Governance and territorial conservation in protected areas of the Atlantic Rainforest

Governance and territorial conservation in protected areas of the Atlantic Rainforest | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Governance and territorial conservation in protected areas of the Atlantic Rainforest Elfany Reis do Nascimento Lopes, Igor Emiliano Gomes Pinheiro, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7121617/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study analyzes the normative and legal status of Protected Areas (PAs) in the Atlantic Rainforest of southern Bahia, northeastern Brazil, focusing on their operational mechanisms and environmental management. A geographic database of 136 PAs was built, integrating information on category, protection group (Sustainable Use or Full Protection), management sphere (Federal, State, Municipal, or Private), and the implementation status of management plans and councils. The findings reveal a predominance of Sustainable Use Areas, especially in coastal zones, and a strong presence of privately managed PAs. A significant degree of territorial overlap was observed, indicating institutional conflicts and weak coordination across management spheres. Only one officially established mosaic was identified, highlighting the absence of integrated conservation strategies. Logistic regression showed that Full Protection areas and those under State management are more likely to have management plans. Although the statistical influence of management sphere and protection group on the implementation of management councils was not significant, descriptive analysis revealed disparities: 71.4% of Full Protection areas have a council, compared to only 16.4% of Sustainable Use areas. These results underscore institutional inequalities in the implementation of management instruments, which directly affect conservation outcomes. The absence of management plans and councils hinders effective planning, monitoring, and public participation. Strengthening inter-institutional coordination, expanding participatory mechanisms, and promoting territorial integration through mosaics are essential to enhance PA effectiveness and safeguard biodiversity. The findings provide valuable insights for environmental managers and policymakers, supporting improved governance of protected areas and more effective management of ecologically vulnerable territories. Governance Anthropogenic Pressures Territorial Planning Environmental Policies Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 1. Introduction The Atlantic Rainforest is one of the most biodiverse terrestrial biomes in the world, while also ranking among the most threatened by anthropogenic pressures (Myers et al. 2000 , de Lima et al. 2020 ). Extending across Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil, it originally covered approximately 13% of Brazilian territory (Rezende et al. 2018 ). Today only 28% of its original vegetation remains (de Santana et al. 2020 ), with much of the area now occupied by pasture (26.2%), agriculture (17.6%), silviculture (3.5%), and urban infrastructure (2.9%) (MapBiomas 2022 ). Historical land use patterns have led to the progressive replacement of native vegetation rendering the Atlantic Rainforest the only Brazilian biome in which natural vegetation is no longer the dominant land cover (SOS Mata Atlântica 2021 ). In Brazil, few remnants of the Atlantic Rainforest remain along the coastal regions, where a history of environmental degradation dates to territorial occupation during Portuguese colonization in the 16th century (Warren 2004 , Marques & Rocha 2019 , SOS Mata Atlântica 2021 ). This historical trajectory has made the coastal zone highly socio-environmentally complex, with multiple conflicts and pressures on natural resources. This makes management and governance processes one of the main challenges in these areas (dos Santos 2009 ). Several initiatives have been launched to conserve Atlantic ecosystems, involving government, civil society, and the private sector (Martins et al. 2015 ). The main environmental public policy among these efforts was established on July 18, 2000, with the creation of the National System of Nature Conservation Units (SNUC), which set out the criteria and regulations for the establishment, implementation, and management of conservation units (CUs) in Brazil (Brasil 2000 ). The SNUC encompasses several concepts and implications regarding protected areas (PA) at the municipal, state and federal administrative levels. These areas are referred to as territorial spaces with natural resources, boundaries, categories and levels of protection for environmental conservation and preservation. The SNUC also defines two groups of PA: Integral Protection, which aim to preserve ecosystems and permit only indirect use of natural resources; and Sustainable Use, which allow for more flexible use of resources, though still under defined limits to prevent degradation, conflicts, and the depletion of natural assets (Brasil 2000 ). The system also provides operational mechanisms to support area management, including management plans, buffer zones, management councils and zoning. These contribute to the regulation of land use and land cover, reducing vegetation loss, forest fragmentation and environmental conflicts over resource use. Currently, Brazil has a total of 2,495 established PAs (Ministério do Meio Ambiente 2024 ), many of which face financial constraints and a shortage of human resources for effective management (Agra Filho 2014 ). Of these, 1496 PAs (58.7%) are located within the Atlantic Rainforest biome, with 960 classified as sustainable use areas and 477 as fully protected areas. This biome alone hosts over half of the country’s PAs and safeguards approximately 1% of Brazil’s coastal continental territory (Ministério do Meio Ambiente 2024 ). A portion of this coverage is found in southern Bahia, a region of significant environmental importance that forms part of Brazil’s Central Atlantic Forest Corridor. Known for its high biodiversity, this region has been heavily impacted by environmental degradation and landscape transformation, primarily due to eucalyptus monocultures, mass tourism, and livestock grazing (SOS Mata Atlântica 2021 ). Despite these pressures, the region continues to provide vital ecosystem services thanks to the presence of protected areas and Indigenous and traditional communities whose territorial organization and environmental conservation practices are crucial for the region's future. Despite progress in creating and implementing PA within the Atlantic Rainforest biome, studies examining the correlation between their establishment and the effective implementation of territorial conservation mechanisms are still rare. A significant gap persists in the long-term evaluation of governance effectiveness in these areas, which hinders the development of consistent strategies to address environmental degradation. This research is situated within this context and aims to contribute solutions by analysing the implementation of management instruments in PA in southern Bahia. The findings are also relevant to environmental managers, policymakers, and local communities, providing insights and support for the governance of conservation units in a region marked by ecological fragility. Furthermore, the study provides technical and scientific support for management efforts and promotes the development of public-private partnerships. This study aims to understand the organizational structure and management adequacy of PAs in the southern Bahia sector of the Atlantic Rainforest. It analyses the institutional and legal frameworks of these PAs through the lens of their operational and environmental management mechanisms. It provides original data through an integrated assessment and mapping of the functional structures and command-and-control instruments implemented to ensure effective environmental governance within these areas. 2. Materials and methods 2.1 Study area This research focuses on PA within the Atlantic Rainforest in southern Bahia, northeastern Brazil. The study region comprises the most well-preserved portion of this biome in the State and forms part of Brazil’s Central Atlantic Forest Corridor. It spans 70 municipalities, which are grouped into five identity territories: Baixo Sul, Litoral Sul, Costa do Descobrimento, Extremo Sul and Médio Rio de Contas. It extends from the municipality of Valença to the southern boundary of Mucuri. This region is one of the most populous in Bahia, with an estimated population of 2.05 million and a demographic density of 40.4 inhabitants per km². Population projections indicate an increase of around 129,098 residents over the next 29 years. The local economy is primarily based on agriculture, livestock and tourism, contributing around 12.0% to the state’s Gross Domestic Product (SEI 2016 ). The territory is characterized by high cultural and ecological diversity, reflecting a confluence of European, African, and Indigenous ways of life to form a rich ethnic and cultural mosaic. The region encompasses 59 indigenous lands and villages, as well as preserved natural areas that are representative of the Atlantic Rainforest biome. The PA analyses in this study include fully protected areas and areas designated for sustainable use, at varying levels of implementation and management. These are maintained, supported or co-managed by environmental institutions operating within the region, including the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio), the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), the Bahia State Secretariat for the Environment (SEMA), the Institute for the Environment and Water Resources (INEMA) and municipal environmental agencies. 2.2 Methods A tabular and geospatial database of existing PA in southern Bahia was developed using secondary data available from the Protected Areas Monitoring Dashboard (Ministério do Meio Ambiente 2024 ). The dataset underwent exploratory and descriptive statistical analysis, employing measures of central tendency (mean) and dispersion (minimum and maximum values, standard deviation). Spatial files delineating the geographic boundaries of Brazil’s protected areas were obtained, segmented to include only those located in southern Bahia, and reprojected to the UTM spatial reference system, using the SIRGAS 2000 horizontal datum, zone 24S. The tabular database was then decoded and linked to the spatial boundaries of the PAs. Spatial analyses and thematic map production were subsequently performed to visualize management-related information using (Qgis Develpment Team 2024 ). To highlight regions with higher concentrations of PAs, a Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) was applied. KDE generates a smoothed surface based on the concentration of points in each region, producing a continuous surface of variable occurrences and enabling the identification of potential distribution patterns. The density surface was generated in QGIS, version 3.22 (Qgis Develpment Team 2024 ), using the centroid of each conservation unit polygon as the base point, along with the associated tabular information. A search radius of 2 km was applied, following the equation defined by Barbosa & Lourenço, ( 2010 ). Conservation units located entirely within marine areas of southern Bahia were not included in this analysis. To assess the influence of management level (federal, state, municipal, and private) and protection category (strict protection vs. sustainable use) on the implementation of management instruments—Management Plan (MP) and Managing Authority (MA)—two binomial logistic regression models were fitted, one for each instrument (Hosmer et al., 2013 ). The dependent variables (MP and MA) were coded as binary (1 = implemented; 0 = not implemented), while the independent variables were treated as factors, with “State” and “Strict Protection” set as reference categories. Models were fitted using the logit link function from the binomial family. Model fit quality was assessed by checking for overdispersion, multicollinearity through the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) using the car package (Fox J & Weisberg S 2019 ), and influence diagnostics via standardized residuals and Cook’s distance (Cook & Weisberg 1985 ). Model adequacy was evaluated using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test with the ResourceSelection package (Hosmer et al. 2013 ). Predictive power was assessed through the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve and the area under the curve (AUC), using the pROC package (Fawcett 2006 ). Odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals were estimated from the model coefficients. All statistical analyses were conducted in R software, version 4.3.2 (R Development Core Team 2023 ). It is important to note that the study is subject to limitations related to the availability and currency of official data on protected areas in government platforms. Based on the statistical analysis of management instruments (management plan and management council), managing authority (federal, state, municipal, or private), protection category (strict protection or sustainable use), and territorial overlap among areas, protected areas were ranked according to the level of priority for public sector intervention aimed at improving environmental governance. The prioritization scale ranged from very high to low. Areas classified with low priority were those where management instruments were already developed and implemented, and which were associated with managing bodies and protection categories showing significant regularization in line with governance requirements outlined in Articles 15 to 29 of the National System of Protected Areas (SNUC) (Brasil 2000 ). 