial agreements include the following: ministerial agreement no. MAATE-2021-020 [32], Ministerial Agreement Nro 2021-006 [33], ministerial agreement MAATE-2021-33 [34], ministerial agreement Nro. 2021-056 [35], ministerial agreement Nro. 2021-057 [35], ministerial agreement Nro. MAATE-2021-064 [35], ministerial agreement Nro. MAATE-2022-065 [36]. In the time span used in the search, filters and parameters were applied to refine the search and ensure that we only collected information relevant to the topics and objectives of the study. Additionally, the total number of documents obtained after the search was subjected to a manual filter, which consisted of reading the titles, years of publication, and source. This filtering allowed for the removal of documents that are not relevant to the study. It is important to highlight that the document “In-Situ and Ex-Situ Biodiversity Conservation in Ecuador: A Review of Policies, Actions and Challenges” was considered as a starting point [4]. Published in 2020, the review indicates the existence of 60 PAs. To order the result of this first objective, the following fields were considered: number, year of creation, name of the area, management category, subsystem, and surface area [37].

2.2. Socio-Environmental Impacts and Conservation Strategies

A qualitative–quantitative double-entry technique was used to determine the environmental impacts. This technique has been widely used because it is easily adaptable to processes or activities related to anthropogenic activities [28,29,30]. The methodological process was divided into four steps. The first step consisted of identifying and describing the main threats of the PAs corresponding to the SNAP. The second step focused on the selection of the evaluation components. Six were established: two biotic (flora and fauna), two abiotic (soil and water), and two social (economic and social). The third step consisted of identifying impacts. In this process, a support table was elaborated. In the first row, the six components were listed, while in the first co-column the main threats were listed, which facilitated the identification of the impacts. Finally, as a fourth step, the magnitude of the impacts was determined (Table 1), and, in this process, the evaluation of threats and impacts was considered.
Once the identification of the impacts was finalized, the following part of the progress matrix was constructed, wherein possible strategies that should and must be used to solve issues in the conservation areas were stipulated, with special emphasis being placed on actions that could be taken in the next 5–10 years. All strategies must be used in a responsible way, with the help of knowledgeable researchers, biologists, and entities responsible for the conservation of biodiversity, parish and cantonal governments, prefectures, as well as the major environmental force of the country, MAATE, etc.

3. Results and Discussion

Having established the methodological process, we proceeded to structure the presentation of the results. This section responds to each of the objectives and research questions that were initially established in the introductory section of this document. Thus, the list of PAs in the SNAP, updated as of February 2023, is presented. This is followed by an analysis of the main threats and a quantitative analysis of their impacts on the SNAP. Finally, the authors propose strategies to mitigate the threats and their impacts.

3.1. National System of Protected Areas (SNAP) Ecuador

The SNAP is the main national conservation strategy in Ecuador. At present, this system outlines 74 PAs (Table S1), which are categorized in the following way: six National Recreation Areas, fourteen National Parks, ten Wildlife Refuges, five Biological Reserves, four Fauna Production Reserves, seven Ecological Reserves, one Geobotanical Reserve, eight Marine Reserves, five Ecological Conservation Areas, three Community Protected Areas, two Decentralized Autonomous Protected Areas, and nine Private Protected Areas. In relation to the document of Mestanza (2020), in the last two years, fourteen protected areas have been added.
The SNAP’s protected areas are distributed throughout Ecuador’s four regions as follows: twenty-four on the coast, thirty-one in the highlands, fifteen in the Amazon, and three in the Galapagos Island region. The landscapes that protect the PAs of the SNAP are forty-nine terrestrial, thirteen terrestrial-marine, and eleven marines. These protected natural areas are distributed among the twenty-four provinces of Ecuador, as outlined in the map below (Figure 1). The PAs of the continental SNAP have diverse amounts of territory, with the smallest amount belonging to the Samanes National Recreation Area, with 851.65 ha, whereas the Marine Reserve brotherhood is catalogued as the biggest, with approximately 6,000,000.00 ha.

