Privately protected areas increase global protected area coverage and connectivity.
Journal
Nature ecology & evolution
ISSN: 2397-334X
Titre abrégé: Nat Ecol Evol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101698577
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2022
06 2022
Historique:
received:
10
09
2021
accepted:
23
02
2022
pubmed:
9
4
2022
medline:
11
6
2022
entrez:
8
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Privately protected areas (PPAs) are increasing in number and extent. Yet, we know little about their contribution to conservation and how this compares to other forms of protected area (PA). We address this gap by assessing the contribution of 17,561 PPAs to the coverage, complementarity and connectivity of existing PA networks in 15 countries across 5 continents. We find that PPAs (1) are three times more likely to be in biomes with <10% of their area protected than are other PA governance types and twice as likely to be in areas with the greatest human disturbance; (2) that they protect a further 1.2% of key biodiversity areas; (3) that they account for 3.4% of land under protection; and (4) that they increase PA network connectivity by 7.05%. Our results demonstrate the unique and significant contributions that PPAs can make to the conservation estate and that PPAs deserve more attention, recognition and resources for better design and implementation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35393602
doi: 10.1038/s41559-022-01715-0
pii: 10.1038/s41559-022-01715-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
730-737Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.
Références
Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, accessed 2021); www.protectedplanet.net
Venter, O. et al. Bias in protected-area location and its effects on long-term aspirations of biodiversity conventions. Conserv. Biol. 32, 127–134 (2018).
doi: 10.1111/cobi.12970
pubmed: 28639356
Ward, M. et al. Just ten percent of the global terrestrial protected area network is structurally connected via intact land. Nat. Commun. 11, 4563 (2020).
doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-18457-x
pubmed: 32917882
pmcid: 7486388
Adams, W. M. Against Extinction: The Story of Conservation (Earthscan, 2004).
Watson, J. E. M. Dudley, Segan, N. & Hockings, D. B. The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515, 67–73 (2014).
doi: 10.1038/nature13947
pubmed: 25373676
Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Shortfalls and solutions for meeting national and global conservation area targets. Conserv. Lett. 8, 329–337 (2015).
doi: 10.1111/conl.12158
Stolton, S. et al. The Futures of Privately Protected Areas (IUCN, 2014).
Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, accessed November 2018); www.protectedplanet.net
Bingham, H. et al. Privately protected areas: advances and challenges in guidance, policy and documentation. Parks 23, 13–28 (2017).
doi: 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2017.PARKS-23-1HB.en
Gallo, J., Pasquini, L., Reyers, B. & Cowling, R. M. The role of private conservation areas in biodiversity representation and target achievement within the Little Karoo region, South Africa. Biol. Conserv. 142, 446–454 (2009).
doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.10.025
Schutz, J. Creating an integrated protected area network in Chile: a GIS assessment of ecoregion representation and the role of private protected areas. Environ. Conserv. 45, 269–277 (2018).
doi: 10.1017/S0376892917000492
Ielyzaveta, I. M. & Cook, C. N. The role of privately protected areas in achieving biodiversity representation within a national protected area network. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2, e307 (2020).
Graves, R. A., Williamson, M. A., Belote, R. T. & Brandt, J. S. Quantifying the contribution of conservation easements to large‐landscape conservation. Biol. Conserv. 232, 83–96 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.024
De Vos, A. & Cumming, G. S. The contribution of land tenure diversity to the spatial resilience of protected area networks. People Nat. 1, 331–346 (2019).
doi: 10.1002/pan3.29
Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth: a new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. BioScience 51, 933–938 (2001).
doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0933:TEOTWA]2.0.CO;2
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Da Fonseca, G. A. B. & Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858 (2000).
doi: 10.1038/35002501
pubmed: 10706275
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. et al. Governance of Protected Areas: From Understanding to Action (IUCN, 2013).
Lee, A. & Schultz, K. A. Comparing British and French colonial legacies: a discontinuity analysis of Cameroon. Q. J. Polit. Sci. 7, 365–410 (2012).
doi: 10.1561/100.00011022
Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S. & Robinson, J. A. The colonial origins of comparative development: an empirical investigation. Am. Econ. Rev. 91, 1369–1401 (2001).
doi: 10.1257/aer.91.5.1369
De Vos, A., Clements, H. S., Biggs, D. & Cumming, G. S. The dynamics of proclaimed privately protected areas in South Africa over 83 years. Conserv. Lett. 12, e12644 (2019).