3. Results A total of 136 PAs were identified in southern Bahia, of which 122 are designated for sustainable use and 14 for full protection (Fig. 1 A). These represent 58.3% of the 233 PAs across the state of Bahia and account for 85% of the 160 PAs located within the Atlantic Forest biome in the state. Sustainable use areas cover a larger geographic extent in southern Bahia compared to strictly protected areas. Most PAs are located along the southern Bahian coastline, with a clear spatial concentration between the municipalities of Maraú and Nova Viçosa, indicating a strong focus on coastal zone conservation (Fig. 1 B). Multiple Pas, either sustainable use or full protection, are distributed along the coast, spanning at least five different legal PA categories. Two major PA clusters with higher spatial density were identified: the coastal strip from Prado to Porto Seguro and the northern portion of Ilhéus and Itacaré. In contrast, inland areas exhibit a lower density of PAs (Fig. 1 B). Notably, within a total land area of 54,685 km², PAs regulate land use and conservation across 16,740 km² (30.61%) of the region. Among these, the strictest protection measures are applied to 2,409 km² (4.40%), corresponding to fully protected areas located in only seven of the seventy municipalities that make up southern Bahia. The municipality of Porto Seguro contains the highest number of PAs in its territory, totaling 27 units. These include four fully protected areas, specifically National Parks (PARNA) and Wildlife Refuges (REVIS), and 23 sustainable use areas, comprising one Extractive Reserve (RESEX), two Environmental Protection Areas (APA), and the remaining areas classified as Private Natural Heritage Reserves (RPPN). Collectively, these PAs contribute to a protected territorial area of 16,740 km². Moreover, Porto Seguro holds a unique distinction in Brazil: it is the only municipality to host two PARNAs, and the only one to contain a National and Historical Park—Monte Pascoal National and Historical Park—which protects the landmark historically recognized as the first land sighted by Portuguese explorers during the colonial period Among the 122 sustainable use PAs in southern Bahia (Fig. 1 C), 106 are RPPN, 12 are APA, 3 are RESEX, and 1 is an Area of Relevant Ecological Interest (ARI). The APA Ponta da Baleia/Abrolhos is the largest in territorial extent, covering 345,551 hectares across the municipalities of Nova Viçosa, Alcobaça, and Caravelas. In contrast, the smallest is the RPPN Vale do Cantassurã, with an area of only 4.5 hectares, located in the municipality of Itacaré. For fully protected areas (Fig. 1 C), the inventory includes 10 PARNAs, 2 REVIS, 1 Ecological Station (EE), and 1 Biological Reserve (REBIO). The largest among them is the Abrolhos Marine National Park, which spans 87,945 hectares and is in the municipality of Caravelas. The only REBIO in southern Bahia, the Una REBIO, is in the municipality of Una. The only REVIS, the Rio dos Frades REVIS, is in Porto Seguro. An analysis of the timeline of PA implementation reveals that two PARNAs and one REBIO were established in southern Bahia between the 1960s and 1980s. However, the most significant increase occurred from the 1990s onward, when 68 new PAs were created. By 2010, the total number had reached 71, with an additional 65 established up to the present day (Fig. 2 A). PAs in southern Bahia also exhibit overlapping jurisdictional boundaries (Fig. 2 B). A total of 28 PAs, predominantly sustainable use areas, share overlapping zones covering approximately 8,269 km² across 15 municipalities. In contrast, non-overlapping PAs generally encompass larger areas and are primarily located in less urbanized regions. When considering the administrative authority effectively responsible for managing the PAs in southern Bahia, 8.8% (12 PAs) are managed by the federal government, 10.2% (14) by the state government, and 2.9% (4) by municipal authorities. The majority, accounting for 77% (106 PAs), are under private management (Fig. 2 C). Only a portion of the PAs is included within a mosaic of protected areas. The only recognized mosaic is in the southern part of Bahia; however, its designation refers to an incorrect geographic label, as the area is not situated in the extreme south of the state (Fig. 3 A). An inverse relationship is observed between the number of protected areas and their average size, both in terms of managing authority and protection group (Table 1 ). Private management accounts for the highest number of protected areas, although these areas have the smallest average territorial size and are all classified as sustainable use. In contrast, federal, state, and municipal management bodies oversee fewer units, but with significantly larger average areas, covering broader territories. Additionally, at the federal and municipal levels, at least half of the protected areas fall under the strict protection category. Although fewer in number, strictly protected areas have a higher average size compared to sustainable use areas. Table 1 Distribution of Protected Areas in Southern Bahia by managing authority and protection type. ICMBio: Instituto Chico Mendes de Biodiversidade. Managing Authority n Area (Km²) Average Area (Km²) Municipal Secretariat 4 163,22 11,65 ICMBIO 12 5165,38 430,44 State Secretariat 14 11221,50 2805,37 Private 106 190,48 1,79 Protection group n Area (Km²) Average Area (Km²) Strict protection 14 2409,52 172,11 Sustainable use 122 14331,00 117,47 A total of 63.2% (86) of the Protected Areas in southern Bahia have implemented management plans (Fig. 3 B). Porto Seguro had the highest number of PAs with implemented plans, accounting for 70.37% (19), while the municipality of Prado had the lowest percentage, with 45.83% (11). In terms of Management Council implementation, only 14.7% (20) of the PAs have a council in operation (Fig. 3 C). Porto Seguro also recorded the highest number of PAs with active councils, reflecting a stronger presence of participatory management. State and private managing authorities show the highest proportion of implemented management plans. In contrast, the highest rates of management council implementation are observed at the federal and municipal levels (Fig. 4 A). The protection group also influences the implementation of management instruments, with strictly protected areas exhibiting the highest proportion of both management plans and management councils (Fig. 4 B). Regarding PA categories, strictly protected areas generally show greater success in the implementation of both instruments (Fig. 4 C). It is worth noting that RPPNs account for 64% of the PAs with management plans, yet none have active management councils. This reflects the guidelines of the National System of Conservation Units (SNUC, 2000), which exempts this category from establishing a council. This exemption explains their low representation in this indicator. Since RPPNs constitute the majority of PAs analyzed (n = 106), they would disproportionately influence the statistical results concerning the presence of management councils, both in terms of administrative authority and protection group. For this reason, RPPNs were excluded from the statistical analyses evaluating council implementation. Logistic regression revealed marked disparities in the implementation of management plans among different administrative level and protection regimes. The model showed an acceptable fit, reducing the null deviance from 178.89 to 172.33, with an AIC of 182.33, indicating that the variables “administrative level” and “protection group” contribute to explaining the likelihood of management plan implementation. The results indicate that protected areas under federal government management had a lower likelihood of implementation compared to those managed by the state government (OR = 0.0817; 95% CI: 0.0025–0.8051; p = 0.067), with marginal statistical significance. Municipal government PAs also showed a lower likelihood of implementation (OR = 0.1635; 95% CI: 0.0053–2.4604; p = 0.213), although without statistical significance. PAs under private management showed a similar likelihood to state government management (OR = 0.9669; 95% CI: 0.2429–3.3402; p = 0.958). Regarding the protection group, sustainable use areas had a lower probability of implementing management plans compared to strictly protected areas (OR = 0.0915; 95% CI: 0.0032–0.7783; p = 0.064), showing a trend toward statistical significance. Logistic regression was also applied to assess the influence of administrative level and protection group on the implementation of management councils, excluding RPPNs. The model did not identify statistically significant associations, presenting a residual deviance of 34.49 (null deviance: 38.19) and an AIC of 42.49, with slight overdispersion. The results indicate that areas under federal government management (OR = 3.97; 95% CI: 0.55–39.48; p = 0.189) and municipal government management (OR = 2.67; 95% CI: 0.24–63.34; p = 0.449) had higher odds of having a management council compared to those under state government management, although these associations were not statistically significant. Regarding the protection group, although the model did not identify a statistically significant association with the presence of a management council (OR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.09–4.33; p = 0.633), descriptive analysis revealed a substantial difference between the groups: while 78.6% of strictly protected areas had a management council in place, only 7.4% of sustainable use areas did. This discrepancy suggests a relevant trend that may not have been detected by the statistical model, possibly due to sample limitations such as group imbalance or the small number of observed events. Discrepancies were observed in both the number and spatial delimitation of PAs when comparing the Brazil Protected Areas Panel (PUC) and the Ministry of the Environment (MMA) databases. These inconsistencies are likely related to the distinct purposes and applications of each dataset. The MMA database provides geographic files, data, and materials focused on spatial information and geoprocessing of protected areas. In contrast, the PUC database is structured to identify, describe, and quantify PAs across the national territory and is managed by the Department of Protected Areas of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. However, considering that both databases are public and originate from the same Ministry, the inconsistencies between them highlight the lack of integration among sectors responsible for the effective management of protected areas. This disconnect also hinders the implementation of public policies that require accurate information regarding the number, distribution, conflicts, and challenges associated with PAs. According to the MMA, the southern region of Bahia had 101 PAs, accounting for 38.2% of all protected areas in the state. However, the PUC database identified 35 additional PAs not listed in the MMA dataset, totaling 136 PAs in southern Bahia. Among these additional units, two categories stood out: 34 were RPPNs and 4 were APAs. As a result, sustainable use PAs in the region showed a 43.6% increase in their count, while strictly protected areas increased by 7.1%. These findings underscore the importance of understanding the configuration of PAs in Brazil, particularly within the Atlantic Forest and the southern region of Bahia, a territory of high regional relevance for biodiversity conservation despite ongoing environmental conflicts. 4. Discussion Southern Bahia stands out as a key region for biodiversity conservation, encompassing 85% of the PAs located within the Atlantic Forest domain in Bahia, with a predominance of sustainable use PAs that cover a larger geographical extent compared to those of strict protection. Although the percentage of PAs is significant when considering the state of Bahia and the Atlantic Forest in this region, the representativeness of strict protection PAs remains limited, with permissible use zones prevailing. In these areas, challenges such as deforestation, mining, monoculture expansion, illegal logging and the introduction of exotic species expose institutional and operational vulnerabilities (Pacheco et al. 2018 , de Lima et al. 2020 ). Such pressures, compounded by unsustainable practices, heighten the risks of environmental conflicts, especially in regions under dual pressure: unregulated urban expansion and intensive economic activities (Ramos et al. 2022 ). In this context, the strict protection PAs objectives and restrictive characteristics associated with the use of resources within may represent obstacles, helping to justify why the implementation of sustainable use PAs is often considered more suitable, as they allow a certain level of use and exploitation of the natural resources (Rezende et al. 2018 ). Furthermore, political factors may influence the decision to establish more restrictive PAs in certain territories, which may, to some extent, reduce conflicts but do not guarantee that ecosystem maintenance will align with appropriate protection levels and ecosystem service provision. These factors, combined with demands for land regularization and the mere legal creation of PAs without practical implementation, undermine environmental governance in protected spaces (dos Santos 2009 , Silva et al. 2024 ). Additionally, Brazil has made little progress toward a robust discussion about the meaning of sustainable use, the rational limits of resource exploitation and how much an ecosystem can withstand under continuous extraction of its natural resources. Inevitably, rational use becomes confused with permissiveness in reducing protected areas, urban expansion and the increase in cultivable lands most of which require the irreversible replacement of natural ecosystems calling into question the effective enforcement of environmental protection policy, the functionality of sustainable use PAs and the rational nature of ecosystem use. To overcome these challenges, alliances and action plans should be established to determine the quality of management of sustainable use areas and the ecosystems carrying capacities, as the unequal distribution between strict protection and sustainable use areas may incorrectly assign critical biodiversity zones to sustainable use. Another notable point is the high concentration of PAs in coastal municipalities, a fact possibly associated with institutional efforts to mitigate habitat degradation and environmental pollution, particularly in marine ecosystems (Bióicos and SOS Mata Atlântica 2019). This spatial distribution aligns with government strategies aimed at protecting ecologically sensitive areas in regions under intense anthropogenic pressure, such as the Atlantic Forest coastal zones, which host over 50% of Brazil’s population (SOS Mata Atlântica 2021 ). In southern Bahia, the overlap between the density of PAs and regions of high touristic relevance reveals socioeconomic motivations linked to the exploitation of natural features for recreational purposes. This spatial pattern reflects strategic responses to the convergence of climatic and environmental resources—such as solar exposure, temperature and water availability—that amplify the region's attractiveness for nature-based tourism (Shang 2023). An example is the growth of regional tourism promotion in Porto Seguro, the municipality with the highest number of PAs in southern Bahia. With a resident population of approximately 168,000 inhabitants the municipalitie received about 2.5 million tourists, equating to around 14.88 tourists per inhabitant. This influx represents 1,488% of the local population, highlighting the intense seasonal pressure tourism places on services, territory and natural resources (IBGE 2025 , Porto Seguro 2025 ). In contrast to coastal zones, inland regions of southern Bahia are characterized by a low density of PAs and environmental dynamics linked to the expansion of agriculture and livestock in areas with limited urbanization. The scarcity of PAs in these areas, combined with the predominance of rural landscapes, particularly agricultural fields, extensive cattle ranching and eucalyptus plantations, is intrinsically connected to native vegetation suppression and habitat fragmentation, widely recognized as drivers of biodiversity decline (Myers et al. 2000 ). This pressure is intensified by the economic dependence of inland municipalities on agricultural and livestock contributions to local, regional and national GDP (Blankespoor et al. 2023; Oliveira et al. 2024). The combination of ineffective conservation policies and unregulated expansion of production frontiers results in the rapid depletion of natural resources, including species yet to be described by Science, the conversion of primary areas into intensive-use zones and the perpetuation of unsustainable economic models. The Alto Cariri National Park, the only inland PA in southern Bahia, exemplifies this paradox. Established to protect critical springs of the Buranhém River and populations of the endangered northern muriqui (Brachyteles hypoxanthus), the PAs faces challenges such as unresolved land tenure conflicts, pressures from surrounding agricultural activities and the absence of ecological-economic zoning implementation. This institutional fragility, compounded by the lack of ecological corridors, limits its capacity to mitigate biodiversity loss on a regional scale, underscoring the urgency of territorial management models that reconcile production and conservation. The temporal analysis of the implementation of PA in southern Bahia reveals striking patterns associated with both anthropogenic pressures and the inefficiency of public policies. These inefficiencies range from the development of Urban Master Plans that are disconnected from local environmental characteristics