Global protected area expansion is compromised by projected land-use and parochialism

Nature

Volumn 516, Issue 7531, 2014, Pages 383-386

  Pouzols, Federico Montesino ^a,e   Toivonen, Tuuli ^a   Minin, Enrico Di ^a,b   Kukkala, Aija S ^a   Kullberg, Peter ^a   Kuustera, Johanna ^a,c   Lehtomaki, Joona ^a   Tenkanen, Henrikki ^a   Verburg, Peter H ^d   Moilanen, Atte ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU NATAL   (South Africa)

^c Regional Council of Helsinki Uusimaa   (Finland)

^d VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^e RUTHERFORD APPLETON LABORATORY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTHROPOGENIC EFFECT; BIODIVERSITY; GLOBAL CHANGE; HABITAT LOSS; LAND USE CHANGE; PROTECTED AREA; RANGE EXPANSION; RED LIST;

AGRICULTURAL LAND; ARTICLE; BIODIVERSITY; BIOGEOGRAPHIC REGION; CLIMATE CHANGE; CONSERVATION BIOLOGY; DEFORESTATION; DESERTIFICATION; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; GRASSLAND; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; LAND USE; NONHUMAN; POPULATION GROWTH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAVANNA; SCRUB; TEMPERATE DECIDUOUS FOREST; TROPICAL RAIN FOREST; URBANIZATION; ANIMAL; ECOSYSTEM;

VERTEBRATA;

ANIMALS; BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ECOSYSTEM; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION;

