04
ECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM PROTECTED AREAS FOR BIODIVERSITY AND
BIOCULTURAL CONSERVATION
Mahmood Yekeh Yazdandoost
General Director of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Department of Environment (DoE), IranEmail: yazdandoost3000@gmail.com

How to cite this paper:

Yazdandoost, Mahmood
Yekeh (2022) Economic
Benefits from Protected
Areas for Biodiversity and
Biocultural
Conservation,
Journal of Global Resources,
Vol. 08 (02)DOI:
10.46587/JGR.2022.v08i02.004

Received: 18 Feb. 2022
Reviewed: 25 April 2022
Revised: 18 May 2022
Final Accepted: 15 June 2022

Abstract: Ecosystems support web of life by sustaining
harmony in nature. When function in a right way, brings
multiple ecosystem services and benefits to communities
and societies. These values range from supporting,regulatory, provisional and aesthetic benefits to the wholeinterconnectivity which brings enabling environment for thecontinuation of life on earth. This paper deals with theeconomic benefits from protected areas to promote theconservation objectives with enhancing financial profits toindigenous and local communities. The result indicates with
better policy approach to receive more profits, thebiodiversity and biocultural conservation program is moreconsolidated.
Keywords:

Protected Areas, Ecosystem Services,
Sustainable
Development,
BioculturalValues

Journal of Global Resources, July 2022, Volume 08 (02) Mahmood Yekeh Yazdandoost P a g e | 32

Introduction
While our knowledge on the delivering benefits of nature to humankind is increasing, still there
is a wide gap on our appreciation to the manifold of socio-economic interests it supplies us.
Nature provides multiple ecosystem services indispensable for life on earth. They safeguard
species (Gray, C. et al. 2016), habitats (Joppa, L.N. and Pfaff, A. 2011), human cultures andecosystem services (Stolton, S. and Dudley, N. 2010). All the crucial importance of ecosystemservices recognized by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, 2005) comes from protected areas. Further the concept of ecosystem values andservices has been elaborated by many authors (Boyd, J. and Banzhaf, S. 2007, Ansink, E. etal. 2008, Carpenter, S.R. et al. 2009). Services include direct use, indirect use and non-use,and option value. Direct use value is related to provisioning and recreation services (MillenniumAssessment, 2003). Indirect use value associated with the regulating services. Non-use value
comprises biodiversity conserved in protected areas (Garrod, G.D. and Willis, K.G. 1997,
Nunes, P. and Van den Bergh, J. 2004). Option value relates to conversion of ecosystem insome point of times and depends on conflict situation (Cicchetti, C.V. and Freeman, A.M.
1971). Moreover, the ecosystem services are also key environmental justice subject matter as
it impacts global connectivity and well-being. However, the term value comprises livelihood
and maintenance values for human health and well-being, economic values for conservationand poverty reduction, and cultural, mental and communicative values (Dudley, N. et al. 2006,2008).
Biodiversity infrastructure the ecosystem flows and functions that supply important
services to humanity (Cardinale, B.J. et al. 2012). The impacts of biodiversity and bioculturalloss considered as the serious environmental challenges everywhere. They are essential
component for sustainable development. Biodiversity contributes to combat land degradation,
climate change mitigation and adaptation, poverty reduction and amplify resilience to changing
socio-ecological conditions. Protected areas are the decisive base for biodiversity conservation
strategy. Still many governments flounder to meet the global obligation in allotting land andwater for proper conservation program. Without acknowledging the massive economic benefits
from protected areas, the cost and expenditures would be the major drawback in conservation.
The major objective of this research paper is to bridge gaps by introducing economic
advantages from protected areas. The major focus is on biodiversity values, ecosystemservices, biocultural values, livelihoods and aesthetic benefits. Also, nature store large
amounts of carbon (Dudley, N. 2008). During COVID pandemic, the function of pristine naturein prevention and control of disease, along with the broader health gains was very obvious(Plowright, R.K. et al. 2017; Buckley, R. et al. 2019; Cook, R. et al. 2004). For instance, there
is an estimation of mental health gains of protected areas globally as 6 trillion US dollars ayear in 2019 (Buckley, R. et al. 2019).
Most protected areas to some extend may supply useful economic benefits. The sites
concerned with conservation, climate stabilization and land management may also produce
profitable benefits. Though the interests supplied by protected areas are often not measured.
The payment for ecosystem services is the payments by people/visitors to local
authorities/mangers in exchange of benefits receiving from natural resources, like; multiecosystem services which protected areas deliver to humanities. The best examples are: fresh
water, clean air, vegetation, biodiversity, indigenous knowledge and so on. Ecotourism is atool and profitable approach which is decisively important to protected areas at the global scale(Leung, Y.F. et al. 2018). When visitors enjoy their time, may stay longer and extend of tourism
supplies, may become bigger. Creating jobs and selling handicraft, medicinal herbs and foodproducts like; honey, eggs, fruits, etc. from protected areas besides endorsing identification of
the area for some product values, transfers cultural values to visitors and bring direct financial
benefits to indigenous people and local communities. For protected areas to become selfJournal of Global Resources, July 2022, Volume 08 (02) Mahmood Yekeh Yazdandoost P a g e | 33

