Bias in protected‐area location and its effects on long‐term aspirations of biodiversity conventions |
| |
Authors: | Oscar Venter Ainhoa Magrach Nick Outram Carissa Joy Klein Hugh P Possingham Moreno Di Marco James EM Watson |
| |
Institution: | 1. Natural Resource and Environmental Studies Institute, University of Northern British Columbia, British Columbia V2N 4Z9, Canada;2. Integrative Ecology Department, Do?ana Biological Station (EBD‐CSIC), Isla de la Cartuja, Sevilla, Spain;3. Ecosystem Management, ETH Zurich, 8092 Zuerich, Switzerland;4. ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia;5. School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia;6. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA 22203, U.S.A.;7. Global Conservation Programs, Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, NY 10460, U.S.A. |
| |
Abstract: | To contribute to the aspirations of recent international biodiversity conventions, protected areas (PAs) must be strategically located and not simply established on economically marginal lands as they have in the past. With refined international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity to target protected areas in places of “importance to biodiversity,” perhaps they may now be. We analyzed location biases in PAs globally over historic (pre‐2004) and recent periods. Specifically, we examined whether the location of protected areas are more closely associated with high concentrations of threatened vertebrate species or with areas of low agricultural opportunity costs. We found that both old and new protected areas did not target places with high concentrations of threatened vertebrate species. Instead, they appeared to be established in locations that minimize conflict with agriculturally suitable lands. This entrenchment of past trends has substantial implications for the contributions these protected areas are making to international commitments to conserve biodiversity. If protected‐area growth from 2004 to 2014 had strategically targeted unrepresented threatened vertebrates, >30 times more species (3086 or 2553 potential vs. 85 actual new species represented) would have been protected for the same area or the same cost as the actual expansion. With the land available for conservation declining, nations must urgently focus new protection on places that provide for the conservation outcomes outlined in international treaties. |
| |
Keywords: | Convention on Biological Diversity protected area residual protection systematic conservation planning á rea protegida Convenció n por la Diversidad Bioló gica planeació n sistemá tica de la conservació n protecció n residual |
|
|