to the limited enforcement of the Atlantic Forest Law, further exacerbated by the legalization of actions taken by environmental agencies through Complementary Law n. 140/2011. The significant increase in PA establishment from the 1990s onward reflects institutional responses to escalating environmental impacts and landscape changes associated with the construction and operation of Federal Highway BR-101, which facilitated logging, cattle ranching and forestry expansion (Costa et al. 2024 ). However the pace of PA creation has slowed since the establishment of the National System of Protected Areas (SNUC), a trend aligned with the weakening of environmental policies, regulatory flexibilization and reduced management funding (Barbosa et al. 2021 ). Degradation is exacerbated by predatory tourism, which affects not only PAs but also their buffer zones, exposing the fragility of conservation models for fauna, flora and a range of ecosystems due to the lack of territorial planning and economic activity regulation (Barrientos et al. 2020 ). Large-scale tourism development has led to significant environmental impacts a paradox, considering tourism relies directly on environmental integrity (Christofoletti 2024 ). Even nature-based tourism, although increasingly popular, raises conservation concerns, as it may alter animal behavior and community structure similarly to domestication and urbanization, in addition to affecting species population dynamics (Geffroy et al. 2015 ). In Brazil the historical condition of social inequality must be considered in formulating integrated and sustainable tourism policies. Despite its biological megadiversity, interpreting tourism solely as an economic activity, dissociated from the guidelines and trends of other public policies, constitutes a planning mistake and limits multiple opportunities (Irving et al. 2022 ). Another significant challenge to the effectiveness of management instruments is the overlapping of jurisdictional boundaries of PAs, particularly those of sustainable use. This overlap occurs across a vast area spanning 15 municipalities in southern Bahia and creates a false impression of expanded ecosystem protection. Additionally, the coexistence of different management levels, protection categories and administrative groups generates conflicts and ambiguities regarding permitted activities, thereby reducing the effectiveness of conservation efforts. One of the most serious overlapping cases is found in Porto Seguro, where the Monte Pascoal National and Historical Park overlaps with two sustainable use área, the Corumbau Extractive Reserve and the Caraíva-Trancoso APA, as well as the Indigenous Land of Barra Velha. The situation worsens with municipal management, which designated the district of Caraíva as an urban area, promoting mass tourism that intensifies environmental impacts and governance challenges in the region. Given the ecological importance of southern Bahia, it is imperative to investigate how these jurisdictional overlaps might generate positive synergies for conservation or deepen governance gaps due to institutional disarticulation. Understanding the perceptions of local communities regarding these overlaps, especially in sustainable-use areas, can contribute to more efficient and participatory management, reducing conflicts and strengthening environmental governance. The analysis also reveals that PAs although often located in close proximity, particularly in coastal zones, are not managed under an integrated framework. This reality is reflected in the low occurrence of mosaics, exposing failures in implementing environmental policies aimed at promoting collaborative articulation among PAs. The absence of mosaics may limit the potential for shared management and compromise conservation effectiveness, as integration among PAs facilitates the management of connected ecosystems and enhances cooperation between different administrative levels. Moreover, this gap may undermine strategies for ecological connectivity and reduce ecosystem resilience to anthropogenic pressures. Isolated management is therefore insufficient to address the complex challenges of multifaceted and environmentally sensitive territories. Promoting the formation of mosaics requires evaluating the geographic proximity of PAs, focusing on ecological connectivity, mitigation of environmental conflicts and more coordinated responses to climate change, actions that are especially necessary in the context of southern Bahia and Brazil. Regarding management instruments, it is evident that a significant portion of PAs still lacks effective implementation, particularly in relation to management plans and/or management councils. With respect to management plans, the results show that both the administrative level and the protection group influence the likelihood of plan implementation. Strict protection PAs or those managed by the state authority were more likely to possess this instrument compared to sustainable-use PAs, suggesting an institutional prioritization of more restrictive categories. Only 19.5% of Brazilian protected areas had management plans and 62% were fully available. The categories with the fewest plans were the Wildlife Refuge while RPPN showed growth in plan implementation like the findings of this study and reflecting a national scenario of precarious governance of protected areas. Even though more than half of the management plans in southern Bahia have been implemented (63%), this does not guarantee that the goals and action plans are effectively carried out. For management to be functional, several initiatives are required, including adequate human resources, infrastructure and collaborative governance. The existence of a management document, in practice, does not reliably support AP governance unless accompanied by continuous operational resources. A major limitation of the National System of Protected Areas is that many PAs exist only on paper, with little or no practical recognition toward achieving their intended objectives, regardless of the protection category or managing authority. Although the federal government created the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio) in 2007 specifically to manage PAs in Brazil, little progress has been made in qualifying and enhancing the functionality of these areas, which reinforces a commitment that falls short for a country still considered to hold vast environmental reserves. In terms of management councils, a large proportion of PAs lack this governance mechanism. This finding reflects the detachment of many PAs from fulfilling the legal requirements of SNUC to promote social participation, as councils are collegial bodies composed of representatives from various sectors who discuss and deliberate on PA management. Although councils are mandated by regulation, their effectiveness remains limited. Of the 136 cases analyzed only 30 PAs had established councils, indicating on one hand low social engagement in protected area management and on the other, an institutional gap that contributes to the vulnerability of natural resources, even in legally protected contexts. Statistical analysis indicated that privately managed PAs had a significantly lower probability of establishing management councils. RPPNs, which are exclusively private, are declared with defined preservation and consolidated use zones at the time of their creation, fostering the perception that there is no need for social participation in management processes. However, in practice, being protected areas, their surroundings and illegal practices can threaten the integrity of these spaces, highlighting the need for management councils even in privately owned PAs and the expansion of dialogue with surrounding communities to maintain territorial integrity. Other spheres - federal and municipal - showed higher likelihoods of establishing councils compared to state-level PAs, though not statistically significant. Model did not identify statistically significant influence regarding protection groups. Percentage data show that 71.4% of strict protection PAs had councils, compared to only 16.4% of sustainable use PAs. This discrepancy suggests a bias in the implementation of participatory spaces, even if not statistically supported by the model. These results reinforce that the effectiveness of management councils is more closely associated with the management level than with the PA use category. The absence of these participatory mechanisms undermines transparency, dialogue with local stakeholders and shared territorial governance, particularly in sustainable use PAs or those overlapping with traditional community lands. Strengthening management councils is therefore a strategic priority to ensure the legitimacy and effectiveness of environmental governance. Pathways to effective governance of protected areas The effectiveness of PAs is a necessary action for the conservation, preservation and maintenance of the Atlantic Forest territory which has been devastated over the centuries. Actions to ensure the functionality of the objectives outlined in SNUC, as well as the intents of each protection group and category, must be reviewed and prioritized within the management of protected areas in Brazil. The percentages highlighted and the importance of southern Bahia’s PAs within the Brazilian, Bahian and Atlantic Forest contexts reinforce that numbers alone are not sufficient for PA governance. Government spheres must prioritize quality in structuring and implementing management instruments over mere quantity. In this regard, managing authorities and their deliberative bodies should define strategies for maintenance, repair and regularization of the protected area systems, in addition to promoting integrated environmental management. The following are proposed actions to meet these demands: Federative entities must assess the condition of protected areas by group and category, aiming to audit the creation, maintenance and management activities capable of achieving the intended objectives; Federative entities must evaluate the continued maintenance of large sustainable-use areas until the institutional concept of effectiveness in protecting sensitive ecosystems is well structured, considering human pressures, extreme events and resilience capacity, especially in the context of climate change; Establish institutional frameworks distinguishing conservation from preservation, recognizing that many PAs are intended for strict protection and indirect use, but fail to fully uphold these objectives, thereby weakening the intent of the group and its respective categories; The unequal distribution between strict protection and sustainable-use areas can impair biodiversity conservation and preservation goals, as critical areas may be designated for sustainable use and inadequately protected from predatory activities; Review the established mosaics of protected areas by expanding PAs and incorporating other categories of protected territories (indigenous and quilombola lands), along with creating a coordinated governance system among stakeholders; Create new protected area mosaics beyond the far south of Bahia to ensure greater integration and coordinated management of protected areas; Accelerate the development and implementation of management plans and their zoning, detailing the necessary guidelines for AP protection, preservation and conservation; Strengthen management councils to promote democratic and participatory governance, encouraging the involvement of local communities in management decisions and fostering social support for conservation and preservation initiatives; Promote integrated management plans in overlapping protected areas, including when overlaps occur across different protection groups or indigenous and quilombola lands; Establish interinstitutional forums to discuss and align management and conservation strategies, including the possibility of integrated management plans, communication and cooperativo among different government levels, especially for overlapping areas, to reduce disparities; Implement a continuous monitoring and evaluation system for PAs that includes ecological, social, economic and institucional indicators (such as implementation of management instruments), serving as a tool to track changes in land use and cover, deforestation and anthropogenic pressures on PAs; Adopt continuous environmental education programs or implement those foreseen in management plans aimed at raising local community awareness about the importance of PAs and the long-term benefits of participatory management for conservation and preservation; Adopt projects that promote viable economic alternatives, such as ecotourism and rural tourism, affirming and valuing public use and formalization of these areas beyond predatory tourism; Establish environmental financial funds for PAs governance, enabling implementation of management plans, programs and projects, as well as monitoring and enforcement actions; Review and coordinate the implementation of management councils in privately managed PAs, enabling shared natural resource management beyond the private nature of the area, aligning with environmental legislation that promotes rural environmental registration and regulation of rural properties. Based on the above, Fig. 6 presents the priority PAs for the regularization of environmental governance, focusing on the implementation of management instruments, while recognizing the continued need for maintenance in lower-priority PAs. It is important to highlight that PAs with established management councils were considered to have lower complexity for regularization but still require continued maintenance of these participatory structures. RPPNs are not legally required to establish such mechanisms, this prioritization considers the need for their inclusion to stimulate debate on environmental resource protection. This is especially relevant given that in southern Bahia, these areas are often adjacent to or overlap with public PAs, thereby influencing and being influenced by natural resource management. The Figure above shows a spatial categorization reflecting the management and intervention priorities, highlighting PAs with high and very high priority. These PAs are in coastal zones, under state management and lack both a management plan and a management council. Without management instruments, these areas may be subject to significant anthropogenic pressures that prevent the achievement of group and category objectives. Such PAs underscore the need for government efforts to ensure protection and implement management strategies that uphold ecological integrity, legal mandates for management plan creation, social participation and interinstitutional coordination among responsible entities. It also highlights the need for articulation among management levels (municipal, state and federal), emphasizing the urgency of coordinated actions for monitoring and enforcement in governance-vulnerable areas. A joint effort to regularize and mitigate the territorial demands of protected areas may support the development of more effective and integrated environmental policies across different levels of government and responsible institutions. Conclusion This study analyzed the normative and legal status of PAs in southern Bahia, assessing their environmental management mechanisms and building a geographic database for integrated analysis. It also mapped command and control instruments aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of PA management. Located within the Atlantic Forest biome a priority due to its biodiversity and climatic role these PAs face challenges from socioeconomic pressures such as real estate expansion, agriculture and tourism which threaten their conservation. Effective conservation in these areas hinges on the systematic implementation of management plans and participatory councils to balancing protection and development. The conservation of the Atlantic Forest in southern Bahia is crucial, particularly given the historical deforestation and the ecological importance of its forest remnants. The region contains 136 of Bahia’s 233 PAs, standing out nationally. Their management faces challenges such as uneven implementation of management instruments like plans and councils. Overcoming these shortcomings through universal implementation of management plans, creation of councils and stronger intergovernmental coordination could enhance governance and benefit both conservation and local communities. Inconsistencies among data sources hinder integrated analyses and require greater institutional alignment to improve governance, optimize decision-making and strengthen the environmental management system. Declarations This research was supported by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado da Bahia (FAPESB), under grant agreement APP0046/2023. Competing Interests The authors declare no competing interests. Author Contribution ERNL was responsible for the conceptualization of the study, the development of the methodological approach, and the writing of the original draft of the manuscript. IEGP conducted the statistical data analysis and contributed to the critical review and editing of the text. JMBF and POM were responsible for data collection. References Agra Filho SS (2014) Planejamento e gestão ambiental no Brasil: os instrumentos da Política Nacional de Meio Ambiente, 1st ed. Elsevier, Rio de Janeiro. Barbosa GL, Lourenço RW (2010) Análise da distribuição espaço-temporal de dengue e da infestação larvária no município de Tupã, Estado de São Paulo. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop 43. Barbosa LG, Alves MAS, Grelle CEV (2021) Actions against sustainability: Dismantling of the environmental policies in Brazil. Land use policy 104:105384. Barrientos R, Ascensão F, D’Amico M (2020) Inappropriate tourist behavior in protected areas can lead to wildlife road-kills. Anim Conserv 23. Bióicos, SOS Mata Atlântica (2019) Áreas Protegidas e Municípios Costeiros da Mata Atlântica: contribuições para a gestão municipal e para a sociedade civil. Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica, São Paulo. Disponível em: Relatório da SOS Mata Atlântica. Acesso em: 9 jul. 2025. Blankespoor B, Ru Y, Wood-Sichra U, Thomas TS, You L, Kalvelagen E (2022) Estimating Local Agricultural GDP across the World. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 10109. Brasil (2000) Lei no 9.985, de 18 de julho de 2000. Institui o Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação da Natureza. Diário Oficial da União - Seção 1–19/7/2000. Christofoletti R (2024) Tourism Phobia: Between Predation and Sustainability. p 171–190 Cook RD, Weisberg S (1985) Residuals and influence in regression. Chapman and Hall, New York. Costa DS, Nuvoloni FM, Lopes RNE (2024) Mata Atlântica: a história que a história não contou. Editus, Ilhéus. Fawcett T (2006) An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognit Lett 27. Fox J, Weisberg S (2019) An R Companion to Applied Regression, Third edition. Sage, Thousand Oaks CA. https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion/ . Geffroy B, Samia DSM, Bessa E, Blumstein DT (2015) How Nature-Based Tourism Might Increase Prey Vulnerability to Predators How Might Nature-Based Tourism Influence Wildlife Behavior? Trends Ecol Evol 30. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX (2013) Applied Logistic Regression: Third Edition. IBGE (2025) Cidades e Estados: Porto Seguro. https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/ba/porto-seguro/panorama . Acesso em: 13 maio 2025 (accessed 4 April 2025) Irving M de A, Lima MAG de, Nasri YXG (2022) Turismo e áreas protegidas: tendências globais e desafios para a integração de políticas públicas. Confins 54. de Lima RAF, Oliveira AA, Pitta GR, de Gasper AL, Vibrans AC, Chave J, ter Steege H, Prado PI (2020) The erosion of biodiversity and biomass in the Atlantic Forest biodiversity hotspot. Nat Commun 11. MapBiomas (2022) Project MapBiomas - Collection 8.0 of Brazilian Land Cover & Use Map Series. Marques F, Rocha MB (2019) Impactos do uso público em unidades de conservação: produção científica no Rio de Janeiro. Research, Society and Development 8. Martins L, Marenzi RC, Lima A De (2015) Levantamento e representatividade das Unidades de Conservação instituídas no estado de Santa Catarina, Brasil. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente 33. Ministério do Meio Ambiente (2024) Painel Unidades de Conservação Brasileira. https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMDNmZTA5Y2ItNmFkMy00Njk2LWI4YjYtZDJlNzFkOGM5NWQ4IiwidCI6IjJiMj Y2ZmE5LTNmOTMtNGJiMS05ODMwLTYzNDY3NTJmMDNlNCIsImMiOjF9 (accessed 6 July 2024) Myers N, Mittermeler RA, Mittermeler CG, Da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403. Oliveira JR, Santos MT, Liu W (2023) The Economic Impact of Livestock Production & Trade: A Global Perspective. Strategies in Agricultural and Food Economics, Crimson Publishers 5(2). Pacheco AA, Neves ACO, Fernandes GW (2018) Uneven conservation efforts compromise Brazil to meet the Target 11 of Convention on Biological Diversity. Perspect Ecol Conserv 16. Porto Seguro (2025) Crescimento: turismo em Porto Seguro cresce 17% em janeiro de 2025. https://portoseguro.ba.gov.br/noticia/crescimento-turismo-em-porto-seguro-cresce-17-em-janeiro-de-2025-superando-2024 (accessed 13 May 2025) Qgis Develpment Team (2024) QGIS Geographic Information System. R Development Core Team (2023) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna Austria 0. Ramos E de A, Nuvoloni FM, Lopes ER do N (2022) Landscape Transformations and loss of Atlantic Forests: challenges for conservation. J Nat Conserv 66. Rezende CL, Scarano FR, Assad ED, Joly CA, Metzger JP, Strassburg BBN, Tabarelli M, Fonseca GA, Mittermeier RA (2018) From hotspot to hopespot: An opportunity for the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Perspect Ecol Conserv 16:208–214. de Santana RO, Delgado RC, Schiavetti A (2020) The past, present and future of vegetation in the Central Atlantic Forest Corridor, Brazil. Remote Sens Appl 20:100357. dos Santos LB (2009) Trilhas da política ambiental: Conflitos, agendas e criação de unidades de conservação. Ambiente e Sociedade 12. SEI (2016) Territórios de Identidade Bahia. SUPERINTENDÊNCIA DE ESTUDOS ECONÔMICOS E SOCIAIS DA BAHIA 2. Shang Y, Bi C, Wei X et al. (2023) Eco-tourism, climate change, and environmental policies: empirical evidence from developing economies. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10:275. Silva THC, Rocha RF, Jordão LR, Tárrega MCVB (2024) Para além do papel: estudo das unidades de conservação brasileiras. Interações (Campo Grande):e2523911. SOS Mata Atlântica (2021) Atlas dos remanescentes florestais da Mata Atlântica no período 2019–2020. São Paulo: Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica. 55. Warren D (2004) A ferro e fogo: a história e a devastação da Mata Atlântica brasileira. ed São Paulo: Cia das Letras 113. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7121617","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":488861499,"identity":"6cce4ec7-7ac2-4fd2-8dfa-55608174275e","order_by":0,"name":"Elfany Reis do Nascimento Lopes","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Federal University of Southern Bahia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Elfany","middleName":"Reis do Nascimento","lastName":"Lopes","suffix":""},{"id":488861500,"identity":"a177eea6-d08a-44f4-90b0-a2b509bfc4b7","order_by":1,"name":"Igor Emiliano Gomes Pinheiro","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Federal University of Southern Bahia","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Igor","middleName":"Emiliano Gomes","lastName":"Pinheiro","suffix":""},{"id":488861501,"identity":"3eb402fb-f081-4c01-bcc8-d1b0ba070dbe","order_by":2,"name":"João Marcos Brito Silva","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Federal University of Southern Bahia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"João","middleName":"Marcos Brito","lastName":"Silva","suffix":""},{"id":488861502,"identity":"3baff1bf-6131-4e54-8ddf-7aca070e1259","order_by":3,"name":"Pablo Oliveira Martins","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Federal University of Southern Bahia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Pablo","middleName":"Oliveira","lastName":"Martins","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-14 13:23:23","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7121617/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7121617/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":87429089,"identity":"c095f9e0-5601-4809-be60-2a59d87b5d84","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-23 17:03:33","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1897992,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eProtected Areas in Southern Bahia. A – Protection group of protected areas, B – Density of protected áreas, C – Categories of protected areas.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7121617/v1/daad8de48ee302966e563934.png"},{"id":87430041,"identity":"a4dd0944-439b-4af2-ad00-aad9cc165945","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-23 17:19:33","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":2021741,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eProtected Areas in Southern Bahia. A – Protected Areas by year of creation, B – Territorial overlap among Protected Areas, C – Management authorities of Protected Areas.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7121617/v1/14549f93226f2691e3c4472c.png"},{"id":87429095,"identity":"5a21b174-99aa-45b7-bf21-90fcc150fdc3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-23 17:03:33","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":2029022,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eProtected Areas in Southern Bahia. A – Protected Areas included in officially recognized mosaics, B – Protected Areas with implemented management plans, C – Protected Areas with established management councils.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7121617/v1/955a3e66afe55fdf65d8d600.png"},{"id":87429096,"identity":"754702a8-ede8-4145-8446-e3b652441ed1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-23 17:03:33","extension":"jpeg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":133850,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePercentage of implemented management instruments (i.e., Management Council and Management Plan), considering administrative levels, protection groups, and categories of protected areas.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7121617/v1/0bfa2419905df66989a10e38.jpeg"},{"id":87429091,"identity":"873be490-61c8-455a-b11a-83dc89f29189","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-23 17:03:33","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1573472,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFigure 6. Priority for the regularization of environmental governance of Protected Areas in Southern Bahia.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7121617/v1/4ee36968c906592fa2aa93c3.png"},{"id":94825581,"identity":"563084b8-cda0-4d94-ab35-8dcf858ab2da","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 06:50:28","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":7193532,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7121617/v1/aac5f6ad-0379-478f-8265-dd45c84e6154.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Governance and territorial conservation in protected areas of the Atlantic Rainforest","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe Atlantic Rainforest is one of the most biodiverse terrestrial biomes in the world, while also ranking among the most threatened by anthropogenic pressures (Myers et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e, de Lima et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Extending across Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil, it originally covered approximately 13% of Brazilian territory (Rezende et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Today only 28% of its original vegetation remains (de Santana et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), with much of the area now occupied by pasture (26.2%), agriculture (17.6%), silviculture (3.5%), and urban infrastructure (2.9%) (MapBiomas \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Historical land use patterns have led to the progressive replacement of native vegetation rendering the Atlantic Rainforest the only Brazilian biome in which natural vegetation is no longer the dominant land cover (SOS Mata Atl\u0026acirc;ntica \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Brazil, few remnants of the Atlantic Rainforest remain along the coastal regions, where a history of environmental degradation dates to territorial occupation during Portuguese colonization in the 16th century (Warren \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e, Marques \u0026amp; Rocha \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e, SOS Mata Atl\u0026acirc;ntica \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This historical trajectory has made the coastal zone highly socio-environmentally complex, with multiple conflicts and pressures on natural resources. This makes management and governance processes one of the main challenges in these areas (dos Santos \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Several initiatives have been launched to conserve Atlantic ecosystems, involving government, civil society, and the private sector (Martins et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). The main environmental public policy among these efforts was established on July 18, 2000, with the creation of the National System of Nature Conservation Units (SNUC), which set out the criteria and regulations for the establishment, implementation, and management of conservation units (CUs) in Brazil (Brasil \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe SNUC encompasses several concepts and implications regarding protected areas (PA) at the municipal, state and federal administrative levels. These areas are referred to as territorial spaces with natural resources, boundaries, categories and levels of protection for environmental conservation and preservation. The SNUC also defines two groups of PA: Integral Protection, which aim to preserve ecosystems and permit only indirect use of natural resources; and Sustainable Use, which allow for more flexible use of resources, though still under defined limits to prevent degradation, conflicts, and the depletion of natural assets (Brasil \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). The system also provides operational mechanisms to support area management, including management plans, buffer zones, management councils and zoning. These contribute to the regulation of land use and land cover, reducing vegetation loss, forest fragmentation and environmental conflicts over resource use.