Conservation Programs (USDA, accessed 21 October 2021); https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/conservation-programs/
Zimmer, H. C., Mavromihalis, J., Turner, V. B., Moxham, C. & Liu, C. Native grasslands in the PlainsTender incentive scheme: conservation value, management and monitoring. Rangel. J. 32, 205–214 (2010).
doi: 10.1071/RJ09073
A Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Area (IUCN, 2021); https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/Rep-2016-005.pdf
Venter, O. et al. Last of the Wild Project, Version 3 (LWP-3): 2009 Human Footprint, 2018 Release (SEDAC, 2021); https://doi.org/10.7927/H46T0JQ4
Hoekstra, J. M., Boucher, T. M., Ricketts, T. H. & Roberts, C. Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecol. Lett. 8, 23–29 (2005).
doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00686.x
Newbold, T. et al. Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment. Science 353, 288–291 (2016).
doi: 10.1126/science.aaf2201
pubmed: 27418509
Bengtsson, J. et al. Grasslands—more important for ecosystem services than you might think. Ecosphere 10, e02582 (2019).
doi: 10.1002/ecs2.2582
Working Together for Grasslands. How Ranchers and the WWF Help Protect the Northern Great Plains (WWF, 2021); https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/working-together-for-grasslands
Henderson, K. A. et al. Landowner perceptions of the value of natural forest and natural grassland in a mosaic ecosystem in southern Brazil. Sustain. Sci. 11, 321–330 (2016).
doi: 10.1007/s11625-015-0319-3
pubmed: 30174732
Kamal, S., Grodzinska-Jurczak, M. & Brown, G. Conservation on private land: a review of global strategies with a proposed classification system. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 58, 576–597 (2015).
doi: 10.1080/09640568.2013.875463
Williamson, M. A., Schwartz, M. W. & Lubell, M. N. Spatially explicit analytical models for social–ecological systems. BioScience 68, 885–895 (2018).
Watson, J. E. M. et al. Persistent disparities between recent rates of habitat conversion and protection and implications for future global conservation targets. Conserv. Lett. 9, 413–421 (2016).
doi: 10.1111/conl.12295
Di Marco, M. et al. Quantifying the relative irreplaceability of important bird and biodiversity areas. Conserv. Biol. 30, 392–402 (2015).
doi: 10.1111/cobi.12609
pubmed: 26307601
Jones, K. R. et al. One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure. Science 360, 788–791 (2018).
doi: 10.1126/science.aap9565
pubmed: 29773750
Sanderson, E. W. et al. The human footprint and the last of the wild: the human footprint is a global map of human influence on the land surface, which suggests that human beings are stewards of nature, whether we like it or not. BioScience 52, 891–904 (2002).
doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0891:THFATL]2.0.CO;2
Clements, H. S., Kerley, G. I. H., Cumming, G. S., De Vos, A. & Cook, C. N. Privately protected areas provide key opportunities for the regional persistence of large‐ and medium‐sized mammals. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 537–546 (2018).
doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.13300
Song, P., Kim, G., Mayer, A., He, R. & Tian, G. Assessing the ecosystem services of various types of urban green spaces based on i-Tree Eco. Sustainability 12, 1630 (2020).
doi: 10.3390/su12041630
Trzyna, T. Urban Protected Areas: Profiles and Best Practice Guidelines (IUCN, 2014).
Li, E. et al. (2019) An urban biodiversity assessment framework that combines an urban habitat classification scheme and citizen science data. Front. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00277 (2019).
Venter, O. et al. Global terrestrial Human Footprint maps for 1993 and 2009. Sci. Data 3, 160067 (2016).
doi: 10.1038/sdata.2016.67
pubmed: 27552448
pmcid: 5127486
Rissman, A. R. & Merenlender, A. M. The conservation contributions of conservation easements: analysis of the San Francisco Bay Area protected lands spatial database. Ecol. Soc. 13, 25 (2008).
doi: 10.5751/ES-02329-130140
Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, Including Aichi Biodiversity Targets (CBD, 2011); https://www.cbd.int/sp/
Saura, S., Bastin, L., Battistella, L., Mandrici, A. & Dubois, G. Protected areas in the world’s ecoregions: how well connected are they? Ecol. Indic. 76, 144–158 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.12.047
pubmed: 28469529
pmcid: 5362157
World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas (BirdLife International, accessed September 2020); http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/site/requestgis
Saura, S. & Torné, J. Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environ. Model. Softw. 24, 135–139 (2009).
doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.05.005
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2014). http://www.R-Project.org/
Milam, A. et al. in Protected Areas: Are They Safeguarding Biodiversity? (eds Joppa, L. et al.) 81–101 (Wiley-Blackwell, 2016).
Mason, C. et al. Telemetry reveals existing marine protected areas are worse than random for protecting the foraging habitat of threatened shy albatross. Divers. Distrib. 24, 1744–1755 (2018).
doi: 10.1111/ddi.12830
Lewis, E. et al. Dynamics in the global protected-area estate since 2004. Conserv. Biol. 33, 570–579 (2017).
doi: 10.1111/cobi.13056
Venter, O. et al. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat. Commun. 7, 12558 (2016).
doi: 10.1038/ncomms12558
pubmed: 27552116
pmcid: 4996975
Schleicher, J., Peres, C. A., Amano, T., Llactayo, W. & Leader-Williams, N. Conservation performance of different conservation governance regimes in the Peruvian Amazon. Nature 7, 113–118 (2017).
Shumba, T. et al. Effectiveness of private land conservation areas in maintaining natural land cover and biodiversity intactness. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 22, e00935 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e00935