NEURUS Scholarship Research Report

Balázs Megyeri

PhD Student

Sending Institution:

Corvinus University of Budapest, Doctoral School of International Relations and Political Science, Geopolitics and Sustainable Development Doctoral Programme

Host Institution: Arizona State University, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning

Title: The New Face of Nature Conservation: Stakeholder Perspectives on the Evolving Role of Protected Areas in the Valley of the Sun

Subtitle: –

Type of research: NEURUS Scholarship Research Report

Author: Balázs Megyeri – balazs.megyeri@stud.uni-corvinus.hu

Study: Corvinus University of Budapest, Doctoral School of International Relations and Political Science, Geopolitics and Sustainable Development Doctoral Programme

NEURUS Coordinator in host institution: Sara Meerow

Version: Final version

Place: Eger

Date: 03.06.2025.

This research analyzes stakeholder perceptions of nature protection and sustainable use across diverse protected area management organizations in Arizona’s Valley of the Sun, aiming to identify shared and differing perspectives to enhance conservation in this complex, multi-jurisdictional, and rapidly urbanizing region. Employing a multiple-case study design with semi-structured interviews and document analysis, the study found general stakeholder convergence on core definitions of „nature protection” (safeguarding biodiversity) and „sustainable use” (enabling recreation without long-term harm), though practical applications varied by agency mandates and resources. Universally recognized external threats include invasive species, climate change, and urban expansion, while chronic underfunding and staffing shortages represent critical internal hurdles, leading to deferred maintenance and equity concerns regarding visitor access. While inter-agency collaboration shows successes in joint problem-solving, it faces challenges from resource limitations, staff turnover, and differing mandates. The research underscores the urgent need for increased, stable funding and robust collaborative governance models to address these significant conservation challenges.

Keywords: Protected Areas, Stakeholder Perceptions, Nature Conservation, Sustainable Use, Collaborative Governance

JEL codes: Q26, Q57, Q58, L31, H70

Protected areas have profoundly changed their coverage and conceptual framework in the past decades. Conceived initially as custodians of the natural state of an exceptional area and its ecosystem, providing habitat for endangered species, their modern interpretation now includes expectations, such as playing an active role in the betterment of local livelihoods, bolster tourism revenues and serve as mitigation tools for the negative effects of climate change (Wood et al, 2014; Sanderson et al, 2002; Stolton & Dudley, 2010).

The Valley of the Sun in Arizona has a rich palette of natural resources. Rising above all is perhaps the Sonoran Desert, one of the most extensive and thermally extreme regions on the continent. The desert covers around 260.000 square kilometers and is known for its unique ecosystem and enigmatic species, such as Saguaros or the Gila Monster (Bondini, 2024; Sayre, 2011; Franklin et al, 2016).

However, the conservation of natural resources and their effectiveness face several challenges. Perhaps the biggest challenge is Arizona’s rapid urban expansion, resulting in habitat fragmentation and, eventually, habitat loss (Bondini, 2024; Haddad, 2015). Second, climate change is undoubtedly one of the greatest threats humanity currently faces and will face in the future. The scientific community has largely reached a consensus that the planet is warming, and human activity accelerates this trend. Furthermore, this trend is already showing significant impacts in some areas and processes of the world, and without immediate action, global warming will have more severe consequences not just for humankind, but for all systems of the planet.

In the Valley of the Sun, these negative effects manifest in higher temperatures, prolonged droughts, and altered precipitation patterns, which adversely impact local ecosystems. Another significant challenge is the proliferation of invasive species, which threaten native plants and animals by outcompeting them for resources, disrupting ecological processes, and changing habitats. This results in ecological imbalances, reduced biodiversity, increased vulnerability of ecosystems, and heightened fire danger. Managing these invasive species is essential for protecting Arizona’s unique ecosystems. To address these challenges and enhance conservation, targeted strategies and collaborative governance are crucial. This involves engaging governmental agencies, local communities, non-profits, and private businesses in decision-making. (Bondini, 2024, Mockrin et. al., 2022).

However, while collaborative governance involving a range of actors is essential, a foundational element for its success among the primary land-managing entities remains underexplored. Specifically, there is a lack of clarity regarding the challenges—both external and internal—as well as future trends perceived in various protected area management organizations, from federal to local levels and NGOs. Further clarification on potential differences in perceptions of nature protection and sustainable use among these stakeholders, along with mapping their collaboration efforts, is necessary. Addressing this knowledge gap is therefore critical for enhancing conservation outcomes in such a complex, multi-jurisdictional setting.

The significance of this research lies in its aim to enhance the effectiveness of nature protection and sustainable use in areas managed by multiple organizations. By analyzing and mapping how different stakeholders perceive these issues in the Valley of the Sun, the study seeks to identify crucial shared perspectives and points of divergence. This understanding will be helpful in improving inter-agency collaboration, informing more targeted policies, and ultimately aiming for more unified and successful conservation outcomes in complex governance landscapes.

The main aim of the research is to analyze and map stakeholder perceptions in relation to nature protection and sustainable use within adjacent protected areas with different management organizations (federal, state, county, municipal, and NGOs). The study focuses on identifying shared perspectives, differentiating viewpoints among various stakeholder groups, and exploring areas of consensus and disagreement. To achieve this objective, the following main research question was adopted:

To help answer the main research question, a set of supporting, secondary research questions was also developed:

SQ1: What are the shared and differing perceptions among protected area managers regarding the most pressing external threats and internal management hurdles to nature protection?

SQ2: How do the definitions and primary goals of „nature protection” and „sustainable use” vary across protected areas managed by different governmental levels (city, county, state, federal)?

SQ3: What are the perceived successes and challenges of inter-agency collaboration efforts related to nature protection and sustainable use among the various protected area management bodies?

The research report uses the following structure. First, the conceptual and geographical setting was introduced along with the research problem, aim, and questions. In the following chapter, the main theoretical components, understanding protected areas, defining their stakeholders, their governance models, and inter-agency collaboration benefits will be discussed, along with the core concepts of nature protection and sustainable use. In the methodologies section, the choice of using a multi-case study, the selected research area, applied data collection and analysis methods will be introduced, along with ethical considerations and possible limitations. Next, the 6+1 case study areas are introduced.  In the Findings chapter, themes and perceptions will be presented to each research question, while in the Discussion chapter, areas of consensus and disagreement will be highlighted. Concluding with a summary of the findings, limitations, and future research directions.

Protected areas (PAs) serve as a fundamental strategy for conserving biodiversity amidst increasing anthropogenic pressures (Gaston et al., 2008; Watson et al., 2014). Their conceptualization and the expectations placed upon them have evolved significantly over time.

Initially, PAs were primarily established to safeguard iconic landscapes, spectacular natural features, and particular wildlife species, often in areas with limited perceived economic utility (Watson et al., 2014). The original mandate often included the capture and preservation of a representative sample of biodiversity, with an emphasis on rare and threatened species or habitats (Gaston et al., 2008). The U.S. National Park Service, for instance, was created with the purpose „to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein… by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations” (Walls, 2022, p. 580).

Over the decades, the role of PAs has broadened considerably. Beyond their foundational conservation objectives, they are now expected to fulfill a diverse array of ecological, social, and economic functions. These expanded roles include contributing to the livelihoods of local communities, generating revenue through tourism, replenishing fisheries, and playing a crucial part in climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. Furthermore, PAs are vital for providing essential ecosystem services such as clean water and food security (Watson et al., 2014). A key function remains the buffering of biodiversity from external threats like habitat destruction and exploitation (Gaston et al., 2008).

Recognizing that isolated PAs may be insufficient for long-term conservation, particularly for wide-ranging species or in the face of climate change, the concept of interconnected networks of PAs has gained prominence (Gaston et al., 2008). Such networks aim to facilitate the movement of organisms between protected sites, which is crucial for maintaining viable populations, enabling metapopulation dynamics, accommodating migratory species, supporting successional ecological processes, and allowing species distributions to shift in response to environmental changes (Gaston et al., 2008; Watson et al., 2014).

To enhance connectivity and mitigate adverse external influences, buffer zones and corridors are increasingly recognized as important components of PA planning. Buffer zones are designed to reduce the impact of activities in surrounding landscapes by creating a transitional area around PAs (Gaston et al., 2008). Corridors, or stepping-stone PAs, aim to provide physical linkages between PAs, thereby improving the functional connectivity of the overall network (Gaston et al., 2008; Watson et al., 2014).

Despite their importance, PAs face numerous challenges that can undermine their effectiveness. Chronic underfunding is a primary impediment, leading to inadequate management, insufficient staffing, and a backlog of deferred maintenance (Walls, 2022; Watson et al., 2014). Many PAs suffer from poor management effectiveness and governance issues (Gaston et al., 2008; Watson et al., 2014). External pressures such as habitat loss and degradation in surrounding areas, overexploitation, invasive species, and increasing isolation pose significant threats (Gaston et al., 2008). Climate change exacerbates these challenges through increased frequency of wildfires, sea-level rise affecting coastal PAs, the spread of invasive species, and drought. Furthermore, issues like overcrowding in popular areas and the phenomenon of „extinction debt,” where species are committed to eventual extinction due to past habitat loss despite current protection, further complicate conservation efforts (Gaston et al., 2008). Some governments have also shown declining commitment through funding cuts or policy changes that weaken PA protection, such as protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) (Watson et al., 2014).