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCurrently, Brazil has a total of 2,495 established PAs (Minist\u0026eacute;rio do Meio Ambiente \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), many of which face financial constraints and a shortage of human resources for effective management (Agra Filho \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Of these, 1496 PAs (58.7%) are located within the Atlantic Rainforest biome, with 960 classified as sustainable use areas and 477 as fully protected areas. This biome alone hosts over half of the country\u0026rsquo;s PAs and safeguards approximately 1% of Brazil\u0026rsquo;s coastal continental territory (Minist\u0026eacute;rio do Meio Ambiente \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). A portion of this coverage is found in southern Bahia, a region of significant environmental importance that forms part of Brazil\u0026rsquo;s Central Atlantic Forest Corridor. Known for its high biodiversity, this region has been heavily impacted by environmental degradation and landscape transformation, primarily due to eucalyptus monocultures, mass tourism, and livestock grazing (SOS Mata Atl\u0026acirc;ntica \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Despite these pressures, the region continues to provide vital ecosystem services thanks to the presence of protected areas and Indigenous and traditional communities whose territorial organization and environmental conservation practices are crucial for the region's future.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite progress in creating and implementing PA within the Atlantic Rainforest biome, studies examining the correlation between their establishment and the effective implementation of territorial conservation mechanisms are still rare. A significant gap persists in the long-term evaluation of governance effectiveness in these areas, which hinders the development of consistent strategies to address environmental degradation. This research is situated within this context and aims to contribute solutions by analysing the implementation of management instruments in PA in southern Bahia. The findings are also relevant to environmental managers, policymakers, and local communities, providing insights and support for the governance of conservation units in a region marked by ecological fragility. Furthermore, the study provides technical and scientific support for management efforts and promotes the development of public-private partnerships.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study aims to understand the organizational structure and management adequacy of PAs in the southern Bahia sector of the Atlantic Rainforest. It analyses the institutional and legal frameworks of these PAs through the lens of their operational and environmental management mechanisms. It provides original data through an integrated assessment and mapping of the functional structures and command-and-control instruments implemented to ensure effective environmental governance within these areas.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Materials and methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1 Study area\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research focuses on PA within the Atlantic Rainforest in southern Bahia, northeastern Brazil. The study region comprises the most well-preserved portion of this biome in the State and forms part of Brazil\u0026rsquo;s Central Atlantic Forest Corridor. It spans 70 municipalities, which are grouped into five identity territories: Baixo Sul, Litoral Sul, Costa do Descobrimento, Extremo Sul and M\u0026eacute;dio Rio de Contas. It extends from the municipality of Valen\u0026ccedil;a to the southern boundary of Mucuri. This region is one of the most populous in Bahia, with an estimated population of 2.05\u0026nbsp;million and a demographic density of 40.4 inhabitants per km\u0026sup2;. Population projections indicate an increase of around 129,098 residents over the next 29 years. The local economy is primarily based on agriculture, livestock and tourism, contributing around 12.0% to the state\u0026rsquo;s Gross Domestic Product (SEI \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). The territory is characterized by high cultural and ecological diversity, reflecting a confluence of European, African, and Indigenous ways of life to form a rich ethnic and cultural mosaic. The region encompasses 59 indigenous lands and villages, as well as preserved natural areas that are representative of the Atlantic Rainforest biome.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe PA analyses in this study include fully protected areas and areas designated for sustainable use, at varying levels of implementation and management. These are maintained, supported or co-managed by environmental institutions operating within the region, including the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio), the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), the Bahia State Secretariat for the Environment (SEMA), the Institute for the Environment and Water Resources (INEMA) and municipal environmental agencies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2 Methods\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA tabular and geospatial database of existing PA in southern Bahia was developed using secondary data available from the Protected Areas Monitoring Dashboard (Minist\u0026eacute;rio do Meio Ambiente \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The dataset underwent exploratory and descriptive statistical analysis, employing measures of central tendency (mean) and dispersion (minimum and maximum values, standard deviation). Spatial files delineating the geographic boundaries of Brazil\u0026rsquo;s protected areas were obtained, segmented to include only those located in southern Bahia, and reprojected to the UTM spatial reference system, using the SIRGAS 2000 horizontal datum, zone 24S. The tabular database was then decoded and linked to the spatial boundaries of the PAs. Spatial analyses and thematic map production were subsequently performed to visualize management-related information using (Qgis Develpment Team \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo highlight regions with higher concentrations of PAs, a Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) was applied. KDE generates a smoothed surface based on the concentration of points in each region, producing a continuous surface of variable occurrences and enabling the identification of potential distribution patterns. The density surface was generated in QGIS, version 3.22 (Qgis Develpment Team \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), using the centroid of each conservation unit polygon as the base point, along with the associated tabular information. A search radius of 2 km was applied, following the equation defined by Barbosa \u0026amp; Louren\u0026ccedil;o, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Conservation units located entirely within marine areas of southern Bahia were not included in this analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo assess the influence of management level (federal, state, municipal, and private) and protection category (strict protection vs. sustainable use) on the implementation of management instruments\u0026mdash;Management Plan (MP) and Managing Authority (MA)\u0026mdash;two binomial logistic regression models were fitted, one for each instrument (Hosmer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). The dependent variables (MP and MA) were coded as binary (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;implemented; 0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;not implemented), while the independent variables were treated as factors, with \u0026ldquo;State\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Strict Protection\u0026rdquo; set as reference categories. Models were fitted using the logit link function from the binomial family.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eModel fit quality was assessed by checking for overdispersion, multicollinearity through the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) using the car package (Fox J \u0026amp; Weisberg S \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), and influence diagnostics via standardized residuals and Cook\u0026rsquo;s distance (Cook \u0026amp; Weisberg \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e). Model adequacy was evaluated using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test with the ResourceSelection package (Hosmer et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Predictive power was assessed through the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve and the area under the curve (AUC), using the pROC package (Fawcett \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals were estimated from the model coefficients. All statistical analyses were conducted in R software, version 4.3.2 (R Development Core Team \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). It is important to note that the study is subject to limitations related to the availability and currency of official data on protected areas in government platforms.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBased on the statistical analysis of management instruments (management plan and management council), managing authority (federal, state, municipal, or private), protection category (strict protection or sustainable use), and territorial overlap among areas, protected areas were ranked according to the level of priority for public sector intervention aimed at improving environmental governance. The prioritization scale ranged from very high to low. Areas classified with low priority were those where management instruments were already developed and implemented, and which were associated with managing bodies and protection categories showing significant regularization in line with governance requirements outlined in Articles 15 to 29 of the National System of Protected Areas (SNUC) (Brasil \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eA total of 136 PAs were identified in southern Bahia, of which 122 are designated for sustainable use and 14 for full protection (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eA). These represent 58.3% of the 233 PAs across the state of Bahia and account for 85% of the 160 PAs located within the Atlantic Forest biome in the state. Sustainable use areas cover a larger geographic extent in southern Bahia compared to strictly protected areas. Most PAs are located along the southern Bahian coastline, with a clear spatial concentration between the municipalities of Mara\u0026uacute; and Nova Vi\u0026ccedil;osa, indicating a strong focus on coastal zone conservation (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eB). Multiple Pas, either sustainable use or full protection, are distributed along the coast, spanning at least five different legal PA categories. Two major PA clusters with higher spatial density were identified: the coastal strip from Prado to Porto Seguro and the northern portion of Ilh\u0026eacute;us and Itacar\u0026eacute;. In contrast, inland areas exhibit a lower density of PAs (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eB). Notably, within a total land area of 54,685 km\u0026sup2;, PAs regulate land use and conservation across 16,740 km\u0026sup2; (30.61%) of the region. Among these, the strictest protection measures are applied to 2,409 km\u0026sup2; (4.40%), corresponding to fully protected areas located in only seven of the seventy municipalities that make up southern Bahia.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe municipality of Porto Seguro contains the highest number of PAs in its territory, totaling 27 units. These include four fully protected areas, specifically National Parks (PARNA) and Wildlife Refuges (REVIS), and 23 sustainable use areas, comprising one Extractive Reserve (RESEX), two Environmental Protection Areas (APA), and the remaining areas classified as Private Natural Heritage Reserves (RPPN). Collectively, these PAs contribute to a protected territorial area of 16,740 km\u0026sup2;. Moreover, Porto Seguro holds a unique distinction in Brazil: it is the only municipality to host two PARNAs, and the only one to contain a National and Historical Park\u0026mdash;Monte Pascoal National and Historical Park\u0026mdash;which protects the landmark historically recognized as the first land sighted by Portuguese explorers during the colonial period\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAmong the 122 sustainable use PAs in southern Bahia (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eC), 106 are RPPN, 12 are APA, 3 are RESEX, and 1 is an Area of Relevant Ecological Interest (ARI). The APA Ponta da Baleia/Abrolhos is the largest in territorial extent, covering 345,551 hectares across the municipalities of Nova Vi\u0026ccedil;osa, Alcoba\u0026ccedil;a, and Caravelas. In contrast, the smallest is the RPPN Vale do Cantassur\u0026atilde;, with an area of only 4.5 hectares, located in the municipality of Itacar\u0026eacute;. For fully protected areas (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eC), the inventory includes 10 PARNAs, 2 REVIS, 1 Ecological Station (EE), and 1 Biological Reserve (REBIO). The largest among them is the Abrolhos Marine National Park, which spans 87,945 hectares and is in the municipality of Caravelas. The only REBIO in southern Bahia, the Una REBIO, is in the municipality of Una. The only REVIS, the Rio dos Frades REVIS, is in Porto Seguro.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAn analysis of the timeline of PA implementation reveals that two PARNAs and one REBIO were established in southern Bahia between the 1960s and 1980s. However, the most significant increase occurred from the 1990s onward, when 68 new PAs were created. By 2010, the total number had reached 71, with an additional 65 established up to the present day (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eA). PAs in southern Bahia also exhibit overlapping jurisdictional boundaries (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eB). A total of 28 PAs, predominantly sustainable use areas, share overlapping zones covering approximately 8,269 km\u0026sup2; across 15 municipalities. In contrast, non-overlapping PAs generally encompass larger areas and are primarily located in less urbanized regions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen considering the administrative authority effectively responsible for managing the PAs in southern Bahia, 8.8% (12 PAs) are managed by the federal government, 10.2% (14) by the state government, and 2.9% (4) by municipal authorities. The majority, accounting for 77% (106 PAs), are under private management (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eC).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOnly a portion of the PAs is included within a mosaic of protected areas. The only recognized mosaic is in the southern part of Bahia; however, its designation refers to an incorrect geographic label, as the area is not situated in the extreme south of the state (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAn inverse relationship is observed between the number of protected areas and their average size, both in terms of managing authority and protection group (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Private management accounts for the highest number of protected areas, although these areas have the smallest average territorial size and are all classified as sustainable use. In contrast, federal, state, and municipal management bodies oversee fewer units, but with significantly larger average areas, covering broader territories. Additionally, at the federal and municipal levels, at least half of the protected areas fall under the strict protection category. Although fewer in number, strictly protected areas have a higher average size compared to sustainable use areas.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDistribution of Protected Areas in Southern Bahia by managing authority and protection type. ICMBio: Instituto Chico Mendes de Biodiversidade.