EID: 84922244425     PISSN: 00280836     EISSN: 14764687     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nature14032     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. Rodrigues, A. S. L. et al. Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428, 640-643 (2004).
2. Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Protecting important sites for biodiversity contributes to meeting global conservation targets. PLoS ONE 7, e32529 (2012).
3. Thomas, C. D. et al. Protected areas facilitate species' range expansions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 14063-14068 (2012).
4. Le Saout, S. et al. Protected areas and effective biodiversity conservation. Science 342, 803-805 (2013).
5. Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328, 1164-1168 (2010).
6. Hoffmann, M. et al. The impact of conservation on the status of the world's vertebrates. Science 330, 1503-1509 (2010).
7. Gibson, L. et al. Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature 478, 378-381 (2011).
8. Laurance, W. F. et al. Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical forest protected areas. Nature 489, 290-294 (2012).
9. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013. 2 http://www.iucnredlist.org (2013).
10. Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth. Bioscience 51, 933-938 (2001).
11. van Asselen, S. & Verburg, P. H. Land cover change or land-use intensification: simulating land system change with a global-scale land change model. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 3648-3667 (2013).
12. Gaston, K. J. Global patterns in biodiversity. Nature 405, 220-227 (2000).
13. Brooks, T. M. et al. Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313, 58-61 (2006).
14. Kremen, C. et al. Aligning conservation priorities across taxa in Madagascar with high-resolution planning tools. Science 320, 222-226 (2008).
15. Jenkins, C. N.& Joppa, L. Expansion of the global terrestrial protected area system. Biol. Conserv. 142, 2166-2174 (2009).
16. Joppa, L. N., Visconti, P., Jenkins, C. N. & Pimm, S. L. Achieving the convention on biological diversity's goals for plant conservation. Science 341, 1100-1103 (2013).
17. Margules, C. R. & Pressey, R. L. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405, 243-253 (2000).
18. Moilanen, A., Wilson, K. A. & Possingham, H. P. Spatial Conservation Prioritization: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools (Oxford Univ. Press, 2009).
19. 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).
20. Watson, J. E. M., Iwamura, T. & Butt, N. Mapping vulnerability and conservation adaptation strategies under climate change. Nature Clim. Change 3, 989-994 (2013).
21. Moilanen, A., Anderson, B. J., Arponen, A., Pouzols, F. M. & Thomas, C. D. Edge artefacts and lost performance in national versus continental conservation priority areas. Divers. Distrib. 19, 171-183 (2013).
22. IUCN & UNEP-WCMC. The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). http://www.protectedplanet.net/(2013).
23. Pereira, H. M. et al. Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science 330, 1496-1501 (2010).
24. Mascia, M. B. & Pailler, S. Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) and its conservation implications. Conserv. Lett. 4, 9-20 (2011).
25. Beger, M. et al. Conservation planning for connectivity across marine, freshwater, and terrestrial realms. Biol. Conserv. 143, 565-575 (2010).
26. Mokany, K., Harwood, T. D., Overton, J. M., Barker, G. M. & Ferrier, S. Combining aand b-diversity models to fill gaps in our knowledge of biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 14, 1043-1051 (2011).
27. Moss, R. H. et al. The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463, 747-756 (2010).
28. Foden, W. B. et al. Identifying the world's most climate change vulnerable species: a systematic trait-based assessment of all birds,amphibians andcorals. PLoSONE 8, e65427 (2013).
29. McCarthy, D. P. et al. Financial costs of meeting global biodiversity conservation targets: current spending and unmet needs. Science 338, 946-949 (2012).
30. Hunter, M. L. & Hutchinson, A. The virtues and shortcomings of parochialism: conserving species that are locally rare, but globally common. Conserv. Biol. 8, 1163-1165 (1994).
31. Wessel, P. & Smith, W. H. F. A global, self-consistent, hierarchical, highresolution shoreline database. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 101, 8741-8743 (1996).
32. BirdLife International and NatureServe. Bird Species Distribution Maps of the World. Version 3. 0 http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/info/spcdownload (2013).
33. BirdLife International. BirdLife's Global Species Programme. http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species (2013).
34. Stuart, S. N. et al. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306, 1783-1786 (2004).
35. Schipper, J. et al. The status of the world's land and marine mammals: diversity, threat, and knowledge. Science 322, 225-230 (2008).
36. Gaston, K. J.& Fuller, R. A. The sizes of species' geographic ranges. J. Appl. Ecol. 46, 1-9 (2009).
37. Rondinini, C., Wilson, K. A., Boitani, L., Grantham, H. & Possingham, H. P. Tradeoffs of different types of species occurrence data for use in systematic conservation planning. Ecol. Lett. 9, 1136-1145 (2006).
38. Hurlbert, A. H. & Jetz, W. Species richness, hotspots, and the scale dependence of range maps in ecology and conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 13384-13389 (2007).
39. Jetz, W., Sekercioglu, C. H.&Watson, J. E. M. Ecological correlates and conservation implications of overestimating species geographic ranges. Conserv. Biol. 22, 110-119 (2008).
40. Cantú-Salazar, L. & Gaston, K. J. Species richness and representation in protected areas of the Western hemisphere: discrepancies between checklists and range maps. Divers. Distrib. 19, 782-793 (2013).
41. Rodrigues, A. S. L. et al. Global gap analysis: priority regions for expanding the global protected-area network. Bioscience 54, 1092-1100 (2004).
42. Jenkins, C. N., Pimm, S. L. & Joppa, L. N. Global patterns of terrestrial vertebrate diversity and conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, E2602-E2610 (2013).
43. Strassburg, B. B. N. et al. Impacts of incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation on global species extinctions. Nature Clim. Change 2, 350-355 (2012).
44. Venter, O. et al. Targeting global protected area expansion for imperiled biodiversity. PLoS Biol. 12, e1001891 (2014).
45. Böhm, M. et al. The conservation status of the world's reptiles. Biol. Conserv. 157, 372-385 (2013).
46. Somveille, M., Manica, A., Butchart, S. H. M. & Rodrigues, A. S. L. Mapping global diversity patterns for migratory birds. PLoS ONE 8, e70907 (2013).
47. Rahbek, C. The role of spatial scale and the perception of large-scale speciesrichness patterns: scale and species-richness patterns. Ecol. Lett. 8, 224-239 (2005).
48. Schulman, L.,Toivonen, T.&Ruokolainen, K.Analysing botanical collecting effort in Amazonia and correcting for it in species range estimation: Amazonian collecting and range estimation. J. Biogeogr. 34, 1388-1399 (2007).
