The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifies protected areas into six categories, ranging from strict nature reserves to areas where multiple human uses are permitted. In the past, many researchers have questioned the effectiveness of multiple-use areas, fueling an unresolved debate regarding their conservation value. The literature so far has been inconclusive: although several studies have found that strictly protected areas are more effective, others have found the opposite, and yet others that the two types do not differ. To help resolve this debate, we reviewed the literature on protected areas and conducted our own analysis using > 19 000 terrestrial protected areas worldwide. We found that the differences between strictly protected areas and areas in which multiple human uses are permitted are often small and not statistically significant. Although the effectiveness of protected areas worldwide varies, other factors, besides their assigned IUCN category, are likely to be driving this pattern.

国际自然保护联盟 (IUCN) 将保护区分为六类，从严格的自然保护区到允许多种人类使用的区域。过去，许多研究人员质疑多用途区域的有效性，引发了关于其保护价值的未决辩论。迄今为止的文献尚无定论：尽管有几项研究发现严格保护区更有效，但其他人发现相反，还有一些研究认为这两种类型没有区别。为了帮助解决这一争论，我们回顾了有关保护区的文献，并使用全球超过 19 000 个陆地保护区进行了我们自己的分析。我们发现，严格保护区与允许多人使用的区域之间的差异通常很小，并且在统计上不显着。尽管世界范围内保护区的有效性各不相同，但除了指定的 IUCN 类别之外，其他因素可能会推动这种模式。