3.2. Main Threats and an Analysis of the Impacts on the SNAP

The bibliographic review process made it possible to explore the main documents on the activities and processes that influence the proper functioning of PAs to some degree. Thus, nine main threats were identified and consolidated (Table 2): climate change, deforestation, engineering works (infrastructure mining-oil and roads), fires, hunting, introduced species, land use change, tourism, and wildlife trafficking.
Once the main threats were identified, the impacts associated with biotic, abiotic, and socio-environmental components were evaluated (Table 3). Fourteen impacts caused by nine threats/activities were identified. The biotic component is generally affected by a loss of individuals and disturbance to ecosystems and their components. In the abiotic component, the main impacts are associated with disturbance and changes in properties such as soil, water, and atmosphere. Soil is generally affected by compaction and contamination processes. Water is generally affected in its properties due to contamination. Regarding economics, on the one hand, deforestation provides income to local communities, but on the other hand, climate change actually damages plantations and agricultural activities, causing losses. In the social sphere, four of the nine threats are affected by disease.
The impacts previously identified in Table 3 were initially subjected to a qualitative evaluation according to their magnitude (high, medium, or low) and then transformed into a quantitative percentage according to the degree of repetition. The results of the evaluation show that the threats/activities mainly generate impacts of a high magnitude that are likely to affect the biotic and abiotic components (Table 4). Thus, with 50%, disturbance to flora and fauna, loss of floral species, chemical contamination of the soil, and water pollution and contamination are of the highest magnitude. Medium magnitude impacts are present with 42.86% and are essentially due to the loss of fauna, disturbance, soil compaction and erosion, and diseases in populations within the PAs. Finally, 7.14% of the low magnitude impacts are due to atmospheric pollution caused by anthropogenic activities and economic income for local populations as part of the use of some of their resources.
Within the SNAP, the National Parks have had a higher profile in terms of anthropogenic pressures in industrial fields (oil and mining), tourism, and agricultural and livestock activities [38,39]. For example, Yasuní, Podocarpus, Sangay, and Cayambe Coca National Parks have been invaded by oil and mining activities in recent years [38,40,41,42]. Machalilla, Galapagos, and Antisana Parks have experienced a large number of visitors, according to statistics from the Ministry of the Environment [43,44]. Therefore, this study considered it important to delimit the analysis to this management category with respect to the main anthropogenic pressures (Table 5).

3.3. Strategies

Currently, the PAs cover important territorial extensions of indigenous peoples, communities, afro-descendants, and mestizos. In recent decades, several areas of the SNAP have suffered territorial conflicts between inhabitants and environmental authorities. PAs and indigenous people share legal [53,54,55], political, and technical differences; however, they can create complementary strategies for the conservation and improvement of the quality of life of rural populations and their PAs. In addition, they have access to sources of financing and technical assistance, thanks to their main characteristics. They allow experimentation with alternative production models and resource conservation practices.
One model for resolving conflicts is the recognition of indigenous lands; this process builds trust, promotes dialogue, consensus, and also allows for the creation of conditions for environmental democracy [56,57]. The following are the possible strategies that should and must be addressed in the National Parks of SNAP in the coming years (5–10) (Table 6). Each one of them was inscribed according to the needs of the area since some of them correspond to diverse conflict situations that surpass the position of a single individual responsible for the legitimate fulfillment of the action. That is to say, it is necessary to count with the help of several people involved in the area, such as biologists, research authors, Autonomous Decentralized Cantonal–Provincial Governments, research magazines, MAATE, national police, etc.