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eManaging Authority\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003en\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eArea (Km\u0026sup2;)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAverage Area (Km\u0026sup2;)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMunicipal Secretariat\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e163,22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11,65\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eICMBIO\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5165,38\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e430,44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eState Secretariat\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11221,50\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2805,37\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrivate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e106\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e190,48\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,79\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProtection group\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003en\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eArea (Km\u0026sup2;)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAverage Area (Km\u0026sup2;)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStrict protection\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2409,52\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e172,11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSustainable use\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e122\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14331,00\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e117,47\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA total of 63.2% (86) of the Protected Areas in southern Bahia have implemented management plans (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eB). Porto Seguro had the highest number of PAs with implemented plans, accounting for 70.37% (19), while the municipality of Prado had the lowest percentage, with 45.83% (11). In terms of Management Council implementation, only 14.7% (20) of the PAs have a council in operation (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eC). Porto Seguro also recorded the highest number of PAs with active councils, reflecting a stronger presence of participatory management.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eState and private managing authorities show the highest proportion of implemented management plans. In contrast, the highest rates of management council implementation are observed at the federal and municipal levels (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eA). The protection group also influences the implementation of management instruments, with strictly protected areas exhibiting the highest proportion of both management plans and management councils (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eB).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegarding PA categories, strictly protected areas generally show greater success in the implementation of both instruments (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eC). It is worth noting that RPPNs account for 64% of the PAs with management plans, yet none have active management councils. This reflects the guidelines of the National System of Conservation Units (SNUC, 2000), which exempts this category from establishing a council. This exemption explains their low representation in this indicator. Since RPPNs constitute the majority of PAs analyzed (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;106), they would disproportionately influence the statistical results concerning the presence of management councils, both in terms of administrative authority and protection group. For this reason, RPPNs were excluded from the statistical analyses evaluating council implementation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLogistic regression revealed marked disparities in the implementation of management plans among different administrative level and protection regimes. The model showed an acceptable fit, reducing the null deviance from 178.89 to 172.33, with an AIC of 182.33, indicating that the variables \u0026ldquo;administrative level\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;protection group\u0026rdquo; contribute to explaining the likelihood of management plan implementation. The results indicate that protected areas under federal government management had a lower likelihood of implementation compared to those managed by the state government (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0817; 95% CI: 0.0025\u0026ndash;0.8051; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.067), with marginal statistical significance. Municipal government PAs also showed a lower likelihood of implementation (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.1635; 95% CI: 0.0053\u0026ndash;2.4604; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.213), although without statistical significance. PAs under private management showed a similar likelihood to state government management (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.9669; 95% CI: 0.2429\u0026ndash;3.3402; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.958). Regarding the protection group, sustainable use areas had a lower probability of implementing management plans compared to strictly protected areas (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0915; 95% CI: 0.0032\u0026ndash;0.7783; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.064), showing a trend toward statistical significance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLogistic regression was also applied to assess the influence of administrative level and protection group on the implementation of management councils, excluding RPPNs. The model did not identify statistically significant associations, presenting a residual deviance of 34.49 (null deviance: 38.19) and an AIC of 42.49, with slight overdispersion. The results indicate that areas under federal government management (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.97; 95% CI: 0.55\u0026ndash;39.48; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.189) and municipal government management (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.67; 95% CI: 0.24\u0026ndash;63.34; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.449) had higher odds of having a management council compared to those under state government management, although these associations were not statistically significant. Regarding the protection group, although the model did not identify a statistically significant association with the presence of a management council (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.64; 95% CI: 0.09\u0026ndash;4.33; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.633), descriptive analysis revealed a substantial difference between the groups: while 78.6% of strictly protected areas had a management council in place, only 7.4% of sustainable use areas did. This discrepancy suggests a relevant trend that may not have been detected by the statistical model, possibly due to sample limitations such as group imbalance or the small number of observed events.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDiscrepancies were observed in both the number and spatial delimitation of PAs when comparing the Brazil Protected Areas Panel (PUC) and the Ministry of the Environment (MMA) databases. These inconsistencies are likely related to the distinct purposes and applications of each dataset. The MMA database provides geographic files, data, and materials focused on spatial information and geoprocessing of protected areas. In contrast, the PUC database is structured to identify, describe, and quantify PAs across the national territory and is managed by the Department of Protected Areas of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. However, considering that both databases are public and originate from the same Ministry, the inconsistencies between them highlight the lack of integration among sectors responsible for the effective management of protected areas. This disconnect also hinders the implementation of public policies that require accurate information regarding the number, distribution, conflicts, and challenges associated with PAs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccording to the MMA, the southern region of Bahia had 101 PAs, accounting for 38.2% of all protected areas in the state. However, the PUC database identified 35 additional PAs not listed in the MMA dataset, totaling 136 PAs in southern Bahia. Among these additional units, two categories stood out: 34 were RPPNs and 4 were APAs. As a result, sustainable use PAs in the region showed a 43.6% increase in their count, while strictly protected areas increased by 7.1%. These findings underscore the importance of understanding the configuration of PAs in Brazil, particularly within the Atlantic Forest and the southern region of Bahia, a territory of high regional relevance for biodiversity conservation despite ongoing environmental conflicts.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eSouthern Bahia stands out as a key region for biodiversity conservation, encompassing 85% of the PAs located within the Atlantic Forest domain in Bahia, with a predominance of sustainable use PAs that cover a larger geographical extent compared to those of strict protection. Although the percentage of PAs is significant when considering the state of Bahia and the Atlantic Forest in this region, the representativeness of strict protection PAs remains limited, with permissible use zones prevailing. In these areas, challenges such as deforestation, mining, monoculture expansion, illegal logging and the introduction of exotic species expose institutional and operational vulnerabilities (Pacheco et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e, de Lima et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Such pressures, compounded by unsustainable practices, heighten the risks of environmental conflicts, especially in regions under dual pressure: unregulated urban expansion and intensive economic activities (Ramos et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this context, the strict protection PAs objectives and restrictive characteristics associated with the use of resources within may represent obstacles, helping to justify why the implementation of sustainable use PAs is often considered more suitable, as they allow a certain level of use and exploitation of the natural resources (Rezende et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, political factors may influence the decision to establish more restrictive PAs in certain territories, which may, to some extent, reduce conflicts but do not guarantee that ecosystem maintenance will align with appropriate protection levels and ecosystem service provision. These factors, combined with demands for land regularization and the mere legal creation of PAs without practical implementation, undermine environmental governance in protected spaces (dos Santos \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e, Silva et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, Brazil has made little progress toward a robust discussion about the meaning of sustainable use, the rational limits of resource exploitation and how much an ecosystem can withstand under continuous extraction of its natural resources. Inevitably, rational use becomes confused with permissiveness in reducing protected areas, urban expansion and the increase in cultivable lands most of which require the irreversible replacement of natural ecosystems calling into question the effective enforcement of environmental protection policy, the functionality of sustainable use PAs and the rational nature of ecosystem use. To overcome these challenges, alliances and action plans should be established to determine the quality of management of sustainable use areas and the ecosystems carrying capacities, as the unequal distribution between strict protection and sustainable use areas may incorrectly assign critical biodiversity zones to sustainable use.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother notable point is the high concentration of PAs in coastal municipalities, a fact possibly associated with institutional efforts to mitigate habitat degradation and environmental pollution, particularly in marine ecosystems (Bi\u0026oacute;icos and SOS Mata Atl\u0026acirc;ntica 2019). This spatial distribution aligns with government strategies aimed at protecting ecologically sensitive areas in regions under intense anthropogenic pressure, such as the Atlantic Forest coastal zones, which host over 50% of Brazil\u0026rsquo;s population (SOS Mata Atl\u0026acirc;ntica \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In southern Bahia, the overlap between the density of PAs and regions of high touristic relevance reveals socioeconomic motivations linked to the exploitation of natural features for recreational purposes. This spatial pattern reflects strategic responses to the convergence of climatic and environmental resources\u0026mdash;such as solar exposure, temperature and water availability\u0026mdash;that amplify the region's attractiveness for nature-based tourism (Shang 2023). An example is the growth of regional tourism promotion in Porto Seguro, the municipality with the highest number of PAs in southern Bahia. With a resident population of approximately 168,000 inhabitants the municipalitie received about 2.5\u0026nbsp;million tourists, equating to around 14.88 tourists per inhabitant. This influx represents 1,488% of the local population, highlighting the intense seasonal pressure tourism places on services, territory and natural resources (IBGE \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e, Porto Seguro \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn contrast to coastal zones, inland regions of southern Bahia are characterized by a low density of PAs and environmental dynamics linked to the expansion of agriculture and livestock in areas with limited urbanization. The scarcity of PAs in these areas, combined with the predominance of rural landscapes, particularly agricultural fields, extensive cattle ranching and eucalyptus plantations, is intrinsically connected to native vegetation suppression and habitat fragmentation, widely recognized as drivers of biodiversity decline (Myers et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). This pressure is intensified by the economic dependence of inland municipalities on agricultural and livestock contributions to local, regional and national GDP (Blankespoor et al. 2023; Oliveira et al. 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe combination of ineffective conservation policies and unregulated expansion of production frontiers results in the rapid depletion of natural resources, including species yet to be described by Science, the conversion of primary areas into intensive-use zones and the perpetuation of unsustainable economic models. The Alto Cariri National Park, the only inland PA in southern Bahia, exemplifies this paradox. Established to protect critical springs of the Buranh\u0026eacute;m River and populations of the endangered northern muriqui (Brachyteles hypoxanthus), the PAs faces challenges such as unresolved land tenure conflicts, pressures from surrounding agricultural activities and the absence of ecological-economic zoning implementation. This institutional fragility, compounded by the lack of ecological corridors, limits its capacity to mitigate biodiversity loss on a regional scale, underscoring the urgency of territorial management models that reconcile production and conservation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe temporal analysis of the implementation of PA in southern Bahia reveals striking patterns associated with both anthropogenic pressures and the inefficiency of public policies. These inefficiencies range from the development of Urban Master Plans that are disconnected from local environmental characteristics to the limited enforcement of the Atlantic Forest Law, further exacerbated by the legalization of actions taken by environmental agencies through Complementary Law n. 140/2011.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe significant increase in PA establishment from the 1990s onward reflects institutional responses to escalating environmental impacts and landscape changes associated with the construction and operation of Federal Highway BR-101, which facilitated logging, cattle ranching and forestry expansion (Costa et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). However the pace of PA creation has slowed since the establishment of the National System of Protected Areas (SNUC), a trend aligned with the weakening of environmental policies, regulatory flexibilization and reduced management funding (Barbosa et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDegradation is exacerbated by predatory tourism, which affects not only PAs but also their buffer zones, exposing the fragility of conservation models for fauna, flora and a range of ecosystems due to the lack of territorial planning and economic activity regulation (Barrientos et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Large-scale tourism development has led to significant environmental impacts a paradox, considering tourism relies directly on environmental integrity (Christofoletti \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Even nature-based tourism, although increasingly popular, raises conservation concerns, as it may alter animal behavior and community structure similarly to domestication and urbanization, in addition to affecting species population dynamics (Geffroy et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). In Brazil the historical condition of social inequality must be considered in formulating integrated and sustainable tourism policies. Despite its biological megadiversity, interpreting tourism solely as an economic activity, dissociated from the guidelines and trends of other public policies, constitutes a planning mistake and limits multiple opportunities (Irving et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother significant challenge to the effectiveness of management instruments is the overlapping of jurisdictional boundaries of PAs, particularly those of sustainable use. This overlap occurs across a vast area spanning 15 municipalities in southern Bahia and creates a false impression of expanded ecosystem protection. Additionally, the coexistence of different management levels, protection categories and administrative groups generates conflicts and ambiguities regarding permitted activities, thereby reducing the effectiveness of conservation efforts. One of the most serious overlapping cases is found in Porto Seguro, where the Monte Pascoal National and Historical Park overlaps with two sustainable use \u0026aacute;rea, the Corumbau Extractive Reserve and the Cara\u0026iacute;va-Trancoso APA, as well as the Indigenous Land of Barra Velha.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe situation worsens with municipal management, which designated the district of Cara\u0026iacute;va as an urban area, promoting mass tourism that intensifies environmental impacts and governance challenges in the region. Given the ecological importance of southern Bahia, it is imperative to investigate how these jurisdictional overlaps might generate positive synergies for conservation or deepen governance gaps due to institutional disarticulation. Understanding the perceptions of local communities regarding these overlaps, especially in sustainable-use areas, can contribute to more efficient and participatory management, reducing conflicts and strengthening environmental governance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis also reveals that PAs although often located in close proximity, particularly in coastal zones, are not managed under an integrated framework. This reality is reflected in the low occurrence of mosaics, exposing failures in implementing environmental policies aimed at promoting collaborative articulation among PAs. The absence of mosaics may limit the potential for shared management and compromise conservation effectiveness, as integration among PAs facilitates the management of connected ecosystems and enhances cooperation between different administrative levels. Moreover, this gap may undermine strategies for ecological connectivity and reduce ecosystem resilience to anthropogenic pressures. Isolated management is therefore insufficient to address the complex challenges of multifaceted and environmentally sensitive territories. Promoting the formation of mosaics requires evaluating the geographic proximity of PAs, focusing on ecological connectivity, mitigation of environmental conflicts and more coordinated responses to climate change, actions that are especially necessary in the context of southern Bahia and Brazil.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegarding management instruments, it is evident that a significant portion of PAs still lacks effective implementation, particularly in relation to management plans and/or management councils. With respect to management plans, the results show that both the administrative level and the protection group influence the likelihood of plan implementation. Strict protection PAs or those managed by the state authority were more likely to possess this instrument compared to sustainable-use PAs, suggesting an institutional prioritization of more restrictive categories. Only 19.5% of Brazilian protected areas had management plans and 62% were fully available. The categories with the fewest plans were the Wildlife Refuge while RPPN showed growth in plan implementation like the findings of this study and reflecting a national scenario of precarious governance of protected areas.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEven though more than half of the management plans in southern Bahia have been implemented (63%), this does not guarantee that the goals and action plans are effectively carried out. For management to be functional, several initiatives are required, including adequate human resources, infrastructure and collaborative governance. The existence of a management document, in practice, does not reliably support AP governance unless accompanied by continuous operational resources. A major limitation of the National System of Protected Areas is that many PAs exist only on paper, with little or no practical recognition toward achieving their intended objectives, regardless of the protection category or managing authority. Although the federal government created the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio) in 2007 specifically to manage PAs in Brazil, little progress has been made in qualifying and enhancing the functionality of these areas, which reinforces a commitment that falls short for a country still considered to hold vast environmental reserves.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn terms of management councils, a large proportion of PAs lack this governance mechanism. This finding reflects the detachment of many PAs from fulfilling the legal requirements of SNUC to promote social participation, as councils are collegial bodies composed of representatives from various sectors who discuss and deliberate on PA management. Although councils are mandated by regulation, their effectiveness remains limited. Of the 136 cases analyzed only 30 PAs had established councils, indicating on one hand low social engagement in protected area management and on the other, an institutional gap that contributes to the vulnerability of natural resources, even in legally protected contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStatistical analysis indicated that privately managed PAs had a significantly lower probability of establishing management councils. RPPNs, which are exclusively private, are declared with defined preservation and consolidated use zones at the time of their creation, fostering the perception that there is no need for social participation in management processes. However, in practice, being protected areas, their surroundings and illegal practices can threaten the integrity of these spaces, highlighting the need for management councils even in privately owned PAs and the expansion of dialogue with surrounding communities to maintain territorial integrity. Other spheres - federal and municipal - showed higher likelihoods of establishing councils compared to state-level PAs, though not statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eModel did not identify statistically significant influence regarding protection groups. Percentage data show that 71.4% of strict protection PAs had councils, compared to only 16.4% of sustainable use PAs. This discrepancy suggests a bias in the implementation of participatory spaces, even if not statistically supported by the model. These results reinforce that the effectiveness of management councils is more closely associated with the management level than with the PA use category. The absence of these participatory mechanisms undermines transparency, dialogue with local stakeholders and shared territorial governance, particularly in sustainable use PAs or those overlapping with traditional community lands. Strengthening management councils is therefore a strategic priority to ensure the legitimacy and effectiveness of environmental governance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePathways to effective governance of protected areas\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe effectiveness of PAs is a necessary action for the conservation, preservation and maintenance of the Atlantic Forest territory which has been devastated over the centuries. Actions to ensure the functionality of the objectives outlined in SNUC, as well as the intents of each protection group and category, must be reviewed and prioritized within the management of protected areas in Brazil.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe percentages highlighted and the importance of southern Bahia\u0026rsquo;s PAs within the Brazilian, Bahian and Atlantic Forest contexts reinforce that numbers alone are not sufficient for PA governance. Government spheres must prioritize quality in structuring and implementing management instruments over mere quantity. In this regard, managing authorities and their deliberative bodies should define strategies for maintenance, repair and regularization of the protected area systems, in addition to promoting integrated environmental management. The following are proposed actions to meet these demands:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFederative entities must assess the condition of protected areas by group and category, aiming to audit the creation, maintenance and management activities capable of achieving the intended objectives;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFederative entities must evaluate the continued maintenance of large sustainable-use areas until the institutional concept of effectiveness in protecting sensitive ecosystems is well structured, considering human pressures, extreme events and resilience capacity, especially in the context of climate change;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEstablish institutional frameworks distinguishing conservation from preservation, recognizing that many PAs are intended for strict protection and indirect use, but fail to fully uphold these objectives, thereby weakening the intent of the group and its respective categories;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe unequal distribution between strict protection and sustainable-use areas can impair biodiversity conservation and preservation goals, as critical areas may be designated for sustainable use and inadequately protected from predatory activities;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eReview the established mosaics of protected areas by expanding PAs and incorporating other categories of protected territories (indigenous and quilombola lands), along with creating a coordinated governance system among stakeholders;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCreate new protected area mosaics beyond the far south of Bahia to ensure greater integration and coordinated management of protected areas;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccelerate the development and implementation of management plans and their zoning, detailing the necessary guidelines for AP protection, preservation and conservation;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStrengthen management councils to promote democratic and participatory governance, encouraging the involvement of local communities in management decisions and fostering social support for conservation and preservation initiatives;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePromote integrated management plans in overlapping protected areas, including when overlaps occur across different protection groups or indigenous and quilombola lands;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEstablish interinstitutional forums to discuss and align management and conservation strategies, including the possibility of integrated management plans, communication and cooperativo among different government levels, especially for overlapping areas, to reduce disparities;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eImplement a continuous monitoring and evaluation system for PAs that includes ecological, social, economic and institucional indicators (such as implementation of management instruments), serving as a tool to track changes in land use and cover, deforestation and anthropogenic pressures on PAs;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdopt continuous environmental education programs or implement those foreseen in management plans aimed at raising local community awareness about the importance of PAs and the long-term benefits of participatory management for conservation and preservation;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdopt projects that promote viable economic alternatives, such as ecotourism and rural tourism, affirming and valuing public use and formalization of these areas beyond predatory tourism;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEstablish environmental financial funds for PAs governance, enabling implementation of management plans, programs and projects, as well as monitoring and enforcement actions;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eReview and coordinate the implementation of management councils in privately managed PAs, enabling shared natural resource management beyond the private nature of the area, aligning with environmental legislation that promotes rural environmental registration and regulation of rural properties.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBased on the above, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e presents the priority PAs for the regularization of environmental governance, focusing on the implementation of management instruments, while recognizing the continued need for maintenance in lower-priority PAs. It is important to highlight that PAs with established management councils were considered to have lower complexity for regularization but still require continued maintenance of these participatory structures. RPPNs are not legally required to establish such mechanisms, this prioritization considers the need for their inclusion to stimulate debate on environmental resource protection. This is especially relevant given that in southern Bahia, these areas are often adjacent to or overlap with public PAs, thereby influencing and being influenced by natural resource management.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Figure above shows a spatial categorization reflecting the management and intervention priorities, highlighting PAs with high and very high priority. These PAs are in coastal zones, under state management and lack both a management plan and a management council. Without management instruments, these areas may be subject to significant anthropogenic pressures that prevent the achievement of group and category objectives. Such PAs underscore the need for government efforts to ensure protection and implement management strategies that uphold ecological integrity, legal mandates for management plan creation, social participation and interinstitutional coordination among responsible entities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt also highlights the need for articulation among management levels (municipal, state and federal), emphasizing the urgency of coordinated actions for monitoring and enforcement in governance-vulnerable areas. A joint effort to regularize and mitigate the territorial demands of protected areas may support the development of more effective and integrated environmental policies across different levels of government and responsible institutions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study analyzed the normative and legal status of PAs in southern Bahia, assessing their environmental management mechanisms and building a geographic database for integrated analysis. It also mapped command and control instruments aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of PA management. Located within the Atlantic Forest biome a priority due to its biodiversity and climatic role these PAs face challenges from socioeconomic pressures such as real estate expansion, agriculture and tourism which threaten their conservation. Effective conservation in these areas hinges on the systematic implementation of management plans and participatory councils to balancing protection and development.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe conservation of the Atlantic Forest in southern Bahia is crucial, particularly given the historical deforestation and the ecological importance of its forest remnants. The region contains 136 of Bahia\u0026rsquo;s 233 PAs, standing out nationally. Their management faces challenges such as uneven implementation of management instruments like plans and councils. Overcoming these shortcomings through universal implementation of management plans, creation of councils and stronger intergovernmental coordination could enhance governance and benefit both conservation and local communities. Inconsistencies among data sources hinder integrated analyses and require greater institutional alignment to improve governance, optimize decision-making and strengthen the environmental management system.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis research was supported by the Funda\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o de Amparo \u0026agrave; Pesquisa do Estado da Bahia (FAPESB), under grant agreement APP0046/2023.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eERNL was responsible for the conceptualization of the study, the development of the methodological approach, and the writing of the original draft of the manuscript. IEGP conducted the statistical data analysis and contributed to the critical review and editing of the text. JMBF and POM were responsible for data collection.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAgra Filho SS (2014) Planejamento e gest\u0026atilde;o ambiental no Brasil: os instrumentos da Pol\u0026iacute;tica Nacional de Meio Ambiente, 1st ed. Elsevier, Rio de Janeiro.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarbosa GL, Louren\u0026ccedil;o RW (2010) An\u0026aacute;lise da distribui\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o espa\u0026ccedil;o-temporal de dengue e da infesta\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o larv\u0026aacute;ria no munic\u0026iacute;pio de Tup\u0026atilde;, Estado de S\u0026atilde;o Paulo. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop 43.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarbosa LG, Alves MAS, Grelle CEV (2021) Actions against sustainability: Dismantling of the environmental policies in Brazil. Land use policy 104:105384.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarrientos R, Ascens\u0026atilde;o F, D\u0026rsquo;Amico M (2020) Inappropriate tourist behavior in protected areas can lead to wildlife road-kills. Anim Conserv 23.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBi\u0026oacute;icos, SOS Mata Atl\u0026acirc;ntica (2019) \u0026Aacute;reas Protegidas e Munic\u0026iacute;pios Costeiros da Mata Atl\u0026acirc;ntica: contribui\u0026ccedil;\u0026otilde;es para a gest\u0026atilde;o municipal e para a sociedade civil. Funda\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o SOS Mata Atl\u0026acirc;ntica, S\u0026atilde;o Paulo. Dispon\u0026iacute;vel em: Relat\u0026oacute;rio da SOS Mata Atl\u0026acirc;ntica. Acesso em: 9 jul. 2025.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlankespoor B, Ru Y, Wood-Sichra U, Thomas TS, You L, Kalvelagen E (2022) Estimating Local Agricultural GDP across the World. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 10109.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrasil (2000) Lei no 9.985, de 18 de julho de 2000. Institui o Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conserva\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o da Natureza. Di\u0026aacute;rio Oficial da Uni\u0026atilde;o - Se\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o 1\u0026ndash;19/7/2000.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChristofoletti R (2024) Tourism Phobia: Between Predation and Sustainability. p 171\u0026ndash;190\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCook RD, Weisberg S (1985) Residuals and influence in regression. Chapman and Hall, New York.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCosta DS, Nuvoloni FM, Lopes RNE (2024) Mata Atl\u0026acirc;ntica: a hist\u0026oacute;ria que a hist\u0026oacute;ria n\u0026atilde;o contou. Editus, Ilh\u0026eacute;us.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFawcett T (2006) An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognit Lett 27.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFox J, Weisberg S (2019) An R Companion to Applied Regression, Third edition. Sage, Thousand Oaks CA. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGeffroy B, Samia DSM, Bessa E, Blumstein DT (2015) How Nature-Based Tourism Might Increase Prey Vulnerability to Predators How Might Nature-Based Tourism Influence Wildlife Behavior? Trends Ecol Evol 30.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHosmer DW, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX (2013) Applied Logistic Regression: Third Edition.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIBGE (2025) Cidades e Estados: Porto Seguro. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/ba/porto-seguro/panorama\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/ba/porto-seguro/panorama\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Acesso em: 13 maio 2025 (accessed 4 April 2025)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIrving M de A, Lima MAG de, Nasri YXG (2022) Turismo e \u0026aacute;reas protegidas: tend\u0026ecirc;ncias globais e desafios para a integra\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o de pol\u0026iacute;ticas p\u0026uacute;blicas. Confins 54.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ede Lima RAF, Oliveira AA, Pitta GR, de Gasper AL, Vibrans AC, Chave J, ter Steege H, Prado PI (2020) The erosion of biodiversity and biomass in the Atlantic Forest biodiversity hotspot. Nat Commun 11.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMapBiomas (2022) Project MapBiomas - Collection 8.0 of Brazilian Land Cover \u0026amp; Use Map Series.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarques F, Rocha MB (2019) Impactos do uso p\u0026uacute;blico em unidades de conserva\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o: produ\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o cient\u0026iacute;fica no Rio de Janeiro. Research, Society and Development 8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMartins L, Marenzi RC, Lima A De (2015) Levantamento e representatividade das Unidades de Conserva\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o institu\u0026iacute;das no estado de Santa Catarina, Brasil. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente 33.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMinist\u0026eacute;rio do Meio Ambiente (2024) Painel Unidades de Conserva\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o Brasileira. https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMDNmZTA5Y2ItNmFkMy00Njk2LWI4YjYtZDJlNzFkOGM5NWQ4IiwidCI6IjJiMj Y2ZmE5LTNmOTMtNGJiMS05ODMwLTYzNDY3NTJmMDNlNCIsImMiOjF9 (accessed 6 July 2024)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMyers N, Mittermeler RA, Mittermeler CG, Da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOliveira JR, Santos MT, Liu W (2023) The Economic Impact of Livestock Production \u0026amp; Trade: A Global Perspective. Strategies in Agricultural and Food Economics, Crimson Publishers 5(2).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePacheco AA, Neves ACO, Fernandes GW (2018) Uneven conservation efforts compromise Brazil to meet the Target 11 of Convention on Biological Diversity. Perspect Ecol Conserv 16.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePorto Seguro (2025) Crescimento: turismo em Porto Seguro cresce 17% em janeiro de 2025. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://portoseguro.ba.gov.br/noticia/crescimento-turismo-em-porto-seguro-cresce-17-em-janeiro-de-2025-superando-2024\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://portoseguro.ba.gov.br/noticia/crescimento-turismo-em-porto-seguro-cresce-17-em-janeiro-de-2025-superando-2024\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 13 May 2025)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQgis Develpment Team (2024) QGIS Geographic Information System.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eR Development Core Team (2023) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna Austria 0.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRamos E de A, Nuvoloni FM, Lopes ER do N (2022) Landscape Transformations and loss of Atlantic Forests: challenges for conservation. J Nat Conserv 66.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRezende CL, Scarano FR, Assad ED, Joly CA, Metzger JP, Strassburg BBN, Tabarelli M, Fonseca GA, Mittermeier RA (2018) From hotspot to hopespot: An opportunity for the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Perspect Ecol Conserv 16:208\u0026ndash;214.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ede Santana RO, Delgado RC, Schiavetti A (2020) The past, present and future of vegetation in the Central Atlantic Forest Corridor, Brazil. Remote Sens Appl 20:100357.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003edos Santos LB (2009) Trilhas da pol\u0026iacute;tica ambiental: Conflitos, agendas e cria\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o de unidades de conserva\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o. Ambiente e Sociedade 12.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSEI (2016) Territ\u0026oacute;rios de Identidade Bahia. SUPERINTEND\u0026Ecirc;NCIA DE ESTUDOS ECON\u0026Ocirc;MICOS E SOCIAIS DA BAHIA 2.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShang Y, Bi C, Wei X et al. (2023) Eco-tourism, climate change, and environmental policies: empirical evidence from developing economies. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10:275.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSilva THC, Rocha RF, Jord\u0026atilde;o LR, T\u0026aacute;rrega MCVB (2024) Para al\u0026eacute;m do papel: estudo das unidades de conserva\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o brasileiras. Intera\u0026ccedil;\u0026otilde;es (Campo Grande):e2523911.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSOS Mata Atl\u0026acirc;ntica (2021) Atlas dos remanescentes florestais da Mata Atl\u0026acirc;ntica no per\u0026iacute;odo 2019\u0026ndash;2020. S\u0026atilde;o Paulo: Funda\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o SOS Mata Atl\u0026acirc;ntica. 55.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWarren D (2004) A ferro e fogo: a hist\u0026oacute;ria e a devasta\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o da Mata Atl\u0026acirc;ntica brasileira. ed S\u0026atilde;o Paulo: Cia das Letras 113.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Governance, Anthropogenic Pressures, Territorial Planning, Environmental Policies","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7121617/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7121617/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study analyzes the normative and legal status of Protected Areas (PAs) in the Atlantic Rainforest of southern Bahia, northeastern Brazil, focusing on their operational mechanisms and environmental management. A geographic database of 136 PAs was built, integrating information on category, protection group (Sustainable Use or Full Protection), management sphere (Federal, State, Municipal, or Private), and the implementation status of management plans and councils. The findings reveal a predominance of Sustainable Use Areas, especially in coastal zones, and a strong presence of privately managed PAs. A significant degree of territorial overlap was observed, indicating institutional conflicts and weak coordination across management spheres. Only one officially established mosaic was identified, highlighting the absence of integrated conservation strategies. Logistic regression showed that Full Protection areas and those under State management are more likely to have management plans. Although the statistical influence of management sphere and protection group on the implementation of management councils was not significant, descriptive analysis revealed disparities: 71.4% of Full Protection areas have a council, compared to only 16.4% of Sustainable Use areas. These results underscore institutional inequalities in the implementation of management instruments, which directly affect conservation outcomes. The absence of management plans and councils hinders effective planning, monitoring, and public participation. Strengthening inter-institutional coordination, expanding participatory mechanisms, and promoting territorial integration through mosaics are essential to enhance PA effectiveness and safeguard biodiversity. The findings provide valuable insights for environmental managers and policymakers, supporting improved governance of protected areas and more effective management of ecologically vulnerable territories.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Governance and territorial conservation in protected areas of the Atlantic Rainforest","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-23 17:03:28","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7121617/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"d90a22bd-509a-412f-b6b3-21b3351df82a","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 23rd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-10-31T00:08:25+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-23 17:03:28","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7121617","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7121617","identity":"rs-7121617","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}