A framework for identifying paper parks

This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.

The term ‘paper park’ is widely used to label protected areas that only exist ‘on paper’. Identifying and rectifying paper parks could be critical for producing ‘ effectively conserved and managed […] systems of protected areas ’, a core component of Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework Target 3. However, the term is not well defined and often applied to cases more accurately described as protected areas with low management effectiveness. This inconsistency is problematic because sites where management interventions are entirely absent (true paper parks) fundamentally differ from those where management is insufficient or poorly executed (ineffective management). These fundamental differences include how paper parks are conceptualised and monitored, and the interventions required to tackle them. To address this, here we propose a new paper park definition as “ a site that has been legally or otherwise designated as a protected area, but where management interventions have been absent for at least 5 years ”. We present a decision tree to identify paper parks and discuss how they differ from other types of conservation area. We suggest addressing the problem by measuring the extent of paper parks, investigating the causes of absent management, and prioritising investment to implement effective interventions. Without such work, there is a risk that Target 3 will perversely incentivise the creation of more paper parks.