4. Conclusions

Ecuador currently has seventy-four PAs distributed in the four regions, twenty-four on the coast, thirty-one in the Andean, fifteen in the Amazon, and three in the island region. Of these areas, fifty-five belong to the State, seven to Decentralized Municipal Governments, three to communities, and eight are managed by the private sector. The country has fourteen National Parks, ten Wildlife Refuges, eight Marine Reserves, eight Marine Reserves, nine Private Protected Areas, seven Ecological Reserves, six National Recreational Areas, five Ecological Conservation Areas, five Biological Reserves, four Fauna Production Reserves, three Community Protected Areas, two Decentralized Autonomous Protected Areas, and one Geobotanical Reserve. The country’s protected areas are subject to anthropogenic pressures such as climate change, deforestation, engineering works (infrastructure and roads), fires, poaching, invasive alien species, land use change, aggressive tourism activities, and wildlife trafficking. If protected areas are not managed according to basic conservation principles, they may be subjected to impacts that will affect their biodiversity and productivity with respect to ecosystem services.
After analyzing the threats, 50% of them have a high impact. These high-magnitude impacts are associated with activities related to engineering works, such as the oil and mining industry, and these impacts occur in protected areas of the Ecuadorian Amazon. Tourism activities also affect high-demand protected areas such as the Galapagos National Park, Cuyabeno Fauna Reserve, Yasuní National Park, and Chimborazo Fauna Reserve. The high impact on the biological environment is mainly linked to the loss and disturbance of fauna and flora. In the abiotic environment, soil and water are generally affected by high levels of contamination. Regarding the loss of biodiversity, the magnitude of the impact is medium. In this sense, with good management, it is possible to preserve the different species in protected areas. Actions should be oriented towards the proper control and monitoring of environmental management plans for activities permitted in protected areas, such as the oil and mining industries. On the other hand, protected area management plans should focus their efforts on updating these documents and include studies on carrying capacity and the evaluation of the magnitude of impacts.
Based on these results, we are aware that in-depth studies should be performed for each category and protected area since the reality of each one is different, either because of their environmental conditions or because of the two forms of anthropogenic pressures to which they are exposed. One of the main limitations and complications in this study was the difficulty in accessing the different ministerial agreements in order to consolidate the new protected areas. In this regard, the Ministry of Environment, Water and Ecological Transition, as the governing body of the SNAP, should improve its management and keep information channels updated in a practical and effective manner.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/environments10050079/s1. Table S1: Protected Areas Update Categories and subsystems.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology, C.M.-R. and C.B.M.; formal analysis, C.M.-R., C.B.M., J.M.-N., P.G.-A., Y.M.-Z., R.H.-C., C.A.-G., P.B.-G. and M.T.-V.; investigation, C.M.-R., C.B.M., J.M.-N. and P.G.-A.; writing—original draft preparation, C.M.-R., C.B.M., J.M.-N., P.G.-A. and Y.M.-Z.; writing—review and editing, C.M.-R.; supervision, C.M.-R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by ESPOCH-IDI (publication fee) and Instituto Tecnológico Superior Oriente (Grant No. 34323674) (Field work financing).