Stakeholder theory, originating in business management, provides a valuable framework for understanding and managing the complex human dimensions of Protected Areas (PAs). Effective engagement with stakeholders is increasingly recognized as critical for the success of PAs, particularly for Small Protected Areas (SPAs) situated in exurban landscapes where human interactions are frequent and impactful (Gilson, 2006, p. 13).

A widely accepted definition describes stakeholders as any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of an organization’s objectives (Freeman, 1984; Gilson, 2006). In the context of PAs, the „organization” is the protected area itself. Reed et al. (2017) similarly define stakeholders as those affected by or able to affect a decision. The scope of stakeholder definition, whether broad or narrow, is a subject of debate. For SPAs, a broad definition is often considered more appropriate due to their public nature and the multitude of parties that can influence or be influenced by them (Gilson, 2006). Typical stakeholders for PAs include adjacent landowners, local community residents, park users, planners, government agencies at various levels, non-profit organizations, Indigenous communities, staff, volunteers, and private companies (Gilson, 2006, p. 100).

Stakeholders are hugely important to the ecological viability and long-term success of PAs. The philosophy of Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) inherently recognizes the human dimension, thus making stakeholder engagement an indispensable component of PA management. Engaging with stakeholders can lead to numerous benefits, including the reduction of conflict, the building of trust, and the facilitation of learning among diverse groups. Such engagement enhances the likelihood of stakeholder support for PA objectives and the successful long-term implementation of management decisions. For SPAs, which often operate with limited resources, involved stakeholders can become crucial champions, advocating for the area and contributing to its conservation. Even where formal policies on stakeholder engagement are lacking, PA staff often acknowledge the necessity and value of involving these groups (Gilson, 2006).

The diverse interests and priorities of various stakeholders frequently lead to conflicts in the context of PA. Failure to engage stakeholders meaningfully, or resorting to superficial, „tokenistic” approaches, can exacerbate existing tensions, foster alienation, and erode trust (Reed et al., 2017). Conflicts commonly arise between different user groups, such as those with recreational versus conservation interests, or between motorized and non-motorized recreation users. Interactions with adjacent landowners can also be a source of conflict, stemming from issues such as trespassing, waste dumping, or impacts of land use changes on PA boundaries. Furthermore, domination of engagement processes by particular stakeholder groups, be it local landowners, influential special interest groups, or even PA staff themselves, can marginalize other voices and lead to inequitable outcomes. Differing values and perceptions regarding the primary purpose of the PA can also fuel disagreements, especially when stakeholder objectives clash directly with the PA’s conservation mandate. The Dialogic Stakeholder Theory (DST) highlights that suppressed conflict can hinder genuine dialogue and problem-solving (Gilson, 2006).

The outcomes of stakeholder engagement are significantly shaped by the interplay of power dynamics, the values held by participants, and their epistemologies—how they construct knowledge and what knowledge they deem valid. Therefore, a thorough understanding of stakeholder perceptions is crucial for effective PA management and successful engagement. The specific local context, including cultural norms, past experiences with engagement processes, and available resources, heavily influences how stakeholders perceive and participate in decision-making (Reed et al., 2017). For instance, SPA staff have reported difficulties in relating to stakeholders with vastly different socio-economic backgrounds or values, underscoring the need to acknowledge and bridge these perceptual gaps (Gilson, 2006).

Misinformation, or a lack of access to complete and unbiased information, can also shape negative perceptions and lead to conflict; stakeholders may possess limited ecological knowledge or receive distorted information from external sources. Recognizing that stakeholders may not always share the same holistic understanding of PA issues as management staff is a critical step towards fostering more productive dialogue (Gilson, 2006).

The concepts of „nature protection” and „sustainable use” are central to the management and governance of protected areas (PAs). While often used in conjunction, their definitions, interpretations, and practical applications can reveal both inherent tensions and potential synergies.

„Nature protection” fundamentally refers to measures taken to preserve elements of the natural world. This often involves the safeguarding of scenic landscapes, biodiversity, and natural resources within designated areas that are valued for their natural and cultural significance and have not been substantially altered by human activities. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) defines a protected area as a space managed to „achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” (Dudley, 2008, Blanco-Cerradelo et al., 2022). Historically, a primary goal of strictly protected areas (SPAs) has been the focused protection of biodiversity (Crouzeilles et al., 2013).

However, the term „nature” itself is exceptionally complex and contested (Sagoff, 2013; Walker, 2006). It can refer to the „life support” functions that provide essential environmental goods and services, or it can evoke deeper „existential” security related to human identity and our relationship with the non-human world. Some argue that nature protection should extend to wild places that people cherish for their aesthetic, historical, or spiritual values, often grounded in personal acquaintance and experience rather than purely scientific abstractions (Sagoff, 2013 ). The etymological roots of „protection” include the Latin tegere, meaning to cover, hide, or shelter, implying a safeguarding against danger, often with a sense of preserving something sacred (Bigo, 2006).

Ambiguity arises in defining what constitutes „harm” to ecosystems or which specific ecological attributes or „endpoints” should be prioritized for protection (Kimbrough, 1990; Sagoff, 2013 ). The idea of protecting nature as „undisturbed by significant human activity” is also problematic, given that virtually no ecosystem on Earth is entirely free from human influence (Sagoff, 2013) .

„Sustainable use” in the context of PAs refers to the utilization of natural resources in a way that meets current human needs while ensuring the long-term maintenance of biodiversity and ecological processes for future generations. This concept is embodied in Sustainable Use Protected Areas (SUAs), which aim to reconcile conservation objectives with economic and social activities. For instance, sustainable tourism is defined as „leading to management of all resources in such a way that economic, social, and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity, and life support systems” (World Tourism Organization, 1997; Jamal & Stronza, 2009; Blanco-Cerradelo et al., 2022). This management approach necessitates a balance between economic, societal, and environmental considerations to achieve broader sustainable development goals (Blanco-Cerradelo et al., 2022).

The primary ambiguity in „sustainable use” lies in determining the threshold at which use becomes unsustainable, potentially compromising the ecological integrity or cultural values that PAs are meant to protect. This often leads to a „use-conservation gap,” where the intensity or type of use (e.g., tourism) may conflict with conservation imperatives (Jamal & Stronza, 2009). Defining and measuring sustainability itself is complex and requires ongoing adaptation and learning (Plummer & Fennell, 2009).

The relationship between nature protection and sustainable use is characterized by both inherent tensions and potential synergies. Tensions can arise because the fundamental objectives may differ; SPAs prioritize strict biodiversity protection, while SUAs seek to integrate conservation with human activities, including economic development. This can lead to conflicts over land management priorities and resource allocation (Crouzeilles et al., 2013).

Tourism, a prevalent form of sustainable use in PAs, can create significant pressure on natural and cultural resources if not managed effectively, thereby undermining protection goals. A disconnect between tourism marketing and conservation planning, often referred to as the „marketing-planning gap”, can worsen these impacts (Blanco-Cerradelo et al., 2022; Jamal & Stronza, 2009).

Furthermore, the livelihood needs of local communities residing in or around PAs can clash with strict protectionist policies, leading to conflicts over access to resources and benefit sharing. The very meaning of „protection” can also be contested, as it may be interpreted as territorial defense, surveillance of populations, or even a form of tutelage that limits the agency of those being protected (Jamal & Stronza, 2009; Plummer & Fennell, 2009).

Despite these tensions, potential synergies exist. Well-managed sustainable use, such as ecotourism, can generate economic benefits and incentivize local communities to support conservation efforts, thereby reinforcing protection goals Jamal & Stronza, 2009; Blanco-Cerradelo et al., 2022). SUAs can play a vital role in maintaining landscape-level ecological connectivity by acting as buffers or corridors between more strictly protected areas. Some categories of SUAs, particularly those with more restrictive management like Private Natural Heritage Reserves (RPPNs) in Brazil, can function similarly to SPAs in terms of conservation outcomes (Crouzeilles et al., 2013). Collaborative and adaptive management approaches, such as adaptive co-management, offer frameworks for integrating the principles of protection and sustainable use by fostering learning, power-sharing, and joint decision-making among diverse stakeholders (Plummer & Fennell, 2009). Effective stakeholder engagement and collaboration are essential for bridging the use-conservation gap and navigating the complexities of managing PAs for both protection and sustainable development (Jamal & Stronza, 2009; Reed et al., 2017).

In conclusion, while „nature protection” emphasizes preservation and minimizing human impact, and „sustainable use” focuses on utilizing resources without compromising future availability, these concepts are not mutually exclusive. Their successful integration requires careful planning, robust governance structures, stakeholder participation, and an adaptive management approach that can navigate the inherent complexities and trade-offs.

