1
|
Alberts RC, Retief FP, Bond AJ, Roos C, Cilliers DP. What Future for Protected Areas? Analysing the Mismatch between South Africa's Pre-existing Protected areas System and the Declared vision in Contemporary Conservation Policy. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 2024; 74:1274-1286. [PMID: 39311926 DOI: 10.1007/s00267-024-02051-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2024] [Accepted: 09/16/2024] [Indexed: 11/10/2024]
Abstract
Designation of protected areas has enjoyed global application as a means of biodiversity conservation for over 100 years. National conservation policy is essential as a means of protecting biodiversity, but is contingent on, amongst others, changing values and international drivers, and remains dynamic in many countries. As conservation policies evolve, the role of pre-existing protected areas within broader strategies for conservation can become unclear, with consequences both for the ability of the conservation policies to achieve their stated goals, and also for biodiversity outcomes within a nation. In order to map evolving inconsistencies between conservation policy and the role of protected areas within it, we develop a conceptual conservation policy framework synthesised from different policy orientations reported in the literature. Using South Africa as a case study, the conceptualisation is used to characterise the policy goals for protected areas in the recently adopted conservation policy, and the pre-existing protected areas system which remains on the statute books. The results indicate that the conceptual conservation policy framework can be used identify misalignment between policy and practice, and has enabled a mismatch to be identified between South Africa's pre-existing protected areas system and its contemporary conservation policy, which suggests that the management of protected areas is likely to significantly change towards greater access and monetisation at the expense of their intrinsic value.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R C Alberts
- Research Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.
- Protected Areas Research Group, North West University, Potchefstroom Campus, Potchefstroom, South Africa.
| | - F P Retief
- Research Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa
- Protected Areas Research Group, North West University, Potchefstroom Campus, Potchefstroom, South Africa
| | - A J Bond
- Research Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa
- Protected Areas Research Group, North West University, Potchefstroom Campus, Potchefstroom, South Africa
- School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - C Roos
- Research Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa
- Protected Areas Research Group, North West University, Potchefstroom Campus, Potchefstroom, South Africa
| | - D P Cilliers
- Research Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa
- Protected Areas Research Group, North West University, Potchefstroom Campus, Potchefstroom, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Dawson NM, Coolsaet B, Bhardwaj A, Brown D, Lliso B, Loos J, Mannocci L, Martin A, Oliva M, Pascual U, Sherpa P, Worsdell T. Reviewing the science on 50 years of conservation: Knowledge production biases and lessons for practice. AMBIO 2024; 53:1395-1413. [PMID: 39023682 PMCID: PMC11383897 DOI: 10.1007/s13280-024-02049-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2023] [Revised: 04/18/2024] [Accepted: 06/25/2024] [Indexed: 07/20/2024]
Abstract
Drawing on 662 studies from 102 countries, we present a systematic review of published empirical studies about site-level biodiversity conservation initiated between 1970 and 2019. Within this sample, we find that knowledge production about the Global South is largely produced by researchers in the Global North, implying a neocolonial power dynamic. We also find evidence of bias in reported ecological outcomes linked to lack of independence in scientific studies, serving to uphold narratives about who should lead conservation. We explore relationships in the sample studies between conservation initiative types, the extent of Indigenous Peoples' and local communities' influence in governance, and reported social and ecological outcomes. Findings reveal positive ecological and social outcomes are strongly associated with higher levels of influence of Indigenous Peoples and local communities and their institutions, implying equity in conservation practice should be advanced not only for moral reasons, but because it can enhance conservation effectiveness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neil M Dawson
- Global Environmental Justice Research Group, School of Global Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.
- Centre for the Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity (CESAB), French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB), 34000, Montpellier, France.
| | - Brendan Coolsaet
- Fund for Scientific Research (FNRS), 1000, Brussels, Belgium
- Institute for the Analysis of Change in Contemporary and Historical Societies, UCLouvain, 1348, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
| | | | - David Brown
- Global Environmental Justice Research Group, School of Global Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK
- Centre for Landscape Regeneration, University of Cambridge Conservation Research Institute, Cambridge, CB2 3QZ, UK
| | - Bosco Lliso
- World Benchmarking Alliance, 1012 TM, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Basque Centre for Climate Change, 48940, Leioa, Spain
| | - Jacqueline Loos
- Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research, University of Vienna, 1030, Vienna, Austria
- Institute of Ecology and Social-Ecological Systems Institute, Leuphana University, 21335, Lüneburg, Germany
| | - Laura Mannocci
- Centre for the Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity (CESAB), French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB), 34000, Montpellier, France