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Escuela Superior Politécnica del Chimborazo for their collaboration, support, and contribution to the doctoral process of the main author at the University of Seville, Spain.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador. Boletín Nro 7; Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador: Quito, Ecuador, 2014.
  2. Chape, S.; Harrison, J.; Spalding, M.; Lysenko, I. Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2005, 360, 443–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Proença, V.; Pereira, H.M. Ecosystem Changes, Biodiversity Loss and Human Well-Being. In Encyclopedia of Environmental Health; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 215–224. ISBN 9780444522726. [Google Scholar]
  4. Mestanza-Ramón, C.; Henkanaththegedara, S.M.; Vásconez Duchicela, P.; Vargas Tierras, Y.; Sánchez Capa, M.; Constante Mejía, D.; Jimenez Gutierrez, M.; Charco Guamán, M.; Mestanza Ramón, P. In-Situ and Ex-Situ Biodiversity Conservation in Ecuador: A Review of Policies, Actions and Challenges. Diversity 2020, 12, 315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Githiru, M.; Njambuya, J.W. Globalization and Biodiversity Conservation Problems: Polycentric REDD+ Solutions. Land 2019, 8, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Miller, J.R. Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2005, 20, 430–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Soulé, M.E.; Wilcox, B.A. Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective; Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, MA, USA, 1980; ISBN 0878938001. [Google Scholar]
  8. Balvanera, P.; Quijas, S.; Karp, D.S.; Ash, N.; Bennett, E.M.; Boumans, R.; Brown, C.; Chan, K.M.A.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Halpern, B.S.; et al. Ecosystem Services BT—The GEO Handbook on Biodiversity Observation Networks; Walters, M., Scholes, R.J., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 39–78. ISBN 978-3-319-27288-7. [Google Scholar]
  9. Primack, R.B. Essentials of Conservation Biology; Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, MA, USA, 2006; Volume 23. [Google Scholar]
  10. Hirons, M.; Comberti, C.; Dunford, R. Valuing cultural ecosystem services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2016, 41, 545–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zoppi, C. Ecosystem Services, Green Infrastructure and Spatial Planning. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fu, B.; Wang, S.; Su, C.; Forsius, M. Linking ecosystem processes and ecosystem services. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2013, 5, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pollock, L.J.; Thuiller, W.; Jetz, W. Large conservation gains possible for global biodiversity facets. Nature 2017, 546, 141–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gillespie, J.; Gillespie, J. Protected Areas. In Protected Areas; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 13–27. [Google Scholar]
  15. Vimal, R.; Navarro, L.M.; Jones, Y.; Wolf, F.; Le Moguédec, G.; Réjou-Méchain, M. The global distribution of protected areas management strategies and their complementarity for biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 256, 109014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ravenel, R.M.; Redford, K.H. Understanding IUCN protected area categories. Nat. AREAS J. 2005, 25, 381–389. [Google Scholar]
  17. Paiva, R.J.O.; Brites, R.S.; Machado, R.B. The Role of Protected Areas in the Avoidance of Anthropogenic Conversion in a High Pressure Region: A Matching Method Analysis in the Core Region of the Brazilian Cerrado. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0132582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Caballero-Serrano, V.; McLaren, B.; Carrasco, J.C.; Alday, J.G.; Fiallos, L.; Amigo, J.; Onaindia, M. Traditional ecological knowledge and medicinal plant diversity in Ecuadorian Amazon home gardens. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2019, 17, e00524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sierra, R.; Campos, F.; Chamberlin, J. Assessing biodiversity conservation priorities: Ecosystem risk and representativeness in continental Ecuador. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 59, 95–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kleemann, J.; Koo, H.; Hensen, I.; Mendieta-Leiva, G.; Kahnt, B.; Kurze, C.; Inclan, D.J.; Cuenca, P.; Noh, J.K.; Hoffmann, M.H.; et al. Priorities of action and research for the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem services in continental Ecuador. Biol. Conserv. 2022, 265, 109404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cegielski, M.; Janeczko, B.; Mules, T.; Wells, J. The Economic Value of Tourism to Places of Cultural Heritage Significance; Australian Heritage Commission: Canberra, Australia, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  22. Zolla, C.; Márquez, E.Z. Qué es el Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica? In Los pueblos indígenas de México: 100 preguntas; Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico: Mexico City, Mexico, 2018; pp. 341–347. [Google Scholar]