The governance of protected areas (PAs) encompasses the processes by which societies or organizations make significant decisions regarding these areas, determine who is involved in these processes, and establish how accountability is maintained (Eagles, 2009). This extends beyond the state to include corporations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and individuals, operating across political, economic, and administrative spheres (Eagles, 2009). Understanding the various governance models and their inherent challenges, particularly in multi-level contexts, is crucial for effective and sustainable PA management.

Several distinct governance models are employed in PA management. Traditionally, government-led or top-down management has been prevalent, often guided by a rational-comprehensive model that emphasizes identifying goals and selecting technically preferred alternatives in a hierarchical fashion (Plummer & Fennell, 2009). This can involve direct management by government agencies at national, provincial/state, or municipal levels, or through parastatals, which are government-owned corporations that may operate with more financial flexibility (Eagles, 2009).

In response to the limitations of purely top-down approaches, collaborative governance models, including co-management, have emerged. Co-management involves the sharing of power and responsibility between government agencies and other stakeholders, such as local resource users or communities (Plummer & Fennell, 2009). These multi-stakeholder arrangements aim for joint decision-making to address complex problems within the PA domain (Jamal & Stronza, 2009). Adaptive co-management further refines this by integrating cooperative approaches with adaptive management principles, emphasizing learning, flexibility, and the coupling of social and ecological systems (Plummer & Fennell, 2009). Such processes involve diverse actors engaging in communication, negotiation, and collective learning to achieve shared goals (Reed et al., 2017).

Community-based governance represents another significant model, where local or Indigenous communities hold ownership and/or management authority over PAs (Eagles, 2009). This approach is particularly relevant in areas where local populations have longstanding traditional ties to the land and its resources. Community-managed tourism enterprises within PAs, such as the Chalalán Ecolodge in Bolivia, exemplify this model, often involving partnerships with external entities like NGOs or development banks for initial capacity building and funding (Jamal & Stronza, 2009). Finally, private management of PAs by individuals, non-profit organizations (e.g., land trusts), or for-profit corporations also occurs, each with distinct operational characteristics and governance implications (Eagles, 2009).

Inter-agency collaboration in environmental management refers to the processes whereby distinct organizations, often from different levels of government (e.g., federal, state, county, municipal) and including non-governmental organizations (NGOs), work together towards common or overlapping environmental objectives. This collaborative approach has gained prominence as the complexity of environmental problems, such as biodiversity loss and climate change, increasingly transcends the capacity and jurisdiction of any single entity (Plummer & Fennell, 2009; Maxwell et al., 2020).

The theoretical basis for inter-agency collaboration draws from concepts in collaborative governance, partnership theory, and stakeholder engagement. Collaboration theory emphasizes joint decision-making among interdependent stakeholders to address complex problems (Jamal & Stronza, 2009). Effective participation, as outlined by Reed et al. (2017), suggests that well-designed engagement processes that foster mutual learning and trust are crucial. Adaptive co-management, which merges collaborative approaches with adaptive learning, is particularly relevant in the dynamic context of environmental management, enabling shared power and responsibility among diverse actors (Plummer & Fennell, 2009).

The benefits of successful inter-agency collaboration are manifold. It can lead to more effective and holistic environmental outcomes by pooling resources, expertise, and information (Eagles, 2009; Maxwell et al., 2020). Collaboration can enhance the legitimacy and social acceptability of environmental decisions by incorporating diverse perspectives and fostering shared ownership of solutions (Reed et al., 2017). Furthermore, it can improve efficiency by reducing duplication of effort and facilitating the integration of conservation objectives into broader land, water, and sea management policies (Kimbrough, 1990; Maxwell et al., 2020). For instance, connecting protected areas within larger, cooperatively managed landscapes can improve ecological connectivity and resilience (Gaston et al., 2008).

Several factors are critical for fostering successful inter-agency collaboration. A shared vision and clearly defined, mutually agreed-upon goals provide a necessary foundation (Jamal & Stronza, 2009). Building and maintaining trust among partners through transparent communication and consistent action is paramount (Reed et al., 2017). Effective leadership and facilitation can help navigate power dynamics and manage conflicts constructively (Gilson, 2006). Adequate and sustained resourcing, including dedicated funding and staff time for collaborative activities, is essential (Eagles, 2009; Maxwell et al., 2020). Establishing clear roles, responsibilities, and accountability mechanisms helps to ensure that commitments are met (Plummer & Fennell, 2009). Furthermore, fostering a culture of learning and adaptation allows collaborative efforts to evolve and improve over time in response to new information and changing circumstances (Plummer & Fennell, 2009). Ultimately, the long-term success of inter-agency collaboration hinges on the commitment of all involved parties to work beyond their institutional silos towards shared environmental stewardship.

This research project employed a multiple-case study design, a methodology particularly well-suited to address the intricate „how” and „why” questions central to understanding stakeholder perceptions of nature protection and sustainable use across diverse protected area management structures. As Yin (2003) highlights, case studies are empirical inquiries that investigate a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between the phenomenon and context are not clearly evident. This approach was ideal for exploring the nuanced and interconnected perspectives of various stakeholders within the complex socio-ecological landscape of the protected areas in the Valley of the Sun.

The aim of this research necessitates an in-depth understanding of complex, real words phenomena. Contrary to survey, excelling in prevalence in quantity, or experiments, which requires the researcher to control the events to research different outcomes, case studies are an excellent choice to learn about a phenomenon within its real life context (Yin, 2003). 

For the design of the research a multiple-case study design was chosen, over a single-case study to examine adjacent protected areas with different management organisations, to look for literal replication, where similar outcomes are predicted across cases. Using this approach strengthens the validity of similar findings and reveals unique situations about nature protection and sustainable use challenges across different governmental levels and non-governmental actors.

The specific cases were chosen by first scanning through maps of the Valley of the Sun, trying to find suitable, adjacent protected areas. After the initial search findings were discussed with the NEURUS mentor at ASU, with her local knowledge, three protected areas were also added.

Initially, only protected areas were considered, leaving out land trusts, but after further considerations, they were added in. This way, management organisations from three perspectives were fully included. First, protected areas from municipal, county, state, and federal levels were chosen, representing all levels of governmental organisations. The second interviewees were chosen from private citizens, land trust management, which many view as a connection between private landowners, governmental organisations, and governmental employees. Last, protected areas include island-like protected areas within the urban fabric, protected areas bordering suburban areas, between urban areas and the Tonto National Forest, and also a Wilderness Area within the Tonto National Forest. Theoretically, it represents a gradual shift from urban to wilderness.  Therefore, the chosen case studies are the following:

Table 1. Chosen case studies

The research area chosen for this research are the protected areas found in the Valley of the Sun, otherwise referred to as Phoenix Valley in Arizona, United States of America. The protected areas of the Valley offer interesting opportunities for research from several perspectives.

The Sonoran Desert, found in the Valley, offers unique ecosystems. In addition, the biogeography of the local ecosystem, together with the desert crust, offers unique challenges for nature conservation efforts and trade-offs in different human uses. While traditionally the plant associations of the Sonoran Desert are spread out, with plenty of arid areas between them, providing as natural firebreaks in case fire is caused by, for example, lightning, the ever-spreading invasive grassweeds like stink net or buffalo grass fill these breaks in, creating bridges, where fires can spread widely. Therefore, the effective management of invasive species, which arrived with humans to the area, and are now spread further by ever-increasing human use of these areas, is crucial as the native plant associations are not equipped to withstand large wildfires (Mockrin et. al., 2022).

The increased wildfire danger introduced by the spread of invasive weed species and elevated by negative effects of climate change, particularly in this region severe droughts in an already arid landscape does not only pose a serious risk on the sustainability of the natural systems of the Sonoran Desert, but affects and is affected by the quick urban development and sprawl of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area (Marcus, 1983).

The Phoenix Metropolitan Area is currently one of the fastest-developing urban areas in the USA (Marcus, 1983). With new suburban territories, particularly to the east and south of the Valley, the wildland-urban interface (WUI) grew immensely in the last 3 decades (Mockrin et. al., 2022).

According to Mockrin et. al. (2022), nationwide, there was a 38% increase in WUI area and a 46% increase in WUI houses between 1990 and 2010 in and around National Forests. In the Southwestern Region, National Forests were critically affected by WUI growth. Here, WUI areas are mostly found close to and within National Forests. In addition, the region experienced the fastest WUI growth in housing (66.9 % growth close to NFs and 51.4 % growth within NFs) and area (50.9 % growth close to NFs and 45.2 % growth within NFs) (Mockrin et. al., 2022). In Figure 1, a high WUI area and housing (dark red) can be observed around the Valley of the Sun.

An increase in WUI area and housing poses several challenges both for protected area managers and the relevant municipalities and HOAs. 

As the primary invitation of this research is to understand and map out diverse stakeholder perceptions regarding nature protection and sustainable use across various management organisations, the need for a qualitative primary data collection method is apparent.