- MARBEC (Univ Montpellier, CNRS, Ifremer, IRD), 34070, Montpellier, France
| | - Adrian Martin
- Global Environmental Justice Research Group, School of Global Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK
| | - Malena Oliva
- Laboratorio Nacional de Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad, LANCIS, Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Unai Pascual
- Basque Centre for Climate Change, 48940, Leioa, Spain
- Ikerbasque, Basque Foundation for Science, Plaza Euskadi 5, 48009, Bilbao, Spain
| | - Pasang Sherpa
- Central Department of Sociology, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Kathmandu, 44618, Nepal
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Wen X, Bennett JR, Rytwinski T, Karimi S, Spetka M, Taylor JJ, Smith PA. Review of terrestrial temporarily conserved areas in Canada, the United States, and Mexico. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2024; 38:e14160. [PMID: 37551779 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14160] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2022] [Revised: 07/04/2023] [Accepted: 07/13/2023] [Indexed: 08/09/2023]
Abstract
The establishment of protected areas is a cornerstone of conservation, but permanent protection could be inefficient or even impossible in some situations. We synthesized the literature on temporarily conserved areas (TCAs) across Canada, the United States, and Mexico. We used a comprehensive search string to retrieve peer-reviewed articles published from 2000 to 2021 from the Web of Science. We identified 27 relevant peer-reviewed articles that examined the potential benefits of TCAs in the study area, indicating TCA is a relatively understudied area of research in the peer-reviewed literature. The TCA studies were highly clustered; 77% of studies focused on protecting a single life stage of migratory species and 61% of studies related to temporary conservation of breeding or staging habitats for migratory birds. Ninety-three percent of studies focused on preventing human-driven threats, mainly on public lands of coastal areas, the Great Plains, and the Mississippi Valley in the central United States. Short-term and experimental studies were the dominant study types. TCAs have the potential to complement permanently protected areas and provide protection when permanent protection is difficult. Some included studies examined their conservation value, but the ecological, social, and economic outcomes of TCAs are unclear. More TCA research is needed to determine the role they could play in conservation worldwide. Embracing the concept of TCAs as conservation tool could lead to more comprehensive and consistent reporting of the outcomes of temporary area-based conservation measures. However, a global review and analysis of effectiveness of TCAs will be required if they are to play a formal role in meeting international targets for biodiversity conservation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xin Wen
- Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Joseph R Bennett
- Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Trina Rytwinski
- Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Sahebeh Karimi
- Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Matthew Spetka
- Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jessica J Taylor
- Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Paul A Smith
- Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Environment and Climate Change Canada, National Wildlife Research Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Mammola S, Altermatt F, Alther R, Amorim IR, Băncilă RI, Borges PAV, Brad T, Brankovits D, Cardoso P, Cerasoli F, Chauveau CA, Delić T, Di Lorenzo T, Faille A, Fišer C, Flot JF, Gabriel R, Galassi DMP, Garzoli L, Griebler C, Konecny-Dupré L, Martínez A, Mori N, Nanni V, Ogorelec Ž, Pallarés S, Salussolia A, Saccò M, Stoch F, Vaccarelli I, Zagmajster M, Zittra C, Meierhofer MB, Sánchez-Fernández D, Malard F. Perspectives and pitfalls in preserving subterranean biodiversity through protected areas. NPJ BIODIVERSITY 2024; 3:2. [PMID: 39242876 PMCID: PMC11332058 DOI: 10.1038/s44185-023-00035-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/05/2023] [Accepted: 12/20/2023] [Indexed: 09/09/2024]
Abstract
Subterranean ecosystems (comprising terrestrial, semi-aquatic, and aquatic components) are increasingly threatened by human activities; however, the current network of surface-protected areas is inadequate to safeguard subterranean biodiversity. Establishing protected areas for subterranean ecosystems is challenging. First, there are technical obstacles in mapping three-dimensional ecosystems with uncertain boundaries. Second, the rarity and endemism of subterranean organisms, combined with a scarcity of taxonomists, delays the accumulation of essential biodiversity knowledge. Third, establishing agreements to preserve subterranean ecosystems requires collaboration among multiple actors with often competing interests. This perspective addresses the challenges of preserving subterranean biodiversity through protected areas. Even in the face of uncertainties, we suggest it is both timely and critical to assess general criteria for subterranean biodiversity protection and implement them based on precautionary principles. To this end, we examine the current status of European protected areas and discuss solutions to improve their coverage of subterranean ecosystems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stefano Mammola
- Molecular Ecology Group (MEG), Water Research Institute (IRSA), National Research Council (CNR), Corso Tonolli, 50, Pallanza, 28922, Italy.
- Laboratory for Integrative Biodiversity Research (LIBRe), Finnish Museum of Natural History (LUOMUS), University of Helsinki, Pohjoinen Rautatiekatu 13, Helsinki, 00100, Finland.
- NBFC, National Biodiversity Future Center, Palermo, 90133, Italy.
