Trade-Offs in Identifying Global Conservation Priority Areas

2010 ◽  
pp. 35-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Murdoch ◽  
Michael Bode ◽  
Jon Hoekstra ◽  
Peter Kareiva ◽  
Steve Polasky ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 124 ◽  
pp. 553-566
Author(s):  
Yi Wang ◽  
Xiaofeng Wang ◽  
Lichang Yin ◽  
Xiaoming Feng ◽  
Chaowei Zhou ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Alexander Simmons ◽  
Christoph Nolte ◽  
Jennifer McGowan

AbstractOn January 27, 2021, President Biden signed an executive order, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, committing the United States to various goals within his campaign’s major climate policy, the Biden Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice. Included in this executive order is a commitment to “conserving at least 30 percent of [the United States’] lands and oceans by 2030.” This ambitious conservation target signals a promising direction for biodiversity in the United States. However, while the executive order outlines several goals for climate mitigation, the ‘30×30’ target remains vague in its objectives, actions, and implementation strategies for protecting biodiversity. Biodiversity urgently needs effective conservation action, but it remains unclear where and what this 30% target will be applied to. Achieving different climate and biodiversity objectives will require different strategies and, in combination with the associated costs of implementation, will lead to different priority areas for conservation actions. Here, we illustrate what the 30% target could look like across four objectives reflective of the ambitious goals outlined in the executive order. We compile several variations of terrestrial protected area networks guided by these different objectives and examine the trade-offs in costs, ecosystem representation, and climate mitigation potential between each. We find little congruence in priority areas across objectives, emphasizing just how crucial it will be for the Biden administration to develop clear objectives and establish appropriate performance metrics from the outset to maximize both conservation and climate outcomes in support of the 30×30 target. We discuss important considerations that must guide the administration’s conservation strategies in order to ensure meaningful conservation outcomes can be achieved over the next decade.


2001 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 501-512 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shaily Menon ◽  
R. Gil Pontius ◽  
Joseph Rose ◽  
M. L. Khan ◽  
Kamaljit S. Bawa

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-63
Author(s):  
Naim Berisha ◽  
Elez Krasniqi ◽  
Fadil Millaku

AbstractBasic patterns of most priority biodiversity areas of Kosovo that shall be considered for conservation studies are offered here. On this work, all plant taxa that are included in the Kosovarian Red list are analysed and their analogy is interpreted to conservation priority hotspots. Kosovo represents an important centre for Balkan biodiversity; therefore a quantitative evaluation of the importance of different priority areas for conserving plant diversity of Kosovo is very much needed. This study provides a detailed quantitative approach concerning the identification of priority areas for biodiversity conservation, using threatened and endangered plant taxa in well-known grid squares system. Used grid squares (20 × 20 km) were classified into four different groups in terms of their conservation importance. Valuation factors taken into account are IUCN based risk category, endemism as well as ecological and distributional attributes. The results indicated that there are four grid squares – D4 (0.4300), G7 (0.3910), G8 (0.2750) and E4 (0.2860), that have remarkable conservation importance. These grid squares are all located along mostly high-elevation areas of two National Parks in Kosovo. These national scale data should prove to be very appropriate and easy to follow evidence for environmental decision-making bodies as well as be used for further research.


FACETS ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 472-492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Muntoni ◽  
Rodolphe Devillers ◽  
Mariano Koen-Alonso

Marine protected areas (MPAs) design is a complex process that typically involves diverse stakeholders, requiring compromise between diverging priorities. Such compromises, when not carefully understood, can threaten the ecological effectiveness of MPAs. Using the example of the Canadian Laurentian Channel MPA, we studied a planning process from initial scientific advice to the final MPA. We analysed the impacts of successive boundary modifications to the draft MPA, often made to accommodate extractive industries, on the protection of seven species initially identified as potential conservation priorities. We also quantified the potential economic impacts of changes in boundary modifications on the fisheries industry. Results show that reducing the proposed MPA size by 33.4% helped reduce the potential economic impact on the fishing industry by 65.5%, but it resulted in up to 43% decrease in protection of species of conservation priority. Changes in MPA boundary delineation during the design were not subjected to formal scientific reviews, raising questions on the potential effectiveness of this MPA. Better integration of science in MPA design is required to help assess the impacts that trade-offs made during stakeholder consultations can have on the MPA ecological effectiveness.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document