Interviews are a great way to get nuanced perspectives of the interviewees’. It is one of the best methods to gather in-depth information around the research topic. As the interviewer has direct control over the process, they can stop and clarify certain issues and go into more detail on certain topics if desired (McNamara, 2018).

From the four types of interviews, structured and in-depth were not optimal in this research, as the former is a great way to gather easily categorizable data but fails to accommodate the freedom of the interviewee to express their answers accurately on the discussed topic. While the latter explicitly looks for emotional responses, the interviewee’s feelings, and self-interpretations about a particular subject, it is not suitable for expert interviews. Lastly, unstructured interviews were not chosen as, without some sort of pre-defined questions, comparing views and answers in this matter would not be possible. Semi-structured interviews were chosen as the primary data collection method, due to their ability to elicit in-depth and nuanced responses from the participants on their opinion and their flexibility to have the interviewer pursue interesting niches during the interview (Seidman, 2019).

With regards to the different roles of an interviewee, namely; (1) the person is a respondent, a source of data about themselves; (2) the role of interviewee is an informant, a source about others; and (3) an expert, a source of knowledge, this research treated the participants as experts, only asking about their professional life and opinions (Vershuren & Doorewaard, 2007).

Two sets of semi-structured interview guides were developed for this research. One, with 18 questions, was used in interviews with protected area managers and concerned citizens, while the other one, with 20 questions, was used with land trust managers. This change was necessary to address challenges, particularly regarding land trusts, accurately, and to allow the researcher to get firsthand knowledge about land trusts. Both sets of questions follow the same thematic outline:

The line of questions were set up this way to ensure a gradual easement into more and more complex aspects, while also allowing easy callbacks to previous questions, if the interviewee remembered something during a later question. Both sets of interview guides are found in the Appendices.

Participants were selected to ensure a comprehensive data collection from the design and project management side. The goal was to set up interviews with all protected area management agencies, local governments, land trusts, other relevant organisations, and concerned citizens. However, it soon became apparent that with the recent administration change in February, protected area management agencies, especially on the federal level, face immense administrative difficulties and, maybe out of fear of sticking out, or under orders from higher levels of government, are turning down interview requests. For example, in the case of my interview request with Tonto National Forest, the decision to rule out an on-camera interview with me did not come from the NFS Regional Office, but rather from Washington, D.C.. Subsequent discussion about the possibility of an in-person Q&A with no recording or sending them the questions and having them answer them in a written form yielded no result in 3 months.

During the research, 11 interviews were conducted. During the interviews, an agreement was made not to reveal their names. Their represented organisations, the time and place of the interviews, and their approximate length are detailed in the following table:

Table 1: Interviewee table

As detailed in the last chapter on why multiple-case studies as a method was chosen for this research several reasons went into the selection of the final 6 + 1 case study protected areas. In this chapter each chosen protected area will be introduced briefly. 

Starting from the highest levels of government, the Tonto National Forest represents the federal level protected area agency within this research.

Tonto National Forest is one of six National Forests in Arizona and as the fifth largest national forest by land area, it covers 2,965,716 acres. The area is managed by the Forest Service, which falls under the auspices of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA Forest Service, 2023.).

The forest’s rich heritage dates back thousands of years, with continuous human use and occupation for approximately the past 11,000 years by various prehistoric and Native American groups, including the Hohokam, Apache, and Yavapai. These traditional communities continue to utilize the Tonto National Forest for economic, social, and religious purposes (Wood et al., 1989; USDA Forest Service, 2023).

The national forest was established in 1905 to protect the Salt River watershed. Notably, it became the site of the first major reclamation project within the United States with the construction of the Theodore Roosevelt Dam. The construction of the dam regularized fresh water flow and provided electricity to the Salt River Basin, leading to the boom of cities like Phoenix and Mesa. The establishment of the dam and the national forest both contributed to the political process of Arizona becoming a state (Marcus, 1983; Salt River Project, 2011; USDA Forest Service, 2023).

The Tonto National Forest serves as a recreational hotspot for millions, offering a diversity of year-round outdoor recreation opportunities, from saguaro-cactus-studded deserts to pine-forested mountains. It is one of the most-visited „urban” forests in the United States, with approximately three million visitors annually, coming mostly from the Phoenix Metropolitan Area (National Visitor Use Monitoring 2016). Key ecosystem services provided by the forest include water for consumption and recreation, habitat for hunting, fishing, and watchable wildlife, forage for livestock, and cultural heritage.

The Superstition Wilderness Area within the Tonto National Forest holds both unparalleled beauty and historical importance. Established as the Superstition Primitive Area in February 1939 by the Chief of the Forest Service, its wilderness classification was updated in 1940, and it officially became part of the wilderness preservation system with the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964. The Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 further expanded the area by adding 35,000 acres, bringing it to its present size of 160,115 acres (USDA Forest Service, 2023; Wilderness, 2025).

Vegetation of the Superstition Wilderness is primarily Sonoran Desert, with semi-desert grasslands and chaparral moving up with elevation (Wilderness, 2025). According to Wilderness (2025) there are more than 180 miles of designated trails in the Wilderness area, with Peralta and First Water trails being overused by visitors, as USDA Forest Service (2023) designates the former 6.3 mile trail the busiest trail in Arizona, accommodation approximately 80% of all visitors to the wilderness area.

Representing state-level protected areas, Lost Dutchman State Park was chosen for this research.

The State Park is named after a fabled lost gold mine and is located in Apache Junction, Pinal County, to the east of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area, next to the Superstition Wilderness Area (AzStateParks, n.d.a)

Originally, the land of the Lost Dutchman State Park was in the custody of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which developed it as a day-use recreation area in 1972. Two years later, BLM approached the State of Arizona, asking if they would be interested in turning the area into a State Park. After a positive answer from the State and an amended Federal Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP) by Congress, which allowed the acquisition of land for recreation with no charge, Lost Dutchman State Park opened on December 5th, 1977, on 292 acres of land. The area was later expanded with an additional 28 acres in 1983 through another R&PP lease (AzStateParks, n.d.a).

Vegetation of the Lost Dutchman State Park is Sonoran Desert (AzStateParks, n.d.a).

The park offers a range of outdoor recreation facilities, camping, cabins and 7 designated trails, ranging from 0.25 mile quick walks to the 4 mile long Siphon Draw Trail, with a 1000ft elevation gain to the Flat Iron in the Superstition Mts. All trails and the layout of the park can be seen in Figure 2. In 2020, a total of more than 200,000 visitors were recorded in the park (Duval et al, 2021).

Figure 3: Lost Dutchman State Park map  (AzStateParks, n.d.b.pp.2)

Moving to the county level and moving over from Pinal County, to Maricopa County, Usery Mountain Regional Park was chosen as its situated between Tonto National Forest and Mesa.

Usery Mountain Regional Park encompasses over 3.600 acres and is operated by Maricopa County Parks & Recreation Department. The elevation of the park ranges from 1690ft to 2370ft. The vegetation of the park is encompassed by the Upland Sonoran Desert Community. Vegetation biotic communities of the park are Mixed Paleoverde-Cacti Communities (Maricopa County Parks&Rec, 2024).

The park offers a wide range of services to its visitors, ranging from 23 motorized and non-motorized trails, with a total of 32 miles of trails, day-use picnic areas, two camping grounds with over 75 camping sites, an archery range and ranger-led hikes and other programs (Maricopa County Parks&Rec, n.d.).

Figure 4: Trail system of Usery Mountain Park (Maricopa County Parks & Rec, n.d., pp.1)

Moving south from the Usery Mountain Regional Park and crossing over to Pinal County, the other park operated on the county level is Peralta Regional Park.

The 498-acre park, found on the western foothills of the Superstition Mountains, is an interesting case, as it was established only in 2023. Established on BLM and Arizona State Land Department land, through a R&PP lease, and operated by Pinal Pinal County Open Space, Trails & Regional Parks Department, this park is a result of years of collaborative work between BLM, Pinal County, Arizona State Parks and Trails, Superstition Area Land Trust and the state of Arizona  (AZBigMedia, 2023; BLM, 2019).

The area of the park is covered by Arizona Upland Subdivision of Sonoran desert scrub, with minimal human modification including grazing and existing roadways (BLM, 2019).

The park showcases the beauty of the Sonoran Desert and the Superstition Mountains. Amongst its amenities 8 non-motorized trails with varying difficulties, picnic sites and camping sites, an interpretive trail, waterless restrooms and a stargazing node are present (PinalCounty, 2025a). Figure 5 showcases the disposition of amenities and trails in the park.

Figure 5Trails of Peralta Regional Park (Pinal County, 2025b)

Representing the municipal level protected areas on the edge of the urban fabric, Silly Mountain Park was selected.