| | - Florian Altermatt
- Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057, Zurich, Switzerland
- Department of Aquatic Ecology, Eawag: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Überlandstrasse 190, 8600, Dübendorf, Switzerland
| | - Roman Alther
- Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057, Zurich, Switzerland
- Department of Aquatic Ecology, Eawag: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Überlandstrasse 190, 8600, Dübendorf, Switzerland
| | - Isabel R Amorim
- cE3c-Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes/Azorean Biodiversity Group, CHANGE-Global Change and Sustainability Institute, School of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of the Azores, Rua Capitão João d´Ávila, Pico da Urze, 9700-042, Angra do Heroísmo, Azores, Portugal
| | - Raluca I Băncilă
- "Emil Racoviţă" Institute of Speleology, Department of Cluj-Napoca, Str. Clinicilor Nr. 5, 400006, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| | - Paulo A V Borges
- cE3c-Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes/Azorean Biodiversity Group, CHANGE-Global Change and Sustainability Institute, School of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of the Azores, Rua Capitão João d´Ávila, Pico da Urze, 9700-042, Angra do Heroísmo, Azores, Portugal
| | - Traian Brad
- "Emil Racoviţă" Institute of Speleology, Department of Cluj-Napoca, Str. Clinicilor Nr. 5, 400006, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| | - David Brankovits
- Molecular Ecology Group (MEG), Water Research Institute (IRSA), National Research Council (CNR), Corso Tonolli, 50, Pallanza, 28922, Italy
| | - Pedro Cardoso
- Laboratory for Integrative Biodiversity Research (LIBRe), Finnish Museum of Natural History (LUOMUS), University of Helsinki, Pohjoinen Rautatiekatu 13, Helsinki, 00100, Finland
- cE3c-Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes, CHANGE-Global Change and Sustainability Institute, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Francesco Cerasoli
- Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Coppito, 67100, L'Aquila, Italy
| | - Claire A Chauveau
- Department of Organismal Biology, Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), C.P. 160/12, Avenue F.D. Roosevelt 50, 1050, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Teo Delić
- University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Biology, SubBioLab, Jamnikarjeva 101, SI-1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Tiziana Di Lorenzo
- NBFC, National Biodiversity Future Center, Palermo, 90133, Italy
- "Emil Racoviţă" Institute of Speleology, Department of Cluj-Napoca, Str. Clinicilor Nr. 5, 400006, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
- cE3c-Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes, CHANGE-Global Change and Sustainability Institute, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
- Research Institute on Terrestrial Ecosystems of the National Research Council (IRET-CNR), Via Madonna del Piano 10, Florence, Italy
| | - Arnaud Faille
- Stuttgart State Museum of Natural History, Rosenstein 1, 70191, Stuttgart, Germany
| | - Cene Fišer
- University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Biology, SubBioLab, Jamnikarjeva 101, SI-1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Jean-François Flot
- Department of Organismal Biology, Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), C.P. 160/12, Avenue F.D. Roosevelt 50, 1050, Brussels, Belgium
- Interuniversity Institute of Bioinformatics in Brussels-(IB)², Brussels, Belgium
| | - Rosalina Gabriel
- cE3c-Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes/Azorean Biodiversity Group, CHANGE-Global Change and Sustainability Institute, School of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of the Azores, Rua Capitão João d´Ávila, Pico da Urze, 9700-042, Angra do Heroísmo, Azores, Portugal
| | - Diana M P Galassi
- Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Coppito, 67100, L'Aquila, Italy
| | - Laura Garzoli
- Molecular Ecology Group (MEG), Water Research Institute (IRSA), National Research Council (CNR), Corso Tonolli, 50, Pallanza, 28922, Italy
| | - Christian Griebler
- Department of Functional and Evolutionary Ecology, University of Vienna, Djerassiplatz 1, 1030, Vienna, Austria
| | - Lara Konecny-Dupré
- Univ Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS, ENTPE, UMR 5023 LEHNA, F-69622, Villeurbanne, France
| | - Alejandro Martínez
- Molecular Ecology Group (MEG), Water Research Institute (IRSA), National Research Council (CNR), Corso Tonolli, 50, Pallanza, 28922, Italy
| | - Nataša Mori
- Department of Organisms and Ecosystem Research, National Institute of Biology, Večna pot 111, SI-1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Veronica Nanni
- Molecular Ecology Group (MEG), Water Research Institute (IRSA), National Research Council (CNR), Corso Tonolli, 50, Pallanza, 28922, Italy
- School for Advanced Studies IUSS, Science, Technology and Society Department, 25100, Pavia, Italy
| | - Žiga Ogorelec
- Department of Organisms and Ecosystem Research, National Institute of Biology, Večna pot 111, SI-1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Susana Pallarés
- Department of Zoology, University of Sevilla, Sevilla, 41012, Spain
| | - Alice Salussolia
- Department of Organismal Biology, Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), C.P. 160/12, Avenue F.D. Roosevelt 50, 1050, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Mattia Saccò
- Subterranean Research and Groundwater Ecology (SuRGE) Group, Trace and Environmental DNA (TrEnD) Lab, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley 6102, Perth, WA, Australia
- Department of Chemistry, Life Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, University of Parma, Parco Area delle Scienze 11/A, 43124, Parma, Italy
| | - Fabio Stoch
- Department of Organismal Biology, Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), C.P. 160/12, Avenue F.D. Roosevelt 50, 1050, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Ilaria Vaccarelli
- Molecular Ecology Group (MEG), Water Research Institute (IRSA), National Research Council (CNR), Corso Tonolli, 50, Pallanza, 28922, Italy
- Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Coppito, 67100, L'Aquila, Italy
- School for Advanced Studies IUSS, Science, Technology and Society Department, 25100, Pavia, Italy
| | - Maja Zagmajster
- University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Biology, SubBioLab, Jamnikarjeva 101, SI-1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Carina Zittra
- Department of Functional and Evolutionary Ecology, University of Vienna, Djerassiplatz 1, 1030, Vienna, Austria
| | - Melissa B Meierhofer
- BatLab Finland, Finnish Museum of Natural History Luomus (LUOMUS), University of Helsinki, Pohjoinen Rautatiekatu 13, Helsinki, 00100, Finland
| | | | - Florian Malard
- Univ Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS, ENTPE, UMR 5023 LEHNA, F-69622, Villeurbanne, France
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Aschi F, Dekker SC, van Vuuren DP, Bogaart PW, Rijsdijk KF, van Loon EE. Costs and benefits of protecting linear landscape elements: Applying systematic conservation planning on a case study in the Netherlands. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 2023; 348:119262. [PMID: 37866179 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119262] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/07/2023] [Revised: 10/03/2023] [Accepted: 10/03/2023] [Indexed: 10/24/2023]
Abstract