49. OECD. OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050: The Consequences of Inaction. http://www.oecd.org/environment/oecdenvironmentaloutlookto2050theconsequencesofinaction.htm (2012).
50. Balmford, A., Green, R. & Phalan, B. What conservationists need to know about farming. Proc. R. Soc. B 279, 2714-2724 (2012).
51. Laurance, W. F., Sayer, J. & Cassman, K. G. Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 107-116 (2014).
52. Leathwick, J. R., Moilanen, A., Ferrier, S. & Julian, K. Complementarity-based conservation prioritization using a community classification, and its application to riverine ecosystems. Biol. Conserv. 143, 984-991 (2010).
53. Moilanen, A. et al. Zonation-Spatial Conservation Planning Methods and Software Version 4, User Manual (Univ. Helsinki, 2014).
54. Mendenhall, C. D., Karp, D. S., Meyer, C. F. J., Hadly, E. A. & Daily, G. C. Predicting biodiversity change and averting collapse in agricultural landscapes. Nature 509, 213-217 (2014).
55. Rondinini, C. et al. Global habitat suitability models of terrestrial mammals. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 366, 2633-2641 (2011).
56. Salafsky, N. et al. A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of threats and actions. Conserv. Biol. 22, 897-911 (2008).
57. Rodrigues, A. S. L. Improving coarse species distribution data for conservation planning in biodiversity-rich, data-poor, regions: no easy shortcuts. Anim. Conserv. 14, 108-110 (2011).
58. Arponen, A., Heikkinen, R. K., Thomas, C. D.& Moilanen, A. The value of biodiversity in reserve selection: representation, species weighting, and benefit functions. Conserv. Biol. 19, 2009-2014 (2005).
59. Lehtomäki, J. & Moilanen, A. Methods and workflow for spatial conservation prioritization using Zonation. Environ. Model. Softw. 47, 128-137 (2013).
60. Lehtomäki, J., Tomppo, E., Kuokkanen, P., Hanski, I.& Moilanen, A. Applying spatial conservation prioritization software and high-resolution GIS data to a nationalscale study in forest conservation. For. Ecol. Manage. 258, 2439-2449 (2009).
61. Margules, C.&Sarkar, S. Systematic Conservation Planning (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).
62. Kukkala, A. S. & Moilanen, A. Core concepts of spatial prioritisation in systematic conservation planning. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 88, 443-464 (2013).
63. Moilanen, A. Landscape zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: unifying reserve selection strategies. Biol. Conserv. 134, 571-579 (2007).
64. Laitila, J. & Moilanen, A. Use of many low-level conservation targets reduces highlevel conservation performance. Ecol. Modell. 247, 40-47 (2012).
65. Butchart, S. H. M. et al.Measuring global trends in the status of biodiversity: red list indices for birds. PLoS Biol. 2, e383 (2004).
66. Balmford, A., Gaston, K. J., Blyth, S., James, A. & Kapos, V. Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet conservation needs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 1046-1050 (2003).
67. Moore, J., Balmford, A., Allnutt, T. & Burgess, N. Integrating costs into conservation planning across Africa. Biol. Conserv. 117, 343-350 (2004).
68. Naidoo, R. & Iwamura, T. Global-scale mapping of economic benefits from agricultural lands: Implications for conservation priorities. Biol. Conserv. 140, 40-49 (2007).
69. Eklund, J., Arponen, A., Visconti, P. & Cabeza, M. Governance factors in the identification of global conservation priorities formammals. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 366, 2661-2669 (2011).
70. Waldron, A. et al. Targeting global conservation funding to limit immediate biodiversity declines. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 12144-12148 (2013).
71. Vincent, J. R. et al. Tropical countries may be willing to pay more to protect their forests. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 10113-10118 (2014).
72. Rodrigues, A. S. L. & Gaston, K. J. Rarity and conservation planning across geopolitical units. Conserv. Biol. 16, 674-682 (2002).
73. Kark, S., Levin, N., Grantham, H. S. & Possingham, H. P. Between-country collaboration and consideration of costs increase conservation planning efficiency in the Mediterranean Basin. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 15368-15373 (2009).
74. Gustafsson, L. et al. Natural versus national boundaries: the importance of considering biogeographical patterns in forest conservation policy. Conserv. Lett. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/conl.12087 (13 February 2014).
75. Mazor, T., Possingham, H. P. & Kark, S. Collaboration among countries in marine conservation can achieve substantial efficiencies. Divers. Distrib. 19, 1380-1393 (2013).
76. Moilanen, A. & Arponen, A. Administrative regions in conservation: balancing local priorities with regional to global preferences in spatial planning. Biol. Conserv. 144, 1719-1725 (2011).
77. Mittermeier, R. A. et al. Hotspots Revisited: Earth's Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions (Conservation International, 2005).
78. Potapov, P. et al. Mapping the world's intact forest landscapes by remote sensing. Ecol. Soc. 13, 51 (2008).
79. 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).
80. Davis, S. D., Heywood, V. H. & Hamilton, A. C. Centres of Plant Diversity. http://www.unep-wcmc.org/resources-and-data (2013).
81. Eken, G. et al. Key biodiversity areas as site conservation targets. Bioscience 54, 1110-1118 (2004).
82. Knight, A. T. et al. Improving the key biodiversity areas approach for effective conservation planning. Bioscience 57, 256-261 (2007).
83. BirdLife International, Conservation International, IUCN&UNEP-WCMC. Protected Area and Key Biodiversity Area. Data downloaded from the Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT) https://www.ibat-alliance.org/ibat-conservation (2014).
84. Ambal, R. G. R. et al. Key biodiversity areas in the Philippines: priorities for conservation. J. Threat. Taxa 4, 2788-2796 (2012).
85. Conservation International. Priority Sites for Conservation in the Philippines: Key Biodiversity Areas. http://www.conservation.org/global/philippines/publications/Documents/KBA-Booklet.pdf (2006).
86. Tordoff, A. W., Baltzer, M. C., Fellowes, J. R., Pilgrim, J. D. & Langhammer, P. F. Key biodiversity areas in the Indo-Burma Hotspot: process, progress and future directions. J. Threat. Taxa 4, 2779-2787 (2012).
87. SAPM. Les sites du Système des Aires Protégeés de Madagascar. Shapefile des sites du SAPM. Arrêté Interministériel nu9874/2013 Modifiant Certaines Dispositions de l'Arrêté nu52005/2010. http://atlas.rebioma.net/(2014).
88. Jetz, W., McPherson, J. M. & Guralnick, R. P. Integrating biodiversity distribution knowledge: toward a global map of life. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 151-159 (2012).
89. Arponen, A., Lehtomäki, J., Leppänen, J., Tomppo, E. & Moilanen, A. Effects of connectivity and spatial resolution of analyses on conservation prioritization across large extents. Conserv. Biol. 26, 294-304 (2012).
90. Myers, J. L., Well, A. & Lorch, R. F. Research Design and Statistical Analysis. (Routledge, 2010).
91. Ficetola, G. F. et al. An evaluation of the robustness of global amphibian range maps. J. Biogeogr. 41, 211-221 (2014).