Silly Mountain Park was established with the collaborative effort of Apache Junction and the Superstition Area Land Trust in 2007 (wordofarizona, 2024). According to responses from one of the staff members for Apache Junction, the municipal park focuses on natural resource recreation and uniquely allows equestrian activities, reflecting local interest. Part of the park, including the „Sheep Strives” trail system, is owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and managed by the City of Apache Junction under a public purpose lease. A key stipulation of this BLM lease is that public access must be free, a policy that significantly shapes the park’s operations, revenue generation, and visitor management, unlike other fee-based regional parks. This dedication to natural recreation alongside specific uses like equestrianism highlights the ongoing challenge of balancing diverse user demands with conservation.

The BLM lease’s free access mandate both constrains and benefits park management. While it ensures accessibility by removing financial barriers, it also eliminates a potential revenue source and a direct mechanism for managing visitor numbers. Consequently, the City of Apache Junction must pursue alternative funding, such as grants, for maintenance and improvements. Further, they have to manage visitor impacts through indirect methods like educational outreach and trail design. This arrangement positions Apache Junction as a local steward of federal assets, potentially requiring adherence to federal guidelines while providing valuable recreational land resources the city might otherwise lack.

The park offers a trail system of 10 unique trails for hikers, horses and mountain-bikers (wordofarizona, 2024). The trail system of the park can be observed in Figure 6.

Figure 6Trails of Silly Mountain Park (Apache Junction, n.d.)

Moving to the south of the Phoenix Metropolitan area, South Mountain Park is the other municipal-level protected area.

With more than 16.000 acres, South Mountain Park is one of the largest municipally managed parks in the USA. Managed by Phoenix City Parks & Recreation Department, the park was established all the way back in 1924, when the city purchased 13.000 acres for $17.000 (City of Phoenix, n.d.)

The park offers more than 100 miles of trails for hikers, cyclists and horse riders, along with scenic roads used by motorized vehicles. A Ranger Station and an educational center, with public restrooms are also here for the visitors (City of Phoenix, n.d.). The trail system of the South Mountain Park is visible on Figure 7.

Figure 7: South Mountain Park Trails map (City of Phoenix, 2017).

Lastly, representing the land trusts, NGOs, who many consider a connection between private land owners and governmental nature conservation agencies, Superstition Area Land Trust (S.A.L.T.) was chosen, as their primary focus is the conservation of the beautiful vistas of the Superstition Mts.

According to S.A.L.T. (2024) the entirety of the Superstitions is a unique asset, which is easily accessible by millions of people both local and non-local to the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. However, this easy access is a double edged sword. On one hand, the area offers a wide range of outdoor recreation opportunities, closeby to a major urban area. While on the other hand urban development and encroachment to the Wilderness Area pose an existential threat to this natural resource (S.A.L.T., 2024).

The aim of S.A.L.T. is to establish a protected buffer zone, through the establishment of a land trust on 28.800 acres in the Superstition Foothills. Thereby providing habitat for local rare species and facilitating already popular trails (S.A.L.T., 2024).

Currently the majority of this land is owned by the Arizona State Land Department, which faces a myriad of operational issues, as discussed earlier. The rest is BLM and private land. To protect the undisturbed virgin Sonoran Desert open spaces in the area, S.A.L.T. compiled a Conceptual Area Plan to help Pinal County and Arizona State Land Department future development and conservation in the area. The proposed S.A.L.T preserve is shown on Figure 8.

Figure 8: Proposed S.A.L.T preserve area (azsalt, 2024)

As mentioned earlier during the three months of the primary data collection, the organisation of a successful interview with the Tonto National Forest management organisation, the USDA Forest Service failed. Therefore, instead of gaining knowledge about the external and internal challenges of the management body, document analysis on the Tonto National Forest Land Management Plan from 2023, and on other relevant sources was conducted. Based on the analysis the following external challenges were identified.

First, the USDA Forest Service (2023) discusses the increased stressors of climate change impacting the ecosystems of the area and mentioned adaptive management strategies like a dedicated monitoring plan to address changing natural systems, human values and social conditions.

Second, it mentions invasive species as an ever growing concern. Especially invasive grasses increasingly common in the Sonoran Desert, contributing to larger and more frequent fires. These non-native plants form monocultures, deplete soil nutrients, and aggressively compete with native flora for water (USDA Forest Service, 2023).

Adding to the increased fire danger, the plan brings up human-started fires, particularly along highways and roads. These areas in the WUI are addressed in the plan with the desired steps for effective fire management, including public outreach to educate people on fire prevention (USDA Forest Service, 2023).

Sticking with human-induced impact, the increasing population and visitation numbers to the Phoenix Metropolitan Area and its surroundings poses new challenges and dangers for the national forest. Increases in human pressure, fire danger, wildlife-human conflicts, trail degradation and invasive species spread are all exacerbated by more humans in the protected area (USDA Forest Service, 2023).

Last, consequently from the increasing population of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area, together with longer periods of droughts as a result of climate change, water resource demands modified watersheds and riparian ecosystems in the national forest. Therefore ensuring sufficient waterflow for ecological needs, through acquiring and maintaining water rights is paramount (USDA Forest Service, 2023).

In addition to sources from the Tonto National Forest Plan (2023), several internal hurdles were mentioned by interviewees in the fourth section of the interviews. Hurdles from both sources are presented in the following lines.

Nearly all interviewees mentioned recent budget and staff cuts to the federal level nature conservation agencies like the National Park Service and the USDA Forest Service after the inauguration of the new Trump administration. This is not a new problem however. Yes the new policies of the Trump administration with regards to national environmental efforts are shocking, however both from the interviews and previous articles like Watson (2014) already stated, that the US National Park Service’s main operational budget for national parks fell by 13% and as a result of critical underfunding a maintenance backlog between 9.03 billion and 13.28 billion dollars is estimated only within National Parks. Understaffing and lack of law enforcement due to lack of staffing pose ever growing challenges with trespassing and social trails (USDA Forest Service, 2023).

According to the interview responses with an employee of the Arizona State Parks & Trails working on the Lost Dutchman State Parks and responses to Question 16. with other interviewees, the following external threats were mentioned in relation to the park.

According to the respondents the biggest external threats in the park are increased use of natural areas by ATV/UTV riders and increased use of local areas by people dry camping in the desert, otherwise referred to as boondocking. The latter is a significant problem as past experiences show, they expand human.used areas, degrading the desert further. Trespassing and damage to property as a result of trespassing is a problem as well. It is also expected to see even more ATV/UTV riders further degrading the natural landscape.

The surrounding area is managed mostly by BLM, which comes with some successes and challenges. First, BLM recently redesignated 1,100 acres around the park, which now does not allow camping, which is a success as the natural landscape is easier to protect this way. However, invasive species, especially stink net is a major problem in the area in recent years. Due to lack of resources the park cannot perform necessary mitigation efforts, but even if they did, the surrounding lands are also not taken to mitigate the problem.

According to the responses key internal hurdles for the management organisation of the Lost Dutchman State Park are not having enough equipment, staff, staff time and budget available to purchase equipment or to provide more staff hours. Further, the overall budget of the park comes 100% from entry fees and camping permits, the park management has to rely on tourism  to generate money to maintain nature protection related work, constituting a dilemma.

More visitors mean more money, however it means more pressure on the environment by those visitors, necessitating more effort to maintain the natural state of the park, which invites the visitors in the first place.

Secondly, if more visitors are not the answer, theoretically, higher spending per visitor could help with the budget issue. This brings two new challenges to the equation. On one hand to justify increased prices or establish new amenities as revenue streams, investment is needed, which in case of no other sources or grants, has to come from the main budget, further hindering conservation efforts. On the other hand in current times more and more percent of the population does not have the financial means to access parks.

Both of these challenges arising from the underfunding of Arizona State Parks are in contrast to Arizona’s outdoor recreation priorities detailed in the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 2023 (SCORP, 2023).

This disconnect between available funding and maintenance costs resulted in a frankly baffling decision from Arizona State Parks & Trails this year. Starting February 25.2025, the standard annual pass will be discontinued with restrictions, previously sold for $75. Instead, one annual pass will be available for $200 with no restrictions, for all parks, which was previously the premium pass’s cost (AzStateParks, 2025). The choice further limits local Arizonans to visit state parks for a reasonable price, especially if the America Beautiful Pass for $80 is taken into account, which guarantees access to all federal land throughout all states. But it also has to be mentioned that, considering the current political climate with regards to federally protected areas, the chance of a sharp increase in the price of the America the Beautiful Pass is highly likely in the near future, in my opinion. 

Most pressing external threats of the Usery Mountain Regional Park according to the respondents are the increased presence of ATV/UTV vehicles and the lack of effective and inter-agency coordinated management of these vehicles. This uncontrolled use results in soil erosion, habitat destruction, and the proliferation of unauthorized trails.

Secondly, increased fire danger was mentioned, exacerbated by the spread of stink net and other highly flammable invasive weeds.

Lastly, the emergence of new recreational activities such as electric bicycles were mentioned as near-future challenges. These e-bikes come with new user conflicts, due to their higher speeds, a need for supporting infrastructure such as charging stations, appropriate trail signage, as well as rescue related questions – what happens if an e-bike user gets stuck in the wilderness with a dead battery and cannot get back safely? 