Protecting and increasing linear landscape elements (LLEs) in agricultural lands is regarded as a possible solution for a transition to a more biodiverse agricultural system. However, optimizing the spatial configuration of LLEs protected areas is challenging, especially given the demand for land for food production. Systematic Conservation Planning (SCP) can address this challenge, by prioritizing cost-efficient protection areas. We used a SCP approach to look at the LLEs network in the Province of Noord-Brabant in the Netherlands, identifying the possible trade-off between optimizing species conservation, costs and the monetary values of ecosystem services (ES). For this we defined two scenarios. One scenario focuses on achieving species conservation targets at the minimum cost, and the other focuses on achieving targets while maximizing the benefits provided by ES. For each scenario, we further developed two land-management options, namely land-sharing and land-sparing. For each solution, we tested their cost-effectiveness by calculating implementation costs, economic benefits provided by ES, and cost/benefit ratios. First, our scenario analysis indicates that the economic benefits provided by ES always outweigh the implementation costs. Second, it shows that including ES as co-benefits in SCP (Maximize ES Scenario) yields more cost-efficient conservation solutions. Third, both land-sharing and land-sparing are possible cost-efficient approaches to achieve conservation targets. Our results are spatially explicit and identify crucial habitat areas for the conservation of the selected species, which represent 12-20% of the current unprotected network of LLEs. Our findings showcase net economic benefit of conserving species and LLEs, thus representing an additional reason for biodiversity conservation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Flavia Aschi
- Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), The Hague, the Netherlands.
| | - Stefan C Dekker
- Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Detlef P van Vuuren
- Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), The Hague, the Netherlands
| | - Patrick W Bogaart
- Department of National Accounts, Statistics Netherlands, The Hague, the Netherlands
| | - Kenneth F Rijsdijk
- Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - E Emiel van Loon
- Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Arneth A, Leadley P, Claudet J, Coll M, Rondinini C, Rounsevell MDA, Shin YJ, Alexander P, Fuchs R. Making protected areas effective for biodiversity, climate and food. GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY 2023; 29:3883-3894. [PMID: 36872638 DOI: 10.1111/gcb.16664] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2022] [Accepted: 02/27/2023] [Indexed: 05/17/2023]
Abstract
The spatial extent of marine and terrestrial protected areas (PAs) was among the most intensely debated issues prior to the decision about the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Positive impacts of PAs on habitats, species diversity and abundance are well documented. Yet, biodiversity loss continues unabated despite efforts to protect 17% of land and 10% of the oceans by 2020. This casts doubt on whether extending PAs to 30%, the agreed target in the Kunming-Montreal GBF, will indeed achieve meaningful biodiversity benefits. Critically, the focus on area coverage obscures the importance of PA effectiveness and overlooks concerns about the impact of PAs on other sustainability objectives. We propose a simple means of assessing and visualising the complex relationships between PA area coverage and effectiveness and their effects on biodiversity conservation, nature-based climate mitigation and food production. Our analysis illustrates how achieving a 30% PA global target could be beneficial for biodiversity and climate. It also highlights important caveats: (i) achieving lofty area coverage objectives alone will be of little benefit without concomitant improvements in effectiveness, (ii) trade-offs with food production particularly for high levels of coverage and effectiveness are likely and (iii) important differences in terrestrial and marine systems need to be recognized when setting and implementing PA targets. The CBD's call for a significant increase in PA will need to be accompanied by clear PA effectiveness goals to reduce and revert dangerous anthropogenic impacts on socio-ecological systems and biodiversity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Almut Arneth
- KIT, Department of Atmospheric Environmental Research, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany
- KIT, Department of Geography and Geoecology, Karlsruhe, Germany
| | - Paul Leadley
- ESE Laboratory, Université Paris-Saclay/CNRS/AgroParisTech, Orsay, France
| | - Joachim Claudet
- National Center for Scientific Research, PSL Université Paris, CRIOBE, CNRS-EPHE-UPVD, Paris, France
| | - Marta Coll
- Institute of Marine Science (ICM-CSIC), Passeig Maritim de la Barceloneta, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Carlo Rondinini
- Global Mammal Assessment Program, Department of Biology and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
- Global Wildlife Conservation Center, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, New York City, New York, USA
| | - Mark D A Rounsevell
- KIT, Department of Atmospheric Environmental Research, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany
- KIT, Department of Geography and Geoecology, Karlsruhe, Germany
- School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Yunne-Jai Shin
- Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), Univ Montpellier, IFREMER, CNRS, MARBEC, Montpellier, France
| | - Peter Alexander
- School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Richard Fuchs
- KIT, Department of Atmospheric Environmental Research, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Cunningham CA, Crick HQP, Morecroft MD, Thomas CD, Beale CM. Reconciling diverse viewpoints within systematic conservation planning. PEOPLE AND NATURE 2023. [DOI: 10.1002/pan3.10449] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Charles A. Cunningham
- Department of Biology University of York York UK
- Leverhulme Centre for Anthropocene Biodiversity University of York York UK
| | | | | | - Chris D. Thomas
- Department of Biology University of York York UK
- Leverhulme Centre for Anthropocene Biodiversity University of York York UK
| | - Colin M. Beale
- Department of Biology University of York York UK
- Leverhulme Centre for Anthropocene Biodiversity University of York York UK
- York Environmental Sustainability Institute University of York York UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
von Saltza E, Kittinger JN. Financing conservation at scale via visitor green fees. Front Ecol Evol 2022. [DOI: 10.3389/fevo.2022.1036132] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Conservation in the Anthropocene requires financing that is commensurate to the scale of threats to ecosystems and the benefits they provide humanity. To meet this challenge, new financing models are needed at a diversity of scales to help support the protection of nature. Visitor green fees – or payments made by visitors to management authorities, for the explicit purpose of funding natural resource management – are an innovative conservation financing tool. In contrast to park fees, these conservation finance systems operate at the scale of an entire jurisdiction, rather than a specific protected area, park or reserve. Despite their recent proliferation worldwide, there is little to no scholarly literature on visitor green fees. In this paper, we assess ten visitor green fee programs worldwide and evaluate their fee system, governance, and management approach. Our over-arching purpose is to explore the challenges and opportunities associated with these conservation financing models, to inform both the evaluation of existing models and to aid practitioners seeking to establish systems to enhance financing for conservation and the ecosystem services that nature provides tourism-dependent destinations.
