Search

Abstract Protected areas remain a key tool in the fight against biodiversity loss and have expanded rapidly in recent decades. However, protected areas are also increasingly experiencing downsizing events that reduce the total amount of area legally under protection. Here we explore how future predicted protected area expansion and downsizing (by 2045) will impact the ability for countries to meet representation and area‐based protection targets, such as those set by the Convention on Biological Diversity. We found that predicted protected area downsizing will likely decrease habitat representation equality and mean area‐based target (30% target) achievement by 50% and >80%, respectively, of the 36 countries analyzed across four scenarios (no protection, business as usual, random and optimal protection). Prioritizing protection of underrepresented ecoregions could offset these unfavorable outcomes, increasing representation equality, on average, by >60% and mean target achievement by >30%. We identify countries that are expected to decrease both representation equality and mean target achievement (~50% of countries across scenarios) with predicted downsizing. These countries need to pay particular attention to strategic protected area expansion and policies that prevent downsizing in parks with under‐represented habitats. Finally, we identify cases where downsizing events improve protected area metrics, such as India and Nigeria, highlighting the complexities and potential trade‐offs of protected area dynamics. A deeper understanding of the influence of protected area downsizing on conservation outcomes is urgently needed to ensure representative and adequate protected area networks.

Protected areas remain a key tool in the fight against biodiversity loss and have expanded rapidly in recent decades. However, protected areas are also increasingly experiencing downsizing events that reduce the total amount of area legally under protection. Here we explore how future predicted protected area expansion and downsizing (by 2045) will impact the ability for countries to meet representation and area‐based protection targets, such as those set by the Convention on Biological Diversity. We found that predicted protected area downsizing will likely decrease habitat representation equality and mean area‐based target (30% target) achievement by 50% and >80%, respectively, of the 36 countries analyzed across four scenarios (no protection, business as usual, random and optimal protection). Prioritizing protection of underrepresented ecoregions could offset these unfavorable outcomes, increasing representation equality, on average, by >60% and mean target achievement by >30%. We identify countries that are expected to decrease both representation equality and mean target achievement (~50% of countries across scenarios) with predicted downsizing. These countries need to pay particular attention to strategic protected area expansion and policies that prevent downsizing in parks with under‐represented habitats. Finally, we identify cases where downsizing events improve protected area metrics, such as India and Nigeria, highlighting the complexities and potential trade‐offs of protected area dynamics. A deeper understanding of the influence of protected area downsizing on conservation outcomes is urgently needed to ensure representative and adequate protected area networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background South America faces strong environmental pressures as a result of agriculture and infrastructure expansion and also of demographic growth, demanding immediate action to preserve natural assets by establishing protected areas. Currently, 7.1% of the (sub)continent is under strict conservation categories (I to IV, IUCN), but the spatial distribution of these 1.3 × 106 km2 is poorly understood. We evaluated the representation of nature within the networks of protected areas, map conservation priorities and assess demographic, economic or geopolitical causes of existing protection patterns. Methods We characterized nature representation by looking at two components: the extent and the equality of protection. The first refers to the fraction of territory under protection, while the second refers to the homogeneity in the distribution along natural conditions of this protected fraction. We characterized natural conditions by either 113 biogeographical units (specifically, ecoregions) or a series of limited and significant climatic, topographic and edaphic traits. We analyzed representation every ten years since 1960 at national and continental levels. In the physical approach, histograms allowed us to map the degree of conservation priorities. Finally, we ranked the importance of different economic or geopolitical variables driving the observed distributions with a random forest technique. Results Nature representation varied across countries in spite of its priority in conservation agendas. In Brazil, Peru and Argentina there are still natural conditions with no formal protection, while in Bolivia and Venezuela, protected areas incorporate the natural diversity in a more balanced manner. As protected networks have increased their extent, so did their equality across and within countries over time. Our maps revealed as top continental priorities the southern temperate, subhumid and fertile lowland environments, and other country-specific areas. Protection extent was generally driven by a low population density and isolation, while other variables like distance to frontiers, were relevant only locally (e.g., in Argentina). Discussion Our description of the spatial distribution of protected areas can help societies and governments to improve the allocation of conservation efforts. We identified the main limitations that future conservation efforts will face, as protection was generally driven by the opportunities provided by low population density and isolation. From a methodological perspective, the physical approach reveals new properties of protection and provides tools to explore nature representation at different spatial, temporal and conceptual levels, complementing the traditional ones based on biodiversity or biogeographical attributes.