financed, investments should be made in ecosystem delivery system. Ecosystems provide
direct and indirect services which collectively stabilize societal well-being. Moreover, besides
safeguarding life, the protected areas can be linked to almost all sustainable development
goals, developed by UN agencies.
In this regard, payment for ecosystem services (PES) and community-based natural
resource management (CBNRM) is a strategic approach to conservation objectives withenhancing financial profits to indigenous and local communities (Thakadu, O.T. 2005). Thebalance between conservation objectives and financial profits is a double win situation. PES
has capacity to be ecologically efficient and socially advanced. In achieving double winsituation, the project before running should consider monitoring and assessment of each andevery protected area internally and externally (Kothari, A. et al. 2015). The PES mainstreaming
program is important to align with national conservation policies, plans and objectives, in orderto enhance long-term sustainability.
MethodFor biodiversity and biocultural conservation, the Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES)
policies administered in protected areas. PES program relies upon incentives to deliver
behavior change among visitors and create economic benefits for protected areas
conservation, and also support indigenous people and local communities, who are the actual
custodian of the area.
Geographical Area
In Iran four types of conservation programs has been designated by authorities, namely:
national parks, wildlife refuges, protected areas, and natural national monuments. At present,
the attended areas reached about 18.5 million hectares. The national parks currently cover
1,649,771 hectares of the country’s area, which is a site for conserving natural processes andreceives millions of visitors each year. National parks considered being the best area topractice PES.
Results and Discussion
The result indicates economic opportunities and the generation of economic returns fromprotected areas to local communities for their own livelihoods and also pursuing biodiversity
conservation is very crucial. Since there are different featuring capacities and uniqueness ineach protected areas, for protected areas to generate and enhance their own finances, tailoredprograms for each case should be developed. Investigating and solving the financial
requirements of communities living in and around protected and conserved areas, consideredbeing important perspective of integrated management system in protected areas. Many
protected areas allow communities to live inside and contain unique cultural identity. As a result
besides biodiversity conservation, the biocultural conservation is an important strategy forintegrated management in protected areas. The ecosystem services supplied by the nationalparks in Iran include: biodiversity conservation, recreation, carbon sequestration, groundwater
infiltration, soil and water conservation, wood production, natural disaster reduction, control ofsoil erosion and pest control, etc.
The biodiversity loss reduces ecosystem well-being, functionality and capability todeliver ecosystem services (Perrings, C. 2010 and Isbell, F. et al. 2017). The ecosystemservices valuation of protected areas provides ideas on how to estimate and develop payments
and local capacity to proceed further. When the number of visitors in national parks increases,
the economic impacts would also increase considerably. Hence, the social-ecological systemof PES mainstreaming program should recognize the main features of ecosystems
functionality and services and its interactions with communities in protected areas.
Journal of Global Resources, July 2022, Volume 08 (02) Mahmood Yekeh Yazdandoost P a g e | 34

It is much clear recognizing and valuing the delivering benefits of protected areas could benefit
community and society, and local and national economic in multi ways. It increases policy
support to resolve conflicts and differences which would lead to alternative source of financeto support the comprehensive management of protected areas. The harmony between
conservation objectives and economic benefits is complicated. Gaining a double win situation
is not so easy, because situation differs from area to area. The key to success is monitoringand evaluation based on developing conservation practices pursued in each area. The
Outcomes-based Payments (ObP) is usually connected to PES, biodiversity conservation andreduction in carbon emissions. It reduces detrimental activities like greenhouse gas emissions
and provides opportunities for bio credits and water resources management. The credits may
open a new kind of transaction in market. As a result, a good management system in nationalparks may directly influence the capacity and diversity of ecosystem services. It may increase
the provision of goods and services, so enhances the profit for further conservation programs.
Recommendations• Encourage biodiversity and biocultural conservation by highlighting their economic,cultural and ethical values.
•Design governance approach to conservation program.

•Advocate multi-dimensional benefits from protected areas.

•Estimate benefit returns from investments in protected areas.

•Among indigenous peoples and local communities recognize energetic individuals.

•Integrate indigenous knowledge to PES program.

•Design PES qualification criteria.