Collapse
|
9
|
Areas of Outstanding Nineteenth Century Beauty: Historic landscape characterisation analysis of protected areas in England. PEOPLE AND NATURE 2022. [DOI: 10.1002/pan3.10424] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
|
10
|
He J, Zhou W. Conservation versus development: uncovering divergent viewpoints of conservationists on National Parks system by Q methodology in China. Glob Ecol Conserv 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02343] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
|
11
|
Carroll C, Noss RF. How percentage-protected targets can support positive biodiversity outcomes. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2022; 36:e13869. [PMID: 34856009 PMCID: PMC9540251 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13869] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2021] [Revised: 10/07/2021] [Accepted: 11/19/2021] [Indexed: 05/26/2023]
Abstract
Global targets for the percentage area of land protected, such as 30% by 2030, have gained increasing prominence, but both their scientific basis and likely effectiveness have been questioned. As with emissions-reduction targets based on desired climate outcomes, percentage-protected targets combine values and science by estimating the area over which conservation actions are required to help achieve desired biodiversity outcomes. Protected areas are essential for achieving many biodiversity targets, in part because many species are highly sensitive to human-associated disturbance. However, because the contribution of protected areas to biodiversity outcomes is contingent on their location, management, governance, threats, and what occurs across the broader landscape matrix, global percentage-protected targets are unavoidably empirical generalizations of ecological patterns and processes across diverse geographies. Percentage-protected targets are insufficient in isolation but can complement other actions and contribute to biodiversity outcomes within a framework that balances accuracy and pragmatism in a global context characterized by imperfect biodiversity data. Ideally, percentage-protected targets serve as anchors that strengthen comprehensive national biodiversity strategies by communicating the level of ambition necessary to reverse current trends of biodiversity loss. If such targets are to fulfill this role within the complex societal process by which both values and science impel conservation actions, conservation scientists must clearly communicate the nature of the evidence base supporting percentage-protected targets and how protected areas can function within a broader landscape managed for sustainable coexistence between people and nature. A new paradigm for protected and conserved areas recognizes that national coordination, incentives, and monitoring should support rather than undermine diverse locally led conservation initiatives. However, the definition of a conserved area must retain a strong focus on biodiversity to remain consistent with the evidence base from which percentage-protected targets were originally derived.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carlos Carroll
- Klamath Center for Conservation ResearchOrleansCaliforniaUSA
| | - Reed F. Noss
- Florida Institute for Conservation ScienceMelroseFloridaUSA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Semper-Pascual A, Bischof R, Milleret C, Beaudrot L, Vallejo-Vargas AF, Ahumada JA, Akampurira E, Bitariho R, Espinosa S, Jansen PA, Kiebou-Opepa C, Moreira Lima MG, Martin EH, Mugerwa B, Rovero F, Salvador J, Santos F, Uzabaho E, Sheil D. Occupancy winners in tropical protected forests: a pantropical analysis. Proc Biol Sci 2022; 289:20220457. [PMID: 35858066 PMCID: PMC9277235 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2022.0457] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
The structure of forest mammal communities appears surprisingly consistent across the continental tropics, presumably due to convergent evolution in similar environments. Whether such consistency extends to mammal occupancy, despite variation in species characteristics and context, remains unclear. Here we ask whether we can predict occupancy patterns and, if so, whether these relationships are consistent across biogeographic regions. Specifically, we assessed how mammal feeding guild, body mass and ecological specialization relate to occupancy in protected forests across the tropics. We used standardized camera-trap data (1002 camera-trap locations and 2-10 years of data) and a hierarchical Bayesian occupancy model. We found that occupancy varied by regions, and certain species characteristics explained much of this variation. Herbivores consistently had the highest occupancy. However, only in the Neotropics did we detect a significant effect of body mass on occupancy: large mammals had lowest occupancy. Importantly, habitat specialists generally had higher occupancy than generalists, though this was reversed in the Indo-Malayan sites. We conclude that habitat specialization is key for understanding variation in mammal occupancy across regions, and that habitat specialists often benefit more from protected areas, than do generalists. The contrasting examples seen in the Indo-Malayan region probably reflect distinct anthropogenic pressures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Asunción Semper-Pascual
- Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
| | - Richard Bischof
- Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
| | - Cyril Milleret
- Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
| | - Lydia Beaudrot
- Program in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Department of BioSciences, Rice University, Houston, USA
| | - Andrea F. Vallejo-Vargas
- Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
| | - Jorge A. Ahumada
- Moore Center for Science, Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA
| | - Emmanuel Akampurira
- Institute of Tropical Forest Conservation, Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Kabale, Uganda,Conflict Research Group, Ghent University, Belgium
| | - Robert Bitariho
- Institute of Tropical Forest Conservation, Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Kabale, Uganda