Background. South America faces strong environmental pressures as a result of agriculture and infrastructure expansion and also of demographic growth, demanding immediate action to preserve natural assets by establishing protected areas. Currently, 7.1% of the (sub)continent is under strict conservation categories (I to IV, IUCN), but the spatial distribution of these 1.3 × 106 km2 is poorly understood. We evaluated the representation of nature within the networks of protected areas, map conservation priorities and assess demographic, economic or geopolitical causes of existing protection patterns. Methods. We characterized nature representation by looking at two components: the extent and the equality of protection. The first refers to the fraction of territory under protection, while the second refers to the homogeneity in the distribution along natural conditions of this protected fraction. We characterized natural conditions by either 113 biogeographical units (specifically, ecoregions) or a series of limited and significant climatic, topographic and edaphic traits. We analyzed representation every ten years since 1960 at national and continental levels. In the physical approach, histograms allowed us to map the degree of conservation priorities. Finally, we ranked the importance of different economic or geopolitical variables driving the observed distributions with a random forest technique. Results. Nature representation varied across countries in spite of its priority in conservation agendas. In Brazil, Peru and Argentina there are still natural conditions with no formal protection, while in Bolivia and Venezuela, protected areas incorporate the natural diversity in a more balanced manner. As protected networks have increased their extent, so did their equality across and within countries over time. Our maps revealed as top continental priorities the southern temperate, subhumid and fertile lowland environments, and other country-specific areas. Protection extent was generally driven by a low population density and isolation, while other variables like distance to frontiers, were relevant only locally (e.g., in Argentina). Discussion. Our description of the spatial distribution of protected areas can help societies and governments to improve the allocation of conservation efforts. We identified the main limitations that future conservation efforts will face, as protection was generally driven by the opportunities provided by low population density and isolation. From a methodological perspective, the physical approach reveals new properties of protection and provides tools to explore nature representation at different spatial, temporal and conceptual levels, complementing the traditional ones based on biodiversity or biogeographical attributes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The Adriatic and Ionian Region is an important area for both strategic maritime development and biodiversity conservation in the European Union (EU). However, given that both EU and non‐EU countries border the sea, multiple legal and regulatory frameworks operate at different scales, which can hinder the coordinated long‐term sustainable development of the region. Transboundary marine spatial planning can help overcome these challenges by building consensus on planning objectives and making the trade‐offs between biodiversity conservation and its influence on economically important sectors more explicit. We address this challenge by developing and testing 4 spatial prioritization strategies with the decision‐support tool Marxan, which meets targets for biodiversity conservation while minimizing impacts to users. We evaluated these strategies in terms of how priority areas shift under different scales of target setting (e.g., regional vs. country level). We also examined the trade‐off between cost‐efficiency and how equally solutions represent countries and maritime industries (n = 14) operating in the region with the protection‐equality metric. We found negligible differences in where priority conservation areas were located when we set targets for biodiversity at the regional versus country scale. Conversely, the prospective impacts on industries, when considered as costs to be minimized, were highly divergent across scenarios and biased the placement of protection toward industries located in isolation or where there were few other industries. We recommend underpinning future marine spatial planning efforts in the region through identification of areas of national significance, transboundary areas requiring cooperation between countries, and areas where impacts on maritime industries require careful consideration of the trade‐off between biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs) are sites identified as globally important for bird species conservation. Marine IBAs are one of the few comprehensive multi‐species datasets available for the marine environment, and their use in conservation planning will likely increase as countries race to protect 10% of their territorial waters by 2020. We tested 15 planning scenarios for Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone to guide best practice on integrating marine IBAs into spatial conservation prioritization. We found prioritizations based solely on habitat protection failed to protect IBAs, and prioritizations based solely on IBAs similarly failed to meet basic levels of habitat representation. Further, treating all marine IBAs as irreplaceable sites produced the most inefficient plans in terms of ecological representativeness and protection equality. Our analyses suggest that marine spatial planners who wish to use IBAs treat them like any other conservation feature by assigning them a specific protection target. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Representing all ecosystem types in protected areas (PAs) is central to international conservation agreements (i.e., Aichi Target 11) and ensuring the persistence of biodiversity. In response to these agreements, we have seen rapid growth of PA networks, but we do not know how this affects ecosystem representation. We explored this question by investigating drivers and trends of representation during periods of rapid land acquisition using the protection equality metric. We found that 90.9% of the studied countries have improved protection equality through time. Periods of rapid area expansion resulted in greater increases in protection equality, particularly through multiple, smaller PAs as opposed to fewer, larger PAs. However, observed increases may not be due to strategic planning, as protection equality from random PA allocation was statistically similar to observed values within six country-level simulations. Future international agreements should hold countries accountable to meeting multiple objectives and prioritize conservation outcomes over individual targets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Global areal protection targets have driven a dramatic expansion of the marine protected area (MPA) estate. We analyzed how cost‐effective global MPA expansion has been since the inception of the first global target (set in 1982) in achieving ecoregional representation. By comparing spatial patterns of MPA expansion against optimal MPA estates using the same expansion rates, we show the current MPA estate is both expensive and ineffective. Although the number of ecoregions represented tripled and 12.7% of national waters was protected, 61% of ecoregions and 81% of countries are not 10% protected. Only 10.3% of the national waters of the world would be sufficient to protect 10% of each ecoregion if MPA growth since 1982 strategically targeted underrepresented ecoregions. Unfortunately 16.3% of national waters are required for the same representative target if systematic protection started in 2016 (an extra 3.6% on top of 12.7%). To avoid the high costs of adjusting increasingly biased MPA systems, future efforts should embrace target‐driven systematic conservation planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]