  23. De Souza, A.C.; Prevedello, J.A. The importance of protected areas for overexploited plants: Evidence from a biodiversity hotspot. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 243, 108482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. von Wehrden, H.; von Oheimb, G.; Abson, D.J.; Härdtle, W. Sustainability and Ecosystems BT—Sustainability Science: An Introduction. In Sustainability Science; Heinrichs, H., Martens, P., Michelsen, G., Wiek, A., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 61–70. ISBN 978-94-017-7242-6. [Google Scholar]
  25. Mestanza-Ramón, C.; Anfuso, G.; Chica-Ruiz, J.A.; Mooser, A.; Botero, C.M.; Pranzini, E. Coastal Scenic Evaluation of Continental Ecuador and Galapagos Islands: Human Impacts and Management Issues. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Roy, B.A.; Zorrilla, M.; Endara, L.; Thomas, D.C.; Vandegrift, R.; Rubenstein, J.M.; Policha, T.; Ríos-Touma, B.; Read, M. New Mining Concessions Could Severely Decrease Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Ecuador. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2018, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Negru, C.; Gaibor, I.D.; Hălălișan, A.-F.; Popa, B. Management Effectiveness Assessment for Ecuador’s National Parks. Diversity 2020, 12, 487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rivera-Parra, J.L.; Vizcarra, C.; Mora, K.; Mayorga, H.; Dueñas, J.C. Spatial distribution of oil spills in the north eastern Ecuadorian Amazon: A comprehensive review of possible threats. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 252, 108820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cuesta, F.; Peralvo, M.; Merino-Viteri, A.; Bustamante, M.; Baquero, F.; Freile, J.F.; Muriel, P.; Torres-Carvajal, O. Priority areas for biodiversity conservation in mainland Ecuador. Neotrop. Biodivers. 2017, 3, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Carvache-Franco, M.; Carvache-Franco, W.; Manner-Baldeon, F. Market Segmentation Based on Ecotourism Motivations in Marine Protected Areas and National Parks in the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador. J. Coast. Res. 2021, 37, 620–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kleemann, J.; Zamora, C.; Villacis-Chiluisa, A.B.; Cuenca, P.; Koo, H.; Noh, J.K.; Fürst, C.; Thiel, M. Deforestation in Continental Ecuador with a Focus on Protected Areas. Land 2022, 11, 268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Guerrero, M.M. Ministerio Del Ambiente Y Agua Acuerdo Ministerial Nro. MAAE-2021-020; Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador: Quito, Ecuador, 2019.
  33. MAATE. El Área Ecológica de Conservación Municipal Mazán en Azuay es Declarada Como el Área Protegida Nro. 62 del Ecuador; Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador: Quito, Ecuador, 2017.
  34. MAATE. Plan de Manejo del Área de Conservación y Otros Productos; Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador: Quito, Ecuador, 2018.
  35. MAATE. Registro oficial, órgano de la republica del Ecuador; 21AD; Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador: Quito, Ecuador, 2021.
  36. Arregui Solis Maria Leonor. Ministerio Del Ambiente, Agua Y TransiciÓn EcolÓgica; Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador: Quito, Ecuador, 2012.
  37. Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador. La Estrategia Nacional de Biodiversidad 2015–2030, 1st ed.; Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador: Quito, Ecuador, 2016.
  38. Espinosa, J.; Moreno, J. Agricultural Land Use BT—The Soils of Ecuador; Espinosa, J., Moreno, J., Bernal, G., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 151–162. ISBN 978-3-319-25319-0. [Google Scholar]
  39. Bissardon, P.; Becerra, S.; Maurice, L. The health risk linked to oil activities in the Ecuadorian Amazon: From alerts to decisions. Environ. Risques Sante 2013, 12, 338–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. López-Blanco, C.; Collahuazo, L.; Torres, S.; Chinchay, L.; Ayala, D.; Benítez, P. Mercury Pollution in Soils from the Yacuambi River (Ecuadorian Amazon) as a Result of Gold Placer Mining. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2015, 95, 311–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mestanza-Ramón, C.; Paz-Mena, S.; López-Paredes, C.; Jimenez-Gutierrez, M.; Herrera-Morales, G.; D’Orio, G.; Straface, S. History, Current Situation and Challenges of Gold Mining in Ecuador’s Litoral Region. Land 2021, 10, 1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Betancourt, O.; Narváez, A.; Roulet, M. Small-scale Gold Mining in the Puyango River Basin, Southern Ecuador: A Study of Environmental Impacts andHuman Exposures. Ecohealth 2005, 2, 323–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. MINISTERIO DE TURISMO. Boletín de Estadísticas Turísticas 2012–2016; Ministerio De Turismo: Quito, Ecuador, 2017.
  44. Ministerio de Comercio Industria y Turismo. Estadísticas Nacionales—Flujo de Turistas—Turismo Receptor Estadísticas Nacionales—Flujo de Turistas—Turismo Receptor; Ministerio de Comercio Industria y Turismo: Bogota, Colombia, 2021.