One of the interviewees provided a stark quantitative comparison to illustrate the financial predicament of Maricopa County Parks (MCP). The system’s annual budget is approximately $11 million. Of the $2.58 budgeted per capita, a mere $0.25 originates from Maricopa County’s general fund. This means that nearly 90% of the parks’ revenue is self-generated through entry fees, camping fees, and similar charges, leaving only about 9% derived from general tax support. This financial model represents a dramatic shift from the 1960s when, according to the respondent, the general fund contributed $25 per person (in contemporary dollar values).

The ramifications of this financial model are far-reaching. The interviewee reports „a lot of deferred maintenance over the years” and a consequent „deterioration of facilities”. This is not a new concern; they discovered a letter from an original parks director (1965-1972), written in the 1990s, already voicing alarm about inadequate support for the Parks Department and its inevitable negative outcomes. While recent federal funding, such as the American Rescue Plan, has provided temporary relief for critical infrastructure like wastewater treatment systems, according to them, it does not address the systemic shortfall in operational funding.

Staffing is another casualty of the budget crisis. They indicate that the new director of MCP stated there would be „no new hires,” and if staff members depart, they will not be replaced. This leads to increased stress on the remaining staff and a diminished capacity to manage the parks effectively. It is estimated by the respondents that each park operates with fewer than three or four employees, including maintenance personnel, and relies heavily on a volunteer system to cover necessary work, which should be done by paid employees. In addition, many volunteers are from the elderly population, living in the parks in RVs, which raises concerns, for example, about their capacity to respond to emergency situations. This reliance on an aging volunteer workforce for essential park functions suggests a system stretched to its limits, potentially compromising both service quality and safety.

Perhaps one of the most socially significant consequences is what they call the emergence of a „pay-to-play” system.  With the overwhelming reliance on user fees, they express concern that park access is increasingly limited to those who can afford it. They estimate that „50% of the population really does not have the financial means to access or go to the parks” in Maricopa County. This observation is supported by visitor survey data indicating that only 39% of park visitors hold full-time jobs, and their median annual income ($75,000) is substantially higher than the county median ($44,000). This disparity suggests that current park users are predominantly from more affluent segments of the population, and any further fee increases would likely exacerbate this inequity (Maricopa County Parks & Rec, 2024).

According to respondents, there is a push for 100% financial self-sufficiency for the parks from the management side, which could potentially violate the spirit of the R&PP Act of 1926, under which the lands of the Maricopa County Parks were acquired.

During the interview with employees of Pinal County Open Space, Trails & Regional Parks Department, the following external threats were identified.

The location of the park makes it particularly vulnerable to trespassing, as it is surrounded by Arizona State Land Department owned land, an agency with chronic understaffing according to the respondents. Due to this understaffing, they don’t have the manpower to adequately enforce the rules on their land. This lack of oversight on adjacent lands has historically allowed for the creation of Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) trails that traverse park boundaries. The installation of a perimeter fence has been met with displeasure from some locals and hunters, who have resorted to cutting the fences to maintain access. This problem is also exacerbated by some mobile applications displaying incorrect trail data, leading visitors to restricted areas.

Second, the case of invasive species was raised here also as their current biggest focus. Many of these problematic plants, such as Buffelgrass and Stinknet, originate from Africa and are well-adapted to thrive in the local semi-arid climate. The challenge is compounded by wind dispersal of seeds from unmanaged adjacent lands, including nearby highways lined with these noxious weeds. To address this, Pinal County secured a $192,000 grant from the Department of Forestry and Fire Management (DFM). This funding supports a three-year treatment plan to identify the most effective methods for controlling these invasive species. Following treatment, restoration efforts are planned in partnership with the Boyce Thompson Arboretum. This will involve utilizing their desert legume seed bank to plant wildflowers and other suitable native species to cover old tracks, with an emphasis on using materials that are less likely to contribute to fire fuel loads.

Intrinsically linked to the spread of invasive weeds is the increased risk for wildfires, which necessitates proactive fire management. In a practical sense, that means that the management organisation closely follows actions taken by the adjacent Tonto National Forest for fire restriction guidance. 

During the interview several internal hurdles were detailed by the respondents. Just like in the previous cases, staffing and funding problems are the underlying hurdles, compounding operational difficulties. Highlighting the staffing problems, only two ranger sheriff deputies are available for the county, severely impeding them in effectively responding to trespassing for example. Further highlights the understaffing issues is the necessity of planning personnel to be involved in field maintenance work, like mending fences.

Their problems are exacerbated by the lack of active management on neighbouring Arizona State Land Department land, undermining efforts taken by the overwhelmed staff against trespassing and invasive species control.

The pace of development and project implementation within the county system also presents a considerable internal hurdle. Described as „extremely slow,” with a master plan from 2007 only seeing its first park opening in 2023, this protracted bureaucratic process delays the implementation of essential conservation measures and recreational infrastructure. While acknowledging that this slowness can sometimes facilitate more thorough planning, it undeniably postpones critical advancements.

Another limitation due to a limited budget is the inability to purchase bufferzone areas from the neighbouring State land, to mitigate the impact of encroaching development due to the county facing an affordability barrier given the market value of State Trust Land. Compounding this, a potential conservation fund that could have facilitated such acquisitions is currently depleted. 

Finally, a significant reliance on grants for major undertakings, including the development of Peralta Regional Park, highlights an underlying issue of insufficient core operational funding from the county. This dependency introduces an element of unpredictability, rendering long-term planning and consistent action vulnerable to delays or deferrals should anticipated grant funding not materialize. 

According to responses during the interviews, Silly Mountain Park faces significant external threats, primarily from invasive species, the proliferation of social trails, and fire risk.

The primary external threat is the widespread presence of invasive plant species. Various vectors, including hikers, wind, and vehicles from a nearby highway, contribute to their spread. Buffalo Grass is particularly problematic due to its significantly higher fire potential compared to native vegetation, directly linking the invasive species issue to fire safety.

The City of Apache Junction employs a comprehensive strategy to combat these invasives. The preferred method is manual pulling to remove entire root systems, but chemical applications are also utilized by licensed city crews. For difficult terrains, drones equipped with sprayers are contracted, and controlled burns are conducted in partnership with external groups when burn bans are not in effect. Educational outreach is another critical component, with resources on the city’s website, social media campaigns, and informational postcards. While grant applications for boot brush stations at trailheads have been pursued, handheld brushes are provided to volunteers during removal events.

The formation of social trails constitutes another significant external threat. Despite the park having only one official entrance to its trail system, numerous unauthorized entry points have emerged, leading hikers into non-designated areas, some of which are sensitive restoration zones. Management addresses this issue by attempting to physically block social trails using native vegetation, rocks, and other large, natural materials found on-site. These materials serve to obstruct access and visually signal that the path is not official. In some areas, large signs are deployed to explicitly state „this area is closed.” However, deploying such signs in more remote or rugged sections of the park is challenging, relying more heavily on dense vegetation coverage to deter unauthorized use.

While Silly Mountain Park itself has not experienced recent fire activity, the surrounding areas have, making fire mitigation a constant concern in their management activities. The invasive Buffel Grass is a major factor, as its fire potential is exponentially higher than native vegetation, directly linking the invasive species problem to increased fire risk. The City of Apache Junction previously had a significantly high fire score, and efforts are ongoing to reduce this score. Management strategies for fire mitigation involve designating the official trail system as a firebreak.

Silly Mountain Park faces internal hurdles primarily related to resource allocation and staffing, despite a current period of relative stability.

Regarding resource allocation, operational efforts have not encountered significant problems due to a substantial state grant received in the previous year. This funding significantly expanded the department’s capacity beyond its original budget, enabling the acquisition of necessary materials, tools, and resources. Additionally, inter-departmental support allows for the use of other staff for projects requiring more manpower. However, this also reveals a potential vulnerability to inconsistencies in future grant funding, implying that more ambitious management initiatives are heavily reliant on external, competitive sources. This situation indicates that major restoration or intensive management efforts are highly dependent on continued success in securing grants.

In terms of staffing levels, the department is currently considered fully staffed, with existing resources appropriately allocated. Despite this current adequacy, there is a strong emphasis on the strategic importance of volunteerism for the longevity of sustainable recreation. The city is actively working to increase the visibility of volunteer opportunities and encourage greater community involvement in park stewardship. As recreational use and management needs are anticipated to grow, there will likely be a need for increased staffing, which is hoped to be filled through a robust volunteer stewardship program. While cost-effective, volunteer programs require significant investment in coordination, training, and retention. Beyond practical labor, fostering a volunteer system can significantly increase community investment and a sense of local ownership, potentially leading to improved compliance with park regulations and a broader base of supporters for park protection and funding.

According to the responses from the interviews the parks managed by the City of Phoenix, including South Mountain Park are influenced by the following external forces.