| | - Santiago Espinosa
- Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico,Escuela de Biología, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador
| | - Patrick A. Jansen
- Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Panama City, Panama,Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
| | - Cisquet Kiebou-Opepa
- Wildlife Conservation Society - Congo Program, Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo,Nouabalé-Ndoki Foundation, Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo
| | - Marcela Guimarães Moreira Lima
- Biogeography of Conservation and Macroecology Laboratory, Institute of Biological Sciences, Universidade Federal do Pará, Pará, Brazil
| | - Emanuel H. Martin
- Department of Wildlife Management, College of African Wildlife Management, Mweka, Moshi, Tanzania
| | - Badru Mugerwa
- Department of Ecological Dynamics, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany,Department of Ecology, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Francesco Rovero
- Department of Biology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy,MUSE-Museo delle Scienze, Trento, Italy
| | | | | | | | - Douglas Sheil
- Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway,Forest Ecology and Forest Management Group, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands,Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Özcan AU, Gülçin D, Arpa NY, Çiçek K. Connecting protected areas in the North Mesopotamian steppes: can this ensure the survival of the Arabian Sand Gazelle ( Gazella marica)? ZOOLOGY IN THE MIDDLE EAST 2022. [DOI: 10.1080/09397140.2022.2077564] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Ali Uğur Özcan
- Department of Landscape Architecture, Çankırı Karatekin University, Çankırı, Turkey
- Department of Wildlife, Çankırı Karatekin University, Çankırı, Turkey
| | - Derya Gülçin
- Department of Landscape Architecture, Aydın Adnan Menderes University, Aydın, Turkey
| | | | - Kerim Çiçek
- Department of Biology, Section of Zoology, Ege University, Bornova, Izmir, Turkey
- Natural History Application and Research Centre, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Liu F, Feng C, Zhou Y, Zhang L, Du J, Huang W, Luo J, Wang W. Effectiveness of functional zones in National Nature Reserves for the protection of forest ecosystems in China. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 2022; 308:114593. [PMID: 35121461 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114593] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/22/2021] [Revised: 01/18/2022] [Accepted: 01/22/2022] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
Protected areas (PAs) have been established worldwide to conserve biodiversity. However, the conservation effectiveness of different PA functional zones remains poorly understood. Here, we investigated National Nature Reserves (NNRs) in China to explore and quantify the conservation in their core, buffer, and experimental zones. We compared the area and proportion of forest loss for these functional zones during the period from 2001 to 2018. The results showed that the forest loss in NNRs showed a decreasing trend since 2011, indicating that NNRs reduced the forest loss. There was no significant difference of forest loss proportion (p = 0.42) between the core zones (0.60 ± 1.32%) and buffer zones (0.55 ± 0.88%), implying that their performance in forest conservation was similar. There was a significant difference between experimental and core zones as well as between experimental and buffer zones both in forest loss area and proportion (p ˂ 0.05). We confirmed that the proportion of functional zones significantly affects the conservation effectiveness, i.e., an improper proportion of core zones or buffer zones may lead to forest loss. Therefore, we suggest an optimal proportion of core and buffer zones at 30%-50% and 10%-40%, respectively. Overall, the effectiveness of functional zones in forest nature reserves was assessed on a national scale. The results of this study support the recent adjustment in the PA functional zoning system in China.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fangzheng Liu
- State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk Assessment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, 100012, China; Biodiversity Research Center, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, 100012, China
| | - Chunting Feng
- State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk Assessment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, 100012, China; Biodiversity Research Center, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, 100012, China
| | - Yue Zhou
- State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk Assessment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, 100012, China; Biodiversity Research Center, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, 100012, China
| | - Libo Zhang
- State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk Assessment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, 100012, China; Biodiversity Research Center, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, 100012, China
| | - Jinhong Du
- State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk Assessment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, 100012, China; Biodiversity Research Center, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, 100012, China
| | - Wenjie Huang
- State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk Assessment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, 100012, China; Biodiversity Research Center, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, 100012, China
| | - Jianwu Luo
- State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk Assessment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, 100012, China; Biodiversity Research Center, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, 100012, China
| | - Wei Wang
- State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk Assessment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, 100012, China; Biodiversity Research Center, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, 100012, China.