  45. Mestanza, C.; Botero, C.M.; Anfuso, G.; Chica-Ruiz, J.A.; Pranzini, E.; Mooser, A. Beach litter in Ecuador and the Galapagos islands: A baseline to enhance environmental conservation and sustainable beach tourism. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 140, 573–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Alava, J.J.; McMullen, K.; Jones, J.; Barragán-Paladines, M.J.; Hobbs, C.; Tirapé, A.; Calle, P.; Alarcón, D.; Muñoz-Pérez, J.P.; Muñoz-Abril, L. Multiple anthropogenic stressors in the Galápagos Islands’ complex social–ecological system: Interactions of marine pollution, fishing pressure, and climate change with management recommendations. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Buytaert, W.; Célleri, R.; De Bièvre, B.; Cisneros, F.; Wyseure, G.; Deckers, J.; Hofstede, R. Human impact on the hydrology of the Andean páramos. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2006, 79, 53–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Vuille, M.; Carey, M.; Huggel, C.; Buytaert, W.; Rabatel, A.; Jacobsen, D.; Soruco, A.; Villacis, M.; Yarleque, C.; Timm, O.E. Rapid decline of snow and ice in the tropical Andes–Impacts, uncertainties and challenges ahead. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2018, 176, 195–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Harden, C.P. Human impacts on headwater fluvial systems in the northern and central Andes. Geomorphology 2006, 79, 249–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Alava, J.J.; Barragán, M.J.; Denkinger, J. Assessing the impact of bycatch on Ecuadorian humpback whale breeding stock: A review with management recommendations. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2012, 57, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sánchez-Cortez, J.L. Conservation of geoheritage in Ecuador: Situation and perspectives. Int. J. Geoheritage Park. 2019, 7, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lang, M. Más Allá del Desarrollo; Fundacion Rosa Luxemburg: Berlin, Germany, 2011; ISBN 9789942090539. [Google Scholar]
  53. Montero, O.P.; Batista, C.M. Social perception of coastal risk in the face of hurricanes in the southeastern region of Cuba. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2020, 184, 105010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Alarcón Borges, R.Y.; Pérez Montero, O.; Tejera, R.G.; Silveira, M.T.; Montoya, J.C.; Hernández Mestre, D.; Vazquez, J.M.; Mestanza-Ramon, C.; Hernandez-Guzmán, D.; Milanes, C.B. Legal Risk in the Management of Forest Cover in a River Basin San Juan, Cuba. Land 2023, 12, 842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mestanza-Ramón, C.; Jiménez-Caballero, J.L. Nature Tourism on the Colombian—Ecuadorian Amazonian Border: History, Current Situation, and Challenges. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gavilanes Montoya, A.V.; Esparza Parra, J.F.; Chávez Velásquez, C.R.; Tito Guanuche, P.E.; Parra Vintimilla, G.M.; Mestanza-Ramón, C.; Vizuete, D.D. A Nature Tourism Route through GIS to Improve the Visibility of the Natural Resources of the Altar Volcano, Sangay National Park, Ecuador. Land 2021, 10, 884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mestanza Ramón, C.; Villacís, M.A.T.; García, A.E.C. Tortugas Charapa un aporte para el turismo comunitario y conservación de la biodiversidad. Explor. Digit. 2020, 4, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Environments 10 00079 g001 550
Figure 1. Total protected areas in Ecuador, according to the National System of Protected Areas (SNAP).
Figure 1. Total protected areas in Ecuador, according to the National System of Protected Areas (SNAP).
Environments 10 00079 g001
Table
Table 1. Description of the magnitude of impacts.
Table 1. Description of the magnitude of impacts.
MagnitudeDescription
HighThose that are incompatible with conservation. Their presence would raise the prohibition of use or substantially modify the activities.
MediumThose that can be compatible with conservation after the implementation of management measures.
LowCompatible with conservation and susceptible to natural regeneration in the absence of activities.
Table
Table 2. Description of the main threats in protected areas.
Table 2. Description of the main threats in protected areas.
ThreatsDescription
Climate changeClimate change refers to the effect on the distribution, abundance, and quality of species or ecosystems and increasing threat from fires due to global warming.
DeforestationLogging of timber species for commercial purposes within and around PAs.
Engineering Work (Infrastructure and roads)Construction of new infrastructures linked to the different activities, mainly oil and mining. Additionally, the opening of roads for commercial purposes.
FiresDirect impact on species, ecosystems, or cultural resources due to natural or anthropogenic fires.
PoachingActivity that consists of killing an individual of a species for entertainment or commercial purposes.
Invasive Alien SpeciesDirect (elimination) or indirect (competition; disease transmission) impact on species or ecosystems due to the presence of exotic species or species introduced by anthropogenic activities such as tourism, livestock, trade, transportation, among others, within PAs.
Land use change Direct (destruction) or indirect (isolation) impact on species or ecosystems due to changes in land use.
Aggressive tourism activitiesActivities of any of the tourism segments developed within the SNAP.
Wildlife traffickingDirect or indirect impact on species, ecosystems, or natural resources due to the direct action of complete or partial extraction of flora, fauna, or biological resources of any kind.
Table
Table 3. Impacts associated with the components identified during gold mining in the parish.
Table 3. Impacts associated with the components identified during gold mining in the parish.
Threats/
Activities		Components
BioticAbioticSocio-Economic
FaunaFloraSoilWaterAtmosphereEconomicSocial
Climate changeDisturbance
