Global prioritization schemes vary in their impact on the placement of protected areas.
In response to global declines in biodiversity, many global conservation prioritization schemes were developed to guide effective protected area establishment. Protected area coverage has grown dramatically since the introduction of several high-profile biodiversity prioritization schemes, but the i...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307730 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1841555591257915392 |
|---|---|
| author | Katie Tjaden-McClement Robin Naidoo Angela Brennan A Cole Burton |
| author_facet | Katie Tjaden-McClement Robin Naidoo Angela Brennan A Cole Burton |
| author_sort | Katie Tjaden-McClement |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | In response to global declines in biodiversity, many global conservation prioritization schemes were developed to guide effective protected area establishment. Protected area coverage has grown dramatically since the introduction of several high-profile biodiversity prioritization schemes, but the impact of such schemes on protected area establishment has not been evaluated. We used matching methods and a Before-After Control-Impact causal analysis to evaluate the impact of two key prioritization schemes-Biodiversity Hotspots and Last of the Wild-representing examples of the reactive and proactive ends of the prioritization spectrum. We found that Last of the Wild had a positive impact on the rate of protection in its identified priority areas, but Biodiversity Hotspots did not. Because Biodiversity Hotspots are in or near human-dominated landscapes, this scheme may have been unable to overcome biases towards protecting areas with little human pressure. In contrast, Last of the Wild aligned with the tendency to protect areas far from high human use and thus with lower implementation costs, and so received greater uptake. Stronger links between large-scale prioritizations and more locally driven implementation of area-based conservation, as well as other forms of conservation action, are needed to overcome practical constraints and effectively protect biodiversity on an increasingly human-dominated planet. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-391b0168d3ba45d38cd02594ce9274c9 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj-art-391b0168d3ba45d38cd02594ce9274c92025-01-08T05:31:59ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032025-01-01201e030773010.1371/journal.pone.0307730Global prioritization schemes vary in their impact on the placement of protected areas.Katie Tjaden-McClementRobin NaidooAngela BrennanA Cole BurtonIn response to global declines in biodiversity, many global conservation prioritization schemes were developed to guide effective protected area establishment. Protected area coverage has grown dramatically since the introduction of several high-profile biodiversity prioritization schemes, but the impact of such schemes on protected area establishment has not been evaluated. We used matching methods and a Before-After Control-Impact causal analysis to evaluate the impact of two key prioritization schemes-Biodiversity Hotspots and Last of the Wild-representing examples of the reactive and proactive ends of the prioritization spectrum. We found that Last of the Wild had a positive impact on the rate of protection in its identified priority areas, but Biodiversity Hotspots did not. Because Biodiversity Hotspots are in or near human-dominated landscapes, this scheme may have been unable to overcome biases towards protecting areas with little human pressure. In contrast, Last of the Wild aligned with the tendency to protect areas far from high human use and thus with lower implementation costs, and so received greater uptake. Stronger links between large-scale prioritizations and more locally driven implementation of area-based conservation, as well as other forms of conservation action, are needed to overcome practical constraints and effectively protect biodiversity on an increasingly human-dominated planet.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307730 |
| spellingShingle | Katie Tjaden-McClement Robin Naidoo Angela Brennan A Cole Burton Global prioritization schemes vary in their impact on the placement of protected areas. PLoS ONE |
| title | Global prioritization schemes vary in their impact on the placement of protected areas. |
| title_full | Global prioritization schemes vary in their impact on the placement of protected areas. |
| title_fullStr | Global prioritization schemes vary in their impact on the placement of protected areas. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Global prioritization schemes vary in their impact on the placement of protected areas. |
| title_short | Global prioritization schemes vary in their impact on the placement of protected areas. |
| title_sort | global prioritization schemes vary in their impact on the placement of protected areas |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307730 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT katietjadenmcclement globalprioritizationschemesvaryintheirimpactontheplacementofprotectedareas AT robinnaidoo globalprioritizationschemesvaryintheirimpactontheplacementofprotectedareas AT angelabrennan globalprioritizationschemesvaryintheirimpactontheplacementofprotectedareas AT acoleburton globalprioritizationschemesvaryintheirimpactontheplacementofprotectedareas |