Perhaps the biggest concern is the relentless pressure of urban development and population growth in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. Continued population growth, coupled with insufficient resources to manage the preserves, poses a significant external threat, as the Parks and Recreation budget has not kept pace with the region’s expansion.

The extension of a freeway through a portion of a preserve serves as tangible evidence that the protected status of these areas is not absolute and can be compromised by development imperatives. As Phoenix continues to grow, these challenges are expected to intensify. There is explicit concern for the future of South Mountain Park given the latent potential for development if its protective statute were to be reversed, considering its enormous real estate potential. Private developers are identified as a key external threat to protected areas in the Valley. These perspectives underscore a fundamental tension between urban expansion and the preservation of natural landscapes.

Direct ecological threats include the proliferation of invasive species, increasing heat, and associated fire danger. The widespread presence of invasive plants, such as Stink Net and Buffel Grass, is a pressing challenge.

A more contemporary external pressure is the influence of social media on park visitation and user behavior. Social media can be a negative force, encouraging individuals, often unprepared, to visit sensitive natural areas and attempt challenging hikes merely to replicate photographs seen online. This behavior can lead to an increase in rescue incidents, burdening emergency services and potentially triggering management interventions, such as contentious trail closures. This highlights a modern dynamic where digital trends can have direct, tangible impacts on physical park environments and the allocation of management resources.

Finally, broader governmental policies introduce a higher-level political dimension, with the potential monetization of public lands by federal administrations identified as a major external threat. This concern suggests an understanding that local park management and conservation efforts can be vulnerable to shifts in national policy priorities and fiscal strategies, extending the scope of threats beyond purely local or regional dynamics.

The Phoenix Parks & Recreation Department faces significant internal operational and systemic deficiencies within its Parks and Recreation Department. A central issue is chronic underfunding, leading to strained budgets and a perceived low priority for parks in city planning.

Closely linked to funding are concerns about staffing levels and technical capacity. There’s a lack of staff for critical tasks like invasive plant management, with volunteers often stepping in to fill gaps. Overall staffing hasn’t kept pace with population growth and increased park usage, impacting essential conservation and maintenance functions.

Decision-making frameworks are also criticized for a lack of transparency and accountability, with concerns about political influence over data-driven choices. Decisions are often made top-down, without sufficient community engagement.

There is also a perceived disconnect between the Parks and Recreation Department’s stated mission and its on-the-ground practices, which also emerged as a key concern. There is explicit questioning from the interviewees of whether the department is „truly protecting” natural areas, with the perception that the role of some within the department seems more akin to „just a job” rather than a dedicated mission to conserve these environments. According to the respondents, some members of the Parks and Recreation board may not themselves be users of the preserve trail systems, indicating a potential disconnect between leadership and the specific needs of the natural preserves.

The areas south of the Superstition Wilderness face a significant external threat to conservation, namely the rapid expansion of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. Phoenix is characterized as one of the fastest-growing large cities, with its growth predominantly pushing eastward towards the Superstition area, as expansion into Indian reservations or the rugged wilderness itself is largely unfeasible.

This urban expansion creates economic pressure, as development interests increasingly price land out of the reach of conservation efforts. The high cost of land is a major barrier, with recent sales indicating prices nearing $89,000 per acre in even less prime areas. For an estimated 45 square miles of land of concern, the total cost for conservation quickly escalates into the low billions of dollars. This immense financial hurdle is identified as the primary reason for the historical lack of success in conserving substantial tracts of land in the region, effectively making the land too expensive for large-scale conservation.

The sheer scale of these potential development costs fundamentally shapes conservation strategies. Given limited financial resources, direct acquisition of all desirable land is an impossibility for smaller organizations. This insurmountable challenge necessitates influencing existing major landowners, like the state, instead.  Seeking incremental gains through strategic land planning and the establishment of buffer zones and biological corridors, rather than pursuing outright large-scale acquisitions independently.

From an internal management perspective, fundraising stands out as the most significant operational hurdle for SALT. Securing the necessary funds is described as „by far the pervasive question,” with a candid acknowledgment that while a substantial infusion of capital could expedite conservation efforts, the realistic path involves a „slow incremental” process. This financial constraint reinforces the necessity of their current strategies: building strong partnerships, leveraging the resources of other organizations, and adopting a long-term, persistent approach to conservation.

This section presents the definitions of „nature protection” and „sustainable use” as articulated by the interviewed stakeholders, representing various land management and protected area management organizations, and perspectives within the Valley of the Sun. These operational definitions are then analyzed against the theoretical framework established earlier in this report.

Respondents offered varied but often overlapping interpretations of „nature protection.” For staff from the Central Arizona Land Trust, nature protection fundamentally involves preventing development that damages ecosystems, such as soil scraping, habitat removal, water depletion, and road construction. A staff member from the Arizona Land & Water Trust highlighted working with agricultural landowners on watershed restoration to improve overall landscape health, adaptability, and sustainability, particularly concerning water resources, thus protecting nature through supporting ecological processes. Staff from the Apache Junction Parks & Rec Department at Silly Mountain Park often linked nature protection to maintaining safe recreational access for future generations, primarily through actions like proper trail maintenance and managing invasive species. A concerned citizen and volunteer for South Mountain Park, Phoenix Parks & Rec Department, viewed it as ensuring the ecosystem’s complexity can continue to thrive and planning recreation to foster emotional connections with nature while minimally destroying its components. Another land trust perspective, from the Superstition Area Land Trust, emphasized protecting biological, geological, and soil aspects, and fostering cultural practices through education and enforcement to allow ecosystems to evolve naturally, unimpacted by modern human abuses. A staff member from Pinal County Open Space, Trails and Parks Department framed nature protection as aligning with „preservation,” implying no human use in certain areas to protect natural processes and biodiversity, while also acknowledging the need for intervention against human-facilitated impacts like invasive species. A staff member from Arizona State Parks defined it as preserving what can be preserved while also allowing for recreational opportunities to keep people connected with the outdoors, involving a delicate balance and educating visitors about Leave No Trace principles.

Definitions of „sustainable use” also varied. Some land trust staff, like the one from Central Arizona Land Trust, implied that sustainable use is achieved by preventing harmful development. Staff from Apache Junction Parks & Rec Department at Silly Mountain Park defined it as the ability to recreate with the understanding that the same ability must exist for the future, often achieved through user adherence to principles like Leave No Trace and Tread Lightly. A concerned citizen described sustainable use as protecting natural areas for future generations by avoiding exploitative practices and adopting a long-term vision, and further defined sustainable nature management as allowing nature to function without human interference. Another concerned citizen and volunteer for South Mountain Park, Phoenix Parks & Rec Department, linked sustainable use to using areas in a way that protects the ecosystem without complete closure, emphasizing the importance of public engagement and emotional connection for garnering support and resources. The staff member from the Superstition Area Land Trust defined sustainable use as maintaining the land in a way that allows it to remain, changing naturally through biological and physical processes, rather than being „preserved” where nothing changes, and ensuring resources remain for future generations. Staff from Pinal County Open Space, Trails and Parks Department viewed sustainable use as „conservation-minded things,” allowing for recreation while also preserving natural resources, believing public engagement fosters support for land protection. For a staff member from Arizona State Parks, sustainable use is intertwined with providing recreational opportunities and educating visitors.

This section explores the perceived successes and challenges of inter-agency collaboration, as reported by the interviewed stakeholders.

Respondents generally affirmed engagement in collaborative efforts with other protected area managing agencies, local governments, and various organizations. A staff member from Arizona State Parks highlighted a significant success where four to five agencies jointly addressed the issue of illegal campers, indicating that agencies in their area collaborate frequently and effectively. Similarly, a representative from the Central Arizona Land Trust noted good relationships and cooperation with federal, state, and local agencies, emphasizing that such partnerships, while time-consuming, generally yield benefits due to shared missions and objectives. One successful collaboration mentioned involved purchasing conservation easements on ranch lands to protect water supplies, showcasing the ability to leverage agency resources to achieve common goals. Staff from the Arizona Land & Water Trust described extensive cooperation with other NGOs, like The Nature Conservancy, and government agencies, such as the US Forest Service and Pima County, to identify and secure conservation lands through complex, multi-year transactions. Staff from Pinal County Open Space, Trails and Parks Department also reported strong collaboration with neighboring jurisdictions like Apache Junction, Maricopa County, Arizona State Parks, and Tonto National Forest, including joint meetings and resource sharing to address common challenges such as the management of e-bikes on trails.

Despite these successes, numerous challenges to effective inter-agency collaboration were identified. A primary issue is the differing mandates and operational scales of various agencies. For instance, a staff member from Apache Junction Parks & Rec Department observed that city and county systems might find it easier to enforce natural resource initiatives due to managing smaller land parcels compared to the vast Tonto National Forest, which has limited enforcement capacity over its large area. The representative from the Superstition Area Land Trust noted that federal agencies often suffer from resource starvation due to political decisions, and the state’s system for land management is perceived as poor, although Pinal County’s efforts were commended despite these systemic issues.