Loss of species		Disturbance/
Loss due to damage or removal		DisturbanceDisturbanceContaminationEconomic LossDiseases
DeforestationDisturbanceAlteration/
Loss due to damage or removal		DisturbanceDisturbance
Contamination		---Income---
Engineering Works (Infrastructure and roads)Disturbance/
Loss of species		Disturbance/Loss due to damage or removalCompactionContamination------Diseases
FiresDisturbance/
Loss of species		Disturbance/Loss due to damage or removalDisturbanceContaminationContamination------
PoachingDisturbance
Loss of species		DisturbanceContaminationContamination---------
Invasive Alien SpeciesDisturbance/
Loss of species		Disturbance/Loss due to damage or removal------------Diseases
Land use changeDisturbance/Loss of speciesDisturbance/Loss due to damage or removalDisturbance/Biodiversity lossContaminationContamination---Diseases
Aggressive tourism activitiesDisturbanceDisturbanceCompactionContaminationContaminationIncome---
Wildlife traffickingDisturbance/Loss of speciesDisturbance/Loss due to damage or removalCompactionContamination---Income---
Table
Table 4. Main results of the magnitude of impacts caused by hazards in the National System of Protected Areas of Ecuador.
Table 4. Main results of the magnitude of impacts caused by hazards in the National System of Protected Areas of Ecuador.
ComponentImpactMagnitude
FaunaDisturbance of fauna by anthropogenic activities/threats.High
Loss of species.Medium
FloraDisturbance to flora by anthropogenic activities/threats.High
Loss due to damage or removal.High
SoilCompaction.Medium
Contamination by chemicals.High
Soil loss due to erosion.Medium
Disturbance to soil quality.Medium
WaterDisturbance.High
Contamination.High
AtmosphereContamination by suspended particulate matter.Medium
EconomicIncome.Low
Economic Loss.High
SocialDiseasesMedium
ResultsLow impact.7.14%
Medium impact.42.86%
High impact.50%
Table
Table 5. Main threats in protected areas.
Table 5. Main threats in protected areas.
Protected AreasAnthropic PressuresSocio-Environmental Conflicts
Galapagos National ParkMarine transport pollution, poor management of solid and hazardous waste. Loss of vegetation cover and soil erosion. Risk of invasive species, alteration of sessile and benthic species of the seabed. Distribution of marine fauna due to impact. Inadequate environmental awareness, financing for public management, employment and income generation [45,46,47].Change in public policies for the archipelago, inadequate community management of resources, rejection by local communities, little local community control. Vulnerability to climate change, agricultural and fishing activities.
Cotacachi Cayapas National ParkPollution, deforestation, overexploitation of natural resources [20]. Contamination of the lagoon by tourist boats. Solid waste to soils dedicated to agriculture, consequence of monoculture and soil erosion.Environmental degradation, scarcity of resources, illicit economies, soil degradation and deterioration.
Cayambe Coca National ParkBad agricultural practices, urban sprawl, land trafficking, wildlife hunting, selective logging, overgrazing [48].Lack of legal enforcement and establishment of sanctions, absence of sustainable community development, scarcity of land use planning and environmental awareness. Non- compliance of management in regulation and control.
Cotopaxi National ParkHarmful effects caused to the human population, environmental threats such as the degradation of their ecosystems, climate change, deforestation, pollution, and eutrophication [49].Scarcity of resources, impact of their scarcity on society and politics. Urban and rural poverty, poor relations between communities.
Cajas National ParkAccelerated natural erosion, loss of vegetation cover, logging, burning, overgrazing, inappropriate crops. There are also landslides, landslides, water and soil contamination [49,50].Saturation or flooding of land near water bodies, destruction of resources.
Machalilla National ParkTourism and its different activities together with a less than optimal management contribute to the increase in impacts [45,51,52].Illegal timber, mining exploitation,
dispute between communities.
Table
Table 6. Strategies.
Table 6. Strategies.
Protected AreasStrategies on Anthropic ActionStrategies on Socio-Environmental Conflicts
Galapagos National ParkAdequate implementation of sewage and wastewater processing plant, which does not affect the sea water and its species, especially drinking water. Better control over the agricultural extension in the sector. Efficient control of the coast guard and those responsible for the environment, such as pure and marine biologists. Training on environmental education.Community demand on the proper management of resources, through public marches, environmental debates. Adequate control over overfishing in the area.
Cotacachi Cayapas National ParkEfficient control over proper land use practices, vegetation, flora, and fauna. Change in the tourist system of boats on the lagoon.The union of the communities through meetings that allow grouping and unifying social needs such as education, health, among others. Additionally, then these are presented to the authorities in charge of the management such as the Ministry of Environment, will allow a greater possibility of reaching achievements.