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Moranta J, Torres C, Murray I, Hidalgo M, Hinz H, Gouraguine A. Transcending capitalism growth strategies for biodiversity conservation. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2022; 36:e13821. [PMID: 34405455 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13821] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2020] [Revised: 08/04/2021] [Accepted: 08/05/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
The unlimited economic growth that fuels capitalism's metabolism has profoundly transformed a large portion of Earth. The resulting environmental destruction has led to an unprecedented rate of biodiversity loss. Following large-scale losses of habitats and species, it was recognized that biodiversity is crucial to maintaining functional ecosystems. We sought to continue the debate on the contradictions between economic growth and biodiversity in the conservation science literature and thus invite scholars to engage in reversing the biodiversity crisis through acknowledging the impacts of economic growth. In the 1970s, a global agenda was set to develop different milestones related to sustainable development, including green-blue economic growth, which despite not specifically addressing biodiversity reinforced the idea that economic development based on profit is compatible with the planet's ecology. Only after biodiversity loss captured the attention of environmental sciences researchers in the early 2000s was a global biodiversity agenda implemented. The agenda highlights biodiversity conservation as a major international challenge and recognizes that the main drivers of biodiversity loss derive from economic activities. The post-2000 biodiversity agendas, including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the post-2020 Convention on Biological Diversity Global Strategy Framework, do not consider the negative impacts of growth-oriented strategies on biodiversity. As a result, global biodiversity conservation priorities are governed by the economic value of biodiversity and its assumed contribution to people's welfare. A large body of empirical evidence shows that unlimited economic growth is the main driver of biodiversity loss in the Anthropocene; thus, we strongly argue for sustainable degrowth and a fundamental shift in societal values. An equitable downscaling of the physical economy can improve ecological conditions, thus reducing biodiversity loss and consequently enhancing human well-being.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joan Moranta
- Ecosystem Oceanography Group (GRECO), Centre Oceanogràfic de Balears (IEO, CSIC), Palma, Spain
- Alimentta, Think Tank para la Transición Alimentaria, Palma, Spain
| | - Cati Torres
- Applied Economics Department, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Palma, Spain
| | - Ivan Murray
- Department of Geography, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Palma, Spain
| | - Manuel Hidalgo
- Ecosystem Oceanography Group (GRECO), Centre Oceanogràfic de Balears (IEO, CSIC), Palma, Spain
| | - Hilmar Hinz
- Department of Ecology and Marine Resources, Instituto Mediterráneo de Estudios Avanzados IMEDEA (CSIC-UIB), Esporles, Spain
| | - Adam Gouraguine
- School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Chen C, Brodie JF, Kays R, Davies TJ, Liu R, Fisher JT, Ahumada J, McShea W, Sheil D, Agwanda B, Andrianarisoa MH, Appleton RD, Bitariho R, Espinosa S, Grigione MM, Helgen KM, Hubbard A, Hurtado CM, Jansen PA, Jiang X, Jones A, Kalies EL, Kiebou‐Opepa C, Li X, Lima MGM, Meyer E, Miller AB, Murphy T, Piana R, Quan R, Rota CT, Rovero F, Santos F, Schuttler S, Uduman A, Bommel JK, Young H, Burton AC. Global camera trap synthesis highlights the importance of protected areas in maintaining mammal diversity. Conserv Lett 2022. [DOI: 10.1111/conl.12865] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
|
17
|
|
18
|
Shiono T, Kubota Y, Kusumoto B. Area-based conservation planning in Japan: The importance of OECMs in the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Glob Ecol Conserv 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01783] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
|
19
|
Cunningham CA, Crick HQP, Morecroft MD, Thomas CD, Beale CM. Translating area-based conservation pledges into efficient biodiversity protection outcomes. Commun Biol 2021; 4:1043. [PMID: 34493796 PMCID: PMC8423728 DOI: 10.1038/s42003-021-02590-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/08/2020] [Accepted: 07/23/2021] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
Ambitious national and global pledges to protect increasing areas of land risk trading conservation effectiveness for convenience of designation. We show that UK conservation areas often lie outside the highest biodiversity priority landscapes, and that systematic conservation planning can improve site selection. Cunningham et al. comment on the U.K.’s commitment to protect 30% of land by 2030, by identifying priority landscapes for expansion of the current protected area network in the UK using 445 priority species ranges across the country, under two baseline protection definitions to reach this conservation target. They find that expanding the protected area network by initially only including the strictest protected areas would yield much greater representation of threatened species, and propose new considerations for protected area commitments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Michael D Morecroft
- Chief Scientist's Directorate, Natural England c/o Natural England Mail Hub, Worcester, UK
| | - Chris D Thomas
- Leverhulme Centre for Anthropocene Biodiversity, University of York, York, UK.
| | - Colin M Beale
- Leverhulme Centre for Anthropocene Biodiversity, University of York, York, UK.