A significant challenge highlighted by multiple respondents is the high staff turnover and chronic vacancies within many natural resource governmental agencies, such as the Forest Service. This turnover complicates long-term projects and transactions, requiring constant re-communication and renegotiation with new personnel. The difficulty of finding time for representatives from different agencies to meet was also cited as a major barrier to cooperation by a former Maricopa County Parks staff member, who mentioned the challenge of attending Pinal County-initiated meetings while serving a large population in Maricopa County. This sentiment that progress is limited if agencies work in isolation was a recurring theme.

Furthermore, a cultural challenge noted by staff from the Arizona Land & Water Trust is the distrust of government among some landowners, who may be more receptive to working with NGO intermediaries. The differing political climates in various countries can also lead to variations in codes and legislation, complicating collaborative efforts even when general agreement on management decisions exists.

The external threats identified by respondents largely align with those documented in the theoretical framework (Gaston et al., 2008; Walls, 2022; Watson et al., 2014). Climate change, invasive species, and habitat fragmentation/loss due to urban expansion are consistently highlighted in both the literature and by local stakeholders. The specific challenges of increased human pressure in the WUI, including heightened fire risk from human activities and invasive grasses, are particularly emphasized by respondents, reflecting the local context of rapid urbanization adjacent to wildlands, as noted by Mockrin et al. (2022). The issue of water resource demands, also linked to climate change and population growth, further underscores a critical regional vulnerability. Newer threats, such as the impact of social media on visitor behavior and rescue operations, are emerging local manifestations of broader societal trends impacting PAs, a dimension less explicitly covered in the foundational PA literature but increasingly relevant (Walls, 2022). The concerns over policy shifts potentially leading to the monetization or reduced protection of public lands also resonate with Watson et al.’s (2014) discussion of PADDD events as a threat to the PA estate.

The internal challenges described by respondents align closely with the theoretical literature. Chronic underfunding and insufficient staffing are primary impediments to PA effectiveness (Walls, 2022; Watson et al., 2014), a theme universally echoed by the interviewees across all management levels and organization types. The reliance on visitor fees by Arizona State Parks and Maricopa County Parks, leading to „pay-to-play” systems and dilemmas in balancing revenue with conservation, reflects the broader funding challenges and equity concerns discussed by Walls (2022). Deferred maintenance, a direct consequence of underfunding (Walls, 2022; Watson et al., 2014), was explicitly mentioned by the former Maricopa County Parks staff member. Issues of poor management effectiveness and governance problems (Gaston et al., 2008; Watson et al., 2014) were reflected in criticisms of decision-making processes within Phoenix Parks & Recreation, the slow bureaucratic pace in Pinal County, and the general under-resourcing that limits proactive and comprehensive management across most agencies. The heavy reliance on volunteers and grants, while demonstrating resourcefulness, also indicates a systemic lack of stable, core funding for essential PA functions.

Analyzing these respondent definitions against the established theoretical framework on nature protection and sustainable use reveals several alignments and distinctions. The respondents’ emphasis on safeguarding biodiversity, habitats, and ensuring resources for future generations aligns with core tenets of nature protection and sustainable use as defined in the literature (Gaston et al., 2008; Watson et al., 2014; World Tourism Organization, 1997, as cited in Jamal & Stronza, 2009; Blanco-Cerradelo et al., 2022 ). The concern for preventing harmful development voiced by land trust representatives directly reflects the goal of buffering biodiversity from external threats (Gaston et al., 2008 ).

The municipal and county park staff’s focus on trail maintenance and managing recreational access illustrates the practical challenges of balancing use with protection, a central theme in the sustainable use discourse (Jamal & Stronza, 2009; Blanco-Cerradelo et al., 2022 ). This reflects the „use-conservation gap” identified in the literature, where managing visitor impacts is key. The idea that „Mother Nature can largely maintain trails on its own,” expressed by one volunteer, contrasts with the general understanding that PAs, especially smaller ones or those with high visitation, require active management (Gilson, 2006; Watson et al., 2014 ).

The perspective that nature protection means allowing nature to function without human interference echoes the ideal of protecting areas „undisturbed by significant human activity” (IUCN, as cited in Sagoff, 2013 ). However, this is immediately complicated by the acknowledgment from other respondents and the literature that human-facilitated impacts, such as invasive species, necessitate intervention, and that truly undisturbed areas are rare (Sagoff, 2013 ).

The emphasis by some respondents on public engagement, emotional connection with nature, and education as crucial for protection and support strongly aligns with theories advocating for stakeholder involvement and the recognition of cultural and aesthetic values in conservation (Reed et al., 2017; Sagoff, 2013 ). This moves beyond purely utilitarian or scientific rationales for protection, resonating with Sagoff’s (2013) argument for valuing „wild places that people cherish”.

The land trusts’ definitions, particularly the aim to prevent development and maintain landscapes for future generations, and the county-level manager’s distinction between „preservation” (no human use) for highly sensitive areas and „conservation-minded” sustainable use for others, reflect the theoretical distinction between Strictly Protected Areas (SPAs) and Sustainable Use Areas (SUAs) (Crouzeilles et al., 2013 ). The varied interpretations highlight the ambiguity inherent in defining these concepts in practice, particularly when determining the acceptable „threshold at which use becomes unsustainable” (Jamal & Stronza, 2009; Plummer & Fennell, 2009 ). The practical focus on managing invasive species by multiple respondents underscores a tangible threat that requires both protection measures and informs how sustainable use can be practiced to avoid exacerbating such issues.

Comparing these respondents’ experiences with the theoretical framework on inter-agency collaboration reveals several alignments. The successes reported, such as joint problem-solving (e.g., addressing illegal camping, managing e-bike use) and resource pooling (e.g., land acquisitions, conservation easements), exemplify the benefits of collaboration identified in the literature, including more effective outcomes and enhanced legitimacy. The formation of groups like the Superstition Public Land Managers group, initiated by Pinal County, directly reflects the strategy of creating platforms for joint decision-making and shared understanding (Jamal & Stronza, 2009).

The challenges cited by respondents also resonate strongly with the theoretical difficulties in inter-agency collaboration. Insufficient resources (staff, funding, time), identified by Eagles (2009) and Maxwell et al. (2020) as critical, were frequently mentioned. Power imbalances and differing organizational cultures or mandates, which can hinder collaboration (Plummer & Fennell, 2009; Reed et al., 2017), were evident in the respondents’ descriptions of federal versus local agency capacities and the difficulties posed by bureaucratic inertia or political climates. The issue of staff turnover directly impacts the critical success factor of building and maintaining trust and consistent action (Reed et al., 2017). The struggle to coordinate across multiple jurisdictions and the „siloed” nature of some agency operations reflect the complexities of multi-level governance (Eagles, 2009) and the challenge of integrating conservation into broader management policies (Kimbrough, 1990; Maxwell et al., 2020). The need for consistent leadership and shared vision, which are key to successful collaboration (Jamal & Stronza, 2009; Gilson, 2006), is undermined when staff turnover is high or when agencies operate in isolation.

This research analyzed stakeholder perceptions on nature protection and sustainable use across the Valley of the Sun’s multi-jurisdictional protected areas, revealing shared challenges and the critical need for enhanced collaboration in this rapidly urbanizing region.

Stakeholders from diverse management organizations (federal to local, and NGOs) generally converged on defining „nature protection” as safeguarding biodiversity and natural processes, often by preventing harmful development, and „sustainable use” as enabling human interaction, primarily recreation, without compromising long-term ecological integrity. However, practical applications and emphasis differed based on agency mandates and resources. Universally recognized external threats included invasive species (especially fire-prone grasses), climate change impacts, and urban expansion pressures. Internally, chronic underfunding and staffing shortages were consistently reported across all agency levels, leading to deferred maintenance and reliance on visitor fees, which raised equity concerns.

Inter-agency collaboration showed successes in joint problem-solving and resource acquisition. However, significant challenges persisted, including insufficient resources, high staff turnover, differing agency mandates, and inadequate communication mechanisms.

The findings underscore a critical need for increased, stable funding for protected area management and for robust, collaborative governance models. This study’s insights from a rapidly urbanizing desert region contribute to understanding conservation challenges in similar complex socio-ecological systems.

Key limitations include the inability to directly interview Tonto National Forest management, reliance instead on document analysis and other stakeholder perspectives for this federal agency, and the study’s focus on a specific geographic region, which may limit broader generalizability. The research was also conducted during a federal administration change, potentially influencing some responses.

Future research could include longitudinal studies tracking perceptual and collaborative shifts, comparative analyses in other urbanizing regions, and investigations into effective funding models that ensure both conservation and equitable access.

Practical recommendations include:

In conclusion, while commitment to conservation is evident, systemic issues, particularly underfunding and governance complexities, constrain the ability of stakeholders in the Valley of the Sun to address mounting environmental pressures fully. A more unified, adequately resourced, and collaborative approach is essential to safeguard the region’s natural heritage.