Cayambe Coca National ParkTraining on the efficient and sustainable development of agricultural practices. Efficient control on indiscriminate hunting of wildlife, apply criminal and economic sanctions for those who carry it out.Formation of community groups to control and monitor the PAs internal regulations. Complemented with training in environmental education in conjunction with the Ministries of Environment and Tourism.
Cotopaxi National ParkControl the means of transportation that circulate in the protected area, apply carrying capacity processes, delimit access limits, and promote reforestation with native species.Trainings on undertakings on the use of resources in the sector, without harming the environment. Public union. Intervention of public and environmental organizations. Community union with public and private companies for the enhancement of community tourism.
Cajas National ParkCollective union of educational institutions, schools, universities, etc. With the aim of planting plant species to cover the desert part of the soil. Efficient control of public environmental and social organizations.Community activities for the removal of debris from sidewalks and culverts. Proper garbage management.
Machalilla National ParkTraining on sustainable tourism and environmental education. Creation of ventures with the help of environmental agencies and tourism organizations.Functional control of environmental and social entities. Public union.
Sangay National ParkCommunity union for law enforcement. Adequate control of environmental organizations. Invitations to educational institutions to develop programs of control.Intervention of provincial and cantonal entities, educational institutions, environmental companies, and other social forces.
Galapagos National ParkAdequate implementation of sewage and wastewater processing plant, which does not affect the sea water and its species, especially drinking water. Better control over the agricultural extension in the sector. Efficient control of the coast guard and those responsible for the environment, such as pure and marine biologists. Training on environmental education.Community demand on the proper management of resources, through public marches, environmental debates. Adequate control over overfishing in the area.
Cotacachi Cayapas National ParkEfficient control over proper land use practices, vegetation, flora and fauna. Change in the tourist system of boats on the lagoon.Public union to demand environmental, social, political, and economic rights.
Cayambe Coca National ParkTraining on the efficient and sustainable development of agricultural practices. Efficient control on indiscriminate hunting of wildlife, apply criminal and economic sanctions for those who carry it out.Community union to establish uses of the law for those who violate it. Environmental education trainings. Adequate control of the entities that watch over the environment.
Cotopaxi National ParkControl of automobiles using hydrocarbon burning. Criminal and economic enforcement. Training on excessive use of greenhouse gases, such as aerosols.Trainings on undertakings on the use of resources in the sector, without harming the environment. Public union. Intervention of public and environmental organizations. Community union with public and private companies for the enhancement of community tourism.
Cajas National ParkCollective union of educational institutions, schools, universities, etc. With the aim of planting plant species to cover the desert part of the soil. Efficient control of public environmental and social organizations.Community mingas for the removal of debris from sidewalks and drains. Proper garbage management.
Machalilla National ParkTraining on sustainable tourism and environmental education. Creation of ventures with the help of environmental agencies and tourism organizations.Functional control of environmental and social entities. Public union.
Sangay National ParkCommunity union for law enforcement. Adequate control of environmental organizations. Invitations to educational institutions to develop programs of control.Intervention of provincial and cantonal entities, educational institutions, environmental companies, and other social forces.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mestanza-Ramón, C.; Monar-Nuñez, J.; Guala-Alulema, P.; Montenegro-Zambrano, Y.; Herrera-Chávez, R.; Milanes, C.B.; Arguello-Guadalupe, C.; Buñay-Guisñan, P.; Toledo-Villacís, M. A Review to Update the Protected Areas in Ecuador and an Analysis of Their Main Impacts and Conservation Strategies. Environments 2023, 10, 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments10050079

AMA Style

Mestanza-Ramón C, Monar-Nuñez J, Guala-Alulema P, Montenegro-Zambrano Y, Herrera-Chávez R, Milanes CB, Arguello-Guadalupe C, Buñay-Guisñan P, Toledo-Villacís M. A Review to Update the Protected Areas in Ecuador and an Analysis of Their Main Impacts and Conservation Strategies. Environments. 2023; 10(5):79. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments10050079

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mestanza-Ramón, Carlos, Joel Monar-Nuñez, Paola Guala-Alulema, Yuri Montenegro-Zambrano, Renato Herrera-Chávez, Celene B. Milanes, Carla Arguello-Guadalupe, Pamela Buñay-Guisñan, and Marco Toledo-Villacís. 2023. "A Review to Update the Protected Areas in Ecuador and an Analysis of Their Main Impacts and Conservation Strategies" Environments 10, no. 5: 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments10050079

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop