Final answer:
Handling goal conflict in achieving protected areas involves careful planning, stakeholder engagement, and using methods like propensity score matching to accurately evaluate PA effectiveness. The case study by Andam et al. shows the significance of considering location factors to avoid overestimating PAs' impact on deforestation reduction.
Step-by-step explanation:
Handling goal conflict can be instrumental in achieving protected areas (PAs) by considering the various values and interests of stakeholders involved in conservation efforts. In the case study of Costa Rica, Andam et al. (2008) demonstrated that PAs were effective in reducing deforestation by about 10% from 1960-1997 compared to similar areas without protection. It's essential to consider that PAs are often located in areas less suited for agriculture, which inherently have a lower deforestation risk. This means that straightforward comparisons with adjacent unprotected areas might not be accurate.
To effectively handle goal conflict and improve PA outcomes, a comprehensive planning approach is necessary. This includes propensity score matching to accurately assess the impact of PAs by comparing them to unprotected areas with similar characteristics. Moreover, exploring competing values among stakeholders can lead to mutual understanding and agreement on decisions that best support conservation goals, acknowledging that making PAs achievable and appropriate requires careful planning and possibly addressing conflicts between conservation efforts and land use opportunities.