- York Environmental Sustainability Institute, University of York, York, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Carroll C, Ray JC. Maximizing the effectiveness of national commitments to protected area expansion for conserving biodiversity and ecosystem carbon under climate change. GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY 2021; 27:3395-3414. [PMID: 33852186 PMCID: PMC8360173 DOI: 10.1111/gcb.15645] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/24/2020] [Accepted: 03/30/2021] [Indexed: 06/01/2023]
Abstract
Global commitments to protected area expansion should prioritize opportunities to protect climate refugia and ecosystems which store high levels of irrecoverable carbon, as key components of an effective response to biodiversity loss and climate change. The United States and Canada are responsible for one-sixth of global greenhouse gas emissions but hold extensive natural ecosystems that store globally significant above- and below-ground carbon. Canada has initiated a process of protected area network expansion in concert with efforts at reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples, and acknowledged nature-based solutions as a key aspect of climate change mitigation. The US, although not a party to global biodiversity conventions, has recently committed to protecting 30% of its extent by 2030 and achieving the UNFCCC Paris Agreement's mitigation targets. The opportunities afforded by these dual biodiversity conservation and climate commitments require coordinated national and regional policies to ensure that new protected areas maximize biodiversity-focused adaptation and nature-based mitigation opportunities. We address how global commitments can best inform national policy initiatives which build on existing agency mandates for regional planning and species conservation. Previous analyses of global conservation priorities under climate change have been tenuously linked to policy contexts of individual nations and have lacked information on refugia due to limitations of globally available datasets. Comparison and synthesis of predictions from a range of recently developed refugia metrics allow such data to inform planning despite substantial uncertainty arising from contrasting model assumptions and inputs. A case study for endangered species planning for old-forest-associated species in the US Pacific Northwest demonstrates how regional planning can be nested hierarchically within national biodiversity-focused adaptation and nature-based mitigation strategies which integrate refugia, connectivity, and ecosystem carbon metrics to holistically evaluate the role of different land designations and where carbon mitigation and protection of biodiversity's resilience to climate change can be aligned.
Collapse
|
21
|
Zhu L, Hughes AC, Zhao XQ, Zhou LJ, Ma KP, Shen XL, Li S, Liu MZ, Xu WB, Watson JEM. Regional scalable priorities for national biodiversity and carbon conservation planning in Asia. SCIENCE ADVANCES 2021; 7:eabe4261. [PMID: 34446433 PMCID: PMC8388611 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abe4261] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/20/2020] [Accepted: 07/07/2021] [Indexed: 05/26/2023]
Abstract
To achieve the goals of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, we must identify representative targets that effectively protect biodiversity and can be implemented at a national level. We developed a framework to identify synergies between biodiversity and carbon across the Asian region and proposed a stepwise approach based on scalable priorities at regional, biome, and national levels that can complement potential Convention on Biological Diversity targets of protecting 30% land in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Our targets show that 30% of Asian land could effectively protect over 70% of all assessed species relative to only 11% now (based on analysis of 8932 terrestrial vertebrates), in addition to 2.3 to 3.6 hundred billion metric tons of carbon. Funding mechanisms are needed to ensure such targets to support biodiversity-carbon mutually beneficial solutions at the national level while reflecting broader priorities, especially in hyperdiverse countries where priorities exceed 30% of land.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Li Zhu
- State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, China
| | - Alice C Hughes
- Centre for Integrative Conservation, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Menglun, Xishuangbanna, Yunnan 666303, China
| | - Xiao-Qian Zhao
- State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, China
| | - Li-Jing Zhou
- State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, China
- University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
| | - Ke-Ping Ma
- State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, China.
- University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
| | - Xiao-Li Shen
- State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, China
| | - Sheng Li
- School of Life Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
| | - Ming-Zhang Liu
- School of Life Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
| | - Wu-Bing Xu
- Centre for Biodiversity Dynamics in a Changing World (BIOCHANGE) and Section for Ecoinformatics and Biodiversity, Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University, DK-8000 Aarhus, Denmark
| | - James E M Watson
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia
- Wildlife Conservation Society, Global Conservation Program, 2300 Southern Boulevard Bronx, New York, NY 10460, USA
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
|
23
|
Silva JMC, Pinto LP, Scarano FR. Toward integrating private conservation lands into national protected area systems: Lessons from a megadiversity country. CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE 2021. [DOI: 10.1111/csp2.433] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | - Luiz Paulo Pinto
- Centro de Pesquisas Ambientais do Nordeste (CEPAN) Recife Pernambuco Brazil
| | - Fábio Rubio Scarano
- Departamento de Ecologia Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, CCS, IB Rio de Janeiro RJ Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Partnerships and Stakeholder Participation in the Management of National Parks: Experiences of the Gonarezhou National Park in Zimbabwe. LAND 2020. [DOI: 10.3390/land9110399] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
National parks play an important role in maintaining natural ecosystems which are important sources of income and livelihood sustenance. Most national parks in Southern Africa are managed by their states. Before 2007, Gonarezhou National Park was managed by the Zimbabwe Parks Management and Wildlife Authority, which faced challenges in maintaining its biodiversity, community relations and infrastructure. However, in 2017 the Frankfurt Zoological Society and the Zimbabwe Parks Management and Wildlife Authority formed an innovative partnership under the Gonarezhou Conservation Trust (GCT). This study examines the relationship between GCT management, Gonarezhou National Park stakeholders and communities as well as the impact of the relationship on biodiversity and ecosystems. The study also highlights challenges faced and lessons learned in managing Gonarezhou as a protected area. To obtain the information, key informant interviews, Landsat satellite imagery, secondary data from previous studies and government sources were utilized. The results indicate that the concerted efforts of the Gonarezhou Conservation Trust to manage the park are starting to bear fruit in improving biodiversity conservation, ecosystem management and engaging communities. However, challenges such as governance obstacles, problematic stakeholder management, maintaining trust in community relations, ensuring sustainability, managing the adverse impacts of climate change and human-wildlife conflicts must still be navigated to ensure the park’s sustainable management. Notwithstanding challenges, we argue that a partnership arrangement such as the Gonarezhou Conservation Trust is a desirable model that can be applied in national parks in Zimbabwe and Africa for better biodiversity management and tourism.
Collapse
|