Conclusion
Economic estimation of worth not so easy because proper techniques and methods often notavailable. Within economic valuation, the value which directly links cash to protected areas,
create political will and policy influences. The cooperation between protected areas authorities,
investors and local people would be a good pattern for sustainable development in protectedareas. Linking biodiversity conservation with biocultural dynamics can move ecological system
toward greater stability and sustainability. Since each protected areas have different capacities
and values to offer, tailored approach could be the best model for success to occur. Always
the administration of laws and policy supports enhances a good achievement in the field.
Regarding economic activities in protected areas the emphasis should always be given to thefact that any activities should be developed within a safety framework to enhance conservation
goals and objectives and respect indigenous people’s rights. Indigenous peoples and local
communities have gathered practical knowledge through generations by direct interactions
with the environment. This traditional knowledge may consider as unique foundations to bridge
our gaps of information with nature. The indigenous knowledge is also our foundational
approach to ecosystem-based management.
Thus, investments connected to protected areas should adapt biocultural entity ofindigenous people and local communities, such as; local knowledge, believes, and practices
into consideration. Full support and cooperation from local communities is the key to successthe program. The whole revenue and occupational access in protected areas would createhigh local profitability impacts. The main pattern is to create an acceptable political, social andeconomic environment for PES development, along with mobilization of community/ civilsociety participation in policy making/ governance structure throughout the implementation.

Journal of Global Resources, July 2022, Volume 08 (02) Mahmood Yekeh Yazdandoost P a g e | 35

The lack of the identification of the nexus between the protected areas, local communities andmarkets reflects the current circumstances in most of the protected areas and the flow of profits
tend to be seldom fair and impartial. The reality of successful economic growth from protectedareas does not indicate the reduction in poverty from communities within the areas, because
well-established people may become richer at the expense of communities.
Acknowledgement
All the scientific literatures released by academia, UN and other agencies including
Department of Environment that have been used in this research paper are highly appreciated.
References
1. Ansink, E. et al. (2008). An analysis of ecosystem valuation approaches. EnvironmentalValues, 17(4):489-503.
2. Boyd, J. and Banzhaf, S. (2007). The need for standardized environmental accounting
units. Ecological Economics, 63(2–3):616–626.
3. Buckley, R. et al. (2019). Economic value of protected areas via visitor mental health.
Nature Communications, 10: 5005.
4. Cardinale, B.J. et al. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486(7401):0–9.
5. Carpenter, S. R. et al. (2009). Science for managing ecosystem services. Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Sciences of the US. 106(5):1305-1312.
6. Cicchetti, C. V. and A. M. Freeman. (1971). Option demand and consumer surplus.
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 85:528-539.
7. Cook, R. et al. (2004). One world, one health: Building interdisciplinary bridges to health ina globalized world. Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York, USA.
8. Dudley, N. (2008). The use of protected areas as tools to apply REDD carbon offset
schemes. WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
9. Dudley, N. et al. (2006). Linking Faiths and Protected Areas to Support Biodiversity
Conservation. WWF and Alliance. Switzerland and UK.
10. Dudley, N. et al. (2008). Protected areas and poverty reduction. WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
11. Garrod, G. D., and Willis, K.G. (1997). The non-use benefits of enhancing forest
biodiversity. Ecological Economics, 21:45-61.
12. Gray, C. et al. (2016). Local biodiversity is higher than outside terrestrial protected areas
worldwide. Nature Communications, 7: 12306.
13. Isbell, F. et al. (2017). Linking the influence and dependence of people on biodiversity
across scales. Nature 546, 65–72.
14. Joppa, L.N. and Pfaff, A. (2011). Global protected area impacts. Proceedings of the Royal
Society, B 278: 1633-1638.
15. Leung, Y.F. et al. (2018). Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 27, Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN.
16. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: aframework for assessment. Island Press, USA.
17. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being:Synthesis, Island Press, Washington D.C., USA.
18. Nunes, P. and Van den Bergh, J. (2004). Can people value protection against invasive
marine species? Environmental & Resource Economics, 28(4):517-532.
19. Perrings, C. (2010). Biodiversity, ecosystem services and climate change. The economicproblem. The World Bank, Washington, USA
20. Plowright, R.K. et al. (2017). Pathways to zoonotic spillover. Nature Reviews Microbiology,
15(8): 502-510.
21. Stolton, S. and Dudley, N. (2010). Arguments for Protected Areas: Multiple benefits forConservation and Use, Earthscan, London.
22. Thakadu, O.T. (2005). Success factors in community based natural resourcesmanagement in northern Botswana: Natural Resources Forum, 29 (3): 199-212.

Journal of Global Resources, July 2022, Volume 08 (02) Mahmood Yekeh Yazdandoost P a g e | 36