Countering resistance to protected‐area extension

The establishment of protected areas is a critical strategy for conserving biodiversity. Key policy directives like the Aichi targets seek to expand protected areas to 17% of Earth's land surface, with calls by some conservation biologists for much more. However, in places such as the United States, Germany, and Australia, attempts to increase protected areas are meeting strong resistance from communities, industry groups, and governments. We examined case studies of such resistance in Victoria, Australia, Bavaria, Germany, and Florida, United States. We considered 4 ways to tackle this problem. First, broaden the case for protected areas beyond nature conservation to include economic, human health, and other benefits, and translate these into a persuasive business case for protected areas. Second, better communicate the conservation values of protected areas. This should include highlighting how many species, communities, and ecosystems have been conserved by protected areas and the counterfactual (i.e., what would have been lost without protected area establishment). Third, consider zoning of activities to ensure the maintenance of effective management. Finally, remind citizens to think about conservation when they vote, including holding politicians accountable for their environmental promises. Without tackling resistance to expanding the protected estate, it will be impossible to reach conservation targets, and this will undermine attempts to stem the global extinction crisis.     

Conservation Prioritization Using GAP Data

Data collected by the Gap Analysis Program in the state of Idaho (U.S.A.) are used to prioritize the selection of locations for conservation action and research. Set coverage and integer programming algorithms provide a sequence of localities that maximize the number of species or vegetation classes represented at each step. Richness maps of vegetation cover class diversity, terrestrial vertebrate species diversity ("hot spot analysis"), endangered, threatened, and candidate species diversity, and unprotected vertebrate species diversity ("gap analysis"), when prioritized, show a rapid accumulation of species as more localities are chosen for terrestrial vertebrates and unprotected vertebrates. Gap analysis identifies four target areas ("gaps") that include 79 of the 83 vertebrate species not currently protected. Accumulation of vegetation cover classes and endangered, threatened, and candidate species is much slower. Sweep analysis is used to determine how well prioritizing on one component of diversity accumulates other components. Endangered, threatened, and candidate species do not sweep total vertebrates as well as unprotected vertebrates do, but are better than vegetation classes. Total vertebrates sweep endangered, threatened, and candidate species better than unprotected vertebrates do, which in turn are better than vegetation classes. We emphasize that prioritization must be part of conservation efforts at multiple scales and that prioritization points out important localities where more detailed work mast be undertaken.     

How percentage-protected targets can support positive biodiversity outcomes

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.